 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My question of "what exactly could vinyl possibly be capable of what a CD or a 24bit/196khz file is not capable of?"
Strictly speaking, CD and Hi-Res files can't deliver an analog signal.
Of course, technically the differences are huge. All turntables deliver analog signals, all CD and Hi-Res files deliver digital signals. However, both digital and analog signals are the turned by acoustic membranes into waves that are transferred via air where they are then decoded by the (mostly human though my dogs hear too) ear.
So while the difference in the signal output of a turntable and a digital device is enormous, the mechanics of how the music reaches the ear are identical.
A digital transfer from an analog tape doesn't exactly duplicate it either, even if the human ear can't hear what's missing.
I don't say vinyl is superior, but it's not necessarily inferior.
I have listed a number of things up there where vinyl is clearly, audibly, demonstrably inferior to CD/high-res files, and these inferiorities are so enormous, that they can easily be detected by even people with lesser hearings in A/B testing. No one even disputes them.
Now on the other hand, I cannot think of a single thing where vinyl could possibly be as clearly, audibly, demonstrably superior to CD/high-res files, let alone in a way that could easily be detected, or even detected at all. And no one has provided a single shred of evidence for such a medium based superiority.
So based on these observations I would say yes, beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt: vinyl is technically an inferior medium to transfer and reproduce sound accurately compared to CD/high-res files.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 18, 2021 - 6:10 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Nono
(Member)
|
I have listed a number of things up there where vinyl is clearly, audibly, demonstrably inferior to CD/high-res files, and these inferiorities are so enormous, that they can easily be detected by even people with lesser hearings in A/B testing. No one even disputes them.
Now on the other hand, I cannot think of a single thing where vinyl could possibly be as clearly, audibly, demonstrably superior to CD/high-res files, let alone in a way that the superiorities could be so enormous, that they can easily be detected, or even detected at all. And no one has provided a single shred of evidence for such a medium based superiority.
So based on these observations I would say yes, beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt: vinyl is technically an inferior medium to transfer and reproduce sound accurately compared to CD/high-res files.
In theory, you are right. But we don't live in a Platonician world.
As Onya said, mastering can make the difference.
And there are many LPs better mastered than their CD or Hi-Res file incarnations.
Most of the modern CDs and Hi-Res files are loud, compressed and EQed with bright highs and extended basses, very far from what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, you are right. But we don't live in a Platonician world.
To say that a thing is true in theory but false in practice is a sophism. Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right, Stratagem 33. If the theory is "false", then it's the theory that has to be changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In theory, you are right. But we don't live in a Platonician world.
To say that a thing is true in theory but false in practice is a sophism. Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right, Stratagem 33. If the theory is "false", then it's the theory that has to be changed.
Just because you didn't read what I wrote.
In the real world, all CDs are not mastered the way Nicolai said, and many LPs sound better.
This is not an attack against you... But you're the one who talked about Plato so I thought that you knew that someone should say "I don't believe in your theory, or your theory is false because the facts prove that it is false". The aim of the theory is to describe reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was not a theory but just facts.
OK. Please let Plato, Schopenhauer and logicians rest in peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vinyl is technically an inferior medium to transfer and reproduce sound accurately compared to CD/high-res files.
That is a fact, but it only applies to one category in practice: vinyl and digital files originating from the same source. In that case I will always listen to the digital files and ignore the vinyl.
More than often, film score CDs originating from vinyl sources have terrible transfers and noise reduction, hence it is much better to stick to the original vinyl source. On the other hand, some modern vinyl editions have pressings of terrible quality, which makes me want to run away from vinyl forever.
Agreed; I've got LPs that sound better than their contentwise identical CD equivalent. I did not question that. That happened a lot with earlier CDs in the 1980s and 1990s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have listed a number of things up there where vinyl is clearly, audibly, demonstrably inferior to CD/high-res files, and these inferiorities are so enormous, that they can easily be detected by even people with lesser hearings in A/B testing. No one even disputes them.
Now on the other hand, I cannot think of a single thing where vinyl could possibly be as clearly, audibly, demonstrably superior to CD/high-res files, let alone in a way that the superiorities could be so enormous, that they can easily be detected, or even detected at all. And no one has provided a single shred of evidence for such a medium based superiority.
So based on these observations I would say yes, beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt: vinyl is technically an inferior medium to transfer and reproduce sound accurately compared to CD/high-res files.
In theory, you are right. But we don't live in a Platonician world.
As Onya said, mastering can make the difference.
And there are many LPs better mastered than their CD or Hi-Res file incarnations.
Most of the modern CDs and Hi-Res files are loud, compressed and EQed with bright highs and extended basses, very far from what you are saying.
Yes, there are LPs that sound much better than their CD counterparts, I did not deny that. There are also compressed "loud" mastered CDs that sound awful. I did not question that at all.
I have not encountered "hot" or loud mastered high-res files, but I got mostly jazz and classical high-res files, where the practice is comparatively rare to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
