How fast can you download stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

A CD-quality FLAC (44kHz, 16-bit) wouldn't. But the advantage of vinyl is that it offers far more sound quality than CDs do, at least if it's new, and so the vinyl rips I download are generally made at better than CD quality. This particular rip was 96 kHz and 24-bit.

---

Enjoy your placebo :p.

---

Trust me, on a decent sound setup there's plenty of difference, mostly because the dynamic range of a cd is comparatively limited to that of good analogue (or better digital). Granted, most people's setups probably aren't good enough to notice the difference.

---

The human ear is hardly capable of even telling the difference. Any perceived difference is minor and not worth the extra storage space.

Hardly capable of telling the difference on a crappy sound setup maybe. And disk space is extremely cheap these days. A couple years ago I wouldn't have bothered with above-CD-quality rips but you can grab a 1TB hard drive for like $100 now.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/602311389.png
omg
;_;

I wouldn't pay 30-50% for a negligible difference in quality even if that was only a $1 difference, it's very poor economic skill. Thus, that large an increase of filesize without an significant gain is quality is just dumb.


Analog recording vs. digital recording - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

The assertion is that the 'analog sound' is more a product of analog format inaccuracies than anything else. One early supporter of digital audio was the classical conductor Herbert von Karajan, who said that digital recording was "definitely superior to any other form of recording we know".

---

And the vinyl itself isn't better, how can a large rip of one be justified then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Does anyone else use your home network, though? He was just saying that if someone else was online at the same time on the same local network, it would skew the results negatively than if you were the only one using it. Though that would be basically irrelevant if other people are always on the same network, since that would then be accurate of the connection speed you'd usually have.

---

Dad might have been actually...

Your music argument reminds me of a HOOTERS quote, "Arguing about this is like arguing about which piece of poo is better. They both still stink."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

I wouldn't pay 30-50% for a negligible difference in quality even if that was only a $1 difference, it's very poor economic skill. Thus, that large an increase of filesize without an significant gain is quality is just dumb.

---

Negligible to you. I can clearly hear a difference.

Quote:

---

Analog recording vs. digital recording - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

---

The assertion is that the 'analog sound' is more a product of analog format inaccuracies than anything else. One early supporter of digital audio was the classical conductor Herbert von Karajan, who said that digital recording was "definitely superior to any other form of recording we know".

---

And the vinyl itself isn't better, how can a large rip of one be justified then?

---

Karajan might've been right if he was talking about DVD-audio (I definitely can't tell a difference between the audio straight off the turntable and my rips of them), but CDs are :bou::bou::bou::bou:. And new vinyl is definitely superior to CDs. If you think otherwise, either your turntable is :bou::bou::bou::bou: or you haven't heard good new vinyl. To be fair, some record companies just use the same mix for both CDs and vinyl which is just :bou::bou::bou::bou:ty, but good vinyl is sourced from significantly higher quality recordings.

Make a new thread if you like! But don't revive these crusty old zombies.