Assuming you have the right source, is it true that lossless

>>55650840
Sure

vinyl is lossless you fuck.

>>55650840
Yes. The only reason the two would sound differant would be because of manifacturing errors with the vinyl. Some people might say vinyl sounds better but they are probably placebo or hipsters.

>>55650884
vinyl experiences wear so technically its not

>>55650840
yep

>>55650898
Vinyl releases tend to have better dynamics, and are mixed differently This isn't always the case, of course. It may depend on the genre you listen to

>>55650884
over a long period of time its possible that wear creates static sound effect (dust, etc), but basically the recording is lossless which is why vinyl is still preferred for certain people

>>55650884
Spoken like someone who's never even cut an acetate test pressing, let alone done DAE and codex research.

Vinyl is one lossy generation away from the master: loss includes stereo separation on the bass (will make the needle skip so if present has to be EQed down), wow, flutter, high-end. And the loss unavoidably gets worse after every play unless you use a laser turntable.

Meanwhile, online music gets encoded straight from the masters; if lossless, will be truly lossless; if lossy will be one hopefully perceptually-transparent generation away.

Pressed CDs are also lossless from masters, given the limits of human hearing and modern dithering techniques, and the glass mastering process.

CD-R releases are not necessarily lossless, as duplication towers do DAE in one-pass Burst mode at high speed and may propagate errors without setting C1/C2 accordingly, making potential clicks possibly appear.

Whether you can ABX any differences is another matter. Also I have seen genuine pressed CDs from internationally known publishers where the "master" source was MP3s: DJ mix sets are a particular data point here. Does it matter if you can't hear it? Not over one generation, but inaudible encoding artefacts can sometimes become audible over a second generation, like re-encoding that mixed master or CD to a lossy codec.

>>55651308
>This isn't always the case, of course.

It's simply not the case in any album released after 2003

>>55651583

Again, it depends on what you listen to. A lot of artists release Vinyl records with different mixes these days.

>>55650840
for classical music yes, it does matter.

for sgt peppers and pink floyd and the latest <adjective><noun> band etc. im sure that shit still stinks irregardless of the anus performing the evacuation.

>>55651495

vinyl has the largest longevity and ease of storage cost, true that CDs carry higher frequencies that vinyl is not capable of reproducing,

but vinyl only needs to be kept in a temperature and humidity controlled room upright to remain in playable condition, but it is true that the total number of plays is limited in nature as eventually groove wear will reduce the amount of signal

tape really has the best reproduction, carries the most frequencies, but tape ages,

so strange as it is to preserve and be able to play back a recorded signal the best method is to have a vinyl that you store properly, record it to tape, and play the tape when you want playback, when the tape wears you record the vinyl again

tapes can be restored and preserved but it's often a tricky chemistry project and the tape may be unable to be played back again after it has been treated to capture a recording of it

the library of congress no longer accepts digital music releases stating they are too expensive to store and maintain and eventually there is some signal loss and the signal degrades

so you could record from fresh tape or vinyl to digital and still have a very fine signal with plenty of bandwidth, but tape will still sound better. excellent digital does surpass vinyl for some frequencies but tape still surpasses them both, but at this end judgement can be made on a recording to recording basis

>>55650884
>>55651495
>>55652466
spoken like a true cuck