I should point out that I work with audio all day long. I'm mostly a mix engineer although occasionally do some tracking (recording) as well.
Lossless is just a term used to name it because most people will view this as no loss in quality...NOT TRUE -- it is compressed about 3x smaller size than the original using algorithms which change the audio - it is NOT the exact sound as the original but instead a 400kbps or 500kbps file, which will take less space than an AIFF substantially but is not the RAW quality of the master.
Lossless audio is exactly the same as the uncompressed PCM audio on playback. I can convert from BWAV to FLAC or ALAC backwards and forwards a million times and the audio will not be changed, at all. I know it's hard to believe 'someone on the internet', but it's possible to do your own
scientifically grounded experiment to show this with free software. Search for a 'sum and difference null test'.
If you're talking about an analog master, you'd be correct. Analog has an infinite sampling rate - essentially, an analog recording is one continuous sample. A high quality raw analog master can't be surpassed by digital technology, IMO, and that of a lot of people I know with sound engineering experience. You can come close, but there's all sorts of tradeoffs in choosing sides in digital vs analog. You get incredible clarity from digital and a lack of the old analog hiss, but you lose out on that warmth that turns out to be less subjective than people think. Digital gives better transient response, but analog gives a better soundstage. In my experience, I can "hear the room" better when I listen to a recording that is HQ analog at most if not all of the steps. Without getting into talking about the limitation of the SPARS code, AAD sounds better to me than ADD, which sounds better to me than DDD. I could never understand the point of a DAD recording, but thats another topic.
I'm sorry but this is wrong. Analog does not have an infinite sample rate at all, although the effects on the audio are somewhat different. In the analog world (on tape), the flux density refers to the maximum amount of magnetism which can be created by the tape before the saturation limit is reached (i.e. headroom), much like the bit depth of digital audio.
Analog audio still has a limited bandwidth due to the spacing between the opposite poles of the record & playback head in relationship to tape speed, hence why the Sync head of a tape machine will have more HF rolloff than the Repro head.
I hear what you're saying about the warmth of analog etc... but this can be perfectly 'captured' by a digital recording. Bear in mind that the warmth of analog comes from it's imperfections - non-linear distortions which are added in by the flaws in the technology. Digital doesn't add these flaws in, but it can capture them beautifully.
I use analog outboard in my mix setup, but largely mix in the box. Nobody has ever told me my mixes sound digital, and I'm often asked what (analog) console/mixer I use.
Nothing beats vinyl. Analog > digital every day of the week, even with all its imperfections.
Vinyl captured onto an excellent digital platform sounds identical.
I do love the experience of vinyl and usually listen to it every day.
I thought so too. But then I heard budget turntables (now $249 and up) getting much more music out of cd players for the same price. If you prefer cd/digital/whatever, that’s your choice, but your statement is just not true. And more expensive turntables are even better (just like their digital counterparts).
It's surprising how amazing a lot of cheap turntables sound. The Rega RP1 really does sound absolutely great, I'm a big fan.
But you're comparing two different recordings. To sit down and listen to the same album on vinyl and then CD means you're also listening to two different masters which affects the sound pretty drastically. I rip all my favourite albums from Vinyl to listen to on my iPhone because the masters sound so much better.
For human hears, 128K is good enough.
Studies show that after 128Kbs AAC, you can't distinguish from the original uncompressed to the compressed version. People just try to guess, and "guess" mostly wrong.
I'd beg to differ, I can hear the difference on my rather rubbish car stereo.
You are very sadly misinformed. There's a reason DAC equipment that can produce higher bit rates and depth are selling like hotcakes in the several thousand dollar range. They do sound closer to the real thing. I've done several A/B comparisons with the Berkley Alpha DAC and if you can't hear the difference then perhpas you need new batteries in that hearing aide.
By the way, Meridian's new MQA format is supposed to be the best yet.
What do you think has been causing the difference in sound you're hearing? Different masters? Poorly designed sample-rate conversion algorithms? Bad anti-aliasing filters?
Some converters do sound very different depending on the sample rate. The Lynx Auroras are a fine example. They sound excellent at 96KHz, good at 48KHz, and rather poor at 88.2 and 44.1 KHz (to my ears). These converters are found in
lots of recording studios and have been around for a long time. I don't think they're particularly good but they do the job as long as you set them up correctly (which includes using the right sample rate).
However something like a Prism ADA-8 sounds identical when passing audio at 48 or 88.2 or 96 KHz (I didn't experiment with 44.1 KHz).
The differences you have heard are
not directly due to the sample rate changing. When executed correctly, 48 KHz digital audio is entirely transparent for playback purposes.
) sells because people have more money than sense.
