| GERRYISADICK 21.09.2014 06:48 |
Whats the best way to listen to music? Is it on vinyl Cd or digital download . Which one has the best quality? |
| The King Of Rhye 21.09.2014 07:17 |
Really? Obviously CD.........although there are some that would argue for vinyl..................as for digital download. well that depends......mp3s are invariably worse but FLAC will give you the same quality as CD |
| GERRYISADICK 21.09.2014 07:18 |
Thanks! Sorry for my ignorance. |
| BETA215 21.09.2014 08:04 |
FLAC is an exact copy of the CD. Digital downloads in MP3 or AAC, contains compressed music which means poor quality against file weight. Vinyl is better when music is pre-1991, I believe. Because in those times, they started to record music digitally. |
| tero! 48531 21.09.2014 14:03 |
BETA215 wrote: Vinyl is better when music is pre-1991, I believe. Because in those times, they started to record music digitally.Interestingly enough, it seems that digital recording of music started in the 70's, years before the cd format was introduced. Fully digital cd's were available right from the start, but Queen didn't release their first fully digital recording until The Miracle (in 1989). |
| Doga 21.09.2014 15:55 |
One question, vinyl is better because the material is better than the one used in CDs or because the mastering? One could argue the mastering in CDs is far from ideal (even more after the start of the loudness war), the producers want to turn up the volume compressing the music and buring the bass. Usually the master of the vinyl have less compression and a more prominent bass. But can a ''vinyl mastering'' sound as good in a CD? |
| The King Of Rhye 21.09.2014 22:58 |
but ya know............the best way to listen to music IS..............with the performer right in front of your face |
| BETA215 21.09.2014 23:32 |
Doga wrote: One question, vinyl is better because the material is better than the one used in CDs or because the mastering? One could argue the mastering in CDs is more than ideal (even more after the start of the loudness war), the producers want to turn up the volume compressing the music and buring the bass. Usually the master of the vinyl have less compression and a more prominent bass. But can a ''vinyl mastering'' sound as good in a CD?Well, audiophiles listen to vinyls when the source of the recording is analogic, because it's sounds more real and is more faithful to the recording than a CD release which is digital, and according to audiophiles and vinyl lovers, more cold and digital. Now, vinyl is better only for the compression. 'cause now the mayority, if isn't all, of the recordings are digital. If it wasn't for that and the vinyl lovers, they should have extinguished. |
| brENsKi 22.09.2014 08:49 |
The King Of Rhye wrote: but ya know............the best way to listen to music IS..............with the performer right in front of your facethat's logical but also flawed. there's too many factors to take into account to make a live performance sound optimal acoustics, equipment, mixing desk, quality of performance, environment - to name a few. which is why once music is transferred to vinyl/cd or tape all of the above have been taken care of - from a performance level. all that's left is your own listening environment and what you're playing it on |
| mooghead 24.09.2014 12:59 |
Define 'best'. Ultimitely the 'best' is the one you enjoy the sound of most and dont let anyone here or anywhere else tell you otherwise... |
| matt z 03.10.2014 22:40 |
Lp's were supposed to be the more accurate method of recording as they are physically "analogous" (copies) of the master tapes. This affects certain things to a discerning ear. Notably the "fidelity" of the master recording However since albums have been recorded digitally since the late 70's (Stevie's JOURNEY THROUGH THE SECRET LIFE OF PLANTS comes to mind) there is room for debate as to whether something RECORDED digitally has any more fidelity than a cd as both would be reductive during each process. Digital music SAMPLES at a bitrate. SAMPLING however many bits per second... leaving theoretical SPACE between notes. ... which some believe can alter the experience of the listening. Mp3's are the easiest example to show what happens when a digital file is reduced further. You get "washy" sounding cymbals and less ambience. But then again it's all on people's perspective. If you have a turntable with a dirty needle or pets in your house/carpet. .. you'll likely hear some "crackle" on a vinyl album so. ... it's a matter of preference, But FIDELITY (closest approximation to the intended sounds) would be achieved listening to the master tapes. .. then a vinyl ... right? |
| thomasquinn 32989 04.10.2014 06:46 |
One thing: bitrate determines the number of possible amplitudes (loudness) of a given sample. The number of samples per second is called the sampling rate (44100 per second, meaning a maximum frequency of 22050hz, for CDs). CDs use a 16-bit system, so they can have 65 535 levels of loudness. |
| tero! 48531 04.10.2014 09:22 |
Sorry to be anal, but the unit of "times/second is" actually called a Hertz, and on cds you get the 44100Hz on each channel. (We can all verify that by calculating the number of Bytes on a "80-minute" data cd.) |
| mooghead 05.10.2014 13:10 |
None of this matters. If you listen to it and you like it..... then listen to it again. :-) |
| thomasquinn 32989 07.10.2014 06:18 |
tero! 48531 wrote: Sorry to be anal, but the unit of "times/second is" actually called a Hertz, and on cds you get the 44100Hz on each channel. (We can all verify that by calculating the number of Bytes on a "80-minute" data cd.)You can be anal as much as you want, so long as you get your facts right. Sampling rate is the number of samples per second, frequency is the number of waves per second. CDs, with a sampling rate of 44100Hz, in fact allow you 22050Hz as the highest possible frequency (because the 44100 has to cover both the peaks and the troughs, so the max frequency is 1/2 of the sampling rate), so 22050 waves per second, each wave covering two samples. |
| tero! 48531 07.10.2014 08:51 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote:In that case, I have to point out that you are mistaken. ;)tero! 48531 wrote: Sorry to be anal, but the unit of "times/second is" actually called a Hertz, and on cds you get the 44100Hz on each channel. (We can all verify that by calculating the number of Bytes on a "80-minute" data cd.)You can be anal as much as you want, so long as you get your facts right. Sampling rate is the number of samples per second, frequency is the number of waves per second. CDs, with a sampling rate of 44100Hz, in fact allow you 22050Hz as the highest possible frequency (because the 44100 has to cover both the peaks and the troughs, so the max frequency is 1/2 of the sampling rate), so 22050 waves per second, each wave covering two samples. Hz is unit of "occurences per second", and it isn't divided between the channels or between the peaks and valleys. Sampling rate tells us how many samples of sound we have each second, and for cd this is 44100 for each channel. Each of these samples on a cd is represented by 16 bits, which gives us 65536 possible values (from -32768 to 32768). When you look at the audio files with an editing software, you will see the progression of samples (=time) on the X-axis, and the amplitude modulation of the samples (the value between -2^15 to 2^15) on the Y-axis. If that isn't enough to convince you, with a simple mathematical excercise you can compare the size of a CD data disc and CD audio disc, and see how they relate to each other. 44100 (samples per second) x 2 (channels) x 2 (Bytes, or 16 bits per sample) x 4800 (seconds on a 80 minute cd) = 846720000 Bytes ~ 807,5 MB |