We can definitely argue this. A .wav (or a .flac) rip of a track is literally a bit for bit copy, indistinguishable. Look up lossless vs. lossy encoding.
As for vinyl, that’s more up to taste. The mastering process can be different for a vinyl pressing as you need to worry about the tracking of the needle. That may be what you like.
You’ve ripped an already degrading file from a cd, it’s already lower quality. You’re arguing that a lossy transfer somehow isn’t lossy…? That’s your argument?
You need to HAVE the original file, or it’s already not lossless. So when burning cds, there’s already an inherent degrading compared to the original master.
How are you getting this already perfect file? This seems to be the part people are ignoring. Sure if you have the master, and burned it yourself, it could be the same fidelity as a vinyl. But this situation is never happening unless you have a contact in the recording industry.
In almost every case, unless you ignore reality, a burnt CD will never the same fidelity…. Since you aren’t dealing with the original file in every case.
Not the one you are arguing with, but at which sampling rate and resolution did you rip your CD(44,1 kHz and 16 bit)? Just because it’s a WAV files doesn’t mean it’s a one to one copy.
There’s a technical loss going from an analog to digital format just because of the fact that it’s a sampling of the sound wave. Similar to why Pi has no end and you could never calculate the exact measure of a circle, it can get as close as necessary for human consumption, but will never be the pure wave form. Thing is that even an analog format like vinyl isn’t a guaranteed perfect recreation just because of micro changes created any number of things that could cause a cutting head to be just a fraction out of line with the original.
What’s absurd about the whole argument is this notion that if you take a bit perfect copy of something and duplicate it that somehow inherently something is lost. Somewhat interesting way to consider it, we as living beings do that whole code duplication thing countless times a day just by cellular division as part of living, and for the most part it works without a hitch even without the error correcting code that computer systems have. With digital replication at least it’s simple enough to say that sequence A equals sequence B, therefore they are identical.
That’s not the case. We can copy a music CD in a lossless way, losing no information.
Burning low bitrate mp3s will obviously be worse.
And the music they ripped is what quality…? When you start off without the master files, you’re already at a loss compared to the originals.
Ripping a bought cd even with”lossless” methods, won’t beat the original printing. That’s just pure fantasy.
Does it matter for on transfer? Unlikely, but how about what someone did before you downloaded the torrent as well?
The fidelity of vinyl, is more than a burnt disc. I didn’t think that was an arguable fact.
We can definitely argue this. A .wav (or a .flac) rip of a track is literally a bit for bit copy, indistinguishable. Look up lossless vs. lossy encoding.
As for vinyl, that’s more up to taste. The mastering process can be different for a vinyl pressing as you need to worry about the tracking of the needle. That may be what you like.
You’ve ripped an already degrading file from a cd, it’s already lower quality. You’re arguing that a lossy transfer somehow isn’t lossy…? That’s your argument?
You need to HAVE the original file, or it’s already not lossless. So when burning cds, there’s already an inherent degrading compared to the original master.
How are you getting this already perfect file? This seems to be the part people are ignoring. Sure if you have the master, and burned it yourself, it could be the same fidelity as a vinyl. But this situation is never happening unless you have a contact in the recording industry.
In almost every case, unless you ignore reality, a burnt CD will never the same fidelity…. Since you aren’t dealing with the original file in every case.
Ignore the burning part for a moment, you’re telling me a .wav file is lower quality than listening on the CD?
It’s a lossless file type.
Edit: if I’m wrong can you explain how?
Not the one you are arguing with, but at which sampling rate and resolution did you rip your CD(44,1 kHz and 16 bit)? Just because it’s a WAV files doesn’t mean it’s a one to one copy.
Okay fair point, but if you rip at 44.1 kHz and 16 bit audio is it not the same file?
Edit: and either way, wouldn’t it still be lossless.
There’s a technical loss going from an analog to digital format just because of the fact that it’s a sampling of the sound wave. Similar to why Pi has no end and you could never calculate the exact measure of a circle, it can get as close as necessary for human consumption, but will never be the pure wave form. Thing is that even an analog format like vinyl isn’t a guaranteed perfect recreation just because of micro changes created any number of things that could cause a cutting head to be just a fraction out of line with the original.
What’s absurd about the whole argument is this notion that if you take a bit perfect copy of something and duplicate it that somehow inherently something is lost. Somewhat interesting way to consider it, we as living beings do that whole code duplication thing countless times a day just by cellular division as part of living, and for the most part it works without a hitch even without the error correcting code that computer systems have. With digital replication at least it’s simple enough to say that sequence A equals sequence B, therefore they are identical.