|
Quote: eight-track tapes were designed for cars - but became the central audio medium for many
In my youth, I volunteered as a local Hospital DJ running the "graveyard shift" (this name was not to be mentioned on air to the patients).
The system used eight-tracks to broadcast to the bedside headphones and into the nurses' break-rooms. I had a bank of six eight-track players and shelves of eight-track cartridges to choose from. Not a computer in sight! Being the night shift, I was basically playing stuff for the nurses - often/usually by request. It was a great way to get dates!
I remember how good the quality of those eight-tracks were. Way better than compact cassettes. It's a pity that CC took over at that time.
These days I play music from MP3s but never use in-the-ear headphones, only regular speakers or good quality over-the-ear headphones and am quite happy with the quality.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, vinyl sounding better is an audio illusion. In fact, it is impossible in most cases for vinyl to reproduce the original sound as performed. This is because the dynamic range of a groove is physically limited, and in order to get the full sound to fit into the recorded track, the "louds" must be made quieter, and the "quiets" must be made louder. This enables the brain to have an easier job to hear all of the content, and as far as the brain is concerned, easier is better.
There were devices available that attempted to re-expand the dynamics of a recording, called a "DBX". However, this expansion was artificial, making quiet pieces quieter and loud pieces louder, regardless of their original amplitude.
So, if you want better reproduction of the original performances - digital is the way to go. If you want easier to listen to, the the old way is better.
Cheers,
Mick
------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter how often or hard you fall on your arse, eventually you'll roll over and land on your feet.
|
|
|
|
|
Midi_Mick wrote: he dynamic range of a groove is physically limited
The limitation was imposed by engineers to squeeze more music time onto the record. There are specialist recordings that deliberately don't use this compression in order to increase dynamic range. I still have one I've Got the Music in Me (album) - Wikipedia[^] which sounds pretty impressive. Wasn't dbx simply a method of tape noise reduction?
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: Wasn't dbx simply a method of tape noise reduction?
No. A DBX expanded the dynamics of a recording, although it was often used as a noise reduction system (making the noise to quiet to hear). Google "DBX Expansion" and you'll see what I mean.
And yes, you are right. Additional limitations were imposed to allow more music to fit onto the record. There is still a physical limitation imposed by the flexibility of the head of the record player and the groove - as such you would need a very high quality head and needle to properly play records with the expanded dynamics. Otherwise, the needle would just jump over the large grooves, and actually produce noise.
I used to work for a record company in the early '80s, and to hear the difference between the original tapes and the vinyl did turn me off a bit. When CDs became available, I was impressed with the improved quality.
However, accounting for all of that, the piece of Hifi equipment that made the most difference to the end sound was always the speakers. If everything else is top quality except the speakers, everything still sounds crap. Even with mediocre equipment, if you have good speakers, the final quality is generally still quite reasonable.
Cheers,
Mick
------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter how often or hard you fall on your arse, eventually you'll roll over and land on your feet.
|
|
|
|
|
Midi_Mick wrote: e-expand the dynamics of a recording, called a "DBX".
And turning DBX on when playing non-DBX-recorded sources was always fun. 
|
|
|
|
|
Play vinyl again, I've considered it with all the hype etc.
But these days I get my "snap"-"crackle" and "pop" from my breakfast cereal.
|
|
|
|
|
Bert Kaempfert is very hard-working musican: 556 songs recorded 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: Lots of things have come a long way in 50 years but in my opinion an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi.
And guitar played through a transistor amp just isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp.
Some technologies do peak.
As for records, yes, analog. The depth and richness, and subtelty is entirely missing from even CDs (and an mp3 is heavilly compressed CD even, so its even worse).
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: isnt anywhere near as good as played through a valve amp.
You mean a tube amp?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, 600 volts of pure chewey sound. 
|
|
|
|
|
Why on Earth would I listen to Wookie music? 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As if my whole signature isn't explicit enough 
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Lossy digital compression is not the same as audio compression; lossy digital compression does not affect the dynamic range of the audio signal, audio compression does. Two completely unrelated animals.
Old vinyl records were produced before audio compression was used so heavily as a technique to increase the apparent loudness of the recording. This is done in the mastering stage of the recording. A heavily compressed recording can then be put on any medium, be it digital or vinyl.
I think there's a lot more nostalgia than actual audio quality behind the claim that vinyl sounds better than digital.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
CDs are very sharp, but I have to say, and I listen to a lot of live music, that vinyl captures the essence better than a CD.
There is a depth to the sound with vinyl, a realistic quality, that is different to CD. Perhaps it is subjective, perhaps it is imagined, but thats the way if 'feels' to me.
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing I miss from my vinyl days is the large format art-work.
And that, at that time, had not enough money for a rega planar turntable.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I still had my vinyl collection, the quality is 1000 times better then CDs.
Someone's therapist knows all about you!
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: an mp3 played on a headset just doesn't come close to a record played through a good hifi.
that's probably true
|
|
|
|
|
I have a whole 1m high pile of my late dad's jazz LP's, some dating back as far as the 50s. I still want to catalogue and digitise them for sharing with jazz lovers.
Immanentize the Eschaton!
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a go at this and have not been too happy with the results. To do it well one needs records in very good condition and high quality equipment. It is certainly worth doing. A metre high pile of records would be too daunting for me.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
I have digitized a few hundred vinyl records: Some kinds of noise can easily be filtered out. If you use a reasonably good wave editor (I use Steinberg WaveLab), it comes with a set of high quality filters for removing noise from dust specs, high frequency "tape hiss" (some of it is really from the tape - it fades out at the end of a track and comes back at the start of the next track, but some of it is from the vinyl surface).
But the distortion that has been added by wear, playing the record several hundred times, that cannot be removed. In my student days, I could play my favorite records a couple times a day, and some of them were favorites for years! In addition to the distortion, sometimes a different kind of lower frequency hiss builds up, modulated like a rumble (but with much more medium range frequencies than "real" rumble), which no filter I know of can remove very successfully.
So those vinyl records that were only semi-favorites, or below, has been transfered quite successfully. For those old favorites that has not been reissued on CD I must simply accept to listen to the music rather than to the sound (quality).
|
|
|
|
|
The main reason for sounding good is that todays music is over-compressed. Read about the "loudness wars" and you will see that most of the stuff that came after 95 is pure crap.
But luckily there is a new broadcasting standard spreading on which all over-compressed music sounds like crap, where the old un-compressed sounds like the best thing after the bread.
|
|
|
|
|
Where CDs really won out for me was random track access. Audio quality was fine. I don't generally listen through ear buds. Over the ear or nice speakers at home.
Well, in the car, too, but, one doesn't quibble about audio quality when fighting road noise.
|
|
|
|
|
Why is my girlfriend stealing all my cookies?
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Because she's FAT32
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
