Is this true?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
Is this true?
everything ever in the world is true
define true.
>>62426462
Bullshit
MP3 | FLAC | FLAC (24/96)
>>62426462
I collect physical media.
It's up for debate and what the quality difference between analog and lossless digital media is. For the most part it can be agreed at best that a record could be equal to a lossless format with a proper set up, not better though.
>>62426462
no. a good MP3 and a WAV are indiscernible to a naked ear.
>>62426783
what if my ears have headphones on them
>>62426462
Depends if you've taken a placebo poz load up your neghole or not.
>>62426692
Ok bud, I dont believe you can hear 45khz, can you?
Anything over 16-bit/44.1khz is just complete Jew bullshit
>>62426783
It's funny because audiophiles tend to be older so their ears are already going on them and those upper high frequencies don't a make a difference.
>>62426462
Placebo
>>62426462
who the fuck even comes up these. fucking elitist cunts
>>62426692
read this: http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded, thank you
>>62426598
what is
QUED
>>62426462
No, because it doesn't fucking matter.
>>62426822
Good one
>>62426864
there are studies confirming that a good mp3 is entirely indiscernible. FLAC or Wav are meant to be for archiving purposes, so as to be able to make lossy copies from a lossless one.
>>62426962
this is only about digital audio. higher bit rates are for recording and mixing, then you master and render it down to 16bit. vinyl, being analogue, would not have a bitrate like a digital source and cannot be compared in this manner, but in fact does sound better than 16bit CDs.
>>62426462
Depends on the vinyl mastering
>>62426462
No it's not.
1) There have been several studies showing that most people can't distinguish between high-bitrate lossy files and lossless rips — even with good equipment.
Sources: http://pastebin.com/S3B3YX3R
2) Digital formats offer better fidelity than analog ones. Period. If you still believe analog is superior, read this: https://www.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
If the vinyl edition of an album sounds better than the CD one, it might be because:
- the label used a different, better master for the vinyl pressings (that happens quite often, especially with major labels)
and/or
- you're enjoying the distortion ("warmth" is distortion) and surface noise.
MP3s aren't the most efficient format out there, but high-bitrate MP3s are perfectly fine qualitywise. Unless they're transcodes, that is. It's a good idea to check your files if you're downloading them from Soulseek or Mega/Zippyshare links, it can even be a good idea to download FLACs and convert those to MP3s if you want to be sure.
>>62426462
fixed
This:
>>62427305
and pic
>>62426462
If you think Vinyl is better than FLAC you're mentally retarded
>>62427533
2 >= 1 >>> 3
Its true. The reason mp3 is flat is because it lost quality over time because of rotational velodensity.
Musician here, check this out faggots
https://youtu.be/mDZcz-V29_M
holy mother of placebo
>>62427613
Elaborate please.
>>62427613
This, I keep a separate hard disk where I store my FLACs and place it in the fridge. Every now and then I recreate MP3 versions of the FLACs and replace the degraded mp3s on my PC, usually every three weeks once the bitrate drops too low
>>62427770
>>62427828
Buddy, he's mocking him for how retarded that guy sounds.
>>62427862
Uh, I don't think so pal.
Listen to this guy. FLAC uses lossless compression, while MP3 is ‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps, assuming you have SATA – it’s about 15kbps on IDE, but only 7kbps on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don’t want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media.
I started collecting MP3s in about 2001, and if I try to play any of the tracks I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 320kbps, they just sound like crap. The bass is terrible, the midrange…well don’t get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps. FLAC rips from the same period still sound great, even if they weren’t stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to FLAC, you may not be able to hear the difference now, but in a year or two, you’ll be glad you did.
>>62427613
you're 5 years late.. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rotational+Velocidensity
Doesn't the way the bits are shifted in VBR nearly negate the effects of rotational velocidensity? It's the stagnant bits that ruin other mp3s
>>62427893
>‘lossy’. What this means is that for each year the MP3 sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 12kbps
>much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media
>Some of those albums have degraded down to 32 or even 16kbps
>stick to FLAC
>>62426692
Educate yourself and watch this https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
>>62426462
Did you take this from that guy's what.cd profile?
>>62427229
>vinyl, being analogue, would not have a bitrate like a digital source and cannot be compared in this manner
If you consider the fact that 44.1kHz covers the entirety of the audible frequency range in humans then you can totally compare them, seeing as both CDs and vinyl can cover that bandwidth.
>in fact does sound better than 16bit CDs
What? Purely because of bit rate or are you inferring something else?
>>62427629
>Opens with Harman logo
lol, no
>>62426462
Well, your image literally implies nothing at all about the formats. It is neither true nor false, but devoid of content
>>62426462
What if the vinyl was pressed from an mp3?
>>62428249
It's copypasta from /g/
>>62427770
>>62427893
I can't believe people actually disagree with this. How pleb do you have to be to not know about rotational velocidensity?
>>62428392
>What if the vinyl was pressed from an mp3?
The mastering process of the vinyl (which includes the cut/grooving) is always made with the uncompressed audio (either digital or analogue). Unless it was cut in an amateur studio.
>>62428530
What is Deathconciousness?
>>62426822
true keker
>>62428696
>Unless it was cut in an amateur studio.
>>62428725
It wasn't though, the masters were lost and all that was left was an mp3 rip of the final mix.
Also, avoiding the question:
>>62428392
Sure if you have a $5000 turntable on a fluid isolated table with $50,000 worth of speakers and tube amps.
Otherwise no.
>>62427770
>>62426508
this
>>62428766
you're an idiot desu
>>62427828
>>62427862
>>62428249
>>62429118
fucking newfags
>>62427229
analog > digital
>>62426462
I can't seriously believe there are a whole lot of you who debate this. Obviously a vynil has higher lossless quality. Mp3 is compressed, it has lost harmonics, that's why it weights less. The less a music file weights, the less quality it has.
In a vynil you have the full spectrum of the recording, obviously nowadays you can get almost the same quality in digital format, but once you start compressing it LOSSES quality.
People who think vinyl recordings actually have more content pressed into them are the same people who swear by vacuum tubes for high fidelity playback.
Most of the ridiculous high content that "can't be captured on digital" (spoiler, it can, but it's not practical) is lost in the other stages of the recording process long before it reaches the vinyl pressing.
Additionally, as far as dynamic range is concerned, any possible sounds that could be at levels between discrete measurements in PCM are drowned out of the vinyl recording during playback (surface noise on the vinyl actually reduces dynamic range).
And pretty much all vinyl masters now are made from a digital master done in Pro Tools or Logic, so you get no more information that what's already available.
Vinylfags are pure delusion.
