>24/192kHz

>>126804011 (OP)
>digital music
cringe
if youre not a poorfag then you need to listen on vinyl

>>126804068
and if I'm driving?

>vinyl

>>126804011 (OP)
>24/192kHz
Fact is that *most* D/A convertors at 192Khz actually sound worse than 44.1Khz. The fact that none of the source material is likely to have any meaningful content above 50khz or so doesn't help much either. 24 bits are a much better format than 16 bit though for dynamic range, assuming the initial recordings make use of it.

>>126804208
if you listen to old music (pre-2004) vinyl is objectively better. sorry lil buddie

>>126804727
Assuming it was all analogue, perhaps

>>126804011 (OP)
I'll stick with my 128kpbs mp3s, thanks

>>126804727
when will vinylfags accept that vinyl is shit compared to digital? vinyl doesn't do anything that digital can't do except for having farts.

>>126804119
>car
euuuggh cringe
not my problem

>>126805029
vinyl records are mixed completely differently than a digital file uploaded to spotify, youtube, etc.

plus, vinyl is a microphonic sound -- objectively it is more fun and dynamic than digital. sure, you can say vinyl isnt worth the cost, but you CANT say digital is better than vinyl, its just retarded.

the only genre that is better digitally is hip hop / rap

>>126805064
I'll be picky and say it's the Mastering for the Lathe that makes the sound unique for Vinyl, and best exemplified with guitar music in particular. It's actually less dynamic but much more fun as you say.

>>126804727
>listening to digitally mastered albums on vinyl and thinking you’re doing better than the guy listening to the FLAC files
Unless your entire vinyl collection was pressed before 1988, you’re listening to digital masters anyway, and all the vinyl is doing is adding “warmth” and crackle where it didn’t exist in the studio.

Hi-res lossless is “objectively better” in terms of sound quality than any physical format except for SACD, Blu Ray, and actual analog vinyl (which doesn’t exist anymore).

>>126804068
vinyl is not perfect either

>>126805064
Wrong.
There isn't a single genre who sounds better on vinyl, anything sounds better on digital because it's the peak of music reproduction. I thought we already knew this by now. Vinyl as a medium in 2025 doesn't have any advantage compared to digital files.

>>126805096
>actual analog vinyl (which doesn’t exist anymore).
it does, but the AAA process is vanishingly rare these days

>>126805096
>crackle
unscratched vinyl records have no crackle. I know because I've ripped countless vinyl records to soul seek through my motu mk5 ultralite. stop being a lying lil fag

>>126805136
>pedantic post
>stop being a lying lil fag
you have to be at least 12 to post here

>>126805166
>claims vinyl is inherently filled with crackles (which isnt true)
>gets butthurt when someone who listens to music via vinyl points out you're a lying retard

loooool

>>126805136
>unscratched vinyl records have no crackle
Scatches are scratches, crackle is dust on the record. Why are you trying so hard to have an argument?

>>126805224
what the fuck are you talking about? even with dust crackles vinyl are more dynamic and fun than digital music. and cleaning kits are sellers on amazon and every shop that sells record players.

u mad bro? are you poor or something

>>126805237
>vinyl are more dynamic
wrong. less dynamic. Fun, yes. I even
said so here >>126805090

>>126805259
a tube preamp will always be more dynamic than a digital audio signal

>>126805298
Depends what you think the word dynamic means. In terns of Audio technology it refers to signal to noise ratio, but i don't think thats what you mean

>>126805321
*or more particularly headroom

>>126805321
>>126805334
I'm not talking anything that is measurable, or unmeasurable. simply that perceptually, music on vinyl will have a higher dynamic range (and/or the speed at which low noise can move to high gain/transients)

I'm not saying there's any science backing what I'm saying, I am saying that anyone with a decent record player will know that what I'm saying is true

agree to disagree

>>126805298
Classical, a genre known for its extreme dynamic range is preferred on digital (CDs and Hi-Res files), guess why.

>>126805356
because it has no amped up instruments? are you retarded? yes classical and music without amped instruments might be better on digital. wow you got me!

>>126805349
Let me put this as simply as I can. the dynamic range of vinyl is about 55db, CD is about 90db. 24 bit Hi-Res is potentially upwards of 110db. That means the signal above the noise floor before running out of headroom.
Thats one thing.
Valve kit including preamps tends to distort in a way that the ear finds pleasing.
Analogue stuff tends to emphasise the mid range in a way the ear finds more natural. Digital has extended hi and low range but maybe slightly recessed mids.
So a few factors to consider..

>>126804119
>His car doesn't have a record player

>>126805419
lol

>>126804011 (OP)
>1 bit DSD64