Yes, couldn't agree more.I hate the fact that the mp3s I purchase are a more paler version of the originals.
Vinyl for the victory
(Vinyl for the victory
Michael Ellis contributes nothing,
Thu 22 Oct 2009, 10:10,
archived)
I more or less missed vinylPlayed a lot of my parents when I was growing up and made sure my first stereo had a record player and... never bought a record. I'm a product of my times...
Dynamic range on CD is actually significantly greater than that of vinyl. (Which is obviously why mastering engineers enjoy compression the motherfucking shit out of music these days, to the point where putting it on vinyl would make the needle fly out of the groove.) I like that and it makes up for any disadvantage you might see in the fact that it's still digital.
/Can't hear anything wrong at all with CD quality sound blog. (Come to that, on my equipment my ~200kbs MP3s sound absolutely fine too -- that's above most people's transparency limit which I think is roughly 150kbs for MP3, and certainly above mine. But I like to make that choice myself, rather than have to reencode a 320kbs (or lower) MP3 and immediately entertain myself losing quality as a result.)
(Dynamic range on CD is actually significantly greater than that of vinyl. (Which is obviously why mastering engineers enjoy compression the motherfucking shit out of music these days, to the point where putting it on vinyl would make the needle fly out of the groove.) I like that and it makes up for any disadvantage you might see in the fact that it's still digital.
/Can't hear anything wrong at all with CD quality sound blog. (Come to that, on my equipment my ~200kbs MP3s sound absolutely fine too -- that's above most people's transparency limit which I think is roughly 150kbs for MP3, and certainly above mine. But I like to make that choice myself, rather than have to reencode a 320kbs (or lower) MP3 and immediately entertain myself losing quality as a result.)
boris the spider,
Thu 22 Oct 2009, 10:14,
archived)