Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[j_j]

You are wrong on many levels. Its technically not lossless. By that logic, recording a CD (like a cassette tape) is "lossless".

I think you missed the point. I believe the person is saying that a capture of whatever is played, with "satisfying" sounds on an LP, by a digital recording, looses nothing of the "analog sound".

And I agree. This is not about LP being lossless,it's about capturing the output of a system using an LP electronically from the pre-amp or thereabouts to capture "that LP sound", or so I read.

It says nothing about LP being lossless.

 

[ThatM1key]

I think you missed the point. I believe the person is saying that a capture of whatever is played, with "satisfying" sounds on an LP, by a digital recording, looses nothing of the "analog sound".

And I agree. This is not about LP being lossless,it's about capturing the output of a system using an LP electronically from the pre-amp or thereabouts to capture "that LP sound", or so I read.

It says nothing about LP being lossless.

Yeah that's true. I meant by the capturing process not the ie tail end of it.

 

[Monstieur]

You are wrong on many levels. Its technically not lossless. By that logic, recording a CD (like a cassette tape) is "lossless".

There is so many factors when it comes to vinyl recording:

• The Record Player
• The Cartridge
• The Preamp
• The ADC
• Recording Software & Settings
• The condition of the Vinyl LP
• Recording Storage
• Click, Pop & Noise Removal Software (Optional)

I am pretty thankful that CDs can be ripped perfectly with no actual loss versus recording them. I wish vinyl's can be done the same way.

I include all of that. You record the final output before amplifier. Or after the amplifier if you have a distorting amplifier. Since the vinyl only degrades with time, I fail to see why you wouldn't record your playback chain ASAP to get the "best" distortion. You would need a separate recording for each combination of equipment if you're into component swapping. You could even capture transfer functions for each piece of equipment and combine them digitally, instead of multiple recordings.

 

[Monstieur]

By that logic, recording a CD (like a cassette tape) is "lossless".

Not what I meant, but technically even this can be lossless with a good enough DAC, time synchronization, gain matching, and ADC - it's possible to get back the bit-perfect PCM. Two PCM streams can also contain the same lossless waveform while having completely different bitstreams - this happens if they're not time synchronized exactly.

If I were to yell out at a different loudness for each integer in the PCM stream depending on its value, you could write down the original PCM stream losslessly depending on how good your loudness perception is. 16-bits of loudness may be humanly impossible, but not impossible for a finely calibrated machine.

 

[Digby]

Since the vinyl only degrades with time, I fail to see why you wouldn't record your playback chain ASAP to get the "best" distortion.

A slight tangent, but yes vinyl does degrade with time, but so slowly (given reasonable handling) that it will still be playable in 100 years time or more. It is actually a far more resilient format than digital, what digital media will survive 100 years as shellac 78rpm records have?

Any important data left on just one hard drive/CD/DVD is at risk of being lost in as few a 10 years. In terms of data resilience, digital is rather low. Any corruption of data makes that data quickly unreadable.

I wonder if our increasing reliance on digital will have the potential to wipe out vast swathes of information in the future.

I know this isn't what you were saying, but it is an interesting aside, and definitely one place records are superior to any digital media.

 

[Holmz]

…
I am pretty thankful that CDs can be ripped perfectly with no actual loss versus recording them. I wish vinyl's can be done the same way.

Does anyone know what is the SINAD equivalent of a speaker with 2% distortion?

 

[j_j]

Does anyone know what is the SINAD equivalent of a speaker with 2% distortion?

Since distortion is measured in RMS (i.e. amplitude) terms, 2% is .02, so 20*log10(.02).

 

[N9R]

Any important data left on just one hard drive/CD/DVD is at risk of being lost in as few a 10 years. In terms of data resilience, digital is rather low. Any corruption of data makes that data quickly unreadable.

I wonder if our increasing reliance on digital will have the potential to wipe out vast swathes of information in the future.

I know this isn't what you were saying, but it is an interesting aside, and definitely one place records are superior to any digital media.

That's the tradeoff between a durable analog carrier that cannot be perfectly copied, and a less durable digital carrier that can be copied and distributed infinitely.

Having said that, the balance has now been tipped firmly in favor of digital - there are now optical digital media that are rated for between 1,000 and 10,000 years of stability. Which then transfers the problem into the hardware domain - in 1,000 years, you have the disc, but what hardware could read it?

 

[Paolo]

A slight tangent, but yes vinyl does degrade with time, but so slowly (given reasonable handling) that it will still be playable in 100 years time or more. It is actually a far more resilient format than digital, what digital media will survive 100 years as shellac 78rpm records have?

Any important data left on just one hard drive/CD/DVD is at risk of being lost in as few a 10 years. In terms of data resilience, digital is rather low. Any corruption of data makes that data quickly unreadable.

I wonder if our increasing reliance on digital will have the potential to wipe out vast swathes of information in the future.

I know this isn't what you were saying, but it is an interesting aside, and definitely one place records are superior to any digital media.

You’re somewhat right, but what‘s unreliable are the materials used for digital storage, not the digital format itself.
It’a a bit misleading, albeit practical, to compare things like “vinyl” and “digital”.

 

[j_j]

Any important data left on just one hard drive/CD/DVD is at risk of being lost in as few a 10 years. In terms of data resilience, digital is rather low. Any corruption of data makes that data quickly unreadable.

1) That depends entirely on the storage medium.
2) Good media are designed with a boatload of error correction built in.

 

[Holmz]

Since distortion is measured in RMS (i.e. amplitude) terms, 2% is .02, so 20*log10(.02).

Sound close to the 30 dB of channel separation etc.

 

[Head_Unit]

Usually the record company owns the tapes, by the terms of the signing contract with the artist, and have control over them.

I knew that, but I didn't realize bands wouldn't even get a copy.

 

[Head_Unit]

The unique sound of vinyl playback on a particular record player can be losslessly captured as a digital file.

Heh, I think you opened a mine field for yourself. If the unique sound can be captured as a digital file, then what is wrong with digital recording? And if there's nothing wrong with digital recording, then what do we need vinyl for?

 

[Head_Unit]

Out of sheer curiosity....
Why did you keep buying the same title if the mastering never changed?

So I bought the Hendrix record (Rainbow Bridge maybe) and the pressing was crap. Thin/light, didn't sound good, noisy. The surface was visibly not good. Therefore I returned it for another copy which also sucked ad nauseam. That's why when people wax rhapsodic about vinyl one of my reactions is "well for MOST people digital kicked vinyl's ass" due to not just system limitations* but the often [vomit emoji] quality of the records.
*in other words, few people owning really tip-top vinyl rigs, never mind cleaning their vinyl.
Oh I'd almost forgotten about acoustic feedback! No way I could have cranked Rush to 117 dBC in my dorm room without CD. Even so sometimes the CD player would freak out ha ha.

 

[krabapple]

I knew that, but I didn't realize bands wouldn't even get a copy.

Even if they did , they would not have permission to release it on their own in any form.

 

[billyjoebob]

So I bought the Hendrix record (Rainbow Bridge maybe) and the pressing was crap. Thin/light, didn't sound good, noisy. The surface was visibly not good. Therefore I returned it for another copy which also sucked ad nauseam. That's why when people wax rhapsodic about vinyl one of my reactions is "well for MOST people digital kicked vinyl's ass" due to not just system limitations* but the often [vomit emoji] quality of the records.
*in other words, few people owning really tip-top vinyl rigs, never mind cleaning their vinyl.
Oh I'd almost forgotten about acoustic feedback! No way I could have cranked Rush to 117 dBC in my dorm room without CD. Even so sometimes the CD player would freak out ha ha.

You have a stronger resolve than I!
When a cd sounds less than great, I just assume that's it and move on.
I also have never been one to "chase" vinyl masterings.

I also have never listened to Rush @117db and am very jelly!
They are one band that I prefer on CD.
But I have to say that 2112 sounds spectacular on my simple 1200mk3d.

 

[Holmz]

Heh, I think you opened a mine field for yourself. If the unique sound can be captured as a digital file, then what is wrong with digital recording? And if there's nothing wrong with digital recording, then what do we need vinyl for?

Because pre mid eighties there was only digital at high end studios… (If we discount direct to disc.)
No one is saying that digital is not better than magnetic tape.

And up until the mid eighties (lMayne late 82 or 83) we have only Vinyl playback systems, and magnetic tape.
By definition, vinyl was the best available.

And vinyl is still a fine playback system, with the distortions on the level of many speaker systems.
The nostalgia and ceremony only of it help.

it is like many of you people have never heard a good vinyl system.

But I am not encouraging you to buy one, as digital is better.

 

[Guermantes]

Because pre mid eighties there was only digital at high end studios… (If we discount direct to disc.)
No one is saying that digital is not better than magnetic tape.

And up until the mid eighties (lMayne late 82 or 83) we have only Vinyl playback systems, and magnetic tape.
By definition, vinyl was the best available.

And vinyl is still a fine playback system, with the distortions on the level of many speaker systems.
The nostalgia and ceremony only of it help.

it is like many of you people have never heard a good vinyl system.

I'm a little confused by this. Are you implying that vinyl (even subjectively) is better than the analogue master tape? If so, then it really is just a preference for the distortions peculiar to the format.

 

[levimax]

I'm a little confused by this. Are you implying that vinyl (even subjectively) is better than the analogue master tape? If so, then it really is just a preference for the distortions peculiar to the format.

There are a few reasons it is possible for the vinyl version of an older recording to be preferred to digital by some.

1. Vinyl "mastering" is more than just making adjustments for summed mono and the like. Some "famous" mastering engineers like RVG, Robert Ludwig, and others made EQ and level changes "on the fly" when the records where being cut. Often times these changes are only on the original pressing with the dead wax signed by the engineer with later pressings mastered by "junior" engineers. While there is a lot of folklore, in some cases I do find original pressings to be preferred to later ones and to the CD. The original AB mastering of Steely Dan Aja is one that really does seem to live up to the hype. "Chasing mastering's" can be fun.

2. Sometimes the original master tapes were damaged or lost during the decades from original vinyl to the digital age and sometimes the backups tapes are so bad that the vinyl sounds better. There are a lot of CD's of older music that are "needle drops" because no tapes sources exist.

3. Unlike "master engineers" that created the original vinyl masters many CD's were mastered by hacks that made poor EQ choices or later "loudness wars" compression. I find a fair number of these where I prefer the original vinyl mastering despite all the other issues with it.

 

[Holmz]

I'm a little confused by this. Are you implying that vinyl (even subjectively) is better than the analogue master tape? If so, then it really is just a preference for the distortions peculiar to the format.

We can hear the hiss of the studio master tapes on a vinyl record, so that implies some idea of the noise floor of bubbly and of master tapes.
However most people were not running studio master tape systems at home in the 80s, and they were running a cassette tape player.
A vinyl record in the early 80s, was probably better than a cassette tape, unless (perhaps) it is on a very good cassette player… (I dunno)

Secondly:
The fact that many speaker systems have distortion levels that are as high or higher than a vinyl rig, sort of means that the vinyl would not be “the long pole in the tent” for them… it is their speakers.

It is very similar to people with 2% HD and high IMD speakers, saying that a certain amp sounds way better… It could be marginally better… But moving from a 0.01% to 0.001% amp, is much less than 2% distortion from speakers.

I know that the title of thread is “Why… Records…”, which is more factually historic.
Although now there is also a nostalgic, and ceremonial aspect.