CDs vs Vinyl vs Streaming/Digital

[Volbet]

14 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I didn't say anything about cassette decks "eating" tapes or Heads wearing down. Just because you never had problems doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

Every cassette deck I ever used showed wear on the heads fairly quickly. They still worked but it wasn't long before audio quality started to be compromised. Somnething I didn't mention is the oxide layer on the tape also wears over time, again causing a loss in audio quality.

 

Tapes can get eaten in a deck (I've had it happen) but the problem I was referring to was tapes start stretching over time. This causes wow when the tapes are played. Again, I've had it happen.

Yeah, sorry. For some reason I misunderstood that completely

 

I've never experienced a tape strech either.

I have a wow/flutter reference tape, which has probably been played over 100 times, and that doesn't show any signs of stretching. The 1KHz tone is still 1KHz.

Maybe it's just that one tape.

 

I'm not denying that tapes are a volotile format, but I just haven't experienced any of the things most people describe as problems.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 minute ago, Volbet said:

...I'm not denying that tapes are a volotile format, but I just haven't experienced any of the thing most people describe as problems.

I envy you.

[vanished]

40 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

I fell for the “vinyl sounds better” trap. It really doesn’t. And vinyls scratch, even if you sneeze on them. So your $30 vinyl will slowly start to crackle and skip over time. Perhaps my turntable sucks. I don’t know. I am not willing to spend $800 on a decent turntable. 

 

I just think that the recording and mastering matters more than the format.

It does, that's why anyone goes for vinyl in the first place.  Despite the objectively inferior quality and numerous other shortcomings, it can (subjectively) sound better if you get a master that's better than the digital version, which depending who you talk to is perhaps quite common.

[zrmaxwell]

One thing i hate is when bands go for the Digital or Vinyl only release when it comes to new albums. Case & Point: Daron Malakian's Scars on Broadway project released their 2018 effort 'Dictator' on Vinyl and Digital formats, but no CD option... which is pretty dumb in my opinion. Since getting into CDs, i've wanted to buy every album i had previously on iTunes on CD. Looks like that is not going to be one of them lol

[kokakolia]

13 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It does, that's why anyone goes for vinyl in the first place.  Despite the objectively inferior quality and numerous other shortcomings, it can (subjectively) sound better if you get a master that's better than the digital version, which depending who you talk to is perhaps quite common.

The vinyl that got me hooked was Sonic Youth’s A Thousand Leaves which sounded better than the CD. That’s probably a mastering issue. Everything else I bought sounded the exact same as the CD. But I listen to newer music. Is newer music digitally recorded anyway? So what’s the point of transferring that digital audio file to analog? 

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, kokakolia said:

The vinyl that got me hooked was Sonic Youth’s A Thousand Leaves which sounded better than the CD. That’s probably a mastering issue. Everything else I bought sounded the exact same as the CD. But I listen to newer music. Is newer music digitally recorded anyway? So what’s the point of transferring that digital audio file to analog? 

Yeah it would be mastering I would think.  And yeah, everything these days would be digital right from the first recording anyway.  Not that that should make a difference... I know in the early days of CDs, there were analog recorded and digital recorded and the digital recorded was what you wanted for CD, but I assume that was just because it was early on and people didn't know what they were doing.  At this point, it shouldn't matter, or if anything the digital would be better for either.

[dalekphalm]

14 hours ago, JZStudios said:

The warm sound of vinyl and tape isn't subjective, it's objective. It is warmer. It has "warmness" that they like and therefore they enjoy more, but what's irritating is when they say it has better audio quality. It just doesn't.

You misunderstand my statement. I wasn't saying that it being "warm" was subjective - it's not. Vinyl taints the sound with particular notes. The subjective part was that some people "feel" like the warmth makes the music sound better.

 

And to them? Sure. It might. But objectively, vinyl has inferior quality potential.

14 hours ago, JZStudios said:

The other reason people collect vinyl is for the "experience" of putting a record on a turntable and listening to an album... I'll admit, I've not done this, but I don't need to set up the 70mm IMAX film to enjoy a movie experience so...

That's true - and for those who enjoy that? All the power to them. But I'm the kind of guy who rips his Blu-Ray's to his Plex Server so he doesn't have to get up and change discs when binge watching BSG.

14 hours ago, JZStudios said:

As to what sounds the best? CDs are digital, and if they're mixed and produced properly blow vinyl and tape out of the water. Anyone who tells you otherwise is nostalgic. Play an empty tape and just listen to the silence of HSCHHHCSHSHSKKKHCHSCHSHCHSHCHScrackleCHCSHHCHSCH.

Listen to an empty digital file and listen to the silence of

 

Not to mention the bass tones and notes on digital are both deeper and WAY more accurate.

No arguments here.

12 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I do the same.

 

I do the same when ripping to MP3s (I also rip to .wav). I can't hear the difference between the MP3s ripped at 320kbps and the CDs.

 

Also, every time you play vinyl, the quality that is there is reduced due to wear. Then there are the pops, hiss, and crackles that inevitably crop up. 

 

I totally agree. To reduce the amount of space they eat up, after ripping them, I mark each one with a four digit index number, then store them in 300 disk hanging sleeve storage cases. Before pitching the cases, I remove and scan the jacket art and data. It all saves a huge amount of space. Also, since all the data is digitized, i can easily back it up. Even if my home burns down, I'll still have all my music and movies on my offsite backups.

 

Even stamped CDs, DVDS, and BDs can go bad over time (that's a given with burned CDs often sold by independent artists). Ripping them preserves the content should the originals ever go bad.

True, but typically optical media degradation happens for a few reasons:

1. Physically handling the CD outside of playing it, and it getting scratched, dirty, etc

2. The plastic degrading over time - this is sped up via UV rays and direct sunlight

 

The main difference, is that during playback there is no physical contact being made, and therefore, playback does not directly contribute to wear and tear, unlike Tape/Vinyl, etc.

12 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Horsefeathers. ,wav is lossless. MP3s ripped at 320kbps are indestinguishable from the originals. I use MP3s since I still have players that will only recognize them.

Exactly! I cut my eyeteeth on wax and vinyl (yes, I'm that old) and even I don't believe vinyl is superior to digital.

Here's what I don't understand about your process. Why bother with .WAV at all? It seems entirely pointless. WAV vs FLAC is going to sound literally identical. The exact same sound information is contained in both. Except that FLAC takes up significantly less storage space.

 

Why not rip to MP3 at 320 kbps, and FLAC as your "archive" version, instead of WAV? With WAV, all you're doing is wasting HDD space.

 

[Volbet]

1 hour ago, zrmaxwell said:

One thing i hate is when bands go for the Digital or Vinyl only release when it comes to new albums. Case & Point: Daron Malakian's Scars on Broadway project released their 2018 effort 'Dictator' on Vinyl and Digital formats, but no CD option... which is pretty dumb in my opinion. Since getting into CDs, i've wanted to buy every album i had previously on iTunes on CD. Looks like that is not going to be one of them lol

It probably makes a lot of sense logistically.

CDs and vinyl caters to two very different crowds in this day and age.

CDs never really managed to catch the collector's market, meaning that there's a lot less profit to be made.

 

It's actually surprisingly expensive to have a CD pressed (as compared to it being a printed CDr) and the retail price isn't that high since the consumer isn't willing to pay.

While it is more expensive to have a record pressed to vinyl, you're also able to sell it for a lot more, since collectors are, usually, willing to pay more than your average consumer.

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, Volbet said:

It probably makes a lot of sense logistically.

CDs and vinyl caters to two very different crowds in this day and age.

CDs never really managed to catch the collector's market, meaning that there's a lot less profit to be made.

 

It's actually surprisingly expensive to have a CD pressed (as compared to it being a printed CDr) and the retail price isn't that high since the consumer isn't willing to pay.

While it is more expensive to have a record pressed to vinyl, you're also able to sell it for a lot more, since collectors are, usually, willing to pay more than your average consumer.

Yeah, when it comes to CDs, people think of it as just a means to hold the files, and the files can be pirated, but you can't download a record

[Lady Fitzgerald]

15 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

...Why not rip to MP3 at 320 kbps, and FLAC as your "archive" version, instead of WAV? With WAV, all you're doing is wasting HDD space.

FLAC wasn't well known when I started ripping CDs plus there were far more players that could play .wav than FLAC at the time. As far as the larger amount of space .wav takes up, the folder my .wav files are stored in takes up only 325GB, a drop in the bucket compared to 4TB drive it's on (which, currently, is only one of four 4TB drives)

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah, when it comes to CDs, people think of it as just a means to hold the files, and the files can be pirated, but you can't download a record

Records can easily be converted to analog to digital files, then the files can be shared.

[vanished]

Just now, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Records can be recorded, then the files can be shared.

Shh don't ruin their illusions

[kokakolia]

1 hour ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Records can easily be converted to analog to digital files, then the files can be shared.

My dad told me that he converted his vinyl records to cassette because he was too afraid to wear/scratch his vinyls. That’s how awful vinyl records are: they degrade so easily that people are willing to get out of their way to listen to cassettes instead.

[Lil Ramen]

I use spotify premium to download songs and then rip them the best I can. When I save up money and get a job i'd like to build a 8 track and vinyl collection. I used to use iTunes to store and manage a bunch of music I ripped from YouTube before I got Spotify and it's pretty cool. I used to spend hours going through the metadata and making a simple mp3 look legit on iTunes with lyrics, album cover, all that

[JZStudios]

14 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I loathe, abominate, hate, despise, and detest cross fade! The wax and Vinyl I had didn't have it (thank God!). Did I mention I do not like crossfade?

There's nothing inherently wrong with it if it's done well and is an actual transition from one song into the next. Alan Parsons Tales of Mystery and Imagination and Steve Millers Fly Like an Eagle have songs that blend into each other. The issue is in the digital medium if you aren't listening in order it just cuts to silence.

14 hours ago, Volbet said:

Ceremic cartridges sound awful (especially on solid state equipment that isn't engineered properly), so people don't buy them for that reason. 

The really fuzzy vinyl enthusiasts usually source pre-amps with accurate RIAA equalization, which can easily set you back $10.000+.

 

In regards to tape it really depends on the type of tape and the way you play it back. 

If you run 1/4" tape at 15"/sec with Dolby NR-B, then it's pretty much indistinguishable from a CD. 

Although, if you plan on doing that in 2018 then prepare to dig deep. 

Edit: You, of course, also need a machibe to play it on: http://www.unitedhomeproducts.com/the_uha_phase12_tape_deck.htm

 

When it comes to cassette tapes, you can take a Type IV tape with Dolby NR-C or S and it'll also sound indistinguishable to a CD. 

 

The "tone" you describe tape as having is pretty much only a thing on Type I cassette tapes, since they can't really reproduce any sound above 16KHZ, making the music sound very bass heavy.

This is also not helped by a lot of prerecorded cassette tapes not having any proper noise reduction, meaning the hiss of a Type I will be noticable and interfere with the reproduction of the bass notes.  

From what I understand based on Techmoans explanation of DNR is that it boosts the lower frequencies, which is amping up the gain. It then just doesn't play back anything below a certain frequency range, while also trying to bring the original audio frequency range back from the gain it had. Gain pretty much inherently involves more noise, so I can't believe that's indistinguishable from CD or digital where you just... don't have to do any of that.

5 hours ago, kokakolia said:

I fell for the “vinyl sounds better” trap. It really doesn’t. And vinyls scratch, even if you sneeze on them. So your $30 vinyl will slowly start to crackle and skip over time. Perhaps my turntable sucks. I don’t know. I am not willing to spend $800 on a decent turntable. 

 

I just think that the recording and mastering matters more than the format.

The vinyl itself is pretty soft, which is why it scratches so easily. The other big issues are that the needle doesn't necessarily follow the grooves perfectly to begin with, but with the vinyl being so soft the needle still wears it down over time.

Another byproduct of the inherent shortcomings of vinyl is the variable "data rate." so closer to the center it's more densely packed, so more bombastic songs are always placed at the end of an album since they sound crap otherwise. Alternatively, if they want to start with the bombastic track they can cut the grooves backwards so it goes from inside out.

[JZStudios]

3 hours ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

FLAC wasn't well known when I started ripping CDs plus there were far more players that could play .wav than FLAC at the time. As far as the larger amount of space .wav takes up, the folder my .wav files are stored in takes up only 325GB, a drop in the bucket compared to 4TB drive it's on (which, currently, is only one of four 4TB drives)

 

Not to mention that .FLAC is still only supported by something like VLC on PC and Android. WMP (Which... I guess is gone on Win10 now) and iOS (Unless they changed recently) don't play back .FLAC files. I'm all for VLC for video files, but for an actual kind of music player environment it sucks.

[mariushm]

FLAC is supported by pretty much everything these days.

foobar2000 for example supports it completely.

Media Player Classic Home Cinema will play flac files without any problems.

Windows Media Player should play flac files without any issues once you install a DirectShow codec or some WMP specific flac codec

 

See this page for lots of applications for lots of operating systems including Android: https://xiph.org/flac/download.html

(see note all the way to bottom regarding WMP)

 

FLAC is great open source lossless codec.  And if you want something that takes less disk space, OPUS is much better than mp3 and aac and other lossy formats and it's supported by lots of music players (being open source and standardized codec like mp3 and aac, no problem being supported)

 

foobar2000 can convert wav files to flac or opus (if you download and extract the opusenc.exe from the opus-tools package from the official website somewhere on your computer). You can also use flac and opus directly from Exact Audio Copy or other CD ripping applications.

[dalekphalm]

59 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah, when it comes to CDs, people think of it as just a means to hold the files, and the files can be pirated, but you can't download a record

Technically they can! My Fiancee actually does this (she has a large collection of antique records, 45's and 78's) - her record player has USB and Bluetooth, and comes with software that will record the audio output and convert to MP3 (or other file types).

 

However, it's obviously not the same as actually ripping a digital file, since you have to play the music in real time.

59 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

FLAC wasn't well known when I started ripping CDs plus there were far more players that could play .wav than FLAC at the time. As far as the larger amount of space .wav takes up, the folder my .wav files are stored in takes up only 325GB, a drop in the bucket compared to 4TB drive it's on (which, currently, is only one of four 4TB drives)

Fair enough, but why keep using an old standard that has no value over the newer one? I'd suggest changing your routine and replace WAV with FLAC, now that it's both prevalent and well known. FLAC will reduce your file size to anywhere from 50% to 10% of the full WAV. There's really no downside to using FLAC here, unless there's other variables I'm unaware of.

57 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

Records can easily be converted to analog to digital files, then the files can be shared.

"Easily" is certainly up for discussion - a "techie" should have little trouble, assuming they know their way around recording software, and have proper adapters. But yes, it's a fairly straight forward process.

 

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

Not to mention that .FLAC is still only supported by something like VLC on PC and Android. WMP (Which... I guess is gone on Win10 now) and iOS (Unless they changed recently) don't play back .FLAC files. I'm all for VLC for video files, but for an actual kind of music player environment it sucks.

On Windows, almost everything supports FLAC. I have no idea about Windows Media Player - but you shouldn't use it anyway. Fubar2000, as noted by @mariushm, supports it, and is one of the best Windows compatible audio players out there.

 

And if you're talking about iOS/Mac, then we're having the wrong conversation. If you're an Apple user, replace FLAC with ALAC. You still wouldn't want to use WAV. There's really no benefit to it. If you're on Apple, ALAC is equivalent to FLAC.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

There's nothing inherently wrong with it if it's done well and is an actual transition from one song into the next. Alan Parsons Tales of Mystery and Imagination and Steve Millers Fly Like an Eagle have songs that blend into each other. The issue is in the digital medium if you aren't listening in order it just cuts to silence...

You're missing the point. I don't give the north end of a southbound furry little rodent how well the cross fade is done or what the medium or genre is.   I. Don't. Like. Cross. Fade!   Period!   I prefer for my music to finish when it's supposed to finish, have a brief pause, then the next piece to begin without either encroaching on top of the other. I realize that some people do like crossfade but there are others, including me, who do not!

[JZStudios]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

On Windows, almost everything supports FLAC. I have no idea about Windows Media Player - but you shouldn't use it anyway. Fubar2000, as noted by @mariushm, supports it, and is one of the best Windows compatible audio players out there.

 

And if you're talking about iOS/Mac, then we're having the wrong conversation. If you're an Apple user, replace FLAC with ALAC. You still wouldn't want to use WAV. There's really no benefit to it. If you're on Apple, ALAC is equivalent to FLAC.

Myeah, I just don't really like Foobar... aside from the fact that the name in military lingo is "Fucked up beyond all recognition" FUBAR. I haven't found anything that actually works in a way I like, so I just bumble around in VLC for the 2 or 3 flac albums I do have. Otherwise all of our music is .mp3

Didn't know about the WMP plugin though. Wonder if there's one for OGG vorbis that'll play the surround sound files... since even though I titled and numbered everything in VLC it always jumbles the albums playlist...

[Volbet]

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

From what I understand based on Techmoans explanation of DNR is that it boosts the lower frequencies, which is amping up the gain. It then just doesn't play back anything below a certain frequency range, while also trying to bring the original audio frequency range back from the gain it had. Gain pretty much inherently involves more noise, so I can't believe that's indistinguishable from CD or digital where you just... don't have to do any of that..

It's actually the opposite. DNR boosts the frequencies above 1KHz during duplication and de-emphasize them during playback.

 

The noise issue, in regards to the gain, would only be an issue if DNR was a one way street. However, it's a implemented both during playback and duplication.

This is why playing a DNR encoded tape back with DNR turned off will result in the sound being overly bright.

 

12 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Another byproduct of the inherent shortcomings of vinyl is the variable "data rate." so closer to the center it's more densely packed, so more bombastic songs are always placed at the end of an album since they sound crap otherwise. Alternatively, if they want to start with the bombastic track they can cut the grooves backwards so it goes from inside out.

It's the opposite way around. The outer grooves contain a lot more information than the inner grooves, which is why ballads (and other softer songs) were traditionally put in the middle and the end of an album.

Microgrooves contain the same amount of information per inch. It doesn't matter if it's the inner or outer groove.

But the stylus travels through a lot more groove in the beginning of a record than it does during the middle or end.

 

This is also why when they recently repressed some of Maurice Ravel's work they had to cut the grooves from the inside out, since Ravel made a lot of his pieces as a single crecendo.

[JZStudios]

15 hours ago, Volbet said:

It's actually the opposite. DNR boosts the frequencies above 1KHz during duplication and de-emphasize them during playback.

 

The noise issue, in regards to the gain, would only be an issue if DNR was a one way street. However, it's a implemented both during playback and duplication.

This is why playing a DNR encoded tape back with DNR turned off will result in the sound being overly bright.

 

It's the opposite way around. The outer grooves contain a lot more information than the inner grooves, which is why ballads (and other softer songs) were traditionally put in the middle and the end of an album.

Microgrooves contain the same amount of information per inch. It doesn't matter if it's the inner or outer groove.

But the stylus travels through a lot more groove in the beginning of a record than it does during the middle or end.

 

This is also why when they recently repressed some of Maurice Ravel's work they had to cut the grooves from the inside out, since Ravel made a lot of his pieces as a single crecendo.

Meh. Technicalities. XD I'll give myself 2 half points for being half wrong.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

I started buying digital, eventually decided that it was a disaster (occasional corrupted files on the stores' servers, inability to re-download some purchased songs a year later because the store's license expired, etc etc).  Also was struggling to find lots of older songs. 

So now I buy CDs, mostly on sale or 2nd hand.  Turns out to be a lot cheaper than buying digital.  Occasionally I'll still buy digital when CDs just aren't available or too hard to get.

 

I typically rip in .wav and convert to flac, then do the metadata etc.  I do keep the .wav files as backup.  I also make a 192kbps MP3 copy for my phone. 

The CDs themselves are stored in a closet, just in case I'll ever need to rip them again or if I ever have a run-in with the copyright mafia and have to prove that I actually own all the songs on my NAS and phone.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

1 hour ago, Captain Chaos said:

I started buying digital, eventually decided that it was a disaster (occasional corrupted files on the stores' servers, inability to re-download some purchased songs a year later because the store's license expired, etc etc).  Also was struggling to find lots of older songs. 

So now I buy CDs, mostly on sale or 2nd hand.  Turns out to be a lot cheaper than buying digital.  Occasionally I'll still buy digital when CDs just aren't available or too hard to get.

 

I typically rip in .wav and convert to flac, then do the metadata etc.  I do keep the .wav files as backup.  I also make a 192kb MP3 copy for my phone. 

The CDs themselves are stored in a closet, just in case I'll ever need to rip them again or if I ever have a run-in with the copyright mafia and have to prove that I actually own all the songs on my NAS and phone.

You could have been me posting this. My ripped .wav files are the ones I keep for possible future conversion to oher formats. I'm using .mp3 instead of FLAC for compatibility reasons. Since I rip at 320kbps, I hear no diffrence form the CDS and .mp3.

 

I've also had problems with downloaded music being corrupted or just poor quality. CDs don't cost much more than downloads and, especially if bought used, often cost less. The liners have far more accurate and complete  information, such as track names, than the downloads do.

 

One of the reason's I keep my CDs and DVDs after ripping also is for prrrotection from the "copyright mafia" (I love the term and I'm so stealing it). For additional protection, in addition to scanning the liner notes (which I would do anyway since digital takes up less room, is easier to organize, and can be backed up), I also scan the CD itself and keep the image with the liner notes.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

5 minutes ago, Lady Fitzgerald said:

I love the term and I'm so stealing it

Sorry, but I have copyrighted that term.