The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Does recorded music always sound better on vinyl?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:17 PM Author: luke the drifter (definite and ineradicable gauge of its upward moving) As far as I can tell with vinyl you get some crackling static sound as the needle rides those concentric grooves, but it’s not too annoying. I have read that some think this makes the recording sound warmer. I wouldn’t go that far. It’s definitely distracting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144651) |
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:23 PM Author: hex yeah (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144659) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:27 PM Author: peeface no. but there is a different listening process, and a physical aspect, that makes it an enjoyable alternative to the algorithmic digital music machine.
|
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:29 PM Author: TurboGrafx-67 The best sound takes uncompressed raw digital data and uses a complicated process to make it analog
Even if it's vinyl they convert it to digital first. Then back to analog |
 |
Date: September 19th, 2026 10:34 PM Author: peeface there are still some autists making records with a fully analog process for other autists, but usually nothing anyone normal listens to. the beatles mono reissue probably the closest we come to anything commercial.
|
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:11 PM Author: zarathustra it's not the cracking and imperfections that make it "warmer" the medium itself produces subtly different harmonics. but you have to be an autist about it or at least an attentive listener to perceive any difference most of the time. i think technically reel to reel is the highest fidelity analog medium and is less susceptible to audible wear. digital wins on absolute fidelity across the board. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144721) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:30 PM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) This is cr. Electromagnetic tape is substantially higher fidelity than vinyl. Vinyl is fundamentally lossy. There isn't enough space on a disc to capture all the bass waves the lowest of which would be the entire width of an LP. In the mastering process low waves are filtered out. So are high waves which the needle can't capture because it would fly out of the groove. If you like vinyl, you like music that sounds worse or at least does not contain all the data in the recording. Tape comes very close but is expensive and cumbersome to reproduce. Digital is above tape. Red book CD has never been improved upon. The format is essentially the final form. Boomers claim they get listening fatigue from CDs because they're overwhelmed by too much sonic data and would rather a song sound shittier and be missing some pieces so their geriatric brain can handle it for longer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144733) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:46 PM Author: zarathustra dsd and hi res digital are top for absolute fidelity, better than standard consumer cd. most vinyl appreciation is performative or for the kitsch or ambience but it does legitimately impart a different quality to the sound, much like tv screens can look different, or how you can apply 'warm' or 'cool' filters to the picture.
people use very imperfect vocabulary like "warmth" or "fullness" to attempt to capture the effect which makes it sound fake and gay and causes others to be skeptical particularly because it's retarded boomers who are usually pushing it and mostly out of nostalgia rather than any real grasp of the audible nuances. but vinyl and other antiquated audio technologies like tube equipment do legitimately have distinct qualities that can be nice if you listen enough to sense what they're doing. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:01 AM Author: gay scientist couldn't digital filters be applied to impart whatever desirable characteristics exist with vinyl or tubes? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144764) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:09 AM Author: zarathustra hypothetically it's possible but as with any attempt at a simulation it will break down under certain conditions and will generally be imperfect, and if you care enough you might as well get the real thing.
if you need an ev for practical reasons but you love the sound of shifting gears you could also hypothetically rig up a sim on your car which would be incredibly gay but you might have a real reason to prefer the ev. if you love the sound of tubes then just get tubes. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:08 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) Lol is this flame? DSD and hi res audio are complete 100% flame. What are you smoking? There is literally nothing better than red book CD. It's mathematically impossible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144779) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:12 AM Author: zarathustra just ask chatgpt if you need convincing man, there's no need to debate empirical facts (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144783) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:12 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) There's no logical argument for why you think you can hear information that your ear can't hear. You're the one who is defying physics but telling me to ask an LLM about it? Ljl at you (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144821) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:32 AM Author: peeface "it isn't actually better if a person can't hear the difference" is a bit of a different argument
but not even true. setting aside children and weirdos that can hear outside the red book standard... the low sample rate can cause filtering problems. it was very noticeable 30 years years ago, but DACs have gotten better.
and for anything that might be used in future production i'd certainly prefer the more generous source.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:38 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) What are you fucking talking about? This is fucking gibberish. Yeah let's record audio at a much higher sample rate given that on a long enough time span scientists will figure out how to extend the range of human hearing? Is that really what you're saying?
Lower samples rate of what? 44.1 Khz? That's low to you? It's double the theoretical limit of human hearing. You think that's low? Are you crazy? And you're worried about jitter? This has been debunked lol. You literally cannot hear the noise floor or the jitter dipshit. This is such a smug retard argument for which there's no evidence. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:44 AM Author: peeface maybe you should be angry at yourself for getting into a conversation you don't understand, instead of at the guy trying to explain it to you.
first understand that sound is a wave, and the sample rate has to be twice the frequency.
44.1=22.05, right at the edge of human hearing you stupid cretin.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:47 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) 20k herz is the maximum. 22.5 is more than the maximum. You certainly cannot hear above 20k. Most adults cannot hear over 15k. Red book CD IS hi res. It's higher resolution than you could ever hear. It's already more than the maximum. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144837) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:55 AM Author: peeface first, you are again wrong.
second, you might want to latch on to the comment i made above about filters and try to understand it. i know you don't, because you clearly don't understand things that come three rungs on the ladder below that, but it is important.
third, you ("Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked(Prestige Feuds)") are fucking not a bright guy.
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:46 AM Author: The Penis You are making statements based on an idealized reconstruction. You are assuming the signal is perfectly band limited below 22.05 kHz, sampled perfectly at 44.1 kHz, quantized with enough precision, and reconstructed with an perfect ideal filter. Real irl systems systems require anti-alias and reconstruction filters and other stuff too. Higher sample rates give the filter more room. None of this requires anyone to hear a 30 kHz tone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144851) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:34 AM Author: zarathustra this is fairer than any argument you or i will make:
give me the most definitive scientific research available on the ability of humans to perceive the higher fidelity of formats considered higher fidelity than red book cd
The most definitive, comprehensive, and widely accepted scientific study on this topic is a massive peer-reviewed systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (JAES).The paper, titled "A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation," was authored by Dr. Joshua Reiss from the Centre for Digital Music at Queen Mary University of London.
This study is considered the gold standard because, rather than relying on a single experiment with a small group of people, it applied rigorous statistical meta-analysis to the entirety of available historical research.
The Scope of the Study
Dr. Reiss analyzed 80 publication candidates, ultimately narrowing the selection down to 18 highly controlled, published experiments that provided full, verifiable data sets.
Data Volume: The meta-analysis compiled data from over 400 unique participants.
Rigor: It evaluated more than 12,500 individual blind listening trials.
The Goal: To determine if subjects could successfully differentiate between "standard resolution" audio (16-bit/44.1 kHz or 48 kHz CD quality) and "high resolution" audio (anything exceeding Red Book CD standards, such as 24-bit/96 kHz or SACD/DSD).Key Findings: What the Data Proved
The study's conclusions forced both hardcore audiophiles and strict skeptics to compromise.
1. The Core Finding: Perception is Real, but Trivial
The meta-analysis concluded that humans can perceive a difference between high-resolution and CD-quality audio under blind conditions, and the result is statistically significant. However, the effect size is incredibly small. Across all 12,500+ combined trials, the average correct identification rate was roughly 53%.Context: A score of 50% represents complete random guessing. While 53% is mathematically "better than chance" over thousands of trials, it demonstrates that the difference is not a striking "night-and-day" auditory revelation for the general public.
2. The Multiplier: Auditory Training
The single most critical variable in the entire study was whether or not the listener was trained.
When data from untrained, casual listeners was isolated, their ability to perceive high resolution fell to near-total random chance.
When data from trained listeners (such as mastering engineers, audio students, or professional musicians) was isolated, the ability to tell the formats apart increased dramatically, pushing identification rates closer to 60%.Dr. Reiss noted that almost all the statistical variation between the 18 separate studies could be explained by one factor: whether the participants had been trained to know exactly what micro-artifacts or transient details to listen for.
3. Stimulus Selection Matters
The study also revealed that the ability to perceive high-fidelity audio depends heavily on the choice of music. Listeners were far more successful at identifying high-resolution audio when using longer samples (more than 30 seconds) and tracks with intense, sharp transients—such as the sudden pluck of an acoustic string or the strike of a metal cymbal. This aligns with theories suggesting higher sampling rates better preserve microsecond timing data in sound waves.
Other Notable Context: The Meyer & Moran Defeat
Before Dr. Reiss's 2016 meta-analysis, the most famous study cited by skeptics was the 2007 Meyer & Moran Study (also published via the Audio Engineering Society).Over a year-long period, researchers tested 60 members of an audiophile society across 554 blind trials.
They inserted a CD-quality bottleneck (16-bit/44.1 kHz) into a high-end SACD/DVD-Audio playback system.
The audiophiles guessed correctly exactly 49.8% of the time.
Why Reiss changed the narrative: While Meyer & Moran proved that an average audiophile cannot walk into a room and instantly spot a CD-quality filter, Dr. Reiss's meta-analysis demonstrated that when you zoom out to thousands of trials and focus strictly on trained ears listening to targeted audio cues, human perception can technically resolve details beyond the Red Book CD barrier.
Would you like to explore the specific neuroscientific or physiological theories (like time-domain transient resolution) that explain how trained ears pick up these differences? Or would you prefer a breakdown of how to train your own ears using an ABX test? |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:45 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) It's impossible and it's been completely disproven. It's literally not possible. No one can hear beyond the range of human hearing and no one can hear more than 96 decibels of dynamic range for the same reason you can't hear a fly buzzing at the same time a jet airplane is taking off in front of you.
It's all poppycock and 3% over random guessing is statistical noise. It could easily be attributed to some other factor for instance in some blind tests larger file sizes take longer to load. That's an identifiable marker that could easily skew tests among many other possibilities. The fact that some people with training did better could again likely be someone who knew an identifiable marker in the file itself just like a marked card in a deck.
You are absolutely kidding yourself. It's also extremely pathetic that you can't even use your own words and need a robot to do it for you. Extreme loserdom. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:41 AM Author: The Penis 3% is statistical noise is wrong in terms of actual stats and experiment dsign. It depends on the number and independence of observations and experiment design. It can be extremely significant under a 50% null with enough well controlled trials.
You are being too cd-absolutist overall. But I think you are right that under realistic listening conditions, improvements over redbook are small. Problem is you are trying to act like its settled, saying that its mathematically impossible to improve on and violates physics, which isn't true. It's not a settled claim. It's an ongoing engineering and perceptual question. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 2:56 AM Author: zarathustra seems that it does make a marginal empirical difference to trained ears listening to dynamic tracks in ideal settings but that it won't make much of a difference to casual listeners, and higher-res sources are usually listened to on good equipment in well-treated settings and are probably mastered better, so in practice most of the anecdotal advantage is flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144853) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 3:05 AM Author: The Penis Yeah pretty much. One audiophile thing I think is 100% not flame though is expensive headphones. Used to have multiple pairs of $1000+ headphones from focal and some of the other companies, and they were 180. Comes down to real materials, engineering and manufacturing advantages that make a huge difference. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144855) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 3:45 AM Author: zarathustra most non-conspicuous enthusiast goods like quality coffee, cookwear, audio equipment are not flame, you just need exposure and taste to discern and understand the difference, and money to burn. 90% of the time when people are debating the absolute quality of these things they are smuggling in the value question and whether they are "worth it" which is really a matter of taste and how rich u are. if i were poor and didn't want to bother with separates i'd be perfectly happy with a stereo pair of sonos speakers but i'm not poor so i buy nice shit that i can appreciate.
but discussion is ruined by people on both sides because poor people use it as a chance to take out their resentments towards things they can't have while discourse within the "hobby" is polluted by vain and slothful boomers in need of an obsession and an incinerator to consume their cash. |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:17 PM Author: scholarship No. As far as fidelity goes it technically almost always sounds worse than a cd. CD is as true as ears can hear. But a lot of vinyls are mastered differently and you get a different sound. And the pops and crackles are kind of fun. And the giant albums and the album art are fun. And the whole ritual is neat and some albums have unreleased tracks only on vinyl etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144726) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:33 PM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) The main reason for the resurgence in vinyl was it became a rare collectible commodity. All of the goofy neon colored vinyl and rare releases made it something people could collect. It's like having a nice watch or a baseball cards collection. Modern vinyl heads are in it for the value and investment. It's like hey own a piece of something no one else knows about or has or can get. That's the whole point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144735) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:36 PM Author: scholarship A buddy of mine occasionally gets a cool vinyl with some tracks that are only on vinyl. It’s fun like that. And the size of them is cool. I just listen to MP3’s nowadays. Anything over 256k is basically completely transparent and who cares. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144742) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:06 AM Author: raped/touched/licked/fucked (Prestige Feuds) I insist on FLAC. I probably can't tell the difference but psychologically I need to know that nothing is missing.
Do you think DACs are complete flame? Like how can an expensive hardware device convert zeroes and ones into analog any better than all your other devices that do this? Seems like complete flame but people buy em. |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 3:09 AM Author: The Penis Not complete flame, there are some real product differences in conversion engineering. But paying for a $1000 dollar dac vs. a $200 dollar one is definitely flame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144856) |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:42 PM Author: luke the drifter (definite and ineradicable gauge of its upward moving) this is scholarship makes sense to me, that's for sure |
|
Date: September 19th, 2026 11:38 PM Author: askav big fan of vinyl here. no. at least, not with the kind of setup any of us is likely to have (and then, if you did have such a setup, you are listening to the equipment, not the music). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144744) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:02 AM Author: gay scientist favorite albums on vinyl? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144766) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 12:09 AM Author: luke the drifter (definite and ineradicable gauge of its upward moving) Flatt & Scruggs Greatest Hits Iron Butterfly In a Gadda da Vita Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison
|
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 1:21 AM Author: Metal Up Your Ass i'm mostly into vinyl for the expense and inconvenience (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144826) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2026 4:06 AM Author: Le Penis (✅🍑) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5905299&forum_id=2Elisa#50144864) |