Computer Audio vs. Vinyl

From what I've read, vinyl is about as good as a 24/96 lossless recording and eliminates the need for a DAC (I'm not an audio engineer or anything so don't trust me). That would mean its superior to a CD, which is generally the only other way to get some of the music in high quality now days. That could explain why some people prefer vinyl 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parall3l 

From what I've read, vinyl is about as good as a 24/96 lossless recording and eliminates the need for a DAC 

You might want to read up on what a DAC does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_C 

You might want to read up on what a DAC does.

I thought a vinyl is a recording with some kind of analog thing ? It seems like I was wrong about that 

edit: I see what the typo is now

^ What? You thought a DAC was a "vinyl recording with some kind of analog thing"?

LOL I guess I said that wrong, I meant that I thought vinyls are analog therefore do not need a DAC (digital to analog converter, if I remember correct) anyways I'll go read up on all this myself so I won't derail this thread 

You don't need a DAC with analog formats. You do however need a decent phono stage and other bits and bobs.

Unless the music you want can only be found on vinyl, why would you buy records in preference to playing back files on your PC? From a technical standpoint, even CDs are superior to vinyl by a considerable margin - so why buy records?

Parall3l, that is correct. Vinyl is an analogue format, so there's no DAC involved (since DAC = Digital to Analogue Convertor).

OP, Willakan raises a good point about the technical superiority of vinyl. As someone who tried going into vinyl very briefly, I can sum up the downsides of vinyl with one word: hassle. It requires more space, more care, and more time. But your original question assumed some still want that, and why?

Give Uncle Erik sufficient time to notice this thread and I'm sure he'll tell you about the relatively low cost that one can get into good vinyl with. That may be true in other countries, but in mine, we don't have that many secondhand sales of TTs and records.

Oh I see, good to know that I didn't get anything horribly wrong  Am I the only one who thinks vinyl are incredibly awesome looking ? The way they spin on the turntable, is just fascinating. 

There is a certain tactile delight with handling records and their sleeves, but I'll take a lower noise floor any day...

Based on my experience, a properly done digital rip from a vinyl recording is almost always guaranteed to sound better than any purchasable 24/96 version of the same album.  This is generally due to the rampant use of dynamic compression during the mastering process.  Yes, there are pops and clicks, but these can be largely removed by properly cleaning the vinyl before doing a rip, and by removing any unavoidable clicks using something like iZotope RX.

I rarely listen to CDs any more, and stopped bothering with hi-res DVD-A or SACD recordings (why oh why do they compress the hi-res layers!?!  Travesty!).  I mostly listen to carefully recorded vinyl rips.  Even at 16/44, a well-done vinyl rip can sound far better than the hi-res recordings that the labels release.

What albums are you referring to that suffer from such awful DRC?

Most of the ones I've bothered with have been rock-based, so compression isn't surprising on a redbook version, but I just find it deplorable that it would be used on a hi-res version as well.  Metallica's black album is particularly shocking, since the original CD is one of the best sounding CD releases around, but the DVDA is loud and awful.  Porcupine Tree's The Incident was pretty loud and compressed.  Peter Gabriel SACDs are all deplorably loud and compressed (UP has a DR or 8 and output of about 95.29db, and that's the least fatiguing one I've heard).

If you normally listen to jazz or classical, you're probably fine with getting the label-provided digital recordings, as compression is used far less on those recordings, if at all.  With anything pop, rock, R&B, etc related, the vinyl versions are likely to be better.  But yes, it's ultimately preferable to make good digital recordings of the analog originals.

Most of us here who have been into audio for a long time have experimented with both formates. 44.1/16 bit is a compression and 24/96 is compressed. I have heard a couple 100K rigs, not saying that money always gets you SQ, but when you combine a passion for audio, technical know how, smarts, and luck plus money these systems can get pretty dam good. With every system I heard records just had warmer and deeper bass. The quality of the bass was just better.

The best way to find a level of freedom is to use and enjoy both. Yes, some records which are for sale now have been made from the same digital master that was used for the CD. The best way to get your high quality vinyl is to buy audiophile disks. If you want to do it cheeply and your into 1970s-1980s mainstream rock there is still tons out there for a low cost. Older records from the 1970s have less compression and the manufacturing method was dialed in due to the sheer number of disks they were printing. There was still crappy records even then and even some your needle would read the sonic information transfering from the other side of the disk. So there are no fool proof ways other than to buy a lot of records and just try them.

Records are a hassle but for those into the hobby it can be relaxing to court music out of the old things.Anyone into Jazz will verify the better bass in Jazz recordings. For those getting the original Jazz records the sound has never been better, and they sound just like the day they were pressed, even if it was 1959. But classic Jazz records are expensive. I'm into Metal and Classic Rock so there are a lot of cheep disks around. I mostly play CDs only because they are easy to use. I really love my records though.

People into vinyl are also experiencing other great characteristics that are not so easy to just put your finger on. These are even stuff like transits and attacks which are really hard to measure and sometimes go unnoticed until you learn to look for them. On a great record played on a great set up there is even a more natural sound stage and relationship to the space between the instruments that LPs seem to have. The sound is more organic and easy on the ears at higher levels. High def recordings may never reach this kind of detail. You do have the marketing and the consumers which think stuff is and will always improve. This trend almost makes newer technology a type of placebo effect and new manors of playback can be exciting lending to the feeling that it's better when it is really just different. Most believe that digital in time will finally reach a level like great reel to reel or vinyl on a good table, this could be ending up just like mans attempt to replicate sugar with whats in diet Coke. Close but never the same.

There is also the many respected members which have great 44.1/16 bit Redbook playback that argue any high bit rate never makes an improvement. 16 bit from one player and DAC is not the same as some another 16 bit, this we all know and can hear.

Wait what? How can vinyl be more detailed than digital high def recordings. There is nothing magical about vinyl - if you find the variation from a neutral sound it induces pleasant, fine by me, but don't try to position it as more detailed - it is inferior in every conceivable respect to more modern formats. There are two possible advantages to vinyl:

1) Different masters.

2) Music only available on vinyl.

As to the differences reported between various audiophile DACs, I would put this down in all but the most extreme cases ( eg 15 year old dirt cheap CD player) to an unhealthy combination of involuntary listener bias and the nonexistent of standards of basic objective competence as applied to sources in this market.