Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[Audiofire]

I'm wondering why I haven't yet seen anything about dithering?

When I could still hear treble, there was something about vinyl that sounded, well, different...just as with tape.

It was the noise floor. In the case of vinyl there's also the rumble, wow, and flutter, but mainly in higher grade gear it's the noise floor that includes both hiss and some low frequencies from the slight warping of vinyl or the eccentric hole punch.

So I'm wondering if there's something about the mechanical or neurological portion of the human ear that can be dithered? For example, neurons fire in a chaotic impulse pattern. Dithering would 'prime' the neurons by increasing the rate of firing and maybe that could potentially lead to higher resolution in the 'sampling'. Or if there is stiction in the bones of the middle ear, or stiffness in the timpanum or nerve fibers in the cochlea, maybe there's something going on in getting them in motion before applying a signal? What about the fluid of the inner ear? Does getting it moving create some sort of turbulence that isn't there when the signal is pure?

If that is the case, it is possible that 'dithering' the hearing system could cause the sound to be different.

Combined with the other aspects such as distortion, compression, bandwidth constraint, colored frequency response, large attractive cover art, huge solid disk to place on the platter, tone arm and spinning rotor, maybe the entire experience leads to an altered state of awareness that doesn't exist for digital media?

This study intrigued me. It's lacking the thing that I suspect is most responsible for the perception that vinyl sounds better to some people.

I'm wondering why I haven't yet seen anything about dithering? (admittedly, I didn't read the entire thread). There's simulated distortion in this study, but no simulated noise floor?

When I could still hear treble, there was something about vinyl that sounded, well, different...just as with tape.

It was the noise floor. In the case of vinyl there's also the rumble, wow, and flutter, but mainly in higher grade gear it's the noise floor that includes both hiss and some low frequencies from the slight warping of vinyl or the eccentric hole punch.

So I'm wondering if there's something about the mechanical or neurological portion of the human ear that can be dithered? For example, neurons fire in a chaotic impulse pattern that is quantized just like a digital converter. Dithering would 'prime' the neurons by increasing the rate of firing and maybe that could potentially lead to higher resolution in the 'sampling'. If I've lost the ability to hear tape or vinyl hiss, maybe I've also lost the ability to be dithered by hiss? Would that possibly explain why I don't perceive any advantage to vinyl?

Or if there is stiction in the bones of the middle ear, or stiffness in the timpanum or nerve fibers in the cochlea, maybe there's something going on in getting them in motion before applying a signal? Perhaps the gross distortion I hear at higher volume is due to the bones being so arthritic that dithering them has no advantage any more because they are so damaged that small amounts of noise no longer get them moving smoothly, in fact they can't move smoothly any more at all and whatever advantage there was to dithering is now gone?

What about the fluid of the inner ear? Does getting it moving create some sort of turbulence that isn't there when the signal is pure?

If that is the case, it is possible that 'dithering' the hearing system could cause the sound to be different. Maybe not better, but just different.

Combined with the other aspects such as distortion, compression, bandwidth constraint, colored frequency response, large attractive cover art, huge solid disk to place on the platter, tone arm and spinning rotor, maybe the entire experience leads to an altered state of awareness that doesn't exist for digital media?

Is there any reason why you wrote the text two times?

 

[Newman]

With one caveat: A sound card/audio interface can introduce distortions and such limitations just like real-time playback from cartridge to loudspeakers.

“Just like”?? You have ignored the small matter of magnitude.

Methinks your caveat would be more accurate if written as, “Although a sound card/audio interface can introduce distortions and such limitations, it is nothing like the distortions and limitations in real-time playback from cartridge to loudspeakers.”

 

[CherylJosie]

Is there any reason why you wrote the text two times?

Probably a glitch or brain fart. How strange.

 

[dlaloum]

I remember seeing a double-blind test of vinyl vs ripped vinyl vs cd vs streaming and most participants preferred CD, IIRC. Can't find the link but it may well have already been posted in this thread.

To test the real environment, rather than the medium... pick a really well mastered classic album, from the 80's on vinyl, and compare it to its remastered 21st century version.... - NOT the same recording...

That is the comparison many of us are doing. We know that vinyl is the inferior technical medium - but it has, in many cases, superior software!

 

[Sombreuil]

To test the real environment, rather than the medium... pick a really well mastered classic album, from the 80's on vinyl, and compare it to its remastered 21st century version.... - NOT the same recording...

That is the comparison many of us are doing. We know that vinyl is the inferior technical medium - but it has, in many cases, superior software!

Comparing a really well mastered album vs a remaster we don't know anything about isn't fair.
Most remasters are using the CD (or even the vinyl...) as a source and are made for financial reasons.

 

[dlaloum]

Comparing a really well mastered album vs a remaster we don't know anything about isn't fair.
Most remasters are using the CD (or even the vinyl...) as a source and are made for financial reasons.

No you can use the audiophile remasters.... Brothers In Arms is an excellent album to use.... the original was excellently mastered.

Within 2 years (ie by circa 1987/88), the versions that were being sold (both CD and Vinyl) had already been remastered - they no longer sounded the same.

You could take an original early pressing and compare it to a top quality audiophile remaster - they are different.
Sometimes better sometimes worse.... the later remasters often get involved in the loudness wars, and that is almost always bad news.
Original masterings from the early days of CD's, tend to try to maximise dynamic range.... fabulous for material that "likes" DR...

 

[Sombreuil]

No you can use the audiophile remasters.... Brothers In Arms is an excellent album to use.... the original was excellently mastered.

Within 2 years (ie by circa 1987/88), the versions that were being sold (both CD and Vinyl) had already been remastered - they no longer sounded the same.

You could take an original early pressing and compare it to a top quality audiophile remaster - they are different.
Sometimes better sometimes worse.... the later remasters often get involved in the loudness wars, and that is almost always bad news.
Original masterings from the early days of CD's, tend to try to maximise dynamic range.... fabulous for material that "likes" DR...

Genuine question, how do we know that those audiophile remasters are using the original tapes? Is there a way to verify it, or we've got to take the label's word for it?

 

[Jaxjax]

Also expectations.

With digital you expect perfection, but vinyl can produce such an incredible sound from dragging a rock along a plastic trench that it punches so far above its weight and you just can't help but love it.

I still feel the same amazement I did when I was a tiny boy watching my Dad's turntable. So there's nostalgia too.

But the same can said of Compact Disc. It destroyed everything before it and was a technical tour de force. It still is to me. Everthing that came later has just been very small incremental steps. No game changers.

CD's did not destroy everything before it, not close for me. A proper tape mastering & same with vinyl will slay the early-mid CD's. That early age of CD's was horrible for me..major, major waste of money hoping the next one was playable. In my vast CD collection of mostly crap sits in bins in storage where they belong. Sure there is a good few in there but not many. Today's digital is a differant story..Mastering has gotten away from the crap there were doing somewhat & especially in vinyl. Vinyl lovers are very lucky to have Chad & company etc. etc.

 

[Jaxjax]

I feel it’s sometimes easier to find a better sounding version (of an album) on vinyl. It’s also easier to find an awful sounding one. So many terrible pressings.
That’s why you need both, analog and digital. Not really about which one sounds better, but which one can play the version that will sound better.

This.......

 

[AlephAlpha001]

Is there any reason why you wrote the text two times?

Injudicious attachment of Chord M-Scaler between Keyboard and PC probably.

 

[CherylJosie]

I found that the multichannel re-issues of classic albums or new releases sound superb.

It's not just the extra channels. I think in the process of re-mastering them to multichannel they also use better engineering overall, because why would you produce an audiophile grade multichannel release with crap mastering? You would put your best engineer on it and relax marketing constraints regarding the loudness wars because it's never going to be played on the radio or streaming and nobody will ever notice the loudness except the person who is likely blasting it from a high-powered home theater regardless of where the gain was set on the master.

Haven't had as good luck on live multichannel concert videos. It seems that the surround channels are exclusively used for the audience and the mastering seems typical. It's really difficult to get good live sound. There's only one take and the effects can't be independently tweaked in post-processing.

I have an early Corrs 'Forgiven, Not Forgotten' CD that I inherited from my uncle that is unlistenable. They used so much compression on it that you can hear plainly audible distortion. Huge disappointment because otherwise the album is superb.

My ELO album Out of the Blue sounds clipped on both vinyl and CD. I think somebody set the attenuators too high somewhere in the gain staging. It also has a tube clipping sound and that has me confused unless they oversaturated the master tape? Something obviously wrong with that album. Reminds me of the sound of crunching on celery. No other ELO in my collection sounds like that.

So I guess I'm agreeing with the concept that it's not the medium as much as it is the program content that matters. The remastering of vinyl between production runs is only one factor though. The pressings also degrade towards the end of the run.

I located a description of the process from

lacquer (1 copy), master (1 copy), mother (usually 2, sometimes up to 4), stamper (up to 6), and pressings (they don't specify how many, but presumably thousands per stamper)​

Vinyl record manufacturing - lacquer, master, mother, stamper and pressings

The vinyl manufacturing process has many stages from the cutting lathe to the turntable. And of course the eternal question - why are records black?

www.audiomasterclass.com

So depending on what the original media is (whether digital, tape, or direct-to-disc) and how many lacquers, mothers, stampers, and pressings the marketing department squeezed out of it, the sound quality of 'vinyl' could vary dramatically? I'm supposing.

Similar limitations apply to tape duplication.

Digital has no such analog degradation that induces manufacturing limitations.

It would be very difficult to do a rigorous double-blind comparison between media formats without having insider control over the analog mastering process, especially when the mastering of the source tape or lacquer could change between pressings, particularly when comparing classic recordings that have been reproduced in digital from the original analog. Tape degrades with time.

 

[CherylJosie]

No you can use the audiophile remasters.... Brothers In Arms is an excellent album to use.... the original was excellently mastered.

Within 2 years (ie by circa 1987/88), the versions that were being sold (both CD and Vinyl) had already been remastered - they no longer sounded the same.

You could take an original early pressing and compare it to a top quality audiophile remaster - they are different.
Sometimes better sometimes worse.... the later remasters often get involved in the loudness wars, and that is almost always bad news.
Original masterings from the early days of CD's, tend to try to maximise dynamic range.... fabulous for material that "likes" DR...

The multichannel version of Brothers in Arms really benefits from that clean original master. Superb ambient sound field and definition. If you haven't tried it, I'd recommend it.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Genuine question, how do we know that those audiophile remasters are using the original tapes? Is there a way to verify it, or we've got to take the label's word for it?

You're totally completely and utterly at the mercy of what the record label is telling you. The original master police force disbanded decades ago.

 

[Audiofire]

You're totally completely and utterly at the mercy of what the record label is telling you. The original master police force disbanded decades ago.

There are some audible clues from difference in detail and other sound quality as well. It should be noted that early CDs from the eighties and nineties had inferior digital electronics, including the audio converters compared to modern price to performance in the market. So remasters can be beneficial, with some dynamic range expander in mind.

By the way, I have no idea what the original master police force is.

 

[rdenney]

With one caveat: A sound card/audio interface can introduce distortions and such limitations just like real-time playback from cartridge to loudspeakers.

Examples?

I could once hear the difference between live recordings on open-reel tape and live recordings on VHS HiFi. But I have never been able to hear the difference between ADCs. I have a Creative external sound card of some sort—I don’t recall the model. It tested about as poorly as any of them do. And I currently use a highly rated Benchmark ADC. Absent clipping one of the preamps or screwing up the gain structure, I cannot hear any difference between them when used for needledrops. Played through speakers or headphones, they sound just like what’s coming out of the cartridge.

I’m thinking that an ADC with 80 dB of S/N and dynamic range over the audible spectrum is going to be indistinguishable from one that provides 110 dB, when recording media that only provides 60 or 65 dB dripping wet, not including the -40 dB vinyl roar. Yes, it can be done poorly with an inappropriate reconstruction filter or a poorly set up gain structure. A needledrop is no easier than making a tape of an LP back in the day.

I doubt that any available sound card is so poor that it would be noticeable unless it added hum or was overdriven.

Now, the software in the computer may be performing all sorts of processing that will have audible effects, like overly aggressive click removal or whatever. I use Vinyl Studio, and some of its filters will leave audible artifacts when listening to the tail of a fade at extreme amplification. But one can leave those filters turned off.

But people rarely conduct the test for themselves, and just perpetuate their own biased perceptions.

Rick “uses the Benchmark because of its detailed gain control” Denney

 

[Digby]

The original master police force disbanded decades ago.

Ah yes, I remember them well, weren't they led by the one and only Cool McCool?

On an unrelated note, I've been having lots of fun trying to get a Fritz-Gyger stylus aligned so I don't get distortion on peaks. I don't know if it is the records or the stylus, which is pretty new. Yes....lots and lots of fun....

 

[Robin L]

Examples?

I could once hear the difference between live recordings on open-reel tape and live recordings on VHS HiFi. But I have never been able to hear the difference between ADCs. I have a Creative external sound card of some sort—I don’t recall the model. It tested about as poorly as any of them do. And I currently use a highly rated Benchmark ADC. Absent clipping one of the preamps or screwing up the gain structure, I cannot hear any difference between them when used for needledrops. Played through speakers or headphones, they sound just like what’s coming out of the cartridge.

I’m thinking that an ADC with 80 dB of S/N and dynamic range over the audible spectrum is going to be indistinguishable from one that provides 110 dB, when recording media that only provides 60 or 65 dB dripping wet, not including the -40 dB vinyl roar. Yes, it can be done poorly with an inappropriate reconstruction filter or a poorly set up gain structure. A needledrop is no easier than making a tape of an LP back in the day.

I doubt that any available sound card is so poor that it would be noticeable unless it added hum or was overdriven.

Now, the software in the computer may be performing all sorts of processing that will have audible effects, like overly aggressive click removal or whatever. I use Vinyl Studio, and some of its filters will leave audible artifacts when listening to the tail of a fade at extreme amplification. But one can leave those filters turned off.

But people rarely conduct the test for themselves, and just perpetuate their own biased perceptions.

Rick “uses the Benchmark because of its detailed gain control” Denney

My experience with ADCs goes back to 1988 and the Sony 501.

Did you see that 14 bit option? I believe that OVC knob was to get the right test pattern on the TV.

Hook it up to a Betamax and you're in business.

I only used the 501 for about a year or two before I got my hands on an early DAT recorder. It was a Technics that was pretty much the same as the Panasonic 3700 save that it had some poorly implemented copy protection that came down to a couple of traces on the board that could be easily removed by somebody who knew what he [in this case] was doing.

This DAT recrder was easier to operate and sounded marginally better. Come 1994 or so I "discovered" the t.c. electronic M2000

Truth be told, Jack Vad told me about t.c. electronics. I wanted a good reverb, was told that t.c. electronics had the best. This was around 1995. This unit had a 20-bit capable in and out. With the 16 bits I was using, easily the best sounding recorder I worked with up to that time, which is close to 30 years ago. The reverbs were good too. The handheld recorders I use now have much better specs than the combination of the t.c. electronics and Technics black boxes, also more portable and easier to use.

I'd say that once recorders got to 24 bit capable, differences in sound quality ought to go away. But back during the time that the formats were new there would be more audible differences between the recorders.

 

[rdenney]

My experience with ADCs goes back to 1988 and the Sony 501.


View attachment 220615

Did you see that 14 bit option? I believe that OVC knob was to get the right test pattern on the TV.
View attachment 220617

Hook it up to a Betamax and you're in business.

I only used the 501 for about a year or two before I got my hands on an early DAT recorder. It was a Technics that was pretty much the same as the Panasonic 3700 save that it had some poorly implemented copy protection that came down to a couple of traces on the board that could be easily removed by somebody who knew what he [in this case] was doing.

View attachment 220621

This DAT recrder was easier to operate and sounded marginally better. Come 1994 or so I "discovered" the t.c. electronic M2000



View attachment 220622


Truth be told, Jack Vad told me about t.c. electronics. I wanted a good reverb, was told that t.c. electronics had the best. This was around 1995. This unit had a 20-bit capable in and out. With the 16 bits I was using, easily the best sounding recorder I worked with up to that time, which is close to 30 years ago. The reverbs were good too. The handheld recorders I use now have much better specs than the combination of the t.c. electronics and Technics black boxes, also more portable and easier to use.

I'd say that once recorders got to 24 bit capable, differences in sound quality ought to go away. But back during the time that the formats were new there would be more audible differences between the recorders.

Most people doing needledrops are using an ADC or a sound card and it’s the software on the computer that’s directing the sampling rate. The Benchmark has sampling switchable on the front panel, but that seems to me an exception.

You are making my point, as I’m sure you intended. It’s been at least 30 years since ADC quality might have been audible even with microphone/board/live inputs (where the difference between open reel tape and VHS HiFi was apparent to me). But LPs are constrained in terms of noise, distortion, and dynamic range to levels well within the envelope of digitizing tools for long enough not to be relevant for those seeking to make needledrops.

Rick “doubting even that 14-bit encoders were a constraint for home needledrops” Denney

 

[spartaman64]

You're totally completely and utterly at the mercy of what the record label is telling you. The original master police force disbanded decades ago.

idk why label companies dont give out certifications or something. or at least when they see a company claim original master they can be like hey we never gave that company the master recording. its in their interest also to make sure they are getting the licensing payments for use of the master recordings

 

[Robin L]

Most people doing needledrops are using an ADC or a sound card and it’s the software on the computer that’s directing the sampling rate. The Benchmark has sampling switchable on the front panel, but that seems to me an exception.

You are making my point, as I’m sure you intended. It’s been at least 30 years since ADC quality might have been audible even with microphone/board/live inputs (where the difference between open reel tape and VHS HiFi was apparent to me). But LPs are constrained in terms of noise, distortion, and dynamic range to levels well within the envelope of digitizing tools for long enough not to be relevant for those seeking to make needledrops.

Rick “doubting even that 14-bit encoders were a constraint for home needledrops” Denney

I think they were, at least that was my impression doing needledrops for "Music from the Hearts of Space". I mentioned Denon's very early [1970s] digital recordings. My sonic impression of early, subpar digital was that sounds were too soft, there was an issue with resolution. I could compare copies rendered in three different formats---Tascam 32 reel to reel at 71/2 IPS, high quality cassette and the Sony 501. The 14-bit digital transfers had no additional noise but could seem to blur the sound more than 16 bits. Overall best of the three [sonically] were the cassettes, using metal formulation and no Dolby. Pretty much matched the noise floor of the best LPs, like French Harmonia Mundi. The reel-to-reel machine was both noisy and more distorted. The digital had the least noise but seemed to suck the life out of the sound. As I was still reading TAS that could have been all in my mind. But the Technics DA-10 that followed sounded a lot more like a bog-standard CD player. I was also hearing distortions with CD players back then that I might not hear now.

And yes, I am making your point, though my other point would be that a lot of audio myths started a long time ago, when there were substantial differences in the performance of ADCs, DACs and suchlike. 30 years is aeons for the development of digital anything, and modern digital is functionally transparent. But back in 1992? Not so much.