To think that analog mediums are superior to digital requires a fundamental misunderstanding of signals and the human range of hearing that you can only get from placebo enthusiasts “audiophiles”
(I am by no means shitting on actual audiophiles btw. I consider myself an amateur audiophile.)
Edit: should also clarify I’m not shitting on people who enjoy records. I’m shitting on people who strictly think analog is better than digital.
It used to be in the 80’s when D/A converters were shit compared to the great 70’s and 80’s vinyl and tape players. Or in the 90’s and 00’s when most of the CDs were mastered loud and ugly. Nowadays it is what you say: digital really sounds better…
A pure analog recording can be superior to digital recordings. But those are so rare these days, we don’t have a good comparison.
There’s things like “bass bleed” and cross talk that made analog so interesting to listen to.
As long as the original recording is 48kHz or higher, digital recordings are awesome. We might not be able to hear beyond the 20Hz - 20kHz, you can most certainly feel it. Especially in the lower end.
As long as the original recording is 48kHz or higher, digital recordings are awesome. We might not be able to hear beyond the 20Hz - 20kHz, you can most certainly feel it.
Yes. Yes I have. It’s why I state 48kHz or higher due to the halving effect. 44.1kHz will only get you to 22kHz and 18Hz. Not a whole different than what ours can hear. 44.1kHz was the standard for CDs due to size limitations but we’re well beyond that now.
If you grew up hearing the crackle, then to have it removed is pretty jarring. Some stuff feels to me like it benefits from it because it’s kinda old-timey stuff anyway, and it sets the mood better - like the Beatles or Frank Sinatra. But it’s not an audiophile thing in that case, just vibes.
To think that analog mediums are superior to digital requires a fundamental misunderstanding of signals and the human range of hearing that you can only get from
placebo enthusiasts“audiophiles”(I am by no means shitting on actual audiophiles btw. I consider myself an amateur audiophile.)
Edit: should also clarify I’m not shitting on people who enjoy records. I’m shitting on people who strictly think analog is better than digital.
It used to be in the 80’s when D/A converters were shit compared to the great 70’s and 80’s vinyl and tape players. Or in the 90’s and 00’s when most of the CDs were mastered loud and ugly. Nowadays it is what you say: digital really sounds better…
How come they’re in quotes but you’re better than them
Removed by mod
A pure analog recording can be superior to digital recordings. But those are so rare these days, we don’t have a good comparison.
There’s things like “bass bleed” and cross talk that made analog so interesting to listen to.
As long as the original recording is 48kHz or higher, digital recordings are awesome. We might not be able to hear beyond the 20Hz - 20kHz, you can most certainly feel it. Especially in the lower end.
Someone hasn’t heard of the Nyquist theorem :)
Yes. Yes I have. It’s why I state 48kHz or higher due to the halving effect. 44.1kHz will only get you to 22kHz and 18Hz. Not a whole different than what ours can hear. 44.1kHz was the standard for CDs due to size limitations but we’re well beyond that now.
If you grew up hearing the crackle, then to have it removed is pretty jarring. Some stuff feels to me like it benefits from it because it’s kinda old-timey stuff anyway, and it sets the mood better - like the Beatles or Frank Sinatra. But it’s not an audiophile thing in that case, just vibes.
Yeah, it’s one thing to like that slight amount of noise, and another to say it’s higher quality.
I agree wholeheartedly
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Define “superior”.