Where can I find 24bit/96Khz music?

[jdownesbaird]

Vinyls are useless?
I'm done here

He means they are useless as a technically superior medium for achieving the highest fidelity. He explained the advantage of vinyl: the analog "warmth". You seemed to believe that vinyl reproduced the most accurate ("superior") sound, and that's not the case. It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.

[DJSigma]

but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.

Even that isn't something that can be said in absolute terms.

[makar1]

The absolute most accurate version of the recording would be the mastered track before it's downsampled and dithered. Besides that, digital sources like CD and MP3 are the closest you'll get.

[Shishdisma]

That's not why it was chosen at all.

Uhh, actually, yes it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz

16 bit was the choice because 8 bit wasn't technically sustainable without compression, and 24 bit gives literally enough dynamic range to kill you.

There are no absolutes when talking about lossy compression.

Assuming the file isn't excessively reencoded, yes, there are. A proper compression with a modern method only shaves off the inaudibles out of an uncompressed recording.

Obviously, this is technically untrue by the very nature of it being called "lossy" compression. As for whether it's true when it comes to the listener and perceived quality differences, you simply cannot generalise on that.

This is why the word "lossy" makes people annoyed. "Lossy" refers to the process of discarding data that isn't needed in the file to reduce the pre-compression size. By the very definition of the format nothing important is kicked out. The only time anything of value is lost in lossy compression is when an already compressed file is repeatedly expanded re-compressed an absurd amount of times, with each time the algorithm shaves off the "edges" so to speak, until the file degrades. This doesn't happen unless you're purposely trying to degrade a signal.

[deevey]

It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.

That depends on the audio source, with modern synths / soft synths / drum machines it won't be a the cleanest recording as the source material is already 100% digital, however with live instruments/vocals, assuming analogue is used throughout the entire signal chain it should by its very nature be a more true representation of reality than recording digitally as there is no A/D or D/A conversion involved. But then you are into an argument on old technology being set up 100% correctly to allow this perfect recording to happen in the first place

Assuming the file isn't excessively reencoded, yes, there are. A proper compression with a modern method only shaves off the inaudibles out of an uncompressed recording.

And if a new track is correctly mastered for digital MP3/AAC distribution those inaudibles will not be present in the uncompressed Wav file either - just more empty zeros taking up space and a 1:1 match to the lossless recording.

[Daniboy]

He means they are useless as a technically superior medium for achieving the highest fidelity. He explained the advantage of vinyl: the analog "warmth". You seemed to believe that vinyl reproduced the most accurate ("superior") sound, and that's not the case. It's superiority is subjective based on whether or not you like the analog sound. If you do, they are awesome, but it isn't the "purest", "cleanest", most accurate version of the recording.

Clean is not a synonm to quality.

Vinyl offers you more frequencies, and, for me thats quality.

[TCMuc]

Vinyl offers you more frequencies, and, for me thats quality.

What?

Which frequencies does vinyl offer that CD doesn't?

[Daniboy]

What?

Which frequencies does vinyl offer that CD doesn't?

10hz-20hz

[makar1]

10hz-20hz

Where did you read that CD is incapable of reproducing 10-20Hz frequencies? There is no technical limitation that prevents you from putting sub-20Hz sound on CD, but the general practice is to cut off that range.

[Daniboy]

Where did you read that CD is incapable of reproducing 10-20Hz frequencies? There is no technical limitation that prevents you from putting sub-20Hz sound on CD, but the general practice is to cut off that range.

I didn't said its uncapable. I said vinyl offers more. If people who produce dont add 10hz-20hz frequencies to CD quality audio then they are only on vinyls. Its not my fault.
I don't create my own CDs and Vinyls, I play the digital tracks i buy and the vinyls I bought, and they have differences, which in my opition tend to make the vinyl a better reproducer.