The same thing is done for MP3 mastering. Too many frequencies at once will make it sound muddy.
It's physically impossible for ANY recording medium to exactly replicate the source.
The gist of it is that to save space and fit the music onto vinyl records, you have to reduce the amount of low frequency sounds which take up a lot of physical space (low frequency makes thicker grooves). Places that stamp records usually put a low cut filter at around 40Hz to control this.
People who say "vinyl has better sound quality". Sound quality as judged by how close the playback sounds vs. the source means it's physically impossible for vinyl to replicate the instruments as recorded. So no, it really can't have better sound quality. It may sound better to you, but what you're listening to isn't what was recorded.
1.) People who say "vinyl SOUNDS better". This is perfect, because what "sounds better" is entirely personal preference. If the warmth of how vinyl is recorded sounds good to you, that's great. BTW, you should be able to get that same warmth with an equalizer on your digital music.
Even the iPod Touch is only $200 and they've always supported lossless audio codecs.
I've got an 8 year old Sansa Fuze that plays FLAC and has a MicroSD slot. Cost about $50. Wonder if I can get $500 for it now.
The same thing is done for MP3 mastering. Too many frequencies at once will make it sound muddy.
It's physically impossible for ANY recording medium to exactly replicate the source.
You're talking about the one with the wheel right?
I bought that player years ago. It cost maybe 30/40 bucks on woot. Now, they are selling for over 100 because the Fuze+ came out and it's a POS...
Stupid question; the quality that this device provides in terms of sound - it is better or just as good as vinyl??
There certainly is a demand for vinyl, since sales have been going up; http://www.vox.com/2015/1/5/7494461/vinyl-record-sales-2014, so I can understand an audiophile's pursuit of high quality music.
Stupid question; the quality that this device provides in terms of sound - it is better or just as good as vinyl??
No digital player, whether it's a portable or a high-end $40,000 player, will ever sound the same as vinyl on a decent rig.
you're absolutely correct - digital is gonna sound sooooo much better. Especially after you listen to the vinyl 100 times.
Same with listening to FLAC. Complete and total waste of space on a mobile device. It has its uses as a master copy to covert to 320 kbps mp3 or another lossy codec, but it has absolutely no place on a PMP.
I have 160GB of FLAC ripped from my CD collection at the moment. Why would I want to either maintain a separate mobile version of my music, or spend hours transcoding it every time I want to change the set list on my mobile device?
I have 160GB of FLAC ripped from my CD collection at the moment. Why would I want to either maintain a separate mobile version of my music, or spend hours transcoding it every time I want to change the set list on my mobile device?
A FLAC player makes perfect sense.
I have a 1.25TB FLAC library that I've transcoded into Mp3 for use on my mobile players. The initial transcoding took something like three days (it's not something you have to babysit), but now I add a few new albums to my FLAC library every month and the maintenance takes a couple of minutes.
At 1/4 the size of the FLAC files (approximately - it depends on the Mp3 quality level chosen), I get four times as many tracks on my mobile players. The sound quality of Mp3 is more than adequate for how/where I use my portables. The cost in disk space to store the Mp3 mirror library is just a few dollars. Maintain that Mp3 library and you don't have to transcode anything just to change the music files on your portable.
Because the 20 GB of stored mp3 is massively cheaper on a desktop hdd versus on a PMP?
Because if you converted it all to mp3, you wouldn't NEED to change the setlist on the PMP on the first place because you could fit everything in the PMP.