Comments on: Record grooves under an electron microscope

By: John Eric Franklin

John Eric Franklin — Thu, 19 May 2011 21:18:16 +0000

Everyone seems to be concerned with
moving from 8bit to 12bit to 16bit
on the amplitude of the CD music.
This is stupid. The thing they are
missing is the x-axis, not the y-axis.
The y-axis is good enough, but the
x-axis is not good enough for the
start and stop timing of musical
notes and drum and cymbal crashes.
The y-axis is the pressure in the
air as it changes, but the x-axis
is the timing, and the Nyquist
frequency is a bare minimum
requirement, not the best we can
achieve or even any good at all.
In summary, both records (vinyl)
and CD’s are worth continuing
with, however in Japan, they have
CD players that do have a higher
frequency and Blue-Ray players
also have a higher frequency than
musical CD’s. So there.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 09:53:33 +0000

Can watch for hours to these images, beautiful. thank you. (laughed about the last one, with the mars rover

By: laird

laird — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:13:33 +0000

So silly, so very silly. Some people’s logic is the same as Zeno’s proof that Achilles could never catch the tortoise that had a small headstart in a race.

By: John Eric Franklin

John Eric Franklin — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 00:00:39 +0000

Frequency is one thing, but rhythm is another.
And the start and end of a note is being
hindered by our slow thousanths of a second
sampling. The human brain likes rhythm,
and a note that starts and stops at the
billionths of a second would be much more
pleasing, hence digital technology will never
win. That is why people are so down and
and out this decade, the music sucks.
All the great artists are losing all their
recordings into trash, lost forever!!

By: jigs

jigs — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 02:58:47 +0000

it can be done, but its a lot of work — with the technology now, 3D image of the canyon can easily be copied, tranfer it to a graphics/imaging software (for enhancement and preparation), then to a CAM (computer aided manufacturing) system, then convert the data to be readable by a vinyl record cutting machine (where master copies are made)…then you have have your Grand Canyon Music..

By: good sound

good sound — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 00:15:57 +0000

who cares how it looks. what matters is how it sounds.
cds. I prefer to listen to see them

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 22:29:47 +0000

Exactly, what if we could see even closer? Not really an audio geek but more of an image geek and this was very well done. As you mention there’s a lot of preparation to capture these images and I hope people can appreciate their work and perhaps we can get them to zoom in further

By: Steven Sullivan

Steven Sullivan — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:42:58 +0000

I wouldn’t say it was *clear* that direct-to-disc was superior to tape by the late 70s — I would say it was just another audiophile opinion in contention with other audiophile opinions.
There were no rigorous listening tests of this proposition that I’m aware of. Objectively (measured S/N, pitch stability, crosstalk, etc), the best tape still would beat the best LP, DTD or otherwise. And of course, DTD is wholly impractical for most popular music.

Quad LPs, of course, derive from quad analog master tapes. And among quad-o-philes, reel-to-reel (tape) was considered the best-sounding consumer format, as noted in that wiki article.

Btw, vinyl 45s are still made, e.g the ones Steve Hoffman mastered in the past few years. So are reel-to-reel tapes, an even more specialized market.

By: Steven Sullivan

Steven Sullivan — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:34:21 +0000

I think he just underestimates the ability of humans to ‘listen through’ things like surface noise and minor pops/ticks. Some people are very bothered by this stuff; for others, the sound of LP itself — the ‘euphonic distortions’ that aren’t there in an all-digital recording — is more than enough compensation for any of its shortcomings. And using excellent gear and scrupulous care of the plastic discs can minimize (but not eliminate) the ‘bad’ noise to the point where listeners don’t find them intrusive.

What amazes me is that vinylphiles still try to argue that LP is *more* ‘high-fidelity’ or ‘natural’ than digital, rather than just accepting that they like the way it sounds. Especially since ‘the way LP sounds’ can be easily captured in a digitization of an LP.

By: laird

laird — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:10:56 +0000

As to your last point, one wonders why there was never an argument about the ‘discontinuities’ of tape, which is the source for almost all analog LPs, exclusive of direct-to-disc. If such a ‘discretely particular’ medium can transfer to the ‘continuous groove’, the waves carved into vinyl, you’d think people would be suspicious of most LPs. I happily use all mediums and can be enraptured listening to a piece on my clock radio in the morning, as the most important part of the listening experience, that’s rarely mentioned, is the brain.