• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

Very interesting that some CD were digitized from vinyl, especially interesting the great sounding first LP release Hendrix Are You Experience. So I take it you don't think the conversion ADC and DAC in playback itself was ever any sound quality issue even in the mid 1980s but possibly other factors could be.

I was young then, but I remember people claiming almost from the get-go back in the 80s that vinyl and RtoR sounded better than CD. Maybe there was some truth to the "myth" at the time or even still, but it's an issue of master quality and remastering rather than any shortcoming of converting to CD and playback.
There never was a problem with ADCs. Just got a CD of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", Lorin Maazel/Cleveland Orchestra, Telarc CD-80054. Recorded in Severance Hall, May 14, 1980. The Telarc recording was on a Soundstream Digital Tape Recorder with a sampling rate of 50kHz. It had a digital domain sample rate conversion to the Redbook standard and sounds just fine, though the performance is less than ideal. My oldest all digital recording harkens back to 1975, making it a 13-bit recording, a Denon recording of the Suk Trio playing Beethoven's "Archduke" Trio. Also sounds fine. I suspect early, budget CD players had sound quality issues, but early ADCs did not, seeing as almost all of them were professional units. My experience with early ADCs (late 1980s) is that they had almost no effect on the sound of the source they were fed. Back around 1988 I was using a less than fully "pro" ADC. By the mid 1990s my ADC had no effect on the sound of the source it was being fed.
 
There never was a problem with ADCs. Just got a CD of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", Lorin Maazel/Cleveland Orchestra, Telarc CD-80054. Recorded in Severance Hall, May 14, 1980. The Telarc recording was on a Soundstream Digital Tape Recorder with a sampling rate of 50kHz. It had a digital domain sample rate conversion to the Redbook standard and sounds just fine, though the performance is less than ideal. My oldest all digital recording harkens back to 1975, making it a 13-bit recording, a Denon recording of the Suk Trio playing Beethoven's "Archduke" Trio. Also sounds fine. I suspect early, budget CD players had sound quality issues, but early ADCs did not, seeing as almost all of them were professional units. My experience with early ADCs (late 1980s) is that they had almost no effect on the sound of the source they were fed. Back around 1988 I was using a less than fully "pro" ADC. By the mid 1990s my ADC had no effect on the sound of the source it was being fed.
Interesting that there were some digital recording and mastering even before CDs were released. Most of the pop albums I saw back when CDs first came out and even still were from analog recordings and analog masters, "AAD" if that's what it means. So I imagine there could've been some issues with some now older analog tape recordings and masters and especially with how it was remastered in the conversion to CD. But the digital conversion and back to analog CD playback itself was not the issue.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that here were some digital recording and mastering even before CDs were released. Most of the pop albums I saw back when CDs first came out and even still were from analog recordings and analog masters, "AAD" if that's what it means. So I imagine there could've been some issues with some now older analog tape recordings and masters and especially with how it was remastered in the conversion to CD. But the digital conversion and back to analog CD playback itself was not the issue.
The issue with some (not all) of the analog recordings was the condition of the tape. This has been noted on this thread already, but Ampex 456 suffered from oxide shedding, sometimes so severe that the tape was rendered unusable. If the tape was baked at a certain temperature for a specific length of time one might be able to get a single pass, making a transfer to the digital domain. In any case there was the possibility of dropouts. Oddly the older Scotch 111 formula did not have this problem to this degree. "AAD" would mean that the finished master was the source for the CD. Some early digital productions made before the development of digital workstations would be noted as "DAD", as the editing step would be performed in the analog domain. Most older recordings are ADD, where there would be editing in the digital domain.
 
The issue with some (not all) of the analog recordings was the condition of the tape. This has been noted on this thread already, but Ampex 456 suffered from oxide shedding, sometimes so severe that the tape was rendered unusable. If the tape was baked at a certain temperature for a specific length of time one might be able to get a single pass, making a transfer to the digital domain. In any case there was the possibility of dropouts. Oddly the older Scotch 111 formula did not have this problem to this degree. "AAD" would mean that the finished master was the source for the CD. Some early digital productions made before the development of digital workstations would be noted as "DAD", as the editing step would be performed in the analog domain. Most older recordings are ADD, where there would be editing in the digital domain.
I have a dead link in some notes I made to an online article that stated that the older tape formulas that have the shedding issue less, were made using whale oil.
 
And this made me think that when CD came out in the early 80s, the best they could do is match master tape right?

My question is, could be ignorant and already covered :p , while I believe CD format to be transparent, did especially early CD releases match the master tape any better on playback? Maybe there is something to people early on saying the vinyl and reel to reel sounded better?

Didn't the old tape master had to come out maybe slightly or more deteriorated from time, to make a digital copy? Whereas a vintage LP was transposed while the master tape was new. Plus digitalized copy probably got remastered, for loudness or whatever. I don't think there was an issue with AD conversion, or
in the average or better CD DAC back in the early and mid 1980s, but not really sure. Anyway, if any of this is true maybe a vintage LP could sound better?

Let’s ignore all the degradation and disintegration over time.
I got a new LP a couple of years ago, and the digital download, and it is also on Spotify.. all fresh new music.

The LP and the streaming, both sounds pretty much the same.
Any difference is pretty much the speaker distortion, the room, and noise both inside and from outside, etc.

That house had about 40dB of background noise. And the listening level was probably ~85 dB.

The 100 dB of SINAD or SNR is totally meaningless when the room is maybe limited to about 60 (100db -40dB).
And the speakers are often like at 40dB.

People can spruik all the numbers for “the technical superiority” of one format or another, but in the real world sometimes we need to ignore the dog barking, or the Harleys and Vespas putt putting by… as well as the fact that many are using speakers which have distortions generated within the cabinets.

And this made me think that when CD came out in the early 80s, the best they could do is match master tape right?

And secondly… :cool:
I have at least two LPs, and had the cassette tapes and CDs, where there was an obvious change in tape speed part way through the songs.
Maybe 5-10 years later that would happen so easily with digital clock speeds/stability… but there were lots of moving parts back then.
 
Let’s ignore all the degradation and disintegration over time.
I got a new LP a couple of years ago, and the digital download, and it is also on Spotify.. all fresh new music.

The LP and the streaming, both sounds pretty much the same.
Any difference is pretty much the speaker distortion, the room, and noise both inside and from outside, etc.

That house had about 40dB of background noise. And the listening level was probably ~85 dB.

The 100 dB of SINAD or SNR is totally meaningless when the room is maybe limited to about 60 (100db -40dB).
And the speakers are often like at 40dB.

People can spruik all the numbers for “the technical superiority” of one format or another, but in the real world sometimes we need to ignore the dog barking, or the Harleys and Vespas putt putting by… as well as the fact that many are using speakers which have distortions generated within the cabinets.



And secondly… :cool:
I have at least two LPs, and had the cassette tapes and CDs, where there was an obvious change in tape speed part way through the songs.
Maybe 5-10 years later that would happen so easily with digital clock speeds/stability… but there were lots of moving parts back then.
Yeah I suspect in most cases there wasn't a tape degradation or remastering issue with CD albums. The vinyl and CD album sounded about the same being sourced from the same analog tape. Those who believed vinyl sounded better probably didn't fully understand and trust digital conversion or like change in general even for the better, so their perception was biased. I can understand that.

I was just thinking in some cases the LP might've actually sounded better because of tape degradation and remastering issues which would reinforce any existing skepticism or bias against digital. I can imagine if instead it turned out that CDs actually did sound worse than vinyl, those who believed in digital would've out of bias said LPs sound worse :p.

I agree, analog recording and playback has other shortcomings besides sound quality related to mechanical timing, wear and tear, and track access/rewind/fast forward etc vs. CD which I find is maybe digital's bigger advantage than sound quality.
 
Last edited:
The story I’ve heard is that old habits in the beginning of the digital/CD era where translated from the preparation work of the vinyl, they kept on high-passing everything and took down the bass level, and so on, making the cleaner digital reproduction often sounding unnecessarily thin, thrill, and cold.
 
Interesting that there were some digital recording and mastering even before CDs were released
Moving audio around with ADCs and DACs pre-dated CD by a decade or more.

In the UK BBC Radio sound was sent around the country on 13bit PCM in the 1960s. The reason this sort of thing didn't displace LPs in the 1960s or 1970 was because it was just too expensive and needed to be calibrated and regularly tested by qualified engineers. CD was just the first opportunity to make something economically viable for home users' budgets.

 
The story I’ve heard is that old habits in the beginning of the digital/CD era where translated from the preparation work of the vinyl,
I call this analog thinking in a digital world. You can still see it in play today where so many believe that digital cables can impact sound like analog audio cables can (meaning DC resistance changes as the main cause for sound differences between cables).
 
I call this analog thinking in a digital world. You can still see it in play today where so many believe that digital cables can impact sound like analog audio cables can (meaning DC resistance changes as the main cause for sound differences between cables).

I don't know if it had that much to do with their belief in analog. Many of the things they kept on doing probably had more to do with having a standard workflow and following old habits, things they had always done up to this point. Digital production and the new audio format introduced a new way of thinking, and there were likely fewer limitations than many of the mastering engineers had realized at this early stage.
 
Yeah I suspect in most cases there wasn't a tape degradation or remastering issue with CD albums. The vinyl and CD album sounded about the same being sourced from the same analog tape. Those who believed vinyl sounded better probably didn't fully understand and trust digital conversion or like change in general even for the better, so their perception was biased. I can understand that.

With the newer example I had, that was almost certainly digitally recorded.
And the point was that the streaming and the LP sounded the same.
I did not have clicks, and surface noice, not wow-n-flutter happening.
I can hear when the needle touches down like “the Eagle has landed”, but after that it is the same.


I was just thinking in some cases the LP might've actually sounded better because of tape degradation and remastering issues which would reinforce any existing skepticism or bias against digital. I can imagine if instead it turned out that CDs actually did sound worse than vinyl, those who believed in digital would've out of bias said LPs sound worse :p.

I agree, analog recording and playback has other shortcomings besides sound quality related to mechanical timing, wear and tear, and track access/rewind/fast forward etc vs. CD which I find is maybe digital's bigger advantage than sound quality.

^agree^

Any difference of that 100 dB versus 60 dB SINAD is not heard in a room where the noise is 50dB down and the speaker’s distortion is at -40 dB.
The superiority of digital is all a numbers argument that is technically correct, but mostly meaningless.
There is convince and access to more media via streaming, and a bunch of reasons to like digital.

But there is also the pomp-n-circumstance, of putting an LP on that is meditative, mindful and relaxing.
And, in my case, I can listen to the music more than chimping at an iPad.
Sort of like an LP versus MTV.
 
I don't know if it had that much to do with their belief in analog.
The belief comment was directed at digital cables only, where that belief is still around (unfortunately).

Many of the things they kept on doing probably had more to do with having a standard workflow and following old habits, things they had always done up to this point. Digital production and the new audio format introduced a new way of thinking, and there were likely fewer limitations than many of the mastering engineers had realized at this early stage.
Exactly, instead of adapting their workflows, they relied on familiar practices, failing to recognize that new workflows were necessary and that old habits were no longer effective. This is what I meant by analog thinking in a digital world for this example. Those practices were rooted in the analog world but they were trying to apply them to the digital world. Completely understandable as the music industry was one of the first industries to be impacted by digital disruption.
 
Many of the things they kept on doing probably had more to do with having a standard workflow and following old habits, things they had always done up to this point. Digital production and the new audio format introduced a new way of thinking, and there were likely fewer limitations than many of the mastering engineers had realized at this early stage.
That's not just limited to audio, it's a human trait. So even if might not be acceptable that it happens, it's certainly understandable why it happens.

As a "non-audio" example:

When we brought a new SAR helicopter online (that was far more automated/modern than the one we were transitioning from) it was like stepping onto the bridge of "The Enterprise" from a steam boiler power ship. We had no reference for operations other than our previous experience and some words on a page in the manufactures manuals. It took time to adapt and learn how to operate the new equipment to it's potential. Sadly, it took a tragedy that cost 3 lives before we figured out that the old ways just weren't applicable anymore and that there had to be a serious shift in the way we did business with the new equipment.

I've often called it "the law of primacy". IE: what you learn first gets so deeply ingrained that it's very hard to break/deviate from that behaviour for something new/different......you kinda always want to "run home to momma" when something doesn't go quite the way you think it should.
 
Last edited:
aha!
back to the titular query of this thread (which, it may be recalled, is Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?) :)
Here's a possible explanation.
After decades of the Internet, the mediascape has still not dissolved into a froth of three-second clips of orgasms, kittens, and trampoline accidents, interspersed with sports-betting ads. As the legal scholar Tim Wu argues in “The Attention Merchants,” the road to distraction is not one-way. Yes, businesses seize our attention using the shiniest lures available, but people become inured and learn to ignore them. Or they recoil, which might explain why meditation, bird-watching, and vinyl records are in vogue.
source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/01/27/the-sirens-call-chris-hayes-book-review

Recoiling against attention stealing. :cool:
 
aha!
back to the titular query of this thread (which, it may be recalled, is Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?) :)
Here's a possible explanation.

source: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/01/27/the-sirens-call-chris-hayes-book-review

Recoiling against attention stealing. :cool:
Hmm, Internet is full of talk about escaping the lure of Internet and living more meaningfully. Then I buy a vinyl player and some vinyls and then click frantically all my social media platforms telling everyone how vinyl saved me from clicking frantically Spotify playlists.
 
I own thousands of records :facepalm: but, truth be told, I rarely play an LP because it's more effort than I usually feel like investing at any given moment.
Yes, I am preternaturally lazy (is that in the standard manual of diagnoses?).
I still feel that the return on my own investment of energy to be maximal when I grab a cd, put it in the player, and use the arrow buttons on the remote to select the track I want to listen to (when applicable).

EDIT: In full disclosure, I did hook up an old Technics DD tt yesterday (fitted with cannon fodder ADC cartridge & stylus) and play the Golden Records' Flinstones LP that I presume has been in my possession (so to speak) since it was released in 1961. I had an urge to hear Bowling Alley Blues, you see... and that seemed like the easiest pathway to assuage that urge. :cool:

Sounded surprisingly good, actually.

 
Hmm, Internet is full of talk about escaping the lure of Internet and living more meaningfully. Then I buy a vinyl player and some vinyls and then click frantically all my social media platforms telling everyone how vinyl saved me from clicking frantically Spotify playlists.

Ha. Good one.

It is, however, still the case many people find it a nice break from digital life and screens to choose reading a real book, or choose playing a record.

There are many other ways to take breaks from digital life, but those are two options that many people enjoy taking.

When I have stopped to read a book or stopped to listen to records, which I often do for many hours, I am no longer “ frantically clicking on the Internet” while doing so.
 
With the newer example I had, that was almost certainly digitally recorded.
And the point was that the streaming and the LP sounded the same.
I did not have clicks, and surface noice, not wow-n-flutter happening.
I can hear when the needle touches down like “the Eagle has landed”, but after that it is the same.




^agree^

Any difference of that 100 dB versus 60 dB SINAD is not heard in a room where the noise is 50dB down and the speaker’s distortion is at -40 dB.
The superiority of digital is all a numbers argument that is technically correct, but mostly meaningless.
There is convince and access to more media via streaming, and a bunch of reasons to like digital.

But there is also the pomp-n-circumstance, of putting an LP on that is meditative, mindful and relaxing.
And, in my case, I can listen to the music more than chimping at an iPad.
Sort of like an LP versus MTV.
I think that pretty well covers it,. Some people still it seems at least sometimes don't want digital's access and convenience and like the LP ritual, and if they imagine digital doesn't even sound as good than digital offers them nothing lol. I do sort of understand the allure of watching a more mechanical device such as turntable at work reproducing music, than the "black box" of digital.
I own thousands of records :facepalm: but, truth be told, I rarely play an LP because it's more effort than I usually feel like investing at any given moment.
Yes, I am preternaturally lazy (is that in the standard manual of diagnoses?).
I still feel that the return on my own investment of energy to be maximal when I grab a cd, put it in the player, and use the arrow buttons on the remote to select the track I want to listen to (when applicable).

EDIT: In full disclosure, I did hook up an old Technics DD tt yesterday (fitted with cannon fodder ADC cartridge & stylus) and play the Golden Records' Flinstones LP that I presume has been in my possession (so to speak) since it was released in 1961. I had an urge to hear Bowling Alley Blues, you see... and that seemed like the easiest pathway to assuage that urge. :cool:

Sounded surprisingly good, actually.

That describes me pretty well. Maybe I'm getting older and lazier lol, but most of the time when I'm listening to music I want to do the least fiddling possible. That's probably why I like low fiddling FM and XM despite the less than ideal sound quality.
 
Last edited:
+1 I call this the “vinyl workload”, eliminated once an LP is digitized.
At which point - unless the LP has a unique mastering unavailable in digital - you might as well just stream the digital.
 
Back
Top Bottom