Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound

Subject: Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound
From: Neal Smith-Amies (
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 16:10:01 EDT

This is an interesting summary.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauricio Duarte-Neira (039166d)" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:29 PM
Subject: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound

I heard or saw something about people who believe vinyl sounds better than
CD or DVD is because psychologically they think it sounds better; anything
else would sound bad. So for them ,hearing a record is better and sounds
better because thats what they believe (recordphiles). But I've heard that
records do sound better than anthing else because of physical and scientific

Is this true? (the fact that digital audio is divided into samples and then
covnerted to analog suggests to me that a record would be a more
faithfulreproduction? / what about tape ? ). So records pressed today (dj
records, etc) are probably pressed from digital sources I assume; so a
record today which sounds come from a digital source, would it sound better?

*** just curious, sorry if this question sounds stupid and if I seem
unkowledgeable ***

Mauricio D. BAM.
Acadia University Music Technology
Computer Science Student


From: on behalf of Jason Smalridge
Sent: Thu 10/21/2004 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Forward into the 19th Century

I agree.
I look around my room here and see a midi keyboard that plugs into my
computer so that I can have access to "analog" synths. A digital
camera that works with the same principles as my old analog one(except
for an LCD screen of course). A guitar amp that is a reissue of a tube
amp (When I bought it, they were emphasizing the fact that it actually
had tubes in it. It was actually more expensive then the only
transistor amps).

I think that technology doesn't have to change to be better. Some past
technologies were actually better then newer "advancements". Correct
me if I am wrong but doesn't the vinyl records produce better sound
quality then electric tapes and CD (when I say quality I mean frequency
Either way, I know that my phone doesn't have a "normal" ring, only
stupid songs, and I keep it on vibrate all the time. I think the
novelty of technology tends to wear off fast and then we realize, "hey,
what we had before was actually a lot better. Let's go back a step."

On 21-Oct-04, at 11:32 AM, wrote:

> I've noticed three times in the past week now, phones (usually
> expensive
> flashy digital ones) which have a ring which mimics the old style
> analog bell sound, except of course produced digitally, which makes it
> sound
> dull and processed. This morning I was talking to a receptionist here
> at
> Concordia and her phone rang with the analog style ring. After she
> was off
> i asked her about it, and she said it was one of the custom settings
> she can
> choose on the phone. I asked her if she liked it better, and she said
> she
> still hates the sound of phones ringing (as most receptionists
> probably do),
> but it was the best option available. I find it very interesting that
> we've
> gotten to the point where we use our new technology to re-create
> out-dated
> technology, and just as interesting that given the choice people seem
> to
> prefer sensations which connect back to the old technology. I thought
> back
> to the section in Shafer's "Tuning Of The World" where he foretold
> that one
> day people would be able to choose custom rings which could play songs
> and
> such, which has obviously come to pass. I wonder though if he ever
> imagined
> that we'd get to the point where given the choice people would simply
> select
> the type of ring which already existed then.
> Any thoughts or comments?
> and ever...
> - chris galanis

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:04 EST