Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[Frank Dernie]

It does. It's more dynamic, natural, live, the instruments are clearer in space, Lou Reed (who's talking as much as singing) seems like he's in the room, having a conversation with me.

So is the more 'present' because of the nature of the source? Interactive vs point and click. 20 minutes vs ? hours. Large cover vs tiny print on a screen, maybe? Does my increased level of interaction with the source increase my appreciation of it? Am I just paying closer attention because analog demands it?

Or is there some quality of the sound that is taken out when it removed from the physical realm -- into the theoretical realm? A record after all is a physical imprint of the sound.

You can literally feel the sound in a record groove.

Can't do that with 1s and 0s.

Of course, that shouldn't matter. the resolution of digital is so high that machines can't tell anything is missing, so why should humans be able to. There is no "physicality" to sound, in reality.

Is there?

I wouldn't say they do here.
I have made digital copies of LPs which are indistinguishable from playing the LP itself, so there is certainly nothing about the digital process which sounds worse than an LP.
There are several known possibilities though.

There is the strange situation with dynamic range compression. LPs need it for classical music because the dynamic range of the music is sufficiently wide for either the peaks to have excessive distortion or the quiet parts descend into audible noise.
OTOH with rock music the dynamic range of the music tends to be much less so compression isn't usually necessary on a rock LP but, because a lot of digital music gets played on ear buds and in cars much rock music is mastered much more compressed in digital files than it needs to be so that we have the odd situation that some LPs have a wider dynamic range than a CD of the same album despite the CD medium having a noticeably greater potential.

Many of the shortcomings of analogue recording and playback are euphonic. The mechanical and airborne vibration pickup adds (system dependant) extra reverb on playback.

Many cartridges are rolled off at higher frequencies which a lot of people, IME, prefer to a flat frequency response - Often described as sounding "more analogue" and this is particularly beneficial on a cheaper system with, perhaps, harsh treble.
In order to have a continuous groove high level bass frequencies have to be cut mono, so in a lot of recordings the whole bass side is monoed which, again, is better because the amp and speakers share the most power hungry part of the music.

The down side of LPs is speed stability and distortion at higher levels and frequencies.

 

[q3cpma]

There is plenty of older music where the best sounding version is on vinyl... this is especially true if no digital version exists. I would argue that if you care about music you will have a system that plays both records and digital sources.

That's why I said "people who like vinyl". Not "people aware that sometimes, the best master is on LP".

 

[pads]

Oh brother, here go the deaf vinyl-heads again.
They drag a rock thru a ditch and have the balls to call it High Fidelity.
There hasn't been an LP worth it's purchase cost since about 1982.


View attachment 121702

A broad generalization, I have lots. Many of us "deaf vinyl-heads" are just as happy with digital (I have my DAC and CD players) but we also enjoy tinkering. Perhaps a little OCD in the spectrum. Either way writing off one format as something for Luddites is ridiculous, your avatar enjoys putting out music on vinyl. A lot of artists do. It's a physical media that has always had an appeal much like a bibliophile's admiration of a book over kindle. At the end of the day this is nothing more than a hobby, a hobby available in many formats, I don't always get the electronics but I do get the mechanics and I enjoy tweaking my tables, improving tolerances etc. and having been involved in this for over 45 years I have a fairly good idea of what high fidelity is.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

And the really important point is that the analog sound survives an AD/DA chain. A digital recording of an record sounds exactly like the record, using an old Edirol UA25 USB sound interface.

Well of course if you stuff a converter in there without telling me, I'd be unlikely to have some sixth sense to pick up on the placing in the chain. Of course, you can't tell a metal tape played back on a quality cassette deck with dolby C either, even if you think 0.01% distortion is 'subpar'.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

That's why I said "people who like vinyl". Not "people aware that sometimes, the best master is on LP".

There are a large number of releases of master tapes being pressed that are better than previous releases. I don't know if these are lp only or if there are digital versions running around, but the playing of a record is a superior experience regardless of the dynamic range of the source. For me personally. Everyone has a different experience.

I can live with the people around here call me a elderly audiofool believing the records sound better.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

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.

Well, cd > lp was less a game changer than network wireless streaming > cd. the ability to play endless lengths of tons and tons of music at $10 month is more important to my musical experience than longer play times or wider dynamic range.

 

[AnalogSteph]

The down side of LPs is speed stability and distortion at higher levels and frequencies.

The latter, absolutely - it takes a very good system and little-worn record to not struggle audibly with high-frequency tinkling sounds. The former I would say tape-based systems have more of an issue with, especially wow&flutter (just because they have smaller, faster-moving parts). A good quartz-locked direct drive 'table playing an LP with an accurately placed center hole can be well within audible limits. There's some other wackiness like frequency modulation due to part of the fundamental resonance vector being parallel to the groove (due to tonearm geometry) and as such translating into back and forth movement. And then the whole mess with cartridge / cable / phonopre interaction and whatnot.

I think the engineers who originally came up with the predecessors to RIAA (de)emphasis deserve a lot of credit for making playback of these discs palatable to the human ear, at least for a decent range of material. We wouldn't be having this discussion here otherwise. It's not the best in the bass or the highs, but delivers decent enough midrange distortion.

 

[q3cpma]

Well, cd > lp was less a game changer than network wireless streaming > cd. the ability to play endless lengths of tons and tons of music at $10 month is more important to my musical experience than longer play times or wider dynamic range.

People were collecting huge digital libraries by any mean available before streaming. Streaming is only a game changer for people who don't like to curate such a library.

 

[LTig]

Well of course if you stuff a converter in there without telling me, I'd be unlikely to have some sixth sense to pick up on the placing in the chain.

This. It proves that digital recordings are transparent to the source and if analog sounds different than digital it's either due to different masterings or due to deficiencies in the analogue chain. Whatever one prefers is a private matter but one cannot conclude that vinyl is the better recording medium with transparency and high fidelity.

Of course, you can't tell a metal tape played back on a quality cassette deck with dolby C either, even if you think 0.01% distortion is 'subpar'.

Nope, the difference between digital and cassette tape is clearly audible to me, despite using a very good deck (AKAI GX 75 MK2). The loss in attack and transients stands out immediately. Tape compression is much more audible than THD.

 

[Spocko]

I guess distortion sounds better.

This was Nelson Pass' conclusion and he will continue to design amplifiers with that in mind.

 

[Spocko]

Michael Uwins conducted a listening test and wrote an article for Linear Audio (and also an AES paper). Vinyl scored the lowest.
https://linearaudio.nl/sites/linearaudio.net/files/v10 mu.pdf

View attachment 121681
These are the test tracks. Vinyl was digitally sampled. Emulated vinyl was the digital master

1. EQ to the frequency response of the vinyl playing system​

2. Stereo width narrowed to match the cross-talk of vinyl​

3. Added ~5.6% THD​

Interestingly MP3 scored higher than CD in test A (test B was a statistical tie).

View attachment 121682

This is the sort of finding audiophiles hate to discuss and refuse to accept because there "must be something wrong" with the testing conditions. Romance and nostalgia is the natural enemy of science and progress.

 

[Sal1950]

A couple good links which explain why vinyl sounds the way it does.
Not to include it's technical shortcomings like, all sort or noises, inner groove distortion, speed issues, etc.

https://www.gottagrooverecords.com/vinyl-mastering/

https://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/mastering-for-vinyl--cms-29480

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

There is plenty of older music where the best sounding version is on vinyl... this is especially true if no digital version exists. I would argue that if you care about music have money to burn you will have a system that plays both records and digital sources.

Sadly, records are a total rip off. Really, you need to devote hours to hunting down a decent copy and then you need a cleaning machine that's more than the record player. And the time to clean them is as long as it takes to play one side of the record. Otherwise, you're stuck with $35 pressings. They're great, well mastered, clean, no funny business and the experience of playing a record is more interactive than playing any digital source. No doubt they sound better to me as a result.

But damn the price is stupid high. It really isn't worth the investment. Records are just too short.

I bought 15 records before I bought my turntable. I have listened to them all already in two days. Some twice.

For Over $500.

That's 4 years of streaming. 3 years with a modi 3+ dac.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

This is the sort of finding audiophiles hate to discuss and refuse to accept because there "must be something wrong" with the testing conditions. Romance and nostalgia is the natural enemy of science and progress.

Well if mp3 scored higher in 50% of tests than cd, there is something wrong with the test.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Sadly, records are a total rip off. Really, you need to devote hours to hunting down a decent copy and then you need a cleaning machine that's more than the record player. And the time to clean them is as long as it takes to play one side of the record. Otherwise, you're stuck with $35 pressings. They're great, well mastered, clean, no funny business and the experience of playing a record is more interactive than playing any digital source. No doubt they sound better to me as a result.

But damn the price is stupid high. It really isn't worth the investment. Records are just too short.

I bought 15 records before I bought my turntable. I have listened to them all already in two days. Some twice.

For Over $500.

That's 4 years of streaming. 3 years with a modi 3+ dac.

I already had hundreds of LPs and several record players when the first CD player became available.
I still play the LPs from time to time but neither the LPs or the record players are anywhere near worth what people charge for them nowadays IMO.
When I was an engineer at Garrard the top model TT was £72 iirc, these self same decks change hands used for thousands today which is completely bonkers.
I bought most of my LPs for £1.50 each new.
My local dealer tells me most of the LPs he sells are to the collector market not to people planning to listen to them.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

This. It proves that digital recordings are transparent to the source and if analog sounds different than digital it's either due to different masterings or due to deficiencies in the analogue chain. Whatever one prefers is a private matter but one cannot conclude that vinyl is the better recording medium with transparency and high fidelity.

Nope, the difference between digital and cassette tape is clearly audible to me, despite using a very good deck (AKAI GX 75 MK2). The loss in attack and transients stands out immediately. Tape compression is much more audible than THD.

I had an earlier version of that deck. The 3 head design was terrible. Mass market decks sound better with two heads. The alignment needs to be perfect (and it never is) to get any benefit from the optimized head gaps. Still sounded good though.

 

[Sal1950]

I already had hundreds of LPs and several record players when the first CD player became available.

I had about 200 LP's in my collection when the CD came out, never bought another one since.
I did a very time consuming and serious ripping of all of them just before I moved to FL
I've never listened to a single one since I got my first streaming account.
All that work for nothing.

 

[Chrispy]

Some vinyl is done very well but I don't think it sounds better than digital generally. I grew up with vinyl, was glad when digital options came along. While I kept my vinyl and tt around all these years since, I don't use it much, as I just don't find it a better experience overall. Just nostalgic for the most part.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Nope, the difference between digital and cassette tape is clearly audible to me, despite using a very good deck (AKAI GX 75 MK2). The loss in attack and transients stands out immediately. Tape compression is much more audible than THD.

Massive difference to cassette IMO too, and I was using a Nakamichi CR-7E, which I still have. Digital was immediately audibly superior to reel-to-reel tape too IME.
I had been using reel-to-reel tape recorders for my recordings from the early 1960s starting with a mono valve model and ending up with a Revox B77 before getting a StellaDAT digital recorder. The StellaDAT was the first recorder where the output of the recorder was the same as the microphone feed, reel-to-reel has audible distortion and reduced top octave at high levels and noise at low levels both of which will be encountered on real music dynamic range. Even 16-bit digital had neither problem though digital clipping is to be absolutely avoided whereas tape overload is quite a nice sounding limiter if not overdone.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Some vinyl is done very well but I don't think it sounds better than digital generally. I grew up with vinyl, was glad when digital options came along. While I kept my vinyl and tt around all these years since, I don't use it much, as I just don't find it a better experience overall. Just nostalgic for the most part.

I only play an LP when the next piece of music I feel like listening to happens to be on one of my LPs. Which is not that often, usually one of my 50 year old folk music albums.