Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[pablolie]

...
You say you understand personal preference, so, surely you understand some hi fi enthousiaste prefer vinyl as a better sounding option in the way it yields to them a more rewarding music listening experience.

I clearly do support personal preference, and nothing in my posting history shows otherwise.

 

[Holmz]

It could be part of all of these things, and probably is. But really, how does this matter? I'm not into naval gazing and worrying about every detail and motive of why I like something. It just doesn't matter! I like vinyl, both for myself and as a social sharing activity. That is all that matters, and it is not open to debate.

At >2400 posts, I think we likely entered into navel gazing a while back?

If it was a poll, then there is no debate… but as it is a thread, then one might ask, “why it seems better?”
Just read the title thread, and there is a clue there that the OP was asking a question.

While we appreciate your right to an opinion, it would be better with explanation… you’ve given some example and possible reasons.
So it is probably best to stay away from dousch’esque’ness - being that you started off on the right foot.

E.g.:

Gee, should I thank you? I feel so humbled. Go away dude.

Resist doing ^these^.

 

[Digicile]

I think the word "better" might be at the core of many of the issues with this thread. Some might use it as "I enjoy the overall experience of listening to vinyl more than the overall experience of listening to digital sources." Is it unreasonable to say "I like vinyl more" as a synonym for "Vinyl sounds better"? It has been my take away that many here are using "better" in this sense and me not being a prescriptivist when it comes to language am fine with that.

I also understand the frustration of the many on here who read "Vinyl sounds better" (almost always followed by (to me)) and understand that to be "Vinyl is technically better". That is also a legitimate reading and one that would also bother me because it is incorrect.

I think perhaps it would be best to talk about the sound of digital and vinyl in terms of transparency and/or distortion. Digital is more transparent and closer to the recording than vinyl. We could then separate out the sound from the experience of listening to music. The experience of listening to vinyl can be better for someone.

I agree with you, but I'm amazed that in a thread with almost 2,500 posts, the concept of personal preference being TOTALLY different than some meter nerd computer program measuring volts NEVER has sunk into the thick skulls of some people. Why do people do this? Don't they have a real life? A real relationship with another human? What is the problem?

Whatever it is, in the words of Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

 

[pablolie]

... I think perhaps it would be best to talk about the sound of digital and vinyl in terms of transparency and/or distortion. Digital is more transparent and closer to the recording than vinyl. We could then separate out the sound from the experience of listening to music. The experience of listening to vinyl can be better for someone.

Agreed, and I'll never argue with anyone ever that says the MUSIC sounds more involving, draws them in more... with whatever. Vinyl or digital. Sativa or Indica. Tequila or Scotch. Let's admit it - our shared hobby is not and will never be rational, as exposed by the audio market.

I just draw the line at stuff like the title of this discussion thread when the word "better" is used categorically and without substance.

 

[MattHooper]

Yes, entirely possible, but what ever the reason that makes the experience more enjoyable, which of course would be great to know, the important point is the result. For some of us, listening to music with records makes the experience more rewarding.
And if some are into this hobby as an experience in trying different sound, let’s hope the majority is in the high fidelity hobby as a way to get closer to the music, I know I am and listening with a TT is an important part of my music enjoyment.

That is generally my feeling as well. Though a big caveat: I do not wish to judge anyone else's approach to getting what they want out of their hi-fi hobby as inferior to my own. Someone may be almost totally in to the technology, using music mostly or only as a way of exploring gear. Totally, absolutely fine. Whatever floats our boat! I dislike "purity tests" (and in group/out group thinking) specifically in high end audio, and in general.

I totally understand what many on ASR choose to pursue some version of "accuracy" in their equipment.

I was watching a video by speaker manufacturer John Devore. His type of speaker design certainly isn't beloved on a forum like this. But I really vibe with his general approach to audio. He gives his view on the goal for "high end audio" in this video:

I don't agree with John D. on everything, or even everything in that video. But I like the gist of the approach he describes. His "definition" for the goal of high end audio is around 9 minutes: "The purpose of high end audio is to bring an immersive experience of music to a listener in their home." It's a Big Umbrella approach vs one that winnows out and narrows down (as you'll tend to find here).

John has a big record collection and in another video goes in to what he enjoys about vinyl, and that in his comparisons he feels, more often that not to his ears, "the vinyl seems to paint a more solid, palpable, believable sonic picture of what's going on in the soundstage."
That is often what I hear, as I've mentioned many times. And given John is seeking this density and palpability to sound, it's no surprise that I have enjoyed his speakers which to my ears excell in exactly those respects (even if they aren't the most accurate speakers around).

 

[Holmz]

Agreed, and I'll never argue with anyone ever that says the MUSIC sounds more involving, draws them in more... with whatever. Vinyl or digital. Sativa or Indica. Tequila or Scotch. Let's admit it - our shared hobby is not and will never be rational, as exposed by the audio market.

I just draw the line at stuff like the title of this discussion thread when the word "better" is used categorically and without substance.

I think one could conjure a argument that the hobby could be rational.
Certainly being able to listen to things seems as rational as owning a TV, and with less commercials.
Particularly less commercials if one is playing an old record versus streaming… and a vinyl TT does not give away personal info on its own

 

[pablolie]

I think one could conjure a argument that the hobby could be rational.
...

I'd love to see that argument, because clearly if the (tops) 0.1% population that embarks on a journey to maximize their experience on listening to "high fidelity" music disagrees as passionately as this forum reflects... and the 99% else don't give a second thought to it... the overarching rationality seems to be evading me.

 

[Holmz]

I'd love to see that argument, because clearly if the (tops) 0.1% population that embarks on a journey to maximize their experience on listening to "high fidelity" music disagrees as passionately as this forum reflects... and the 99% else don't give a second thought to it... the overarching rationality seems to be evading me.

It is likely more rational than arguing flat earth or tribal politics… or being on many social media platforms.

And one can listen to music with friends, or alone,
Particularly in the Covid era, it is as sensible to be able listen to recordings at home when most of the music venues were shut down.

 

[pablolie]

It is likely more rational than arguing flat earth or tribal politics… or being on many social media platforms.

And one can listen to music with friends, or alone,
Particularly in the Covid era, it is as sensible to be able listen to recordings at home when most of the music venues were shut down.

My point is only that 99% or more of people don't give a d*mn and they'll be happy listening to music coming out of their smartphone speakers (ew)... and they will pen you down as a weirdo if you evangelize the merits of better audio quality because they don't care.

 

[MattHooper]

I'd love to see that argument, because clearly if the (tops) 0.1% population that embarks on a journey to maximize their experience on listening to "high fidelity" music disagrees as passionately as this forum reflects... and the 99% else don't give a second thought to it... the overarching rationality seems to be evading me.

Rational actions arise from reasoning how to achieve our goals, and goals arise from our desires: what we like and want.

If I enjoy vacationing in the Bahamas, it's rational for me to seek out vacations in the Bahamas.

If I enjoy eating brussel sprouts, it's rational for me to go go the store to buy brussel sprouts.

If I enjoy high quality sound, it's rational for me to acquire audio gear that will produce high quality sound.

Pursuing things you like isn't irrational. It's the basis of rationality. Where you'd be irrational is pursuing things you didn't like (for no other over-arching reason).

 

[Holmz]

My point is only that 99% or more of people don't give a d*mn and they'll be happy listening to music coming out of their smartphone speakers (ew)... and they will pen you down as a weirdo if you evangelize the merits of better audio quality because they don't care.

@pablolie … you, my friend, are my fellow weirdo.

 

[pablolie]

..
Pursuing things you like isn't irrational. It's the basis of rationality. Where you'd be irrational is pursuing things you didn't like (for no other over-arching reason).

Pursuing things you like is perfectly acceptable personal preference.

If you like to jump off El Capitán in a batsuit, hey great, but rational it ain't.

Liking something doesn't make it rational.

 

[IPunchCholla]

My point is only that 99% or more of people don't give a d*mn and they'll be happy listening to music coming out of their smartphone speakers (ew)... and they will pen you down as a weirdo if you evangelize the merits of better audio quality because they don't care.

That's true of any hobby that overlaps with routine activities. I bike. Mostly mountain bike, lately mostly lift-assist downhill. The idea of spending more than $700 dollars on any bike is crazy to most people. The idea that I spent $3500 on a bike that is miserable to pedal on flat ground and next to impossible to pedal uphill baffles them. Even in MTB most people don't do much downhill specific, but in many ways, until very recently at least, they were halo bikes for most companies. 10k is not unusual for these bikes. Mine was relatively middle of the road at $7k new (I got it used). Try to explain to someone who occasionally rides a cruiser around, why spending that kind of money for a DH bike is reasonable. Its easy to show them the difference from a cruiser, and then mention you are doing 20-30 foot gap jumps, riding 45+ degree slopes over rocks, and hitting top speeds of 30-35mph on rut, rock, and root strewn trails and they can understand the need for the beefed up fork, burly brakes, and sturdy construction. But if you try and explain why pivot placement for the rear swing arms, or the effects of reach and trail, and the effects of those elements in a dynamic environment and why that makes you willing to pay a multiple thousand dollar premium over a basic DH bike, they quickly lose interest.

I think a similar thing happens with music. You put a good pair of headphones on someone and if they have enough features, you can get them to go see what sounding good means, especially if you keep the price point around $500 for over-ears and $200 for IEMs. Same is true of speakers. A good pair of active bookshelves that cost under $1000. I don't think you would have a hard time convincing people of that. But to get them to hear the differences between those and really high end headphones or speakers? for that you are going to have to sit them down and train them on what to listen for, at which point you loose 99%.

I don't think that is too different than the vinyl vs digital (though really that division is absurd to me, how many people are really only vinyl (I mean, even in your car?). Yes the measurements are better for digital. Often by orders of magnitude. But how much of that can we really hear? My vinyl rig might be limited to a SINAD of about 60dB, making it how much worse than a DAC? But how much of that is audible in an average listening room on typical speakers/headphones? The difference is certainly not as extreme as a 60dB value would suggest.

I think I forgot what my point was. But maybe it was that the vitriol (this is a general comment, not directed at you) I see surrounding this stuff makes little sense to me. Its like when I'm on the mountain and some guy (its almost always a guy even though 30-40% of DHers are female). Tells me some suggestion on how I can go faster, as if that was the only reason for doing it. I'm never going to be faster (though I am up there overall) than a good 20-30 year old. I'm fifty. My max HR is a good 40 BPM lower than theirs leaving a lot of pure physical ability on the table. I also recover much more slowly from injury. Faster isn't really why I am out there. Right now I'm just working on throwing shapes while I'm in the air and riding smooth. That's what is fun for me and makes me feel like a kid playing in the woods. But sure if faster is the only measurement, I'm doing it wrong.

 

[MattHooper]

Pursuing things you like is perfectly acceptable personal preference.

Again: all rationality goes back to goals, and goals derive from values, what we find good and bad, desires etc.

Where else do you imagine goals come from?

If you like to jump off El Capitán in a batsuit, hey great, but rational it ain't.

It is rational, if that's what you like to do (and it doesn't contradict your own wider set of goals and beliefs).

What you are doing, in the batsuit example, is assuming your own dislike of the idea amounts to an Objective Standard of rationality. It doesn't work like that.

If someone for instance finds "flying" in those batsuits (I'm presuming you mean the wingsuits) to be the greatest thrill in their life, and it is something they are more likely to survive than not, and being aware of the risks they find it worth the thrill...they are entirely rational in pursuing the activity. Almost everything we do involves some level of risk, and the balance of risk/reward is going to depend on how big someone finds the reward!

Liking something doesn't make it rational.

Liking something is the basis for rational action. So long as your reasoning for pursuing what you like is coherent with your wider set of beliefs and goals. For instance, if you'd like to drink a beer it's rational to go to the fridge to get a beer. But if you are a recovering alcoholic, your wider set of goals and beliefs - e.g. that doing so could set you down the path to destitution again - will council against it. But so long as you do NOT have countervailing reasons, it's totally rational.

So if I love great quality sound and I've found a pair of high end speakers that I like, the rational thing to do is buy them. That is, so long as it doesn't contradict some wider/deeper set of goals. For instance, if purchasing expensive speakers would actually make me broke, which would affect my ability to care for my family whom I love, then it would be irrational with respect to that wider set of goals. But if that's not the case and I can afford them without major negative consequences, it's totally rational.

I can't really imagine what other version of "rational" you might mean.

 

[Holmz]

That's true of any hobby that overlaps with routine activities. I bike. Mostly mountain bike, lately mostly lift-assist downhill. The idea of spending more than $700 dollars on any bike is crazy to most people. The idea that I spent $3500 on a bike that is miserable to pedal on flat ground and next to impossible to pedal uphill baffles them. Even in MTB most people don't do much downhill specific, but in many ways, until very recently at least, they were halo bikes for most companies. 10k is not unusual for these bikes. Mine was relatively middle of the road at $7k new (I got it used). Try to explain to someone who occasionally rides a cruiser around, why spending that kind of money for a DH bike is reasonable. Its easy to show them the difference from a cruiser, and then mention you are doing 20-30 foot gap jumps, riding 45+ degree slopes over rocks, and hitting top speeds of 30-35mph on rut, rock, and root strewn trails and they can understand the need for the beefed up fork, burly brakes, and sturdy construction. But if you try and explain why pivot placement for the rear swing arms, or the effects of reach and trail, and the effects of those elements in a dynamic environment and why that makes you willing to pay a multiple thousand dollar premium over a basic DH bike, they quickly lose interest.

I think a similar thing happens with music. You put a good pair of headphones on someone and if they have enough features, you can get them to go see what sounding good means, especially if you keep the price point around $500 for over-ears and $200 for IEMs. Same is true of speakers. A good pair of active bookshelves that cost under $1000. I don't think you would have a hard time convincing people of that. But to get them to hear the differences between those and really high end headphones or speakers? for that you are going to have to sit them down and train them on what to listen for, at which point you loose 99%.

I don't think that is too different than the vinyl vs digital (though really that division is absurd to me, how many people are really only vinyl (I mean, even in your car?). Yes the measurements are better for digital. Often by orders of magnitude. But how much of that can we really hear? My vinyl rig might be limited to a SINAD of about 60dB, making it how much worse than a DAC? But how much of that is audible in an average listening room on typical speakers/headphones? The difference is certainly not as extreme as a 60dB value would suggest.

I think I forgot what my point was. But maybe it was that the vitriol (this is a general comment, not directed at you) I see surrounding this stuff makes little sense to me. Its like when I'm on the mountain and some guy (its almost always a guy even though 30-40% of DHers are female). Tells me some suggestion on how I can go faster, as if that was the only reason for doing it. I'm never going to be faster (though I am up there overall) than a good 20-30 year old. I'm fifty. My max HR is a good 40 BPM lower than theirs leaving a lot of pure physical ability on the table. I also recover much more slowly from injury. Faster isn't really why I am out there. Right now I'm just working on throwing shapes while I'm in the air and riding smooth. That's what is fun for me and makes me feel like a kid playing in the woods. But sure if faster is the only measurement, I'm doing it wrong.

I suspect you started out on a tricycle.

And F1 drivers in a kart.
And skiers on a bunny slope.

Some never leave the bunny slope.

 

[drewdawg999]

Agreed, and I'll never argue with anyone ever that says the MUSIC sounds more involving, draws them in more... with whatever. Vinyl or digital. Sativa or Indica. Tequila or Scotch. Let's admit it - our shared hobby is not and will never be rational, as exposed by the audio market.

I just draw the line at stuff like the title of this discussion thread when the word "better" is used categorically and without substance.

Hmmm, what draws me in more? Vinyl. On a hybrid (but Indica dominant, gots to FEEL good, not just head high). And don't drink poison. (But at one time it was single malt.) I'm not particularly rational when it comes to music, I'm with you there. All the numbers favor digital, yet vinyl just does it for me without need for explanation. But if it's more immersive yet far from neutral, can't that be considered "better" if your goal is to have an immersive experience? Not everyone is shooting for neutrality, or chasing SINAD. It's semantics there, and in my book "better" in hi-fi is not synonymous with flat FR or higher dynamic range.

All the technical weaknesses of vinyl, which measurement wise is trounced by digital, just isn't there for me in the ear test. I don't hear any distortions, rather a more palpable soundstage, a more convincing illusion, a more involving experience. Some would say that makes the music better and more enjoyable. I think vinyl is transparent enough for my taste and its dynamic range and channel separation are already just dandy for the purposes of reproducing music. I want to get lost in the music, get far away from this hairy scary world, and for me vinyl does that better than digital. Do I listen to digital? Of course I do, how could you not, I'm not made of money. But most of the time it's unspectacular, just doing its job, making music out of 1's and 0's, and I'm always aware I'm listening to a recording. While vinyl can be spectacular, lush and romantic, all-immersive, the soundtrack of poets.

 

[drewdawg999]

I don't agree with John D. on everything, or even everything in that video. But I like the gist of the approach he describes. His "definition" for the goal of high end audio is around 9 minutes: "The purpose of high end audio is to bring an immersive experience of music to a listener in their home." It's a Big Umbrella approach vs one that winnows out and narrows down (as you'll tend to find here).

John has a big record collection and in another video goes in to what he enjoys about vinyl, and that in his comparisons he feels, more often that not to his ears, "the vinyl seems to paint a more solid, palpable, believable sonic picture of what's going on in the soundstage."
That is often what I hear, as I've mentioned many times. And given John is seeking this density and palpability to sound, it's no surprise that I have enjoyed his speakers which to my ears excell in exactly those respects (even if they aren't the most accurate speakers around).

Thanks for linking the excellent video. I'm with Mr. DeVore on almost everything there, especially facing down the dogmatic tribalism, like a warrior. That stuff is very prevalent here on ASR and it stinks on hot ice. I'm all for tubes and vinyl and to automatically dismiss either as inferior is absurd. Measurements are a nice guide and all but the final test is the ear test, and you have to be able to trust what's going on between the ears. If that's biased, so be it. We're all biased. If that's subjective, so be it. This whole universe is subjective. We change the whole thing by planting our asses into the situation.

I do believe vinyl is more immersive, more able to hold your full attention, more easy to get lost in. I do view it as a meditative state, to be one with the music and let the recording just disappear. It's the grander illusion, more palpable soundstage, everything sounding bigger and more realistic. Why that is is beyond me... are all these distortions euphonic and add up to some version of heightened reality? All piling upon one another to create aural nirvana. Sounds more enticing than neutrality to me, no need for absolute fidelity to a recording when the digital version is most likely brickwalled. Give me the sweet sugary version, the escape, the lush stuff. I don't want my music clinical, I wanna get turned on and lose it. Feel the passion right where it hurts...

 

[drewdawg999]

This looks mostly, possibly, like it’s a back to front mix up of cause and effect??

There is it… “Reverence.”

It could be that you are giving full attention to the vinyl?
I find that I have the same inattention happen, but I assumed it was because I had the iPad or iPhone in hand, and that it was easier to surf.

Maybe you’re right. (I do the same.)
But it is entirely possible that the psychology of the reverence, makes us listen harder and more attentively.

I've been mulling this over, but have no answers. I'd very much like to have The Reverence for digital files, my collection is simply HUGE. And the opportunity for a transcendent musical experience would be multiplied by many times. But it's just not dead sexy like vinyl. Maybe there's a whole psychology for physical media and fetishism, the story of obtaining it and how that brings back pleasant memories. But I'd like to think it extends beyond ritual and fetishism, I'd like to think it lies in the actual sonics. Something subliminal that hits us in the subconscious. Fool me consciously, but the reptilian in me knows what music really sounds like. I'd like to see an MRI of my brain on vinyl as opposed to digital, see if there's any difference there. Like alpha and beta states and whatnot, one more active than the other... or just let it remain a mystical wonder, which sometimes is best.

 

[Frgirard]

Junk psychology. Fashion, marketing and mythomania specific to human beings.

 

[JP]

Rational actions arise from reasoning how to achieve our goals, and goals arise from our desires: what we like and want.

If I enjoy vacationing in the Bahamas, it's rational for me to seek out vacations in the Bahamas.

If I enjoy eating brussel sprouts, it's rational for me to go go the store to buy brussel sprouts.

If I enjoy high quality sound, it's rational for me to acquire audio gear that will produce high quality sound.

Pursuing things you like isn't irrational. It's the basis of rationality. Where you'd be irrational is pursuing things you didn't like (for no other over-arching reason).

Were I to enjoy eating the brains of Tibetan Monks?