So what does everyone think of the rise in audio cassettes?

[Westsiyeed]

Isn't flac just a lossless version of a CD, ie identical copy but in a more compressed file?

So flac = CD.

CD's or a digital audio recording is done at a high enough sampling rate to more than compensate for what the human ear can here. So in theory the "quality" of vinyl to CD is neglible.

I think the big difference in the sound is because of other factors - the quality of the equipment you're using, the fact that vinyl introduces other sounds via the stylus (eg hisses/pops, even if slight), and individual preference.

Personally I like both but for longevity CD's are superior.

And yeah tape = why bother.

 

[Krow]

The appeal of vinyl has nothing to do with the sound that comes off of the album itself, because it's just no good.

The NWN forums would flat out ban you for this.

 

[matt schrauben]

This analogy is straight up wrong, by the way. Just because something is recorded digitally does not mean it is topped out at CD quality. You can still put more info on a high gram vinyl than a CD, and as long as you master (and press in high quality) it separate from that which is released on CD there is a large difference in quality. As far as physical formats, vinyl still offers the highest sound quality, period. Does it match loss-less digital files? No. But are those offered to a reasonable degree on the market either? No.

Right. Like I said in a previous post digital format is "technically" superior. Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive digital audio (lossless audio) has the capacity to more accurately reproduce audio, but in practice, it generally doesn't take advantage of it's full capabilities. And I think that's mostly, if not all due to modern recording techniques.

I'd also like to add that given today's audio production methods, CDs have about 0 dynamic range. MP3s, even worse. Audio is so compressed and amplified (loudness wars) on CD that unless you are listening to classical music, dynamic range is practically non-existent. This is another allure of vinyl for me, because vinyl masters are less compressed and not mastered as hot as masters created for CD. Thus giving them quite a bit more dynamic range.

 

[Avigrus]

I'm interested in hearing what a quality pro-tape sounds like. I've seen them talked about online a bit.

If it's anything like the cassette tapes i had back in the 80s i wouldn't bother. I can still hear my Guns n Roses - Estranged cassingle crackling through my Sony Walkman.

Plus the album artwork is so small compared to a CD or vinyl. Aside from collecting rare demo tapes i don't see a reason to collect in this format.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

^It seems you've never heard of flac format. That beats them all.

I very specifically stated the best 'physical' format. Also, FLAC is far from widespread and in most cases is merely the best replication you're going to get of a cd's audio quality itself, not exceeding it.

Right. Like I said in a previous post digital format is "technically" superior. Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive digital audio (lossless audio) has the capacity to more accurately reproduce audio, but in practice, it generally doesn't take advantage of it's full capabilities. And I think that's mostly, if not all due to modern recording techniques.

I'd also like to add that given today's audio production methods, CDs have about 0 dynamic range. MP3s, even worse. Audio is so compressed and amplified (loudness wars) on CD that unless you are listening to classical music, dynamic range is practically non-existent. This is another allure of vinyl for me, because vinyl masters are less compressed and not mastered as hot as masters created for CD. Thus giving them quite a bit more dynamic range.

Correct, and quite frankly lossless files (while still the best digital formats) would have to be taken into mind in the mastering front for them to bring their potential to the consumer.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

This analogy is straight up wrong, by the way. Just because something is recorded digitally does not mean it is topped out at CD quality. You can still put more info on a high gram vinyl than a CD, and as long as you master (and press in high quality) it separate from that which is released on CD there is a large difference in quality. As far as physical formats, vinyl still offers the highest sound quality, period. Does it match loss-less digital files? No. But are those offered to a reasonable degree on the market either? No.

No it doesn't. It does not. This is faulty information. Vinyl has massive limitations in dynamic range and fidelity. Period. This is not a matter of opinion. Vinyl does not house more information, it is not a "purer" product, and the specific "master" does not provide it a greater sound quality.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

FURTHERMORE, the human ear has an upper limit for fidelity anyway. Unless you're listening to your audio with an insanely high-end system with a dedicated DAC/amp setup at full volume you won't be able to tell fuck-all between pretty much anything above 256kbps. It's like putting those stupid Monster cables on and claiming it's a clearer signal.

I laugh my ASS off at people who yap about sound quality and then their listening rig is something that wouldn't make a difference anyway. I use Beyerdynamic DT770s with an amp/DAC and stream at 320 just because I can, but no matter how hard I try to compare once it's over about 200 the difference is negligible.

It's an Emperor's New Clothes situation. People are told that something is such and such, so then they convince themselves that it is so. I can promise you, RIGHT NOW, if I put you in a room where you couldn't see the audio source and then played the same album first off of a CD, then on vinyl, then FLAC, then 256kbps mp3, even with a DAMN good stereo system, you might be able to tell some of them APART but you would NOT rank them in the order you think you will. You would absolutely not hear the CD then the vinyl and go "oh THERE'S that true quality." No matter what master was used for the separate recordings.

 

[Krow]

Regardless of any of this shit, I'd rather have my physical copies. Popping a brand new cd into my player and reading along with the lyrics and having the art right there or spinning a brand new vinyl for the first time makes me infinitely happier than downloading something.

I also want to be the guy that has these to reminisce on forty years from now... Not an external hard drive in a cardboard box.

 

[matt schrauben]

Regardless of any of this shit, I'd rather have my physical copies. Popping a brand new cd into my player and reading along with the lyrics and having the art right there or spinning a brand new vinyl for the first time makes me infinitely happier than downloading something.

I also want to be the guy that has these to reminisce on forty years from now... Not an external hard drive in a cardboard box.

This! I love my CDs and Vinyl! Plus, I like the experience of spinning a vinyl record and soaking in one side at a time. It rules.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

No it doesn't. It does not. This is faulty information. Vinyl has massive limitations in dynamic range and fidelity. Period. This is not a matter of opinion. Vinyl does not house more information, it is not a "purer" product, and the specific "master" does not provide it a greater sound quality.

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

FURTHERMORE, the human ear has an upper limit for fidelity anyway. Unless you're listening to your audio with an insanely high-end system with a dedicated DAC/amp setup at full volume you won't be able to tell fuck-all between pretty much anything above 256kbps. It's like putting those stupid Monster cables on and claiming it's a clearer signal.

I laugh my ASS off at people who yap about sound quality and then their listening rig is something that wouldn't make a difference anyway. I use Beyerdynamic DT770s with an amp/DAC and stream at 320 just because I can, but no matter how hard I try to compare once it's over about 200 the difference is negligible.

It's an Emperor's New Clothes situation. People are told that something is such and such, so then they convince themselves that it is so. I can promise you, RIGHT NOW, if I put you in a room where you couldn't see the audio source and then played the same album first off of a CD, then on vinyl, then FLAC, then 256kbps mp3, even with a DAMN good stereo system, you might be able to tell some of them APART but you would NOT rank them in the order you think you will. You would absolutely not hear the CD then the vinyl and go "oh THERE'S that true quality." No matter what master was used for the separate recordings.

Of course it has great limitations, it is a physical format. But in comparison to actual CDs, no. What you're saying would be true if the product we all had was precisely what was recorded in the studio, but that's not what we get as the consumer. (btw, your link says "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or edit this page")

As far as hearing a difference, when I was going to school at IPR for music engineering and production we had numerous courses where the teachers would have students listen to different sample rates in isolation and put down what they thought they were. The majority in my particular classes were quite successful in doing so. This was on a variety of different set ups, etc etc.

Is the sound quality MASSIVELY different? No, no it is not to your average person. But that doesn't nullify it as a perk.

 

[matt schrauben]

(btw, your link says "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or edit this page")

Copy the link and put a ) at the end of it. It works then.

For some reason the whole link wasn't hyperlinked.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Really good tapes played on a top end nakamichi tape deck through a good amp and speakers can sound more or less CD level actually. It's just people are used to shitty tape decks and worn out old tapes.

Personally, as I don't even have a tape deck and could only play them with an ancient walkman in a drawer somewhere, I want tapes to fuck off.

 

[scousegrindcore]

I miss the old days of the early 90's when I used to buy a lot of bands demos on cassette and do a lot of tape trading. The problem these days is that most people won't even have (working) cassette players.

 

[bloodmyst]

Of course it has great limitations, it is a physical format. But in comparison to actual CDs, no. What you're saying would be true if the product we all had was precisely what was recorded in the studio, but that's not what we get as the consumer. (btw, your link says "There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, search the related logs, or edit this page")

As far as hearing a difference, when I was going to school at IPR for music engineering and production we had numerous courses where the teachers would have students listen to different sample rates in isolation and put down what they thought they were. The majority in my particular classes were quite successful in doing so. This was on a variety of different set ups, etc etc.

Is the sound quality MASSIVELY different? No, no it is not to your average person. But that doesn't nullify it as a perk.

Something that has become a concern to me in the vinyl versus compact disc debate has nothing to do with sound quality, but longevity of life. We can all find amazing copies of vinyl from long ago, but so far optical discs have not been around long enough for us to have real world evidence.

Here's some further reading you might be interested in: Council on Library and Information Resources: How Long Can You Store CDs and DVDs and Use Them Again?

 

[matt schrauben]

Cds definitley suffer from "rot"

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4908081/n...mes/t/when-optical-discs-go-bad/#.UbkGLdi8tEw

A guy in this article had some CDs from the 80s already suffering from rot. He claims to have taken care of them, but who knows. In ideal conditions, Cds should last longer than that. However I do have vinyl that is 50 years old that plays just fine. My Judas Priest vinyl that's 35 years old actually plays like a dream.

 

[PhlegethonVeins]

We have to keep in mind that it is easier for someone to mishandle their vinyl however so for the general population I'd put a point by longevity with CDs over vinyl.

 

[matt schrauben]

I would too. Plus CDs can take quite a beating before they don't work anymore. If you mistreat vinyl, it can become non-functional in no time.

 

[M-KD2]

The only reasons for cassette tapes were so that you could make you own compilations and give them to your friends (remember the skull and crossbones "home taping is killing music"? .... if only they could have seen the future!), or so you could record you vinyl and play decent music in your car.

They sometimes got wound up in the player, sometimes they split, usually after playing a lot they would stretch in places and distort the sound. The inlays of pre-recorded cassettes that were designed to fit inside the case were awful. The tape cases were easily cracked. Oh how I miss the good old days ;-)

This current fad is just some people wanting to be a bit different, but there is absolutely no logic to it from any conceivable angle!