Out of Pod Experience

Well, I'm getting a copy of it on CD in what I assume is a 144Kbps format. Is there any chance of maybe getting an imprint in Vinyl done from the original recording? I'm guessing there's more than a few audiophiles willing to check if Eve has sound or not?

Simple question, Dev answers get double chocolate chip cookies

I assumed they would have recorded it in either analogue or a very high fidelity digital for editing from the original recording.

I'm kinda new to this side of audio to be honest

Recording in all analog is still done, just not very often. Once a recording has been in digital form however, copies taken from that lose all the "good stuff" that having an analog copy preserves.

Drums are often recorded via analog methods, and then the tracks are bounced to digital copies for mixing/editing/mastering with the other instrument and/or vocal tracks. Some guitar purists will only record playing through tube amps and tube microphones (for analog warmth) but the recording of that is still done digitally.




If you can really tell the difference (using good quality playback gear and recordings) you might just be an audiophile. Most people can't, and after we all get to be about 30, we have lost a lot of our high frequency hearing above 14Khz anyway.

As well as that, from a technical standpoint, a digital recording is essentially a framed recording. There's only a certain amount of data you can store and only x times per second. So what you lose is what is in the gaps. Pretty much the same as the difference between a photograph on a film, and a photograph from a digital camera. But yeah, as Krixtal says above, it's mainly about the warm and natural feeling of the sound over the straight technical ability of digital.

RPMs on turn tables (cheap ones especially) were rarely correct.

Do miss cheap giggles playing queen tunes at 72rpm when made for 33.333333

Welp, you weren't there then and don't know.

After about 1978 it was standard for turntables to have speed adjustment wheels so yes they were 100% accurate.....as accurate as you are wrong.

Also, make that 78 RPM and I may believe you are over 30 yo.

I bet most of the so called audiophile people only believe in vinyl, because they have bought their first stereo with their very first hard-earned money and during a time where this was basically the only electric device for recreational purposes available to consumers, which allowed one to listen to whatever one wanted and thereby felt a new, unknown independence. You would not create sentimental feelings for your first washing machine or your first car. Having a car back then was still a luxury. Radios meant listening to someone else's music and the TV was owned by the entire family if not the entire house. Of course will vinyl stay forever in the memories of these people and have a special place in their hearts. This is why I think vinyl sounds the way it sounds. I am not saying crackling sounds and random, unharmonious shifts in frequencies sounds bad. It just needs to have the right mind for it.

I still have my Half Speed Master and Japanese pressings of many classical rock albums.

I can hear that David Gilmore had a dry mouth in one of the songs off Wish You Were Here. I defy anyone to tell me that digital can get anywhere near that kind of subtlety in its sound quality. I pity those of you that have grown up without vinyl.

Mr Epeen

I got my mums old Record player working again (new needle, go me) and loved the quality of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds coming off. Looking into getting one for myself and, realising that CCP were releasing the album I was hoping to make it a part of my soon to be (hopefully) budding collection.

22 for the record, sounds better than Youtube and MP3's.

Technically, 95%+ of people won't be able to A/B test 256kbps MP3 vs FLAC. Only extremely trained ears with hi-fi equipment will have any success A/B testing 320kbps vs FLAC.

44.1/48khz vs 96/192khz recording is another difference virtually nobody can A/B test.

What is important is how the music was mastered. If it was mastered for vinyl and you have a digital version, you might not be getting the experience that the producer intended. This is no different than film, where say, a Kubrick film with particular written instructions for the projectionist simply won't have the same experience if remastered into higher quality digital.

But these days, assuming you're not listening to music recorded by a retro studio with 1970s era equipment, you're getting a perfect audio experience listening to CD quality digital.

That's not to say that some people don't like a bit of coloration to their sound. I'm one of them. I have neutral reference headphones (DT880), and I like the warmth and body that a tube amp adds. I certainly won't say it's improving that quality though, the analog component is just degrading the signal in a way that I happen to enjoy.

The only "digital sucks" argument that really has any credence is basic bitrates. On high end equipment, anything less than 320kbps will have a noticeable reduction in bass quality (and high end, if you have good ears). It's a shame that 128kbps is the standard, because it has obvious shortcomings even on midrange equipment.

---

As for the OP, the CD comes with 144kbps tracks? CD standard is LPCM 44100 Hz 16 bits == 1411 kbps (generic .wav file you get from a CD rip). It would be a shame if the original recording was done low bitrate :/