quote:

Originally posted by TranceGeek flesh, we were discussing vinyl vs. CD, so do not bring SACDs into this discussion please? thanks you... ok now, you went into a lot of detail describing the down sides of vinyl records, but never once have you mentioned the down sides of CDs, good job dude!

Good god, why do I even try. Man, most of the problems that you have with my post are fully explained IN that post. You obviously didn't read it very well. But I shall, again, go through your concerns.

You're right, we were discussing Vinyl versus CD, and I did just that. Guess what, you win, vinyl CAN infact reproduce a sound that is of better quality than a CD. But my main point is that it cannot do this forever! A CD's quality will never degrade, whereas vinyl's will. It was only at the end that I validated purchasing CDs because they will be backwards compatible with the next generation of high quality audio players. Vinyl will not, so if you want to take advantage of higher quality audio in the future, you cannot simply exchange your decks with new ones, you have to always have and maintain TTs and vinyl to play any of the records that you have now. I did infact list many of the downsides of cds. In fact, if you would have read the post, you would have seen that cds aren't quite as good as vinyl in most of the respects of quality that I touched on. But to me, not slowly erasing my music is the most important.

quote:

digital sound can't be better than analogue, its as simple as that... just look at the wave and how it is translated from analogue to digital!! do you even know how its done? that alone is enough to prove that analogue is better...

First off, you can only hear analog sound. A digital signal is ALWAYS converted into an analog signal before it is sent to the speakers. But I'll assume that you are refering to a signal that was converted into digital at one time.
Again, no where in my post did I ever say that (today's) digital sound was BETTER than analog. Please quote me on that if you want to prove me wrong. I simply say that (today's) CDs APPROACH analog sound decently, and that the next generation of cds will surpass the current RECORDING standard. It is true that you CAN record all of your samples etc through analog machines, but in the end, this is moot because it is more than likely, practically converted to digital for editing purposes anyway. Do you really think that the producers don't edit their samples and tracks etc before they release it? Even if some don't, I feel that I can safely say that the vast majority do. I can't prove it, but you can't refute it with numbers either, so let's just drop it.

In any event, you are changing the argument away from cd versus vinyl to digital versus analog. That is not even an arguement. Analog is better, but what IS debatable is the ability to reproduce that analog signal with more presicsion and more accuracy. CDs can maintain both at a constant level, while vinyl slowly deteriorates. As far as your implications that I don't know how a sound is converted to digital or from digital to analog...well, man, you're making yourself look like an idiot for either not reading my post, or not understanding it. I went into very precice detail and provided an even more precice explaination via the link I provided on how a digital sound is made and how it is converted into analog.

quote:

ok next, i believe you have indeed misinterpretted my definition of better... we weren't talking about storage and size and whatever you said, but we talked about the quality of sound!!

Again with mixing up your definition? If I interperate your definition from your statement just above "we talked about the quality of sound". I did no such thing because I defined YOUR definition of better to be "the medium which has the better capability of reproducing the original source, at this moment in time." Is this not what you are arguing? Good, because according to your definition, of better, you won the arguement. The rest of my post was discussion what my definition of better was all about. Again, reread the damn post, man.

quote:

ok next again... you just kept on talking about the production of music and how its all digital already... but thats not correct, only a small percentage of tracks are actually made simply using a computer... all other tracks are produced using standard equipment, ie. beat machines, synthesizers and so on... so that sound that is pressed on vinyl is analogue, and its reproduced in analogue too... you mentioned mixers and amps... dude, they still amplify the ANALOGUE sound, they are not converters into digital!!

First of all, you cannot state that "all other tracks are produced using standard equipment...so that sound that is pressed on vinyl is analogue" without backing it up with evidence. Do you descide how everyone is to record their music? Until you do, don't try to use numbers to make a weak argument stronger.
And as far as my equipment discusison, again, (not to sound like a repeating record:stongue but reread what I said. I said that you can LIMIT the quality differences between a digital and analog signal. I never implied that you are changing the signal from analog to digital or vise versa. For example, I stated that vinyl has a frequency range outside of 20Hz-20,000Hz. If your needle (ortofon nightclub E's only have 20Hz-22,000Hz frequency range), mixer(Pioneer DJM-600 only has 20Hz-20,000Hz), amp or speakers can't process or reproduce a frequency on your record, then it is eliminated by the time the sound reaches your ears. Period.

There are several mixers that CAN reproduce more frequency range as listed per my original post, and ortofon does make needles that can reproduce 5hz-80,000Hz, but again, as per my original post, what is the limiting factor in your system? You'll only get the maximum quality out of a record if the limiting part of your system IS the record.

___________________
When you dance, the DJ takes you on a journey, but he or she is usually not the focus of your experience at a club or festival or wherever you hear the music. Dancing is. Music is.