Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

vinyl rip vs cd - Page 4

post #46 of 296

Prove me an opposite? Can you prove me you know what you are talking about? You can't. I can only conclude you involved in some business which fool consumers that they should be happy with 16/44.1 format and proving that on ******** as a sampling theorem, without even ever taking any book and read what this theorem is talking about. I do not like thrilling in forums, so please stop doing that if you want to get any respect.
 

post #47 of 296

 

CD sound is too harsh for my ears.

 

There is nothing about a CD that could possibly be harsh. This is like saying a hard drive is harsher or bassier than a flash drive. A CD just stores data. The only way I can even think this argument has any grounding in reality whatsoever is if you're listening to early pre-emphasized CDs without a playback device capable of processing the pre-emphasis flags and de-emphasizing the audio, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the CD, but the CD player's DAC.
 

But making good vinyl rip sounding better than counterpart CD isn't easy task and quiet expensive though.

 

It's impossible to make a vinyl rip that sounds as technically competent as a CD because the vinyl format has inherent, scientifically provable flaws that a CD will never have to compensate for, for reasons I have already posted.
 

CD standard was introduced when computer performance, storage and transfer rates were not so good, so CD standard minimally covered main streamer listener requirements to a sound quality. I consider a new CD standard has to be introduced as 24/192.

 

There is no audible benefit that 24/192 provides where 16/44.1 does not.
 

You can't. I can only conclude you involved in some business which fool consumers that they should be happy with 16/44.1 format and proving that on ******** as a sampling theorem

 

This is a hilarious (and false) attempt at circumstantial ad hominem. Clearly, anyone who disagrees with you must have an ulterior motive. Then again, I could just turn around and accuse you of exactly the same thing (that you are involved in a business that sells high-res files), right?

I eagerly await your reply where you suppress evidence, make personal accusations, and create lots of unprovable claims. That seems to be the general theme of your responses so far.


Edited by Tus-Chan - 8/18/13 at 10:47pm
post #48 of 296
I used to have my own small CD label releasing disk transfers. I experimented with high bitrate audio, but abandoned it because the analogue sources' dynamic range easily fit within redbook. There was no advantage to high bitrate. All it did was take up hard drive space, slow down RT filtering and add extra steps to my process for no added benefit.
post #49 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post

[...] Ultimately, when a truly hi rez, hard drive server becomes available I'll move every thing to hard drive, including my beloved D2D vinyl collected over the years. [...]

While I don't disagree with anything else you mentioned, I wonder what kind of hi-rez hard drive server you are waiting for? Any well built server with wired gigabit ethernet to your music streamer should be sufficient. It works fine for me. (Yet I happily listen to vinyl as well...)

post #50 of 296

I'm not inherently against vinyl. Some people enjoy the flaws that vinyl comes with; some would consider them not to be flaws at all, but favorable characteristics. It all depends on your point of view and the properties of music that you enjoy.

However, what I don't stand for is when people make stuff up in an effort to somehow give additional weight to their personal biases, as if what kind of sound you prefer requires justification. If you like your vinyl sound, go listen to your vinyl. Don't spread misinformation.

 

floatsmile.png

post #51 of 296

It is interesting that new formats are coming, read the blog:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/09/11/219727031/what-does-a-song-that-costs-5-sound-like

 

You can also download examples and listen for yourself to understand how bad CDs sound.

post #52 of 296

CD's can sound bad because most are mastered badly. Plain and simple.

 

I have heard some CD's that sound better than the SACD/DSD version of the same album. Why? It's all in the mastering.

post #53 of 296
 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/2013/09/11/219727031/what-does-a-song-that-costs-5-sound-like

 

You can also download examples and listen for yourself to understand how bad CDs sound.

 

Here's a gem in the comments to that article I found from someone promoting your point of view;

 

As a professional engineer for 30 years I can tell you for a fact MP3 format has ruined the quality of reproduced audio. My ears know the difference even at 48k sampling rate. Especially in the lower octaves. The wave form is too long for the sampling rate to accurately reproduce.

 

This is what happens when you use rationalization instead of reasoning.

post #54 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post
 

CD's can sound bad because most are mastered badly. Plain and simple.

 

I have heard some CD's that sound better than the SACD/DSD version of the same album. Why? It's all in the mastering.

 

Absolutely agree with you, and somehow many people miss or ignore the aspect. You seem a smart guy.

post #55 of 296

All in the mastering.

post #56 of 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFF View Post


Here is a great example:

Nat King Cole - Just One Of Those Things.

Both are 30 second uncompressed WAV files.

Sample From CD

Sample From LP

 
I have come in late on this thread and the audio samples are no longer available.I have come in late on this thread and the audio samples are no longer available. Could you make them available to me. Thanks
post #57 of 296

Capitol seems to be the worst served label when it comes to remastering for CD.

post #58 of 296

It is easy to explain, smart companies as Apple, Google, Amazon do mastering targeting compressed formats, and then they tell you, see here is MP3 music, and now listen to it on CD and here is no difference, 100 special experts confirmed it, so now buy and keep all your music on Cloud in free 10Gb space. Sure stupid consumer gets sold on this simple trick. For less stupid consumer they start post some articles with some clever scientific research results trying proving that no quality lost.

post #59 of 296

The entire point of lossy files is that lossless files are hilariously impractical to use with a portable device for the vast majority of consumers. They take up too much space, and take too long to transfer, for intricate detail that will be completely lost to outside noise in the vast majority of cases.

 

It's not exactly a secret that lossy files don't sound great. Haven't you ever heard Jimmy Iovine (of Beats fame) ramble about it when he tries to sell his products? People know.

post #60 of 296

Tell me about Jimmy. I really lazy to do any internet research but would love to hear from you. I absolutely love your post, let's move back to 1985 when people used PC XT with 5 MB hard drive, and start telling them that you can fit several MP3 song on the drive. What should you expect to hear in return? Read your post again. We live in XXI century when technology deliver us 100s GB in space of match head so why worry. Or maybe you going to compare dial up lines with broadband high speed internet? I really like you man, please continue posting.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd