>Vinyl is better quality than FLAC, because it has a wider

>>56467510
My question is, why are YOU so retarded, OP?

One doesn't need to be an "audiophile" to know that analog audio will always be superior to digital audio.

FLAC is shit. .WAV is superior.

File: 1464646862109.png (219KB, 468x423px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 468x423px

>>56467510
>MUH WARMTH
>MUH CRACKS AND POPS
>MUH DYNAMIC RANGE
>MUH ALBUM ART
>MUH PHYSICAL MEDIUM

>>56467510
I never understood the appeal of high fedelity. If I wanted to hear life like sound quality, I would go to my Uni Orchestra concerts and hear everything with my natural hearing.

Live preformance>Wav>>>>>>CD>>>>>>>>>>>Vinyl

Who are you quoting exactly?

File: 1469448924141.jpg (8KB, 130x193px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 130x193px

>>56467579
The album art is legit thing (although not important for the music quality).

Rest is of course bullshit. Well except for pops and cracks, those sure are there. I don't get why hipsters really believe this record bullshit. I grew up listening to them, no thanks never again.

>>56467622
Live performance is usually shit for pop/rock/etc. They can't play very well, often play solos and such stuff worse, too fast, too short and so on. Also there is shit like addressing the audience and asking it to shout or "sing along". So compared to studio versions of songs, more often than not it's shit. Exceptions be praised.

>>56469815
That's why you listen to people who can actually play their shit. Metal bands n shit. You really can't beat a love performance

>>56469926
Beat, fuck

analog is actually a better quality, it has an infinite bitrate and a frequency determined by the machine making it.
But since 99% of audio goes through digital format at some point in the production process now, all of the benefits of vinyl are now lost in favor of high-quality 1's and 0's

>>56467510
Why hate vinyl?

It's neat

>vinyl
Anon..

>>56470045

Its fun and looks good on a shelf. Also there is something about physical medium. But all that pales next to the audiophile bullshit so people make fun of it.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 436x333px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 436x333px

>24/96 flac from vinyl source

>>56470045
you're paying for a placebo [if you believe it], and a moving black disc

really, it just looks cool and is nice

which is fine if you have money, but people who tout vinyl as better, are fucking retarded

>>56467532
it already is

>>56467579
I hate it when the only torrent i can find it vinyl, the crackle is always the same which is annoying

Real audiophiles like classical music and go listen to live concerts and recitals.

>>56467510
Vinyl degrades when used.

If you listen to the same records (favs) in the same room often enough, you actually can tell subtle differences in sound from swapping out better components or higher quality recordings or remasters that you wouldn't pick up on listening to an unfamiliar record in some electronics retail showroom.

Not listening to records on a Technis direct drive turntable, ran through a pre-amp, amp to your Bowers & Wilkins speakers.

You're all amatures.

>>56470791
thankfully you can just play it back once, record it to a flac file and play that back without degradation and with zero difference in quality

>>56468942
>>>[s4s]

>>56467546
same quality, larger size...hmmm

In the last few years before cds took over, quite a few records were released on vinyl as half speed mastered pressings. The process was actually done at half speed so the record grooves had much better resolution. They sound great compared side by side to the normal records if you ever find them.

>>56470899
>zero difference in quality

The difference in quality will exist, flac stored sound samples in a floating point format of limited precision, meaning the stored value is a rounding of the recorded sound source.

It's not that the differences are inaudible to human than they aren't their.

Might as well use 320kbps mp3s and call it a day if you think like that.

>>56467510

OP only was right that FLAC is digital while Vinyl is analog. Else, not even wrong.

Also, FLAC has several bitrates/sampling freq. . At 192KHz, FLAC has a wider absolute range than vinyl, and the S/N ratio at the top end is not 5dB and the harmonic and intermodulation distortions are not in the tens of percent.

>>56470974
The dynamic range of vinyl is the same limitation as bit depth. My player gets about 30dB, which is way less than CD. https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Vinyl is neat and shit but I can't keep all the dust and shit off of it. I opened a brand new one a few weeks ago and somehow my cat had already gotten hair on it.

Vinyl is an audiophile meme.

Digital is superior.

The only reason I would get a vinyl rip ever is when the vinyl rip has a better master than the CD, some CDs are just recorded too loud.

Anyone with a clue knows vinyl isn't all that great.

Whats worse is it often costs more than superior sounding cd, is BIG, easily fucked up, and also becomes more and more destroyed as you play it.

Newer vinyl is often just a CD rip pressed on to vinyl which is somewhat hilarious when you consider people will still say it sounds better

But if you just like the idea of vinyl and want to waste money whatever man it's your bux not mine

>>56470974
yea, it has limits, everything has limits, vinyl and the human auditory system included
the trick is to use limits that exceed the human auditory system, who cares what happens outside of that range, we can't perceive them

some reading material;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandlimiting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

File: 3nXS2Ng.jpg (43KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 480x480px

>>56467622
Wav>>>>>>CD

uhhh ...

>>56470974
>a floating point format of limited precision

If you think the second time you play the rocord and the needle passes the groove in the same place it won't be in a different physical spot by a factor of at least ten times the rounding error of digital quantization, there's this bridge in London for sale.

>>56467510
vinyl is encrypted in FLAC you mong

File: 1464741021312.png (198KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 500x376px

>>56471009
>absolute range
beavis stop

inb4 rotational velocidensity

>>56470974
16bit dynamic range is 96dB which is excellent, far better than vinyl and far beyond human hearing capability. Modern music doesn't even use 1% of this dynamic range with its shitty compression, and even non compressed old music doesn't go below -60dB at most. No way you can hear the base noise. Also sound waves ARE round, sampling them 44100 times a second is more than enough to reproduce frequencies up to 22kHz, which is far beyond human hearing capability, perfectly and exactly like it was on source.

Vinyl is a meme, 24bit is a meme, 96kHz is a meme. Only mastering engineers need these formats because they do hundreds of complex calculus operations on the same file. Marketing guys are laughing at their way home every time they sell some new placebo to audiophiles.

>dynamic range is somehow better with analog
how is this even possible? as far as I know there's no curve that can't be accurately represented through data.

is it because DACs suck by nature?

>>56471111

>Checked
>My dog enjoys the FLAC less than the vinyl because he can hear the additional frequencies.

>>56467579
I downloaded an album from vinyl source in 24 bit FLAC and it sounds way better than the same album on CD. It's not because of the quality, but because of the mastering. The CD version has massive dynamic range compression for some reason. Probably so it sounds super loud with Beats by Dr Dre.

The difference is so obvious that it's almost like the difference between 320k and 32k MP3.

>>56471573
That's because it's false. Vinyl has a range of 70dB at most, while the shittiest MP3 has a hard range of 96dB. You even have 144dB if you use 24bit, but that's so much that the human ear can't pick up sounds that quiet.

>>56467510
The subtle dynamics are lost once with analog to digital conversion.

>>56471880

>This

I used to be an audio engineer by trade, and I never fucking understood why they insist on doing such a shitty job of mastering. I mean, I know, and that's because the untrained ears of young asswipes prefer overall loudness to subtleties, but it still pisses me off. Vinyl master is best master.

>>56467510
>>56470974
>>56471917
>mah analog is better because analog
see;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_theorem
this shit was proven back in 1949, how to record (sample) a band-limited analog signal to a digital signal /perfectly/
so long as the band-limit is beyond human perception, there is nothing better that can be achieved

just because an analog signal has no pre-defined hard limit by definition, doesn't mean it's not limited, what matters is whether the actual limits of the signal covers human hearing limits, which can be deliberately set with a digital signal, storing music digitally has been perfected a long time ago, the only things left that can affect sound quality is the recording/mastering/playback hardware, that is, the stuff that takes real sound and samples it, and takes samples and reproduces them

>>56472044
They should build compressors in to all media players and not hide the functionality behind 5 layers of menus. 60dB between dialogue and a jet engine is great on good head phones. On shitty laptop speakers it just means choosing between inaudible dialogue or distorted rattling for high volume situations. It would also let jamal choose compression for himself instead of for everyone.

>>56472644
Amen to that. That's one of the thing that I like about the AppleTV is that it does a good job of normalizing audio if I turn it on. That way I can hear people talk, and an explosion on screen won't wake my kids up.

>>56471917
Pretty much every record cut since the 70s used a digital delay line in the cutting process. Audiophiles are stupid.

File: Screenshot_20160907-094604.png (774KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 1440x2560px

Since analog audio is being discussed I was wondering if someone could help me out. I'm considering buying pic related to work as a receiver for my turntable. Receivers are just too big and I'm looking for something to power speakers, and headphones.

>>56468942
Someone I know IRL.

>>56475675
Does your turntable output at line level or does it have RIAA equalisation?

>>56469785
Dynamic range is not bullshit.

It has nothing to do with vinyl as a medium, though, but rather with DR compression faggotry being applied to digital records far more often then to vinyl editions.

Y'all niggers never heard a DBX-encoded LP in your life

>>56476531
I believe it's a direct line level output. It's an audio Technica lp 120 but I'm not exactly sure.

>>56471880
what album?

>>56477365
I think it was Random Access Memories by Daft Punk

>>56467510
since there might be some audiophiles in this thread can anyone recommend some good wireless headphones. The only Audio I listen to is coming from either YouTube or Spotify so I don't think they have to be extreme high quality.

Also does anybody know how I could easily switch the input between to those headphones between my phone and my laptop?

>>56467579
don't forget supporting the artist. oh wait that would've been a good point and you can't have that

>>56478110
>wireless
>good
pick one

>>56470016
>analog is actually a better quality, it has an infinite bitrate and a frequency determined by the machine making it.


Except the machine doesn't perfectly duplicate the waveform onto a record. Quality is lost because it is a physical copying process, just like how you can't just keep making a mold out of something that came out of a mold, detail is lost.

>>56478349
listen m8 I'm not too anal about the sound I just want them to deliver the music to my ears and not sound like shit

>>56478638
they have shit battery life for the most part, that's the biggest problem

the parrot zik 2.0 are on sale and they're not half bad

>>56467510
Digital will always be just a poor imitation of analog audio

A audiophile level vinyl setup ($50k+) will absolutely destroy ANYTHING digital given a well mastered vinyl album

Digital files confer no sense of responsibility, ownership, or attachment. They simply regress and disappear when not actively consumed. In contrast, the qualities of physical media allow for more complex and nuanced experiences over the lifespan of the artifact. This is one of the insidious trade-offs of going digital. We forgo the hassle and price but end up sacrificing so much more without realizing it.

TL;DR I'm already on the wrong side of progress

>>56478747
damn those cost 200€

I'll have to look for a sale too

>>56467510
they're not wrong, assuming the audio signal was never digital to begin with.
I don't know why it is so hard to understand, but most of these
vinyl head sjw numale retards
can't seem to grasp that once something has been made digital, re-recording it on vinyl isn't going to make the quality magically better/improve fidelity.

>>56467579
this too, I didn't think about the cracks and pops. it kind of defeats the purpose of analog hi fi audio if you constantly have shit cracking.