Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound

Subject: Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound
From: Rick Nance (
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 17:15:37 EDT

It's not an issue if you believe that 20KHz is a number that matters.
There is some evidence that differences up to 100KHz are detectable.


Neal Smith-Amies wrote:
> Read on.
> Neal
> ----- 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
> proof.
> 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
> To:
> 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
> range).
> 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."
> Jay
> On 21-Oct-04, at 11:32 AM, wrote:
>>I've noticed three times in the past week now, phones (usually
>>flashy digital ones) which have a ring which mimics the old style
>>analog bell sound, except of course produced digitally, which makes it
>>dull and processed. This morning I was talking to a receptionist here
>>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
>>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
>>gotten to the point where we use our new technology to re-create
>>technology, and just as interesting that given the choice people seem
>>prefer sensations which connect back to the old technology. I thought
>>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
>>such, which has obviously come to pass. I wonder though if he ever
>>that we'd get to the point where given the choice people would simply
>>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