[chewy4]

I originally thought analog had an advantage on sound replication due to the sampling limitations of digital, but then I gained a better understanding of the sampling theorem. 
 
 

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

I originally thought analog had an advantage on sound replication due to the sampling limitations of digital, but then I gained a better understanding of the sampling theorem. 
 
 

 
I remain convinced that analog is superior.  Especially in cases where the only readily available digital version of an album has been remastered poorly.  But not only in those cases.
 
As I said, good digital is good. It can even be great.  I have some really early release CDs that sound quite nice, before record company idiots had a chance to "fix" them.  I'm thinking of things like my Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here 2 track, and my black triangle Dark Side of the Moon.
 
But truly good analog, well mastered and then well pressed, is wondrous to behold!  I have a copy of Steely Dan's Can't Buy a Thrill released by Cisco that might make you reconsider...

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

 
I remain convinced that analog is superior.  Especially in cases where the only readily available digital version of an album has been remastered poorly.  But not only in those cases.
 
As I said, good digital is good. It can even be great.  I have some really early release CDs that sound quite nice, before record company idiots had a chance to "fix" them.  I'm thinking of things like my Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here 2 track, and my black triangle Dark Side of the Moon.
 
But truly good analog, well mastered and then well pressed, is wondrous to behold!  I have a copy of Steely Dan's Can't Buy a Thrill released by Cisco that might make you reconsider...

It's not that I dislike analog, it has a pleasant sound signature. But digital is objectively better at sound reproduction, which is what high fidelity is about. Jaddie provided a pretty good real world example of how good it is.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

It's not that I dislike analog, it has a pleasant sound signature. But digital is objectively better at sound reproduction, which is what high fidelity is about. Jaddie provided a pretty good real world example of how good it is.

 
 
And yet, true summit-fi rigs, owned by true golden ears, are seldom without a turntable.
 
Would you turn down a chance to listen to tunes at Mikey Fremmer's house?
 
Apparently your opinion is not universally held...

 

[chewy4]

Quote:

 
 
And yet, true summit-fi rigs, owned by true golden ears, are seldom without a turntable.
 
Would you turn down a chance to listen to tunes at Mikey Fremmer's house?
 
Apparently your opinion is not universally held...

It's not an opinion that digital more accurately reproduces sound. Only the preference between the two is an opinion, but how accurate one is over the other is fact.
 
Summit-fi owners generally aren't objectivists. They don't necessarily like the most accurate sound, and seldom have a great understanding on how audio replication actually works. I'd personally prefer to listen to the engineers.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

It's not an opinion that digital more accurately reproduces sound. Only the preference between the two is an opinion, but how accurate one is over the other is fact.
 
Summit-fi owners generally aren't objectivists. They don't necessarily like the most accurate sound, and seldom have a great understanding on how audio replication actually works. I'd personally prefer to listen to the engineers.

 
As I already said, neither side will convince the other.  

 

[scuttle]

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.

 
I assumed that the guy had typoed and meant something like "If a vinyl album was to be remastered as FLAC in 24 bits or a CD, which would sound better?"

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

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

 
Ok: if you can't measure these Magical Vinyl properties, can you at least NAME them?

 

[LFF]

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.

I prefer whichever version is mastered properly.
 
The format and encoding won't mean jacksh*t if it's improperly mastered.
 
All things being equal, I'd take a 24/96 file over vinyl anyday of the week.

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

 
Ok: if you can't measure these Magical Vinyl properties, can you at least NAME them?

 
Well, for one thing it's much easier to use a 12" LP's cover to clean your pot...  Those CD cases don't work well at all, and don't even get me started on those downloads!

 

[nelamvr6]

Quote:

I prefer whichever version is mastered properly.
 
The format and encoding won't mean jacksh*t if it's improperly mastered.
 
All things being equal, I'd take a 24/96 file over vinyl anyday of the week.

 
 
How about a 24/96 file recorded from vinyl?

 

[mikeaj]

Quote:

How about a 24/96 file recorded from vinyl?

 
24/96 recorded from vinyl over the vinyl, because it doesn't degrade over time.  Early on it would produce practically the same sound, if done and equalized properly.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

 
 
How about a 24/96 file recorded from vinyl?

I'd take 24/96 precisely for the reason mentioned above.
 
My problem with vinyl lies in the chain required to play it and MOSTLY in it's ability to degrade over time.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

 
I remain convinced that analog is superior.  Especially in cases where the only readily available digital version of an album has been remastered poorly.  But not only in those cases.
 
As I said, good digital is good. It can even be great.  I have some really early release CDs that sound quite nice, before record company idiots had a chance to "fix" them.  I'm thinking of things like my Pink Floyd Wish You Were Here 2 track, and my black triangle Dark Side of the Moon.
 
But truly good analog, well mastered and then well pressed, is wondrous to behold!  I have a copy of Steely Dan's Can't Buy a Thrill released by Cisco that might make you reconsider...

All your observations are completely true, but they aren't defining a difference between analog and digital, they're defining a difference in the total system path to the release.  And in both paths were tools operated, subjectively, but humans making decisions.  That's the problem here.  The reason that there's any preference at all for vinyl is that in it's heyday, the people responsible were highly trained professionals.  That largely went away when digits arrived resulting in some rather bad CDs.  And today, anyone with low-cost hardware can hang a shingle out claiming to be a mixer, or mastering engineer.
 
I won't disagree there are better sounding analogy releases, but it's not because they are analog, it's because the decisions made in production were better.  
 
The reason high-end systems have turntables relates to the above, but also relates to content.  There are still many vinyl releases that haven't made it to digits, or if they have, the got munched up badly on the way.  
 
24/96 vinyl transfers seem to be highly capable of capturing the entire dynamic and frequency range of vinyl including surface noise, ticks and pops, vertical groove distortion, IMD, THD, tracking error, tangency error, stylus contact profile errors and distortion, and groove wear.  But 16/44.1 does pretty well too.
 
And I use Scotchbrite to clean my pots, the ones I cook in.  Deoxit for the ones in my electronic stuff.  

 

[nelamvr6]

But we can still be friends, right? 

 
I don't mind discussions like these so long as tempers don't flare.
 
But I would really be interested in knowing just how many of those arguing so ardently against vinyl have really heard a good vinyl rig...