or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › What is the rational behind FLAC rips from vinyl ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is the rational behind FLAC rips from vinyl ? - Page 2

post #16 of 21

There is guy called dr. Robert
 

post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by dayamax View Post

I don't get it. Even if the vinyl copy is better than CD/SACD recording, wouldn't it be lost in converting to FLAC ?

I have seen recently that converting vinyl to 24/96 flac has become popular.

FLAC rips of vinyl sound better than the CD or CD rip.

CD measured a specific set a qualities and improved upon those.

CD did NOT measure many other sonic qualities.

Tonal completeness, soundstage, instrument body, instrument accuracy, vocal accuracy, 3-dimensionality of the instrument pushing out from its location rather than a flat cut out as exists on CD, and so on.

Those who rip vinyl can listen past the background and groove noise and can hear the better and more realistic sonic representation. If the vinyl is properly cleaned and the playback chain is of sufficient quality the sound is far superior to digital in any form.

Original vinyl mastered from the original anaolgue tapes back when the sessions were recorded in the case of original pressings or early pressings have the earliest copy of the music.

Thus the tape sounded better than it ever would, and the early pressings on stampers early on before the stamper wore out retain the most information of any subsequent remasters.

Most of my downloads are WAV or FLAC vinyl rips and the sound superior to all but the DSD versions and then not always inferior. Many new HD downloads are heavily compressed for the iTunes generation and this ruins the sound. Thus many take original vinyl LP, rip it and listen to that instead of the recent and heavily processed and altered remasters.

Digital mastering has never been up to the level of analogue, even if you discard the loudness wars and compression of recent remasters.

35 years and many still make the excuse that the remaster is faulty when someone claims the vinyl is superior. If this issue has lasted for 35 years then it is logical to conclude the flaw is in digital sound itself. This issue did not occur when the transition from valves to solid state was made around 1960.
post #18 of 21

add several kind of a few % distortions from mechanical movements(vertical and sideways)+ all the noise from those movements and friction, jitter so huge it's changing the tones, kill crosstalk to almost mono, roll off the trebles and voila!!!! you get the sound of most vinyls.

 

the problem lies with people thinking that perfect sound reproduction will lead to more pleasure. if that was true, nobody would ever go to a live performance.  so when they like something better, they conclude wrongly that it has to be the superior one. but vinyl isn't superior to CD in any way, at best it shows that when stereo separation is too clean it doesn't sound natural(headphone listeners feel that the most). so for older albums where it wasn't a problem because we didn't have to bother about that yet, sometimes it's not so fun to listen to the CD version.

also having those stupid CDs with DR below 5 on modern records doesn't help showing the superiority of the support :'(.

and vinyls aren't safe from brickwalling because they are the support of the true audiophile, they avoid loudness war because the support isn't good enough to master with so little DR.

so its one superiority in effect comes from how bad a support it is...

 

 

 

to answer the OP, making something you like into flac is a safe way(as long as you keep backups) to keep your albums forever without any loss of quality over time. when a vinyl can suffer with time and numerous uses.

also it's sooooooo much more convenient to use a digital media.

post #19 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

add several kind of a few % distortions from mechanical movements(vertical and sideways)+ all the noise from those movements and friction, jitter so huge it's changing the tones, kill crosstalk to almost mono, roll off the trebles and voila!!!! you get the sound of most vinyls.

I am listening to FLAC vinyl rips as I write this. The treble is more realistic and accurate, there is no jitter it is called wow and fluter - and this is minimal because the system is high end, and anti-skating and other adjustments were performed to maximise sonic quality. There are few pops and clicks because the vinyl has been cleaned properly, and groove noise is minimal and my mind can filter this out and hear the more realistic sound. There is little crosstalk and the soundstange is wide and deep and far from mono.

You obsess and lock into those artifacts which I doubt you have actually heard on a high end system. What you cannot hear, what you don't care about, are tonal completeness, vocal accuracy, instrumental timbre, instrument body, dimensional, and the fatigue free and realistic treble.

You are the type of person who heard those artifacts in 1978 and devised the CD Red Book standard to address them.
You are not the type of person who heard the qualities I listed and thus they did not devise a system to reproduce them.

I am of a generation that listened to AM Radio.

Before you mock and scoff again, listening to AM Radio often required listening past background noise and lightning static spikes, to hear the far away station late at night that played those hard to find obscure songs.Since people who grew up with AM Radio could psychologically filter out in their mind unwanted noise, they also can filter out in their mind the wow, flutter, clicks, pops, groove noise and such.

I can filter out in my mind the artifacts and hear the sound of real wood hitting real brass on a vinyl rip of cymbals, compared to the pshshhh of a CD of the same track.

You cannot filter these out in your mind, and you obsess over minutiae.

Sadly it was someone like you who devised the digital standard.

My suggestion is to ignore the mockery of those like you, and for lurkers to listen for themselves. If they don't like it, then go back to digital and I will buy your vinyl for nothing.
post #20 of 21

well I seem to make a lot of friends those days. I don't think what I said is incorrect. or that it was a mockery.

you're ok with rips of vinyls to digital so my guess is that you have a specific problem with 16/44? as I can't hear a difference between hires and 16/44, I guess there is no need to develop that part as we're not gonna find a common ground over there.

 

so back to vinyls. I happen to have been raised on vinyls, not that it's gonna change any facts. and I have some of my best memories and very much the foundations of my musical tastes from listening on the set up at my parent's house, or the even better setup and gigantic room at my grand parent's. I learned to love Sinatra, Stevie Wonder, Pink Floyd, Mahler, Chopin... that way.

but my first experience with CD was "money for nothing" and the clean background just hit me in the face. it was so obvious and made any detail of the music so clear and easy to grasp, I needed to have that. after some times I did and never looked back. and the more time I spent listening to CDs, the less I could appreciate vinyls.

so while I agree with you that we can filter out things and adapt, in my case, background noise was one of those things that once heard can never be unheard(and you're right a second time, I am obsessed with noises and hissing in general in audio). I'm sure if I was to spend a month listening only to vinyls I would get used to it again, and I don't mind listening to a vinyls once in a while at someone's home. but I cannot force my mind into thinking that CD isn't superior.

 

I didn't say it was wrong to rip vinyls into flac, I have nothing against people saving what they like on a new format. I'm sure we can find digital recordings from wax cylinders and piano rolls. and some day those rips might be the only remainings of great musicians. so I really have no problem at all with that. all I argued about is to not mistake the great music for its medium, and things we like for audio quality. when you take a pic of a pretty scenery with a blurry smartphone the scenery is still pretty, but the smartphone wasn't the best media to use. for me what's wrong with CDs is that we use them for mostly crap music and ruined masters, but the media is just fine and when the master is great, the CD is enough to get it all with great precision. I can't say the same of vinyls.

post #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

well I seem to make a lot of friends those days. I don't think what I said is incorrect. or that it was a mockery.
you're ok with rips of vinyls to digital so my guess is that you have a specific problem with 16/44? as I can't hear a difference between hires and 16/44,

Can't hear the difference between 16/44 red book and hi-res?

That is a very obvious difference.

The issue is more subtle and far more complicated than 16/44 is flawed.

Basically anything that is put into ANY digital processor or mixer, gets degraded.

I have FLAC rips that are straight from a hi-end turntable, they sound great.
I have FLAC rips that are straight from a hi-end turntable that then had processing to remove pops and clicks and make the volume levels match and they have all of the issues of 16/44.

It's the processing and mixing. Source and mixdown must be analogue, pre-1979 (with some exceptions 1979-1989). 1-bit 5.6448MHZ DSD originally sounds good but it still has a flatness that vinyl never had.

Any remasters? Flawed and usually run through processing that flattens images as well as compresses up the sound. Not so bad with The Clash, horrible with Pink Floyd. These new remasters are for people listening on an iPhone as background music.

At this point I am convinced that anything post-1979 is flawed and thus I intend to buy up pre-1979 vinyl and play it on my own high end DIY turntable.

The best pressings are white label promo copies, pre-1979. These were done first run on the stamper after the mixdown, for release to radio stations and reviewers and as such they have the best sound of that recording. Any remaster done today is on a 40 year old tape that has degraded, or even worse a digital copy of a safety master.

But a copy of that on the original vinyl was physically created back then from the young tape and thus sounds better.

1-bit 5.6448MHZ DSD is promising but this requires yet AGAIN another digital remaster of that same tape for the 5th or so time, when just buying the original vinyl would sound as good or better.

Nearly everyone reading this has never heard good analog on the radio or at home, thus they don't know what they are missing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › What is the rational behind FLAC rips from vinyl ?