AUDIOFAGS BTFO

Earpods, $5 chinks bluetooth speakers and botnetfy are not helping either.

if you faggot ass can't handle steely dan and then guitar wolf's JETTO GENERATION then shut up

god damn this turns me on

Based sound engineers pushing people to listen to nice classical music.

deviants

I want to lick her bob

DELICIOUS FEETIES

I'm not sure you watched the whole video.

That's basically the conclusion of the video.
While there is no noticeable difference between analog and digital playback (the sampling rate FAR exceeds the required amount for accurate reproduction) the limitations of the vinyl format resulted in much better mixing choices than what tended to happen once CDs removed that limitation.
So technically the best would be a digital rip of a vinyl master so you get the benefits of digital, while retaining the non-garbage mastering.

Is that you, Chris O'Neil?

>Album is recorded digitally
>Is transferred to vinyl
>DUHH IT'S HIGHER FIDELITY GOYIM

right, so to sum up for true idiots that cant read lots of words,

vinyl sometimes sounding better has nothing to do with the vinyl itself. its a coincidence of the way things were done then vs now. the true debate of analog vs digital is over, and has been over. digital is always superior, when other factors are accounted for.

What makes "cd-style" compression physically unviable on vinyl? If anything, it's sound on vinyl that needs more compression, since it has a much lower dinamic range.

Everyone speaks like vinyl forces good mastering while CD allows horrific compression, but I feel like this is just parroted bullshit. I'll gladly change my mind, once I'm showed technical reasons.

>digital has better quality
>44.1Khz sample rate that cut out frequencies within human hearing on CD's
>even uncompressed original .wav's have to go through a processor and a dac, picking up noise and distortion
It's possible to achieve near-bitperfect play back, but it requires a specific setup for something Vinyl has by default.

>diagram showing magnet inside counterweight
DROPPED

there are digital vinyls they're called cd's

as for mi i want bobs
butiful bobs
in Ahmedabad we no wihte bobs

cute whore

you seem like a real jerk

Vinyl is fully analog. Its grooves correspond 1:1 with the sound output. Digital sampling requires sampling at a rate at least twice that of the highest frequency you want to keep, and vinyl can't do 64,000 different "scratches" at 44kHz.

Limitations of physical media. Needle has finite acceleration. It already needs to be equalized with RIAA curve (again because of the needle finite acceleration and other parameters).
Anyway vinyl is an "128 kbps mp3 with shitty settings" of that time, inferior to reel-to-reel players, but those players were (very) expensive and maintenance required a lot of knowledge and skill so they were not used much. Also giving away copies of master tapes did not appealed to recording companies.

CDs, in theory, with proper mixing, will always sound better than vinyls, with the bonus of preserving their sound quality much more reliably.

Watch the video.

>he thinks that vinyl has perfect playback by default
This is a new level of delusion.

If CDs are not enough for you there are double- and quad-rate DSD format. Not sure if it worth it, but you always have such an option.

cds? I prefer sissies
and vinyl's too bdsm

Vinyl due to it's technical limitations literally forces musicians and producers to take care of a good recording that potentially would sound equal on CD, but CD's very often get messed up with loudness war recordings that sound shitty per default. Hence, many people tend to believe that Vinyl sounds better, when it in fact has less potential than a CD with equal good recordings.

Digital has many advantages and replaying a song like 200 times won't mess up the sound, while vinyl clearly sounds worse and worse after too many replays.