music I know records are technically poor quality, but

[DixonTheAdversary 1,637]

I've never actually used records, oldest from of music media that I've used are cassette tapes, so I can't really so if I like records better or not.

[Brony Number 42 10,091]

I could be wrong, but I really doubt it. The new records that are pressed now are made from digital files. You think companies are still using old technology? No, those songs were born digitally and pressed to a lower quality medium. So you get the worst of all scenarios.

[Pentium100 2,299]

24 minutes ago, Rebel Brony 42 said:

The new records that are pressed now are made from digital files. You think companies are still using old technology?

Most of them, yes. There may be some companies that use tape for everything, but yeah, most of them use digital.

However, there is a difference in the mastering - for some reason a lot of CDs are released with very low dynamic range ("just make it as loud as possible, I don't care if it even clips, our CD has to be the loudest ever!"), while records are usually mastered better, part of the reason is that audiophiles know what dynamic range is and care about it (so you wouldn't sell many records if they sounded bad) and another part of the reason is that if you make a record too loud it becomes literally unplayable.

So, the result is some weird situation where a recording on a CD (a medium with 96dB dynamic range) has less dynamic range than a recording on a record (a medium with maybe 70dB dynamic range)

[Tom Gallagher 33,629]

As somepony who has a record player, I think the sound on it is pretty phenomenal.  We have it in a big room so the sound of Queen is always travelling around. 

[Brony Number 42 10,091]

@Pentium100 but that is a choice of the engineer making the CD. It wouldn't have to be the case. I don't care how nice a record sounds in theory, one spec of dust and that "snap crackle pop" and it's ruined. It is a shame the most people don't care about quality. MP3s killed SACDS and DVD Audio. There are only a few such recordings, along with Bluray Audio. Mostly old jazz or classical music.

[Pentium100 2,299]

40 minutes ago, Rebel Brony 42 said:

@Pentium100 but that is a choice of the engineer making the CD. It wouldn't have to be the case.

Yes, but for some reason the people in charge want CDs to sound bad.

Still, I think the whole "playing the record" experience is better, the record sleeve is bigger and can have better artwork etc. Then again, I probably listen to more tapes than records or CDs.

[Brony Number 42 10,091]

30 minutes ago, Pentium100 said:

Still, I think the whole "playing the record" experience is better, the record sleeve is bigger and can have better artwork etc. Then again, I probably listen to more tapes than records or CDs.

Some of the bands I like make records. I get the CD for the quality and the record because the artwork is bigger. I like my digital music on disc.

[Flutterstep 47,324]

Give me digital any day. I understand there’s a rawness to older formats, but you could easily simulate that with effects if you really wanted to. Sound design is everything to me when it comes to music, so I wanna hear the best quality possible.

[Splashee 28,599]

Coming from a world where everything was analog, and entering the digital world, there is one thing I have learnt:

 

Both worlds are amazing. Analog doesn't seem to have a limit in quality, but suffer from interference. Digital is limited by bits, and how they are converted to analog for our ear to enjoy, but doesn't suffer from interference, giving the same experience every time.

 

BUT, then there is a lossy world of digital, where everything needs to be smaller in size. MP3's are smaller, so that you can fit them on the tiny little micro card that you place into your tiny little cell phone, and plug your super tiny headphones into your...... big analog ears... Yea... That doesn't sound right!