I believe you just answered your question. Most people don’t want to purchase 15k songs or dedicate the HD space for it or keep the backup CDs.
I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten rid of all my CDs at some point and have absolutely no music on my computer HDs. Streaming is definitely fantastic for me (thrown into my Verizon plan) - and Apple Music has lossless for no additional cost.
When I saw the thread title, I thought the topic was flooring.
Personally, I miss the LPs and their cover art and such, but my unsophisticated ears can’t tell the difference between music on vinyl, cassettes, CDs, or youtube videos. All that matters to me is that I like the music.
I agree with most of this, except for the conclusion which seems to imply that in those cases where vinyl is perceived to sound better, it must be a delusion. The fact is that, as you say, analog and digital are different and so the nature of the losses and distortions introduced is different. The case to be made for analog is that in some situations the losses and distortions may be more graceful and more pleasing to the ear than digital distortions, even if objectively there is theoretically less information in the analog recording.
One could make a rough analogy with the difference between analog and digital television. If reception of a fringe station is marginal, analog will degrade much more gracefully than digital.
Meh. ‘Better’ implies subjectivity. I have no problems with people claiming Vinyl sounds better. Some people think pineapple on pizza is better. They’re wrong but they’re entitled to that opinion.
It’s the audiophiles that think there’s some kind of objectivity about a vinyl preference that bother me.
At least the people saying similar things about digital are pointing to waveforms and using math. The argument that the reconstruction is more accurate is absolutely true.
That doesn’t make the reconstruction ‘better’ but again, that’s subjective.
I’m sure it wasn’t best because it had vinyl and vacuum tubes, but it was best and (or, despite) having vinyl and vacuum tubes. Ultimately, it’s the speakers that determine the sound.
Tube amp people are like vinyl purists. They just lurve them some of that “warm” sound. I think they just like watching tubes glow. (spoken by a guy that has a nixie tube clock)
That’s interesting because in one way I’m behind the times: I still buy all my music through iTunes, rather than use a streaming service. Although I now have many thousands of songs, I only buy a few at a time so it doesn’t seem like so much money. I have an iPod devoted exclusively to my music collection so I have plenty of storage space for songs.
I like owning my music and being able to take it with me. I just don’t trust streaming services completely to always be available. I’m often in places with no or weak internet service.
With all the discussion in this thread about whether or not CDs and/or vinyl sound hardly any better than a 19th-century wax cylinder, I suppose the question is, is the sound quality you get from iTunes, or your streaming service, at least as good as a CD?
It’s OK (for the type of discrete-in-time sampling we are discussing) to have continuously many sine waves, it’s the frequencies that are limited (so not too high, as you say). Kind of a Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
btw I am reminded of the hilarious “Digital done wrong” article that appeared once upon a time: Page Title
From the NYT article (quoted in the first post)
”Left for dead with the advent of CDs in the 1980s, vinyl records are now the music industry’s most popular and highest-grossing physical format, with fans choosing it for collectibility, sound quality or simply the tactile experience of music in an age of digital ephemerality. After growing steadily for more than a decade, LP sales exploded during the pandemic.
”In the first six months of this year, 17 million vinyl records were sold in the United States, generating $467 million in retail revenue, nearly double the amount from the same period in 2020, according to the Recording Industry Association of America. Sixteen million CDs were also sold in the first half of 2021, worth just $205 million. Physical recordings are now just a sliver of the overall music business — streaming is 84 percent of domestic revenue — but they can be a strong indication of fan loyalty.”
Mine is, because I used uncompressed .aiff format.
I have my grandparents old stereo cabinet probably from the 40s. I’d love to get a stereo and record player that’s still with it repaired and be able to use it. I’d get a few vinyl records just for fun, maybe five or so and just play it when I’m feeling nostalgic. As for sound quality, I really don’t notice any difference between vinyl or CD.
This. I don’t notice much difference between sources but I surely notice the difference between speakers. Maybe others here have much better ears than I do, but music to me is all about having the best affordable speakers. Why quibble about 1% differences when a 50% difference will swamp the argument?
Speakers are probably the most obvious single component where vast quality differences are easily discerned. Their quality assessments are also among the most subjective, and obviously also the most affected by room acoustics.
But audio reproduction is a whole cascade of contributions from different components. After speakers, I’d say the source is close behind in importance – if vinyl, the quality of the mastering and pressing, the cartridge, and the turntable; if CD, mostly the quality of the mastering; if a compressed digital file, the compression codec and, crucially, the sampling bandwidth. In terms of source, a 96 kbps MP3 will sound like shit, 128 kbps will sound better but very muddy; 320 kbps will sound like a CD, and a SACD or a Dolby AC3 or DTS movie soundtrack will typically sound much better than a CD.
But some of the stuff that self-styled audiophiles obsess about is either very marginal or completely irrelevant. The obsession with tube amplifiers is, IMHO, absurd. If anyone can consistently hear the difference in an A/B test between a well-designed solid-state amp with lots of reserve power to drive the speakers, versus any tube amp, I would be astounded. Ditto for those obsessing over highly overpriced cables.
You must not know any serious audiophiles, then. Most of the ones I’ve known are all about that 1%.
Would someone like that not also buy expensive speakers, possibly adjust their frequency response, the room acoustics, etc. as well?
The trouble is that that’s often literally true, and unfortunately a 1% difference in almost any measurable audio characteristic won’t be audible to any normal human. Can you tell the difference between a music track sampled at 256 kbps and one sampled at 258.56 kbps? Neither can I.
But it’s often fairly easy to tell the difference between an arbitrary CD and the same material on vinyl. We can argue til the cows come home about which is “better”, but most people would usually be able to detect distinct differences.
I know you’re just making a joke, but that is one thing vinyl can do that CDs and digital can’t. Sometimes people did it intentionally. Parliament’s album Maggot Brain had the final track end with an intentional loop, so it would play forever untill you stopped it manually. Something you couldn’t do without a lot of hassle to do with other modern formats, and would have to be done by the listener not the artist.
By FAR the most cost-effective thing you can do to improve listening is to treat the room acoustics. The best speakers in the world will sound like crap in an extremely ‘live’ room.
The cheapest and simplest thing to do - sit wherever you listen, then have someone hold a mirror on the wall. Slide the mirror until you can see a speaker in the mirror from your seating position. That’s the ‘first reflection point’ where sound will hit the wall from the speaker and reflect into your ears. But sound os also coming at you directly from the speaker, so the primary reflection will mix with it and create all kinds of problems.
Also, if you can clap in your listening space and hear the clap ‘ringing’ or echoing in the room, the room overall is too ‘live’ and you should put some sound deadening material in the room. You can get cheap fiberboard acoustic absorbing material, cover it in cloth and hang it on the wall. Or buy them pre-made. They aren’t very expensive.
Didn’t some little garage band called The Beatles do that first?
That’s true, but most normal rooms are not particularly “live” for listening purposes, although they may be for recording purposes. Some rooms can be bad, though. Drywall isn’t helpful and plaster is better, but today drywall is pretty much a given. But combine that with, say, laminate flooring (wood is acoustically better) and hard-surfaced furniture, and you’ve got a problem. My home theater and listening room has a thick area rug and a sufficient volume of plush (stuffed) furniture that it’s acoustically pretty good without having to do anything special.
Absolutely true.
The first thing that gets destroyed is imaging. Reflections mix with direct sound and your ears can’t figure out where sounds are coming from. This is really important for movies and multi-channel sound setups. Putting 5-9 speakers in a too-live room, all emitting different sounds, can result in an unresolvable mess.
If you watch movies with a surround-sound setup and you aren’t happy with the ‘surround’ sound, or things like cars moving from one side of the screen to the other don’t sound like they are, the likely reason is a live room and too many reflections. It could also be bad speaker placement.
Oh, that’s actually the easiest ‘fix’ for bad sound: Make sure the speakers are in the right place. Don’t put them against a wall or in a corner, for example.