[ypana3]

If I'm in the wrong section, then somebody please move this, but

I was wondering which you people prefer; 24 bit flac or remastered. Obviously, this is all subjective, so I was hoping for your opinion.
Also, I'm currently under the impression that vinyls are simply 'warmer'. If somebody could correct me, then that would also be awesome.
 
EDIT: Changed title because I am a silly, silly person

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

If I'm in the wrong section, then somebody please move this, but

I was wondering which you people prefer; 24 bit flac or remastered. Obviously, this is all subjective, so I was hoping for your opinion.
Also, I'm currently under the impression that vinyls are simply 'warmer'. If somebody could correct me, then that would also be awesome.

 
24 bits will give you no advantage over 16 bits except an extra 8 bits at the bottom of the range for very quiet sounds - you'd literally be able to encode stuff 256 times quieter than now (ie stuff that you'd never notice and don't care about!) and that's the only difference. You would not, as people suppose, have a more accurate recording, because that's about sample frequency. (And if you increase that over current levels then you gain no advantage except the dubious one of recording ultrasonics - which you will probably have to filter out to remove distortion products with audible frequencies! http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)
 
Oh, and your hearing and the headphones you are using are  such that using anything better than 320 ogg or aac  is almost certainly pointless.
 
If you want a "warmer" sound then very slight use of the EQ will easily give it. Put a big drop on everything over 15kHz, and a tiny one on the region from 2k to 4k.

 

[Speedskater]

Your title is" 24 bit Vinyl ..." yet most vinyl recording are in the 13 to 14 bit range.
Of course a vinyl copy of a 16 or 24 bit flac, has a good chance of sounding different.
And a remastered anything has a chance of sounding different.

 

[nelamvr6]

There's no such thing as "24 bit vinyl", all vinyl is analog.  

  

 
I do a lot of needledrops, (vinyl rips), and I always encode as 96/24 flacs.  
 
I believe that I can hear a difference.  But I would encode that way even if I didn't believe that, because I want to give my needledrops the best available technology.
 
Be careful with remasters.  Many remasters are worse sounding ( in many cases MUCH worse sounding) than the original release.
 
Whether CD or vinyl, one of the guys who has the biggest impact on how an album sounds is the mastering engineer.  He's either the unsung hero, or the unsung villain.
 
That's why if you're going to get used vinyl, you need to learn to read the symbols in the deadwax.  And if you're going to go with newly released vinyl, stick with labels you can usually trust.  Like Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity, Speakers Corner etc.
 
The Steve Hoffman Forums are chock full of people who can help you with deciding what releases are worthwhile.  But beware, a lot of those people are nutjobs, and Steve is a huge ****** bag...

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

Your title is" 24 bit Vinyl ..." yet most vinyl recording are in the 13 to 14 bit range.
Of course a vinyl copy of a 16 or 24 bit flac, has a good chance of sounding different.
And a remastered anything has a chance of sounding different.

Vinyl doesn't have a bit depth, that doesn't apply to analog audio. They just have the equivalent dynamic range capability of about a 12 bit digital audio file.
 
I'm guessing the TC was referring to a 24 bit vinyl rip rather than vinyl itself?

 

[Speedskater]

They just have the equivalent dynamic range capability of about a 12 bit digital audio file.
 
I thought that my post had the same meaning.

 

[nelamvr6]

There's more to vinyl than just the dynamic range.
 
Good digital is good, but good analog trumps.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

They just have the equivalent dynamic range capability of about a 12 bit digital audio file.
 
I thought that my post had the same meaning.

Thanks for mentioning that.  No vinyl is 14 bit, or even 13.  

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

There's more to vinyl than just the dynamic range.
 
Good digital is good, but good analog trumps.

 
 
In what objectively measurable criteria that actually matter does the capability of vinyl exceed even 16/44.1 ?
 
Certainly not noise, linearity, speed stability, consistency, timing errors, noise, distortion, rumble, channel separation or noise

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

 
 
In what objectively measurable criteria that actually matter does the capability of vinyl exceed even 16/44.1 ?
 
Certainly not noise, linearity, speed stability, consistency, timing errors, noise, distortion, rumble, channel separation or noise

 
 
That actually matter?  Did you actually say that?
 
Not everything can be measured.  

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

They just have the equivalent dynamic range capability of about a 12 bit digital audio file.
 
I thought that my post had the same meaning.

Well it could be misinterpreted so I felt I'd clear that up. Might seem like common sense to some but there are those who think vinyl does have a bit depth. 

 

[chewy4]

 
 
That actually matter?  Did you actually say that?
 
Not everything can be measured.  
 

Then what unmeasurable attribute is better on vinyl?

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

There's more to vinyl than just the dynamic range.
 
Good digital is good, but good analog trumps.

Hmm... opinions all around.  Having lived deeply in both worlds, from back when there was no digital, my opinion is otherwise.  The test for me has always been, which final product sounds most like the console's stereo output?  Digital has fooled many seasoned engineers who thought they new better.  And by digital, I'm talking the early stuff, mid 1980s. They typical error was an engineer listening to a mix through the A/D an D/A of a digital recorder when he though he was listening to the console out.  When a comparison is then done, there's no detectable difference.  Vinyl never fooled anyone, it's obviously vinyl.  Tape is also easily identified.  

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
 
That actually matter?  Did you actually say that?
 
Not everything can be measured.  

 
 
Yes, I actually said that and meant it too. 
 
Vinyl does have two potential areas in which it betters redbook viz Rise Time and High end extension - whether they matter is open to debate. However the 
technical limitations of vinyl wrt redbook are legion.
 
I grew up with vinyl in the 60s/70s/80s and the noise on LPs used to drive me bananas I could live with the 1% speed error but the noise was always there
especially on quiet passages on classical music - aaarrrghhhh - my first CD player a 14 x 4 back in 1984 was unbelievably quiet compared to my record spinner
- I tried a few years back to rediscover vinyl and picked up a couple of decent Denon TTs but the experience was just as noisy as before so i flogged them again.

 

[nelamvr6]

Might as well be having a discussion on religion! 

 
Neither side is going to convince the other.
 
I wish that I could take vinyl detractors to hear a really good analog setup.  I suspect that most of them have never heard vinyl at its best.
 
But no worries, we can still be friends, right?