- Joined
- Oct 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,793
- Format
- 35mm
Vinyl has better fidelity than a master tape? Come on now.
Look, records are nice, and they have a special sound. But they are not the end all in audio fidelity.
Direct-to-disc pressings offer greater fidelity, and are easier to preserve.
Improper care and playback is to blame.
Vinyl has better fidelity than a master tape? Come on now.
Cholentpot said:Look, records are nice, and they have a special sound. But they are not the end all in audio fidelity.
Playing a record wears it out no matter how nice the stylus is.
I have never worn out a record, and have rarely seen one, but have seen countless damaged ones.
Proper vinyl playback is not for the poor, nor for the uncommitted and faint of heart.
Vinyl wears out
That is an Operator Assisted Failure, aka OAF. Usage: The OAF damaged the record.
I have never worn out a record, and have rarely seen one, but have seen countless damaged ones.
Proper vinyl playback is not for the poor, nor for the uncommitted and faint of heart.
And I just bought a CD player and DAC, cant afford to buy records any more mint CD's are under $10. If the cost of film photography goes up much more I will be looking at digital cameras and a printer.
If the cost of film photography goes up much more I will be looking at digital cameras and a printer.
If the cost of film photography goes up much more I will be looking at digital cameras and a printer.
Here in Australia prices in film photography have gone up on average by 50% in the last 4 years and my income has stagnated. So its at a price point where I need to be more discerning than I use to, if it goes up much more it will become unaffordable for me.Every hobby costs money, some more than others.
It all relative.
Some like playing golf or backing horses, collecting stamps or listening to vinyl records.
IMO film photography was never a cheap hobby but it is more affordable now than it was 30 years ago.
Then again the tern affordable ..................................
The majority of pressings are 100% analog. Digitally sourced pressings are notably inferior, but easier to listen to than digital formats.
And looking at gelatin silver prints through a loupe reveals how much more "3-D" they are than inkjet prints. LOLDirect-to-disc pressings offer greater fidelity, and are easier to preserve.
Vinyl has better fidelity than a master tape? Come on now.
I have never worn out a record. I still have my records from 60 years ago and my Dual turntable still works.
The first half of 2020 was the first half year since the mid-eighties in which revenue from vinyl record sales in the US significantly surpassed sales revenue from CDs.
I buy music to play, not to leave in a sleeve. Playing a record wears it out no matter how nice the stylus is. And if you go laser stylus you might as well go digital. These things are consumables,
And looking at gelatin silver prints through a loupe reveals how much more "3-D" they are than inkjet prints. LOL
Such absurdities swallowed by gullible people are ultimate illustrations of the principle attributed to P.T. Barnum.
It's another absurdity. Where do you think the word "splice" came from? Ever see a splicing block? A device that, in combination with a single-edge razor blade, is used to put together different sections of tape? From different takes?...one of the keys why analog recording is coming back is a desire to hear an authentic artist's actual talent rather than a spliced up performance the artist couldn't manage "live". It's a premise...
Methinks thou doth project too much.Why don't you contribute something meaningful for once instead of endlessly trolling this forum with baseless conjecture with no facts presented to back it up?
I have entertained this notion a few times, but immediately come back to film as digital does nothing for me.
And looking at gelatin silver prints through a loupe reveals how much more "3-D" they are than inkjet prints. LOL
Such absurdities swallowed by gullible people are ultimate illustrations of the principle attributed to P.T. Barnum.
Laser turntables are analog, and they are very bad as well.
Well, they do, when there's no master tape involved (direct-to-disc recordings).
Magnetic tapes introduce their own kinds of distortions into the sound. Vinyl records introduce different kind of distortions and I think the direct-to-disc records of the early 80s and the DBX-encoded records of the same era have nearly proven that the vinyl record can be as transparent as a really good master tape, or maybe better (for starters, much less wow and flutter, flatter frequency response (no head 'bumps') and the noise floor is lower, particularly at the higher frequencies where there's none)
Laser turntables are analog, and they are very bad as well. A very bad idea. They pick op a lot of surface noise that wouldn't be picked up by a regular stylus. As I wrote above, record wear isn't a problem with a reasonably good system, not even memtioning a deluxe system. I have my copy of Abbey Road i bought about 15 years ago, brand new, and I have played it uncountable times over the years, easily more than 60 (four times each year), in a lot of different turntables because I have owned a lot of TTs over those years... and it still sounds as good as when new,
As for the "these things are consumables" claim, well, I think it's already known that vinyl records are among the most stable ways to store information. They don't break when dropped, they aren't damaged by humidity or vibration or fumes. They are reasonably resilient to hot climates and immune to very cold climates.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?