I agree about 16 bits of dynamic range being wasted. Who has amps and speakers that can realistically produce that? With the loudness wars, 4 bits is probably sufficient.
Actually, there have been audible differences detected between 16-bit systems and 14-bit systems. See
here.
However, there has never been a test in which listeners detected a difference 16/44.1 and any higher-resolution format*, or DSD.
*higher resolution here means higher bitrate, higher sampling frequency, OR both.
So it appears 16/44.1 was well-chosen for CD.
Incidentically, vinyl's resolution is roughly 12-bit, under ideal conditions. Less in the real world.
It does not matter if technically digital can go to DC. No material is produced that low. Vinyl more than covers any frequency needed for music.
Perhaps you just need a higher-resolution system, so you can reproduce program material going lower.
As to highs sorry you are wrong. Vinyl has full ability to go right past 20Khz.
In theory yes. In actual practice, it is limited to about an octave below that.
As to each play wearing it down, another fib.
Please take a moment to contemplate the physical reality of dragging a hard and sharp rock through a soft pit, and come back to us.
I also know all about groove spacing, a good record cutter tech took care to give wide fidelity and playing time. I never argued vinyl has the playing time of a CD either. Most LP's are between 18-24 min per side if one wanted to keep proper fidelity. Playing time is a selling tool for CD's
Actually, it's a selling tool for music.
Consider that the first movement of Mahler 3 is about half an hour long. (There are other examples of long pieces of music, but that's the most obvious one.)
You may think it's fine to bisect that piece. I find it unacceptable.
As to care of products, most users who would treat records poorly would be just as bad on CD's. Scuffed up, finger printed up CD's sound worse by skipping and muting to name two reasons over LP's.
Please grow up. Fingerprints don't hurt CDs. And they
certainly don't hurt Mac Minis or other modern devices for storing one's library of 2-channel music.
Lets see what ever digital format you choose last that long let alone a magnetic H/D storage where at most they will likely fail within 3-4-5-6 years.
That is why a prudent person backs up her/his digital media in several places. Obviously, one cannot do that with physical analog media - except by digitizing it, of course! - because every copy is degraded by the copying process.
My point on dynamic range was clear.
Clearly wrong, yes.
Note that, as shown above, differences were detectable between a 14-bit DAC and a 16-bit DAC.
You can argue measured theory but much of it is again irrelevant.
What makes you think I'm arguing theory? For the record (hehe), my vinyl collection is more than 4x the size of your paltry CD collection....
One other thing, analogue has infinite resolution, it does no sampling. No digital format has infinite resolution.
Now we're descending into Robert Harley-esque realms of utter incompetence...
As to a centre channel that would then not have been stereo.
Incorrect. "Stereo" does not mean "two-channel." It means "solid."
Anyone well-versed in audio history knows that stereo was originally designed as a three-channel format.
You may be aware of the Klipsch Heresy speaker. It was designed by PWK as a center-channel to fit between two Klipschorns, in anticipation of the new stereo format. In 1957.
However, because of the consumer music delivery system of the time (vinyl LP) was too primitive to support three discrete channels, we got stuck with an inferior 2-channel hack instead of the intended format.
Again most listeners who are more serious and/or better trained to hear audio will pick out hi-rez digital from 16bit or lossy without much problem.
Please stop mixing things that are utterly unrelated. It makes you sound ignorant.
Nobody has ever demonstrated an ability to distinguish 16/44.1 and higher resolution.
Lossy compression is a different animal. There are plenty of studies in which listeners have determined differences due to different lossy compression schemes. (And others that have shown a given scheme to be more-or-less transparent. But given that bandwidth is ever-increasing, I suspect lossy compression is a dead end, except for perhaps in mobile telephones.)
LOL, my speakers are quite competent and the set up I have done is likely as good if not higher effort
Higher effort, perhaps, but judging by the tenor of your post I suspect much of it was wasted...
Conspicuously absent from your description, for instance, is any mention of a calibrated microphone and a modern measurement program such as FuzzMeasure Pro or Omnimic.
I used laser pointers and a tape measure to adjust them, DO YOU!?!
Actually, yes.
I also have incorporated judicious use of room treatments
Thank you for proving my point. If you need to live in a padded cell, that tells me you have chosen incompetently-designed loudspeakers. That is to say, loudspeakers with a serious directivity mismatch in the midrange. That is to say, typical "high end" speakers.
I prefer to use speakers that are appropriate for the room, and not turn my living room into some audiophool padded cell hell.
And yes, every person I have ever given an audition of digital vs LP have preferred the sound of the LP. And NO I did not pre-coach them either.
That may be true. It's also not inconsistent with anything I've written.
The reason is that the
ritual of vinyl impresses people, compared to just pressing play.
Most people (probably all) enjoy rituals. It's something we as humans are hard-wired for, I think.
I know I enjoy the ritual of inviting some friends over, making some drinks, firing up the hookah with a new flavor from Starbuzz, and fussing with a record or two, the cleaning, the gloves, etc.. But that doesn't make vinyl equivalent, let along higher in fidelity, than digital. That's outside the scope of the ritual.
Look, again I'm not trying to dis digital or talk you/anyone out of it. If it makes you happy than so be it. I like my CD's too. I have about 300 CD's going right back to my first bought in 1984.
Just 300? That's a pretty puny collection. I was there already by the time I was 14...
FWIW, according to iTunes, I have 3012 albums in Apple Lossless format, though some of those are higher than 16/44.1, e.g. the Beatles 24-bit USB drive, which I converted from FLAC or whatever they were in to Apple Lossless so that I could store them on my media server. And about 1200 vinyl LPs.
