Article: Does Vinyl Really Sound Better?

[Robin L]

It doesn't really answer the question, but this interview with a cutting engineer gives a pretty decent layman's explanation of some of the variables involved in LP mastering / cutting:

https://www.oregonlive.com/music/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html

Fully analog? Potentially, but not usually in practice. But fully lossless? Not possible, the LP gets lossier the closer the stylus gets to the deadwax, There's not a thing to be done. Technologically, a dead end. A DAP will outperform an LP, all things being equal.

 

[Here2Learn]

The first thing some of my freinds do who are addicted to their Vinyl is making asap a digital copy to preserve the quality. When listning to the Vinyl or digital copy in a a/b comparison we realy could not hear any difference.

I'm going to be brave/stupid (and be shot) for saying there's some merit to this practice although I certainly don't do anything like this. So why do I say that? Essentially, the loudness wars and the near limitless ability to mix any way one wants in digital can result in some 'bad' digital mixes. It's not that digital cannot 'better' vinyl, more akin to this example...

Say I want to boost the sound of an instrument in the left channel... if I do it in digital, I can just boost that instruments volume on the left channel. If I do it for vinyl, the way vinyl is recorded means I have to reduce the same sound from the right channel. I'd suggest that relative differences for sound localisation seems more natural on vinyl to many as a result and that *possibly* our aural processing isn't always happy with some of the alterations one can make at a digital mixing desk. If the vinyl version then seems more 'natural', it may well be preferable even when recorded in digital form to the badly produced digital versions. I'd like to see some studies on this, but I doubt I'll ever see one. Anyway, it's just a random thought.

 

[ta240]

It's one thing to say people prefer vinyl over digital, it's another thing so say vinyl is 'better' just because of a preference some people have.

And that is where semantics come into play. Is saying it "sounds better" the same as saying it "is better"? Or is 'sounds' such a relative term that it would be about like arguing about what tastes better or looks better with someone?

I guess since it isn't always followed with "to me" then it could be seen as more of a declaration rather than an opinion. In a time when every idiot in the world has been connected to every other idiot in the world in instantaneous communication; and where they all review every item and interaction they have it may have likely morphed into a statement that it will also sound better for everyone else.

But to me, it still reads as a personal preference.

I don't know who said it first but "I am the foremost expert on my opinion." And arguing with me that I should prefer something else to taste, look at or listen to makes no sense, to me.

 

[solderdude]

And that is where semantics come into play. Is saying it "sounds better" the same as saying it "is better"? Or is 'sounds' such a relative term that it would be about like arguing about what tastes better or looks better with someone?

Saying something sounds better (to that individual) is not the same as stating it IS better (meaning in a technical sense).

You cannot argue about taste.

 

[Dogen]

IMO, vinyl can have a “different” sound, I’d describe it as more punchy and “ physical”. It can be a very appealing sound. But, all that can be captured as a digital file from the output of the phono stage. So, nothing to do with the medium and everything to do with the mastering and the distortions inherent in record playback.

I used to have thousands of LPs, but they’re gone and I don’t miss them. But my vinyl rips sound exactly like the records I made them from.

 

[xr100]

It doesn't really answer the question, but this interview with a cutting engineer gives a pretty decent layman's explanation of some of the variables involved in LP mastering / cutting

Apart from anything else, it would have been nice if the "cutting engineer" mentioned the fact that digital delay lines have been used in vinyl cutting lathes since the 1970's!

 

[xr100]

Which leaves the LP more appealing to me because the lower fidelity of the medium help mask the flaws, merging it all into a 'wall of sound', instead of bunch of distinct instruments that weren't mixed and EQed well enough to give any sense of imaging, soundstage, etc.

That's exactly the sort of sound quality I don't want to hear. If the original master recordings suck that bad, then I really don't want to listen to them, either.

I've had discussions with people who believe that vinyl provides superior "stereo imaging" and then attempted to demonstrate such on their own system. (I have not used vinyl since I first acquired a CD player in the late 1980's, and I hadn't even reached teenage years then!) Yet, for instance, instead of almost sounding like a dense series of reflections, IME reverb tails (on vinyl) sound like out-of-focus smeary mush.

 

[levimax]

I have some old original LP's that sound better (clearer and less distorted) than the CD version or what is on Tidal. The most obvious example I have is Julie London "Julie is her name". I am sure it is because the master tapes degraded during the many decades from the original recording to when they were transferred to digital. This is the exception but it does happen up through some 1970's recordings I have. In some cases a fresh master tape "degraded" by transfer to vinyl still sounds better than a digital transfer of a degraded master tape.

 

[xr100]

That being said, I finally get it now (albeit in a strange way) thanks to my wife and TV. A year ago, I treated myself to a beautiful 65" OLED 4K TV and carefully calibrated everything in the video path 'just right'. My wife stopped watching TV in that room completely... eventually she told me that it was because she found it too disturbing watching movies and shows "as if you were there looking through a window".

I was incredulous! Isn't that exactly what you want? To be able to see exactly what it was like, on set (or in the editing room at least) at the time? NOPE. I reduced all the color levels, set the input max to 1080p/24, and suddenly... my wife was back on the couch and enjoying her shows.

As much as I'm a fan of large displays, especially truly "giant" ones such as IMAX with Laser (light source) projection on a 20+ metre wide screen, I'd rather actually use a smaller display for "regular" TV watching. Bad enough having to sit through the news, let alone be "immersed" in it!

Interestingly, all attempts at "high frame rate" feature films seem to have stumbled--with complaints that it looks too much like a "soap opera," etc. One individual I recently communicated with in the exhibition industry said that in one of his screens a large portion of the audience walked out of "Gemini Man" and when asked why, a typical response was that they were getting a headache.

True or not, it is an example of the level of a reaction to the "new and improved." Many also dislike digital projection, even though it can be vastly better than the old 35mm prints. (Which reminds me, wear and tear is another "feature" of vinyl--where vinyl copies are the only ones or the best available, digital transfer ASAP would surely make sense?)

I happened to see "Gemini Man" projected at 120fps (Dolby Cinema), and I thought HFR was far better than 24fps. (The movie itself, on the other hand, was not very good...)

At least in the visual domain there is more scope for interconvertible, clearly visible artifacts--i.e. one can "point" to them--rather than endless arguments over what was perceived in the auditory domain (not that it necessarily helps!)

 

[scott wurcer]

I was incredulous! Isn't that exactly what you want? To be able to see exactly what it was like, on set (or in the editing room at least) at the time? NOPE. I reduced all the color levels, set the input max to 1080p/24, and suddenly... my wife was back on the couch and enjoying her shows.

I think for a great number of people subjectively 'better' is almost synonymous with 'nostalgic' - even if that also means 'innacurate' or 'noisy'.

I'll disagree with the use of accurate here, the new TV's use colors outside of the gamut that film could ever capture and false resolution that film was never capable of. I'm with your wife they don't don't look like a window onto accuracy they look fake.

BTW my brother in law's daughter left his OLED TV on CNN for two weeks by accident and the CNN logo is burnt into the picture and has remained for over a year. Is this normal?

 

[q3cpma]

I have some old original LP's that sound better (clearer and less distorted) than the CD version or what is on Tidal. The most obvious example I have is Julie London "Julie is her name". I am sure it is because the master tapes degraded during the many decades from the original recording to when they were transferred to digital. This is the exception but it does happen up through some 1970's recordings I have. In some cases a fresh master tape "degraded" by transfer to vinyl still sounds better than a digital transfer of a degraded master tape.

See https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ordings-getting-worse.7752/page-2#post-197913
This kind of thing is just ridiculous, you have a superior medium but you force customers to buy the LPs if they want to keep their ears. It could even be intentional.

Fortunately, extreme metal still having a big "independant" scene helped some of its best output evade this bull.

 

[mansr]

BTW my brother in law's daughter left his OLED TV on CNN for two weeks by accident and the CNN logo is burnt into the picture and has remained for over a year. Is this normal?

Unfortunately, yes. OLEDs dim somewhat with use, so if a fixed pattern is displayed for a long time, it will burn in. I suppose he could try to mask it by showing an inverse CNN logo for as long a time and get a slightly darkened corner instead. Even if it can't be fixed, he can at least take some solace in the fact it wasn't Fox.

 

[xr100]

I'll disagree with the use of accurate here, the new TV's use colors outside of the gamut that film could ever capture and false resolution that film was never capable of.

There is no reason a new "HDR" display device cannot accurately render "SDR" BT.709 etc. content. Rather, the new standards exceed the capabilities of all available display devices and so must be handled/"mapped" in some way.

Dolby Vision white paper.

"Accurate" rendering means "what was intended at colour grading." Films are artistically and intentionally stylised, after all, including the way a scene is lit.

 

[xr100]

The problem for me is that sticking my ear 3" from a violin doesn't give the sound I am used to listening to from a violin. There is usually far too much HF for it to sound realistic.
I can see it may be more exciting, particularly to people not often listening to an actual violin. The piano is the same.
It is a question of realistic compared to super-technicolor exaggerated in a film-industry type of way. This can be fun but high-fidelity????

The goal of high fidelity, surely, is to obtain the best possible sound quality?

The "accuracy" definition of "fidelity" works for reproduction/monitoring.

But surely the highest quality sound does not have to equate to the most accurate rendition of acoustic instruments in a conventional room at a conventional audience listening position?

Clearly personal preference plays a role in what is "best" but, if you ask me, yes, "Hollywood strings" absolutely can be a high quality source worthy of "high fidelity" playback.

Besides, a whole galaxy of "other" sounds are possible...

Sampling a light bulb, a burning piano and electricity.

Example of signal path nightmare ... (for clarity, NOT what I am suggesting qualifies today as a "hi-fidelity" approach)

Deconstructing a Mix #13 - Muse - Chris Lord-Alge.

 

[scott wurcer]

"Accurate" rendering means "what was intended at colour grading." Films are artistically and intentionally stylised, after all, including the way a scene is lit.

There is no reason a new "HDR" display device cannot accurately render "SDR" BT.709 etc. content. Rather, the new standards exceed the capabilities of all available display devices and so must be handled/"mapped" in some way.

Back to my original comment, turn off all the enhancements on classic film (all I am interested in) they all look like shite.

 

[North_Sky]

Oh, a thread about OLED TVs, CNN burn-in (instead of FOX), and HDR, cool.

 

[xr100]

Back to my original comment, turn off all the enhancements on classic film (all I am interested in) they all look like shite.

That would depend upon the source/transfer/restoration/grading process. If it sucks, then it sucks, although whether it sucks is frequently the subject of intense debate even with careful "director and/or DP approved" work; but there are some astonishing new transfers/restorations of "classic" movies.

This really is nothing to do with HDR (other than possibly the display mapping issue) any more than, say, the capabilities of CD (aka 16-bit/44.1kHz) are reflected by, say, aggressively brickwall-limited content, or where vinyl copies may be a better option than badly transferred and/or mastered CD/digital versions.

See https://caps-a-holic.com/ for innumerable screenshot examples of different release versions (though be warned that HDR content is converted to SDR.) There are many instances of cack-handed SDR releases with overly clipped highlights and crushed blacks, as well as medicore recycled old telecine transfers from interpositive copies.

 

[digicidal]

I'll disagree with the use of accurate here, the new TV's use colors outside of the gamut that film could ever capture and false resolution that film was never capable of. I'm with your wife they don't don't look like a window onto accuracy they look fake.

BTW my brother in law's daughter left his OLED TV on CNN for two weeks by accident and the CNN logo is burnt into the picture and has remained for over a year. Is this normal?

As @xr100 responded, there are optional filters and effects which can be applied by the display itself - but that's not what I was referring to as accurate. In the context of audio it's the same as the difference between DSP effects and DSP correction. DSP can be used to create artificial "spaces" which aren't accurate at all, or it can simply be used to provide room correction or EQ adjustments which improve accuracy. In cases where the source was old SDR or SD - it looked "normal"... but with 4K/60p content that was where she found all the problems. However, that is how the video itself was filmed - pure digital, HDR, full gamut, 60fps. Now I'm displaying that content in an inaccurate fashion actually - by eliminating HDR, reducing color pallete and brightness, and skipping frames to make it look like old 35mm film content.

And yes, just like is the case with plasma displays (which I also prefer to LCD) they will ghost if static images are held and will dim over time - because each cell provides illumination. That's a pretty poor unit however to get burn-in that quickly. Although if by two weeks you mean it was on 24/7 for 14 days... then yeah I could see that. I try not to have any cable news on my TV for more than a few minutes - regardless of which channel it is. Of course, if it were CNN (or FOX or MSN for that matter) it wouldn't be a problem because they'd be written out of my will already and kicked out of my house. I'd consider reconciling (after a few years) if it was BBC or CSPAN perhaps.

 

[Wombat]

I would say given the recordings have the same mixing and mastering, the digital media is superior. There is no accounting for personal perception, though.

 

[MattHooper]

Ah, talk of plasmas. Like old times.

As @xr100
And yes, just like is the case with plasma displays (which I also prefer to LCD) they will ghost if static images are held and will dim over time - because each cell provides illumination.

I still own an old Panasonic "ED" resolution (about DVD resolution) plasma which has been doing TV duty for almost 20 years. Only 4th generation and back when image retention/burn-in was even more feared than later on. Yet I see no burn in at all, and it keeps chugging along!
(I do my movie/sports watching on a projection set up, which is why I haven't been in a hurry to replace the old plasma).

In the early 2000s I switched my audiophile obsession in to AV/Home Theater obsession. Spend an ungodly amount of time on the AVSforum talking about plasmas and other displays. That's behind me now...and I'm back to focusing on music. It's just one obsession to replace the other