"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message


I was particularly curious about the claims of one poster that 16-bit
digital truncates the signal more than vinyl (his claim being based on
interaction with sound above 20khz interacting with sound in the
audible range).

Kramer why are you expecting us to do your homework for you? Doesn't your
computer support cut and paste?

Do you mean this comment?

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=76095&cid=6791981

"Vinyl does sound better than a CD. You can't can't make sweeping
generalizations without having first the oppurtunity to listen to both
formats. Truncated 16 bit digital, even when played with the best of CD
players and/or DAC's (Mark Levinson. Classe Audio, etc) is audibly inferior
to the vinyl disc."

IMO its the standard "vinyl sounds better" OSAF, with 16 bits mentioned
gratuitously.


Has anyone ever ABXed vinyl and a 16-bit recording of
vinyl? (With so many remastering vinyl, I thought perhaps someone
had.)

People who have been visiting my PCABX web site have been doing something
IMO far more meaningful than that for years. They've been comparing 24/96
LIVE recordings to the same recordings downsampled as low as 16/22!
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm . Yup, you can clearly
hear the effects of downsampling to 16/22, but by the time you get up to
16/44 nobody hears nuttin'.

FWIW I always transcribe vinyl to 24/96 before downsampling it to 16/44 for
burning to CD. It's overkill but buys me headroom so that level setting
during transcription isn't that critical.

My understanding was that you couldn't hear the difference, on
the other hand it might be difficult to make vinyl sound exactly the
same twice.

The test is easy to do. Just transcribe vinyl at 24/96 and then downsample
it. Then compare the original 24/96 track to the downsampled version of it.