|
On what is better sound quality: Vinyl or CD ?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cluBBer |
What do you say?
I think on CD is better |
|
|
| D_G |
Id say CD as well.... although i bet alot of ppl mite disagree...
[Dan] |
|
|
| DJMiro |
| Offcourse the CD have better sound. Everybody should know that. |
|
|
| cluBBer |
| So why ppl looking for vinyl rips?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DJMiro |
| Cause they are stupid!! |
|
|
| ali92 |
When I look for sound quality, the first thing I look at is the noise level. CD has a lower noise floor than the best recording studios in the world! That ALONE makes CD's sound quality BETTER than ANY analogue format! There are numerous other reasons, like frequency range, etc.
I think the reason people look for vinyl recordings is because the tracks are longer than on CD. I always thought that this didn't make sense at all since CDs can store between 74 and 100 minutes and vilyl can store at most about 20 - 30 minutes a side, you'd think that the CD would have the longer track. Can anyone answer WHY does it have to be this way (vinyl has longer tracks instead of CD)? |
|
|
| Spin Doctor |
Vinyl has better sound quality.
Vinyl is an analogue recording. CD is a digital recording. When a tune is made and recorded (i.e. Pressed onto vinyl) the whole of this analogue wave form is captured and recorded onto vinyl. When you play a vinyl for the first ever time you are hearing as close as is humanly possible to what the producer heard when he was making the tune.
CD’s however are lower in sound quality than vinyl– this is for a very simple reason. Instead of capturing the whole wave form a sample of sound is taken every now again (In a CD’s case 44,100 times per second.) and this is converted from 1’s and 0’s to a wave form when it’s played. This is almost indistinguishable by the human ear. But the simple case is that when you listen to a CD your not listening to the actual sound but a close approximation of it.
However saying this, Vinyl and CD quality isn’t really that distinguishable form one another. The Vinyl will sound “richer” or “warmer.” The reason for this is simply that the vinyl hasn’t got parts of it’s wave form cut out. Which is why it sounds better. The only problem is that vinyl suffers terribly from dust, scratches and pops etc. |
|
|
| dvd |
| yeah iwould say cds because vinyl gets scratches and stuff which makes it less quality. |
|
|
| Intrinzic |
Hmmmm... I beg to differ... somewhat.
Assuming the record is a DJ quality 12", clean and free of scratches, vinyl has a richer, fuller sound. The analog format of vinyl allows a more "complete" sound than the digital format of CD. CD, however, is a "cleaner" sound. Most people can't really tell the difference anyway.
The best way to understand this is to compare a digital clock to a more traditional clock with hands. The digital clock will display the time in one minute intervals as 4:12, 4:13, 4:14, etc. A traditional clock will gradually move from 4:12 to 4:13 with infinite intervals in between (4:12:001...4:12:002, etc.) Audio follows the same concept. A CD is packets of data at specified intervals, whereas a vinyl record is a recording that is seemless from start to finish. |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ali92
When I look for sound quality, the first thing I look at is the noise level. CD has a lower noise floor than the best recording studios in the world! That ALONE makes CD's sound quality BETTER than ANY analogue format! There are numerous other reasons, like frequency range, etc.
|
ok.. there is somethig wrong right there:
the frequency range of a CD is 44KHz.. it is digital, so that they need to APPROXIMATE the sound waves by using 16 bit numbers (65K choices) and sampling the orignial signal at 44KHZ..
A vinyl is an ANALOG format. This means that -theoretically- the vinlyl is a PERFECT replicate of the sound that was recorded onto it. The CD is an APPROXIMATION. Hence, a vinyl has the chance to be better in terms of quality than a CD. Now, the problem is that the case, when a vinyl is better than a CD is hard to achieve, PLUS CDs have many advantages over vinyls..
well, I think vinyls are great (CD's are not fod DJing imho), but I do not even own a turntable! CD's are more convenient... |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
Yup, vinyl sounds better for reasons already mentioned.
Somebody was talking about vinyl rips before though... that's only because on a vinyl you get the full, released song, as opposed to a radio rip of much lesser quality.
If two identical songs are released on vinyl and cd, i'd rather take the cd rip. It's much easier to rip a cd properly... it's already in its 1's and 0's, you don't lose anything. On vinyl though, you gotta have a good soundcard, good needles, etc, and in the end you're turning a pure analog waveform into 1's and 0's yourself, instead of in a good studio with pro tools in it. |
|
|
| ali92 |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
ok.. there is somethig wrong right there:
the frequency range of a CD is 44KHz.. it is digital, so that they need to APPROXIMATE the sound waves by using 16 bit numbers (65K choices) and sampling the orignial signal at 44KHZ..
A vinyl is an ANALOG format. This means that -theoretically- the vinlyl is a PERFECT replicate of the sound that was recorded onto it. The CD is an APPROXIMATION. Hence, a vinyl has the chance to be better in terms of quality than a CD. Now, the problem is that the case, when a vinyl is better than a CD is hard to achieve, PLUS CDs have many advantages over vinyls..
well, I think vinyls are great (CD's are not fod DJing imho), but I do not even own a turntable! CD's are more convenient... |
Even though vinyl has no frequency range, 44.1 (CD) - 48 (Professional DAT) Khz is the maximum Sampling Rate that can be heard through the human ear. Sampling Rate = Max. Frequency Output times 2. A Sampling Rate of 48 khz is fine and is alreadya bit outside the range of human hearing so, what would make most people think that vinyl has better HUMAN HEARING SOUND QUALITY? Sure, theoratically, analogue formats have infinite frequency levels and infinite bit word-lengths but, how many people have the equipment and mint condition records to replicate the true sound quality of the artist's music? Probably not too many... |
|
|
|
|
