Queen crest Queenzone

Why Todays' CDs sound like crap

40 posts Page 3 of 3
Thread

Posts in chronological order

Search forum
crap..blowing a gale...but i don't care...if we are getting the weather that the US eastern seaboard is getting and it holds on til after Saturday night...long enough for the Patriots to beat the Jags i will be happy

bet it's steaming in Texas?
go deo na hÉireann The best QZ epoch: BG17-00 (Before Gerry 1996-2013)
Actually, it's not that bad. It's 15 degrees Celsius. Not too bad.

Go New England!
www.facebook.com/juanchancla
i am seriously owrried the Jags might beat them....woulda rather San Diego...but hey-ho

can't moan about 16-0
go deo na hÉireann The best QZ epoch: BG17-00 (Before Gerry 1996-2013)
Man, the Jags almost blew it with the Steelers. I hate Pittsburgh, but that was one hell of a game. I was actually pulling for them. But, NE is too strong for the Jags. It still will be a good game, can't wait for Sat!
www.facebook.com/juanchancla
If you like them loud, then yes. If you like dynamics, then no.
www.facebook.com/juanchancla
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't get what's the problem with recording things with digital technology. If I record some stuff in a digital form and mix it all decently, like in the old days, shouldn't it sound at least as good as the analog records?[/QUOTE]

Digital sound is similar to how watching a film or video works. A film/video has samples of motion which, when played really fast, gives the brain the illusion of motion.

Digital sound is sort of the same: it has SAMPLES of sound giving an ILLUSION of hearing music. But there are holes of missing info between all those samples (and the brain has to work harder to fill in those gaps).

Analog sound, on the other hand, is a continuous wave which is how our ears/brain naturally hear and thus generally is probably more pleasing.
"I have no time for Time magazine. Or Rolling Stone." Jethro Tull
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]artemismoon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Too true. Vinyl will always sound better than digital. Digital lacks warmth, analog will always beat digital. The good bands record on 2" tape, just like they used to in the good ole days[/QUOTE]

i agree analog is much better[/QUOTE]

I second that agreement.

I really hate compressed digital music, MP3's and such...it's really hard to the ears, especially to the point when I can tell a 320kbps MP3 apart from a lossless (WAV/FLAC) copy.
Hence, I have been buying more CD's as of late along with vinyl records, especially for a lot of my anime titles from Japan, so I can have clean lossless sources to rip from.

Actually, if anything I've been on a vinyl kick lately....I've been going through my vinyl collection and playing a lot of it over and over, to the point where I'm buying *more* records now because I'm getting bored with some of my records, lol!

I'm actually also even waiting for a custom cut record I ordered to come in the mail, that has a couple remixes of mine cut on the vinyl :)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]goinback wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't get what's the problem with recording things with digital technology. If I record some stuff in a digital form and mix it all decently, like in the old days, shouldn't it sound at least as good as the analog records?[/QUOTE]

Digital sound is similar to how watching a film or video works. A film/video has samples of motion which, when played really fast, gives the brain the illusion of motion.

Digital sound is sort of the same: it has SAMPLES of sound giving an ILLUSION of hearing music. But there are holes of missing info between all those samples (and the brain has to work harder to fill in those gaps).

Analog sound, on the other hand, is a continuous wave which is how our ears/brain naturally hear and thus generally is probably more pleasing.[/QUOTE]

Thank you! :) But then, wouldn't a high sampling rate make up for it and make it even better than analog (as there's no hiss)?
We got the Cosmos rockin'! We got the Cosmos rockin'! We got the Universe rockin'! We got the Cosmos rockin'! We got the Cosmos rockin' to the mighty power of rock'n'roll!
You should hear Brian's set up. Lots of hiss there. Lots of hiss.
www.facebook.com/juanchancla
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]goinback wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I don't get what's the problem with recording things with digital technology. If I record some stuff in a digital form and mix it all decently, like in the old days, shouldn't it sound at least as good as the analog records?[/QUOTE]

Digital sound is similar to how watching a film or video works. A film/video has samples of motion which, when played really fast, gives the brain the illusion of motion.

Digital sound is sort of the same: it has SAMPLES of sound giving an ILLUSION of hearing music. But there are holes of missing info between all those samples (and the brain has to work harder to fill in those gaps).

Analog sound, on the other hand, is a continuous wave which is how our ears/brain naturally hear and thus generally is probably more pleasing.[/QUOTE]

Thank you! :) But then, wouldn't a high sampling rate make up for it and make it even better than analog (as there's no hiss)?[/QUOTE]

Yes the higher the sample rate (as is the case with SACDs, etc.) the better it gets, though it's impossible to have a sample rate as high as a continuous wave.
"I have no time for Time magazine. Or Rolling Stone." Jethro Tull