# 24/96 Vinyl Rips



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

What is the attraction of 24/96 vinyl rips? Are they primarily archival? Are they as good to listen to as vinyl itself? Better?


----------



## weverb (Aug 15, 2008)

I can see someone going through the hassle to preserve their collectible vinyl from wear and tear. Or someone might want it instead of forking out the ridiculous high dollars a lot of the collectible vinyl goes for these days.

As for quality, it is too system dependent. There is the quality of the recording system versus the playback system. 

I am just guessing. :dontknow:


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

I have no idea. I understand the attraction of 16/44.1 vinyl dubs, however. They are much less hassle to play, don't degrade from wear and sound exactly the same. They sound exactly the same as 24/96 dubs as well.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I prefer the sound of my 24/96 ripped tracks. The rips sound much better/cleaner/clearer because the audio has been cleaned of the crackles and pops. I use 24/96 because it should be better than 16/44,1.
Also there is the fact that the vinyl degrades with every use.


----------



## Almadacr (May 5, 2011)

I have several 24/96 rips from vinyl , they sound good but i still prefer to go back to the vinyl version but this might be the combination of the TT and receiver and speakers . also i find them sometimes to be better than the CD counterpart .


----------



## jason1234567 (Apr 11, 2014)

I spin records for a hobby and i started to make digital lossless rips. I used technics 1200 M3D's with Shure n44-7 needles, DDM4000 mixer and Traktor A6 sound card. It took me about 100 tries but once i got all the levels adjusted, i was getting rips that when played side by side with the vinyl it was hard to tell the difference.. they sounded good if not better then the vinyl.

The trick for me was in the mixer, it had a rec out /output that i was able to adjust the gain of the output upto 18db.. if i didn't have that to boost the signal to where i needed idk if i would of got the results i did.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

AudiocRaver said:


> What is the attraction of 24/96 vinyl rips? Are they primarily archival? Are they as good to listen to as vinyl itself? Better?


It's partially psychological, 24 bits at 96K just Has to be better, right? 

If you were planning to post-process, like EQ or de-click, there's a point to having digitized the ultrasonic energy in the clicks, makes them way easier to detect and remove. But there's otherwise no reliably discernable sonic advantage over 16/44. 

If the system is working right, all rips should sound exactly like the vinyl. If it somehow sounds "better", something's wrong, unless there was some active post processing going on.


----------



## jason1234567 (Apr 11, 2014)

By no means do i know anything about recording to get the best rip i could get, but with the equipment i had available, i was able with lots of trial and error to get good rips. Now when i played them side by side with the vinyl, i could tell that the rip was , idk if it makes senese but the rip sounded digitalized. The difference was so slight that if i didn't know which one was playing i wouldn't be able to tell which was the vinyl or rip playing. Maybe because i was using a Dj mixer and traktor to record i wasn't getting a true copy, idk, but i was happy with the results.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Vinyl Rips are only going to turn out as good as the turntable your using lets it be. If your TT is not high end with a good needle I cant see how ripping an LP at 24/98 would be of any benefit.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

tonyvdb said:


> Vinyl Rips are only going to turn out as good as the turntable your using lets it be. If your TT is not high end with a good needle I cant see how ripping an LP at 24/98 would be of any benefit.


Include the phono preamp in that....


I gave up using needles and started using stylii years ago...:heehee:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

gazoink said:


> I gave up using needles and started using stylii years ago...:heehee:


Or the "fang" LOL


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

For orchestral music there is often content above 20 kHz, which you cannot hear, that interacts when played back and is then audible.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

robbo266317 said:


> For orchestral music there is often content above 20 kHz, which you cannot hear, that interacts when played back and is then audible.


Ah yes, the mythical "over 20KHz" thing. Ever aligned an analog tape recorder? No? Lemme tell ya about "over 20KHz". Pretty funny. Rolls off pretty fast up there, for all sorts of reasons. 

So yes, all them direct-to-disc orchestral recordings got it at least. Both of them.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Should add...very few mics have any usable ultrasonic response either. 

Looking for ultrasonic info on vinyl with an FFT spectrum analyzer won't tell you much either, because a lot of what you'll see is distortion products inherent to the vinyl process and playback mechanism, not real ultrasonic information that existed in the original acoustic environment.


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

Are you talking about cassettes? Reel to reel tapes have a better ability to capture high frequencies.

See here: http://www.tpub.com/neets/book23/101.htm

Extract:
Frequency response

The frequency-response specification of a magnetic tape recorder is sometimes called the bandwidth. A typical frequency-response specification might read within + / - 3 db from 100 Hz to 100 kHz at 60 ips. This means the magnetic tape recorder is capable of recording all frequencies between 100 Hz and 100 kHz at 60 inches per second (ips) without varying the output amplitude more than 3 dB. 

And most microphones can record signals which are inaudible to us.
One *specialty* example is: http://www.wildlife-sound.org/equipment/technote/micdesigns/ultrasonic.html


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

robbo266317 said:


> Are you talking about cassettes? Reel to reel tapes have a better ability to capture high frequencies.
> 
> See here: http://www.tpub.com/neets/book23/101.htm
> 
> ...


Um...technically correct, but irrelevant as applied to music. No commercially released music was ever recorded at 60ips. None. It's not even an available speed on any studio recorder ever made, it would have to have been a custom machine. And, with -3dB down at 100Hz, that would mean no bass, folks. The example is ludicrous. 

Wow, that page is totally off the chain. There's literally misinformation in every paragraph. The bit on signal to noise---nothing in the way of reality in there. No mention of a reference fluxivity, weighting, all the important things are missing. I cannot imagine what goal the author might have had, but conveying real-world analog magnetic recording properties isn't one of them. Even his terminology is used improperly. My best guess is, it was written over 50 years ago by someone well-meaning, but misguided. The opening sentence: "Have you ever gone to a store to buy a magnetic tape recorder?" wouldn't have applied to anyone in the last 35 years.



robbo266317 said:


> And most microphones can record signals which are inaudible to us.
> One *specialty* example is: http://www.wildlife-sound.org/equipment/technote/micdesigns/ultrasonic.html


Well, at least you're consistent. That page, again, while technically correct, has nothing whatsoever to do with microphones used for music recording. He's talking about specifically trying to record ultrasonic information from wildlife (you read it, right?). Yes, there are mics that have response up there. I own one that is flat to 30KHz, it's used for measurement, not recording music. 

And no, I'm not talking cassettes, I'm talking from decades of hands-on with studio tape equipment used for critical music recording. No, they don't do much in the ultrasonics. I don't call -3dB at 23KHz capable of ultrasonics, and that would be a relatively difficult spec especially if you'd like nice low distortion too. Pretty much impossible because as you run bias up to lower distortion, you start erasing the high end. There's a point where the compromise is chosen, distortion is about as low as it goes, but you can still EQ back the high end. 

Some of the best high frequency response machines ever made were by Crown, the 800 series at 15ips would do well into the 20KHz range. But they weren't common machines, and very little commercial recordings were made with them because there were other problems. The high frequency trade-off is simple. You want high frequency response past 20KHz, you have to run the speed up (30ips was the max for studio machines, and very few of those). The problem was, you'd loose the bass response when you did that. Turns out, people can actually hear bass, but few can hear anything much above 15KHz, even fewer above 20KHz, so the "magic" speed was 15ips, where you still had some low end and could get flat to 20KHz and slightly above. But, that's not recording ultrasonics. And nearly all the material recorded spanned the first 10 octaves.


----------



## jason1234567 (Apr 11, 2014)

I was using Technics 1200's M3D Model With Shure White label Needles and also i made a few with Shure N44-7 and N44-G needles. a Yamaha RX-V 750 receiver and a DDM4000 Dj Mixer


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

gdstupak said:


> I prefer the sound of my 24/96 ripped tracks. The rips sound much better/cleaner/clearer because the audio has been cleaned of the crackles and pops. I use 24/96 because it should be better than 16/44,1.
> Also there is the fact that the vinyl degrades with every use.


I have albums that have been played to death for a lack of a better term, are over 25 years old and sound no worse for wear. I think the "fact that the vinyl degrades with every use" is greatly over played by the CD crowd....excuse the pun


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

3dbinCanada said:


> I have albums that have been played to death for a lack of a better term, are over 25 years old and sound no worse for wear. I think the "fact that the vinyl degrades with every use" is greatly over played by the CD crowd....excuse the pun


One exception from years gone by was some of the discs sent out to members of LP clubs (10 albums for a penny, etc.), which could be of abysmal quality. I remember disks that after 5 plays were sounding horrible, all with well-cared-for turntable and stylus. That is probably pretty much a thing of the past. Vinyl being more of a specialty now, it would seem that quality levels and wearability would be a high priority. That is my opinion, I have no direct knowledge of it.

No doubt, there are a lot of aged discs out there that have worn very well.


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

Vinyl wear is well documented and measurable, there's no question it happens, and yes, you can detect degradation in just a few plays. The fact that some don't experience the same negative results is understandable, as wear reveals itself much more readily on some music than others. A musically dense mix of rock music would tend to hide the effects quite well, but solo classical piano is a real pain.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

gazoink said:


> Vinyl wear is well documented and measurable, there's no question it happens, and yes, you can detect degradation in just a few plays. The fact that some don't experience the same negative results is understandable, as wear reveals itself much more readily on some music than others. A musically dense mix of rock music would tend to hide the effects quite well, but solo classical piano is a real pain.


I would like to see some of this documentation.  I also have many classical albums that also have been played to death and still sound good.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

It's not rocket science, of course dragging a needle over plastic will cause wear. I agree it's very well documented. That's one of the main drivers that got CD off the ground is no physical contact is made. I bet if you played two vinyl records side by side of the same recording one that's never been played and the same one you have played multipul times you would hear a difference right away.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> It's not rocket science, of course dragging a needle over plastic will cause wear. I agree it's very well documented. That's one of the main drivers that got CD off the ground is no physical contact is made. I bet if you played two vinyl records side by side of the same recording one that's never been played and the same one you have played multipul times you would hear a difference right away.


I don't care if its rocket science. If some one says its documented and proven, I prefer to see the proof instead of audiophile hearsay. Not turning this into a cable debate but no one claiming that cables sound differently has ever delivered independent lab results as proof on the topic. I want to see documented proof.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Get a copy of this book "from tinfoil to stereo" it has lots of info including photographs of actual wear after just 50 plays of a vinyl records. It's very obvious from the photos that there is lots of wear.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Get a copy of this book "from tinfoil to stereo" it has lots of info including photographs of actual wear after just 50 plays of a vinyl records. It's very obvious from the photos that there is lots of wear.


Yes but the question remains, is it audible?


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

3dbinCanada said:


> I don't care if its rocket science. If some one says its documented and proven, I prefer to see the proof instead of audiophile hearsay. Not turning this into a cable debate but no one claiming that cables sound differently has ever delivered independent lab results as proof on the topic. I want to see documented proof.


From the mouth of the Audio Engineering Society...

*von Recklinghausen's Law:*

If it measures good and sounds bad, it is bad. 
If it Measures bad and sounds good, you've measured the wrong thing.

_Daniel von Recklinghausen (1925-2011) 
Technical Director, H.H. Scott and many other companies. 
Source: obituary, JAES, September 2011._

reference here http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/laws.htm


----------



## gazoink (Apr 17, 2013)

3dbinCanada said:


> Yes but the question remains, is it audible?


Yes, it is. Some types of recordings show audible signs of wear after less than 20 plays. Used to drive me nuts. I'd buy a nice new record, love it, then after several plays, sharp transient attacks got brittle and gritty. Certain vinyl formulas were more prone than others, I don't recall which were bad, but I think I can recall that some RCA pressings wore out in 10 plays, depending on how much distortion you could tolerate, or how good your system was.


----------

