why the obsession with vinyl records and cassette tapes? aren't

>>51060055
don't worry redditor, I'm sure some autismus will take the bait :^)

>>51060055
I undestand CDs and Vinyl, but whats the point of cassette tapes?

>>51060265
cheap and easy for band's/small labels to manufacture and ship

>>51060055
vinyl generally sounds better and is a better format
cassettes are iffy...they are only good if they music fits the tape asthetic

why must at least somewhat interesting topics die while Kanye and Death Grips and other shit are endless?

>>51060289
>a better format
it's large, immobile, and prone to being damaged easily

>>51060265
>Vinyl
Why?
>>51060272
>cheap
CD-Rs are cheaper or as cheap.
>easy to replicate
It's certainly faster to burn CD-Rs and many companies offer small-scale CD-R duplication.

>>51060289
>vinyl generally sounds better
No. Much worse Signal-Noise-Ratio than CDs.

SNR - 1.76) / 6.02 = Q
(65 - 1.76) / 6.02 ~ 11 bits

===> 11 bits <====

http://www2.uic.edu/stud_orgs/prof/pesc/part_3_rev_F.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation
Digital Audio Essentials. O'Reilly Media. p. 147. ISBN 0-596-00856-2)

Mandatory viewing:
https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

>>51060413
I have no interest in taking my vinyl collection anywhere and if you are careful and own a good a record player (I have the VPI classic) then the reocrds wont get damaged. The large part is a bonus for me since I enjoy the artwork and dont mind giving up the storage space

File: Wax.png (261KB, 614x432px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 614x432px

yfw there are still people on /mu/ who haven't transferred their record collection onto wax cylinder.

Fucking plebs.

>>51060289
>vinyl generally sounds better and is a better format

lol
dragging a needle thru plastic is a 'better format' heard it here first folks

>>51060463
Where can I buy a wax cylinder recorder?
I'd seriously consider it to 1-up the cassette threads.

>>51060451
this fight has honestly never been solved (as you well know), so no sense in arguing about it

>>51060484
Yes it has been solved by authoritative scientific works in the field of audio.
Vinyl is INFERIOR in all acoustical aspects.

>>51060484
nope, it has. 30 years ago.
vinyl sounds identical when digitized at 16 bits, 44,100 samples per second. fact.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm

vinyl is able to be fully captured with CD spec digitisation, therefore it cannot be better quality.

>>51060476
you have never heard a analogue recorded record dragged through a good needle, through 1000+ dollar cartridge , on a $5000ish 9at least) TT, and throough 10,000+ speakers...

>>51060510
Not that guy but I'll add the link to my armory for the war against the absurdity that are 24/96 vinyl rips. Thanks.

>>51060521
ive heard pbthal's 2014 rips through a transparent dac.

let me guess you dont believe in:

confirmation bias
placebo effect
double blind trials
psychoacoustic science
basic physics
ohms law

am i right?

>>51060462
so it sounds like there is a very limited market for it compared to mp3's or cd's, even tapes.

limiting products arent better than ones that are superior in their qualities, except maybe to some vinyl sounds better, but that debate has gone on for a long time and it just comes down to personal preferences.

so as far as i can see, vinyl is a luxury format, and has no real use other than to fulfil some fetishized idea of what music should sound like.

sorry that last part came off douchy, didnt mean to be insulting. my point is there though

>>51060495
>>51060510
when something is recorded analogue it sounds better on an analogue format. Unfortunately, most shit today is recorded on digital format so converting it back and mastering it to analogue is pointles

>>51060550
>comes down to personal preferences.
If you prefer distortions and noise, sure.

>>51060479

Here you go, this took me 9000+hrs of searching on The Google:
http://www.tinfoil.com/trc-buy.htm#phonrecs

>>51060555
>when something is recorded analogue it sounds better on an analogue format
Wrong. See
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
and also
https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

If you don't believe this, recreate the former ABX test.

>>51060540
>psychoacoustic science
>basic physics
>ohms law
Flawed methods because they don't factor in my $20000 turntable and $50000 sound system which make vinyl sound better than anything digital could possibly be.

>>51060550
some music sounds better on tapes because its suppose to sound 'good'

Regardless, buying music in any physical format is a luxary format (vinyl most of all)

>>51060540

oh yeah, and you probably think opamps are evil, cables sound different, and solid state is inferior to valves, right?

>>51060555
>when something is recorded analogue it sounds better on an analogue format.

wrong. burden of proof lies upon you. blind tests have consistently failed to show that digitisation is audible.

>most shit today is recorded on digital format so converting it back and mastering it to analogue is pointles

wrong again, pressing well-mastered digital content to vinyl is no more or less pointless than pressing all-analogue vinyl. how's that stereophile subscription working out for you?

>>51060587
show me the scholarly article...

>>51060561
not sure what you mean

>>51060586
yes they definitely are. cds and tapes less so, since they're more durable and mobile, as well as cheaper. you basically said that though lol

>>51060604
'scholarly article'? im sorry?

>>51060604
Not that guy but there was some noise (or whayever the magazine is) article i think on it, look it up. Might have been a video actually

>>51060625
I am a pharmacist and well acquainted with scholarly articles and journals. Some video of some random dude talking does not have any credibility or reputability

There are people who think vinyl reproduces audio more accurately than any digital format ever can.

>>51060624
you apparently have no idea of how things get proven as 'fact' or come into acceptance as common acceptable opinion

>>51060639
If you're a scientist then try the AD/DA double-blind experiment yourself.

>>51060639
Okay big man, dont trip on your extra long penis on your way out

>>51060656
I am a pharmacist, not a scientist...theres a majore difference

>>51060639
that 'random dude' is a member of the team that created FLAC and OGG vorbis. he also links to the software used in his demonstrations and outlines his test procedure, so his results are repeatable by anyone.

>>51060604

start with these

http://www.amazon.com/Psychoacoustics-Models-Springer-Information-Sciences/dp/3540231595

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Digital-Audio-Sixth-Edition/dp/0071663460

they cite studies from peer reviewed journals ranging back to the early 1900s if that's what you were asking for.

>>51060662
I have a very small penis. Less than 2 inch flacid...I just have read plently of scholarly articles and journals in my life

>>51060667
To attain the pharmacy degree you had to learn and apply the scientific method.
Now apply it to audio technology and test your belief in vinyl's superiority with the double-blind AD/DA experiment.

>>51060679
while that would be nice if I had the time to actually preform a funded double blind study with willing particiapants, I unfortunately am to busy with my time

I have several friends who have Doctorates in classical instruments as well as production. Most of them can build TT and speakers from scratch. I actually own some of them. I believe their knowledge esaily outweighs everyone else here...

>>51060650
fucking lol, the idea that analog vinyl is somehow superior to 16 bit 44.1kHz digitisation is only common acceptable opinion among niche audiophile communities.

heres some scholarly articles:

C. E. Shannon, "Communication in the presence of noise", Proc. Institute of Radio Engineers, vol. 37, no.1, pp. 10–21, Jan. 1949. Reprint as classic paper in: Proc. IEEE, Vol. 86, No. 2, (Feb 1998)

Press, WH; Teukolsky, SA; Vetterling, WT; Flannery, BP (2007), "Section 13.11. Numerical Use of the Sampling Theorem", Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (3rd ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88068-8

R.J. Marks II, Handbook of Fourier Analysis and Its Applications, Oxford University Press, (2009), Chapters 5-8.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2912

I like vinyl records because big nice artwork + physical manifestation of my appreciation + support the artist.

>>51060723
My several friends with Doctorates in classical instruments say otherwise. Why should I believe your "sources". I'm also a pharmacist.

>>51060723
this is wanted I wanted I will surely read. Though there is always a debate among audiophiles so it wont solve anything unfortunately

>>51060714
>I believe their knowledge esaily outweighs everyone else here...

thats fine because weve cited qualified experts and 'schorlarly literature'. were not claiming expertise, rather, we're referring you to them.

yes i'm sure your special friends' knowledge easily outweighs the mathematical proofs of nyquist and shannon, not to mention 150 years of psychoacoustic research into the thresholds of audibility.

why are you so proud of your ignorance? youre no better than a flat-earther.

>>51060746
>there is always a debate among audiophiles
Yes, a debate where one side is wrong all the time and they don't realize the futility. Actual sources have been posted earlier in the thread as well by the way...
>>51060451

>>51060729
another pharmacist who collects vinyls!?!?!? at least we have the money. just geroge clooney it so you can be old and lonely as shit but have a huge vinyl collection...thats what Im going for lol (and not trollin, just trying to be funny. Im not Louis CK)

>>51060757
>>51060762
I have not read the articles. Just because someone with authority wrote an scholarly article does not mean there is bias...

>>51060729
hahahahaha

>>51060746
there also 'debate' as to whether apollo 11 landed on the moon. doesn't mean that the truth lies in the middle, nor does it imply the conspiracy theories hold any weight.

some light reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

>>51060757
>youre no better than a flat-earther.

There was some other asshole making this reference recently. If this is all you, this is a really dumb and entry-level way to be pretentious/annoying.

>>51060776
jesus christ. thank god you didn't go into engineering.

you realise that mathematical proofs are valid regardless of human motivations?

>>51060784
nope. havent been on this board in a few weeks.

>>51060762
>>51060757
Furthermore, look what happened when The Lancet (a reputable journal) published an article that stated immnizations caused autism

>>51060785
mathematical proofs are a lot different that practical science bro

>>51060724
/thread

>>51060604

http://books.google.de/books?id=eGcfn9ddRhcC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA76&dq=fastl+zwicker+fig+4.14&source=bl&ots=YLZGMEn5Bq&sig=H1mklvOfaPvYLOUdDBnT0JVZQTo&hl=de&ei=p1JWSsPYEcvG_ga2-OjVAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=fastl%20zwicker%20fig%204.14&f=false

thresholds of audibility. compare this with the 16-bit noise floor, according to triangular probability density function dither. also details sensitivity to level changes and frequency variations.

It's always been about removal for me. The more constantly in control I am, the more likely I am to fidget and stop and album. It's the same with movies: I'll watch a VHS all the way through because it's harder to control, but I'll pause Netflix and do whatever the fuck and come back to it. The easier I'm able to let something just happen at me, and the more of an effort it is for me to stop it, the more I'm willing to experience it.

>>51060818
not really. the deviations from theoretical perfection brought about by linear brickwall filtering and by quantising to 2^16 discrete levels are absolutely miniscule and are of little relevance to audibility.

>>51060844
>>51060724
These are valid arguments for vinyl records.

Audio quality is not one.