>audio quality different from one copy to another
>audio quality vastly different from one player to another
>most sound like shit anyways because of how cheap some masters were
>inherently undurable medium. actually, they're super easy to harm or break.
>imperfections very audible
>"b-but the sound is so nice and smo-" *crackles* *pops*
I swear at times I'd rather hear a 128kbps mp3 rather than a vinyl, not even exaggerating
Other urls found in this thread:
Nice bait
What most people don't realize is all modern releases are recorded and masher digitally before being stamped, so it's just a lossy way to listen to your favorite FLACs.
The same way actual pictures are better than digital ones
only one way to find out.
Someone's gotta rip a vinyl past the Nyquist limit and check the waveform for aliasing vs a CD release or online FLAC
>CNC machine to make master molds is limited by the fidelity of the adc on the stepper motors
Nice digital waveform retard!
No they sound like shit and it is a pain in the ass to switch them out. Also your cat will shred them and then you won't know what the fuck anything is. I don't even know why these Mexican cat sculptures keep generating around me.
if you read through threads talking about digital vs. analog you'll find out pretty fast that the people saying analog is better really do not understand digital audio
>nyquist limit
Isn't this flawed because the sampling rate only guarantees *a* sample per wave peak but not guaranteeing it samples the peak itself? Am I missing something? I don't see how wave reconstruction from that can actually match the input without magic information.
digital sampling is pretty cool and has a bunch of things that aren't very intuitive
you'd assume that you'd need to capture a wave like a drawing where more samples means a "smoother wave", but that's absolutely not the case
the samples don't need to actually reach the peak of the input to capture the peak of the input, due to the band-limiting requirement restricting the possible wave the samples can describe to only the correct one
most of the people who say that are either consoomers who got suckered into wasting money on cheap vinyl players or people who are mistaking their vintage analogue amps sound for their vinyls sound
Even taking a naive approach of "just sample a lot lmao", the Nyquist frequency you select only describes a high enough rate of sampling that you don't care about the information lost.
Naturally when you convert from an analog to digital signal you'll lose some information, the key is just deciding when you no longer care.
e.g. the magic numbers, 300dpi for text on paper, or the PPI for a display at an expected viewing distance for what macfags call a "retina" display
Similar analogues exist for hearing.
The only reason people claim vinyl is superior to digital recordings is because vinyl recordings aren't as loud as digital which gives them better dynamic range. CDs and digital recordings are capable of sounding significantly better than vinyl but the "loudness war" has ruined them.
modern CDs aren't even really that loud anymore and the waveform, when inspected, don't clip
sorry about your boomercore but the loudness war was decades ago
same as paper books, its just nice to physically hold the thing and say "this is something tangible". makes you appreciate it more i suppose.
plus having vinyls has never stopped anyone from getting laid, having a collection of lossless audio on a home server has absolutely stopped someone getting laid.
The loudness war is still going on.
dr.loudness-war.info
cd's are just as physical ad lp's
yeah thats true, i also like having some of those. but LPs are a little cooler in that its analog, at least mostly. but its just that, its not like they are better quality or anything, not since at least 2000.
i have no issue with people using LPs, only when people start saying they're higher quality
absolutely. i work with them from time to time, and most vinyls i rip for customers you're lucky to even hear the music through the static and scratches.
i think the "vinyl is higher quality" meme is a holdover from before digital lossless audio was as good as it is, or as common.
it's not the only reason, but it is A reason
that's actually the only sensible reason imo, a sufficiently bad cd master /could/ sound worse than a vinyl of the same album, not because of the formats, but because one is just that bad a master
this is not at all a format comparison though, like you could record the vinyl and burn that audio onto a cd and now you have two copies of equal quality
>i think the "vinyl is higher quality" meme is a holdover from before digital lossless audio was as good as it is, or as common.
when was that? because even CD, the first consumer digital audio format, is enough
really, there is no benefit from going beyond CD's spec, the sample rate is enough, the bitdepth is enough, and it's uncompressed. consumer digital audio was done from the very beginning, they didn't fuck around