>people who buy vinyl copies of albums that were recorded and mixed digitally
>>51911166w2c
>>51911166I fucking know. I don't buy vinyl records like that. Vinyl is a collectors item at this point. Shit that is in no way meaningfully analog, they just listen to it because its a fashion thing.
>people buy limited edition cassette release of record made on abelton live
>>51911166how can i know which albums are recorded and mixed digitally?
>>51911315I would suggest google, or looking at the information about the recording process that most of the sort of records we're talking about have.But also fuckin google.
>>51911315A good general rule is that if it wasn't originally released on vinyl, it was probably mixed digitally. Other than some stuff from the late 80's/early 90's.
>>51911166if there is no lossless version available other than the CD then the vinyl master will usually have a higher bit depth and sample rate
>liking music
its not like analogue vs digital in itself makes any difference at all
>>51911375I think Ariel Pink's major-label albums were recorded digitally but transferred to tape.
>download album in flac from rutracker>reduce it to 128 kbps mp3>use audacity to superimpose light crackling>upload it to what.cd as a vinyl rip>check comments in 3 months>"great quality" "really warm sound" "i always prefer vinyl quality"100 keks
>>51911452Yeah especially when you're just spending money to have a big version of the album artwork
>>51911516its more about the records imo
>>51911381pretty much this. Vinyl is still the only physical format in wide circulation that can properly reproduce the sample rate and depth of master-quality digital audio files.It's still about 3x-4x higher quality than CD, depending on what equipment was used to record/mix/master the music.
>>51911480>not checking your files to see if they extend to 22khz
>>51911480>crackling on vinyl>people actually think this is supposed to happen and sound good
>>51911452ehhhhh.... whut?
>>51911599>>51911452>>51911381Oh god. Where do you get this stuff?
>>51911529If you like inferior sound quality here's a cool trick you might like to save you money. I play my digital copy of an album on my stereo and and then leave this old portable tape recorder running so then I can listen to my favorite albums in bad quality any time I want and I don't have to spend any money on vinyl.It's pretty cool
>>51911464alot of major label records are ADA.It's pretty common to do this because the editing and mixing process is massively streamlined.
>>51911166
>>51911641thems the facts man. I take it you aren't involved the pro-audio field.
>>51911633it doesnt. any conceivable difference in sound that might be due to an analogue vs a digital process is completely insignificant compared to deviations from perfect reproduction that come from the actual hardware and especially the transducers>>51911643thats nice
>>51911599>3x-4x higher quality than CD
>>51911604always. always do this.
>>51911166Little tip here guys.Lots of albums now a days that are "recorded one tape"Are actually recorded digitally, than recorded too tape from there.It's actually better, you get less hiss
>>51911641most recordings nowadays are made at at least 24 bit and 48kHz. CD audio is 16 bit and 44.1kHz.You can put 2448 audio on vinyl, but not on CD. Read a book, you might learn something.
>>51911849>he thinks 24-bit audio is beneficial for playback
>>51911717>>51911727at the studio level, no there is no difference unless you are using consumer level gear, and always recording shit at 44.1khz 16-bit. but to say cd quality is as good as vinyl is a joke. The analog recording on the vinyl is literally analagous to the 96khz 24-bit files that most pro level studios use.
>>51911998>>51911998>is ok with poorly represented instrumentation.
>>51911998>doesnt think 24bit audio is importantenjoy your quantisation distortion faggot
>>51912009see >>51911998
>>51912059you're deaf if you think 16-bit sound waves aren't horribly artifacted compared to 24-bit.
For you uneducated retards.http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
if i am going to waste money on physical goods i want them to be as large as possiblei am a good american
>>51911166So fucking what. What defines the vinyl sound is the mastering, which cant be fucked up (squashed) because of physical limitations of the medium. Extreme compression is what makes records sound awful and they cant do that shit on vinyl.
>>51912009>cd quality vs vinylpeople always discuss this in terms of theoretical limits, which is completely irrelevant to 99.9% of peoplewhat actually matters is the sound you get at home out of hardware you can afford
>>51912095>>51912057>>51912054These threads are always a fucking sea of people who don't know jack shit, and are furiously spouting bullshit to defend their music medium of choice.I suggest you read >>51912124 and do some more research.
>listening to vinyl for the sound qualityfuck that, im not that autistic. I enjoy art, and appreciate packaging, as well as owning and listening to something physical.
ITT: buncha dorks distracted by technicalities
>>51912227/thread
>>51911604>>51911737If you have to check to see if something sounds good then what exactly is the point?
>>51912227you just called yourself a dork :^)
>>5191199824 bit is important. More Sample rate is important for processing the audio signal digitally (you have more resolution) but makes no significant difference during playback if it is greater than good old 44kHz.
>>51912199You're a douchebag. You might actually win people over if you weren't so obsessed with belittling everyone else.
>>51912280It's to make sure what you downloaded was legitimate, that you're not saving the file larger than you need to, and also to check it's not compressed too much, since at 128kbps sample rates I can easily tell that they don't sound as clean as a 320mp3/256AAC/Lossless. Not saying I need more than 16/44.1, but I'd just keep it at least there to ensure the best quality since higher than that is placebo. >>51912124Some recordings are just bad in general and I notice it frequently with some stuff I've found. With checking the spectra it's just a double-check to see if it's bad due to dynamic range compression, frequency cutoff, or artifacting from transcoding rather than just bad mixing/mastering to ensure the highest quality. It's one of those things that once you have good listening equipment and pay attention to the well-recorded tracks that you'll notice all the missing stuff in the poorly-done tracks, and you'll want to go see if you can get a better version of it if you like the track/album.
>>51912636my point is, that if you cant tell with your ears then you have no business being picky about it.
>>51912720Fair enough, but I just do it anyway even if I am unaware of it. With what you find on the internet you can't be too sure.
>>51911166I bought Deathconsciousness on vinyl, an album that was released as 128kbps, with no ragrets.I justified it because my record player setup is the best sound system I own, so it sounds really good on it.There are some records I regret buying, like LYSF, which has absolutely atrocious mastering on the vinyl.
>>51912629I apologize, I was frustrated. I hope you enjoy your music in whatever format you prefer.
>>51913061fuck you faggot
>>51913424
>>51912868it was "remastered for vinyl" so I use that as a way to justify having four copies of it
To the idiot 'audiophiles' in this thread. What makes the most noticable difference from original sound? a) Having your sound come from a needle being dragged along a groove in a piece of plastic, being equalised and then amplified to line level. b) Having inaudible frequnecies cut off and some negligible noise caused from the 16-bit quantization.Spoiler: the answer is a). I bet in an A-B test none of you can tell the differenece between V0 mp3 and 24-bit 96Hz let alone 16-bit 44Hz. All this is coming from someone whos been buying records for years
>>51914068>44Hzayyy lmao
>>51914184yeah kHz you know what i mean
>people buying an inferior format like "vinyl"
>>5191253616 bits allows for 2^16 quantization levels. That means you divide the dynamic range of the analogue waveform into 65536 levels from the highest point to the lowest. If a value at a sampling point is inbetween two quantization points then the closest one is chosen. This means that at most the error can be 1/131072 of the whole dynamic range. You guys think that this error causes enough quantization noise to be noticable to your ears? stay deuded
No.51911166