Exactly, how much does vinyl suck less than it did 30 years ago? This needs to be quantified.

[Robin L]

Robin, I was gifted the Miles Davis Kind of Blue album on new vinyl several years ago, and it sounds really quite good. Better than the CD? About the same, actually, as long as the LP is spotless, though I do realize that there were probably some things done that may be hard to detect without measurement. The original was recorded and mastered on tape, of course, so didn't benefit from digital recording technology, and I don't really know what they used as the basis for the CD.

Rick "was also gifted Dark Side of the Moon" Denney

My current KoB is "stereo", albeit the ping-pongy type found on "Command Classics" percussion demo recordings of the early 60s—hard right, hard left and center. The remastering is just fine, and I suspect it's the same remastering used on the first SACD issue, which I used to own. I've owned the original stereo, the original mono, early mid-priced reissues but no premium vinyl reissues. I guess if I want to hear a hi-rez version there's always Tidal with a 24/192 FLAC transfer.

 

[DVDdoug]

Vinyl never sucked until CDs came along,

Like I said, the clicks and pops ALWAYS annoyed me.

Back in analog days I wouldn't have said "it sucks" because it was the best thing we had at home. I preferred vinyl to "hissy" cassettes or 8-tracks which would sometimes switch track s in the middle of a song.

 

[kemmler3D]

Wow, can't believe this thread got through 2 whole pages and multiple political-type arguments before posting the very nice work of @Jean.Francois who has been doing the exact sort of comparisons @skankhobag was asking about in the first post, for a while now.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ons-from-vinyl-to-bluray-mono-to-atmos.45127/

check it out!

I haven't gone through all his comparisons in detail, but having looked at a few I think the dominant factor in quality of vinyl releases as compared to digital is how they're mastered. As other folks have pointed out, the technical aspects of the vinyl format itself, or playback equipment, have not improved since the 90s and are still a limiting factor.

If you want to go deeper than these analyses I would recommend getting both versions of a release like Jean Francois does and running them through Deltawave, which is an extremely excellent audio comparison tool created by @pkane . You can go beyond comparing dynamic range and SNR and get into phase distortion and stuff like that.

 

[Nomid]

I recently got into vinyl, and I was honestly a bit shocked at how good it could sound. My childhood memories made me hesitate a bit but finding and following good advice on gear and methods here and in other forums made it all I wished fore. It's been mentioned here several times, but the waxwing was probably my best buy in this regard, buying an old Technics T4P linear tracker and a good needle the second best, it made it an extremely easy and trouble free entry.

 

[Thomas_A]

When I gave up buying vinyl in the 90s, the rule of thumb was that the standard LP had a dynamic range of around 45 to 50dB on a brand new major label recording. Some were better and some were worse.

The only exception to this when it came to popular music was Mobile Fidelity. Their releases would give you about 10 dB less noise and distortion. Also, usually they would last longer because the discs were so thick, but this was not always the case.

I only owned a few of MFs albums, but I was very crestfallen when my copy of Sergeant Pepper’s by The Beatles got a huge pop on one of the tracks after only a dozen playings. For me, that was the turning point where I decided that I would never buy vinyl again unless it was for a recording that was not available on CD.

This all being said, I’ve been hearing all of this PR crap about the Vinyl Renaissance. Is the product being made today any better than what was offered 30 years ago?

Has anyone actually tested what the sound to noise ratio and distortions are being produced by modern vinyl and the systems used to play them back (other than photo preamps)?

One of my hobbies is not only designing loudspeakers, but also audio engineering since I’m also a musician.

One of the reasons that I moved to digital audio from R2R tape is that digital offered greater fidelity and much less noise & distortion. Also, tape requires a lot more maintenance… And, oh, there was the fact that tape was/is really expensive.

So, you guys measure stuff here. Any thoughts about taking a modern vinyl recording and comparing it through software to its digital release? Give them a serious, objective measurement based comparison to show the difference between them.

I’d think that acoustic music would yield the best results and it would be optimal if the source was recorded digitally and released in a hi-res, 24 bit format.

I imagine someone will have done this in the past, but I’ve not seen it.

My experience makes me think that Vinyl will lose to Digital worse than the Chiefs lost to the Eagles at the Superbowl (BOOM!) this year. (Go EAGLES… yeah, I said it)

Sorry, got carried away.

Anyway, a delicate, hi-res mastered, acoustic music recording compared using the best of both formats. Run them through the best competitor software and see what the results are. Then, release the proof to the world.

You can even give Vinyl a mulligan by running the digital signal through a DAC and capture it with the input ADC.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are vinyl sounds as...vinyl. But a little better today than yesterday if using modern gear.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[DSJR]

Oh bloody hell you lot, If I was anally into it these days, I'd be having a heart attack now!!!

CHEAPER vinyl players and pickups have improved a lot I feel since 'domestic digital.' Pickups especially have come a long way, as automated construction and diamond grinding and finishing have given the likes of the humble AT VM95E a perfectly usable bonded elliptical stylus and now the possibility of upgrades to a naked elliptical, a micro-line and even a Shibata type, all with the basic humble cartridge body, with a performance and sound quality potential way above the cheaper Shures*, ADCs, Pickering/Stanton models of yore. Forty years ago, all we had here was the Linn K9 (same basic internals but a nice 'Vital' elliptical and the double priced K18 with finer cantilever (can't remember if the diamond chip was the same or better). A better diamond quality usually helps 'perceived noise' from the record itself. Frequency responses of modern pickups have flattened in the main audio band, a peak over 10kHz allowed more than before I think, hence my banging on about phono stage overload margins up-top. Mind you, not sure a Lyra pickup with peaky 20kHz region would go well with a PMC or B&W speaker these days

We here in the UK at least, know a lot more about siting a vinyl player with audible benefits if it's done right (maybe most of you have larger rooms than we do). All these often resonant lower caste decks with plastic moulded plinths and directly connected lids usually left up when playing, a sonic disaster if not carefully sited. No point in me banging on about it further, but the 1980s HiFi Choice test books from the 1980s tech and consumer introductions (worldradiohistory has scans of all of them in the UK section) go into it pretty fairly and thoroughly.

Sure, some of the best 1970s decks can sound great with a modern cartridge fitted and if they're carefully sited and in this case, I feel it's advances in pickups and siting etc. that have helped them so hugely.

My Shure V15 III stylus is quite serviceable, but I'd not say it looks that wonderful under a proper microscope when compared to a modern 'naked elliptical' stylus. The next level down 'ED' naked styli can look even more 'iffy' to me and even the late Me97XE bonded stylus wasn't that wonderful to be honest - there's pics on the web if you care to look. An earlier M55Emk2 stylus (flip down guard) was like a shiny bit of coal (brand new out of the box) when we took a look.

Some modern pressings can be all but silent for the first few plays (I have a modern recut (at Abbey Road and from the original analogue tapes I gather) of 'The Colour of Spring' by Talk Talk and it's excellent, with just a hint of an 'organic' quality in the bass which could be my player or maybe the Ortofon Super OM30 pickup I currently use. I need to find a clean original DMM cut in good nick with which to compare (DMM's had good highs but bass below 60Hz was filtered away due to mod noise in the cutting process I gather). I'm using an original CD issue as 'reference' here of this 1986 release.

Most of you regard vinyl as either a joke today, or a novelty side-interest I suspect. That's fine, enjoy your streaming as I also do. As said above, I still have many LPs and a collection of 12" singles I've not played in decades I'd like to play again before I pop off. Maybe one day I'll be able to! Mind you, some of these 12" mixes are now on streaming platforms and even the YouTube codec doesn't seem to take much away if the uploading has been sympathetically done...

 

[rdenney]

Wow, can't believe this thread got through 2 whole pages and multiple political-type arguments before posting the very nice work of @Jean.Francois who has been doing the exact sort of comparisons @skankhobag was asking about in the first post, for a while now.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ons-from-vinyl-to-bluray-mono-to-atmos.45127/

check it out!

I haven't gone through all his comparisons in detail, but having looked at a few I think the dominant factor in quality of vinyl releases as compared to digital is how they're mastered. As other folks have pointed out, the technical aspects of the vinyl format itself, or playback equipment, have not improved since the 90s and are still a limiting factor.

If you want to go deeper than these analyses I would recommend getting both versions of a release like Jean Francois does and running them through Deltawave, which is an extremely excellent audio comparison tool created by @pkane . You can go beyond comparing dynamic range and SNR and get into phase distortion and stuff like that.

I had missed that thread. I just listened to a couple of comparisons, and came to three conclusions:

1. Extending high-frequency response does not necessarily mean adding more signal--it may mean adding more HF noise. But I don't care--I can't hear that stuff at 18KHz and above anyway.

2. Downstream remastering can't add what isn't there in the original master recording.

3. These headphones I'm using at work really suck! Large differences in the graphs that I would have expected to be audible were unhearable on these things One sample I listened to that had a DR of 12 still sounded squashed in these headphones.

What I could not tell from the graphs provided was:

• Did the vinyl versions mix left and right channels together in the bass to reduce lateral stylus excursions?
• What's the magnitude of the vinyl roar?

Running the samples through Deltawave could get at some of this, particularly the high-frequency content. The ability to vary the mix or separation of the channels on my Holman preamp might help assess the extent to which the bass was mixed for the vinyl mastering. I really need to get my audio computer wired back into my main system so I can listen on good stuff.

Rick "using an employer-supplied headset" Denney

 

[JeffS7444]

I imagine that the last major analog advances were RCA SelectaVision, Magnavox LaserDisc, maybe Sony's Beta Hifi.

 

[HalSF]

There was a period earlier in the vinyl revival when technically and scientifically dishonest arguments that vinyl sound quality is better than digital were popular.

It seems that it is far less common to hear this kind of bunk than it used to be.

One this forum, the more common intellectual dishonesty now tends to be long tendentious arguments that digital’s superior measured performance and lack of noise means that vinyl playback can’t sound beautiful, emotionally and aesthetically satisfying, and immensely pleasurable despite its drawbacks.

 

[Nomid]

There was a period earlier in the vinyl revival when technically and scientifically dishonest arguments that vinyl sound quality is better than vinyl were popular.

It seems that it is far less common to hear this kind of bunk than it used to be.

One this forum, the more common intellectual dishonesty now tends to be long tendentious arguments that digital’s superior measured performance and lack of noise means that vinyl playback can’t sound beautiful, emotionally and aesthetically satisfying, and immensely pleasurable despite its drawbacks.

Vinyl actually gave me a much better perspective on digital and what my ears can really hear in this sense. Today's DAC'S are just transparent, and my ears sensitivity are just orders of magnitude lower than what is measured in all metrics. Noise on vinyl turned out to be a non issue in my listening environment with background noise and clean vinyls, and I only experienced slight distortion on some cheaper stylus

 

[deweydm]

When I gave up buying vinyl in the 90s, the rule of thumb was that the standard LP had a dynamic range of around 45 to 50dB on a brand new major label recording. Some were better and some were worse.

The only exception to this when it came to popular music was Mobile Fidelity. Their releases would give you about 10 dB less noise and distortion. Also, usually they would last longer because the discs were so thick, but this was not always the case.

I only owned a few of MFs albums, but I was very crestfallen when my copy of Sergeant Pepper’s by The Beatles got a huge pop on one of the tracks after only a dozen playings. For me, that was the turning point where I decided that I would never buy vinyl again unless it was for a recording that was not available on CD.

This all being said, I’ve been hearing all of this PR crap about the Vinyl Renaissance. Is the product being made today any better than what was offered 30 years ago?

Has anyone actually tested what the sound to noise ratio and distortions are being produced by modern vinyl and the systems used to play them back (other than photo preamps)?

One of my hobbies is not only designing loudspeakers, but also audio engineering since I’m also a musician.

One of the reasons that I moved to digital audio from R2R tape is that digital offered greater fidelity and much less noise & distortion. Also, tape requires a lot more maintenance… And, oh, there was the fact that tape was/is really expensive.

So, you guys measure stuff here. Any thoughts about taking a modern vinyl recording and comparing it through software to its digital release? Give them a serious, objective measurement based comparison to show the difference between them.

I’d think that acoustic music would yield the best results and it would be optimal if the source was recorded digitally and released in a hi-res, 24 bit format.

I imagine someone will have done this in the past, but I’ve not seen it.

My experience makes me think that Vinyl will lose to Digital worse than the Chiefs lost to the Eagles at the Superbowl (BOOM!) this year. (Go EAGLES… yeah, I said it)

Sorry, got carried away.

Anyway, a delicate, hi-res mastered, acoustic music recording compared using the best of both formats. Run them through the best competitor software and see what the results are. Then, release the proof to the world.

You can even give Vinyl a mulligan by running the digital signal through a DAC and capture it with the input ADC.

Your thoughts?

Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance? Thread is locked, but it may be of interest to you.

 

[Mike123]

I won't be original. I don't use vinyl. I have no nostalgia for a rotating disc and tonearm. Vinyl has a fundamentally worse quality than digital. But. I have a lot of digital copies and I listen to them with pleasure. Why? Mastering. I really like old mastering from 40-50 years ago. Is it possible to find something similar now? Yes, it is. But digging through gigantic volumes of remastered old music to find something valuable? No way. It is much easier to take an authentic edition and listen to it.

 

[Haskil]

Dynamic range measured between no modulation and the most powerful fortissimoas I read in the first message
? so measured before the stylus is even placed on the groove?
Because a 33 rpm record could never have a dynamic range of 45 dB... measured according to standards: therefore, by taking the average of the 5 lowest levels and the average of the 5 highest levels... The same goes for digital recording, where the dynamic range of a quality CD recording is very rarely above 22-23 dB...
Tell me if I'm wrong?

 

[krabapple]

Vinyl never sucked until CDs came along, CDs

This distorts history. Development of 'CD' (digital audio for consumers) was *driven* by the acknowledged inadequacies of analog product. 'Classical' music recording engineers were among its earliest and strongest proponents for a reason.

 

[rdenney]

This distorts history. Development of 'CD' (digital audio for consumers) was *driven* by the acknowledged inadequacies of analog product. 'Classical' music recording engineers were among its earliest and strongest proponents for a reason.

And I was one of those, at least when I could afford it.

Rick “but still likes messing with LPs” Denney

 

[egellings]

Sorry, but just calling how it is.

This isn’t like trying to get modern society to convert to electric cars. That’s a huge undertaking that will take decades.

Vinyl in audio was over & done, but, like Small Pox, it’s back… and for no good reason.

That you conflate it to driving a car or eating meat is comical. Personally, I pilot a crotch rocket (BMW K1300S), take public trans & Uber, do unapologetically eat meat and get my extra calcium from cheese.

As Arnold Schwarzenegger once said, “Milk is for babies, beer is for men.“

Wow! I must be a real he-man by now! (burp!) I am a subscriber to Modern Drunkard Magazine, now online only. As for vinyl, if you don't like it, simply pass it by. On a decent system, well made vinyl can sound good. True, it is more damage prone and requires more finicky handling than digital formats do.

 

[DVDdoug]

Because a 33 rpm record could never have a dynamic range of 45 dB... measured according to standards: therefore, by taking the average of the 5 lowest levels and the average of the 5 highest levels... The same goes for digital recording, where the dynamic range of a quality CD recording is very rarely above 22-23 dB...
Tell me if I'm wrong?

Program dynamics ("dynamic contrast") in the program material is different from the dynamic range of the medium or equipment.

There are various ways to measure dynamic contrast, and no perfect way.... There are fast micro-dynamics like loud drum hits, and longer-term dynamics like a song that starts-out quiet and ends loud, and everything in-between, and it's super-common for the last note to fade to silence.

The dynamic range of the medium or equipment is generally the difference between the noise level and the maximum level. Again there's no "one way" to measure it. Noise is sometimes A-weighted which gives a number that better correlates with how we hear and it allows the manufacturer to specify a "better number".

And sometimes it's not the actual maximum. I believe Amir uses a 5 Watt reference for power amplifiers so that a higher-power amp doesn't seem better than a lower power amp with the same noise. With a preamp (etc.) you might want to use 0dBV or 0dBm as the signal reference even though it might be capable of +20dB or so.

In the digital domain you can have dead-digital silence which is minus infinity dB and "infinite" dynamic range. So usually it's calculated as the range between a sample value of 1 and the highest sample value for a given number of bits. (If you amplify a very-quiet digital signal, or if you have 8-bit audio you'll hear quantization noise.)

We need more dynamic range in the medium and equipment than the program for two reasons... If the signal and noise are equal, or if the noise is nearly equal to the signal, you'll hear it. And, there's always silent parts and no matter the dynanic range we don't want to hear noise during silence.

 

[Chr1]

... Which is exactly why vinyl kinda sucks in 2025.

Technically.

 

[Haskil]

Program dynamics ("dynamic contrast") in the program material is different from the dynamic range of the medium or equipment.

There are various ways to measure dynamic contrast, and no perfect way.... There are fast micro-dynamics like loud drum hits, and longer-term dynamics like a song that starts-out quiet and ends loud, and everything in-between, and it's super-common for the last note to fade to silence.

The dynamic range of the medium or equipment is generally the difference between the noise level and the maximum level. Again there's no "one way" to measure it. Noise is sometimes A-weighted which gives a number that better correlates with how we hear and it allows the manufacturer to specify a "better number".

And sometimes it's not the actual maximum. I believe Amir uses a 5 Watt reference for power amplifiers so that a higher-power amp doesn't seem better than a lower power amp with the same noise. With a preamp (etc.) you might want to use 0dBV or 0dBm as the signal reference even though it might be capable of +20dB or so.

In the digital domain you can have dead-digital silence which is minus infinity dB and "infinite" dynamic range. So usually it's calculated as the range between a sample value of 1 and the highest sample value for a given number of bits. (If you amplify a very-quiet digital signal, or if you have 8-bit audio you'll hear quantization noise.)

We need more dynamic range in the medium and equipment than the program for two reasons... If the signal and noise are equal, or if the noise is nearly equal to the signal, you'll hear it. And, there's always silent parts and no matter the dynanic range we don't want to hear noise during silence.

Dynamics is the difference between the weakest and the strongest modulated signal: the weakest must be above the intrinsic background noise of the medium, and the strongest must be before clipping.

There has never been a 45 or 50 dB difference in levels in the groove of a commercial 33 rpm LP, whether with Ravel's Boléro, which begins pianissimo and only sees the volume level increase continuously until the concluding fortissimo for 16 minutes, or on a percussion record whose dynamic ranges are very brief and very large.
Or I ask to see which ones: a measurement is taken with the stylus reading the groove.

 

[Chr1]

Curious as to where and when vinyl is actually the only version available?
Definitely the case with some genres: Some house/techno for sure. And possibly obscure hip hop. Definitely obscure punk and new wave too.

A viable reason to still use vinyl for sure.
Just wish I'd digitised mine before offloading.
Doh.