Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[DSJR]

Many early CD releases were hobbled if not by the PCM1610 processor, but by the digital editing station often used. I'm told by one of their ex-mastering engineers (made redundant when they closed their all but autonomous London facility) that Decca apparently made their own workstations as nobody else did it right until the very late 80's when Sony and others began to launch high quality editiors which were totally transparent. I don't know enough to know how much better the PCM 1630 was over the 1610, but it seemed to stay around for a very long time relatively speaking. Many albums and new recordings needed editing, tweaking and so on and this is where the real progress was make with higher bit depths and sampling frequencies discussed so well by others here. Not sure when the loudness war really kicked in, but surely we're safe until the late noughties masterings - or could it be late 90's issues?

 

[Jim Shaw]

I tend to believe it helps the impression that low frequencies are mixed down to mono so you have the heartbeat of the song in the middle while the rest seems to be happening around it.

... But I don't care much TBH as the choice I'm facing these days is quite simple: either get a digital copy that will blow up my speakers and eardrums or get vinyl despite all its imperfections. It's like a modern fridge full of McDonalds vs cold, dirty hole full in the ground of my grandma's cooking.

From where I am, it's hard to decide whether to wish you MacDonald's or your Grandma's old cooking. They seem two bad choices. For cheap, you might try the diner down the road. They probably use fresh, real ingredients, and won't blow up your speakers or eardrums.

Maybe you could still blow up your speakers with vinyl; turn the gain way up. Poof! Problem solved. Can you hear me now?

 

[Mart68]

Many early CD releases were hobbled if not by the PCM1610 processor, but by the digital editing station often used. I'm told by one of their ex-mastering engineers (made redundant when they closed their all but autonomous London facility) that Decca apparently made their own workstations as nobody else did it right until the very late 80's when Sony and others began to launch high quality editiors which were totally transparent. I don't know enough to know how much better the PCM 1630 was over the 1610, but it seemed to stay around for a very long time relatively speaking. Many albums and new recordings needed editing, tweaking and so on and this is where the real progress was make with higher bit depths and sampling frequencies discussed so well by others here. Not sure when the loudness war really kicked in, but surely we're safe until the late noughties masterings - or could it be late 90's issues?

This is for Classical music I guess? I've not had a bad early one yet but I don't buy any Classical.

Regardless of whatever slight issue they had with the editing station the result is still gong to be more transparent than the vinyl version.

 

[Mystical Boar]

Not sure when the loudness war really kicked in, but surely we're safe until the late noughties masterings - or could it be late 90's issues?

I compared many re-releases to early pressings and I think it kicks in somewhere around 94' and gets only worse from there.

Maybe you could still blow up your speakers with vinyl; turn the gain way up.

I can but that's my decision as I own the volume knob, plus I still have the peaks on vinyl, not just a castrated wall of lifeless sound.

Not that CDs are bad by definition as they're capable of much better sound than vinyl. It's what on CD that usually sucks.

 

[Robin L]

Many early CD releases were hobbled if not by the PCM1610 processor, but by the digital editing station often used. I'm told by one of their ex-mastering engineers (made redundant when they closed their all but autonomous London facility) that Decca apparently made their own workstations as nobody else did it right until the very late 80's when Sony and others began to launch high quality editiors which were totally transparent. I don't know enough to know how much better the PCM 1630 was over the 1610, but it seemed to stay around for a very long time relatively speaking. Many albums and new recordings needed editing, tweaking and so on and this is where the real progress was make with higher bit depths and sampling frequencies discussed so well by others here. Not sure when the loudness war really kicked in, but surely we're safe until the late noughties masterings - or could it be late 90's issues?

My understanding is that the PCM1610 used ten op-amps in series to realize its anti-alising filter. And early digital recordings essentially were a beta test, engineers learning how to use microphones that have rising high frequencies, previously limited due to tape saturation with analog recorders. I know Decca used 18-bit gear when everyone else was limited to 16 bit. Funny, though, how so many of these early recordings, theoretically flawed, sound just fine these days. One more thing, some early digital productions bounced to analog for editing. I was told that the first recording to be digitally recorded, edited in the digital domain, and commercially released, was Ensemble Alcatraz' "Visions and Miracles" for Nonesuch, early/mid eighties.

 

[DSJR]

I compared many re-releases to early pressings and I think it kicks in somewhere around 94' and gets only worse from there.


Not that CDs are bad by definition as they're capable of much better sound than vinyl. It's what on CD that usually sucks.

I think many early CD transfers were done too low in level (older cheap players really could sound a bit 'bleached out' I still feel). I cannot challenge your comment except to say I don't mind a mastering engineer 'normalising' a recording to get peaks at or close to 0VU or whatever full modulation is called, but of course I object to heavy compression being added when it's not necessary!

I have one four disc dance-music compilation which was so over modulated on every track it's unbelievable and unlistenable too (sounds worse than a badly worn stylus)! How on earth this was passed for release as-is I really don't know but the person who authored the master for this selection wants shooting I feel (this came out ten or more years back and therse compilations are only around for a very short time). Absolutely no need whatsoever

 

[Mystical Boar]

I think many early CD transfers were done too low in level (older cheap players really could sound a bit 'bleached out' I still feel). I cannot challenge your comment except to say I don't mind a mastering engineer 'normalising' a recording to get peaks at or close to 0VU or whatever full modulation is called, but of course I object to heavy compression being added when it's not necessary!

I don't mind normalization - compression is what bothers me. A while ago I was cleaning up my library and ended up comparing various CD pressings for a week. Here are some examples (mind you, I listen mostly to rock and heavy metal, but not only).

My personal conclusion based on my comparisons and the music I listen to:
1994 - mild to moderate compression kicks in
1997 - moderate to severe compression
2000+ - severe to ridiculous compression

 

[DSJR]

It's been said (here?) that some of this compression of rock music has been in the bass, so maybe not as audible to us? Still not right though if the original wasn't. It's to be hoped that those days are ended now.

Got to say for various reasons I've been discovering 12" mixes and so on posted on Youtube. Via headphones at least, I've been surprised how 'good' they appear to sound, some quieter than others I admit. Is this added compression which is bringing out lower level stuff, or is the mix very carefully prepared for minimum distortion bearing in mind the MP3 style butchering the files get? I gather that these lossy systems cannot distinguish between distortion and music signal itself, so become rather demanding of the quality of the source file - I got this from DAB Radio discussions, but feel MP3 and similar can't be so different (I'm taking cover while awaiting possible/probable re-education here ).

 

[Mart68]

I think many early CD transfers were done too low in level (older cheap players really could sound a bit 'bleached out' I still feel). I cannot challenge your comment except to say I don't mind a mastering engineer 'normalising' a recording to get peaks at or close to 0VU or whatever full modulation is called, but of course I object to heavy compression being added when it's not necessary!

I have one four disc dance-music compilation which was so over modulated on every track it's unbelievable and unlistenable too (sounds worse than a badly worn stylus)! How on earth this was passed for release as-is I really don't know but the person who authored the master for this selection wants shooting I feel (this came out ten or more years back and therse compilations are only around for a very short time). Absolutely no need whatsoever

yes the older CDs need to be cranked up a bit for obvious reason - they've got proper dynamic range. I don't think it was cheap CD players that were the problem but the typical UK 1980s system - low power amplifier feeding small 2-way speakers with no bass. Turn it up to the correct level for listening and the amp clips and the speakers distort, hey presto there's your 'harsh' CD sound. Keep it at levels that system is happy at and there's your 'anaemic' CD sound.

The Classical fans loved CD from the off because they were all using proper loudspeakers and amplifiers and so never noticed a problem.

 

[DSJR]

yes the older CDs need to be cranked up a bit for obvious reason - they've got proper dynamic range. I don't think it was cheap CD players that were the problem but the typical UK 1980s system - low power amplifier feeding small 2-way speakers with no bass. Turn it up to the correct level for listening and the amp clips and the speakers distort, hey presto there's your 'harsh' CD sound. Keep it at levels that system is happy at and there's your 'anaemic' CD sound.

The Classical fans loved CD from the off because they were all using proper loudspeakers and amplifiers and so never noticed a problem.

You're absolutely right and sadly, I'm not in a position to prove to myself with old cheap now all but junk players that the players themselves were right all along and were fighting our very compromised UK style vinyl-based systems. I was given a cheap block shaped Philips made of nasty plastic and a CD-M4 mech - I think it was a CD371. Only nod to sound on the board were Nichicon output caps. Sounded fine to me but as I had other nocer finished machines here, I got a tenner for it at Cash Converters (I bet i could have got a lot more if I'd stripped it and flogged the mech separately...can't ever bring myself to do that).

 

[Mystical Boar]

It's to be hoped that those days are ended now.

I remember people saying the same thing like 5 years ago. "Finally things are getting better", "It looks like the industry is finally starting to listen", "People are becoming more and more aware of the problem", etc.

Personally, I don't see any improvement. Digital releases are more overproduced and compressed than ever. Instead we have the vinyl renaissance and flood of cheap turntables.

 

[Mart68]

I don't buy many new releases, I think the last one I bought was the last Daft Punk album. Seen plenty of people saying the CD is too compressed and the vinyl is better. The CD sounds fine here so I do wonder if compression is automatically being blamed for poor sound quality when it's actually a different problem entirely.

 

[DSJR]

Not sure I liked the production of that last Daft Punk album. I'll have to call it up again and play it but to me, it was a mix of paper flat images and rather like the worst multi-mono recordings of the mid 70's the Linn LP12 kind-of 'rounded off with its then subtle colourations (which got a lot worse before they got better )

 

[Mart68]

well the production style is up to the artist, it's an intrinsic part of the art no matter whether the listener thinks he could have done it differently, or made a better job of it.

I suppose the same argument could also be applied to the amount of compression applied in mastering. My point is that some recordings where people complain about excessive use of compression don't have excessive compression and it's more likely to be a problem with the playback system.

That also applies to complaints about 'poor quality recordings' in general - IMO of course.

 

[Frgirard]

The production style is managed by the producer.
The target for the mainstream business is to sell. Whatever it sound.

 

[Mart68]

The production style is managed by the producer.
The target for the mainstream business is to sell. Whatever it sound.

Right but you could say the same about Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, he wasn't working for free. My point is there's no point complaining about the production, if you don't like a record for whatever reason you just don't listen to it.

How much of the problem is actually due to the recording, mastering and production, and how much of it is flaws in the playback systems? That's my question,

 

[Frgirard]

I have 54 years.
I did not know vinci and the business practices of the time.
The parallel with vinci seems strange to me.
But

I knew the time before the loudness war. I knew and know mastering engineers (jazz and classical).
Today the business have the the tools to perform great sound recording.
The business has choose the loudness war. Sound more loud than the challenger. It's claimed by the business : your master is good but not enough loud.

One big issue for me is the remastering about music recorded in the 50's,60's with excess of compression.

What do you think if on a Vinci painting restauration , someone apply a HDR.?

 

[Robin L]

I have 54 years.
I did not know vinci and the business practices of the time.
The parallel with vinci seems strange to me.
But

I knew the time before the loudness war. I knew and know mastering engineers (jazz and classical).
Today the business have the the tools to perform great sound recording.
The business has choose the loudness war. Sound more loud than the challenger. It's claimed by the business : your master is good but not enough loud.

One big issue for me is the remastering about music recorded in the 50's,60's with excess of compression.

What do you think if on a Vinci painting restauration , someone apply a HDR.?

But Phil Spector's productions are compression city. How about "Quarter to Three" by Gary "U.S." Bonds? Or "She Loves You"? 1950's/1960's pop for radio is extremely compressed. The sound of brickwalling is different from analog compression, but it's still compression. And the level of compression is determined by the folks producing the music. They figured the market wants more compression and that's what they deliver. You're not going to get an uncompressed version by buying the LP, it will be compressed differently, but it will still be heavily compressed. I remember the last two new LPs I bought, at least new when I bought them. They were both as compressed as the CDs, but the CDs had better reproduction of bass and treble. I've noticed remarks here about "harsh treble" on CDs compared to cassettes. Cassettes had no treble [I'm talking about commercial cassettes, all have drooping or non-existent top octaves].

Complaining about compression in recordings is like complaining about any other aesthetic aspect of a recording. Don't like the way the guitarist plays or the vocalist sings? Listen to something else.

 

[Frgirard]

You forgot that the high compression has nothing to do with Spector.
You forgot the loudness war is a way to masterise a track to sound loud by the use of an equalization with the high compression.
The Beatles use compression on the drums. The first cds has never sound loud.
Even John Coltrane remasters are treated with the loud war prerequisite.

The compression is useful to make records listenable every where.

 

[DVDdoug]

How about "Quarter to Three" by Gary "U.S." Bonds?

Totally off topic - I remember hearing the name Gary U.S. Bonds on the radio when I was a kid, but I never knew what song(s) he played (and I remember thinking, "What a dumb name").

But he's on a concert DVD called Rock'n'Roll Party (Honoring Les Paul). He comes out for one song, takes over the stage like a big star, and does a GREAT performance! So I bought a greatest hits CD. The sound quality was disappointing and just not enjoyable to listen to. It doesn't seem to be overly compressed, just typical early 60's recordings.

There are other recordings from this era, and earlier, that I do enjoy. But one of my favorite 50's collection CDs is re-recordings, probably made in the late 60's or 70's.

BTW - I reject the premise of the thread title!