• 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.

danadam

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
957
Likes
1,497
And one of the desires was to be able to record and convey the qualities of Stradivari/Guarneri del Gesu violins in the hands of a master artist. I can tell you that in person, the differences between these and lesser violins was quite astonishing.
Listener evaluations of new and Old Italian violins:
The results are unambiguous: listeners found that new violins projected significantly better than those by Stradivari. Moreover, listeners preferred new violins over old by a significant margin. Although the listeners came from various professional backgrounds (they included musicians, violin makers, and acousticians), very similar results were obtained from all backgrounds.
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
I just don't think it can be called a "significant" difference.


you mean large or substantial?

or what?

a significant difference is a special statistical term, which is related to the size of the differences, but also to sample size and the balancing to types of errors
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City
you mean large or substantial?

or what?

a significant difference is a special statistical term, which is related to the size of the differences, but also to sample size and the balancing to types of errors


Notice that the poster to whom I was responding said “there is a significant difference between 16/44.1 and "hi-rez" . I took it as a proportional, not statistical, description, and responded in kind.

However, if we are going down this pedantic rathole, and given the studies I linked, I’d say we have seen neither statistical nor proportional significance.
 

Wes

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Messages
3,843
Likes
3,788
nothing pedantic about clarity

unless you like ratholes
 

Bob from Florida

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
1,257
Likes
1,164
I have records, CD's, CD's ripped to storage - wav file via dbpoweramp, CD's ripped to Apple lossless, and even some hi rez files. Which one I use has more to do with what level of convenience is desired at the time or the medium a specific song is located. If I don't like the way it sounds - usually it is the music itself. The solution is "change the song". With digital - press the button and you skip to something else. Vinyl forces you to get your butt off the couch to move the needle or change records. This could be good for your waistline if you have a hard time finding music you like.
 

Objectivist01

Senior Member
Joined
May 24, 2020
Messages
317
Likes
117
Three things come to mind.

1. Better mastering; no loudness wars for vinyl.
2. Euphoric distortion.
3. Psychoacoustics. When I am going to focus on music with intent, I usually pour a drink and put a big wholesome record onto my gorgeous analog system, after taking pride in ownership of the physical medium and spending a moment looking at the artwork in my hand. It sounds way better to my ears than the digital I stream while working.
psychoacoustics is not that.
 

Helicopter

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
2,693
Likes
3,944
Location
Michigan
psychoacoustics is not that.

Need me to express the exact same ideas as if it is a fourth grade report? I'll entertain:

3. Some scientists study the perception of sound. This kind of science is called psychoacoustics. Your brain changes your perception of sound. Your perception of sound depends on what your brain is doing.

Vinyl records are a type of analog audio recording media. CDs and FLAC files are some types of digital audio recording media. FLAC is actually a computer file type. A CD is a disc. CDs, FLAC files and other digital media reproduce sound with less distortion and more dynamic range than vinyl records, unless someone messes with the recording for some reason. The loudness war is one reason people mess up some recordings. Objectively, vinyl records are not as good at reproducing audio signals as digital media. Some tapes also work better than vinyl.

Some people think that vinyl records sound better. This is mostly because their brains change their perception of sound. It is not because of the differences in the sound waves coming out of their speakers and headphones. The sound is not as good. some people like sound that is not as good. Most of the time, when people prefer the sound of vinyl records though, it is because of other things influencing their perception of sound.

Record players look really cool. So do record covers. Splatter records and colored records also look cool. It is fun to watch the record spin around. You have to put the record on there. Since you have to do that, it makes you pay attention. You also pay attention because it looks cool. When you pay more attention you hear more stuff. Alcohol also changes people's perceptions. Vinyl costs more money than YouTube on your phone. You can connect your phone in a car. You don't have to pay attention in a car or on a train.

When your brain is focused, and everything looks cool, and you hear more stuff because you are paying attention, and have high expectations, this changes perception of sound. It makes the sound perceived get better, even though the sound waves going into your ears are not as good. In conclusion, psychoacoustics is a good tool for understanding why some people think vinyl records sound better than digital.

Bibliography:

Other threads on the forum, school class, and other stuff on the internet. You can search for 'psychoacoustics' on the forum.

It is a good idea to assume that other people on the forum might have read other stuff on the forum, and stuff that is not on the forum. That will help you to post smart stuff. You can elaborate on something concise without being abrasive.
 
Last edited:

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,952
Likes
8,698
Location
New York City

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
Helicopter, there's only one word I would change in your fourth-grade report, and that's "good", from "the sound is not as good."

One of the problems is defining "good". This thread has pointed out that the surface noise on vinyl records comes in two types. One of them is the "vinyl roar", or scraping noise, which tends to low frequencies in my experience (and based on the FFT's I've looked at from silent grooves--none of which I have handy in my present location). Record a silent groove to your computer, using a level that brings peak music to close to 0 dB, and then analyze it in Audacity to create a spectrogram using a fast Fourier transform (FFT). That will show quite a high noise level in the low bass region--maybe as high as -40 to -35 dB. Dust, micro-scratches, and transients caused by large scratches create a lot of transient noise with wave shapes that demonstrate the high-frequency capability of the playback system. (I'm not even including damaged high-frequency response from LPs that have been overplayed or played using a worn stylus or too much tracking force, or the tendency of many cartridges to hot-rod the high-frequency response.)

Both of those noise sources are objectionable or not based on a range of issues. One is the playback system. Many playback systems mortals could afford back when LPs were the standard delivery medium rolled off in the top octave. For example, my Advent loudspeakers, which were extremely popular in the 70's, roll off above 14 or 15 KHz. The "New" Advent loudspeakers, which I used, extended those a bit, but they still rolled off. That doesn't affect musical information very much, but it does affect some of the room acoustics in the space where the music was recorded. It also affects some of the intentional distortion products from amplified musical instruments used in rock music. Most of the time that roll-off has no real effect on the listener experience, particularly for we old guys who still fiddle with turntables. It clearly minimizes some of the effect of that high-frequency surface noise.

And speakers like those Advents, which used an acoustic suspension design that dominated the product space in the 70's, at least for classical music listeners, demonstrate a very tight and controlled bass, sometimes to a fault. That helps keep that vinyl roar from resonating and booming.

So, "good" systems of the vinyl era lacked the ability to emphasize the noise products inherent in vinyl playback. When played on systems that are truly linear to frequencies in the 20's, or in the top half of the top octave, we hear that noise more clearly (unless our old-age hearing is already rolling it off in the top octave, which mine certainly is). A system that makes vinyl sound really good, by minimizing the frequencies where those noise products are most objectionable, might close up a cleaner, more linear source technology such as CD's and digital playback.

Vinyl can sound really nice in a system that makes best use of what it's good at and helps mask what it does poorly, but in no way is it as transparent as digital playback (that's what you mean by not sounding as "good", but it assumes that transparency was the objective, at least in those days). The coloration that is the reason for a lack of transparency, because that's what we were used to, was our reference. CD's at first sounded brittle and crispy, especially if our system sounded brittle and crispy for those added frequencies (and without the masking of that floor of vinyl roar in the low bass). The psychoacoustic part includes the contribution of our expectations, and if we expect what vinyl does, the violation of those expectations will be a distraction initially.

But, yes, alcohol helps. So do Advents, in the absence of old age. :)

Rick "afraid of words like 'good' and 'bad' that have moral and judgmental overtones often aimed at children, as opposed to 'transparent' and 'colored', or even 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate'" Denney
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,592
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Rick "afraid of words like 'good' and 'bad' that have moral and judgmental overtones often aimed at children, as opposed to 'transparent' and 'colored', or even 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate'" Denney
Good and bad, I define these things, quite clear to me somehow . . .
 

Kegemusha

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
488
Likes
462
I still think CD sounds better to me, put som Radiohead CD and you will see, specially "In Rainbows".
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
Maybe it's all about context. For example, I'm THRILLED to have a good reception for my moving truck's FM radio and it sounds great with the window down. Just having music at all makes me happy. Then I think about the ritual at home, turning down the lights, playing some music and at the end of the day, if my mind is all set to enjoy the music, no matter what comes out, it will sound great. But if I'm distracted because work sucked, music obviously won't sound as good - do I blame my mindset or the source?
 

lashto

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,045
Likes
535
It is one of those threads in which the topic-question presumes something untrue or unproven. Thus, it is doomed to be ridiculous.
Interesting observation but I don't think you fully nailed it.
There are many posts in many places from many many people who think exactly like the OP. A sizeable percent of the pop thinks that lps/tubes/etc sound better. In that sense, the OP's affirmation is both true and quite well proven.
The OP goes wrong when he presents his own thinking as universally valid. It's not, it's just a matter of preferences: some people like LP 'musicality' some like CD 'clarity' some like none of those.

The real trouble is that a surprisingly large percent of the population (over 50% I'd say) simply cannot differentiate between their preferences and universally valid preferences/truths.
That is actually what makes the OP and the whole thread seriosly ridiculous.

P.S.
before you go "ha ha what a ridiculous OP", some of you might wanna re-read your posts. Pretty much same amount of ridiculousness in this thread from the '"I prefer CD/lowTHD" camp. And even more aggressive than the OP
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
There is certainly a contingent here who believe that the proven obsolescence of vinyl playback is sufficient reason to ignore it altogether (and I mean “ignore” in the most active way, as in being seen to vociferously ignore it). But I think there is value in using science to get the most out of even obsolete playback technologies, if they are still made relevant by the libraries people own, and by the enjoyment of using that technology. That we want to do that need not mean we are doomed to romantic uncontrolled subjectivism in the way we think about it.

But the thesis that vinyl is better in any dimension is not proved by popularity, assertion, or repetition. Proving that thesis takes controlled testing, objectively using measurements and subjectively using blind tests. That testing has already been done, which is why the OP’s thread title poses a false premise.

Rick “transparent playback is not a ‘camp’” Denney
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
But I think there is value in using science to get the most out of even obsolete playback technologies, if they are still made relevant by the libraries people own, and by the enjoyment of using that technology.
I see that but I don't see ths forum as the place for it to be done.
Nothing genuinely new has come out about playing records for decades and most of what was known about record manufacture and playing when I was involved almost 50 years ago is just as true today.
There are plenty of places to read about record players, almost every hifi forum in English in fact, and IMO, it would be a shame for this forum to join in when it is a nice logical place of relative calm and good sense for the time being.
 

JP

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
2,276
Likes
2,449
Location
Brookfield, CT
But I think there is value in using science to get the most out of even obsolete playback technologies, if they are still made relevant by the libraries people own, and by the enjoyment of using that technology.

I see that but I don't see ths forum as the place for it to be done.
Nothing genuinely new has come out about playing records for decades and most of what was known about record manufacture and playing when I was involved almost 50 years ago is just as true today.
There are plenty of places to read about record players, almost every hifi forum in English in fact, and IMO, it would be a shame for this forum to join in when it is a nice logical place of relative calm and good sense for the time being.

This is what interests me about it, and I'm sure several others here. There's nothin mentally challenging for me in a manufacturer squeezing another dB of SINAD out of their DAC implementation. I'm fully aware that there's no trail-blazing in records; just re-learning things beginning to be lost in time.

I don't think the topic is counter to logic, calm, or good sense. I'm not aware of many (any?) places to discuss record players today that aren't dominated by nonsense. Would be nice to have one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom