Lies about vinyl vs digital

[fas42]

Ahhh, thanks for that, Dennis! I haven't fired up 7-Zip for ages - and it did the job; need to update the beast, .

 

Yes, Chrome is better behaved with Dropbox - I've resorted to using it on several occasions, as a workaround.

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well Firefox and Dropbox work fine for me, but it is on Linux.  I use Chrome on Windows for Dropbox.  

 

On Win10, I used to use PeaZip, but have found 7zip to just work with less hassle on Win10.  Neither causes any hassles very often. 

I had no problems with downloads of .wav files or Zips using Windows Explorer for Dropbox, but I had to click Download twice in quick succession for .mp3s or nothing would happen.

I often use 7Zip with Windows 10.

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, Rexp said:

The 16/44 sounds a tad muffled compared to the 24/192, could be for a number of reasons I guess. Since I like some 16/44 DDA recordings on vinyl I have thought that 16/44 is enough and it is the CD medium itself that is at fault. The last CD player I demoed was an Audio Research CD9 and even that failed to satisfy. If you are telling me 24/192 downloads sound as good as your rips I might have to go that route.  

 

These days many people appear to be using 24/192 for Vinyl rips, at least on Usenet.

I doubt that the majority of the posters have gear anywhere near as good ( and expensive! ) as the Vinyl set up Paul has, judging by the fact that most sound like a pale shadow of a decent high res digital recording.

[Rexp]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

These days many people appear to be using 24/192 for Vinyl rips, at least on Usenet.

I doubt that the majority of the posters have gear anywhere near as good ( and expensive! ) as the Vinyl set up Paul has, judging by the fact that most sound like a pale shadow of a decent high res digital recording.

So 16/44 doesn't cut it? 

[Ralf11]

I thought Paul bought an el cheapo under $10k vinyl setup?

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I thought Paul bought an el cheapo under $10k vinyl setup?

 

 Even if it was a little under $10K, for most people, that is a very expensive investment when compared with the high quality results most members can obtain using a <$2K DAC etc. these days.

[Ralf11]

but you need to spend more to get good sound with vinyl

 

sound like flowing water

[HIFI]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I thought Paul bought an el cheapo under $10k vinyl setup?

He did but he “silver soldered” the cartridge wires and wears his “magic” shoes when he rips.

[sandyk]

36 minutes ago, Rexp said:

So 16/44 doesn't cut it? 

 

Paul has already pointed out that recent high quality LP releases can have genuine musical content to past 50kHz these days, however you would need a damn good cartridge and Phono Preamp  to take full advantage of it.

 This means, that Ideally, you would need to use 24/192 to fully capture the full bandwidth of the recording so that it sounded the same as the LP.

[Paul R]

51 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I thought Paul bought an el cheapo under $10k vinyl setup?

 

It’s part of my genetic inheritance to be cheap!! I come by it honest!! 🤪✌️

[Paul R]

54 minutes ago, Rexp said:

So 16/44 doesn't cut it? 

 

Really - it might - and if it does for you, you are in good company. If it does not, you are still in good company! 

 

It is not an either or, not really. It is a “what sounds best and pleases you the most thing.”

 

Just be prepared to make mistakes, laugh them off, and try again. And again and again... It’s just audio, most times no big deal about a redo. 

 

I find it best to write down what  I do so when I make a mistake, at least I know what I did. Sometimes. Occasionally.  Okay, often after afriend or my wife points it out.  😇

[Rexp]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Paul has already pointed out that recent high quality LP releases can have genuine musical content to past 50kHz these days, however you would need a damn good cartridge and Phono Preamp  to take full advantage of it.

 This means, that Ideally, you would need to use 24/192 to fully capture the full bandwidth of the recording so that it sounded the same as the LP.

Sorry I meant 16/44 downloads v hires? 

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Well these are about 16 db lower in level.  And these didn't go thru any declicking as there are some clicks.  These seem to have a more open clear sound to them. So I wonder if de-click processing is good or not.  A friend has Pure Vinyl and I've seen the same thing with his rips.  

 

pretty much any processing if applied with a heavy hand, seems to ruin the music. 

 

This can be an obstacle too...  5.35 pounds of stubborness who likes her music now!!!

 

 

[sandyk]

15 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Sorry I meant 16/44 downloads v hires? 

 

Paul has pretty well covered that answer already.

[The_K-Man]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

So 16/44 doesn't cut it? 

 

Not for audiophiles

[Rexp]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

Paul has pretty well covered that answer already.

Oh where? I did ask Paul his thoughts on CD playback, are you afraid to give your view? 

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Oh where? I did ask Paul his thoughts on CD playback, are you afraid to give your view? 

 My view on this should be pretty well known by most members.

 Despite my age, I am able to hear clear differences between the various formats with good quality recordings, (even between 16/44 and 16/48 as used with many videos) although I may not always be able to hear clear differences between 24/96 and 24/192 on some recordings. Generally, I find that there is more of an "openness" to the sound with the higher resolution versions.

You can  test yourself out on the Soundkeeper Format Comparison pages to decide whether or not your current equipment is able to demonstrate the differences.

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

[Rexp]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 My view on this should be pretty well known by most members.

 Despite my age, I am able to hear clear differences between the various formats with good quality recordings, (even between 16/44 and 16/48 as used with many videos) although I may not always be able to hear clear differences between 24/96 and 24/192 on some recordings. Generally, I find that there is more of an "openness" to the sound with the higher resolution versions.

You can  test yourself out on the Soundkeeper Format Comparison pages to decide whether or not your current equipment is able to demonstrate the differences.

http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm

Thanks, my view is clearer, CD sounds crap, lol

[The_K-Man]

3 minutes ago, Rexp said:

 CD sounds crap

 

Only audiophiles would say something like this!  

 

Ave Maria purissima...

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Thanks, my view is clearer, CD sounds crap, lol

 

Not necessarily. It can also depend on how much other stuff they mix in later 

Please check your PMs in a minute or 2

[esldude]

35 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Thanks, my view is clearer, CD sounds crap, lol

Well CD is clearer.  

[sandyk]

17 minutes ago, esldude said:

Well CD is clearer.  

Depends on how thin the aluminium layer is !

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

It’s part of my genetic inheritance to be cheap!! I come by it honest!! 🤪✌️

 

Scottish??

[Ralf11]

there may be genuine musical content past 50kHz these days, however you would need a damn good dog and pet dolphin to take full advantage of it

[esldude]

18 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

there may be genuine musical content past 50kHz these days, however you would need a damn good dog and pet dolphin to take full advantage of it

The dolphin is why your sound must flow like water.  

 

Should I mention the old method of wet LP playback?   I never did get wet CD playback to work.