Vinyl rips are not lossless

**EnricosFlac** · 05-06-12 at 03:14 AM

I agree that vinyl is not lossless. But is this really the most important ? How about pleasant or not ? I have more than 3.000 CD's ripped to flac and for about 40.000 EUR of Hi Fi equipment to listen to them. But even like that, they are not all so pleasant to listen to. The recording technique, dynamic, equalizing of the channels or background noises are all factors that can even make the best 192KHz/24Bits master record sound like sh... while some vinyls can just sound extraordinary.

I have some vinyls too. It is not always the case but some are really far more pleasant to hear than their remastered "lossless" successors... And sometimes, certain records are just never reissued in remastered CD versions. You either have the record in LP format or you will just never listen to them again.

Here is an example of an LP I ripped. It is a truly fantastic but never reissued version of the Golden Gate Quartet Negro Spirituals dating from 1957. It is an LP I got from my mother and its quality was really not perfect anymore when I ripped it but...

...please listen to it and let me know if you find it pleasant or not

?!

RS link

Code: Select All

https://www.rapidshare.com/files/3180708361/GGQNS1957.rar

Password

Code: Select All

EnjoyMerci

.

mattcasey23 · 06-05-12 at 05:22 PM

OP is indeed a ****ing idiot.

**clenchdwarf** · 06-19-12 at 05:46 PM

I thought the OP made some good points. A similar situation applies to movies (at least Before Digital); the print that showed up in your local cinema was many optical generations away from the camera negative.

Humans often prefer things that aren't "accurate" over the originals. Commercial radio stations feed everything through compressors and "enhancers" to add audio MSG & ketchup to the original music. I've got an old mono Chubby Checker record from a yard sale which is dirty and worn but just sounds awesome; the distortion just adds more bite to the sax and vocals.

Anyone who believes that bit-accurate rips can sound different has an opinion which will be difficult to substantiate with any objective testing. They may also believe that replacing the line cord, wall receptacle, or even cover plate makes an audible difference. And if playing music from a computer, that the USB or network cable type is also significant. Still, unlike other irrational believers, audio fanatics hardly ever go and commit mass murder, so that's something.

Anyway, vinyl rips are fully justified when no other version is available. Whether sample rates and bitdepths beyond 16/48k are necessary is another question.

slave_labor · 09-23-12 at 12:27 PM

Agreed, vinyl is not lossless.

It can be audiophile quality. Good vinyl with quality gear might get you the best
copy of the music that you can find. It might be the closest to the actual music.

I have heard plenty of vinyl that sounds better than the CD. And different remasters
sound different on CD and vinyl. It all depends upon the specific recording.

A lot of these High def 24 bit tracks out there have been criticized for various
reasons also. There are differing opinions about everything involved; it really is an
art in itself.

--TomS

amistill · 10-07-12 at 02:39 PM

This thread is a really good one.

Yes, better the source, better the derivative.

Should we stop calling all vinyl rips lossless AND move them out of the Lossless Forum?

I don't know about that. One can argue from a mathematical standpoint about the true meaning of lossless. But it is also quite clear that the whole 'Lossless Audio' movement in online forums gathered momentum as a response to the overuse of 'insanely compressed' music, mp3 / aac, as more people began to notice and feel the difference while listening to a 'CD'/FLAC as opposed to compressed audio. So the concept of Lossless has come about in reference to the destination codec/format as against Lossy music, as flash storage has reached unbelievable capacities, and it is now possible to have a pocket hifi audio 'library' of music.

The other way to look at Lossless audio would be from the signal point of view, that is, more upstream in the production process. This is where your suggestion to digitize from a master disc that has lost less information, justifies as 'the more original sound'. This too, is not lossless, but it is 'less lossy'.

If we look at Vinyl rips posted as flac, from the first definition, they are digitized from analog and have not been compressed to 'audiobook'/'telephone voice compression' bitrates. They can be considered 're-recordings from secondary sources, but are definitely lossless audio from a point of view of format and would generally sound better than any 64 kbps m4a online streaming audio. Relatively speaking, this is lossless audio.

This point has sparked some heated comments about 'what sounds better' and why 'analog video/audio' has surprising amounts of 'audio-visual sensory experience relevant information' kind of arguments. But this is besides the topic.

If we look at the same thing from a 'how lossless could it possibly be' standpoint, yes the masters or discs without 'compression' would be more 'true to the original signal'. But at the same time, not 'lossless'. If we extend this argument, the modern, CD-releases/FLAC rips can be considered far from 'analog' and far from 'Lossless' even, as many irate audiophiles might point out. So 'raising the bar' for the posts in the Lossless Audio forum, is not a practical solution.

The question here, is not to ostracize a certain source of audio. But we need to attribute greater value to better sources and have an agreed upon title syntax/ naming scheme for such audio. Just like we have so many ways to describe video sources: BRRip BDRip, DVDrip, Web-dl, etc.

Why not just create and adopt a set of Title conventions to properly describe audio source/digitization process/target format information.

We could argue forever as to whether to put Grey in the Black forum or the White Forum and never really find a 'commandment' as to why either is better. What we need is a better description of the 'shades of Grey'. Who cares if it's in the Lossless forum or not, as long as one can easily identify the 'audio quality' by the description and put your bandwidth to good use/and search easily.

The use of the term 'audio quality' itself is a kiddish way of discussing sound. Transformations, reproductions, listening experiences are very complex, and would suggest that we are better off just describing what was involved in bringing this music to the users, and then just sharing it.

hughjorgenn · 11-20-12 at 02:36 PM

I have spent heaps of money (probably too much) over decades on "hi-fi" equipment. I made the decision to switch to CD after many a night making comparisons on my Rega 3 and a friend's Linn Sondek to our respective CD players and both of us deciding that CD was much better. Today, a $100 DVD player sounds better than a $10k turntable. AFAIK the vinyl/CD debate was over in the early 1980s. If you want real "hi-fi" today, buy a PC with S/PDIF, a good amplifier/receiver and spend most of your money on loudspeakers. Oh I nearly forgot .... and don't listen to today's awful recordings.

evaevers · 11-20-12 at 02:55 PM

Absolutely today produces lots of awful recordings. I opt for digital sound almost all the way. And the only application where I prefer analog, tubes actually, is when cranking it through a musical amp because the tube saturation (overdrive) will add frequencies to the music. Good riddance to heavy stacks of records, cassettes jamming in the player, changing of needles and the rest.

hughjorgenn · 11-20-12 at 05:48 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by mattcasey23

OP is indeed a ****ing idiot.

Another hero hiding behind a keyboard. Why not try to provide some useful feedback like others here instead of

kindergarten insults.

hughjorgenn · 11-20-12 at 06:06 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by ceniza

Different CD players do also color the sound of the audio played.

CD players colour the sound in the digital domain? Nonsense! CD players sound different due to the way they convert the digital data to analogue! If I obtain a bit perfect copy of the CD then there is NO LOSS or colouration! Your post just tells me that you are clueless.

06-19-12 at 05:46 PM	#31
clenchdwarf Expert Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 802	I thought the OP made some good points. A similar situation applies to movies (at least Before Digital); the print that showed up in your local cinema was many optical generations away from the camera negative. Humans often prefer things that aren't "accurate" over the originals. Commercial radio stations feed everything through compressors and "enhancers" to add audio MSG & ketchup to the original music. I've got an old mono Chubby Checker record from a yard sale which is dirty and worn but just sounds awesome; the distortion just adds more bite to the sax and vocals. Anyone who believes that bit-accurate rips can sound different has an opinion which will be difficult to substantiate with any objective testing. They may also believe that replacing the line cord, wall receptacle, or even cover plate makes an audible difference. And if playing music from a computer, that the USB or network cable type is also significant. Still, unlike other irrational believers, audio fanatics hardly ever go and commit mass murder, so that's something. Anyway, vinyl rips are fully justified when no other version is available. Whether sample rates and bitdepths beyond 16/48k are necessary is another question. Last edited by clenchdwarf; 06-19-12 at 05:59 PM.

10-07-12 at 02:39 PM	#33
amistill Novice Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 104	This thread is a really good one. Yes, better the source, better the derivative. Should we stop calling all vinyl rips lossless AND move them out of the Lossless Forum? I don't know about that. One can argue from a mathematical standpoint about the true meaning of lossless. But it is also quite clear that the whole 'Lossless Audio' movement in online forums gathered momentum as a response to the overuse of 'insanely compressed' music, mp3 / aac, as more people began to notice and feel the difference while listening to a 'CD'/FLAC as opposed to compressed audio. So the concept of Lossless has come about in reference to the destination codec/format as against Lossy music, as flash storage has reached unbelievable capacities, and it is now possible to have a pocket hifi audio 'library' of music. The other way to look at Lossless audio would be from the signal point of view, that is, more upstream in the production process. This is where your suggestion to digitize from a master disc that has lost less information, justifies as 'the more original sound'. This too, is not lossless, but it is 'less lossy'. If we look at Vinyl rips posted as flac, from the first definition, they are digitized from analog and have not been compressed to 'audiobook'/'telephone voice compression' bitrates. They can be considered 're-recordings from secondary sources, but are definitely lossless audio from a point of view of format and would generally sound better than any 64 kbps m4a online streaming audio. Relatively speaking, this is lossless audio. This point has sparked some heated comments about 'what sounds better' and why 'analog video/audio' has surprising amounts of 'audio-visual sensory experience relevant information' kind of arguments. But this is besides the topic. If we look at the same thing from a 'how lossless could it possibly be' standpoint, yes the masters or discs without 'compression' would be more 'true to the original signal'. But at the same time, not 'lossless'. If we extend this argument, the modern, CD-releases/FLAC rips can be considered far from 'analog' and far from 'Lossless' even, as many irate audiophiles might point out. So 'raising the bar' for the posts in the Lossless Audio forum, is not a practical solution. The question here, is not to ostracize a certain source of audio. But we need to attribute greater value to better sources and have an agreed upon title syntax/ naming scheme for such audio. Just like we have so many ways to describe video sources: BRRip BDRip, DVDrip, Web-dl, etc. Why not just create and adopt a set of Title conventions to properly describe audio source/digitization process/target format information. We could argue forever as to whether to put Grey in the Black forum or the White Forum and never really find a 'commandment' as to why either is better. What we need is a better description of the 'shades of Grey'. Who cares if it's in the Lossless forum or not, as long as one can easily identify the 'audio quality' by the description and put your bandwidth to good use/and search easily. The use of the term 'audio quality' itself is a kiddish way of discussing sound. Transformations, reproductions, listening experiences are very complex, and would suggest that we are better off just describing what was involved in bringing this music to the users, and then just sharing it. Last edited by amistill; 10-07-12 at 02:43 PM.

06-05-12 at 05:22 PM	#30
mattcasey23 Newcomer Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 1	OP is indeed a ****ing idiot.

09-23-12 at 12:27 PM	#32
slave_labor Newcomer Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 10	Agreed, vinyl is not lossless. It can be audiophile quality. Good vinyl with quality gear might get you the best copy of the music that you can find. It might be the closest to the actual music. I have heard plenty of vinyl that sounds better than the CD. And different remasters sound different on CD and vinyl. It all depends upon the specific recording. A lot of these High def 24 bit tracks out there have been criticized for various reasons also. There are differing opinions about everything involved; it really is an art in itself. --TomS

11-20-12 at 02:36 PM	#34
hughjorgenn Newcomer Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22	I have spent heaps of money (probably too much) over decades on "hi-fi" equipment. I made the decision to switch to CD after many a night making comparisons on my Rega 3 and a friend's Linn Sondek to our respective CD players and both of us deciding that CD was much better. Today, a $100 DVD player sounds better than a $10k turntable. AFAIK the vinyl/CD debate was over in the early 1980s. If you want real "hi-fi" today, buy a PC with S/PDIF, a good amplifier/receiver and spend most of your money on loudspeakers. Oh I nearly forgot .... and don't listen to today's awful recordings.

11-20-12 at 02:55 PM	#35
evaevers Newcomer Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 69	Absolutely today produces lots of awful recordings. I opt for digital sound almost all the way. And the only application where I prefer analog, tubes actually, is when cranking it through a musical amp because the tube saturation (overdrive) will add frequencies to the music. Good riddance to heavy stacks of records, cassettes jamming in the player, changing of needles and the rest.

11-20-12 at 05:48 PM	#36
hughjorgenn Newcomer Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22	Quote: Originally Posted by mattcasey23 OP is indeed a ****ing idiot. Another hero hiding behind a keyboard. Why not try to provide some useful feedback like others here instead of kindergarten insults.

11-20-12 at 06:06 PM	#37
hughjorgenn Newcomer Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22	Quote: Originally Posted by ceniza Different CD players do also color the sound of the audio played. CD players colour the sound in the digital domain? Nonsense! CD players sound different due to the way they convert the digital data to analogue! If I obtain a bit perfect copy of the CD then there is NO LOSS or colouration! Your post just tells me that you are clueless.