4 ms·

My audiophile friends would vehemently agree with this statement :)

• balfirevic 6y ago
  Yes, the analogy extends more than initially apparent :)
• michaelmrose 6y ago
  Call us when they can back up this assertion in double blinded tests.
  • MertsA 6y ago
    They can rather easily discern between the two in double blind tests. The vinyl recording has a noticeable amount of noise in it. Vinyl record players can't exceed the kinds of signal to noise ratios that human hearing can detect. The more ridiculous claims are the audiophiles who pretend to distinguish between ultra high sample rate audio and 44100Hz or 48000Hz sampled audio.
    • amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      You are comparing the wrong things in the test. Play the vinyl record, recording it in cd quality, then compare that recording with the original vinyl. They won’t be able to tell the difference.
• smolder 6y ago
  People who vehemently agree that vinyl is better than digital audio are a big part of the reason "audiophile" is basically derogatory nowadays. Reasons being: - Vinyl gets dust and scratches that degrade signal. - Dragging a needle along a surface is an inconsistent and limited mechanism for signal transfer. - Vinyls are always derived from digital files these days anyway! Except for pre-digital prints, studio rate digital is as "pure" as it gets. P.S. Tube amps are not better than chip amps either, it's a complete myth. Every measurement a tube amp does well at is beatable with a cheaper chip amp design. People think we can do 10 gigabit Ethernet and 4g LTE radio bandwidth with chips, but not accurately control a speaker producing audible frequencies? Please. Audiophile products have a weird way of capturing people's hearts despite having no merit. I think it's partly because people hear their favorite music through a device and misplace their feelings for the music onto the device, and partly because they are biased towards rationalizing purchases even when they've been conned by some pseudoscience or empty marketing.