Vinyl, CD, MP3?

[MommaBear]

I hope this doesn't qualify me for the stupidest question ever, but why do they release things on vinyl?  Isn't that a record, like an old fashioned record?!

Is it strictly for collecting?  Or DJing?  Either way, wouldn't the sound quality be horrible? 

Also, I've seen it mentioned a few times that MP3's lack sound quality, as opposed to CD's. 

In the advance from record's, to 8 track's, to cassette's, to CD's, and ultimately to MP3's - I assumed to progression automatically related to the betterment of sound quality?

[tarkil]

* sigh *

[Sushi-X]

* sigh *

[raynor]

if you have a nice pick-up and a nice clean vinyl, it won't be horrible. it will be far superior to a cd.

if you wanna go in depth about it, check this:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm


same goes with an analog camera, they have wider spectrum and doesn't chop of the highs and the lows.

[Sushi-X]

this needs a "seriously, you guys? seriously?" caption

[Starz]

MP3's are a compressed file format of a PCM .Wav file found on a CD. Typical size of this .Wav file on a CD is around 140MB. That's a lot of space being taken up on your hard drive so a compressed audio file format called the MP3 was invented by some Germans. The MP3 is INFERIOR in sound quality to a CD but as you mentioned, the advances in technology means we can carry our entire CD collection in our pocket at the loss of sound quality. The MP3 codec basically takes away frequencies from the original recording that presumably our ears are unable to hear anyway.

Vinyl today is a collectors market mainly thought up by the record companies in order to make some money. A die hard fan will in no doubt buy an over priced version of the album on vinyl if he/she finds out only 50 of them are ever going to be made... and of course, some people prefer the sound of vinyl, nostalgic reasons or what not. I still buy CD's today and have a good stereo system at home. Audiophile or whatever, I just like to listen to my favourite music in good quality. Some people are happy to use iTunes purely and that's cool too. Whatever suits you, really.

[MommaBear]

if you have a nice pick-up and a nice clean vinyl, it won't be horrible. it will be far superior to a cd.

if you wanna go in depth about it, check this:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm


same goes with an analog camera, they have wider spectrum and doesn't chop of the highs and the lows.

Ahhh, that link helps make sense of it.  When I googled "why are albums released on vinyl", most of what came up was about collecting, not much about sound quality.

MP3's are a compressed file format of a PCM .Wav file found on a CD. Typical size of this .Wav file on a CD is around 140MB. That's a lot of space being taken up on your hard drive so a compressed audio file format called the MP3 was invented by some Germans. The MP3 is INFERIOR in sound quality to a CD but as you mentioned, the advances in technology means we can carry our entire CD collection in our pocket at the loss of sound quality. The MP3 codec basically takes away frequencies from the original recording that presumably our ears are unable to hear anyway.

Vinyl today is a collectors market mainly thought up by the record companies in order to make some money. A die hard fan will in no doubt buy an over priced version of the album on vinyl if he/she finds out only 50 of them are ever going to be made... and of course, some people prefer the sound of vinyl, nostalgic reasons or what not. I still buy CD's today and have a good stereo system at home. Audiophile or whatever, I just like to listen to my favourite music in good quality. Some people are happy to use iTunes purely and that's cool too. Whatever suits you, really.

You automatically equate the advancement of technology with yielding a better product, but it seems that is not necessarily so.  I am looking at putting a new radio in my van and they have one that plays CD's and also has a plug for an MP3 player.  I'm kinda excited about trying to pick up the difference in sounds between the two.      

[Starz]

It depends what quality the MP3 you're playing. If it's encoded to 320 kbps then you probably won't hear any difference between the CD and MP3. Anything lower than 320 you might hear audible distortion as you crank up the volume of the MP3 playing.

[Oldnewtype]

its best to try it yourself: I took a raw wav file and encoded it to mp3 in 128,  192, 256, and 320 kbps and listened to each of them. The sound quality is DEFINITELY noticeable.

Vinyls are kind of a collectors thing but like someone else said, depending on your system and also what kind of music it is, it can sounds alot better.  Example: Black Sabbath sounds amazing on my record player, but Protest the Hero and Skeletonwitch do not sound as good as they do on cd.

[skinnypuppy]

It depends what quality the MP3 you're playing. If it's encoded to 320 kbps then you probably won't hear any difference between the CD and MP3. Anything lower than 320 you might hear audible distortion as you crank up the volume of the MP3 playing.

Do not agree, even at 320, whether you can 'hear' the difference or not, there is a big difference. Listen to Radiohead lossless vs 320.... or even Poison the Well or Deftones. Any MP3 bit rate immediately removes very important levels in songs but leaves the listener thinking 'ah, it sounds fine'

Music should not be compromised.

[raynor]

I buy vinyls every now and then, but have mostly cds. But to be honest I prefer vinyl, just because the artwork is bigger really. The only time I really listen to cds is when I drive cars, and even then its not to often, most new car-stereos have an iPod-connector and that's more convenient. But I've tried to tell myself to stop buying cds and aim for vinyl, I mean it's usually not THAT much more expensive, and I get more out of it.

[theis]

In the advance from record's, to 8 track's, to cassette's, to CD's, and ultimately to MP3's - I assumed to progression automatically related to the betterment of sound quality?

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic.

If not, GET THE FUCK OUT.

Ps. I fucking love your sig, Sushi.

[poofing acid]

In the advance from record's, to 8 track's, to cassette's, to CD's, and ultimately to MP3's - I assumed to progression automatically related to the betterment of sound quality?

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic.

If not, GET THE FUCK OUT.

Ps. I fucking love your sig, Sushi.

Nice language.

[theis]

Thanks, mom.

[poofing acid]

Extremely rude individual.

[theis]

Haha.

[sing blue silver]

as a vinyl collector and enthusiast, i hate this thread.

[theis]

...ooookaaay

[Sushi-X]

Thanks man. Recently found it on my old photobucket acct.

[Starz]

It depends what quality the MP3 you're playing. If it's encoded to 320 kbps then you probably won't hear any difference between the CD and MP3. Anything lower than 320 you might hear audible distortion as you crank up the volume of the MP3 playing.

Do not agree, even at 320, whether you can 'hear' the difference or not, there is a big difference. Listen to Radiohead lossless vs 320.... or even Poison the Well or Deftones. Any MP3 bit rate immediately removes very important levels in songs but leaves the listener thinking 'ah, it sounds fine'

Music should not be compromised.

MP3 codecs don't remove levels in songs as such, it removes low and high frequencies that the human ear can't actually hear. You must have some great ears cause it's hard for me unless I try so extremely hard, it's hard to distinguish between a 320 and a lossless file. Same goes for most people I bet.