Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[rdenney]

There Rick, I fixed it for you.
No need for 10 long paragraphs of detail.

Well, Sal, I didn't mean to challenge your reading ability.

Rick "you could have skipped the first 9 paragraphs" Denney

 

[krabapple]

This has been said during several cycles of this thread.

Let's summarize what we have learned:
.
.
.
4. Time passes and CDs are introduced. Most companies just encode the digital file right off the stereo master.

Nope. When the CD era starts most companies (the ones rereleasing 'popular' music rather than classical) transfer whatever tape is readily available to them. This is 'a' production master but not 'the' original mixdown master(s), which has usually been stored away deeper in some vault (if it can be found at all).

The vogue for 'original master tape' sourcing didn't happen until the late 80s, and tragically, was quickly overlapped by the vogue for 'loudness'.

 

[rdenney]

Nope. When the CD era starts most companies (the ones rereleasing 'popular' music rather than classical) transfer whatever tape is readily available to them. This is 'a' production master but not 'the' original mixdown master(s), which has usually been stored away deeper in some vault (if it can be found at all).

The vogue for 'original master tape' sourcing didn't happen until the late 80s, and tragically, was quickly overlapped by the vogue for 'loudness'.

Okay, let's change that to "at best the CD was encoded off the stereo master, but could well have been encoded from downstream production masters."

Rick "just trying to summarize for those unwilling to read the whole thread before jumping into it" Denney

 

[krabapple]

Okay, let's change that to "at best the CD was encoded off the stereo master, but could well have been encoded from downstream production masters."

Rick "just trying to summarize for those unwilling to read the whole thread before jumping into it" Denney

Well, they're all 'stereo masters'. *two-channel mixdown* master is more specific.

krab 'count me among the unwilling' apple

 

[Audiofire]

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.

Thanks for the summary. I can also report this as I have seen countless times how the waveform on modern heavy rock CDs is a so-called brickwall. This was compared by me with the same release on a CD from around 1990, where the dynamic peaks are visible unlike modern antics.

 

[Digby]

Rick "just trying to summarize for those unwilling to read the whole thread before jumping into it" Denney

It's a funny thing, isn't it? Few people have the time or energy to read 100 pages from scratch, but what is the etiquette regarding jumping in? Plenty of people end up posting comments that are the 5th, 6th, 12th rehash of what has been dealt with pages back. I don't know how we can keep long threads productive without endless repetition.

Maybe every forum needs their own selfless rdenney to give us a summary every 10 pages or so.

Speaking of driving the point home, did I mention @Sal1950, is there anyone left on this forum that doesn't know his opinion of vinyl? I feel like he might be reaching a point where he just introduces it into completely unrelated threads. I have to wonder does he end up at dinner parties, then upon noticing the turntable out of the corner of his eye, suddenly chairs are being launched across the room, as people flee in horror from this previously mild mannered man turned enraged monster....who knows?

Sal, you should put your thoughts on vinyl in your forum signature, for the 3 or 4 people who don't know yet .

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Can I just comment that the thread title, does surely invite comment from people who hold a contrary view?

 

[FrantzM]

Can I just comment that the thread title, does surely invite comment from people who hold a contrary view?

I would have though this thread would have died a long time ago... I won't sustain it with post any longer ..
Off it ..
Peace.

 

[Newman]

Can I just comment that the thread title, does surely invite comment from people who hold a contrary view?

’Tis the very definition of clickbait.

 

[Digby]

it certainly worked.

 

[beagleman]

Awesome. One of my favorites! Also great is The Mysterious Film World Of Bernard Herrmann. The way he recreated the humming texture of a bees wings (for the giant bees in Mysterious Island) with the string section/woodwinds was remarkable.

One of the things I love about the Herrmann soundtracks is they tend to be recorded in a very vivid manner.

Yeah, years ago owned Most all of the albums he did on vinyl.

Impressive in a way for sure, but at the same time, somewhat of an artificial, "Look at me" type of sound, that seemed intentionally to gimmick up how stuff sounded.
I remember when much younger, thinking "This must be HIFI" and so on!

 

[Bob from Florida]

Amazing this thread is still going and thankfully I only read a few pages. However, I find myself yielding to the “temptation to reply” with my own “humble” summary.
OP came up with fantastic “click bait” thread title as evidenced by > 100 pages!
Limited reading shows repeated points of view - like a broken record….. Vinyl either sucks or not or maybe only sucks a “little”.

If I were to become serious I would suggest the “recording” is what really matters. The playback medium becomes a “choice”, but if the recording “sucks” the playback will suck with any playback choice.

Edit to clarify what I mean by "recording". A good "recording" means 2 things to me. First, it is something I would actually enjoy listening to and second it would be more enjoyable if it was well recorded.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I remember once, I was talking to Duke Ellington telling him how I love his music and can't wait to have it distorted for a record so I can enjoy it as he intended.
He said; that's not how I intended! Why don't you come down to the club and hear me while I play?
Oh, Duke... And miss on all the IGD, clicks and pops and the photo of you?! Nah, I like it more natural, warm and full of dynamics!
Boy, are you on something? - Said the sad Duke. You can't have more dynamics than sitting in the front row...
But, Duke... Oh, Duke, Duke but... With out my cartridge it would feel like you're not even in the club!
Kid, seriously now, I'm not summoned through some tiny stones, come down and hear me!
I said, I'm too mindful when I listen to music, that's how I found out that the true soul of your music appears only with all the compression, cracks and pops, distortions, wow and flutter of a record. Oh, and I get to look a photo of you. Did I mention that? Anyway, I can't come, I'm having my TT incarnate Benny Goodman in my living room with my new Shunyata and Sumiko combo.
Well, if you can't, at least get the best recording of my session.

And that's how deluded poor ol' Duke was.

Have you been to any of the clubs on Frenchman St.? The acoustics are…. Not great. The music still is.

 

[Sal1950]

If I were to become serious I would suggest the “recording” is what really matters. The playback medium becomes a “choice”, but if the recording “sucks” the playback will suck with any playback choice.

Humm, I don't know Bob?
The problem then becomes, if you have the best recording ever mastered, would you chose to listen to it on the severely compromised vinyl media, or a digital file which is a sonic mirror of the source?.
Then you have to ask yourself, no matter the quality of the recording, do you want to hear it with all of vinyls weaknesses and distortion piled on top? Or as cleanly as possible?
For an audiophile I would think the answer to either question is obvious.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Humm, I don't know Bob?
The problem then becomes, if you have the best recording ever mastered, would you chose to listen to it on the severely compromised vinyl media, or a digital file which is a sonic mirror of the source?.
Then you have to ask yourself, no matter the quality of the recording, do you want to hear it with all of vinyls weaknesses and distortion piled on top? Or as cleanly as possible?
For an audiophile I would think the answer to either question is obvious.

I think it is obvious you do not care for vinyl playback. That is perfectly fine by me. I happen to have vinyl playback, CD playback, music server playback, and if I pay for a subscription - capability for streaming playback. I enjoy any playback of music I like - by like I mean it has to be a song I actually enjoy first and foremost. Secondary is the quality of the recording. For example if I had the best recording of a "rap" song I would not listen to it. You see - I primarily do not enjoy rap music with the exception of Will Smith doing "Men in Black". If I want convenience I will be using the music server. If I feel like picking a vinyl lp out then I will do that. I do have fun with vinyl - the process of setup and adjustments that make changes I can actually easily hear. I know it's not for everyone.

 

[Newman]

Humm, I don't know Bob?
The problem then becomes, if you have the best recording ever mastered, would you chose to listen to it on the severely compromised vinyl media, or a digital file which is a sonic mirror of the source?

Plus, how many channels of playback would the best recording ever mastered have? This is where vinyl really gags at the starting line.

Toole’s “A Philosophical Perspective” essay (in the first edition of his book) explains this most knowledgeably and eloquently, in part:-

“The truth is that no amount of refinement in audio devices can solve the problem; there is no missing ingredient or tweak that can, outside of the imagination, make these (playback) experiences seem real. The process is itself fundamentally flawed in its extreme simplicity. The miracle is that it works as well as it does. The “copy” is sufficiently similar to the “original” that our perceptual processes are gratified, up to a point, but the “copy” is not the same as the “original.” Sterne (2003) explains that “at a very basic, functional level, sound-reproduction technologies need a great deal of human assistance if they are to work, that is, to ‘reproduce’ sound” (p. 246).

“Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with the natural human ability to “fill in the blanks”, providing the right clues to trigger the perception of a more complete illusion. It is absolutely not a mechanical “capture, store, and reproduce” process. In addition to the music itself, there is now, and probably always will be, a substantial human artistic, craftsmanship, component to the creation of musical product.

“…And, in the context of sound recording, “far from being a reproduction of the actual event, the recording was a ‘re-creation’” (Sterne, p. 242). The goal is not imitation but the creation of specific listener experiences. This certainly exists dramatically in the directional and spatial experiences in reproduced sounds.

“For decades, society has been conditioned to derive pleasure from first single-channel sound (mono) and then two channels (stereo). Only recently has music been offered in multichannel formats that permit a somewhat realistic directional and spatial panorama. Impressed by the novelty that music and movies were available on demand, society appeared to lower its expectations and adapted to the inadequate formats. A great deal of enjoyment was had by all. So complete is this form of adaptation that significant new technical developments must go through a “break-in” period before there is acceptance. …those who grew up with mono often argued that stereo was an unnecessary complication, adding little value. (I remember—I was there!) The same is now happening with respect to multichannel audio schemes. Part of the “break in” applies to the audio professionals, who must learn how to use the new formats with discretion and taste.”

(my emphasis)

No doubt: the best recordings ever are, and will forever be, in multichannel playback formats…and vinyl has no play in this game. It cannot do it. It and its recordings exist on a lower tier. As Toole explains above, we have been conditioned to be pretty happy with pretty little.

The key issue preventing everyone from acknowledging digital MCH playback productions as the pinnacle of home audio, is that a significant portion of audiophiles have an anti-digital, anti-MCH, anti-progress attitude (they are stuck at the start of Toole’s ‘break-in period’) that is blocking them and making them literally incapable (sighted) of having the experience that is universally (proven, tested, in controlled listening, read the book) preferred as a fully superior perceptual experience of the sound waves themselves. The fact that a lot of recording engineers are playing to this, is a hand-on-wallet betrayal to the potential of their profession. But hey, if ‘vinyl crumbs’ is what the consumers want more than five-star degustation, then give them their crumbs, and charge them a 500% premium for the pleasure.

Cheers

 

[Bob from Florida]

Plus, how many channels of playback would the best recording ever mastered have? This is where vinyl really gags at the starting line.

Toole’s “A Philosophical Perspective” essay (in the first edition of his book) explains this most knowledgeably and eloquently, in part:-

“The truth is that no amount of refinement in audio devices can solve the problem; there is no missing ingredient or tweak that can, outside of the imagination, make these (playback) experiences seem real. The process is itself fundamentally flawed in its extreme simplicity. The miracle is that it works as well as it does. The “copy” is sufficiently similar to the “original” that our perceptual processes are gratified, up to a point, but the “copy” is not the same as the “original.” Sterne (2003) explains that “at a very basic, functional level, sound-reproduction technologies need a great deal of human assistance if they are to work, that is, to ‘reproduce’ sound” (p. 246).

“Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with the natural human ability to “fill in the blanks”, providing the right clues to trigger the perception of a more complete illusion. It is absolutely not a mechanical “capture, store, and reproduce” process. In addition to the music itself, there is now, and probably always will be, a substantial human artistic, craftsmanship, component to the creation of musical product.

“…And, in the context of sound recording, “far from being a reproduction of the actual event, the recording was a ‘re-creation’” (Sterne, p. 242). The goal is not imitation but the creation of specific listener experiences. This certainly exists dramatically in the directional and spatial experiences in reproduced sounds.

“For decades, society has been conditioned to derive pleasure from first single-channel sound (mono) and then two channels (stereo). Only recently has music been offered in multichannel formats that permit a somewhat realistic directional and spatial panorama. Impressed by the novelty that music and movies were available on demand, society appeared to lower its expectations and adapted to the inadequate formats. A great deal of enjoyment was had by all. So complete is this form of adaptation that significant new technical developments must go through a “break-in” period before there is acceptance. …those who grew up with mono often argued that stereo was an unnecessary complication, adding little value. (I remember—I was there!) The same is now happening with respect to multichannel audio schemes. Part of the “break in” applies to the audio professionals, who must learn how to use the new formats with discretion and taste.”

(my emphasis)

No doubt: the best recordings ever are, and will forever be, in multichannel playback formats…and vinyl has no play in this game. It cannot do it. It and its recordings exists on a lower tier. As Toole explains above, we have been conditioned to be pretty happy with pretty little.

The key issue preventing everyone from acknowledging digital MCH playback productions as the pinnacle of home audio, is that a significant portion of audiophiles have an anti-digital, anti-MCH, anti-progress attitude (they are stuck at the start of Toole’s ‘break-in period’) that is blocking them and making them literally incapable (sighted) of having the experience that is universally (proven, tested, in controlled listening, read the book) preferred as a fully superior perceptual experience of the sound waves themselves. The fact that a lot of recording engineers are playing to this, is a hand-on-wallet betrayal to the potential of their profession. But hey, if ‘vinyl crumbs’ is what the consumers want more than five-star degustation, then give them their crumbs, and charge them a 500% premium for the pleasure.

Cheers

Multi channels may well be the future. However, I have lots of stereo recordings and zero multi-channel. From my personal point of view it makes no sense. I would have to purchase additional speakers, amplifiers, and multi channel music. Someone starting out should consider that option. I just don't have the budget or a place for extra speakers. My home theater is the same as my stereo and is 2 channels plus a sub to make the room shake. Probably need a different house as well to make it happen. Now if I were to win the lottery - have to buy tickets though - I could have both options.

 

[DoubleWoofers]

Vinyl never has, never will, and frankly cannot ever sound, at its most basic implementation better than digital. In today's world, a $100 DAC easily beats vinyl on any measure anyone would like to choose. Heck, a $10 can.

Now, that does not mean that you will prefer digital playback in your system, no matter how superior. And no, it is not because digital is worse. It is because the average vinyl setup, even at high expense, is poor. The other thing poor in most vinyl lover, cable cretins systems is their listening room. Too reflective especially at high frequencies, bass all over the map, first reflection issues, etc. Sorry boys and girls, those trinkets from SR are not going to save you.

What happens when you put a perfectly flat source into a reflective, bad bass room? .... It sounds like crap. Sure it is crisp, but the excessive highs will get on your nerves. You may even assign it the quality of glare (not knowing any better). So back to your trusty turntable, with its poor non-flat and complimentary frequency response, stereo image shrinking cross-talk, and probably enough distortion to impact tone.

 

[dlaloum]

Nothing new in this - in the 1930's 3 channel ie: 3 speakers at the front L/C/R was deemed the ideal... but ultimately the first viable high(ish) fidelity distribution media, was the 2 channel Vinyl LP.

And customers for the most part, were not willing to spend the extra for a third speaker - was it the customers fault? or was it the fault of poor marketing, that opted for the easier option?

From the very earliest days of stereo, there were already ways to use 3 speakers which demonstrably provided better results...

Klipsch originally released the classic Heresy speaker as a center channel to sit between a pair of Klipschorns or La Scala's....

More recently various efforts in that direction led to Trifield, and Martin Logan in conjunction with Bryston used Dolby PLII, to set up 3 channel stereo demo's which wowed pretty much everyone that heard them...

Unfortunately PLII is no longer available, replaced by Dolby Surround.... which as a result loses the many years of tuning that Fosgate did to PLII to the benefit (very specifically) of stereo music....

It remains a worthwhile exercise, today, when most of us run dual purpose Home Theatre / Music setups - to experiment with the different Mixers, to see which one does the best Job of 3 channel stereo.... (gets a bit off the track of Vinyl... but like any Stereo format, Vinyl stands to benefit from this!)

 

[Holmz]

Plus, how many channels of playback would the best recording ever mastered have? This is where vinyl really gags at the starting line.
…

But it is surprising how good it can sound.

Vinyl never has, never will, and frankly cannot ever sound, at its most basic implementation better than digital. In today's world, a $100 DAC easily beats vinyl on any measure anyone would like to choose. Heck, a $10 can.
…

It almost sounds like you have never heard vinyl?
It certainly has sounded better than digital, especially when there was no digital or later in the infancy of digital.