TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Interesting articles on the vinyl vs. digital debate
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by harriz The only reason why you people spend thousands to get cdjs is because Dj tiesto is getting a big, fat, 4 digit check in the mail every month to sponsor the equipment. It's not like you crackers know when you are being marketed upon....

ok you win. I request all CDJ users to sell off their equipment. Don't you guys know Tiesto is such a gimp ? How dare he strike the Jesus pose ??

Everybody listen to Harriz.

is it me or no matter whats being discussed, harriz just comes off as an asshole.

quote:

Originally posted by bobba lou is it me or no matter whats being discussed, harriz just comes off as an asshole.

Hater

quote:

Originally posted by harriz How many times do we have to got through this?

we salute you harriz and your very informative posts

if you feel passionate about something discuss it in an adult manner,

i'm still waiting on a comment from your side about the 15khz roll-off

here is my source: http://www.mp3-tech.org/content/?Mp3%20Limitations

here the theory

"Scalefactor band 21 problem:
The last scalefactor band (sfb21 for long blocks or sfb12 for short blocks) has no own scalefactor. This scalefactor band covers the range from 16kHz up to the higher frequency limit, when using 44.1 or 48kHz sampling frequency.
If the resolution of this part of the spectrum must be increased (determined by the psychoacoustic model), the local scalefactor, which is missing, can not be used to adjust resolution. In this case, the only solution is to adjust the global gain value, but this global gain is impacting every scalefactor band.
To increase sfb21 resolution, the global gain value has to be reduced. To balance this, scalefactors of other scalefactor bands can be reduced. But once they reach a value of 0, they can not be reduced anymore, meaning that an higher than needed resolution will locally be used in those bands, leading to an inflate of the bitrate. When encoding sfb21 content, it is common to encounter some scalefactor bands that are encoded with a too high resolution just to accomodate the coding needs of sfb21"

so your mp3s have no frequencies above 15khz theory has gone out of the window.

and as one of the above posters has rightly mentioned vinyl playback quality rapidly deteriorates

i'm a bit disappointed by your immature posting considering your post count.

quote:

Originally posted by pvdclubber "Scalefactor band 21 problem: The last scalefactor band (sfb21 for long blocks or sfb12 for short blocks) has no own scalefactor. This scalefactor band covers the range from 16kHz up to the higher frequency limit, when using 44.1 or 48kHz sampling frequency. If the resolution of this part of the spectrum must be increased (determined by the psychoacoustic model), the local scalefactor, which is missing, can not be used to adjust resolution. In this case, the only solution is to adjust the global gain value, but this global gain is impacting every scalefactor band. To increase sfb21 resolution, the global gain value has to be reduced. To balance this, scalefactors of other scalefactor bands can be reduced. But once they reach a value of 0, they can not be reduced anymore, meaning that an higher than needed resolution will locally be used in those bands, leading to an inflate of the bitrate. When encoding sfb21 content, it is common to encounter some scalefactor bands that are encoded with a too high resolution just to accomodate the coding needs of sfb21"

Read it again


160/192:

256:

quote:

Originally posted by harriz Read it again 160/192: 256:

why do you think the graph shows values past 16khz???

because they exist

and if you looked at a 320 graph you would be able to see that it is pretty much indistinguishable from the orignal wav source

i'm giving up on this, as you clearly don't understand what i have been posting

the future is pure digital, vinyl will have a romantic niche

you should try and get hold of michael jackson's thriller album.
try listening to a cd copy from 1992 and the digitally remastered cd version from 2001, then you will hear how superior digital is.

quote:

Originally posted by harriz Hater

thanks, and you are the techno evangelist

quote:

Originally posted by Ishkur REAL vinyl disc jockeys who have plied their trade for years and are exceptionally good at what they do will still cling to the artform. After spending that much time practising and honing your personal flavour on a specific aparatus, would you want to immediately throw it all away?

word up - i honed my skills on this, and i'll be damned if some whippersnapper tells me that there's something better.



also, who needs newfangled things like "stoves" and "houses" ? you want to keep it real you better find yourself a cave and grab some flint and a twig.

quote:

Originally posted by bobba lou thanks, and you are the techno evangelist

What the fu ck is that supposed to mean?

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Actually, it's not simple. If you intend to play out in a club, lounge or whatever and show up with a bag of records and all you have available are cd turntables you are screwed.

well if a club doesnt have vinyl or cd decks then it isnt worthy of being open to be honest. u would find out what decks they had before u went anyway and if they dont have cd take ur own.

Quick question. Aside from those of us who DJ and the audiophiles who don't DJ, what percentage of the crowd is actually going to be able to tell if a DJ is spinning vinyl or CD based solely off of sound quality?

A very, very finite amount. Arguing about it is moot point; high-quality CDs sound just fine in a club setting and most people in the audience wont know the difference.

God, I hate these debates.

quote:

Originally posted by harriz The only reason why you people spend thousands to get cdjs is because Dj tiesto is getting a big, fat, 4 digit check in the mail every month to sponsor the equipment. It's not like you crackers know when you are being marketed upon....

quote:

Originally posted by idoru

indeed. what the flying fuck harriz?

harriz is right. vinyl 12" SINGLES are currently the best sound quality format available.

first, you guys argue that the original source is digital, so it doesnt matter. so harriz points out the original is 24bit 96khz reduced to 16bit 44khz for cds, whereas there is no reducing when going to vinyl. so then the argument becomes oh well you cant tell the difference between 24bit96khz and 16bit44khz. haha! and then another gimp correlates the sampling rate to audio frequency range stating the ear cant hear above 22khz and cds are 44khz so you cant hear that supersonic range anyway. fukn hilarious!

guys, the higher sampling rate is not so you can record higher audio frequency. the sampling rate is how many chunks of data per second. its the resolution, the fidelity. the higher the sampling rate the better.

some other douche said the rich bass is because of feedback. hahahahahahahahhahahahaha. oh my lord. my sides hurt.

when listening to vinyl, you are listening to a tiny microphone pickup, much like the ones used on an electric guitar. its a live sound. when listening to a cd, you're actually listening to a DAC (digital to audio converter). DACs don't sound as good as the real thing. they take of what limited data availble per second and try to produce an analog version.

We all know that Vinyl sounds better and we all know that digital is the way of the future. If the large majority of the big names are using it that really says it all (because they get it all for free regardless - vinyl or MP3).

DIGITAL STORE

quote:

Originally posted by PlayItTonight We all know that Vinyl sounds better and we all know that digital is the way of the future. If the large majority of the big names are using it that really says it all (because they get it all for free regardless - vinyl or MP3). DIGITAL STORE

Stop spamming.

quote:

Originally posted by DOOMBOT Actually, it's not simple. If you intend to play out in a club, lounge or whatever and show up with a bag of records and all you have available are cd turntables you are screwed. Sure, it is simple if you only intend to play at home or gigs where you use your own equipment but if not then don't be upset when you can't play out somewhere because they don't have the equipment that you are used to.

The clubs are out to make money, and that's it.

You can bet your ass that they don't give one shit about what medium you use, as long as you have the capacity to get the job done and get the crowd riled up.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Further to all this, I think there's some romanticism about vinyl. The DJ scratching and handling records on Tech 12s is an iconic image, the thing most people associate with the word "DJ". It's like dance music's guitar- it gives more of a performance and an image to the jock, almost like pulling off a killer scratch trick is on par with a guitarist pulling off a brilliant guitar solo. Everyone owns a laptop, everyone has CDs and everyone has MP3s. They aren't very exotic. When a DJ is sat behind a laptop using Ableton or whatever, no matter how clever or inventive they're being, they're just a bloke sat at a computer, clicking a mouse. Not much of an image, is it? Vinyl lets them look and feel like someone who is part of a dark art- someone who's mastered something the crowd can't go home and find. There's no history to a laptop.

Correct.

DJs know they aren't artists -- they are just relayers of the sound. In a bid to make themselves more viable and important, they have created this image for themselves. Scratching and decks and the practical god-podium that tiesto stands on.

It's all an illusion to give credence to a very simple job. It's your job to play good music seamlessly for the people at the club. All the bells and whistles are just you trying to make yourself seem more important so that you can keep your job.

PS: The word "warmth" contributed to "analogue" is one of the most bullshit things ever created by man. It's an error, and it's fixed now, but instead we give it a positive term like "warmth" to make up for the flaw and save our asses. It's all bullshit.

If they had called it "low-end distortion" instead of "warmth", you can bet your ass you wouldn't be standing so firmly behind this illusion of an idea today. Language is an amazing tool, isn't it?

PSS: Your low hum feedback can be recreated through digital VSTis too. In a variety of ways limited only to the programmer. You can run your set through many other neat VSTis also, the sky is the limit.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Mystery CDR's failing isn't all that uncommon.

Just a few fun facts.

CDR can last 6000 uses without degrading in quality.

Vinyl can last 10 uses.

Is either reliable?

No.

quote:

Originally posted by harriz Numbers speak for themselves... At CD (16/44.1) quality there are 65,536 discrete levels to describe the sample. At DVD (24/96K) quality there are 16.777,216 discrete levels to describe the sample. Quite a big difference if you ask me.... DVD 16.777,216 -CD -----65,536 If a job gave you $16.777,216 a year and another job gave you $65.536 a year would you say... ''Either one... It doesn't really matter.... they are both really good jobs'' ''I couldn't even tell the difference in pay'' You wouldn't. So shut it.

The limits aren't in the digital technology, my friend.

I can assure you, digital technology will quadruple itself before you know it.

However, the real limit, is in yourself.

20Hz-20KHz. What can ya do? Upgrade your ears? hehe

This debate about sound technology is also just a way for vinyl purists to try and justify themselves. If your music needs a barely audible difference in sound quality to sound good, you're spinning shit records. A brand new track on CD sounds audibly better than a decade old track on vinyl, but it doesn't mean the newer is better, because sound quality is not the make or break factor of music. And I'd take a cheaper, more mobile, larger capacity and digital compatible (ie: I can play it on anyone's stereo, Walkman or PC) medium in exchange for a slight loss in sound quality.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J This debate about sound technology is also just a way for vinyl purists to try and justify themselves. If your music needs a barely audible difference in sound quality to sound good, you're spinning shit records. A brand new track on CD sounds audibly better than a decade old track on vinyl, but it doesn't mean the newer is better, because sound quality is not the make or break factor of music. And I'd take a cheaper, more mobile, larger capacity and digital compatible (ie: I can play it on anyone's stereo, Walkman or PC) medium in exchange for a slight loss in sound quality.

The fact is.. in 2-3 years there will be not a "perceived" "loss" in sound quality, but rather, an improvement in sound quality.

That's why its the "digital revolution". That's why you should begin making smart investments NOW, looking at the future, and knowing that Murphy's Law hasn't yet been hindered.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby

Four posts in a row now you are officially talking to yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by stev�sto harriz is right. vinyl 12" SINGLES are currently the best sound quality format available. first, you guys argue that the original source is digital, so it doesnt matter. so harriz points out the original is 24bit 96khz reduced to 16bit 44khz for cds, whereas there is no reducing when going to vinyl. so then the argument becomes oh well you cant tell the difference between 24bit96khz and 16bit44khz. haha! and then another gimp correlates the sampling rate to audio frequency range stating the ear cant hear above 22khz and cds are 44khz so you cant hear that supersonic range anyway. fukn hilarious! guys, the higher sampling rate is not so you can record higher audio frequency. the sampling rate is how many chunks of data per second. its the resolution, the fidelity. the higher the sampling rate the better. some other douche said the rich bass is because of feedback. hahahahahahahahhahahahaha. oh my lord. my sides hurt. when listening to vinyl, you are listening to a tiny microphone pickup, much like the ones used on an electric guitar. its a live sound. when listening to a cd, you're actually listening to a DAC (digital to audio converter). DACs don't sound as good as the real thing. they take of what limited data availble per second and try to produce an analog version.

Actually, you bring up the very reason sampling at 44 kHz is fine. DAC. DAC sends an electromagnetic signal to an amplifying source, commonly the driver of a loudspeaker. this caused the loud speaker to move forward or backward depending on the polarity of the electric signal. 44 kHz sends 2.2 of such signals for each period of a 20 kHz wave. Enough, get this, for both peaks. PCM then makes sure that these samples occur such that the full peak is acheived for each such period. In between samples, the driver has to spend a measurable amount of time moving from the first sample intensity to the second. This makes the resulting sound wholly analogue. It is impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analogue source, because it is an analogue source.

In fact, by this logic, there is no such thing as a "squarized" digital effect, as they, ulitmately all produce an analogue result.

Further proof of this is that it is physically impossible for air pressure to vary so discontinuously over a distance of 0 m, not even with a membrane because that membrane would be physical, and therefore would occupy space.

And no, laughing at someone's assertions does not refute them, so tell us what does cause the "warmth and richness" in vinyl if not the feedback.

quote:

Originally posted by thoughtlessjex , so tell us what does cause the "warmth and richness" in vinyl if not the feedback.

The richness of vinyl comes from the fact that you are listening to a superior, 24 bit 96k recording.
The warmth comes from the RIAA saturation.

quote:

Actually, you bring up the very reason sampling at 44 kHz is fine. DAC. DAC sends an electromagnetic signal to an amplifying source, commonly the driver of a loudspeaker. this caused the loud speaker to move forward or backward depending on the polarity of the electric signal. 44 kHz sends 2.2 of such signals for each period of a 20 kHz wave. Enough, get this, for both peaks. PCM then makes sure that these samples occur such that the full peak is acheived for each such period. In between samples, the driver has to spend a measurable amount of time moving from the first sample intensity to the second. This makes the resulting sound wholly analogue. It is impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analogue source, because it is an analogue source.

There are digital to analog converters and digital to analog converers.
Get a clue... they ain't all the same.
The difference is in how well they can compute and how well they handle error correction.
That will have a trementous impact on sound quality.
Most of the convertors in 24/bit 96k professional audio are handled by Asahi Kasei AK5393vsp chips.
That shit is expensive and accurate.
It's used in high end TC electronic effects, apogee converters e.c.t.
The cheaper consumer grade stuff gets a shit-load of errors.
Errors result in shit digital sound.

i love playing cds too. especially the cdj1000s with the ability to change pitch and tempo independently of each other, that feature alone opens a whole new world. just wanted to get any suspicion of bias aside.

did you know a microphone and speaker are practically the same thing? sometimes you can plug a small speaker into the microphone jack and actually pick up some sound. a microphone is just a small speaker with a more sensitive diaphram. instead of applying voltage and driving the diaphram, a microphone's diaphram is moved back and forth from sound vibrations, this moves the magnet by the electrocoil which creates a small voltage signal. for the most live pure sound, it doesn't get much simpler than straightforward amplifying that small signal to a larger diaphram electrocoil. now what makes you thing digitizing that signal with an ADC, and then compiling it back together with a DAC, is going to sound just as good, (or better as some are hinting) as just a straight microphone amplified to speaker?

its remarkable when you think about it, almost a century later, and the speaker is still pretty much the same. no matter how awesome your digital format is, you still need to push it to a very crude mechanical device ... the speaker.

not all DACs are created equal. they have improved over the years. manufacturers use different algorithms to smooth out the digital sound and fill in the gaps of the broken waveform that is cd audio.

your "44khz = 2.2 per 20khz wave therefore no need to go higher than 44khz" and your "amplifying source, commonly the driver of a loudspeaker" shows you dont know what you're talking about. a loudspeaker's driver is an amplifying source? heh. you're mixing up sound frquency with digital sampling rate. imagine drawing a soundwave, now imagine drawing it with connect-the-dots. that's a simplified way of explaining it. the higher the sampling rate, the more dots and the closer it comes to looking like you didnt draw by connect-the-dots. "impossible for a DAC to sound worse than an analog source" ??? right, all DACs sound the same, from the cell phone to the cd deck.

the warmth/richness whatever the hell people describe of vinyl, is because its a higher fidelity format. also because they're most likely talking about a 12" SINGLE, where one whole side is devoted to a few mins. 12" singles sound much better than albums because you can have a deeper groove with more physical area in the groove, this allows much more movement of the needle and thus you can create a louder signal. because there is more material devoted, the record also lasts much longer. the decreasing sound quality argument is so overrated. i have 15 year old records ive played atleast 200 times and they still sound better than the same song on a cd.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.