Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[lashto]

..Rick “transparent playback is not a ‘camp’” Denney

And _that_ is exactly what I described in my P.S.

Any non-universal preference/opinion is a 'camp'. Actually, even if you are 100% and universally right, you are still in a 'camp': the 100%-right camp . Not the case here but anyway, that's how humanity/civilization works.

Transparent playback is not some sort of law of gravity as you/many seem to think, it's just a personal preference. Same as LP playback. Same as any other matter of taste ever.
And being a transparency-fundamentalist doesn't make you better than an LP-fundamentalist, it just makes you the same..

 

[rdenney]

And _that_ is exactly what I described in my P.S.

Any non-universal preference/opinion is a 'camp'. Actually, even if you are 100% and universally right, you are still in a 'camp': the 100%-right camp . Not the case here but anyway, that's how humanity/civilization works.

Transparent playback is not some sort of law of gravity as you/many seem to think, it's just a personal preference. Same as LP playback. Same as any other matter of taste ever.
And being a transparency-fundamentalist doesn't make you better than an LP-fundamentalist, it just makes you the same..

I think this is overstated. Transparency is a philosophy of design, to be sure, based on the notion that artists are musicians and their producers, not the designers of playback equipment. And it is a philosophy that most manufacturers at all levels claim to pursue.

The limitations of vinyl are something we accept, and we achieve some degree of transparency partly because those limitations were understood by the artists (musicians and producers) when they created the art. They were compensating for the playback limitations of the day. But the result was all over the place, simply because they were using wacky stuff in their studios, and those limitations were widely variable and unpredictable for any given listener.

I have to say that I distrust any argument based on the phrase "that's how humanity/civilization works", simply because everyone has their own opinion of that, deeply rooted as they are in biases and metaphysics more than in anything demonstrable or predictable. I think we can make those statements regarding relatively microscopic effects only after conducting considerable behavioral research. Yes, it would appear that humans are tribal, but I do not accept that all fundamentalists are the same.

Transparency seems to me the lack of downstream coloration, and many who apparently favor coloration (as evidenced by their choices and their resistance to measurements of transparency) nevertheless claim to favor transparency. So, what camp are they in? I see a difference between motive and intent--their stated motive is transparency but their intent, derived from any potential consequence of their actions, is something other than transparency. But what? Before you can identify camps, the camp has to have a reason to be a camp. If most are claiming transparency as an objective (and it would seem so as I read specifications for products used by just about everyone), then I'm not seeing transparency as a camp. I'm seeing the demonstration of transparency using measurements as a camp, versus those who think they can judge transparency without measurements, or those who believe that transparency and preference for a certain coloration are the same. All three of those possibilities can and have been explored with measurements, either electronic measurement of equipment or preference measurement using properly controlled testing.

Rick "thinking tribalism is drawing boundaries as a means to clarify disagreement rather than as a means to find agreement" Denney

 

[Spocko]

I think this is overstated. Transparency is a philosophy of design, to be sure, based on the notion that artists are musicians and their producers, not the designers of playback equipment. And it is a philosophy that most manufacturers at all levels claim to pursue.

The limitations of vinyl are something we accept, and we achieve some degree of transparency partly because those limitations were understood by the artists (musicians and producers) when they created the art. They were compensating for the playback limitations of the day. But the result was all over the place, simply because they were using wacky stuff in their studios, and those limitations were widely variable and unpredictable for any given listener.

I have to say that I distrust any argument based on the phrase "that's how humanity/civilization works", simply because everyone has their own opinion of that, deeply rooted as they are in biases and metaphysics more than in anything demonstrable or predictable. I think we can make those statements regarding relatively microscopic effects only after conducting considerable behavioral research. Yes, it would appear that humans are tribal, but I do not accept that all fundamentalists are the same.

Transparency seems to me the lack of downstream coloration, and many who apparently favor coloration (as evidenced by their choices and their resistance to measurements of transparency) nevertheless claim to favor transparency. So, what camp are they in? I see a difference between motive and intent--their stated motive is transparency but their intent, derived from any potential consequence of their actions, is something other than transparency. But what? Before you can identify camps, the camp has to have a reason to be a camp. If most are claiming transparency as an objective (and it would seem so as I read specifications for products used by just about everyone), then I'm not seeing transparency as a camp. I'm seeing the demonstration of transparency using measurements as a camp, versus those who think they can judge transparency without measurements, or those who believe that transparency and preference for a certain coloration are the same. All three of those possibilities can and have been explored with measurements, either electronic measurement of equipment or preference measurement using properly controlled testing.

Rick "thinking tribalism is drawing boundaries as a means to clarify disagreement rather than as a means to find agreement" Denney

The most vocal and defensive is the "I refuse to change my mind no matter what" camp - those who defend their choice to listen to music the way they like it even if measurements reveal obvious imperfections, and refuse to consider the possibility of better sound if it's not via their own terms - discovered by accident at a friend's house rather than arising out of amazing measurements. They want to be in control of their journey even though the destination of great music is the same

 

[krabapple]

No doubt that I had a built in bias against all things digital at the time. The sound of the first "digital" LPs I heard [1980-ish] were very different to these ears. However, as I was listening to a lot of "Golden Age" Classical Stereo recordings at the time, there clearly would be differences anyway. The Digital LPs I encountered sounded as if the room's ambience was being sucked out. Of course, based on what I was reading in Absolute Sound, that's what I would have anticipated.

Such comparisons -- digital LPs to 'Golden Age' LPs -- are all apples to oranges. You're talking different performances, different recording venues, different masterings...wholly different things.

Regardless of what nonsense TAS was spouting then (and TAS has always spouted nonsense), the only way I can think of to 'suck out' the 'ambience' (presumably, low level signal) via digital malfeasance (rather than typical production moves) would be not have enough bits, e.g. due to truncation. And even then you'd be competing against vinyl noise at some point.

 

[krabapple]

That came much later, and I don't know many who "pushed for it" other than manufacturers who could profit from sales.

Agreed. And I don't recall it coming from the 'classical' recording pros working for mainstream labels.

(Unless you somehow count Bob Stuart among them)

Having more than 16 bits is handy at the recording and mixing stage, particularly if you are planning on a lot of manipulation, but isn't necessary for replay.

Agreed, except that nowadays there can be massive DSP going in at replay at home, and this takes place in a >16bit realm.

SACD and DSD are pointless.

Agreed.

 

[Robin L]

Such comparisons -- digital LPs to 'Golden Age' stereo LP -- are all apples to oranges. You're talking different performances, different recording venues, different masterings...wholly different things.

Regardless of what nonsense TAS was spouting then (and TAS has always spouted nonsense), the only way I can think of to 'suck out' the 'ambience' (presumably, low level signal) via digital malfeasance (rather than typical production moves) would be not have enough bits, e.g. due to truncation. And even then you'd be competing against vinyl noise at some point.

The nature of the compression used in stereo recordings of classical music in the 1950's and 1960's was for a recording engineer or assistant to gain ride [shift input level to the tape recorder up or down] with a score in hand. The lowest levels would be boosted this way, increasing the sense of ambience. Similarly, the compression at the top of the dynamic range from "soft clipping" would also enhance the sense of ambience. This would make the more dynamically honest digital recordings sound 'dry' in comparison.

And I was comparing LPs to LPs.

 

[krabapple]

You are correct of course. MP3 is a compression scheme and not a sampling rate, but it is lossy compression and never good.

If you can't hear it, how is it 'never good'?

It has certainly been 'good' for music delivery via the internet. It's only comparatively recently that we have lossless options.

 

[Jim Matthews]

If you can't hear it, how is it 'never good'?

It has certainly been 'good' for music delivery via the internet. It's only comparatively recently that we have lossless options.

Absolutely.

I was perfectly happy with mp3 until I could carry FLAC on a portable device. Streaming lossless, high bit rate music without storage is an actual breakthrough.

Effectively, this puts more music that I might actually enjoy (as opposed to Pandora or some genuinely awful Internet radio stations) on offer than I can get through in my natural lifespan.

This is the first use of the internet that amazes me.
(Okay, cat videos)

 

[krabapple]

Well, this was the late 90s, early 2000s when SACD came out. And one of the desires was to be able to record and convey the qualities of Stradivari/Guarneri del Gesu violins in the hands of a master artist. I can tell you that in person, the differences between these and lesser violins was quite astonishing. So it was natural to want to capture that in as lossless way possible.

um, sighted bias applies there, too

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

For all the talk about high sample rates not being worth it. I can say that when you are are trying to capture a single instrument, or voice, there is a significant difference between 16/44.1 and "hi-rez" - which at the time was SACD or equivalent of 24/88.2.

96/24 PCM ( offered on DVDA) was competing with SACD from the start and was certainly 'hi rez' too.

The valid reasons for using high bit depths in recording /production have been well known for decades now. It's to increase headroom during recording, and to prevent accumulated 'rounding errors' during digital production-stage manipulations from becoming audible. I don't see either of those applying to simply 'capturing' a single instrument or voice.

Higher sample rates get you more frequencies. But humans can't hear past ~24kHz under the best conditions. Higher sample rates to make filtering easier: that's another use.

IOW both higher rates and higher bit depths are primarily to make things *easier* to do, that mostly could still be done in a 16/44 world.

I don't think recording a single instrument/voice falls outside the 'mostly' category. So it's doubtful this 'significant difference' would stand up to scrutiny if properly tested.

 

[krabapple]

The nature of the compression used in stereo recordings of classical music in the 1950's and 1960's was for a recording engineer or assistant to gain ride [shift input level to the tape recorder up or down] with a score in hand. The lowest levels would be boosted this way, increasing the sense of ambience. Similarly, the compression at the top of the dynamic range from "soft clipping" would also enhance the sense of ambience. This would make the more dynamically honest digital recordings sound 'dry' in comparison.

Which is why I wrote "rather than typical production moves" .

What you're really saying isn't that digital 'sucked out' ambience. You're noting how practices and limitations related to analog created a simulated substitute for 'ambience'. That was no longer necessary with digital. Though of course 'ambience' can still be created if desired.

And I was comparing LPs to LPs.

Nothing I wrote suggests otherwise.

 

[Robin L]

Absolutely.

I was perfectly happy with mp3 until I could carry FLAC on a portable device. Streaming lossless, high bit rate music without storage is an actual breakthrough.

Effectively, this puts more music that I might actually enjoy (as opposed to Pandora or some genuinely awful Internet radio stations) on offer than I can get through in my natural lifespan.

This is the first use of the internet that amazes me.
(Okay, cat videos)

I don't know what sonic secret sauce Amazon Music deploys, but for the most part they sound like my Apple Lossless rips of my CDs. And thanks to the Topping E/L 30 combo and Drop 6XX headphones, they sound better than they ever did before. This means 85% of the records I once owned but couldn't fins a clean LP are finally accessible in first rate sound quality. Ran across the Andre Cluytens/ Berlin Philharmonic Beethoven Symphony cycle, a set I owned back in the early seventies, on the usual crappy Seraphim transfers. There was a much better Music For Pleasure pressing of the "Pastorale" that was worth tracking down, as that was the highlight of the set. But here it is, a nice sound recording of the orchestra that Karajan would soon thereafter record the most famous of all sets of Beethoven Symphonies on disc. My Karajan/Berlin Beethoven Symphonies CDs are in storage, didn't rip those, but here they are, probably sounding better that I'd get from my old, midpriced boxed set.

You could tear off in any direction with this. Looking for clean sounding copies of Peter Green after owning a number of dodgy sounding LPs of the same? Streaming's the thing this year.

 

[Robin L]

Which is why I wrote "rather than typical production moves" .

What you're really saying isn't that digital 'sucked out' ambience. You're noting how practices and limitations related to analog created a simulated substitute for 'ambience'. That was no longer necessary with digital. Though of course 'ambience' can still be created if desired.



Nothing I wrote suggests otherwise.

As I said at the time, I was comparing LPs to LPs.
" . . . are all apples to oranges . . . "
The typical production moves of the 1950's and 1960's got me acclimated to the sound of the Living Stereo and Living Presence LPs. I started out in 1970, so I've been pursuing sound quality for a long time. When I started, I was used to hearing more [and more manipulated] hall ambience than obtains in real life. I understand the difference between the sound of Analog earcandy and reality. I spent enough time setting up microphones, setting levels and pressing "record" to understand why/how modern production practices would differ from all-tube tech.

 

[rdenney]

Absolutely.

I was perfectly happy with mp3 until I could carry FLAC on a portable device. Streaming lossless, high bit rate music without storage is an actual breakthrough.

Effectively, this puts more music that I might actually enjoy (as opposed to Pandora or some genuinely awful Internet radio stations) on offer than I can get through in my natural lifespan.

This is the first use of the internet that amazes me.
(Okay, cat videos)

There's MP3 and MP3. I can tell the difference with the lower bitrate MP3 formats, like 128Kbps. But I can't tell the difference at all between 320 Kbps and lossless FLAC in any data format, particularly not where I would be using a portable device. I put high bitrate MP3 on thumbdrives for the car and for the work laptop while traveling, and did the comparison before deciding MP3 was good enough. (I can tell when I crank up the volume and listen to the details of digital black, but if I do that I have to make darn sure no music starts or it will break things, like my ear drums. My statement above applies to any listenable volume of actual music.) You might try your experiment again, but this time with high bitrate MP3 compression.

You must have free internet where you live. Streaming lossless music to me would encourage AT&T to start throttling me after three days. Been there, done that, just last month, when I watched too many YouTube videos the same month my employer pushed down a major batch of software updates. The only thing it breaks through from my perspective is the data cap after which AT&T starts turning the screws.

Rick "who pays dearly for not even enough internet to work at home reliably" Denney

 

[Jim Matthews]

You must have free internet where you live. Streaming lossless music to me would encourage AT&T to start throttling me after three days. Been there, done that, just last month, when I watched too many YouTube videos the same month my employer pushed down a major batch of software updates. The only thing it breaks through from my perspective is the data cap after which AT&T starts turning the screws.

Rick "who pays dearly for not even enough internet to work at home reliably" Denney

I'm a Spectrum user. I stream at home, off a cable connection.
I don't stream of a mobile plan.

If Spectrum has restrictions in place, I have yet to notice.
Starlink is built to break regional monopolies if AT$T is your only choice.

The available offerings from Tidal or Qobuz makes conversion to other formats unlikely. If it works, why "fix it"?

 

[Wombat]

Also note that this forum has a very high bias towards measurements. So anything related to LPs, including the reproduction devices for LPs, will be looked down upon by the hoi polloi of this group on account of the poor measurements that are baked into the media. The noise floor of a phono preamp at is best isn't as good as a $150 DAC, but the actual noise floor is going to be determined by the rumble of the turntable and the record surfaces, which will [almost] always be worse than the phone pre. Similarly, the distortion of the phono pre is probably going to be better than the distortion of the phono cartridge, while distortion of the LP will be determined by other factors, added on top of the distortion of the preamp and the cartridge, with the distortion of the LP increasing as the stylus approaches the deadwax.

In a measurements oriented group, this sort of performance [and the Rube Goldberg complexity of LP replay] will draw derision from those aware of the poor performance standards of LP reproduction.

More stating the truth than derision although the frequent posts on vinyl superiority are rather tedious.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Back in the day, reel to reel was THE HIFI medium. It was expensive and inconvenient. LP was cheap and convenient and good enough for the masses.

Today lossless CD quality or better is the RTR. MP3 or other lossy formats are the cheap and convenient formats for the masses.

Somewhere along the way when CD was introduced a group got the idea LP was the reference, and tried making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It will always be a sow's ear. It is little different than some blind tests you can find of moderate bit rate MP3 being heard and preferred by young listening panels. A sound they have become accustomed to and when its colorations are gone they think it sounds wrong. In my opinion LP was even more colored and that it somehow became a reference to some people is a bit disgusting.

Preference is a personal choice however, but there should by now be no question that LP is a far inferior medium in terms of fidelity to source.

The take home message in all of that is listeners do not like true flat response. It uncovers too many flaws in recordings, and a rolled off, muted source bathed in a bit of noise and various other chaotic self-referential instabilities of a medium are easier to take with too many recordings. The very finest of digital recordings don't have this problem, and in a round about way it is an indictment against how most recordings are done. They are such poor quality they need some "clothing of coloration" to be more tolerable.

 

[rdenney]

I'm a Spectrum user. I stream at home, off a cable connection.
I don't stream of a mobile plan.

If Spectrum has restrictions in place, I have yet to notice.
Starlink is built to break regional monopolies if AT$T is your only choice.

The available offerings from Tidal or Qobuz makes conversion to other formats unlikely. If it works, why "fix it"?

There is no linear infrastructure for internet delivery where I live, just as with much of rural America.

Starlink wants $500 in equipment charges in addition to a $100 reservation fee just to get in line.

Satellite has too much latency and the bandwidth is not better than my slow fringe cellular reception.

I listen to music (except during a pandemic) on airplanes, in hotel rooms, while visiting family, while riding in a car—being tethered to an internet connection isn’t always possible, especially a wired connection.

Rick “who has learned to be self-contained” Denney

 

[MattHooper]

A broad generalization, I have lots. Many of us "deaf vinyl-heads" are just as happy with digital (I have my DAC and CD players) but we also enjoy tinkering. Perhaps a little OCD in the spectrum. Either way writing off one format as something for Luddites is ridiculous, your avatar enjoys putting out music on vinyl. A lot of artists do. It's a physical media that has always had an appeal much like a bibliophile's admiration of a book over kindle. At the end of the day this is nothing more than a hobby, a hobby available in many formats, I don't always get the electronics but I do get the mechanics and I enjoy tweaking my tables, improving tolerances etc. and having been involved in this for over 45 years I have a fairly good idea of what high fidelity is.

You’d think someone who rides a Harley would understand that an old technology can still be appealing to some people ;-)

 

[restorer-john]

Somewhere along the way when CD was introduced a group got the idea LP was the reference, and tried making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It will always be a sow's ear.

Absolutely true.

 

[analogplanet]

I guess distortion sounds better.

That’s a snide and ignorant comment on so many levels I’m embarrassed for you.