Audio codecs: 16/24 bits FLAC. Vinyl. etc ..

[blu_people]

Hello guys. I am quite new around here, and I hope I have posted in the right location :-)

I know that 16/24 bits FLACs have a much higher quality than the very common MP3/MP4s. I like the good quality, and whenever I want something, especially audio or video, I prefer the hightest quality available.
The last few days however, I have been confused by a word "Vinyl". What is it? Does it differ from the normal ripping?

In this thread, I think I will be asking more questions. Please be patient with me, as I am a noob in this domain. I would like to receive information from people who know what they are talking about, and not just "posts hunters". Thank you! :-)

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

That's just copies from vinyl records.

There may be the occasional click but actual skips are rare.

They can be good if the person has skill and good equipment
so use the usual measures for quality of the digital result.

[blu_people]

I have compared one track encoded differently:


• 24 bits, 96.0 kHz FLAC Vinyl
• 16 bits, 44.1 kHz FLAC no-vinyl

No doubt that the 24bits had a better quality. I mean, I could hear more bass frequencies. And I guess that is normal, since 16bits < 24bits and 44.1kHz < 96 kHz, however the master volume was lower. The fact that it is vinyl can affect the master volume?

Or in other words: Does vinyl affects the master volume, or it's just a ripping problem?

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

It's usually up to whoever does it, and what his equipment can do.
Vinyl rips can be botched, in which case high rates won't save them.

BUT…

Sometimes a perceived lower volume is actually a higher dynamic range
in which quiet bits are quieter but louder bits are supposed to be louder.
I find such tracks occasionally, and turn up the volume for more clarity.

There's a persistent problem with compressed dynamic range in commercially
produced music. ‌ It seems loud but that's because they have forced minimum
and maximum volumes. ‌ More often than not you lose detail in that process.

Studios sometimes did that to music they expect to broadcast and for a while
a lot of CDs were distorted in that way because it was in style. ‌ It's hard to fix
but is rarely, if ever done to vinyl; ‌ so you sometimes get better tracks on vinyl.

[Q91]

If we ignore the technical aspects, the "non-vinyl" version should be the best as it's closer to the original than the vinyl.

The largest reason people (seem) to prefer Vinyl is because it produces a kind of "warm sound" that analogue music formats seem to achieve.

edit: I wouldn't mind owning music on vinyl, but I prefer to have a digital copy for listening.

[blu_people]

The largest reason people (seem) to prefer Vinyl is because it produces a kind of "warm sound" that analogue music formats seem to achieve.

Sometimes a perceived lower volume is actually a higher dynamic range
in which quiet bits are quieter but louder bits are supposed to be louder.
I find such tracks occasionally, and turn up the volume for more clarity.

I see.. I think this resolves my confusion, as my 24bits track does have a "warmer sound". Thank you :-)
I also prefer the analogue sound, as I only play it on my PC or on my smartphone.

I have another question now: I have loaded my 16bits track on a spectrum analyzer (http://spek.cc), and it's cuts were below 22kHz. This means it's a fake FLAC? FLAC supposed to be lossless, so I guess there shouldn't be any cuts.

Or in other words: Can a real FLAC have cuts? Or it can also depends on the parameters used for ripping the track?

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

Don't forget the 44.1 kHz. ‌ At 44.1 kHz, it will drop out high frequencies at and above 22.05 kHz,
close to the upper range of human acuity. ‌ This is one reason why theaters, DVDs and Blu-Rays
tend to use a 48 kHz encoding rate; because human listeners can hear frequencies up to 24 kHz.

[blu_people]

So it also depends on how the DVD was encoded.

If FLAC drops the higher frequencies, this explains my confusion, as my track has random cuts somewhere between 20kHz and 22kHz, however some frequencies seems to be boosted up to 22kHz. Those were passed out by the ripper as 'hearable' / 'necessary'?

[Aaron.Walkhouse]

It's a soft ceiling for the maximum encoded frequencies. ‌‌ As you get closer to ‌‌½ the sample rate, the
amplitude will drop off to zero. ‌‌‌ It should look a little rough, as the upper band is not always saturated. ‌‌‌‌

Of course, your original sources may have already lost that information by the time you got it, but if you
examine the DVD you'll probably find 48 kHz audio tracks. ‌‌ If they stuck with 48 kHz all the way through
production you'll probably find more data up there and the ceiling won't look so consistently cut off at 20.

Try again at 48 kHz and maybe you'll find more up there. You'll know you have it all when that ceiling has
more detail and variability without that obvious soft but straight edge. ‌ It may seem like you can hear more
of the space the music's being played in and subtle details start to come through you didn't hear before.

[Moe]

Bit depth has nothing to do with frequency response. It is quite impossible for a 24 bit recording to sound warmer than a 16 bit recording based solely on that.

Rather, bit depth relates directly to dynamic range, and more importantly, noise floor. That doesn't mean volume or loudness, however. A 24 bit file isn't louder than a 16 bit file. It just means there are more steps between absolute silence and full scale loudness.

In short, any differences you perceive between 16/44.1 and 24/48 are very likely to be the source or creation of the file itself rather than the bit depth or the sampling rate.