I discovered something very interesting about digital vs vinyl.

[raif71]

I see the OP is taking a lot of flak for the flac he's proposing

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

fact vinyl sounds better than digital...

hahaha. Good one.

 

[Feanor]

fact vinyl sounds better than digital the reason for this is vinyl has stereo + stereo depth perception and digital has stereo + mono depth perception. to convert digital audio to sound like vinyl you must convert the digital mono depth perception back into stereo depth perception. to do this you must re-encode your digital audio to flac with compression level (4) this will convert digital mono to stereo depth perception and your digital audio will now sound like vinyl. and you can do it for FREE so run your own test and prove it to yourself friends.

Sorry, BS.

 

[Sukie]

fact vinyl sounds better than digital

hahaha. Good one.

Without punctuation it appears that the OP might have discovered a new form of audio playback - the hitherto undiscovered "fact vinyl". I look forward to hearing more about how this fact vinyl sounds better than digital.

I think that we've firmly established that the OP is trolling, so I feel quite happy to offer a modicum of grammar-based ridicule.

 

[mansr]

At first I thought he might have converted to FLAC(4) with replay gain added to the final file (peak level 0.00dB)... but there might be more fuckery shown above that can be explained for, @guitar sam have you done post-processing just to fuck with the people here? -.-

Oh, there's fuckery here alright:

 

[Robin L]

fact vinyl sounds better than digital the reason for this is vinyl has stereo + stereo depth perception and digital has stereo + mono depth perception. to convert digital audio to sound like vinyl you must convert the digital mono depth perception back into stereo depth perception. to do this you must re-encode your digital audio to flac with compression level (4) this will convert digital mono to stereo depth perception and your digital audio will now sound like vinyl. and you can do it for FREE so run your own test and prove it to yourself friends.

Fact---Digital playback of an analog or digital master is always better than LP replay of an analog or digital master* because:
The potential dynamic range of digital formats is always higher than the potential dynamic range of any LP format.
Inner groove distortion on LPs is baked into the equation, no LP is devoid of inner groove distortion. There is no inner groove distortion in digital formats. Inner groove distortion is always audible. IGD is more about the reduction of available energy in a groove as the velocity slows when the stylus approaches the deadwax. Lack of stylus tangency to the groove also increases IGD, but most IGD is due to the record groove running out of gas.
LP playback always has higher distortion at frequency extremes, digital playback can have inaudible levels of distortion at all frequencies.
LP playback will always have less potential channel separation than digital playback.
There's a number of other audible flaws in LP playback that are variable, such as warping, off-center pressings, rumble, surface noise & non-fill, but all the previous cited flaws are in 100% of LPs.

This is a good moment to note that LP playback is not the same as "Analog", as many of the flaws inherent to LP playback are not issues with analog tape. [edit: bouncing digital source material to analog tape is, as noted in this thread, a common 'effect' in music production. The distortions of analog tape can be musically useful.]

In essence, LP playback distorts. If one prefers LP playback to digital playback, one prefers a distorted sound. No law against that. But "better" then becomes entirely subjective and restricted to that one person expressing that opinion. The raw data points to LP playback as a distortion machine.

*If the master is screwed up because of brickwalling, that's operator error. In that case, the dynamics are potentially better in LP playback. But all things being equal [they never are], digital playback is less distorted.

 

[voodooless]

Oh, there's fuckery here alright:
View attachment 95551

Clearly what happend here is that for some reason resampling happened with the wrong (or missing) filter resulting in spectral folding. Since flac does not employ any kind of FFT'ing or resampling there is no way in hell the encoding would be responsible for this.

 

[Sal1950]

guitar sam here and let me explain i coined 2 phrases stereo depth perception & mono depth perception as a way to describe what i was hearing.

Ah, sorry sam, you can pass your BS off on the subjectives at other sites. Here we use science to investigate issues and your conclusions are totally false. Great job @RayDunzl , send that man a ice cream soda.

 

[Killingbeans]

and you can do it for FREE so run your own test and prove it to yourself friends.

The thing is, having an experience is not the same as making a discovery, and making other people have the same experience is not proof of anything.

This tread is a perfect example of why I love ASR. When someone reports a peculiar experience, people actually do run their own tests to find out what's going on.

 

[SKBubba]

I am a dummy who can't do math, but I'm 100% certain that changing the level of flac compression does not alter the decompressed wave form. Unless the flac encoder/decoder is broken.

And here's an unsolicited subjective anecdotal observation, sample size of one. I recently recorded a bunch of old vinyl LPs to digital flac. When the digital files are played back, they sound just like the vinyl LPs. All the euphonic "warmth" is still there. Along with the surface noise, clicks, pops and inner groove distortion that the recording software couldn't filter out. Dynamic range measures well, though, better than the new, improved "remasters." (That could just be the pops and clicks skewing the analysis, though?)

 

[fieldcar]

This reminds me of the Bob Katz interview where Steve Guttenberg tries to push his blind vinyl "faith", and Bob Katz tries to gently tries to say that if vinyl does anything, it's pleasing distortion, and the master track is obviously more accurate.

(skip to 14:00 for the relevant conversation)

 

[voodooless]

and the master track is obviously more accurate.

And nowadays usually digital

 

[fieldcar]

And nowadays usually digital

Definitely. He did say that.

I just watched the rest of the vid, and Bob Katz may be one of us. He uses Hypex amps.

 

[Chrispy]

That was good for a nice chuckle this morning. Thanks!

 

[Harmonie]

Troll...

I agree with @M00ndancer

I have nothing against newly joining members creating a thread and asking for help or else.
But it seems that recently we have here & there newcomers who, out of the Blue, are suddenly provocative or even aggressive and in substance, trolling.

I'm grateful that @RayDunzl plays the game and finds out the issues as @voodooless pointed out.
But do we need to go that far and let ASR being trolled so openly ? As said, it's becoming frequent .

 

[Taddpole]

Did not find by myself.

You can go to www.audiobullshitgerenerator.com to find another brillant ideas.

Anyone else disappointed that this wasn't real link?

 

[RayDunzl]

But it seems that recently we have here & there newcomers who, out of the Blue, are suddenly provocative or even aggressive and in substance, trolling.

I can be gullible, and didn't read this post as a troll, more as something possibly worthy of debunkment, since there was data to work with (files) and not just an argument along the lines of did/didn't can/can't does/doesn't.

The oscillation seems to be at the sample rate - up down up down.

Note: this is late in the file, and the time alignment is no longer the same.

 

[Harmonie]

I can be gullible, and didn't read this post as a troll, more as something possibly worthy of debunkment, since there was data to work with (files) and not just an argument along the lines of did/didn't can/can't does/doesn't.

The oscillation seems to be at the sample rate - up down up down.

Note: this is late in the file, and the time alignment is no longer the same.

If so the experience has to be repeated on other excerpts and examples.

 

[RayDunzl]

If so the experience has to be repeated on other excerpts and examples.

Not my job.

Something above is broken or misapplied or otherwise abnormal.

 

[Hayabusa]

Sure, that was quite visible in your first plots already:
View attachment 95536

looks like noiseshaping