I agree. In the 1970's I sold hifi for the Audio Warehouse in Akron, Ohio. We had a turntable with two tone arms so the listeners could compare the sound of cartridges while paying an album. We are able to match the output of each cartridge so the volume was the same when compared. The differences in sound characteristics were VERY noticeably different in frequency response, channel separation and dynamic range.
As you were talking about vinyl in this video I kept saying "it's the cartridge, Paul" and you finally heard me. So to speak. I agree. It's the way phono cartridges translate vibrations into sounds. I find streaming very convenient. And, I like the wide range of music available at a moment's notice. But LPs are like comfort food for the ears.
Hahaha, you too? And phono stage, of course :). If you have phono stages with little dipswitches to adjust load and impedance and such, it's insane how much the harshness changes depending on how you set them up.
The vinyl will sound different than a digital counterpoint due to phono cartridges (like Paul stated) because there are resonant frequencies and harmonics produced by the mechanical nature of vinyl playback which are not produced by playing a cd or digital file.
The harmonics are also present in live music, but it's mostly missing from digital music. It's a real shame. But the good news is that you can add those harmonics back into digital music. That's what I do every time I listen to digital and the results are really good.
@@dtz1000 Digital recording can capture everything that's present better than vinyl can so if there is some lack of harmonics its because the recording microphones didn't capture them, or they just weren't there to begin with, so it wouldn't make it to the vinyl pressing either. Any extra harmonics you hear in the vinyl format that isn't there on the lossless digital versions would just be distortion, regardless of whether they are harmonic or not. The only thing I could want from vinyl are some of the older masters that weren't made for digital, but since the digital formats are better you can just record the playback from a turntable and you'll be able to reproduce that signal digitally.
You're spot on about the cartridges: The reason that vinyl sounds warmer than digital, is the same reason why regular tube amplifiers sound warmer than solid state: In the case of the tube amplifiers, it is the output transformers that add second harmonics. In the case of playing vinyl, the vast majority of pick up elements use magnetism, and add second harmonics. Some years ago I used the Stax electrostatic cartridge, via OTL amplifiers connected to ESL loudspeakers. So, no magnetism anywhere in the audio chain. On that set-up, there is not much difference anymore between the same recording played back from CD or LP.
Amazing test!!! Tha's golden information!! In your opinion, how can we isolate the RIAA equalization from the comparision? I've always bet the warmth was into that RIAA equalization...
I quit vinyl for the same reasons as most: convenience and sound clarity. Up until recently, I've been listening to music through iPods and now Hi Res portable devices through speakers of any kind. One afternoon I saw a record store and got in, I saw a title I liked and the owner offered to play it for me. He had a Stanton turntable, a mixer as preamp, an old amp, and speakers. I cannot tell you how amazing music sounded through that cheap set up. A whole world I've been missing all these years and that got lost in the digital era. It wasn't nostalgia, it was just how better music sound like in vinyl. So I'm back to Vinyl when I swore I would never come back. I suppose the quality of audio has been sacrificed in the altar of higher resolution and digital components.
Ever since CD format every newer digital format became worse and worse because of dynamic compression, limiting of frequency range and data compression. IMO nothing gets close to a CD player through a good DAC. Nice thing is that many people are getting rid of their CD collection and they often end up in 2nd hand stores. There you can buy great albums for cheap! Yet when you play them at home you get TOP level HiFi sound quality! What's not to like? When you get vinyll LP's from stores like that they are often scratched and worn or warped.
@@purpleghost4083 Everything that I have heard the WAV files do sound better, but maybe FLAC could be better. I have never understood the differences. Like maybe one cant get online the labeled names of the albums on WAV, I dont understand it too much. I dont know if one can copy youtube files anymore. But on my hard drive the youtube VIDEOS AVI files sound better than the mp3's wothout the video. Whenever a file is changed, the sound gets worse. A AVI video changed to mp3 hurts the sound. In the past when I was able to, I'd do it with WAV files. I copied cds with WAV files. Files are not quite as good as cds are, but I somewhat like files. Computerr wiring hurts the files sound. I wished I knew a good cheap dac, I think dacs can hook up to dvd players. My town, the stereo places closed 10 years ago, & I have not traveled to the hi end hifi town to get to know hi fi stuff. I heard that these old ladder DACS or cd players are better.
@@myronhelton4441. Vynal is different not necessarily better!Have to agree with Paul,most of that warmth is due to cartridge.In my experience/opinion its easier to get a good Vynal sound for low $$$ as the cartridge tends to colour the sound so that even an average amp will sound good with vynal where a decent cd player can often expose weaknesses within the system ie speakers, amplifier resulting in a harder sound for want of a better description.I play records and cds at home.When I want laid back and relaxing sound vynal is great, but if I want details,dynamics,punch,prat etc I listen to cds,maybe I need to by a $ 10.000 plus turntable and cartridge and I may change my mind,ha ha.Can be an expensive hobby this.
This from musician, recording engineer Michael Connolly: “I want to emphasize again that distortion is not necessarily a bad thing! I like the sound of analog distortion and the warmth it adds, as do many listeners and other audio professionals, and I take active steps to add it to recordings that I produce. In the 70s, distortion was an unavoidable side effect of using magnetic tape, vacuum tube equipment, and mastering to vinyl-but it added musical qualities to recordings that are still aesthetically valued today. In my digital recording studio, my recording system exhibits extremely low distortion, but I often take additional processing steps to add it for musical effect. Engineers often refer to using special equipment to “warm up” a sound source by adding this distortion”
Thanks Paul, have watched many of your videos. I have been an audio repair tech for nearly 50years. It is so nice to hear honesty when a CEO or rep talks about products they sell/ manufacture.. Once again Thank You!
The cutting head doesn't change, it is the pitch of the lathe that changes. When there are high levels, the pitch is increased so that the cutting stylus does not cut over. When the levels are low, the pitch is decreased to obtain longer recording times. This can be done manually as Sheffield Records did on their Direct to Disc Analog recordings.or it can be automated with a delay, but this would require a tape or digital transfer. If you left the lathe with a constant wide pitch, you would only get about 4 minutes on one 12" record side.
Isn't that pitch change also why us DJs can see the difference in spacings and density from the change in pitch, and thus see where the main portions and the breakdowns are?
@@Reticuli That is correct. the pitch is changed radically for about 4 seconds to provide the blank spot to facilitate a needle drop. BSR made a turntable with a photo cell that could detect those spaces and it could be programmed to go to a specific song.
@@Yoda8945 I mean the light or dark areas of the vinyl grooves, not any intentional pitch change just for a needle drop. Or is it just the width and depth of the groove and amplitude of the sound that would result you're seeing with the naked eye?
@@Reticuli Yes, those are different areas of levels and frequencies. If you look carefully with a magnifying glass, you cn actually differentiate between high frequencies and low frequencies as well as level changes.
I lived next door to Jan August, a pianist who had success with his versions of Miserlou and Babalu on 78 rpm records 1946. When he moved approx 20 years later he put the master disks out on the sidewalk to be picked up by the garbage men. My 12 year old brother scooped them up along with lots of regular 78s. The masters were thick and heavy. The surface looked gold (more like champagne) and the outer edges were very rough and irregular. They played perfectly on our parents’ Zenith console. And no, they haven’t survived the 55 years since.
Yes Paul you are right. Every phonocartridge (+preamp) has its own NONLINEAR frequency response. You'll need a TEST Vinyl Record (TEST LP) that has White Noise or Pink Noise recorded on it. Whenever I get a new Cartridge, I use the TEST LP and digitize the sound using Audacity. Then I pick the Pink Noise or White Noise portion and run a Spectrum Analysis. Once I get the Spectrum Analysis I can tell which frequencies need to be compensated for or fixed. Thereafter, whenever I need to listen to a record, I always EQ the sound coming out of the of the turntable preamp in order to adjust the frequency response est VOILA! The sound I get from Vinyl is IDENTICAL to that of the digital versions of the music in at least 80% of cases. The only difference in most cases is that the Dynamic Range of the music on Vinyl is larger (by 2 to 5 dbs generally) and that's because the CD and mp3 versions of songs have their Dynamic Range crushed by the sound engineers (to make them louder aka "Loudness War"). I don't know if you have tried a TEST LP to adjust the nonlinearity of the vinyl system. Once you do the adjustments you'll get the same identical sound. I've been doing this for years.......
That is a very interesting observation. How does the frequency response of a pleasant cartridge look like? I am only using high res streaming and my DAC has a parametric EQ. It would be fun to make it sound like vinyl.
@@bksve6505 It is aiming to have not pleasant cartridge but ideal one. In digital you may record analog noise converted to digital data. Then reproduce that data with your DAC and analyze it with any possesed digital analyzer Then You may see how to equalize outcome but in my opinion it is still half of problem because: DAC procedure is not spoiling the read out in visible degree and you will not find fault. Digital anlyzers tell only about big jumps and it finally do not take account of all alterations done by amplifier and speakers and room so it looks nonsense . .
@@tirkentube the noise-floor is higher in vinyl, but you can lift up what is obove the noise-floor, it is a expansion so to say in contrary of compression. The music put on a vinyl is always compressed and I wonder, why the video-creator did not mention that (RIAA-decrompression/compession process, that enhances low frequencies while lowering high frequencies). With this in mind you can understand or learn, that it is possible to enhance dynamics whilst the process of amplifying what comes out of the cartridge. I guess, that @bedros... has meant this.
Very thorough and gradual explanation to get to the conclusion where the difference could actually be. I have enjoyed in this particular video very much.
This is an interesting discussion. I have always been aware of the unique sonic differences between an LP and it's CD version. However, about 15-20 years ago I bought a Super Audio CD release of a Carpenters collection album. Not knowing if I would ever be able to play the disc, I bought it thinking it would make an interesting collector's item. Some time later I learned that my DVD changer could play SACD discs. I must say the listening experience was very different than anything I had heard from a CD before and the most analog/vinyl kind of sound I have ever heard from a digital source in my home - very rich, enjoyable, warm, and easy on the ears. I didn't even play it on what I would consider high-end audio equipment, but I was still amazed at the difference. What I concluded was that in addition to whatever good sound engineering was employed on that particular recording/transfer, that bits & sampling rate must make a significant difference and that IT IS POSSIBLE to obtain more analog kind of sound qualities from modern digital recordings. Perhaps the limitations of the standard CD format has been the main issue?
Absolutely. The 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate of the CD format is an issue. The sampling rate causes "steps" in the waveform so it can never be as good to our ears as an analog format. Going up to 24bit/48kHz and above makes a difference, but as Paul said, the phono cartridge probably has more to do with coloring the sound as far as "warmth".
The matching of the phono stage & cable capacitance vs the cartridge inductance not only changes the roll off, but where the resonance happens, how much, and whether there's a compression effect that accompanies the signal that feeds back and accentuates.
If you compare the specs of CD and SACD you will see what the issue with CD is and why I disparage CDs on many TH-cam discussions. The frequency range of CD only goes up to 20khz. SACD, on the other hand, goes up to 50khz. Vinyl has been measured at 50khz and beyond. This is why vinyl is better than CD and it looks like SACD is way better than CD as well.
@@dtz1000 My Dad is a longtime hearing specialist so I've had access to some nice audiology and hearing test equipment. I have been tested to have very good hearing up to about 16khz. It has to be pretty loud for me to hear anything beyond that. However I can hear a massive difference between CD and SACD even at moderate listening levels, so I don't believe it has anything to do with frequency response per se. While good frequency response is definitely important, high fidelity has alot more components to it than just reproducing frequencies above 20khz, which I would argue most people aren't even hearing anyway.
@@solidaudioTV Most instruments emit ultrasonic sounds and these sounds have been shown to affect humans in a positive way. If the engineers who made SACD thought like you did then they would not have designed their product to record sounds up to 50khz. Instead, they would have just cut off the frequencies at 20khz the same as CDs. Maybe they know something you don't.
Nonsense. A vinyl album created from an original unequalised digital master would sound horrible or may even be unplayable. Vinyl masters require dynamic compression and RIAA equalisation giving bass cut and treble boost. Deep bass must also be mixed to mono. Phono stages apply reverse RIAA equalisation and a vinyl album as described by Paul would sound bass heavy with little treble and probably be impossible for the stylus to track.
When you go to an Arabic country such as Egypt it's useful to learn the number system. You can see how much things actually cost and won't get to ripped off.
I'm glad you got to that final point about the phono cartridge because I assure you that I was going to post that question...lol! Thanks for the lessons, always.
Personally, I've advocated Paul's position for at least a Decade, there's no war to start here - I was delighted when he went to "cartridges" - - it's iron & coils vs digital conversion - - simple - - the beginning of the two playback chains are two completely different approaches so of course they sound different, but it's no longer a "night and day" thing - I love having both, digital, imho, has come so far that it's totally enjoyable - when I want vinyl magic, I'm playing records - twice the fun.
Jumped into vinyl only some weeks ago, and after decades of listening to digital music I am delighted just HOW GOOD vinyl sounds. My streamer & DAC combo matches the sound, but only and if the mastering of the digital music version was done properly. For most 70s/80s (soul, R&B, funk,... ) music in my system the vinyl sounds at least as good.
@Douglas Blake I fully agree that there is some characteristic tonal balance in vinyl. But more than that alone there is some kind of fluidity to the sound, combined with a lot of punch... simply yummie.
Thanks Paul. The dynamic range difference is really only useful when recording. Larger dynamic range allows for easier recording. But by the time it's mixed down, most music goes through some form of compression to make it more listenable. Myself, starting off in the days of tape, I usually compressed vocals by 3-6 dbs on the peaks going to tape. Then about the same on mix down if needed, as vocals can have huge dynamic swings. I don't think it's a dynamic difference that causes the warm sound. What many have said regarding the mechanical physics makes the most sense. The sonic difference from going from the heavier moving mass of moving magnet cartridges verses moving coil was huge, and let's not talk about strain gauge cartridges, which I owned - Electro Research EK-1. The mm cartridge was warmer, slower, and less detailed than mc. At least the ones I heard. Both though, compared to digital, from what I can remember from long ago, gives more body to the instruments than digital and I think that is from a frequency response issue, as one can gain that type difference of sound via changing eq. www.youtube.com/@ronvaillant2234/videos
As Paul said, the warmer or less warm sound of the vinyl is given by the frequency response of the cartridge which can be extremely variable according to the brand and model while for the digital the response is always perfectly linear.
Amazing! So with "while for the digital the response is always perfectly linear" every DAC would sound exactly the same. Perfection does not come in degrees.
@@glenncurry3041 Perfection is very important in what we feel. What is called « warmer » or « more natural » there is the result of imperfections! Analog devices are well known by musicians to have random electrical micro-issues that warm up the sound. That’s what « we » are looking for in old tube amplifiers and trying to reproduce in DSP. It is highly probable that the warm feeling from a Vinyl comes from the same « troubles », repeated again and again while recording, pressing, reading and so on. I use both vinyl table and CD (including SACD) and have this feeling too. But the bit depth of a SACD + a good « Tube » DSP setting give the best of the two worlds. Then never your speakers are digital. Your ears « receive » an analog signal through air. No gaps is possible at such speakers and air vibration frequencies. Finally, your brain receive a… digital signal whatever happens. This signal is the result of the vibration processing by your ears nerves to be send to your brain.
@@frjedi9081 At this point no your speakers are never digital. I've played with time domain and bit depth speaker concepts. But do not know of any on the market. A highly resolving output system, amps/ speakers, will try to reproduce whatever the incoming signal is. If PCM it is stairsteps. How wide and tall depends on the sampling rate and bit depth. With hopefully some close to reasonable integration. DSD reduces that to one bit at a high to higher chop rate. Much easier to integrate.
What an interesting analysis. Phono cartridge would definitely change sound. Not sure how it makes vinyl warmer than digital exclusively. Fun hearing audiophiles engineering approach to music. Enjoy your vids and explanations. Thanks.
You said, "Phono cartridge would definitely change sound. Not sure how it makes vinyl warmer than digital exclusively." My thought exactly. Maybe Paul can chime in and elaborate further?
As a bass player every link in the chain is in a way an instrument. From the bass itself to the pedal to the amp to the speaker. I like to think of my stereo set up the same way: each is an instrument by choice. The source, the amp the speakers. Adding this all up gives a result, which I like or maybe dislike. But it is always personal. If I had the "perfect" audiophile system it would not be personal. So I choose coloured, teinted, distorted, warm, cold any time over perfect.
You are genious . You esplain as a teacher do in class , is new for me . Thanks for your eford for make the sound better . I wish I can visit your studio and have a tour .
I think the higher compression and crosstalk of vinyl can mask poor recordings so that glaring recording problems that jump out when listening to digital formats are hidden to a certain degree by the vinyl format. Vinyl acts like the audio version of a smart phones portrait filter.
Good point, but it works both ways too. Vinyl sounds better in some cases because the God-awful CD "volume wars" mix simply can't be faithfully transferred to vinyl, forcing a better mix to be used. Ironically, and because vinyl is physically limited, the Vinyl mix has greater dynamic range than the "volume wars" digital mix.
@@xxxYYZxxx Yes and no. The recording level of a CD is ultimately a choice made by the engineer. They could just as easily use a normal level for a CD. It is part of the reason I often prefer original CD releases over remasters because 80% of the remasters have boosted volume at the expense of dynamic range.
Hi Paul, Hope things are well, great video and your (very well articulated) take on the different sources and platforms music is presented to us. I too love vinyl and agree it sounds great, I too listen to music via streaming services just for the sheer convenience but every now and again I put on the vinyl and I'm always blown away by the interest grabbing effect it has on me. Is digital more technically correct - Yes and without doubt. Does vinyl sound better than digital - well, thats down to the individual to decide. Which Is more enjoyable - to me, at least and without doubt - vinyl. Slight correction, to your description of the vinyl cutting process, the signal that is cut is the delayed signal not the non-delayed signal, the non-delayed signal has to tell the cutter head what to expect and do to compensate for depth/width and any other issues whilst cutting the groove. The most famous and widely used cutting lathe is/was the Neumann VMS-70, and 80(s) variants, they had analogue to digital - digital to analogue converters to delay the analogue signal a bit to give it enough time to be corrected for cutting issues before cutting to vinyl - so in effect we are listening to a A-D then D-A processed audio signal. This goes back since the 40's with 4bit, 8bit resolution A-D & D-A converters! However, there are some direct to disk cutting LP's out there which is must to listen to if you can find them. Working with DSD, i would like to know how you would delay the signal before converting it back to analogue to be cut. or why not dispense with the AD-DA DSD conversion and go full direct to disk cutting, must be better.
The major point is not the dynamic it is the physic of vinyl wich softens transients. And it is limited in reproducing transients, therefore a transient limiter is standard at most cutting setups. And right, the cartridge also. First, modern stylus shapes beyond Shibata have better contact to the groove and less uncontrolled movement. Second is the mass of the moving parts, a nude stylus and a light cantilever is better to follow transients. The type is vice versa since modern magnetic materials are available, but at my experience MC is still quicker and tighter than MM at transients. At least the cutting material, a copper cutting (DMM) is less warm than a laquer cutting. And finally, you're also right with the source. In my collection it is clearly audible if the source is analog or digital, which means, vinyl is better than analog tape in transients , also if tape is recorded with noise reduction like Dolby A etc. So, the dynamic is not the point. Which also means, that every demo of a tape copy of vinyl or an analog master tape does not proove the quality of analog tape. As conclusion overall, to cut and pickup mechanically is softening transients anyhow and that add warmth to the sound, and analog tape also.
I've long suspected that it has to do with harmonic content. I question whether digital recordings have the resolution to capture all of the subtle harmonic overtones that occur in music while analog recorders have theoretically infinite resolution. Digital converters will try and interpolate between data points but they can't really anticipate what harmonic content to insert in the gaps. Where some of the harmonic content is missing, people may perceive that as "colder" sounding because they perceive something is missing but can't put a finger on what. The phono cartridge may play a part as some may pick up the content where others may not but if the content simply isn't there as with digital it won't matter.
I love records and CDs both. I prefer records usually but I can't really argue against the clear sound of the CD. The only real thing that ever bugged me about CDs that I didn't have to deal with with a record was the crazy volume. There are too many CDs that are just loud as hell from start to finish. It's nice when I find new music that chooses not go that route. I'm not super knowledgeable about all the tricks required to create a record but it's my understanding that the reason I don't have any records that are brick walled on volume is simply because vinyl has a space limitation? I don't know that I actually perceive a "warmth" from vinyl. Maybe that's just the cartridge I'm using (Stanton). I think I just prefer the range better even if I get some clicks or static from time to time. Records are more fun to play anyway. Not sure why but the physicality of using a record player is just more entertaining than a CD player for some reason.
The stylus on most carts will distort with too loud a pressing of highly compressed & dense musical content that also has a lot of high frequencies, and therefore, while some acoustic recordings might need a little compression for vinyl, most vinyl records made of studio productions are actually compressed less than the digital release versions. If you do a hot pressing of very dense, loud music, then you'll probably require low pass filtering.
The best of the "warm" sounding records were produced in the late 50's, 60's and 70's. RCA Living Stereo, Audio Fidelity and Deutsche Grammophon all were produced with the best of the tube equipment that was available at the time. Most of those records have a warm cozy sound to them if played on a decent system. They can be found at your local used record store.
For me it is most noticeable in the distortion of the 60 -70s era rock & roll guitar riffs, where a rich spectrum of overtones are present. They used class A tube amps with alnico magnets in the speakers. Digital just doesn’t replicate that with the same effectivity.
@@TheZooman22 FWIW I was involved with an Audiophile organization in Boston that can't be mentioned here as Paul would get angry. But one of the partners was the Media Lab at MIT ( one of my old haunts ). The task was to identify why people preferred the "warm" or tube sound and what it was. Yes indeed "rich spectrum of overtones are present" is a kind way to describe all that. The propeller heads at MIT defined it with a different term "distortion".
You're so right. The "warmth" is in the recording, mixing, and mastering as much as anything. These same RCA/LS/AF/DG recordings sound great on CD too. Any recording can be mixed into a digital "Volume war" format to ruin the sound quality. It's not the "CD" format's fault, and neither is Vinyl superior. Ironically, the limitations of analog force good engineering into the mix, but good mixes translate well to CD too.
@@wilcalint Yes, but it's a pleasing form of distortion that gives the music body and a kind of inner light due to harmonics that mimic real acoustic sound sources due to their mechanical and analog electrical nature. Digital's distortion artifacts, either from crappy early CD ADC or playback, MP3s, or even modern real-time digital post processing, produce a bunch of nonlinear intermodulation, aliasing echo, and clicky distortion similar to square waves... basically all distortion and noise that sounds synthetic, not part of the original sounds & music, and unpleasant. There might be less distortion with digital stuff usually, but it sticks out like sore thumb when it is happening, and it only needs a small amount to be unpleasant. As a DJ, I have some sophisticated gear that's digital and has a weird sound to it. We've measured the distortion, and while it measures much less than what distortion there is in vinyl, it's a lot more noticeable and aggravating even in small amounts.
It seems to me that the cutting head itself will act as a 'mechanical compressor' simply due to the fact that it has mass that has to be moved, and that may not always exactly match the input signal. The same applies to the cartridge.... it too has mass that must be moved, thus it's output will again be slightly different than what is in the groove that it is reading (it's input). So, what we hear from a vinyl record IS somewhat compressed as related to the original source material. I would wager that if you digitized the vinyl playback and compare it to the original source you will see the difference, i.e., the artifacts of this 'mechanical compression'.
While there could be a small amount of cutting head compression happening just mechanically, I don't think it's a given, and I don't think compression is pleasing at some inherent level. If it were, the loudness wars wouldn't be a bad thing. Granted, from a processor prior to the cutting head, compression can intentionally have utility in bringing up the volume of quiet sounds in acoustic recordings, but it doesn't beautify the sound. The bigger issue of mechanical limitations has to do with frequency intermodulation distortion an loud, dense high frequency transients when there's excessive effective tip mass (not just tip, but the other internal end of the cantilever) on the cartridge. There's also sometimes resonant compression at certain bands with some cartridges when run at certain capacitances that's in addition to the electrically induced roll off.
Could the difference in sound come from the mechanic inertia smoothening the waves and the frequency response of the cutting head/record player system? It would be interesting to record the Vinyl and compare the waveforms with the digital master.
This is an interesting topic, and I have the sense that Paul is right about the source of "vinyl sound": that it actually originates with the phono cartridge rather than analog recording techniques or the physical characteristics of the vinyl disc itself. Perhaps one way to test this idea would be to listen to LPs played on an ELP Laser Turntable, which uses lasers to read the grooves on the vinyl disc, and completely eliminates the stylus, magnets, and coils of a phono cartridge. (By the way, the company that makes these laser turntables states that the audio path remains analog and is not digitized during playback). An A-B listening test between a phono cartridge and the laser turntable playing identical vinyl recordings might very well lend support to Paul's theory.
You can't do a 1:1 copy from DSD/SACD/PCM/etc to vinyl, simple because you need to apply the RIAA filters, when people play the vinyl, it has to pass through another RIAA filter to revert the first process. Not to say, the dynamic range of vinyl is 75 dB, that's your limit, so, if you take a source with more than 100 dB you'll have to cut or "volume down" the levels to fit the 75 dB limitation.
I love your attitude about it. This is your opinion, based on your expertise, but that opinion might change with new facts. So refreshing in the audiophile world.
Just like speakers, phono cartridges are mechanical. They do the opposite of speakers in that they turn movement into electrical signals, so each has it's own particular mechanical/sound characteristic. Presumably, even without compression, you still used RIAA filtering to compensate for the vinyl limitations.
To both Paul and Mohamed, thank you for another interesting discussion. As I have grown older I do sense the warmth of vinyl but I attribute it to my declining hearing simply muffling sounds.
No, it is because vinyl has a much greater frequency response than CDs. It has been measured at 50khz and beyond. CDs only go up to 20khz. That's why CDs are crap.
It has to be eq with the riaa curve only if you're bypassing that on the phono stage, otherwise you're going to have extremely high baas and a dull top end. Yes cartridge is a big factor so is the arm and compliance., And speed stability. what cartridges are you running?
This is very interesting. I have personally attributed this to sample rate/quantization based on my own un-scientific experiments. I did an empirical test some years back listing to the same music/recording (not necessarily the same mastering) between vinyl (Project X-pression turntable w/Ortofon Black cartridge) and my Marantz BD and SACD players. To me, the 192Khz (Bluray) and DSD (SACD) sources felt very close to the warmth of vinyl (surface noise and pops a side), where the PCM (44kHz CD) was the easiest to decern as the odd man out. My hearing has degraded over the years along with Tinnitus so not sure I appreciate the difference as much as my younger self would, but really more about the experience with vinyl, listening to the composition of the album as a whole. With all that said, I tend to my my music in both CD and vinyl. And while the latter is still my preference, most of my consumption by far is digital (from my personal library) in the car, on riding my bikes, or working around the house, etc. So glad I get to live in a world with both.
I think Blu Ray & DVD audio, and even Vinyl, sound better than many CDs due to different mixing & mastering. My theory is the CD "Volume wars" style mixing ruins the sound, but these mixes can't work on vinyl, so engineers need a "good" mix with dynamic range for the vinyl, but the same "good" mix can also be upsold as "BluRay/DVD audio". The 24bit/196 format is just for marketing. The "good" mix sounds just as good on 16/44 CD as it does on 24/196 DVD, but they can't otherwise upsell and charge more for the "good" mix on 16/44 CD.
@@xxxYYZxxx That is a fair point. I agree loudness wars distort the data. FWIW, this was done with Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here as had those in all of those formats so very limited sample set, but was curious of how they compared.
@@xxxYYZxxx I think that's part of it, but 20bit 48khz is actually a lot easier to engineer a good DAC than for 16bit 44.1khz. DACs have come a long way, but the reason they chose 16/44.1 was because at the time that's all they could build. Actually, the first ones weren't even full 16bit. So, vinyl often, though not always, gets the better masters with less stupid crazy loudness wars compressed stuff due to just the constraints of the medium, and it also has the sound characteristics of the reproduction phase. CD gets the often terrible masters and, especially early on, really awful playback quality with some nasty anti-aliasing filters.
Interesting subject and I feel I have to agree that the largest differences are from the cartridges used on Vinyl. And yes I too worked in a Hi-fi Shop in the late 70's where we had 4 arms on a turntable so we could compare up to 4 cartridges at the same time...the differences were quite noticeable - so we have the final say on how we enjoy our vinyl by way of choice or preference of cartridges we use
Yes Paul, I believe there's something correct about your assumption, and I will add to that, in that I believe the difference in sound is affected quite noticeably by the "reverberated" sound in the listening room coming back around and hitting both the needle itself and the cartridge too, therefore adding that "warmth" that you hear with vinyl. I think it has a good bit to do with the cartridge and needle getting physically impacted by the sound waves in the room. The reason I believe that is because a friend and I did a little experiment in college with that assumption in mind, and one time we totally physically separated, in totally different rooms, our turntable from our speakers one time, and that same "warmth" in the sound disappeared, and instead the music just sounded more like it was coming from a CD or tape instead, so that room to needle/cartridge soundwave reverb definitely makes vinyl sound "different", and arguably "warmer" than a tape or CD recording of the exact same song/album, etc.
'the "reverberated" sound in the listening room coming back around and hitting both the needle itself and the cartridge too, therefore adding that "warmth" that you hear with vinyl.' So, the higher the volume, the warmer the sound would be, since there's more reverberated sound going back to the needle and cartridge? And if you turned the volume down, it would sound less warm?
@@petrushka1611 No, it happens the same amount at ANY volume, (above totally muted), anything from just barely audible all the way up to blasting and rattling windows, the effect is the same, because it's not the LOUDNESS of the sound in the room, but rather it's because of the difference of the time delay, (literally only in a few milliseconds), between the first played sound through the speakers, originating directly from the record grooves, read by the needle, in relation to the micro delayed sound then coming back onto the needle and especially the cartridge/pick-up, a few milliseconds later, then being added to the cartridge output, and back through the speakers again, over and over on a continuous basis throughout your vinyl listening session. You can hear the same effect while listening at any volume while the turntable is in the same room with you and the speakers playing the music from it, but if you take the turntable completely out of the room and physically isolate it in another room entirely from you and the speakers, (using a long cord), then that effect goes away, from what I remember hearing. It's been quite a few years though since my friend and I did that experiment, so I'm gonna have to redo that experiment nowadays, with my nicer equipment and see if I notice that same effect and difference. It MAY have been due to something else entirely causing us to hear the difference that we both did, but I just can't think of what else may have been causing it if it wasn't for that. More research into this needs to be done before I can be sure, but that's what makes audio and music listening so enjoyable and interesting, especially among different equipment. I think experimenting like that is fun though!
Vinyl has several technical limitations, and that is what it makes sound different (warmer). Comparing an LP with a CD is like comparing the same song on tape at 9,5 cm/sec and 19 cm/sec. You can't make an exact copy of the 19 cm recording on a 9,5 cm tape speed. The 9,5 will sound worse. The other way round, they will sound almost the same. My point is that if you make a recording of an LP on a CD recorder, that cdr will sound exactly the same as the LP. I made a few cd copies of my best LP's and you couldn't tell the difference. I have a high end stereo system.
You’re right and this experimentation (listening a LP recorded on a CD) is a key point. Warmer feeling while listening recorded music (sounds) comes from random imperfections we can find on a LP and in the electrical reading system of the table, cartridge and so on. It was the same with the tubes amplifiers. And a CD will sound warmer with a tubes amplifier. Our brain don’t « like » perfection. It’s not « natural ». We feel a music colder with a too much « perfect » system than with little random and short errors. So a CD (well mastered) and a SACD have much more information and depth to give us, but we don’t feel as cool - more or less - than with a vinyl. In a concert theatre, we also are in a random imperfect area because sounds of the musicians come from different directions and reflexions moving the air. It’s not perfect at all, but full of depth and rich: warm and full spectrum. Our brain feel it very good. Some DSP allows a kind of « tubes amplifiers » simulation. It can be interesting to try different settings with this option.
The media I purchase my music on depends on how I feel about the music I'm purchasing, if it's something that takes my breath away I buy it on vinyl, if it's something I really enjoy and want to own I buy a CD. Not everything needs to be quantified, things can be relegated to just a feeling, it can be utterly satisfying to finally figure out how to get your vinyl records to sound as good as they can and it can be utterly convenient and borderline perfection from a listening standpoint to effortlessly drop a CD into a tray. However, qualitatively speaking, we are analog, the world is analog, and something somehow for some reason, waveforms reproduced off of a physical waveform impregnation feel real. Digital music feels like a recreation, like our brains can understand it because it follows the rules of physics but hearing amplified mechanical vibrations feels like it literally resonates from something tactile, like something we evolved with, it feels natural and that's good enough for me.
I believe you are 100% correct insofar as warmth is concerned. But regardless of the cartridge, I've never heard any vinyl that sounds the same as a live performance. Digital can come much closer to that. Tape mastering + vinyl recording combine to create an aural narcotic that often sounds better than the real thing to addicted ears.
Vinyl and live music both have ultrasonic frequencies up to 50khz. Digital, such as CD, only goes up to 20khz. So vinyl will sound more natural because the frequency response is more natural.
I always think when you are listening to a record that has been cut from a digital source, that the process of cutting the record and then play back in your own home is a replacement for a DAC. And I really like that you focused on the cartridge, and in a way thinking of that cartridge being the center of the playback chain, that is the DAC for that original file that was cut on to vinyl. And that is the reason I prefer a well done record from a digital source over a file. Because that playback chain from cutting heads to cartridge, does a way better job of communicating the music from the recording session than my humble digital front end ever will.
I originally thought it a complete waste to press vinyl from digital. While I am an analog/ vinyl fanatic, once technology got to the point where we could access the files directly, why bother going through all those conversions. But I am changing more towards your thinking, that vinyl offers a filtering to digital files that electronic circuitry can not duplicate yet. Going physical forces compliance to analog specs without introducing things like phase shifts that the electronics would. It is a near perfect integrator! Without having the chance to get anywhere near DSD as Paul has, I am hoping it will prove to be the best of both worlds as he says it is.
@@glenncurry3041 I'm a digital fan. I do see that a digital original cut to an LP gives the listener a chance to use their favorite cartridge-table-arm combination. With a good system, any distortions are a positive.
Records can be cut only so "hot" because neither a cutter nor a playback cartridge can deal with more than a certain amplitude. The available range from softest to loudest is far less than what digital can do. As long as the dynamic range on the master tape is no greater than can be readily put on a vinyl disc, there is little about which to be concerned. I still don't get what people really mean by "warmth". A recording should be an honest represntation of what was picked up by the microphone(s). If it isn't, maybe it Then becomes 'warm' ?
I'm guessing this "warmth" is actually imbued by the material quality and damping of the vinyl itself!!! Would be interesting to hear a record which is pressed out of a composite material of say Carbon Nanotubes!!! I know people like vinyl, but we need to go *"BEYOND the "WHY?"!* as to Truly Why vinyl "sounds good"!!! I think the term is "Materials Engineering"?!🤔
Isn't vinyl just warmer because of the medium's limitations? A square wave recorded on vinyl at higher frequencies would show this, indicating inferior transient response,so rounding off the sharpness of fast HF reproduction and favouring the warm bass.
I didn't know it is possible to use non-compressed recordings to cut a vinyl record. I was always told that master tapes had wider Dynamic Range and vinyl records were not able to acommodate it due to physical restraints. I believe you're right, Paul. The difference is in the reproduction, and cartridges are responsible for that. Their coils interact with each other, annuling some frequencies and amplifying others.
Hi Paul, Clear and logical explanation, but could you add or elaborate more on the step of RIAA filtering both in the vinyl cutting step and the reproduction step. After all it is a form of compression (bass mostly) and decompression at playback, with by definition different filters. PS : during history several different cutting RIAA filters were used, so playback of different era vinyl records is never exactly reproduced on the same riaa reproduction/ playback system
RIAA filtering is very misunderstood. It has nothing to do with compression or expansion. As virtually all HiFi cartridges of the day were magnetic based, they do what coils and magnets (inductors) do. Their output goes up with velocity of movement. Not distance. A wide excursion at a slow rate (loud bass) does not produce as much voltage out as a smaller excursion at a higher rate. So higher frequencies produce a greater output from the same excursion. It is a logarithmic increase. So the RIAA engineers decided to take advantage of that and choose a frequency at which to start rolling off the sensitivity of the input to the preamp. As higher frequencies also had more noise, this would drop the noise floor at the same rate. Thus an increased S/N as well. And a complimentary curve was include during the cutting. But this has nothing to do with changing the levels dynamically. Frequency linearity only.
Ken5244 issued a quite the dissertation... IMHO, CDs and CD audio quality streaming have come a long way. After I got my main Stereo System for my LR in 1987 [NAD 1300 Preamp, NAD 2600 Amp, a Dual CS5000 TT with a Shure cartridge and a Pair of KEF 104/2 Speakers) which I still have to this day - and plays wonderfully without EQs or SWs, I purchased Springsteen's Born in the USA CD. I had the LP. When I played the CD - it was too tinny sounding , not as Full as the LP. Yes, No Clicks or Cracks but Tinny to my ear. Then i purchased Santana's Abraxis - Remastered CD, and that Blew me away. CDs had improved and i began to buy records in CD format only. Recently, I have replaced some older LPs that were damaged from playing on inferior equipment and not really cared for. The Who's Tommy is one example. The Vinyl still "feels" a bit Warmer, but the CD has better Dynamic Sound !. The Battle continues. Throw in HiFi Streaming (Tidal, Spotify, etc), for even more Dynamic sound.
You can say one sounds better than the other but it's subjective. What is a fact is that digital and analog sound different. Whether it's from distortion, compression, magnetism or added harmonics is likely all dependent on one's particular setup. Mastering obviously plays a large role from artist to artist as well. Overall both formats bring me lots of enjoyment, some of my favorite records from the golden era of vinyl mastering and recording sound far better to me than their digital counterparts, while some more recent artists have horrible sounding vinyl records (to me) whereas their digital recordings sound spectacular! The fun in being an audiophile is experimenting and tweaking and enjoying the music in many different rooms, different setups, different formats and different days/moods. Rather than argue one sounds better or worse - enjoy your blessing of the ability to hear and appreciate beautiful musical arts!
I began subscribing to High Fidelity and Stereo Review magazines as a young kid back in the late-70s. I still remember, quite vividly, the many articles about CD sound when they hit the scene in 1982. The most common complaints were "harshness" and "digital fatigue." And for good reason, because both of those things were very real. As for why that was, there were multiple reasons. For one thing, most CDs in the early days were rushed to market to cash in on the excitement. But record companies just used the same master that had been used to make vinyl records. The problem with that, IIRC from the aforementioned articles, is that that master had the RIAA equalization curve applied to it because it was intended to make vinyl records sound best on people's stereos & record players at home (and to a lesser extent commercial cassettes & 8-tracks, which of course were both analog mediums too). But that RIAA equalization curve made CDs sound terrible, and it took quite a long time for record companies to get their acts together. [*EDIT: See my comment at the end of this posting.] Another reason, as theorized by the writers in those magazines (Julian Hirsch, et al.), was that from the get-go, the sampling rate was too low. A common consensus was that it should have been 48 KHz rather than 44.1. Or better yet, 96 (48 doubled). And their lengthy explanations why seemed to make sense (to me, anyway). People can use all the techno speak they want to describe how CDs are supposedly superior to vinyl, but my ears tell me otherwise. Vinyl sounds better in most cases -- IF the record was mastered properly and IF the listener has high-end stereo equipment. Vinyl never sounded great on a cheapy department store all-in-one stereo that cost $125 back in the day. But it sure did sound good on a Technics or Dual or Pioneer high-end turntable with a Shure V15 Type IV or Ortofon moving coil cartridge (or comparable) thru a high quality amp or receiver and good speakers. CDs have always sounded "harsh" to me, even after record companies started doing a better job at mastering them. I do appreciate their wider dynamic range and lower noise floor when listening to classical music, but really, I have a lot of classical vinyl records that sound great in their own way despite the noise floor and occasional click or pop. And how often is there 100 dB of dynamic range in live music? Rarely, even in classical. So it's not like the vinyl can't reproduce what the musicians played in most cases. There is just something more organic about the way analog music is recorded and transferred to vinyl. With digital, it would seem that there are millisecond (or whatever the correct term is) gaps between each time the waveform is sampled. It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second, but it's there. The higher the sampling rate the less gaps there are, but with analog there isn't any gap whatsoever. The recording is a continuous, unbroken stream of analog signal instead of tens of thousands of digitally sampled snapshots (of the waveforms) in succession. [*EDIT: Based on some subsequent comments, it appears I didn't understand this aspect of digital audio correctly. Apparently there aren't any relevant "gaps" in audio that has been sampled at at least double the frequency of the waveform -- which w/ a 44,100 Hz rate should be sufficient to adequately sample frequencies out to 22,000 Hz, which is beyond the range of human hearing. Thanks to Steven Lang, below, for the detailed explanation.] That said, I agree that the phono cartridge is extremely important in the vinyl listening chain. No doubt about that. Thoughts, anyone? Feel free to correct anything I've said here. I won't be offended. *EDIT: After reading the replies below, my recollection about when the RIAA equalization curve was applied may or may not be accurate. Some of you guys are saying that the RIAA curve wasn't applied to the master tape, but rather during the cutting process of the vinyl master. That may be the case, and maybe my recollection is a little hazy after 40 years. But that doesn't explain the aforementioned articles that I remember specifically mentioning that the RIAA eq curve was being used during the mfg of many CDs and what a big mistake that was. If anyone wants to chime in again with further clarification, by all means do.
RIAA curves are never applied to master tapes. There is no interruption between one sample and the subsequent, that is what reconstruction filters are for.
There are no "gaps" in digital playback. Continuous waveforms are mathematically reconstructed from the samples. You don't hear the data, you hear the math result. For example, a simple sine wave at say 18kHz can be mathematically represented prior to digitization, and - after digitization and analog conversion - you'll end up with the same, continuous sine wave because it's the *only* mathematical solution to the data. There aren't *gaps*. (The only caveat is the signal has to be less than half of the sample rate or there will be other possible solutions.)
Very well written and I remember a lot of the arguments of those days. I think that records can sound 'good' but that is something else to sounding like the original. Therefore I have a different theory, it is a bit long but try to read all of it: I started buying CD's when there were very few CD players on the market and very few CD's to be bought. There would be catalogues each month with the available CD's and they were very thin in the beginning. I never looked back and after a few years never played my vinyl records anymore. Since then I moved to Amsterdam and started frequently visiting the Concertgebouw so I heard the music live in the concert hall. Listening to CD's at home, at least well recorded ones, gave me the same experience. Not the same of course but the instruments sounded the same. After many years I heard a high end system with a very expensive turntable and pre-amplifier etc. The owner is very proud of it and he played a classical record for me, a piano recording I know well. I was shocked. It sounded 'good' but it did not sound like a piano in a concert hall, it lacked overtones and richness, almost compressed and the higher tones sounded just cut off. After that he played a string quartet. I was cringing, again, it just did not sound true to life. With pop music it is very hard to know 'how' it should sound, amplifying, mixing and compression in the studio already alters so much, I never trust demonstrations with studio recorded music. Acoustic recordings of pianos, orchestras have a reference: the instruments themselves. Therefore my theory is this: people like the warm sound of a vinyl record because it cuts off a lot of the higher and lower frequencies and therefore gives more space to the middle frequencies. These are the frequencies our ears really love. Our brain is trained to recognise that as the 'true' sound (like with artificial sugars, they are not really sweet but we perceive it as sweet). So when I got 'untrained' by not listening to vinyl for 30 years I heard what vinyl lacks. Everything that well recorded digital music does is give the full spectrum. Which can be very fatigueing to the ear. Live music can be fatigueing as well. After a concert my ears need some rest. Recordings are always a compromise. Like I once wrote to Paul: nobody wants a full orchestra playing in the living room. It should be an image of it but it should be true to life, with the right frequencies. That is for me the difference. Digital music reproduces a much wider range of frequencies and therefore truer to life than vinyl. But it is all in the ears of the beholder.
As stated, the RIAA Filter is applied while cutting and not at any tape. There are and were enough effects in studios to enhance the fatique transient behaviour. And the 80's have seen transient killers, the Walkman and its headphone, car hifi and other creapy, cheap audio equipment. The lables still use the quality of digital audio to give pedal to the metal with the effects like enhancers, transient designers etc. Fine on this lame gear, bad on highend HiFi. And don't think studio monitors are ever extremly fast at transients, nope.
I just saw a video about the first pressings of the Thriller album, how MJ cried of how awful it sounded and how it had nothing to do to the sound of the mixes in the studio. That it had to be retouched in the mixes and mastering so when pressed again it could retain most of the original sound. That is why I think that at the very least, digital is better, because the sound from the original mixes to the mastering and at the end to some digital delivery service, is retained. And the artist, not the listener, is sure of the sound that is being delivered. What I’ve heard old school engineers say is that before you had to have a lot of guess work to know how the sound would be affected even by the analog tape. With digital the guess work is out, what you hear is what you get.
Digital, such as CDs, cut out the frequencies above 20khz. But those frequencies are present in live music and vinyl. This is why vinyl is better and closer to the way real sound works.
@@dtz1000 Not knocking vinyl since it has its appeal, but it seems that the upper frequency advantage you mentioned would be counter balanced by the noise added (the inevitable noise, pops and clicks). Not to mention that as you get older your upper freq. hearing ability goes way down (50 year old man is around 12 K average).
Paul, unless you encode your LPs with DBX or similar Noise Reduction systems, vinyls cannot achieve the 110 Db as you inaccurately claimed in the video. Mike Fremer noted (as well as AES) in a Stereophile article that most of LPs have less than 60 Db in dynamic range.
I think it’s because the needle being a mechanical device can sometimes bounce or “overshoot” the waveform and causes that unique sound much like a lower frame rate causes professional movies to look the way they do.
Straight from the vinyl the signal goes: needle>cartridge>phono preamp. That's three stages that can alter the sound. Needles can be not so new, cartidge is mechanical so what's the quality (mm or mc?), phono preamps have their own circuitry..... That's a lot of variables.
You forgot the RIAA curve preamp that has to be used for cutting the vinyl master in the first place. Maybe you can reproduce the curve digitally but usually it's an analog circuit.
Thanks for your explanation. Yes I think the cartridge adds its own flavor to being warm but the elephant in the room is the record itself. In the digital domain both channels are totally isolated from each other but on the record we have one groove to carry both, encoded 45 degrees (?) from each other. And the groove center moves depending on which channel is louder at the moment which the cartridge tries to track. I don't know if any of this adds warmth but with all else being equal I think so.
I do not feel always warmth of LPs in compare to digital. But sometime yes. I think in digital recordings when used analog as source some information is removed deliberately - to achieve declaired 90dB of hum and noise distance Other way is to apply compression
That was a great answer. I to have often wondered why. I suspected it had to do with a continuous signal as opposed to a digital quantized signal. More rich harmonic overtones would be present in vinyl than a digital version. However, the reissued Led Zeppelin records sound better than my old originals. I am told Jimmy Page used digital masters to remix the new records, so that’s that.
I believe you are absolutely correct when you attribute the cartridge to the sonic differences between listening to vinyl playback and listening to DSD masters. I also wonder if the likes of DS-Audio's optical cartridges would minimise that difference?
I agree with the stuff Paul said and found it very insightful, especially about direct transferring DSD to vinyl.... but I did hope he would have differentiated between dynamic range (which he talked about) and frequency range (which I think the questioner was asking more about). Also, there is the RIAA curve which definitely has to be applied, and having that pre and post emphasis applied is a factor which does perceptibly alter the way a frequency contour's harmonics presents itself.
years ago i did a series of "blind" tests with LP albums and CD's of the same albums using a "£50" TURNTABLE and a cyrus dad 3q CD player (bought for close to £1000). in each case the LP's sounded warmer, brighter, deeper and just plain better. I then used a different turntable (a Rega plana III) and the difference increased. I have no knowledge of the underlying cutting/manufacture process; however I sensed the effects of hand-made vs mass-production here - which Paul has alluded to in several other videos. Very interesting discourse here in though 👍👍
Given the large number of different phono cartridge designs that mostly all produce recognizably "vinyl sound", perhaps it has something to do with phase changes provoked by RIAA curve equalization.
Yes Paul i will be happy to expand on your conclusions of the differences in sound between vinyl and digital. Yes the cartridge is a factor in the sound differences, but so is the turntable, tonearm, phono cable, phono preamplifier, everything in the vinyl playback chain makes a difference in the sound of vinyl. The digital chain also is a factor as all digital equipment sounds different as well as how its decoded and reconverted back to analog. With that said, why i prefer the sound if analog over digital is analog sounds more like the original source and digital always sounds like a artificial recreation of the original source.
The much ignored elephant in the room is the very laws of physics. You have physical movement and and friction within the reproduction process. no matter how little noise is present. it still is present. It is very subtle but pleasing noise. Resonances are also a factor, which is another element everyone wants to eliminate. Again, because of the physical nature, it is still in the chain. These, combined with other physical forces, add up to the warmth of vinyl sound. The best example would be the sound of a crackling fire as a backdrop to a deep voice reciting poetry. I've discovered this by digitizing my vinyl records of varying conditions. When I listen to the CD versions of the same recordings, it's easy to hear why those less than perfect disks are much warmer. Obviously, excessive noise needs to be minimized, but the physical properties remaining are like cream in coffee.
This is very interesting as many have said the "vinyl" analog grooves is the cause of the warmth (harmonics), so the cartridge argument is less common. And the cartridge is a transducer also in addition to the speakers. What would be helpful is if Paul talked more about the specific why of the cartridge effect? That said, if the cartridge is so big a factor, only a few of them are likely to be "the best" in this context, and many others not as good. So the decision on which to buy becomes almost as important as the speakers. I had Shure V15 Type 2 back in the day, reputed to be one of the best. Meanwhile, there may be some audiophiles who buy a gazillion $ turntable but a sub-optimal cartridge for their vinyl, especially today where there are few places to go to A-B them. An advantage of digital is that it takes the risk of making a mistake on buying the "wrong" cartridge out of the equation and if the music doesn't sound good (to you) you can blame it on the amp or speakers :)
when mastering you need 2 signals, one delyed exactly one turn of the record this is used for the feed rate and a 2nd one is the signal itself to be written into the matrix. The louder the signal the higher feed rate you need that's why you need to know it one turn in advance.
Maybe we've just been conditioned to appreciate the sound of a vinyl recording. But as you say, the original studio recording sounds different. Which source replicates the studio recording better? Possible HD files?
I think, more, I observe that you got right conclusion. Not my own experience but somenoe I know well and he was using Audio Technica turntable with audiotechnica pickup. For reason of more automatic operation he purchased old Lenco with Shure and with the same system it is no comparable sound to previous.
Don't disagree, but surely the warmness is simply rolled of top end, tilting the eq, giving the low (mid-lo) more presence. Always thought vinyl sounded best cos it's real, physical movements amplified, not 1s and 0s.
I had to replace my cartridge on my turntable because it got broken moving the stereo upstairs to the bedroom from our living room. The cartridge I could find to replace the original with since it was beyond just replacing the needle was almost $98 usd.The new one makes the turntable sound completely different and better to me than the original early 1970's cartridge that came on it. It's amazing that you can just replace a old turntables cartridge and have it sound better than before.
After moving to a PS Audio Stellar Phono Preamp and a moving coil cartridge, I hit my “this can’t be improved” happiness. Vinyl is a Japanese tea ritual.
Have you tried making digital recordings of your Octave Records LPs and comparing the digital original, the LP and the digital recording of the LP? That would be interesting.
The playback method matters a lot with vinyl. There's a significant difference when using a solid state amp vs. a tube amp, and a wood case speaker enclosure makes a different tone than one made of plastic. There's more factors involved than just the recording technology.
Remember the video recorder with Hi Fi sound recorded in Frequency Modulation? When I watch/listen the music video, I hear the same warmer sound from this FM recording as the vinyl, and they is no cartridge nor mechanic vibration involve here in FM recording.
In every aspect of art, the flaws are what's making the experience interesting. In my book perfection is boring. A painting that can not be distinguished from a photo loses a dimension. And sound perfection aside, a recording that is minutely corrected with no errors or fluctuations loses in musicality, in my opinion. That is one reason why I find much of the currently produced music boring. That doesn't mean I don't want the best sound possible out from my gear. When discussing vinyl, the tactile experience is also important. It's all about the whole package. There's no right or wrong in taste. Analogue or digital ... I love billberries, and you love blueberries, so we need both, isn't that great? Thanks Paul for another interesting video!
No need for a "raging war" on my end. I'm both a vinyl and CD enthusiast. Both have their strengths and weaknesses although, my opinion, both can be great. But, I do have a question - to/for all? Why is it that I just love my Ortofon 2M Red? I know it's not expensive. But, with specifically well-recorded albums, this cartridge offers a high quality level of resolution and detail. Is it just because I'm not wealthy? I have what I consider a good system with a Rogue Audio amp (Sphinx V#) and nice, warm Tannoy speakers. Why would I love my entry level cartridge? (I'm also considering an "upgrade" to the 2M Blue.) Thoughts?
Actually its probably quite a bit simpler than that, namely the fact that there are limitations to things like the ability of the needle to track (hence the RIAA equalization) and the track-to-track spacing, among other things. Since there _are_ substantial limitations, careful attention to things like the relative content of each channel as well as observing limits in how dynamic the content is are needed. As such, by design, the vinyl WILL be mixed differently than either analog tape and digital, and since vinyl is now in vogue there is an eye towards getting good subjective quality of the mix, and indeed many are different and often better subjectively than digital. This isn't because vinyl is better than digital. Its actually much, much worse. Piss-poor dynamic range, terrible L/R channel separation, surface noise, snaps/pops from surface damage or dirt, etc. Digital, on the other hand, is so good that it tolerates even some of the laziest and overly-compressed mixing. Much like rich idiots in their supercars, its a great medium plagued by bad operators.
There are many theoretical data which have very slight impact on listening and one that is not measured but in analog perfectly preserved - it is phase coherence. Mechanical recording is done with single timing because stylus does exactly this what diaphragm in ear is repeating. Unfortunately that what does brain next is not in any apparatus capability
@@ponderguy7724 As stated vinyl usually has better mixing vis-à-vis with respect to other formats these days. Additionally the lack of low-level detail and reduced response at higher frequencies likely give a perceived softness and warmth to the audio. Combine with something that has "character" from surface defects and people will likely have a positive impression. Nothing wrong with that, but we need to dispense with any notion of it being high fidelity. Its not, and when direct comparisons can be made the lack of detail and poor channel separation and dynamic range are quite apparent, and usually subjectively undesirable when comparative testing is done.
Hey Paul, Would Octave Records be interested in taping a live jazz trio playing A Charlie Brown Christmas in Montreal? Is there such a thing as recording in DSD at a venue rather than in a studio? Season's greetings from Canada.
But... How does the RIAA equalization curve factor into all of this? And what the heck does cartridge capacitance do to subtly affect everything, for that matter? 🤔
I think you're correct, but it's also the exact opposite on the dynamics from what the letter writer believes. There is a tendency to compress the hell out of digital recordings in a way that vinyl doesn't seem to get subjected to as often due to mechanical constraints... I'm referring to studio produced recordings, not like a live acoustic recording that may require a little compression for vinyl to bring up the quietest sounds. While vinyl has a higher noise floor, other than audiophile acoustic recordings like classical music from noted labels that often do get a little compression to bring up the quiet stuff so it's not too buried in that noise floor, most vinyl records use *more* dynamic range than commercial digital releases. Overly loud vinyl that also has a lot of high frequencies will tend to cause many cartridges to distort, and therefore vinyl records are less tolerant of such extreme loudness and historically were mastered with more roll off and more dynamics than most digital is now. In later years, though, Bob Ludwig did start the unfortunate vinyl trend of making louder records that were less tolerating of lesser cartridges, and therefore more likely to wear out and even damage the high frequencies with IMD from the stylus. It was Ludwig's efforts to appease the marketing shills in vinyl loudness that bled over into the digital realm. Nonetheless, much of the rest of the difference the listener hears is the phono cartridge, and there are definitely carts that sound like a good digital reproduction, such as moving coils as opposed to something like a moving iron design. The rest is from crummy digital masters that are too compressed, too loud, and are stupidly exploiting the tolerances of digital..
Surely it all depends on the quality of your Hi-Fi system? I have a Rega Apollo cd player and it sounds just as warm as my Project X-Pack vinyl turn-table. Both are played through an Arcam A90 amp and Monitor Audio Silver 300 7g speakers.
Paul, when you produce a digital master, you need not have to do anything in the analog domain. Whereas, when you cut a vinyl plate, you have a DAC of sorts in the chain, because you have to give that cutting machine the analog signal. Therein lies the difference between the two mediums that hold the musical information. To get the groove into the record, that digital master had to have its data put through a DAC. I do not know what that equipment is named -- it is probably not called a DAC. But somewhere between the computer that holds the music file (the DSD file), and the machine with the cutting head, there is a part that functions as a DAC. And the above process involves a transport, too. All of the above contributes to the differences in sound quality, even before an end user's cartridge or DAC gets involved.
Hmmm, the mechanical inertia of the cutting head and the phono cartridge. That makes sense. In digital, no mechanical input is involved in the audio mastering and playback.
I agree. In the 1970's I sold hifi for the Audio Warehouse in Akron, Ohio. We had a turntable with two tone arms so the listeners could compare the sound of cartridges while paying an album. We are able to match the output of each cartridge so the volume was the same when compared. The differences in sound characteristics were VERY noticeably different in frequency response, channel separation and dynamic range.
As you were talking about vinyl in this video I kept saying "it's the cartridge, Paul" and you finally heard me. So to speak. I agree. It's the way phono cartridges translate vibrations into sounds. I find streaming very convenient. And, I like the wide range of music available at a moment's notice. But LPs are like comfort food for the ears.
Hahaha, you too? And phono stage, of course :).
If you have phono stages with little dipswitches to adjust load and impedance and such, it's insane how much the harshness changes depending on how you set them up.
I have learnt so much from this gentleman and his channel, to the betterment of my set-up. Many thanks ! (UK fan)
The vinyl will sound different than a digital counterpoint due to phono cartridges (like Paul stated) because there are resonant frequencies and harmonics produced by the mechanical nature of vinyl playback which are not produced by playing a cd or digital file.
The harmonics are also present in live music, but it's mostly missing from digital music. It's a real shame. But the good news is that you can add those harmonics back into digital music. That's what I do every time I listen to digital and the results are really good.
@@dtz1000 Digital recording can capture everything that's present better than vinyl can so if there is some lack of harmonics its because the recording microphones didn't capture them, or they just weren't there to begin with, so it wouldn't make it to the vinyl pressing either. Any extra harmonics you hear in the vinyl format that isn't there on the lossless digital versions would just be distortion, regardless of whether they are harmonic or not.
The only thing I could want from vinyl are some of the older masters that weren't made for digital, but since the digital formats are better you can just record the playback from a turntable and you'll be able to reproduce that signal digitally.
You're spot on about the cartridges: The reason that vinyl sounds warmer than digital, is the same reason why regular tube amplifiers sound warmer than solid state: In the case of the tube amplifiers, it is the output transformers that add second harmonics. In the case of playing vinyl, the vast majority of pick up elements use magnetism, and add second harmonics. Some years ago I used the Stax electrostatic cartridge, via OTL amplifiers connected to ESL loudspeakers. So, no magnetism anywhere in the audio chain. On that set-up, there is not much difference anymore between the same recording played back from CD or LP.
Amazing test!!! Tha's golden information!! In your opinion, how can we isolate the RIAA equalization from the comparision? I've always bet the warmth was into that RIAA equalization...
@@marceloarenas5486you can buy a stepup transformer and try that instead of the phonoamp/riaa👌
@@flimpjekijken That makes sense and explains a few things
I quit vinyl for the same reasons as most: convenience and sound clarity.
Up until recently, I've been listening to music through iPods and now Hi Res portable devices through speakers of any kind.
One afternoon I saw a record store and got in, I saw a title I liked and the owner offered to play it for me.
He had a Stanton turntable, a mixer as preamp, an old amp, and speakers.
I cannot tell you how amazing music sounded through that cheap set up. A whole world I've been missing all these years and that got lost in the digital era.
It wasn't nostalgia, it was just how better music sound like in vinyl.
So I'm back to Vinyl when I swore I would never come back.
I suppose the quality of audio has been sacrificed in the altar of higher resolution and digital components.
Ever since CD format every newer digital format became worse and worse because of dynamic compression, limiting of frequency range and data compression.
IMO nothing gets close to a CD player through a good DAC. Nice thing is that many people are getting rid of their CD collection and they often end up in 2nd hand stores. There you can buy great albums for cheap! Yet when you play them at home you get TOP level HiFi sound quality! What's not to like?
When you get vinyll LP's from stores like that they are often scratched and worn or warped.
Only your opinion. Its a fact vinyl is better.
@@myronhelton4441 Only your opinion, as well.
@@purpleghost4083 Everything that I have heard the WAV files do sound better, but maybe FLAC could be better. I have never understood the differences. Like maybe one cant get online the labeled names of the albums on WAV, I dont understand it too much. I dont know if one can copy youtube files anymore. But on my hard drive the youtube VIDEOS AVI files sound better than the mp3's wothout the video. Whenever a file is changed, the sound gets worse. A AVI video changed to mp3 hurts the sound. In the past when I was able to, I'd do it with WAV files. I copied cds with WAV files. Files are not quite as good as cds are, but I somewhat like files. Computerr wiring hurts the files sound. I wished I knew a good cheap dac, I think dacs can hook up to dvd players. My town, the stereo places closed 10 years ago, & I have not traveled to the hi end hifi town to get to know hi fi stuff. I heard that these old ladder DACS or cd players are better.
@@myronhelton4441. Vynal is different not necessarily better!Have to agree with Paul,most of that warmth is due to cartridge.In my experience/opinion its easier to get a good Vynal sound for low $$$ as the cartridge tends to colour the sound so that even an average amp will sound good with vynal where a decent cd player can often expose weaknesses within the system ie speakers, amplifier resulting in a harder sound for want of a better description.I play records and cds at home.When I want laid back and relaxing sound vynal is great, but if I want details,dynamics,punch,prat etc I listen to cds,maybe I need to by a $ 10.000 plus turntable and cartridge and I may change my mind,ha ha.Can be an expensive hobby this.
This from musician, recording engineer Michael Connolly:
“I want to emphasize again that distortion is not necessarily a bad thing! I like the sound of analog distortion and the warmth it adds, as do many listeners and other audio professionals, and I take active steps to add it to recordings that I produce. In the 70s, distortion was an unavoidable side effect of using magnetic tape, vacuum tube equipment, and mastering to vinyl-but it added musical qualities to recordings that are still aesthetically valued today. In my digital recording studio, my recording system exhibits extremely low distortion, but I often take additional processing steps to add it for musical effect. Engineers often refer to using special equipment to “warm up” a sound source by adding this distortion”
Thanks Paul, have watched many of your videos. I have been an audio repair tech for nearly 50years. It is so nice to hear honesty when a CEO or rep talks about products they sell/ manufacture.. Once again Thank You!
The cutting head doesn't change, it is the pitch of the lathe that changes. When there are high levels, the pitch is increased so that the cutting stylus does not cut over. When the levels are low, the pitch is decreased to obtain longer recording times.
This can be done manually as Sheffield Records did on their Direct to Disc Analog recordings.or it can be automated with a delay, but this would require a tape or digital transfer.
If you left the lathe with a constant wide pitch, you would only get about 4 minutes on one 12" record side.
Isn't that pitch change also why us DJs can see the difference in spacings and density from the change in pitch, and thus see where the main portions and the breakdowns are?
@@Reticuli That is correct. the pitch is changed radically for about 4 seconds to provide the blank spot to facilitate a needle drop. BSR made a turntable with a photo cell that could detect those spaces and it could be programmed to go to a specific song.
@@Yoda8945 I mean the light or dark areas of the vinyl grooves, not any intentional pitch change just for a needle drop. Or is it just the width and depth of the groove and amplitude of the sound that would result you're seeing with the naked eye?
@@Reticuli Yes, those are different areas of levels and frequencies. If you look carefully with a magnifying glass, you cn actually differentiate between high frequencies and low frequencies as well as level changes.
I lived next door to Jan August, a pianist who had success with his versions of Miserlou and Babalu on 78 rpm records 1946. When he moved approx 20 years later he put the master disks out on the sidewalk to be picked up by the garbage men. My 12 year old brother scooped them up along with lots of regular 78s. The masters were thick and heavy. The surface looked gold (more like champagne) and the outer edges were very rough and irregular. They played perfectly on our parents’ Zenith console. And no, they haven’t survived the 55 years since.
Yes Paul you are right. Every phonocartridge (+preamp) has its own NONLINEAR frequency response. You'll need a TEST Vinyl Record (TEST LP) that has White Noise or Pink Noise recorded on it. Whenever I get a new Cartridge, I use the TEST LP and digitize the sound using Audacity. Then I pick the Pink Noise or White Noise portion and run a Spectrum Analysis. Once I get the Spectrum Analysis I can tell which frequencies need to be compensated for or fixed. Thereafter, whenever I need to listen to a record, I always EQ the sound coming out of the of the turntable preamp in order to adjust the frequency response est VOILA! The sound I get from Vinyl is IDENTICAL to that of the digital versions of the music in at least 80% of cases. The only difference in most cases is that the Dynamic Range of the music on Vinyl is larger (by 2 to 5 dbs generally) and that's because the CD and mp3 versions of songs have their Dynamic Range crushed by the sound engineers (to make them louder aka "Loudness War"). I don't know if you have tried a TEST LP to adjust the nonlinearity of the vinyl system. Once you do the adjustments you'll get the same identical sound. I've been doing this for years.......
That is a very interesting observation. How does the frequency response of a pleasant cartridge look like? I am only using high res streaming and my DAC has a parametric EQ. It would be fun to make it sound like vinyl.
@@bksve6505 It is aiming to have not pleasant cartridge but ideal one. In digital you may record analog noise converted to digital data. Then reproduce that data with your DAC and analyze it with any possesed digital analyzer Then You may see how to equalize outcome but in my opinion it is still half of problem because: DAC procedure is not spoiling the read out in visible degree and you will not find fault. Digital anlyzers tell only about big jumps and it finally do not take account of all alterations done by amplifier and speakers and room so it looks nonsense . .
Can you come to my home and do this for me? Haha! Well, actually we live next to the beach on a tropical island. Maybe worth considering?
HE JUST TOLD US THAT CD AND DIGITAL HAS 30dB MORE DYNAMIC RANGE THAN VINYL!
@@tirkentube the noise-floor is higher in vinyl, but you can lift up what is obove the noise-floor, it is a expansion so to say in contrary of compression. The music put on a vinyl is always compressed and I wonder, why the video-creator did not mention that (RIAA-decrompression/compession process, that enhances low frequencies while lowering high frequencies). With this in mind you can understand or learn, that it is possible to enhance dynamics whilst the process of amplifying what comes out of the cartridge. I guess, that @bedros... has meant this.
Very thorough and gradual explanation to get to the conclusion where the difference could actually be. I have enjoyed in this particular video very much.
This is an interesting discussion. I have always been aware of the unique sonic differences between an LP and it's CD version. However, about 15-20 years ago I bought a Super Audio CD release of a Carpenters collection album. Not knowing if I would ever be able to play the disc, I bought it thinking it would make an interesting collector's item. Some time later I learned that my DVD changer could play SACD discs. I must say the listening experience was very different than anything I had heard from a CD before and the most analog/vinyl kind of sound I have ever heard from a digital source in my home - very rich, enjoyable, warm, and easy on the ears. I didn't even play it on what I would consider high-end audio equipment, but I was still amazed at the difference.
What I concluded was that in addition to whatever good sound engineering was employed on that particular recording/transfer, that bits & sampling rate must make a significant difference and that IT IS POSSIBLE to obtain more analog kind of sound qualities from modern digital recordings. Perhaps the limitations of the standard CD format has been the main issue?
Absolutely. The 16bit/44.1kHz sampling rate of the CD format is an issue. The sampling rate causes "steps" in the waveform so it can never be as good to our ears as an analog format. Going up to 24bit/48kHz and above makes a difference, but as Paul said, the phono cartridge probably has more to do with coloring the sound as far as "warmth".
The matching of the phono stage & cable capacitance vs the cartridge inductance not only changes the roll off, but where the resonance happens, how much, and whether there's a compression effect that accompanies the signal that feeds back and accentuates.
If you compare the specs of CD and SACD you will see what the issue with CD is and why I disparage CDs on many TH-cam discussions. The frequency range of CD only goes up to 20khz. SACD, on the other hand, goes up to 50khz. Vinyl has been measured at 50khz and beyond. This is why vinyl is better than CD and it looks like SACD is way better than CD as well.
@@dtz1000 My Dad is a longtime hearing specialist so I've had access to some nice audiology and hearing test equipment. I have been tested to have very good hearing up to about 16khz. It has to be pretty loud for me to hear anything beyond that. However I can hear a massive difference between CD and SACD even at moderate listening levels, so I don't believe it has anything to do with frequency response per se. While good frequency response is definitely important, high fidelity has alot more components to it than just reproducing frequencies above 20khz, which I would argue most people aren't even hearing anyway.
@@solidaudioTV Most instruments emit ultrasonic sounds and these sounds have been shown to affect humans in a positive way. If the engineers who made SACD thought like you did then they would not have designed their product to record sounds up to 50khz. Instead, they would have just cut off the frequencies at 20khz the same as CDs.
Maybe they know something you don't.
Nonsense. A vinyl album created from an original unequalised digital master would sound horrible or may even be unplayable. Vinyl masters require dynamic compression and RIAA equalisation giving bass cut and treble boost. Deep bass must also be mixed to mono. Phono stages apply reverse RIAA equalisation and a vinyl album as described by Paul would sound bass heavy with little treble and probably be impossible for the stylus to track.
When you go to an Arabic country such as Egypt it's useful to learn the number system. You can see how much things actually cost and won't get to ripped off.
😄
Club Tropicana drinks are freeeee
Best to not go anywhere where locals scam tourists.
I'm glad you got to that final point about the phono cartridge because I assure you that I was going to post that question...lol! Thanks for the lessons, always.
I think that you are absolutely correct. there is no other plausble explanation.
Personally, I've advocated Paul's position for at least a Decade, there's no war to start here - I was delighted when he went to "cartridges" - - it's iron & coils vs digital conversion - - simple - - the beginning of the two playback chains are two completely different approaches so of course they sound different, but it's no longer a "night and day" thing - I love having both, digital, imho, has come so far that it's totally enjoyable - when I want vinyl magic, I'm playing records - twice the fun.
Jumped into vinyl only some weeks ago, and after decades of listening to digital music I am delighted just HOW GOOD vinyl sounds.
My streamer & DAC combo matches the sound, but only and if the mastering of the digital music version was done properly.
For most 70s/80s (soul, R&B, funk,... ) music in my system the vinyl sounds at least as good.
@Douglas Blake I fully agree that there is some characteristic tonal balance in vinyl. But more than that alone there is some kind of fluidity to the sound, combined with a lot of punch... simply yummie.
@Douglas Blake I heard of "brick wall _filters_" (sharp cut-off above 20kHz).
What's brick wall compression?
Streamer sounds shit ..try a hires file played in wav form ..bye turntable
Thanks Paul. The dynamic range difference is really only useful when recording. Larger dynamic range allows for easier recording. But by the time it's mixed down, most music goes through some form of compression to make it more listenable. Myself, starting off in the days of tape, I usually compressed vocals by 3-6 dbs on the peaks going to tape. Then about the same on mix down if needed, as vocals can have huge dynamic swings. I don't think it's a dynamic difference that causes the warm sound.
What many have said regarding the mechanical physics makes the most sense. The sonic difference from going from the heavier moving mass of moving magnet cartridges verses moving coil was huge, and let's not talk about strain gauge cartridges, which I owned - Electro Research EK-1. The mm cartridge was warmer, slower, and less detailed than mc. At least the ones I heard. Both though, compared to digital, from what I can remember from long ago, gives more body to the instruments than digital and I think that is from a frequency response issue, as one can gain that type difference of sound via changing eq. www.youtube.com/@ronvaillant2234/videos
As Paul said, the warmer or less warm sound of the vinyl is given by the frequency response of the cartridge which can be extremely variable according to the brand and model while for the digital the response is always perfectly linear.
Amazing! So with "while for the digital the response is always perfectly linear" every DAC would sound exactly the same. Perfection does not come in degrees.
@@glenncurry3041 Perfection is very important in what we feel. What is called « warmer » or « more natural » there is the result of imperfections! Analog devices are well known by musicians to have random electrical micro-issues that warm up the sound. That’s what « we » are looking for in old tube amplifiers and trying to reproduce in DSP. It is highly probable that the warm feeling from a Vinyl comes from the same « troubles », repeated again and again while recording, pressing, reading and so on. I use both vinyl table and CD (including SACD) and have this feeling too. But the bit depth of a SACD + a good « Tube » DSP setting give the best of the two worlds. Then never your speakers are digital. Your ears « receive » an analog signal through air. No gaps is possible at such speakers and air vibration frequencies. Finally, your brain receive a… digital signal whatever happens. This signal is the result of the vibration processing by your ears nerves to be send to your brain.
@@frjedi9081 At this point no your speakers are never digital. I've played with time domain and bit depth speaker concepts. But do not know of any on the market. A highly resolving output system, amps/ speakers, will try to reproduce whatever the incoming signal is. If PCM it is stairsteps. How wide and tall depends on the sampling rate and bit depth. With hopefully some close to reasonable integration. DSD reduces that to one bit at a high to higher chop rate. Much easier to integrate.
@@glenncurry3041 regards the frequency response, yes all dacs works the same. Then there are other parameters
@@LanciaD50 Interesting, so a 16 bit Ladder DAC using only 44.1K works the same, has the same frequency response as a Sigma Delta DSD1024? Just WOW!
What an interesting analysis. Phono cartridge would definitely change sound. Not sure how it makes vinyl warmer than digital exclusively. Fun hearing audiophiles engineering approach to music. Enjoy your vids and explanations. Thanks.
You said, "Phono cartridge would definitely change sound. Not sure how it makes vinyl warmer than digital exclusively."
My thought exactly. Maybe Paul can chime in and elaborate further?
As a bass player every link in the chain is in a way an instrument. From the bass itself to the pedal to the amp to the speaker. I like to think of my stereo set up the same way: each is an instrument by choice. The source, the amp the speakers. Adding this all up gives a result, which I like or maybe dislike. But it is always personal. If I had the "perfect" audiophile system it would not be personal. So I choose coloured, teinted, distorted, warm, cold any time over perfect.
Analog recording is also about capturing the subtle overtones and harmonics and tape saturation .
You are genious . You esplain as a teacher do in class , is new for me . Thanks for your eford for make the sound better . I wish I can visit your studio and have a tour .
I think the higher compression and crosstalk of vinyl can mask poor recordings so that glaring recording problems that jump out when listening to digital formats are hidden to a certain degree by the vinyl format. Vinyl acts like the audio version of a smart phones portrait filter.
Good point, but it works both ways too. Vinyl sounds better in some cases because the God-awful CD "volume wars" mix simply can't be faithfully transferred to vinyl, forcing a better mix to be used. Ironically, and because vinyl is physically limited, the Vinyl mix has greater dynamic range than the "volume wars" digital mix.
@@xxxYYZxxx Yes and no. The recording level of a CD is ultimately a choice made by the engineer. They could just as easily use a normal level for a CD. It is part of the reason I often prefer original CD releases over remasters because 80% of the remasters have boosted volume at the expense of dynamic range.
Vinyl has much greater frequency response than CDs. That's why it sounds better, because it is better.
Hi Paul, Hope things are well, great video and your (very well articulated) take on the different sources and platforms music is presented to us. I too love vinyl and agree it sounds great, I too listen to music via streaming services just for the sheer convenience but every now and again I put on the vinyl and I'm always blown away by the interest grabbing effect it has on me.
Is digital more technically correct - Yes and without doubt.
Does vinyl sound better than digital - well, thats down to the individual to decide.
Which Is more enjoyable - to me, at least and without doubt - vinyl.
Slight correction, to your description of the vinyl cutting process, the signal that is cut is the delayed signal not the non-delayed signal, the non-delayed signal has to tell the cutter head what to expect and do to compensate for depth/width and any other issues whilst cutting the groove.
The most famous and widely used cutting lathe is/was the Neumann VMS-70, and 80(s) variants, they had analogue to digital - digital to analogue converters to delay the analogue signal a bit to give it enough time to be corrected for cutting issues before cutting to vinyl - so in effect we are listening to a A-D then D-A processed audio signal. This goes back since the 40's with 4bit, 8bit resolution A-D & D-A converters! However, there are some direct to disk cutting LP's out there which is must to listen to if you can find them.
Working with DSD, i would like to know how you would delay the signal before converting it back to analogue to be cut. or why not dispense with the AD-DA DSD conversion and go full direct to disk cutting, must be better.
The major point is not the dynamic it is the physic of vinyl wich softens transients. And it is limited in reproducing transients, therefore a transient limiter is standard at most cutting setups. And right, the cartridge also. First, modern stylus shapes beyond Shibata have better contact to the groove and less uncontrolled movement. Second is the mass of the moving parts, a nude stylus and a light cantilever is better to follow transients. The type is vice versa since modern magnetic materials are available, but at my experience MC is still quicker and tighter than MM at transients. At least the cutting material, a copper cutting (DMM) is less warm than a laquer cutting. And finally, you're also right with the source. In my collection it is clearly audible if the source is analog or digital, which means, vinyl is better than analog tape in transients , also if tape is recorded with noise reduction like Dolby A etc. So, the dynamic is not the point. Which also means, that every demo of a tape copy of vinyl or an analog master tape does not proove the quality of analog tape. As conclusion overall, to cut and pickup mechanically is softening transients anyhow and that add warmth to the sound, and analog tape also.
I've long suspected that it has to do with harmonic content. I question whether digital recordings have the resolution to capture all of the subtle harmonic overtones that occur in music while analog recorders have theoretically infinite resolution. Digital converters will try and interpolate between data points but they can't really anticipate what harmonic content to insert in the gaps. Where some of the harmonic content is missing, people may perceive that as "colder" sounding because they perceive something is missing but can't put a finger on what. The phono cartridge may play a part as some may pick up the content where others may not but if the content simply isn't there as with digital it won't matter.
I love records and CDs both. I prefer records usually but I can't really argue against the clear sound of the CD. The only real thing that ever bugged me about CDs that I didn't have to deal with with a record was the crazy volume. There are too many CDs that are just loud as hell from start to finish. It's nice when I find new music that chooses not go that route. I'm not super knowledgeable about all the tricks required to create a record but it's my understanding that the reason I don't have any records that are brick walled on volume is simply because vinyl has a space limitation? I don't know that I actually perceive a "warmth" from vinyl. Maybe that's just the cartridge I'm using (Stanton). I think I just prefer the range better even if I get some clicks or static from time to time. Records are more fun to play anyway. Not sure why but the physicality of using a record player is just more entertaining than a CD player for some reason.
The stylus on most carts will distort with too loud a pressing of highly compressed & dense musical content that also has a lot of high frequencies, and therefore, while some acoustic recordings might need a little compression for vinyl, most vinyl records made of studio productions are actually compressed less than the digital release versions. If you do a hot pressing of very dense, loud music, then you'll probably require low pass filtering.
The best of the "warm" sounding records were produced in the late 50's, 60's and 70's. RCA Living Stereo, Audio Fidelity and Deutsche Grammophon all were produced with the best of the tube equipment that was available at the time. Most of those records have a warm cozy sound to them if played on a decent system. They can be found at your local used record store.
For me it is most noticeable in the distortion of the 60 -70s era rock & roll guitar riffs, where a rich spectrum of overtones are present. They used class A tube amps with alnico magnets in the speakers. Digital just doesn’t replicate that with the same effectivity.
@@TheZooman22 FWIW I was involved with an Audiophile organization in Boston that can't be mentioned here as Paul would get angry. But one of the partners was the Media Lab at MIT ( one of my old haunts ). The task was to identify why people preferred the "warm" or tube sound and what it was. Yes indeed "rich spectrum of overtones are present" is a kind way to describe all that. The propeller heads at MIT defined it with a different term "distortion".
You're so right. The "warmth" is in the recording, mixing, and mastering as much as anything. These same RCA/LS/AF/DG recordings sound great on CD too. Any recording can be mixed into a digital "Volume war" format to ruin the sound quality. It's not the "CD" format's fault, and neither is Vinyl superior. Ironically, the limitations of analog force good engineering into the mix, but good mixes translate well to CD too.
@@wilcalint Yes, but it's a pleasing form of distortion that gives the music body and a kind of inner light due to harmonics that mimic real acoustic sound sources due to their mechanical and analog electrical nature. Digital's distortion artifacts, either from crappy early CD ADC or playback, MP3s, or even modern real-time digital post processing, produce a bunch of nonlinear intermodulation, aliasing echo, and clicky distortion similar to square waves... basically all distortion and noise that sounds synthetic, not part of the original sounds & music, and unpleasant. There might be less distortion with digital stuff usually, but it sticks out like sore thumb when it is happening, and it only needs a small amount to be unpleasant. As a DJ, I have some sophisticated gear that's digital and has a weird sound to it. We've measured the distortion, and while it measures much less than what distortion there is in vinyl, it's a lot more noticeable and aggravating even in small amounts.
It seems to me that the cutting head itself will act as a 'mechanical compressor' simply due to the fact that it has mass that has to be moved, and that may not always exactly match the input signal. The same applies to the cartridge.... it too has mass that must be moved, thus it's output will again be slightly different than what is in the groove that it is reading (it's input).
So, what we hear from a vinyl record IS somewhat compressed as related to the original source material. I would wager that if you digitized the vinyl playback and compare it to the original source you will see the difference, i.e., the artifacts of this 'mechanical compression'.
While there could be a small amount of cutting head compression happening just mechanically, I don't think it's a given, and I don't think compression is pleasing at some inherent level. If it were, the loudness wars wouldn't be a bad thing. Granted, from a processor prior to the cutting head, compression can intentionally have utility in bringing up the volume of quiet sounds in acoustic recordings, but it doesn't beautify the sound. The bigger issue of mechanical limitations has to do with frequency intermodulation distortion an loud, dense high frequency transients when there's excessive effective tip mass (not just tip, but the other internal end of the cantilever) on the cartridge. There's also sometimes resonant compression at certain bands with some cartridges when run at certain capacitances that's in addition to the electrically induced roll off.
Could the difference in sound come from the mechanic inertia smoothening the waves and the frequency response of the cutting head/record player system?
It would be interesting to record the Vinyl and compare the waveforms with the digital master.
Thank you Paul for your great answer
Wishing you the best
This is an interesting topic, and I have the sense that Paul is right about the source of "vinyl sound": that it actually originates with the phono cartridge rather than analog recording techniques or the physical characteristics of the vinyl disc itself. Perhaps one way to test this idea would be to listen to LPs played on an ELP Laser Turntable, which uses lasers to read the grooves on the vinyl disc, and completely eliminates the stylus, magnets, and coils of a phono cartridge. (By the way, the company that makes these laser turntables states that the audio path remains analog and is not digitized during playback). An A-B listening test between a phono cartridge and the laser turntable playing identical vinyl recordings might very well lend support to Paul's theory.
You can't do a 1:1 copy from DSD/SACD/PCM/etc to vinyl, simple because you need to apply the RIAA filters, when people play the vinyl, it has to pass through another RIAA filter to revert the first process. Not to say, the dynamic range of vinyl is 75 dB, that's your limit, so, if you take a source with more than 100 dB you'll have to cut or "volume down" the levels to fit the 75 dB limitation.
I love your attitude about it. This is your opinion, based on your expertise, but that opinion might change with new facts. So refreshing in the audiophile world.
Just like speakers, phono cartridges are mechanical. They do the opposite of speakers in that they turn movement into electrical signals, so each has it's own particular mechanical/sound characteristic.
Presumably, even without compression, you still used RIAA filtering to compensate for the vinyl limitations.
Excellent observation Paul! I love both digital and records, and your thinking makes a lot of sense!
To both Paul and Mohamed, thank you for another interesting discussion. As I have grown older I do sense the warmth of vinyl but I attribute it to my declining hearing simply muffling sounds.
No, it is because vinyl has a much greater frequency response than CDs. It has been measured at 50khz and beyond. CDs only go up to 20khz. That's why CDs are crap.
I agree as well. Your outguess is perfect.
Best recoding's I have are music that was mastered for albums and then ended up going stright on to CD. Best of both worlds.
It has to be eq with the riaa curve only if you're bypassing that on the phono stage, otherwise you're going to have extremely high baas and a dull top end. Yes cartridge is a big factor so is the arm and compliance., And speed stability.
what cartridges are you running?
This is very interesting. I have personally attributed this to sample rate/quantization based on my own un-scientific experiments. I did an empirical test some years back listing to the same music/recording (not necessarily the same mastering) between vinyl (Project X-pression turntable w/Ortofon Black cartridge) and my Marantz BD and SACD players. To me, the 192Khz (Bluray) and DSD (SACD) sources felt very close to the warmth of vinyl (surface noise and pops a side), where the PCM (44kHz CD) was the easiest to decern as the odd man out. My hearing has degraded over the years along with Tinnitus so not sure I appreciate the difference as much as my younger self would, but really more about the experience with vinyl, listening to the composition of the album as a whole. With all that said, I tend to my my music in both CD and vinyl. And while the latter is still my preference, most of my consumption by far is digital (from my personal library) in the car, on riding my bikes, or working around the house, etc. So glad I get to live in a world with both.
I think Blu Ray & DVD audio, and even Vinyl, sound better than many CDs due to different mixing & mastering. My theory is the CD "Volume wars" style mixing ruins the sound, but these mixes can't work on vinyl, so engineers need a "good" mix with dynamic range for the vinyl, but the same "good" mix can also be upsold as "BluRay/DVD audio". The 24bit/196 format is just for marketing. The "good" mix sounds just as good on 16/44 CD as it does on 24/196 DVD, but they can't otherwise upsell and charge more for the "good" mix on 16/44 CD.
@@xxxYYZxxx That is a fair point. I agree loudness wars distort the data. FWIW, this was done with Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here as had those in all of those formats so very limited sample set, but was curious of how they compared.
@@xxxYYZxxx I think that's part of it, but 20bit 48khz is actually a lot easier to engineer a good DAC than for 16bit 44.1khz. DACs have come a long way, but the reason they chose 16/44.1 was because at the time that's all they could build. Actually, the first ones weren't even full 16bit. So, vinyl often, though not always, gets the better masters with less stupid crazy loudness wars compressed stuff due to just the constraints of the medium, and it also has the sound characteristics of the reproduction phase. CD gets the often terrible masters and, especially early on, really awful playback quality with some nasty anti-aliasing filters.
Such a great company to post videos like these.
The vinal groove flexes as the diamond stylus scrapes through it like a huge boulder, adding harmonic distortion which adds warmth.
Vinyl reproduction has a lot more second harmonic distortion.
I HAD NO IDEA WHERE HE WAS GOING WITH THIS. FINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKS MY MIND
Interesting subject and I feel I have to agree that the largest differences are from the cartridges used on Vinyl. And yes I too worked in a Hi-fi Shop in the late 70's where we had 4 arms on a turntable so we could compare up to 4 cartridges at the same time...the differences were quite noticeable - so we have the final say on how we enjoy our vinyl by way of choice or preference of cartridges we use
Yes Paul, I believe there's something correct about your assumption, and I will add to that, in that I believe the difference in sound is affected quite noticeably by the "reverberated" sound in the listening room coming back around and hitting both the needle itself and the cartridge too, therefore adding that "warmth" that you hear with vinyl. I think it has a good bit to do with the cartridge and needle getting physically impacted by the sound waves in the room.
The reason I believe that is because a friend and I did a little experiment in college with that assumption in mind, and one time we totally physically separated, in totally different rooms, our turntable from our speakers one time, and that same "warmth" in the sound disappeared, and instead the music just sounded more like it was coming from a CD or tape instead, so that room to needle/cartridge soundwave reverb definitely makes vinyl sound "different", and arguably "warmer" than a tape or CD recording of the exact same song/album, etc.
'the "reverberated" sound in the listening room coming back around and hitting both the needle itself and the cartridge too, therefore adding that "warmth" that you hear with vinyl.'
So, the higher the volume, the warmer the sound would be, since there's more reverberated sound going back to the needle and cartridge? And if you turned the volume down, it would sound less warm?
Wow, how loud do you listen to music?
@@petrushka1611 No, it happens the same amount at ANY volume, (above totally muted), anything from just barely audible all the way up to blasting and rattling windows, the effect is the same, because it's not the LOUDNESS of the sound in the room, but rather it's because of the difference of the time delay, (literally only in a few milliseconds), between the first played sound through the speakers, originating directly from the record grooves, read by the needle, in relation to the micro delayed sound then coming back onto the needle and especially the cartridge/pick-up, a few milliseconds later, then being added to the cartridge output, and back through the speakers again, over and over on a continuous basis throughout your vinyl listening session.
You can hear the same effect while listening at any volume while the turntable is in the same room with you and the speakers playing the music from it, but if you take the turntable completely out of the room and physically isolate it in another room entirely from you and the speakers, (using a long cord), then that effect goes away, from what I remember hearing.
It's been quite a few years though since my friend and I did that experiment, so I'm gonna have to redo that experiment nowadays, with my nicer equipment and see if I notice that same effect and difference. It MAY have been due to something else entirely causing us to hear the difference that we both did, but I just can't think of what else may have been causing it if it wasn't for that.
More research into this needs to be done before I can be sure, but that's what makes audio and music listening so enjoyable and interesting, especially among different equipment. I think experimenting like that is fun though!
@@scottyo64 It's not about the loudness. (See my reply to petrushka1611, above)
Vinyl has several technical limitations, and that is what it makes sound different (warmer). Comparing an LP with a CD is like comparing the same song on tape at 9,5 cm/sec and 19 cm/sec. You can't make an exact copy of the 19 cm recording on a 9,5 cm tape speed. The 9,5 will sound worse. The other way round, they will sound almost the same. My point is that if you make a recording of an LP on a CD recorder, that cdr will sound exactly the same as the LP. I made a few cd copies of my best LP's and you couldn't tell the difference. I have a high end stereo system.
You’re right and this experimentation (listening a LP recorded on a CD) is a key point. Warmer feeling while listening recorded music (sounds) comes from random imperfections we can find on a LP and in the electrical reading system of the table, cartridge and so on. It was the same with the tubes amplifiers. And a CD will sound warmer with a tubes amplifier. Our brain don’t « like » perfection. It’s not « natural ». We feel a music colder with a too much « perfect » system than with little random and short errors. So a CD (well mastered) and a SACD have much more information and depth to give us, but we don’t feel as cool - more or less - than with a vinyl. In a concert theatre, we also are in a random imperfect area because sounds of the musicians come from different directions and reflexions moving the air. It’s not perfect at all, but full of depth and rich: warm and full spectrum. Our brain feel it very good. Some DSP allows a kind of « tubes amplifiers » simulation. It can be interesting to try different settings with this option.
@@frjedi9081 thanks for the reply. I totally agree with you 👍
The media I purchase my music on depends on how I feel about the music I'm purchasing, if it's something that takes my breath away I buy it on vinyl, if it's something I really enjoy and want to own I buy a CD.
Not everything needs to be quantified, things can be relegated to just a feeling, it can be utterly satisfying to finally figure out how to get your vinyl records to sound as good as they can and it can be utterly convenient and borderline perfection from a listening standpoint to effortlessly drop a CD into a tray.
However, qualitatively speaking, we are analog, the world is analog, and something somehow for some reason, waveforms reproduced off of a physical waveform impregnation feel real. Digital music feels like a recreation, like our brains can understand it because it follows the rules of physics but hearing amplified mechanical vibrations feels like it literally resonates from something tactile, like something we evolved with, it feels natural and that's good enough for me.
Paul you nailed it right on the button bud! I am a cutting engineer and you're absolutely right. Some of the comments on here crack me up!
Thanks! Appreciate the kind words of support.
I believe you are 100% correct insofar as warmth is concerned. But regardless of the cartridge, I've never heard any vinyl that sounds the same as a live performance. Digital can come much closer to that. Tape mastering + vinyl recording combine to create an aural narcotic that often sounds better than the real thing to addicted ears.
Vinyl and live music both have ultrasonic frequencies up to 50khz. Digital, such as CD, only goes up to 20khz. So vinyl will sound more natural because the frequency response is more natural.
Paul, thank you for this insight.
I always think when you are listening to a record that has been cut from a digital source, that the process of cutting the record and then play back in your own home is a replacement for a DAC. And I really like that you focused on the cartridge, and in a way thinking of that cartridge being the center of the playback chain, that is the DAC for that original file that was cut on to vinyl. And that is the reason I prefer a well done record from a digital source over a file. Because that playback chain from cutting heads to cartridge, does a way better job of communicating the music from the recording session than my humble digital front end ever will.
I originally thought it a complete waste to press vinyl from digital. While I am an analog/ vinyl fanatic, once technology got to the point where we could access the files directly, why bother going through all those conversions.
But I am changing more towards your thinking, that vinyl offers a filtering to digital files that electronic circuitry can not duplicate yet. Going physical forces compliance to analog specs without introducing things like phase shifts that the electronics would. It is a near perfect integrator!
Without having the chance to get anywhere near DSD as Paul has, I am hoping it will prove to be the best of both worlds as he says it is.
@@glenncurry3041 I'm a digital fan. I do see that a digital original cut to an LP gives the listener a chance to use their favorite cartridge-table-arm combination. With a good system, any distortions are a positive.
Records can be cut only so "hot" because neither a cutter nor a playback cartridge can deal with more than a certain amplitude.
The available range from softest to loudest is far less than what digital can do.
As long as the dynamic range on the master tape is no greater than can be readily put on a vinyl disc,
there is little about which to be concerned.
I still don't get what people really mean by "warmth".
A recording should be an honest represntation of what was picked up by the microphone(s).
If it isn't, maybe it Then becomes 'warm' ?
I'm guessing this "warmth" is actually imbued by the material quality and damping of the vinyl itself!!! Would be interesting to hear a record which is pressed out of a composite material of say Carbon Nanotubes!!! I know people like vinyl, but we need to go *"BEYOND the "WHY?"!* as to Truly Why vinyl "sounds good"!!! I think the term is "Materials Engineering"?!🤔
Isn't vinyl just warmer because of the medium's limitations?
A square wave recorded on vinyl at higher frequencies would show this, indicating inferior transient response,so rounding off the sharpness of fast HF reproduction and favouring the warm bass.
I didn't know it is possible to use non-compressed recordings to cut a vinyl record. I was always told that master tapes had wider Dynamic Range and vinyl records were not able to acommodate it due to physical restraints. I believe you're right, Paul. The difference is in the reproduction, and cartridges are responsible for that. Their coils interact with each other, annuling some frequencies and amplifying others.
Agree , mastering tapes would have substantially higher dynamic range than vinyl, cassette tape has similar dynamic range to vinyl.
Fascinating film, Paul! So, the logical next question is: "Which phono cartridge do you use?" (LOL!)
Keep up the great work!
Hi Paul,
Clear and logical explanation, but could you add or elaborate more on the step of RIAA filtering both in the vinyl cutting step and the reproduction step. After all it is a form of compression (bass mostly) and decompression at playback, with by definition different filters. PS : during history several different cutting RIAA filters were used, so playback of different era vinyl records is never exactly reproduced on the same riaa reproduction/ playback system
RIAA filtering is very misunderstood. It has nothing to do with compression or expansion.
As virtually all HiFi cartridges of the day were magnetic based, they do what coils and magnets (inductors) do. Their output goes up with velocity of movement. Not distance. A wide excursion at a slow rate (loud bass) does not produce as much voltage out as a smaller excursion at a higher rate. So higher frequencies produce a greater output from the same excursion. It is a logarithmic increase. So the RIAA engineers decided to take advantage of that and choose a frequency at which to start rolling off the sensitivity of the input to the preamp. As higher frequencies also had more noise, this would drop the noise floor at the same rate. Thus an increased S/N as well. And a complimentary curve was include during the cutting.
But this has nothing to do with changing the levels dynamically. Frequency linearity only.
Ken5244 issued a quite the dissertation... IMHO, CDs and CD audio quality streaming have come a long way. After I got my main Stereo System for my LR in 1987 [NAD 1300 Preamp, NAD 2600 Amp, a Dual CS5000 TT with a Shure cartridge and a Pair of KEF 104/2 Speakers) which I still have to this day - and plays wonderfully without EQs or SWs, I purchased Springsteen's Born in the USA CD. I had the LP. When I played the CD - it was too tinny sounding , not as Full as the LP. Yes, No Clicks or Cracks but Tinny to my ear. Then i purchased Santana's Abraxis - Remastered CD, and that Blew me away. CDs had improved and i began to buy records in CD format only. Recently, I have replaced some older LPs that were damaged from playing on inferior equipment and not really cared for. The Who's Tommy is one example. The Vinyl still "feels" a bit Warmer, but the CD has better Dynamic Sound !. The Battle continues. Throw in HiFi Streaming (Tidal, Spotify, etc), for even more Dynamic sound.
You can say one sounds better than the other but it's subjective. What is a fact is that digital and analog sound different.
Whether it's from distortion, compression, magnetism or added harmonics is likely all dependent on one's particular setup. Mastering obviously plays a large role from artist to artist as well.
Overall both formats bring me lots of enjoyment, some of my favorite records from the golden era of vinyl mastering and recording sound far better to me than their digital counterparts, while some more recent artists have horrible sounding vinyl records (to me) whereas their digital recordings sound spectacular!
The fun in being an audiophile is experimenting and tweaking and enjoying the music in many different rooms, different setups, different formats and different days/moods.
Rather than argue one sounds better or worse - enjoy your blessing of the ability to hear and appreciate beautiful musical arts!
I began subscribing to High Fidelity and Stereo Review magazines as a young kid back in the late-70s. I still remember, quite vividly, the many articles about CD sound when they hit the scene in 1982. The most common complaints were "harshness" and "digital fatigue." And for good reason, because both of those things were very real. As for why that was, there were multiple reasons. For one thing, most CDs in the early days were rushed to market to cash in on the excitement. But record companies just used the same master that had been used to make vinyl records. The problem with that, IIRC from the aforementioned articles, is that that master had the RIAA equalization curve applied to it because it was intended to make vinyl records sound best on people's stereos & record players at home (and to a lesser extent commercial cassettes & 8-tracks, which of course were both analog mediums too). But that RIAA equalization curve made CDs sound terrible, and it took quite a long time for record companies to get their acts together. [*EDIT: See my comment at the end of this posting.] Another reason, as theorized by the writers in those magazines (Julian Hirsch, et al.), was that from the get-go, the sampling rate was too low. A common consensus was that it should have been 48 KHz rather than 44.1. Or better yet, 96 (48 doubled). And their lengthy explanations why seemed to make sense (to me, anyway).
People can use all the techno speak they want to describe how CDs are supposedly superior to vinyl, but my ears tell me otherwise. Vinyl sounds better in most cases -- IF the record was mastered properly and IF the listener has high-end stereo equipment. Vinyl never sounded great on a cheapy department store all-in-one stereo that cost $125 back in the day. But it sure did sound good on a Technics or Dual or Pioneer high-end turntable with a Shure V15 Type IV or Ortofon moving coil cartridge (or comparable) thru a high quality amp or receiver and good speakers. CDs have always sounded "harsh" to me, even after record companies started doing a better job at mastering them. I do appreciate their wider dynamic range and lower noise floor when listening to classical music, but really, I have a lot of classical vinyl records that sound great in their own way despite the noise floor and occasional click or pop. And how often is there 100 dB of dynamic range in live music? Rarely, even in classical. So it's not like the vinyl can't reproduce what the musicians played in most cases.
There is just something more organic about the way analog music is recorded and transferred to vinyl. With digital, it would seem that there are millisecond (or whatever the correct term is) gaps between each time the waveform is sampled. It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second, but it's there. The higher the sampling rate the less gaps there are, but with analog there isn't any gap whatsoever. The recording is a continuous, unbroken stream of analog signal instead of tens of thousands of digitally sampled snapshots (of the waveforms) in succession. [*EDIT: Based on some subsequent comments, it appears I didn't understand this aspect of digital audio correctly. Apparently there aren't any relevant "gaps" in audio that has been sampled at at least double the frequency of the waveform -- which w/ a 44,100 Hz rate should be sufficient to adequately sample frequencies out to 22,000 Hz, which is beyond the range of human hearing. Thanks to Steven Lang, below, for the detailed explanation.]
That said, I agree that the phono cartridge is extremely important in the vinyl listening chain. No doubt about that.
Thoughts, anyone? Feel free to correct anything I've said here. I won't be offended.
*EDIT: After reading the replies below, my recollection about when the RIAA equalization curve was applied may or may not be accurate. Some of you guys are saying that the RIAA curve wasn't applied to the master tape, but rather during the cutting process of the vinyl master. That may be the case, and maybe my recollection is a little hazy after 40 years. But that doesn't explain the aforementioned articles that I remember specifically mentioning that the RIAA eq curve was being used during the mfg of many CDs and what a big mistake that was. If anyone wants to chime in again with further clarification, by all means do.
Excellent explanation and very well written
RIAA curves are never applied to master tapes.
There is no interruption between one sample and the subsequent, that is what reconstruction filters are for.
There are no "gaps" in digital playback. Continuous waveforms are mathematically reconstructed from the samples. You don't hear the data, you hear the math result. For example, a simple sine wave at say 18kHz can be mathematically represented prior to digitization, and - after digitization and analog conversion - you'll end up with the same, continuous sine wave because it's the *only* mathematical solution to the data. There aren't *gaps*. (The only caveat is the signal has to be less than half of the sample rate or there will be other possible solutions.)
Very well written and I remember a lot of the arguments of those days. I think that records can sound 'good' but that is something else to sounding like the original. Therefore I have a different theory, it is a bit long but try to read all of it:
I started buying CD's when there were very few CD players on the market and very few CD's to be bought. There would be catalogues each month with the available CD's and they were very thin in the beginning. I never looked back and after a few years never played my vinyl records anymore. Since then I moved to Amsterdam and started frequently visiting the Concertgebouw so I heard the music live in the concert hall. Listening to CD's at home, at least well recorded ones, gave me the same experience. Not the same of course but the instruments sounded the same. After many years I heard a high end system with a very expensive turntable and pre-amplifier etc. The owner is very proud of it and he played a classical record for me, a piano recording I know well. I was shocked. It sounded 'good' but it did not sound like a piano in a concert hall, it lacked overtones and richness, almost compressed and the higher tones sounded just cut off. After that he played a string quartet. I was cringing, again, it just did not sound true to life. With pop music it is very hard to know 'how' it should sound, amplifying, mixing and compression in the studio already alters so much, I never trust demonstrations with studio recorded music. Acoustic recordings of pianos, orchestras have a reference: the instruments themselves. Therefore my theory is this: people like the warm sound of a vinyl record because it cuts off a lot of the higher and lower frequencies and therefore gives more space to the middle frequencies. These are the frequencies our ears really love. Our brain is trained to recognise that as the 'true' sound (like with artificial sugars, they are not really sweet but we perceive it as sweet). So when I got 'untrained' by not listening to vinyl for 30 years I heard what vinyl lacks. Everything that well recorded digital music does is give the full spectrum. Which can be very fatigueing to the ear. Live music can be fatigueing as well. After a concert my ears need some rest. Recordings are always a compromise. Like I once wrote to Paul: nobody wants a full orchestra playing in the living room. It should be an image of it but it should be true to life, with the right frequencies. That is for me the difference. Digital music reproduces a much wider range of frequencies and therefore truer to life than vinyl. But it is all in the ears of the beholder.
As stated, the RIAA Filter is applied while cutting and not at any tape. There are and were enough effects in studios to enhance the fatique transient behaviour. And the 80's have seen transient killers, the Walkman and its headphone, car hifi and other creapy, cheap audio equipment. The lables still use the quality of digital audio to give pedal to the metal with the effects like enhancers, transient designers etc. Fine on this lame gear, bad on highend HiFi. And don't think studio monitors are ever extremly fast at transients, nope.
I just saw a video about the first pressings of the Thriller album, how MJ cried of how awful it sounded and how it had nothing to do to the sound of the mixes in the studio. That it had to be retouched in the mixes and mastering so when pressed again it could retain most of the original sound. That is why I think that at the very least, digital is better, because the sound from the original mixes to the mastering and at the end to some digital delivery service, is retained. And the artist, not the listener, is sure of the sound that is being delivered. What I’ve heard old school engineers say is that before you had to have a lot of guess work to know how the sound would be affected even by the analog tape. With digital the guess work is out, what you hear is what you get.
Digital, such as CDs, cut out the frequencies above 20khz. But those frequencies are present in live music and vinyl. This is why vinyl is better and closer to the way real sound works.
@@dtz1000 Not knocking vinyl since it has its appeal, but it seems that the upper frequency advantage you mentioned would be counter balanced by the noise added (the inevitable noise, pops and clicks). Not to mention that as you get older your upper freq. hearing ability goes way down (50 year old man is around 12 K average).
I've no idea why people say vinyl sounds warmer. Just sounds clearer and more natural to me . Not warmer at all.
Paul, unless you encode your LPs with DBX or similar Noise Reduction systems, vinyls cannot achieve the 110 Db as you inaccurately claimed in the video. Mike Fremer noted (as well as AES) in a Stereophile article that most of LPs have less than 60 Db in dynamic range.
I think it’s because the needle being a mechanical device can sometimes bounce or “overshoot” the waveform and causes that unique sound much like a lower frame rate causes professional movies to look the way they do.
Learning Egyptian is very easy. The two most important phrases are:
Falafel
Ana mesh faahem
Straight from the vinyl the signal goes: needle>cartridge>phono preamp. That's three stages that can alter the sound. Needles can be not so new, cartidge is mechanical so what's the quality (mm or mc?), phono preamps have their own circuitry..... That's a lot of variables.
You forgot the RIAA curve preamp that has to be used for cutting the vinyl master in the first place. Maybe you can reproduce the curve digitally but usually it's an analog circuit.
I sold all my records a few years ago.. Got paid big bucks .. my vinyl was perfect.. played on my VPI table with a Grado …
Thanks for your explanation. Yes I think the cartridge adds its own flavor to being warm but the elephant in the room is the record itself. In the digital domain both channels are totally isolated from each other but on the record we have one groove to carry both, encoded 45 degrees (?) from each other. And the groove center moves depending on which channel is louder at the moment which the cartridge tries to track. I don't know if any of this adds warmth but with all else being equal I think so.
I do not feel always warmth of LPs in compare to digital. But sometime yes. I think in digital recordings when used analog as source some information is removed deliberately - to achieve declaired 90dB of hum and noise distance Other way is to apply compression
That was a great answer. I to have often wondered why. I suspected it had to do with a continuous signal as opposed to a digital quantized signal. More rich harmonic overtones would be present in vinyl than a digital version. However, the reissued Led Zeppelin records sound better than my old originals. I am told Jimmy Page used digital masters to remix the new records, so that’s that.
I believe you are absolutely correct when you attribute the cartridge to the sonic differences between listening to vinyl playback and listening to DSD masters. I also wonder if the likes of DS-Audio's optical cartridges would minimise that difference?
I agree with the stuff Paul said and found it very insightful, especially about direct transferring DSD to vinyl.... but I did hope he would have differentiated between dynamic range (which he talked about) and frequency range (which I think the questioner was asking more about).
Also, there is the RIAA curve which definitely has to be applied, and having that pre and post emphasis applied is a factor which does perceptibly alter the way a frequency contour's harmonics presents itself.
years ago i did a series of "blind" tests with LP albums and CD's of the same albums using a "£50" TURNTABLE and a cyrus dad 3q CD player (bought for close to £1000). in each case the LP's sounded warmer, brighter, deeper and just plain better. I then used a different turntable (a Rega plana III) and the difference increased. I have no knowledge of the underlying cutting/manufacture process; however I sensed the effects of hand-made vs mass-production here - which Paul has alluded to in several other videos. Very interesting discourse here in though 👍👍
Given the large number of different phono cartridge designs that mostly all produce recognizably "vinyl sound",
perhaps it has something to do with phase changes provoked by RIAA curve equalization.
Excellent video Paul
Yes Paul i will be happy to expand on your conclusions of the differences in sound between vinyl and digital. Yes the cartridge is a factor in the sound differences, but so is the turntable, tonearm, phono cable, phono preamplifier, everything in the vinyl playback chain makes a difference in the sound of vinyl. The digital chain also is a factor as all digital equipment sounds different as well as how its decoded and reconverted back to analog.
With that said, why i prefer the sound if analog over digital is analog sounds more like the original source and digital
always sounds like a artificial recreation of the original source.
The much ignored elephant in the room is the very laws of physics. You have physical movement and and friction within the reproduction process. no matter how little noise is present. it still is present. It is very subtle but pleasing noise. Resonances are also a factor, which is another element everyone wants to eliminate. Again, because of the physical nature, it is still in the chain. These, combined with other physical forces, add up to the warmth of vinyl sound. The best example would be the sound of a crackling fire as a backdrop to a deep voice reciting poetry. I've discovered this by digitizing my vinyl records of varying conditions. When I listen to the CD versions of the same recordings, it's easy to hear why those less than perfect disks are much warmer. Obviously, excessive noise needs to be minimized, but the physical properties remaining are like cream in coffee.
This is very interesting as many have said the "vinyl" analog grooves is the cause of the warmth (harmonics), so the cartridge argument is less common. And the cartridge is a transducer also in addition to the speakers. What would be helpful is if Paul talked more about the specific why of the cartridge effect? That said, if the cartridge is so big a factor, only a few of them are likely to be "the best" in this context, and many others not as good. So the decision on which to buy becomes almost as important as the speakers. I had Shure V15 Type 2 back in the day, reputed to be one of the best. Meanwhile, there may be some audiophiles who buy a gazillion $ turntable but a sub-optimal cartridge for their vinyl, especially today where there are few places to go to A-B them. An advantage of digital is that it takes the risk of making a mistake on buying the "wrong" cartridge out of the equation and if the music doesn't sound good (to you) you can blame it on the amp or speakers :)
when mastering you need 2 signals, one delyed exactly one turn of the record this is used for the feed rate and a 2nd one is the signal itself to be written into the matrix. The louder the signal the higher feed rate you need that's why you need to know it one turn in advance.
Maybe we've just been conditioned to appreciate the sound of a vinyl recording. But as you say, the original studio recording sounds different. Which source replicates the studio recording better? Possible HD files?
I think, more, I observe that you got right conclusion. Not my own experience but somenoe I know well and he was using Audio Technica turntable with audiotechnica pickup. For reason of more automatic operation he purchased old Lenco with Shure and with the same system it is no comparable sound to previous.
I totally agree with you on this one Paul.
Don't disagree, but surely the warmness is simply rolled of top end, tilting the eq, giving the low (mid-lo) more presence.
Always thought vinyl sounded best cos it's real, physical movements amplified, not 1s and 0s.
I had to replace my cartridge on my turntable because it got broken moving the stereo upstairs to the bedroom from our living room. The cartridge I could find to replace the original with since it was beyond just replacing the needle was almost $98 usd.The new one makes the turntable sound completely different and better to me than the original early 1970's cartridge that came on it. It's amazing that you can just replace a old turntables cartridge and have it sound better than before.
After moving to a PS Audio Stellar Phono Preamp and a moving coil cartridge, I hit my “this can’t be improved” happiness. Vinyl is a Japanese tea ritual.
Have you tried making digital recordings of your Octave Records LPs and comparing the digital original, the LP and the digital recording of the LP? That would be interesting.
The playback method matters a lot with vinyl. There's a significant difference when using a solid state amp vs. a tube amp, and a wood case speaker enclosure makes a different tone than one made of plastic. There's more factors involved than just the recording technology.
Remember the video recorder with Hi Fi sound recorded in Frequency Modulation? When I watch/listen the music video, I hear the same warmer sound from this FM recording as the vinyl, and they is no cartridge nor mechanic vibration involve here in FM recording.
In every aspect of art, the flaws are what's making the experience interesting. In my book perfection is boring. A painting that can not be distinguished from a photo loses a dimension. And sound perfection aside, a recording that is minutely corrected with no errors or fluctuations loses in musicality, in my opinion. That is one reason why I find much of the currently produced music boring. That doesn't mean I don't want the best sound possible out from my gear. When discussing vinyl, the tactile experience is also important. It's all about the whole package. There's no right or wrong in taste. Analogue or digital ... I love billberries, and you love blueberries, so we need both, isn't that great? Thanks Paul for another interesting video!
No need for a "raging war" on my end. I'm both a vinyl and CD enthusiast. Both have their strengths and weaknesses although, my opinion, both can be great. But, I do have a question - to/for all? Why is it that I just love my Ortofon 2M Red? I know it's not expensive. But, with specifically well-recorded albums, this cartridge offers a high quality level of resolution and detail. Is it just because I'm not wealthy? I have what I consider a good system with a Rogue Audio amp (Sphinx V#) and nice, warm Tannoy speakers. Why would I love my entry level cartridge? (I'm also considering an "upgrade" to the 2M Blue.) Thoughts?
Actually its probably quite a bit simpler than that, namely the fact that there are limitations to things like the ability of the needle to track (hence the RIAA equalization) and the track-to-track spacing, among other things. Since there _are_ substantial limitations, careful attention to things like the relative content of each channel as well as observing limits in how dynamic the content is are needed. As such, by design, the vinyl WILL be mixed differently than either analog tape and digital, and since vinyl is now in vogue there is an eye towards getting good subjective quality of the mix, and indeed many are different and often better subjectively than digital. This isn't because vinyl is better than digital. Its actually much, much worse. Piss-poor dynamic range, terrible L/R channel separation, surface noise, snaps/pops from surface damage or dirt, etc. Digital, on the other hand, is so good that it tolerates even some of the laziest and overly-compressed mixing. Much like rich idiots in their supercars, its a great medium plagued by bad operators.
There are many theoretical data which have very slight impact on listening and one that is not measured but in analog perfectly preserved - it is phase coherence. Mechanical recording is done with single timing because stylus does exactly this what diaphragm in ear is repeating. Unfortunately that what does brain next is not in any apparatus capability
Put me down for piss poor - its sounds realistic and alive!
@@ponderguy7724 As stated vinyl usually has better mixing vis-à-vis with respect to other formats these days. Additionally the lack of low-level detail and reduced response at higher frequencies likely give a perceived softness and warmth to the audio. Combine with something that has "character" from surface defects and people will likely have a positive impression. Nothing wrong with that, but we need to dispense with any notion of it being high fidelity. Its not, and when direct comparisons can be made the lack of detail and poor channel separation and dynamic range are quite apparent, and usually subjectively undesirable when comparative testing is done.
Hey Paul,
Would Octave Records be interested in taping a live jazz trio playing A Charlie Brown Christmas in Montreal?
Is there such a thing as recording in DSD at a venue rather than in a studio?
Season's greetings from Canada.
Yes, you can record in DSD at a venue, it's not limited to only in-studio recording.
But... How does the RIAA equalization curve factor into all of this? And what the heck does cartridge capacitance do to subtly affect everything, for that matter?
🤔
I think you're correct, but it's also the exact opposite on the dynamics from what the letter writer believes. There is a tendency to compress the hell out of digital recordings in a way that vinyl doesn't seem to get subjected to as often due to mechanical constraints... I'm referring to studio produced recordings, not like a live acoustic recording that may require a little compression for vinyl to bring up the quietest sounds. While vinyl has a higher noise floor, other than audiophile acoustic recordings like classical music from noted labels that often do get a little compression to bring up the quiet stuff so it's not too buried in that noise floor, most vinyl records use *more* dynamic range than commercial digital releases. Overly loud vinyl that also has a lot of high frequencies will tend to cause many cartridges to distort, and therefore vinyl records are less tolerant of such extreme loudness and historically were mastered with more roll off and more dynamics than most digital is now. In later years, though, Bob Ludwig did start the unfortunate vinyl trend of making louder records that were less tolerating of lesser cartridges, and therefore more likely to wear out and even damage the high frequencies with IMD from the stylus. It was Ludwig's efforts to appease the marketing shills in vinyl loudness that bled over into the digital realm. Nonetheless, much of the rest of the difference the listener hears is the phono cartridge, and there are definitely carts that sound like a good digital reproduction, such as moving coils as opposed to something like a moving iron design. The rest is from crummy digital masters that are too compressed, too loud, and are stupidly exploiting the tolerances of digital..
Surely it all depends on the quality of your Hi-Fi system?
I have a Rega Apollo cd player and it sounds just as warm as my Project X-Pack vinyl turn-table. Both are played through an Arcam A90 amp and Monitor Audio Silver 300 7g speakers.
Then you are one of the lucky few ;)
Paul, when you produce a digital master, you need not have to do anything in the analog domain.
Whereas, when you cut a vinyl plate, you have a DAC of sorts in the chain, because you have to give that cutting machine the analog signal. Therein lies the difference between the two mediums that hold the musical information.
To get the groove into the record, that digital master had to have its data put through a DAC.
I do not know what that equipment is named -- it is probably not called a DAC. But somewhere between the computer that holds the music file (the DSD file), and the machine with the cutting head, there is a part that functions as a DAC.
And the above process involves a transport, too.
All of the above contributes to the differences in sound quality, even before an end user's cartridge or DAC gets involved.
Hmmm, the mechanical inertia of the cutting head and the phono cartridge. That makes sense. In digital, no mechanical input is involved in the audio mastering and playback.