24bit Vinyls

**elbuitre** · 05-26-2010, 01:56 AM

The vinyl does degrade with each play so digitizing at 24bit keeps all information possible, again albeit digitized. A lot of music is only released on vinyl so they're not useless.

**gotfree** · 05-26-2010, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by pretend

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

I'm confused , you take a vinyl record and change into not a vinyl record.Excuse the ignorance but kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

I doubt that even well-done 24/96 rip will sound better than CDDA, but still vinyl sounding is kinda cute. And what else to do if the thing wasn't released in lossless digital format? I'd say some electronic/indie-rock labels still prefer vinyl over anything else and sometimes don't make new releases available on CD.

Anyway I don't think this defeats the purpose. If people like listening vinyl, they will like listening to exact replica of once played tape.

Do you mean CODA.fm? I am not buying into .mp3. What audio should one have to make the mp3 sound better than CD, LP or 24/96 rips?

**ca_aok** · 05-26-2010, 02:13 AM

CDDA is a standard red book CD. If you're downloading MP3s, just save yourself the hassle and grab the CD rip. 24/96 is completely irrelevant for MP3, it's about trying to preserve more sound quality than a standard lossless track on a CD, with MP3s you lose any of that quality instantly. And unless you like crackles and pops I'd suggest you stick to CDs where they're available. There are exceptions, mostly mastering based. For example, White Stripes - Icky Thump sounds better on vinyl. Metallica - Death Magnetic does not. It's completely dependent on the mastering for the LP.

24bit does not keep all information possible. Technically 32bit would keep more. And to be honest the sampling rate (96kHz or 192kHz) is by far more important for the storage of information.

Also, the LP->Stylus->Cartridge->Tonearm->Phonostage->Receiver->Soundcard is not a lossless process in any sense of the term, so you're in no way "keeping the full data" of the LP. It's degrading while it's playing. While it's true you'll have the best quality sound on the first playthrough, it's not going to be an exact replication of the sound that was pressed to the LP in the first place.

And I stated that the caveat of vinyl being useless was mastering differences or availability of the album on CD in the long bit

**elbuitre** · 05-26-2010, 02:22 AM

Well i can't tell the difference between v2, v0 and FLAC from the same source anyway. But more important that the sampling rate in the sound of a vinyl rip is the equipment that is used, and what process (if any) did the ripper used for declicking.

**Quarterquack** · 05-26-2010, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by ca_aok

Edit: Also "Vinyls" is not a word. Every time I see that I die a little inside

I couldn't but agree more! As a biochemist I always ask people to refer to them as ethenyls! Just kidding, I'll watch out for it from now on, haha.

And thanks for all the knowledge you posted. I never read that much into the process, mostly because I have never attempted to rip Vinyl releases myself knowing the difficulty in getting the equipment together would far outweigh the benefits.

**gotfree** · 05-26-2010, 04:01 PM

I totally agree with ca_aok that only the quality of equipment matters while transferring LP to digital format. This is very true also concerning the listening part as well. I would like to make some diversion to the listening part.

Nowadays, quite a lot of companies started making component audio ampliphiers. Many of them are claiming that they are the best (Marantz, Naim, NAD, Yamaha, Cambridge, Densen, etc.). Some of them are surely superior. But there is one no sense as I am concerned, almost no one of them have incorporated Tremble and Bass regulators anymore. You will not find even one word about the tremble and bass regulators in the reviews of so called “expert reviewer of the audio equipment”. The absolutely groundless claim now exists that it is not important to have tremble and bass regulators because the CD (LP) mastering is already perfect nowadays. Not at all my friends, I have many examples from my personal experience, this is not the case. All of us has different ears (I myself am not claiming that my ears are the best.)

There are many CDs in the market that claim to be “perfectly re-mastered”, but sound like from the 1940’s. That is when the tremble and bass regulators may become very handy. By the way, these considerations were my starting point, while I have been trying to acquire some very good and very decently priced amplifier. This leaded me to get Yamaha A-S1000 amplifier.

Another point that I totally agree with ca_aok, you do not even want to go into the woods of ripping LPs into 24/96 if you do not have decent at least close to professional equipment. Otherwise, you will end up with quite poor results.

For those, who would like to find more into about digital sound is here: http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

**1000possibleclaws** · 05-26-2010, 04:51 PM

Do you guys actually prefer a vinyl rip to a digital download? I find they sound noticeably worse when you transcode from vinyl instead of from master or a cd. I've never heard a proper rip which ca_aok is talking about, and the majority of rips out there seem to have bad artifacts, because of the pops and stuff you can get with the process.

**gotfree** · 05-26-2010, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by TrueSounds

Do you guys actually prefer a vinyl rip to a digital download? I find they sound noticeably worse when you transcode from vinyl instead of from master or a cd. I've never heard a proper rip which ca_aok is talking about, and the majority of rips out there seem to have bad artifacts, because of the pops and stuff you can get with the process.

You are absolutely right. That's what ca_aok and I were talking about. I have heard and have just a couple of quality rips.