Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How good are your ears? (Telling FLAC from FLAC)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How good are your ears? (Telling FLAC from FLAC) - Page 2

post #16 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by firev1 View Post

Yup and a also worse than a well mastered CD. Vinyl still has pops and cackles unless you take very very good care of it.

 

 

Hmm, out of curiosity (again):
Given that both a vinyl LP and a CD (I'm going to leave SACDs out for now) are in Mint condition, the same would hold true? I mean, I know that vinyl has a lot of drawbacks and all (portability being the biggest of them... does that count as a pun, or was that just a bad joke?), but there're ways to remove all the dirt and grit on the surface of a vinyl disc, right? So the only reason that vinyl sounds "worse than a CD" is because of the fact that grit gets in between the grooves and causes pops and crackles? And also: the reason that there are a lot of people (particularly here on Head-Fi) that have a thing for vinyl is because they're generally well-mastered, and not because the physical medium is really any better than CDs?

 

Sorry for the persistence. It's just that I'm debating whether or not to invest in a proper turntable (my aunt has one that I could get at a discount, though from what I can gather it's not in very good condition). If CDs, well-mastered ones at that, really are better than vinyl on the whole, then I can scrap those plans and invest the money in a good receiver and amp/DAC, maybe new cans :)

post #17 of 25

No, there are plenty of other (different more significant than for CD) challenges and disadvantages as well, so the pristine copy is worse as well.

 

That said, a turntable could still be a worthwhile investment just so you can rip vinyl releases, since some music and some masters are not available on a different format.  For as much as people debate different gear, a different master can make a much bigger difference.

 

There are other reasons for the popularity—certain ingrained beliefs for whatever reason, some kind of nostalgia / counter movement, the experience required for playback being different and thus making the person listen in a different way (that alone can make things sound different, maybe better).  There are probably more.

post #18 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZetsuBozu0012 View Post

 

 

Hmm, out of curiosity (again):
Given that both a vinyl LP and a CD (I'm going to leave SACDs out for now) are in Mint condition, the same would hold true? I mean, I know that vinyl has a lot of drawbacks and all (portability being the biggest of them... does that count as a pun, or was that just a bad joke?), but there're ways to remove all the dirt and grit on the surface of a vinyl disc, right? So the only reason that vinyl sounds "worse than a CD" is because of the fact that grit gets in between the grooves and causes pops and crackles? And also: the reason that there are a lot of people (particularly here on Head-Fi) that have a thing for vinyl is because they're generally well-mastered, and not because the physical medium is really any better than CDs?

 

Sorry for the persistence. It's just that I'm debating whether or not to invest in a proper turntable (my aunt has one that I could get at a discount, though from what I can gather it's not in very good condition). If CDs, well-mastered ones at that, really are better than vinyl on the whole, then I can scrap those plans and invest the money in a good receiver and amp/DAC, maybe new cans :)

Yes, there is maintenance of the turntable and there are ways to remove dirt too. Vinyl disadvantage is its technical abilities compared to CD. Comparing mint, LP may be free of pops and cackles but that only last a few times of playback before it comes back again. Unlike digital components you may find as well that a single turntable is affected by multiple mechanical factors like the tonearm, phono cartridge and of course, your phono preamp(that needs to be matched to your type of phono cartridge too). It takes a fair bit of care to play a vinyl compared to CD systems but if you have music for it, why not?

 

I suggest unless you have a lot of songs in LPs, then get the turntable, if not, invest it in a solid playback system first. Heck, either way start with the receiver/DAC first. Some receivers do have phono inputs(mine has for Moving magnet cartridges) so you could start with that first.

 

I don't have too much experience with vinyl but my old man used to own one and once the CD came out, he dumped his a few years later in favor for a good cd system. 

post #19 of 25
Even the best LP records have a narrower range of frequency response than CDs and very high inner groove distortion. That said, the LP format is capable of good sound, but the only reason to invest in a turntable is to listen to music from the 50s, 60s and 70s that hasn't been released on CD, or was released with very poor mastering. The nice thing about LPs is that they're cheap. You can get great records for $2 a disk.

I have a collection of over 15,000 records myself, dating back over 100 years. If I could snap my fingers and have them all digitized to CD, I would give them away in a heartbeat. CD is a much superior format for convenience and sound quality.
post #20 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Even the best LP records have a narrower range of frequency response than CDs and very high inner groove distortion. That said, the LP format is capable of good sound, but the only reason to invest in a turntable is to listen to music from the 50s, 60s and 70s that hasn't been released on CD, or was released with very poor mastering. The nice thing about LPs is that they're cheap. You can get great records for $2 a disk.
I have a collection of over 15,000 records myself, dating back over 100 years. If I could snap my fingers and have them all digitized to CD, I would give them away in a heartbeat. CD is a much superior format for convenience and sound quality.

 

I suppose that makes sense. Still, the only reason I'd considered getting a turntable was to improve the SQ of my rig (note that I've yet to own any vinyls; even my grandpa's moved on to CDs now :/). I suppose that there's no longer a need to do that, since the only difference would be the mastering done, and there are enough well-mastered albums in SACD format to keep me occupied for a while. At least I'll have cash enough to invest in better receviers, amps, etc.

 

Speaking of well-mastered vinyls that have badly mastered CD releases, would you care to name a few? Depending on whether there are enough albums that I like in vinyl format, I may buy a turntable after all (something mid-range, I guess).

 

Cheers, and thanks to everyone that's replied so far! :)

post #21 of 25
Everything by Zappa, but that's scheduled to change soon.
Led Zeppelin's first several albums
Frank Sinatra on Capitol
post #22 of 25

Strange, people are trying to find the difference of FLAC vs FLAC while my friends and I are having difficulty finding 128 vs 320 on a decent setup.

post #23 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xinze View Post

Strange, people are trying to find the difference of FLAC vs FLAC while my friends and I are having difficulty finding 128 vs 320 on a decent setup.

 

I find that there's an audible difference between 128 vs 320 MP3s, though only when I'm using my at-home gear, or when I'm in a particularly quiet place while using my portable rig. Anyway, I'm just as skeptical as most people here on Head-Fi about higher bit-rates having better sound quality (though FLAC vs lossy is pretty easy to tell, even with a barebones rig). For one, though I get or rip to 96kHz/24-bit FLAC files whenever possible (for documentation/storage purposes, you understand), 192/24 just seems like overkill to me.

 

Back to the topic at hand:
I get the feeling that the primary reason for my thinking there to be such a huge difference between the two files mentioned in the OP is due to mastering rather than the bit rate of the two files; there was about a 200-kHz or so difference between the two files, but the difference between might be negligible. 

post #24 of 25

actually no. maybe my ears aren't as good as yours. getting old though 

post #25 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve12 View Post

actually no. maybe my ears aren't as good as yours. getting old though 

It happens to the best of people.


I'm only 19, but I found to my chagrin that my capability to hear higher-frequency notes was already deteriorating. As far as I can tell, I can still hear up to 17-18kHz, but anything above is silent to me. I doubt that it will affect my music listening significantly (if that were the case, I doubt there'd be very many audiophiles above the age of 25), but it's a sad thought all the same.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How good are your ears? (Telling FLAC from FLAC)