Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[levimax]

However, there may well be historical cases where LP production master EQ moves improved on poor mixdown tape EQ choices....

One area of vinyl folklore is that "First Pressings" are better than later ones because:

1. The sleeve is often "embossed" or otherwise embellished while later pressing are not. Also the original pressing sometimes included a poster that was not in later pressings. This is actually true and easily verified.

2. The original pressing is mastered by a "famous" mastering engineer like Robert Ludwig or Rudy Van Gelder with a "signed / initialed" dead wax while later pressing were mastered by junior engineers. This is true to the point that originals often have a signed dead wax and later pressing don't but in my experience it is "hit or miss" if one really sounds better than another although sometimes they do. Given a choice I always like knowing the mastering was done by a "master" rather than an intern.

3. The original pressings were made with "virgin" vinyl while later pressing used "regrind" in the vinyl formulation making them noisier. This was especially an issue during the 1970's "Oil Crisis" when vinyl prices went through the roof. This is one piece of folklore I have no idea about. I can't say I have any direct experience with a quiet first pressing and noisy later pressing because of the vinyl used but some people go as far as to say some 1970's vinyl has visible pieces of paper from a reground label in them. I would be curious if there is any truth to different vinyl being on first pressings.

All things being equal none of these things would make an LP sound better than digital but they could make one LP sound better than another LP and in some cases due to either a great LP mastering or poor digital mastering or lost of damaged master tapes some people may prefer the LP version. All these weird variable are also part of the "fun" of LP's.... digital is digital for the most part which is great but LP's have much more variability so there is the "treasure hunt" aspect of finding a preferred version of your favorite old music that is not on the streaming services.

 

[krabapple]

These are true but they are not what I was referring to when I wrote 'However, there may well be historical cases where LP production master EQ moves improved on poor mixdown tape EQ choices...."

I'm not talking about different vinyl releases/pressings. I am talking about EQ adjustments made during cutting that could improve/correct the poor EQ of the mixdown master tape.

Since a subsequent 'production master' tape is made during cutting, recording all the LP cutting adjustments, these improvements would be captured on *that* tape for future releases. But CD versions that went back to the original mixdown master as the source, would not have them unless the CD mastering engineer did his own re-EQ.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying, some listeners might find that the original mixdown master tape isn't *always* the best sounding version, to their ears. (The inclusion of 'flat transfers' of those OMTs on some digital releases reveals to this too)

Which is somewhat ironic since the OMTs are often considered the holy grail by audiophiles.

 

[levimax]

These are true but they are not what I was referring to when I wrote 'However, there may well be historical cases where LP production master EQ moves improved on poor mixdown tape EQ choices...."

I'm not talking about different vinyl releases/pressings. I am talking about EQ adjustments made during cutting that could improve/correct the poor EQ of the mixdown master.

Understood, mastering EQ adjustments / other tricks made on the fly during cutting is what I was talking about in point number 2. It certainly does not take a "talented and famous engineer" to sum to mono and make the other routine adjustments required when cutting a lacquer but "trade secret" on the fly adjustments do.

 

[Robin L]

One area of vinyl folklore is that "First Pressings" are better than later ones because:

3. The original pressings were made with "virgin" vinyl while later pressing used "regrind" in the vinyl formulation making them noisier. This was especially an issue during the 1970's "Oil Crisis" when vinyl prices went through the roof. This is one piece of folklore I have no idea about. I can't say I have any direct experience with a quiet first pressing and noisy later pressing because of the vinyl used but some people go as far as to say some 1970's vinyl has visible pieces of paper from a reground label in them. I would be curious if there is any truth to different vinyl being on first pressings.

I worked at a series of Wherehouse Records outlets back in the day. I remember wandering over to a Capitol pressing plant near my place, Glendale/Eagle Rock, California, in the mid 1970s. I can attest that they were scraping the labels off LPs and regrinding/melting down the resultant vinyl. I can also attest that in the mid-seventies, there was an increased level of warps. Some of this could be ascribed to thinner pressings---RCA's "Dynaflex" pressings being a prime example---but a lot probably came from the "memory" of the recycled vinyl attempting to re-form into its original shape. Throw in overstuffed shipping boxes and hot trucks parked somewhere in the Southwest . . . we got lots and lots of returns of LPs that, what with the low tracking forces of popular phono cartridges of the time, were often re-sealed in the hope that the next one to buy the disc had a Sears all-in-one unit with a drop-down turntable that tracked at 5 grams. Lots of those back then. Most of the warp problems were with the lead in groove. With Dynaflex warps, those would ripple their way through the first track or two.

The thick vinyl Columbia pressings of the early 1960's returned, often in budget re-issue series, on thinner pressings with elevated treble compared to the first [or second, or third . . .] pressings. Then came the "Digitally Remastered" LP reissues of the early/mid 1980's, with eq all over the place compared to the early pressings. I suspect a lot of mastering engineers around that time suffered from hearing damage. This horrible state of affairs more or less continued through the mid/late 1980's, when CDs came in and drove LPs out of the Towers and into the Amoebas.

The odds of getting a reasonably thick LP pressing are better these days. The odds of getting an off-center pressing are the same. Throw in IGD, and that's a goat-rope that should be avoided, if possible. I'll cop to the 12" x 12" artwork being a whole lot more impressive than a cover on the screen of a laptop, but sonically there's no contest. That is, if you have any concern for what the producer intended.

 

[levimax]

I worked at a series of Wherehouse Records outlets back in the day. I remember wandering over to a Capitol pressing plant near my place, Glendale/Eagle Rock, California, in the mid 1970s. I can attest that they were scraping the labels off LPs and regrinding/melting down the resultant vinyl. I can also attest that in the mid-seventies, there was an increased level of warps. Some of this could be ascribed to thinner pressings---RCA's "Dynaflex" pressings being a prime example---but a lot probably came from the "memory" of the recycled vinyl attempting to re-form into its original shape. Throw in overstuffed shipping boxes and hot trucks parked somewhere in the Southwest . . . we got lots and lots of returns of LPs that, what with the low tracking forces of popular phono cartridges of the time, were often re-sealed in the hope that the next one to buy the disc had a Sears all-in-one unit with a drop-down turntable that tracked at 5 grams. Lots of those back then. Most of the warp problems were with the lead in groove. With Dynaflex warps, those would ripple their way through the first track or two.

The thick vinyl Columbia pressings of the early 1960's returned, often in budget re-issue series, on thinner pressings with elevated treble compared to the first [or second, or third . . .] pressings. Then came the "Digitally Remastered" LP reissues of the early/mid 1980's, with eq all over the place compared to the early pressings. I suspect a lot of mastering engineers around that time suffered from hearing damage. This horrible state of affairs more or less continued through the mid/late 1980's, when CDs came in and drove LPs out of the Towers and into the Amoebas.

The odds of getting a reasonably thick LP pressing are better these days. The odds of getting an off-center pressing are the same. Throw in IGD, and that's a goat-rope that should be avoided, if possible. I'll cop to the 12" x 12" artwork being a whole lot more impressive than a cover on the screen of a laptop, but sonically there's no contest. That is, if you have any concern for what the producer intended.

Interesting, any insight into whether or not "first pressings" used virgin vinyl and reissues used "regrind" during the 1970's?

I think the "180 gram" thing is a bit of a hoax.... some of my best sounding records are "Dynaflex". The new vinyl formations used today are no doubt quieter than what was used in the past but I don't bother much with new LP's as they are expensive and have the same sources as CD's and streaming.

 

[mhardy6647]

One area of vinyl folklore is that "First Pressings" are better than later ones because:

I think that the folklore revolves (heh, see what I did there? ) primarily around the condition of the stampers.
The notion is that, when hit albums are in "log phase" (so to speak), the odds of getting a really accurate copy of the stamper as originally made will be pretty low. If you get a very early pressing, one would hope that the stamper that was used to press it might be in pretty good shape.

 

[Robin L]

I think that the folklore revolves (heh, see what I did there? ) primarily around the condition of the stampers.
The notion is that, when hit albums are in "log phase" (so to speak), the odds of getting a really accurate copy of the stamper as originally made will be pretty low. If you get a very early pressing, one would hope that the stamper that was used to press it might be in pretty good shape.

Yeah, but there's a more likely variation involving the eq of the early pressings compared to later pressings with different stampers, different eq, different vinyl formulations etc. It all goes into woo-woo land when it comes to early, desirable pressings. At that stage, it becomes a whole lot more like baseball cards or comics.

 

[Robin L]

Interesting, any insight into whether or not "first pressings" used virgin vinyl and reissues used "regrind" during the 1970's?

I think the "180 gram" thing is a bit of a hoax.... some of my best sounding records are "Dynaflex". The new vinyl formations used today are no doubt quieter than what was used in the past but I don't bother much with new LP's as they are expensive and have the same sources as CD's and streaming.

As regards eq, Dynaflex pressings were better than Columbia's issues/reissues of the seventies. Sometimes [like for Paul Simon], Columbia could knock it out of the park. But for the most part, Columbia issues of the seventies were bright and their reissues brighter. Warner Brothers and related companies managed to maintain a high standard of pressing/vinyl throughout the seventies, though most of the Nonesuch releases sounded like they were run through some heavy compression compared to the European pressings of their original issues. Decca UK made pressings for London's classical lines, noisy but with excellent mastering. MCA was driving Decca USA into a ditch, also gobbling up other labels. Imports from Germany, the Netherlands and Japan became a "thing" around that time, justifiably regarded as superior in vinyl formulations and overall pressing quality, though all the Japanese pressings were too bright.

Record stores in the US started selling alternative pressings from Europe at this time. The biggest shock were the Beatles on Parlophone, with the early UK albums sounding radically different from the "Dexterized" Capitol versions. Now, when you get the "Universal" reissue of Beatles titles, you get the UK versions. But for a short time in the early oughts, you could get the Beatles as re-mastered by Dave Dexter if you really wanted to.

 

[dlaloum]

my suggestion as a computer girl with no knowledge in audio tech> Instead of investing in tubes or vinyl records, why not program an IC to distort the signal the same way randomly and get the same result as distorted by tubes or vinyl or both.

I have yet to see anyone model ALL the types of distortion that vinyl involves at the same time....

Pops and Clicks are relatively easy, but then you have the alignment variation of the tonearm as it traces the record, the variation in needle to surface velocity (outside tracks have a higher effective V than inside tracks) - influence of arm spring motion and the resulting resonances, the rumble of drive motor transfer through the platter to the needle, influence of speed variations (wow and flutter), influence of the resonance of the cantilever (both in phase and frequency).

If you go through the list of imperfections (and the above is incomplete) - the level of performance that vinyl achieves is well nigh miraculous!

And most of these distortions vary from setup to setup, differing turntables, arms, cartridges, cantilevers all have their individual signatures/ impact

Hence each TT sounds quite individual... even two otherwise identical turntables with the arm geometry tuned slightly differently or a different cartridge/needle mounted, will sound quite different.

They are far more like musical instruments, and far less like laboratory instruments. (and maybe that's why they fascinate so many people)

 

[MattHooper]

I just want to shout out a thanks to all the great info you folks are bringing to this thread!

 

[Holmz]

the daughter and partner both argued yesterday that TT were superior to digital.
I said, “technically that is not true.”
They were rabid about it, and accused me of using reverse psychology.

 

[weesch]

hi
i think it because there's more harmonics on a vinyl/tape than in a digital recording....(but you have hum)
also ...DSD digital recording offer the same quality than analog tape recording... (but you need an huge hardware and computer like this https://www.merging.com/)
for my song i use PCM wav 44.1 khz recording and it's good enough for a demo...
but you can hear a difference between analog tape recording and digital pcm 44.1 recording
here an analog tape recording ( tascam porta 05 and audacity https://www.audacityteam.org/ )

here a digital 44.1 khz recording (samplitude / protools hd 10 / yamaha 01v96 )

the bass i more present on analog recording...
also... in analog recording you don't have any latency....
in digital world you have to compensate latency and the rythm will be less precise than in analog world...
best regards
weesch

 

[Robin L]

hi
i think it because there's more harmonics on a vinyl/tape than in a digital recording....(but you have hum)
also ...DSD digital recording offer the same quality than analog tape recording... (but you need an huge hardware and computer like this https://www.merging.com/)
for my song i use PCM wav 44.1 khz recording and it's good enough for a demo...
but you can hear a difference between analog tape recording and digital pcm 44.1 recording
here an analog tape recording ( tascam porta 05 and audacity https://www.audacityteam.org/ )

here a digital 44.1 khz recording (samplitude / protools hd 10 / yamaha 01v96 )

the bass i more present on analog recording...
also... in analog recording you don't have any latency....
in digital world you have to compensate latency and the rythm will be less precise than in analog world...
best regards
weesch

If there are "More Harmonics", then there shouldn't be. GIGO is still the rule. It's okay to use distortion as an effect, just don't try to tell me a recording "Needs more harmonics" in reproduction than what the producer intended.

 

[Galliardist]

hi
i think it because there's more harmonics on a vinyl/tape than in a digital recording....(but you have hum)
also ...DSD digital recording offer the same quality than analog tape recording... (but you need an huge hardware and computer like this https://www.merging.com/)
for my song i use PCM wav 44.1 khz recording and it's good enough for a demo...
but you can hear a difference between analog tape recording and digital pcm 44.1 recording
here an analog tape recording ( tascam porta 05 and audacity https://www.audacityteam.org/ )

here a digital 44.1 khz recording (samplitude / protools hd 10 / yamaha 01v96 )

the bass i more present on analog recording...
also... in analog recording you don't have any latency....
in digital world you have to compensate latency and the rythm will be less precise than in analog world...
best regards
weesch

There won't be any noticeable latency in straightforward digital playback. On the other hand, all analogue devices involve something mechanical spinning, never perfect, always wow and flutter.
Rhythm will always be more precise in the digital world.

 

[weesch]

If there are "More Harmonics", then there shouldn't be. GIGO is still the rule. It's okay to use distortion as an effect, just don't try to tell me a recording "Needs more harmonics" in reproduction than what the producer intended.

hi . https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-sample-rate-Diemels-site-Hann_fig1_265389412
i don't understand exactly what it mean .... but... here they say that at 44.1 khz there a lake of harmonics.... if you record at 384 khz you will have more harmonics... but there's no computer or converter's able to do multitrack recording at 384 khz DXD or DSD.... so a good tape recorder like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studer will have a better harmonics reproduction than all modern digital converter like this https://www.digitalaudio.dk/
best regards weesch

 

[Robin L]

hi . https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-sample-rate-Diemels-site-Hann_fig1_265389412
i don't understand exactly what it mean .... but... here they say that at 44.1 khz there a lake of harmonics.... if you record at 384 khz you will have more harmonics... but there's no computer or converter's able to do multitrack recording at 384 khz DXD or DSD.... so a good tape recorder like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studer will have a better harmonics reproduction than all modern digital converter like this https://www.digitalaudio.dk/
best regards weesch

If the harmonics are above 20khz, you won't hear them. If there's more harmonics below 20khz with LP reproduction than digital, most likely it's distortion products. Don't forget that microphones impose their own, unique, crap on the signal no matter what. And reel to reel analog tape will always have more third order harmonic distortion than just about any digital recording device.

 

[weesch]

There won't be any noticeable latency in straightforward digital playback. On the other hand, all analogue devices involve something mechanical spinning, never perfect, always wow and flutter.
Rhythm will always be more precise in the digital world.

hi
all digital system recording have latency on monitoring....
that's why nowaday UAD use ARM dsp to calculate the flow of audio in their LUNA system https://www.uaudio.fr/luna.html
protools HDX use the same technology with FGPA dsp . but there's still 2 millisecond of latency at 44.1 khz...
if you only record a vinyl on a DSD recorder like this https://www.tascam.eu/fr/da-3000 latency is not a problem... you will not fell it ! and you will have the same sound than a tape recorder without : "mechanical spinning, never perfect, always wow and flutter as you say"
but if you record your guitar your bass through digital mixer or AD/DA converter or a computer with asio driver or even Merging pyramix DSD recording system https://www.merging.com/products/pyramix
you will hear the latency ! after you had recorded your track !
so after... you have to compensate it ....and you will never be as precise than in a old tape recorder running at the speed of light !
for rhythm yes if you use a beat box it will be more precise than a human playing drums... but if you record a guitar on a digital recorder with a beat box , you will be less precise than record a guitar on a beat box with a tape recorder...
also ...midi jitter grow up with new computer... cubase with an atari 512 st have less jitter than a windows or mac / linux computer !
so i think we have to wait a long long time before having a digital recorder without latency...
and even more more time to have a multitrack DSD digital recorder without latency on monitoring .....
best regards
weesch

 

[danadam]

hi . https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-sample-rate-Diemels-site-Hann_fig1_265389412
i don't understand exactly what it mean .... but... here they say that at 44.1 khz there a lake of harmonics.... if you record at 384 khz you will have more harmonics...

Oh come on. This is a study about sounds generated by a fish and this particular example is a sound that is different from other sounds in the study. Even though it is recorded at 44.1 kHz, which is higher than other samples, it doesn't show harmonic banding, while the others do. It has nothing to do with 44.1 vs higher sampling rates.

 

[weesch]

If the harmonics are above 20khz, you won't hear them. If there's more harmonics below 20khz with LP reproduction than digital, most likely it's distortion products. Don't forget that microphones impose their own, unique, crap on the signal no matter what. And reel to reel analog tape will always have more third order harmonic distortion than just about any digital recording device.

ok Robin
it is true that beyond 12 khz I hear nothing ... but then how to explain that at 96 khz the highs are more precise on my 01v96 yamaha than at 44.1 khz ... there must be a difference ! a finer resolution of frequency reproduction when increasing the sampling frequency https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital#/media/Fichier:PCM-vs-DSD.svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/DSD_-_PCM.jpg

it's like the resolution of a screen ... the more you decrease the resolution the more the curves look like stairs
so 20 khz at 44.1 khz
it's just a step that goes through 0 in the period ...
not great as audio reproduction.
best regards
weesch

 

[levimax]

it's like the resolution of a screen ... the more you decrease the resolution the more the curves look like stairs
so 20 khz at 44.1 khz
it's just a step that goes through 0 in the period ...
not great as audio reproduction.

That is not how digital audio works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem