Are 320s really better quality than vinyl?

[joep]

apparently some tests found kids these days prefer the sound of shitty mp3s to lossless formats or whatever

kids these days are fucking idiots

i blame lack of quality childrens television

Probably more to do with them being used to hearing music on phones etc. Bloody kids.

yea i think i heard that recently. something like they preferred the crap quality, simply because it was what they were accustomed to. that doesn't make it better, it just means your standards went to shit.

[mrgerbik]

this is an ongoing war between me and some of the mp3 djs in my college...

...does their argument have any truth in it?

sorry but your mp3 dj friends are idiots. if they prefer mp3s for the convenience then so be it, but debating the sound quality of lossy digital compression versus a lossless source (especially vinyl) is straight retarded.

[chester perry]

Play an MP3 on your Serato or whatever then play the vinyl version of the same tune, trust me the vinyl version sounds sooooo much better.

[rynke]

Probably more to do with them being used to hearing music on phones etc.

Aaah, the life affirming sound of tinny "bassline" tracks complemented by a roaring bus engine.

hahahaha this! what the fuck is wrong with people these days...

[cut&paste]

Well, look at it this way. Most modern productions are created digitally (or at the very least, mixed down this way via protools or whatever) so pressing them onto vinyl isn't going to magically make them sound "better". If anything, vinyl colours the original sound, simply because of the high frequency rolloff. It gives the impression of sounding warmer, but you're still losing something!

A lot of MP3's are unmastered too. A good vinyl master (and by this, I mean 24bit/96khz digital mixdowns or something completely analogue) could sound better, but again, it all depends on the source. Aphex Twin's Analord 12s sound lovely. You can tell Rephlex put a lot of effort into getting them sounding right. Still, it's usually the exception. A lot of pressing plants actually press to vinyl from a digital master anyway (meaning they give this wav master to the label/artist to play out with), so again, it won't make vinyl magically superior. When you factor in shitty quality vinyl stock or poor manufacturers who get loads of dirt/dust in the grooves before they even hit retail, it's always gonna be difficult to get it right.

320kbps MP3's are worthless anyway. If you're going to use a lossy format like MP3, at least encode using LAME 3.97+ with the -V2/V0 preset. Lower filesizes and as transparent as MP3 can get to the original source. 320 is complete overkill and I really wish webstores/artists would learn about the technology before just declaring it the standard.

If you want the truest version of an artists work, then get whatever format they originally released it on. If it's vinyl only, then this will be the one. If its vinyl and mp3, then chances are they used the same master for both, so get the mp3 (or preferably the wav/flac)

Just to question the very valid points raised above, if the music is mastered digitally to the highest possible quality then pressed to vinyl and to cd wouldnt vinyl allow it to reach the capabilitly it has developed through the master where as cd would compress it, cutting off the highest of the high end and the lowest of the low end due to the limitations of the format?

I am in no means arguing with your point its just this is the opinion that i had from what i have heard. I believe that it comes to a point where who can really hear the difference in qualilty between cd and vinyl because there are so many others factors involved, for instance the condition and pressing of the vinyl compared to the replication of the audio through burning onto cd. For me, i prefer the physicality of vinyl but i have cdjs as well because of the practicality and on the majority of the soundsystems i have heard and been too i haven't personally been able to tell much of a considerable difference other than volume issues and very little sub bass if the vinyl runs to an obscenely low frequency.

[deadly_habit]

these comparing analogue medium to digital medium arguments get so old and stale the 1 millionth time you hear the same points over and over

[tezifon]

so 96khz wav is better than vinyl?

[bob crunkhouse]

Pro MP3 suggestion in that article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/ap ... ronicmusic

Nice artcile. I love Wavves.

[surface_tension]

Ask yourself this question...

If MP3 was slightly better in sound quality, would that change your mind about the feel of your vinyl, the nostalgia of purchasing and receiving the vinyl, the relationships you form with the people at your local shop, the relationships you form with your chiropractor?

Probably not.

Truthfully, the difference is negligible. No question whatsoever though that Vinyl has the widest range of sound. There can be defects in the pressing, but there can also be badly encoded mp3. Slight crackle beats a perfect mp3.

[ST100]

No, in my opinion Vinyl sounds nice and warm and Digital just sounds cold and lifeless!

[deadly_habit]

just to be an asshole...
club systems are far from an audiophile setup so the difference is going to be very negligible hell when's the last time you think those needles were changed
alot of people take an elitest attitude towards sticking with vinyl when in reality in a club it's not gonna make a difference unless the setup is pristine

[sub-samurai]

Well, look at it this way. Most modern productions are created digitally (or at the very least, mixed down this way via protools or whatever) so pressing them onto vinyl isn't going to magically make them sound "better". If anything, vinyl colours the original sound, simply because of the high frequency rolloff. It gives the impression of sounding warmer, but you're still losing something!

A lot of MP3's are unmastered too. A good vinyl master (and by this, I mean 24bit/96khz digital mixdowns or something completely analogue) could sound better, but again, it all depends on the source. Aphex Twin's Analord 12s sound lovely. You can tell Rephlex put a lot of effort into getting them sounding right. Still, it's usually the exception. A lot of pressing plants actually press to vinyl from a digital master anyway (meaning they give this wav master to the label/artist to play out with), so again, it won't make vinyl magically superior. When you factor in shitty quality vinyl stock or poor manufacturers who get loads of dirt/dust in the grooves before they even hit retail, it's always gonna be difficult to get it right.

320kbps MP3's are worthless anyway. If you're going to use a lossy format like MP3, at least encode using LAME 3.97+ with the -V2/V0 preset. Lower filesizes and as transparent as MP3 can get to the original source. 320 is complete overkill and I really wish webstores/artists would learn about the technology before just declaring it the standard.

If you want the truest version of an artists work, then get whatever format they originally released it on. If it's vinyl only, then this will be the one. If its vinyl and mp3, then chances are they used the same master for both, so get the mp3 (or preferably the wav/flac)

wow finally someone who really know the stuff he talkes about, it's so dumb so many are crying if mp3's are not 320 cbr, or people who hyping their 320er even if they are encoded with shitty codecs like the blade encoder...

b2t, i don't have a 10000€ sound system and i don't have turntables, so i can't play vinyls and in my opinion on a normal sound system u don't hear the difference between a good mp3 rip and any lossless formats...

[surface_tension]

just to be an asshole...
club systems are far from an audiophile setup so the difference is going to be very negligible hell when's the last time you think those needles were changed
alot of people take an elitest attitude towards sticking with vinyl when in reality in a club it's not gonna make a difference unless the setup is pristine

When was the last time you DJ'd with vinyl that you didn't bring your own headphones and needles?

[kapital]

So then, whats with all these 320 releases that seem to be becoming average. Is a .rar file full of straight wav preferrable?

I personally, after listening to countless music, dont find anything particularly sick about 320

[deadly_habit]

just to be an asshole...
club systems are far from an audiophile setup so the difference is going to be very negligible hell when's the last time you think those needles were changed
alot of people take an elitest attitude towards sticking with vinyl when in reality in a club it's not gonna make a difference unless the setup is pristine

When was the last time you DJ'd with vinyl that you didn't bring your own headphones and needles?

when was the last time you used audiophile carts to dj?

[dr h]

Well, look at it this way. Most modern productions are created digitally (or at the very least, mixed down this way via protools or whatever) so pressing them onto vinyl isn't going to magically make them sound "better". If anything, vinyl colours the original sound, simply because of the high frequency rolloff. It gives the impression of sounding warmer, but you're still losing something!

A lot of MP3's are unmastered too. A good vinyl master (and by this, I mean 24bit/96khz digital mixdowns or something completely analogue) could sound better, but again, it all depends on the source. Aphex Twin's Analord 12s sound lovely. You can tell Rephlex put a lot of effort into getting them sounding right. Still, it's usually the exception. A lot of pressing plants actually press to vinyl from a digital master anyway (meaning they give this wav master to the label/artist to play out with), so again, it won't make vinyl magically superior. When you factor in shitty quality vinyl stock or poor manufacturers who get loads of dirt/dust in the grooves before they even hit retail, it's always gonna be difficult to get it right.

320kbps MP3's are worthless anyway. If you're going to use a lossy format like MP3, at least encode using LAME 3.97+ with the -V2/V0 preset. Lower filesizes and as transparent as MP3 can get to the original source. 320 is complete overkill and I really wish webstores/artists would learn about the technology before just declaring it the standard.

If you want the truest version of an artists work, then get whatever format they originally released it on. If it's vinyl only, then this will be the one. If its vinyl and mp3, then chances are they used the same master for both, so get the mp3 (or preferably the wav/flac)

Just to question the very valid points raised above, if the music is mastered digitally to the highest possible quality then pressed to vinyl and to cd wouldnt vinyl allow it to reach the capabilitly it has developed through the master where as cd would compress it, cutting off the highest of the high end and the lowest of the low end due to the limitations of the format?

I am in no means arguing with your point its just this is the opinion that i had from what i have heard. I believe that it comes to a point where who can really hear the difference in qualilty between cd and vinyl because there are so many others factors involved, for instance the condition and pressing of the vinyl compared to the replication of the audio through burning onto cd. For me, i prefer the physicality of vinyl but i have cdjs as well because of the practicality and on the majority of the soundsystems i have heard and been too i haven't personally been able to tell much of a considerable difference other than volume issues and very little sub bass if the vinyl runs to an obscenely low frequency.

So many things matter during the whole creating/recording process that it can all get a bit silly in the end. Actually recording the audio from an analogue synth or a real instrument to a digital file for your DAW is in essence already "damaging" the sound. In reality, converting an analogue sound source to 44khz @ 16bit does a pretty transparent job to most ears, but the higher the sample rate and accuracy of the conversion, the more accurate it will be. Vinyl is analogue. It doesn't work the same as digital and can technically hold more information. It also doesn't need to convert the signal for your amplifier too. Digital does.

The problem is less to do with the format itself and more to do with what you "feed it". For example, a lot of sample banks/libraries are recorded at 16bit/44khz, which is the same as CD. If you made a track with those and didn't use any other analogue gear, then pressing it to vinyl isn't going to make it sound better. If you mix down your tracks to this spec before you send them to the mastering engineer to cut your records, then this too will essentially limit what you can get from the vinyl format.

Now take into consideration playback of the actual record. So many things can affect the actual output, ranging from the stylus you use, the preamp, the amplifier and even the platter itself. I won't mention cables, because thats really for the audiophile idiots who believe they can hear things most dogs would probably struggle to pick up! Ever heard more than one vinyl rip of the same track on soulseek or whatever? Chances are they'll both sound very, very different. Some tracks even sound better on inferior hardware when recorded, simply because of how the sound is coloured.

When a vinyl recording was made exclusively for that format and done with real care and attention (like the Analord records and also In Sync's tracks on his Fortune 8 label), then you can get amazing results. For 99% of records though, the "richer bass" or "warmer sound" is just placebo or colouring from the format itself.

MP3 is still lossy though and will always sounds inferior to a lossless format. wavs/flacs are a different thing entirely though!

As I said though, you can get really fucking anal about it all. In the end, a solid tune will sound good recorded on vinyl, tape or as an MP3.

[misk]

i collect vinyl, i love it. but i'm currently using ableton Live to play out. i'll never stop buying good records though. i just find that i dont buy records to "pad" my sets this way.

so i get to play fresh tunes from lesser known producers, as well as my latest stuff, AND i have the benefit of quality control over my physical music collection.

[dr h]

So then, whats with all these 320 releases that seem to be becoming average. Is a .rar file full of straight wav preferrable?

I personally, after listening to countless music, dont find anything particularly sick about 320

320kbps were demanded by DJ's who basically don't have a clue what they're talking about. They think that just because 320kbps is the highest you can get from the MP3 format that it is the one that should be used. In reality, a good V0 or V2 LAME rip will sound audibly identical in 99.9% of circumstances and be much smaller in filesize.

Bleep.com used to use VBR when they first launched, which was perfect. They were forced to change to 320kbps because other web stores offered it and the general consensus of your average DJ/downloader was that these were vastly superior in quality. A real shame.

If DJs are so concerned about getting the maximum quality of the music they play out, then they should just buy flacs or wavs. 320kbps for a lossy format like MP3 is just pointless really... it's like painting a silver ring gold.

[spencertron]

the difference was staggering at a gig we played...But we were on the old roots dub (on vinyl) on a dub sound system (music made via real instruments and recorded using valve equioment)

the other DJ was on Dubstep mp3's...which i'm sure where mastered LOUD and then compressed to 320 and then the volume turned up on his lappy...

the roots dub 'Breathed' better...and i don;t know what i mean by that

in this instance i think the difference was down to the root audio recording. something to consider.