more i try to figure out why it's better for logic... more it makes perfect sense. it's an analog. really can't say it has a sample rate. that's not the format paradigm, that's quantized, records are more... normal. they're a lot better for the hafler/dolby/dts networks because the signal is continuous... you have instantaneous phase info for both channels at any give moment, the resolution alone there makes it superior for stereo surround matrices. it's just... sensitive... and delicate.. but that kind of makes it more interesting, kind of risky... but better for multichannel. more people have multichannel these days have higher order multichannel systems so more people want records. turns out it's just easier to slice a pie into even slices when it hasn't already been sliced.
simply multiplying the CD source gets you a better source for multichannel, just double or quadruple it and you're golden.. but you never get a truly higher resolution source, records have lower dynamic range, but most albums don't really take advantage of that. it's all relative. the bottom half of the dynamic range is you turning up the volume because you can't hear anything. with both formats. just forget about half of the dynamic range you never hear it. every album i ever recorded is going on in the top 30dB or so. you get sections that drop below that, but it's quiet, much more and it's too quiet. of course in playback equipment it's a different story. dynamic range of sources not the same as dynamic range of uh... receivers? amp, preamps, processors etc. input output am are different
what can be used in a surround upmix from the dynamic range of each medium, to my ear.. is better utilized from vinyl because of its analog nature giving it the edge in raw resolution. we're not talking about 50+dB shifts here, it's way more subtle than that. literally the pimples on a +/-2db 13khz waveform moving around fractions of a decibels. and we're not even using dynamics yet, first we need the best source of the waveform if we're going to be crossing wires to derive additional channels and that's where analog media really just mops the floor with digital. but digital can be really good, also. it is all made on digital these days, practically all of it, but people think it's not inherently compressed being digital and it is. all data is. everything is lossy, wake up. that's like biblical first principles thou shal not make false idols lol. there's loss there. you don't notice it until you cross the wires and then it's like 'oh, that's a bit fuzzy innit?' they had to come out with a ton of cheap little component systems, remember those? maybe a sub, couple of decent bookshelf speaker and 2 or three little alienware looking satellites. onkyo, wait not onkyo, who was that? iowa? sonky, panwesanc, eerbody had like ten different models. all those modded haflers were awesome for digital because the satellites were junk already. erm. i mean, they were just low end cones. insensitive. no top end, whatsoever. and that's where digital really falls short on the logical matrix it just doesn't have the high end detail @ 44.1khz CDs are on steps and records are only ever anything like 'stepped' in the depth. like the bit depth is kind of variable. you could say it's like 8-bit but it's analog. they're just screaming at a chisle. there's no telling what kinda resolution there getting on those things. i'd imagine they have the highest resolution available. someone could tell you but they might have to kill yeh
imma have to record this whole disc again because audacity crashed... baah. it's Broken Soul Jamboree. seriously i listen to it A B youtube. digital stereo has better stereo bass but the multichannel is like, it almost like the noise floor is higher or something, it's exactly the same mix spatially (vinyl record has mono bass, mono matrix related phase corrections, still same source geometry coming through) but it's like the additional channels are on a louder noise floor (with CD quality digital). more white noise behind it. with a record it like every speaker has a discrete signal going to it...less hazy .. but then after you play a record like ten time it has more noise but it's a different kind of more meaningful noise that isn't like digital corruption but ticks and fizzles battle scars from dust in the air finding it's way under the knife, which sucks, but... yeah CD and digital are great too i like everything.
recording 32bit floats of records at 384k (192x2) & i could still use more samples. 192k per channel, that's like four 48k (-24k/+24khz) channels worth of data. my goal right now is to be able to listen to my entire collection on shuffle, pre mixed up to 7.1.4 .. gives me something to do that isn't buying more records. i don't have that many. like two cubes? half of them are trashed. one cursed cube and one pristine cube. you can get very good condition records for a buck or two it's not that expensive to get your cursed cube. erm, first cube. embracing the somewhat damaged format actually kind of ephemeral in its own way. i just friggin dropped a record yesterday. really upset me. brand new.. never even... listened to the damage... was catchy... added a drumbeat to a song that didn't have one and it actually worked.
anyway, yeah.. sorta like you get more... quantization error? from CD because it's inherently kind of like.. pixelated? so before CD, if a better multichannel release isn't available, i will buy vinyl
other image is like 10 milliseconds of the exact same section of track from a 180g 45.. they're both 32 bit floats but top is from a 96khz input, bottom is from 192khz, you can see i think most clearly in the spectral graph, there's more fuzz in the top 1khz (the black streak above the purple blob on the left) on the 96khz input, the 192 is looking like it's getting pretty close to maxxed, tho still could go a little more i think. the silence being where it's supposed to be and a bit more silent .. 96k interface is 124dbSNR way better than the bottom one 105dB +however much noise the rest of my PC is making. idk about that dot in the bass right at the middle that's just silence.. two on the top, one on the bottom like what the heck happened? this record has a lump in it.
i'm riddled with misunderstanding about Audacity. you get 4 192khz dots to every 1 on CD in 44.1 & you're never getting those 4.353741496598639 dots of resolution back from a CD. Could argue about how many you get back from vinyl. 1? all three? wrong frame of reference? bingo. exact same series of dots, i just stretched the white ones vertically and superimposed to show how much actual phase data is hiding in there, this one is a crusty old 33 stereo upmix of some old mono jazz singles. fallout stuff. sorry cant hardly see the white dots. mybad. 4 dots can make a big difference when it's just one or two of these little guys poking their head up. i still prefer digital multichannel mix. getting 48khz tracks for all your speakers is way better than splitting up a 192k stereo track. but a record... a record ISN'T recorded with a sample rate like a CD is encoded. vinyl isn't quantized. at least not there in on the record or in the lathe while they're cutting the stamps. the quantization smears all the subtle phase details. they need to be left human or as close as possible, so the vinyl mix sound is normal. there's enough bandwidth in vinyl for two more tracks just like this, the resolution is in fact higher than a CD. it's just not nearly as dynamic... and it's dirty. downright nasty.
View attachment 435442
if nothing else, the record is more like 2.1 you get a bass track that has been correctly summed to mono. hope you understand how THAT really affects everything i was going on about. man... those two dots in the synthwave spectrograph's LFE all i did was double the samplerate and one of them ate the other... SNR? samples? little bit of both? idk. it's a bad pressing the stylus might be hopping out, but all the other dots didn't move.. bass very much de-emphasized, so you get more noise crumbs down there. but it doesn't change from left to right, the left and right bass tracks aren't ever really fighting with eachother for phase in the samples because they're summed and turned way way down.
View attachment 435495
the extreme RIAA emphasis on the top end, the records are very good at highs. the high frequency data is what i'm after. all the subtle phase for every tone is in the higher 'samplerate' of vinyl. it is cut from the top down. you get this sparkly upmix on a blacker background, it's different. i like digital, too. it's great. mmm.. BASS.. i've been here the whole time. thanks for asking. the satellites don't need the low end. kinda just gets in the way. upmix sounds better with records. was tryiing to understand increasing vinyl popularity, not the digital paradigm we made dominant back in the 90-00s. this is why i like it: the upmix is more interesting. you're looking into a brushed stereo microscope with your ears... and then there's a phonograph projected onto it.