[QUOTE=winsanity;20977343]Short and simple - mp3's kill music quality.[/QUOTE]
Absolute bullshit.
An MP3 file- if not over-compressed, which anyone can prevent - can come so close to original sound quality that few can tell the difference between an uncompressed (.WAV) file, a compressed (.MP3) file, or an anolog(ue) device.
[QUOTE=Akayz;20980891]Depends on how much we're willing to spend on sound equipment, if you're an audiophile you would spend hundreds of pounds on studio headphones
I personally spend a reasonable amount of my sound systems, I'm happy with the response of both my headphones and speakers[/QUOTE]
I spend enough to get the sound quality I want from music I know is properly recorded. Vinyl is great and all, but through equalizers, good speakers and amps, a little bit of effort, and good actual formats for music other than mp3.
[QUOTE=Akayz;20980174]I'm not saying the vinyl itself, I'm talking about the technology....
clearly the analogue response is superior than digital because its simple physics
Digital is just 1s and 0s trying to shape itself into analogue....
what I would like, is some way of refining the technology itself, getting as close to studio quality as possible and being portable and modern[/QUOTE]
The only way you can make 0's and 1's more closely resemble the analog(ue) signal is by increasing the bit depth (how many 0's and 1's are assigned to the value of each sample) and increasing the sampling rate (how many little squares per second the sound is made of).
What technical evidence is there that Vinyl could sound ANY better than .wav ? Don't use the "analogue" bullshit on me, no frequencies that the human ear can hear are cut away.
[QUOTE=Killuah;20981190]What technical evidence is there that Vinyl could sound ANY better than .wav ? Don't use the "analogue" bullshit on me, no frequencies that the human ear can hear are cut away.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=33077&dateline=1260562785[/img]:hf:[img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=197775&dateline=1265505970[/img]
[QUOTE=Killuah;20981190]What technical evidence is there that Vinyl could sound ANY better than .wav ? Don't use the "analogue" bullshit on me, no frequencies that the human ear can hear are cut away.[/QUOTE]
digital is an APPROXIMATION of analogue, analogue is the REAL DEAL when it comes to music, real deal as in it puts more into your speakers than Mp3s or wavs or anything
and to the audiophile dude,
fair enough, using equalizers and adjusting details can help achieve a better quality and experience from digital sound, but ever wonder that by doing those sort of things you are putting more effort into getting those sounds when you can just use a vinyl record :]
[QUOTE=Akayz;20981305]digital is an APPROXIMATION of analogue, analogue is the REAL DEAL when it comes to music, real deal as in it puts more into your speakers than Mp3s or wavs or anything[/QUOTE]
The problem is, the differences aren't [I]audible[/I], and if there's no audible difference then there isn't a point at all.
Guess what happens when the song is recorded, or when your speakers play it?
"But it's analog" Bullshit.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;20981371]Guess what happens when the song is recorded, or when your speakers play it?
"But it's analog" Bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Pardon me but I'm not sure which side you're on here.
[QUOTE=Akayz;20981305]digital is an APPROXIMATION of analogue, analogue is the REAL DEAL when it comes to music, real deal as in it puts more into your speakers than Mp3s or wavs or anything
and to the audiophile dude,
fair enough, using equalizers and adjusting details can help achieve a better quality and experience from digital sound, but ever wonder that by doing those sort of things you are putting more effort into getting those sounds when you can just use a vinyl record :][/QUOTE]
I own vinyls, I own players, the sound isn't any better, it isn't any warmer or more natural unless that's due to the speaker in the player itself.
Digital isn't an approximation at all. It's just as clean, and just as well done when it's taken care of correctly. I'm far from an audiophile, I'm just really reasonable when it comes to sound quality. I know who to blame and when to blame them.
[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;20981394]Pardon me but I'm not sure which side you're on here.[/QUOTE]
Your side.
[QUOTE=Akayz;20980174]I'm not saying the vinyl itself, I'm talking about the technology....
clearly the analogue response is superior than digital because its simple physics
Digital is just 1s and 0s trying to shape itself into analogue.... [/QUOTE]
Hilarious truth! We could take you, blindfold you, put you in a room with a $10k sound system, and play a track for you twice, once from a high-quality digital recording and once from a vinyl one, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, because:
-High quality digital recordings generally approximate the original analog waveforms well enough that a human can't tell the difference
-A lot of modern music was recorded or at least processed digitally regardless, making your point moot as the vinyl would just be an analog copy of an originally digital sound
[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;20981369]The problem is, the differences aren't [I]audible[/I], and if there's no audible difference then there isn't a point at all.[/QUOTE]
It's not that they aren't- it's that they shouldn't be if done properly, and there's no music recorded by entirely analog means anymore. Yeah, an old Elvis vinyl sounds better than an mp3 of the same track, but the differences are negligible to most people and on a good enough copy, everyone. And for modern music, it's a moot point.
Plus vinyls actually decay unlike digital copies. Sure, it might be some PURE ANALOG SOUND BRO, but it'll be slightly different from what was put on it originally depending on the needle and turntable used, how much playtime the vinyl gets, how well you took care of it, etc.
[QUOTE=Soviet Beef;20977854]a higher bitrate isnt going to make the trash that you listen to any better on the ears.[/QUOTE]
Once you start enjoying high quality audio, it make it very difficult to listen to lower quality audio. Some people don't really care, but people like me do.
[QUOTE=Soviet Beef;20977854]And also, MP3 doesn't kill the quality as long as you know how to encode properly, but it'd be nice if the industry could switch to OGG / AAC already[/quote]
It still will get rid of quality. The main issue is that MP3 is compressed and will often times have a big impact on certain kinds of music. For example, classical music in MP3format is typically far different sounding.
[QUOTE=Akayz;20981305]digital is an APPROXIMATION of analogue, analogue is the REAL DEAL when it comes to music, real deal as in it puts more into your speakers than Mp3s or wavs or anything
and to the audiophile dude,
fair enough, using equalizers and adjusting details can help achieve a better quality and experience from digital sound, but ever wonder that by doing those sort of things you are putting more effort into getting those sounds when you can just use a vinyl record :][/QUOTE]
You didn't read my post. The digitizer steps today are so high, nofrequency that any human could ever notice is lost in the process of digitalizing.
The [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem]Nyquist Theorem[/url] clearly says that the quantizing sampling frequency always HAS to be MORE than double the frequency that you want to measure.
What it means: for measuring ONE period of a given frequency, you need at least 3 measuring points in that period.
.wav has a bit-depth of 8.
Given a .wav file with 400 kbit/s we have 400k / 8 = 50 k .
So our .wav file would cut off any frequencies higher than and including 25 kHz because it wouldn't provide more than 2 quantizing steps per frequency-period for those frequencies.
The human ear can hear up to 20 kHz.
[QUOTE=Pepin;20981664]:words:[/QUOTE]
I know him IRL, he's a troll.
[QUOTE=Pepin;20981664]Once you start enjoying high quality audio, it make it very difficult to listen to lower quality audio. Some people don't really care, but people like me do.
It still will get rid of quality. The main issue is that MP3 is compressed and will often times have a big impact on certain kinds of music. For example, classical music in MP3format is typically far different sounding.[/QUOTE]
compressed != information loss
Your mp3= compressed therefor worse argument is invalid
[editline]12:35AM[/editline]
I also loled at the OP for trying to prove his point with a DIGITAL(haha typo made that into figital) youtube video.
the audio quality/experience you get from vinyl is entirely variable depending on what kind of equipment you have to play the vinyl, excluding the speakers. cd quality is totally constant except if you have a shitty dac or something.
regarding lossy vs lossless, don't even claim you can tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a lossless flac, unless of course you are a bat. flac over mp3 is useless for casual listening.
i don't know why vinyl isn't dead yet considering that almost all music nowadays is produced and mastered digitally.
[editline]07:36PM[/editline]
vinyl sucks fuck audiophiles
Vinyl is kind of a ritual and I like it for that.
Vinyl is obsolete.
thank god this thread isn't on what.cd, everyone there would flip.
[QUOTE=Killuah;20981746]compressed != information loss
Your mp3= compressed therefor worse argument is invalid[/QUOTE]
Very wrong with your argument. Try reading up on how mp3 compression, I mean you might as well be saying that there is no information loss in a jpeg. Understand that this isn't the same as file compression.
[QUOTE=PariahKing;20977354]I never "hear" this stuff - LAME versus quality mp3s, whatever.
I always wonder if I have shit ears or something.[/QUOTE]
i used to be like that before i started playing guitar
since i started playing guitar i've been able to single out notes and parts of songs that i couldn't before (including non guitar parts), and has just generally made me more aware of music
due to this it is MUCH easier to tell the difference between a bad quality mp3 and a FLAC or a 320kb/s mp3 file
when i listen to music that i've got from before i started playing guitar, it always sound shit, and it turns out most of it is 128kb/s mp3s
i could never tell the difference before
[QUOTE=Pepin;20982058]Very wrong with your argument. Try reading up on how mp3 compression, I mean you might as well be saying that there is no information loss in a jpeg. Understand that this isn't the same as file compression.[/QUOTE]
Lossless formats are still compressed, just not very much.
[editline]08:02PM[/editline]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLAC[/URL]
FLACs are actually 50-60% of the source file's original size.
Compressed but lossless.
[QUOTE=NotYou3;20982360]due to this it is MUCH easier to tell the difference between a good quality mp3 and a FLAC or a 320kb/s mp3 file[/QUOTE]
you're an idiot.
[QUOTE=majorlazer;20982634]you're an idiot.[/QUOTE]
typo
192kb is enough for ipod usage, it's not like you're going to use full size headphones with it
on the vinyl parts i could hear crackling, my a700's are really unforgiving to audible faults
but it should be VBR
Your examples are a bit shit mate.
Comparing CD to Vinyl would make sense if you weren't sending us videos containing a digital recording of each of them :rolleyes:
Flacs just aren't marketable.......
Mp3s still deliver good clean quality depending on the source... its the best digital music quality on the market
vinyls are the best for analogue, which is the purest lossless sound anyone can get :] and it shows off the artwork a lot better!!!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
