HD Vinyl?

[crouse]

Although perhaps not accurate, I think of vinyl as being "high definition" because of the nature of the format. If you think of a sound wave having an infinite number of points then a vinyl record is reproducing all those points. I know that would require a perfect record and perfect playback system, but in theory, all those points could be reproduced. Digital, on the other hand, reproduces a finite number of points on the sound wave. A digital file may reproduce far more points than are needed for realistic reproduction, but there are always points of data left out. With vinyl, nothing is left out. I would like to see a method for producing vinyl more cheaply and more quickly. Maybe the method in the article is it. We'll see.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

Although perhaps not accurate, I think of vinyl as being "high definition" because of the nature of the format. If you think of a sound wave having an infinite number of points then a vinyl record is reproducing all those points. I know that would require a perfect record and perfect playback system, but in theory, all those points could be reproduced. Digital, on the other hand, reproduces a finite number of points on the sound wave. A digital file may reproduce far more points than are needed for realistic reproduction, but there are always points of data left out. With vinyl, nothing is left out. I would like to see a method for producing vinyl more cheaply and more quickly. Maybe the method in the article is it. We'll see.

With digital audio, the samples are spaced so closely together that the only points of data left out represent frequencies above the range of human hearing.

Vinyl records are theoretically capable of representing frequencies higher than we can hear -- a fact that has been used to produce a limited number of quadraphonic records -- but typical master recordings don't contain any signal beyond the range of human hearing and typical record cutting processes can't cut a master that would represent signals beyond the range of human hearing.

Thus, typical vinyl records and typical digital recording both leave out the same points of data: the ultrasonics above our range of hearing.

 

[sKiZo]

One advantage of the dbx encoding process is it allowed longer length recordings. Didn't need the uber wide grooves for ultra low bass tracks. That in itself might explain a preponderance of orchestral classics that would otherwise need to be chopped or brickwalled to fit.

Add to that, typical rock titles won't really benefit much from the exponential increase in dynamic range allowed by dbx II. It's always been the super dark blacks during quiet passages that impressed me the most.

 

[Spinning45s]

Agreed. I believe the mention of the turntable was just to indicate how big this retro move is these days. My guess is that if you're buying a $50 turntable, you're not going to "be into vinyl" very long. Just a guess on my part.

I believe that many start out with one of these TT's as a test to see if they like record collecting. If not, they're only out $50. If they want to continue the hobby, they can always upgrade. Though, there are many people who cannot tell the difference between low-fi and hi-fi.

 

[N8Nagel]

I believe that many start out with one of these TT's as a test to see if they like record collecting. If not, they're only out $50. If they want to continue the hobby, they can always upgrade. Though, there are many people who cannot tell the difference between low-fi and hi-fi.

I guess the way I look at it is you're out $50 either way if you buy one of those... better to spend $1-200 on a low-mid range vintage unit which will at least hold its value.

 

[sKiZo]

Not to say you can't get a decent table for -$50 ... this one set me back around $40* including a new belt, and did a right fine job as backup while my Mitsu was under the knife.

* Doesn't include cartridge