Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[DoubleWoofers]

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.

You must be Holmz from Audiogon?

My vinyl rig by most standards is very good. Unlike most audiophile vinyl rigs though, mine is setup correctly and I know the performance.

Even with the brickwall analog filters of the mid-80s I don't think vinyl has ever sounded better. Audiophiles tell themselves that lie to help sleep at night, but I could take a mid 80's CD mastering rig and put it up against your best vinyl and it will do just fine.

Audiophiles have told themselves the same lies so many times that they can't even conceive of the truth any more. They make declarations about what something sounds like without any knowledge of what their baseline is. What's funny is they now regurgitate those same DACs from the 80's and now they are wonderful. Yes, low end consumer DACs were poor originally, but that is not a format or even a recording limitation. Those, if mastered well, have been beyond vinyl for pretty much as long as the format has existed.

Invariably when vinyl lovers talk about the best records, they wax about pre-1970's stampings ..... that says an awful lot.

 

[DoubleWoofers]

Because its more relatable as a technology and you listen differently as a result. Plus for me the extra noise gives a weight to mid range and background that seems somehow more believable or human . I dont know but it's rewarding , or can be .

I personally expect it to sound shit so always surprised.

..

Unless it is classical in which case the noise does not sound natural or believable. WIth Vinyl you only have one choice.

 

[DoubleWoofers]

mastering makes a bigger difference than format imo and there are many recordings where the digital release is mastered for the loudness war while the vinyl release is mastered better. its not the fault of the format but baffling decisions by the sound engineers can result in a vinyl release of a song sounding better than the digital release.

Which is why I said "basic implementation". As a format, it is inferior. It has been inferior pretty much since the day digital was released, and today is vastly superior. I don't know why we even have these conversations any more except for there being too many audiophiles with big money and big egos and those that want to be just like them.

 

[Sal1950]

I’m not into motor cycles, but hasn’t HD been in trouble because they are largely seen as a retro, old tech brand?

H-D in trouble? They're still the #1 selling Touring motorcycle in the world.
Obvious your not "into" motorcycles
No you don't buy a touring type bike to race.
You don't buy a racing type bike to tour.
Either would suck in at others specialty.
You don't buy a new Cadillac Celestiq to compete at your local road race course either.
But they are SOTA in their genre.

Has it occurred to you that vinyl for others is the same as Harley for you?

Your generalization of H-D, the motorcycle market, and myself do show your lack of understanding.
I don't play with crap in any of my ventures.
Merry Christmas.

 

[MattHooper]

Vinyl never has, never will, and frankly cannot ever sound, at its most basic implementation better than digital.

If you are about to type an absolute claim, especially if it involves value statements ("better") consider stepping away from the keyboard and re-phrase.

You are just about guaranteed to say something wrong

Now, that does not mean that you will prefer digital playback in your system, no matter how superior.

Someone may have a value judgement that vinyl (in any particular instance) sounds "better."

That's the messiness of value judgements. You can certainly talk about technical superiority of digital. And about the audible consequences. But rating those audible consequences is going to be a value judgement, so what may sound "obviously superior" to you may not to another. (Even to someone else who really does care about sound quality).

Which is why I said "basic implementation". As a format, it is inferior. It has been inferior pretty much since the day digital was released, and today is vastly superior

As someone who listens to both a high quality digital set up (Benchmark DAC2L) and a good turntable set up, I find such statements to be quite exaggerated. Do I hear some advantages generally speaking in digital? Sure (e.g. reliably lower noise floor). Does it sound "vastly superior" to my records. Generally speaking: No it doesn't. The sound I get from vinyl gives similar audio thrills. And as someone stated earlier, the sound quality I hear - from crappy to awe-inspiring - is more related to the quality of the recording, not the delivery format.

YMMV of course

 

[MattHooper]

Your generalization of H-D, the motorcycle market, and myself do show your lack of understanding.
I don't play with crap in any of my ventures.
Merry Christmas.
View attachment 222427
View attachment 222430

My motorcycle fanatic friends (one of whom is an editor for a motorcycle magazine)...disagrees. But that's for another forum no doubt...;-)

 

[Vacceo]

Help me learn something, guys. Is there any record you know that has had dithering applied? I am asking because I'd really like to try to listen to that if I can hear any difference. Best case would be the same source material so I can figure out if I perceive something different.

What should I be paying attention to?

 

[DoubleWoofers]

If you are about to type an absolute claim, especially if it involves value statements ("better") consider stepping away from the keyboard and re-phrase.

You are just about guaranteed to say something wrong




Someone may have a value judgement that vinyl (in any particular instance) sounds "better."

That's the messiness of value judgements. You can certainly talk about technical superiority of digital. And about the audible consequences. But rating those audible consequences is going to be a value judgement, so what may sound "obviously superior" to you may not to another. (Even to someone else who really does care about sound quality).

YMMV of course

My second statement should have made clear enough my first statement such that you quoting my first statement was unnecessary.

For rock, even jazz, I can agree, the two can often sound close assuming you have a mastering that is anywhere close. For classical, I personally don't find vinyl close. Good. Not close. Once you know the telltale distortion signs (not just the noise), and where that shows in music, it is hard to miss they are there, especially when you consider the pressing lottery.

That a digital system can capture and play back a turntable with no audible difference renders the discussion moot (sp?). A turntable becomes nothing but a fixed signal processing device, but fixed for only one person and one implementation as every single other one is a bit different.

 

[DoubleWoofers]

Help me learn something, guys. Is there any record you know that has had dithering applied? I am asking because I'd really like to try to listen to that if I can hear any difference. Best case would be the same source material so I can figure out if I perceive something different.

What should I be paying attention to?

By record do you mean vinyl? It is inherently dithered from the built in noise source.

If you mean CD, then virtually all of them are dithered.

 

[spartaman64]

Which is why I said "basic implementation". As a format, it is inferior. It has been inferior pretty much since the day digital was released, and today is vastly superior. I don't know why we even have these conversations any more except for there being too many audiophiles with big money and big egos and those that want to be just like them.

yes but does that matter? that might sound like a weird statement but this reminds me of the arguments between compound and recurve/traditional archery. sure in pretty much every measurable way a compound bow is superior but some people just prefer the feel and process of a traditional bow better

 

[MattHooper]

Right...back to the risible theme of this thread:

As I've said before, I got back in to vinyl several years ago as much for what I perceive of the sound quality as for anything else. Generally speaking, I can listen through or deal with some of it's liabilities in order to get somethings out of it I really enjoy.

I was watching a video from John Devore (of Devore Fidelity) explaining why he likes vinyl (as well as digital), where to his ears he said vinyl tends to somehow have a sort of palpability and density to the sound, more often than not, that really engages him. It made me think "the dude is talking my talk, I find the same thing!" And it's no wonder I found I liked some of the Devore speakers so much because he's going for a "sound" that he likes, and part of that is the sense of density and palpability, exactly what I heard in his speakers that made them stand out for me. I don't mention Devore as if it adds credibility to the claim, only that for me, when I see someone who seems to listen for what I listen for, it's gratifying and it can even be fruitful (even for discovering new products I come to love). Like John Devore, I seek a sense of "density/palpability" in music playback. The sense something physical is happening around the speakers.

So on the vinyl note: I've been a fan of electronic music for a long time, especially in the 90's. If it was possible to wear out my CDs of, for instance, Sun Electric or Sunship or other bands, I would have. Listened to a gazillion times on all my systems. But I had been getting hold of the hard-to-find vinyl versions of those albums (not easy finds, given the dearth of vinyl in the 90's - many tend to be vinyl pressings made for clubs/DJs).

I was just listening again to one of the vinyl versions and was just being blown away. It was almost hallucinogenic in it's clarity, expansiveness, and presence! Relative to the digital version, which sounds like a nice clean recording, the vinyl version has a bit more texture and presence - the sense that the drum machines, all the synth sparkles and jabs just seem to pop in and out right in to the room as solid objects, or just hang palpably in the air. Less like a see-through hologram, slightly more like a physical object moving air in the room. This is in the big picture subtle differences, but for me they are very significant to my enjoyment of the sound. Which is why I'm gonna go track down some more vinyl versions of some of my favorite electronica....

 

[levimax]

Help me learn something, guys. Is there any record you know that has had dithering applied? I am asking because I'd really like to try to listen to that if I can hear any difference. Best case would be the same source material so I can figure out if I perceive something different.

What should I be paying attention to?

I don't think dithering applies to LP's .

An experiment you might try is taking a good quality "hi-res" 192 file know to not be up sampled and then using any number of free software tools convert to 44.1 with and without dither and ABX them (foobar2000 ABX is a free tool) and see if you can hear any differences. The difference would be noise.

 

[MattHooper]

My second statement should have made clear enough my first statement such that you quoting my first statement was unnecessary.

For rock, even jazz, I can agree, the two can often sound close assuming you have a mastering that is anywhere close. For classical, I personally don't find vinyl close. Good. Not close. Once you know the telltale distortion signs (not just the noise), and where that shows in music, it is hard to miss they are there, especially when you consider the pressing lottery.

That a digital system can capture and play back a turntable with no audible difference renders the discussion moot (sp?). A turntable becomes nothing but a fixed signal processing device, but fixed for only one person and one implementation as every single other one is a bit different.

Hey I don't for a moment begrudge your own impressions and reactions to vinyl. If you even said you can't stand vinyl relative to digital, that it sounds awful to you (which you haven't) I wouldn't disagree. I'm just exchanging another point of view.

I totally get why you wouldn't like orchestral on vinyl, for the reasons you've given. I like classical music (and have numerous classical records) but I'm more of a soundtrack fanatic, much of it orchestral music. Yes I do put up with overall more noise artifacts vs when I'm listening to my digital orchestral soundtracks. But I find, generally speaking (and not always) that certain aspects sound more convincing or pleasing even on orchestral music - the texture of strings seems to cut through the recording more, instruments slightly more separated with more presence. I find those aspects to sound a bit more "real" to me, often enough. While to you, I can imagine you'd be distracted by other distortions.

 

[DoubleWoofers]

yes but does that matter? that might sound like a weird statement but this reminds me of the arguments between compound and recurve/traditional archery. sure in pretty much every measurable way a compound bow is superior but some people just prefer the feel and process of a traditional bow better

Good argument.

I will throw back car comparisons. Manual transmission vs. automatic. Sport stability control systems versus not.

The manual transmission and lack of stability control may give you the illusion of being in better control and faster, but the reality is that you are slower, and less in control. Once you accept that, then you can concentrate on more high level aspects of driving, and let the low level stuff be taken care of. As opposed to using all your attention just to "wrestle" the car around the track, you can now pay greater attention to minute details about the track, how the other drivers are behaving, the quality of your line, etc.

I think it matters in that if your goal is either the best high fidelity or euphonic presentation, digital has a far better chance of delivering it. With vinyl, you are at the mercy of what you have. With digital you can dial it in and even change it on a song by song basic. You can do that in vinyl too, but so much is baked in already that cannot be removed (at least not yet, give AI a few years).

 

[DoubleWoofers]

FWIW, I have a pretty good vinyl system. It is the only way to access some recordings and masterings that I love. I digitize it right away though

 

[MattHooper]

FWIW, I have a pretty good vinyl system. It is the only way to access some recordings and masterings that I love.

Cool! *bro fist*

I digitize it right away though

Ok, drat....we can't be friends. ;-)

 

[Sal1950]

I was just listening again to one of the vinyl versions and was just being blown away. It was almost hallucinogenic in it's clarity, expansiveness, and presence! Relative to the digital version, which sounds like a nice clean recording, the vinyl version has a bit more texture and presence - the sense that the drum machines, all the synth sparkles and jabs just seem to pop in and out right in to the room as solid objects, or just hang palpably in the air. Less like a see-through hologram, slightly more like a physical object moving air in the room.

The sound of vinyls distortion of the master, both from the masters preparation for the cutting lathe, and the weaknesses of the media in attempting to reproduce the sound on the disc. It amazes me you never hear the inner groove distortion on every LP ever pressed. Or the massacre of the correct bass level and balance between channels. Or, or, or, or.
The digital is the sound of the source.

 

[Sal1950]

FWIW, I have a pretty good vinyl system. It is the only way to access some recordings and masterings that I love.

I hear that repeated quite often?
I have over 4,000 albums (approx 750 multich) on my hard-drive plus Lord knows how many available from streaming, and haven't run into an album I wished to hear that I had to resort to vinyl to hear in maybe 20+ years?
I could never envision myself spending thousand of dollars +, to hear what might boil down to a handful of records.
Apple Music now claims a library of 90 million songs.

 

[MattHooper]

It amazes me you never hear the inner groove distortion on every LP ever pressed.

Yeah. Generally I don't, really. I mean, I certainly do hear distortion here and there. But it can happen anywhere - first track, middle track, end track.
There are plenty of end tracks on my records that sound incredible so....I guess I'm left wondering just how obvious this "always there" inner groove distortion is supposed to be. Maybe I'm just not paying that close attention because I don't expect vinyl playback to be perfect anyway. (But then...I AM paying very close attention to the sound...so I dunno).

Or the massacre of the correct bass level and balance between channels.

I admit, I've never found this to be an issue. I put on my funk CDs and there's plenty of bass and punch. I put on the vinyl versions and there's plenty of bass and punch. I was just playing an electronica piece that was sending waves of deep bass across the floor. It was, at least subjectively, as deep and weighty as any bass I've heard in my system. It would be laughable to me if someone said the vinyl wasn't putting out strong bass, in terms of what I am hearing. If there's some minor difference, it's not enough for me to notice or care about.

(I have heard slightly different mastering for bass that I noticed, on the rare record. E.g. the Taxi Driver soundtrack, on a couple tracks, starts with a big, deep, weighty bass drum being hit on the far right channel. For the vinyl version they put it somewhat more towards the center. No biggie, frankly.
(And I prefer the tone of the vinyl to my CD version).

 

[Vacceo]

By record do you mean vinyl? It is inherently dithered from the built in noise source.

If you mean CD, then virtually all of them are dithered.

CD or any other digital format. It would be interesting to check a dithered and non-ditheted piece of sound to try to hear differences.