Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[DeepFried]

Are you saying that the "magic" disappears for you if you digitize the output of your turntable and play that?

The 'magic' exists in our minds and our appreciation of the analogue. A comparison might be a mechanical watch, or a perfect digital simulation of a mechanical watch... the latter kind of misses the point.

Its not about sound quality at all, its about our affinity for the machine.

IMO anyway

 

[Snarfie]

Inventor of the cassete tape about vinyl.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/11/lou-ottens-inventor-of-the-cassette-tape-dies-aged-94

---
Ottens, who died on Saturday, had little patience with the renewed popularity of the cassette tape – or even vinyl.

“Nothing can match the sound of the CD,” he had told the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad. “It is absolutely noise and rumble-free. That never worked with tape … I have made a lot of record players and I know that the distortion with vinyl is much higher. I think people mainly hear what they want to hear.”

 

[Wes]

Vinyl sounds better because We're Euphonic!!

 

[danadam]

The 'magic' exists in our minds and our appreciation of the analogue. A comparison might be a mechanical watch, or a perfect digital simulation of a mechanical watch... the latter kind of misses the point.

Its not about sound quality at all, its about our affinity for the machine.

IMO anyway

Am I to understand this as 1s and 0s can do that (make you feel the sound in the groove, the 'magic') as long as you think it is actual record playing?

For me, I have much appreciation for the intricacy of a mechanical watch but I don't say it measures time better than a digital one (or a digital replica). In the same vein I appreciate all the technical challenges they had to overcome to make "a rock that scraps plastic" to sound as it sounds, but I don't say that it sounds better than digital.

 

[DeepFried]

Am I to understand this as 1s and 0s can do that (make you feel the sound in the groove, the 'magic') as long as you think it is actual record playing?

For me, I have much appreciation for the intricacy of a mechanical watch but I don't say it measures time better than a digital one (or a digital replica). In the same vein I appreciate all the technical challenges they had to overcome to make "a rock that scraps plastic" to sound as it sounds, but I don't say that it sounds better than digital.

Well to be clear I don't own a record player and never have. I guess I'm just theorizing about what makes Vinyl attractive.

Our brains aren't computers that download digital data, we experience music imperfectly, and uniquely, and I suspect a large part of the satisfaction and appreciation of what we're hearing is psychological - which isn't to say imaginary, just that our beliefs and feelings are a real part of the audio stack. If the ritual and romance of vinyl makes something 'sound better' to someone then more power to them i say.

 

[Frgirard]

No needs to brain theory. The fashion is enough to explain why the vinyl is preferred.

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony computer's recording. But because, I am englightened by my 5000 dollar turntable. "

 

[Wes]

"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony computer's recording. But because, my wallet has been englightened by my 5000 dollar turntable. "

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony computer's recording. But because, my wallet has been englightened by my 5000 dollar turntable. "

Fuck, that's way better lol

 

[GGroch]

.....Our brains aren't computers that download digital data, we experience music imperfectly, and uniquely, and I suspect a large part of the satisfaction and appreciation of what we're hearing is psychological.....

You make some excellent points, but it could be counterargued that our brains are biological computers that download pretty accurate analog data from our ears, but then process sound to extract relevant meaning based on thousands of years of evolution. That we therefor experience all sounds imperfectly and that our brains instantaneously and automatically interpret sounds to place them in a rational context based on evolution and prior experience. There is nothing unique about music in this regard.

Our perception of sound is entirely dependent on our brain's drive to make sense of what we hear. Early man had to quickly recognize the sound of a growling bear was dangerous whether in a resonant cave or in an open field. That it was a bear, and its distance and direction were most relevant. The ability to recognize the voice of a friend in all environments regardless of frequency response accuracy and S/N ratio is what matters. So, that is what our biological computer focuses on and less important data it immediately discards.

I am not sure what role music plays in man's evolutionary journey but am convinced it plays an important role. Musical engagement does not seem to depend on the quality of the performers or resolution of the playback mechanism. Only a tiny subset of music lovers, audiophiles, focus on that.

This supports your major point, that music perception is psychological. It disputes only that music is unique as compared to other sounds in this regard. Acceptance that the ear/brain system is a meaning engine, not an accuracy engine explains a lot about why subjective reviews of audio gear and the concepts of burn in or "tube sound" are unavoidably unreliable. It also explains part of why the psychological and ritual parts of the vinyl experience are far more important to us than its actual fidelity.

 

[mohragk]

I think the title is apt: vinyl can SOUND better than digital. But it's not better from a technical standpoint. The whole ritual of taking a record out of it's sleeve, brushing off any dust and removing some static, carefully putting it on the platter and dropping that stylus with a satisfying thump... whatever happens next will be great!

Or a let down to be honest. Some records just are mastered or pressed poorly.

The point is that playing records is more involved and more attentive from the get go. It takes effort to play a record, so it better be worth it. And when you start to listen... it does.

 

[Saidera]

I might've written this out in a Sony thread here, but according to their veteran amp engineer, record players have a slight noise which helps the mids and highs, and arm resonance which helps the low end, and turntable resonance, meaning the whole equipment is shaking, which helps distort the sound in a good way. Now that is the theory behind 'Vinyl Processor' on walkmans as a DSP.

But then there's the WAVES plugins emulating tapes and vinyls, which Sony tries to differentiate itself from.

And there are many other reasons for vinyl's peculiarities.

 

[Wes]

You make some excellent points, but it could be counterargued that our brains are biological computers that download pretty accurate analog data from our ears, but then process sound to extract relevant meaning based on thousands of years of evolution. .

That argument would be wrong.

 

[Frgirard]

I think the title is apt: vinyl can SOUND better than digital.

A VINYL MASTERING can sound better than A HIGH COMPRESSED DIGITAL MASTERING..

 

[Sal1950]

That argument would be wrong.

But at it's best our hearing completely sucks. The average animal has better hearing than us with wider FR and much better sensitivity.

A VINYL MASTERING can sound better than A HIGH COMPRESSED DIGITAL MASTERING..

The "Master" might, but after it get's pressed to vinyl sound quality all goes to hell. Must I list the many ways?

 

[Newman]

That argument would be wrong.

Truth hurts the average audiophile who has sucked up the myth about trusting their ears. But the response to learning it’s a myth has gotta be better than the above image.

 

[Wes]

No, his errors are in misunderstanding neural coding, as well as "thousands of years of evolution"

 

[pkane]

No, his errors are in misunderstanding neural coding, as well as "thousands of years of evolution"

So he was a few orders of magnitude off. Audiophiles have been evolving for less than a 100 years but look at the amazing golden ears they've achieved in such a short time!

 

[BrEpBrEpBrEpBrEp]

So he was a few orders of magnitude off.

Following in a time-honoured audiophile tradition.

 

[GGroch]

No, his errors are in misunderstanding neural coding, as well as "thousands of years of evolution"

As H. Sapiens, lets say hundreds of thousands of years, which is certainly in the thousands of years. My analogy is based on my layman's understanding of J.J. Johnston's presentations. The ear brings in megabits of information, the brain discards all but the few bits it considers relevant. What it considers relevant is based on evolution and experience.