4608vs1411
Aug 3, 2013 at 9:18 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 7

alalouf

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Posts
21
Likes
10
Hey.
 
If Flac files are so perfect, (and perfect they are), what going on with the vinyl flac files?
 
i mean, their size is way bigger, but how can you overcome the studio quality 1411 kb
are suppose to give you?
 
 
i'm pretty sure i'm missing something here...
 
Aug 3, 2013 at 11:22 AM Post #3 of 7
Could it be that as FLAC has to be converted to Wav on playback the OP's music software is displaying the uncompressed/deFlac'd data rate rather than the FLAC data rate - ?
 
Aug 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM Post #5 of 7
The data on a vinyl record is not digitized.
 
When reading (playing) from it to record it on a computer, you need to pass it through an ADC (analog-to-digital converter). Sometimes people set the ADC to 96 kHz sampling rate and 24 bits precision mode. That results in two channels of audio, so 2 x 96000 samples / sec x 24 bits / sample = 4608000 bits/s = 4608 kbps. So if you do that, you have essentially a digitized recording of what was on the vinyl. You could also read it at CD quality settings: 16 bits and 44.1 kHz sampling rate.  (2 x 441100 x 16 = 1411.2 kbps) Or whatever else. 24-bit / 96 kHz seems to be somewhat popular among people who want to capture all the extra low-level, generally inaudible noise in higher precision.
 
Then compressing to FLAC doesn't change the data, just how it is stored (into a smaller format). It doesn't mean that FLAC files are perfect, but that any lossless compression produces a file that can be decoded exactly into what it was compressed from. So what's the quality of whatever the FLAC was encoded from?
 
FLAC supports different numbers of channels, sample rates, and bit depths, and the bitrate of any FLAC or some other file could be greater or less than something else. What's way higher compared to what?
 
 
Anyway, at these kinds of samples rates and bit depths, what we're talking about has little to do with sound quality. Sound quality has to do with the recording and mastering mostly.
 
Aug 3, 2013 at 3:32 PM Post #6 of 7
Quote:
so, vinyl is not necessarily better than flac, even thought the bit rate is way higher?

 
 
The analog signal on the vinyl can only be approximated to a bit-depth, however using signal theory we can derive an approximate dynamic range within the audible spectrum of pristine vinyl played back on an optimally configured TT/Arm/Cart of about 13 maybe 14 bits when the arm is tracking perfectly.
 
You can sample this at 128 bit sample depth at 1million samples a second if you like but the recovered information will still be about 13 actual bits. The argument for sampling at 96khz is that there is (some) information above the 22Khz that CD stops at , whether this makes any actual audible difference is hotly contested (the bulk of empirical evidence from properly controlled listening tests suggests it is not) but it is at a very low level and unless you are young and/or have exceptional hearing you'll never hear it. The argument for sampling at 24 bits is less rational still as you don't have anywhere remotely near 24 bits of dynamic range on the LP to start with and the extra space (50%) required above 16 bits is largely wasted unless you are going to do some processing, granted space is now cheap...
 
If anybody tries to tell you that analog audio is infinite they are incorrect, analog audio is theoretically infinite, if analog audio as found on LP was actually infinite it would have an infinite bandwidth and an infinite SNR/dynamic range which it don't - analog is continuous but when the cart tracks an LP it can only produce a finite range of voltages dependent on the signal in the vinyl and the physical properties of the LP surface. If you want to learn about the physics of this limitation here is a nice page
 
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/iandm/part12/page2.html
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top