Yep, since the end of the 70's and the arrival of digital mastering, there are only very few records that have an analog processing chain from beginning to end.


Agree. Except maybe some audiophile guys with a 200K bucks sound system, very few people only will hear the difference between a 44.1khz and a 96khz (or more) sampling rate, especially if we talk about the the noisy environment of a car's sound system.

Agreed. Lossless flac is still a digital format, so using the argument of losing data each year would surely apply to flac aswell.
Also i remember back in early noughties a lot of those download sites would give you a choice of downloading mp3 at various bit rate qualities, which was fairly pointless because the original uploads were already crap quality.

First of all, the fact that there is a digital component in the chain does not mean anything, because you have to see the ‘how’. If, for example, you have to record a duo of classical music, you simply can't use a 44.1 khz because it's not able to grasp all the details of a classical interpretation and the nuances that are there. A higher sample rate such as 96 khz will therefore be used (taking it low). Which of these will sound better: a vinyl that will faithfully reproduce that digital project or a cd where that digital project will be cut to 44.1 to make it compatible with the support?

The difference is there, even in the ears of a non-expert but there must be conditions: music must have a certain depth of dynamics and timbrie. For example, classical music or jazz. It's obvious that if you listen to 90s hip hop there won't be much difference. Give it a try, if you have a jazz or classical cd and an audio system that supports usb, download a lossless 192 khz or 96 file and listen to it through the system, then listen to the cd. It’s difficult not to hear the difference, especially for the double bass and sax solos.

What an average listener notices or does not notice, by the way, cannot be a standard on which to rely…the majority of people would not notice the difference between a painting by Caravaggio and a replica of a student at an academy. But in museums we don’t put the replica.

Sampling rate mostly defines the frequency response (see Nyquist-Shannon theorem), 44.1khz for example makes it possible to reproduce the frequency range up to 22050hz, 96khz up to 48000hz etc., beyond human hearing in any case. I think you are confusing sampling rate and sampling depth. What you are talking about for dynamics restitution and timbre, details and nuances, is the sampling depth, which is expressed in bits (32 bits for the most efficient current systems) and which defines the amount of data available for a given sample.

I didn't confuse. (even for bits cds have 16 bits which is also a deficit)

Even if they are non-distinguishable frequencies (individually) by the human ear, those frequencies which are cut by a lower sample rate affect the sound because if present they influence and colour those in the range of the listenable.

EDIT: I'm not saying these things because I listen to music at the highest quality possible every day. In fact, I use bluetooth earphones outside the home! I would use wired earphones if I was an audiophile. But math is math.

versus

Isn't that a bit contradictory?

Anyway, vinyl definitely isn't an audiophile standard nowadays, it isn't since the CD. Awful noise/signal ratio, non homogeneous recording (cf. external versus central part of the record), limited frequency response, bad channels separation etc. Also, often (especially nowadays) bad pressing ! Most of classical music lovers listening to classical music do it with CD's or from now on with digital files, not with vinyl. But even with all its defaults, I still love vinyl, also because it's my working tool. I don't own CD's anymore since 20 years. If I want to listen to something more convenient than vinyl or somewhere other than home, I listen to digital files.

I was refering to statements that were saying “there is always a digital component in today's music, so nothing changes if the final support is a vinyl or a cd”. What I responded is that it depends.

It’s obvious that the cd is clearer, it flattens the sound, compresses it and eliminates a lot of imperfections with it. The problem is that eliminating imperfections it also eliminates a lot of other stuff…

If you have a quality and well-set turntable, your vinyl is in good condition and you clean it before using it doesn't have all those problems you list.

it is precisely the mastering of the cds that are of low quality since they have to compete in the battle of the db. For vinyls, mastering is done with much more respect to the original product.

It can be an endless discussion.

This is wrong, because the problems I listed are inherent to the medium itself. The non homogenous sounding is due to physical facts. End of a vinyl side contains less audio data than the beginning, it's like that, you can't do anything to change that, except changing physical laws. The awful noise/signal ratio is also related to the physical properties of the medium and even the best recording and pressing won't change that. Mono low frequencies conversion, same thing, it's required due to physical constraints. Same for channels séparation, even with the best pressing and the best needle in the market, channels separation will be worse than with the cheapest CD player.

To return to the subject of the sampling rate : there is very little chance to hear an old (before 2000) recording in 96khz (or more), simply because nothing was recorded with this sampling rate until recently. So if for example you have a .FLAC file in 96khz sampling rate obtained from lets say a 1993 record, when industry standard was 48khz, it will be and render like 48khz, not 96khz (or more). Lost data is lost data... Only case where old recordings can be listened to a real 96khz (or more) sampling rate is when original source is 100% analogue from end to end and thus can be converted digitally to any sampling rate without loss. If you're lucky enough to have access to the original recordings, usually double-locked in cupboards... As I already said, since the end of the 70's, very rare is music recorded and mastered this way (full analogue) and only recent recordings are initially recorded with sampling rates over 48khz. 96khz/24bits is the industry standard today.

So how can it be an audiophile choice if it is a format that is only ok for music recorded for 30 years?

You certainly can't make a comparison between the sound of a vinyl from a 70s album, and a cd of the same album. Although vinyl may have those problems you say (which for some points, it's true, there is a real sonic change but for others absolutely not) it still remains more faithful.

Anyway, the truth is that I'm ignoring some valid points you've made, and you are ignoring mine (why should the standard be 96 if nothing changes?). It just depends on so many factors as always. Peace!!!

No, not may, they have those problems, and they are absolutely incompressible and not related to the broadcast system. Those problems remain even with a high-end audio equipment, as they are physical and technological constraints of the medium. What makes people thinking vinyl sounds better is mostly due to artifacts. Strictly speaking vinyl is an old and outmoded medium. You know, I don't do any vinyl bashing, I love them. I just try to thwart some truths and myths and one of these myths is that vinyl sounds better than anything and is an audiophile reference. Due to its physical and technological limits, this assertion is false. I'm quite aware about vinyl world, I'm in since over 30 years, and one of my best friends works as lacquer cutter in a big vinyl pressing plant. Also, one of my friends who lives near my place is a professional sound engineer and works at home in its own recording studio. We often discuss about those things (recording, mastering, sound quality etc.) while drinking a tea or engraving a dubplate. He thinks (better : he knows) the same as me about the sound quality of vinyl. The sound of vinyl has a lot of charm but in terms of sound reproduction it's very "colorful" (not neutral) and often further from the original recording than a CD (or even a cassette). Maybe if we mastered CDs like we do with vinyl (because of its constraints), the majority of people would find the CD sounds good or even better than vinyl. The CD is much more neutral, and it is this lack of neutrality in large part that makes us appreciate the vinyl sound.


Standards change because technology evolves. In recording or mastering studio session, it's always better to work with the highest quality available for most of the engineers, in order to have the few losses as possible during the different audio processes. Even 96khz becomes outdated, as higher quality standards exist, but there is always a little lag between the moment a technology is available and the moment when this technology is applied by the whole industry. Peace to you

To the people reading through this thread, that have not tried listening to vinyl yet, do not deny yourselves the opportunity to experience the vinyl and draw your own conclusions. If you're under the influence, the differences may not be discernable, but, listening to vinyl with two speakers even while 100% sober can have the effect of fooling me to think the musicians are in the room with me, definitely in a way CD never has. I'm not trying to be a snob, I don't even own vinyl, but I know the impression it made on me, and you all owe it to yourselves to at least listen for yourselves if you get the chance.