[Shaffer]

Someone posted earlier about the unacceptable noise floor of vinyl. Many of my LPs produce no more noise that the electronic background noise of my system which is very low. In either case, electronic noise or vinyl noise, I'd have to put my ear right up to the speaker to notice it. Never an issue from my listening position. Generally tape hiss from many original analog recordings is louder than the other two and you can have that with both LPs and CDs.

[...]

I understand what you're saying. Keep in mind, though, that the folks here are using headphones, not speakers. As such, surface noise and other anomalies become more audible.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[nick_charles]

  Someone posted earlier about the unacceptable noise floor of vinyl. Many of my LPs produce no more noise that the electronic background noise of my system which is very low.
 
I guess we all have a different tolerance for background noise, when I was considerably younger and had much better hearing vinyl noise was intolerable, 5 years ago when I revisited vinyl I still found the noise intolerable. But listening on speakers from a long way away at lowish volumes for some types of music with a high average level the noise might not be intrusive but the laws of physics dictate that it is still there.
 
As for the noise from your system, for LP playback you need a phono stage these are generally substantially noisier than the stages required for line levels so it is conceivable that the electronic noise from this can rise to at least close to the background LP noise levels. 
 
The fact remains that the inherent noise from the LP itself and the various noises from the player (pre amplification) will combined never drop below about -80db on a good system with immaculate setup and pristine LPs 
 
 
In either case, electronic noise or vinyl noise, I'd have to put my ear right up to the speaker to notice it. Never an issue from my listening position.
 
The predominant listening mode here in this headphone-oriented forum is headphones where the speakers are up to your ears. 
 
Generally tape hiss from many original analog recordings is louder than the other two and you can have that with both LPs and CDs.
 
Agreed, but most non-historical recordings have been digital since 1982 and apart from some late 80s Dowland Solo Lute stuff I have the recording noise on most modern recordings is pretty low nowadays

 

[vinylvalet]

Thanks Shaffer. You've make a very good point that I did overlook.

 

[arnyk]

  Someone posted earlier about the unacceptable noise floor of vinyl. Many of my LPs produce no more noise that the electronic background noise of my system which is very low. In either case, electronic noise or vinyl noise, I'd have to put my ear right up to the speaker to notice it. Never an issue from my listening position. Generally tape hiss from many original analog recordings is louder than the other two and you can have that with both LPs and CDs.
 
In the past Michael Fremer, among others, used an Alesis Materlink ML-9600 master disk recorder to make CDs from vinyl sources to create reference CDs for audio shows. The digital files from this fairly old recorder were exceptional, at least good enough for evaluating subtle differences between very expensive stereo systems by professionals with very good ears.
 
Although I haven't experienced this personally, I've read that digital files made from an excellent LP playback source using Pure Vinyl software with a high quality preamp and ADC are consistently better than the vinyl could ever sound because the RIAA equalization is done by Pure Vinyl in the digital domain; far more accurate than could ever be done with passive electronic components.
 
I believe both formats can produce superior sound. It's much easier with digital. If one does not already have a large LP collection and doesn't have the technical skills, money and patience to put together a very good analog source, they should stick to digital and just enjoy the music. I enjoy both formats equally but then I've gone to great lengths to properly setup up, modify, tweak, etc both my analog and digital source components.

 
If the electronics in your system have a higher noise floor than your vinyl, then it is highly likely that it is tube-based. 
 
In case you haven't noticed, analog tape and/or tubes are not the standard for low noise. 
 
It would appear that you have staged a win for vinyl by setting the bar very low.  It has been decades since either were competitive with even cheap SS digital.

 

[judgmentday]

  Someone posted earlier about the unacceptable noise floor of vinyl. Many of my LPs produce no more noise that the electronic background noise of my system which is very low. In either case, electronic noise or vinyl noise, I'd have to put my ear right up to the speaker to notice it. Never an issue from my listening position. Generally tape hiss from many original analog recordings is louder than the other two and you can have that with both LPs and CDs.
 
In the past Michael Fremer, among others, used an Alesis Materlink ML-9600 master disk recorder to make CDs from vinyl sources to create reference CDs for audio shows. The digital files from this fairly old recorder were exceptional, at least good enough for evaluating subtle differences between very expensive stereo systems by professionals with very good ears.
 
Although I haven't experienced this personally, I've read that digital files made from an excellent LP playback source using Pure Vinyl software with a high quality preamp and ADC are consistently better than the vinyl could ever sound because the RIAA equalization is done by Pure Vinyl in the digital domain; far more accurate than could ever be done with passive electronic components.
 
I believe both formats can produce superior sound. It's much easier with digital. If one does not already have a large LP collection and doesn't have the technical skills, money and patience to put together a very good analog source, they should stick to digital and just enjoy the music. I enjoy both formats equally but then I've gone to great lengths to properly setup up, modify, tweak, etc both my analog and digital source components.

By any chance, have you listened to this album?
 

Released in October 1982 early sample of a fully digital recording.
They both are mastered digitally recordings but the one in the LP sounds much better period. Just wanted to get your opinion.  Thanks.

 

[judgmentday]

  I'm becoming a bit of an audiophile in my old age and want the absolute best sound.  This is good for the musicians as I am now re-purchasing music in different formats.  I just bought a CD to rip because the iTunes version of the album sounds crappy.  I finally looked at the file and it is only 128 Kbps!
 
 

I know what you mean, ha, ha, ha.  I hope you have not bitten into the forbidden fruit yet.  That is a respectable tube preamp, a tube amp, Turn Table, speakers, cables, interconnects, etc.  (list goes on, I have to stop). Audio is just like Video, you don't want to watch a DVD movie on a HD 1080p monitor, 4K or even a 8K TV even with their famous up sampling technics.  Obviously, the movie will look pixelated and crapy. This is the same way mp3s or other compressed audio sound in a high end home 2 channel stereo.
 
 
Quote:

  Here is my question though:
 
Assuming that I have good quality Vinyl, a good turntable, a good way to connect the turntable to my PC, and good conversion software, if there is a vinyl version of an album, can I convert it to a digital lossless format that will be better quality than an iTunes ALAC rip from the same CD, or will I at best reproduce the exact quality as the rip, and possibly produce a worse quality version?
 
Thanks

 
I suggest you to digitize your LPs to 24Bit/96kHz files (Wav or FLAC) using Audacity and the ASUS Essence STX II. I have gotten decent results for listening with headphones or portable or just to listening to my computer at my job but if I want serious sound, vinyl is still king for me.  Make sure you get a decent TT & Cartridge and that your LPs are new, free of pops or any noise. Also, buy a decent LP cleaner machine and take good care of your LPs to avoid any scratch or mishandling.  Believe me you will be overjoyed with great sound.  You can listen to LP after LP without fatigue or no listening frustration as we get with CDs or the compressed bright MP3s.

 

[sonitus mirus]

   
  You can listen to LP after LP without fatigue or no listening frustration as we get with CDs or the compressed bright MP3s.

 
I typically stream Google Music (320kbps Lame-encoded mp3 files) several hours a day with no listening fatigue.  I think this is something rather unique to you, and not something experienced by most people.

 

[cjl]

 compressed bright MP3s.

Low bitrate MP3s tend to eliminate high frequencies, as they contain the most information (and are thus the hardest to encode). If anything, they tend to sound muffled. Higher bitrate MP3s preserve all frequencies, so they don't really change the tonality at all. If you're hearing MP3s as "bright", you really need to get your hearing checked.

 

[judgmentday]

   
I typically stream Google Music (320kbps Lame-encoded mp3 files) several hours a day with no listening fatigue.  I think this is something rather unique to you, and not something experienced by most people.

I agree with you, most people are ok with elevator music. I'm allergic to MP3s.

 

[judgmentday]

  Low bitrate MP3s tend to eliminate high frequencies, as they contain the most information (and are thus the hardest to encode). If anything, they tend to sound muffled. Higher bitrate MP3s preserve all frequencies, so they don't really change the tonality at all. If you're hearing MP3s as "bright", you really need to get your hearing checked.

Hell yes! they are bright like hell! Have you not heard the DJs who play MP3s from a laptop? If you don't hear brightness or a thin sound you must be deaf.  Be happy with your iTunes buddy!

 

[Bibo]

 
Hell yes! they are bright like hell! Have you not heard the DJs who play MP3s from a laptop? If you don't hear brightness or a thin sound you must be deaf.  Be happy with your iTunes buddy!

What do crappy headphone outputs have to do with the original question in this thread???

 

[castleofargh]

 

  Low bitrate MP3s tend to eliminate high frequencies, as they contain the most information (and are thus the hardest to encode). If anything, they tend to sound muffled. Higher bitrate MP3s preserve all frequencies, so they don't really change the tonality at all. If you're hearing MP3s as "bright", you really need to get your hearing checked.

Hell yes! they are bright like hell! Have you not heard the DJs who play MP3s from a laptop? If you don't hear brightness or a thin sound you must be deaf.  Be happy with your iTunes buddy!

seems like you know a lot and have meaningful arguments to go with it.
 
 

 

[nick_charles]

  Low bitrate MP3s tend to eliminate high frequencies, as they contain the most information (and are thus the hardest to encode). If anything, they tend to sound muffled. Higher bitrate MP3s preserve all frequencies, so they don't really change the tonality at all. If you're hearing MP3s as "bright", you really need to get your hearing checked.

 
All mp3 codecs use masking models so some frequencies are still discarded regardless of high bitrate, however these frequencies should be inaudible in listening due to the effects of masking,  so for instance a low energy 12K tone might be masked by a significantly louder 12.1K tone in which case the 12K tone will vanish,  if the masked tone moves further away such as by 1000 hz then it will cease to be masked regardless of energy level unless it now has a proximal tone of significantly higher energy to mask it et cetera et cetera et cetera
 
So while it is true some high frequency info may be chucked it would hopefully be info you do not perceive anyway so the perceived tone when compressed should be the same as the uncompressed tone and certainly it cannot be higher unless the codec is seriously faulty

 

[cjl]

   
All mp3 codecs use masking models so some frequencies are still discarded regardless of high bitrate, however these frequencies should be inaudible in listening due to the effects of masking,  so for instance a low energy 12K tone might be masked by a significantly louder 12.1K tone in which case the 12K tone will vanish,  if the masked tone moves further away such as by 1000 hz then it will cease to be masked regardless of energy level unless it now has a proximal tone of significantly higher energy to mask it et cetera et cetera et cetera
 
So while it is true some high frequency info may be chucked it would hopefully be info you do not perceive anyway so the perceived tone when compressed should be the same as the uncompressed tone and certainly it cannot be higher unless the codec is seriously faulty

I was referring to low bitrate MP3 - 96k or 128k, where the low pass filter is clearly audible (especially on things like cymbals/hi-hat/etc). You're right that at higher bitrates, there is no longer an audible problem with MP3 (with the exception of some so-called "killer" samples).

 

[cjl]

 
Hell yes! they are bright like hell! Have you not heard the DJs who play MP3s from a laptop? If you don't hear brightness or a thin sound you must be deaf.  Be happy with your iTunes buddy!

Who cares about DJs - I listen to MP3s all the time on my own system, both at work (O2/ODAC --> Denon AH-D5000) and at home (SPDIF --> Denon 2808 --> B&W 805 + SVS sub). I promise, they don't sound bright or thin (and no, I'm not deaf).
 
I wonder if digital sounds bright to you because your LP setup has poor high frequency extension. That could explain why you feel that proper high fidelity reproduction sounds "thin" or "bright" - you're used to rolled off highs and think that sounds right.