Are 24/96 vinyl rips accurate to the mastering?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewG 

Or are they just photocopies of the music? If you record and listen to 24 96 will you be getting the correct levels and instrument placement? 

The real answer is that it depends on the transfer chain. If the mastering engineer knows what he/she is doing, then the transfer should sound the same. If they really know what they are doing, it will sound better. If they have no idea then it will sound worse.

16/44.1 is enough to hold all audible information, if that's what you're asking.

The levels and instrument placement should be the same, except for a more extensive soundstage due to sampling the sine wave more times at a much quicker speed.

Except for a poorly mastered SACD or 24/96 revision, I have always enjoyed the hi-res better on decent equipment. It's all relative, if you are using an iPod Classic w/

iBuds, it's a moot point.

IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewG 

Or are they just photocopies of the music? If you record and listen to 24 96 will you be getting the correct levels and instrument placement? 

If you're asking if a 24/96 recording would in any way bottleneck the quality or fidelity of a master tape or vinyl record, then no. Anything magnetic tape or vinyl can do, a 24/96 file can do better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by danroche 

Anything magnetic tape or vinyl can do, a 24/96 file can do better.

 

False.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF 

False.
 

 

Is that it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by danroche 

Is that it?

 

LOL!

I'm at work so I couldn't post much at the moment.

It's false because magnetic tape compresses much better than digital with overs. This is a common known fact. There are some other points that one could argue back and forth but on the whole I tend to prefer digital when correctly done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF 

LOL!

 

I'm at work so I couldn't post much at the moment.

 

It's false because magnetic tape compresses much better than digital with overs. This is a common known fact. There are some other points that one could argue back and forth but on the whole I tend to prefer digital when correctly done.

Ah. I guess I was drawing assumptions around my statement that one wouldn't be driving a waveform to clip, and that the qualitative definition of "better" would be aligned with "as faithful to the original signal as possible." These aren't assumptions that would apply to every possible situation, so yes, my statement was a reach.
 

As a hack guitar player, I realize that "better" is sometimes entirely different than "as faithful to the original signal." Case in point amplifying an electric guitar, where an overcompressed, third-order-harmonic-distortion-to-the-point-of-oblivion signal can be described as "clean", and a direct, high-fidelity signal will more often be described as "harsh and brittle."

I guess if the goal is to capture the input signal as closely as possible, a 24/96 file will be more capable of doing so than any magnetic tape or vinyl medium known to man, assuming signal paths are equal and equipment isn't being misused (i.e. driven into clipping.)

I am not sure if you are refering to making files from vinyl source but this was an interesting site I was getting familiar with info for the method that will most likely be the way we get our higher quality music. I was disappointed most artist's I wanted are not available yet but in time I'm sure, I wasn't impressed by the $18 fee for the 24/96 titles.

https://www.hdtracks.com/