Why is this even a "debate" when digital audio is mathematically, objectively...

Why is this even a "debate" when digital audio is mathematically, objectively, and even subjectively the best medium for storing audio?
Is it ignorance?

Attached: 81FDwu+a90L._SL1500_.jpg (1500x1361, 238K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage
audiophilia.com/reviews/2016/1/17/a-beginners-guide-to-cartridge-setup
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

There is no debate, digital audio is just superior. I only buy vinyls when there is no other copy available.

Attached: 1521092109544.gif (300x159, 1.39M)

vinyl is a bit of a meme but I can still see the appeal of the big ass records and having a nice setup. The sound is different and some people prefer it.

Vinyls have a warmer sound, which you can replicate digitally, but it's not the same. There's also the whole ritual of playing a vinyl that some people like. I buy them because I like having physical copies of shit I own and like looking at the big artwork. They also look really cool and are a conversation piece. Not everything need to be exclusively practical OP.

Attached: aaa89f816e48723f46f6214949bec5c3.jpg (856x482, 86K)

magnetic tape is the best medium for storing audio. For playing it, it's a three-way tie between digital, (high class) magnetic tape and vinyl. The only actual advantage of digital is convenience and arguably being able to get more plays before it degrades (high quality audio CDs theoretically last about 50 years of repeated use).

digital for storage, analog for playback. use a good DAC. fucking hell this isnt hard

>he doesn't own an extensive collection of reel to reel
smug.png

>buying music

*blocks your path*

Attached: 250px-PSX-Console-wController.jpg (250x115, 10K)

Human beings aren't logical creatures.

I can't justify spending money on digital goods, so I buy vinyl and visit shows of artists I like and pirate all of their music on the low.

Digital audio can PERFECTLY reproduce any signal in the entire range of human hearing. If you are using 24-bit 96kHz then you can go well beyond the entire range of human hearing.

You cannot get any better than digital. It's by definition the most efficient means possible of storing ANY information, including audio.

piracy is fine if you own the physical media

did you never play SNES emulators?

The music industry masters CDs to sound good when being played in a car, since you can't play vinyls in a car or even apply these kinds of effects, vinyls always have a different mastering.

>one trillionth of a fraction of a bit of data is damaged
>entire audio file destroyed forever

OK guy.

>binary digits
>efficient
nigga please. you can fit 215,000,000 GB in a gram of DNA

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_digital_data_storage

I never owned SNES carts tho...

this guy gets it

>but it's not the same
No, you could rip a vinyl to digital and it will be literally exactly the same.

>vinyls always have a different mastering.
Also production was simply better when vinyl was a thing. A lot of songs today sound like absolute trash, regardless of their bit-rate or quality of the hardware, their SOUND is shit.

Digital is so efficient that you can create all sorts of redundancies with various properties.

Using more than 2 symbols can lead to greater coding efficiency, but in the real world you have to deal with noise, loss of data, errors, etc. Digital is more practical.

>Digital is so efficient that you can create all sorts of redundancies with various properties.
that won't stop the media holding it from failure.

Is Sup Forums really so autistic to think that the absolute measure of sound quality is bitrate? There's more important things in any art, music included, than the raw quality of the output.

>that won't stop the media holding it from failure.
That's true of anything. It's easier for vinyl to get scratched than for an SSD to lose data. If you think otherwise, consider how frequently you're using your SSD vs your vinyl. If you ran a record every 24/7 for a year it'd be fucked.

Those factors are the same for the same songs across media. We're talking about storage media, with all other factors the same.

Why would you play a record 24/7?

There are only two ways to listen to music.
1: You go listen to someone play music
2: You listen to a recording

Since the vast majority of music listening is "listening to a recording", you would ideally want the best possible method of recording and recreating the music. That's literally what digital is. It PERFECTLY recreates any audio signal in the range of human hearing. So the bitrate of music is LITERALLY the most objective measure of quality when it comes to audio.

Normal people aren't statistical machines. People like the pops and crackles of vinyl for the same reason they like the yellowed pages of old books.

Doesn't matter. The point is they're less resilient than solid-state storage. If you used an SSD as often as you used your record it would last longer than the record.

That's fine, but those are objectively defects compared to the signal source.

>Subjectively

I do not think this means what you think this means.

So? You're missing the point you fucking autist.

>Using more than 2 symbols can lead to greater coding efficiency, but in the real world you have to deal with noise, loss of data, errors, etc. Digital is more practical.
not really since you can freeze-dry yeast cells and keep them viable essentially forever with minimal/no changes in gene expression.

true, digital media is laughable. acid-free paper can easily last 500 years, yet people are replacing HDD's every 5-20 years

it will be the same as long as you can perfectly reproduce all the ambient factors of that record play, and there are a lot. but yeah, it's not a big deal for non-autistics

most of my music is FLAC -> combo tube preamp/transister amplifier -> graphical equalizer -> 3way speakers. the cabling is Cat5e (you don't need to braid it like an audiophile assburger, it's hifi enough as-is)

>as you can perfectly reproduce all the ambient factors of that record play
Like what? Provided you've got a good DAC it's the same electricity flowing to a speaker.

>true, digital media is laughable. acid-free paper can easily last 500 years, yet people are replacing HDD's every 5-20 years
Those HDDs are in constant use. It's similar to as if you were to use a book every day and complain that it's falling apart after twenty years. If you're trying to archive, there's specific digital media made for that. Everything else is meant to withstand day-to-day use.

Rustic is objectively superior.
The very basis of value is originality and use; digital is but a copy while analog is a recreation, and so its own—unique.

like the ambient humidity, the placement of the turntable, the cartridge + tuning arm calibration, the speed adjustment, etc. you know the needle tracks in 3 dimensions along the sides of the groove as well, not just up and down

one of my friends is really big into this, i'm not

audiophilia.com/reviews/2016/1/17/a-beginners-guide-to-cartridge-setup

Why ride bike when you can drive a car? Oh you enjoy bike riding because it offers a different experience?

Yeah.

someone 750-1000 years ago used the exeter book as a fucking cutting board, bro

>like the ambient humidity, the placement of the turntable, the cartridge + tuning arm calibration, the speed adjustment, etc. you know the needle tracks in 3 dimensions along the sides of the groove as well, not just up and down
All of those things are recorded when you're capturing the analog output. It just means that the output doesn't change according to future changes to the environment, which is fine, because your friend can't fucking tell the difference based on humidity regardless of how much his autism makes him think he can.

Wow, for a board about technology you fags sure know jack shit about saplerates and the fundementals of fucking technology.

Actually the advantage of digital is that you can rip the exact copy and make infinite copies of it.

nice racist neckbeard digits
>14/88

i thought you meant: if you ripped a vinyl LP and played the FLAC next to another vinyl play, the bitstream would match 100%

it obvs won't for the reasons i said. my friend probs doesn't care about the relative humidity of his listening environment, but there is a real procedure for calibrating your TT cartridge that will make a noticeable difference in sound+media longevity

>The music industry masters CDs to sound good when being played in a car

Sounds like a bad excuse for shitty mastering and brickwalling all over the dynamics. This is also why most remasters sound like shit and digital music has a bad reputation.

I like how audiophiles declare random distortion while playing a degrading media as warm sounding an yet do not hesitate to apply gallons of snake oil to eliminate that.

>it obvs won't for the reasons i said. my friend probs doesn't care about the relative humidity of his listening environment, but there is a real procedure for calibrating your TT cartridge that will make a noticeable difference in sound+media longevity
That may be the case, but it really doesn't matter unless you can actually tell the difference between one playback and another. If you can't, then just capturing one analog output to digital and playing that back is the same.

>true, digital media is laughable. acid-free paper can easily last 500 years, yet people are replacing HDD's every 5-20 years

The media can fail, but the content on it can be backed up indefinately, given you have the media to do it.

there's a Descendents song that I had only heard on vinyl
it was in my head recently, checked out a Youtube video of the song, the sound quality was so bad I stopped listening after a few seconds

Not sure what you're on about. Sample rate factors into bitrate. One is a function of the other. You can preach all the faggy snowflake shit you want about how special vinyl is, but before you hear it, it's just electrons on a copper wire like anything else. You can capture them to digital at that point and perfectly reproduce them with a high enough bitrate.

it's basically true and even has a name: loudness war. high compression + high loudness = a tendency toward white noise at volume extremes.

think about how glitchy a bass line becomes when you blast an MP3, no matter how good the equipment. digital has a higher dynamic range than analog, but everyone mixes their shit for spotify so it's wasted potential

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

>make vinyl for hipster collectors
>its from a digital source, recorded and played with digital equipment

Can’t make this shit up

Attached: Cool-and-Expensive-The-56-000-4-armed-Turntable.jpg (340x180, 19K)

it's just calibrating a piece of precision equipment. I don't even own a turntable good enough to adjust the cartridge so idgaf.

the point is that a vinyl playback will always be "different" if we're making crypto hashes of the signal, but a good FLAC rip is great storage-wise (1 HDD vs. a 100 lbs crate of physically fragile, temp- and humidity-sensitive media)

correct. I play FLAC -> tube preamp/transistor amp -> graphic EQ -> Cat5e cable -> 3way speakers. the best and most compact and simple solution IMO, the equip is my laptop and an 8" cube on my desk.

I definitely notice differences in vinyl playback, this is why we adjust the tracking speed and sometimes the counterweight on the arm if needed. it just needs to be fixed in response to temperature+humidity like when the seasons change

i'm still waiting for the day when we have encrypted storage yeasts that selectively grow on media formulated with a chemical UUID and the data unlocked with a passphrase+biometric

>implying studios record at 44.1k

I admit that I fell for the vinyl trend but when I heard mp3 of the same songs played through my record player (it has a ipod port) I realized that I was a total idiot for paying almost $30/record when I could have the same thing (if not better) with a high bit rate mp3 or flac.

Attached: bf3.jpg (383x504, 41K)