How many kbps from vinyl?

What is the theoretical or even better scientifically proven kbps equivalent from vinyl. Vinyl are analogue so are not sampled at a rate defined by the digital music industry so at what comparable kbps rate can we classify vinyl/analogue music?

8 Answers

Relevance
  • Simon
    Lv 5
    6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    That's tough to say, as audio perception is different among different listeners. Scientifically speaking, A CD is technologically superior to vinyl. The math has been done at to where they did say that vinyl records are the equivalent to 13-bit digital audio. (A CD is 16-bit) This is due to the fact that CD's have and offer better dynamic range than vinyl records. However since Vinyl records are capable in theory of producing a wider frequency range then CD's, they are more comparable to a studio recording at 96,000+Khz. (A CD Is 44,100Khz.) But since scientifically speaking a human can never hear beyond a 20Hz ~ 20,000Khz band, the vinyl records superior frequency range is rendered moot. As a matter of fact, a CD not only covers the whole 20Hz ~ 20,000Khz range that a human can hear, it goes beyond it a little as well, just to make sure that someone with super hearing wouldn't have there hearing spectrum not covered.

    And study after study has shown that as we age, most adults can not hear beyond 17~18KHz ranges. Let alone the CD's theoretical real word 22.5Khz range. CD's are also impervious to sound distortion unlike vinyl records when it come to dust and light scratches. As a record plays, the needle rides along the grooves of a record, registering every little imperfection in the record. This causes audio distortion that becomes audible through clicks and pop's through your speakers. Also with each play, a vinyl record sounds worse as the needle literally and slowly causes extremely small tears and gouges in the vinyl with each play. CD's are able to use a laser to read a CD. And light scratches and dust mean nothing to the CD player, so long as it can decode all the 1's and zero's that make up the information on the disk. Also, you can play a CD a hundred times over and it will always sound just as good as the first time it was ever played. Unlike Vinyl records, CD's don't wear and sound worse with each play.

    So most researchers and medical experts as well as recording engineers will tell you that CD is superior to vinyl. And CD's are 1,411Kbps when encoded as a uncompressed Wav file. So If I had to take an educated guess, I would have to say vinyl records are about 1,000Kbps in uncompressed format. This is basically due to a smaller dynamic range and imperfections in audio quality. But they are every bit as good as CD's in frequency range and even better.

    But everyone hears differently. And some people say CD's sound too good, and that they may come off as a little unnatural to those who grew up listening to analog formats like vinyl. They say the audio distortion caused by vinyl, causes a warmth effect to the music.

    Sound may also more largely be perceived as good or bad in accordance to how the music was originally mastered for such medium. Many older songs were recorded originally for vinyl records and tend to often sound better than their converted to digital counterparts. This is due to the fact that the original mastering was never mastered to take advantage of a CD's strengths. Older recordings will often sound a bit better than a CD counterpart, whereas newer music will almost always sound better than a modern vinyl counterpart.

    I like to consider myself non bias here as well. I still have a turntable and listen to records. I grew up with them. And I often remember going to my grandmothers house and listening to vinyl on her old mahogany stereo console. I do like the sound of vinyl and I love the unique sound it produces. But at the same time, I also do like the crystal clear CD sound as well. It seems sharper and more vivid in its sound. So I guess it comes down to preference. But still as a educated guess, I would say vinyl is about 1,000Kbps uncompressed.

    Which do I prefer over all though? Tough call. for me it's a tie with CD gaining only a slight edge due to portability and convenience. That and I can make 320Kbps MP3's from them much easer compared to vinyl records.

    Just my 2¢ cents. ^_^

    http://youtu.be/EuWzWcfqla0

    Youtube thumbnail

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 5 years ago

    Good answer from Simon, but I think the most reasonable answer is about 400 kbps. I get this roughly from 12 bits x 30 kHz = 360 kbps, plus 10% for margin.

    The absolute best vinyl records ever made, probably the MFSL Gain 2 Ultra pressings, probably reach 1000 kbps, but most of it is inaudible, because they get the extra by stretching the upper frequency response all the way to over 100 kHz. The 1411 kbps of a CD is all packed into the audible range.

    The other funny thing about vinyl records is that as the volume goes up, they have to reduce the high and low frequencies for practical reasons. So when they say a record reaches down to 20 Hz, I guarantee that is only at moderate volumes. High volumes at 20 Hz have to be trimmed off the record or it will only be 3 minutes per side for a 12" 33 rpm LP. At high frequencies above about 10 kHz they have to trim the loudness or else 90% of the owners' needles on their record players won't follow the groove wall and will jump around and make the sound ragged. All of this reduces the real-life kbps from vinyl. A CD, by contrast, can produce absolute maximum loudness at 20 Hz deep bass, and also at 20 kHz high treble, clean as a whistle.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • ?
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Cd Quality Kbps

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 years ago

    Kpbs is a measure of the sample rate. As you said, vinyl is analog and therefore not sampled at all, so you're talking apples and oranges. It's like asking how many mpg an electric car gets......it simply doesn't apply.

    If pressed, I'd say that the bit rate is infinite. It's possible that our brains/ears also work by taking random samples but I don't think anybody really knows that for fact. Here's the more important question you have to ask yourself: at what bit rate can you no longer tell the difference between digital and analog?

    Source(s): Playing guitar since 1964
    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    20,000 Hertz needs to be sampled 2x per second to capture a full wavelength, there's no arguing the math of nyquist rate. The other aspect involves the number of bits per sample, 2^16 bits is 65,536 levels of resolution per channel would be a bit rate of 44.1k*32=1,411.2Kbps

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    I think the prediction of a meagre 1000 or even 400 Kpbs for Vinyl is way off the mark and a blinkered view of digital audio being a winner in all categories attempting to stubb out a romantic's disillusionment of a past golden age.

    On the contrary this is the very category digital is least likely to be a winner.

    I think comparing Kpbs of timed sliced audio to completely slice free analogue streaming is the wrong tree to be barking up.

    They are different animals.

    You can hear the difference between bit rates on high quality HiFi systems.

    mp3 has little depth of field and sounds like a flattened, crispy "photocopy" of a CD with hard edges.

    A CD sounds like a hard edged photocopy of a "Studio Master" HD audio file.

    If anything a Studio Master sounds closer to Vinyl than a CD or mpFree with subtler dynamics and a softer, more life like textural presentation. Not so impressive for Kids who like LOUD!!! But they don't know they're getting tinnitus in 3 years time.

    Sadly Vinyl crackles and pop's, can be sibilant, bass has to be managed, sounds much better with less songs on one side and has the god awful trait of Wow-ing when pressed off centre. Plus you have to get off your **** to turn it over.

    Do I still listen to Vinyl? Of course I do!!!

    It's far more alive and enjoyable to me. A lot of the music I like was recorded in Analogue so it makes sense to play it back that way. I disapprove/dislike Remastered, dynamically compressed (depressing) digital remasters, reprinted back onto Vinyl. Whats that all about??? Futile! I have some of these and they sound tiring.

    I think music recorded digitally should be sold at the bitrate it was mastered, at the same price or less than a CD for fair enjoyment by all since there are no pressing cost's or even conversions to mpFree. We are the one paying for broadband internet and the record companies don't have to lose profits to retail shops. Don't get me started on this one!!!! HD Tracks, Linn Records, Wayne Kers.

    Trouble with Vinyl is you have to spend some money to get it sounding a way in which you can happily flit between it and Studio Masters or CD's.

    A relatively cheap record player will probably surprise many who turned their back on their one in the loft with a broken stylus as it is inherently pleasant sounding and already HD. However when you A/B compare it with CD it often sounds too soft and rounded and I can't help but pick holes in it's performance.

    I started to get into decent record players which revived my interest in LP's and general preference of listening to them over CD's. It's an expensive hobby getting into Moving Coil cartridges on broadcast quality Idler Drive or Top Japanese Direct Drive turntables with decent Phono preamps, valves and whatever but it's fun and doesn't give you tinnitus.

    I get tinnitus from brick wall mastered digital audio running on headphones. Fiddling around mixing song arrangements on Logic Audio through headphones gives me tinnitus.

    A bit of food for thought is that if you record an LP to computer at 16Bit 44.1KHz and then do the same at "HD" 24Bit 96Hz you CAN hear the difference. The latter sounding more like the source record with more dynamic subtlety.

    How could you detect more information from an analogue record if the bit rate was half that of a CD? Magic dust?

    Nope. There is simply more information on the record. It just gets better the more sensitive and flamin expensive your cartridge, arm and table get.

    Records don't suffer from Jitter which allegedly confuses the brains ability to map out music and recall it according to some research. Hence you're more likely to hum along to a record as it has a uniform rhythm. Nn-not ssslice, ss- slice...

    Steve Job listened to Vinyl? Go figure… He could afford a decent setup.

    I am not a number. I am analogue. My speaker cones are analogue. Food is analogue. Cookers do a better job at cooking than Microwaves.

    You can't put marmalade on a CD and expect it to work like they said it would when marketing their indestructibility.

    You CAN perceive the presence of audible frequencies above the 20KHz CD cut off point. It is a perception of reality.

    When you add an 'inaudible' 30KHz sine wave to a 10KHz sine wave (audible) you can hear a difference because becomes a SQUARE wave. A golden factoid. Industry admits lies about CD marketing!

    My limited knowledge of digi theory is plenty to sway me but the more you read about it's hidden downside that are completely untold by the marketing hype the more depressing it seems.

    Apart from that it's bloody fantastic being able to download mpFree's for nothing. Sort of shot themselves in the foot there eh.. Bet they wish they were still selling records that you can't replicate….

    Betamax was superior to VHS. The broadcast industry used Beta.

    Tomato's in hot countries or even from in your own greenhouse taste better that the EU plastic, water flavoured ones that never go bad and look like clones of each other.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Never thought too much about that

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 5 years ago

    None can be said its analog

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.