You audiophiles. : I really doubt anyone can tell the difference between a 256 kbps AAC, for example, and the source recording. MP3 is pretty bad though - I know because even I can hear it.
Just get a $20 preamp and plug it into the mic input on your PC. That way you can use whatever software you want to record it, without tying yourself down to the manufacturer’s codec.
Wow, Denny. I have some friends that argue that nothing beats vinyl. And in some cases I agree. I figured with your musical background
you would lean towards the vinyl too.
I love my vinyl. But I wonder how much of that is the nostalgia feeling? Vinyl seem to have a more “rich” sound, but it isn’t as “pure” when you consider the scratching noise.
Someday I’ll have to do a sound test. I’d be curious to hear the same song played through the same
amp and speakers or headphones only changing the source. A turntable and an iPod or mp3 player.
Aside from the slight scratching of the needle, I wonder how the richness as you say would vary from the digital recording.
It is impossible to get the sound stage positioned accurately with vinyl, let alone come close in the dynamic range, transient response, signal to noise ratio . . even frequency response. The idea is to reproduce the recorded material as close to the source material as possible. Sorry, ain’t happening with the good ol’ LPs!
Many folks say they like the “Warmth’ of Vinyl”. I maintain it’s because it masks myriad other shortcomings in the sound system better.
Not at all. To make digital sound like analog, I just roll off the high end and add some distortion. I can’t argue with people who prefer the sound of vinyl, but I’ll never be able to say it sounds “better”. There is a definition and precision to digital that vinyl just can’t touch, IMO. In the early days of digital, D/A convertors used a much lower sample rate and bit depth which could cause a harshness, but these days convertors are fabulous.