Great answer ! No BS . Some things we still don't understand . I hope you custom mastering lathe has the most accurate & steady speed motor driving the platter . There are some turntables now with steadier speed than past mastering lathes , IMO .
I enjoy Vinyl, CD, and streaming - I'm not too bothered if there are differences one way or the other, as long as the version of what I'm listening to is enjoyable I just sit back and relax and enjoy the music.
This just shows that some people prefer lo-fi for some music, and thats fine. Wide dynamic range can be a problem on some home systems with quiet passages too low or loud passages too loud. Very high quality recordings sound great on a high quality system but not so good on a budget system. Conversely, high quality systems can be very unkind to poor recordings and these poor recordings may sound better on a budget system.
I've always suggested that transferring to vinyl acts as the perfect integrator. It does what no active electronics can do. It forces pure physical compliance. The transition between sample points is forced to follow a perfectly smoothed filtering. No ringing, no phase shifts. No digital switching noise.
But there's definitely ringing and phase shifts there, because those things naturally happen in filtering (so also in vinyl). I'm not sure what you mean by "digital switching noise". But anyway, I love vinyl. I don't know exactly why, but I think the pure physical experience of it is a huge part of it. Going just by the numbers and measurements, vinyl just basically sucks compared to modern technology in every single way. But it still sounds lovely to my ears. The whole messy process behind a vinyl copy creates a sonic color that loses a lot of detail and ads a tonne of distortion and noise, but it's such a nice place to be. It tends to flatter the sound of many music productions in a really nice and familiar sounding way.
@@jaydy71 No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl. It is not physically possible. They may have existed on the signal being cut into the grooves. But the terms have no meaning for the vinyl itself. When a clock cycle occurs, a pulse is either generated or not based on the bit. If YES then a pulse is generated for that clock cycle. Then the next cycle. You see the results as a series of pulses. Various attempts are made to smooth those pulses back into some continuous wave again. But some level of that pulse/ switching/ noise remains. Especially with DSD in the Megs for sampling, vinyl can not PHYSICALLY store that and provides a MECHANICAL filtering. No existing electronic circuit/ software does so to that level. And what about modern technology impresses you? It's reduced bandwidth? Vinyl has been shown to store up to 125khz. Even simple CD4 way back in the day at over 40Khz (60Khz) is impossible on CD. S/Ns have been measured over 110DB like Freddy's canons. There is a reason that while digital manufacturers try to brag about how close to analog they are getting. Not a single Analog manufacturer brags about sounding digital!
@@glenncurry3041 "No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl. It is not physically possible. They may have existed on the signal being cut into the grooves. But the terms have no meaning for the vinyl itself. " What about all the filtering going on in the RIAA filter in vinyl playback? They will of course introduce phase shifts (and ringing). Any filtering does that, it's a natural side effect of any filtering. Put a cloth in front of your speakers (as an acoustic filter), and there will be phase shifting. There are digital filters without phase shifts (not possible in analog), but they have their own issues (unnatural pre-ringing and latency). But that said: phase shifts are not really an issue by itself. A phase shift is inaudible in isolation. What I like about digital is that it doesn't have a "sound"; as a format it's just basically transparent. What I like about analog is that it has a "sound"; it changes the source material in (potentially) pleasing ways. So as a music producer and audio engineer (and most of all, a music lover) I like both, but for very different reasons.
@@jaydy71 Please read what I actually posted. "No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl." ... "ON vinyl". No discussion of getting it there nor off. That the physical vinyl itself provides a natural physical integration/ smoothing/ filtering that lacks the ringing and phase shifts inherent in electronic processing. A cloth is a perfect physical filter example. Strain gage cartridge's did not use RIAA because they do not have frequency dependent inductive reactance. Meanwhile, digital conversion, especially PCM and Red Book, destroy sound quality. Far worse frequency response, less S/N, destroys transients, especially when sigma delta is used instead of ladder. Just the filtering and integration needed in and out destroys the sound. I had an interesting discussion with some Sony digital engineers at an AES meeting about PCM way back before the CD when a portable ADC fed a vtr. I asked about a linear time based distortion I identified in the process. They said not to worry, the filtering and integration, getting the signal in and out, destroyed the signal enough you would not hear that.
@@glenncurry3041 "No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl." Exactly the same is true on a (non-lossy) digital format, and I'd argue even less so. "Meanwhile, digital conversion, especially PCM and Red Book, destroy sound quality. Far worse frequency response, less S/N, destroys transients, especially when sigma delta is used instead of ladder. Just the filtering and integration needed in and out destroys the sound. " Measurements don't back up your claim. Just think about what a vinyl master is: First an analog signal is physically scratched onto a 'mother' disc (don't you think that won't come with some degradation?). But before that happens, all the low frequencies are collapsed to mono (just to prevent certain physical limitations of vinyl). Then there's the RIAA stuff going on to just fit the audio onto vinyl, and then afterwards correct for that with the opposite filtering. All in all, that stuff leads to a lot of degradation. And then you play the vinyl copy back on your system, and then you'll have a lot of surface noise and whatnot. Digital audio on the other hand is a lot more direct. It's just an anti-aliasing filter for recording, and then a reconstruction filter to play it back accurately. No surface noise, no physical medium in between, no extra filtering or frequency-dependent collapsing to mono to make it actually work in practice. Digital PCM is just a hell of a lot cleaner. I still love to listen to vinyl though, but not because it's an accurate format. I love it for nostalgic experience and the color it adds.
Paul, if compression is the difference then the test is real simple. Since you have access to the "compressed" version of the music, then you can listen to the compressed digital version through your DAC. Now every DAC is going to sound different but at the end of the day if they still dont have the "life like" quality of vonyl, then the hypothesis around compression can be ruled out.
What Paul explained is 100% my experience with the wonderful and special Octave Records Say Somethin’ album by Gabriel Mervine. I purchased the vinyl and the DSD download (Paul you need to give a discount for bundling - LOL). The vinyl just sounds more alive and magical. My friends agree as well. Maybe it's the DAC - but I am running a pretty good high-end (~$8.5K) musical DAC based on AKM’s AK4499EQ switched resistor architecture with an incorporated FPGA.
Obviously it is different. And in your opinion (and others) it sounds better. But is it better? Or is it distorted in some way which you and others like? I.e. I remember the old stereo system of my father with hall effect. Somehow it sounded better. But was it technically better? Or was it different but not really better?
The explanation why Vinyl sounds better is because it is a compressed format and as a result people hear more and louder. This is the same dynamics (no pun intended) that caused the Loudness War. Vinyl is just louder! Crank your SACDs volume up, then compare!
Hears my take on it I listen to bough formats but digital to my eyer sounds cold and clinical where as analog analog sounds warmer musical especially from vinyl and just like Paul and many others I can’t tell you why. perhaps it’s that little bit of distortion that makes it so real to our ears. 😎🇬🇧
I noticed years ago that when I recorded onto my DAT recorder and/or into my Marantz cdr615 they maintain that same sound quality of the L.P.. Not sure why.
The reason why the vinyl version (derived from the DSD capture) sounds better might be due to which digital music player you are using vs which turntable/tone-arm/cartridge/phono-amp you are using. How good is the music player's transport? Which interconnects is the customer using? Power cords significantly impact the sound quality of DACs, vs negligible impact to phono-amps. What power cord was used for the digital music player? Some DACs sound great when feeding same-brand pre-amps. Yet, that same DAC loses its magic when connected to some other highly respected pre-amp. Some components simply get along better. Brand "A" DAC and pre-amp sound great together. Brand "B" DAC and pre-amp sound great together. Either pairing is heaven. But when brand "A" DAC is paired up with brand "B" pre-amp, you fall asleep. Same for "B" -> "A". Also, all it takes is one so-so part in the digital music player to diminish its sound quality. Has it been ascertained that that music player is a podium winner, before we compare it to vinyl? Lots of variables. @3:39 "...a needle wiggling back and forth..." Stereos contain no needles. Needles are for sewing and flu shots. Lots of novices really believe that it is a needle. An influential channel should not perpetuate that misinformation. @0:24 "...180 gram..." Heavy vinyl is a selling gimmick. I have never heard an outstanding sounding heavy pressing. I will no longer waste $$ on them. And if you are buying heavy vinyl in an effort to get better sound quality, then you would have to adjust your tone-arm's VTA (vertical tracking alignment) to get the most out of the height difference between a standard pressing and a thicker pressing that changes the angle of the stylus. Are there any outstanding sounding heavy pressings? Perhaps. There are probably some items of value in some dumpsters, too, if you search through enough of them.
The vinyl wasn't created from an original DSD capture. The album was captured, mixed, and mastered in 24 bit PCM at a maximum sampling rate of 96 kHz. The vinyl sounds better due to the fact that as PCM it could be mastered specifically for vinyl. On the other hand, while a PCM master can also be created for DSD the digital conversion from PCM causes audible issues along with the added noise that is needed to quantitize DSD.
I agree with you, Paul. It does sound like a compressor with make up gain, hence, it is easier to hear those harder to hear sibilance or quieter passage. It does feel “more”, but is it better?
Besides some components being superior others, this is more preference than anything. This isn't naming the most reliable automobile of the past 5 years, but more a measure of how much an individual enjoys a thing. I love driving a manual transmission. Is it slower..faster...sexier? Who knows? Who cares? It's just what I love and that's that.
@Eric Wow! Nice phono preamp. The 6L6GC amp looks also intriguing. And even usable as a first class headphone amp. Will buy one with the Lundahl OPT upgrade kit. My tube phono preamp is the YS-Audio Concerto Plus with much better coupling caps than stock. Amazing sound, only for moving magnet. Thanks for the tip! 🙂
Every time this happens is because the equipment and the room are unable to handle the superior dynamic range and channel seperation of the digital medium, so, they favor the vinyl. Also, as Paul says, dynamic compression of the higher harmonic content makes it (artificially) more present in vinyl. Once I did this: I heard an old jazz album in 16/44.1 in two versions: The first was from a CD-remastered and the second from a digitized vinyl playback. The second was really more "vibrant" and "lively" sounding. Using the Audacity programm I chose a small part of the track and made a frequency analysis of the content. I was amazed to see that the vinyl had content from 13KHz-20KHz at a much higher level than the CD version (-60 to -63dB compared to -85 to -94dBfor the CD). So, vinyl compression works for the better perception of the higher harmonics in a home playback environment. If I'd wish to bring up those highs to the same level using the CD version, I'd also have to raise the rest of the spectrum around 25dB. That would be almost life-like sized for sure, but my "poor" equipment would be unable to handle it! So, my verdict is that vinyl is more friendly to equipment and home-listening environment, that;s why it may sound better. Still, one can easily hear also the areas where digital is superior.
Ok Paul, I agree with you that the DSD is the original MASTER that was made in the mastering stage of the label. I assume you've already done this test, if not do it. When I have recorded a vinyl even on CD-R (using a Yamaha recorder), the sound is identical to the vinyl. Now the simple CD sounds identical, if you match levels, to the vinyl where you got it from, that blew my mind I couldn't believe it, I did several other tests and it was always the same. Apparently going from digital to vinyl there are obvious differences, but from vinyl to digital there are no more.
DSD WAS NOT the original master of this album. The album was recorded and mixed using PCM at a potential maximum sample rate of 24 bit 96 kHz. The actual reasons that the vinyl sounds better than the DSD has to do with flawed digital to digital conversion from PCM to DSD and the noise that is added to DSD to prevent quantization errors.
@@JonAnderhub Jon I understand what you are saying, I started from an assumption, as Paul said, that the original was DSD. Now the point in question and in this I agree with you that the conversion from PCM to DSD if not done well can cause errors. However, my point is that taking the analog sound of vinyl to PCM solves it very well, much better than I expected, on the other hand I don't know of a single vinyl that can be heard as a CD.
Digital vs Vinyl. To make any observation here meaningful (or even 'fair') one would have to specify similar costing front ends (including p/stage). To make any generic statement you would have to include an analysis across different genres and recordings. Different price points may also have a bearing e.g. maybe complex orchestral on a sub $1k front end is better on one, but maybe evens out on a $5k front end. It's a rabbit hole!
Is driving a Ferrari better than riding a horse? The definition of Better is so subjective, as long as the listener can really enjoy the music and its sound, the recording medium, vinyl, magmatic tape, or digital, already serve their main purpose. Paul is always fun and educational to listen to, we know Paul's soothing voice, but I often wonder what Lincoln real voice sounded like.
Because they are doing vinyl now, if they would stay with DSD/SACD you'd hear from Paul that there was no way vinyl was better than SACD. Personally, I can tolerate vinyl and I have a lot of it, but if there is a SACD available for the same material made from the original source, I dump vinyl immediately.
If the vinyl pressing is recorded back to digital from a top notch turntable,cartridge and RIAA preamp, then the "vinyl sound" is captured. The CD can then be labelled "vinyl simulated".
@@ThinkingBetter Actually, I'm a musician and would feel less engaged if imperfections were added to my music during a performance or listening to someone else's performance. I don't get engaged by ticks, pops, wow and flutter, and other distortions. I listen to the performance above all and the hopefully it is ACCURATE as possible.
@@mr.b4444 Yes, I agree and long ago I was playing vinyl as my most premium audio experience and have since transitions away from it. In the transition I did have to get my brain reprogrammed to not associate these imperfections with live feel. Nowadays I am more excited about when I can discover those details that with vinyl drown in noise and clicks.
Electrons have wave and temporal properties. The magical effect has to do with the motion of the lathe in between the grooves of the LR region(of the LP) during the mastering process. Since it's an electromechanical process, the information fed into the lathe as either a magnetic flux or electric charge moves the lathe on the medium radially between the two extreme regions of the grooves. In my opinion, this transducer exchange of information between the two mediums(magnet/charge and groove) creates phase distortion(and therefore, change in the wave properties of the electrons holding musical information) in the purest possible way, which is in concordance with the rules of nature aka physics.
A vinyl record is OBJECTIVELY inferior to even a CD. This is not up for debate, even by Paul as he's shared in his response. But those euphonic distortions that vinyl records produce is pleasing to us and we love them. But they are by no means an indication of purity or accuracy.
A vinyl turntable is able to produce a small amount of sound all by itself, ie I can and have run a turntable without preamps, post-amps, etc, just the belt motor, and have been able to pick up audio at a very pleasing degree just using piezo disc pickups on the needle arm itself.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio He said "extra noise" and said the DSD file is "unnecessary (unnecessarily) large." Essentially he is correct. Compared to PCM a large amount of noise must be added over a rather large bandwidth to DSD in order to facilitate quantization and this extra noise contributes to the size a DSD file.
@@JonAnderhub Thanks, Jon, and indeed you're correct about the added noise. My point was that that noise is necessary. As you know, that's how DSD works. The sweet spot for DSD is 128 where that extra needed noise is completely out of the audio band.
People become accustomed to a particular set of characteristics and consider them "right" whether or not they are any good at all. This is why some claim records sound better when in fact they just plain suck in comparison to CDs, let alone DSD / SACD. Divorcing one idea from another can be Very difficult when you don't adequately understand either of them.
...'pink noise friction sauce'....implicit in lossy vinyl format....which is frozen 'thin' in the laquer mastering process and the bass is thrown back in by a pre-amp via RIAA curve on playback.... there's an audiofuzz to vinyl that soothes some ears like a white noise CD for a babies...but it's not accurate...at all. And people make a lot of money from the inherent flaws of vinyl making more and more expensive 'revealing systems' that can let you 'really hear it'....on this type of 'special plastic'. The Vinyl of Oz.
Vinyl better than digital? Digital better than vinyl? Nope, just different. It depends. If the vinyl record is sourced digitally, I'm not interested in it and it likely will not sound that good. I have heard a couple of so-called "audiophile" records done that way and they just sound off to me. I prefer my vinyl to be AAA or at very least ADA. Analog medium has limited range, but there is nothing wrong with that in itself. There is more than enough range on analog media to get all the music data, especially all that the human ear can hear. (I get so tired of hearing the BS argument that records don't sound good because they lack enough range for all the musical data). I find AAA records to sound full and inviting. The problem starts when trying to stick digital, which has a far greater range onto analog. What often ends up happening is that certain frequencies cut cut off or rolled off that are within the range of the analog medium because they are superseded by the range of the digital source, which can't be reproduced by your turntable and stylus, so the record ends up sounding harsh and off. I don't like analog sourced recordings put on CD either, they sound lifeless to me. Digital for digital and analog for analog is my motto. I have some great sounding CDs as well, but they were recorded digitally and done for that media.
Lately I notice that you are using a new philosophy in dealing with this topic… “Honesty is the best policy“. Until you discover why some DSD recordings transferred to produce vinyl records sound better then the original DSD. The best thing to say is ‘I don’t know just yet’. I definitely understand that you are working to understand why this is true at present and I applaud your new way of responding to questions like this.
I'll state the obvious... All recordings no matter what is used has *problems.* We all know there is no perfect reproduction of live voice/musical instruments. Plus, people have different opinions on what they like, so one "way" of recording will never be accepted by all people. Just enjoy what you think is the best and let other people enjoy their way.
Other people enjoying what they think is best isn't an issue. When people go on a public forum and say "In my opinion x is the best for recording or playback." Then they open themselves up to opposing opinions. When somebody states, it is factual, without qualifying that it is an opinion, then they need to be able to prove or defend that statement. "Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
Do you think they will ever make DSD Vinyls, that can play on analogue turntables and digital systems? I have always wanted to see digital and analogues merge together.
Analog vinyl or digital (re)masterd vinyl ??? Is real food betyter than processed food ??? Is AI better than ....humans ??? You're a lucky man Paul to have some great engineers.......
Interesting comment Paul made about building his own custom Master LP cutter. The last time that was done for ultra high quality LPs was the RCA Quadraphonic project in the early 70's. RCA spent over $1,000,000 per cutter and built 5 of them. Quad was a marketing disaster but the cutters ended up in the hands of places like Sheffield Labs
Now that's just too funny! Here you are Paul trying to defend DSD to somebody who thinks that vinyl sounds better than DSD. Now just to be clear the album in question was not recorded with DSD, but was in fact recorded on a Pro Tools rig using PCM, more than likely at 24 bit 48kHz (because there was a subsequent video release of the concert) or at best 24 bit 96 kHz. The show was recorded and mixed by Al Schmitt ( you probably have a lot of his albums in your collection) and mastered by Doug Sax (Pink Floyd, The Wall amongst a list that never ends) (using those studio standard speakers you are always griping about). I think it is interesting how you try and explain that the vinyl might sound better because of the use of compression limiting the dynamic range after all your statements about how compression is so bad and takes the life out of music. I would just like to add that you actually list her rendition of California Dreaming (John Phillips, Michelle Phillips) as one of your "Paul's Picks". That was also recorded in PCM on a Pro Tools Rig at 24 bit (at best) 96 kHz. Sorry Paul, but your conclusion that DSD is the "perfect capture" just isn't evident.
I think the reason vinyl sounds better is because of the lack of continuity with digital. Analog is continuous. Digital is sampled. Regardless if it’s DSD or PCM. Not only that but most of us were brought up listening to vinyl. So subconsciously we can tell the difference between the two. I’m a fan of digital but love the “warm” sound of vinyl. Just hate those pops and clicks. Kind of like the problem todays TV’s have with motion interfering with the refresh rates.
What about CD? Everyone is acting like CD quality is so much worse, hogwash. People, enyoy what format you like. Are you going to abandon your format that you spent so much money on already.
It's easy as making chips to explain!!! Nothing is better than a true analog master!!! Play with an expression evaluator and you'll learn something i think, you never seens (square sinus!!!), and i do thinks that you really don't kwo what you're talking about! Sorry! Dynamics shrinked😂, vinyls dynamics above 500hz is way more than your 24bits! you certainly have superman ears to support more than 85Db (125Db with a normal room floor of 40Db) of dynamics for more than 10 minutes at 3 meters of yours speakers!!! Don't you kown than ears wounds start at 85DB!!! 😎 Having authorized digital to disribute over 85db of bass dynamics was certenly the most harmfull things done by the consortiums! Vinyl is capable of reproducing pure sinus wave up to 110Khz(0db here) (78Rpm), try to have this with you craps DSD4096 (supposed 15 IPS quality 🤣)🙃 Digital is the most craps things distubuted as high quality analog sound reproduction. It was born for video games, and should have never quite this range of use. Same occurs for video also as well as pictures! In a near futur everyones will laugth about people who were claimed that digital was better than analog support for these domains! (The video didn't ever has it chance to have it's pinacle in the analog support because of the money these thieves could do with the digital, they knew it, everyone can proove they scams with i reapeat an expression evaluator) You were fooled till 1983 up to 2022 i hope!😂 Have a chance to ears up to 30Khz, and have digital knowledge, because my money never quit the vinyls, tapes, vhs, Laserdisc, 8mm, etc!!! (TRUE RAW SIGNAL with their physical limitations of course). High dynamics who cares, billiard of pixel what for, every things is cold mathematical compressed data in numeric with i reapeat SQUARE SINUS FOR 22049hz sinus AT 441KHZ and STAIGHT STAIRS AT 192KHZ, STAIRS SLOPE AT 500KHZ, VISIBLE SINUS AT 1MGHZ!! YOU SHOULD NEVER SEEN A PERIOD OF A SINUS IF IT'S CORRECTLY REPODUCED AT EVERY FREQUENCY) 🤑
Vinyl not only better than dsd512 but should also ride of DSD8192, as my now dsd512 native file just come closer to a cassette... Didital's dead, 768Khz 24 bit pcm storage is just not viable regarding analog support!
Vinyl and DSD are wildly flawed formats. I can't believe anyone still thinks vinyl sounds good these days. I mean it's really a joke. I thought all audiophiles with "high-resolving" systems would be able to hear the flaws with their amazing ears.
If you think analogue or digital formats are "widely flawed", then by that analogy, it means that only un-amplified acoustic instruments are not flawed. So the vast majority of music is out of reach of many people & not to most people's tastes.
@@cameraplus7233 wow, great deduction Sherlock. No the point is PCM is superior format to DSD. And I still record using analog tape so I don't think all analog formats are flawed. You just made that up. I never said that in the message.
@@Wizardofgosz Apologies for not being able to read the first line of your comment - "Vinyl and DSD are wildly flawed formats." I must have made that up as you say. 🤡
@@cameraplus7233 Richard Wielgosz is correct. Vinyl has a high noise level, a very limited dynamic range, very poor frequency response, and degrades every time it is used. DSD has to have a lot of noise added to the original signal in order to maintain quantization and that noise must be filtered in order to playback the DSD without damaging equipment. The quality of the playback is determined by the quality and manufacture of the playback components and neither format plays back the recorded signal 100% accurately.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
Great answer ! No BS . Some things we still don't understand . I hope you custom mastering lathe has the most accurate & steady speed motor driving the platter . There are some turntables now with steadier speed than past mastering lathes , IMO .
I enjoy Vinyl, CD, and streaming - I'm not too bothered if there are differences one way or the other, as long as the version of what I'm listening to is enjoyable I just sit back and relax and enjoy the music.
This just shows that some people prefer lo-fi for some music, and thats fine. Wide dynamic range can be a problem on some home systems with quiet passages too low or loud passages too loud. Very high quality recordings sound great on a high quality system but not so good on a budget system. Conversely, high quality systems can be very unkind to poor recordings and these poor recordings may sound better on a budget system.
Bingo that's why all this is debatable, it all depends on the listener.
I've always suggested that transferring to vinyl acts as the perfect integrator. It does what no active electronics can do. It forces pure physical compliance. The transition between sample points is forced to follow a perfectly smoothed filtering. No ringing, no phase shifts. No digital switching noise.
But there's definitely ringing and phase shifts there, because those things naturally happen in filtering (so also in vinyl). I'm not sure what you mean by "digital switching noise".
But anyway, I love vinyl. I don't know exactly why, but I think the pure physical experience of it is a huge part of it. Going just by the numbers and measurements, vinyl just basically sucks compared to modern technology in every single way. But it still sounds lovely to my ears.
The whole messy process behind a vinyl copy creates a sonic color that loses a lot of detail and ads a tonne of distortion and noise, but it's such a nice place to be. It tends to flatter the sound of many music productions in a really nice and familiar sounding way.
@@jaydy71 No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl. It is not physically possible. They may have existed on the signal being cut into the grooves. But the terms have no meaning for the vinyl itself.
When a clock cycle occurs, a pulse is either generated or not based on the bit. If YES then a pulse is generated for that clock cycle. Then the next cycle. You see the results as a series of pulses. Various attempts are made to smooth those pulses back into some continuous wave again. But some level of that pulse/ switching/ noise remains. Especially with DSD in the Megs for sampling, vinyl can not PHYSICALLY store that and provides a MECHANICAL filtering. No existing electronic circuit/ software does so to that level.
And what about modern technology impresses you? It's reduced bandwidth? Vinyl has been shown to store up to 125khz. Even simple CD4 way back in the day at over 40Khz (60Khz) is impossible on CD. S/Ns have been measured over 110DB like Freddy's canons. There is a reason that while digital manufacturers try to brag about how close to analog they are getting. Not a single Analog manufacturer brags about sounding digital!
@@glenncurry3041 "No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl. It is not physically possible. They may have existed on the signal being cut into the grooves. But the terms have no meaning for the vinyl itself. "
What about all the filtering going on in the RIAA filter in vinyl playback? They will of course introduce phase shifts (and ringing). Any filtering does that, it's a natural side effect of any filtering. Put a cloth in front of your speakers (as an acoustic filter), and there will be phase shifting. There are digital filters without phase shifts (not possible in analog), but they have their own issues (unnatural pre-ringing and latency).
But that said: phase shifts are not really an issue by itself. A phase shift is inaudible in isolation.
What I like about digital is that it doesn't have a "sound"; as a format it's just basically transparent. What I like about analog is that it has a "sound"; it changes the source material in (potentially) pleasing ways. So as a music producer and audio engineer (and most of all, a music lover) I like both, but for very different reasons.
@@jaydy71 Please read what I actually posted. "No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl." ... "ON vinyl". No discussion of getting it there nor off. That the physical vinyl itself provides a natural physical integration/ smoothing/ filtering that lacks the ringing and phase shifts inherent in electronic processing. A cloth is a perfect physical filter example. Strain gage cartridge's did not use RIAA because they do not have frequency dependent inductive reactance.
Meanwhile, digital conversion, especially PCM and Red Book, destroy sound quality. Far worse frequency response, less S/N, destroys transients, especially when sigma delta is used instead of ladder. Just the filtering and integration needed in and out destroys the sound.
I had an interesting discussion with some Sony digital engineers at an AES meeting about PCM way back before the CD when a portable ADC fed a vtr. I asked about a linear time based distortion I identified in the process. They said not to worry, the filtering and integration, getting the signal in and out, destroyed the signal enough you would not hear that.
@@glenncurry3041 "No, there is no ringing nor phase shifts ON vinyl."
Exactly the same is true on a (non-lossy) digital format, and I'd argue even less so.
"Meanwhile, digital conversion, especially PCM and Red Book, destroy sound quality. Far worse frequency response, less S/N, destroys transients, especially when sigma delta is used instead of ladder. Just the filtering and integration needed in and out destroys the sound. "
Measurements don't back up your claim.
Just think about what a vinyl master is: First an analog signal is physically scratched onto a 'mother' disc (don't you think that won't come with some degradation?). But before that happens, all the low frequencies are collapsed to mono (just to prevent certain physical limitations of vinyl).
Then there's the RIAA stuff going on to just fit the audio onto vinyl, and then afterwards correct for that with the opposite filtering.
All in all, that stuff leads to a lot of degradation. And then you play the vinyl copy back on your system, and then you'll have a lot of surface noise and whatnot.
Digital audio on the other hand is a lot more direct. It's just an anti-aliasing filter for recording, and then a reconstruction filter to play it back accurately. No surface noise, no physical medium in between, no extra filtering or frequency-dependent collapsing to mono to make it actually work in practice. Digital PCM is just a hell of a lot cleaner.
I still love to listen to vinyl though, but not because it's an accurate format. I love it for nostalgic experience and the color it adds.
Paul, if compression is the difference then the test is real simple. Since you have access to the "compressed" version of the music, then you can listen to the compressed digital version through your DAC. Now every DAC is going to sound different but at the end of the day if they still dont have the "life like" quality of vonyl, then the hypothesis around compression can be ruled out.
What Paul explained is 100% my experience with the wonderful and special Octave Records Say Somethin’ album by Gabriel Mervine. I purchased the vinyl and the DSD download (Paul you need to give a discount for bundling - LOL). The vinyl just sounds more alive and magical. My friends agree as well. Maybe it's the DAC - but I am running a pretty good high-end (~$8.5K) musical DAC based on AKM’s AK4499EQ switched resistor architecture with an incorporated FPGA.
Obviously it is different. And in your opinion (and others) it sounds better. But is it better? Or is it distorted in some way which you and others like? I.e. I remember the old stereo system of my father with hall effect. Somehow it sounded better. But was it technically better? Or was it different but not really better?
The explanation why Vinyl sounds better is because it is a compressed format and as a result people hear more and louder. This is the same dynamics (no pun intended) that caused the Loudness War. Vinyl is just louder!
Crank your SACDs volume up, then compare!
There is something magical about vinyl
Hears my take on it I listen to bough formats but digital to my eyer sounds cold and clinical where as analog analog sounds warmer musical especially from vinyl and just like Paul and many others I can’t tell you why. perhaps it’s that little bit of distortion that makes it so real to our ears. 😎🇬🇧
I noticed years ago that when I recorded onto my DAT recorder and/or into my Marantz cdr615 they maintain that same sound quality of the L.P.. Not sure why.
The answer is NO!
The reason why the vinyl version (derived from the DSD capture) sounds better might be due to which digital music player you are using vs which turntable/tone-arm/cartridge/phono-amp you are using.
How good is the music player's transport?
Which interconnects is the customer using?
Power cords significantly impact the sound quality of DACs, vs negligible impact to phono-amps. What power cord was used for the digital music player?
Some DACs sound great when feeding same-brand pre-amps. Yet, that same DAC loses its magic when connected to some other highly respected pre-amp.
Some components simply get along better.
Brand "A" DAC and pre-amp sound great together.
Brand "B" DAC and pre-amp sound great together.
Either pairing is heaven.
But when brand "A" DAC is paired up with brand "B" pre-amp, you fall asleep.
Same for "B" -> "A".
Also, all it takes is one so-so part in the digital music player to diminish its sound quality. Has it been ascertained that that music player is a podium winner, before we compare it to vinyl?
Lots of variables.
@3:39 "...a needle wiggling back and forth..."
Stereos contain no needles. Needles are for sewing and flu shots.
Lots of novices really believe that it is a needle. An influential channel should not perpetuate that misinformation.
@0:24 "...180 gram..."
Heavy vinyl is a selling gimmick.
I have never heard an outstanding sounding heavy pressing.
I will no longer waste $$ on them.
And if you are buying heavy vinyl in an effort to get better sound quality, then you would have to adjust your tone-arm's VTA (vertical tracking alignment) to get the most out of the height difference between a standard pressing and a thicker pressing that changes the angle of the stylus.
Are there any outstanding sounding heavy pressings? Perhaps.
There are probably some items of value in some dumpsters, too, if you search through enough of them.
The vinyl wasn't created from an original DSD capture.
The album was captured, mixed, and mastered in 24 bit PCM at a maximum sampling rate of 96 kHz.
The vinyl sounds better due to the fact that as PCM it could be mastered specifically for vinyl.
On the other hand, while a PCM master can also be created for DSD the digital conversion from PCM causes audible issues along with the added noise that is needed to quantitize DSD.
I agree with you, Paul. It does sound like a compressor with make up gain, hence, it is easier to hear those harder to hear sibilance or quieter passage. It does feel “more”, but is it better?
I haven't heard anything better than DSD except live instruments.
When is the last time you had your hearing checked?
The average 21 year old male has typically lost up to 20% of their hearing.
Besides some components being superior others, this is more preference than anything. This isn't naming the most reliable automobile of the past 5 years, but more a measure of how much an individual enjoys a thing. I love driving a manual transmission. Is it slower..faster...sexier? Who knows? Who cares? It's just what I love and that's that.
Great news! Perhaps we will see a tube based phono preamp for moving magnet cartridges from PS Audio in the future ... 🙂
@Eric Wow! Nice phono preamp. The 6L6GC amp looks also intriguing. And even usable as a first class headphone amp. Will buy one with the Lundahl OPT upgrade kit. My tube phono preamp is the YS-Audio Concerto Plus with much better coupling caps than stock. Amazing sound, only for moving magnet. Thanks for the tip! 🙂
Yeah, listening to the LP of Classic Hauser right now I find a greater presence than the same music from Apple Music, FLAC download, or CD.
Every time this happens is because the equipment and the room are unable to handle the superior dynamic range and channel seperation of the digital medium, so, they favor the vinyl. Also, as Paul says, dynamic compression of the higher harmonic content makes it (artificially) more present in vinyl. Once I did this: I heard an old jazz album in 16/44.1 in two versions: The first was from a CD-remastered and the second from a digitized vinyl playback. The second was really more "vibrant" and "lively" sounding. Using the Audacity programm I chose a small part of the track and made a frequency analysis of the content. I was amazed to see that the vinyl had content from 13KHz-20KHz at a much higher level than the CD version (-60 to -63dB compared to -85 to -94dBfor the CD). So, vinyl compression works for the better perception of the higher harmonics in a home playback environment. If I'd wish to bring up those highs to the same level using the CD version, I'd also have to raise the rest of the spectrum around 25dB. That would be almost life-like sized for sure, but my "poor" equipment would be unable to handle it! So, my verdict is that vinyl is more friendly to equipment and home-listening environment, that;s why it may sound better. Still, one can easily hear also the areas where digital is superior.
Ok Paul, I agree with you that the DSD is the original MASTER that was made in the mastering stage of the label.
I assume you've already done this test, if not do it. When I have recorded a vinyl even on CD-R (using a Yamaha recorder), the sound is identical to the vinyl.
Now the simple CD sounds identical, if you match levels, to the vinyl where you got it from, that blew my mind I couldn't believe it, I did several other tests and it was always the same.
Apparently going from digital to vinyl there are obvious differences, but from vinyl to digital there are no more.
DSD WAS NOT the original master of this album.
The album was recorded and mixed using PCM at a potential maximum sample rate of 24 bit 96 kHz.
The actual reasons that the vinyl sounds better than the DSD has to do with flawed digital to digital conversion from PCM to DSD and the noise that is added to DSD to prevent quantization errors.
@@JonAnderhub Jon I understand what you are saying, I started from an assumption, as Paul said, that the original was DSD.
Now the point in question and in this I agree with you that the conversion from PCM to DSD if not done well can cause errors.
However, my point is that taking the analog sound of vinyl to PCM solves it very well, much better than I expected, on the other hand I don't know of a single vinyl that can be heard as a CD.
Digital vs Vinyl. To make any observation here meaningful (or even 'fair') one would have to specify similar costing front ends (including p/stage). To make any generic statement you would have to include an analysis across different genres and recordings. Different price points may also have a bearing e.g. maybe complex orchestral on a sub $1k front end is better on one, but maybe evens out on a $5k front end. It's a rabbit hole!
Actually that comparison is invalid in that the "front end" original source for both the vinyl as well as all digital releases was 24 bit PCM digital.
Is driving a Ferrari better than riding a horse? The definition of Better is so subjective, as long as the listener can really enjoy the music and its sound, the recording medium, vinyl, magmatic tape, or digital, already serve their main purpose. Paul is always fun and educational to listen to, we know Paul's soothing voice, but I often wonder what Lincoln real voice sounded like.
So, now the vinyl is better than SACD (DSD) is offical PS audio/Paul stand? Interesting...
Because they are doing vinyl now, if they would stay with DSD/SACD you'd hear from Paul that there was no way vinyl was better than SACD. Personally, I can tolerate vinyl and I have a lot of it, but if there is a SACD available for the same material made from the original source, I dump vinyl immediately.
If the vinyl pressing is recorded back to digital from a top notch turntable,cartridge and RIAA preamp, then the "vinyl sound" is captured.
The CD can then be labelled "vinyl simulated".
Vinyl is like a painting of a beautiful woman while DSD is like a photo of her.
So which one appears more lifelike, the painting or the photo? The photo does.
@@mr.b4444 Of course. But the imperfections of the painting can make you more engaged and willing to pay more for it.
@@ThinkingBetter Actually, I'm a musician and would feel less engaged if imperfections were added to my music during a performance or listening to someone else's performance. I don't get engaged by ticks, pops, wow and flutter, and other distortions. I listen to the performance above all and the hopefully it is ACCURATE as possible.
@@mr.b4444 Yes, I agree and long ago I was playing vinyl as my most premium audio experience and have since transitions away from it. In the transition I did have to get my brain reprogrammed to not associate these imperfections with live feel. Nowadays I am more excited about when I can discover those details that with vinyl drown in noise and clicks.
I'm convinced I enjoy mid and hifi. I just don't have patience for audiophile bs. Just can't.
I bought a SACD player because I thought DSD was as close to vinyl as digital would ever get
Electrons have wave and temporal properties. The magical effect has to do with the motion of the lathe in between the grooves of the LR region(of the LP) during the mastering process. Since it's an electromechanical process, the information fed into the lathe as either a magnetic flux or electric charge moves the lathe on the medium radially between the two extreme regions of the grooves. In my opinion, this transducer exchange of information between the two mediums(magnet/charge and groove) creates phase distortion(and therefore, change in the wave properties of the electrons holding musical information) in the purest possible way, which is in concordance with the rules of nature aka physics.
Lol, 😂. Can have some of what your smoking.......... electrons hold musical information?
A vinyl record is OBJECTIVELY inferior to even a CD. This is not up for debate, even by Paul as he's shared in his response. But those euphonic distortions that vinyl records produce is pleasing to us and we love them. But they are by no means an indication of purity or accuracy.
A vinyl turntable is able to produce a small amount of sound all by itself, ie I can and have run a turntable without preamps, post-amps, etc, just the belt motor, and have been able to pick up audio at a very pleasing degree just using piezo disc pickups on the needle arm itself.
Paul what do you make of "MoFi-gate"? 😮💨
But then you could also Release the File of the Vinyl master and the File of the Vinyl master would Sound as lively as the Vinyl?
Dsd has a ton of extra noise in the file thus making the file unnecessary large
It's not "unnecessary" noise, Todd, it's how the system works.
@@Paulmcgowanpsaudio He said "extra noise" and said the DSD file is "unnecessary (unnecessarily) large."
Essentially he is correct.
Compared to PCM a large amount of noise must be added over a rather large bandwidth to DSD in order to facilitate quantization and this extra noise contributes to the size a DSD file.
@@JonAnderhub Thanks, Jon, and indeed you're correct about the added noise. My point was that that noise is necessary. As you know, that's how DSD works. The sweet spot for DSD is 128 where that extra needed noise is completely out of the audio band.
People become accustomed to a particular set of characteristics and consider them "right" whether or not they are any good at all.
This is why some claim records sound better when in fact they just plain suck in comparison to CDs, let alone DSD / SACD.
Divorcing one idea from another can be Very difficult when you don't adequately understand either of them.
...'pink noise friction sauce'....implicit in lossy vinyl format....which is frozen 'thin' in the laquer mastering process and the bass is thrown back in by a pre-amp via RIAA curve on playback.... there's an audiofuzz to vinyl that soothes some ears like a white noise CD for a babies...but it's not accurate...at all. And people make a lot of money from the inherent flaws of vinyl making more and more expensive 'revealing systems' that can let you 'really hear it'....on this type of 'special plastic'. The Vinyl of Oz.
Vinyl better than digital? Digital better than vinyl? Nope, just different. It depends. If the vinyl record is sourced digitally, I'm not interested in it and it likely will not sound that good. I have heard a couple of so-called "audiophile" records done that way and they just sound off to me. I prefer my vinyl to be AAA or at very least ADA. Analog medium has limited range, but there is nothing wrong with that in itself. There is more than enough range on analog media to get all the music data, especially all that the human ear can hear. (I get so tired of hearing the BS argument that records don't sound good because they lack enough range for all the musical data). I find AAA records to sound full and inviting. The problem starts when trying to stick digital, which has a far greater range onto analog. What often ends up happening is that certain frequencies cut cut off or rolled off that are within the range of the analog medium because they are superseded by the range of the digital source, which can't be reproduced by your turntable and stylus, so the record ends up sounding harsh and off.
I don't like analog sourced recordings put on CD either, they sound lifeless to me. Digital for digital and analog for analog is my motto. I have some great sounding CDs as well, but they were recorded digitally and done for that media.
Lately I notice that you are using a new philosophy in dealing with this topic… “Honesty is the best policy“. Until you discover why some DSD recordings transferred to produce vinyl records sound better then the original DSD. The best thing to say is ‘I don’t know just yet’. I definitely understand that you are working to understand why this is true at present and I applaud your new way of responding to questions like this.
Paul believes honesty is the best policy? The guy who sells $5400 IEC cables that do nothing special?
Yeah, good one.
@@Wizardofgosz What are you his mother?
@@stimpy1226 no thank god. Just someone who can smell a BS artist from a mile away.
@@Wizardofgosz and that really kills you doesn’t it. You can’t let go of anything. I feel sorry for you. You’ve got to avenge some thing in your life.
@@stimpy1226 Yes. I'm Inigo Montoya.
But yeah, I feel sorry for you. Defending liars.
I'll state the obvious...
All recordings no matter what is used has *problems.* We all know there is no perfect reproduction of live voice/musical instruments. Plus, people have different opinions on what they like, so one "way" of recording will never be accepted by all people. Just enjoy what you think is the best and let other people enjoy their way.
Other people enjoying what they think is best isn't an issue.
When people go on a public forum and say "In my opinion x is the best for recording or playback." Then they open themselves up to opposing opinions.
When somebody states, it is factual, without qualifying that it is an opinion, then they need to be able to prove or defend that statement.
"Even a fool, when he holds his peace, is counted wise: and he that shuts his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.
@@JonAnderhub
Factual: Read the comment section closely, people have their own idea what is factual.
Do you think they will ever make DSD Vinyls, that can play on analogue turntables and digital systems? I have always wanted to see digital and analogues merge together.
And YOU will be the inventor of that technology. Seriously.
Try it on a practical level so you can learn why no one else has done it.
There's hope ..AI is comming to rescue.....
Analog vinyl or digital (re)masterd vinyl ???
Is real food betyter than processed food ???
Is AI better than ....humans ???
You're a lucky man Paul to have some great engineers.......
I wait for some 5$ app with distortion filters like: vinyl, tubes, special cables, etc. All that distortion can all be done in software.
😂 or just spin a record
Interesting comment Paul made about building his own custom Master LP cutter. The last time that was done for ultra high quality LPs was the RCA Quadraphonic project in the early 70's. RCA spent over $1,000,000 per cutter and built 5 of them. Quad was a marketing disaster but the cutters ended up in the hands of places like Sheffield Labs
My artificial sunlight is better than the sun ...................and I can switch it on and off !
Now that's just too funny!
Here you are Paul trying to defend DSD to somebody who thinks that vinyl sounds better than DSD.
Now just to be clear the album in question was not recorded with DSD, but was in fact recorded on a Pro Tools rig using PCM, more than likely at 24 bit 48kHz (because there was a subsequent video release of the concert) or at best 24 bit 96 kHz.
The show was recorded and mixed by Al Schmitt ( you probably have a lot of his albums in your collection) and mastered by Doug Sax (Pink Floyd, The Wall amongst a list that never ends) (using those studio standard speakers you are always griping about).
I think it is interesting how you try and explain that the vinyl might sound better because of the use of compression limiting the dynamic range after all your statements about how compression is so bad and takes the life out of music.
I would just like to add that you actually list her rendition of California Dreaming (John Phillips, Michelle Phillips) as one of your "Paul's Picks".
That was also recorded in PCM on a Pro Tools Rig at 24 bit (at best) 96 kHz.
Sorry Paul, but your conclusion that DSD is the "perfect capture" just isn't evident.
I think the reason vinyl sounds better is because of the lack of continuity with digital. Analog is continuous. Digital is sampled. Regardless if it’s DSD or PCM. Not only that but most of us were brought up listening to vinyl. So subconsciously we can tell the difference between the two. I’m a fan of digital but love the “warm” sound of vinyl. Just hate those pops and clicks. Kind of like the problem todays TV’s have with motion interfering with the refresh rates.
CD'S are done,was a scam right from day one.all hype no substance.
What about CD? Everyone is acting like CD quality is so much worse, hogwash. People, enyoy what format you like. Are you going to abandon your format that you spent so much money on already.
It's easy as making chips to explain!!! Nothing is better than a true analog master!!! Play with an expression evaluator and you'll learn something i think, you never seens (square sinus!!!), and i do thinks that you really don't kwo what you're talking about! Sorry! Dynamics shrinked😂, vinyls dynamics above 500hz is way more than your 24bits! you certainly have superman ears to support more than 85Db (125Db with a normal room floor of 40Db) of dynamics for more than 10 minutes at 3 meters of yours speakers!!! Don't you kown than ears wounds start at 85DB!!! 😎 Having authorized digital to disribute over 85db of bass dynamics was certenly the most harmfull things done by the consortiums! Vinyl is capable of reproducing pure sinus wave up to 110Khz(0db here) (78Rpm), try to have this with you craps DSD4096 (supposed 15 IPS quality 🤣)🙃 Digital is the most craps things distubuted as high quality analog sound reproduction. It was born for video games, and should have never quite this range of use. Same occurs for video also as well as pictures! In a near futur everyones will laugth about people who were claimed that digital was better than analog support for these domains! (The video didn't ever has it chance to have it's pinacle in the analog support because of the money these thieves could do with the digital, they knew it, everyone can proove they scams with i reapeat an expression evaluator) You were fooled till 1983 up to 2022 i hope!😂 Have a chance to ears up to 30Khz, and have digital knowledge, because my money never quit the vinyls, tapes, vhs, Laserdisc, 8mm, etc!!! (TRUE RAW SIGNAL with their physical limitations of course). High dynamics who cares, billiard of pixel what for, every things is cold mathematical compressed data in numeric with i reapeat SQUARE SINUS FOR 22049hz sinus AT 441KHZ and STAIGHT STAIRS AT 192KHZ, STAIRS SLOPE AT 500KHZ, VISIBLE SINUS AT 1MGHZ!! YOU SHOULD NEVER SEEN A PERIOD OF A SINUS IF IT'S CORRECTLY REPODUCED AT EVERY FREQUENCY) 🤑
Vinyl not only better than dsd512 but should also ride of DSD8192, as my now dsd512 native file just come closer to a cassette... Didital's dead, 768Khz 24 bit pcm storage is just not viable regarding analog support!
Vinyl and DSD are wildly flawed formats. I can't believe anyone still thinks vinyl sounds good these days. I mean it's really a joke. I thought all audiophiles with "high-resolving" systems would be able to hear the flaws with their amazing ears.
For real!
I just don't get the "I am an audiophile and I think vinyl sounds the best" ideal?
If you think analogue or digital formats are "widely flawed", then by that analogy, it means that only un-amplified acoustic instruments are not flawed. So the vast majority of music is out of reach of many people & not to most people's tastes.
@@cameraplus7233 wow, great deduction Sherlock. No the point is PCM is superior format to DSD. And I still record using analog tape so I don't think all analog formats are flawed. You just made that up. I never said that in the message.
@@Wizardofgosz Apologies for not being able to read the first line of your comment - "Vinyl and DSD are wildly flawed formats." I must have made that up as you say. 🤡
@@cameraplus7233 Richard Wielgosz is correct.
Vinyl has a high noise level, a very limited dynamic range, very poor frequency response, and degrades every time it is used.
DSD has to have a lot of noise added to the original signal in order to maintain quantization and that noise must be filtered in order to playback the DSD without damaging equipment.
The quality of the playback is determined by the quality and manufacture of the playback components and neither format plays back the recorded signal 100% accurately.