Why do Michael Jackson albums sound better than anything released in recent years?

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

The surface noise of the vinyl could help out easily enough

True! lol

 

[richard12511]

I can tell the difference between a digital master and an analog master vinyl, let alone trying to digitize vinyl which is the worst of both worlds.

The problem here is there is undoubtedly huge expectation bias at play. We hear with our brains, not our ears. Not saying the actual soundwaves aren't different, but it's unlikely they're significantly different(at least if the vinyl is well done). IME, well done analog can be 99% as good as digital.

 

[richard12511]

I have a very good analog front end on my stereo and have heard more stereos than most thankyou. What's next, the typical 'your ears are no good' retort?

You may have have a personal preference for analog but that doesn't make it an objective fact. Given there is 'science' in this audioscience forum lets assess your claim more rationally.

Firstly, what measurements of fidelity to source do analog devices or formats exceed, let alone match digital (ie digital that is at least 16/44)?

That is the objective question related to fidelity, but what about subjectivity? Sure analog recordings and equipment can vary considerably in fidelity and may produce distortions which can sound euphonic to some. This seems the case for you. But what about the broader listening population?

I've trawled through what proper science based controlled studies have been done on whether people prefer all analog recordings and playback or all digital. The only published study I found that meets peer review standards is the paper published in the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education by Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.

The subjects were music majors who listened to CD digital and analog tape recordings of the same concert performances, recorded unequalised and unmixed (to control for mastering differences you get in commercial products). They were able to switch back and forth between the two at will, and everything was blinded and level matched. Results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than the corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, clarity and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices. Higher ratings for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media.

So there you go, unless you have evidence to the contrary most people prefer higher levels of fidelity than what is capable with analog tape - let alone the inferior vinyl. Note that there was a very small minority that did prefer the analog recordings but only on some of the playback equipment.

No doubt digital is better than analog(at least under blind conditions), but I'm genuinely surprised the differences were that large. I kinda figured it would be more akin to guessing.

 

[richard12511]

ummmm yeah, no you can't.

He didn't mention blind conditions, so I have no doubt that he actually can. As long as they're relatively close, his brain's bias for analog will very likely "create" an audible difference. Placebo is a really weird phenomenon to me, as the effects it creates are "real", at least in some sense of the word.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

He didn't mention blind conditions, so I have no doubt that he actually can. As long as they're relatively close, his brain's bias for analog will very likely "create" an audible difference. Placebo is a really weird phenomenon to me, as the effects it creates are "real", at least in some sense of the word.

No, they aren't real. They are imagined. If the difference can't be identified in a blind situation, the difference can't actually be identified. Imagining a difference is un-useful information.

 

[RayDunzl]

"In 2016, his estate earned $825 million, the highest yearly amount for a celebrity ever recorded by Forbes. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson

 

[Prep74]

I watched that video and he doesn't actually answer the question of "why". He simply states the fact that vinyl is different and DR ratings aren't comparable to CDs, speculating various reasons why that may be, but no real explanations.

Note: personally, I believe a significant contributing factor to "why" is because bass must be summed to mono and attenuated due to vinyl limitations. And most of the amplitude is in the bass, so this affects DR ratings. But I'd like to read a more evidence/math based reason.

Vinyl has a spikier waveform which increases the peak to rms ratio and this varies between records and turntables. Some of those measurements of early CDs (particularly those mastered in Japan) are also likely to be overstated due to pre-emphasis - if the data wasn't de-emphasised.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Vinyl has a spikier waveform which increases the peak to rms ratio and this varies between records and turntables. Some of those measurements of early CDs (particularly those mastered in Japan) are also likely to be overstated due to pre-emphasis - if the data wasn't de-emphasised.

Speaking of pre-emphasis in relation to the thread, some of the first 'Off the Wall' CDs use the pre-emphasis flag, and when processed correctly with de-emphasis I think they're the best sounding versions of that album.

 

[Prep74]

No doubt digital is better than analog(at least under blind conditions), but I'm genuinely surprised the differences were that large. I kinda figured it would be more akin to guessing.

For most top notch recordings that would be the case (ie not that different) but these were live concert performances with a wide dynamic range and complex arrangement of instruments.

 

[MRC01]

Vinyl has a spikier waveform which increases the peak to rms ratio and this varies between records and turntables. Some of those measurements of early CDs (particularly those mastered in Japan) are also likely to be overstated due to pre-emphasis - if the data wasn't de-emphasised.

What exactly do you mean by "spikier" waveform? That's almost the definition of higher DR score, in which case it just restates the question in different terms.
In the video, he filters the LP track to suppress pops & clicks and it didn't change its higher DR score. So whatever "spikier" means, it's not from pops & clicks.

 

[restorer-john]

Speaking of pre-emphasis in relation to the thread, some of the first 'Off the Wall' CDs use the pre-emphasis flag, and when processed correctly with de-emphasis I think they're the best sounding versions of that album

I have a very early CSR Japanese first run of Off the Wall, I'll dig it out.

 

[Prep74]

What exactly do you mean by "spikier" waveform? That's almost the definition of higher DR score, in which case it just restates the question in different terms.
In the video, he filters the LP track to suppress pops & clicks and it didn't change its higher DR score. So whatever "spikier" means, it's not from pops & clicks.

Largely due to the filtering process when producing a LP lacquer master. Also playback has its effects, eg RIAA equalisation. The two links below provide some insight.

https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/understanding-the-parameters-in-the-dynamic-range-database.834222/

 

[Prep74]

I have a very early CSR Japanese first run of Off the Wall, I'll dig it out.

If you also have the very first Sony mastered Dark Side of the Moon (the early black triangles or early blackfaces) they too are considered one the best sounding releases of that album. These early CDs also have pre-emphasis so they will sound a bit trebly if playing a file that hasn't been properly de-emphasised. Most CD players displaying the compact disc logo (hence, redbook compliant) will correctly de-emphasise these (and your The Wall) on the fly.

 

[Vintage57]

Who do Michae Jackson albums recorded years if not decades ago sound better than anything released in recent years? Especially since the tech advanced so much in recent years.
His albums sound so good if not the best.

One more reason I look forward to reading posts on this forum.

I’m not a Michael Jackson fan, just don’t think of listening to him.
However after reading this thread I have, and wow is it ever clean. Also makes me appreciate my system.
Thanks Pearljam5000,

 

[Pearljam5000]

One more reason I look forward to reading posts on this forum.

I’m not a Michael Jackson fan, just don’t think of listening to him.
However after reading this thread I have, and wow is it ever clean. Also makes me appreciate my system.
Thanks Pearljam5000,

Thanks
What speakers are you using?

 

[Vintage57]

Neumann KH420 with one KH805 sub and 2 PSI AVAA. Sounds like and feels like a live act. Crank the volume to 95 dB at LP 2 meters away and even flawless at that crazy volume. Impressive recording, appreciate.
It didn’t sound this good when I was clubbing almost 40 years ago,lol.

 

[Pearljam5000]

Neumann KH420 with one KH805 sub and 2 PSI AVAA. Sounds like and feels like a live act. Crank the volume to 95 dB at LP 2 meters away and even flawless at that crazy volume. Impressive recording, appreciate.
It didn’t sound this good when I was clubbing almost 40 years ago,lol.

That's a beast of a monitor.
My endgame system would be pretty similar, with KH420 or 8351B/ 8361A+ a sub

 

[Sancus]

For me all the best recordings are multi-channel and for the mostpart, stereo versions don't come close. This is especially true for music that was written and originally performed with multi-channel in mind, like much of Pink Floyd.

I have never heard any classical recording that is on the same level as 2L's Auro3D discs, either. A lot of 5.1 SACDs are absolutely incredible as well, like Steely Dan's Gaucho(actually pretty much all of their SACD albums are great). Some other standouts for me are the DVD-A 5.1 Hotel California, 5.1 Toccata & Fugue in D minor recorded in a cathedral with 4 distinctly located pipe organs, BTBAM's 5.1 DVD Great Misdirect(especially Swim to the Moon), and of course Dark Side of the Moon. A more recent example is Yello's Point which can be heard in Atmos on TIDAL or via disc.

 

[fløyen]

Electrocompaniet are very proud of their association with Michael jackson

 

[Pearljam5000]

For me all the best recordings are multi-channel and for the mostpart, stereo versions don't come close. This is especially true for music that was written and originally performed with multi-channel in mind, like much of Pink Floyd.

I have never heard any classical recording that is on the same level as 2L's Auro3D discs, either. A lot of 5.1 SACDs are absolutely incredible as well, like Steely Dan's Gaucho(actually pretty much all of their SACD albums are great). Some other standouts for me are the DVD-A 5.1 Hotel California, 5.1 Toccata & Fugue in D minor recorded in a cathedral with 4 distinctly located pipe organs, BTBAM's 5.1 DVD Great Misdirect(especially Swim to the Moon), and of course Dark Side of the Moon. A more recent example is Yello's Point which can be heard in Atmos on TIDAL or via disc.

The new 2L studio with 100% Genelec monitors/ subs