• 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!

Vinyl will always sound *different* than digital, right?

BoredErica

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
629
Likes
899
Location
USA
The distortions of vinyl that stick out the most for me are related to disc eccentricity---off-center and warped records. While a plug-in to replicate these effects is possible, why in heavens name would anybody want that?
Because if you can reproduce vinyl distortions digitally, there's no sonic reason to use vinyl, even if somebody says they enjoy it. Don't ask me, ask the people who think vinyl sounds better (outside of the ritual of playing vinyl etc etc). Those people can have the sound of vinyl without the inconvienience of it.

You've never heard of somebody who thinks vinyl sounds better/cool?
Of course. There are also fans of the singer Meatloaf.

You answered your own question. If your point is 'I don't agree with people who think vinyl sounds good', then just say that rather than asking me why anyone would want to replicate vinyl distortions digitally. What use is there in trying to crap over somebody who likes vinyl if there is a way to do it all digitally? I don't even like vinyl. Your preferences are just your preferences. They are not objectively correct and you're not cool because you think your preferences are "the right ones". I wanted to talk about whether vinyl is actually unique in any way, and certain people want to circlejerk about how smart they are for not listening to vinyl.
 
Last edited:

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
A vinyl record can "measure" more dynamic than the CD even if they were made from the same master. T

I think you meant that thanks to distortion mechanisms it can SOUND more dynamic, not MEASURE more dynamic.

Good luck getting 90+dB out of any vinyl.
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
The word you're looking for is WORSE, not DIFFERENT.

Arguing personal taste seems questionable to me. In fact, some vinyl distortions can falsely exaggerate the dynamic range as far as the ear is concerned, but yes, it's exaggeration, and it's due to distortion.

There is no real argument as to accuracy, but one prefers what one prefers.
 

BoredErica

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
629
Likes
899
Location
USA
Arguing personal taste seems questionable to me. In fact, some vinyl distortions can falsely exaggerate the dynamic range as far as the ear is concerned, but yes, it's exaggeration, and it's due to distortion.

There is no real argument as to accuracy, but one prefers what one prefers.
100%.
If a preference is due to placebo/scam then it should be called out. Otherwise, it feels like people online want to feel superior to others with their 'superior taste'.
 

Cars-N-Cans

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 19, 2022
Messages
819
Likes
1,009
Location
Dirty Jerzey
I agree with you, and would only add one small point:

One distinctive aspect of vinyl playback is that cartridges are (as far as I know) always going to have limitations in how good their L-R crosstalk performance can be. And my understanding is further that their crosstalk deficit (relative to the original source) varies by frequency (increasing in the higher frequencies), and probably varies based on the source material, the groove spacing of the LP, the shape and condition of the stylus, and many other factors.
Yes, good point. In my various brushes with vinyl that is one aspect that jumps out is the reduced channel separation and/or crosstalk with some recordings. An even bigger wrinkle is how that translates to speakers, which themselves have substantial amounts of crosstalk. I suppose one could use cross-feed, but then data on both the crosstalk and typical limits on stereo separation due to the vinyl itself and the mixing as well as the crosstalk have to be known or guessed. On things like headphones it makes them sound more confined, but that could come across as additional warmth or intimacy if some aspect of a singers voice required that it be panned more towards the center for a mix on vinyl.
 

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
2,636
Likes
7,489
I think you meant that thanks to distortion mechanisms it can SOUND more dynamic, not MEASURE more dynamic.

Good luck getting 90+dB out of any vinyl.

I think they were referring to the DR Meter, which is a measurement, however simplistic (the old version of it measured the difference between the 2nd loudest peak and the RMS level; the new version claims to be more sophisticated but I don't know how it works). If one takes a CD and an LP made from the same master source, then digitizes the LP, and then runs both the CD and the digitized LP through the DR meter, in most cases the LP will measure 1-4dB greater in dynamic range.

It's not a true increase in dynamics, as it's an artifact of the extra mastering step taken to prepare for vinyl cutting, the distortions added by the vinyl playback chain, and the A/D step necessary to digitize that LP playback in order to generate a digital file that can be run through the DR meter. The main culprit, I suspect, is spurious individual peaks created by all those extra steps: all it takes is 1-2 louder samples per track for every single track to pop a higher DR number for the vinyl rip than for the CD.

Of note, if you load a rip of a CD into an audio editing app and sum the bass frequencies to mono, as often is done when prepping a master source for vinyl cutting, that change alone will typically increase the DR rating 1-2dB.
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
Is it possible to add vinyl distortions into digital tracks to get vinyl sound without the inconvinience of actually playing vinyl? I'm sure there are plugins that tries to do this. I mean, is it possible to be indistinguishable to the real thing?
Yes it is. Pretty much any major DAW does it. Mine (Ableton Live Suite) certainly has it. It also lets you add THD, Noise and tape like sounds, compression and and and…

I bet in a blind test one wouldn’t even recognize if the music comes from a record player or the DAW playing the altered digital version.
 

BoredErica

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
629
Likes
899
Location
USA
Who suggested placebo was involved?
Wasn't referring to anyone in specific in this thread with that comment.

Yes it is. Pretty much any major DAW does it. Mine (Ableton Live Suite) certainly has it. It also lets you add THD, Noise and tape like sounds, compression and and and…

I bet in a blind test one wouldn’t even recognize if the music comes from a record player or the DAW playing the altered digital version.
Might be a fun experiment for someone who's interested. :)
 

HarmonicTHD

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 18, 2022
Messages
3,326
Likes
4,829
Wasn't referring to anyone in specific in this thread with that comment.


Might be a fun experiment for someone who's interested. :)
Yeah and while they are at it, they can also try digitally simulated tube amps vs the real thing.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,195
Likes
11,808
I enjoy your posts, and this was another good one.

However, this one part scratched my pedantic itch, as I see this conflation happening pretty often....

Furthermore, if maximum fidelity is your reference or standard for good sound from an audio playback system, then if vinyl sounds different than digital it must also by definition sound worse.

There's a slippage there which assumes an inference from "maximum fidelity" to "better/higher sound quality." But there is no such necessary link.

You can play back a terrible sounding source (that is, that most people would assess as "poor sound quality") with Perfect Fidelity. But what you will hear is "terrible sound quality." So you can't derive "Better Sound Quality" directly from "Higher Fidelity." (Unless you re-define "sound quality" to BE some technical "high fidelity," utterly based on measured criteria of how much the signal has changed or not, irrespective of "what it sounds like" Except that is such a departure from the normal use of Sound Quality it doesn't actually clarify, it gets closer to muddying the waters because there will be such confusing slippage between uses).

I think your statement would avoid this problem by saying: Furthermore, if maximum fidelity is your reference or standard for good sound from an audio playback system, and assuming the digital signal is of maximal fidelity, then if vinyl sounds different than digital it must be lower fidelity.

This is why I don't just immediately go along with assumptions like "well, obviously we all agree vinyl is worse sound quality." Not always, to me.

Is vinyl worse "fidelity?" Absolutely, on balance, no question. But...again..fidelity and "sound quality" are separable. (Like I've said many times, working in post production sound, I'm acutely aware of this separation because we are working to INCREASE the subjective sound quality of tracks all the time through manipulation, because if we played the original tracks with Perfect Fidelity people would say they sound WORSE).

As an example of how fidelity and sound quality can break apart from my perspective for music playback: I was just listening earlier to both my record and digital copy of Kind Of Blue. The experience was pretty typical of what I often hear between my vinyl and digital source. The digital version sounded a bit cleaner, slightly "higher res" but after listening to the record I found the digital version disappointed me somewhat in it's "sound quality," because the vinyl had other "sound qualities" - it sounded fuller, beefier, more solid. The overall impression was that much more like the palpable presence of solid instruments, where the digital felt a little more "wispy" and see-through in comparison. So someone else may key in on what the digital does and say "better sound quality" and for me and some others I key in on what the vinyl seems to be doing sound-quality wise and say "I favor that sound quality, all things considered." (And this is also why buying vinyl isn't strictly a physical fetish thing for me: I'm an audiophile, I'm nuts about sound quality. I play lots of vinyl because I often like how it sounds!).
 
Last edited:

Travis

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
455
Likes
552

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
I guess I'll have to go dig up my previous writing on what "maximum fidelity" might mean.

Meanwhile, remember for a recording done in a performance venue, you're talking about a lot more than 2 channels worth of information, since your ears move, the air moves, the reflections/etc come from various directions.

2 variables measuring something or other, then converted into pressure at your ear canal aren't even a start to the necessary information to be "fidelity". Stereo, itself, is an illusion that uses the mechanics of the auditory system to make something perceptually kind of similar to one position in a performance venue for one fixed direction of attention. That's all it is.

Now, vinyl, SOME vinyl in SOME playback units may add/subtract separation (between L and R), add distortion differently in L+R vs. L-R, which creates an illusion of more complex soundfield, add mostly L-R rumble that can (in a system without a .1 channel at least) create a sense of width, boost the difference channel in the 4-7kHz range due to stylus resonance (which can also create an illusion of width), and add distortions that have rapid onset at high levels, spreading the spectrum, and thereby increasing the loudness (remember, loudness is a defined perceptual term, it's not your "volume" control or even worse "a loudness button) and thereby the perceived dynamic range.

There is such a thing as euphonic distortions, and when one is working with an illusion in the first place, which you are with a stereo signal, some people may prefer the "enhanced illusion".

Yes, obviously it would be wise to have control over that, hence things like LP sims, tape sims, amp sims, etc. Some folks do try that. Some deny it exists. Whatever...
 

j_j

Major Contributor
Audio Luminary
Technical Expert
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
2,267
Likes
4,758
Location
My kitchen or my listening room.
'Clipping' is not the same as compression.

Clipping is what happens the digital signal actually exceeds maximum dBFS. (or, in hardware, when signal exceeds the capabilities of the hardware).

Applying limiting / compression to a signal so that the waveform has 'flat tops' is not the same as 'clipping'.

Indeed, and digital clipping is much, much different, and worse, than analog clipping, since the distortion products alias right back down, often in your face in terrible, anharmonic ways.
 

charleski

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Messages
1,098
Likes
2,239
Location
Manchester UK
is there actually any real evidence that vinyl releases are any less compressed than their digital counterparts? Why is this taken for granted?

The DR database cannot be relied on for vinyl DR and neither can anecdotes.
Actually it's quite likely that a vinyl master will be more compressed, especially as far as bass dynamics go, since these need to be controlled to prevent wild excursions of the groove. But the problem isn't compression per se, the problem is clipping. Although clipping is usually the result of heavy-handed use of brick-wall limiters, which are a form of compressor, it's perfectly possible to compress a track without clipping the waveforms.

As an example, here's a track from an album released earlier this month, the 'Expanded Super Deluxe Edition' of Imagine Dragons' Night Visions. A friend bought it and asked me why it sounded so bad. Unfortunately, it was easy to find the answer:
Screenshot 2022-09-23 170219.jpg
All those flat-topped waveforms introduce masses of high-level high-order distortion into the signal. You can attempt to repair it with a 'declipping' program like RX or Audition, though these are simply extrapolating and making a guess as to what's present in the missing data. But I advised him to send the (rather expensive) boxset back as defective. In this case the LP will definitely sound better (unless they've been exceptionally lazy and just dumped the CD master into the cutting lathe).

[Edit] The DR score has never been a particularly useful index. Unfortunately we don't really have a good metric for digital clipping. Looking at the true Peak Level is a slightly better guide, but even that is unreliable: the tPL of this track is only +0.6dB. There's really no substitute for just loading it into an editor and eyeballing the waveform.
Note that the actual peak signal value for this track is -0.6dB - this is a common attempt to bypass the approval process in stores like iTunes which introduced a soft ban on music with a 0dB peak in an attempt to prevent this sort of garbage.
 
Last edited:

Ported

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Messages
60
Likes
72
I say each to their own but here is a few points to add to the thoughts...

*Having produced a few LPs NONE of them have sounded like mix time on vinyl.. on digital they are much closer.

*Vinyl mastering often involves expansion of the quieter sections which measures as "bigger dynamic range" but is artificial.

*Digital "clipping" can often be results of look-ahead limiting (a huge advantage of digital processing) ... The waveform looks clipped but will often still be smooth at the peaks when inspected v closely.

*Maybe one day we really will get raw exact copies of master tapes and home mastering options in roon or something then everyone can tweak until happy!
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
I see a lot of claims made, so some additional info.

Loudness wars begun way before CDs.

Compression is a common feature of record mastering, almost all records are compressed.

Digital just gave it more "room" for further compression. Compression and loudness are NOT medium specific, record distortions ARE medium specific.

Even in terms we use it today, it was late 70' when it started. Radio stations compressed it before emitting it to catch attention among other stations.

CDs (and digital, of course) can also be louder without compression since there's "room" in the dynamic range. People often confuse loud to be compressed.

Loudness and compression have some significance for the subject matter because at one point in time of ever-evolving argumentation why what vinyl-heads LIKE must be somehow BETTER, the argument was sought after in these two; compression and loudness. It shouldn't. This can only explain specific cases.

It is the BEAUTY which is in the eye (ear) of the beholder! It is NOT the fact which is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. Not being able to grasp this rather simple concept gives birth to most vinyl threads.

Just for a tease: when vinyl-heads say sound of vinyl, is it the beginning of the vinyl, the middle or the end? Oh please don't say all three... You wouldn't want it to look like it's "anything BUT digital", I hope it's not some sort of trauma with digital. ;) ;)

I never ever started one single conversation on the topic after someone told me he likes records better. If he likes them better, that's where all the debate stops. It is only if he goes in to all the "because" he has up his sleeve, most of which are long debunked or if he goes into "hence mode", as in: I>like>hence>better.

Someone asked for the sound of a vinyl record on a CD/digital. Here, it starts at 00:55
 

killdozzer

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
1,615
Likes
1,628
Location
Zagreb
Actually it's quite likely that a vinyl master will be more compressed, especially as far as bass dynamics go, since these need to be controlled to prevent wild excursions of the groove.
Yes. True. And this is a prerequisite. Clipping in CDs is not. It's a decision. A bad one, but a decision.

Back on topic @DrTebi it will sound different as in "one-way-different". A record can't fully mimic digital, digital can fully mimic records.
 

Travis

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
455
Likes
552
And by the way... I do record some of my vinyls to the PC, and when playing back the digital recording, it sounds just like the vinyl... in other words, the difference is not in my source... my digital recording of my vinyl still sounds vastly different than the digital version from Tidal etc.
After reading all five pages and seeing the ebb and flow of the discussion, I see two problems with your post. The first was you put the words "digital" and "CD" and "vinyl" in the same post and it instantly causes people (the collective here, not any particular individual) to melt down (shorthand for cognitive bias overload). The terms pop out DIGITAL and VINYL and they don't read to the end to see what it is you are asking and post about another digital vs. vinyl thread. I think you spend the first two pages, at least, trying to clarify what the point of your thread was.

The second problem I see is that in a room full of objectivists, the partial quotation above causes a meltdown in another direction because your premise (as stated) is faulty. You did receive one response that addressed this head-on, but only one such response (which led me to the conclusion that most quit reading after they saw "digital" and "vinyl" within 10 words of one another). Your vinyl signal is going through a different signal path than your digital signal. You have to factor that out, and recording the output of your vinyl playback isn't going to get you there. Assuming your recording technique isn't adding, or subtracting, anything audible, whatever changes have been made by your RIAA EQ circuit and your phono preamp circuit. (Your digital playback is also going to change things, and could be making your digital playback inferior because of the D/A converter, whatever decoding/processing might be going on (DSD, PCM, etc.) that is making everything digital sound horrible. This is doubtful, and so I'm just setting it completely to the side). So you got yourself in the trap of "how do you know what you are hearing is the ________ vs. the _____________." This is a problem you need to figure out because based on that quotation, what you are hearing in terms of a difference, should not be uniform (vastly different).

There are two many variables involved in the recording, mixing, and especially the mastering process, and the mass production process for all vinyl as compared to the same digital source to all sound "vastly different." So, as you know, that means that statistically the most likely reason the difference is your signal chain. Maybe you have the best vinyl rig on earth, playing 45 RPM audiophile reissues and your digital playback is Tidal on your eyephone and you are Bluetoothing that to the worst SINAD-rated amplifier. Or the other way around, you have the best digital playback on earth, your stylus how ground down to almost nothing and your brain is telling you that's the best sound on earth. Who knows?

Now, assuming you can get the playback issue factored out (I would delete the whole paragraph about the level-matching, and recording entirely, but that's just me); and assuming you really would like to know what is going on in the mastering that might account for what you are hearing (good, bad or indifferent) - well I think you are still going to be out of luck. The collective, at least with those who chose to post in this thread, do not understand the difference between recording, mixing and mastering as they use those terms interchangeably at times. They don't understand what a "master" is, or what a "master tape" is, which is the case of most audio enthusiasts because they keep seeing the word in many contexts from a marketing perspective - "digitally remastered" or "mastered from the original master tapes" etc. In this thread, I recall several instances of something being referred to as a "digital master" or an "analog master" or a "master." People that live, work and breath in the recording process domain don't use those kinds of terms except maybe internally when it has a specific meaning to that specific organization. People in that domain, that understand the variables that might account for what you are hearing world use terms like: "session tapes" or "mixdown tape" or "Eq master tape" or "mix down file" or "studio master file."

They will throw some objective data/science your way, S/N this, channel separation that, but it's not going to answer your question because it's not the focus of the Forum, and it isn't the domain of the average/typical member here. This thread is a perfect example of that. Once you figure out how to ask the right questions (and you can leave vinyl out of the conversation entirely to avoid that debate) you can get to the root of why something that starts out as the original source (could be the first generation 2 track mixdown tape, or the first generation 2 track digital file) ends up being changed after it goes through digital audio mastering and then changed again when it is sent off for mass production into physical media (CD, DVD, Bluray) during glass/photo/DRAW mastering. These real issues that exist, that degrade and distort the sound in the digital domain are dealt with by the upper echelon of mastering engineers every day don't really exist here (except loudness wars, DR ratings).

I will post a video of a top-tier mastering engineer who is talking with a record store owner who is not very versed in the technical (which is good, because Bernie explains why the interviewer's assumption that DSD is superior is misplaced, there are significant drawbacks). If you take the time to watch it, I think it will answer a great deal of what you are trying to get at, by someone who really knows what they are talking about when it comes to digital mastering and what the changes can be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftv

Travis

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2018
Messages
455
Likes
552
Here is Bernie talking about some of the issues, choices, and drawbacks of those choices are in mastering (digital or analog). What the real debate is isn't the media, it's the processing, analog vs. digital processing.

"Now the problem is you can't make a perfect digital copy" at about 29:20 may cause some to have their head's explode because this is contrary to a fundamental concept they have accepted as being true about digital. I think because it just makes logical sense and when you learn the theory the front end of recording, mixing and especially mastering isn't part of the discussion. Ones and zeros, bit for bit, copy, etc., is all great in theory, but in reality it has to go through conversion or processing, and even mechanical.



 
Top Bottom