Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[Blumlein 88]

One good thing about the display of whole song waveforms in Audacity is the light blue is a running RMS value, and the dark blue is peak values.

 

[pma]

@Newman The peak values of the bottom stereo track are equalized, Sir. And that is the problem.

 

[Newman]

How can you tell that they are for the bottom and not for the top? And that, sir, is the problem.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Same track as above with some limiting applied.

 

[pma]

One good thing about the display of whole song waveforms in Audacity is the light blue is a running RMS value, and the dark blue is peak values.

Yes it is one of the possible methods. (Below is the vinyl rip)

Very low surface noise BTW and nice dynamics. Yes it needs some technical competence to get it.

 

[Axo1989]

Well TBH if you are looking at the whole-song waveform plots of that album (or in the case of that website's review, whole-album waveform plots which is even worse), and thinking "ok, the dynamic range is f*cked", then you are being misled.

Much of the time, what looks like clipping of signal when the whole waveform is compressed into a single page view, turns out to be nothing of the sort when the timeline is expanded sufficiently. It just 'looks' clipped because the timeline is so squashed.

'Audiamorous' wrote a blog note that outlines the danger of this type of assessment, and actually thinks it is harmful. I prefer to say misleading, in full confidence that I do not overstate.

Just as an example, how could one tell whether one or the other of the two whole-song waveform plots below is more compressed or has less dynamic range? It's impossible!

View attachment 225928
View attachment 225929

Or, I can read a waveform.

Notice a couple of things. As your UK YouTuber zooms his software he doesn't use guides, so he gets lost. Your other reference Audiamorous says "The 'flat' regions on the CD very closely match the 'flat' regions on the LP" and refers to an image which doesn't do that at all.

Spoiler: a bumpy sort of flat

My observation in the measurements thread—that we see a contrast between the semi-literate and the semi-numerate—was incomplete. We have to consider the semi-visual as well.

The fun bit though is that the mastering guy—who says it isn't the mastering but something later in the vinyl production chain, for his example—is arguing that the measurements show something that is technically better but isn't really audible so doesn't matter. Only this time the argument applies to vinyl. That's upside down enough that I'm going to watch a few more episodes of Stranger Things now.

 

[Newman]

Or, you are one very confused individual who greatly overrates his ability to ‘read’ a waveform, because it helps to build a storyline about compression that is more wishful than factual.

As evidenced by the claim that the waveform plots, in the Come Away With Me review, justify a conclusion that, quote, “ok, the dynamic range is f*cked”. Comments like that leave me little choice but to repeat the well-evidenced words of Audioamorous: “Avoid the use of zoomed-out waveform plots to prove points about sound quality. They convey less information than you might think, and they are easy to misinterpret.” These words could not be overemphasised to someone who, to wit, thinks himself a great ‘reader’ of whole song waveform plots, and thinks the whole-album waveform plots of that Jones album reveal whether the DR is ‘f*cked’ or not.

PS speaking of literacy, you can’t seriously think that your comment on the ‘flat’ regions in the above waveform plot show anything except that you misunderstood his point? I mean, seriously? You must be able to see that the LP (red line) is also clipped in the area around t= 22.435 where the CD has its longest ‘flat-top’…and hence Audioamorous is right. Similarly, the next two-longest sections of continuous CD hard clipping, at 27.4235 and 27.4295, also show a flattening in the red line that indicates, to the literate, that the LP is mastered from a file with the same clipping. And yet, to look at the whole-song plot, one would think it is night and day.

 

[Axo1989]

Or, you are one very confused individual who greatly overrates his ability to ‘read’ a waveform, because it helps to build a storyline about compression that is more wishful than factual.

As evidenced by the claim that the waveform plots, in the Come Away With Me review, justify a conclusion that, quote, “ok, the dynamic range is f*cked”. Comments like that leave me little choice but to repeat the well-evidenced words of Audioamorous: “Avoid the use of zoomed-out waveform plots to prove points about sound quality. They convey less information than you might think, and they are easy to misinterpret.” These words could not be overemphasised to someone who, to wit, thinks himself a great ‘reader’ of whole song waveform plots, and thinks the whole-album waveform plots of that Jones album reveal whether the DR is ‘f*cked’ or not.

PS speaking of literacy, you can’t seriously think that your comment on the ‘flat’ regions in the above waveform plot show anything except that you misunderstood his point? I mean, seriously? You must be able to see that the LP (red line) is also clipped in the area around t= 22.435 where the CD has its longest ‘flat-top’…and hence Audioamorous is right. Similarly, the next two-longest sections of continuous CD hard clipping, at 27.4235 and 27.4295, also show a flattening in the red line that indicates, to the literate, that the LP is mastered from a file with the same clipping. And yet, to look at the whole-song plot, one would think it is night and day.

I can't recall ever "wishing" anything about vinyl, really. But you are a piece of work, that's for sure. Back on my ignore list I guess.

 

[MattHooper]

Newman, I’m sure you’ve mentioned it before in other threads, but what is your technical training? Just curious. Thanks.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Newman, I’m sure you’ve mentioned it before in other threads, but what is your technical training? Just curious. Thanks.

Regardless of technical training, Newman has already acquired the phd as shown below.

 

[killdozzer]

I was a recording engineer for a decade (and still do recording, but less) and my observation is based on day to day experience. The 'noise floor' from the real world (musicians moving about, air conditioning rumble in the studio, microphone noise - and your playback room etc) is in the range of -60db or so. That is about the dynamic range of vinyl. I'm not saying that if you turn up the volume you can't hear noise from the vinyl alone, but that if you level match the music to what it was of the actual musicians playing, the noise floor will largely be inaudible.

I was on my long summer vacation. I couldn't post this earlier since I was long way away from my listening room.

This is 14:27 (half past two PM) in my listening room:


It's half of what you claimed it would be in broad daylight with one window open. It gets even a bit more quiet in the evening.

Although, regardless of that, a discussion on mediums is a different matter from the discussion on conditions of reproduction. It would be really silly to say don't sound-proof your listening room because the quality of your record playback will degrade.

 

[ferrellms]

You obviously aren't listening under the same conditions I am.

edit: quoted the wrong post the first time and it made no sense.

I sold all my LPs and my snazzy and expensive hi-end turntable, and I don't miss them at all. I did an experiment - recorded Pink Floyd Dark Side from both the CD and from my MoFi LP and compared them. To my amazement, after expecting a big difference, they sounded very similar. The only real "tell" was the slight surface noise on the LP (and the big scratch) as well as a very slight loss of detail on the LP.

Digital is cleaner, but LPs can sound very good, too.

 

[ferrellms]

It’s a pity that us people that are into vinyl cannot have an intelligent public discussion, without being bashed, or you can insert your favorite adjective here _____ by some of the people that we should be able to look up to. But if you don’t agree with them about everything, then you are diminshed, attacked, insert any adjective that you’d like here _____

In my opinion it should not be allowed especially on ASR, debate is one thing, insults and trolling are another. I’ve seen it for years before I made a profile on this forum, and my reasons for banning a few of them have nothing to do with I don’t agree with them so I banned them. It’s because I don’t want to be bullied while I’m trying to learn and share some of my own insight. Your mileage may vary.

This is not a public attack on them and I have no interest in pursuing this further, I’m just tired of being trolled.

Trolling on - where is the "intelligent public discussion" on vinyl/analog? It is beyond doubt that the whole vinyl process from mastering to playback adds coloration to the sound. You may like that coloration or you may not. You may be influenced by the cool album art etc. To each his own. Audio religion is a big part of all this.

BTW, personal attacks are pretty rare here, actually. I have not noticed any bullying.

 

[ferrellms]

Trolling is in the eye of the beholder, evidently. I find ASR to be congenial, with a few exceptions.

 

[killdozzer]

Trolling is in the eye of the beholder, evidently. I find ASR to be congenial, with a few exceptions.

Exactly what I wanted to write. All of a sudden endless stubbornness that spreads over more than 100 pages of same ol' debunked persuasion is "intelligent dialogue" and "a wish to learn". Yeah, right! At least half of those pages are excellent, precise and knowledgeable answers/comments/instructions over which some vinyl-heads waltz while cherry picking those willing to ad fuel to their bias. And the definition of being trolled is "not affirming my fallacy of incomplete evidence as valuable as evidence" and if not, the forum is not scientific. Just silly. If nothing else, one should say it's impolite towards those sharing knowledge.

Anyway, if I'm wrong and since it's ASR, could we see some evidence of vinyl-heads learning (at least one, you can post a link).

 

[killdozzer]

There’s a definition for trolling. You can do a search for that, and since this is an objective website I don’t think it includes in the eye of the beholder which would be subjective.

Carry on.

Yours was very subjective.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I was on my long summer vacation. I couldn't post this earlier since I was long way away from my listening room.

This is 14:27 (half past two PM) in my listening room:
View attachment 228882

It's half of what you claimed it would be in broad daylight with one window open. It gets even a bit more quiet in the evening.

Although, regardless of that, a discussion on mediums is a different matter from the discussion on conditions of reproduction. It would be really silly to say don't sound-proof your listening room because the quality of your record playback will degrade.

Those are two different things. The claim was negative 60 dB (though it should have been specified. So if you listen to music at an average of 86.8 dB your measurement is spot on with the claim.

 

[IPunchCholla]

Exactly what I wanted to write. All of a sudden endless stubbornness that spreads over more than 100 pages of same ol' debunked persuasion is "intelligent dialogue" and "a wish to learn". Yeah, right! At least half of those pages are excellent, precise and knowledgeable answers/comments/instructions over which some vinyl-heads waltz while cherry picking those willing to ad fuel to their bias. And the definition of being trolled is "not affirming my fallacy of incomplete evidence as valuable as evidence" and if not, the forum is not scientific. Just silly. If nothing else, one should say it's impolite towards those sharing knowledge.

Anyway, if I'm wrong and since it's ASR, could we see some evidence of vinyl-heads learning (at least one, you can post a link).

There is no way that half of the answers here are ignoring scientific elements of sound reproduction. Unless you ignore the field of psychoacoustic as being unscientific. Very few people have claimed that vinyl is better than digital in any measurable way, with the rare-ish exception of the master being superior for a vinyl vs digital pressing. The vast majority of the answers are tying to explain a legitimate phenomena: “Given that I know vinyl measures inferior to digital, why do I still (sometimes) enjoy it more than digital.” Most of those answers focus on non-audio elements. A few look at possible reason the difference between the two might not actually be the orders of magnitude the SNR measurements suggest. Some also look at the research behind how we hear to see how that limits the diffferences as well. Some look at the measurements and try and correlate that with their preference.

I would wager there is just as many unfounded claims that the difference is greater than it is in this thread as there are for claims that sometimes vinyl might be measurably better in some way.

I honestly believe many people on this site fool themselves with numbers, in precisely the same way that others are fooled by snake oil. I have a very clean amp (Topping PA5) that replaced a not clean amp (Dayton ADA150). If I remember right they are about 40 dB apart in terms of THD+N. I can hear differences if playing back to back, but I doubt I would be able to distinguish either if I just walked into a room and wasn’t completely focused on it.

I modeled and rebuilt the crossovers in my speakers recently. I was able to improve the swings in the crossover regions by +- 5 decibels and lower the distortion in the mids and highs significantly. This was confirmed with measurements as well as my DSP gaining about 10 dB of headroom. I can’t tell a difference when listening to music.

But sometimes I can make the music sound better by dwelling on the measurements.

Understanding how measurements of equipment fit in with our limited hearing as well as psychological responses isn’t anti-sciene. It is science (when done right).

Coming into a discussion and telling people (not saying you did this) that they are wrong to prefer vinyl or mocking that preference because vinyl measures more poorly isn’t scientific, just antagonistic.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/fun-with-vinyl-measurements.20278/

 

[drewdawg999]

Those are two different things. The claim was negative 60 dB (though it should have been specified. So if you listen to music at an average of 86.8 dB your measurement is spot on with the claim.

This is about the level of the noise floor in my system right now, 35 dB with phono pre at listening levels, 45 dB with ceiling fan on. The fan must be on right now in SoCal, so doesn't seem like a lot of dynamic range for me. Yet vinyl is sounding excellent with great clarity with volume up to avg 85 dB. Don't hear the fan at all with loud music playing. Spinning Zeppelin HOTH right now, lots of dynamic swings and my old copy sounds up to the task.

 

[killdozzer]

The main problem as I see it is that it is a very old and much debated topic where there's nothing really new and a lot of those included in the debate are somewhat tired from repeating the same sentences and same examples and same illustrative comparisons and same explanations. It has all been done to hell and back.

Still, new members don't really read even those threads that relate to the topic they want to comment and are interested in, although such reading is required by the forum rules (wanna talk about trolling). If one would take time and start reading any of the threads on such subjective topics, one would see that different members keep coming with the same arguments over and over and over again.

This is why some will get the feeling that as soon as you mention something from the overused arsenal like "but it's more natural to me", they are being abruptly stopped and cut off. But it's only because "more natural to me" has already appeared on a few dozens of forum pages.