Vinyl vs Digital
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- THESE VIDEOS ARE CROWDFUNDED. The next is released the moment its goal is reached: infactvideo.co...
No zealots are as fervent as those who debate digital audio versus vinyl records. Which one really is better?
Proponents of digital audio say it’s a more accurate reproduction with better frequency range; while vinyl fans say the sound is simply warmer, richer, and better.
But here's the reason why the entire debate should be moot: whether the music is stored on vinyl or a CD is just not that important a part of the overall system. It's like deciding which of two different cars is best by comparing their spark plug wires. There are many variables in the process of playing recorded music that affect the sound, from the microphones, to the mixing, the mastering, the playback hardware, the amplifier, and (far and away most important) the quality of the speakers and characteristics of the listening room. Whether the recording was vinyl or CD is simply not one of these important variables. Both methods are easily far superior to any differences the human ear might hope to distinguish.
But I know you still want to hear which one’s better, so what do people prefer in testing? It’s difficult to do comparisons, because music recordings are mastered differently. Engineers will make a new master designed for the intended medium. The separate instrument tracks might be individually equalized, spread across the stereo spectrum, or have a dozen other parameters applied. Thus, a CD and a vinyl pressing of the exact same recorded performance are likely to be very different.
Nevertheless, in 2000, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education published results for the best comparison they could manage: digital and analog recordings of the same concert performance, recorded unequalized and unmixed especially for this test:
“Results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than corresponding analog versions. Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments/voices.”
So what is this intangible “better experience” that the vinyl supporters love?
It's about an experience, not about metrics or tabulated results. More senses are involved: the smell of the album cover, the touch of lowering the tone arm into the groove, the sight of the stroboscope indicating the precise turntable speed. It's an immersive experience to which the listener must dedicate focused attention and time. Vinyl records are a hands-on, personal connection to the musician, and that's something no amount of digital perfection can replicate.
References & Further Reading
Blech, D., Yang, M. Convention Paper 6086: DVD-Audio versus SACD: Perceptual Discrimination of Digital Audio Coding Formats. Berlin: Audio Engineering Society, 2004.
Gabrielsson, A., Hagerman, B., Bech-Kristensen, T., Lundberg, G. "Perceived sound quality of reproductions with different frequency responses and sound levels." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1 Jan. 1990, Volume 88: 1359-1366.
Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education. 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.
Lipshitz, S. "The Digital Challenge: A Report." Boston Audio Society. Boston Audio Society, 1 Aug. 1984. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. www.bostonaudio...
Liversidge, A. "Analog versus Digital: Has Vinyl Been Wrongly Dethroned by the Music Industry?" Omni. 1 Jan. 1995, Volume 17, Number 5: 28.
Nishiguchi, T., Hamasaki, K., Iwaki, M., Ando, A. NHK Laboratories Note No. 486: Perceptual Discrimination between Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components. Tokyo: Japan Broadcasting Company, 2004.
Repp, B. "The Aesthetic Quality of a Quantitatively Average Music Performance: Two Preliminary Experiments." Music Perception. 1 Jan. 1997, Volume 14, Number 4: 419-444.
Sourisseau, U. "Stereo Disc Recording." Record Your Own Vinyl Discs. Souri's Automaten, 11 Apr. 2001. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. www.vinylrecord...
Vinyl is better because I have invested so much time and money into the acquisition of vinyl media and equipment. Therefore, it has to be better or else that makes me stupid. So of course, vinyl is absolutely superior no matter what, and that, my friends is a scientific fact! BTW, the $2000 connector cable I bought is also the best no matter what...
There are people that invest the same on digital hifi systems.
You clearly have a crap setup or you'd know that vinyl can actual sound much better depending on the specific record album and mastering. This has less to do with one medium's potential versus the other. Most vinyl masters are from high quality digital sources anyway these days that have been made specifically for vinyl, so the digital vs. analog debate is largely irrelevant. On the other hand, we all know that compressed, low bit rate music can sound like garbled crap. But why point out the obvious and irrelevant? I hear those $2,000 connector cables can work adequately well for digital signals too, but then maybe you're too young to remember when HDMI cables came out.
Sorry WR3ND for not making my sarcasm as obvious as I thought. Funny that you thought I am a young guy. I did not and would not buy a $2000 connector cable. That too, was a joke. Just poking fun at myself and at those who think that something is better simply because they spent their kids' college fund on it. I do love vinyl though.
Fair enough then. Hard to tell what kind of sarcasm someone is using in written text. I agree that the audiophile market can get kind of ridiculous at times.
Vinyl and digital both suck. The superior audio comes from wax cylinders.
See, he gets it!
😂 😂 😂 lol
Wax Cylinders are inauthentic as hell though.
I prefer illuminated manuscripts. Music is meant to be listened to in your head! Not from instruments!
@Continued Wisdom Nar mate Reel to Reel With DBX is the way to go
What?
Agreed.
As some wag said when I had this debate 20 years ago: I'm going get the best audio quality by paying musicians to follow me around.
Inb4 vinyl audio is better than live audio.
+CaesarGamer That is not a silly statement. There was one blind test conducted some time ago with vinylphiles where they compared a vinyl recording to the tape master it came from. The majority preferred the vinyl record yet we know it is impossible for the record to be the same, let alone better, quality than its master source.
prep74 First of all one must define what 'better' is in the said context. Blind tests, in no way, show how better, in terms of fidelity, the audio is.
Yes, surely, one might say it's better in terms of desirability or how it sounds to the ears, for some, but that is really subjective. What I am talking about is objective.
CaesarGamer I agree with you. Assuming competent mastering and production, a digital recording will always be objectively better than an analog copy. Subjectively, tastes will vary among individuals. Just like objectively, a vinyl record cannot sound as good as the master it came from but subjectively, some may prefer the distortion and artefacts introduced by the vinyl playback system.
prep74 Precisely.
It depends. I like CD's for the car. Streaming for discovering new music and vinyl for pleasurable listening. Which is better is irrelevant.
I have a great collection of records since the early 60's and at the end of the day I cannot see any real improvement in the sound (provided you have cared for your records).
Records make people get off their backside to be changed, so they are more inclined to listen to the record through as we should. The digital age has turned music into a throw away item.
Sit down with a good wine and listen to good music, relax and let your worries fade away, thats what it all about.
Another sore point with me, true.The commoditising of music as a product or resource, not an end in its own right as a source of emotional engagement.
When buying new records take care that you only buy one that has been pressed using tracks from the master, many modern records use digital recordings from CD quality.
And that CD quality is better than vinyl can achieve. Surely the point you are making is that it may come from a CD master that has been crippled by the loudness wars, rather than CD quality per se.
I have to agree. Finally I got a record player (audio technica LP1240) at the age of 29 years old last month after growing up with cassettes and CD (as a kid), MP3/FLAC ( as a teenager and young adult) and Spotify (adult) . I actually appreciate music more than before. Records make me listen to whole albums without skipping any song and know the capabilities of the artists. with Spotify I tend to skip songs like intro or outro or just skip to other artist.. and now I realized how much I have been missing the music experience.
prep74 loudness wars doesn't have to apply to cd all the time. A lot of the classic 60s sound were achieved with compression anyway which is a loudness war. The only loudness war that sucks is radio stations outputting the way over compressed music or bad studio mixes and newer dance music
As a vinyl collector and enthusiast, I know there is no improvement in sound quality comparing digital and vinyl. Everything audiophiles want to believe is so fake and phony when it comes to "better sound". Look, the sound is going to be as good as the mics and production make it out to be. I buy records because like this guy says, its an experience. There is a notable difference in sound between the digital and vinyl formats however, digital is more accurate and percise. In my opinion, that is no fun. I like the imperfections in the vinyl format and that pop and hiss you get from the needle touching the record. Sorry audiophiles, records dont sound better than digital. Digital is how the music is mastered. I know that but i collect vinyl because its just a cool experience and looking at your collection is one of the most satisfying things
Some people think driving a standard is better than an automatic, because when you drive a standard you are more engaged in the automobile driving experience . I think it's the same with vinyl records. Not better, just different, isn't that the whole point?
Just something about dropping the stylus on that dubplate and then a few seconds of silence, a couple pops and then bam the whole house starts to rumble.
Very well said
That is a refreshingly honest answer KillasaurusArcade01, one seldom heard from Vinyl enthusiasts.
Peaches Peaches unless you're going to explain why 'vinyl is a superior format' I suggest you don't critique others opinions. There's also strait-forward science behind why digital is a superior format. It's more portable. It's more practical. It takes up less physical space. It doesn't need maintained for maximum sound quality. It can't be warped or scratched (I'm taking about digital streaming), and it's sounds 99% the same as vinyl. Vinyl is about the physical experience. It requires effort, you can't easily skip songs, encouraging you to listen to them. But vinyl isn't for everyone because of the points I've just stated.
Thank you! This was the most balanced presentation I've seen, including a test that corroborates the accuracy supremacy of digital via science but also gets into the bits about the experience of vinyl. More importantly, and I wish for a subsequent take on this subject alone, it was mentioned that mastering is different for each medium (hence the test that leaves such things out of the equation), which is why we have CDs of 80s music that sound horrible because they were either transferred with all settings for vinyl, or in some cases, were actually taken from 3rd generation transfers, not studio originals.
"The loudness war". That is the main reason cd in general sounds so bad. It's also the reason why cd don't sell very well. It's the main reason why vinyl is now popular again. Cd would sell very well if music producers didn't over compress the dynamic. They live in a different world and don't understand or listen to costumers. They think they are selling commercials instead of music.
CD:s only last 70 years before they 'go bad' and the disc is unreadable. Vinyls can last for thousands of years. I'd say that vinyl is a pretty superior format when it comes to storage and shelf life.
While I agree that it's a shame the loudness wars are a thing, we shouldn't forego CD's as a whole because of it. If we simply didn't buy albums that sounded bad, and wrote in more complaints, then they would have stopped ruining albums. Generally I try to do research to get the best sounding version of an album, a version with good dynamics. Often I grab old 80's or early 90's CD pressings.
Vinyl WILL NOT last thousands of years in a playable state unless it's hermetically sealed in a very cold dark room. Leave a record flat on any surface in the heat for a few minutes and it will warp badly. Play it on a bad needle or after forgetting to clean it or even too many times on a perfectly new needle and it will be destroyed.
And by the way, CD's are rated to last FROM around 70 TO 200 years based on least to best conditions
J Wester Because CDs are outdated. Blu-Rays should be the way now.
J Wester well said!
Which is best? That's for each individual to decide themselves.
The smell of the album cover.....'nuff said!
Good 'stuff
YES. This hits the nail right on the head. What makes a vinyl record better than a CD? Only that the experience is more SATISFYING.
And that can be a powerful thing for those who grew up with or are emotionally invested in vinyl playback. The expectation biases and placebo effects are well known. For others who find the whole record playing ritual a pain in the neck, the biases can work the other way.
I have read some interesting articles on this. Vinyl does involve a tactile experience, but what is overlooked is that in changing the record over, it's like having a short intermission. Back in the '60s the order of the songs was done with this in mind. Like a story in two parts. BTW, it has been found that physical books far outweigh eBooks in retention, enjoyment etc. It comes down to the whole tactile experience. The reader physically turns the pages. There is the weight of the book and scent of the paper, ink and glue. In other words, the reader fully immerses in the experience.
Can't trust a guy who's hands are bigger than his head
lol
lol I'm just realizing how small his head is
It might be the camera angle
this camera angle is dumb.
We didn't get to listen to any recordings. The guy with the small head is using the fallacy of deferring to authority.
Oh m8 you should buy this vinyl, it smells fantastic...
minimal minimal CD smell actually make me want to vomit and I come out in rash *sips wine* sometimes I play an lp with no sound and just listen to the groove
Yes, it is all about nostalgia, we dont care about the music.
It is not me, the experts say that.You can spray your cds with 'vinyl fragrance' if you want to have an analog experience.
+WR3ND Why would I buy an expensive HDMI cable like that? It does not improve audio quality, plus, I use USB to connect to my DAC, it does not matter what the quality of the cable is in the digital world (unless its an AUX cable) because all digital sound is transfered in 1s and 0s then once it gets to the DAC, it is converted to an signal an auxiliary device can use.
hhhhhhhhhhhhh
I love the smell of vinyl in the morning!
A Fact about vinyl limitations, hardly anyone mentions: The last tracks ( closer to center of record), are full of distortion.
By the time the tone arm reaches the inside tracks, the LP record speed is very slow.
That's why smaller sized, single records ( 45's ), spun much faster. So that the fidelity would match closely, the outer tracks of a 33 1/3 rpm LP album.
As soon as record albums were mixed from master tapes onto CD's, it was the first time the last cut songs were heard in full fidelity.
Unless a person bought albums factory recorded directly to reel to reel tape.
That is just one of the many limitations.
For decades we've embraced this idea that as long as content reaches a consumer's ears, the job has been done and now a segment of the population is looking for ways to actually enjoy the hobby of collecting and playing music again. I think physical formats and audio machinery are satisfying on a deep level as though we actually have set things in motion and were a necessary step in the process. I don't really know. All I know is some people get excited when they see my record collection and will keep pulling things off the shelf all night and smile as they watch them spin. Often they'll remark that they haven't done anything like that in a long time.
That said, I've heard exquisite playback both ways, but the best I ever heard was a high-end vinyl rig.
regardless if someone thinks that vinyl sounds better you have to admit that its a pain in the but to deal with. record players are big and bulky some requireing a seprate pre amp. the actual records can are just as big and they get heavy quickly. You have to ajust the speed between 45's and 33's and flip them to continue the album. digital is just click and go
1301407gl that is why digital was created for people like You who equate music with convienance. Like instant noodles. Was music ever meant To be that???
digital music is just much more versitile than vynil, a good digital file can be with you every where, it's more durable, and cheaper than vinyl. analog limits you to where you can and how you can listen to music you just have to sit down and listen to it. where as with a digital recording you can be anywhere doing anything
Vlad Poddoubtchenko the premise of that is this; to get the best that vinyl has to offer, yes, people have to take their time with it, thus the turntable has to be completely manual, no automation of any sort, not even a mechanized system to lift the tone arm off the record at the end of play. Every thing done by hand but of course there has to be a motor to spin the platter. It has to be belt driven. The records before play have to be clean, either by hand or a record cleaning machine. Once you clean and manually put the stylus on the record sit back and enjoy.
That's kind of why a lot of people like records though. I can't admit to any of that, because that's one of the reasons why I like vinyl. Yeah, with Spotify (for instance), it's click and go, and that's great for when you're out and about, but I find that interacting with something like vinyl puts me into the music more. There's no real point trying to point out the flaws in vinyl as if to convince people who collect it. If it were that bad, people wouldn't collect it. Consider that it's something that you don't understand, and that isn't to sound condescending or anything. Vinyl is just one of those things that you either get, or you don't, and that's because it's a very personal experience.
I mean, vinyl practically died out in the 90's and was taken over by CDs, which were seen as being practically superior by comparison. The fact that it's come back is seen as miraculous by many. And if it's back, despite all of that, it's for a reason. There's obviously something about it that people are beginning to see and miss.
I totally agree that playing vinyl is an immersive experience. If you are not of a certain age then you won't have experienced the pleasure of buying a brand new LP with a gatefold sleeve, carefully putting it onto the turntable after switching on your amp and graphic equalizer and spending the next forty or so minutes listening to your fave prog rock band (OK, maybe not that bit) and reading the lyrics that were printed inside said gatefold sleeve. I'd record this straight onto a metal cassette on a decent HiFi cassette recorder and then put the album away and use the cassette after. Does vinyl sound better? I used to have a very decent analogue system that was quite frankly outstanding in regards to the quality of the sound it produced/reproduced. I now listen to stuff through my computer and a pair of speakers that plug into the USB port. How would I compare the two? I can't really. I've never listened to a decent digital HiFi setup for one thing. Also, I'm getting on a bit so what I hear isn't what I would have heard in my late teens or early twenty's as the higher frequencies tend to disappear. All I can tell you is that a decent analogue system from the 1970's was amazing. Sorry to go on.
Digital is best for new music that’s been mastered for digital, it’s more accurate, better lows, and generally cleaner. It’s made for convenience and portability. But 90% of digital audio is compressed as f**k, making it sound worse than the majority of analogue sound.
Vinyl is best for older recordings, warmer and lusher sounds, also just the romanticism of putting on a record and listening through a whole album. And all of you moaning about clicks and pops and bad quality, there’s a lot of albums that were mastered by people who care about audio, and if you keep it cleaned and free of static and interference, it’ll be on par with any digital recordings.
Vinyl and digital both have their own appeals, it’s just a matter of taste and what’s most important to you
What that clown doesn't understand is that digital alters the timbre of the instrument itself specially if you were to use minimal miking techniques vs analog. Analog recording which is multimiked and compressed is horrible true. But imagine digital sound which alters the spectrum or timbre of the instrument with multimiking and out of phase techniques. It is an abomination. Awful sound. String never ever are correct with digital medium. Just go to a concert and hear the result. Analog is not perfect but comes better in tonality. Case closed.
You are spot on. A well looked after record played on a good turntable with a properly aligned high end cartridge will match up to digital.
you can actualy make a digital sound warm just so you know
Adding bass is not the same thing as richness in the vocals.
Dindonmasker V how? If so than digital format is artificial, its like imitation. Not real but can fool people into thinking its better.
Dindonmasker V And it still doesn't sound like vinyl. Warm digital does not vinyl make.
Yes when you run it through an analog filter. I have a CD player from 1984 that uses analog filters instead of digital ones and it does produce a more warm sound than newer players.
Listen to hi rez through tubes and you will have all the warmth you ever needed plus the details and clarity of the digital source!
Brian Dunning posts the follow... "It's about an experience, not about metrics or tabulated results. More senses are involved: the smell of the album cover, the touch of lowering the tone arm into the groove, the sight of the stroboscope indicating the precise turntable speed. It's an immersive experience to which the listener must dedicate focused attention and time. Vinyl records are a hands-on, personal connection to the musician, and that's something no amount of digital perfection can replicate." I agree with much of what he says here. He left out "taste". I have no doubt some vinyl users have tried to see what the vinyl tasted like. Hey, it's another sense. If you want a connection to the musician, if the musician is still alive, trying connecting with them on Facebook or via email. Holding a record that they did not give you personally isn't a connection to anything. If the artist did give you the record or if the artist signed the record then you could call it a connection. I have had a record signed. But the real connection was talking to the artist in person, not the record. Besides, the CD spinning at a much faster rate. 500 rpm at the center and 200 rpm at the edges. Depending on what kind of light you shine on it, it's much more interesting than a simple black piece of vinyl spinning at a boring 33 1/3 rpm. We can even spin the CD at any angle or even change the angle midplay without affecting the playback. Vinyl seems to have a hard time being played upside down or at sharp angles. If you want the cd player to put on a show, spin the disk up to 24,000 rpm, read the whole thing into memory in less than 2 minutes, then spin it at various speeds just for show. The end user can change songs and play the disk in any order thanks to having it in memory. Lot more interesting than seeing vinyl move at the very slow speed of 33 1/3 rpm. Of course, using a disc the same size as a Cd, we can give you the entire album along with high definition video and 5.1 surround sound. I suppose that seeing the person seeing in high def video on a large screen should give you some sort of a connection. We can also stick on the disc an interview with the artist, some bonus tracks, and bloopers too. Even a personal message from the artist.
i have a $4000 lyra cartridge so it has to sound better, right?
It does sound better than cheap cd players and dacs, but try a 4000 dac and I sure that dac sounds way better!
Absolutely----and I have the same invested in my separate Meridian transport and DAC. But we're talking ancient Greek to these who don't know the difference between belt drive and direct drive and don't care. When your table is a direct drive Sony with a no name cartridge or your CD player is your Uncle Bob's Onkyo, you really don't have a big enough dog in this fight.
No
My acutely sensitive ears don't care about smells or silicon, but they are thrilled when I drop the needle onto spinning vinyl. It's no wonder why vinyl, big iron, and evacuated glass electron triodes and pentodes, PM speakers WORK SO WELL AND ARE SO PLEASING, but don't ask someone who listens to most of their music from a computer..
i really like how the video is sort of transcribed in the description section. helps get the information without having to watch the video if you dont feel like it/dont have the time
how does Brian dunning chew food without bottom teeth?
Humphrey Smiggens found the vynil radicalist
Great, now that's all I can see
upside down.
It's a quantitative versus qualitative debate. The act of taking a record out of its sleeve, placing the needle to it, and hearing the sound as you look at the large artwork and liner notes.... that's an "experience". Listening to a whole album created "as" an album - one song leading to the next, highs and lows. Front to back. It's like asking what coffee is better - I would rather have a 7-11 coffee shared with a friend telling stories than a ultra-super, fine aroma, blah-blah coffee drank in a rush.
I don't really care either way to be honest. I buy vinyl because I like the experience require to play them. However, an anecdote: I had a couple buddies over for beers and I put on The Darkness and after a couple songs one of them went "This is vinyl? It sounds fantastic!" Then looked to his girlfriend and went "I wonder if my parents still want their old turntable. You wanna go see if we can find some records to play this weekend?".
Cds are collectible and they are "tangible" too. They are like little magic LPs where a laser reads a tiny pit rather than a needle reading a groove. They are flat and round and have to be stored (preferably the same way an LP collection would). They should also be handled with care and periodically cleaned. One major difference is that CDs don't slowly erode physically each time they are played and, yes, the heat generated from the friction of the stylus does indeed make a tiny impact each time a record is played. You can delay the inevitable through careful handling, cleaning the stylus EACH time you play every side of every LP with a liquid AND brush product such as LAST stylus cleaner, cleaning them thoroughly (especially if they are used) with a serious groove cleaner like an expensive Nitty Gritty or Record Doktor, and applying a mild lubricant such as Gruve Glide to the surface of the LP, and also getting them out of those horrid paper sleeves and using a poly sleeve.
The laser in the CD player eventually burns out just like the cartridge and stylus need replacing on a turntable, but with CD players there is little tweaking compared to a turntable. But why am I wasting my breath? If you think a shitty direct drive turntable is as good as a belt drive, or your amplification source is your dad's old Pioneer receiver, or you have your table sitting on top of anything other than a dedicated audio equipment rack with isolation on each shelf and those spikes at the bottom, then you really aren't ready for playing ball with the pros. Not being arrogant, just truthful. And I would gladly share what I know with relish to any who ask.
You nailed it . Early seventies ,we would take the record out of the sleeve , set it on the platter , then carefully use our disc washer on the grooves . Then use a stylus brush on the stylus . Most turntables were manual belt driven . Then we would pick up the tone arm and carefully set it in to the first groove . My Empire TT had a hinged cover . I would close it . If you had a album cover like ZZtop Tres Hombres ,with a picture of Mexican Food on the inside , I would set it on top of the TT cover and sit back and enjoy .Sometimes we would fire up some incense . Sometimes we would fire up something else . Those were the days my friend .
Look at that amazingly cool artwork on that CD....said no one ever.
Put a CD in a gatefold, problem solved!
A test was done with a group of people listened to vinyl and cds at different tines. When they listened to vinyl their heart rates and blood pressure were lower.
Don't get me wrong, I love collecting vinyl, but most of it is snake oil. It cannot possibly be higher fidelity than digital because it can't physically have as much information as a digital track can. You can like the "warm sound" of vinyl, but it's nothing you can't get from EQs. You need not look further than the basic contradictions that vinyl enthusiasts make to see the placebo effect take place. "I love vinyl because it's higher fidelity and sounds better" "I don't mind the crackles and pops." Vinyl deteriorates; 1s and 0s don't.
As someone who has listened to digital audio my whole life, I was blown away when I borrowed a friends turntable and put on a record of music that I know well on digital. Suddenly, the entire song was seperated into distinguishable layers of clear sound. I could hear layers of vocal harmony, guitars, high hat hits, etc. It impressed me enough that I just went out and bought my first turntable. I will say, however, that the turntable, cartridge, stylus, and preamp all make a big difference. I bought a $99 AudioTechnica TT first and returned it because it sounded worse and more compressed than Spotify. Heck, even things like calibration of the tone arm balance, weight, etc can impact the quality. I think if you put the proper time and money investment in, vinyl destroys digital media streaming.
You clearly dont know what you're talking about. Digital is superior, especially in areas that you mentioned.
can anyone really hear a difference? Play what you like. I have vinyl that isn't available in other formats. I have vinyl that I have bought the mp3 so I can listen to it anywhere. Listen to what you like and don't worry about it. If you enjoy it, then it sounds better.
I always hear the difference, its called surface noise and clicks and pops...
digital is generally better, the only advantage i see with vinyl is in DJing, matching beats and finding precisely the right moment is quite easy and very hands-on.
+kurtilein3 that depends on the DJ. Digital files allow the person to see exact moments when something occurs in music and can lead to better blends and more precise compositions. But as with most things, it's relative to taste.
+kurtilein3 You forgot collector's value in the advantages vinyl got. Does it make the music sound better? No, but it feels pretty cool to have albums/EP you like on vinyl. Same with cassette tapes. I own several demos/EP releases on cassette tape that's very limited edition. More often than not I got them as mp3 files as well, but it's neat to own them. Sometimes music is more than just sounds.
+kurtilein3
Vinyl sounds better on a club system, it doesn't seem to wear out the listeners the way CD's or files do.
My father who has passed away was a music and stereo enthusiast, by the early 90s almost all of his Los were replaced with CDs, not to mention that he was old school, it's just he found CDs that much better.
Clear, concise, and to-the-point. Makes sense to me. I've always thought this argument was pointless.
Excellent video. Great points. Years ago, when the CD was the new technology, the selling points were the superior sound quality of CDs compared to Vinyl and cassette tapes, their durability and they consumed less space. Fast forward. Now the CD is the dinosaur. The digital music and streaming revolutions have just about killed music sales. All of a sudden vinyl has become a topic again. I knew it was all a marketing game back then just as it is now.
And in 10 years, people will start digging back CDs because people after all CD is the most superior compare to cassette, MP3, vinyl and digital streaming
blooduhz Hahaha, that's fucking funny!
Black Iron Pot Records No, more of a hipster movement.
As bandwidth availability increases, the amount of compression used will decrease. I don't see any reason to go back to CD's in 10 years because they simply hold data. Whether the data comes from a CD, DVD, Hard Drive, Memory Stick or other source doesn't really matter, it sounds the exact same since we're talking accuracy right down to the last bit. If people want to move away from compressed formats they can use whatever digital means of transfer is convenient and use uncompressed music instead of compressed.
It's nice to see people going back to a technology that they enjoyed in the past. The vinyl record has it's drawbacks but is capable of excellent sound. What is more important is what the vinyl record means to the person playing it. So, when you are selling vinyl, you're selling memories of the past. The microgroove LP record was a very important development in music history. It provided a way to get about 22 minutes per side of music on a single record. It also had very good audio quality, it was priced reasonably, and with a record changer you could listen to a lot of music without having to interact with the record player.
Excellent video. A few things that never were mentioned that are on topic here. One is expectation bias. Some people are pre-disposed to prefer one over the other because they expect their preference to sound better regardless of the actual sound and the technical merits. Secondly, the excessive dynamic range compression that is applied to many digital music releases (even high resolution digital audio) handicaps the sound in a way that makes most vinyl records of the same recordings sound considerably better in a dedicated listening environment on a decent system. It is not that vinyl is inherently superior, is it is that people who master digital music intentionally wreck the sound. This is more a problem with rock, pop, rap, etc. than with jazz and classical music.
Vinyl does sound better because you can speed it up with your finger to make them sound like chipmunks
see? finally someone who truly knows what makes vinyl shine. why can't these other people understand? too high tech i think.
Ah, but a CD DJ console can do that with CDs too!
A major problem with vinyl is that it can not reproduce the deep wide bass of modern recordings. The grooves in the vinyl simply become too wide and the needle slips.
That is one of the many shortcomings of vinyl. The playback also loses fidelity as it gets closer to the centre of the record, there is inner groove distortion and it requires an analog equaliser (RIAA) to get some semblance of a balanced frequency response. It also can't reproduce the higher frequencies with accuracy. Some that grew up with vinyl playback find CDs too trebly but that is what it sounds like on the master.
This video is pretty good, but I saw a few technical errors:
Mastering is different for these mediums, but that won't affect individual tracks. Mastering operates on only the stereo (or mono) mix.
People can absolutely hear the quality difference between vinyl and digital, and not just by the clicks and pops of vinyl. It's trivial to prove that vinyl has more distortion and a less-flat frequency response.
I'm a digital proponent because digital has much higher fidelity, which is the whole point of "hi-fi" equipment. But I'm certain that vinyl proponents will claim that listening test was flawed because the pressing plant wasn't a good one, or the turntable and cartridge they used wasn't good enough, or it wasn't properly aligned, etc.
Great to see you post here Ethan. I agree that if it is true high fidelity one is chasing, then the playback chain (including the said media) should be as transparent as possible in a properly treated room. Digital has allowed home listeners the potential to hear music exactly as it sounds on the dub master. That is an achievement worth celebrating.
Yes, when the goal is high fidelity digital clearly wins. I also don't agree that vinyl, being a more "hands-on experience," puts people in closer touch with the music or the musicians. The hands-on part goes away as soon as the music starts playing.
I suppose if that were the only goal, then maybe. But when the goal is a broader immersion not limited to sound only, vinyl owners can still see the album turning, the needle tracking, holding large gate-fold covers, the appreciation of the design and feel of vintage gear, the fun involved in preparing an album to play, and even removing an album requires much more than one hand and pushing a button with one finger.
"It's trivial to prove that vinyl has more distortion and a less-flat frequency response."
Correct. Without extreme equalization using the RIAA curve analog recordings would be horrible. But we're not just talking about 'less flat' here. The equalization that is done by either a phono preamp in a receiver/preamp or a separate unit varies widely even though all of them try to be standard. Add in all of the noise and limited dynamic range and you have a poor medium for sound reproduction.
Buy yourself a computer with a big display so you can look at all of the pretty pictures of the performers while you listen to the best medium for sound reproduction today, the Compact Disc.
Yes, Ethan, some of the hands-on experience goes away when the music plays but a good deal of the satisfaction lingers. Vinyl listeners such as myself sit with album cover in hand, loving that old cardboard smell (unfortunately not part of new vinyl releases with their flimsy cheap cardboard) and much easier to read liner notes. The more fortunate view their nice high-end fancy turntable through high-end tube amp and other associated gear all of which adds to a transference "proving" to us that we are listening to something superior. I keep and love my old vinyl for this reason. Then I get impatient with the process, the fact that I can't jump to tracks and have to turn the LP over, and then the frustration of having to clean the LP when I hear a pop or tick. It's at that point I turn on my computer - also connected to the stereo - and have access to thousands of digitized favorites from which I create a play list on the fly. The audio quality just sounds fantastic - blows away the LP to which I was just listening.
Finally a proper spot light on endless debate. I agree with every word. Most statements I have proven myself.
Modern stereos unfortunately aren't designed for high fidelity audio any more and the audio from the studios are no longer mixed for high fidelity like they used to be. They're mixed for loudness now with the subtle tones chopped out. We have a whole generation now who have grown up who have never hears high fidelity recordings played on high fidelity players. Everything is pretty much mixed for loudness and bass now and modern stereos are pretty much designed for that. But you play anything old on the new equipment and it sounds like crap. So an old vinyl mixed for High fidelity played on a high fidelity system would give you amazing sound like the band was right there in the room with you.
have you heard of mcintosh, or bryston, or krell, or mark levinson, or conrad johnson? they make amps ranging from about $7000 to around $15000 dollars. if you don't have hi-fi components, it's not because they don't make them anymore.
a properly mastered cd would sound better.
@@XX-121 No it wouldn't.
So glad you released a new video, it's been ages.
the hipster tears are delicious
+nikko validor
The ignorance of the non hipster is just as delicious!
fantastic
Llll
Generation X grew up with Cassettes. This is all noise to me.
There is one pretty big benefit to Vinyl... it's simply more fun. Digital audio has the potential to sound a lot better, yes, but something about those great big Vinyl albums on a shelf, and a pretty looking turntable next to it, it makes a room feel more warm and cozy in my opinion. And the popping and crackling is really a part of the experience... i use digital music on my PC alone but when you're with guests or in the mood, nothing beats turning on the record player.
Imagine if the audio of this video had all the pops and crackles of vinyl.
The fact a century old analog vinyl disc can hold its own against a digital CD is impressive 😊
Digital media often is a victim of Loudness War during mastering. This doesn't happen with vinyl.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Old vinyl records often used analog tapes which were still new at the time. (In the digital age, these tapes have become old.)
And, often, wrong analog tape copies were used for digital conversion.
Is it really important? CD or vinyl? After 30 years? I hear both. CD is simpel to use, but vinyl is much more for the soul
An Ke: excellent comment. l'll go with the soul.
Yes-most people just don't consider the connection on an emotional level..
Perhaps, but it is also the case that for many the emotional attachment is to the music, not the stereo, format or playing ritual.
prep74 Do you always miss the point?
David Billyard What point? That some feel a need for an emotional connection to the playback ritual and media?
"The separate instrument tracks might be individually equalized, spread across the stereo spectrum, or have a dozen other parameters applied." That's not usually the case is it? Usually the only difference is the master, where the instrument tracks are the same in each version, unless you are talking about a remix.
The only test that eliminates mastering variables is to make a digital recording of a vinyl record and see if anyone can tell the difference between the phono RIAA playback and the digital copy played direct. If you blind test in that scenario you should be able to tell if listeners can discern one from the other.
analog all way and tube amps
digital all way and FLAC
Bronson Osborne vinyl even beats the master tape!
Seriously what the fuck? Vinyl was what mp3 is today. Format that is cheap and accesible to masses of people. But in no way good quality.
analog all way and tube amps
You're obviously never heard a proper vinyl set-up.
You nailed it. I sold hi-fi in the 70's and early 80's and have four turntables, one of which I bought in 1977 and still use as my main TT. I spent a lot on turntable and cartridge quality. I currently have about 3,000 records and if I'm listening to music and not doing something else, it is ALWAYS vinyl.
That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that digital sounds better than vinyl, all other factors being equal. It's shocking to me that otherwise reasonable and intelligent people would argue this point.
But you also nailed it, and ridiculously concisely, in your description of the strengths of vinyl.
Nicely done.
I always thought that people just liked hearing the hissing and popping when listening to vinyl records, since it somehow makes it seem more "authentic".
+godzillatemple Which is funny, because the cracks and pops are more often than not the result of poor maintenance of the record.
When listening to vinyl, nothing pleases me more than to hear not a crack or pop. It means I cleaned the record properly.
+godzillatemple
All my records are spotless and play flawlessly. Apart from my DJ vinyl for the club which is in a right old state!
Well, I hear what you're saying, but I still maintain that many people like the "old fashioned" sound of the initial hiss when the needle is first dropped and the occasional pops during playback. It's sort of like those who prefer to shave with a straight razor or write with a fountain pen. They're convinced that it's an objectively better experience, but it's more of an emotional, nostalgic connection to the past.
godzillatemple I know what you mean, but there is a difference between the cracks and pops on the one hand, and a straight razor on the other. One is due to poor maintenance, the other is another way of shaving.
In short; people are used to a bad habit when they prefer cracks and pops.
+godzillatemple There is some truth to this. It is convenient to think of human hearing like an electronic device but in reality our perception of music is influenced by a range of factors such as past experiences, memories, smell, even our moods. If someone has grown up with the vinyl sound, including the crackles and pops, it is likely that is a more "authentic" sound - it goes in a large way to explain why most vinylphiles are aged 60 and over.
I have an old tube AM radio in my study which I sometimes play in the background. It is the same radio I grew up as a child and it was playing most of the time back then in our family kitchen. Every now and then, and old song comes on from the late 60s/early 70s and it takes me back to my childhood and what I was doing back then. I have these old songs in high quality on my main system, and although the sound quality is incomparably better than the AM radio, the same song on the AM radio connects me with my past in a way that the higher fidelity playback does not. Probably is the same for many older people with their vinyl records.
As somebody who grew up, actually working in the music industry, and with a bunch of gold and platinum records, and to GRAMMYs to my name, I’ll take CDs. Even the original ones that were badly mastered over vinyl any day or cassette simply because each time you play them you wear them down in your lose frequency plus the other reason I prefer digital is because it’s got a better frequency response where vinyl is very limited to how much base you can put on otherwise the needle will jump out of the groove and even sequencing for Swahili the closer you get in to the album The more mellow songs are put closer to the center of the desk because of the physical limitations of what it can handle. However, I agree with you on the quality of mastering and this event, technically and loss of bits and Digital here and there however, in general, like I said, I like, I don’t want my listening experience to change slightly every time I choose to play it because it degrades and no one misses liner, notes and album covers and the creativity that goes into producing them and all the little extra stuff that goes into a physical product, but as another so-called expert in the field personally I’ll take my digital over anything. Sorry Brian and you’re welcome to come up to my studio and conduct tests. We actually have old analog equipment available as well.
So many butthurt vinyl fanatics in the comments, truely beautiful.
FluffPuff not me, What sort of vinyl playback do You have?
FluffPuff What's truly beautiful is that your parents paid for an education and you still can't spell.
So many Cd fanatics as well
You find it beautiful to hurt people?
Finally a video that makes sense. Fact, most people's ears suck. Play a CD or record and most cannot tell the difference, unless they can hear the imperfections in the record and figure it out. Most people do not own high end audio speaker, amp, and have listening rooms. For most people it will make not a stitch of audio difference.
Yeah, I'm going to run out and replace my hundreds of CD's accumulated over decades with vinyl. Kiss my ass. Vinyl was as alive as Elvis until a few years ago when someone thought it would be trendy to bring back vinyl. Now the record labels are laughing all the way to the bank because they found a bunch of sheep to purchase something they already purchased years before. To each their own, but if I already own it on CD or digital, that's the format it's staying. Double buying is for suckers.
It doesn't matter what you listen on if the music stinks. But for classical music, I recommend CDs, because the sound is clearer without any pitchiness, and they're capable of about 30 more decibels of dynamic range, since you don't have to worry about a needle skipping right off the record when the cannons go boom. I can think of several pieces I wouldn't bother putting on vinyl without at least some gentle compression, but I wouldn't have to bother doing so with CDs.
*_Brian Dunning is simply a blogger with a poor understanding of the subject... In a nutshell, CDs chop off all the audio content above 22 kHz, while LPs roll off smoothly up to 60 kHz and beyond... Considering that the upper limit of human hearing is commonly agreed to be only 20 kHz, it is up to you to decide how much of a difference this actually makes... While digital sampling rates lets us record low frequencies very well, upper frequencies are sound stringent and artificial, which in fact they are, and cannot fully capture the complex natural higher harmonics... Those who claim a better listening experience with CD's, is possibly because of the absence of noise with digital reproduction as apposed to the background noise inherent with analog recordings... Professional musicians, who's business evolves around sound, often complain listening to digitally recorded music for extended periods leaves them feeling stressed... Every acoustic engineer knows every sound is accompanied by complex harmonic overtones which extend well beyond human hearing, but when those higher harmonic frequencies are missing, as with CD's, the sense of realism and depth is lost_*.
"upper frequencies are sound stringent and artificial"
Wrong, the cd has a flat response through the entire frequency range.
"when those higher harmonic frequencies are missing, as with CD's, the sense of realism and depth is lost"
So you are saying that your ears cannot hear those frequencies therefore your brain can't process them yet for some reason your brain totally processes them? I'm gonna need some pretty hard evidence if you want me to call that anything other than absolute bullshit.
*_IsoMacintosh, technology for technology's sake has a slippery down side, for example it detaches us from the natural world, and for some, maybe like yourself become less attuned to the nuances of things which are real and end up falling victim to the world of virtual reality... If you have ever been to a live orchestral concert you will know that the digital recording of that performance never quite matches the analogue recording of that same performance in terms of reality, or compared to what you actually heard live..._*
*_Everything within the analogue recording process and reproduction including loudspeakers, is mechanical much like the workings of your inner ear... Digital recordings on the other hand starts off with a mechanical device such as a microphone diagram, but then is chopped up into 1's and 0's or digital data which destroys the nuances of natural vibrations... That digital data then has to be reconverted from digital to analogue (via D to A converter) so it can be amplified and turned back into vibrations via speakers so the ear can accurately interpret and recognize the original instruments... I acknowledge that while some may understand the science involved between digital vs analogue sound reproduction, it's plain from your comments a percentage of people have cloth ears, and like climate change skeptics are simply in denial - which is just pure ignorance... Does that perhaps describe YOURSELF?_*
*_What A Load Of Crap... You obviously have no background in the recording industry or know anything about audio science... You're simply spouting off some crap you've heard from another ignoramus like yourself or perhaps even a salesperson... Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but stating it as a fact is simply shows your ignorance... I just love what Mark Twain once wrote about OPINIONS... “Opinions are nothing but the expressions of one’s bias, preconceived notions and deeply embedded false belief systems, and therefore aren’t worth a brass farthing.”_*
*_Skunkworks, the covert U.S weapons program where advanced future weaponry is developed, have been working on ultra sonic weapons for years... These ultrasonic weapon technologies are well beyond human hearing, but yet they can totally disorientate and make physically sick those to which these sonic weapons are aimed at... Turkey used this weapon recently on rioters in Istanbul to confuse and disperse hundreds of rioter's without anyone being killed... So yes! Just because the human ear cannot hear a particular frequency, does not mean its not present or can't be sensed... Evidence enough? ...You skeptic you LOL_*
*_You are a hopeless case and the perfect example of an ignorance fool, and proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing for someone with no real intellect... Go and toll somewhere else._*
I installed a vinyl floor in the digital piano room to make the sound more analog.
So you wanted your piano room to sound worse?
How is this even a discussion... technically CD is and always will be superior to vinyl.
That you love and like vinyl...good for you. Nothing wrong with that..
We all know that vinyl sounds better
Who's we? you mvellis perhaps? Most of us have good stereos and a better appreciation of high fidelity.
prep74 You can listen to all those cold, fatiguing, and soulless O's and 1's all you want. No thanks, I'll take analog vinyl every time - com'on, you know it sounds better!
Michael Ellis Well you have just outed yourself as vinyl fanboy rather than a music lover. I'd rather listen to the music as the artist intended it to sound in high fidelity rather than how a record colours it in lower fidelity. Each to their own I suppose.
So preferring vinyl means you're not a music lover? Well you just outed yourself as a digital wonk.
Adjectives describe attributes and a particular quality of the word they are modifying ("sound"), so you're quite wrong in saying they are meaningless. One can say analog vinyl sounds warm and rich to their human ear, while digital sounds cold and sterile.
I've got news for you; they are different. You can even re-record something that has been cut to vinyl, re-record it back to digital again, compare it back to the SAME audio source used to cut the vinyl and hear a difference. Look up here on youtube "vinyl rip" of something you are familiar with and compare it to a youtube upload of a digital version. There is notably depth to the low end, and separation of the low end from the rest of the frequencies; that on top of the fact that to cut vinyl the engineer typical will use a filter to roll off the highest frequencies to not make the needle jump out of the groves... that results in a warmer sound you can hear. Audio for vinyl is mastered differently and is typically quieter and more dynamic than CD/digital audio which is pushed to be as loud as it can be, which compressed all of the frequencies together; most people who enjoy music over time come to prefer music that is more dynamic and less compressed in this fashion... hence why playing the quieter and more dynamic vinyl version sounds better if you simply turn the amplifier up to hear the music louder versus it being blisteringly loud immediately such as a -8 LUFS CD or digital file. I mix and master music and could go on and on, there's even more to it than that... bottom line is this guy simple does NOT know what he's talking about and he's embarrassing himself in this video. The research study he cites claims people listened to an unmixed, unmastered orchestral on CD and vinyl and favored the CD... that's not saying much considering it's unmastered; but even in that HE'S ADMITTING THEY ARE DIFFERENT ... so then WHY do you think no one could possibly prefer vinyl other than being enchanted by the experience of lowering the tone arm??????? Maybe actually get something mixed and mastered and try the study again???????
Finally I knew I won the debate long time ago, knowing that digital has a far better frequency spectrum than vinyl and keep those all important higher tones better. The scopes don't lie but vinyl nuts stick to their albums like religious people stick to their holy books, proper evidence doesn't count.
But I do understand the final (pun intended) conclusion that using vinyl is a whole experience. As a kid I just loved to browse through albums, opening them up and indeed having that scent that often changes per album. I hated the whole needle placing and skipping a song.
+Raymond Doetjes
It's a fact borne out by my 25 years experience in club DJing that vinyl just doesn't wear out people's ears the way CD's or digital files do.
+terrypussypower war damage is caused by amplitude and certain frequencies around 1100-1200Hz. The medium that creates it is of no importance.
Raymond Doetjes
"War" damage certainly can damage your ears!
Aye, that "w" and "e" being so close always catches me out too!
Anyway, I wasn't referring to long term ear damage such as tinnitus and the like, but fatigue caused by listening to loud music over a few hours, and I've found that vinyl doesn't fatigue anywhere near as much as compressed digital files like MP3's. So the medium certainly can make a difference. My guess is this is due to the lack of dynamic variations in MP3 and other compressed audio files causing fatigue.
terrypussypower Lol WAR and EAR :) yeah..
Oh I thought you were talking about tinnitus. I suffer a bit from that (years of being a live musician). But yeah I can definitely explain that because vinyl has a bit less dynamic range. So perhaps those noises that fatigue your ears are somewhat less audible. I don't know just guess here.
When I work in the server room for a day I am just tired of the constant hum of the equipment. More so than playing music for a day.
But I also get very tired when listening through headphones compared to speakers -- on similar amplitudes.
Yeah interesting to research that. I have not listened to vinyl at home in well... 25 years I guess. And where they play vinyl it's loud anyways so :D
My biggest peeve with vinyl is the audible hiss and especially when some dust collects, that ticking sound brrrrrr.... But I guess in the last 30 years preamps for phono gotten more noise free as well. I am comparing my 1985 record player and amplifier.
Maybe I would need to look into one again, I have stacks of albums in storage that I have replaced with CDs over time.
Raymond Doetjes
Fuck, tinnitus is a bastard! I now have to DJ with acoustic ear plugs in or else I'm deafened by the volume of tinnitus for weeks after! I just wish I'd been better informed when I started DJing and wore ear protection then instead of waiting until the damage was done!
Everyone playing in a band or DJing in a club should be using ear protection these days, there's no excuse not to.
so digital is better... scientifically..... but qualitative ...the vinyl.. man, humans are weird
You can't measure everything, conversion itself can lead to a distortion, music is not a sine wave, but has a lot of impulse components. nobody measures them. nevertheless, vinyl has it's own specific distortion which is pleasant to human ear cause it is natural and consists of low harmonics.
To piggy back on russian dude^, the human ear actually likes distortion. Sine waves aren't natural and are quite boring to listen to.
Yes, that's because human ear itself produces a little distortion of that kind. But I do not believe that a sine wave test of DAC can show all it's objective caracteristics, nobody feeds a pulse to it and then measures it's digitized characteristics, it could be distorted, or skewed. And that would mean a lack of energy. Delta-sigmas are not perfect DACs, though they have gained greater performance las years, sound still is unnatural.
A big problem with your pseudoscience remarks is that distortion of any type is vanishingly small on digital recordings/playback but noticeable on analog systems, particularly vinyl and cassettes. And spare me the nonsense that human ears prefer a little bit of distortion. It is a bit like saying humans prefer a bit of distortion in their mirrors rather than transparency, which essentially all modern DACs are, transparent. The reason "they" don't measure what you say they should measure is because it is only relevant to someone with a very active imagination.Transparency might sound unnatural to you, so I assume even a master would sound unnatural to you. What sounds unnatural to me, and the majority of listeners (as the scientific experiment quoted in this video shows) is inner groove distortion, rumble, pops, crackles and hiss, and ill defined bass and treble. Each to their own.
Thank you for the reply. I might say that delta-sigma convertor, which are mainstream nowadays move a lot of sampling noise into ultrasound region, but sometimes it also remains in high sonic diapasone, and it is possible to hear it as harshness of sound. This way you can distingish digital mastering from analog even on a vinyl, where all pleasant harmonics present. The purpose of these harmonics are to enhance the sound and mask the unpleasant tones. 1 kHz distortion on a sine wave on delta-sigma converter is vanishly small, and they stick to it. They do not measure pulse components, though music has a lot of them. I might state that what you may call transparency could be these excessive high frequency tones, and the ear will be tired of them after five minutes cause it's innatural. Exessive highs can give an illusion of "transparency"
You obviously have never smelt a properly aged 8 track. The must on plastic is fabulous and makes the listening experience very intense.
I have a special Sabbath 8-track with just enough black mold to add the risk of death.
You simply cannot replicate that. It takes many years and a level of patience & determination that most people don't have.
A blind test was done using a unadulterated vinyl pressing of a CD. Guess which format every one listening preferred?
Yes, it's about getting the record out & PLAYING the music. . Not just shoving in a CD or MP3 & listening to it - I can get that on a radio.
We live in awesome times.
Our music has never sounded better and are movies have never looked better.
Why in the name of God would you want to go back to scratchy old vinyl!LOL
@denny b Still have vinyls from the '60s and early '70s. And album art is a form of expression all on its own.
I grew up with vinyl. When CDs came along I ditched 'em and never looked back.
The larger album art is literally all I miss, other than that - I have no use for them.
And the "warmth" of vinyl is simply mild distortion. I prefer the absence of snap, crackle, and pop.
Which can be lessened with clean vinyl and a good rig, but no thanks. Not worth the hassle.
So then warm sounding live music is distortion too?
Did the test take into account listening fatigue? You gotta listen for at least 3 hours to appreciate vinyl.
Um, mind explaining?
Some people do get listening fatigue when listening to very high fidelity sound as more of your brain is being used. I don't get fatigue from listening to digital audio but I do need to take a break every couple hours or so after being in the studio hearing the music live (now that is as high fidelity as you can get).
It is pretty much the same issue with video. Many TVs have a night function which softens the picture and lowers the resolution for a more "relaxed" late night viewing. From that perspective I can understand why some may find the lower resolution of vinyl to be less fatiguing than the more focused digital.
Watch the talk by Keith O. Johnson link I gave in my last comment. Digital has it's own distortion. The higher the fidelity the more relaxed the brain becomes according to Keith - not the other way around.
lorem ipsum Well Keith is wrong. He is another analog apologist dappling in psuedoscience.
It has long been established that high resolution of anything, hearing, vision, smell, taste etc can be more fatiguing because we use more of our brains. Ask any producer or audio engineer how fatiguing studio work can get after a while - and you can't get higher fidelity than the actual event.
As for distortion, yes digital has its own distortion but it is significantly lower than analog distortion and below human perception - every wonder why they don't bother providing distortion, jitter, etc figures on digital products these days? It's pointless.
There are some distorted recordings on digital, clipped sounds from the loudness wars, but that is not the fault of the media.
Just wanted to add that, in my experience, the speakers have the biggest impact when it comes to fatigue. That's partially why we recording geeks are always buying and trying different studio monitors (speakers) in pursuit of the perfect pair.
When listening to Vinyl vs CD on the same sound system, I doubt there would be much impact on fatigue in comparison to make a worthwhile argument.
In the end, the big difference to the ear between the two formats is the unique sounds and magnetic / warmth from the vinyl, vs practically no change from being printed to CD.
So, if you like the sound of a vinyl record... enjoy it. It's all preference. It's like Apple vs PC. Depends on the job. I like records in my bedroom, CD's in my studio, and digital in my car so nothing melts!
I was surprised that a vinyl user had posted a FLAC high bitrate recording of Rumours by Fleetwood Mac. I listened to the recording but was disappointed that the record was scratched. There were scratches before every song and even during the songs. The time to make a digital copy is before the record is damaged, not after. At least use a digital scratch removal program. The sound when there were no scratches was excellent. I don't quite understand keeping a record that is scratched let alone making a FLAC copy of the scratched record. Other recordings of vinyl that I have heard were surprisingly good. I mean really really good. No scratches, just good sound.
sorry vinyl sounds better and those who say it does not never heard real stereo .CDs and music files are compressed which means sound taken out. it has nothing to do with nostalgia or the rich smell of vinyl or all that other bull shit . I remember the change from vinyl to CD and the first thing i noticed was the music sounds flat . But you cant miss what you never heard . i dont need numbers or graphs to tell me which is better . All you have to do is listen to the music .
I'm sure you're about 20 and you have no clue
Now I know you're about 20 .so you have know idea what real music sounds like you grew up on ipods and you didn't know what head phones were until they made beats a company that never made a head phone before that
Nope you're just a troll with nothing to do.
"never heard real stereo"
Two audio channels going to two speakers is the only form of stereo i know, is there a form of fake stereo i'm missing?
"CDs and music files are compressed"
Incorrect, CD is uncompressed.
"All you have to do is listen to the music"
That tells you nothing, have you never heard of the placebo effect?
hipster lol you sound like a fool
Is it cool digital engineers still release vinyl (digital source to analog copy disc?) Woukd tape reel master source (analog) to vinyl disc (analog) be better or digital source to digital disc? Hmmm?
I sold my vinyls, CD is better.
Golden Voices You most likely heard your vinyl collection on a cheap crosley. Am i right??
Golden Voices Should have sold your equipment and made friends with someone with a kickass audio system which included a turntable.
One day you will definitely regret doing that.... Soon as you hear clean vinyl played on a decent Hi-Fi stereo system. Or maybe not if you prefer your music compressed and Loud Like A bullhorn.
CD all the way.... vinyl sucks period!get some decent gear and you'll never look back
Holy Jesus. These hipsters are definitelly deaf. Digital file sampled at 44100 Hz 16bit is less compressed than 38cm/s tape.
Vinyl requires a bass booster for the balance to be correct to a human. Or vinyl nerds call it a phono stage.
How have you convinced yourselves that this technology is the way forward?
In short, digital sounds better than vinyl and requires less effort.
Does not sound better but does require less effort on the digital side.
Daniel Dougan You need new audio equipment or new friends with better audio equipment.
signal through chip op-amp vs discrete op-amp vs single ended solid state vs single ended tube (vs transformer I/V - for DAC) Boosted via RIAA curve rumble noise & warp modulation for vinyl (perhaps adds "ambiance"? - scraping/mistracking inner-groove noise for vinyl. The vinyl era contained a lot of interesting and good music. When did solid state consoles and lathe amps take over from vacuum tubes?
vinyl records can get scratched easily giving off and snap crackle and sound were as CD audo offers cristal clear sound.
cristal clear but flat... i also prefer vinyl because you are really listening and enjoying the music instead of just hearing it. like you really take your time and care of the records
MeTheJoo That doesn't even make sense. You can just sit back and really appreciate the music without any distracting thing to do and you also have to tar care of your CDs
MeTheJoo spot on . it's much more of an experience with vinyl :)
More times than not, it's only dust. Not scratched.
So CDs don't scratch? LOL
Digital may be more "accurate" with "better frequency range" --- but digital ALWAYS sounds cold, sterile, and one-dimensional. Also with regard to digital: louder does not equate to "better". Louder is just louder.
Sure...I would love to elaborate, but first you elaborate on whether sound is digital or analog.
excellent...you got one right.
In fact analog is far more accurate. Digital audio has a lot of digital noise embedded in music.
Çerastes First of all, digital data is actually analog. The 0s and 1s are square waves with timing and frequency, subjected to all kinds of error. This is called digital noise, also known as jitter. The jitter effect on audio is tremendous and very noticeable. So there is no such thing as "perfect bit" in digital music.
Secondly, most of CD players and computers are poorly designed and add a lot of jitter to the music. So if you don't have a dedicated server with a good DAC you're going to hear a lot of distortion in your digital audio. This is the reason people like the old turntables, because they don't want to spend US$ 10k to buy a good digital server to get a decent audio.
Çerastes Sorry, but you don't understand the basic of digital data. Digital data is nothing more than an analog square wave that represents the 0s and 1s of binary code. So what your DAC does in fact is to convert an analog square wave to an analog sine wave. As i said, there is no such thing as "bit perfect" in digital data, all the data is embedded with a certain amount of error, also called jitter.
So what will determine the audio quality in digital audio is the capacity of controlling jitter.
And this is the reason turntables has a better audio quality than regular CDs and computers, because they don't have to convert square waves to sine waves. This convertion process add a lot of jitter into music.
This is an argument that I will sit on the fence over, as with the argument over tubes and transistors.
My view is go with what sounds right to you. There is no right or wrong, just a preference. If something sounds right and you enjoy listening to it then you have the right sound.
Strange that you didn't mention what recorders they used for the test. I would like to know especially what analog recorder was used. The preference for for digital wasn't always the case. I recall in the late 80s a similar test being done and the digital recorder, a Soundstream unit (considered the standard back then) did not fair so well against three analog recorders.
They were recording live audio and also listened to the microphone feeds as a reference. The winner?... a master record lacquer cutter, the kind used by Sheffield Labs. Second and third place were both analog open reel recorders, (I can't remember which ones). In last place was the Soundstream digital recorder. I realize digital audio is much better now but I different recorders will yield different outcomes.
It should be noted that even if a record sounded as good as a properly recorded CD, it's only going to sound that way for a number of plays. Each play will degrade the record. Also, the quality is not consistent from beginning to end. Vinyl also has the serious disadvantage of not being practical in most circumstances. It's no good for mobile use. I made up a Xmas CD for the car. I used a CDRW. I've made many changes, erased the disc 5 or 6 times and re-recorded it with additional and different songs. It's in the car CD player, it plays flawlessly regardless of bumps, fast starts and stops, and it's got 131 songs on it. I press the random button on the display in the car and I never know what song is coming up next. It does tell me what song is playing, how long it has been playing, how long it has left, and of the 131 songs, what number number song it is. I have four hours or so of music and I don't even have to turn the disc over. After the Xmas season, I'll probably use it for audiobooks. Erase it, put on a book and listen while I'm in the car. Note that the vinyl users can do none of that. 131 songs on one disc? Unheard of in the vinyl world. Random play, name of the song, album, and aritst displayed, unheard of in the vinyl world. Length of the song, time left and time played. Again, unheard of for vinyl folks. Of course, the vinyl folks can't even make their own compilations let alone erase a disc and start again as many times as I want. I could have used a memory stick but I wanted to test out a CDRW and see how well it worked for this purpose. By the way. I can make the 131 song disc in 7 minutes. If I used a CDR it would probably be 2 minutes. What good is vinyl if you can't use it except at home in your stereo room? I'm used to having my music everywhere.
Oh my god. You remind me of the guy in the beginning of Plan 9 from outer space. Great. Your style of speech is really soothing. But yes the camera angle is ridiculous but your speech is great. So you have a profession in that? Because I have and your presentation sounds simply perfect. It's not by any means standard but it's completely original and therefore uninterchangeable. Thats what makes a good host. Please keep up this cool style Brian.
0:47 - Amen. From the moment the sound hits the 'Recording Mic', its all downhill from there! lol
Classical music often has very soft passages and digital media allows you to listen to these pieces without the surface noise of vinyl. Still, for most music I prefer vinyl, I have compared vinyl to digital recordings of the same music and there is a difference
I can't handle surface crackles and hiss as well as groove roar and platter rumble, off-center pressings, distortion resulting from previous mistracking, inner groove distortion et al. ALL analog disc recordings exhibit varying amounts of these distortions as well as other kinds of distortion. no less an audio authority than the late tom dowd, said that in his opinion, the analog phonographic sound carrier was an inferior medium compared to CD.
I've heard it on the "highest quality systems" I could find in my local high end place, who only let me in because I knew the owner.
With vinyl the pops and hiss become distracting. There's no pops and hiss at an actual concert. I spent more time cleaning the records, setting up the turntable, worrying about vibrations than actually sitting down and listening to the music. Once I got a good NOS DAC and tube pre, it was good bye Vinyl.
As he says there's many variables to consider, if he's using the same equipment to test either it would give us a false reading especially if he's using contemporary equipment which will favour digital playback and recording, besides records are far more fun than CDs ever were.
I prefer to listen to old albums on vinyl, where you have two or four (sometimes more) sides where the tracks were arranged to be played in a particular order. There is also having to turn over the disk from side one to side two. I also loved collecting albums because of the sleeves.
I like CDs for the quality of the reproduction, and playing in my car. They are also (usually) much longer, which is better when driving. I never use the random play setting, preferring to stick to the musician's set playing order. In general;, CD sleeves are often not as attractive as vinyl sleeves, although they often contain more information.
I like my MP3 player for when I'm running, walking, or doing other things away form my car, CD player or record deck.
As for the technical side, I used to have a friend who listened to vinyl, then later CDs, by watching the graphic equaliser. I just like listening to music, whatever the format.
For me it's not about which is better it's about which medium has the original mastered recording. If I'm listening to Rush's Moving Pictures, I'd want to hear it on and original pressed vinyl because that has the mix and master the artist intended. The CD that has the same album more than likely has been tampered with by another producer.
Another situation is I own two recordings of the Eastman Wind Ensemble performing Gianinni's Symphony No.3. One is on vinyl, the other is a digital version. I can tell you from personal experience that the vinyl recording feels more alive and dynamic. The digital recording for the most part captures this, but you can tell modern mastering has tampered with the overall sound of the recording. In the car this doesn't bother me, but if I'm at home the vinyl is my preferred choice.
The medium has less to do with the argument. It's really a question of the mastering of the recording.
One other test, I moved the computer a bit, gave it a good rap with my hand, moved the computer but there was no change in the audio. I moved the computer around with my foot, again, no change in the audio. Care to try that with vinyl? Even if I whack it hard enough to cause a pause, it won't hurt the disk or the player. Care to try that with vinyl? Didn't think so.
This applicable to many of our involvements in lives.
Vinyls give experiences like great movies in great theaters. They come a little closer to our souls. Vinyls represent inventions, history and time. But both have their places.
16bit is insufficient to maintain the dynamics of the original recording. I have a home recording studio where I record everything at 24bit. In order to get my recordings to play on my hi-fi I have to 'dither' the bit-rate down to 16bit and drop it onto a cd so's my hi-fi can play it. On playback at 16bit, you can quite plainly hear that a lot of the dynamics of the sound have been stripped out.
The reason that the record companies went for 16bit in the first place was because any higher bit rate would mean that a album would not fit onto a cd.
+Peter Mitchell I think you are confusing production with playback. Yes 24 bit (and higher) is important for recording and mastering for headroom. On playback the only difference between 16bits and 24bits is and extra 48db of dynamic range and a lower noise floor. Given that 16bits has a dynamic range of 98db which far exceeds the dynamic range of 99.9% of all recordings and the difference in the noise floor is only noticeable in a very quiet room, on a silent passage of music and with the volume turned right up, the difference between 16bits and 24bits is not perceptible to any human under anything but the most extreme listening conditions. Putting it another way, the best analog tape 24 track tape recorders running 2" tape at 30ips have an equivalent of 13bits and they are still highly regarded. Vinyl has an equivalent of 10-12bits depending on the frequency and where it is on the LP.
Well if your source ( Vinyl, CD or HIRES audio format) sucks then no audio system, speakers etc can save the day. Start building the audio system from the start up, like building house if the foundation sucks the house will fall. audio source -> DAC (if needed) -> Amplifier -> speakers or headphones.
CD's are often compressed which destroys the sound. So it's vinyl to me. Plus the vinyl artwork is often better.
I'm sure you meant excessively compressed as all recorded music is compressed. Have you ever heard an uncompressed recording? It would sound thin and lifeless, drums would not sound like drums.
prep74 You know what I mean, the radio thing... Albums are now created to be played on radio stations. I don't know the exact term.
Lorenz Müller Yeah I know what you mean. One piece of good news is that the default normalisation setting on Spotify and other streaming services which now dominate the market, means that the loudness wars may come to an end because compressing the sound for excess loudness will achieve the opposite effect.
Vinyl for sure. You can especially hear the difference in music where there is an upright bass or cello. Though I do like the convenience of digital music formats.
Digital is more accurate. You can tell by playing it back and recording it. Ignore the speakers, and just record like in. Same amp and such. If you do it hundreds of times, vinyl will sound much worse, much more quickly.