[sjwright]

> Earlier today, I actually bought vinyl because I couldn't find a lossless digital version of this track anywhere

Two things strike me as astonishing. The first is that anyone remains unconvinced that vinyl has any redeeming technical aspects whatsoever, other than the touchy-feely emotional stuff, and self-deception.

The second is that the music you referenced is so unashamedly digital, that the notion of purchasing it on a vinyl record is like buying a copy of Angry Birds printed on tree bark.

A 256 kbps AAC file (as sold by iTunes) is so very nearly transparent, only a small fraction of 1 percent of people would be able to identify the vanishingly minute differences. The difference is so small, it would be comprehensively outweighed by meaningful factors such as your choice of speakers, the shape of your room, and the presence of any ambient noise.

Whereas vinyl has crackle (unless you're playing a pristine copy in a dust-free environment), clicks, pops, rumble, wow distortion, and intentionally limited dynamic and tonal range. Fidelity progressively reduces as you move to the inner grooves, and high frequencies are literally scratched away as the stylus scrapes past -- every time you play a vinyl, it will sound poorer than the last. You can mitigate some of these problems, but generally at great effort or expense.

Of course, to make that music useful, you'll need to rip it back into your computer. You'd have to be mentally ill to believe that a [Lossless > AAC-256 > Lossless] conversion is more detrimental than [Lossless > equalisation > analogue mastering > lathe cutting > vinyl stamping > stylus scraping > pre-amplification > ADC > Lossless].

[cies]

one thing lossy formats do really bad at: speeding it up and down. (because they remove 'unhearable' sound artifacts -- that become hearable at different speeds)

big slowdowns also sound 'ugly' with lossless formats (a 44kHz sampled track at half the speed is only 22kHz).

but who plays a track at halfspeed..? :)

i dont want to make a case for vinyl -- sjwright has given a nice overview of arguments against it, that i can all underline.

but there is one thing that a physical soundwave, pressed in a disc of vinyl, never needs to do: anti-aliassing. but since the tracks usually get delivered digitally to the vinyl-press; it is the vinyl press that does the anti-aliassing for you :)

[sjwright]

There's nothing the vinyl pressing process can do to a digital sound source that can't be modelled in a purely digital environment.

[polshaw]

> Digital music is technically superior to bumps on a plastic disc

What you completely failed to realise, is that technical superiority is not the only factor as to how music sounds.

CD mastering these days is almost invariably awful. The real advantage to vinyl (which comes partly because it is a niche format, and partly because of how it is made) is that it has better mastering. This is not subtle on anything better than PC speakers.

[sjwright]

> What you completely failed to realise

...is that you're going to invent quotes? Nice.

> [Vinyl] has better mastering

A common myth -- google it. For music produced in the past decade, it's exceptionally rare for a vinyl mastering to be superior to the 16/44.1 digital release. Of course there's always exceptions to prove the rule, but the rule is definitely not as you assert.

> partly because of how it is made

Because of how it is made, a vinyl release is often the same master as the CD but with an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This unquestionably degrades the quality of the vinyl master, and is done to stop the cutting head coils from literally burning up.

[polshaw]

I paraphrased. It was done for brevity. Did i misrepresent the intent of your post?

I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself. Like i say, not subtle. I haven't got vinyls/rips of everything, but i can assure you it is not uncommon. Must i provide examples?

Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music (IE. compressing the waveform 'up' does not make for a louder output, as what happens with the digital loudness wars-- thus is 'pointless'), because there is no 'reference point' (that is, you can't have a waveform offset, because the needle is already moving wherever to meet the waveform), you can only increase/decrease the dynamic range. Because of a greater difference in amplitude, it is easier to cut a record with a larger dynamic range.

[sjwright]

> I do not need to google it, becauase i can hear it myself

Try doing an ABX comparison of whatever it is you think you can hear, and then talk to me.

> Must i provide examples?

Prove it to yourself first with a representative sampling of vinyl records and a blind waveform analysis.

> Destructive 'loudening' of music is not useful with vinyl music

That's true in theory. It's also true that destructive loudening of music is not useful with digital music, but they still do it. In reality, most vinyl masters are the same mastering plus an additional pass through a multi-band limiter. This is not a guess, by the way.

[polshaw]

You are stubborn as a mule.

I have done ABX. Like i said 1000 times, it wasn't subtle. I don't need 'a representative sample', i wasn't arguing 'all' or 'most', but 'not uncommon'.

[sjwright]

> Like i said 1000 times, it wasn't subtle.

Yes, the distortions and noise added by even the most pristine vinyl reproduction aren't subtle.