Do Vinyls actually sound better than CDs?
The plural of vinyl...............................................
.................is vinyl
Yes but it's not as big of a difference as people make them out to be.
>>66409612
No, not at all. It might sound better than usual if you're listening with a high quality sound system when you otherwise wouldn't.
They do sound better than low quality mp3s, though.
>>66409612
delete this
>>66409753
sorry
Do vinyl actually sound better than CDs?
>>66410771
No. Only if you compare a shitty mastered CD with a top quality vinyl pressing. It is impossible for vinyl records to have sound quality on par with CD. People may think that vinyl sounds better because they prefer the "organic" sound/feel it gives the music or some shit.
>>66409612
Yes CD's are compressed audio, aka mp3's
However, digital formats like wav and flac are lossless, so unless it's an uncommon or rare album you're after, the only reason to buy vinyl is for collector/ sentimental reasons; maybe you just want a physical copy cause it's nice
No, they just sound different, if it was down to one I would take CD every day over LP.
But vinyl is perfect for an album like Spiderland, for example.
>>66410918
you dont know how cds are pressed do you
>>66409612
Only when they are mastered specifically for Vinyl.
Modern releases are often terribly mastered (too loud) and sometimes when they have a vinyl release it is done well and therefore superior. Older releases usually sound just as good on vinyl as their remastered counterparts if they are in good condition. But, vinyl is, by nature, an inferior medium. Personally I collect vinyl because it is a rewarding hobby and I often discover old music that I like through it.
>>66409612
sometimes
>>66410918
Are vinylfags really this fucking retarded?
>>66409612
Depends on a lot, like everybody has already said. Vinyl decays much more, but in principle it should have truer sound, since even though your brain can fill in most of the gaps that CD creates, the actual wave is better translated into vinyl.
>Just a lot of shit I made up
>>66411573
>>66410918
>>66409612
If the vinyl is from a high quality analogue or a 24 bit master tape then yes - and only if you are comparing it to a normall 16bit cd
But say if you download a 24bit/192khz flac file and play it through a high end soundcard/dac it will shit on everything else.
t. ex vinyl collector who now just downloads hi-res flac / dsd
Also >>66411368 is totally right but in another way. Vinyl was generally mastered much more "respectfully" and old releases can have much better dynamic range than modern hi-res remasters. Take for instance this comparison of REM's "Document"
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=R.E.M.&album=document
>>66409753
That sounds fucking retarded in context. "Vinyl" doesn't have a plural. Just say records unless you want to come off as a massive faggot
Hard / objective no.
CD's are the only physical format @ 1.5 mbps true lossless.
>>66410918
>CD's are compressed audio
>aka mp3's
>>66409612
>Help, I dont understand how mastering works
>>66410918
I'm using this one.
>>66410918
>CD's are compressed audio, aka mp3's
literally untrue. CD's are lossless 441000 24 bit files
>>66413004
nope.jpg
cd redbook standard is 16 bit.
Fun fact - cd was almost going to be 14bit, but Phillips uped their game to 16 bit - Based Dutch.
>>66409612
No, the appeal of vinyl if any is that it requires the user to physically engage with the medium in a way that simply isn't present with digital. With vinyl, you have to deal with this giant disc with great care, gotta clean it, then flip it after a few tracks. Also the size of the sleeve/liner notes makes it more fitting to actually being viewed/read.
Does any of this make it better? Not really. What it basically comes down to is that digital is almost to convenient to the point that most people's relationship with music is now as background noise. You turn on spotify and have little concept of what you are listening to. With a record, you kind of have to sit down and just listen.
>>66413501
>that aesthetic
nope.jpg
OP asked does it sound better.
OP did not ask is it feels better your liberal arts cuck.
>>66409612
It all depends on the mixing and what era a reprint or whatever is from.
Like if your going to listen to King Crimson. You better listen to them on Record, because most analogue mixers during the 70's and 90's were awesome at doing their jobs. And that comes by because during the 70's it was the height of Analogue technology and 90's gave a rebirth because of the DJ scene. Then it went to shit at late 2000's, because DJ's were getting shot out by over compressed hip hop/pop artists. And everyone followed the compression hype. Also Digital technology helped make everything more convenient for an artist as well. There are some good reissues out there though. Like the new HaNL's Deathconsciousness and Boris' Pink reissues were excellent.
Also shit like MBDTF on Vinyl sounds like garbage btw, because the mixing of the album is ultra compressed and sounds like rat ass on record.
Where as something like Can will sound excellent without sibilance and distortion fucking things up.
Also they are fun collectors items as well. They have a ton of album "swag" that you could look at and have accurate lyrics on them as well.
>>66414187
King Crimson ? you might like this anon....
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=king+crimson
>>66409612
From a completely technical standpoint no. The reason is that as soon as the sound hits an electronic stage (be it amplifier or a data converter) it gets its SNR (signal to noise ratio) reduced.
Noise is added every stage and if a single device in your link is not as good as others you are just deluding yourself. Also the difference between SNR 90 dB and 95 dB is much smaller than 95 dB and 100 dB which means as you go over 16 bit the returns are diminishing.
There's a technical reason behind 16 bit standard for audio. The ADCs used may be 24 bit linear at DC but they don't keep up the same performance over the 20-20kHz band. If the total SNR you can get out of something is 90 dB than you can just discard the last 8 bits because they're just noise.
The point of this incomprehensible rambling is that I don't know anything about the best sound but I know electronics and as soon as the sound is translated into electrical signal I can guarantee you there is no 24 bit or equal analog precision. So your gramophone may sound better, I have no idea about it, but your record player does not for sure.
>>66413004
16 bit.
>>66411573
DACs don't output square waves. You'd have to be trying to engineer for that.
>>66409612
yeah it does. but not terribly significantly.
My record got pressed on Vinyl, and certain things were a lot clearer than I was used to hearing on the computer or if I put it into the preamp via aux. Until then I was suspicious, thinking that it could just be placebo, but it's not. You really notice the difference on music that you've mixed yourself.
>>66413595
he answered the question you retard, kill yourself
>>66414867
>DACs don't output square waves
That's not entirely true. The filtered sound you are hearing is definitely not a square wave but a lot of audio DACs are of delta-sigma type, which means if they're single bit delta-sigma modulators they may be giving a square wave at a much higher frequency at the output. Of course a filter comes after this to turn this square wave into nice clean sound signals, and since the frequency of square wave is much higher than audio range it does not cause any distortion or noise in it. Actually the delta sigma modulator pushes the quantization noise in the audio band into higher frequencies through dark rituals and magic.
If the modulator is of a multi bit type than the output has more steps and looks more like a regular DAC output.
>>66409753
no it's not
"do you want to come back to mine to see my vinyls ;)" means
lets listen to music and bang
"do you want to come back to mine to see my vinyl ;)" means
come and see my tacky PVC couch and I will never bang
No but its nice dressing up as a girl and buying vinyls makes me feel cute.
No. We call it CDQ not VQ
>Do Vinyls actually sound better than CDs?
yes
>>66409612
Depens the genre really. Jazz blues classic rockandroll sound better. But the hard stuff (from hardcore, rock to the extremes genres) blows in vinyl.
>>66415513
>>66416624
Wtf does this prove? Those could be from 2 totally different mastering sources lol, not to mention that you can't do a comparison on "modern" digitally recorded music due to the fact that its lossless and will sound exactly the same when mastered to vinyl!
>>66416946
dynamic range bud :^)
>>66417044
Dynamic range is my point lol If you take a cd that's a remaster of a remaster of a remaster it's not gonna sound right. Not to mention modern cd releases are usually brick walled to shit (aka overly loud and compressed) because that's what the record companies think ppl want! Ever heard of the loudness wars? The best sounding cds ever are usually ones that were pressed in the early 80's, I'm referring to flat masters. These are usually categorised as W. German cd's and japanese pressings. There are also many modern cd format's that excel greatly past the standard redbook cd-r i.e. SACD's, K2Hd, XRCD, SHMCD, Ultradisc, etc.
