Other than weight, whats the difference between the different

malleability

quality of sound

lower weight, lower quality

File: 1320728615723.jpg (46KB, 600x456px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x456px

>>48689367

>>48689367
wrong

isnt the groove where the needle goes deeper with thicker vinyl

180g releases are less prone to warping

>>48689321
the higher the weight, the less chance of rotational velocidensity affecting the electrical infetterence of your fingerbox

>>48689405
When cutting a lacquer or copper master, the groove depth and the groove width are inter-related. The deeper the stylus cuts, the wider it's cutting too.

Normally, people are looking to get their LP sides as long as possible. But the longer the side, the more revolutions you need to fit all the material. The more revolutions for a side, the more grooves per inch need to be cut. The more grooves per inch, the narrower you need to make the groove (as well as making the lateral groove excursions narrower by lowering the level and/or removing bass information). A narrower groove is a shallower groove.

So what I'm saying is that for an LP, making the groove really deep (and wide) isn't usually an option. Also, the deeper the grooves are, the more difficulty the electroplating guys will have pulling a good father (father, right? Steve?) or stamper off the lacquer or copper.

bob weston

>>48689588
Yet all that still fails in fidelity when compared to digital. Learn to science, you bamboozled retards.
>ITT MUH PLASTIC AN' CARDBOARD

>>48689661
>replying like this to a bob weston post
go away

>>48689321
Thicker can provide better bass and the record will also degrade slower from repeated plays.

>>48689696
>The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.
> Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.
Google is your friend in science, asshat.

>>48689765
why are you even talking to me? I never brought up cd vs vinyl. eat shit you fucking faggot

OP here. So can someone tell me who the people that are actually correct here? I don't care if you argue just tell me who the correct ones are.

>>48689794
Oh, so you don't like hard scientific facts I take it? Like
>vinyl is inferior to digital in fidelity
This upsets you?

>>48689765
We'll I'm just glad I've never needed to clean the dust and other shite out of the coding of my wav and flac files.......

>>48690295
lol, and that scientific fact is in regards to CD as a digital format. Some modern digital formats leave CDs in the dust. Vinyl snowflakes aren't fond of their emperor getting called out for prancing around in public nude.

People who spend money on physical media in 2014 are insufferably idiotic.

File: can it ya dringus.jpg (21KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x300px

>>48690422
>People who spend money on physical media in 2014 are insufferably idiotic.

>>48690422
>People who spend money on physical media in 2014 are insufferably idiotic.
so I should just be paying for downloads?

>>48690978
i'm with you, i'd much rather buy my records at a cheaper second-hand price

>>48690932
>>48690978
>>48691183
see
>Vinyl snowflakes aren't fond of their emperor getting called out for prancing around in public nude.