Dubstepforum.com

Great quotes, phonetics, especially the last one.

I love vinyl! I guess I can see how if you were starting out today it wouldn't really make economic sense to buy vinyl, but for me it doesn't really make sense to invest in either cdj's or Serato, since I already have had decks for nigh on 15 years and in any case I can't afford too many new records now that I'm a dad. But that's besides the point, since obviously with vinyl I (like a lot of the other people posting to this thread) love it for aesthetic reasons that don't have much, if anything, to do with economic efficiency.

This is what I wrote about vinyl a while back in a blog post:

(A big part) of what I enjoy about mixing with records is the feeling that I am physically interacting with the sound. Part of the process of mixing is touching the record, not just scratching back and forth at the cue point, but drawing a finger along the platter to slow the record and twisting the centrepoint to speed it up. When I do these things I feel like I am literally taking the beats and dragging them into place – that the beats have not just a sonic but a physical presence, one that I can touch and mould to my taste. I find something intrinsically aesthetically satisfying about this process.

MP3 verses Vinyl = invisible music

great discussion. might have read about it somewhere before though


bumb for the vinylists

I've been buying vinyl since I was 9...yep, pocket money has been going on plastic since the early 90's... First riddim "Do the Bart Man!" of course!

But up until recently, like June of this year, I've switched to CDJ 900's, and have started buying mp3s... I just cant afford my beloved vinyl anymore...

Mind you, I am feeling spending £50 and getting 35-40 odd tunes, than spending £50 and getting maybe 7!!

I really didn't start this thread as a debate between vinyl vs mp3's as I still think vinyl is far superior to mp3s, cd's, 8tracks, etc. I was just wondering after years of being a record collection of punk and hardcore records, whether it was a smart financial choice in comparison to mp3's. In almost every other category, I would say vinyl is better. However, the price is always a concern. I have no intention of living paycheck to paycheck and just want to get the most bang for the buck.

all about Vinyl for me, nothing better than getting a fresh batch in the post or coming home with a bag full of new bits and having a blend...
Personally i dont think i'd get half as much enjoyment from the music if had to buy mp3's, just don't feel like i actually own anything that way, obviously you get a lot more tunes for your money but fuck it, it's not about that!

garethom wrote:Nothing like getting some sweet artwork (although the white label has its own appeal), sliding it out of the sleeve, checking it in your hands and putting it on the decks, being able to hold something that somebody has invested a lot of money in, and I know I'll enjoy for years. Whenever people see my collection on my shelves, even the casual music listener is interested in it, they check it out, I can play them a few tunes I know they've never heard before. My friend is a big hip-hop fan, mostly commercial stuff, I played him some Joker vinyl after bringing the subject up, next week he's all over the Joker downloads Nobody has ever once asked me what's on that little black block plugged into my PC.

I download a lot of stuff too, but mp3s and wavs don't have the same impact a physical, well designed piece of music and art has. It's expensive though, so I'm not here to tell anybody why they shouldn't have it, and I know there will be people that don't care, but the world would be a boring place if everybody just did what was the most convenient or easy thing to do.

great shout mate

rorz9992 wrote:

_cheef_ wrote:

amathew wrote:

rorz9992 wrote: While I love the music and my records, I wish I hadn't wasted so much money on records.

surely if you love your records then you can't view it as money wasted, right?

Err, you messed up your quoting. I never said that

oops, my bad!

I've heard that because vinyl music (mp3s, CDs etc) are coded in binary, the music is actually composed into thousands of tiny gaps. scientists claim the brain can't hear these gaps, but the brain can recognise the black frames as a tv or monitor flickers, and parts of our brain can recognise these.
mp3s thus thus has a "purer" sound. You only have to slow down an viynl by 20% to hear visible distortion (pitch - that slow sound ok) as these frequency spaces become close to audible.
vinyl is of course hugely convenient, and one cannot deny this convinience, let alone the increased frequency range of a digital recording over the information that can be held on tape cassette and vinyl.
However, the whole tactile sensation of using mp3 is wonderful, and the sound and spectacle of a mp3 DJ (multiple trcks - on the fly remixes) far excels one using vinyl for mixing (2 - 3 decks max)

Having been an advocate of vinyl for many years, i welcome the use of mp3 it's nice to feel and touch the music (serato mets you use mp3 like vinly), and there is something special about the sound that goes beyond descriptions of "warm" and "atmospheric."
plus which, in these modern times the majority of pop music is released on CD and mp3, music that is released on vinyl is then niche, more unique and more original, for example, aphex twins ground breaking "analord" album, can only be bought on vinyl.

I agree that to the discerning ear, compressional fragmentation and harmonic artifacts can be hugely noticeable.
Yet iam unable to say which is better, although i do say that whilst i like being able to have all my favourite 12,000 songs on my hard drive, i wish i could take them from it and put them on a turntable.

And the sound does ultimately seem to trigger some deep responses from vinyl, the same recording on mp3 can seem cold, and over-produced.

In short, it's like comparing religions.

incnic wrote:I've heard that because vinyl music (mp3s, CDs etc) are coded in binary, the music is actually composed into thousands of tiny gaps. scientists claim the brain can't hear these gaps, but the brain can recognise the black frames as a tv or monitor flickers, and parts of our brain can recognise these.
mp3s thus thus has a "purer" sound.

other way round. digital music (i.e. a WAV) is made up of thousands of tiny fragments (samples), not music on vinyl (i.e. analogue)

Jake Daniel wrote:

incnic wrote:I've heard that because vinyl music (mp3s, CDs etc) are coded in binary, the music is actually composed into thousands of tiny gaps. scientists claim the brain can't hear these gaps, but the brain can recognise the black frames as a tv or monitor flickers, and parts of our brain can recognise these.
mp3s thus thus has a "purer" sound.

other way round. digital music (i.e. a WAV) is made up of thousands of tiny fragments (samples), not music on vinyl (i.e. analogue)

Though really, it's dubstep we're talking about so your records are really just tiny fragments pressed onto vinyl (i.e. not purely analogue). Not that it really matter because CD-quality WAVs can perfectly replicate any audio that be heard by the human ear. The sound quality thing is really down to personal preference.

Personally, I love music, not formats. When I buy an mp3 I buy it knowing that I am supporting the artist and to listen to the music. I have no attachment whatsoever to vinyl only buy it when there's no other format available (i.e. DMZ and Swamp).

agreed^

Cassette.

Edit: Ltd only. Tastes better.

collige wrote:

Jake Daniel wrote:

incnic wrote:I've heard that because vinyl music (mp3s, CDs etc) are coded in binary, the music is actually composed into thousands of tiny gaps. scientists claim the brain can't hear these gaps, but the brain can recognise the black frames as a tv or monitor flickers, and parts of our brain can recognise these.
mp3s thus thus has a "purer" sound.

other way round. digital music (i.e. a WAV) is made up of thousands of tiny fragments (samples), not music on vinyl (i.e. analogue)

Though really, it's dubstep we're talking about so your records are really just tiny fragments pressed onto vinyl (i.e. not purely analogue). Not that it really matter because CD-quality WAVs can perfectly replicate any audio that be heard by the human ear. The sound quality thing is really down to personal preference.

WAV cannot perfectly replicate the sound of a vinyl record. I've sat down and compared 320's, wav's and vinyl versions of a release and, as you point out the quality is personal preference. There is a very clear difference in sound reproduction and you really get no movement in sound from a digital version compared to an analogue, it is a completely different listening experience. A bit like saying 5.1 surround is the same as listening to the speakers on your tv.

er yeh i copied and pasted that from another forum sorry
this conversation is the biggets repost in internets IMO

collige wrote:CD-quality WAVs can perfectly replicate any audio that be heard by the human ear

Nah. Sound is analog. WAVs are digital.

incnic wrote:er yeh i copied and pasted that from another forum sorry
this conversation is the biggets repost in internets IMO

haha no worries

and yeah agreed - such a boring old debate

£10 Bag wrote:

collige wrote:CD-quality WAVs can perfectly replicate any audio that be heard by the human ear

Nah. Sound is analog. WAVs are digital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_theorem

tl;dr as long as the sample rate is high enough, then the fact that you're using digital sampling doesn't matter. In the case of WAVs, that rate is 44,100, meaning they can flawlessly reproduce any frequencies up to 22.05khz.

I really cba getting into this debate again so I'll just leave this here.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... 28Vinyl%29

collige wrote:

£10 Bag wrote:

collige wrote:CD-quality WAVs can perfectly replicate any audio that be heard by the human ear

Nah. Sound is analog. WAVs are digital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_theorem

tl;dr as long as the sample rate is high enough, then the fact that you're using digital sampling doesn't matter. In the case of WAVs, that rate is 44,100, meaning they can flawlessly reproduce any frequencies up to 22.05khz.

I really cba getting into this debate again so I'll just leave this here.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... 28Vinyl%29

well not flawlessly, yes it isnt noticeable to the ear, but even when double the frequency of what we can hear, it still is taking so many samples per second of the wave, instead of full representing the wave like analogue does. but yeah all this music is made digitally anyway so its digital data put onto vinyl, so its still gonna be a wave with all those unoticeable gaps converted back to a full analogue wave, so it will sound the same as the WAV, but due to the playing back of vinyl and analog it will have a warmer sound, nothing to do with 'better' quality, just a more preferable one.

Even if you are just thinking financially you are never going to sell a second hand mp3, DMZ001 wasn't sold aas a collectable expensive picture disk + booklet sort of thing and doubt many people bought it with the intention of making ££ from selling it in future but you can make 10x the original price on those records now.

skimpi wrote:

collige wrote:

£10 Bag wrote:

collige wrote:CD-quality WAVs can perfectly replicate any audio that be heard by the human ear

Nah. Sound is analog. WAVs are digital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_theorem

tl;dr as long as the sample rate is high enough, then the fact that you're using digital sampling doesn't matter. In the case of WAVs, that rate is 44,100, meaning they can flawlessly reproduce any frequencies up to 22.05khz.

I really cba getting into this debate again so I'll just leave this here.
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php ... 28Vinyl%29

well not flawlessly, yes it isnt noticeable to the ear, but even when double the frequency of what we can hear, it still is taking so many samples per second of the wave, instead of full representing the wave like analogue does. but yeah all this music is made digitally anyway so its digital data put onto vinyl, so its still gonna be a wave with all those unoticeable gaps converted back to a full analogue wave, so it will sound the same as the WAV, but due to the playing back of vinyl and analog it will have a warmer sound, nothing to do with 'better' quality, just a more preferable one.

That 'warmer sound' you refer to is due to the fact vinyl has trouble reproducing higher frequency sounds, so you are left with more bass and lower frequencies.
A track made on a computer as a wav file and then pressed onto vinyl may therefore sound 'different' to the same WAV being played off of a CD / laptop, but not better in terms of pure sound quality. Which one sounds preferable is up to the individual, and these higher frequency sounds are not good for our hearing at louder volumes, so personally I prefer vinyl.

Music recorded using analogue methods, then pressed onto vinyl will however sound better than it's digital counterpart (which will have to be compressed), although it is very rare these days when music is recorded in such a way (Steve Albini still records bands this way I believe).