I've got both a vinyl and CD rip of an album. The vinyl version sounds more muffled, bassier, and the drums are far boomier than the CD rip. Both are FLAC, the vinyl is 24/96 and the CD is 16/44.1.
What gives? Why does the vinyl version sound boomier and more muffled?
>>51695898
because vinyl rips are heavily dependent on the hardware used to produce the analog signal that was recorded and uploaded. it could be the pressing, but more likely it's the ripper's hardware lineage.
>>51695898
Stop this shit right now anon. Vinyls are shit, the ''more muffled, bassier...'' is the equalization of this meme format.
>24/96
Placebo
>>51695906
That actually makes perfect sense... Do you think I should keep the vinyl versions for when I get better headphones, or will there be no appreciable quality difference? I'm just listening on a pair of AD700Xs from a Xonar DG atm.
>>51695898
Because vinyl is analog so it's not limited by the digital quantization steps and therefore it sounds much better.
See this pic?
The red line shows the smooth analog sound of vinyl, while the CD has those horrible steps which make the digital sound so harsh.
>>51695928
I don't think you understood what he said.
>>51695930
Vinyl is objectively inferior.
http://xiph.org/video/vid1.shtml
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
>>51695930
Yeah but it's not what I would call a quality difference. The vinyl version has way more bass - as it stands now, the CD version gonna sounds better. I feel like I've put a pair of Beats by Dre on my head when I listen to the vinyl version. I've been ABXing this shit all day, trying to work it out.
As the other guy mentioned it's probably just the ripper with shit hardware.
>>51695930
This is interesting but it sounds incorrect. Are you saying this is true even if you have a high enough bitrate?
>>51695946
did they post the hardware used to rip the record? i'm curious what they used
>>51695930
No album in the past 30 years has been made without digital production. You think your Tool vinyls have pure analog sound from the studio mics through to the mixing, mastering and pressing?
>>51695952
this is all trolling but what he's referring to is less about bitrate and more about bit depth
>>51695930
>The red line shows the smooth analog sound of vinyl, while the CD has those horrible steps which make the digital sound so harsh.
This pic is NOT TRUE/BULLSHIT. @16/44, all the frequencies (20-20 KHz) are smooth, only the ultrasound are like your pic.
>>51695946
>Beats by Dre
Go home everyone, it's a troll
>>51695956
>Bang & Olufsen Beogram TX2 (MMC4 tonearm) > Yamaha RX-V10000 > SoundBlaster X-Fi Titanium HD > Adobe Audition CS6 > ClickRepair 3.9 (DeClick .15, Pitch Protection, Reverse, Wavelet x2) > Sound eXchange 14.4.0 (-b 24 rate -v -L 96000 dither)
>>51695930
No no no
>>51695930
Now this is some high quality bait, you already got three replies.
Have a fourth.
>>51695930
>The red line shows the smooth analog sound of vinyl, while the CD has those horrible steps which make the digital sound so harsh.
Not true, this is marketing, shits don't work like that
>>51695952
>>51695966
You can only get close to the vinyl sound with a very high sampling rate, 192kHz at least. Then the digital steps become smaller and less noticeable.
CD only has 44.1kHz which is way too low.
>>51695971
>Yamaha RX-V10000
this is where they went wrong, should've gotten a real preamp instead of using a home theater receiver designed for movies and shit.
>>51695968
fuck off
>>51695971
>>51695956
I can upload 2 samples if you want to hear the difference, it's just puzzling.
I also downloaded a vinyl version of another album a while back, and it also sounded more muffled with quieter volume. But what was even more puzzling was that the vinyl version had an egregious ripple sound on certain vocals that the CD version didn't have.
>>51695992
>very high sampling rate
Do you know what is sampling rate??? You don't need more that 44.1/48Khz for 20hz to 22Khz
>>51695930
google "nyquist theorem"
>>51696001
it makes sense if you take into account that every piece of hardware from the turntable to the the pc could have an adverse effect on the sound. just because they're ripping vinyl doesn't mean they know what they're doing.
>>51695930
>>51695992
>CD only has 44.1kHz which is way too low.
>way too low
WHAT THE FUCK MAN!!!!
>>51696043
>inb4 "her"
Vinyl sucks from a technical standpoint. It's only nostalgia and the studio simply put more effort in some vinyl releases.
>>51695992
>he doesn't know the difference between sample rate and bit depth
ITT: /g/ is being newfags and I get to feel old
>>51696064
Stop giving him correct terms at this instant!
>need more that 44100 Hz
This is why I love audiophiles
There really isn't a noticeable difference, at least on a listening level and not "staring at the waveform" level.
First of all there are lots of problems with record players that you don't have with digital media: wow/flutter, problems with your phono preamp, RPM/playback speed, needle and cartridge quality, dust and quality of record, and even where you put your turntable. Vibration is a huge problem actually.
Second of all, your speakers/headphones will make a much more discernable impact on your playback quality. I don't think anyone will argue that you can't tell the difference between HD800s and an Apple earbud.
But, if you just like vinyls, do what makes you happy. I have my own reasons for owning vinyl.
Also tapes are fucking stupid.
If you buy cassette tapes to listen on home stereo you're a braindead retard.
>>51696043
who is she?
>>51696182
>she
Dude...
>>51696189
eheheheh I know who it is really matey potatey
>>51695898
vinyl & vinyl rips have more than a few variations... but here's just a few of the more important ones
>turntable
>cartridge & stylus
>there is no singular correct setup, every different alignment/calibration with a turntable is a compromise of some kind
>pressing, condition and cleanliness
>phono stage
>analog to digital stage(s)
>>51695992
honestly doubting this is bait, I've met way too many people who share this delusion
I fully accept this shit as wrong and I'm a vinylfag
>>51696159
nice brah, always admired that turntable - though nothing that amazing it certainly looks nicer than the Realistic lab 440 I've got stashed away somewhere
>>51696365
Agreed.
70's audio equipment with woodgrain makes me want to grow a Tom Selleck moustache.
>>51695898
Only point in getting vinyl since the dawn of the CD is for collecting and DJ:ing. Going over 16b/44.1kHz is pointless, no human can hear any difference between 44.1 and anything higher. Going over 16b is even more pointless because 16b already provides way more than the dynamic range of any music ever recorded. Vinyl rips is plain stupid if there is a CD rip available of the very same album, all it adds is worse sound quality and distortion. Vinyls are also of course produced using digital recording since 40 years. Listening to 24/96-vinyl rips is hilariously dumb. Of course there is a difference because vinyl players add their characteristic imperfections but the sound quality is not better, it's worse.
>>51695930
You are the dumbest.
1 he said he has vinyl rip not vinyl
2 vinyls are made bassier on purpose and reproduction also because the electricity is made with needle jumping on rough track and voltage generated is linear to speed of needle jumps hence faster jumps (treble) equals more voltage generated. Thats why they need to master basses more loudly. most of tracks are remastered for CDs.
>>51695898
>ripping a inferior source
Seriously, Why?
Do you want to save some pre loudness war recordings or you fell to audiofool dogma?
>>51695898
this misconception really went far, listening to vinyls physically is something people like, but most FLACs are pure placebo
there are really few times were the mastering was completely different from the CD, in which case some vinyls sound objectively better
>>51695992
>sample rate
>no bit depth
And even't that, since mayority of music doesn't use too much dynamic.
Even romantic, post romantic and contemporary classical music can be recorded nicely in 16-bit and they use a shitload of dynamic variation.
>>51697036
Flac still is nice and useful for archiving puporses, tough
>>51697069
i have the hard drive space for FLAC and i take comfort in the fact that i have the highest quality representation of the source material regardless of any bullshit about blind testing, and i can reencode it for any device i have that might not support FLAC very quickly. there's no reason to not use it unless you legitimately don't have the hard drive space + you don't have access to actual FLAC rips.
>>51697093
This. I use flac precisely for that. Gapless support is better than mp3, makes a exact copy of the CD, tags are nice, etc.
But you can't ear any difference between flac and a well encoded ogg or mp3 file anyway. That's another story.
>>51697069
I meant most FLACs of vinyl rips
>>51697148
Oh, I see.
So, yeah, that's right. Mostly are pure placebo.
Unless you want to store some kind of pre loudness war recording, and you will get a lot of artifacts with it.
>>51695898
here you go op:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsMpHDc7sGE
according to this if you have a good vinyl, turntable, amp and speakers vinyl is better.
it's much more expensive too
>>51695927
>>51695928
if this is the case then you need a better FLAC rip of vinyl version, just listen to CD rip.
>>51697464
>red hot chili peppers vinyl sounds better than CD
>there are people who claim that
>there are people who believe that
Wonder why people buy sand filled power cables for 3k.
>>51697464
Yeah cd was brickwalled that's why it sounds like shit. Getting expensive equipment won't make vinyl sound good.
>>51697499
well it's not as compressed as cd version.
>>51697561
read again pls:
>>51697464
>if you have GOOD vinyl, amp and speakers vinyl is better(than cd)
it's much more expensive(than cd and cd players) too
>>51697563
But that is a mastering issue, not a medium issue.
Classical music on CD still sounds fucking godly, because producers have work ethics when they record and master a work.
>>51697581
no the problem is related to the vinyl itself. it has much more dynamic range but it's not as strong as cd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4qk_O7q0Lk
>>51697580
Let me rephrase. Vinyl doesn't sound good because of expensive equipment. That particular album sounds better on vinyl because it was mastered better. This doesn't apply to every album out there.
RIAA equalization was probably turned off.
>>51697650
dude I never said it's better because of the expensive equipment. What I said was it'll cost you more to buy good equipments to listen vinyl compare to cd.
why do you put sentences in my mouth? did you even read that post?
and of course if you put shit on vinyl it won't sound good. if you have a good taste you can have better experience with vinyl. this is so basic. it's like ripping 128kbps shit back as flac and listen to it like it's great.
>>51697464
10/10 i got mad
>>51697687
I see what you meant now. And you're correct in that vinyl costs you more money than listening to digital music.
I don't know how many albums out there are mastered better on vinyl vs cd but it seems that none are mastered worse.
>Why does the vinyl version sound boomier and more muffled?
Because vinyl can't match the frequency response of any modern digital audio system, that's why. Vinyl loses out on the high end most of all with capped response depending on the source material and certainly with the actual vinyl disc itself regardless of what hardware is used for playback.
Vinyl can't hit 20 kHz, or even close to it honestly.
>>51695930
Here's a 20 minute video explaining why you're dumb and wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
tl;dw Those "horrible steps" don't actually exist and it's just a poor choice of graph.
>>51695898
mastering differences
vinyl needs to mastered a certain way, with certain limitations otherwise you end up with the needle jumping out of the groove, notably this results in "muffled"/reduced high frequency content, as the higher the frequency, the faster the needle is moving side to side
a properly mastered cd will ALWAYS sound better than a properly mastered vinyl, there are no mastering gotcha's with cd (this has resulted in many poorly mastered cd's though, since there is no skill /required/ to master a cd)
>>51697807
depends on the album, depends on the release...
also too much compressed shit nowadays.
well vinyl is more of a hobby. it's not just music or archive. it's not for everyone too.
>>51695898
If you want to listen to music on your laptop or even on your portable device, vynil rips aren't worth at all, since they take a lot of space and most of the times they sound worse than CD rips, because even the best setup can't convert the vynil tracks to a digital lossless format properly. If you ever have a chance, though, try to listen to a real vynil on the same sound system you use for playing CDs, because in that case vynils sound 95% of the times better than CD. I did this test with Young's Live Rust on my home system: I own both the CD and the vynil and the vynil is always superior.
You're actually a notably bad person if you tell people you think vinyl sounds better. Not only are you foolish enough to fall for a placebo, you're uneducated enough to be ignorant that red book standard is designed to be transparent to humans (so are you a bat?), but you're also passing along your own sickness to other insufferable hipsters.
Congratulations, you're a retard.
>>51695930
>while the CD has those horrible steps which make the digital sound so harsh.
Except, of course, that it's usually filtered/interpolated? A high order analog filter at 22khz and no one can tell the difference, no, really, the resultant wave form is exactly the same.
Anyway, take a computer engineering degree before spouting nonsense.
>>51697815
>tl;dw Those "horrible steps" don't actually exist and it's just a poor choice of graph.
In some implementations, the speaker cone will actually try to jump from one value to another. A long ass fucking time ago, when to get a real engineering job you only needed a diploma (as opposed to either a bachelor and 15 years experience or a PhD, or anything in between), interpolation wasn't assured.
That being said, at the sampling frequency and quantization depth that redbook uses, it's transparent.
>>51698813
The issue is dynamic range. CDs have way more capability to have a larger range than vinyl, due to what >>51697940 said about the needle jumping out of the vinyl groove at certain frequencies.
However, thanks to Phil Spector's influence, many pop/rock/etc CDs are mastered in such a way that they make no use of the range available on a CD, and instead just have everything loud all the time (in such a way that you *couldn't* master it that way on a record, because the needle would jump all over the place).
A properly mastered CD will sound better and have greater range than a vinyl (you'll note that 'audiophiles' who are into classical and jazz have never claimed that vinyl is better, because their genres never got the wall-of-sound mastering treatment). It's just that for quite a long time CDs weren't mastered well.
>>51695945
Fucking this
>>51696718
And This.
>>51698813
>You're actually a notably bad person if you tell people you think vinyl sounds better
Some people have tinnitus and other hearing conditions which make them think literal static noise sounds better than silence.
>listen to classical music on vinyl
>hear static on every quiet section
>listen to classical music on CD
>glorious silence
