Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[Audiofire]

Using a phrase like "more natural" to describe music reproduction is subjective, which is what I do try to steer clear of when considering equipment quality. It is the sort of thing I expect to read in an old school review. "The speakers produced an airy, natural sound that was layered with accurate bass notes and depth".....Huh

It was inspired by the Yamaha equipment from the past that has an attractive price now, with "NATURAL SOUND" on the front. Yamaha has been relatively respectful by making good audiophile products with measurements.

Oh the title of this thread is half travesty, half joke. Even more so if the OP was serious, which seems to be the case.

Vinyl records do sound better many times, but this is not because the format itself is better than digital. The heat generated by vinyl manufacturing equipment means that artificial changes are more limited than digital editing. I need a good turntable and ADC for preserving old vinyl records that were made when the analog master tapes were in good condition.

For getting to the root of the title of this thread, this article is a must-read:

Myths (Vinyl) - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

wiki.hydrogenaud.io

 

[Newman]

Vinyl records do sound better many times, but this is not because the format itself is better than digital.

This point you make has already been mentioned by every second poster on this thread alone.

The problem is that the thread title, on which you are commenting if you are replying to me above, does not say "Why can some records sound in some ways better than digital?" Oh, no no no.

The title is indeed half travesty, half joke.

For getting to the root of the title of this thread, this (Hydrogenaudio) article is a must-read:

I have seen it before but, err, are you aware that it describes the heat-related reason, that you mention, as a myth in terms of being a reason for better sound?

In fact, it rightly says, "We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.", ie it would be true in the same sense, because "sounds better" is personal per individual.

 

[Audiofire]

The problem is that the thread title, on which you are commenting if you are replying to me above, does not say "Why can some records sound in some ways better than digital?" Oh, no no no.

The title is indeed half travesty, half joke.

It depends on variable factors, because I could just as easily have the point of view that the ambiguity of the title of this thread is its saving grace that allows it to be true for certain records.

I have seen it before but, err, are you aware that it describes the heat-related reason, that you mention, as a myth in terms of being a reason for better sound?

In fact, it rightly says, "We could make the statement "CD sounds better than Vinyl" and the previous statement would apply.", ie it would be true in the same sense, because "sounds better" is personal per individual.

Only the section headings are the myths, but you are right I should expand the heat-related reason to include friction between the vinyl and stylus. The rest is a description and technical explanations. The article explains "The technical details behind this myth are as follows."

It is subjective what people think sounds best and that alone is a reason why the heading is a myth. There are some limitations to what one can do with imaging on vinyl, but the dynamic range is often a difference that is on vinyl and sorely lacking on some CDs.

"It is true that recordings on vinyl sometimes have a spikier waveform and a measurably higher dynamic range than their counterparts on CD, at least when the dynamic range is reported by crude "DR meter" tools that compare peak and RMS levels."

 

[killdozzer]

The only reason I still enjoy a few select Vinyl albums is because the sound reminds me of the time in my life when I first discovered them (and other relevant associations). The colouration is familiar to me. As a broad generalisation Vinyl sounds "different" because it introduces additional sounds that were not present in the original recording. If you believe this is superior then that is your business however please don't suggest that Vinyl will more accurately reproduce the recording.

Very good point. Many nincompoops mistake this for "objectively better", but you know: "objectively better to them".

Nice to see you understand it.

 

[killdozzer]

Vinyl can sound more like the recording when a more natural dynamic range is preserved.

This is just a lazy brain's play on semantics. So if someone really botches the job on digital, vinyl can sound more like the recording? Good going!

 

[Audiofire]

This is just a lazy brain's play on semantics. So if someone really botches the job on digital, vinyl can sound more like the recording? Good going!

Okay, so it was a lazy choice of words. Because it was not precise. Let us forget the recording and consider that sounds in a natural environment have far more dynamic range than many CDs. So that could be an explanation why records sound so much better sometimes.

 

[DonR]

Okay, so it was a lazy choice of words. Because it was not precise. Let us forget the recording and consider that sounds in a natural environment have far more dynamic range than many CDs. So that could be an explanation why records sound so much better sometimes.

CDs have 10 times the dynamic range of vinyl records

 

[Dial]

The vinyl brings a decorum to a stereo or home cinema system, with large covers finally readable and color wax. That's all.
The same people who find it better than any other medium (even the master tape) curiously don't regret cathode-ray televisions and VCR, pre-recorded cassettes or 8-tracks.
Which proves once again if needed the power of capitalism.

 

[killdozzer]

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.

Records are to blame for early CDs sounding bad. Being such a huge step forward in regards of "what goes in - comes out", CDs merely revealed how heavily manipulated the recording that went on records truly was. Preparing a recording to be printed on a record had to take into account how truly inferior that medium was and really do bad things to the sound to get something out in the end.

More often than not, those heavily manipulated tapes were used to make CD releases. CDs made it obvious. As soon as this practice was abandoned, CDs were far superior as expected. True horror being that often it was those heavily manipulated tapes THAT WERE BEING KEPT, because before digital, the better original recording held less value than the one prepared to be cut.

This practice couldn't be abandoned every time since sometimes the original recording was lost and the band/artist non-existent/deceased. This is why on rare occasions (very rare), you have some records that sound better than CDs simply because there's no means to remedy this any more.

In all other examples you have this:
Good original recording (kept) > butchered to fit the record > record sounds good > butchered tape used for CD > CD sounds like crap > good original recording used for a new master for CD > CD wipes floors with the record.

Example: Eurythmics records > Eurythmics early CDs > Eurythmics 2018 Sony Remasters

Another: all Wilson's remasters of Yes and Jethro Tull.

 

[killdozzer]

Okay, so it was a lazy choice of words. Because it was not precise. Let us forget the recording and consider that sounds in a natural environment have far more dynamic range than many CDs. So that could be an explanation why records sound so much better sometimes.

If only you didn't go for more precise words! I'm just teasing you. You do realize, I hope, that RedBook CDs have twice the dynamic range of records?

 

[BDWoody]

Let us forget the recording and consider that sounds in a natural environment have far more dynamic range than many CDs. So that could be an explanation why records sound so much better sometimes.

I'm not following...

 

[killdozzer]

I remember once, I was talking to Duke Ellington telling him how I love his music and can't wait to have it distorted for a record so I can enjoy it as he intended.
He said; that's not how I intended! Why don't you come down to the club and hear me while I play?
Oh, Duke... And miss on all the IGD, clicks and pops and the photo of you?! Nah, I like it more natural, warm and full of dynamics!
Boy, are you on something? - Said the sad Duke. You can't have more dynamics than sitting in the front row...
But, Duke... Oh, Duke, Duke but... With out my cartridge it would feel like you're not even in the club!
Kid, seriously now, I'm not summoned through some tiny stones, come down and hear me!
I said, I'm too mindful when I listen to music, that's how I found out that the true soul of your music appears only with all the compression, cracks and pops, distortions, wow and flutter of a record. Oh, and I get to look a photo of you. Did I mention that? Anyway, I can't come, I'm having my TT incarnate Benny Goodman in my living room with my new Shunyata and Sumiko combo.
Well, if you can't, at least get the best recording of my session.

And that's how deluded poor ol' Duke was.

 

[Audiofire]

I'm not following...

Okay, I see that my words were not so precise once again. I appreciate that you let me know. I know that CDs of course have more dynamic range than vinyl. This is why I didn't refer to vinyl, but a natural environment instead.

The problem is that I have look at many waveforms of bit-perfect FLAC files of CDs in my collection and I see brickwalls, where there should have been musical AC. That is why I considered that vinyl can sound so much better sometimes. You will of course find that those brickwalls I looked in digitized AC has far less dynamic range than what the ears are genetically tuned to in a natural environment.

 

[Doodski]

I'm not following...

He's using the old thinking hat with, "After this, therefore because of this." Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[killdozzer]

Okay, I see that my words were not so precise once again. I appreciate that you let me know. I know that CDs of course have more dynamic range than vinyl. This is why I didn't refer to vinyl, but a natural environment instead.

The problem is that I have look at many waveforms of bit-perfect FLAC files of CDs in my collection and I see brickwalls, where there should have been musical AC. That is why I considered that vinyl can sound so much better sometimes. You will of course find that those brickwalls I looked in digitized AC has far less dynamic range than what the ears are genetically tuned to in a natural environment.

This does happen with digital, but not because of digital. Bad mastering work will always be bad mastering work and won't be better because of a medium. I was just hoping we're talking about good mastering work. On what would you rather record it, if you wanted to come closer to "what goes in - comes out"?

 

[Audiofire]

This does happen with digital, but not because of digital. Bad mastering work will always be bad mastering work and won't be better because of a medium. I was just hoping we're talking about good mastering work. On what would you rather record it, if you wanted to come closer to "what goes in - comes out"?

I would skip the physical formats for best sound quality, but don't get that choice when some of the music in my collection has the first and sometimes the only distribution on CD or vinyl.

 

[BDWoody]

I would skip the physical formats for best sound quality,

So, that leaves you with live only?

That's not very convenient...

 

[Audiofire]

So, that leaves you with live only?

That's not very convenient...

I guess online releases are technically physical when they are digital like a CD. Any storage device is a physical format. Then physical formats are just getting started when FLAC allows higher sample rates and bit depth.

 

[Newman]

It’s worse than inconvenient. It’s ridiculous. The whole point of reproduction is that we can’t attend the events.

 

[Jaxjax]

Records are to blame for early CDs sounding bad. Being such a huge step forward in regards of "what goes in - comes out", CDs merely revealed how heavily manipulated the recording that went on records truly was. Preparing a recording to be printed on a record had to take into account how truly inferior that medium was and really do bad things to the sound to get something out in the end.

More often than not, those heavily manipulated tapes were used to make CD releases. CDs made it obvious. As soon as this practice was abandoned, CDs were far superior as expected. True horror being that often it was those heavily manipulated tapes THAT WERE BEING KEPT, because before digital, the better original recording held less value than the one prepared to be cut.

This practice couldn't be abandoned every time since sometimes the original recording was lost and the band/artist non-existent/deceased. This is why on rare occasions (very rare), you have some records that sound better than CDs simply because there's no means to remedy this any more.

In all other examples you have this:
Good original recording (kept) > butchered to fit the record > record sounds good > butchered tape used for CD > CD sounds like crap > good original recording used for a new master for CD > CD wipes floors with the record.

Example: Eurythmics records > Eurythmics early CDs > Eurythmics 2018 Sony Remasters

Another: all Wilson's remasters of Yes and Jethro Tull.

I like digital,
but studio's did & still do to this day some seriously crappy releases. Same in pure analog days. There is in no way you can convince me of the wipes the floor BS just because it is digital. It all goes down in the studio for the most part regardless of the tools used. Some studio's & there employees just plain suck & that is the way it is to me. Digital, hybrid, or pure anlog chain, doesn't matter. Good is good, crap is crap