Good video that, thanks.
Reminded me of the old 'Open University' lectures that we'd watch on BBC2 when we got back from the pub after midnight.
Good video that, thanks.
Also, the theoretical infinite resolution of analog media is well limited by the technical limits (mechanical limits with vinyl). Probably more limited than digital media are.It's counterintuitive but true. Analog isn't quantized so intuitively it seems like the level of detail would be unlimited in some sense.
In reality the amount of information contained in a format can be considered in terms of signal to noise ratio. This is actually still fairly intuitive if you think about it. Signal is... you know, the music. What you want. Noise is random, it does not count as information. When noise overwhelms the signal, that's the end of that format's resolution.
And in practice, digital actually has a better signal to noise ratio (and in many cases, higher frequency bandwidth) than vinyl or even tape. So it typically contains more actual information than analog formats.
Analogy: A blurry film photo vs. a sharp digital one. Which tells you more about the subject of the photograph? Just because it's analog doesn't mean it actually contains more music, image, or anything else.
Vinyl vs. CD or other digital formats is like this.
People like to say "analog has infinite resolution" but this is a misunderstanding of the concept of resolution. And, just because digital has limitations that analog doesn't, that doesn't mean analog formats don't have fundamental problems or limitations.
Certainly. Vinyl corresponds to approximately 36 kHz sample rate (no digital low-pass filter of course) and 11 bits per sample, with severe THD. The echo chamber lives on in a revived post by Michael Fremer, where he doubles down on his subjective reality only a few days ago at stereophile.comProbably more limited than digital media are.
Agree. 44.1kSa/sec CD captures everything out to a bit past 20kHz. Going higher than that would not appreciated by human hearing's capabilities. so there's no point in doing so. The noisy graininess of vinyl limits its ability to capture fine nuances in the sound. Then, if vinyl could capture those nuances, it would be a trick to find a cartridge that could pick them up and not wear them down after a few dozen or so plays. Still, it's got no right to sound as good as it does in spite of those limitations.IF you want to listen to vinyl, have at it. But "potentially higher definition of retrievable information"? No, sorry.
No, but just like a good soldier, I do my part.You think you are the only thing between newcomers and disaster? Or the only voice recommending against vinyl playback for newcomers? Get over yourself, Sal.
It is amazing that some people, myself included - have not abandoned Vinyl, due to Fremer and his musings. If I see a TT given a review from this guy - I'm already disinterested, particularly since Fremer was paid to do so - which is added to the price, and I'm not paying for the likes of him.God, Michal Fremer. Halfway through the piece he proudly gives us part of a recent ad hominem attack by him in a commentsd section against somebody who dared doubt the perfection of vinyl. Classy! The rest is his usual mix of tangentially related anecdotes, arguing against straw men, insults to the morals and cognitive abilities of critics, and appeals to instinct over science ("How humans survived without double-blind tests of tiger attacks, I'll never know."). Disgusting, really. Fitting, though, for somebody who, by all accounts, is generally an extremely unpleasant human being.
Those numbers seem bad! Vinyl playback must sound horrible!Certainly. Vinyl corresponds to approximately 36 kHz sample rate (no digital low-pass filter of course) and 11 bits per sample, with severe THD. The echo chamber lives on in a revived post by Michael Fremer, where he doubles down on his subjective reality only a few days ago at stereophile.com
Funny Mr @rdenney how you can applaud this post with a"like" but yet attack me for not letting Mikey get away with his BS here?God, Michal Fremer. Halfway through the piece he proudly gives us part of a recent ad hominem attack by him in a commentsd section against somebody who dared doubt the perfection of vinyl. Classy! The rest is his usual mix of tangentially related anecdotes, arguing against straw men, insults to the morals and cognitive abilities of critics, and appeals to instinct over science ("How humans survived without double-blind tests of tiger attacks, I'll never know."). Disgusting, really. Fitting, though, for somebody who, by all accounts, is generally an extremely unpleasant human being.
That article is from 10 years ago.Certainly. Vinyl corresponds to approximately 36 kHz sample rate (no digital low-pass filter of course) and 11 bits per sample, with severe THD. The echo chamber lives on in a revived post by Michael Fremer, where he doubles down on his subjective reality only a few days ago at stereophile.com
Yes, unless there is a lot of bass like metal music.Despite all its faults it's still good enough to sound 'good.'
Agree that bass response and pitch stability are two of the biggest issues, along with end of side distortion.Yes, unless there is a lot of bass like metal music.
If it's not a long lasting fad,what is it?Still a niche, granted, but it was not a fad. It wasn't hipsters buying a few then losing interest.
Not everything good is common sense though is it? What sort of world would it be if common sense ruled everything? Very bland, I'd expect.If it's not a long lasting fad,what is it?
Its definitely second class in sound quality,
Its hugely a PITA to use and maintain.
Enormously more expensive than CD-Digital.
So what would you call it if not a fad or a hugely successful snake-oil marketing plan?
High End expensive cables have also been another very successful market that makes zero common sense to invest in for music listening.![]()
You've just described just about any hobby.If it's not a long lasting fad,what is it?
Its definitely second class in sound quality,
Its hugely a PITA to use and maintain.
Enormously more expensive than CD-Digital.
So what would you call it if not a fad or a hugely successful snake-oil marketing plan?
High End expensive cables have also been another very successful market that makes zero common sense to invest in for music listening.![]()
If Your comment was directed at me, please have a look at my earlier comments on this thread. I have been one of the harshest critics of snake oil salesmen. However, I'm not a fundamentalist "SINAD / dollar is all that matters" type of hobbyist either. I can still enjoy my Linn LP12 while I also have a streamer. I don't loose any sleep if my amplifier does not have 100dB+ SINAD, and I'm willing to invest a bit extra money to get speakers that look nice to me, even if I could get equivalent measured performance cheaper.You are the ‘ideal’ customer for a snake oil salesman.
Keith