Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[IPunchCholla]

There are two different fidelities. The recording/mastering and the playback system. With computer generated music (something I’m making) the first is irrelevant, the second isn’t. I certainly want the playback system (stereo) to be as transparent as possible in order to make the best possible file.

 

[Peterinvan]

Granted there are constraints - a dynamic range of around 70db (but discernible information below the noise floor - so it is quite different to digital), and substantial constraints in the recording medium with regards to needle excursions (ie: bass) - which is why it is "encoded" and "decoded" with RIAA.

This is not compression... Many excellent recordings made in the 50's have absolutely no compression, and very simple mic techniques - possibly why they sound so good - they are not messed with!

If you take "modern" (1990's onwards?) vinyl.... well the recordings are made digitally, processed digitally, and then dropped onto vinyl...., along the way you have all sorts of sonic wizardry going on - and all I can say is: why bother with vinyl ? Why bother? what is the point !?!

I just don't get it...

RIAA equalization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RIAA equalization is a form of pre-emphasis on recording and de-emphasis on playback. A recording is made with the low frequencies reduced and the high frequencies boosted, and on playback, the opposite occurs. The net result is a flat frequency response, but with attenuation of high-frequency noise such as hiss and clicks that arise from the recording medium. Reducing the low frequencies also limits the excursions the cutter needs to make when cutting a groove. Groove width is thus reduced, allowing more grooves to fit into a given surface area, permitting longer recording times. This also reduces physical stresses on the stylus, which might otherwise cause distortion or groove damage during playback.

RIAA filtering has to be applied during the vinyl mastering process to avoid the needle jumping out of the track, and treble is also reduced. Then they are artificially boosted on phono playback (like some kind of "Loudness" button). Dynamic range is also reduced.

To my thinking, high-res mastered digital files have a better chance of reproducing the music that was recorded.

Not to mention the "Rice Crispies" on used records that really distract me from the music.

 

[Frgirard]

To my thinking, high-res mastered digital files have a better chance of reproducing the music that was recorded.

60 dB of dynamique you do not find on the hi rez except on audiophile label but which.

The dynamics are inseparable from the background noise of the room.

In a room with a noise floor of 40dB, a dynamic of 70 DB give forte at 110 dB. A war with the neighbours.
CD is 96db.
I let you imagine what happened in a room with noise floor of 40dB.

The dynamic of the 24 bit is theoric and will not be usable.

A commercial production is made to be listened everywhere.
The Vinyl dynamic is far superior to what is used on the market where 20dB is great.

It is interesting to consult the microphone signal-to-noise ratio

 

[Ported]

The mastering process for vinyl involves compansion (compression of the loud and expansion of the quiet) so it a always measures as having a wider dynamic... But this process squews the real dynamics of any mix down .. so a high Res digital copy will always preserve more of the original dynamic intension (even if 24bit may be overkill).
Vinyl is a relatively poor facsimile where some of the original intended dynamics of a track get lost.
Been there done all of these parts of the recording process .. it's easy to verify with just an ordinary pair of ears.

Still understand why some folks like vinyl sound and ritual though .. it may have the sound wanted.. but don't be fooled it's neerer to the mixdown event that created the track than digital copies.

 

[nebunebu]

I've been working as a freelancer in a event company for many years (tho as a media technician).
One of my best friends works as a sound engineering and he produce amazing sound with EAW, Meyer sound, D&B Audiotechnik soundsystems.
I remember one event were I had to join a different sound engineer and I was a bit baffled - he really loved compressors.
He just killed the dynamics out of the sound, doing way to much compression instead of trying to balance the sound with the faders.

I wonder - do anyone possess a track of a vocal (or band - 30 sec long) semi-raw format without compressor and also the same track with compressor?
Would be interesting to hear the difference.

 

[dlaloum]

The mastering process for vinyl involves compansion (compression of the loud and expansion of the quiet) so it a always measures as having a wider dynamic... But this process squews the real dynamics of any mix down .. so a high Res digital copy will always preserve more of the original dynamic intension (even if 24bit may be overkill).
Vinyl is a relatively poor facsimile where some of the original intended dynamics of a track get lost.
Been there done all of these parts of the recording process .. it's easy to verify with just an ordinary pair of ears.

Still understand why some folks like vinyl sound and ritual though .. it may have the sound wanted.. but don't be fooled it's neerer to the mixdown event that created the track than digital copies.

Yes - and for all those failings... many well mastered records from the early digital era (1980's) have fantastic dynamic range (so do their CD versions) - and then the same records "remastered" a few years later - have lost much of the dynamics. (often without even claiming to have been remastered)

We understand the limitations of vinyl - and many of us on here have enough experience, to know how to eke out the best that Vinyl can provide.... which is still less than even relatively basic digital.... but of that mastering engineer has compressed the DR to meet the customers "loudness wars" requirements, the potential of either medium become irrelevant ... the DR of the original recording is lost regardless of the medium it has been copied to.

One of the advantages with having multiple mediums, is that sometimes they followed seperate mastering streams - and that means you may find the better version in one or the other stream... yep vinyl will often be limited to a DR of between 60 and 70db... but if you have the well mastered wide DR version of the recording on Vinyl - that's the one to grab. (and digitise for listening convenience!)

 

[Suffolkhifinut]

I just don't get it...

RIAA equalization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

RIAA equalization is a form of pre-emphasis on recording and de-emphasis on playback. A recording is made with the low frequencies reduced and the high frequencies boosted, and on playback, the opposite occurs. The net result is a flat frequency response, but with attenuation of high-frequency noise such as hiss and clicks that arise from the recording medium. Reducing the low frequencies also limits the excursions the cutter needs to make when cutting a groove. Groove width is thus reduced, allowing more grooves to fit into a given surface area, permitting longer recording times. This also reduces physical stresses on the stylus, which might otherwise cause distortion or groove damage during playback.

RIAA filtering has to be applied during the vinyl mastering process to avoid the needle jumping out of the track, and treble is also reduced. Then they are artificially boosted on phono playback (like some kind of "Loudness" button). Dynamic range is also reduced.

To my thinking, high-res mastered digital files have a better chance of reproducing the music that was recorded.

Not to mention the "Rice Crispies" on used records that really distract me from the music.

At the moment playing the Esher Sessions, Beatles White album. A vinyl record that to me seems real and natural.
System:
Sumiko Blue Point Special EVO III
Project Xtension 10 Evolution turntable
Primare R15 preamp
Arcam SR250 integrated amp
Kudos X2 speakers.

 

[AVphile]

Two considerations: (1) the quality of the mastering counts, which is why sometimes vinyl sounds better than digital and other times the converse (ironically, I have found that remastering more often than not sounds worse than the original); and (2) perhaps there is some validity to my home-grown hypothesis, which is that there is "no mercy intended for digital reproduction". Very simplistically, let's take middle C, which is, for practical purposes, 261.625565Hz. Reconstructed as analog on through a good DAC subsystem (not just the chip or component set), one hears 261.625 +/- within a range of maybe 0.005 Hz. The vinyl playback, in comparison near instantaneously plays middle C as tones within a range of, let's say, 0.25Hz. To most humans' ears, that more "fuzziness" sounds richer and more pleasing, even if it supposedly less accurate. Moreover, regarding accuracy, who is to say that digital does impose a reduction thereof by capturing only the essence of, rather than the full range of, the original tone?

 

[krabapple]

Adding playback-produced 'fuzziness' to the 'original tone' is not the way to present the 'full range of the original tone'.

 

[Sal1950]

Moreover, regarding accuracy, who is to say that digital does impose a reduction thereof by capturing only the essence of, rather than the full range of, the original tone?

That's just total malarkey.
Distortion is distortion.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Two considerations: (1) the quality of the mastering counts, which is why sometimes vinyl sounds better than digital and other times the converse (ironically, I have found that remastering more often than not sounds worse than the original); and (2) perhaps there is some validity to my home-grown hypothesis, which is that there is "no mercy intended for digital reproduction". Very simplistically, let's take middle C, which is, for practical purposes, 261.625565Hz. Reconstructed as analog on through a good DAC subsystem (not just the chip or component set), one hears 261.625 +/- within a range of maybe 0.005 Hz. The vinyl playback, in comparison near instantaneously plays middle C as tones within a range of, let's say, 0.25Hz. To most humans' ears, that more "fuzziness" sounds richer and more pleasing, even if it supposedly less accurate. Moreover, regarding accuracy, who is to say that digital does impose a reduction thereof by capturing only the essence of, rather than the full range of, the original tone?

That's just total malarkey.
Distortion is distortion.

I think the poster deserves an award for "originality in bullshit".

 

[j_j]

. Moreover, regarding accuracy, who is to say that digital does impose a reduction thereof by capturing only the essence of, rather than the full range of, the original tone?

Anyone who says that does not understand the mathematics of the system.

 

[Galliardist]

Two considerations: (1) the quality of the mastering counts, which is why sometimes vinyl sounds better than digital and other times the converse (ironically, I have found that remastering more often than not sounds worse than the original);

... what is the original? How often is any vinyl LP "the original", unless dealing with a direct to disc recording?

 

[tmtomh]

The vinyl playback, in comparison near instantaneously plays middle C as tones within a range of, let's say, 0.25Hz. To most humans' ears, that more "fuzziness" sounds richer and more pleasing, even if it supposedly less accurate.

Moreover, regarding accuracy, who is to say that digital does impose a reduction thereof by capturing only the essence of, rather than the full range of, the original tone?

Regarding the first sentence of yours that I have quoted here, you might very well be right - although I would dispute "most." But yes, added distortion from vinyl, tubes, and so on very well might create a euphonic effect for many listeners.

Regarding your second sentence, the answer is that math says that you are wrong. If the mathematics of digital sampling theory were wrong or incomplete in the way that you propose here, then your DAC, your cell phone, and your favorite video streaming service simply would not function properly.

 

[levimax]

... what is the original? How often is any vinyl LP "the original", unless dealing with a direct to disc recording?

For many older recordings the LP release was the "original" as that was what was released to the public. People point out all the "bad" things done during the mastering process for LP's but there were also a lot of enhancements or at least attempted enhancements. One reason people collect "first pressing" LPs is that these were mastered by the "famous" mastering engineers like Robert Ludwig and they "initialed" the dead wax. Later pressing were mastered by whom ever. This does not make LP's "better" than digital versions but it can make them "different" and any time something is different it can be preferred or not.

 

[Galliardist]

For many older recordings the LP release was the "original" as that was what was released to the public. People point out all the "bad" things done during the mastering process for LP's but there were also a lot of enhancements or at least attempted enhancements. One reason people collect "first pressing" LPs is that these were mastered by the "famous" mastering engineers like Robert Ludwig and they "initialed" the dead wax. Later pressing were mastered by whom ever. This does not make LP's "better" than digital versions but it can make them "different" and any time something is different it can be preferred or not.

I pretty much invited this response. This is really a philosophical matter,, but at this distance in time, I have more questions than answers.

Firstly. If course I’m old enough to remember that at the time those albums were released, the hifi “ideal” was not an early pressing LP but the master tape. We knew back then that LP wasn’t a great copy of the master: and of course LP playback varied from system to system and differences were real and audible. So chasing the “original” on an LP raises the question of what player to use - there’s a contradiction between the sound I heard on a cheap player in 1973 and what most of us would consider as entry level today.
There’s also the possibility that some recording engineers at the time considered the stereo master not as a reference but just a stepping stone to the final LP copy; so the “master tape” itself has little value as a reference to “what the artist intended”.

Then there’s the LP itself. That early pressing LP… is it really the umpteen thousandth pressing from the eighth stamper, and did anyone ever really check for difference between test pressings and very late ones? Then that LP may have been played on a bad turntable several hundred times, and nobody has ever checked for deterioration of eman unplayed disc over 50 years. So how do we know now for certain that we can ever hear the music as we would have back then in any case?

The difference can be a lot smaller than with a heavy handed digital remaster of course, but we are kidding ourselves either way.

 

[j_j]

I pretty much invited this response. This is really a philosophical matter,, but at this distance in time, I have more questions than answers.

Firstly. If course I’m old enough to remember that at the time those albums were released, the hifi “ideal” was not an early pressing LP but the master tape. We knew back then that LP wasn’t a great copy of the master: and of course LP playback varied from system to system and differences were real and audible. So chasing the “original” on an LP raises the question of what player to use - there’s a contradiction between the sound I heard on a cheap player in 1973 and what most of us would consider as entry level today.
There’s also the possibility that some recording engineers at the time considered the stereo master not as a reference but just a stepping stone to the final LP copy; so the “master tape” itself has little value as a reference to “what the artist intended”.

Then there’s the LP itself. That early pressing LP… is it really the umpteen thousandth pressing from the eighth stamper, and did anyone ever really check for difference between test pressings and very late ones? Then that LP may have been played on a bad turntable several hundred times, and nobody has ever checked for deterioration of eman unplayed disc over 50 years. So how do we know now for certain that we can ever hear the music as we would have back then in any case?

The difference can be a lot smaller than with a heavy handed digital remaster of course, but we are kidding ourselves either way.

Well, I'm in entire agreement with this.

But, this goes much farther. Stereo (2 channel audio, not what Harvey Fletcher called "stereo") can not possibly carry enough information to actually provide anything like a "real" performance environment, no matter how it's presented. In 1933, Steinburg and Snow showed, conclusively, that a third center channel (which, by the way, carries most of the "load" in energy terms) is necessary to salvage distance cues from the HRTF interference from the left and right speakers (although some of that interference can be mitigated by side reflections, which add other problems, of course) to each ear. This is even for "head in vice" listening. Even for only perceptual close similarity, more than 3 channels is required, although 3 can do a good job of the front, as well as substantially widen the listening area. The current use of "center channel" ignores clear, obvious understanding going back 89 years at this point.

THAT leaves out the fact that in any natural acoustic (including being in the audience of an electronically supported performance) everyone moves their head around in their space,

 

[Robin L]

Well, I'm in entire agreement with this.

But, this goes much farther. Stereo (2 channel audio, not what Harvey Fletcher called "stereo") can not possibly carry enough information to actually provide anything like a "real" performance environment, no matter how it's presented. In 1933, Steinburg and Snow showed, conclusively, that a third center channel (which, by the way, carries most of the "load" in energy terms) is necessary to salvage distance cues from the HRTF interference from the left and right speakers (although some of that interference can be mitigated by side reflections, which add other problems, of course) to each ear. This is even for "head in vice" listening. Even for only perceptual close similarity, more than 3 channels is required, although 3 can do a good job of the front, as well as substantially widen the listening area. The current use of "center channel" ignores clear, obvious understanding going back 89 years at this point.

THAT leaves out the fact that in any natural acoustic (including being in the audience of an electronically supported performance) everyone moves their head around in their space,

I guess it's of some value to note that the highly regarded RCA "Living Stereo" and Mercury "Living Presence" stereo recordings are three channel recordings. Those were not issued in their originally intended form until reissued as SACDs in the early "oughts".

 

[RCAguy]

Well-recorded digital can sound better than "vinyl"...but typically it doesn't if it's highly processed for lowest common denominator (LCD) replay, as is most pop music for earbuds, cars, & boomboxes. But with high quality replay, over-processing artifacts are clearly audible. So vinyl in its heyday was mastered for highest quality in the groove. If these disks sound bad, it's usually a replay problem: improper alignment, tonearm-cantilever resonance, cartridge loading, preamp EQ, stylus tip shape, and more. With digital, there are "no user-serviceable adjustments inside." However with vinyl, consumers and installers are invited "inside," perhaps with a reference book such as "Better Sound from your Phonograph," 2nd edition out now.

 

[levimax]

Well-recorded digital can sound better than "vinyl"...but typically it doesn't if it's highly processed for lowest common denominator (LCD) replay, as is most pop music for earbuds, cars, & boomboxes. But with high quality replay, over-processing artifacts are clearly audible. So vinyl in its heyday was mastered for highest quality in the groove. If these disks sound bad, it's usually a replay problem: improper alignment, tonearm-cantilever resonance, cartridge loading, preamp EQ, stylus tip shape, and more. With digital, there are "no user-serviceable adjustments inside." However with vinyl, consumers and installers are invited "inside," perhaps with a reference book such as "Better Sound from your Phonograph," 2nd edition out now.

I collect both old CD's and original press vinyl of my favorite older recorded music and both are "hit and miss" when it comes to SQ. Old vinyl however is an order of magnitude more variable as an LP even from the same pressing can vary depending if it the first or last record pressed from the plates, different vinyl batches, and of course how it was cared for used and abused over the decades. I find that SQ issues with LP's have much more to do with the pressing and condition of the LP than with set up of the TT... of course I think I have my TT set up right