- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,294
-
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!
Why do records sound so much better than digital?
- Thread starter don'ttrustauthority
- Start date
- Status
Don’t get me wrong; the focus of audio science review is and should be modem technology and approaches-which by definition excludes all analogue source technology. However, if we are going to claim the rational ground, we should recognise where the evidence gets us and where it doesn’t. We can clearly say ‘we should recommend modern technology because it is objectively better in areas that are evidenced to indicate individual preference’.
That’s as far as the evidence gets us though. We don’t get to claim the rational ground whilst saying ‘vinyl is suboptimal and therefore anyone who likes it is wrong’ I’m not saying I am seeing this line in this thread of course, but it is a trait of some self-identified objectivists to derive non-sequitur arguments from a very reasonable starting position.
Anyway, I’m not sure there is really a point of disagreement here so I’ll leave it there
That’s as far as the evidence gets us though. We don’t get to claim the rational ground whilst saying ‘vinyl is suboptimal and therefore anyone who likes it is wrong’ I’m not saying I am seeing this line in this thread of course, but it is a trait of some self-identified objectivists to derive non-sequitur arguments from a very reasonable starting position.
Anyway, I’m not sure there is really a point of disagreement here so I’ll leave it there
Newman
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,530
- Likes
- 4,371
Too much philosophical tap-dancing. Here's a real test.Of course, but unless we are going to ignore the literature on cognitive neuroscience and social psychology we should temper our statements as to what joy is ‘greater’ with acknowledgment of the fact that when it comes to predicting what an individual will enjoy, the data will only ever indicate what is probable. This is all about evidence of preference of course, and we haven’t got into the epistemological thresholds that would need to be met to effectively characterise a preference for an ancient audio technology as ‘wrong’.
MCH has been blind-tested against 2-channel and is unambiguously preferred. Digital can do MCH, phono cannot (since 40 years ago half baked system). Hence greater joy (of sound waves themselves). The end.
I’d posit more falsifiable statements about material facts, rather than ‘philosophical tap dancing’, but fair enough. The point stands though-if we care about evidence then we get to say ‘the evidence suggests that you’ll probably prefer this’, nothing more.
Robin L
Master Contributor
What the man said.Of course, but unless we are going to ignore the literature on cognitive neuroscience and social psychology we should temper our statements as to what joy is ‘greater’ with acknowledgment of the fact that when it comes to predicting what an individual will enjoy, the data will only ever indicate what is probable. This is all about evidence of preference of course, and we haven’t got into the epistemological thresholds that would need to be met to effectively characterise a preference for an ancient audio technology as ‘wrong’.
I don't have the wherewithal or space to enjoy such limited delights as Phase 4 series recordings in their original format of LPs in a fold-out sleeve. This sort of record requires a big turntable in a big listening space. However, I listened to one of the CDs of Stokowski brutalizing Mussorgsky yesterday and noted the clipping burned into the recording at what must have been the master tape stage, it was so constant. I think it was from the mid-late 1960s. I could easily visualize the VU meters at the sessions staying in the red. Amazing how distorted this kind of music can be in the right hands.
the *size*of turntable matters now too?LPs haven't changed size, have they?
hmmm I think I see a new audiophool vinyl marketing opportunity here
DonR
Major Contributor
The new 2-foot LP format, now with wider soundstage?
LPs haven't changed size, have they?
hmmm I think I see a new audiophool vinyl marketing opportunity here
Robin L
Master Contributor
I would say it like this: "Modern digital technology is the state of the art of audio playback and those who just want the best signal quality should not consider analog sources at all. But if you have an analog library you wish to preserve, or you are simply interested in getting the most out of obsolete technologies such as vinyl LP or oxide-tape playback, here is what is scientifically valid and here is what is not..."Don’t get me wrong; the focus of audio science review is and should be modem technology and approaches-which by definition excludes all analogue source technology. However, if we are going to claim the rational ground, we should recognise where the evidence gets us and where it doesn’t. We can clearly say ‘we should recommend modern technology because it is objectively better in areas that are evidenced to indicate individual preference’.
That’s as far as the evidence gets us though. We don’t get to claim the rational ground whilst saying ‘vinyl is suboptimal and therefore anyone who likes it is wrong’ I’m not saying I am seeing this line in this thread of course, but it is a trait of some self-identified objectivists to derive non-sequitur arguments from a very reasonable starting position.
Anyway, I’m not sure there is really a point of disagreement here so I’ll leave it there
Rick "good science and engineering can be applied to obsolete technologies" Denney
Robin L
Master Contributor
All arguments favoring far more extensive measurements of LP associated gear. Far too many reviews of turntables, cartridges, etc. are subjective hype. More measurements are needed, particularly with LP related gear, as the sonic impact of a turntable or phono cartridge, etc., would be greater than that of a digital stage.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,294
You've put your finger on a sort of conundrum there!
On one hand, it makes sense for an accuracy-driven forum to concentrate on newer technology that is by nature more accurate.
On the other hand, that new technology - especially DACs - reached the point where it's a sort of thumb-twiddling exercise in actually finding anything of sonic consequence in most instances. So, yeah, the variation of technical/audible performance in turntables seems more fruitful in that regard.
But then...that's a backward looking technology and so why bother?
Ultimately I don't think the forum is strictly about new technology per se. After all, there is a forum devoted to turntables/phono. It's generally about accurate knowledge concerning audio gear, whether it's new or old technology. The reader can take what he wants to help reach his/her goals.
16 inch programme discs are coming back, I’m telling you. At least everyone will finally have a legitimate reason to own a 12 inch arm.
LPs haven't changed size, have they?
hmmm I think I see a new audiophool vinyl marketing opportunity here
We have the technology - we have the test records, any PC can measure the signal in ways that were outside the reach of any but the best equipped laboratories in the 60's through to the 80's...
We can (potentially) do much better now, than we could at the height of Vinyl....
At the same time, some aspects of Vinyl playback - especially effective mass of stylus tips - have taken a major step backwards - really good low mass cantilevers are hard to get, and very expensive - and many of the exotic cantilevers available today, aren't a patch on the best of the 80's...
Swings and roundabouts I guess - we can get more out of the basic cartridges today than we could then.
MakeMineVinyl
Major Contributor
There does appear to be a trend with recent turntables toward heavier, straight arms and cartridges with less compliance than earlier times.
Back to the 60's....
Throgh the 70's a lot of research went into optimising Vinyl - with the general outcome being lower mass, higher compliance, with damping....
The heavy duty world of radio stations, mostly stayed with the 60's standards (Ortofon SPU anyone?)
Through the 80's, the fashion shifted to MC's... they sound "better" than the top MM cartridges.... when actually they always sounded "different" - because by their nature they weren't for the most part providing a flat frequency response - so different MC's had different "sounds" .... difference is easy to sell... a better cartridge with flat frequency response... not so much.
MC's tend to be heavier - tend towards lower compliance - tend to be happier in heavier arms... and so the inevitable trend kicked off. This was already very much the case in the 90's....
The Revox Linatrack managed to get effective mass down to 4g... as do some of the Moerch variations.... the option is still there for the "initiated".
But the high compliance cartridges are gradually disappearing.
beagleman
Major Contributor
Having heard ACTUAL master tapes, and of course being familiar with how Vinyl Records "Sound", I can say assuredly, that Master Tapes DO NOT sound just like the Vinyl, in fact, contrary to what some forums will say....(S.H. is one big pusher of this opinion) it is NOT the closest in sound to vinyl, but FAR closer to how a CD sounds.
Vinyl ADDS a lot of stuff to the mixture, and takes away a few things also.
CD tends to be a far more analytical and precise copy of the master. Whatever small amount it varies, is FAR less than what vinyl changes.
Vinyl ADDS a lot of stuff to the mixture, and takes away a few things also.
CD tends to be a far more analytical and precise copy of the master. Whatever small amount it varies, is FAR less than what vinyl changes.
This has been said during several cycles of this thread.
Let's summarize what we have learned:
1. The mastering process back in the day was done on oxide tape, which provided some compression, and within which mastering engineers attempted to constrain the signal. The master is not the tape used for the recording--that was done on multitrack tape--but the stereo tape to which the multitrack master was mixed. That master was used to make a range of other "masters" for various purposes, one of which was to cut the album. So, there are at least three generations of oxide tape recording in everything we have from the 70's, unless it has been remastered from an earlier generation.
2. Further compression took place when the record was first cut. I recall an interview with Steve Howe and Rick Wakeman in the early 70's, where Wakeman was saying he was close to being able to hear the "cut" of his new album (Six Wives of Henry VIII), with the comment, and with full agreement from Howe, that the "cut" was the most important step in creating the final sound people would hear.
3. Further compression and various distortions are introduced during that process, plus the subsequent use of the lacquer master cut to mold the mothers, which would be used to mold the stampers, which would be used to stamp the albums. Sometimes, creating the mothers would include a second generation to permit worldwide production and distribution.
4. Time passes and CDs are introduced. Most companies just encode the digital file right off the stereo master. Whatever the weakness of the playback equipment of the day (which applies to vinyl playback even moreso), those files are the same today as they were then, and unless the CD was abused or suffered from rot (which has affected only one CD in my entire collection), will benefit from the improved playback equipment that was subsequently developed at lower and lower price points. (That price-point issue isn't insignificant--I paid $100 for my Technics turntable in 1976, and that included the cartridge. A table of that quality a decade later would have been perhaps $200. But the retail price of my Magnavox CDB-650 was $410 in 1987, and it was the least expensive player to break through the audiophile barrier of the day--and did so on the basis of its measured performance and despite its compromised digital processing compared to today. And CDs tended to be priced at double vinyl records in the 80's. Conclusion of this digression: the CD format was anything but the bargain choice until well into the 90's, despite that the most expensive turntables were very expensive indeed.)
5. Around that time, digital recording and mastering technology emerged, providing a range of new tools to mastering engineers. Some of those tools were a boon, but they were also increasingly used in the service of making the record sound louder by compressing the peaks digitally. This has proceeded apace to the present day, when much pop music (at least) is severely compressed to raise the average signal without raising the peaks, much like classical-music mastering engineers might have been forced to do back in the deeps of time when the distribution media provided far too little dynamic range.
6. So, there was a window around the decade of the 80's when digital recording techniques were apparently used to preserve dynamic range (or to demonstrate the greater dynamic range of the CD medium), and music-lovers like me sought out CDs marked DDD--digital recording, digital mastering, and digital distribution. Since that time, choices made during mixing and mastering, in some genres, have resulted in excessively compressed versions. This compression has been reportedly imposed on some vintage recordings that were digitized afresh in the 90's and later, resulting in "remastered" versions that are compressed compared to the original. Thus, there are reports that some recent remastered releases are more compressed than the versions on vinyl, the limited dynamic range of the vinyl notwithstanding. This is not because of any technical limitation, but rather reflects a change in the objectives of the mastering engineers and the companies they work for. It is possible, therefore, that an LP recording could demonstrate greater dynamic range than a later CD or digital release. As I have said, I can only think of one album in my collection where that seemed to be the case.
7. I have also observed that studio recordings from the 70's are drier than studio recordings from later decades, meaning that they display less reverb. I recall the amazement we felt when the first really good digital reverb algorithms appeared--these were a vast improvement over the analog reverb effects used previously in terms of sounding like real acoustic reverberation. I have to say that for pop recordings and classic recordings of small ensembles, I rather prefer the drier approach. (It's the opposite when I'm a musician in the recording--reverb can smooth over a multitude of sins.) But I have not observed any later remastered CDs that applied noticeable reverb to the earlier recording. New recordings are a whole other thing, but that additional reverb is applied to what I hear on vinyl releases, too. I think this issue is agnostic to the vinyl/digital discussion.
8. I think it's fair to say that the cases where the original vinyl simply sounded better than available digital versions are rare. (I am excluding streaming services which may now or later apply a range of processing to attain some objective I disagree with--I simply don't have enough experience with streaming to judge that). I bought the CD version of Wakeman's Six Wives in the hopes of hearing greater dynamic range that his electronic music would enjoy, but the CD was not better. It was quieter, though. This example describes most that I have compared. His Criminal Record recording from the late 70's was never formally released on CD, but there is a Japanese-market CD that I have, and I fine the LP to have a little drier sound with more clarity. But the big scratch on side two is absent on the CD
Fortunately, I am apparently deaf to most IGD, and despite being a musician, I am also apparently able to hear through wow without distraction.9. When I listen to music I love, I can easily hear through all kinds of crap without distraction, even scratches and surface noise. When I don't love the music, I hear all kinds of crap that may not even be there even with digital playback. My lesson from that is that different people are able (or not) to sustain a willing suspension of disbelief sufficient to enjoy the music for what it is. But comparing LPs to digital versions is impossible to do blindly--the vinyl roar is too loud to ignore and unmistakably signals which is which to the listener. I have never, on any system of any price or sophistication, been unable to hear the background noise when the needle first settles in the run-in groove. And I'm not talking about the thump as it finds the groove.
10. The problem is not the technology, which is what it is and can be measured and discussed objectively. The problem with this topic are the claims that are made about the technologies, on both sides of the debate. People feel the need to validate their expenditure on vinyl playback, when the only justification one needs for a hobby is they want it and have the money. Others feel the need to disparage vinyl playback as being inferior and unworthy of discussion because it is obsolete, because they don't like messing with it or spending their money that way, or because they are afraid any positive discussion of the topic will suggest that it is technologically superior. These positions do not illuminate the topic once they are acknowledged, as they have been over and over again in this thread and on ASR.
Rick "thinking this thread needs summaries every now and again" Denney
JP
Major Contributor
Such a problematic simple little word.
- Status
Similar threads
