udo said:

It depends on the context.

Analog signals do describe reality better than digital ones.

But analog signals are harder to keep in good health.

Describes reality better? Is reality charicterized by an ever-present backgroudnd of pops and crackles?

This is independt of the medium's condition. Theoretically and practically, analog is not superior to digital.

Sure.

Depends on the content, the gear, the ears, the location, the person, etc.

We are not talking about individual masterings, quality of equipment, room acoustics or "golden ears," we are talking about mediums.

housequake82 said:

This is as close as you are going to get to vinyl sound. I think this sound so much better. I do have a pretty good stereo at home though. I would purchase these alone just for the better mastering quality than the cd. I bought the 96khz/24bit wav. I am going to archive this on a dvd-a and listen to it through that means. I did down convert the files on itunes to 320 vbr at 48khz/16bit and they sound far better than the cd rips that i had before. Highly recommended.

but some people don't want a sound close to the vinyl sound, but close to the sound recorded in the studio that appears on the master tapes

cd has a greater frequency range than vinyl, so technically speaking, a properly mastered CD can sound better than a properly mastered record. in other words, a CD has a greater resolution than a record

the reason some people prefer the sound of vinyl is because of what some may describe as a "wamer sound", but that is basically a result of the issues that vinly has, such as muddy bass and rolled off top end

the older generation would have grown up with AM radio and cassettes and records, and used to a sound that had more mid and bottom range than top end. as with many things in life, what people get used and accustomed too, they will often like and prefer. it sets a psychological association

so when CD came along with a clearer top and end tighter bottom end, with more noticable resoluton in the upper range in particular, to some as it sounded less familiar, being closer to the actual studio master recording than the sound they were used to on a record, they were unused to that sound and preferred the sound they were more used to

also consider the equipment used in the 60s, 70s and early 80s compared to the equipment in the 80s and onwards, many people will have grown up with dansettes and portable radios and all sorts of "non hifi" type playback devices, which made ears accustomed to a particular type of sound, so being used to that and coming across something different, had a psychological effect

what you are hearing with a record, asides from the pops and clicks, hissing and possible rumble and hum, is a more compressed sound. not to be confused with the compression used over the past few years on CD which is commonly known as brickwalling, where sounds are compressed so most frequencies are pushed to the same higher levels in order to sound "louder" so when ripped to portable mp3 players tracks have a more consistent volume level, particularly on random play. but the downside of this is a loss of dynamic range. when comparing a CD that's masted in such a way to a record that is not, such as a new remaster of a classic album compared to a 70s issue, it's the mastering that causes the effects that some listeners don't like, not the medium itself. you can master both formats to show the full dynamic range, which would result in a lower level on the medium, or you could effectively brickwall on both, so the record sounds louder too

if you take 24k needle drops that some people make, some people prefer this even though it's now a digital recording, as it includes the same compression and rolled highes and muddy bass that some consider a richer sound. that's just personal preference. you aren't hearing a recording closer to the original sound

you could effectively master a CD using similar compression techniques to resemble a vinly recording, but then the recording sounds less like the original recording

Any chance the other Rhino releases will be avaialble?

rdhull said:

Giovanni777 said:

...and that's the point that most folks don't know.

The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the closer one gets to analog (vinyl), which is the best. So this is better than CD (44.1KHz/16bit), as they have both 96KHz/24bit and 192KHz/24bit.

On that note, can anyone compare the 180 gram vinyl reissue to the original vinyl?

Also, I don't see that 180 gram vinyl reissue of 1999 anywhere... not even on Rhino's site, where Prince isn't even listed as an available artist.

~G

.

[Edited 3/27/13 9:19am]

Check Best Buy. I got mine there.

Word. How does it compare to the original vinyl?

comperic2003 said:

Giovanni777 said:

...and that's the point that most folks don't know.

The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the closer one gets to analog (vinyl), which is the best. So this is better than CD (44.1KHz/16bit), as they have both 96KHz/24bit and 192KHz/24bit.

~G

Most folks don't need to know that because it simply isn't true. Analog is not superior to digital.

And 96kHz/24bit or 192kHz/24bit is not audibly superior to 44.1kHz/16bit when double blind tested.

Yes it certainly is true. The faster the sampling rate, the closer it gets to representing an analog sound wave.

With your second claim, it really depends on the material and the ears involved.

With any compressed electronic music, one is not likely to hear the difference between 44.1KHz/16bit vs. 96KHz or 192KHz at 24bit.

With any acoustic instruments, percussion, live drum cymbals, and also vocals, one can clearly hear the difference, as long as they have well trained, sensitive ears.

Granted, my hearing is a bit over sensitive but very accurate.

.

[Edited 3/27/13 13:46pm]

TheEnglishGent said:

chopingard said:

Just listened to the samples and it sounds like the 180gram remaster.

The compression is notable on the drums of the Let's Pretend we're married sample

Is this good or bad, does this sound better than the version on CD? I have no way to play vinyl, so the 180g's passed me by.

I found that the linn sounded particularly punchy and alot of detail in the mix became apparent. I think if you listen on a crappy system or laptop speakers you probably won't hear a differance.

I will say out of the three reissues on 180gram Dirty Mind had the biggest improvement (should I say improvement, Well to be democratic it showed the most marked diffrence. It felt like a far more detailed record while still sounding sparse.... I really had new appretiation for that album after listening to that album.

I might have a listening party for all three round mine with some friends when I get a new needle (mines a bit old at the mo)

Giovanni777 said:

Yes it certainly is true. The faster the sampling rate, the closer it gets to representing an analog sound wave.

With your second claim, it really depends on the material and the ears involved.

With any compressed electronic music, one is not likely to hear the difference between 44.1KHz/16bit vs. 96KHz or 192KHz at 24bit.

With any acoustic instruments, percussion, live drum cymbals, and also vocals, one can clearly hear the difference, as long as they have well trained, sensitive ears.

Granted, my hearing is a bit over sensitive but very accurate.

Placebo, confimation bias and post-purchase rationalization are stronger than you or I. But science is stronger. And the wealth of scientific evidence does not agree you.

comperic2003 said:

Giovanni777 said:

Yes it certainly is true. The faster the sampling rate, the closer it gets to representing an analog sound wave.

With your second claim, it really depends on the material and the ears involved.

With any compressed electronic music, one is not likely to hear the difference between 44.1KHz/16bit vs. 96KHz or 192KHz at 24bit.

With any acoustic instruments, percussion, live drum cymbals, and also vocals, one can clearly hear the difference, as long as they have well trained, sensitive ears.

Granted, my hearing is a bit over sensitive but very accurate.

Placebo, confimation bias and post-purchase rationalization are stronger than you or I. But science is stronger. And the wealth of scientific evidence does not agree you.

I'm aware of what you're saying, including the "evidence" you refer to. The only problem there, is that these claims are usually based on what frequencies the human ear is capable of, both on the low Hz side, and upper frequency KHz range.

The fact that you aren't admitting to, is that the faster the sampling rate, the closer to resembling an actual analog sound wave.

Truly, bit depth is far more noticable than sampling rate... the difference between 16bit and 24bit is quite obvious. In recording music, I'll usually select 88.2KHz rate, and always 24bit.

By the way, I've done blind hearing tests.

comperic2003 said:

Giovanni777 said:

Yes it certainly is true. The faster the sampling rate, the closer it gets to representing an analog sound wave.

With your second claim, it really depends on the material and the ears involved.

With any compressed electronic music, one is not likely to hear the difference between 44.1KHz/16bit vs. 96KHz or 192KHz at 24bit.

With any acoustic instruments, percussion, live drum cymbals, and also vocals, one can clearly hear the difference, as long as they have well trained, sensitive ears.

Granted, my hearing is a bit over sensitive but very accurate.

Placebo, confimation bias and post-purchase rationalization are stronger than you or I. But science is stronger. And the wealth of scientific evidence does not agree you.

hey there, a true researcher !

Giovanni777 said:

I'm aware of what you're saying, including the "evidence" you refer to. The only problem there, is that these claims are usually based on what frequencies the human ear is capable of, both on the low Hz side, and upper frequency KHz range.

The fact that you aren't admitting to, is that the faster the sampling rate, the closer to resembling an actual analog sound wave.

Truly, bit depth is far more noticable than sampling rate... the difference between 16bit and 24bit is quite obvious. In recording music, I'll usually select 88.2KHz rate, and always 24bit.

By the way, I've done blind hearing tests.

I fail to see why that is a problem? Also the "evidence" I refer to is numerous double-blind tests performed that failed to demonstrate the ability of participants (even self-proclaimed audiophiles and well-respected sound engineer participants) to distinguish between redbook CD resolution and Hi-Rez.

I am not failing to admit to such a fact. I am simply disregarding its importance in this matter.

Oh, have you? Was it double-blinded? If so and you were still able to distinguish between the two samples more than let's say at least 60% of the time, in 20 or more tries, then maybe you should contact the Journal of Audio Engineering Society. I'm sure they'd love to talk to you.

unique said:

housequake82 said:

This is as close as you are going to get to vinyl sound. I think this sound so much better. I do have a pretty good stereo at home though. I would purchase these alone just for the better mastering quality than the cd. I bought the 96khz/24bit wav. I am going to archive this on a dvd-a and listen to it through that means. I did down convert the files on itunes to 320 vbr at 48khz/16bit and they sound far better than the cd rips that i had before. Highly recommended.

but some people don't want a sound close to the vinyl sound, but close to the sound recorded in the studio that appears on the master tapes

cd has a greater frequency range than vinyl, so technically speaking, a properly mastered CD can sound better than a properly mastered record. in other words, a CD has a greater resolution than a record

the reason some people prefer the sound of vinyl is because of what some may describe as a "wamer sound", but that is basically a result of the issues that vinly has, such as muddy bass and rolled off top end

the older generation would have grown up with AM radio and cassettes and records, and used to a sound that had more mid and bottom range than top end. as with many things in life, what people get used and accustomed too, they will often like and prefer. it sets a psychological association

so when CD came along with a clearer top and end tighter bottom end, with more noticable resoluton in the upper range in particular, to some as it sounded less familiar, being closer to the actual studio master recording than the sound they were used to on a record, they were unused to that sound and preferred the sound they were more used to

also consider the equipment used in the 60s, 70s and early 80s compared to the equipment in the 80s and onwards, many people will have grown up with dansettes and portable radios and all sorts of "non hifi" type playback devices, which made ears accustomed to a particular type of sound, so being used to that and coming across something different, had a psychological effect

what you are hearing with a record, asides from the pops and clicks, hissing and possible rumble and hum, is a more compressed sound. not to be confused with the compression used over the past few years on CD which is commonly known as brickwalling, where sounds are compressed so most frequencies are pushed to the same higher levels in order to sound "louder" so when ripped to portable mp3 players tracks have a more consistent volume level, particularly on random play. but the downside of this is a loss of dynamic range. when comparing a CD that's masted in such a way to a record that is not, such as a new remaster of a classic album compared to a 70s issue, it's the mastering that causes the effects that some listeners don't like, not the medium itself. you can master both formats to show the full dynamic range, which would result in a lower level on the medium, or you could effectively brickwall on both, so the record sounds louder too

if you take 24k needle drops that some people make, some people prefer this even though it's now a digital recording, as it includes the same compression and rolled highes and muddy bass that some consider a richer sound. that's just personal preference. you aren't hearing a recording closer to the original sound

you could effectively master a CD using similar compression techniques to resemble a vinly recording, but then the recording sounds less like the original recording

I guess I will rephrase what I said about it sounding as close to the vinyl as possible. What I meant was that I believe this is probably as close as we are going to get sound quality wise to master tapes. There is little to no hiss or any pops that I have noticed on these transfers. The reason I said as close to the vinyls as possible is because when these songs were written they were mastered to sound good on the best possible consumer medium of the time which was vinyl. Sorry for the confusion.

comperic2003 said:

Giovanni777 said:

Yes it certainly is true. The faster the sampling rate, the closer it gets to representing an analog sound wave.

With your second claim, it really depends on the material and the ears involved.

With any compressed electronic music, one is not likely to hear the difference between 44.1KHz/16bit vs. 96KHz or 192KHz at 24bit.

With any acoustic instruments, percussion, live drum cymbals, and also vocals, one can clearly hear the difference, as long as they have well trained, sensitive ears.

Granted, my hearing is a bit over sensitive but very accurate.

Placebo, confimation bias and post-purchase rationalization are stronger than you or I. But science is stronger. And the wealth of scientific evidence does not agree you.

This debate has been going on since the invention of digital music. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind, so allow me to reframe it differently. Neither vinyl nor digital is an accurate accounting of the original; they are each inaccurate in their own ways. My choice of which format to listen to is dictated by "which is more engaging to listen to".

To me, vinyl through a tube amp is often *more* inaccurate but in a *more* pleasant way for active listening. To me, hi-res recordings are a more dynamic and engaging listen than Redbook standard recordings, although they really have come a long way in what can be represented in 16/44.1k (ironically via the use of the counterintuitive process of adding deliberate distortion for better fidelity, aka dithering).

Whatever floats your boat, folks. Aren't there enough religious wars on the planet already?

I'm not sure of this tit-for-tat convo regarding audio clarity is sexy or frustrating.

Can it be both?

ericschafer said:

This debate has been going on since the invention of digital music. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind, so allow me to reframe it differently. Neither vinyl nor digital is an accurate accounting of the original; they are each inaccurate in their own ways. My choice of which format to listen to is dictated by "which is more engaging to listen to".

To me, vinyl through a tube amp is often *more* inaccurate but in a *more* pleasant way for active listening. To me, hi-res recordings are a more dynamic and engaging listen than Redbook standard recordings, although they really have come a long way in what can be represented in 16/44.1k (ironically via the use of the counterintuitive process of adding deliberate distortion for better fidelity, aka dithering).

Whatever floats your boat, folks. Aren't there enough religious wars on the planet already?

Your attempt to "reframe" this debate was unnecessary and frivolous. Essentially, you agree with Giovanni777. Great. But this discussion conerns itself with what is demonstrably better, not what one prefers.

Science is not a religion.

comperic2003 said:

ericschafer said:

This debate has been going on since the invention of digital music. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind, so allow me to reframe it differently. Neither vinyl nor digital is an accurate accounting of the original; they are each inaccurate in their own ways. My choice of which format to listen to is dictated by "which is more engaging to listen to".

To me, vinyl through a tube amp is often *more* inaccurate but in a *more* pleasant way for active listening. To me, hi-res recordings are a more dynamic and engaging listen than Redbook standard recordings, although they really have come a long way in what can be represented in 16/44.1k (ironically via the use of the counterintuitive process of adding deliberate distortion for better fidelity, aka dithering).

Whatever floats your boat, folks. Aren't there enough religious wars on the planet already?

Your attempt to "reframe" this debate was unnecessary and frivolous. Essentially, you agree with Giovanni777. Great. But this discussion conerns itself with what is demonstrably better, not what one prefers.

Science is not a religion.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Ok..its def sexy

housequake82 said:

unique said:

but some people don't want a sound close to the vinyl sound, but close to the sound recorded in the studio that appears on the master tapes

cd has a greater frequency range than vinyl, so technically speaking, a properly mastered CD can sound better than a properly mastered record. in other words, a CD has a greater resolution than a record

the reason some people prefer the sound of vinyl is because of what some may describe as a "wamer sound", but that is basically a result of the issues that vinly has, such as muddy bass and rolled off top end

the older generation would have grown up with AM radio and cassettes and records, and used to a sound that had more mid and bottom range than top end. as with many things in life, what people get used and accustomed too, they will often like and prefer. it sets a psychological association

so when CD came along with a clearer top and end tighter bottom end, with more noticable resoluton in the upper range in particular, to some as it sounded less familiar, being closer to the actual studio master recording than the sound they were used to on a record, they were unused to that sound and preferred the sound they were more used to

also consider the equipment used in the 60s, 70s and early 80s compared to the equipment in the 80s and onwards, many people will have grown up with dansettes and portable radios and all sorts of "non hifi" type playback devices, which made ears accustomed to a particular type of sound, so being used to that and coming across something different, had a psychological effect

what you are hearing with a record, asides from the pops and clicks, hissing and possible rumble and hum, is a more compressed sound. not to be confused with the compression used over the past few years on CD which is commonly known as brickwalling, where sounds are compressed so most frequencies are pushed to the same higher levels in order to sound "louder" so when ripped to portable mp3 players tracks have a more consistent volume level, particularly on random play. but the downside of this is a loss of dynamic range. when comparing a CD that's masted in such a way to a record that is not, such as a new remaster of a classic album compared to a 70s issue, it's the mastering that causes the effects that some listeners don't like, not the medium itself. you can master both formats to show the full dynamic range, which would result in a lower level on the medium, or you could effectively brickwall on both, so the record sounds louder too

if you take 24k needle drops that some people make, some people prefer this even though it's now a digital recording, as it includes the same compression and rolled highes and muddy bass that some consider a richer sound. that's just personal preference. you aren't hearing a recording closer to the original sound

you could effectively master a CD using similar compression techniques to resemble a vinly recording, but then the recording sounds less like the original recording

I guess I will rephrase what I said about it sounding as close to the vinyl as possible. What I meant was that I believe this is probably as close as we are going to get sound quality wise to master tapes. There is little to no hiss or any pops that I have noticed on these transfers. The reason I said as close to the vinyls as possible is because when these songs were written they were mastered to sound good on the best possible consumer medium of the time which was vinyl. Sorry for the confusion.

no problem, but when proper remasters come out, like the ones prince says he's done, then they should sound considerably better as they are going back to the actual master tape instead of a copy of it that was used to master the vinly or cd. you won't get pops or clicks on the HD downloads though, as they won't be taken from records

If you doubt that the exact same master would sound better in 24 bit 96hz or better than a normal 16 bit 44.1hz version, just buy the Beatles "Love" DVD-audio from years ago, compare the same tracks from the same master in the three different formats they are releases in: CD stereo, Dolby Digital 5.1 AC3, and the Surround sound 24 bit 96 hz version.

Of course the same could be done with a blu ray audio release like this:http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon-Blu-ray/23971/

the difference is dramatic.

And the area of a song that 24 bitmakes a difference is in the quiet moments. The bits can be likened to a stack that defines the amplitude of a wave. On CD's during quiet passages and fade outs, you your amplitude is diminshing down to be defined by fewer and fewer bits.

If you are at 24 bits, you have twice the definition on those same lower volume sections.

The area of sound that the higher frequency fidelity will make is in the mix or clarity of instruments together. you can easily experiment with this by making a multitrack mix an audio program like Protools and then bouncing that down to a 44.1 hz mix or a 96hz mix, and then listenining in high quality headphones for clarity and depth in the mix.

And those of you who think vinyl has any kind of fidelity compared to the master tape are CRAZY.

Vinyl sound quality is quite a distorted version of the sound that gets poorer in fidelity each time ytou listen to it because of the microscopic wear.

The only true holy perfect audio quality on analog recordings is to roll the master tape.

ufoclub said:

If you doubt that the exact same master would sound better in 24 bit 96hz or better than a normal 16 bit 44.1hz version, just buy the Beatles "Love" DVD-audio from years ago, compare the same tracks from the same master in the three different formats they are releases in: CD stereo, Dolby Digital 5.1 AC3, and the Surround sound 24 bit 96 hz version.

Of course the same could be done with a blu ray audio release like this:http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon-Blu-ray/23971/

the difference is dramatic.

And the area of a song that 24 bitmakes a difference is in the quiet moments. The bits can be likened to a stack that defines the amplitude of a wave. On CD's during quiet passages and fade outs, you your amplitude is diminshing down to be defined by fewer and fewer bits.

If you are at 24 bits, you have twice the definition on those same lower volume sections.

The area of sound that the higher frequency fidelity will make is in the mix or clarity of instruments together. you can easily experiment with this by making a multitrack mix an audio program like Protools and then bouncing that down to a 44.1 hz mix or a 96hz mix, and then listenining in high quality headphones for clarity and depth in the mix.

Except the three format versions available for The Beatles Love album all had significantly different dynamic range values, so, your example is not valid. Regardless, I would not consider you, or any naysayers of audio science, "CRAZY." Misguided and ignorant? Yes, but not "CRAZY."

comperic2003 said:

ufoclub said:

If you doubt that the exact same master would sound better in 24 bit 96hz or better than a normal 16 bit 44.1hz version, just buy the Beatles "Love" DVD-audio from years ago, compare the same tracks from the same master in the three different formats they are releases in: CD stereo, Dolby Digital 5.1 AC3, and the Surround sound 24 bit 96 hz version.

Of course the same could be done with a blu ray audio release like this:http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon-Blu-ray/23971/

the difference is dramatic.

And the area of a song that 24 bitmakes a difference is in the quiet moments. The bits can be likened to a stack that defines the amplitude of a wave. On CD's during quiet passages and fade outs, you your amplitude is diminshing down to be defined by fewer and fewer bits.

If you are at 24 bits, you have twice the definition on those same lower volume sections.

The area of sound that the higher frequency fidelity will make is in the mix or clarity of instruments together. you can easily experiment with this by making a multitrack mix an audio program like Protools and then bouncing that down to a 44.1 hz mix or a 96hz mix, and then listenining in high quality headphones for clarity and depth in the mix.

Except the three format versions available for The Beatles Love album all had significantly different dynamic range values, so, your example is not valid. Regardless, I would not consider you, or any naysayers of audio science, "CRAZY." Misguided and ignorant? Yes, but not "CRAZY."

Are you are unwittingly confirming what I'm saying? "all had significantly different dynamic range". Because that is exactly what I'm saying. 16-bit CD has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96 dB, 24-bit digital audio calculates to 144 dB dynamic range.

ufoclub said:

comperic2003 said:

Except the three format versions available for The Beatles Love album all had significantly different dynamic range values, so, your example is not valid. Regardless, I would not consider you, or any naysayers of audio science, "CRAZY." Misguided and ignorant? Yes, but not "CRAZY."

Are you are unwittingly confirming what I'm saying? "all had significantly different dynamic range". Because that is exactly what I'm saying. 16-bit CD has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96 dB, 24-bit digital audio calculates to 144 dB dynamic range.

Clever, but no. Try again.

We are not talking about the 16bit version having a dynamic range vaule of 20, and the 24bit version having a dynamic range value of 30, more like the difference between 9 and 11. Considering many 16bit CDs have measured with a dynamic range exceeding 20, you might want to rethink this one.

spiffnme said:

Prince told the Peach & Black guys that he's already remastered his first six albums. How sweet would it be if this is how he plans to re-release them???

[Edited 3/22/13 12:34pm]

HE has remastered them???

I am with those that claim to be able to hear the difference. No matter what science says. Good for those who don't hear the difference, will save you lots of money!

I am very happy Prince's work will become available as HR Audio. Unfortunately I have recently purchased the new 180 gr vinyl of 1999, so I think I will pass for now, but I can't wait for some other ones (like SOTT!!) to be released in this format!

ericschafer said:

comperic2003 said:

Placebo, confimation bias and post-purchase rationalization are stronger than you or I. But science is stronger. And the wealth of scientific evidence does not agree you.

This debate has been going on since the invention of digital music. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind, so allow me to reframe it differently. Neither vinyl nor digital is an accurate accounting of the original; they are each inaccurate in their own ways. My choice of which format to listen to is dictated by "which is more engaging to listen to".

To me, vinyl through a tube amp is often *more* inaccurate but in a *more* pleasant way for active listening. To me, hi-res recordings are a more dynamic and engaging listen than Redbook standard recordings, although they really have come a long way in what can be represented in 16/44.1k (ironically via the use of the counterintuitive process of adding deliberate distortion for better fidelity, aka dithering).

Whatever floats your boat, folks. Aren't there enough religious wars on the planet already?

Well put.

ufoclub said:

If you doubt that the exact same master would sound better in 24 bit 96hz or better than a normal 16 bit 44.1hz version, just buy the Beatles "Love" DVD-audio from years ago, compare the same tracks from the same master in the three different formats they are releases in: CD stereo, Dolby Digital 5.1 AC3, and the Surround sound 24 bit 96 hz version.

Of course the same could be done with a blu ray audio release like this:http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Pink-Floyd-The-Dark-Side-Of-The-Moon-Blu-ray/23971/

the difference is dramatic.

And the area of a song that 24 bitmakes a difference is in the quiet moments. The bits can be likened to a stack that defines the amplitude of a wave. On CD's during quiet passages and fade outs, you your amplitude is diminshing down to be defined by fewer and fewer bits.

If you are at 24 bits, you have twice the definition on those same lower volume sections.

The area of sound that the higher frequency fidelity will make is in the mix or clarity of instruments together. you can easily experiment with this by making a multitrack mix an audio program like Protools and then bouncing that down to a 44.1 hz mix or a 96hz mix, and then listenining in high quality headphones for clarity and depth in the mix.

And those of you who think vinyl has any kind of fidelity compared to the master tape are CRAZY.

Vinyl sound quality is quite a distorted version of the sound that gets poorer in fidelity each time ytou listen to it because of the microscopic wear.

The only true holy perfect audio quality on analog recordings is to roll the master tape.

All spot on points. Looks like we both have had a career in audio!

rdhull said:

I'm not sure of this tit-for-tat convo regarding audio clarity is sexy or frustrating.

Can it be both?

Both. Yeah, I said it.

rdhull said:

unique said:

jeffreymiller said:

rdhull said:

I'm not sure of this tit-for-tat convo regarding audio clarity is sexy or frustrating.

Can it be both?

How about excruciatingly annoying and full of super human hearing narcissistic bullshit?

let us get our paraphilia fetish on