[bigshot]

Playing records is a technology that has existed for 100 years. You don't need lasers to do that. And you can easily EQ a CD to sound just like a record with the same master. When I see people making vinyl all complicated, I wonder if they even play vinyl very often.

 

[UltMusicSnob]

LOL, no doubt. The laser isn't because one needs it, it's because it takes the phono cartridge out of the signal path....

 

[jcx]

the ELP laser turntable requires extreme cleaning of the records, still the tech doesn't reach good stylus playback noise floor
 
also the physics of Gaussian spot size, practical f number optics gives laser spot larger than elliptical stylus contact width in the scanning direction
 
the ELP does seem to be useful for archival use reducing the chance of damaging rare records, ability to set spot location on wall to avoid wear damage from previous mechanical play

 

[bigshot]

The only use I see for it is playing records that are broken into bits. For a normal record, a cartridge is a million times better. The laser turntable won't play colored vinyl either, so that leaves out your white wax White Album!

 

[hogger129]

  I have some flac files that are 24/96 vinyl rips, but I don't think they sound any better than 16/44 CD rips. 24/96 rips taken from a digital source, like an SACD or DVD Audio, often sound better than their 16/44 counterparts to me, however. I'm guessing that this is because the vinyl equipment and ADC used to make the rip isn't that great? Any opinions? 

When I say that they don't sound any better, I mean that dynamic range doesn't seem better, the amount of detail doesn't seem better, and the general sense of clarity is the same or even worse, due to background hiss. 

For reference, I'm using foobar -> HRT Music Streamer 2 -> Little Dot Mk3 -> Q701 or HE-400. 

EDIT -- This may be obvious, but I didn't make the vinyl rips and I don't know who did. They weren't all made by the same person either. I think the place where I got these vinyl rips isn't supposed to talked about on these forums, if you catch my drift...

 
 
I come to this conclusion as well.
 
I also wonder if it's because sampling it at 24/96 is digitizing an analog signal, so it's going to sound different because of that processing.
 
Idk...  I'm happy with a good CD.

 

[maclifeyou]

yes,And the cartridge is probably even more important than the turntable.thank you

 

[dysonapr]

digital (probably) --> analog (disc) --> analog (who-knows-what replay chain) --> digital. I think the expression is "crap-shoot".

 

[xdog]

Please don't forget about extra DETAILS you have on those 96/24 bit rips,
in form of clicks and bumbs, not to mention some weird treble change which can be sometimes found
 
What really suprise me it that often those rips have a lot of "ilkie/+1s"

 

[blades]

  I have some flac files that are 24/96 vinyl rips, but I don't think they sound any better than 16/44 CD rips. 24/96 rips taken from a digital source, like an SACD or DVD Audio, often sound better than their 16/44 counterparts to me, however. I'm guessing that this is because the vinyl equipment and ADC used to make the rip isn't that great? Any opinions? 

When I say that they don't sound any better, I mean that dynamic range doesn't seem better, the amount of detail doesn't seem better, and the general sense of clarity is the same or even worse, due to background hiss. 

For reference, I'm using foobar -> HRT Music Streamer 2 -> Little Dot Mk3 -> Q701 or HE-400. 

EDIT -- This may be obvious, but I didn't make the vinyl rips and I don't know who did. They weren't all made by the same person either. I think the place where I got these vinyl rips isn't supposed to talked about on these forums, if you catch my drift...

Nothing strange at all.  The dynamic range limitation is carved right into the vinyl groove.  Almost all vinyl records are compressed.  If they weren't you would run the risk of having the stylus jump out of the groove when anything loud occurred on the recording.  Dubbing a record to digital should simply produce a copy of the record - ticks, scratches and all. 
 
The purpose of the 24 bit word length is to provide overhead for the studio to mix and master the recording.  It is what recording engineers use.  There isn't any sonic advantage in the final product because 16 bits handles the dynamic range just fine.  A 96 kHz sampling frequency also affords some overhead but no sonic advantage.  You can do a blind test for yourself to help understand that increasing word length and sample frequency above the red book standard doesn't have anything to do with sound it simply creates a larger file with more inaudible data in it..  You can download a free program called foobar which has an ABX tool and hear for yourself.

 

[JosephTheGreat]

16/44.1 is ultimate
you can say 24)/192 is better, 
but you are wrong.
difference is in MASTERING, they gave great attention to SACD, & for CD they capped the volume 
vinyl is analog, every time you play it it degrade ! & there is HISS ! it sound better the Cd sometimes because they didn't capped the volume on it : loudness war

 

[TheGhostWhoWalks]

it sound better the Cd sometimes because they didn't capped the volume on it : loudness war

The correct answer. Anyone that uses Foobar or JRiver's Dynamic Range Analyzers can see how vinyl rips rarely have the kind of horrid compression that CD/CD rips do. On most classical and jazz this isn't a problem, but most all modern pop masters/remasters should be avoided like the plague because of the loudness wars.