Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[MattHooper]

You - personally, you - are the #1 reason this thread is as long as it is.

Maybe you just don't listen closely enough, or chose to ignore the weaknesses that people have complained about for decades


Amen, but he never see's it that way.

^^^Say two guys who have contributed throughout this whole thread, and are still contributing 117 pages in.

My goodness, the way vinyl discussions triggers some folks! "I need to respond derisively when people here extol their enjoyment of vinyl! Especially if it's MattHooper! I have to counter his posts! But since I want someone to else to blame, my responses don't count, nor do other people's posts, you see it's MattHooper who keeps this thread going! And I'll just add to several more posts on page 117 to make sure people know that! "

Beautiful.

 

[MattHooper]

I never misunderstood your claim, I simply didn't agree with it.

Sorry, but you clearly misunderstood and hence strawmanned my claim when you responded ""So anything I do to fulfill a desire is a rational action? That's... optimistic."

I explained exactly how that was a misunderstanding - and that it missed the "coherent" caveat, and that I'd clarified even before you wrote that, that one can act irrationally in trying to fulfill a desire. But...TLDR...right? Don't you lose the right to claim an accurate understanding if you first strawman an argument, and then "TLDR" in response to the further explanation why your response was a strawman?

You took umbrage with that but subsequently admitted the point that "rational" in the given context wasn't universal but individual.

"Admitted?"

It was my point all along. Which...again...suggests you did not in fact care to understand what I argued.

From what I can see, you are confused about appeals to universal principles of reasoning, vs the fact when applied by individuals, you will get different prescriptions.

What is "rational" is based on universal principles of reasoning - e.g. a coherent connection between our beliefs, desires and actions. That is essentially what it is to arrive at rational actions.

But the specific actions that are reasonable will vary, based on individual desires and goals. The coherent connection between your values, beliefs, desires may prescribe one action for you, but for my set of desires/beliefs, will prescribe a different action. Numerous examples already given.

Do you understand now...or disagree?

Circular conversations are sure-fire.

Once again, vague language does not - per your tagline - help with illumination.

If you are suggesting I'm engaging in circular reasoning, that's a strawman. You won't be able to point to any.

But if you suggest...what?...we keep circling back on the same thing? I'd disagree, insofar as you didn't really seem to understand my argument so clarification seems warranted.

 

[rdenney]

What have I said about vinyl that isn't completely honest?
The whole vinyl revival has been build on a pile of lies and half truths put out by the
lamestream media. All the talk about the glorious, (non-staircased) beautiful analog sound
being the pinnacle for audio reproduction
Look at the BS Mobile Fidelity has been passing off on the public. ROTFLMAO

Most of the regulars here that enjoy vinyl playback aren’t doing it as a revival. They are just not abandoning it as you have done.

And thus most are not swayed by marketing BS, because their enjoyment of vinyl playback predates the marketing.

It is possible to be data-driven in the pursuit of the best that vinyl can offer, even if that best is not the state of the art.

There are plenty of folks buying into digital BS marketing, too. Example: throwing away a perfectly good DAC to get a SINAD of 120 dB instead of 115 dB. Or: throwing away their CDs because they are only 16/44.

Rick “sigh” Denney

 

[MattHooper]

This is an intriguing line of argument, and probably the reason why vinyl lovers and SINAD lovers will hate each other despite their supposed love for music.

I am a motorcycle lover, I admit, but I completely agree cars have a superior practicality element of them. That said, I adore the ritual of motorcycles: the dynamics, the involvement... and the occasional unforgiveness. When you love something, you better also accept the darker side, because loving in ignorance is about the dumbest thing you can do in life.

The funny thing is that in this case, the vinyl is the motorcycle - you may love the ritual, but there's no doubt there are way more risks with limitations out there, way more ways to fail.

It also invites the discussion about what is "better" when it comes to a shared discussion between motorcycle and car advocates (and never forget many collectionists love both). There's little point in boiling it down, there are both cars and motorcycles designed for insane singular performance goals, and then there are others designed for everyday practicality.

I am sure no one will dispute digital beats vinyl when it comes to everyday practicality. Big time. I am sure no one will dispute vinyl doesn't measure like digital nor that unwelcome noise factors come into play regularly with vinyl.

I can understand if someone however states that to them, the ritual and overall "sound' of vinyl makes them feel better and hence sounds better, net.

But that's because we're using utterly different measurement scales - but more importantly, totally different priorities.

Yes!

And very important: This is a simple observation about how rationality works.

It does NOT entail all out relativism or pure subjectivism! As if "Anything someone happens to feel or believe is just as 'true' or coherent as someone else."

It mostly applies to matters of taste and value.

Saying I prefer a car would not get me off the hook if I made an objective claim like "my Buick gets better gas mileage than X motorcycle." Or my enjoying vinyl does not mean it's "true" that vinyl is technically superior to digital. It's not some relativistic free-for all as it concerns facts. As I've said, it's all about coherency with any larger set of beliefs we hold, many of which we share. So someone can point out "sorry, that claim you just made? It's factually wrong and here's why."

The trouble starts when people, often not being aware of it, are assuming facts and values (or goals) together, to say "Your way is wrong!" E.g. an amplifier or source that introduces distortion is just WRONG. Which assumes a specific value or goal at the outset - e.g. seeking the most accurate reproduction of a signal. The other person may not share that goal, so that assumption actually has to come out in the open and be argued for, not assumed. And it's not actually easy to argue others need to share your particular value. So some go on just assuming it to criticize other ways of doing things.

 

[rdenney]

Lower-distortion thread summary:
OP: “Why is vinyl way better sounding than digital?” (Corrected to more like the real OP title)
All: “It isn’t. At least not technically.”
Some: “Yeah but I like the sound of it better so how’s that?”
Science nuts: “Cognitive bias, most of the time.”
Self-Appointed Defenders of the Faith: “Vinyl is better sounding just not in measurements. Vinyl is better sounding just not in measurements. Vinyl is better sounding just not in measurements. Vinyl is better sounding just not in measurements. Vinyl is better sounding just not in measurements. Vinyl is better sounding just not in measurements. Vinyl is the effin bees knees now get off my back!!!!! You’re stupid lab-coated measurebators who never listen to The Music! It’s not worse. It’s not! It’s not!”
Repeat 500 times.

You must have the vinyl version of the thread.

Rick “lots of skipping” Denney

 

[IPunchCholla]

Many people come here already brainwashed on all the things I listed, you know that.
In the main the only reason I repeat, is I get so many arguments over my posts.
I'm not just posting out of thin air, they are all responses.
Accept the facts and move on.

Responses in which you mid-characterize the persons statement and then argue against that mischaracterization. You also state things as facts that are nothing of the sort. You exaggerate and use hyperbole as if they are truths. And then you make assumptions about why others are here that are untrue.

I am not an audiophile, nor is fidelity my primary concern. Neither of those things is in opposition to science or even objectivism.

 

[JP]

"Admitted?"

It was my point all along.

Great.

 

[IPunchCholla]

In case anyone wants to hear what this whole effing kerfuffle of a thread is about, here is a link to two Flac files. One is from Apple Music (streaming 16bit/44.1kHz). The other is from vinyl. For the digital file it was recorded in Audition via the loopback function of my Scarlet 4i4. The vinyl was recorded in Audition with the same ADC. All settings in Audition were identical. The path was Technics SL-QD33 ($80 + $30 for a new needle. Realistic 1500xr MM cartridge). Everything else stock. The Phono Pre is Cambridge Audio Alva Solo, this fed to the Scarlet 4i4. Digitally I increased the gain on the vinyl by about 7dB and decreased it on the digital track to get the peaks about roughly the same so they could be compared at similar listening levels. This isn't meant to be a definitive test, but rather just a casual comparison Apple lossless against a pretty humble TT and phono stage. I think the audio differences are pretty clear. I also think that the differences are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things. But you can listen and decide for yourself.

I didn't pick the track for any other reason than that it was the album that was on my TT and I really like it.

 

[MattHooper]

In case anyone wants to hear what this whole effing kerfuffle of a thread is about, here is a link to two Flac files. One is from Apple Music (streaming 16bit/44.1kHz). The other is from vinyl. For the digital file it was recorded in Audition via the loopback function of my Scarlet 4i4. The vinyl was recorded in Audition with the same ADC. All settings in Audition were identical. The path was Technics SL-QD33 ($80 + $30 for a new needle. Realistic 1500xr MM cartridge). Everything else stock. The Phono Pre is Cambridge Audio Alva Solo, this fed to the Scarlet 4i4. Digitally I increased the gain on the vinyl by about 7dB and decreased it on the digital track to get the peaks about roughly the same so they could be compared at similar listening levels. This isn't meant to be a definitive test, but rather just a casual comparison Apple lossless against a pretty humble TT and phono stage. I think the audio differences are pretty clear. I also think that the differences are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things. But you can listen and decide for yourself.

I didn't pick the track for any other reason than that it was the album that was on my TT and I really like it.

I just listened quickly. I don't know if you labelled the files but I didn't look so I don't know which was which.

First thing: I wouldn't say my impressions mean anything at all, since sometimes I prefer digital, sometimes vinyl, depends on the source/track.
Second, it seemed to me track 1 was obviously louder, so that kind of discounts things.

I wouldn't know which is which. The first track has some characteristics - a punchiness - that reminds me of some vinyl on my system. But it could simply be the digital version played louder. Both sound fine to me.

 

[Blumlein 88]

In case anyone wants to hear what this whole effing kerfuffle of a thread is about, here is a link to two Flac files. One is from Apple Music (streaming 16bit/44.1kHz). The other is from vinyl. For the digital file it was recorded in Audition via the loopback function of my Scarlet 4i4. The vinyl was recorded in Audition with the same ADC. All settings in Audition were identical. The path was Technics SL-QD33 ($80 + $30 for a new needle. Realistic 1500xr MM cartridge). Everything else stock. The Phono Pre is Cambridge Audio Alva Solo, this fed to the Scarlet 4i4. Digitally I increased the gain on the vinyl by about 7dB and decreased it on the digital track to get the peaks about roughly the same so they could be compared at similar listening levels. This isn't meant to be a definitive test, but rather just a casual comparison Apple lossless against a pretty humble TT and phono stage. I think the audio differences are pretty clear. I also think that the differences are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things. But you can listen and decide for yourself.

I didn't pick the track for any other reason than that it was the album that was on my TT and I really like it.

Track one is definitely louder. You also have a tale in one of the tracks. Try putting them in Audacity or Audition and setting level by the rms level for the entire track. Track 2 needs boosting by 9.46 db to more or less match in volume.

 

[majingotan]

Track 2 sounded like the Vinyl for me after equalizing the loudness of both tracks. They both sound great though TBH

Update: listened to the latest ones. Track 2 is the Vinyl version I wager. The 2 tracks are close but not exactly sounding with Track 2 being my preference

If that is still true as of 23:20 USA MDT, let me know. I think I uploaded the wrong tracks the second time (didn't notice a space in one of the file names). I was going off normalization thinking it would be better as I set my listening by them so that is how I would compare at home. First upload didn't have the normalization (I exported the wrong way). Second upload was the wrong files. Hopefully third time is a charm! I just want them to be reasonably close (as in hand set to the same listening level close). This isn't meant to be a definitive test or anything, just a pretty humble TT vs what you can get streaming so people unfamiliar with vinyl can get a sense of how different it might be/the scale of the issue that has been ranted about for 100+ pages.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Thanks @Blumlein 88 and @MattHooper, I've normalized them to the same -12dB. Hopefully that puts them closer in loudness!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Thanks @Blumlein 88 and @MattHooper, I've normalized them to the same -12dB. Hopefully that puts them closer in loudness!

A bit of an update. Track 2 needs a 1 db boost to the right channel and then boost both channels 9.02 db and they match. What you did might be a little different because normalizing will work off peaks, and in this case you need the overall RMS level to match. Some peaks might be a bit off more than the overall level.

 

[IPunchCholla]

A bit of an update. Track 2 needs a 1 db boost to the right channel and then boost both channels 9.02 db and they match. What you did might be a little different because normalizing will work off peaks, and in this case you need the overall RMS level to match. Some peaks might be a bit off more than the overall level.

If that is still true as of 23:20 USA MDT, let me know. I think I uploaded the wrong tracks the second time (didn't notice a space in one of the file names). I was going off normalization thinking it would be better as I set my listening by them so that is how I would compare at home. First upload didn't have the normalization (I exported the wrong way). Second upload was the wrong files. Hopefully third time is a charm! I just want them to be reasonably close (as in hand set to the same listening level close). This isn't meant to be a definitive test or anything, just a pretty humble TT vs what you can get streaming so people unfamiliar with vinyl can get a sense of how different it might be/the scale of the issue that has been ranted about for 100+ pages.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If that is still true as of 23:20 USA MDT, let me know. I think I uploaded the wrong tracks the second time (didn't notice a space in one of the file names). I was going off normalization thinking it would be better as I set my listening by them so that is how I would compare at home. First upload didn't have the normalization (I exported the wrong way). Second upload was the wrong files. Hopefully third time is a charm! I just want them to be reasonably close (as in hand set to the same listening level close). This isn't meant to be a definitive test or anything, just a pretty humble TT vs what you can get streaming so people unfamiliar with vinyl can get a sense of how different it might be/the scale of the issue that has been ranted about for 100+ pages.

Looking at the latest files, they are fairly close. If you want to make them closer, you need to raise the Right channel of track 2 by 1 db. Then lower the combined right and left channels of track 2 by .84 db and you'll have a good match. Leave track 1 like it is for now.

 

[levimax]

Looking at the latest files, they are fairly close. If you want to make them closer, you need to raise the Right channel of track 2 by 1 db. Then lower the combined right and left channels of track 2 by .84 db and you'll have a good match. Leave track 1 like it is for now.

Or use foobar2000 ABX which normalizes the volume of any 2 tracks you are comparing and allows you to blindly compare them to see if you can tell any difference.... and it's free.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Or use foobar2000 ABX which normalizes the volume of any 2 tracks you are comparing and allows you to blindly compare them to see if you can tell any difference.... and it's free.

Normalization won't work quite as well in this case. Peaks are a bit different and that is what normalization will work off of.

 

[drewdawg999]

In case anyone wants to hear what this whole effing kerfuffle of a thread is about, here is a link to two Flac files. One is from Apple Music (streaming 16bit/44.1kHz). The other is from vinyl. For the digital file it was recorded in Audition via the loopback function of my Scarlet 4i4. The vinyl was recorded in Audition with the same ADC. All settings in Audition were identical. The path was Technics SL-QD33 ($80 + $30 for a new needle. Realistic 1500xr MM cartridge). Everything else stock. The Phono Pre is Cambridge Audio Alva Solo, this fed to the Scarlet 4i4. Digitally I increased the gain on the vinyl by about 7dB and decreased it on the digital track to get the peaks about roughly the same so they could be compared at similar listening levels. This isn't meant to be a definitive test, but rather just a casual comparison Apple lossless against a pretty humble TT and phono stage. I think the audio differences are pretty clear. I also think that the differences are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things. But you can listen and decide for yourself.

I didn't pick the track for any other reason than that it was the album that was on my TT and I really like it.

Thanks for doing this, I loves me some shootouts. Yes Track 1 is streaming, Track 2 is a vinyl rip, there is clear surface noise in the beginning of the track. Despite that, I feel the vinyl rip is fuller bodied and has more presence, as in a warmer sound. There's more decay on the vinyl which makes it more pleasing, and adds presence and liveliness. Does the surface noise ruin the experience? Absolutely not. Does the digital sound terrible? No, but I often do find redbook to sound thin in comparison to hi-res and DSD, and vinyl. I'm an analogue guy though, don't really want to be given the extra hassle and expense. But I'm also a romantic, and yes as demonstrated here, vinyl offers a lusher sound that I prefer.

I have a SL-QD35, very similar table and it's quite nice for what it is, the high end of the low end back in its day, speed is spot on, no wow and flutter to be detected. And I'm picky about that. It's my 4th table, yeah I'm a bit of a junkie, but is still preferable to my digital sources. On my main deck, a Michell Gyro SE, it's not even close, lushness up the wazoo, along with the magical decay, presence, and liveliness that trumps digital all day long. It gets real close with the best of DSD, but still even on digital recordings, the vinyl is better. It's a bit of a mystery to me, maybe that's part of the appeal. I think it comes down to the delivery system that's more similar to the vibration of the ear drum. Yes it's a magic trick, what's going on with the stylus and cartridge and how it can possibly achieve such sound quality. I love it, warts and all.

I'm also a pianist, and those that have never heard a decent enough turntable to enjoy piano on vinyl are really missing out. There's a certain weight and conviction that's missing on digital that ruins the illusion. Huge grands sound tinny and toy-like on digital, and hardly like pianos at all. Of course if you've never heard it on a table that passes the torture test, you won't know what you're missing. Maybe some like it better that way.

 

[Axo1989]

Thanks for doing this, I loves me some shootouts. Yes Track 1 is streaming, Track 2 is a vinyl rip, there is clear surface noise in the beginning of the track. Despite that, I feel the vinyl rip is fuller bodied and has more presence, as in a warmer sound. There's more decay on the vinyl which makes it more pleasing, and adds presence and liveliness. Does the surface noise ruin the experience? Absolutely not. Does the digital sound terrible? No, but I often do find redbook to sound thin in comparison to hi-res and DSD, and vinyl. I'm an analogue guy though, don't really want to be given the extra hassle and expense. But I'm also a romantic, and yes as demonstrated here, vinyl offers a lusher sound that I prefer. ...

Yes I could hear the surface noise too, but it's only obvious at the beginning. I'm not familiar with vinyl at all really. Fortunately those samples are music I like, so repeating isn't painful. Listening on headphones the bass is certainly different between the two, biased to the right on track one and more centred on track 2 and a fair bit warmer/richer (for want of better descriptors). Fattened by euphonic distortion? Channel separation overall is greater on track one (so the left intro could do with just a bit more crossfeed on headphones, but would be fine on speakers as is).

Edit: I see someone upthread explained bass below some frequency is actually mono on vinyl, if that's the case it certainly sounds like it.

 

[Jimster480]

They don't. /Thread