Comment on Think about what today is considered next level vs what it used to be
Mickey7@lemmy.world 1 week agoYes it was. The next jump after traditional records was cassettes. I find it hilarious that people are going back to records vs. digital
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
To be fair, if a record is made correctly, it actually has significantly more sound information than any digital recording.
It’s hard to compete with analog since analog doesn’t really have a bitrate or anything. The precision is functionally infinite.
Meanwhile, they gave us the Redbook standard and unless you go looking for it, pretty much everything is a similar quality or worse, digitally. Digital is convenient, but not higher quality.
Records (true, genuinely analog records) are the Holy Grail of sound quality as far as I am concerned. The problem is that a lot of companies are taking CDs and just playing them back on to vinyl, making them sound like complete shit.
To demonstrate the point. Have you been on hold recently? Hold music sounds like shit huh?
What if I told you that hold music used to be kind of decent. That’s right, most companies are using VoIP, which is lower quality than the old analog phone lines of old, so anything that’s played is compressed to all hell and back. You don’t really notice it with voice, but as soon as that hold music kicks in, you can hear that something is wrong with it.
Depending on how sensitive you are to the musical distortion of digitisation, that can be similar for CD quality content.
I’m not crazy over vinyl, I can’t be bothered with the inconvenience of maintaining a player, and I don’t have the money they’re asking for a new player; so I’m firmly in digital media. I just understand the appeal of vinyl.