Vinyl is not as bad as I expected.

[DSJR]

Don't forget - a few specialist pressings aside, vinyl is routinely cut with nothing below 40Hz and much below 150Hz or so turned into mono to save 'land' in the first case and also to prevent styli jumping in both cases. Cutting heads apparently overheat if you try to cut high level high frequencies so this rarely happens. I'm continually amazed vinyl sounds as good as it can and for some older decks and arms once liked, thank heavens for the likes of the beer budget AT VM95ML and SH...

 

[polmuaddib]

It is surprising for me to see a lot of vinyl being sold at music stores nowadays.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but 99% of new pressings are digital recordings and they are mastered digitally. Or some old analog tape masters, but they are usually digitally restored or remastered. I know there is a a very small number of recording studios in the world that maintain the whole analog way of recording, producing, mixing... and finally pressing. It is difficult to avoid something digital entering in the audio chain.
I mean, if you listen to old records for sentimental reasons, I get it. And it is ok. I have those too.
But if someone is saying still that analog is better then digital while listening to the new 180g digitally recorded and produced vinyl, who is kidding who?

 

[sergeauckland]

It is surprising for me to see a lot of vinyl being sold at music stores nowadays.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but 99% of new pressings are digital recordings and they are mastered digitally. Or some old analog tape masters, but they are usually digitally restored or remastered. I know there is a a very small number of recording studios in the world that maintain the whole analog way of recording, producing, mixing... and finally pressing. It is difficult to avoid something digital entering in the audio chain.
I mean, if you listen to old records for sentimental reasons, I get it. And it is ok. I have those too.
But if someone is saying still that analog is better then digital while listening to the new 180g digitally recorded and produced vinyl, who is kidding who?

I agree, however, analogue LP cutting, pressing and replay are such non-transparent operations that any differences between analogue tape and a digital recording are swamped by the LP process. If someone actually prefers the sound of a rock being dragged through a ditch, then how the music was recorded, I suggest, is relatively unimportant.

S

 

[Soniclife]

It is surprising for me to see a lot of vinyl being sold at music stores nowadays.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but 99% of new pressings are digital recordings and they are mastered digitally. Or some old analog tape masters, but they are usually digitally restored or remastered. I know there is a a very small number of recording studios in the world that maintain the whole analog way of recording, producing, mixing... and finally pressing. It is difficult to avoid something digital entering in the audio chain.
I mean, if you listen to old records for sentimental reasons, I get it. And it is ok. I have those too.
But if someone is saying still that analog is better then digital while listening to the new 180g digitally recorded and produced vinyl, who is kidding who?

Vinyl is an effects processor, and with some recordings it seems beneficial, to me it seems most frequently better with music genres inherently linked with vinyl, e.g rock, rap, dance etc, music that was formed with a feedback loop of performance, recording and vinyl listening. The sound and limitations of vinyl guided the creative process, similar to the evolution of real instruments and classical composition. Adding a trip through digital does not change any of this, it's just a better studio tape machine replacement, you still get the same effects processor at the end, which rarely improves the subjective sound, and never the objective truth.

 

[polmuaddib]

Vinyl is an effects processor, and with some recordings it seems beneficial, to me it seems most frequently better with music genres inherently linked with vinyl, e.g rock, rap, dance etc, music that was formed with a feedback loop of performance, recording and vinyl listening. The sound and limitations of vinyl guided the creative process, similar to the evolution of real instruments and classical composition. Adding a trip through digital does not change any of this, it's just a better studio tape machine replacement, you still get the same effects processor at the end, which rarely improves the subjective sound, and never the objective truth.

I absolutely get that. I love my 12'' Disco and house singles. They sound great on vinyl. As an experience.
But I can't stand claims that analog has something that digital doesn't.
I have come to believe that older generation is used to hearing analog noise as a reference for air, ambience in the recording and finds digital recordings artificial because there is no audible noise. Something in that audible analog noise that makes the recordings real.
On the other hand you have young hipsters that enjoy vinyl just because it is different and whatever reason hipsters enjoy something...
I repeat, I get people enjoying vinyl for what it is, but high fidelity it isn't.
BTW, there is also a small resurgence of compact cassette tape and tape machines. With what material is that enjoyed now, I am perplexed.

 

[polmuaddib]

on that note....
but don't zoom in, there is some dust on my technics...

 

[teched58]

. . .
.
BTW, there is also a small resurgence of compact cassette tape and tape machines. With what material is that enjoyed now, I am perplexed.

I think a big part of the tape resurgence is that cassette decks are pieces of electronics, as opposed to TTs, which are largely mechanical devices (more precisely, they are electromechanical). 1960s/70s record changers are essentially clockworks, the only difference being they require bigger screwdrivers. (I'm excluding direct drive TTs, which don't fall nicely into my mechanical taxonomy.)

To qualify this a little, I'm talking about the appeal of tape to restorers. I've enjoyed getting old decks back into service, but when I listen to them, it's obvious how inferior the cassette format is compared to CD and digital. So I'm in the hobby for the restoration enjoyment, not so much to listen to cassettes. (I have no idea how/why RSD hipsters might like cassettes. I think the reason the mini mini resurgence started was that bands were making cassettes to sell at shows.)

The final point I'll make is that (entirely too much) of the cassette deck talk on forums is about Naks. Yes, I get that they're the best, but I couldn't afford them when they were new and (with Nak used prices for even broken units in the stratosphere) I can't afford them now!

 

[DSJR]

View attachment 128350
on that note....
but don't zoom in, there is some dust on my technics...

There's a dull old Grado in it too - how could you?

 

[polmuaddib]

Yeah, Grado green. Not very good... I read somewhere that it was best bang for buck. Apparently not. Stanton 681 is better. Even with old stylus... I admit that TT with good cartridges sound better then my setup. Just, can't justify the investment in better vinyl gear for myself...
But I buy old vinyl occasionally. When feeling nostalgic. I enjoy going through albums in thrift shops and street vendors... Alwasy buy two or three LPs.
Play them for couple of minutes and then rarely play them again...

 

[MattHooper]

I can't stand when vinyl-aficionados and some audiophile writers tout Vinyl as the top dog for sound quality. As if digital " still has some catching up to do."

That said, since I listen to a lot of vinyl and I'm no fan of pops, ticks or record noise, I buy vinyl in the best condition I can - either new or "mint" if second hand whenever possible. I also have an ultrasonic record cleaner at the ready when needed. I've certainly had some noisy records disappoint me. But on the whole, listening to the majority of my records I can not hear any noise while a track is playing. At the beginning, end and sometimes in between tracks, yes, but not when actual music is playing. It sounds very clean.

I find that with both my sources - digital and vinyl for music - both sound fantastic, with sound quality varying along the way due to source/production/mastering sound quality. Sometimes vinyl sounds better to me, sometimes digital.

Vinyl is one of those things that on paper, given all the technical kludges, should sound pretty low quality, but in practice given it can be "perfected" to the extent possible and our ears are forgiving, it can sound excellent.

 

[wgb113]

I find that with both my sources - digital and vinyl for music - both sound fantastic, with sound quality varying along the way due to source/production/mastering sound quality. Sometimes vinyl sounds better to me, sometimes digital.

Vinyl is one of those things that on paper, given all the technical kludges, should sound pretty low quality, but in practice given it can be "perfected" to the extent possible and our ears are forgiving, it can sound excellent.

This. I too find it’s more the mastering of a certain format that I prefer and not the format itself.

Your last point is a good one as well. You could even extend that to the entire recording process - theoretically today’s recordings should be leaps and bounds better in quality than 60-70 year old recordings but that’s not always the case and the truth is some of those older recordings sound damned good.

 

[MattHooper]

This. I too find it’s more the mastering of a certain format that I prefer and not the format itself.

Your last point is a good one as well. You could even extend that to the entire recording process - theoretically today’s recordings should be leaps and bounds better in quality than 60-70 year old recordings but that’s not always the case and the truth is some of those older recordings sound damned good.

Yep. All other things being equal, digital can be more accurate/quieter/dynamic. But the variation of sources means it's not apples to apples and you can't just say "Digital Sounds Better" because you may follow a fairly poorly produced digital album with a very well produced album on vinyl, and the vinyl will sound better. It will depend on the source quality.

 

[dfuller]

there is no proof that there is any added spectral information though, it's a fake increase.

Okay, I'm going to try this again:

Nobody said anything about added spectral information. Vinyl as a medium cannot be cut with as high a loudness/as low a dynamic range as digital can. There are limits to what the cutting stylus can do and what the playback head can do, therefore there are limits to what can be recorded to a record. The issue of loudness (and I mean loudness, not level) vs low end is much more apparent on a vinyl record than it is on digital. Lookahead brickwall limiters are essentially never used on vinyl masters because of the limitations of the format - therefore, it has much higher program dynamic range. The medium itself has less than digital, but the material printed often has more dynamic range than a digital master because of medium limitations.

This. I too find it’s more the mastering of a certain format that I prefer and not the format itself.

Ding ding ding! This is the exact reason people think "vinyl sounds better". It's not the medium itself - it's the masters for that medium that sound better because there is way less (basically no) room for crushing with a limiter.

 

[Maxicut]

What you are saying is that the DR meter only really works with unprocessed "real stereo" (mic pair) recordings, not multi-mic'ed, multi-track stereo mixes.

DR is only useful in telling you if a track is going to sound bad/compressed/limited. If a track is a DR3, you know it's gonna be bad, but if it's a DR14, it could be good or bad.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Yep. All other things being equal, digital can be more accurate/quieter/dynamic. But the variation of sources means it's not apples to apples and you can't just say "Digital Sounds Better" because you may follow a fairly poorly produced digital album with a very well produced album on vinyl, and the vinyl will sound better. It will depend on the source quality.

This is the key to my mantra about recording quality varying more than the quality of the kit we use to play it back at home.
I have fabulous sounding LPs and awful sounding CDs as well as the converse, which is what started me banging on about it decades ago.

We often actually pay far more attention to the kit than it warrants.
LP has inherently more distortion and less dynamic range than CD but the thing is, well engineered, it can produce superb sound at home.
CD has the capability to record all the audible part of music yet people get excited about higher bit rates and higher sampling rates which physically can't be exploited by 99.99% speakers in rooms even if the extra data were audible.

The downside of this is that if you have a favourite artist and their LPs and CDs were badly recorded/mastered you are stuffed. You can spend gazzillions on a hifi and they will still suck.

Classical music fans are slightly luckier because the great works have all been recorded multiple times so there will be a well recorded version. It is bad luck if your favourite interpretation happens to be a badly recorded one and I must say I would always prefer to listen to a mediocre recording of music I love than spectacular recordings of music which bores me.
I must say though that it is with the wider dynamic range of classical music that CD shows a much greater potential than LP. My great sounding LPs are music that doesn't tax the medium.

 

[Count Arthur]

The downside of this is that if you have a favourite artist and their LPs and CDs were badly recorded/mastered you are stuffed. You can spend gazzillions on a hifi and they will still suck.

That'll be half my music collection.

A good portion of the music I like is by bands or artists that seeminly didn't have the budget or the inclination to get their music well recorded, mastered or produced. Now I have all the music I originally had on CD, some of which I previously had on vinyl, ripped and and stored as lossless copies on either SSD or HDD, the difference in recording quality between some of the best and worst is very obvious, despite all being the same 16 bit, 44.1 khz bit depth/rate.

Some recordings sound great and have scaled as I have got better playback equipment, others don't really sound much better on my current set-up than they did on the crummy record player or cassette deck I had as a teenager.

 

[PierreV]

BTW, there is also a small resurgence of compact cassette tape and tape machines. With what material is that enjoyed now, I am perplexed.

Finicky complex mechanisms, decaying rubber belts, alignment and magnetization issues, vu meters, lots of things to tinker with. What's not to like ?(except for the sound). I think Guardians of the Galaxy helped. And you can't beat that 80ies rocket control center look.

And the funny thing is that one pays more for a single decent quality cassette than for a monthly streaming service subscription (assuming one can find the cassette ofc)

 

[Mart68]

I have never understood the obsession with recording or production quality.

I don't care if the music sounds like it was recorded in a garage on a fifty quid tape deck. For me that sound is inherent to that music, it's part of it, it's how it is meant to sound.

I bought a hi-fi to listen to music I like, I don't buy music to listen to the hi-fi. If the production values are high that's just a bonus. I've never bought music or listened to music solely because it is 'well-recorded.'

Example - Boston 'Third Stage' - on parts of it you can hear the tape wow. But that's inherent to the sound of the recording so I don't care. If my system was introducing that wow - or some other colouration - then I would care and do something about it. That's why I don't bother with vinyl anymore.

 

[sergeauckland]

I have never understood the obsession with recording or production quality.

I don't care if the music sounds like it was recorded in a garage on a fifty quid tape deck. For me that sound is inherent to that music, it's part of it, it's how it is meant to sound.

I bought a hi-fi to listen to music I like, I don't buy music to listen to the hi-fi. If the production values are high that's just a bonus. I've never bought music or listened to music solely because it is 'well-recorded.'

Example - Boston 'Third Stage' - on parts of it you can hear the tape wow. But that's inherent to the sound of the recording so I don't care. If my system was introducing that wow - or some other colouration - then I would care and do something about it. That's why I don't bother with vinyl anymore.

I sympathise with this view, given that if the art is the finished recording as published, then it should be enjoyed, warts and all.

However, if the recording has obvious faults, my example is the horrendous distortion at the end of The Animals' House of the Rising Sun, then I suggest that's not part of the art, more likely due to budget constraints that didn't do another take. Much of Jimi Hendrix's output had heavy distortion that was part of the art, so legitimate. There's the story of JH's first session at the BBC, where engineers tried manfully to record him clean without the distortion until somebody had a quiet word.

So, yes, 'faults' that are part of the art, and so not faults at all should be preserved and reproduced, but genuine faults corrected if possible, as for example, the speed error on the recorder used for one of Miles Davis's recordings. That was published on LP and early CDs, but corrected (rightly in my view) in later reissues.

S

 

[tuga]

DR is only useful in telling you if a track is going to sound bad/compressed/limited. If a track is a DR3, you know it's gonna be bad, but if it's a DR14, it could be good or bad.

Doesn't it also depend on the music/melody?
R.E.M.'s song "Leave" has a siren balring away loudly for most of the track; if you remove the acoustic intro there are no silences and the siren sound is loud.
How does the DR meter determine the dynamic range "rating" of such a song?