Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[rdenney]

But by the same token a lot of recordings nowadays have deep compression to raise the average level so it will sound louder—the opposite of adding sparkle to make it render realistically in the limited vinyl medium.

Back in the Fuji vs Kodak days, Kodak was about tonal gradation even with color, and Fuji was about color saturation (generalizations are false but sometimes useful). Many thought and still think that Kodak’s rendering was more natural, but most people preferred the color intensity to give the photo drama. Fuji won. Now, digital photography color saturation is often amped up, and tonal values are compressed (so-called high dynamic range tone mapping). That’s with a medium that has the fidelity and range to render it any way the photographer wants, so it’s definitively a choice.

It seems to me a lot of current pop music is that way—manipulated tonality to give it contrast without, however, much dynamic variation. These are power tools used to achieve some other goal than fidelity.

At least the guys cutting vinyl were trying to give the illusion of fidelity. That isn’t even the objective any more, it seems to me.

That’s one reason I keep old stuff. Despite its constraints, it was often aimed at an objective I prefer. But I usually do record it to digital for routine playback.

Rick “often prefers the drier sound of 70’s mixes” Denney

 

[dlaloum]

But by the same token a lot of recordings nowadays have deep compression to raise the average level so it will sound louder—the opposite of adding sparkle to make it render realistically in the limited vinyl medium.

Back in the Fuji vs Kodak days, Kodak was about tonal gradation even with color, and Fuji was about color saturation (generalizations are false but sometimes useful). Many thought and still think that Kodak’s rendering was more natural, but most people preferred the color intensity to give the photo drama. Fuji won. Now, digital photography color saturation is often amped up, and tonal values are compressed (so-called high dynamic range tone mapping). That’s with a medium that has the fidelity and range to render it any way the photographer wants, so it’s definitively a choice.

It seems to me a lot of current pop music is that way—manipulated tonality to give it contrast without, however, much dynamic variation. These are power tools used to achieve some other goal than fidelity.

At least the guys cutting vinyl were trying to give the illusion of fidelity. That isn’t even the objective any more, it seems to me.

That’s one reason I keep old stuff. Despite its constraints, it was often aimed at an objective I prefer. But I usually do record it to digital for routine playback.

Rick “often prefers the drier sound of 70’s mixes” Denney

In the 60's and 70's the objective was High Fidelity - reproducing an acoustic event.

Then we moved to the era of Andy Warhol - the recordings are (using a visual arts metaphor) Posterised and Cartoonised...

Impressionists, Surrealists, modernists and cartoonists rule the audio environment. - For all of these the term high fidelity is meaningless, there is/was no acoustic event which we can attempt to reproduce.

One reason for listening to older recordings (without remastering!), is that they were made in an era where high fidelity was the objective.... so with all the imperfections inherent in the technology used at the time, the end result often achieves a closer approximation to the (or an) original acoustic event, than later more highly processed / mastered / posterised & cartoonised recordings.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Its worth noting that even in the 50s and 60s, compression was used routinely due to limitations of the magnetic tape medium. Even with classical releases, the squashing of the loudest portions is painfully obvious. If this compression wasn't done with an electronic compressor, it was done manually by 'gain riding' by the engineer. Even today, vocals are routinely compressed. Bass guitars are routinely compressed. The main difference is that today digital technology has allowed the use of predictive limiting where the limiter literally looks ahead at the waveform and limits the output within a very tight range. Waves Inc. was probably the first manufacturer of plug-ins which did this as the L-1 Sonic Maximizer. I used it very heavily in my ProTools rig in the early 90s.

The use of such limiting has become widespread and routine, which is a shame, but ironically most listeners prefer the sound of heavily compressed music, and if I were being totally honest I would say that I prefer it too with music other than classical and jazz.

 

[dlaloum]

Its worth noting that even in the 50s and 60s, compression was used routinely due to limitations of the magnetic tape medium. Even with classical releases, the squashing of the loudest portions is painfully obvious. If this compression wasn't done with an electronic compressor, it was done manually by 'gain riding' by the engineer. Even today, vocals are routinely compressed. Bass guitars are routinely compressed. The main difference is that today digital technology has allowed the use of predictive limiting where the limiter literally looks ahead at the waveform and limits the output within a very tight range. Waves Inc. was probably the first manufacturer of plug-ins which did this as the L-1 Sonic Maximizer. I used it very heavily in my ProTools rig in the early 90s.

The use of such limiting has become widespread and routine, which is a shame, but ironically most listeners prefer the sound of heavily compressed music, and if I were being totally honest I would say that I prefer it too with music other than classical and jazz.

Yes, our move towards posterisation of audio started a long time ago, and has continued because most people prefer it....

And it becomes most obvious/audible in the audio genres where natural acoustic instruments dominate - Classical and Jazz.... where we (the listener) have a real live baseline to compare against - because most of us have either played some of these instruments, or frequented live performances.

 

[Robin L]

On the other hand, you are ignoring the ability of the human brain to "hear through" various kinds of distortions. I have had audiophiles as test subjects. Sometimes they are good, sometimes not. It seems to be more related to training and willingness to train and learn how to do a test, and how to listen for artifacts.

You might as well say the same of musicians, you know, but musicians can hear right on through some of the worst recordings in the world, because they understand what the performer is doing.

Don't generalize.

(And, remember, I'm the most annoying objectivist on this block.)

From your lips to G-d's (tin) ear.

In any case, I can hear those sorts of active distortions that warp musical intent on LPs to this day. The problems of long play records were solved with the CD and other music formats, such as DVD audio, SACD and other High-rez formats. The magic is gone with CDs, everybody is looking at their smartphones and streaming from the interwebs.

And we all know how stable the interwebs are, don't we?

 

[sofrep811]

I do streaming (Ifi Zen Blue v2.) Apple Music vs vinyl (Rega P1 with 2M Red) . There's always been a significant difference in the audio of each. The streamed music, using the best version Apple supplies, always sounds more dampened.

When I use streaming only, which I do for the majority of my listening, I don't notice said issues.

 

[egellings]

"Dampened"?

 

[ClosDeLaRoche]

I was a record collector since high school (I'm 34 now) but quit and sold all of my vinyl and turntable a few years ago. I digitized all of my records and TBH, when I hooked up my turntable and good DAC playing the digitized record on a switcher, they sounded 100% identical.

Vinyl got too expensive, too inconvenient, and I got tired of maybe getting a unique mastering or maybe getting the digital master cut on wax. Off-center pressings is also a common and horrendously annoying issue. Vinyl sound is best on old 60's through 80's records I think. Loads of amazing audiophile reissues from that era too, like from MFSL, that sound astonishing.

These days you simply can't beat Bandcamp. FLAC downloads for really good prices and 85% of the money goes right to the band. I also find that the mastering with Bandcamp releases is almost always excellent with full dynamic range.

 

[toddsdonald]

Interesting thoughts and information. I recall the transition from albums to cassettes and while the albums still sounded better comparing store bought to store bought, a well recorded copy of the album on decent tape could sound as good.

Then came laser discs and the excitement was incredible, but the end product not that impressive. I still think my half speed master albums sounded better.

Then came the compact disc... Wonderfully compact and easy to crank at a party without worrying about it skipping, and although it sounded good, I never thought they sounded as good as an album. They seemed rather sterile, flat and less dynamic to me. The bass never seemed as tight or up front either.

Then MP3 digital came along and I thought that sounded the worst of all. Very blah.

All that being said, I think that there's been significant improvement in the past 20 years for digital music in general. The streaming stuff is the norm for me now. I've still got CD's I'll bust out when I want to take in a good listen, especially at high volume they seem to sound better than streaming music.

I've thought about trying vinyl again, but I'm still angry with myself for getting rid of literally milk crates full of excellent albums that I cherished and took great care of... Traded them in and sold them off in the days of the used CD stores. Then finally ditched my beloved Technics Quartz drive turntable... Yeah... Not ready to take that trip again, I'm old and digital is really easy and sounds good enough for me.

 

[krabapple]

Interesting thoughts and information. I recall the transition from albums to cassettes and while the albums still sounded better comparing store bought to store bought, a well recorded copy of the album on decent tape could sound as good.

Then came laser discs and the excitement was incredible, but the end product not that impressive. I still think my half speed master albums sounded better.

Laser discs? Really? That was a video medium, mainly.

Then came the compact disc... Wonderfully compact and easy to crank at a party without worrying about it skipping, and although it sounded good, I never thought they sounded as good as an album. They seemed rather sterile, flat and less dynamic to me. The bass never seemed as tight or up front either.

They were, in fact, *more* 'dynamic' than your records (better S/N). And with more accurate bass and treble and far better crosstalk suppression.

Then MP3 digital came along and I thought that sounded the worst of all. Very blah.

More 'sighted' anecdote. Blah.

I think you really aren't clear on what these different technologies offer, and your beliefs about their audio quality are completely influenced by 'impressions' not based in fact.

 

[Robin L]

Laser discs? Really? That was a video medium, mainly.

That can be regarded as a mistake. 12" shiny discs would have been a great format for music.

 

[Martin]

I have over a terabyte of 16bit 44.1kHz to 24bit 192kHz FLAC files from various sources including ripped CDs, needle drops, and digitally purchased. (27,484 files to be exact.) I used JRiver to convert the entire collection to 320kbps MP3 files for use on my phone and in the car. I can tell you from experience I cannot tell the difference between the MP3 version and FLAC version of the same song. Still, I keep both and listen to FLAC at home and MP3 on the road. I also have a turntable and 400+ records to which I enjoy listening. A well mastered digital copy betters a well mastered vinyl copy every single time.

Martin

 

[levimax]

I think you really aren't clear on what these different technologies offer, and your beliefs about their audio quality are completely influenced by 'impressions' not based in fact.

Measured performance of CD's and digital technology are far better than LP's or cassettes or RTR, that is a fact. "Audio quality" is a different thing which includes preference and the correlation between better measurements and preference is not nearly as strong as some may think. The nuance of this hobby to me is being able to correlate measurements to what I hear and what I prefer. If a new member comes here mentioning their sighted preferences rather than putting them down we can encourage them to learn about controlled listening tests and measurements and join in the conversation. From a scientific point of view I think the fact that LP's still exist in a digital world and are preferred by some is quite interesting and can shed light on what is really important to higher perceived sound quality.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Yes, digital audio sounds much superior to analog. I have the graphs 'n charts to prove it. I am in the process of burning my entire vinyl and tape collection and the turntable and tape machines are now on the curb for trash pickup tomorrow.

Oh shit. My computer hard disk just crashed and I can't listen to anything. I don't know what to do. I'll be forced to go back to playing my analog piano.

 

[blueone]

Oh shit. My computer hard disk just crashed and I can't listen to anything. I don't know what to do. I'll be forced to go back to playing my analog piano.

Hello! This is the year 2022 responding! We have cloud-based music streaming services available so that you can use your phone or tablet as a source rather than a computer with a hard drive. (Can't you buy an SSD in whatever year you're living in?) If you're having trouble setting any of this up, I can offer you a special deal on my consulting services. Only $500/hr! For a limited time only.

 

[Martin]

My music is stored on a NAS server with 4 - 4GB drives in a RAID array. it doesn't crash.

Martin

 

[levimax]

My music is stored on a NAS server with 4 - 4GB drives in a RAID array. it doesn't crash.

Martin

What about EMP?

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

Hello! This is the year 2022 responding! We have cloud-based music streaming services available so that you can use your phone or tablet as a source rather than a computer with a hard drive. (Can't you buy an SSD in whatever year you're living in?) If you're having trouble setting any of this up, I can offer you a special deal on my consulting services. Only $500/hr! For a limited time only.

It was the "C" SSD. No joy. No streaming. No nothing. Just the bleakness of looking at previous printouts of frequency response graphs. The year 2022 just turned impotent.

 

[Martin]

What about EMP?

LOL! If I was worried about EMP's I wouldn't even have electricity. I'd be living off the grid in some cabin in the wilderness. I prefer to live in the real world.

Martin

 

[blueone]

LOL! If I was worried about EMP's I wouldn't even have electricity. I'd be living off the grid in some cabin in the wilderness. I prefer to live in the real world.

Martin

Agreed. It would take a nuclear weapon strategically detonated in the atmosphere, or a repeat of the Carrington Event. In either case it would be welcome back to the 19th century, and most of us will probably starve to death anyway.