Mobile Fidelity Scandal Q: Vinyl Sounding More Dynamic than Digital - SoundStage! Real Hi-Fi (Ep:40)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- Our “Mobile Fidelity Digital LP Scandal Busts Two Audiophile Myths” Real Hi-Fi episode brought out an interesting question from a viewer about how, even though vinyl has so much less dynamic-range potential than digital, some recordings can actually sound more dynamic played back on vinyl than on digital. The answer has to do with the dynamic range of the recordings being played, which Doug Schneider explores and explains in this follow-up video.
#audiophile #hifi #highendaudio
You are right on in your observation. There are audiophile labels who record their own albums on CD and digital downloads that have excellent dynamics. The loudness wars have really hurt the perceived fidelity of CDs in the marketplace.
Your choice of TUNNEL OF LOVE is an interesting one, because I think things began to change during that era. As CDs took off, around 1988, manufacturers began thinking of them as pancakes-just pump them out. I suspect that, as LPs began to bounce back and they became more prized as possessions and not simply as the medium to deliver music, companies like Sony Music put more resources back into LP mastering. Meanwhile, CDs have only occasionally been given the technical care they require to realize the full potential you discuss here.
I really like your phrase "technical care." That's really what it's about -- maximizing the format.
During the 80's and 70's I used a dbx compresso/expander to compress my cassette recordings for car listening; my recordings always sounded great. I would use its expander at home when listening to vinyl to add extra dynamics.
I mostly listen only vinyls because of the better dynamics. So I fully agree with your observations. I also think the physical contact of a stylus reproducing the sound right out of the groove has a different feel than the digital reproduction. That could be the reason for the difference. It's like listening to something live to a recorded sound.
Thanks for giving some insight to this Doug. I stopped listening to vinyl decades ago for various reasons but, yeah, vinyl sure can sound great some times, way better than the digital variants available. I put it down to a few things. (i) the guys mastering for vinyl often have decades of experience and know, both, that they have to be careful (due to the limitations of vinyl) and, how to make it "sing". The guys mastering for , say CD, know that what ever they put on there will play just fine and so don't really care. Think maybe, a recording of a 747 taking off, you can just slap it on a CD and it will play, even though your speakers might not be too happy about it - not so with vinyl. (ii) Vinyl replay systems (turntables, arms, cartridges, phono stages) can never be truly accurate and may emphasize certain aspects of the sound. (iii) CD players and DACs used to be pretty poor sounding (but DACs have come a long way in 40 years.)
I listen to both digital and vinyl, and I feel like you've done a good job explaining what i've experienced. Almost all of my Pink Floyd Vinyl sounds superior to the digital versions I have because the attack on various instruments (especially drums) is much quicker and harder on my vinyl versions. There are other exceptions though. I have a handful of SACDs, and my Depeche Mode and Nine Inch Nails SACDs sound much better than my vinyl and standard PCM digital versions. I thought that perhaps it was DSD vs. PCM vs. Analog that was at play, but perhaps all it is, is simply a case of the SACD mastering engineer not needing to cater to the lowest common denominator.
To sum up your video based on my understanding of it - Digital has the capability of being a much better medium on all fronts, but at the end of the day the recording, the mixing, and the mastering engineer can make all the difference and negate any technical superiority a medium may have.
mastering for digital usually means competing with others on radio, nowdays on streaming platforms and getting louder result means using more compression, usually in the mid band. That is exactly where you need to be careful when it comes to vinyl. Also, there is little pressure to "go loud" on vinyl as the length, speed, etc also determines how loud it will be and no one really cares.. what they mostly care about is audio quality. So as you mentioned, the target audience is different and in mastering the first question is about your target audience :) Very interesting topic.
Great points!
For me the most important part is the middle and the balance and the dynamics
Interesting point of view thanks
Excellent explanation Doug!
Glad to hear it!
Man the dream of vinyl is really over after the mobile fidelity expose. Vinyl is now just about collecting historical artefacts
There actually is another reason. Even when mastered exactly the same way vinyl will sound more dynamic. This is due to distortions specific to vinyl during loud passages. It can add a sense of increased loudness AND harmonic complexity. Net result is perceptual increase in dynamics and realism.
I think you misunderstood the gentleman when he said the records were more dynamic obviously CDs have a bigger dynamic range he's talking about the fact that the records sound better, there's more information on the records. there's more of the Breath of Life in the vinyl record than on the CD or digital format.
There is also a sense of emotional connection or engagement you get with analog that you don't get with digital. I think that's what the guys talking about. most people have a hard time expressing exactly what they mean in audiophile terms. Thank you
I didn't misunderstand at all -- he was talking about dynamic range or, as I've head some engineers refer to it now, "crest factor." Some vinyl masters are simply mastered, digitally, with more dynamic range. Also, I don't think that there's "more information on the records." This video explains my thoughts on that: th-cam.com/video/ovCXqgIQ7po/w-d-xo.html
Yeah, ironic thing about audiophiles is they try to have the source completely on contaminated you’re on tainted by anything meaning music primarily audio yet they go for specific speakers specific gear that suit their ears that’s why I never really look at the whole audiophile thing as purity in the end everybody will get what plays to their tastes not necessarily what is 100% accurate to the source material
First, let's talk theoretical noise floors. Tape and vinyl is about -60db and if you add Dolby A maybe -70+ db. Have you heard in the background your stylus riding in the groove? Digital in 16 bit is -96 db noise floor and can your recording chain can even get close to that with the inherent noise floor of your gear? I should add that I start at 2496 for all my recordings. My studio can get to -80db with mics open. I have seen with commercial CDs and DSD recordings that at the pre-roll before the music starts as high as -40db noise floor, which is totally unacceptable for some studio to be called "professional". Where is this noise coming from? AC lines? The room's HVAC blower noise? Cable grounding problem? The problem with all of this is mastering with the overuse of compression and peak limiting with their effort to be the loudest. It is sorry engineering practice now that we can have quiet backgrounds with plenty of headroom. I will bet that if you were in the room hearing that Springsteen recording being made that what you heard there and then the CD, it is not the same. Someone decided to squash it and if you looked at it in a DAW you would see both channel in a full sea of color right up to the 0db limit. I see it all the time. Has the goal of recording engineers changed???? Have we forgotten: "Is it live or is it Memorex"? I have just bought two albums of fav artists and their albums sound awful with too much compression and peak limiting and are ruined. A real test is on vocalist can you understand all the lyrics of the songs? Too many engineers are buying all the plug-ins they can and use them because they have them, and not because they need to. It is just because they can. I recommended to a female, Christian artist that she change mastering houses as on her first album I could not understand all her singing. Sometimes it is their microphone choice. She did on the 2nd one and went to Ted Jensen and it was so much better. She still has a problem in that her mixdown engineer is keeping her band too loud compared to her. You must have to proper balance between the band(lower) and the singers. One of my references is Tony Bennett's "The Art of Excellence" in terms of recorded quality. Many albums from the 1950's and 60's were done much better. I have been recording for well over 30 years and use no peak limiting and, at the most, just a touch of compression well under 1.5:1, and that is on large instrumental ensembles that can get very loud. I don't use much as I have a low noise floor and have the room's HVAC turned off and the room is quiet. I would rather you use your volume control on your stereo if you want it louder.
Man, "The Art of Excellence" sounds so unbelievable! Thank you for the recommendation.
Isn't there also the vinyl technology restriction that if the level is always very high, the needle would jump on the track?
Yes, in a way. This is where the RIAA curve comes into play -- and it's been used for vinyl for decades. Basically, vinyl can't support the bass groove size necessary if it was cut "flat" from the master. The stylus wouldn't be able to track it. So what the the RIAA curve does is diminish the bass up to 20dB at the extreme and increase the highs at the extreme, to about 20dB again. Then, on playback, the bass is boosted the opposite amount and the highs are also brought down the opposite amount and you end up with "flat" again.
Interesting theory and I certainly agree that the digital mastering is often compromised from an audiophile perspective. But there is plenty of digital that is mastered to get the best possible sound and it still doesn’t cut it. Watch some of Paul McGowan’s from PS Audio videos. They have a studio that records and masters digital to be the best there possibly can. They use those digital recordings (though the mastering may still be different but not compromised for car radio etc) and produce hi res digital files and vinyl. Paul is adamant the vinyl sounds better and he can’t explain why. My explanation is their is magic in those grooves.
Unfortunately I can't stand to watch Paul McGowan's videos. I watched several and, well, let's just say that I couldn't understand what he was trying to explain much of the time, and when I did, I can't say I agreed with much. But he does him and that's fine.
Sound quality will always be about the master. A great vinyl master will be beat a mediocre digital master every time; and vice versa.
Mastering accounts for a lot. Obviously, quality of the playback system matters a lot -- and turntables vary a lot.
It's true about the quality of the master. But also agree with what our @soundstagenetwork reply is. Low-priced turntables can be vastly inferior to similarly priced digital playback, so it's really hard to say what a better vinyl master would actually sound like on a poor turntable versus and inferior digital master.
That's true, you have to spend a few bucks on a vinyl rig for sure.
@@TheMax1230 My personal "minimum" has been about $1000 for turntable, tonearm, and cartridge before it starts to get acceptable.
I was thinking that same thing but didn't want to get to deep lol. My vinyl rig cost about three times my digital rig. They are both at the level that the master determines which one is better.
This is why I collect older editions on CDs. But I'm lucky in that I like older music. If I liked stuff from the 1990s on, I might not have that option.
A lot of older CDs are poor sounding, but there are some good- and great-sounding ones as well. As with everything, you really have to listen to know.
In my experience classical music which has the widest dynamic range of all genres is not compressed on CDs. Portable and car CD players as well as broadcasters can use dynamic compression which is digital, effective, and no longer expensive. My Sony portable Discman I bought 30 years ago had 3 levels of dynamic compression available.
Much pop music heard over radio broadcasts are dynamically compressed and pushed to the limit and beyond of a digital recording's dynamic capabilities in the loudness wars where the strongest meaning loudest sound on a car radio wins. Those recordings are indifferent to the distortion by hitting the ceiling this method creates. Most pop recordings rarely have an inherent dynamic range of more than 10 dB.
I dont understand why there is always discussion in Pro & Con Style. Why not accept both formats and choose what you like. I personally wouldnt spend money on a turntable. Quality & Information-wise nothing can beats a 24 but 96kHz Master File because at the End the Source Material is always at one point digital. And when the Mastering is poor, vinyl also cant save it - and dont forget, nowadays Vinyl quality is soo poor, technically wise it cant be better in terms of resolution.
Desparate times for vynal. No its not better than digital.
These mastering engineers were dumb from the beginning!
Only radio stations should apply loudness for car listening...Why didn't this phenomenon existed for cassettes?
I just looked up the dynamic range of cassette tape -- under 70dB. They're likely created with some sort of compressor if the digital master isn't compressed enough.
Digital sound is brighter than analog recording, this tends to end being fatiging in a high resolution system.