http://www.idkfa.com/v3 idkfa: syndicated http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6847 It's the only way to experience the genre correctly. kaiden@idkfa.com (kaiden) Cognitive Surplus Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:47:43 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6847 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6846 I only listen to birdcore on wax cylinders. Green Man@idkfa.com (Green Man) Cognitive Surplus Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:45:03 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6846 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6844 I had started a post, but it looks like it didn't save (THANKS OBAMA... I mean JOSH). In any case, this article puts it much better than I could. That is why I really listen to vinyl. And I have bought a tracking force gauge, alignment protractor, a spin clean, and a better phono preamp (along with a good cartridge). So in theory, depending on the master, I should certainly be able to get better sound than a CD. However, as I've stated before, this is music worship. You can't listen to vinyl casually, since it requires so much effort. It helps you focus on the music, which I love. ...I also have many discs with bluray audio, which is probably the best sound I can get (better than vinyl). But few albums have been released this way. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Cognitive Surplus Mon, 01 Dec 2014 14:19:17 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6844 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6826 I'm all for vinyl for nostalgic or visual art reasons, but trying to play the audio quality card seems like obvious bullshit to me. If you were collecting music media based strictly on quality, you'd collect CDs. They can handle a higher Kbps, don't become slowly destroyed in the process of being played, don't warp in bad conditions, and are easier to transport. First of all, a 96-whatever Kbps that is like a mid-quality mp3 is probably more info than your (the general public you, not YOU you) Beatz by Dre headphones can replicate anyway, not to mention your tinny laptop speakers or Bluetooth jambox. Even if you have studio quality speakers and cabling, you're probably not listening close enough to notice a difference. Also at question is the genre of music- if you're listening to computer based digital music anyway, the extended frequencies and overtones the are captured by greater data rates aren't even created in the original studio captures. Grungy rock amps probably don't either. Acoustic music, or live vocals, benefit most from better quality, but there will probably never be enough data or capture ability (in our lifetime, I should add) to genuinely recreate a live sound. Recording fundamentally changes the experience anyway, and stripping some of those overtones is a consequence of that. The best example of this I have is organ music: electric organs use prerecord samples, which can be extremely high quality and very, very good sounding. Recordings of real organs can capture nearly all of the measurable frequencies. Yet both electric organs and recordings of organ music generally bore me, where a live organ recital can be absolutely thrilling. I think there's something about the experience more than just frequencies; with the organ you can feel the rush of the air and feel the vibrations in the room. It isn't replicable, except for possibly by newer electric/acoustic hybrid technologies which are Wilber@idkfa.com (Wilber) Cognitive Surplus Wed, 19 Nov 2014 18:02:17 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6826 http://www.idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6824 Why I listen to vinyl. In fact, I'm in the process of upgrading my turntable right now. It is not an easy process. Scrotor@idkfa.com (Scrotor) Cognitive Surplus Mon, 17 Nov 2014 15:46:52 -0900 http://idkfa.com/v3/v_thread.php?thread_id=6824&msg_id=6824