Who here is upgrading their music collection to vinyl flacs from cd flacs?

bad idea. the quality of people's vinyl rips are all over the place. less reliable than cd's. often dont have the same color of sound you liked on the cd. cracks, pops, and noise will be very noticeable on headphones. best you can hope for over a cd is more dynamic range, and possibly 24bit if the vinyl was done right (not often)

Thanks for the tip. You guys clearly have a very good handle on what you're talking about.

Lossless rips of rebook cd's are the way to go, vinyl rips are a bad idea unless they are pulled from a high end setup. In all cases Vinyl sounds worse than CD, A high end vinyl setup can sound close to CD provided the mastering of the vinyl and the CD are the same albeit with more surface noise.

I don't know about you, but I found out the expensive way that I can't tell any difference between FLAC, WAV, 320kb MP3 or 128kb MP3.

You knock yourself out, though.

what's a good dac to drive ATH M50s?

>320kb MP3 or 128kb MP3.
The difference between 128kbit and 320kbit is huge, though.
If you can't tell the difference with $20, then you just have poor hearing.

>A high end vinyl setup can sound close to CD

most believe that objetively a high end vinyl setup is better than CD

>then you just have poor hearing
I think that was his point.

No seriously faggot. You cannot tell the difference. I have moved away from vinyl anything because the amount of effort involved in just PLAYING vinyl, let alone recording it at any quality so it does not suck ass, is a massive fucking waste of time, energy, and effort. So CDs are de jure for the moment. I use Exact Audio Copy because it pulls from FreeDB and automatically converts to FLAC from the WAV rip.

Now of course, that assumes the CD was not mastered like shit. Earlier CD pressings from before 2000 are miles better for ripping. Anything recorded in the seventies is generally uninteresting to me anyways, so I don't bother, though it might affect you, but some of the CD recordings of music recorded before 1979 that is on CD is generally good as long as the CD was pressed before, say, 1995. Even the BMG cds from the record clubs were excellent.

I'm open to civil discussion on the matter OP, but I think you are seriously wasting your energy grabbing music.

The fact vinyl rips are just people's personal hand made rips is enough of a red flag to me to stick to CD and web store flacs.

Not even boomers want vinyl.

People like you must listen to shit music and never appreciate any artists who are actually interesting. It is downright rewarding to find a vinyl rip or record that sounds/plays perfectly. I don't even want to know what K-pop garbage is playing through your headphones right now.

>digital recording
>etch tiny square waves onto a big hunk of black petrochemical shit
>billion dollar industry

What does that have anything to do with the fact vinyl rips are made using someone's equipment that bears no standards whatsoever

>vinyl flac
>upgrade
lmao the fucking state of the boomers on this board

vinyl's hold more 'sound information' than CDs

vinyls and vinyl flacs are two different things you stupid boomer
no one here is talking about actual vinyls

>It is downright rewarding to find a vinyl rip or record that sounds/plays perfectly.
That's because it's actually rare, unlike finding/making a perfect CD rip.

Every vinyl playback is imperfect, so some of that information is noise.

CD quality remains the superior standard.
>muh warm sound
That's a euphamism for muddled. You can't beat perfect reproduction of 0-22.05 kHz. If your CD experience is anything less than flawless, your DAC is at fault, not the CD standard.
>muh aliasing close to 22.05 kHz
Only exists on your computer screen. There is exactly one waveform that matches any given set of samples without going above 22.05 kHz, and that is the input waveform. A good DAC will reproduce this one. A poor DAC might not.
>muh 22.05 kHz square wave
A square wave is composed of a sine wave at its base frequency, plus an infinite series of higher frequency sine waves to square it off. Since your ears top out at around 20 kHz, you'll hear the base frequency of that square wave, but not be able to distinguish it from a 20 kHz sine or sawtooth wave, because those parts of the signal are above your range of hearing.

Vinyl sounds like shit, digital is way better unless it's a poor remaster.

>calls people stupid
>using vinyl flacs

That's not true, vinyl has OBJECTIVELY lower theoretical dynamic range than CDs, although poor CD masters have sullied its reputation among some audiophiles. Vinyl has a higher sampling frequency, since it's analog it has no hard cutoff (unlike CDs which max out at 44.1KHz) but that doesn't matter since you can't hear above 20KHz anyway.

>vinyl

>no one here is talking about actual vinyls
What are vinyl flacs ripped from?
Also, LPs can have some higher frequencies on them than CDs, at least for the first couple plays. But those are outside the human range of hearing. What matters more is the dynamic range inside the human range of hearing, and CDs have records beat on that. 16 bits per sample = ~98 dB dynamic range. LPs can achieve 60-80 dB.

One thing I will say about Vinyl rips. The first 24bit 96KHz vinyl rip I got was noticeably and upsettingly quiet. I remember when I first got it, I could not get my volume loud enough for it to feel "normal". I later got a headphone amp and then was very satisfied by being able to make the album loud enough. I haven't got an external DAC or anything. Nothing to say about differences I can hear, just makes sense to get things in high quality when you can.

That it makes it awesome to find a good rip

You know, you can adjust the volume of a digital recording in any competent audio editor. In Audacity, it's Effect->Amplify, and the default amount is the max amplification you can do without clipping.

Doing something unnatural like that would feel dirty to me. I also am often seeding from the same files I listen to, so I don't make changes beyond directory/file name changes in the torrent client. That's an interesting idea I'll have to keep in mind for the future, though. I don't always have my amp with me. It's just there for home use.

Vinyl is inherently too quiet, it's why preamps exist. The voltage is so low you have to compensate for it before you play it through a regular amp or speakers. The rip you had was probably poorly done, he should have known to increase the loudness a bit.

Also if you use a player that has Rockbox, you can adjust the volume above 100%. VLC can do the same on PCs though you have to adjust the max allowable volume in preferences to go above 150%. Rockbox also correctly handles files with ReplayGain information in them.

Phono preamps do more than just turn up the volume. They apply the inverse RIAA curve. So if you pipe directly from a record player to PC with no preamp, your recording will not only be quiet but also low on bass.

vinyl records may still be preferred for their greater dynamic range in practice because of aggressive dynamic range compression used for CD audio material

This.

I have been making my own and collecting 24bit vinyl rips for a decade. My collection sits at 4 terabytes, Its mostly because the dynamic range is better on old releases. CD and Hi-res came and the fucking music industry idiots wasted all that dynamic range goodness the new technology gave us... its literally retarded. Have a look at REM's document over time.

dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=R.E.M.&album=document

But seriously the amount of Zoomer know it alls in this thread is fucking sickening. Yeah it doesnt make any rational sense but DIY vinyl rips on very high end gear is the closest you will get to the master tape.... particluarly the newer DSD rips that are being made.

I used to think DSD was a total meme for years. I thought i knew it all, i resampled everything to 24/96 for my digital crossovers and was gonna live happily ever after. I had never heard it native, Have (You) ? just last year i finally splurged on a DSD DAP and good headphones and OMG. The new 5.6mhz DSD vinyl rips i got from rutracker were A RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. Finally i get it. Its a totally new sound and the next step up. Get yourself a cheap chink DSD player like the shanling m0 and check a few of these out. Better than SACD IMHO and FREE.

rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5449868

rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5192645

*goosebumps*

Pic Related. Loudness Shenanigans.

Attached: d85d0526-0b79-454e-8c6a-287d4320ef5d.png (1145x963, 84K)

should i consult that loudness war website every time i wish to buy a vinyl to ensure that the masters weren't made using shitty compression?

There is literally no audible difference between vinyl and CD or FLAC and MP3. If you think you can hear it then you're an audiophool who spends thousands on cable lifts and other placebo bullshit

The only reason for the difference is how they're produced. Vinyl has objectively lower dynamic range.

>24 bit
Why bother? 16 bit gives enough dynamic range that you would need to listen on top end equipment in an anechoic chamber to just barely hit its limits.

Mostly this.
Also important is the vinyl rig. You probably need to have a $500+ cartridge to get the same fidelity as you would from a CD. I have a Clearaudio Virtuoso cart, and it sounds as good or better than CD.
However, if I were to start collecting today, there is NO WAY I would do vinyl...to fucking expensive. Only invest in vinyl gear if you've got a large existing collection that you want to preserve.

Attached: Copy of 1519856716470.jpg (4304x2860, 2.85M)

Do an ABX test live if you're so confident. Telling the difference between a good 128 and 192 mp3 is very difficult. You have to listen carefully for the signature artifacts of mp3 compression. Telling the difference between 192 and 320 is just impossible.

Also note there's a big difference between an mp3 encoded in 2004 and one encoded on modern software today. There have been big improvements in encoders over the years.

There's definitely a difference between vinyl recordings and mp3s. People don't create new technology for the sake of it.

CD/FLAC from CD > vinyl/FLAC from vinyl > MP3
People do create new technologies for a reason. For instance, people created the CD because of vinyl's shortcomings. Notably, that it wears out easily and has limited dynamic range.

You're absolutely right. Vinyl has significantly more total harmonic distortion among many other flaws. The only reason to prefer vinyl is for "muh aesthetic".

Exactly my point. The 'differences' of vinyl recordings that aficionados seek out are objectively considered imperfections of the reproductions.

Any 30 dollar one. No audible difference between that and a placebo 1000 dollar one

I guess you think there’s no difference between 4k and 1080p either. Maybe reddit is more your crowd.

If you're sitting 8 ft from a 50 in display then there is no difference. Humans have limits on visual and aural acuity. Reddit buys whatever the fuck is marketed at them and unboxes it on YouTube with a smile. I'd hope anons here would be more critical and respectful of the facts, but clearly you're an exception to that.

guaranteed replies

,

Audiophiles get the rope, for being obnoxious.

then so should displayphiles

That is correct.

modern music have so shit production values that you will hear no difference

only if you actually have 90s and early 2000s vinyls, they mau have been produced from good quality master tapes

Don't do this. Vinyl rips are fucking awful.

>he thinks a PHYSICAL medium can be more accurate than a DIGITAL one, with music that was mostly recorded DIGITALLY
wew

If you cant hear vinyl pops and cracks then you should check your hearing, you might have some hearing loss.

>double the information with quarter of the accuracy
Wow, amazing

Attached: f0m5faynclc01.jpg (700x928, 66K)

sampling rate and audio frequency are two different things. Vinyl doesn't have a sampling rate (unless technically the source master was a digital recording in which case it will be by extension whatever the source master was before it was put into wax) because it's an analog signal not a digital one, the displacement of the needle is parallel to what the speaker produces in terms of air compression which is parallel to what your ears hear.

I, too, subscribe to the idea that magic puts grooves into vinyls

You need to equalize signal from cartridge first. Anyway vinyl degrades if you use it and after a first use it is no longer what was originally pressed on it.

the vinyl version is usually mastered better. vinyl itself is not that good but the better version of the album is on them.

How smart of them to make sure that you need to buy obsolete garbage technology for "better" sound.

We, globally, with the exception of a few hipsters, upgraded to CD from vinyl a couple of decades ago. I bet these are some meme 48bit/192 kHz encodes which do nothing as well.
youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

Who here still uses low kbps mp3s like it's 2003

>128kb mp3 and flac
>Sound the same
Are you using wireless beats or apple buds by any chance????

Why before 2000?
Why before 1995?
audiophiles are a meme

because at that point producers started to amp up the loudness and destroy dynamic range to try and boost sales because "louder = better" to normalfags

i have a vinyl collection so i don't really need the flacs..but i rip them anyways to listen to them in my car

holy shit i wana fuck that tite body

Have fun with that 40 decibels of channel separation. Does wonders for the stereo imaging.

At least displayphiles actually give a shit about objective benchmarks.

I think video still has room to grow because of the sheer amount of data that a raw capture has. Audio playback is already basically perfect, everything now is just nitpicking. (The one major complaint about modern audio I suppose is lack of surround sound, as SACD and DVD-A never too off in the mainstream) Video is still limited by bandwidth constraints, streaming uses garbage bitrates and Blurays look pretty good but are still limited to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and mastered using Limited 8-bit RGB. 4k blurays have a lot of issues, mainly the fact that most movies aren't real 4k but upscaled 2k masters (They still look better than bluray with a slightly higher res and higher bitrates, but not a whole lot). 10-bit HDR looks good if mastered properly but unfortunately most displays are only 8-bit FRC.

>reply to post saying there's a big difference between 128 and 320
>hur dur I bet you can't hear the difference between 128 and 192 or 192 and 320

Attached: 1526528409201.png (374x535, 244K)

I was adding granularity to explain the threshold of inscrutability.
Telling the difference between 128 and 320 is the same as 128 and 192. Once you hit 192 it's just impossible to discern it from higher. 128 is low enough that some tracks show its hand, but you need to listen very carefully for the small signature artifacts of mp3 compression. Just listening without knowing what to look for will get you squat, and you'll fail the ABX.

I have most of my library in flac and I just did a test but I can't tell the difference
Should I just purge it all and switch to 320 mp3's bros?

nah, just buy a DAC.

You can't tell the difference because your headphones and/or speakers are fucking shit.
Here's what you need, minimum, to have good audio
Good source > good mix > good encode >good DAC > good speakers/headphones

It's as simple as putting a fucking CD in a car.

Jow Forums can you explain what the fuck is up with all this 432hz music?
/mu/ seemed clueless so Im guessin Jow Forums is the only place that could answer this

>the vinyl version is usually mastered better
The vinyl version is usually mastered explicitly for printing on vinyl. It's not limited as aggressively, but a brickwall limiter is still used in the mastering chain to prevent needle skips. Bass frequencies are usually made mono for the same reason
>tl;dr, vinyl masters are just different, and not usually better, than their CD/Digital counterparts

youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

dont waste too much money on placebo shit

I don't actually know what you're referring to, but as a former musician I can say that typical tuning centers around a single note (in this case an A) with a frequency of 440 Hz. All other pitches are derived mathematically from it via the harmonic series (and then tempered a tiny bit). having A=432Hz be the tuning standard would change the pitch of all the notes by a small but technically noticeable amount
Sounds like some hipster bullshit to be honest

The symbol for the hertz is Hz and a space is required between the number and the unit symbol. I hope this helps.

Being an audiophile is a sin.

I have these, reviews said that have good quality for a gayming headset (I didn't pay $100 for them they were on sale for like $70)

amazon.com/HyperX-Cloud-Gaming-Headset-KHX-HSCP-RD/dp/B00SAYCXWG?crid=3T10R228VB52V&keywords=hyperx cloud 2&qid=1533266823&sprefix=hyperx cloud &sr=8-2&ref=mp_s_a_1_2

i have zensor 7 from dali

Attached: dali_zensor7_0.jpg?itok=1eECnQn-.jpg (250x464, 37K)

even tapes sound better than vinyl

Attached: nakamichi1.jpg (1000x667, 133K)

Did you plug them straight into your computer headphone jack? Please tell me you didn't perform this test on a smartphone