Vinyl's great, but it's not better than CDs(vox.com)

4 pointsby wallflower12 anni fa2 comments

Vinyl's great, but it's not better than CDs

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

2 comments

cjo12 anni fa

This article reads like the author is just mad at some audiophile for being a jerk about their vinyl collection. Fair enough, but it's kind of straw-manning vinyl collectors.

Implying that CDs give you forensic level exact playback while vinyl is "messing up" the sound? That's ridiculous. If nothing else, digital music has to make the trip from analog to digital (ADC) and then digital to analog (DAC) and neither of these are trivial steps. Lavry Blue's cost $2500 and that's just for analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion of one stereo signal, no pre-amps or anything else. In fact, mastering engineers might spend up to $8500 for two channels of digital to analog conversion.

I've done sound engineering in the past; I love digital, I think digital has done great things for music and I think the sound quality is excellent. But there's a reason that 8-tracks came and went, cassette tapes came and went, CDs are on their way out, but vinyl is still hanging on.

higherpurpose12 anni fa

And FLAC is better than CDs? What's the point of this piece? Smells like a "native ad" (which Vox tends to do).