Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[IPunchCholla]

Yes, I somewhat skipped that, "Experience" part. I should have underscored it in my mind's eye and responded accordingly. Sorry about that. Why would the DIY/Punk scene be different?

I don't know why, just that that has been my experience. The idea of fidelity, high or otherwise, just doesn't enter into it too much. Maybe because everything is different every time? Mostly because if your doing it with actual instruments it is rarely played the same way twice (the musicians are always tweaking the pedalboards/sounds, there is no written score, there is a lot that is done by improv and feel). Also the venue's acoustics generally suck (they're small, usually mostly reflective surfaces, and the PAs are really hit or miss). Also the idea that the listener is supposed to listen to it on super-transparent gear in a quiet listening environment doesn't really happen. More likely they are on the stage bumping into the musicians when they are playing. Also, your music is going to be heard on whatever the listener effing wants to listen to it on. Who is going to tell them there soundbar, car speakers, phone speaker are the wrong way to do it? Plus, most of the music I listen to is guitars/synths and drums stacking various forms of distortion and noise filters on top of one another. It doesn't mean we don't want it to sound "good", just that the idea of being able to pick out the relatively tiny distortion contributed by any modern playback system compared to all that has ben intentionally added is sorta silly?

Lately, I've been composing music in Logic Pro. There is literally no recording going on, it is all simulated instruments. I could be making the cleanest possible sounding music there could be. No mic noise! No studio noise! But I honestly don't think that all of the so-called issues of vinyl matter one tiny little bit, for the music I am making. (and I can simulate them all). It's not like anyone is going to go " Oh my god! listen to that inner groove distortion,” when what they are hearing is screaming, distorted guitar noises with massive feedback or "the noise floor of vinyl, really destroys the ambience of X recorded live at CBGB's." What I am making is in the vain of late 70's early 80's post punk combined with contemporary noise artist like Low, but based around contemporary industrial/techno rhythms, BTW.

 

[krabapple]

Depending of course a mastering engineer may also add:

Static and Dynamic EQ
Static and Dynamic Gain
Fade in Fade out beginning and end of tracks
"Fly in" additional "sounds"
Other undocumented tricks of the trade

Most all of these "moves" were undocumented and became part of what people originally heard for better or worse. There was a reason the famous mastering engineers got paid decent money and signed their stampers.

And boy does one hear them (or rather, miss them) on some much-touted remixes (no mastering, flat transferred) by, e.g., St. Wilson.

 

[Doodski]

I don't know why, just that that has been my experience. The idea of fidelity, high or otherwise, just doesn't enter into it too much. Maybe because everything is different every time? Mostly because if your doing it with actual instruments it is rarely played the same way twice (the musicians are always tweaking the pedalboards/sounds, there is no written score, there is a lot that is done by improv and feel). Also the venue's acoustics generally suck (they're small, usually mostly reflective surfaces, and the PAs are really hit or miss). Also the idea that the listener is supposed to listen to it on super-transparent gear in a quiet listening environment doesn't really happen. More likely they are on the stage bumping into the musicians when they are playing. Also, your music is going to be heard on whatever the listener offing wants to listen to it on. Plus, most of the music I listen to is guitars/synths and drums stacking various forms of distortion and noise filters on top of one another. It doesn't mean we don't want it to sound "good", just that the idea of being able to pick out the relatively tiny distortion contributed by any modern playback system compared to all that has ben intentionally added is sorta silly?

Lately, I've been composing music in Logic Pro. There is literally no recording going on, it is all simulated instruments. I could be making the cleanest possible sounding music there could be. No mic noise! No studio noise! But I honestly don't think that all of the so-called issues of vinyl matter one tiny little bit, for the music I am making. (and I can simulate them all). It's not like anyone is going to go " Oh my god! listen to that inner groove distortion, when what they are hearing is screaming, distorted guitar noises with massive feedback." or "the noise floor of vinyl, really destroys the ambience of X recorded live at CBGB's." What I am making is in the vain of late 70's early 80's post punk combined with contemporary noise artist like Low, but based around contemporary industrial/techno rhythms, BTW.

A feast of words and descriptions. The new software is that good... very cool. Are you integrating one into the other like super clean electronics sounds combined with the impromptu of Punk? That might be a new development.

 

[mikessi]

Off-center records are the norm, there are virtually none that are perfectly centered. This means every LP has a certain degree of "wow" -- pitch distortion -- built into it. And the closer to the center, the worse the effect. People with exceptional pitch perception hear this plainly. Worst with music that has long sustained notes, least audible with highly percussive. But it's always there whether you can hear it. Modern high end TTs with 5 digit price tags are jokes -- they don't even acknowledge this fundamental flaw. And then there are the warps common to just about every LP as well, contributing further to pitch distortion. A musical instrument not in tune is not desirable; IMO, almost all LPs are at least a bit out of tune. Digital simply doesn't have this class of musical errors.

Off center records driving me crazy!- Vinyl Engine

www.vinylengine.com

 

[earlevel]

Anyway, I have a damn good vinyl rig. OBJECTIVELY it sounds really nice. But I'd wager you wouldn't even need to LISTEN to it because it's vinyl based, so it's gonna sound like shit right?

I don't know if it's a matter of sounding like $#!+. But when it's cheaper, easier, takes up less space, travels, and requires less maintenance to sound closer to the recorded product (what it sounded like in the studio) to go digital, you can imagine why many have trouble identifying exactly what is "better" about vinyl sound.

I get the positive aspects of vinyl. Many having nothing to do with the actual sound. When I listened to records, I treated them with reverence and respect, made time to listen to them, a side at a time, cleaned them, had an album cover to peruse, selected them with care. Now I have a zillion choices on Apple Music, change to another song half way through. But if the vinyl sound were truly better, wouldn't music producers simply use a device that imparted "vinyl sound" to the finished product? Employ some of the mastering techniques necessary for vinyl? I get "liking the sound". I'm just saying that at it's very peak, a turntable, cartridge, and preamp try their absolute best to not stray horribly far from the originally produced sound, while with digital it's far closer and without effort. If you like how it strays, or the overall experience, that's cool. I still love the sound of Mellotron, though it's far from sounding like what it was intended to reproduce. But you can't blame people for casting doubt on claims of superiority. I've always driven a manual transmission, I don't care who questions that, it's what I like. If you like vinyl, don't worry about what others say.

At 111 pages, I just took another look here, thinking maybe I should start another thread, "Why is digital so much better than vinyl?" Just so the vinyl lovers could rejoice together here in the remainder of this thread, in peace.

 

[levimax]

Off-center records are the norm, there are virtually none that are perfectly centered. This means every LP has a certain degree of "wow" -- pitch distortion -- built into it. And the closer to the center, the worse the effect. People with exceptional pitch perception hear this plainly. Worst with music that has long sustained notes, least audible with highly percussive. But it's always there whether you can hear it. Modern high end TTs with 5 digit price tags are jokes -- they don't even acknowledge this fundamental flaw. And then there are the warps common to just about every LP as well, contributing further to pitch distortion. A musical instrument not in tune is not desirable; IMO, almost all LPs are at least a bit out of tune. Digital simply doesn't have this class of musical errors.

Off center no problem with this bad boy.

 

[Doodski]

View attachment 222973
Off center no problem with this bad boy.

Nakamichi TX-1000
I've never seen it before now.

Nakamichi TX-1000 2-Speed Quartz Controlled Direct-Drive Turntable Manual | Vinyl Engine

www.vinylengine.com

Nakamichi TX-1000 on thevintageknob.org

Nakamichi TX-1000 record-centering turntable - exotic, high-end and extra-rare

www.thevintageknob.org

 

[mikessi]

View attachment 222973
Off center no problem with this bad boy.

Of course. Even NAK Dragons are about as hard to sight as the mythical creatures they're named after, tho, and predictably pricey. And still utterly inconvenient. No thanks. Give me a good digital music file almost any time.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Can I ask Bob, has your experience proven that more expensive amplifiers have "worked" "better" than cheaper amplification?
Personally, since the Sony purchased in Singapore in 1967, there has been the Yamaha receiver. Then Audiolab. Finally Quad. Subjectively the system has sounded better and better.

If you always got your moneys worth, I say that would be true. However, an amp costing 10 times the cost if your Quad may or may not improve things. The most important part of an amp is the power supply. The output design is not as important - the power supply is the bottleneck. Signs of a good power supply are low noise, flat bandwidth, stable output into 4 ohms and lower, near double power output from 8 to 4 ohms - even better doubling again from 4 to 2 ohms load. You can do a lot with the output design and appropriate feedback but the power supply is the foundation. A good foundation may not be cheap. Company name recognition will cost some and fancy chassis can cost a lot.
Back to your original question I would have to say "yes" the more expensive gear has done a better job. Keep in mind more money for me is no where near what some folks pay. I look for "deals" and rarely pay retail except for things like DACs - Schiit Modius at $200 for example.

 

[MattHooper]

What?
Your clutching at straws and distorting the facts.

If the master was intended to be the direct source of the vinyl, it would have
It's bass centered,
Vocals would be de-ess'd
High frequency (cymbals, etc) tamed.
Songs ordered by dynamic range and FR.

That's not how its ever been done.
That's all done after the fact letting the lathe operator determine how hard to lean on the master.

Are you sure you read what I wrote?

Whatever idealistic "wish you could hear this" feelings they may have, the intelligent engineer understands what a final product is, and the changes or compromises that are required.

I'd love people to hear my tracks for movies as I hear them. Tons of rich detail. But I know that's not practical since I'm one step in the chain, and all sorts of compromises in the sound will occur as they make room for dialogue and music, and end up with a final mix. That end product, with all it's compromises IS the product. (And no we don't expect most consumers to hear that final product as we hear it in multi-million dollar mixing theaters - not at home, anyway).

Same with the fact recording engineers understood the studio recording was one step on the way to the final product for the music consumer.

And btw, back in the days of records, engineers weren't just making recordings in the studio with wild abandon, with no regard to the requirements for vinyl! Sure they could let some things hang here or there, knowing it can be addressed in mastering. But generally speaking engineers knew that things (like being careful with sibilance, bass etc) were best handled in the studio stage, mixing especially. They wouldn't be very good engineers if they worked with no regard to the next step in the chain!

But don't take it just from me. From Richard Simpson, 50 years of cutting experience:

50 Years Of Record Cutting And Stereo Bass For Vinyl | RPM's Vinyl Blog

RPM Records article about record cutting and stereo bass for vinyl featuring Richard Simpson. The cutting engineer for RCA, Contemporary and Erika Records.

www.rpmrecords.dk

"When the artist, producer and engineer begin the recording process, the INTENT is to make the best sounding record possible using the best studios and gear available.

Once the final mix is ready for the cutting of the master disks, little or no change to the sound will be needed unless the above mentioned didn’t do their job. Not to say that a touch of EQ wouldn’t help in the final stage of mastering. It is my job to make sure the cutting system is reproducing the sound accurately (in a way that is correct in all details, exactly). This is my intent or purpose when cutting the master lacquers."

So the engineers were well aware of the fact they were producing recordings for vinyl. They didn't live in a dream world of expecting consumers to hear the master tapes; they lived in the real world, working towards the recorded product people will actually hear. When you bought the record that was the final version of the recording they expected you to hear.

 

[dlaloum]

Nope, you blew it.
The goal of a high fidelity system is to create a high fidelity recreation of the source.
The goal of a toy system is to give pleasure to its owner.

Sure, but the term "High Fidelity" or HiFi... is so so 70's - out with the dinosaurs...

Today we have reams of "audiophiles" rather than "HiFi nuts" - and perhaps this appropriately reflects the shift from high fidelity recreation (HiFi) to systems designed to give pleasure to their owners ... audiophiles. (literally, people who love audio....)

Quite a separation between the two genres - and a primary source of debate...

First question should be, where on the Venn diagram do you site - what is your objective... if your interlocutor is outside the HiFi circle... then discussing measurements designed for reproductive accuracy is pointless....

Of course there is overlap of the two genres, almost invariable a HiFi nut is also an audiophile.... but the reverse is far less frequently the case

 

[MattHooper]

Jesus H Christ on a motorbike*, how many times does this gem of wisdom about vinyl need to be re-polished here? Yes, we know! Some vinylphiles (VPs) adore vinyl regardless of its acknowledged technical inferiority to digital!

Ha! Funny, it feels like the folks who enjoy vinyl on this forum are the ones who have to keep saying "I know, I know" every time we are told it's inferior and "different from the master tape" etc. That's usually why you see the vinyl-listeners repeating it.

Also, since the context goes pages back you might have missed it. The irony of Sal continually dissing vinyl for not being SOTA...while choosing to ride a Harley You'd think no one would need reminding that people can reasonably choose non-SOTA technology to get what they want, but that was why the Harley example was brought in. Doctor Big's comments were within that ongoing context. I agree: We shouldn't have to explain this over and over.

 

[dlaloum]

Lately, I've been composing music in Logic Pro. There is literally no recording going on, it is all simulated instruments.

And here is where the whole edifice of High Fidelity collapses... there is no reference... it is ALL simulated / artificial...

The right way to replay such compositions, would be to regenerate them at the other end, rather than trying to play and then record...

Back to some digital equivalent of sheet music... object based...

 

[dlaloum]

View attachment 222973
Off center no problem with this bad boy.

Totally legendary - and no one has attempted anything like it since

True SOTA for vinyl would involve linear tracking, and auto-centering (I could add a few more features too...)

 

[MattHooper]

Sure, but the term "High Fidelity" or HiFi... is so so 70's - out with the dinosaurs...

Today we have reams of "audiophiles" rather than "HiFi nuts" - and perhaps this appropriately reflects the shift from high fidelity recreation (HiFi) to systems designed to give pleasure to their owners ... audiophiles. (literally, people who love audio....)

Quite a separation between the two genres - and a primary source of debate...

First question should be, where on the Venn diagram do you site - what is your objective... if your interlocutor is outside the HiFi circle... then discussing measurements designed for reproductive accuracy is pointless....

Of course there is overlap of the two genres, almost invariable a HiFi nut is also an audiophile.... but the reverse is far less frequently the case

Nice post.

My own view on what binds us together (as I take a Big Tent approach):

Audiophile: Someone who is enthusiastic about sound quality.

(Especially as it pertains to music reproduction).

I see those on ASR as audiophiles in this category, and it includes the mud-sucking subjectivists as well. ;-)

We care not only about music, but the sound quality, to the degree that seeking better sound becomes a hobby.

Concepts like "high fidelity" or "accuracy" is to this end very useful. But since "accuracy" does not directly equate to "sound quality," I don't believe
"High Fidelity" in the sense many here use it, adequately captures the general goal of audiophiles. (Though the original meaning - high fidelity to the sound of the real thing - would actually get closer to mapping with "sound quality," as people tend to associate "sounds more real" with "better sound quality.")

So for instance: I often listen to vinyl. I hear fantastic sound quality. When I play vinyl for guests they are often left amazed. Why? Because they are identifying High Sound Quality. Standard stuff like clarity, vividness, detail, dynamic presence, richness, imaging and soundstaging, a certain level of "realism" they aren't used to, etc. Do they need to have heard the master tapes, or have been shown a chart of measurements showing how accurate the reproduction of the signal is, or not, in order to hear this sound quality? Of course not. "Sounds more real" is usually the comment.

Personally, as an inveterate audiophile, I would not have got in to vinyl if I felt I was taking a significant step down in sound quality. But I get sonic thrills from vinyl just as I always have from digital.

You get thrills from a more accurate system? Me from a slightly less accurate system? If we are both making a hobby of seeking the sound we like, we are both audiophiles.

 

[Robin L]

Off-center records are the norm, there are virtually none that are perfectly centered. This means every LP has a certain degree of "wow" -- pitch distortion -- built into it. And the closer to the center, the worse the effect. People with exceptional pitch perception hear this plainly. Worst with music that has long sustained notes, least audible with highly percussive. But it's always there whether you can hear it. Modern high end TTs with 5 digit price tags are jokes -- they don't even acknowledge this fundamental flaw. And then there are the warps common to just about every LP as well, contributing further to pitch distortion. A musical instrument not in tune is not desirable; IMO, almost all LPs are at least a bit out of tune. Digital simply doesn't have this class of musical errors.

Off center records driving me crazy!- Vinyl Engine

www.vinylengine.com

And I'd point out: this is musical distortion. Messing with pitch affects musical intent far more than 2% of second order distortion. While I'd point out inherent IGD as the true Achillies Heel of LPs, the "pitchiness" of the LP environment is a very close contender.

 

[Chrispy]

Good grief 112 pages of defending a particularly worse sounding media (all things considered equally, not saying some vinyl wasn't mastered so well you can ignore the surface noise issues....but I don't find that the case normally).

 

[MattHooper]

Good grief 112 pages of defending a particularly worse sounding media (all things considered equally, not saying some vinyl wasn't mastered so well you can ignore the surface noise issues....but I don't find that the case normally).

Or good grief, 112 pages of attacking vinyl!

Or "112 pages defending digital over vinyl!"

Depends on whose posts you are looking at. Beating a dead horse in some respect either way, right?

But then it's the nature of hobbyists to go over the same ground. How many pages have been beating the horse of SINAD?

 

[Doodski]

have been beating the horse of SINAD?

Cool name for a horse... SINAD. I'm thinking chestnut, star on forehead and it has a long mane.

 

[Chrispy]

Or good grief, 112 pages of attacking vinyl!

Or "112 pages defending digital over vinyl!"

Depends on whose posts you are looking at. Beating a dead horse in some respect either way, right?

But then it's the nature of hobbyists to go over the same ground. How many pages have been beating the horse of SINAD?

Not attacking vinyl rather than consideration as a worthwhile route. The vinyl crowd is particularly obtuse, tho.