dirkswanepoel
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2012
- Posts
- 1
- Likes
- 10
There is guy called dr. Robert
I don't get it. Even if the vinyl copy is better than CD/SACD recording, wouldn't it be lost in converting to FLAC ?
I have seen recently that converting vinyl to 24/96 flac has become popular.
add several kind of a few % distortions from mechanical movements(vertical and sideways)+ all the noise from those movements and friction, jitter so huge it's changing the tones, kill crosstalk to almost mono, roll off the trebles and voila!!!! you get the sound of most vinyls.
well I seem to make a lot of friends those days. I don't think what I said is incorrect. or that it was a mockery.
you're ok with rips of vinyls to digital so my guess is that you have a specific problem with 16/44? as I can't hear a difference between hires and 16/44,
Can't hear the difference between 16/44 red book and hi-res?
That is a very obvious difference.
The issue is more subtle and far more complicated than 16/44 is flawed.
Basically anything that is put into ANY digital processor or mixer, gets degraded.
I have FLAC rips that are straight from a hi-end turntable, they sound great.
I have FLAC rips that are straight from a hi-end turntable that then had processing to remove pops and clicks and make the volume levels match and they have all of the issues of 16/44.
It's the processing and mixing. Source and mixdown must be analogue, pre-1979 (with some exceptions 1979-1989). 1-bit 5.6448MHZ DSD originally sounds good but it still has a flatness that vinyl never had.
Any remasters? Flawed and usually run through processing that flattens images as well as compresses up the sound. Not so bad with The Clash, horrible with Pink Floyd. These new remasters are for people listening on an iPhone as background music.
At this point I am convinced that anything post-1979 is flawed and thus I intend to buy up pre-1979 vinyl and play it on my own high end DIY turntable.
The best pressings are white label promo copies, pre-1979. These were done first run on the stamper after the mixdown, for release to radio stations and reviewers and as such they have the best sound of that recording. Any remaster done today is on a 40 year old tape that has degraded, or even worse a digital copy of a safety master.
But a copy of that on the original vinyl was physically created back then from the young tape and thus sounds better.
1-bit 5.6448MHZ DSD is promising but this requires yet AGAIN another digital remaster of that same tape for the 5th or so time, when just buying the original vinyl would sound as good or better.
Nearly everyone reading this has never heard good analog on the radio or at home, thus they don't know what they are missing.
I don't get it. Even if the vinyl copy is better than CD/SACD recording, wouldn't it be lost in converting to FLAC ?
I have seen recently that converting vinyl to 24/96 flac has become popular.
Hi,
It's been a few years since you asked but for anyone who finds this, I figure this might be a valid point.
The truth about digital anything is that it is an image. When you use audio as an example, it's much easier to demonstrate the futility of digital "imaging". The bottom line being that when you digitally record sound, you are creating an image of sound. Right there you can already get the idea.
But to drive this home, I'll try to work with the argument between digital folk: think of two people standing in a room arguing about reality of sunlight reproduction with bulbs as an example. One guy is pointing to the old school, incandescent light bulb and talking about an enclosed actual fire in a filament, heat coming off the bulb in general, the brightness of it at 80 watts, the other guy is trying to convince him that the fluorescent eco-bulbs are "better" because of this or that and most of all they last longer and may give off the same amount of light although it might not feel the same brightness at 80 watts due to its softer "format" of light.
here's a completely disconnected article I found about old school light bulbs.
http://www.earth911.com/eco-tech/the-phase-out-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-what-you-need-to-know/
Much like people arguing intelligence between a pc and a mac, in the end if they're of identical hardware they're the same thing but for different people. (like identical Hummer trucks but one is civilian and the other is military.
In any case, neither light formats are the actual Sun.
This argument becomes truly redundant when the 3rd guy comes with a candle which burns at 80 watts. (he's the analog guy, by the way) and everyone just tells him how idiotically inefficient he is before he can make his point that the sun is burning flame.
Again, the true argument would be lost in waves of intelligence politics or preference for ease of use.
For most who avoid such poor debates, true sound is high grade analog wax (or magnetic tape) because you are taking frequencies and sending them directly into a format which requires friction to recall. Either dragging the frequencies across a tape head or literally scraping the sound out of a vinyl record is the air, blood, and rock & roll of true sound reproduction.
The rest is photos.
We went with digital because "it's more economic and efficient" which translates into: we prefer the access to more despite quality. Face it, we crap where we eat to save a buck. Now go get yourself a record player and we'll talk about tube amps vs. solid state in next class
Can I get an Amen?