I'm going to sound like a hipster, but you should only buy music on vinyl

[IronWing]

Vinyl is a pain. I liked the ritual of buying new vinyl and recording it to tape but CD is just better to ears and easier to store/move/use. So far, I haven't had to purchase a CD cleaner and cleaning solution to remove dust from a CD.

We've gone back to CDs for most music purchases now. 256kbps just doesn't cut it. We were buying lots of music on iTunes and Amazon. There is a sort of warble in the compression that seems to cross musical genres. Ripping a CD to Apple lossless sounds better than the 256 version on the same equipment. When we first started buying mp3 downloads I really didn't think it mattered (I think I even posted such statements on this very forum) but after going back to CD I realized I was wrong.

 

[gevorg]

The only thing that can be better about vinyl is mastering and recording quality of a given album (better dynamic range, no loudness war, etc). Otherwise even a 16bit/44.1KHz is just as good or better. Modern DAC technology (last 10 years or so) has come a long way. Though, for some audiophiles, old habits die hard.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I love audiophile discussions on general tech boards. It's like the Aesop fable - boast of one thing and you will be found lacking in that and a few other things as well.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Vinyl eats shit. Assuming it does sound better than digital when new, and I don't concede that, but am willing to consider it; that's the best it'll ever sound. It gets marginally worse every play after until it's a muddy mess. That's not even getting into the convenience aspect. The only way it could get less convenient is to play the damned music yourself...

LOL :thumbsup:

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Though, for some audiophiles, old habits delusions die hard.

FTFY


None of the claims made by audiophiles hold up to legitimate double blind testing.

Tubes over solid state is bullshit
vinyl over CD is bullshit
high end cables are bullshit

 

[Mixolydian]

The only way it could get less convenient is to play the damned music yourself...

I for one find it very stimulating, both on an entertainment and intellectual level.

 

[destrekor]

Vinyl eats shit. Assuming it does sound better than digital when new, and I don't concede that, but am willing to consider it; that's the best it'll ever sound. It gets marginally worse every play after until it's a muddy mess. That's not even getting into the convenience aspect. The only way it could get less convenient is to play the damned music yourself...

That's why you buy vinyl once, use a damn fine needle and cartridge, and use a quality connection to a solid recording device and record to lossless.

Now you'll have, assuming a different mastering source, a better digital file than even flac files available directly from the artist.

This all hinges on the vinyl getting a quality production.

Otherwise, many listeners are likely a fan of the analog production factor, which in of itself does change the characteristic of audio. (this should be captured in the recording from a turntable, if you practice the "play vinyl once" approach - unless filtered out somehow)

I've heard a high-quality digital recording from vinyl, and I loved the hell out of it, more than straight digital files. It still had the analog factor, though it was no longer a randomized analog factor that a full analog setup would produce.

 

[lxskllr]

I for one find it very stimulating, both on an entertainment and intellectual level.

Sure, but it's not very convenient. You're a keyboard/piano player, right? Not very convenient for the beach, or working in the yard :^D

 

[destrekor]

FTFY


None of the claims made by audiophiles hold up to legitimate double blind testing.

Tubes over solid state is bullshit
vinyl over CD is bullshit
high end cables are bullshit

To an extent. At the low, affordable end of the spectrum, when dealing with analog frequencies, cables matter very much.

You don't need to spend $100 or even $1000+ on some asinine 3' connector, but I'd also caution against tiny-gauge crap.

I haven't ever had a chance to compare the various technologies. I've heard plenty enough about the love for tubes, but not once ever heard them in action myself, or seen a legitimate scientific study--or at least the results--to test the comparisons.

 

[Rakehellion]

I disagree. Unless you're one of those people who magically hears liquid gold earsex from vinyl (which is more a psychological thing and is pretty much proven to be BS), the real difference isn't the medium, its the version of the recording. The problem is you've been listening to modern produced music (even if its old, you're likely hearing "remastered" versions if you've been listening to AAC versions).

I'm not inclined to believe that. Why would they master the album to intentionally make it sound worse?

Also, I wasn't comparing a particular song to its digital version. The entire album sounded better that my whole digital library.

 

[lxskllr]

I haven't ever had a chance to compare the various technologies. I've heard plenty enough about the love for tubes, but not once ever heard them in action myself, or seen a legitimate scientific study--or at least the results--to test the comparisons.

Tubes are good for guitar amps. They overdrive nicely with a warm distortion, as opposed to the clipping you get with solid state. Curiously enough, that's exactly what you don't want with recorded music. I suppose warm distortion is better than clipping when you listen to your vinyl(!?), but your amp is probably underpowered, and you need to upgrade so you don't get distortion at all.

 

[Rakehellion]

If you take the exact same file, make a copy/conversion to 256kbps MP3 (assuming its not an encoder that specifically does things to enhance certain parts of the audio spectrum) and compare it to the lossless (or even uncompressed) original, most people wouldn't be able to discern the difference, even with high quality speakers. Even fewer people would be able to correctly discern which one was the "higher quality" one with any consistency.

I can definitely tell the difference between 256k MP3 and 320k.

 

[Rakehellion]

I actually bought a CD recently and it must be compressed more than normal because I don't remember CDs sounding this bad.

Depends on who's mastering it. Some studios are better than others. Avoid pop music.

 

[destrekor]

Vinyl is a pain. I liked the ritual of buying new vinyl and recording it to tape but CD is just better to ears and easier to store/move/use. So far, I haven't had to purchase a CD cleaner and cleaning solution to remove dust from a CD.

We've gone back to CDs for most music purchases now. 256kbps just doesn't cut it. We were buying lots of music on iTunes and Amazon. There is a sort of warble in the compression that seems to cross musical genres. Ripping a CD to Apple lossless sounds better than the 256 version on the same equipment. When we first started buying mp3 downloads I really didn't think it mattered (I think I even posted such statements on this very forum) but after going back to CD I realized I was wrong.

Compared to 320kbps even, CDs offer far more capability. A good encoding of 320 can get damn close, but I'll never accept that what the music services are offering us can actually replace CD.

I just wish various forms of higher-fidelity music actually caught on. We're basically stuck at CD or 320/256kbps (or less, though Ogg is widely used and is not directly comparable to MP3 encoders), whereas we could have had an easier time actually finding 5.1 mixes and, in general, higher encodings than on CD (Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio). It's still not that common to find flac or other lossless or high-bitrate lossy recordings; to be fair, I have never compared such offerings to what is on CD.


I do need to get into the habit of buying more CDs. It's very rare I do. I still get them for my favorite acts that deserve more careful listening, but there is much out there I don't stress about getting the highest quality version for.

 

[Rakehellion]

Tubes are good for guitar amps. They overdrive nicely with a warm distortion, as opposed to the clipping you get with solid state. Curiously enough, that's exactly what you don't want with recorded music. I suppose warm distortion is better than clipping when you listen to your vinyl(!?), but your amp is probably underpowered, and you need to upgrade so you don't get distortion at all.

If there's clipping in your recording, you need to turn down the volume.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

To an extent. At the low, affordable end of the spectrum, when dealing with analog frequencies, cables matter very much.

More low end and affordable than a coat hanger? Just more bullshit.


http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/

 

[IronWing]

(Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio).

I have one SACD-DSD disk. Now if I only had a setup capable of taking advantage of it.

When I first got an iPod I ripped my CD collection to 128kbps (oops). For the pop/rock stuff it doesn't matter that much. I've since re-ripped most of the classical and world music to lossless. I still need to re-rip the old blues stuff to lossless. Whatever filtering was used to remove the frying bacon from the old blues recordings doesn't play well at all with AAC compression.

 

[Rakehellion]

More low end and affordable than a coat hanger? Just more bullshit.


http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/

A 1-foot coathanger doesn't have to deal with self-induction and metal-on-metal interfaces like 15-foot audio cable does. And that entire test is bullshit because no one has coathangers in their home theater.

Also, just because some random people can't tell the difference, doesn't meant no one can.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

A 1-foot coathanger doesn't have to deal with self-induction and metal-on-metal interfaces like 15-foot audio cable does. And that entire test is bullshit because no one has coathangers in their home theater.

Also, just because some random people can't tell the difference, doesn't meant no one can.

Okay, then please link to a legitimate, double blind test conducted where any audiophile claims were actually confirmed. Just one where Monster Cable beat ordinary speaker wire. I've searched and been unable to find one as audiophiles avoid double blind testing like vampires avoid holy water. Real, controlled double blind testing tends to make them look stupid. Well, even more stupid.

 

[olds]

pedophile here, and i agree....


vinyl>DVDA>cd>flac>anything compressed

FTFY

 

[MongGrel]

Monster cables are BS.

Bought some of this awhile back though and helped a lot I'd say.

*shrug*

100ft 14AWG Oxygen-Free Pure Bare Copper Speaker Wire Cable

http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=102&cp_id=10239&cs_id=1023902&p_id=2791&seq=1&format=2

 

[crashtech]

I've gone back to buying CDs and ripping them to WAVs, just like the old days. That is all my aging ears need to be perfectly happy, and I don't mind the old uncompressed format because storage is cheap.

 

[who?]

Analog mastered vinly is a continuous reproduction which sounds better than the samples which is digital.
An upsampling CD player such as the Cambridge Audio models interpolates samples in between the samples it gets from the CD which smooths out the sound and makes it much nicer to listen to.

 

[CZroe]

I've gone back to buying CDs and ripping them to WAVs, just like the old days. That is all my aging ears need to be perfectly happy, and I don't mind the old uncompressed format because storage is cheap.

Why not use a lossless compression format? If anything better comes along, you can restore the original WAV from the lossless file and then use that with the new compression format.

Lossless = bit-for-bit identical wavform output when uncompressed or played back. It's a bit like archiving your WAV files with Zip, Rar, or some other lossless archive format except it's one that's highly optimized for compressing WAVs instead of general files.

 

[Kneedragger]

I just put on an old Stevie Wonder album and the sound quality was way, waaaay better than compressed audio. All I've listened to for the past several years has been 256k AAC and I'm ashamed to say that technology has failed us. D:

Where can I get audio in 96kHz and 24-bit?

http://www.prostudiomasters.com/

http://store.acousticsounds.com/cat/365/Digital_Download

https://www.hdtracks.com/

http://www.linnrecords.com/

Last year around the holidays Linn was offering free High Res downloads one per day I think for a week. So keep an eye on their site as the year goes on.