chewy4
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2011
- Posts
- 1,591
- Likes
- 76
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 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...
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...
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.
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.
That actually matter? Did you actually say that?
Not everything can be measured.
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.
Ok: if you can't measure these Magical Vinyl properties, can you at least NAME them?
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?
How about a 24/96 file recorded from vinyl?
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...