Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Portability is no longer any reason to stick with CDs, and neither is audio quality. Although
vinyl purists are ripe for parody, they're right about one thing: Records can sound better than CDs.
Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound.
Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.
"The digital world will never get there," said Chris Ashworth, owner of United Record Pressing, the country's largest record pressing plant.
Golden-eared audiophiles have long testified to vinyl's warmer, richer sound.
from an audiophile perspective, i wish there was a mid-way point between CDs and vinyl. the dynamic range on CDs does suck all too often, the fact that it's done on purpose is a crime against humanity. vinyl's fidelity b/c of analog is *theoretically* better, but at an unacceptable cost IMO: scratches, pops, wobble, flutter, etc.
CDs are closer to what the artists, engineers, producers, etc hear upon final mixdown. it's the shitty mastering that gets in the way. in the studio, people don't rush out and press a vinyl copy to see how it sounds, and adjust the mix accordingly... and that "warmer, richer" sound is a slight analog distortion. it's pleasing to the ear, but it's not a 100% faithful reproduction of the original recording. but pleasing is all that counts
the best option would be to get a copy of the master on a DAT (anybody remember those?) @ 96k/24 bit, but that's not economically viable. dang.
