Thread 128144086

Is there any actual advantage vinyl has over CD?

People say vinyl sounds warmer due to being analog. How exactly does it sound warmer, what does that even sound like? Sometimes it feels like a meme, but there are so many people who prefer vinyl that there has to be something about it.

>>128144086 (OP)
>vinyl: expensive
>cd: cheap
damn easy

>>128144086 (OP)
i collect vinyl because I exclusively listen to older music
older records in mono is better than stereo

>>128144086 (OP)
CD has the higher potential for audio quality but no one really takes advantage of it because of the loudness wars, so typically vinyl will have more dynamic range than a CD but it depends on a case by case basis. And honestly unless you have a fairly high end system, it's unlikely that you'll hear much of a difference in the first place assuming that the quality of the mastering is the same for the CD and vinyl.

The core of the 'warm' analog sound vs 'cold' digital sound comes down to how digital works. Pic related is a rough approximation of analog (black) vs digital (red), though this example is greatly exaggerated and unless the music you're listening to was compressed to a dogshit bitrate it's not usually an audible difference. Some people (audiophiles) will insist that there's a huge difference. That's where you see terms like 'warm' 'bright' and 'full', but most of that is bullshit. What's really happening is that a majority of the time if someone is listening to vinyl and/or is an audiophile then they've probably also spent a lot more on their sound system, are actively paying more attention to the music, and have a bigger monetary investment in the experience (ie sunk cost fallacy "it has to sound better") or they purchased the record because it's already music they love. On top of this, most of the time if someone's listening to vinyl then it's usually older music that wasn't bogged down by the loudness war and also might have those trademark 'pops' and maybe background hiss just from the record itself being old and dusty. All that being said, I like getting records because it's nice to have a big piece of physical media for an album I like.

tl;dr there is a slight bit of truth in the sheer difference between how analog and digital waveforms work, but a majority of the 'warm analog' argument is bullshit and just comes down to conditions surrounding the listening experience

>>128144086 (OP)
Like this anon says (>>128144193), most mono mixes have never seen a CD or digital release. I tend to think most jazz albums sound best in mono, but the only way to hear it is on vinyl or a vinyl rip. If you don't care about mix or mastering variations, I would not recommend physical media of any kind. Getting into analog media in 2025 would be completely insane. It was a fun thing to do in the 2000s and early 2010s because prices were absurdly low. I couldn't afford the records I have if I had to buy them all at 2025 prices, the hobby is financially retarded unless you scooped everything up at least a decade ago

vinyl is more durable
a "ruined" record from the dollar bin will sound a bit rough but is often still playable and enjoyable, a cd in the same condition is landfill

>>128144086 (OP)
>People say vinyl sounds warmer due to being analog. How exactly does it sound warmer, what does that even sound like?
To be completely honest with you, that'd only make sense before digital mixing became a thing.
Quite literally all music is passed through digital now, and any tape mixers left used to put it on vinyl are completely gone or not in usage anymore. So the "analog" aspect is completely gone.

There is no more "warmth" anymore, it's just a cope from people who think vinyl is le "superior" format. Also, for those who say it forces you into a ritual of "listening to whole albums":
If you need to spend upwards of $50 to force yourself to sit down with a piece of music for an hour, you'd be better off spending that money on Adderall to take care of your undiagnosed ADHD.

CDs are far easier to handle, don't need a $300 player to sound good, don't need a pre-amp, and don't get dust in the grooves that you need to meticulously clean out before everytime you play an album.

>>128144370
>stairstepping
Complete nonsense. Watch these videos and learn how it really works:
https://xiph.org/video/

>>128144425
Not anon, but if you read his entire comment you'd have realized he's on the same side as you retard.

>>128144086 (OP)
>Bigger / more complete artwork
>More durability
>Warmer sound
>Sound defects adding to the record instead of killing it (like with disc rots / skips)
>Higher DR on average
That's for vinyl, but honestly speaking, if you're into japanese music you could buy CDs and be completely alright. The japanese CD industry is great up to this day and their records sound amazing, but for western music you're pretty much forced to buy vinyl if you want a decent experience, because modern CD / digital mastering is a complete vibe killer for many popular genres in the west.

>>128144422
>There is no more "warmth"
"Warmth" is just a combination of distortion and bad treble. You can produce it digitally too if you have sufficiently bad taste.

>>128144444
>because modern CD / digital mastering is a complete vibe killer for many popular genres in the west
Forgot to mention that. The only superiority vinyl has imo is the mastering. CD loudness wars are still in effect to this day.

>>128144422
>So the "analog" aspect is completely gone.
My nigga, I could share my yeule vinyl rips to you and you could not deny the warmer sounds. I'm pretty sure the mastering is the same as the CD with a slightly improved DR for every album, but the sound is still noticeably warmer when compared to the CD and digital releases.
t. have Serotonin II in 3 formats.

>>128144465
>Despite the mastering being noticeably different it HAS to be that my magical circle of vinyl is definitely the better format!
>Plays it on a crosley
Go back.

>>128144086 (OP)
No. Vinyl is a ridiculous format for the output you get. I owned a massive collection of the stuff and eventually sold all of it on MusicStack, Ebay and Discogs. To me it was not worth the time to keep them clean, then replace styli, then make sure your turntable is calibrated, and then you need a good Phono Preamp, which is fucking expensive as shit unless you buy used which comes with it's own problems.

CDs are the same every time and the quality is decent.

>>128144235
This shit affected vinyl records. There are plenty of reissues, remasters, etc. on Vinyl and they sound like shit. The fact that your album is stamped on a pressed nugget of vinyl does not magically imbue it with better sound. You can buy Vinyl records new that sound like complete ass compared to older records. It all boils down to production process and mastering, same with CDs.

That said, the CD has technical limitations that were superseded decades ago. There was DAT audio, which I think, if revamped with modern data density could give ridiculous levels of unnecessary fidelity. Then there are BD-Audio and DVD-Audio, and SACD formats, which are quite good.

Really after a certain point it becomes irrelevant. I think I read a forum post where the Beatles Master taspes could effectively by archived with full fidelity with only a 40 megabits/s data rate, so not out of the realm of a lot of modern high res formats.

>>128144502
Obviously retarded or trolling, but as I said, I think the mastering is obviously the same. I use Audio Technica.

>>128144506
holy shit you type a lot of words for a massive retard
>i think i read on a forum post
jesus christ
go back there

>>128144506
>There are plenty of reissues, remasters, etc. on Vinyl and they sound like shit.
This is true, specially for cheap metal reissues from shitty labels like Back on Black, but if you buy that same reissue, remaster, etc. on CD you're GUARANTEED to get a shit product. At least with shitty vinyl there's a chance for you to get something decent or at least playable, but the DR 4 CDs that shit labels present as "le new Iron Maiden remaster! From le original master tapes!" with ridiculous spacing between instruments and a feeling of being constantly peaking and clipping for the full album is straight up unbearable, and 90% of CDs are like that these days.

>>128144605
Stfu, nigga, adults are talking. Back to /mlp/.

>>128144617
adults are talking like a bunch of retard blowhards

>>128144569
Vinyl and CD by design need different mastering you fucking bimbo. Vinyl need to be mastered in a completely different way by removing all of the bass or else the stylus would bounce off the record everytime you played it. This is also why you need to buy a pre-amp if your player doesn't have one, or else there'd be no fucking bass.
I would also like to mention that CDs and Vinyl records are treated completely different as CDs are made louder due to the loudness wars, and even still are made louder and compressed because of shitty producers. Vinyl records are not because they assume a hipster will be playing them who doesn't want that.
You are quite literally one of the uninformed subhumans that make vinyl look bad.

>>128144641
Underage ahh post

>>128144651
did you learn that insult on a forum post you think?

>>128144645
>You are quite literally one of the uninformed subhumans that make vinyl look bad.
I don't give a fuck, but thanks for those facts on vinyl. The yeule vinyl sounds identical to the CD and DR, maybe because Serotonin II is a release with very little bass.

>>128144655
NTA, but have you ever come to realize that 4chan is also a forum site? And that you are reading a forum post yourself?

>>128144655
sybau

>>128144668
would you cite 4chan as part of your argument or do you understand that makes you look retarded?

>>128144665
>I don't give a fuck
Then why are you so adamantly defending it as if just because your music was printed on a black disc that it suddenly makes it better?
>thanks for those facts on vinyl
The fact you're trying to defend vinyl for having warmth yet don't know any of the most simplistic facts of why vinyl is the way it is, is all I need to know about how much of a retard you are.

Once this Millenial/GenZ vinyl trend passes those vinyls you have will all collect dust because it won't be cool to listen to anymore.

>>128144678
suck a cock, teenager

>>128144086 (OP)
>warmer due to being analog
Its just buzzwords. The difference between cd and vinyl is minimal. The difference between cd/vinyl vs streaming is incredible because streaming devices cut off all the highs and lows so the eq looks like squares

>>128144678
>Stop using 4chan it makes you look retarded
>Is posting this on 4chan
Topkek

>>128144687
>don't know any of the most simplistic facts of why vinyl is the way it is,
Why should I know? I just like the experience, Mr. Pretentious Retardo. I don't need to know basic female anatomy to understand I like pussy. Kys.

Tapaeus Magnus Invictus

>>128144709
>Why should I know?
If you're trying to defend why a format is better than the other, you should at least try and have a better understanding of it other than "muh warmth".

>>128144709
>Mr. Pretentious Retardo
>the sound is still noticeably warmer when compared to the CD and digital releases.
>t. have Serotonin II in 3 formats.

>>128144703
>i dont know what words mean
its ok. i already know you are low iq

>>128144506
>the CD has technical limitations
None are relevant to listening. Correctly mastered CD audio exceeds the limits of human hearing when listened to at safe levels.

>>128144736
Have you cited that "Low iq" argument from 4chan? Don't you know it makes you look retarded?
You said it yourself fren.

>>128144718
No, I shouldn't. I can say Real Madrid is better than Barcelona based on their history and contemporary results without needing to know every individual player's statistics. I just know vinyl is better because, on average, it sounds better than CD, and the DR rankings (that you can find in databases online) corroborate that fact. It's not rocket science, my nigga. And btw, I wasn't even defending shit, but since you wanna be a fag, let's do it. How can CD artwork compete with majestic vinyl gatefolds? What's the digitalcuck's way out of this labyrinth of cope?

>>128144745
actually the beatles told me
you can quote me on this

>>128144749
>I just know it's better because I said so
>I don't need any facts to prove it
>Please just take my word for it!!
>DR ratings from loudness war CDs means my format is better
>Got rid of "warmth" argument
>Switches up topic to try and win that one instead
Greatest laugh I've had on /mu/ in the past month.

>>128144756
Based beatles enjoyer

>>128144086 (OP)
Vinyl is mastered better in many cases. Go to dr.loudness-war.info and look up your favorite album there. Lots of stuff is only available on vinyl. If you're into music you need a turntable, a CD player, and a cassette deck at a bare minimum. I would also argue that a SACD player is also more or less required, the best versions of many albums are on SACD.

There is no excuse not to have a full stereo rack these days, boomers are dying every day and there's loads of beautiful gear on the market that can't be made again at any price.

>>128144749
>And btw, I wasn't even defending shit
>My nigga, I could share my yeule vinyl rips to you and you could not deny the warmer sounds.

>>128144776
I don't care about this shit my man; fact is, you're a 38 year old NEET virgin with nothing going on in his life except for some basic technical knowledge on vinyl, so that's that. Enjoy that pure, virginal life forever, egomaniac. Go ahead and fuck yourself.
Btw, that's a good way to nope out on the artwork question. Got scared?

>>128144645
>Vinyl need to be mastered in a completely different way by removing all of the bass or else the stylus would bounce off the record everytime you played it. This is also why you need to buy a pre-amp if your player doesn't have one, or else there'd be no fucking bass.
Oh look a fucking retard. Are you an AI bot? You're posting mal/mis/disinformation, that's an actual CRIME.

>>128144794
>Being persuasive is "defending" shit
You're one of those kinds of people that believes being told "wait in line" is some kind of authoritarianism, right?

>>128144801
>Loses argument
>Goes straight to insults
>Reinforces non-debate about pure personal preference because there's actually no correct answer so therefore he will never win nor lose the argument if I engage
Another one.

>>128144794
The fact that a competent vinyl rip sounds 100% identical to the original vinyl is proof that the "warmth" is not specific to analog sound reproduction. It's literally just distortion + EQ. You can get plugins to simulate it.

>>128144804
>You're posting mal/mis/disinformation, that's an actual CRIME.
"RIAA equalization is a form of pre-emphasis on recording and de-emphasis on playback. A recording is made with the low frequencies reduced and the high frequencies boosted, and on playback with a phono pre-amp, the opposite occurs."

>>128144822
I don't give a fuck about this debate or your opinions on it. As I said, go fuck yourself, egomaniac. Your constant need to be right at all costs makes you a fucking insect. I imagine you niggas like this:
>Look mom! I won a debate on the internet! That means I'm le gigachad! I'm super smart!

Is it true that classical music sounds way better on CD?

>>128144849
So you admit I won? Based.

>>128144852
Classical is generally not ruined by loudness war mastering, so yes.

>>128144856
Nope, I'm just commenting on the fact that you're so retarded that you think "winning" a debate on the internet matters. What's funnier is that you think you matter.

>>128144422
>Quite literally all music is passed through digital now, and any tape mixers left used to put it on vinyl are completely gone or not in usage anymore. So the "analog" aspect is completely gone.
Not true, by the way. Plenty of modern reissues are all-analog original tape masters. Blue Note's Tone Poet series has issued hundreds of thousands of all-analog pressed discs in just the last few years, to name just one very prominent example

>>128144792
>dr.loudness-war.info
I'm confused. I thought CD was known to have higher dynamic range, but I tried this out and it looks like vinyl albums have much higher DR. What gives? I don't know what to believe anymore.

>>128144886
CD can* have higher DR than vinyl, but in actuality it seldom does, and by seldom I mean like only 5% of the time. Just buy vinyl from good labels, bro, you won't regret it.

>>128144866
>Winning doesn't matter!!
>Continuously tries to one-up me and win
>Is extremely butthurt about losing

>>128144903
Nuh uh, I'm just telling you why you're an insufferable retard. You probably punch holes in the wall when you lose a League game. That's embarrasing for a 38 year old, my man.

>>128144886
CD supports higher dynamic range. Mastering engineers deliberately fuck it up so people can listen with shitty equipment/listening environments. This is less common on vinyl because it's assumed that people buying vinyl have a somewhat less shitty sound system.

>>128144916
>Creating a fake person in mind to try and cope with losing
KEK

>>128144925
>insecure nigga still going

>>128144954
>Calling me insecure
>Has insulted me on a personal level multiple times when I proved him wrong out of pure rage and insecurity
This is my last (You). Don't really care if you get the last word, as I know I proved you wrong yet you are quite literally the one who cannot stand being wrong.
At first I was legitimately trying to give you correct information, but seeing how easily I could ragebait you gave me a good few keks on this site.

>>128144999
But it's funny, ain't it? How other anons proved your disinfo to be complete horseshit (just like I was saying in the beginning). Seems to me like your insecurity and intellectual dishonesty showed in the end. So, go fuck yourself "Mr. Ironic Troll 3000".

>>128144187
>cd
>cheap
only compared to vinyl

>>128144899
>>128144918
Is this also true for modern vinyl albums, or just ones released prior to digital?

>>128145250
It varies. Check https://dr.loudness-war.info/ , but take into account that vinyl can have higher DR score without actually sounding more dynamic. Surface noise can increase DR score, and bass often decreases DR score (and vinyl is often mastered with less bass).

>CD's naturally superior
>no one wants vinyl
>untapped market idea
>start spreading the 'vinyl is superior' meme
>pseuds and trend chasers buy into it
>start charging ridiculous prices
>mass profit

the only advantages vinyl has over CD's is the large cover art and nostalgic factor of being a classic medium.

If you're listening to a recording from the 60s or 70s vinyl is the way to go, but CDs just sound better. Especially ones from the late 8s early 90s. The vinyl durability meme im seeing itt is complete bullshit. My parents records from the 80s are barely listenable while their cds from the 80s are perfect to this day

>>128145326
you must hate books and paintings too

>>128144465
Not him, but what does "warmer" sound like?

>>128145338
>My parents records from the 80s are barely listenable while their cds from the 80s are perfect to this day
this, it's night and day difference. my dad has 40 year old CD's that still work perfectly but also 40-50 year old vinyl that sounds like absolute ass

>>128145338
>The vinyl durability meme im seeing itt is complete bullshit. My parents records from the 80s are barely listenable
Your parents were apes who handled their records like shit

>>128145569
did you miss the part where the CD's that were just as old worked perfectly fine?

>>128145636
CDs weren't played on automatic turntables that slap the discs on top of one another like your chimpanzee parents' records were. Had they handled them like human beings, they'd play fine today

>>128145250
Also true for modern, but there are some "lofi pressings" for stuff like Inquisition, The Exploding Hearts and such that have extremely low DR (like 1 or 2), because they're supposed to sound like shit. For 99% of music though, you will have better DR on vinyl, but there were some 80s CDs that had very high DR, sometimes even higher than vinyl (which didn't matter that much, because the difference was 1 or 2 DR more in the CD releases, which often had inferior mastering anyway, resulting in CDs that sounded very thin and hollow when compared to the bassy, warmer tones of vinyl) (see: '87 Beatle CDs vs. '87 Beatle vinyl reissues). Only case where I could recommend getting CDs is in japanese music, specifically old japanese CD pressings, because those ones had audiophile sound quality most of the time, and a lot of the times they even had scaled artwork that matched the LP releases, but I would still recommend you get the vinyl if you can. I recently got a Momoko Kikuchi vinyl reissue that sounded pretty much as good as the original 80s CD but had better artwork, so I could have gone for the OG CD for probably the same price as the new vinyl or less without too much of a problem. It also is smaller, the CD, so that would be good if you lack the space for vinyl in your home.

>>128145354
Just listen to a vinyl rip of any album and you'll get it; it's just a more bassy, fuller, midrangey type of sound without shrill trebles or booming basses ruining the experience or being annoying. Compare this yeule stuff for a modern example of what I'm saying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePvc8f_O7Kk&t
The vinyl record has much more midrange and softer bass and treble than the digital release, which results in a sound that is more pleasant and less straining to the ears than the DR / CD release, which has very strident trebles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arfse3z5YzQ

>>128145806
>CDs that sounded very thin and hollow
This is usually because they were mastered with pre-emphasis and you're playing them without undoing it. Undoing pre-emphasis is technically lossy (although in practice there's no audible quality loss), so true lossless rips are supposed to be ripped with the pre-emphasis retained as FLAC + CUE. The CUE file can store the pre-emphasis flag and the player can undo it later. However, this is rarely done and most players don't support it anyway. People often just ignore the pre-emphasis and the sound is way too bright. Pre-emphasis is especially common in Japanese releases from the early to mid 80s.

The pre-emphasis sound is distinctive enough that you should be able to recognize it by ear and undo it manually. See:
https://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Pre-emphasis

you can hear what vinyl sounds like from simply going to certain youtube videos

https://youtu.be/DWq5D9cBfK4

Am I getting this right?
>CD is better for 80's music and prior
>Vinyl is better for 90's and early 00's music because of having better dynamic range, because CDs did the loudness wars
Is this true, and where does it leave modern music? Do CDs or vinyl better dynamic range today?

>>128146089
Just go vinyl for everything; avoid cassette like the plague, and only buy CD for very specific cases. That's my take.

CDs have zero surface noise. I'm getting really sick of distortion and scratches and warps on vinyl. But 12" singles still pump more bass than CDs. The advantage of records is mainly for DJs and like instantly going to a track or changing the speed and things like that.
>>128144187
>>vinyl: expensive
>>cd: cheap
Plenty of OOP expensive as fuck CDs

>>128146089
Loudness war didn't really start until the mid 90s. Loudness war mastering is still common today even though streaming services normalize loudness, but sometimes you get high dynamic range releases. Check https://dr.loudness-war.info/ , and subtract 2 points from vinyl releases to compensate for vinyl artifacts fooling the measurement (see >>128145293).

>>128146138
>OOP
object oriented programing?

>>128146275
Out of print, bruh

>>128146089
No.
CD is objectively better for sound quality no matter what.
Records are better for art/inserts or as display pieces, or things that never made it to digital.

The best version of a song or album is going to vary greatly by the mastering or pressing. You have to do research before you buy anything as some remasters/remixes are better than others and some old pressings are on the flimsiest, cheapest plastic available. Mass produced vinyl in the 60s-80s is probably going to be paper thin, prone to warping, and have a bunch scratches.

Collecting is a luxury and has nothing to do with sound quality, it's just physical consumption at the end of the day. I used to collect records when I could get them used for cheap, or when bands I listened to were releasing with digital download codes. They're much more expensive now, take up too much room, and produce a lot of waste so I don't bother anymore. That's on top of the fact you probably don't have a good stereo system so you're pouring more money down the drain.

>>128144086 (OP)
CDs, but engineers are fucking retarded and fuck it up.

>>128146527
>CD is objectively better for sound quality no matter what.
CDs are objectively better assuming the mastering is the same. Sometimes the best mastering is never released on CD.

>>128146565
>CDs are objectively better assuming the mastering is the same
The mastering is never going to be the same.

Vinyl requires its own mastering to keep the needle in the groove and the RIAA curve that's applied and for playback. Additionally, the vinyl sound is going to be more colored by the pre-amp required to boost the signal.

>>128144086 (OP)
There is none, unless the vinyl has a better mastering and there's no better CD version

>>128146530
>CDs, but engineers are fucking retarded and fuck it up.
Then vinyl is actually better, right?

On average, what has better mastering, vinyl or cd?

>>128146667
Engineers fuck up vinyl all the time and we've lost tons of people that knew how to master and cut for records.

>>128146678
Vinyl, obviously; check DR database. Highly beginning to think there are some CD shills ITT; either that or chronic contrarians trying to destroy vinyl sales for some reason kek

>>128146678
Neither. It differs for everything

I have an untreated vinyl addiction.

>>128146694
>DR database
Are you retarded?
CDs have way greater dynamic range than vinyl

>>128144886
CDs are mixed for people's cars thanks to Metallica.

>>128144845
Yeah... but it doesn't remove all the bass, just some, and it is restored by the RIAA phono preamps built into... well... nearly everything these days. It just sounds like you've got dry earwax and don't understand what you're talking about. It's cute though.

>>128146731
Way better potential DR than vinyl*
Nigga, it's insane that I have to explain this shit everytime your retarded ass comes to the vinyl threads

>>128145233
Vinyl records cost $3-4 packed for retail. CDs are more like $0.99 packed for retail.

You've got dry earwax and you love digital audio, that's fine, nobody can dictate your own hygiene to you. But you sound insufferably stupid when you just lie. And you're not even GOOD at lying lol.

>>128145293
>and vinyl is often mastered with less bass
Wrong again, dry earwax buddy.

>>128146760
It's theoretical anyway, a quiet suburban home's noise floor is above the dynamic range for vinyl, let alone CD.

You should only concern yourself with dynamic range differences between formats if you can afford to listen in an anechoic chamber.

OTOH, it's measurable that humans can hear or more accurately feel sounds about 22 KHz, and CDs can't reproduce this. Vinyl can go up to 70 KHz easy. Ultrasonic components to music, especially acousitical music, are important perceptually.

>audiophile schizos in charge of understanding science
lmao every time

>>128146694
Not really CD shills, streaming shills. They really want you to rent instead of own.

>>128146760
You're the fucking retard here though.
Audio "quality" and dynamic range aren't even necessarily related.
The DR database is a database of mathematics, not a database of psychoacoustics. Not to mention their algorithm is pretty questionable and yields different results depending on bit depth and sample rate.
Website made for retarded vinyl shills.

>>128146810
Fuck no. I've got studio headphones and believe me, I can tell the difference between a shit ass DR 4 CD like Californication and a vinyl record with good DR (like the Californication 2009 reissue vinyl, which has like a DR 10 and sounds much, much better than the CD).

>>128146838
The fuck? Audio quality not related to dynamic range?
I understand what you're trying to say, but this is blatantly false. Listen to something with dynamic range 1 (like Lil Shine), then compare it to some music with good dynamics. That's why we say "good dynamics", because even if a recording is shitty or there are scratches on a record, the dynamics of the recording are preserved when there is a high dynamic range, meaning your music sounds like music instead of some dogwater slop that isn't even distinguishable from how compressed it is. I'm convinced you got to be a streaming shill like anon said.
Lil Shine (DR 1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlmwsYluHE
Some music with a little bit more dynamics (DR 6, same genre): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B56oTQt2WAY
Shine's mixing and mastering of the song makes the individual tracks virtually indistinguishable from the amount of compression (which produces distortion and clipping, as noticed by many people over time through the loudness wars). If you can't notice the difference that a dynamic master makes (even if it's by just a small margin of 5 DR points) you don't know shit about music or audio quality.

>Californication
lmao this has to be a troll right?

Arguing about vinyl for an album known for having digital hard clipping

>>128146929
Listen to the fucking vinyl reissue. Also, the mark of a shill / contrarian is conveniently disregarding all of the other factual data presented like Fallen, Serotonin II, and many other artists mentioned ITT. Good job; take those memebux.

>>128146895
I said, not NECESSARILY related.
A recording can have a high dynamic range but poor quality if it's poorly sampled, or a low dynamic range but good quality if the sampling is high resolution and mastered with a flat, loud presentation.
Sound quality is determined by multiple factors such as such as sample rate and bit depth.

>>128146895
>Fuck no. I've got studio headphones and believe me, I can tell the difference between a shit ass DR 4 CD like Californication and a vinyl record with good DR (like the Californication 2009 reissue vinyl, which has like a DR 10 and sounds much, much better than the CD).
You can hear the difference between a 4 and a 10 but not CD and vinyl.

>>128146945
And still, taking into account those things, your initial claim that CDs have better DR and sound quality than vinyl is completely false.

>>128146959
Is that really the conclusion you took out of this discussion based retard?
Your claims that the DR Database is the proof that vinyl is "better" than CD is entirely false and easily disprovable.

>>128146810
You can hear sounds below the noise floor because you hear patterns across multiple samples. It's easy to hear vinyl rumble and surface noise in any reasonably quiet listening environment, even with good vinyl.
>>128146953
Despite having the potential to be better, the CD is more likely to be mastered with DR 4.

>>128146667
I guess, but in principle CDs are better.

>>128146959
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-AE9dL5FG8
Watch this video and educate yourself, vinyl shill

>>128147016
>You can hear sounds below the noise floor because you hear patterns across multiple samples. It's easy to hear vinyl rumble and surface noise in any reasonably quiet listening environment, even with good vinyl.
Sure if the room is quiet and it's between tracks, and you crank the volume.

>Despite having the potential to be better, the CD is more likely to be mastered with DR 4.
Yep. It's because CDs are pressed for people who have soundbars and listen in their vehicles.

I like music.

>>128145386
>but also 40-50 year old vinyl that sounds like absolute ass
Maybe... but that's probably because he didn't properly care for his records. If you have pets, your vinyl is going to suffer greatly. Dust+dander = a sort of organic glue.

>>128144086 (OP)
CDs nuts

>>128145806
Japanese use unique mastering with their audiophile CDs these days, they have K2CD, XRCD, and SBM each of which use various tricks to "approach" 20-bit quality. It actually works, I have a Logic System normal release CD and the exact same live show on K2HD and the K2HD is notably better for certain passages.

These CDs are worth seeking out, it's mainly classical, Jazz, and Japan and HK artists though. Kinda like SACD where there really wasn't a huge array of releases outside certain genres.

>>128148428
>exact same live show on K2HD and the K2HD is notably better for certain passages.
Meds.

>>128145747
>totally missing the point and admitting that vinyl is inferior by being less durable in the process

imagine the mental power it requires to believe that something exposed to the scratch of a fucking needle is more durable than something exposed to a mild laser

>>128148368
if he didn't care for his records, then he didn't care for his CD's either. but guess which medium still works fine

>>128149374
>*rots*

>>128149418
>he bought the CD rot meme then bought the $90 vinyl

>>128149383
CDs can have dander wiped off, they can even go in the dish washer lol.

With vinyl it gets baked in.

CDchads won

>>128148398
Got'em!

Why don't the people who do the mastering for CDs take advantage of the format's potential for dynamic range? I'm assuming this is a deliberate choice rather than a skill issue.

>>128149418
Disc rot is only really a problem with some CDs that had manufacturing defects
Well taken care of CDs should last far longer than vinyl

Vinyl is better if you really care about digging for stuff that maybe never got digitized which is a surprising amount of music, this is the case for CDs a bit too but to a much lesser degree. Anyone saying Vinyls sound better however are blowing smoke up your ass

I like the sound quality of vinyl but the cops posing as my family members always scratch up my records no matter what they are. CD can stack up to it but it's probably like how digital streamed music is likelier to have a lesser sound, people stick to vinyl because they remember the better sound quality in the 1970s when world governments were investing in the arts

>>128155704
probably because the mastering of the digital files was done with streaming in mind and it is mastered for smart phones and not hi fi audio systems.

>>128155704
>>128147083
Dynamic range is useless for gauging sound quality when it comes to vinyl vs CD comparisons

>>128155787
What's the appropriate metric to use then?

>>128155935
>what metric
SOVL, since music is abiut emotion, not fidelity.

>>128156017
Based

dont want to go too far down the rabbithole but basically if vinyl is buried and dug up in 10,000 years that generation will very quickly understand how to play the thing (get a paper cone, stick it in the grooves). CDs are just shiny objects that give you no clue what they are without the current era technology surviving. (its also proof aliens played a part in digital creation unlike analog but that's beyond /mu/)

>>128155935
Your hears

>>128156076
The stone age called, they want your vinyls back

>>128155704
Most people have shitty earbuds or a soundbar or listen in their car.

>>128155738
I have records from over 100 years ago that play great. Sound quality was ass back then but they retain it.

>>128144393
I have a couple old CD players with the original CDM-0 mechanism, which has a triple beam splitter and is made out of brass and steel. It will read even a badly scratched CD just fine in most cases.

>>128156350
Having a record from 100 years ago and it being in perfect condition are 2 different things
CDs are far easier to keep in good condition

>>128156372
They just reissued the CDM-1, some American company is making them from scratch now. $1500 just for the naked mechanism and laser pickup.

In constant dollars it's probably cheaper than the original.

>>128144086 (OP)
Vinyl: soul
CD: who gives a fuck, it's digital, might aswell just buy files on bandcamp

>>128160189
Vinyl is just a smeared, non-linear digital signal source on a piece of analog media which isn't the first generation of the transfer. A digital delay line is used before the lathe to ensure the variable pitch cutting can make the best use of space. Practically everything is digital since the invention of the digital delay, tons of albums were edited on digital before CDs even existed.

>>128160189
This

>>128160189
>Vinyl: soul
There's nothing inherently more soulful about vinyl, it's a medium like any other

>>128160390
Wrong. Bigger packages = more soul. CD longboxes had more soul than jewel case packaging alone too.

>>128160390
Vinyl is the largest display of the cover art, usually come with inserts such as lyric sheets and or posters, and can be used as decorative pieces even when the record itself is being used.

>>128160448
>>128160503
>occupying more space and more fragile packaging is le soul
kys please

>>128160573
Having more tangibility and aesthetics is soul, yes.

>>128160573
>Streaming shill paid by the Illuminati still wanting to convince the zoomers that having physical things is bad. "YOU VILL HAVE NOTHING AND YOU VILL BE HAPPY"
The audio quality is also better than streaming. Seethe.

>>128160585
CDs have lyrics and inserts too

>>128160686
CDs are better than streaming AND vinyl

CD is technically superior to vinyl in every respect
Vinyl is nicer as a tangible medium though. If I buy a CD 9 times out of 10 I will rip it to digital and barely touch it again. Vinyl I'm more likely to actually get out and play once in a while, and browse the artwork/liner notes

1/4" master tape copy > vinyl > CD

Digital conversion improves nothing.

FLAC, ALAC, WAV, etc. are all capable of higher resolution than CDs or vinyl. There’s no reason to listen to physical media if you have access to quality lossless rips. If you insist on actually playing physical media, then SACD and Blu Ray are superior to CDs and LPs.

CDs are better than records because
1) they are easier and cleaner to rip to lossless digital
2) they are cheaper
3) they don’t have grooves that wear out with each use
4) they’re easier to store
5) all records now use digital masters anyway, which negates the analog sound quality argument

The patrician way to build a music library is to research the best CD mixes that weren’t brickwalled loudness war remasters, buy those specific pressings from Discogs, get a bit perfect WAV rip yourself using EAC (which can be converted to any lossless format you like whenever you want), then resell the CDs. If you’re half decent and have any amount of patience, you can turn a profit while also building a quality library.

Reminder that Spotify and most other streaming services ONLY offer loudness war remasters of older albums and never give you the option to choose from other mixes or masterings. It’s fine to use streaming services for free to sample new music, but if you rely on their libraries for all of your listening, or if you pay them a monthly subscription fee to avoid commercials, then you’re a tool.

>>128162492
You won't impress bitches with your CD rip folder.

>>128162492
>5) all records now use digital masters anyway, which negates the analog sound quality argument
Fake as fuck, but still, was just listening to flood by boris on vinyl and checked...: yep, vinyl mogs despite having almost the same dynamic range as the CD.

>>128162762
You just like the sound of more distortion which isn't how it sounds on the actual master

>>128162492
>FLAC, ALAC, WAV, etc. are all capable of higher resolution than CDs or vinyl
There's zero chance you can hear above 16/44

>>128163034
It's actually less distorted than the CD, actually. That 1 additional DR point really frees a lot of space within the mix.

>>128162762
>all records now use digital masters anyway, which negates the analog sound quality argument
>Fake as fuck

>>128163168
This doesn't prove shit. It just means some records say they use analog while using digital, not that all records use digital. Nigga, please.

>>128162762
It doesn't mog anything, you're just conditioned to like vinyl more because you're a gullible retard and it's le audiophile format

>>128163222
You have not even listened to the album in any format and are just debating this shit because you desperately need to be right about something and shit. Who gives a fuck nigga, just leave me be with my vinyl. Or go on, I don't care.

>>128163244
>gets called out
>starts sperging out
I guarantee I've listened to that album more times than you retarded pseud

i buy the vinyl when the vinyl is easier to find than the cd or it isnt even on cd. which sounds better depends on the specific album but overall they both sound good so i dont have a particular preference.

>>128163277
On vinyl? Bitch, you don't even have the vinyl. What's more, I think you're buttmad because you lack the money to buy vinyl and are coping with this endless Spotify / CD shilling because vinylchads are just too superior economically to you by this point.

>>128144086 (OP)
>Is there any actual advantage vinyl has over CD?
Sonically, no. You have more space for art, though.

>>128163447
>I'm better than you because I waste more money on plastic crap
holy kek

>>128163493
I mean, at least I have the money. I also don't care over people buying CD or vinyl because I'm not a shill, so that's another point for me.

>>128163054
i think the only thing you know about those numbers is that that is the cdda standard

>>128163521
I don't give a shit about what you spent your money on, just stop pretending it sounds better because it doesn't

>>128163570
You haven't listened to the vinyl version of flood, so what the fuck are you even saying? Have you listened to it in your imagination? Kek.

>>128163202
when even an audiophile label does it you know everybody else does it too

>>128163054
Dry earwax coded post.

>>128163907
Generalist cope.

>>128163865
Says who? It's not like a lossless vinyl rip is hard to find.
Are you retarded?

>>128163976
But you haven't listened to it. Are you stupid?

>>128163974
are you the same person trying to claim otherwise? its a well-known fact thats what all record labels currently do when pressing modern day vinyl. i just showed you how an audiophile label lied about doing it for years

>>128164068
Yes, I did. It doesn't sound any better than the CD rip.

>>128164125
Show the files with bitrate.

>>128164238
Kys

>>128164283
Bitrate?

>>128164300
It's FLAC, imagine being this stupid

>>128164320
Are you so retarded that you don't know about bitrates?

>>128164343
Are you so retarded you think bitrate matters if it's already a lossless format?

>>128164359
Yes, lol. You do know you can have 24/192, 24/96 and 16/44 FLAC files and they all have differences in audio quality, right?

>>128164382
That's bit depth and sample rate, not bitrate.
Holy fuck, you are truly retarded.

>>128164428
Lmao, bit depth and sample rate are interlinked with bitrate. Man, you don't even know the basics about FLAC and are just going on with this discussion because you don't wanna lose. You usually can't go over 1000 kbps bitrate with 16/44, but you can easily do so with higher sample rates. Higher bitrates mean more clarity of audio. Kill yourself.

>>128164452
Nice goal post moving.
It literally doesn't matter anyway, anything above 16/44 is imperceptible to human ears and this already has been proven by blind tests.

>>128164484
Kek, whatever you say man. Enjoy those DR 2 CDs that come out nowadays; I'll stay with 24/192 vinyl, not hearing yet "feeling" the frequencies that make you feel connected to the music, as good ol' Kevin Shields put it.

>>128164503
>I'll stay with 24/192 vinyl
Lmao this retard actually thinks his vinyl rip sounds better because it's 24 bit when the dynamic range of vinyl only achieves up to 60db (16 bit goes up to 96db, meaning it will record every available information in a vinyl)
You can't make this shit up, audiophiles are true lolcows

>>128164576
Is that why you have a hard on for CDs? kek

Chat how many audiophiles actually make music?
>Rough estimate (based on hobby surveys and audio forums): maybe 10–20 % of audiophiles actually play an instrument with any skill.
I think this about sums it up.

>>128164629
Steven Wilson
Kevin Shields
Steve Albini

/thread

>>128164642
Precisely. The few that do all make horrible music.

>>128164648
Get some new ears, my nigga. Top 3 artists now.

>>128164663
Allan Holdsworth
John Coltrane
Kenny Kirkland

THE COMPACT DISC, AND THE CHURCH, WILL LAST UNTIL THE END OF TIME.

>>128145233
and say at least FIVE (5) reasons cassettes are somehow better than CDs in your head

>>128160189
CD's are also soul just more convenient

CD's are for true collectors and lovers of music.
vinyl are just for wankers to show off.

>>128144444
>Sound defects adding to the record instead of killing it
holy cope

>>128144749
>How can CD artwork compete with majestic vinyl gatefolds? What's the digitalcuck's way out of this labyrinth of cope?
buying a poster of the artwork? stupid retard

>>128144749
>How can CD artwork compete with majestic vinyl gatefolds?
literally the one and only win vinyl has over CD. everything else is a massive cope.

>buying vinyl of albums made before 1990
based
>buying vinyl of albums made after 1990
cringe

I dunno what it is, but I dance better to vinyl. The bass sounds noticeably better. Dat analogue sound. It's a bit of a pain to cart em round to gigs but.... worth.

https://www.mixcloud.com/grooveshaman/going-a-bit-mental/

>>128163077
>1 additional DR point
Measurement fooled by vinyl artifacts. It's not actually higher dynamic range.

>>128144086 (OP)
>Is there any actual advantage vinyl has over CD?
no.
>but there are so many people who prefer vinyl that there has to be something about it.
no there isnt. when people were buying physical media cd sales dwarfed vinyl even during its peak. even cassettes sales dwarfed vinyl for years. vinyl literally degrades with each play. cds sound perfect forever