Tape salad PTSD suddenly compels me to look for a penAnyone miss rewinding a cassette?
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?
- Thread starter carewser
- Start date
Robin L
Master Contributor
I miss cleaning the tape heads and pinch rollers.Anyone miss rewinding a cassette?
Just imagine how much fun that is with a DAT.Tape salad PTSD suddenly compels me to look for a pen
Robin L
Master Contributor
Just saw this on Facebook. Forgot just how many of this specific inner sleeve I've owned. It was a lot as Columbia could put it in any genre of LP. In any case, note #2, seems like folks were encouraged to skip around tracks. Of course, I did as I made a lot of mix tapes:
MatrixS2000
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2023
- Messages
- 497
- Likes
- 710
Tape salad PTSD suddenly compels me to look for a pen
And if you didn’t keep those heads and pinch rollers clean, you would have to fish the tape out of the deck before using that pen!!!
On the other hand, the digital Dolby Atmos release is the one that looks like it has the least "mayhem" done to the master.
But you are right, there's way more that can be destroyed when it comes to the dynamic range of a digital release, so with many albums, it often comes down to reduced dynamic range for the digital release vs vinyl related artifacts due to the limitations of the format and the vinyl playback system. Pick your poison.
more i try to figure out why it's better for logic... more it makes perfect sense. it's an analog. really can't say it has a sample rate. that's not the format paradigm, that's quantized, records are more... normal. they're a lot better for the hafler/dolby/dts networks because the signal is continuous... you have instantaneous phase info for both channels at any give moment, the resolution alone there makes it superior for stereo surround matrices. it's just... sensitive... and delicate.. but that kind of makes it more interesting, kind of risky... but better for multichannel. more people have multichannel these days have higher order multichannel systems so more people want records. turns out it's just easier to slice a pie into even slices when it hasn't already been sliced.
simply multiplying the CD source gets you a better source for multichannel, just double or quadruple it and you're golden.. but you never get a truly higher resolution source, records have lower dynamic range, but most albums don't really take advantage of that. it's all relative. the bottom half of the dynamic range is you turning up the volume because you can't hear anything. with both formats. just forget about half of the dynamic range you never hear it. every album i ever recorded is going on in the top 30dB or so. you get sections that drop below that, but it's quiet, much more and it's too quiet. of course in playback equipment it's a different story. dynamic range of sources not the same as dynamic range of uh... receivers? amp, preamps, processors etc. input output am are different
what can be used in a surround upmix from the dynamic range of each medium, to my ear.. is better utilized from vinyl because of its analog nature giving it the edge in raw resolution. we're not talking about 50+dB shifts here, it's way more subtle than that. literally the pimples on a +/-2db 13khz waveform moving around fractions of a decibels. and we're not even using dynamics yet, first we need the best source of the waveform if we're going to be crossing wires to derive additional channels and that's where analog media really just mops the floor with digital. but digital can be really good, also. it is all made on digital these days, practically all of it, but people think it's not inherently compressed being digital and it is. all data is. everything is lossy, wake up. that's like biblical first principles thou shal not make false idols lol. there's loss there. you don't notice it until you cross the wires and then it's like 'oh, that's a bit fuzzy innit?' they had to come out with a ton of cheap little component systems, remember those? maybe a sub, couple of decent bookshelf speaker and 2 or three little alienware looking satellites. onkyo, wait not onkyo, who was that? iowa? sonky, panwesanc, eerbody had like ten different models. all those modded haflers were awesome for digital because the satellites were junk already. erm. i mean, they were just low end cones. insensitive. no top end, whatsoever. and that's where digital really falls short on the logical matrix it just doesn't have the high end detail @ 44.1khz CDs are on steps and records are only ever anything like 'stepped' in the depth. like the bit depth is kind of variable. you could say it's like 8-bit but it's analog. they're just screaming at a chisle. there's no telling what kinda resolution there getting on those things. i'd imagine they have the highest resolution available. someone could tell you but they might have to kill yeh
imma have to record this whole disc again because audacity crashed... baah. it's Broken Soul Jamboree. seriously i listen to it A B youtube. digital stereo has better stereo bass but the multichannel is like, it almost like the noise floor is higher or something, it's exactly the same mix spatially (vinyl record has mono bass, mono matrix related phase corrections, still same source geometry coming through) but it's like the additional channels are on a louder noise floor (with CD quality digital). more white noise behind it. with a record it like every speaker has a discrete signal going to it...less hazy .. but then after you play a record like ten time it has more noise but it's a different kind of more meaningful noise that isn't like digital corruption but ticks and fizzles battle scars from dust in the air finding it's way under the knife, which sucks, but... yeah CD and digital are great too i like everything.
recording 32bit floats of records at 384k (192x2) & i could still use more samples. 192k per channel, that's like four 48k (-24k/+24khz) channels worth of data. my goal right now is to be able to listen to my entire collection on shuffle, pre mixed up to 7.1.4 .. gives me something to do that isn't buying more records. i don't have that many. like two cubes? half of them are trashed. one cursed cube and one pristine cube. you can get very good condition records for a buck or two it's not that expensive to get your cursed cube. erm, first cube. embracing the somewhat damaged format actually kind of ephemeral in its own way. i just friggin dropped a record yesterday. really upset me. brand new.. never even... listened to the damage... was catchy... added a drumbeat to a song that didn't have one and it actually worked.
anyway, yeah.. sorta like you get more... quantization error? from CD because it's inherently kind of like.. pixelated? so before CD, if a better multichannel release isn't available, i will buy vinyl
other image is like 10 milliseconds of the exact same section of track from a 180g 45.. they're both 32 bit floats but top is from a 96khz input, bottom is from 192khz, you can see i think most clearly in the spectral graph, there's more fuzz in the top 1khz (the black streak above the purple blob on the left) on the 96khz input, the 192 is looking like it's getting pretty close to maxxed, tho still could go a little more i think. the silence being where it's supposed to be and a bit more silent .. 96k interface is 124dbSNR way better than the bottom one 105dB +however much noise the rest of my PC is making. idk about that dot in the bass right at the middle that's just silence.. two on the top, one on the bottom like what the heck happened? this record has a lump in it.
i'm riddled with misunderstanding about Audacity. you get 4 192khz dots to every 1 on CD in 44.1 & you're never getting those 4.353741496598639 dots of resolution back from a CD. Could argue about how many you get back from vinyl. 1? all three? wrong frame of reference? bingo. exact same series of dots, i just stretched the white ones vertically and superimposed to show how much actual phase data is hiding in there, this one is a crusty old 33 stereo upmix of some old mono jazz singles. fallout stuff. sorry cant hardly see the white dots. mybad. 4 dots can make a big difference when it's just one or two of these little guys poking their head up. i still prefer digital multichannel mix. getting 48khz tracks for all your speakers is way better than splitting up a 192k stereo track. but a record... a record ISN'T recorded with a sample rate like a CD is encoded. vinyl isn't quantized. at least not there in on the record or in the lathe while they're cutting the stamps. the quantization smears all the subtle phase details. they need to be left human or as close as possible, so the vinyl mix sound is normal. there's enough bandwidth in vinyl for two more tracks just like this, the resolution is in fact higher than a CD. it's just not nearly as dynamic... and it's dirty. downright nasty.
if nothing else, the record is more like 2.1 you get a bass track that has been correctly summed to mono. hope you understand how THAT really affects everything i was going on about. man... those two dots in the synthwave spectrograph's LFE all i did was double the samplerate and one of them ate the other... SNR? samples? little bit of both? idk. it's a bad pressing the stylus might be hopping out, but all the other dots didn't move.. bass very much de-emphasized, so you get more noise crumbs down there. but it doesn't change from left to right, the left and right bass tracks aren't ever really fighting with eachother for phase in the samples because they're summed and turned way way down.
the extreme RIAA emphasis on the top end, the records are very good at highs. the high frequency data is what i'm after. all the subtle phase for every tone is in the higher 'samplerate' of vinyl. it is cut from the top down. you get this sparkly upmix on a blacker background, it's different. i like digital, too. it's great. mmm.. BASS.. i've been here the whole time. thanks for asking. the satellites don't need the low end. kinda just gets in the way. upmix sounds better with records. was tryiing to understand increasing vinyl popularity, not the digital paradigm we made dominant back in the 90-00s. this is why i like it: the upmix is more interesting. you're looking into a brushed stereo microscope with your ears... and then there's a phonograph projected onto it.
simply multiplying the CD source gets you a better source for multichannel, just double or quadruple it and you're golden.. but you never get a truly higher resolution source, records have lower dynamic range, but most albums don't really take advantage of that. it's all relative. the bottom half of the dynamic range is you turning up the volume because you can't hear anything. with both formats. just forget about half of the dynamic range you never hear it. every album i ever recorded is going on in the top 30dB or so. you get sections that drop below that, but it's quiet, much more and it's too quiet. of course in playback equipment it's a different story. dynamic range of sources not the same as dynamic range of uh... receivers? amp, preamps, processors etc. input output am are different
what can be used in a surround upmix from the dynamic range of each medium, to my ear.. is better utilized from vinyl because of its analog nature giving it the edge in raw resolution. we're not talking about 50+dB shifts here, it's way more subtle than that. literally the pimples on a +/-2db 13khz waveform moving around fractions of a decibels. and we're not even using dynamics yet, first we need the best source of the waveform if we're going to be crossing wires to derive additional channels and that's where analog media really just mops the floor with digital. but digital can be really good, also. it is all made on digital these days, practically all of it, but people think it's not inherently compressed being digital and it is. all data is. everything is lossy, wake up. that's like biblical first principles thou shal not make false idols lol. there's loss there. you don't notice it until you cross the wires and then it's like 'oh, that's a bit fuzzy innit?' they had to come out with a ton of cheap little component systems, remember those? maybe a sub, couple of decent bookshelf speaker and 2 or three little alienware looking satellites. onkyo, wait not onkyo, who was that? iowa? sonky, panwesanc, eerbody had like ten different models. all those modded haflers were awesome for digital because the satellites were junk already. erm. i mean, they were just low end cones. insensitive. no top end, whatsoever. and that's where digital really falls short on the logical matrix it just doesn't have the high end detail @ 44.1khz CDs are on steps and records are only ever anything like 'stepped' in the depth. like the bit depth is kind of variable. you could say it's like 8-bit but it's analog. they're just screaming at a chisle. there's no telling what kinda resolution there getting on those things. i'd imagine they have the highest resolution available. someone could tell you but they might have to kill yeh
imma have to record this whole disc again because audacity crashed... baah. it's Broken Soul Jamboree. seriously i listen to it A B youtube. digital stereo has better stereo bass but the multichannel is like, it almost like the noise floor is higher or something, it's exactly the same mix spatially (vinyl record has mono bass, mono matrix related phase corrections, still same source geometry coming through) but it's like the additional channels are on a louder noise floor (with CD quality digital). more white noise behind it. with a record it like every speaker has a discrete signal going to it...less hazy .. but then after you play a record like ten time it has more noise but it's a different kind of more meaningful noise that isn't like digital corruption but ticks and fizzles battle scars from dust in the air finding it's way under the knife, which sucks, but... yeah CD and digital are great too i like everything.
recording 32bit floats of records at 384k (192x2) & i could still use more samples. 192k per channel, that's like four 48k (-24k/+24khz) channels worth of data. my goal right now is to be able to listen to my entire collection on shuffle, pre mixed up to 7.1.4 .. gives me something to do that isn't buying more records. i don't have that many. like two cubes? half of them are trashed. one cursed cube and one pristine cube. you can get very good condition records for a buck or two it's not that expensive to get your cursed cube. erm, first cube. embracing the somewhat damaged format actually kind of ephemeral in its own way. i just friggin dropped a record yesterday. really upset me. brand new.. never even... listened to the damage... was catchy... added a drumbeat to a song that didn't have one and it actually worked.
anyway, yeah.. sorta like you get more... quantization error? from CD because it's inherently kind of like.. pixelated? so before CD, if a better multichannel release isn't available, i will buy vinyl
other image is like 10 milliseconds of the exact same section of track from a 180g 45.. they're both 32 bit floats but top is from a 96khz input, bottom is from 192khz, you can see i think most clearly in the spectral graph, there's more fuzz in the top 1khz (the black streak above the purple blob on the left) on the 96khz input, the 192 is looking like it's getting pretty close to maxxed, tho still could go a little more i think. the silence being where it's supposed to be and a bit more silent .. 96k interface is 124dbSNR way better than the bottom one 105dB +however much noise the rest of my PC is making. idk about that dot in the bass right at the middle that's just silence.. two on the top, one on the bottom like what the heck happened? this record has a lump in it.
i'm riddled with misunderstanding about Audacity. you get 4 192khz dots to every 1 on CD in 44.1 & you're never getting those 4.353741496598639 dots of resolution back from a CD. Could argue about how many you get back from vinyl. 1? all three? wrong frame of reference? bingo. exact same series of dots, i just stretched the white ones vertically and superimposed to show how much actual phase data is hiding in there, this one is a crusty old 33 stereo upmix of some old mono jazz singles. fallout stuff. sorry cant hardly see the white dots. mybad. 4 dots can make a big difference when it's just one or two of these little guys poking their head up. i still prefer digital multichannel mix. getting 48khz tracks for all your speakers is way better than splitting up a 192k stereo track. but a record... a record ISN'T recorded with a sample rate like a CD is encoded. vinyl isn't quantized. at least not there in on the record or in the lathe while they're cutting the stamps. the quantization smears all the subtle phase details. they need to be left human or as close as possible, so the vinyl mix sound is normal. there's enough bandwidth in vinyl for two more tracks just like this, the resolution is in fact higher than a CD. it's just not nearly as dynamic... and it's dirty. downright nasty.
if nothing else, the record is more like 2.1 you get a bass track that has been correctly summed to mono. hope you understand how THAT really affects everything i was going on about. man... those two dots in the synthwave spectrograph's LFE all i did was double the samplerate and one of them ate the other... SNR? samples? little bit of both? idk. it's a bad pressing the stylus might be hopping out, but all the other dots didn't move.. bass very much de-emphasized, so you get more noise crumbs down there. but it doesn't change from left to right, the left and right bass tracks aren't ever really fighting with eachother for phase in the samples because they're summed and turned way way down.
the extreme RIAA emphasis on the top end, the records are very good at highs. the high frequency data is what i'm after. all the subtle phase for every tone is in the higher 'samplerate' of vinyl. it is cut from the top down. you get this sparkly upmix on a blacker background, it's different. i like digital, too. it's great. mmm.. BASS.. i've been here the whole time. thanks for asking. the satellites don't need the low end. kinda just gets in the way. upmix sounds better with records. was tryiing to understand increasing vinyl popularity, not the digital paradigm we made dominant back in the 90-00s. this is why i like it: the upmix is more interesting. you're looking into a brushed stereo microscope with your ears... and then there's a phonograph projected onto it.
Last edited:
MatrixS2000
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2023
- Messages
- 497
- Likes
- 710
Do you truly want to understand what is happening when you digitize your records? Most of what you typed there is riddled with misunderstandings of the digital format.
if that's what you're excited about.. I'm not going to stop you. i'm trying to understand the new wave of the analog tho.
like i was just saying it's the mono bass phase corrections & the RIAA EQ. it's better for multichannel. more high end detail. less fighting over harmonics in the phase between left and right for subtle LFE detail, there is only one track there on a record and it can all go straight to the sub. more space for high frequency harmonic detail, which is where all the hidden detail is when you start shorting out speaker signals on purpose for non-discrete surround. stereo bass is great but it just gets in the way here.
Last edited:
MatrixS2000
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2023
- Messages
- 497
- Likes
- 710
Ok. Spectrograms are great for understanding the analog audio signal….if you know how to read them properly. First of all, spectrogram's do not give any phase information. On the X axis is time, on the Y axis is frequency and amplitude is shown by colour intensity.
Once you figure out how to read the spectrogram properly, you can start to figure out why the above is nonsense.
beagleman
Major Contributor
I am sorry to sound like this, but you simply do not fully understand how digital and analog works.
A LOT of mistakes and outright wrong explanations in your lengthy diatribe against digital. You are oft repeating the "Myths" of how digital and analog work, and myths are always wrong.
I do not have the time to line by line correct all the mistakes in your lengthy post, nor feel like making you feel "bad" and like we are bashing you on a personal level.
Perhaps another forum member with time, will show which comments are fallacy and so on.....but welcome to the forum.
There is a lot you can learn here, but it is factual and measurement based, not things based on hearsay and myths!
all the extra resolution vinyl has is where you need it for stereo surround detail, there's actual physical emphasis on the highs, the phase info at the top is very much more there on a record. all the advantage it has in resolution goes to the place you want it for matrixing new channels. bass swings the mids and highs all over the place on a CD just because of how bitstreams are quantized, the bass has a pull, it takes cycles away from the highs, on vinyl the bass is bound and gagged in the corner. but that's not to say a CD can't have better multichannel formats burned onto it or a better mix in general but it's a big loss to not have ANY stereo bass below 150? uh... that's a lot to ask. yay my perfect bass heavy album sounds like a TV show! whole lot of really good low end just get tossed on a record and i don't deny that. must be a lot to ask to have a better processing for the different formats. should be able to virtualize every format ever over modern systems. like a retrotink for movies & music. stereo is a hundred years old pretty soon... i'll have been here for about half of it. i could repair all your midi devices. i think i know what a tortilla look like. am maybe more familiar with measures and bars..
you sample the raw unfiltered Phono signal and all of a sudden you have so much more to work with than the CDs give you.
if you buy old records for under $5 a pop . you don't feel so bad about a $15 stylus until you start buying new records. i started collecting them with a TTUSB. old records are still just as much fun to play and you don't have to cry about them not being as perfect as the day you bought them anymore.
really prefer the newer SACD cases with the rounded corners and the button... those i think are my favorite of all the new sleeves. that and the mini LP formats that are packed just like a CD sized gatefold, the 45 sized SACD are nice, but kinda big, the disc they put the disc on is a good idea tho.. one of those in a paper jacket more square than the digipacks. miniLP with the 45SACDtray sized to miniLP. in an inner sleeve. would be better than CD plastic case is blegh, i hate those things. all they do is break. junk. i like the paper jackets, anything that fits in with the majority of the music from the last couple centuries i mean CDs are still just a blip and they already slowing down and vinyl is picking back up. really comes down to there just not being a better analog. tape and vinyl and CDs are like... we've been sorting out the strengths and weaknesses this whole time tyvm
you sample the raw unfiltered Phono signal and all of a sudden you have so much more to work with than the CDs give you.
if you buy old records for under $5 a pop . you don't feel so bad about a $15 stylus until you start buying new records. i started collecting them with a TTUSB. old records are still just as much fun to play and you don't have to cry about them not being as perfect as the day you bought them anymore.
really prefer the newer SACD cases with the rounded corners and the button... those i think are my favorite of all the new sleeves. that and the mini LP formats that are packed just like a CD sized gatefold, the 45 sized SACD are nice, but kinda big, the disc they put the disc on is a good idea tho.. one of those in a paper jacket more square than the digipacks. miniLP with the 45SACDtray sized to miniLP. in an inner sleeve. would be better than CD plastic case is blegh, i hate those things. all they do is break. junk. i like the paper jackets, anything that fits in with the majority of the music from the last couple centuries i mean CDs are still just a blip and they already slowing down and vinyl is picking back up. really comes down to there just not being a better analog. tape and vinyl and CDs are like... we've been sorting out the strengths and weaknesses this whole time tyvm
Last edited:
What on earth are you talking about?
Last edited:
J.M. Noble
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2024
- Messages
- 180
- Likes
- 195
I am puzzled too.
But it's a lovely Wednesday afternoon in soggy southern California and I am giving Voice of the Beehive's "Let It Bee" a spin on the SL-1600 while enjoying some good coffee--so I have nothing to complain about.
HalSF
Active Member
Finally, we have an explanation for the vinyl renaissance.
Robin L
Master Contributor
You realize that you have no idea of what you're talking about?
What are you on and where can I get some?
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2022
- Messages
- 430
- Likes
- 308
I just realized glancing thru this never ending thread that Ive been down Sleater a gazzillion times. Not so much anymore. But when I had to go to Lacey alot I did. I was trying to translate what poster said a couple back.........
Robin L
Master Contributor
I find myself on Pacific and Martin a lot more. There must be five cannabis dispensaries within a mile or so on Martin.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Messages
- 2,921
- Likes
- 4,873
Not an AI bot - they make coherent sense even if what they state as fact is incorrect. This is nonsense.
Ehm, not a very convincing argument!, that same can be easily said about CD's, actually it's even more convenient since you can listen to the entire album, without even swapping sidesIt’s fun following the comments in the New York Times on the vinyl article.
Another comment caught my eye:
“I am a professional musician and professor of music at a university. Just today my students were telling me that they love vinyl because they can’t skip the music. They have to listen to a whole side. The experience is so different for them than streaming.”
As I say, I see this repeated endlessly even by young people getting into vinyl who otherwise had only been familiar with streaming.
Maybe Marshall McLuhan was onto something
and they are around a lot longer than "streaming"
IPunchCholla
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2022
- Messages
- 1,303
- Likes
- 1,735
whoops
Similar threads
