The future of Hi-Rez is groovy

09-07-14: Psag
The fact of the matter is, 196/24 digital files have higher resolution than vinyl.

Can you substantiate this? I hear lower level details with my LP rig than when I play 24/96 HD downloads.

Next step is to weed out the bogus vinyl re-issuers that are using cd's and low-res digital files (ideally no digital, ever) as source material for lps. Unfortunately some of these bozo's have bought out really great catalogs. I'm trying to stick with companies that have some integrity and care about quality.

"can you substatntiate this?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording

09-08-14: Psag
"can you substatntiate this?"

Wiki article

This article doesn't substantiate anything.

Article only mentions 96K and 192k sampling rates in passing concerning ultrasonic bandwidth, and doesn't really address analog vs. digital resolution despite the subheading. Plus his numbers on analog s/n ratio are bogus. The recording industry had analog tape recorders that could do 90-100 dB 30-40 years ago. I have a 1975 LP with 90 dB dynamic range, several direct-to-disk recordings and some Analogue Productions' 45 rpm remasters that easily hit a dynamic range well above 70 dB.

Noise floor isn't a brick wall shutoff with analog recordings. You can hear details through the noise floor. He also speaks in theoretical digital limits, which are never achieved. For example, Stereophile's original rave review of the the AudioQuest Dragonfly 24/96 DAC (Oct. 2012) revealed that it actually achieved about 17-bit resolution, and that that was pretty good for a 24-bit DAC. 16-bit DACs typically achieve 13-14 bit resolution.

The best parameter to use for this comparison is dynamic range, with numbers well above 100 for high res digital. The numbers speak for themselves. Although I have tons of vinyl, my ears tell me the same. Neither vinyl nor tape are high resolution by today's standards.