• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,814
Likes
2,815
Location
Sydney
Yeah, in the end the normalization pulled down the digital stream and pushed up the vinyl recording. the main reason for this is that my digital interface is balanced while my phono stage is single ended, so their is a minimum 6dB drop on the vinyl just from that. The other thing I'm wondering about is that the run from the phono stage to my interface is a good 10 feet. Is that enough to effect transients?

Makes sense. They sounded fine though. I don't know about the transient question. As if a vinyl thread isn't enough, now we are thinking about cables. ;)
 

IPunchCholla

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
1,102
Likes
1,384
Makes sense. They sounded fine though. I don't know about the transient question. As if a vinyl thread isn't enough, now we are thinking about cables. ;)
I mean mine were 12ft long and cost $9. They don't list any of the electrical specs! I'm just wondering if their might be a way to re-sell them as high-end filters?
 

MerlinGS

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
129
Likes
255
There is an interesting article indirectly dealing with the analog vs digital debate in the Washington Post (available here without the WP paywall). Esposito, an individual owning a record shop in Phoenix, stated on his youtube video, that according to “pretty reliable sources” the highly respected LP manufacturer MoFi (Mobile Fidelity) had been using digital files in its production chain. M. Fremer, the apparent golden eared hero of LP fans, attempted to defend Mo-Fi. In his infinite wisdom, he attacked Esposito for spreading rumors and stated that his source informed him Esposito was wrong. He tweeted, “Will speculative click bait YouTube videos claiming otherwise be taken down after reading this?”. To address the controversy, MoFi invited Esposito to their factory, only to later confirm they did in fact use digital files for production of many of their LPs. Many of MoFi's exposed records were in Fremer's list of best-sounding analog albums. Interestingly, many purchasers are all offended and want their money back.

So, before the truth was exposed, the LPs were worth substantially more money than the digital counterparts. The LPs had the magical sound that only fully analog productions can provide...that is, until it was not true. Now many purchasers want their money back (understandably, since they believed they were buying different product); however, were the LPs not some of the best-sounding productions out there? How long before the golden eared audiophiles start identifying aspects of the LPs that clearly indicate they are not fully analog?
 

Jimi Floyd

Active Member
Joined
May 5, 2022
Messages
143
Likes
584
Location
Pisa, Italy
There is an interesting article indirectly dealing with the analog vs digital debate in the Washington Post (available here without the WP paywall). Esposito, an individual owning a record shop in Phoenix, stated on his youtube video, that according to “pretty reliable sources” the highly respected LP manufacturer MoFi (Mobile Fidelity) had been using digital files in its production chain. M. Fremer, the apparent golden eared hero of LP fans, attempted to defend Mo-Fi. In his infinite wisdom, he attacked Esposito for spreading rumors and stated that his source informed him Esposito was wrong. He tweeted, “Will speculative click bait YouTube videos claiming otherwise be taken down after reading this?”. To address the controversy, MoFi invited Esposito to their factory, only to later confirm they did in fact use digital files for production of many of their LPs. Many of MoFi's exposed records were in Fremer's list of best-sounding analog albums. Interestingly, many purchasers are all offended and want their money back.

So, before the truth was exposed, the LPs were worth substantially more money than the digital counterparts. The LPs had the magical sound that only fully analog productions can provide...that is, until it was not true. Now many purchasers want their money back (understandably, since they believed they were buying different product); however, were the LPs not some of the best-sounding productions out there? How long before the golden eared audiophiles start identifying aspects of the LPs that clearly indicate they are not fully analog?
There is already a thread about the MoFi scandal here

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...bile-fidelity-analog-vinyl-controversy.35862/
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,089
Likes
7,547
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
How long before the golden eared audiophiles start identifying aspects of the LPs that clearly indicate they are not fully analog?

When hell freezes over. It's not humanly possible to do that... unless those aspects are just made up BS.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,211
@Killingbeans that is what @MerlinGS means: the golden-eared will suddenly start ‘hearing’ these ‘digital clues’, via the same cognitive bias mechanism that they have been ‘hearing’ ‘digititus’ all these years.
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,814
Likes
2,815
Location
Sydney
There is an interesting article indirectly dealing with the analog vs digital debate in the Washington Post (available here without the WP paywall). Esposito, an individual owning a record shop in Phoenix, stated on his youtube video, that according to “pretty reliable sources” the highly respected LP manufacturer MoFi (Mobile Fidelity) had been using digital files in its production chain. M. Fremer, the apparent golden eared hero of LP fans, attempted to defend Mo-Fi. In his infinite wisdom, he attacked Esposito for spreading rumors and stated that his source informed him Esposito was wrong. He tweeted, “Will speculative click bait YouTube videos claiming otherwise be taken down after reading this?”. To address the controversy, MoFi invited Esposito to their factory, only to later confirm they did in fact use digital files for production of many of their LPs. Many of MoFi's exposed records were in Fremer's list of best-sounding analog albums. Interestingly, many purchasers are all offended and want their money back.

So, before the truth was exposed, the LPs were worth substantially more money than the digital counterparts. The LPs had the magical sound that only fully analog productions can provide...that is, until it was not true. Now many purchasers want their money back (understandably, since they believed they were buying different product); however, were the LPs not some of the best-sounding productions out there? How long before the golden eared audiophiles start identifying aspects of the LPs that clearly indicate they are not fully analog?

Yes this has been discussed in other threads. But only absolute analog purists would feel jilted by pressings from DSD masters. And MoFi's pressing process was very good, from the accounts I read.

Back here thanks to @IPunchCholla we can see (and hear) that vinyl may certainly sound different compared to the same track via digital (and the difference is effectively conveyed by digital files). The waveform showed that channel separation and impulse envelop differs. The FR graph showed the fatter bass and softer treble. And all absolutely audible.

My preferences were mixed, but if you do like the vinyl sound it isn't just imagination.
 
Last edited:

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,211
Hi, I may have missed @IPunchCholla’s point, distracted by the thread's noise machine. What exactly is the objective with these two tracks, or other future track-pairs? Is it:-
  1. To show that vinyl CAN sound very different? Everyone already knows that.
  2. To show a CHARACTERISTIC difference? That's going to take a wide-ranging study, so a few samples are bound to fail to show that. In fact they might mislead people into jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.
So, what exactly?

cheers
 

drewdawg999

Active Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2021
Messages
186
Likes
168
Location
Suburban Los Angeles
Hi, I may have missed @IPunchCholla’s point, distracted by the thread's noise machine. What exactly is the objective with these two tracks, or other future track-pairs? Is it:-
  1. To show that vinyl CAN sound very different? Everyone already knows that.
  2. To show a CHARACTERISTIC difference? That's going to take a wide-ranging study, so a few samples are bound to fail to show that. In fact they might mislead people into jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.
So, what exactly?

cheers
I believe he wanted to show there was not a lot of difference between the two tracks, and that both were enjoyable. A couple of us heard a fatter rounder bottom end on the vinyl, backed up by the FR graph, that's chalked up to a euphonic distortion. I myself prefer this sound though I must admit I don't hear above 14kHz anymore and that I don't mind less channel separation and mono bass. The Smile was a good showing for the vinyl pressing, though that is not always the case. It's also almost certainly a digital recording being a recent release, but I don't mind that either. The conversion to analogue smooths things out in a natural manner.

In my own private shootouts of famous digital recordings, I still almost always prefer the vinyl. And this is often plain old pressings vs DSD. Like for Donald Fagen's The Nightfly, I do not have the One Step nor do I want it, but my old Goodwill find is preferable to the SACD rip. Something about it has more presence, is more alive, and with a rounder bottom. Same with Brothers In Arms, my $1 copy is preferable to the MFSL SACD rip. It shouldn't be close but it is, and the vinyl just edges it. On older recordings such as Brubeck's Time Out, I preferred my old Columbia pressing to the AP SACD. And on Bill Evan's Waltz for Debby, I have the same AP master and came out liking the vinyl better. This may be because my vinyl delivery system is of very high quality and that everything sounds good on there. I spent some dough and am love with my transducer, a Koetsu Black, a fine cart. I play digital mainly off my cheap DAP, but I love that thing too. Sounds outstanding, especially for DSD. But it only has 256GB of memory, so I've deleted many SACD rips (that were shootout losers) to save room but don't miss them at all. That space is reserved for albums where I don't have a clean vinyl copy.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,211
smooths things out in a natural manner.
Come off it. ‘Smoothing things out’ can only be unnatural. Unless you are suggesting the digital master is inherently added-jaggy - maybe some staircase steps, or jittery edges? - to which I say, sensibly, come off it.
 

IPunchCholla

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
1,102
Likes
1,384
Hi, I may have missed @IPunchCholla’s point, distracted by the thread's noise machine. What exactly is the objective with these two tracks, or other future track-pairs? Is it:-
  1. To show that vinyl CAN sound very different? Everyone already knows that.
  2. To show a CHARACTERISTIC difference? That's going to take a wide-ranging study, so a few samples are bound to fail to show that. In fact they might mislead people into jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.
So, what exactly?

cheers
I’m pretty sure I stated exactly what my point was in the post I put the tracks on and it was neither of your 2 points. Those are not the only options.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,814
Come off it. ‘Smoothing things out’ can only be unnatural.

Newman that is yet another statement that is so obviously wrong it's amazing to see anyone state it.

As I've pointed out, in my own work and in the work of mixing we are often "smoothing things out" with EQ and other methods, so recordings end up sounding more natural. **

Recordings often don't sound "natural." So altering the recordings can indeed make it sound more natural. It doesn't matter if this principle is applied when a mixer is altering a recording heard through studio speakers, or if someone on their home system might slightly EQ down some high frequencies to "smooth out" an unnaturally bright sounding recording (or reduce exaggerated sibilance or whatever).

It's entirely possible for a recording to sound exaggerated in certain frequencies and, if "smoothed out" by the medium or playback, it can sound to someone's ear "more natural."

** (In fact I'm currently working on a show in which the production track I was given sounds painfully exaggerated in the high end, way too sibilant, so I had to apply some EQ to make it sound more natural and easier to work with).
 
Last edited:

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,197
Likes
11,814
I gave another listen...more closely this time.

Both files sound quite nice. I can see why someone would prefer the vinyl - it sounds a bit more smooth and fat/rich.

But I prefer the digital version. I find it a bit more clear and nuanced. Definitely that high hat cymbal is more dynamic and clean sounding too on the digital.

That said, all the variables will depend on particular systems and sources of course. For instance, while in this instance I find the vinyl version a bit too "smooth" for my tastes, in my system I don't find it typical that the vinyl sounds oversmoothed - it often has a vividness similar to my digital source, sometimes even more vivid. (Not all vinyl, of course). That said, due to various reasons, de-essing for vinyl likely being one of them, I have often found vocals can sound a bit more naturally balanced on some vinyl vs the digital counterparts.
(But...again...for me the ultimate determinant of the sound quality I hear is the source, not as much the medium I'm playing).
 

Cote Dazur

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
619
Likes
758
Location
Canada
For all the talk of dreaded "background noise" I'm not hearing any objectionable noise during the music on the vinyl file. Is anyone else?
Same here, I have not listened yet on my main system, but trough headphones on my PC, beside the "cry me a river" sample, I did not hear any noise.
I very rarely actually hear noise when the music is playing since it's masked by the music if it's there. Which is why the vinyl noise thing for me is overblown
Agree, makes me wonder what they used for TT and/or what state were their records in. On my system, once the music play, noise on LP is a non issue.

I enjoyed listening to those flac bits. I have to admit that I like both A's and B's. might be different once I listen on the main rig, will report then.
 

mikessi

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2021
Messages
28
Likes
50
(But...again...for me the ultimate determinant of the sound quality I hear is the source, not as much the medium I'm playing).
Yup, also true for me -- no substitute for quality in the original. I'd rather hear a good recording of a good musical performance on a lower res MP3 or vinyl than an audiophile approved piece (often labelled jazz) on DSD.

But while I admit some vinyl sounds as nice as the best digital, records rarely remain that way for long. Vinyl records wear through mis-tracking, routine use & handling (even if you're careful), accidental mishandling, etc. Over the years, I've replaced umpteen favorite albums (some more than once) that got worn out over multiple replays, and the quality of any particular record you get is subject to so much variability. All this + the sheer convenience of digital is what leaves my LPs and turntables idle for nearly a decade now. (Despite long ownership & enjoyment of great TTs from Linn, Thorens & Lenco (rebuilt), Technics, etc.)
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,449
Likes
4,211
Hi, I may have missed @IPunchCholla’s point, distracted by the thread's noise machine. What exactly is the objective with these two tracks, or other future track-pairs? Is it:-
  1. To show that vinyl CAN sound very different? Everyone already knows that.
  2. To show a CHARACTERISTIC difference? That's going to take a wide-ranging study, so a few samples are bound to fail to show that. In fact they might mislead people into jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.
So, what exactly?
I’m pretty sure I stated exactly what my point was in the post I put the tracks on and it was neither of your 2 points. Those are not the only options.

Well, TBH, here is what you said in the post you put the tracks on, and what you said a few posts later:

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.
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.

… and that is why I asked my question about your objective: your “exact” statement, ie the first of your two slightly different quotes above, is vague and allusive. What you mentioned after “a casual comparison” was two technologies, as if it is a comparison of the technologies themselves. Well let me guarantee you, what you posted fails as a comparison of two technologies themselves, for reasons I put in my Possible Objective #2. After all, if you had put up a different song, the sonic differences might very well be reversed to what you posted, or completely different in many different ways, or might actually be sonically indistinguishable.

So I looked to your second, different, quote above, which merely and uselessly says it is possible to get the sonic difference that exists in the two versions of one random song-segment you uploaded, which matches my Possible Objective #1 and as I said, everyone already knows that without listening to anything….surely.

Hmm. Impossibly overambitious, or utterly pointless. No wonder I asked for clarification. And got brick-walled for my trouble. Thanks.

So here is what I think the discussion to your upload will look like: “I had a listen and I heard this, or I heard that.” Well, duh. Next. But it could get worse than merely pointless thread-lengthening: some comments might go along the lines of, “the vinyl sample sounds more natural (or whatever blah blah) in a way that I say is characteristic of the medium’s difference to digital.” Sounds familiar? In which case, your sample of 1 is, however unintentionally, feeding a myth, counter-constructive and misleading and all that goes with it. As I hinted might happen in my Possible Objective #2.

Cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom