Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[RichB]

That's certainly a valid take from Amir. But of course "better" can be seen as subjective. I've compared vinyl with digital versions, which came from the same original masters, and I could hear differences that one person may find "better" for the digital where another may deem the vinyl "better."

A pressing requires additional processing, so I don’t think they can ever be the same master.

- Rich

 

[JP]

A couple files I did for something else. SACD and vinyl were done as an AP release mastered by Kevin Gray. The Kleos does not have flat FR, but still the differences are pretty minor. At some point I may redo this with a flat cartridge.

Kleos_NJ_100R.flac

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

NJ_SACD.flac

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[deweydm]

That's certainly a valid take from Amir. But of course "better" can be seen as subjective. I've compared vinyl with digital versions, which came from the same original masters, and I could hear differences that one person may find "better" for the digital where another may deem the vinyl "better."

I take “sounds better” there to be meant as entirely subjective.

Re the same master, on CD and LP for example, I’ve found the differences to be so subtle that they’re insignificant, to me. I suspect I may have a built in high frequency roll off though, due to age and loud environments. Application of the RIAA curve with LP playback may just be largely transparent to me.

 

[MattHooper]

A pressing requires additional processing, so I don’t they can ever be the same master.

- Rich

Yep. I meant that both came from the same original master. Every vinyl version has to be mastered for vinyl, and as I understand it, the degree to which it will depart from the digital version will depend on the specific requirements of the music, so some mastering-for-vinyl will sound very close to the digital, others may have to depart more (maybe due to the character of the highs and bass and intensity of the music).

Some of the comparisons indicate to me very little change due to the vinyl mastering for specific albums. The differences are quite subtle.

But my point was that I can understand different people preferring either version as "sounding best." I like the vinyl version of Talk Talk's Color Of Spring over the digital version, but I can hear advantages in the digital that would cause someone else to say "that's better."

 

[deweydm]

I take “sounds better” there to be meant as entirely subjective.

Re the same master, on CD and LP for example, I’ve found the differences to be so subtle that they’re insignificant, to me. I suspect I may have a built in high frequency roll off though, due to age and loud environments. Application of the RIAA curve with LP playback may just be largely transparent to me.

Just happened to be catching up on recently thrifted CDs, listening to the original Bryan Ferry - Boys And Girls CD release between meetings, and remembered I also have the LP. Both mastered by Bob Ludwig in ‘85. Sound indistinguishable from one another to me. I honestly don’t think it’s my hearing. <shrug> Kinda wish my phono DSP had optical out so I could easily graph any differences. Tempted to add a Toslink interface.

 

[Leporello]

Its one of the main reasons some CD releases of older albums didn't sound as good as the original LP- and this having (because of tape) nothing to do with the LP vs digital 'conversation'.

How do you know this? This is a common claim but specific examples are rarely given. Have any confirmed cases? Claims like this are somewhat problematic since they are almost without exception based on listeners' subjective preferences. That a given cd does not "sound as good" to you (or to me) as its vinyl counterpart does not really tell us much.

 

[atmasphere]

Sorry for the repetition (I’ve shared this quote here before), but I think it speaks to the above.

Amirm wrote, "it is my firm belief that when LP sounds better, it is because it is mastered differently...." - Measurements of Parks Audio Puffin Phono Stage

Its mastered differently if DSP isn't applied. Perhaps as consumers we should be asking labels to not master for use in cars?

A pressing requires additional processing, so I don’t think they can ever be the same master.

- Rich

I'd be interested to know what processing, or are you referring to the RIAA pre-emphasis (in which case, 'yes').

How do you know this? This is a common claim but specific examples are rarely given. Have any confirmed cases? Claims like this are somewhat problematic since they are almost without exception based on listeners' subjective preferences. That a given cd does not "sound as good" to you (or to me) as its vinyl counterpart does not really tell us much.

You must be new to this thread or not have read it; I've mentioned this several times already: I ran an LP mastering operation for about 12 years. Most of the source material for projects we mastered were digital. So we learned early on to ask for a source file lacking so much DSP. Other mastering engineers have told me they did/do the same thing.

 

[RichB]

I'd be interested to know what processing, or are you referring to the RIAA pre-emphasis (in which case, 'yes').

Certainly RIAA, but who really knows what else was done by the LP mastering "artist".

- Rich

 

[deweydm]

Its mastered differently if DSP isn't applied. Perhaps as consumers we should be asking labels to not master for use in cars?

Just my opinion, but I’m pretty sure most people do… not… care. I do when listening at home, but I’m not most people.

 

[DanielT]

Vinyl continues to be popular. The vinyl press manufacturer below is only twenty kilometers from where I live. Fascinating development, I must say.

Pronounced dead - now vinyl is making a comeback

At Sweden's only vinyl pressing, the craft of making LPs is kept alive.
After being almost declared dead since the mid-2000s, vinyl has made a comeback.
- Digital format in all its glory but it is totally soulless. Here you have a physical product you can hold, feel, smell, says Albert Avramovic, founder of Pitch Beats.

Vinylen gör comeback

Vinylen gör comeback i Mjölby

www.tv4.se

The vinyl presses at Pitch Beats in full swing.Video showing parts of the manufacturing process:

 

[antcollinet]

I've just been bargain bin diving, and come up with a near pristine copy of Jean Michel Jarre : Oxygene for £1. Listening right now. Haven't spun vinyl for a couple of months. Once again surprised how good it sounds.

 

[beagleman]

I disagree with this idea that when someone says vinyl is objectively worse but subjectively better, then they are not saying it sounds better to anyone but them.

They are actually hinting, and often saying outright, that there is a disconnect between measurements (which they correlate with “objectively”) and the listener experience. Hence the post #8 making reference to “toe-tapping” and “engaging”. Things that they think measurements are missing.

We see huge discussions on ASR where people insist that the fact that they (and everyone else who is like them) prefer the sound of something that measures worse, means that one or more of these must be true:-

1. We are measuring the wrong things.
2. Personal preference can’t be measured.
3. Everyone’s sonic preferences are unique and different.
4. (And note that all 3 above have been demonstrated wrong via careful experimentation)

These people are saying that vinyl does indeed sound better, and not just to themselves as one individual. They will point to how many people agree with them that vinyl sounds better. I have had the personal experience (and seen others put through the same experience) of saying I get the most listener satisfaction from digital compared to vinyl, and be subjected to a forensic examination of my vinyl gear (if my record player is good enough, I will prefer it to digital), my setup skills (once I get good enough at setting up the music will ‘snap into focus’ like magic), and ultimately my listening ability and experience/judgement in relation to sound quality being questioned (vinyl definitely sounds better, so if you disagree there must be something underdeveloped or unrefined in you). In other forums.

Think of it this way: what does “sounds objectively better” mean to you? Do you think it’s an oxymoron? It is not an oxymoron. And for that reason, when someone says that vinyl sounds better (to them and to everyone who agrees with them), they believe that they are making a statement about the objective sound waves coming from vinyl.

cheers

PS Note that post #8 was raised as an example. To forensically deconstruct the words and intended meaning of post #8 is to miss the point. To ask “where in this thread“ is also to miss the point. Not everyone who reads, posts. Not everyone who posts, posts their true beliefs in the strongest terms. We know those views are out there, and it’s fair to expect people with those views are reading threads about vinyl and especially vinyl vs digital.

I think the one large issue though, with those making similar comments as you mentioned......

They never have any concrete explanation for why they think it "Sounds better"...its all conjecture....guesses and so on. It is as if vinyl has magical qualities, that no other media can possess and so on.

But, digital copies (Needle drops) myself and friends have done over the years, show the digital to sound either identical or so close to identical to the original record, that any qualities vinyl has, are easily duplicated. In other words, they may be more likely a combination of flaws that combine to create a euphonic quality that SOME tend to favor.

Some try to hint that vinyl has somehow "More" information, such as in dynamic range or low level sounds, or it being analog etc..but I think it is more the case of a few flaws combined.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

I think the one large issue though, with those making similar comments as you mentioned......

They never have any concrete explanation for why they think it "Sounds better"...its all conjecture....guesses and so on. It is as if vinyl has magical qualities, that no other media can possess and so on.

But, digital copies (Needle drops) myself and friends have done over the years, show the digital to sound either identical or so close to identical to the original record, that any qualities vinyl has, are easily duplicated. In other words, they may be more likely a combination of flaws that combine to create a euphonic quality that SOME tend to favor.

Some try to hint that vinyl has somehow "More" information, such as in dynamic range or low level sounds, or it being analog etc..but I think it is more the case of a few flaws combined.

Maybe some also (conciously or not) have created a setup that is extra suitable for vinyl. And especially certain (speaker) flaws might be clearer with digital.
And then this magicallness of the grooves being a real print of the vibrating air during the recording!

 

[levimax]

I think the one large issue though, with those making similar comments as you mentioned......

They never have any concrete explanation for why they think it "Sounds better"...its all conjecture....guesses and so on. It is as if vinyl has magical qualities, that no other media can possess and so on.

But, digital copies (Needle drops) myself and friends have done over the years, show the digital to sound either identical or so close to identical to the original record, that any qualities vinyl has, are easily duplicated. In other words, they may be more likely a combination of flaws that combine to create a euphonic quality that SOME tend to favor.

Some try to hint that vinyl has somehow "More" information, such as in dynamic range or low level sounds, or it being analog etc..but I think it is more the case of a few flaws combined

For older recordings sometimes the master tapes get damaged before digital transfer. This is the exception not the rule but comparing needle drops of some first pressing I have to the original CD I have come accross a few where it sure sounds like "lost information" occured between the original LP and later digital versions. Jimi Hendrix Are You Experienced and Julie London Her Name is Julie are 2 examples that come to mind. Usually if I prefer an LP version it is due to the digital version having different EQ and or compression not that the LP version contains more information or more magic.

 

[beagleman]

For older recordings sometimes the master tapes get damaged before digital transfer. This is the exception not the rule but comparing needle drops of some first pressing I have to the original CD I have come accross a few where it sure sounds like "lost information" occured between the original LP and later digital versions. Jimi Hendrix Are You Experienced and Julie London Her Name is Julie are 2 examples that come to mind. Usually if I prefer an LP version it is due to the digital version having different EQ and or compression not that the LP version contains more information or more magic.

I have heard several recent CD remasters, that when using decent headphones, the treble is all "Swishy and phasey" in parts, due to dropouts and simply loss of treble in parts of the tape.

I have read where some remastering engineers try to work around physical issues with older tapes, but can obviously never negate the aging process entirely.

It was one of the older ELO recordings and on vinyl (original record) with phones the issues are NOT there as far as I can hear, but the CD remaster has a good bit of treble issues.