Why do records sound so much better than digital?

[DSJR]

I know the processor that came after - taller with champagne coloured front. Smooth, utterly 'musical' with good bass power (something cheap players didn't always have I remember from my dealership days). Thing is, output levels aside, the 'dac for a fiver' you could buy from eBay sounded pretty much almost the same (maybe slightly grubby in a sighted comparison) if output levels were taken into account. Thing is, those top Sony's were superbly made and the designs were the best possible. Didn't stop a UK audio forum owner having his 'upgraded' though

 

[Wes]

Do we know why records sound so much better than digital yet?

 

[krabapple]

Haven't been around all that long, have you?

It's a crowded field, I know.

I've been around ASR since 2016. I've been 'around' stupid audiophile claims like this OP's for decades.

 

[krabapple]

Yeah, the thread is ridiculous. And yeah, it was ridiculous for me to compare Morse with Nugent. I did that just because of the similar appearance, which struck me as funny.

That strikes me as something a Ted Nugent would do.

 

[Robin L]

Do we know why records sound so much better than digital yet?

 

[krabapple]

That looks familiar. Back then, all the CD players [including that one] sounded like crap to these ears. I might have been spoiled by having and being accustomed to above average LP playback. I probably had a AR XA with a Grace 707 arm and a Grado cartridge around the time this model came out, had a Thorens with Sumiko High-Output moving coil cartridges soon thereafter. It wasn't until I strapped my battery powered Optimus 3400 [as a digital source] to a t.c. electronics M2000 [a a DAC] that CDs sounded better to these ears. That was 1995.

It's funny how so many audiophiles attribute the supposedly awful sound of early CD players to the hardware, and not to the software (early CDs).

Though I suspect the 'badness' of both is highly over-assumed .

So I suspect it would also be fun to conduct level matched blind tests of 1st gen vs modern CD players, with such people as subjects.

Bona fides: In the early 80s I very briefly possessed one of the first Technics CD players..a top-loader IIRC. The only disc I had to play on it was Led Zeppelin IV. After that I had one of the early Pioneer models, succeeded by a Pioneer 'Elite' model.

 

[krabapple]

Doesn't anyone listen to classical music anymore? IMO that's the raison d'etre for digital.

THIS.

In the 70s and early 1980s, the people cheerleading most strongly for digital audio were professionals and consumers in the 'classical' field. They were all too familiar with the limits of analog.

 

[Robin L]

It's funny how so many audiophiles attribute the supposedly awful sound of early CD players to the hardware, and not to the software (early CDs).

Though I suspect the 'badness' of both is highly over-assumed .

So I suspect it would also be fun to conduct level matched blind tests of 1st gen vs modern CD players, with such people as subjects.

Bona fides: In the early 80s I very briefly possessed one of the first Technics CD players..a top-loader IIRC. The only disc I had to play on it was Led Zeppelin IV. After that I had one of the early Pioneer models, succeeded by a Pioneer 'Elite' model.

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. I also worked with a Sony ES 501 ADC, a bonified bad sounding piece of gear, in 1987. I do suspect that what I'm using now---Topping E/L 30, Drop 6XX headphones with APO EQ---sounds better. Older CDs [or the rips I made of my CDs, which is what I have access to right now] sound better than I remember when I first heard them.

 

[rgpit]

I think the real question is "Why does vinyl seem to sound better to some?"

 

[sal]

I think the real question is "Why does vinyl seem to sound better to some?"

I think blind tests would refute that.

The question in my mind is why do people still listen to vinyl anyways, knowing the sound is not not as 'good' (including myself).
This is the direction the thread was headed, after the OPs claim was shot down with alacrity.

 

[sal]

THIS.

In the 70s and early 1980s, the people cheerleading most strongly for digital audio were professionals and consumers in the 'classical' field. They were all too familiar with the limits of analog.

They were also pushing very hard past Redbook... SACD, DSD... high sample rates in general.

 

[rdenney]

They were also pushing very hard past Redbook... SACD, DSD... high sample rates in general.

Not that very many can tell the difference in controlled testing between redbook 16/44 and higher rates and bit depths.

Rick "I certainly can't" Denney

 

[ahofer]

THIS.

In the 70s and early 1980s, the people cheerleading most strongly for digital audio were professionals and consumers in the 'classical' field. They were all too familiar with the limits of analog.

Yes indeed. That's why I (a consumer) made the switch in 1984, despite a massive record collection. Rock & Roll sounded fine on LP, but the high noise floor and low dynamic range of LP are a real problem in classical recordings.

 

[Frank Dernie]

They were also pushing very hard past Redbook... SACD, DSD... high sample rates in general.

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

 

[ahofer]

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

They are, but I pushed for a while. It is possible the masters were better, so the discs were pretty rewarding to play overall.

 

[sal]

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

“Pushed for it” may be the wrong phrase. They were definitely onboard.

 

[dscottj]

Yes indeed. That's why I (a consumer) made the switch in 1984, despite a massive record collection. Rock & Roll sounded fine on LP, but the high noise floor and low dynamic range of LP are a real problem in classical recordings.

My go-to for demonstrating this fact is Saint-Saëns's Symphony No. 3. The Reference Recordings version I have (2015) has bass notes that would probably bounce the tone arm off the inside of a turn table's dust cover if anyone tried to approach it in vinyl. In digital it makes the nick-knacks in my wife's curio cabinet slowly turn around.

I've got a big CD box set of Decca analog classical that has recordings from the early '70s I think are nearly indistinguishable from digital, but when the big instruments come out for a throw down there's simply no comparison. Digital wins, period.

Pop music sounds good on vinyl because it was created FOR vinyl, and (depending on the era) AM radio, FM radio, even cassettes. The music was created from the outset, before anyone picked up an instrument or cleared their throats, with the limitations of electronic playback in mind.

Classical music was composed when live performances were the only way to hear it. They were created without any idea there could BE limitations other than from the instruments themselves. Especially in the Romantic era, there are symphonies that simply cannot be properly recorded with analog gear. The orchestra's sound exceeds the equipment's ability to record it.

 

[sal]

if you are planning on a lot of manipulation

DSD is no good for manipulation at any rate. My understanding is that most of the DSD recording lived in PCM at some time...for the purposes of manipulation

 

[Robin L]

I think the real question is "Why does vinyl seem to sound better to some?"

I think I mentioned this before. Something like 5 years ago, got my hands on a Scott 299B integrated amp. Had a pair of RBH floorstanding speakers, smallish with a 6" mid-woofer and a 1" dome tweeter, a Strathclyde 305 M turntable, SME III arm, Shure 97xE cartridge. I was finding a lot of vintage mono discs in playable condition, had access to an ultrasonic LP cleaner, got a lot of the Frank Sinatra LPs in their first incarnation. The sound was rolled off on top in such a way as to make the midrange pop out and making everything in the treble smooth out. The speakers were too small to have much bass below 70hz so real bass wasn't an issue. The net result made the singer's presence in the room greater when compared to playing the same disc or corresponding CD over solid state gear. I'm heard the same audible Illusion at demos of SET amps with high efficiency speakers. The Scott 299B was on its last legs, gave out within a year. I was lucky enough to be able to sell it at a yard sale.

Based on the gear I'm using now, I have no desire to return to LPs and turntables, all that fussing, all the time the new LP turned out to be badly pressed. But when it was good, it was very good. A different set of sonic flavorings that some will be attracted to, not to mention the inherently greater collectibility of LPs.

I've been wanting to hear the 2015 remaster of Van Morrison's "Astral Weeks" for years. When I was collecting and playing LPs, Astral Weeks as an LP always sounded better than Astral Weeks the CD. The CD is an early issue, like many other analog to digital transfers from the 1980s, the engineers erred on the side of caution, resulting in a CD with lower than average level. The LP also sounded richer, with edges blurred. I'm listening to the 2015 transfer via Amazon Music right now. Everything is more present. But this all depends on memory, which of course is pretty faulty. I know that listening via headphones isn't the same thing as listening over speakers, and there's a thousand other variables thrown in the mix when making these kinds of comparisons. But I'm pretty sure I would enjoy both versions, albeit in different ways.

 

[Bullwinkle J Moose]

Do we know why records sound so much better than digital yet?

I think you meant, Do we know why "some" records sound so much better than digital yet?

Why yes we do, and we also know why many digital recordings sound so much better than many records

Thanks for asking!