What MP3 bitrate is equivalent to uncompressed?

LOL people dont get it - CDs are not lossless as they are still compressed like mp3s.... but just at higher bit rate.

Only true lossless is Vinel records! On a good player Vinel will sound better than any CD player out there!
 
I'll cut it short and say that you are being pedantic there :p
[Okay, I will say that if the music is digitalised at any point during the recording/editing process, then much of the disadvantage of CDs is negated - depending on the resolution used in the source]

Honestly, I do not think that vinyl "sound better" because they are analogue and "true lossless". They do sound quite different, but that is more likely the result of the equipment used, rather than the format.
 
Last edited:
Vinyl is still compressed ;) It is true that vinyl can sound better, but most people find it sounds different, and may or may not prefer that. It still has a limited frequency response though. My CD player is probably better sounding imo than my LP deck, but they sound very different. Main reason I have an LP deck is the fact that vinyl is far more collectable and 7" are very cool.

When people refer to uncompressed or lossless they are referring to encoding in comparison to a CD. You can get an awesome sound from a CD, you just need the right player. The reason why "better" formats like SACD and DVD-A haven't taken off is that they do not offer significant advantages over that of a really good CD player in a lot of people's opinions. This is going down a whole different route though.
 
Last edited:
This takes me back to when cd's first came out and all the arguments then.
The main argument was that cd's were sampled at 44khz and played at 22khz meaning that frequencies that were on vinyl couldn't be put onto CD.
I must admit that in all these years I never sat down and compared my vinyl to CD but then again my deck probably cost £30.
There is one story that summed up cd's for me though -
Back in 88 I worked in a Rock Record Shop and one bloke bought about 400 vinyl albums in to part exchange for a new rack of cd's we'd just had.
The deal was he could have 30 cd's for his 400 vinyl albums and he was happy :eek:
The following week he came back in and part exchanged his 30 cd's back for what he could find of his albums and he had to put a lot of money in the pot too.
He reckoned the cd's sounded awful compared to his vinyl.
 
dmpoole said:
This takes me back to when cd's first came out and all the arguments then.
The main argument was that cd's were sampled at 44khz and played at 22khz meaning that frequencies that were on vinyl couldn't be put onto CD.
I must admit that in all these years I never sat down and compared my vinyl to CD but then again my deck probably cost £30.
There is one story that summed up cd's for me though -
Back in 88 I worked in a Rock Record Shop and one bloke bought about 400 vinyl albums in to part exchange for a new rack of cd's we'd just had.
The deal was he could have 30 cd's for his 400 vinyl albums and he was happy :eek:
The following week he came back in and part exchanged his 30 cd's back for what he could find of his albums and he had to put a lot of money in the pot too.
He reckoned the cd's sounded awful compared to his vinyl.
Click to expand...

Now that's just silly! I wouldn't be rushing to sell my prized collection of CDs for SACDs, or any other new format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom