|
The Future of Vinyls? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Flesch |
I think the post was about if vinyl was going to be over taken by cd, not if it was better than cd. Vinylheads may think that the sound quality etc is better, but that only applies to the very first time the record is played. And even at that, the limiting system more than likely won't be the vinyl or cd recording, it will be a multitude of amps, equilizers, room setup, long connecting wires and most of all, damaged ear drums of the listeners! Everytime after the first play the groove is warped more and more until it sounds like . Point in case is Paul Oakenfold's Perfecto Presents Another World disk 2 track 5 Flesh (Tilt Mix) - Jan Johnston. If you listen to this track at semi high volumes in headphones, you will think that your ears have been severely damaged! This is because the record that he has, has been played way too many times and now sounds like crap. Solution for vinyl, buy another set of all the records you have once they reach this condition--over and over again. Or buy a $15,000 vinyl burner and find a place that sells blank vinyl! Cd solution is put in a $0.15 cd in the burner you probably already have and boom, in 2 minutes you have an exact copy of the original track that wisely stored away and only brought out to make copies of. Cds aren't suseptable to being scratched by the needle--only light touches them when playing. Cds are more resistant to warping, and if they do, then it's either 100% digital quality, or it won't play at all. No inbetweens!
You cannot argue the quality, value and convienece of cds far outweighs that of vinyl! The only arguement you can make is that you perfer the feel of vinyl etc. In which case, you have no arguement at all because that is your opion.
Don't get me wrong, I love vinyl and I think it will live on for quite a long time, but you cannot argue the facts that it will eventually fade out! |
|
|
| MERiDiAN5i2 |
i know well enough that a record can be played MANY times before it's quality is reduced noticably. unless of course, you are playing it on fred flinstones phonograph with a ROCK for a needle.
I have vynil that has been played hundreds of times that still sounds fine... but they again, i use a proper needle with a very light tracking force which does not wear records much at all. |
|
|
| Ugg |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Flesch
I think the post was about if vinyl was going to be over taken by cd, not if it was better than cd. |
Vinyl will not be overtaken by CD until technology allows DJ's to manipulate CD's the way they do vinyl (like Final Scratch, for example). Why? Because turntables are so widely used (and preferred) by DJ's over CDJ...
| quote: | | You cannot argue the quality, value and convienece of cds far outweighs that of vinyl! The only arguement you can make is that you perfer the feel of vinyl etc. In which case, you have no arguement at all because that is your opion. |
CD's are damn convenient. MP3's are even more convenient. No argument there! ;)
However, the fact that there are turntables in almost every dance club / venue strongly states the opinion of most DJ's. Despite the quality, value and convenience of CD's, most DJ's still prefer carting around vinyl because they like the feel of vinyl on a turntable better than a CD in a CDJ player.
| quote: | | Don't get me wrong, I love vinyl and I think it will live on for quite a long time, but you cannot argue the facts that it will eventually fade out! |
Yes, vinyl will eventually go the way of the 8-track and the cassette tape, no doubt. And CD's will eventually be replaced by SACD (Super Audio CD). And SACD will be replaced with a sound chip in the brain... (oops, time machine went to far there).
I think the original question should be: When will vinyl be replaced by CD's or another medium?
And the answer is: When the technology (player) is mature enough to emulate (or better) the feel and control of vinyl.
Until then, I'm going to keep spinning my plastic and having fun! :tongue2 |
|
|
| ascension |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psylence
DJing involves playing music in front of a crowd. Ascension, you have obviously confused the "gravy" portion of the job with the actual bread and butter.
The skills required for djing are the same damn skills whether you use vinyl, cds, or a victrola, or a freakin 8 track player.
Image is nothing. Talent is everything. :) |
image is a large part of the scene whether people like it or not and im going to stand by that. the point i was making was not that one form of djing requires more skill than another (hell i know jack about it anyways...) but that vinyl is just what alot of people want and would expect a dj to use. im sure john doe could come in off the street and lay down a very funky set with virtual turntables or traktor.. but i doubt many people would be impressed with a "dj" who sits behind a computer screen djing with a mouse, no matter how much skill it takes...
so yea.. i think vinyl will be around for a long time, not necessarily becos of the technical advantages it brings, but becos ppl have had it ingrained into their minds that the only "real" way to dj is with 2 turntables a mixer and vinyl.
perhaps this will change with time... but not for a while i'd imagine |
|
|
| Trypsin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ugg
6. MP3's do not have the sound quality of CD's or vinyl. They will never become a mainstream method of DJ'ing due to the lack of quality. Although a laptop and Traktor is great for a party or for practicing, it's not the proper way to play a venue! (Try dropping a 128k MP3 on the house PA, it'll sound like !@%$) |
While I agree with you on your other points, you, sir, are wrong on number 6. A properly ripped mp3 is indistinguishable from the source. Now, if groups would get the point and start doing proper vbr rips rather than crappy low bitrate cbr, we'd be getting somewhere. |
|
|
| MERiDiAN5i2 |
MP3s.. yuck! there *IS* a quality loss! MP3s are awesome for previewing tracks, seeing what you might want to buy.. but the quality is horrible compared to a piece of vynil in good condition.
the frequency response of MP3s is also variable - and this causes MP3s to be hard to mix and make it sound good...
| quote: |
Vinyl will not be overtaken by CD until technology allows DJ's to manipulate CD's the way they do vinyl (like Final Scratch, for example). Why? Because turntables are so widely used (and preferred) by DJ's over CDJ...
I think the original question should be: When will vinyl be replaced by CD's or another medium? |
I don't think there is another medium that will ever be suitable. what other medium could be as simple and straight forward?!?! I mean, vynil is natural... the vibrations of the sound are directly laid down onto a plate, the plate moves accross the needle and vibrates the needle which generates electrical current.. then that current is amplified and causes a simliar vibration in magnetic terms, causing the sound to be regenerated through the speaker. there is no other medium this natural. technology is not always our friend - if technology could truely take over for natural instruments, nobody would bother playing guitars, trumpets, and real drums.
and yes, i do consider a turntable to be an instrument. in my opinion, it qualifies, as it is a simple device which leaves GOBS of room for artistic creativity. if you dont believe a turntable is an instrument, go to a DMC competition and watch those people show you what turntablism is all about. try that on a CD deck !!
these new CD decks... are so lame.. even the CDJ1000.. i mean, why would you want to pay $1000 to mimmic what you could have for $450? yea, cds are more convience, but is convienence really so important? we live in a society that teaches us convienence is so important...
personally, ive fell in love with vynil. even if clubs dont even have tables anymore and all they have is superCD decks in the year 2020, i'll still be spinning on 1200s at home... or whatever other table is supersolid with nothing more than a target light and a pitch control.
maybe i just hate the idea of technology mixing with DJ'ing since i work with technology professionally. maybe I just want to keep all that hooplah and jazz away from me when i'm mixing and i want to feel like i'm not dependent on it... i leave the technology to the producers. i think alot of other DJs share this feeling!
and does anyone else agree that being able to see the pattern of the grooves on the record (the way it changes appearance on breakdowns, quiet parts, etc) to be awesome about vynil? i love being able to look at where the needle is and know just when the track is about to break down or the baseline is about to start thumping... im not sure it would be the same without that...
long live vynil. CDs have thier place in the world... as a consumer audio standard. and a very good one at that.
-mer |
|
|
| DynaFire |
| Please anyone correct me if i'm wrong but in my opinion vinyl simply is a better quality medium than cd or mp3. This is not just my guess through listening but logical, cd is a digital medium and therefor is encoded based on a particular static pre-defined format (red book standard for prints or orange book for burns) this means that the quality of cd's has been the same since the standard was defined, otherwise readers would be incompatable with cd's, and the point of this? The red book standard is obviously been out a good few years and cds haven't improved. In that time the quality of plastic, it's durability, creep resistance, etc HAS improved, also the quality of reading and recording equipment for vinyl HAS improved, look at or even better listen to new ortofons. So the quality of sound on vinyl is constantly being improved and can record the full quality of the original without drastic downsampling. I also think it's bull that cd's last longer in regular usage conditions than vinyl, i've got vinyl that's 40 years old and still sounds pretty good, and has been listened to many 1000s of times (like my dylan albums :-) i also have 5 year old cd's that have slight clicks if you listen with decent equipment. That's just opinion though. ANd vinyl just looks cool :-) even if 70 of them do get heavy REALLY quickly. ;-) |
|
|
| Dj Flesch |
| quote: | Originally posted by DynaFire
Please anyone correct me if i'm wrong but in my opinion vinyl simply is a better quality medium than cd or mp3. This is not just my guess through listening but logical, cd is a digital medium and therefor is encoded based on a particular static pre-defined format (red book standard for prints or orange book for burns) this means that the quality of cd's has been the same since the standard was defined, otherwise readers would be incompatable with cd's, and the point of this? The red book standard is obviously been out a good few years and cds haven't improved. In that time the quality of plastic, it's durability, creep resistance, etc HAS improved, also the quality of reading and recording equipment for vinyl HAS improved, look at or even better listen to new ortofons. So the quality of sound on vinyl is constantly being improved and can record the full quality of the original without drastic downsampling. I also think it's bull that cd's last longer in regular usage conditions than vinyl, i've got vinyl that's 40 years old and still sounds pretty good, and has been listened to many 1000s of times (like my dylan albums :-) i also have 5 year old cd's that have slight clicks if you listen with decent equipment. That's just opinion though. ANd vinyl just looks cool :-) even if 70 of them do get heavy REALLY quickly. ;-) |
Vinyl is not a better medium as far as quality because it allows for degradation of the original source. This happens a couple of different ways. First every time you spin the needle around the vinyl grooves, you start warping and distorting it. True it takes a while to notice it if you keep your vinyl in good shape and your needles and weights all good, but the source will never degrade on cd. The light that reads the digital bits will never change a 0 to a 1 or vise versa. The reason that vinyl has improved over the years is because it wasn't good to begin with. Second, the needle picks up all vibrations, not just those coming from the vinyl groove. This is why on really really good recordings, you can hear things like trucks on the highway or trains etc when you record from vinyl into digital media. Trust me, I've had it happen to me before.
As a long term storage device, it still isn't. Why do you store your vinyl between 50F-75F and in a vertical position with less than 50% humidity? Because storage conditions will warp the crap out of the record! Cds are much more tolerant of storage conditions and you don't have to worry about them warping under their own weight!
You're probably right that a 40 year old record that's been kept in good condition sounds "pretty good", but a 40 year old cd (even though they are not that old yet ;) would be truer to the original source. The reason your 5 year old cd has skips is because it was not stored and handled properly and the surface has become scratched etc. This happens with vinyl too though it will actually play sounds that are not true to the original source. A cd will play only 100% or nothing.
The whole reason the cd standard is not improved despite is because all of the eq that is out there will not play better than the standard anyway! That is the whole point of having the standard! If you'll do a little research, you'd probably notice that you mixer only has an output frequency range of 20Hz to 20,000Hz, (like my DJM-600) which is exactly the quality that a cd is recorded at. So guess what, even if you the perfect vinyl and the perfect turntable, you'll never get better than cd quality coming out of your mixer! Therefore, being able to tell the difference of a track recorded on a cd versus vinyl is a bunch of crap. Any better sound that people think vinyl has, is killed way before it ever reaches your ears! And in some weird case that it may reach your ears, most people can't even hear as low as 20Hz or as high as 20,000Hz anyway--even those with undamaged hearing. True you may feel things below 20Hz, but if they aren't being outputed from your mixer, it doesn't matter anyway!
And in response to you thinking that the quality cannot change due to the "standard" this is incorrect. The quality is defined by the source of the original recording, which has been improved over the years. The fact that we have the same compatable readers doesn't mean anything. We are using light, how can you improve upon a signal reader like that? The fact that we haven't changed the wavelength of the light (compatibility is due to the same density of information on the disk) just means that we can only fit a certain amount of information in a certain amount of space. The density hasn't changed, but the quality of the actual disk has--hence 80min cd plus overburning. This has nothing to do with quality, but only with space. Think of a DVD, the sound is encoded in surround sound (which is good for movies, and crap for reproducing songs). The only reason that dvds can have surround sound and still have enough space for a digital picture is because they DO USE a different laser so they are able to increase the density of information on the same sized disc.
Anyway, I hope that once and for all, this puts an end to the argument that vinyl has, had or ever will have an edge over cds as far as quality goes! |
|
|
| MERiDiAN5i2 |
flat response over 20-20khz is the TECHNICAL definition of quality.
and if thats what you are looking for, digital audio is the way to go... i'll leave it at that.
-mer |
|
|
| DynaFire |
| I'm not sure why your pointing out frequency response as the quality difference between vinyl and cd, this would mean that there was no difference between a 16bit 44.1khz cd and a 32bit 96khz recording, or an 18 bit DAT, as i think they all have a very similar respose range. If the redbook standard is prefect explain why SACD's exist. The theoretical cd lasting thing is obviously correct, however it's my experience that they don't, might be just me being to thugish with my cd's and carefull of my records! As far as storage, use of use (portability etc) i think mp3 or much better ogg vorbis on a hard drive or someother digital media is pretty hard to go past. Just my 4cents. |
|
|
| Dj Flesch |
My arguement about the frequency range being the limiting factor of quality is that no one records directly to vinyl or cd anyway. It's all done on DAT (DIGITAL audio tape, may I remind you), as far as I know, or on a hard drive, but not directly to either vinyl or cd. Therefore, the arguement has to lay in the boundaries of which device, cd or vinyl, can reproduce the original source the best and for the longest time. I'm not familiar with sacd, so I can't say anything about that.
And as far as cds lasting longer or shorter, I think that people's perception of the durablility of a cd makes people handle it with less care. I think part of this reason is because you CAN abuse a cd for a rather long time and still have it play perfectly. Hell, I've taken really old crappy cds and taken a razor blade to them from the inside of the cd to the outside and it's still played without skipping. Try that with a record! And another point that I made with the cds is that you can convienently and very cheaply and quickly make an identical copy of any cd you own!
I do agree that there are better storage devices than cds, but none that are more supported than cd--for a dj anyway. Only in the recent 12-18 months has mp3 hardware become available for a reasonable price. But you still have a whole realm of people that have bought into the cd equipment because it has been around for much longer and it is the format of all their music before they became djs! I'd imaging that not very many djs have enough money to go out and rebuy all the cds that they own on vinyl (at least they singles anyway). Especially if they started mixing using their computer. |
|
|
| Trypsin |
| This argument is pretty much a moot point when it comes to DJing though. No one cares about sound quality in a club environment, just as long as the tune that's being spun (on tt or cd) doesn't sound like e once the sound comes out of those 7ft speaker towers with more subs than Wyoming has people. As long as the kick feels close enough to being hit in the head by a two-by-four, people are happy. |
|
|
|
|
