Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[-Matt-]

Look Dr, if ASR is an uncomfortable place for your perspective, I came here via Stereophile, to name one alternative!

Better to be able to discuss such things cordially, without fear of judgment, than to segregate into social media echo chambers. ASR is intended to be a welcoming place to any who are interested in learning about and discussing audio.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

One needs to have a clear, rational head on one's shoulders. As many people here are trapped in their measurements-only dogma as are swirling around in the sewers of subjective tweakery.

Many people don't have a clear, rational head on their shoulders. Many of the people visiting audio sites (including this one) are starting out and are befuddled. A lot of them have fallen prey to unscrupulous sales people. They need and want to learn how to separate the dross from the gold.

I don't believe they care about our opinions. What they want is to know how to make their own opinions with reasonable validity.

Jim

 

[IPunchCholla]

The recordings of the pre-digital era were made using tape, though, they were not recorded directly onto vinyl.

Musicians I knew in the late 1980s all thought CD was wonderful because there was finally a mass-market medium that could put what they made in the studio into people's homes without the bastardization of the recording that's required to put it onto vinyl. They really did not like how vinyl degraded their work.

With digital you have an exact copy of that tape. It's no different from listening to it on the Otari, Studer, or whatever in the studio.

The DSP I use was designed for audio engineers to allow people to hear how the mix would sound on various speakers (everything from laptops to monitors). The format we listen to music on is absolutely swamped by the transducer/room/head interface we listen to them with. As a maker of music, who would love somone to stream it to a soundbar at at a BBQ, I’m not worrying over the difference between vinyl and digital played back on otherwise transparent systems.

 

[Bob from Florida]

I think Bob, it is the amount of things you can do with vinyl playing, which introduces far more snake oil potential. I mean an amplifier is an amplifier, done and dusted!

Not really the way I look at things. I spend money when I can get something worthwhile from spending the money. I have seen folks spend big bucks on a cable convince themselves it made an audible difference. I did not hear a difference and shared that more than once - they were not happy campers about that and have on occasion accused me of having “tin ears”. Keeping an open mind with healthy skepticism is essential to deciphering snake oil from something tangible versus psychological. Amplifiers do have differences in the real world. When I said “proper matching” I was speaking to matching the amp to the load. If understand the amp reviews done on this site a calibrated resistive load is used. While this presents a “standard” to judge things by it is not the same as a loudspeaker load unless your are referring to Magnaplanars. So an amp that functions perfectly with a resistive load may not do as well with a particularly difficult speaker load. Changing the load used in testing could be done but then all previous reviews are now on a different playing field….. I only cite that example to illustrate that thought and research along with an audition increases chances of success with your selection. Vinyl is not for everyone.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Are you the entirety of ASR? You don’t speak for me. Being science based in no way precludes anything Doctor Big has said. Science is the creation of generalizable knowledge. As far as I’m can tell, there is a ton of knowledge left to be generalized in even vinyl based playback, not the least of which (psychoacoustics) can not be understood by measuring the equipment of reproduction.

Entirely of ASR?
Don't actually know. Just, perhaps on an objective site, subjective statements will always be robustly questioned.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Not really the way I look at things. I spend money when I can get something worthwhile from spending the money. I have seen folks spend big bucks on a cable convince themselves it made an audible difference. I did not hear a difference and shared that more than once - they were not happy campers about that and have on occasion accused me of having “tin ears”. Keeping an open mind with healthy skepticism is essential to deciphering snake oil from something tangible versus psychological. Amplifiers do have differences in the real world. When I said “proper matching” I was speaking to matching the amp to the load. If understand the amp reviews done on this site a calibrated resistive load is used. While this presents a “standard” to judge things by it is not the same as a loudspeaker load unless your are referring to Magnaplanars. So an amp that functions perfectly with a resistive load may not do as well with a particularly difficult speaker load. Changing the load used in testing could be done but then all previous reviews are now on a different playing field….. I only cite that example to illustrate that thought and research along with an audition increases chances of success with your selection. Vinyl is not for everyone.

Can I ask Bob, has your experience proven that more expensive amplifiers have "worked" "better" than cheaper amplification?
Personally, since the Sony purchased in Singapore in 1967, there has been the Yamaha receiver. Then Audiolab. Finally Quad. Subjectively the system has sounded better and better.

 

[MattHooper]

The recordings of the pre-digital era were made using tape, though, they were not recorded directly onto vinyl.

Doesn't matter for the point I was making. Vinyl was the medium on which it would be consumed. Yes the move from the original tapes to vinyl involved some sonic compromise, but this was expected, and all efforts were geared towards the final medium on which it will be pressed and listened to.
So a vinyl copy represented that final product, for most of recorded music's history.

Musicians I knew in the late 1980s all thought CD was wonderful because there was finally a mass-market medium that could put what they made in the studio into people's homes without the bastardization of the recording that's required to put it onto vinyl. They really did not like how vinyl degraded their work.

With digital you have an exact copy of that tape. It's no different from listening to it on the Otari, Studer, or whatever in the studio.

Which, again, doesn't obviate the point I was making. In the 80's (as is the case now, amazingly enough) the final product may have been released on both digital and vinyl format. So that the consumer could choose her medium for consuming the music. And the sound was tailored for each product.

Interestingly enough, there's been a bit of a turnaround at this point, where many musicians prefer putting their music on vinyl. There was a big survey (I'm forgetting which magazine) and I believe 50 percent or more artists wanted their music on vinyl. And it's not all just cynical money grabbing. There is interview after interview with musicians who say they now view vinyl as the "ultimate" form for their music - both in the fact holding a physical version of their music feels more satisfying and complete than simply releasing it in to the digital ether, and they also acknowledge the ways they, and many others, seem to experience listening to music on vinyl vs digital.

Going for the lowest possible distortion is a persuit by some, but not by all, whether it's musicians or consumers of music (or even amond audio equipment manufacturers). And this of course will be part of the swaying back and forth, reactions to and against trends, typical in culture.

 

[levimax]

The goal of a high fidelity system is to create a high fidelity recreation of the source.

With digital you have an exact copy of that tape. It's no different from listening to it on the Otari, Studer, or whatever in the studio.

Wouldn't life be nice if there was one official "master" that could be compared back to in order to objectively measure "what is true hi-fidelity". The reality is the mastering engineers do NOT stay true to the original master tape especially on older recordings where the mastering engineer know he was mastering for vinyl and so made changes that differ from what the first digital transfer engineer did and then later "re-masters" had to be different to justify their existence so yet more changes were made and on and on over the years. With all these changes over the years it is possible that the original vinyl is "closer" to the master tape but in many cases we will never know as the original master tapes are lost, ruined, or burned up. I find it interesting to listen to different versions of my favorite recordings including the "original vinyl" even if I prefer later digital copies and remasters.

 

[Sal1950]

Why do you care?

Whatever made you think I care?

I have no idea what is the issue with those fingering riders but there are good ones out there countering the fingering types.

There's good and not so good in all groups.
Even vinyl players. LOL

 

[IPunchCholla]

Entirely of ASR?
Don't actually know. Just, perhaps on an objective site, subjective statements will always be robustly questioned.

I guess I didn’t read Dr Big’s comment to be about objectivism, but rather being careful to not confuse the measurements provided here as being the entirety of what should be considered.

The field of psychoacoustics is relatively new. New enough that we are still defining many of the parameters. I’m lucky enough to work at a research university so I can get full text access to most recent research. I spent a couple of days downloading a shit ton of research that I am slowly wading through. Much of it is fascinating and has huge implications for what the common measurements done here mean in terms of actual human listening.

The first one that blew me away was examining how sound enters the brain (auditory memory). It is likely that we have at least three mechanisms of this and each has implications for why sounds sound like they do and our ability to discriminate between sounds and how those sounds eventually become knowledge.

Another was how dSPL sensitivity fluctuated with estrogen levels.

A third was how rates of change of distortion sensitivity were related to musical skill.

What’s being measured here is important. But it is also important to remember that it is only relavent in terms of how humans hear (for music). And as much as I enjoyed reading Toole. The science continues and there is nothing subjectivist about pointing out the measurements here aren’t everything.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Whatever made you think I care?

There's good and not so good in all groups.
Even vinyl players. LOL

That you spend a significant amount of time going into every thread about vinyl to provide nothing actually useful but plenty of scorn?

 

[MattHooper]

Wouldn't life be nice if there was one official "master" that could be compared back to in order to objectively measure "what is true hi-fidelity". The reality is the mastering engineers do NOT stay true to the original master tape especially on older recordings where the mastering engineer know he was mastering for vinyl and so made changes that differ from what the first digital transfer engineer did and then later "re-masters" had to be different to justify their existence so yet more changes were made and on and on over the years. With all these changes over the years it is possible that the original vinyl is "closer" to the master tape but in many cases we will never know as the original master tapes are lost, ruined, or burned up. I find it interesting to listen to different versions of my favorite recordings including the "original vinyl" even if I prefer later digital copies and remasters.

I was listening last night to a vinyl version of one of my favorite 90's CDs (Everything But The Girl, Amplified Heart). The mastering was at Abbey Road, 1/2 speed mastering. I still prefer the digital version. Not just due to familiarity, but it sounds overall better and cleaner and more relaxed in the high frequencies.

On the other hand, to your point, I have a large collection of Library Music LPs. Library, or "production music," was created on spec and sold to companies for use in films, tv, commercials etc. They were excellent recordings and a small number of records would be cut from the original tapes and sent out for productions to sample the tracks. Then select cuts would be ordered on tape copies.

For a long time the original (and very rare) LPs were the only way to listen to this music. And many sounded absolutely fabulous - big, rich, clear - ticking all the 'sound quality' boxes. They had some fantastic engineers doing some of this stuff.

At one point these tracks started to find their way on to digital releases, collections etc. I bought (or streamed) some of those and often the sound quality didn't at all compare to the record. It had all the earmarks of a lower quality source (maybe many generations later?) being used for the digital versions (or someone doing a bad mastering job, making for dull, thin, undynamic sound). I would place my bets the vinyl versions were better representations of the sound quality of the original tapes.

And in fact that seemed to be born out: later, some of the companies that owned those original tapes (e.g. KPM) started transferring to high quality digital.
Those digital releases sounded superb! MUCH more like the sound quality I'd been enjoying from the LPs.

 

[Doctor Big]

Look Dr, if ASR is an uncomfortable place for your perspective, I came here via Stereophile, to name one alternative!

I'm hardly uncomfortable here. There's much dogma in this thread. Less so than on forums that lean toward the subjective side of things, but - judging by this thread - it's still a bit of an echo chamber. But if we all thought the same way, it'd be way less interesting, right?

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I guess I didn’t read Dr Big’s comment to be about objectivism, but rather being careful to not confuse the measurements provided here as being the entirety of what should be considered.

The field of psychoacoustics is relatively new. New enough that we are still defining many of the parameters. I’m lucky enough to work at a research university so I can get full text access to most recent research. I spent a couple of days downloading a shit ton of research that I am slowly wading through. Much of it is fascinating and has huge implications for what the common measurements done here mean in terms of actual human listening.

The first one that blew me away was examining how sound enters the brain (auditory memory). It is likely that we have at least three mechanisms of this and each has implications for why sounds sound like they do and our ability to discriminate between sounds and how those sounds eventually become knowledge.

Another was how dSPL sensitivity fluctuated with estrogen levels.

A third was how rates of change of distortion sensitivity were related to musical skill.

What’s being measured here is important. But it is also important to remember that it is only relavent in terms of how humans hear (for music). And as much as I enjoyed reading Toole. The science continues and there is nothing subjectivist about pointing out the measurements here aren’t everything.

Okay.

 

[Mart68]

Interestingly enough, there's been a bit of a turnaround at this point, where many musicians prefer putting their music on vinyl. There was a big survey (I'm forgetting which magazine) and I believe 50 percent or more artists wanted their music on vinyl. And it's not all just cynical money grabbing. There is interview after interview with musicians who say they now view vinyl as the "ultimate" form for their music - both in the fact holding a physical version of their music feels more satisfying and complete than simply releasing it in to the digital ether, and they also acknowledge the ways they, and many others, seem to experience listening to music on vinyl vs digital.

well we can only speculate on their real motivations for that. There's no doubt that the end of the need for a physical product has been a disaster in terms of revenue for both artists and labels. I'm sure that some have a romantic affection for how music was consumed in the old days even if, or perhaps because, they are too young to recall that era; but even they must realise it's less truthful to what they laid down? Whether that matters to them or not is a different thing entirely, all I can say is it did matter to many of the musicians of my day.

 

[Sal1950]

All the records I own that pre-date digital? They were produced of course as records! With the expectation they would be listened to on turntables!

If you are listening to digital versions of those records...you have departed from the expectations of the engineers who made those original recordings! Now you may be using a medium that the newer engineers (involved in the digital transfer) expect you might use. But you are on no Holier Ground in terms of playing back the intent of those engineers than I am when I spin a record, in terms of the medium they mastered for, and their expectations on how it would be played by consumers!

Ah no Matt, you got that a bit twisted.
The musicians/engineers wanted you to hear what they committed to the master tape.
Must I once again have to post how the master must be modified and "distorted" for the cutter head to be able to commit that signal to the lacquer?
Unless some wanker decides to squash the DR when doing a AD converstion, what you hear from the digital file is what the producer wanted you to hear.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Interestingly enough, there's been a bit of a turnaround at this point, where many musicians prefer putting their music on vinyl. There was a big survey (I'm forgetting which magazine) and I believe 50 percent or more artists wanted their music on vinyl. And it's not all just cynical money grabbing. There is interview after interview with musicians who say they now view vinyl as the "ultimate" form for their music - both in the fact holding a physical version of their music feels more satisfying and complete than simply releasing it in to the digital ether, and they also acknowledge the ways they, and many others, seem to experience listening to music on vinyl vs digital.

Or ........... it's more trouble to pirate vinyl. Hmm? Jim

 

[Doodski]

Or ........... it's more trouble to pirate vinyl. Hmm? Jim

A USB turntable would solve that issue. Or additionally add on a complete and dedicated economical recording format like cassette or even MiniDisc.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Ah no Matt, you got that a bit twisted.
The musicians/engineers wanted you to hear what they committed to the master tape.
Must I once again have to post how the master must be modified and "distorted" for the cutter head to be able to commit that signal to the lacquer?
Unless some wanker decides to squash the DR when doing a AD converstion, what you hear from the digital file is what the producer wanted you to hear.

That’s not been my experience. The musicians and engineers I know just want people to enjoy the music and try to make it sound as “good” as possible no matter what people listen on. None of them really care about fidelity or audiophile non-sense.

 

[Doodski]

The musicians and engineers I know just want people to enjoy the music and try to make it sound as “good” as possible no matter what people listen on. None of them really care about fidelity or audiophile non-sense.

I've met musicians that are into special cables' sound and special Teflon wire for their guitar circuitry. I find that there are both subjective and objective peeps in the musician crowd. I've met sound engineers that are gung ho into the equipment and specs and want to try as many combos of gear as they have in stock and others just want it to sound as good as possible with what they have to work with. To say that, "None of them really care about..." is a stretch.