Let's try and get 1,000,000 replies to this post

Magnus said:
Du
Du hast
Du hast mich
Du hast mich
Du hast mich gefragt
Du hast mich gefragt
Du hast mich gefragt und ich hab nichts gesagt
Click to expand...
The reason I hate Rammstein is that when I was a student, we went to an excursion to another town. One of the ladies drank half a bottle of vodka early evening, passed out and threw up on her mattress so the whole dormitory smelled like sick. We couldn't sleep at all, and ended up after 3 PM to sit the rest of the night in a cold sauna. I was perched on an umcomfortable place, as the sauna was kinda small and there were a lot of people in it. Some guy put on Du Hast Mich on repeat pretty loud on his cell phone with bad sound quality. I was dead tired, but nowhere to sleep, and was getting quite hopeless. This was my first contact to Rammstein, and I've never forgiven them.
 
Midnight said:
Three excellent choices! (Actually, I only know two of them; is Live At Budokan any good?)
Vinyl really shouldn't be necessary in today's world, but it unfortunately is.


:blink:
Click to expand...
I'd say it's the 3rd best DT live album after Score and Live Scenes From New York. So yeah it's pretty awesome especially if you like that early 2000s era.
 
LooseCannon said:
What? Vinyl is completely superfluous.
Click to expand...
I meant in terms of mastering, where the versions of the songs that are on the vinyl are usually better than those on the CD. From a technical point of view, of course, vinyl is worse in every way.

KidInTheDark666 said:
I'd say it's the 3rd best DT live album after Score and Live Scenes From New York. So yeah it's pretty awesome especially if you like that early 2000s era.
Click to expand...
I might as well try it, then! I'm not usually a fan of live albums; I only really like them if the studio versions are too polished or just... sound bad.
 
Midnight said:
I meant in terms of mastering, where the versions of the songs that are on the vinyl are usually better than those on the CD. From a technical point of view, of course, vinyl is worse in every way.
Click to expand...

The mastering has nothing to do with the media. It's just that artists often choose to do a new master when they re-release an album to give an additional sales argument. This can be for better or worse. Vinyl is however better from a technical point of view because it does not require clipping of the audio. If you have the exact same audio (same master, etc) on CD and vinyl, an unscratched vinyl will always sound better, richer and fuller. And trust me, you don't need to be an audiophile to notice this.
 
Perun said:
It's just that artists often choose to do a new master when they re-release an album to give an additional sales argument. This can be for better or worse.
Click to expand...
This is what I was trying to say. I must not have explained it properly.

Perun said:
If you have the exact same audio (same master, etc) on CD and vinyl, an unscratched vinyl will always sound better, richer and fuller.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, although vinyl is far too unwieldy, delicate and expensive for my liking.
 
Midnight said:
Fair enough, although vinyl is far too unwieldy, delicate and expensive for my liking.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't have anything to do with the technology. If you're used to vinyl, the physical attributes don't make a difference.
I can't comment on the price issue as, with one exception, I haven't bought any vinyl in the last ten years or so.
 
Perun said:
Vinyl is however better from a technical point of view because it does not require clipping of the audio. If you have the exact same audio (same master, etc) on CD and vinyl, an unscratched vinyl will always sound better, richer and fuller. And trust me, you don't need to be an audiophile to notice this.
Click to expand...
This is an outright falsehood, not borne out by math or science. No “clipping” is required at all in the transfer to digital. If the source data is the same, then vinyl will only sound “better” on notes higher than 22KHz, which are beyond the range of most humans’ hearing. CDs as a medium have more dynamic range than vinyl and less distortion. This is objective fact.
 
Jer said:
This is an outright falsehood, not borne out by math or science. No “clipping” is required at all in the transfer to digital. If the source data is the same, then vinyl will only sound “better” on notes higher than 22KHz, which are beyond the range of most humans’ hearing. CDs as a medium have more dynamic range than vinyl and less distortion. This is objective fact.
Click to expand...

You obviously know better than me, but this is what I've been hearing for well over 20 years now. I never looked into it myself, mind you so I have no idea how reliable the information was. Thanks for correcting me.
 
I can honestly say all the work I've done since lunch has been absolutely pointless. Adding names on a memo, which was totally unnecessary. Sending the memo to participants. People cancelling their arrival to the meeting tomorrow, then cancelling the cancellation. And I bloody asked beforehand if all these people should be invited, because we normally never invite so many! Sigh.

Edit: And now the people are complaining to me that wrong people were invited, goddamn it!
Edit 2: I actually had something pretty important to do today but nevermind. I'll take a coffee break now. ;)
 
Last edited:
Perun said:
Thanks for correcting me.
Click to expand...
Sure. And there’s nothing wrong with preferring the sound of vinyl, that’s a subjective opinion. But on the measurable, objective merits, the reproduction from a CD is superior to vinyl throughout the standard range of human hearing.

Also keep in mind that most modern vinyl came from a digital master. Granted, it’s probably a 96KHz/24-bit master or higher, so it would faithfully reproduce sounds in the 22KHz-48KHz range if your hearing is superhuman, but unless the content was analog from recording all the way through to pressing the record, the music already got digitized somewhere in the process, which you would think would trigger whatever issue vinyl audiophiles claim to have with digital music, and yet they still prefer the vinyl versions of digitized music. That suggests to me that the mild EQ effects of vinyl are what these people are actually responding to — the “warmer” sound, etc.
 
All I remember of vinyl was awful crackly sound. I guess that's something to do with old style record players and speakers being rubbish
 
I remember from the early 80s how the needle skipped and the same bit got repeated over and over. (It was a children's song record, back in those days.)
 
Brigantium said:
All I remember of vinyl was awful crackly sound. I guess that's something to do with old style record players and speakers being rubbish
Click to expand...
I think the crackly sound is static. It's the same reason you could never dust the things effectively - it was just a feature of vinyl.

I actually like the atmouspheric sound of well-worn vinyl - the wear is all part of the story of that particular record. Part of me thinks that this is just what old records should sound like, and the pristine CD re-issues of those classic albums are missing out on something.
 
I set up a notification to alert me every time Fabrizio Romano tweets. He's an Italian journalist who tweets out football transfer news, and is just about the most accurate journalist when it comes to that. He doesn't tweet that much and I wanted to be in the loop.

Anyway, I set up a custom ringtone for that one: Ozzy belting out ALL ABOARD AHAHAHAHA from Crazy Train (found an isolated vocal track). So last night I fell asleep early and didn't turn off sound. At 4:30 AM this guy tweets and I almost jump out of bed when ALL ABOARD HAHAHAHAHAHA rang at highest possible volume in the middle of the night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top