[Darien]

i was using a lot of regular 16 bit flacs and then i found places to download 24 bit vinyl rips, are they pretty much the same quality as having a vinyl setup? i know lot of people look down on "computer setups" - but if u got the 24 bit vinyl rip with a good dac/amp/cans, does that count as a respectable setup?
 
would 24bit vinyl rip flac technically be better than vinyl cus it doesn't have the pops and stuff?
 
i know a lot of people say there's no dicernable  difference, but i did several blind tests with radiohead and rhcp songs 16 bit and 24 bit and had my friend play them randomly back and forth and i could tell the difference, it was very slight but i could hear the 24 bit ones were slightly more crisp.
 
also btw in most video games are the music and sounds 24 bit or 16bit? like swtor for example?
 
so is 24 bit what artists and etc record with in studios, and then it gets downgraded to 16 bit when they put it on a cd? but vinyl keeps the true 24 bit recording?
 
also btw my o2odac supports max of 24 bit 96 khz, so does that mean there's no point trying to get 24/192? if i play 24/192 flac will it lose quality or will it just simply play at 96 khz? im playing a song now on foobar and it says its 24/192 but my dac is only 24/96 so what does that mean?

 

[Jenson]

Hi!
 
I think this post describes pretty well what does difference between 16bit and 24 bit mean in practise as well as what is differences in sampling frequencies: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded 

 

[Music Alchemist]

To properly compare 24-bit to 16-bit, you need to convert the files yourself using a program like dBpoweramp in order to isolate the variables and ensure you are comparing only the resolution of the files. Once the files are properly converted, there is no audible difference. Higher resolutions have benefits related to working with audio in the studio, but no benefits for playback.
 
The specs of the files and your DAC are irrelevant as long as the files are 256 kbps AAC or higher resolution. (All are audibly transparent, meaning they sound the same, as documented by controlled tests.)
 
The thing about vinyl rips is that the rip can only be as good as the analog system used to rip it, and those systems can get quite expensive. (Whereas any cheap CD drive can almost always get a perfect rip from a CD.)
 
Vinyl rips won't be better than listening to the vinyl on analog systems that are better than the one used to rip it, but you can remove pops and so on from vinyl rips with software.
 
It's a lot easier to get great sound out of a digital system than an analog one. A respectable amp/DAC setup (with a neutral frequency response, inaudibly low distortion, ample output power, and so on) can be had on the cheap, though low-end headphones naturally can't compete with the best high-end ones.

 

[fjrabon]

The thing about vinyl rips are you have no idea how they were ripped.  You have no idea what kind of table was used, what kind of cartridge, etc.  The vinyl rabbit hole of audiophilia goes deeper than anything else in audiophilia.  Did you know there are people who believe that they can hear the difference between double and single sided vinyl?  Did you know single sided vinyl was a real thing?  That there are some people who believe you can't get a pure sound unless you only record music to one side of each vinyl disc?  Did you know that there is a such thing as a mono vinyl cartridge?  Also, with vinyl rips, you have the whole analog to digital encoding process to worry about as well.  We all know that digital to analog decoding can make a huge difference in sound quality, well, the same can be said for the equipment that does the conversion from analog to digital as well.  
 
I have never heard a vinyl rip that sounded better than the pure digital original version.  The only cases I've used vinyl rips was when the vinyl used a superior remastering that wasn't otherwise released on certain digital formats.  For example, the most recent re-master of Sticky Fingers is only available as 256 kbps AAC (iTunes) and vinyl.  So, if you wanted a lossless copy of that remaster, your only choice was a vinyl rip, as the CD re-relase just used the older re-master (which was inferior by a pretty good amount).  
 
If you think about it, the idea of vinyl rips is patently absurd, assuming that the material is can be found in digital form in the first place.  It's throwing a completely superflous layer of encodings and decodings, which are completely open to coding errors.  The fewer steps the signal goes through to get to your ears, the better it's going to be.  Vinyl ripping adds: conversion to vinyl (ie literally the process of putting the grooves in based on the material on the tape), then the needle converting that, then that being converted to analog impulses, then that being re-encoded into digital.  Each of those steps is a place where completely unnecessary errors can pop up in the music.

 

[Music Alchemist]

If you think about it, the idea of vinyl rips is patently absurd, assuming that the material is can be found in digital form in the first place.  It's throwing a completely superflous layer of encodings and decodings, which are completely open to coding errors.  The fewer steps the signal goes through to get to your ears, the better it's going to be.  Vinyl ripping adds: conversion to vinyl (ie literally the process of putting the grooves in based on the material on the tape), then the needle converting that, then that being converted to analog impulses, then that being re-encoded into digital.  Each of those steps is a place where completely unnecessary errors can pop up in the music.

 
For what it's worth, some people have ripped vinyl to digital on their systems and did not hear a difference between digital playback of the files and analog playback of the vinyl. (Can't link you to the specifics, but you can find the info in Sound Science.) Of course, as we both know, if you played the vinyl on a better analog system, that would be a different story.

 

[fjrabon]

   
For what it's worth, some people have ripped vinyl to digital on their systems and did not hear a difference between digital playback of the files and analog playback of the vinyl. (Can't link you to the specifics, but you can find the info in Sound Science.) Of course, as we both know, if you played the vinyl on a better analog system, that would be a different story.

I agree there, but that more or less condemns the theoretical pros for vinyl in the first place.  Most audiophiles can't identify if something was played on vinyl or are purely digital files with random hisses and pops added in.
 
I get vinyl rips, if you already own the vinyl and you just want to copy over your library that way as a matter of cost/convenience.  Or if the track/record can't be found in a digital format to begin with.  But the idea of vinyl rips as a way to build a library from scratch and be superior to purely digital FLAC is audiophile silliness at its peak.  

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I agree there, but that more or less condemns the theoretical pros for vinyl in the first place.  Most audiophiles can't identify if something was played on vinyl or are purely digital files with random hisses and pops added in.
 
I get vinyl rips, if you already own the vinyl and you just want to copy over your library that way as a matter of cost/convenience.  Or if the track/record can't be found in a digital format to begin with.  But the idea of vinyl rips as a way to build a library from scratch and be superior to purely digital FLAC is audiophile silliness at its peak.  

 
Yup. Too bad vinyl has the "benefit" of exclusive content, masters, or recordings. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have bought any vinyl in the first place. =/

 

[Mharris1991]

The thing about vinyl rips are you have no idea how they were ripped. You have no idea what kind of table was used, what kind of cartridge, etc. The vinyl rabbit hole of audiophilia goes deeper than anything else in audiophilia. Did you know there are people who believe that they can hear the difference between double and single sided vinyl? Did you know single sided vinyl was a real thing? That there are some people who believe you can't get a pure sound unless you only record music to one side of each vinyl disc? Did you know that there is a such thing as a mono vinyl cartridge? Also, with vinyl rips, you have the whole analog to digital encoding process to worry about as well. We all know that digital to analog decoding can make a huge difference in sound quality, well, the same can be said for the equipment that does the conversion from analog to digital as well.

I have never heard a vinyl rip that sounded better than the pure digital original version. The only cases I've used vinyl rips was when the vinyl used a superior remastering that wasn't otherwise released on certain digital formats. For example, the most recent re-master of Sticky Fingers is only available as 256 kbps AAC (iTunes) and vinyl. So, if you wanted a lossless copy of that remaster, your only choice was a vinyl rip, as the CD re-relase just used the older re-master (which was inferior by a pretty good amount).

If you think about it, the idea of vinyl rips is patently absurd, assuming that the material is can be found in digital form in the first place. It's throwing a completely superflous layer of encodings and decodings, which are completely open to coding errors. The fewer steps the signal goes through to get to your ears, the better it's going to be. Vinyl ripping adds: conversion to vinyl (ie literally the process of putting the grooves in based on the material on the tape), then the needle converting that, then that being converted to analog impulses, then that being re-encoded into digital. Each of those steps is a place where completely unnecessary errors can pop up in the music.

I know I'm reviving a thread that's over six years old, but I'm very interested in knowing that given the fact that vinyl rips add more steps to the process, and are not really considered quality for this reason. Are there any recommendations to either go for the first CD pressings of music made from the 80's and before because of the loudness wars that raged for sometime, or remasters of music made then? I got back into vinyl just as a way to keep occupied after finishing taking digital audio class, since I am aware that CD will always have all the sonic advantages to it's analog counterparts. I try to collect vinyl that only saw a release in that format for that reason, but I have made the mistake of grabbing a couple of albums that were already released on CD, and ripping those into FLAC 24 bit. I was about to make the grand mistake of collecting new albums on vinyl to rip it, though I think some light has been shed on that, thanks!

 

[earmonger]

When CDs first came out, labels did a lot of bad conversions from analog catalog to CD versions, so the first CD editions of pre-digital recordings aren't necessarily the best, and later remasters can be an improvement. Unless, as you mention, there are recent remasters to join the loudness wars -- though that generally applies to new recordings aimed at radio, not catalog.

Often you can go to the band's fan sites and ask about which remasters are preferred; there might be a consensus or you might start a fun argument.

If something was originally recorded to digital, then IMHO a vinyl version is just a money grab for collectors.

 

[Mharris1991]

When CDs first came out, labels did a lot of bad conversions from analog catalog to CD versions, so the first CD editions of pre-digital recordings aren't necessarily the best, and later remasters can be an improvement. Unless, as you mention, there are recent remasters to join the loudness wars -- though that generally applies to new recordings aimed at radio, not catalog.

Often you can go to the band's fan sites and ask about which remasters are preferred; there might be a consensus or you might start a fun argument.

If something was originally recorded to digital, then IMHO a vinyl version is just a money grab for collectors.

Digitally recorded stuff's a no-brainer. CD all the way for that. It's all made with Pro Tools on studio-grade Macs, and I personally used it in the sound studio in my university. I gotta say that we've come a long way from analog recording processes. Pretty solid stuff now. It is what Cannibal Corpse used to record their latest album, which is pretty darn cool, considering that the learning-curve isn't too bad, and all the features, especially the equalizer bands are pretty cool. I'm going to go mostly with CD's anyways, since finding out today that getting any vinyl to rip that's available on CD is a no-go. I'll also look out for the better remasters, thanks for the advice!