That just isn't true. It doesn't matter how technical you want to make it sound, editing an audio file without applying other effects or processes to it doesn't not degrade the audio quality. There's no debate here, it just doesn't.

coldasice said:

Genesia said:

Lesson of this thread: they should include a download code with all vinyl, so you can listen to the digital copy on the go and to the vinyl as nature intended - at home.

(FWIW: I have ripped vinyl to digitize stuff that wasn't available in that format any other way. It is a colossal PITA.)

They’d never do that. That would eliminate the possibility of a double sale.

Try Bandcamp for the download inclusion with your vinyl purchase. Not for Prince material, though, only available through other outlets!

embmmusic said:

That just isn't true. It doesn't matter how technical you want to make it sound, editing an audio file without applying other effects or processes to it doesn't not degrade the audio quality. There's no debate here, it just doesn't.

Probably not discernably to the ear, so who really cares? Although audiophiles, of which I am not a member, are an interesting group--it's sometimes nice to read about the technical processes exposed in their discussions!

Germanegro said:

embmmusic said:

That just isn't true. It doesn't matter how technical you want to make it sound, editing an audio file without applying other effects or processes to it doesn't not degrade the audio quality. There's no debate here, it just doesn't.

Probably not discernably to the ear, so who really cares? Although audiophiles, of which I am not a member, are an interesting group--it's sometimes nice to read about the technical processes exposed in their discussions!

Not even an undetectable change. Take it from someone with an audio engineering degree.

partyup77 said:

embmmusic said:

Germanegro said:

Probably not discernably to the ear, so who really cares? Although audiophiles, of which I am not a member, are an interesting group--it's sometimes nice to read about the technical processes exposed in their discussions!

Not even an undetectable change. Take it from someone with an audio engineering degree.

.

Audio engineering curriculums didn't always include DSP subjects such as quantising and dithering. But if you did study these, you know what I was talking about, yet you responded by saying "I'm not sure where you're getting your information but that is not true at all. What kind of crappy budget editing software are you using?".
.

"Audio editing" is a broad term that most often include many different processes, including changing levels, for example. And these DO corrupt the original signal. The more changes you apply, the more corrupted the digital signal becomes.

That is why I advised to always work in at least 24bit and to always apply dither when going back to 16. And that is why I advised always leaving the volume at 100% in the digital domain, in iTunes, for example.

.

Changing levels, yes. Editing, no.

embmmusic said:

Changing levels, yes. Editing, no.

.
Again: 'editing' is a term that potentially includes a ton of different procedures. It most often includes creating cross-fades too, for example. That is just one of the several totally routine editing tools and it DOES slightly corrupt the original digital file.
.

But removing sections will not, which is the part I took issue with

embmmusic said:

But removing sections will not, which is the part I took issue with

.
No, you took issue with everything I said, and responded by saying "I'm not sure where you're getting your information but that is not true at all. What kind of crappy budget editing software are you using?".
.

In the meantime you've probably googled a bit and learned that I was right indeed, and now you're trying to make it look like you only meant to talk about "removing sections". While we both know perfectly well that in the real world there is almost no such thing as someone editing digital audio by ONLY removing sections without doing anything else to the file – hence I ALWAYS suggest to work at least in 24bit and use dither, because in 99.99% of the cases it will help avoid major degradation of the sound quality. And I could even get into how even just "removing sections" is often just a theory, and in DSP practice it involves more than what you think, but nevermind.
.

Kares said:

embmmusic said:

One Nite Alone is an album that would really shine on vinyl if remastered right

.
First of all, no vinyl will ever sound better than the 24bit/96kHz HD audio file it is most often SOURCED FROM (but even when it's sourced from the analog master, it simply cannot ever be an as faithful and transparent reproduction as a 24/96 digital file). It will, in many ways, sound worse, no matter how many hundred thousands you spend on your turntable and arm and MC cartridge and power supply and phono stage and preamp and power amp and cables and speakers.
.
Collecting and playing vinyl are cool and nostalgic rituals that I like too, but if you think it'll ever sound even nearly as good or better than HD digital audio you're fooling yourself.
.

Second: many albums, incl. 'One Nite Alone' were never issued on vinyl before, therefore original artwork in 12" size were never created for them and I hate seeing some vinyl-reissues with low resolution artwork because they've simply blew up the CD artwork file to 12".
I most certainly do not look forward to seeing something like 'Emancipation' reissued on vinyl – that artwork was already horrible enough in CD size and the price of a 6-LP box set would be absolutely ridiculous.
.

[Edited 4/8/19 1:56am]

The question in my head was whether the new vinyl issues sounded better than the 44/16 bit brickwall CD's... but just as important is the physical size of the album, flipping sides, looking at the sleeves, (and the photography is not scaled up from CD size on the three I just got). It's the physical impact of handling it, and the size, and the additional artwork design for sleeves and labels that frames the album and makes it much stronger to me. After all, an album was never just about the music back in the day, it was the whole package. Certainly I also collect 24 bit 96 hz releases if they are out there like Beatles stuff on blu-ray or DVD audio (going back a bit), and I appreciate the dramatic difference in sound when it was all plugged in right so that audio detail was actually coming out the speakers... but... I'm talking about the gravity that record albums in the 70's and 80's had for me, that CD's just never did have.

You might be surprised that even the ugly Emacipation artwork might have a better mood if it was higher rez and you could see texture and details in the surfaces.

Kares said:

embmmusic said:

But removing sections will not, which is the part I took issue with

.
No, you took issue with everything I said, and responded by saying "I'm not sure where you're getting your information but that is not true at all. What kind of crappy budget editing software are you using?".
.

In the meantime you've probably googled a bit and learned that I was right indeed, and now you're trying to make it look like you only meant to talk about "removing sections". While we both know perfectly well that in the real world there is almost no such thing as someone editing digital audio by ONLY removing sections without doing anything else to the file – hence I ALWAYS suggest to work at least in 24bit and use dither, because in 99.99% of the cases it will help avoid major degradation of the sound quality. And I could even get into how even just "removing sections" is often just a theory, and in DSP practice it involves more than what you think, but nevermind.
.

I honestly didn't see the bit in your original post about changing levels but going back now I see it, so that's on me. I was indeed referring to just the removal of sections. My degree may be 18 years old but the principles of it still hold today. Removing sections of audio will not degrade the quality.

ufoclub said:

Rimshottbob said:

JoeyCococo said:

I hear on an audiophile site that the new vinyl releases of Musicology, 3121, and Planet Earth sound much better than the original cd releases. Can anyone confirm and are their digital (FLAC) rips of the vinyl out there?

I've confirmed it a few times on this thread: http://prince.org/msg/7/458241

The new vinyl releases sound LIGHT YEARS better than the original CDs, all of which were brickwalled to fuck and sounded like shit.

I have made lossless vinyl rips of them, but they are not out there...

[Edited 3/28/19 4:57am]

.

What do you mean when you say the original CDs were "brickwalled"? I'm not familiar with that term. Thanks.

lurker316 said:

Rimshottbob said:

I've confirmed it a few times on this thread: http://prince.org/msg/7/458241

The new vinyl releases sound LIGHT YEARS better than the original CDs, all of which were brickwalled to fuck and sounded like shit.

I have made lossless vinyl rips of them, but they are not out there...

[Edited 3/28/19 4:57am]

.

What do you mean when you say the original CDs were "brickwalled"? I'm not familiar with that term. Thanks.

The waveform looks like a giant brick versus dynamic spikes of different levels when you open it in an audio editor.

.

see: Loudness Wars

.

or