1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Hi-Res 24/94 vs Flac vs CD vs Mp3 files download comparison

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by christian u, May 26, 2014.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10
  1. Baxide
    That's assuming that you are describing the recording. But more often than not, it is describing the equipment, and more often than not it would be the DAC.
  2. old tech

    I often hear it used in the context of the recording eg "that is a good CD, it has a very "analogue sound".  To me that is meaningless because any sound we can hear is analogue so the context it is being used is subjective to an individual.  The worst offenders I find are those that get more into vinyl records but they only seem to use this term when describing good digital recordings when that term, in this instance, presumably also applies to vinyl recordings so well mastered vinyl is then "analogue sounding" but the term is never used in this way.  I suppose it would complicate things, for example what about poor vinyl recordings - are they "not analogue sounding" or something else?
    With regard to evaluation equipment or DACs it is weirder.  Analogue sounding in this context would mean noticeable noise, artefacts and non-linearity.  Why is that something worth striving for as opposed to say "digital sounding" to mean accurate, imperceptible noise and minimal artefacts?
  3. Baxide

    I know it is difficult to see the tress through the woods with so many leaves blocking the view. But you'll get the jest after a while. Don't take thing literally, so to speak.
    As for vinyl: that's the reference source for the analogue description. Digital music strives to be just as nice sounding to the ear. The kind of noises you get from digital music when there is an error cannot be found in an analogue only system. So you won't find jitter in a vinyl system.
  4. castleofargh Contributor
    I use analog vs digital to make it clear which output I'm talking about on a device. or which part of a the design of a DAC I'm talking about. most subjective uses of "analog sound" are IMO erroneous ways to say "euphonic" while implying some passive aggressive hatred toward digital processing(usually also for erroneous reasons).
    no it's not, digital music has long since outperformed vinyls in fidelity, if you don't like that sound, blame the guys recording and mastering, not digital music. nobody is trying to make a digital media that sounds like vinyls, that would require to add so much noise/disto/crosstalk/EQ that it would make no sense on a media aiming at fidelity.
    about jitter.... between the fact that temporal errors are so much more massive on vinyls, and the fact that typical jitter values are yet to be showed audible in usual consumer products, I suspect you've created in your head a relation between what you dislike in CD music and jitter that doesn't really exist.
    and about the "kind of noises", vinyls have tremendously more and way louder "noises" than a cd.
    I don't mind having preferences for vinyls, but please don't try to justify them with false objective reasons. taste is taste, fidelity is fidelity. vinyl doesn't even reach CD in fidelity so it's not by adding more bits or whatever that you'll get a sound closer to vinyls. if anything you should objectively suggest the opposite.
    anyway, vinyls and CD aren't usually the same masters anyway, so I wonder how much of the media you're blaming for what are really mastering choices?
  5. Baxide

    Oh, the irony of it all.
    Vinyl reproduction is only inferior than digital in the area of possibility of having a lower signal to noise ratio. Much of the illnesses you attribute to vinyl is really down to the turntable/arm/cartridge and the phono stage. As far as musicality is concerned, vinyl still reigns supremely.  
  6. RRod
    If people want to debate vinyl, start a thread (or resurrect an old one) and provide counter-arguments to this.
  7. gregorio
    All sound has to be acoustic otherwise we wouldn't hear it. Of course, all recorded sound (inc. digital) goes through two or more analogue stages but usually, "analogue sound" refers to the artefacts introduced by analogue recording/mixing; treble roll-off and mid-bass emphasis (as you mentioned) and tape saturation for example. Some audiophiles use the term incorrectly though, essentially as castleofargh mentioned, instead of "euphonic": Analogue is intrinsically "warm" and therefore nice, digital is not and is therefore not nice. This leads many of the more extreme audiophiles to erroneously assume that digital wants to be like analogue and even that analogue is higher fidelity.
    1. Vinyl reproduction is inferior to digital in EVERY area, except possibly one, how easy it is to create/add distortion.
    2. "Much" but by no means all. And, if you eliminate the turntable/arm/cartridge and phono stages, how are you actually going to play your vinyl?
    3. I take it this is some sort of audiophile usage/abuse of the term "musicality"? I want my audio equipment to be as aurally invisible as possible because the "musicality" put there by the actual musicians/artists is what really reigns supreme! Again though, I realise this is not the case with some audiophiles who are not really interested in listening to the music, just the sound of their audio equipment.
  8. nick_charles Contributor
    There is also a very interesting and mostly non-ideological description of the physics of vinyl playback from Jim leSurf at St. Andrews University
    castleofargh and RRod like this.
  9. old tech
    Back in the early 80s, before my first CD player, I bought a laser turntable.  That reproduced sound better than my Linn TT (as it was back then) but it was a pain to use due to its extreme sensitivity to dust and static.  I spent more time cleaning a record than playing it. 
    I can't vouch for the veracity of this story, a late friend of the family who was an executive for Sony's Australasian operations once told me that in the 70s the company was at one stage seriously looking at a new LP format, based on a smaller diameter version of the analogue laser videodisc introduced by Pioneer.  It would have combined the advantages of the laser player with a better approach to the vinyl record.  However it would have required the record industry to invest heavily in a new LP format at the time when digital audio was making progress.  The introduction of the CD killed that idea permanently.
    I agree that the statement "vinyl is king" in regard to sound quality is misinformed as there are no objective analogue measurements to support such a claim - subjectively though YMMV.  There is a reasonably dispassionate youtube video in the link below which discusses this aspect.
    The other thing which I find strange with some audiophiles that prefer analogue recordings/playback is why then worship vinyl when there are better analogue formats?  A good rtr will beat vinyl and so too would a hifi VCR recording in audio mode.  I had an early Pioneer hifi VCR and when recording CDs to it, it was difficult to tell apart the CD from the tape.  As far as I am aware, of all the consumer analogue equipment it was the hifi VCR which came closest to CD analogue metrics.
  10. castleofargh Contributor
    clearly, high fidelity analog doesn't sound at all like vinyl. to decide that vinyl is the front runner of analog sound to the point of replacing "vinyl sound" by "analog sound" in posts, is in itself demonstrating a massive misunderstanding over what analog sounds like.  so there really isn't anything to discuss. as long as people decide they can bend reality and misuse words to fit their taste, nothing real will come out of it. and real is supposedly what we're looking for in that section.
    if vinyl was objectively offering something better, I figure we would have heard of it by now. so please let's go back to digital resolutions.
  11. christian u
  12. sonitus mirus
    Since we are apparently posting old links:
  13. christian u
    Thanks. I had not read that. That is putting mqa in a different light. pheww....
  14. Mifi
    How can a compressed file sound better than the original?
  15. DecentLevi
    Because although the MQA format is compressed, it's of a completely different codec which still has more bits / resolution than the 88/24khz format
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10

Share This Page