• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Why do records sound so much better than digital?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
But it is surprising how good it can sound.
But that is despite itself. If you read the rest of my post, Toole explains how and why we are prone to settle. That doesn't mean there's a lot more to be had.
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
Plus, how many channels of playback would the best recording ever mastered have? This is where vinyl really gags at the starting line.

Toole’s “A Philosophical Perspective” essay (in the first edition of his book) explains this most knowledgeably and eloquently, in part:-

“The truth is that no amount of refinement in audio devices can solve the problem; there is no missing ingredient or tweak that can, outside of the imagination, make these (playback) experiences seem real. The process is itself fundamentally flawed in its extreme simplicity. The miracle is that it works as well as it does. The “copy” is sufficiently similar to the “original” that our perceptual processes are gratified, up to a point, but the “copy” is not the same as the “original.” Sterne (2003) explains that “at a very basic, functional level, sound-reproduction technologies need a great deal of human assistance if they are to work, that is, to ‘reproduce’ sound” (p. 246).

“Sound reproduction is therefore significantly about working with the natural human ability to “fill in the blanks”, providing the right clues to trigger the perception of a more complete illusion. It is absolutely not a mechanical “capture, store, and reproduce” process. In addition to the music itself, there is now, and probably always will be, a substantial human artistic, craftsmanship, component to the creation of musical product.

“…And, in the context of sound recording, “far from being a reproduction of the actual event, the recording was a ‘re-creation’” (Sterne, p. 242). The goal is not imitation but the creation of specific listener experiences. This certainly exists dramatically in the directional and spatial experiences in reproduced sounds.

“For decades, society has been conditioned to derive pleasure from first single-channel sound (mono) and then two channels (stereo). Only recently has music been offered in multichannel formats that permit a somewhat realistic directional and spatial panorama. Impressed by the novelty that music and movies were available on demand, society appeared to lower its expectations and adapted to the inadequate formats. A great deal of enjoyment was had by all. So complete is this form of adaptation that significant new technical developments must go through a “break-in” period before there is acceptance. …those who grew up with mono often argued that stereo was an unnecessary complication, adding little value. (I remember—I was there!) The same is now happening with respect to multichannel audio schemes. Part of the “break in” applies to the audio professionals, who must learn how to use the new formats with discretion and taste.”


(my emphasis)

No doubt: the best recordings ever are, and will forever be, in multichannel playback formats…and vinyl has no play in this game. It cannot do it. It and its recordings exist on a lower tier. As Toole explains above, we have been conditioned to be pretty happy with pretty little.

The key issue preventing everyone from acknowledging digital MCH playback productions as the pinnacle of home audio, is that a significant portion of audiophiles have an anti-digital, anti-MCH, anti-progress attitude (they are stuck at the start of Toole’s ‘break-in period’) that is blocking them and making them literally incapable (sighted) of having the experience that is universally (proven, tested, in controlled listening, read the book) preferred as a fully superior perceptual experience of the sound waves themselves. The fact that a lot of recording engineers are playing to this, is a hand-on-wallet betrayal to the potential of their profession. But hey, if ‘vinyl crumbs’ is what the consumers want more than five-star degustation, then give them their crumbs, and charge them a 500% premium for the pleasure.

Cheers
MCH is over 30 years old so hardly "new" and the trend is more toward mono either "smart speakers" or "sound bars" both of which can sound surprisingly good. As much as Mr. Toole has done great research and every audio enthusiast should be grateful, he is in the business of selling amps and speakers and MCH is the best way to sell more of both. MCH is one possible solution for "better sound" but not the only one. All this talk of "what format is superior" is kind of silly I think, if you are a "recorded music enthusiast" having the ability to play back multiple formats is going to give you access to the largest variety of recorded music. Not sure why that isn't something everyone can agree on :)
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,630
Likes
2,748
I remember once, I was talking to Duke Ellington telling him how I love his music and can't wait to have it distorted for a record so I can enjoy it as he intended.
He said; that's not how I intended! Why don't you come down to the club and hear me while I play?
Oh, Duke... And miss on all the IGD, clicks and pops and the photo of you?! Nah, I like it more natural, warm and full of dynamics!
Boy, are you on something? - Said the sad Duke. You can't have more dynamics than sitting in the front row...
But, Duke... Oh, Duke, Duke but... With out my cartridge it would feel like you're not even in the club!
Kid, seriously now, I'm not summoned through some tiny stones, come down and hear me!
I said, I'm too mindful when I listen to music, that's how I found out that the true soul of your music appears only with all the compression, cracks and pops, distortions, wow and flutter of a record. Oh, and I get to look a photo of you. Did I mention that? Anyway, I can't come, I'm having my TT incarnate Benny Goodman in my living room with my new Shunyata and Sumiko combo.
Well, if you can't, at least get the best recording of my session.

And that's how deluded poor ol' Duke was.
Clearly Mr. Ellington did not get what I call the "Venom phenom": on stage they are terrible, but on record, they have become a massive inspiration and reference.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,448
Likes
4,209
MCH is over 30 years old so hardly "new" and the trend is more toward mono either "smart speakers" or "sound bars" both of which can sound surprisingly good. As much as Mr. Toole has done great research and every audio enthusiast should be grateful, he is in the business of selling amps and speakers and MCH is the best way to sell more of both. MCH is one possible solution for "better sound" but not the only one. All this talk of "what format is superior" is kind of silly I think, if you are a "recorded music enthusiast" having the ability to play back multiple formats is going to give you access to the largest variety of recorded music. Not sure why that isn't something everyone can agree on :)
Stop saying "he is in the business of selling amps and speakers"; IIRC you said something similar months ago and got corrected then too.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
The key issue preventing everyone from acknowledging digital MCH playback productions as the pinnacle of home audio, is that a significant portion of audiophiles have an anti-digital, anti-MCH, anti-progress attitude ... The fact that a lot of recording engineers are playing to this, is a hand-on-wallet betrayal to the potential of their profession.
This is seriously confused, I'm afraid. Logically: why would "everyone" be "prevented" from pursuing something by the opinions of a "portion" of an already tiny and insignificant minority, i.e. audiophiles? Remember, audiophiles have zero influence on what is supplied to the mass market.

The key issue is actually this: there are probably fewer than a thousand properly installed and set-up domestic multichannel music systems in the entire world. You and e.g. @Sal1950 and maybe some others here have one, but there is no chance at all of the mass market following your lead, because of boxes and wires and ugliness and intrusion.

Therefore there is no money in multichannel right now. Because of mass market domestic resistance, the notion died in its crib. Loudspeaker-based multichannel will never happen. Those of us whose income depends on such things know this. Nothing to do with audiophiles' attitudes.

Instead, we're betting on infinite-channel immersive sound delivered by headphones. That's where the research is, and where the money will be. A current-day Toole would be working hard on it. Sean Olive has been, for years. Me too, and my peers. We're almost ready. Believe me, recording engineers are always thinking of our wallets, but we base our projections on reality, not anti-audiophile rants.
 

spartaman64

Active Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2021
Messages
137
Likes
140
Vinyl never has, never will, and frankly cannot ever sound, at its most basic implementation better than digital. In today's world, a $100 DAC easily beats vinyl on any measure anyone would like to choose. Heck, a $10 can.

Now, that does not mean that you will prefer digital playback in your system, no matter how superior. And no, it is not because digital is worse. It is because the average vinyl setup, even at high expense, is poor. The other thing poor in most vinyl lover, cable cretins systems is their listening room. Too reflective especially at high frequencies, bass all over the map, first reflection issues, etc. Sorry boys and girls, those trinkets from SR are not going to save you.

What happens when you put a perfectly flat source into a reflective, bad bass room? .... It sounds like crap. Sure it is crisp, but the excessive highs will get on your nerves. You may even assign it the quality of glare (not knowing any better). So back to your trusty turntable, with its poor non-flat and complimentary frequency response, stereo image shrinking cross-talk, and probably enough distortion to impact tone.
mastering makes a bigger difference than format imo and there are many recordings where the digital release is mastered for the loudness war while the vinyl release is mastered better. its not the fault of the format but baffling decisions by the sound engineers can result in a vinyl release of a song sounding better than the digital release.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
mastering makes a bigger difference than format imo and there are many recordings where the digital release is mastered for the loudness war while the vinyl release is mastered better. its not the fault of the format but baffling decisions by the sound engineers can result in a vinyl release of a song sounding better than the digital release.
Very often the decision is a commercial one, made my management. A lot of sound engineers don't like it, but a job is a job.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,856
But that is despite itself. If you read the rest of my post, Toole explains how and why we are prone to settle. That doesn't mean there's NOT a lot more to be had.
FTFY--had to count up the negatives. :)

True, but multichannel is sorta like quadrophonic. A lot of it is done for sound effects (such as with movies, and for movies I do have a multichannel systems despite there being no way effectively arrange the speakers in that space). Some of it is done to show off the effects. But the plain fact is that 99% of the music I listen to was mixed to stereo and is only available that way. I'm uninterested in faking multichannel through downstream DSP, which sounds to me a lot like Carver's "holographic" effects box.

And building a multichannel system in my space would cost a fortune, and create acoustic problems even bigger than the ones I have now. I helped a buddy down in Texas spec a multichannel system for his home, using Revel Concerta-line speakers for the most part (as I have in my stereo system, though mine are older models). Granted, he's buying new and I bought used, but that's a factor of two, not the factor of ten that his speaker system is costing above mine. He will listen to movies on that system as well as music.

My Thorens turntable, even with the full restoration I did on it, cost less that one additional pair of those speakers, and to get true multichannel, I'd need a center plus two more pairs. And I still want to be able to listen to old vinyl, some of which hasn't ever made it into the digital domain beyond needledrops. I'm not counting the subwoofers, which I recognize that I need even for stereo playback.

I'm not arguing against the advantages of multichannel systems at all--I have read Toole as well. I just can't justify it for what I listen to. I'm the only person in my house who listens critically to music, so the small stereo sweet spot isn't really a problem for me. But the sweet spot isn't that small, and I use DSP to make sure everything stays in phase where I am sitting.

If a significant portion of my library was recorded in multichannel, it would be different. (At present, none of it is.) Even if a significant portion of what is available for purchase today was in multichannel, I might consider it. But even now most of the recordings I'm buying are of performances made years ago and recorded to target stereo--there just aren't that many new classical recordings being made that have captured my interest and I don't even really seek them out with much vigor.

Rick "whose target system approximates his target library, both of which are a failed age test" Denney
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
Multichannel music is definitely better in theory, but not so much in practice since there's so little content. Maybe this Atmos thing will keep going and that will change. Maybe it will die out like quadraphonic records.

Maybe you're lucky and what's currently available matches your tastes really well. If it is then great. More power to you.

OTOH sometimes some multichannel proponents seem like audiophiles in the pejorative sense, using music to listen to their system, by recommending some website or other listing multichannel music. "Here's a list of things in a technically superior format. Pick something you find acceptable." Does anyone actually pick music like that?

Also how did this thread get derailed so far?
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
Stop saying "he is in the business of selling amps and speakers"; IIRC you said something similar months ago and got corrected then too.
Harmon, who paid the bills for the research, certainly is in the business of selling amps and speakers. The research certainly stands on it's own merits but that does not make it the "final word" on recorded music playback. I would be interested to see more research done on computer controlled line arrays for instance. In any case, trying to get back on topic, using the MCH argument againt vinyl doesn't make a lot of practical sense as mono or stereo vinyl playback can be processed to play through MCH just like 99% of recorded music.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,856
Harmon, who paid the bills for the research, certainly is in the business of selling amps and speakers. The research certainly stands on it's own merits but that does not make it the "final word" on recorded music playback. I would be interested to see more research done on computer controlled line arrays for instance. In any case, trying to get back on topic, using the MCH argument againt vinyl doesn't make a lot of practical sense as mono or stereo vinyl playback can be processed to play through MCH just like 99% of recorded music.
1. Most of the foundational research that Toole performed was at the Canadian National Research Council, which is definitely not in the service of selling speakers and amps for Harman (note spelling), and American company at the time. His conclusions from the work done at Harman are consistent with is conclusions from the work done at the NRC.

2. Anybody who has talked with Toole or seen him interviewed can tell he's not the sort of person who would sell out his principles that cheaply or easily. If he was commercially motivated in that way, he'd have never said things like his unqualified praise of relatively inexpensive Infinity speakers, that though are in the Harman umbrella still compete with many pricier products from other Harman brands and therefore reduce profit potential. I think his term was "ridiculously good". That he would praise the products of his employer is not a sign of commercial motives undermining principles, of course, if he had testing to show why those products were worthy of praise, which he did.

3. Not everyone who engages in corporate research is willing to misrepresent their results, or even exaggerate their results, to support the commercial bottom line. Where it happens is when deciding what to study, not how to study it. I'm quite confident that Toole believes his conclusions in good faith.

4. The argument that LPs are inherently limited to two channels is itself a slight exaggeration--even the two channels it supports are not nearly as independent as the two channels in a digital file, even when played back through conventional analog equipment. Channel crosstalk is still within the range of audibility, especially at low frequencies where the two channels are often mixed. The point was that the LP medium is constrained to two channels physically, and thus cannot play multichannel music distributed as such. It's not a compelling argument not because multichannel might not be superior, but because their is so little multichannel content out there. I agree that if one must use downstream DSP to achieve a multichannel effect, that can be applied to any stereo source including LPs, and so DSP-synthesized multichannel is no argument against stereo sources including vinyl.

Rick "data speaks for itself" Denney
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,779
Location
Oxfordshire
This is seriously confused, I'm afraid. Logically: why would "everyone" be "prevented" from pursuing something by the opinions of a "portion" of an already tiny and insignificant minority, i.e. audiophiles? Remember, audiophiles have zero influence on what is supplied to the mass market.

The key issue is actually this: there are probably fewer than a thousand properly installed and set-up domestic multichannel music systems in the entire world. You and e.g. @Sal1950 and maybe some others here have one, but there is no chance at all of the mass market following your lead, because of boxes and wires and ugliness and intrusion.

Therefore there is no money in multichannel right now. Because of mass market domestic resistance, the notion died in its crib. Loudspeaker-based multichannel will never happen. Those of us whose income depends on such things know this. Nothing to do with audiophiles' attitudes.

Instead, we're betting on infinite-channel immersive sound delivered by headphones. That's where the research is, and where the money will be. A current-day Toole would be working hard on it. Sean Olive has been, for years. Me too, and my peers. We're almost ready. Believe me, recording engineers are always thinking of our wallets, but we base our projections on reality, not anti-audiophile rants.
This is so sensible and logical.

I am a music lover and have for decades noticed and said that SQ often varies more between the actual recordings than the equipment choices we make.

I have loads of LPs, since I started buying records in the 1960s, CDs and SACDs some of which are multi channel.

Quite a long time ago I abandoned multi channel because of limited recordings and the godawful mess of speakers and cables.

Most of my recordings are stereo or mono, that is what I listen to. I dislike headphones, both from a comfort and soundscape pov and only use them on the ‘plane or nowadays the ‘bus.

The vast majority of people I know mainly or only listen to music in the background but they are the people the recording industry has to satisfy, so in reality, superb high and low frequency performance will only be even reproduced by a fraction of a percent of people listening and having even 16-bits of dynamic range means everybody using portables and car systems will miss a lot of a recording so they will never happen.

The sad fact is that audiophilia’s biggest problem is and always will be the recordings and I, for one, would still far rather enjoy an imperfect recording of a performance I love than a wide frequency and dynamic range of something banal or I don’t like.

So my Hi-Fi is as good (probably much better) than it will ever need to be for my musical enjoyment.
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
1. Most of the foundational research that Toole performed was at the Canadian National Research Council, which is definitely not in the service of selling speakers and amps for Harman (note spelling), and American company at the time. His conclusions from the work done at Harman are consistent with is conclusions from the work done at the NRC.

2. Anybody who has talked with Toole or seen him interviewed can tell he's not the sort of person who would sell out his principles that cheaply or easily. If he was commercially motivated in that way, he'd have never said things like his unqualified praise of relatively inexpensive Infinity speakers, that though are in the Harman umbrella still compete with many pricier products from other Harman brands and therefore reduce profit potential. I think his term was "ridiculously good". That he would praise the products of his employer is not a sign of commercial motives undermining principles, of course, if he had testing to show why those products were worthy of praise, which he did.

3. Not everyone who engages in corporate research is willing to misrepresent their results, or even exaggerate their results, to support the commercial bottom line. Where it happens is when deciding what to study, not how to study it. I'm quite confident that Toole believes his conclusions in good faith.

4. The argument that LPs are inherently limited to two channels is itself a slight exaggeration--even the two channels it supports are not nearly as independent as the two channels in a digital file, even when played back through conventional analog equipment. Channel crosstalk is still within the range of audibility, especially at low frequencies where the two channels are often mixed. The point was that the LP medium is constrained to two channels physically, and thus cannot play multichannel music distributed as such. It's not a compelling argument not because multichannel might not be superior, but because their is so little multichannel content out there. I agree that if one must use downstream DSP to achieve a multichannel effect, that can be applied to any stereo source including LPs, and so DSP-synthesized multichannel is no argument against stereo sources including vinyl.

Rick "data speaks for itself" Denney
As I said Mr. Toole's work stands on it's own merits and it is the best research ever done in the field and I am not in a position to judge anyone's motives and have never said anything about anyone intentionally misrepresenting anything. None the less when looking at things "scientifically" everyone has biases and as good as the research is it is not the "final word". Even Isaac Newtons work on calculus was built on over time. Unfortunately it seem like psychoacoustic research that is available to the public pretty much ended with Mr. Toole's and Mr. Olives work.
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,856
As I said Mr. Toole's work stands on it's own merits and it is the best research ever done in the field and I am not in a position to judge anyone's motives and have never said anything about anyone intentionally misrepresenting anything. None the less when looking at things "scientifically" everyone has biases and as good as the research is it is not the "final word". Even Isaac Newtons work on calculus was built on over time. Unfortunately it seem like psychoacoustic research that is available to the public pretty much ended with Mr. Toole's and Mr. Olives work.
I agree with all that, but that's a different statement than the claim that Toole's writings were motivated by selling more speakers and amps.

Rick "noting that Sean Olive's work hasn't ended" Denney
 

Audiofire

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 8, 2022
Messages
625
Likes
347
Location
Denmark
Multichannel music is definitely better in theory, but not so much in practice since there's so little content. Maybe this Atmos thing will keep going and that will change. Maybe it will die out like quadraphonic records.

Maybe you're lucky and what's currently available matches your tastes really well. If it is then great. More power to you.

OTOH sometimes some multichannel proponents seem like audiophiles in the pejorative sense, using music to listen to their system, by recommending some website or other listing multichannel music. "Here's a list of things in a technically superior format. Pick something you find acceptable." Does anyone actually pick music like that?

Also how did this thread get derailed so far?
If you mean multichannel by "derailed", then have a look at CD-4 records that are multichannel:
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,348
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
I agree with all that, but that's a different statement than the claim that Toole's writings were motivated by selling more speakers and amps.

Rick "noting that Sean Olive's work hasn't ended" Denney
I never said that his writings were motivated by selling more speakers and amps, what I said was he was involved with a business that sells speakers and amps. Like Amir's disclaimers when ever he reviews Harmon products, which I really appreciate, being aware of potential biases is just part of healthy skepticism. It is not a judgement on the person or their motives.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,298
Location
uk, taunton
Because its more relatable as a technology and you listen differently as a result. Plus for me the extra noise gives a weight to mid range and background that seems somehow more believable or human . I dont know but it's rewarding , or can be .

I personally expect it to sound shit so always surprised.

..
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,068
Likes
16,598
Location
Central Fl
But it is surprising how good it can sound.
Two soup cans and a string can sound good as phones also. ;)

It certainly has sounded better than digital, especially when there was no digital or later in the infancy of digital.
Jamas
The key issue is actually this: there are probably fewer than a thousand properly installed and set-up domestic multichannel music systems in the entire world.
Humm, I would guess there's that many and more in my FL county alone.
 

Inner Space

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
1,285
Likes
2,938
Humm, I would guess there's that many and more in my FL county alone.
Plenty of HT-in-a-box maybe, some half-decent in-wall installations probably, a good few quality home cinemas possibly, but multichannel music systems properly installed? No way. This is extensively market-researched by people in the music biz itching to make money, and they just ain't there.
 

IPunchCholla

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2022
Messages
1,101
Likes
1,380
Two soup cans and a string can sound good as phones also. ;)


Jamas

Humm, I would guess there's that many and more in my FL county alone.
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile your loathing of all posts vinyl with you love for Harley Davidson? Granted, I’m not into motor cycles, but hasn’t HD been in trouble because they are largely seen as a retro, old tech brand? I live near a six lane 6 mile long straight street that ends at an air force base. It is notorious for street racers, particularly on bikes. You can hear them when they launch and for the whole 6 mile run. None of them are on HD. My impression is SOTA motorcycles are European and Japanese, at least for those serious about speed and acceleration.

Has it occurred to you that vinyl for others is the same as Harley for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom