Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> it might sound better cut to vinyl

There's nothing extra in a 192kHz signal that would help with the vinyl mastering process. You could make a technical argument for the benefits of a 24-bit source, but in practice even those benefits would be utterly swamped by the SNR of vinyl.

You're completely misunderstanding. No, there's nothing extra in the 192kHz signal that would help, but that's not the point. Just remastering it for vinyl, which has certain limitations, might make it sound better than the digital format. As I said, you cannot just cut CD audio to vinyl; the medium won't allow it. You'll probably have the needle bouncing out of the track. So remastering for vinyl might actually make it sound better than the abomination that is the sound of modern CD-audio (because of the Loudness War and extreme compression), not because the fidelity is better (in fact, quite the opposite), but because vinyl's limitations will prevent them from making the audio sound as horrible as it does on CD.

I responded to what you wrote. You’re making a different argument here. If you want to complain about how popular music is being mastered, do that. Don’t conflate that with unrelated arguments over distribution formats.

And you might even have a point, as long as you acknowledge that “remastering for vinyl” doesn’t actually necessitate distributing on vinyl, and what you describe as “the sound of modern CD audio” is entirely the fault of human decisions and not the CD format itself.

Also, you’d need to acknowledge that your description of what “sounds better” is a subjective assessment. It is fair to say that vinyl sounds better to you if what you like is that RIAA processed, variable noise floor sound.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact