Vinyl vs. Digital according to the Daily Mail - What do the 'experts' think?
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 05. 2024
- The Daily Mail weighs in on the vinyl vs. digital debate. But will it all make sense to hi-fi obsessives?
DAVID MELLOR'S MUSIC
David Mellor's music on Bandcamp - davidmellor.bandcamp.com/
David Mellor's music on Spotify - open.spotify.com/artist/6OkaD...
Available on all good streaming services
LINKS
The vinyl revival • The Vinyl Revival - So...
DPA microphones amzn.to/48jsgoe
Turntable stabilisers amzn.to/3TSejtc
CREDITS
MailOnline article discussed - www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...
Also referenced - www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...
RIAA EQ - Iainf public domain via wikimedia.org
Equal loudness contours - Lindosland public domain via wikimedia.org
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE AUDIO MASTERCLASS VIDEOS
CAMERA - Sony Alpha A6600 amzn.to/3uj7Dtq
COMPUTER - Apple Mac Mini M2 Pro amzn.to/47tW6Wg
MICROPHONE - Sennheiser MKH 416 amzn.to/3QWWvuO
ALTERNATIVE MICROPHONE - AKG C414 amzn.to/3SLqCad
BUDGET MICROPHONE CHOICE - Rode shotgun amzn.to/3G0ni36
MICROPHONE PREAMPLIFIER - Comica LinkFlex AD2 amzn.to/40SMHFT
TELEPROMPTER - Padcaster Parrot alternatives amzn.to/40A55TJ
TELEPROMPTER SOFTWARE - PromptSmart Pro promptsmart.com/
AUDIO INTERFACE - Behringer UMC202HD amzn.to/3ugj6db
HEADPHONES - Sony wired amzn.to/3sEjlht
SPEAKER CABLE - KabelDirekt amzn.to/3ucgQ6T
POWER AMPLIFIER - Fosi V3 amzn.to/3vRumNH
KEYLIGHT- Amaran 100d amzn.to/40A5Gor
FILL LIGHTS - Switti RGB amzn.to/3ufhOPu
SOFTBOX Phot-R alternatives amzn.to/3QGoTjJ
LIGHTING STANDS Phot-R alternatives amzn.to/3QWXOKe
MONITOR - Samsung UJ59 amzn.to/3MEoBsk
MONITOR ARM - Invision alternatives amzn.to/40SLqi5
MIC ARM - Neewer amzn.to/49Ob0sD
TRIPOD - Velbon alternatives amzn.to/46gu2oa
GREEN SCREEN - Elgato alternatives amzn.to/3SG2F3L
DESK - FlexiSpot E7 Pro amzn.to/3QVIWvS
VIDEO EDITING - Apple Final Cut Pro www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/
IMAGE EDITING - Adobe Photoshop amzn.to/3FZ7Ww0
AUDIO EDITING - Avid Pro Tools amzn.to/3QA5Wz7
NOTEBOOK - Leuchturm 1917 hardback amzn.to/47zonKX
PEN - Sakura Pigma archival pen Sakura Pigma archival pen amzn.to/47zz3cP
OSCILLOSCOPE - Hameg HM 203 alternatives amzn.to/47tWN1O
GROOMING - Philips 3000 nose hair trimmer amzn.to/40BdLJo
GROOMING - Nose plier amzn.to/41IOZaR
HAIR COLOUR - Just For Men amzn.to/475OgS1
HAIR CONDITIONER - TRESemmé Silky & Smooth amzn.to/41AdWFd
Disclaimer: Videos on this channel may include affiliate links and may feature software that has been received free of charge with an NFR (not for resale) licence, equipment that has been loaned or donated by a manufacturer or distributer, or equipment that has been bought for less than full retail price.
As an ex-vinyl-cutting engineer, I can tell you that particularly with anything that could be even vaguely described as 'pop', the groove does NOT contain the original sound wave, whether that sounded perfect or not. The necessary use of acceleration limiters, elliptical equalisers and high and low-pass filters means the audio is not captured in full. Then the playback characteristics of needles in grooves degrade the audio before it's left the cartridge - increasingly so as the needle approaches the centre of the record.
Which 'experts' were interviewed by the Fail?
That's highly reminiscent of the massive amount of compression, limiting and noise reduction they have to put on CDs, inherently lowering the sound quality by a huge amount, just to make the format accept the sound without clipping and sounding horrible. It's almost like the formats are basically equal because you can get excellent sound out of both and there's not a clear winner, except in the eyes of lazy people who never found out how to make records sound good.
"Experts": anyone a reporter might be prepared to put words into the mouth of.
@@jamescarter3196 "massive amount of compression, limiting and noise reduction they HAVE to put on CDs,".............Errrrr..what??
@@jamescarter3196 Your English writing skills are pretty good. Your technical understanding, not so much.
@@jamescarter3196
_"That's highly reminiscent of the massive amount of compression, limiting and noise reduction they have to put on CDs,..."_
Ummm, hate to break this to you... cds have almost double the dynamic range and half again the frequency response of vinyl... Redbook and PCM (digital formats) need none of compression, limiting or noise reduction.
Nice try though.
I'm no vinyl evangelist and almost exclusively listen to digital music. That said, despite having a whole world of music at our finger tips, I miss the days of buying an album and playing it over and over, extracting every last element of joy from it until I could afford to buy another. It felt far more precious and valuable. These days, my kids barely listen to whole albums, and sometimes not even whole tracks before skipping along. Sitting down to listen to an entire album is a pleasure that's being consigned to history and from that perspective, I can see why the vinyl revival has taken place; not for hipster coolness but just to take time out to sit and deliberately listen to music, as an intent, not as backing music to other activities. The fact it's less convenient means it's a more deliberate act.
It's a subconscious response to crap sound; it's just not realistic nor pleasant enough to hold your attention for very long. Sometimes not even for an entire song!
I well remember when Seedies came out, how the pundits all blamed "competing technologies" all coming out & supposedly "competing" for our attention as the reason that Seedy listeners hardly ever sat through an entire song, never mind an entire 45 minute disc (since most of them were remastered albums formatted for the 20 minute sides of an LP that they were originally recorded for).
They blamed everything from Video Games to "Home Theatre" to home computers.
FACT CHECK: Nothing competes with listening to music. NOTHING.
It is a thing unto itself; only when it isn't any good does a listener get up & walk away. And that can be BOTH as a result of the content, or the sound quality of the recording. Sometimes both.
But when you are pulling out discs of music that you bought, that means it contains music you already love!
So that means the problem IS the sound quality (& really the relative lack thereof).
When the music sounds really good, you get more out of the music, you get ENJOYMENT out of the experience, & you usually let the album play right through the side.
Without worrying about making a trip to Blockbuster to rent a movie, or succumb to the urge to run & check your email, or to run downstairs & see if you can increase your high score on "Space Invaders"!
Except we used to spend hours listening to AM radio and were quite happy doing so. And even worse, recording the chart rundown from radio to cassette and that was our soundtrack to the week. Quality was rarely an issue back then. Music was music and we enjoyed in an many shapes and forms... and qualities.
@@joerosen5464
@@joerosen5464 I think it's mostly because it's so easy now to skip along in albums that it becomes a habit. Most people wouldn't want to walk over to a turntable to move the needle to wherever and walk back to the listening position. Modern tech does allow much easier access to our whims. It's no mystery that we tend to take avantage of that...for better or worse.
Have to agree, scientifically speaking digital may be better but vinyl in my view has more of a 'sense of occasion' plus the visual stimulation and beauty that can be enjoyed from looking at a well engineered turntable.
Exactly! Vinyl is a “deliberate” listening experience.
I dove into CDs in the late 80s because I heard them on the radio and didn't hear the same noise that was present on the vinyl. I have no regrets. The only vinyl I buy now is used from many years past because corresponding CDs don't exist.
You can't afford a proper analogue replay system - I know; I make them & I can't afford them! Seriously, I build this gear by hand (ok, lathe, mill - but no cnc). It makes a huge amount of difference. Google "Bird of Prey tonearm" to see what I make. Yes you _can_ have an analogue front-end with minimal pops clicks & farts, and yes it will sound better than digital which is limited by the latest chip (I'm not a moron), but you'll be spending the thickest end of $100K to give yourself 20 years of future-proofing.
Looks like I'm shadow banned - shame, I love the Shadows...
I couldn't get down to the HiFi shop fast enough when the first CD players came out, I was SO over crackles and pops, that would not go away no matter how many time I used the cleaning cloths and micro-fibre brushes that were available back then.
@@nicksterj I can appreciate why you might think that perhaps by your own experience, which begs the question as to what is the "best" analogue front end you have ever heard?
I'll concede that digital gives the best "bang for buck" (inevitable given differing technology required) but there's a limit to what you can do even using the best components. You really need to be spending >$50K before analogue starts outsripping the very best DAC's - not to say that all uber expensive TT's are brilliant, some designers are actually pretty clueless.
Not wishing to sound in any way imperious, but can you understand on a physical level why a Technics TT might have a S/N of 80dB whereas a Garrard 301 comes in around 56dB?
One might assume from face value that everyone should be listening to Technics right? In which case, why are these almost 70 year old Garrards so highly prized?
Sure _if_ you can find your media in a digital format you lose some noise - what else are you losing?
yet many of the presenters of time didn't like CDs at all, Bates Peele, Freeman on national radio but some did of course.
I'm with them all the way about the "vibe". The event of listening, selecting an LP, reading the sleeve notes, appreciating the artwork, listienng to a whole album in the order the artist intended...all these valuable tactile, visual and psychological cues and engaging experiences are absent with digital, especially streaming. And the ownership experience, where a disk full of WAVs/MP3s or a Tidal subscription is nothing in comparison to the satisfaction of physical media stored visibly on a bookshelf. And the knowledge that a greater proportion of your cash is going to the artist for an LP than the fractions of pennies paid by the criminally avaricious Apple, Amazon, Spotify and their ilk who we have enabled to strangle our music industry and subjugate our artists.. Of course digital is sonically superior to mechanical reproduction, but it's nowhere near as satisfying on almost any other level.
I agree about the lack of notes and artwork. But it still can be done for CDs.As for sequencing, very few albums have a full album's worth of good music to warrant that concern. The main reason I used to listen straight thru was due to the difficulty of skipping tracks with a record player.
Great comment Jeff, but no, digital is not (as yet) better than analogue; it's just that the game has changed and you need to spend serious bucks on analogue. With digital, you're reduced to the latest chip. With analogue you need to do some serious research & find a nutter like me who builds things he could never afford.
Everyone speaks as if analogue is dead - in the mainstream they have a point, but at higher levels they are sorely wrong.
Absolutely agree on the tangible concept - that's why I try to make my stuff beautiful. You're not going to get the likes of Technics investing any further than they have (and let's face it - they spent a lot!) on a limited medium. High-end analogue has become the reserve of extreme specialists. How "high-end" can you go with the latest chip-set? Meanwhile, I have a lathe, a mill, a ton of metal and a crazy idea!
@@jamesportrais3946All that to extract the most from a format that has a limited bandwidth, and limited S?N ratio?
@@jamesportrais3946 What any recent 24bit/96kHz capable AD converter can capture is limited by the preceding analog circuitry. There is no consumer analog medium that can as accurately reproduce a 15ips analog master than can any decent ~$100 digital A/I unit written to a lossless format. Even a 30ips analog copy would not be as accurate, and a direct to vinyl copy certainly wouldn't.
Very well said! I was thinking of writing a reply but you nailed it.
I was happy to give up LPs immediately after CDs came along. no regrets, However i really miss the cover art / gatefold sleeve / lyrics sheets etc ( even the fun Sgt Peppers cut outs) - why doesnt someone put regular CDs inside good old fashioned 12" card LD sleeves - all vibe of the cover art etc, none of the LP woes. I'd buy it
I like und buy both formats. The recording, mixing and mastering is more important than the medium.
If the technical things you mention are really that important to you, then digital formats are the slam dunk winners. I made plenty of records before digital recording and I always walked away from the cutting completely depressed because no one would ever hear all my hard work. I could not care less about my art of recording mixing and mastering compared to the very real passion I have for the music itself. Vinyl is dead because it brings its own percussionist to the record, one with no musical skill at all. I’ve been making records for music lovers, not gearheads. A music lover wouldn’t care at all about tech details.
@@artysanmobileIt's about the artform, but good technical skills and finest equipement helps a lot. Bernie Grundman wouldn't cut lacquers if it doesn't make sense to him. He's one of the best and oldest gentleman in the game.
@@jeromelester8 We do get paid for our work. You know that, right?
@@artysanmobileThank god people get paid for that. It's way harder these days to make a living out of it. Nonetheless, there's an interesting conversation on Steve Westman's YT channel with Bernie Grundman about technical aspects on formats, and why MJ's "Off the Wall" sounded better than "Thriller".
@@jeromelester8 Much respect for Bernie. Off The Wall is much less interesting to me and I don’t really care about sound compared to the music.
There's something very satisfying about hearing a turntable performing well, they have a pleasing sound and most turntables look cool too. I use valve amplification for the same reason, not because it sounds better than solid state, but because it sounds pleasant and valve amplifiers look good too with their warm inviting glow in a darkened listening room, plus I think hot glass smells nice too :-)
Fully agree, something more visceral about a TT than a little black box. Also agree on the valves (that's "toobs" for the colonial among us), the imersive glow speaks warmth and safety to our ancient lineage. Yes, they are more distortive, but the harmonics are largely benign, even contributory.
If you're not altogether agreeable with the nostalgic whiff of burning dust, you can always try (not with your bloody-expensive 300B's!) the similar practice of drying a little cologne or perfume on a lightbulb whilst cool.
I've never stopped listening to vinyl and I think, despite all the physical limitations of the medium, there are two permissions. Firstly, not all albums are available digitally and secondly, in some cases the recording quality on vinyl albums is significantly better than on CD or streaming.
The mail online is only useful for lining the cage of your virtual budgie.
I just wish CD mastering didn't go down the toilet in the late 90s and 2000s. So many albums are mastered loud with the dynamic range crushed to near clipping. This is the one benefit of vinyl. Better mastering.
From the same statistics for the UK music industry in 2023: 80% of the UK music industry revenue comes from streaming. There were more than 11 million CD sold in the UK versus about 6M vinyl records. So much for the Daily Mail comments..
Correct. Cd’s give more for less money. Often more tracks or extra. Cleaner sound but vinyl got the wibe.
@@rikardekvall3433 Agreed ,Vinyl is very wibe
Me being an editor and journalist myself, i will write an article on this... Thank you for the info
@@deejayiwan7 - Why not include my input? I manufacture extremely high end analogue components. Google "Bird of Prey tonearm" - I believe they now shift for $15K/pop. I can't make enough to satisfy demand.
"Makes you wonder if you should believe everything you read in the paper!"
There is one signal captured with perfect fidelity by the vinyl record that all digital formats struggle with. Nostalgia.
Actually, I have encountered this phenomina. I used to make upgrades for old equipment, say SME 3009/3012's etc. It became clear that a certain sub-strata were treating or perhaps engaging with their antiquated equipment in the same manner as classic car officionardos.
@@jamesportrais3946 umm….
nostalgia? most record buyers today were still in daddys balls around 80s and 90s..
Yes indeed! And that "signal" is called: "audible distortion".
That too.
REALLY want digital to be better than vinyl, but, to my ears, it is NOT. Vinyl, the cleaning, storage, the set-up, supporting equipment, etc make vinyl a pain in the ass, BUT, again to my ear, vinyl is MUCH more natural sounding, warmer, more life-like. To each their own and I am jealous of those who prefer and enjoy digital. I’ll continue to weather the burden of vinyl, as the sound is magic to my ears.
@@nicksterj my ears have yet to hear that, but I trust and value your opinion
I also have vinyl. To me digital sounds better. To each their own then.
I'm pretty sure that 99% of vinyl records manufactured in the past 20 years are just digital files pressed on to records. 🤷♂
Which doesn't tell much ..
On the most part Depends on what you listened too in 2004 nukeulez was the biggest selling 12 inch brand going and it was dance/ trance and they definitely recorded on tape so basically if you brought vinyl 20 years ago it tended to be specialist music that used cheap out of date equipment
@@gingernutpreacherHave to agree with both comments I’m a trance dj. The repress records from today do sound like digital vinyl. However my older stuff. Its phat and warm you really can tell the difference.
@@trancevoyagesessions to be fair some of the 80's stuff has digitally mastered on the sleeve even early stuff that would of sold in small numbers on cd if at all with being a single
44 Years 😅.All Digital after 1980
Over the last five years, my preferred music shop’s rows of CDs have been replaced by rows of vinyls. Looking at comparative pricing, vinyls cost two to three times more than the equivalent CDs. There is more margin in the sale of vinyls compared to CDs which is driving the marketing and the shelf space. Many of the current vinyls, probably cut from digital sources, are often ten times the cost of their original issues from the 1970s and 1980s. Follow the money!
I'd say they were about 20 pounds in today's money back in the late '70s
@@paulbrookes413 Don't think you're far wrong Paul, of course me being a gen X & my parents "traditionalists", they didn't spend a fraction on their collection (50p "greatest hits of") as I did later.
Do you spend any money at all on media Paul? I must confess that even though it is my living, I don't!
@@nicksterj Using words like "pretentious" is pretentious buddy - contribute or butt-out; no room for "feely-wheelies" here.
I bought 10CC's How Dare You in 1980 for around $NZ10 which equates to $NZ62 today. Recently saw the same record album, new, for $NZ95 - so it is probably not 10x but more like 50% more in real terms. The CD version in the same shop is currently $NZ49. So there is currently more money to be made in selling records over CD's which explains why vinyl records are claiming CD shelf space.
Just got a new turntable, it’s miles better than the one I had as a teen. Problem is the music is now worse. You just can’t win !
While mainstream music is undoubtedly the worst it has ever been, there’s still a lot of great stuff out there. The problem is that it’s ’so easy’ to make music now, and there’s just so much of it that the cream doesn’t rise to the top like it did. Queens of the Stone Age’s LP in 2023 is one of the best guitar-based rock music in ten years. Same with the newest Slowdive LP. The music won’t come to you; it’s all about the search.
I do my searching with qobuz and Tidal. I listen to plenty of new recordings, it doesn't impress me that much, but it's just the same with TV, films and photography, the gear gets better but the script gets worse. I understand it's very difficult to be original.
I understand the vibe statement. And the immersive experience with vinyl is like the ritual with making coffee or tea … I feel that it is possible to have that immersive experience with digital music (including CD), it just needs a little more effort. But, once listening to the music, the key is to really listen and focus on the music, irrespective of the medium. My big brother taught me that when sitting and listening to Tubular Bells, War of the Worlds, Dark Side of the Moon…
I don’t have the space for vinyl, so I have to recreate the immersive experience with what I have - streaming. And I can do it.
Great video!
Listening to digital music is a less engaging experience because it’s a less immersive experience?? In my simplistic world I have always thought the actual immersive experience is the process of actually listening to the music, that wondrous gift we have been given, no matter what the source. Put it on, load it up, cue it up, shuffle it about or whatever you do, then get yourself a beverage, alcoholic or not, lean back comfortably in your seating of choice and immerse yourself in the music with as few distractions as possible - heaven!!
Three things I hadn't considered - 1) digital masters are susceptible to being overly loud, with non-technical and non-musical reasons driving that; 2) 'fatigue;' and 3) the phenomenon of reverb, which, when it's just right, disappears naturally into the playback. From now on, that is how I am going to regard using vinyl effects in digital masters.
One thing I have considered extensively - a language concept - when words refer specifically to things that can be seen, heard, and felt by others, beyond contention, that's high fidelity. Composed, clear considerations minimize fatigue.
Thanks very much!
Thanks for posting...the way I figure, with the money I save from not being an audiophile!, I can buy more CDs! That's just me, of course...Continued good listening to all no matter what format you choose!
Smiling all the way through. Fireplaces, horses and carriages, steam engines, 8-bit computer games, dial phones with real bells, CRTs, crystal radios, they all have their immersive charm but I think with far less mass delusion.
"Probably the easiest thing in the world to do is to play an LP record incorrectly.” - mastering pioneer, the late Doug Sax.
And as you've touched on:
• Active listening (in any format) sounds better than passive listening. Playing a record typically means also having to turn up the amp. And around 20 mins a side is a healthy listening length.
• Vinyl done well (manufacture and playback) sounds better than bad digital, and the inverse is true.
• Digital captures (samples) in "parts" but the full (analog) waveform is reconstructed, constrained only by the bit depth (lowest level) and sample rate (highest frequency).
• Vinyl is objectively *lossy* and the evidence: the playback stylus' shape and sharpness cannot be the same as the cutting stylus, or it would self-erase!
Fritz Gyger make stylie very close to the cutting profile, but I would argue that the inevitable difference in cantilver length between the cutter and playback void the usefulness of this shape (cutting cantilevers anything up to 30mm).
Of COURSE we all abandoned (well, not ALL but most) vinyl once we heard the miracle of total silence between the tracks, not to mention the ease of playing the music on those shiny single sided discs, but it sort of surprised me when I started a new collection of these new 180 gram records that so long as the new records weren't damaged, either by poor storage and/or shipping, that I was once again met with near silent space between the tracks, and that the quality of the music sounded pretty damn good so long as I wasn't doing immediate A/B comparisons between the CD's and streams and the vinyl. I was also very surprised to find that oft times some of the so-called "Hi-Rez" files sounded like nails across a blackboard, again, most often from poor translation or just maybe being TOO perfect. My first Jimmy Hendrix CD was downright horrible! So, yes, 85% of the time the CD or higher bit streaming file will edge out the vinyl, but I find that yes, it's the mastering that seems to make the real difference, and when the big, beautiful record is done right and isn't damaged, it beats out the streaming and CD version by a mile thanks to the artwork and lyrics large enough for these aging eyes to see, as well as the ritual of the play and being more or less forced to sit down and actually APPRECIATE the entire album in it's totality that a streamed file of ones and zeroes just can't hold a candle to. But of course, if the getting up and down twice an album is just to much work for you, well, then of course, let's not risk a contracted muscle group for the sake of a good copy of Dark Side of the Moon.
Never heard a really great AAD - that instictively tells me something goes wrong in the A/D conversion that if not pre-emphasised during production leads to a spiritless or even harsh reproduction.
Also can't deny that accessability denudes "occasion". Once upon a time I could perhaps invite a couple of friends over and accompanied by several beverages make something of an evening out of Jeff Waynes "War of the Worlds". You can find it on youtube now - who's going to make the effort?
Well, there's your folly. You're not a real "audiophile" because a real "audiophile" remembers each note of a song in perfection after having heard it once - so that the audiophile can be used as a reference to check all other equipment for all time.
Surprised at how many say vinyl is all snap, crackle and pop. If you look after them properly that is not the case. The majorty of my records are pretty near silent between tracks. I'm sure most vinyl detractors have never actually heard vinyl done properly - I think most would be stunned.
Bravo! I grew up with vinyl. I miss album art, I miss having the lyrics printed if they bothered to provide them in the liner notes, BUT GOD WILLING I WILL NEVER GO BACK TO VINYL. IT SUCKS.
I have just got a new turntable, while it doesn’t touch my digital playback. I am still enjoying put some vinyl on. I was left 2000 lps by my late uncle. There is definitely a difference between the old vinyl and new, not just in the recording quality.😂
Oh, it's very sad that you never found out how to make vinyl sound good, but you don't have to go around childishly blurting out your massive failings in life and then stupidly blame 'the format' for your own stupidity. It's pathetic, not smart.
The only reason I bought a turntable recently was because I inherited about 400 lps from my dad. They are from 1953 to 1984. Most are classical, but some are whatever genres Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Boots Randolph and Herb Alpert represent. The majority are still in really good condition, other than having very brittle inner sleeves (which I am replacing). Most of the classical lps sound fairly good, but even when the lp is in nearly perfect condition, I much prefer the superior sound quality and especially the ease of use with CDs or CD quality streaming. It is a hassle getting an lp ready to play. The biggest issue is starting one, then 17 to 20 minutes later having to stop what I was doing to turn it over or switch to something else. I don't find that immersive or relaxing. I bought about 6 new lps to see how more modern lps sounded. Good sound, but still have the hassle of dealing with the physical objects so much. I won't be buying any more lps. I will continue to buy CDs. Screw nostalgia and whatever the "vibe" is that they refer to.
Only reason I love vinyl is because my tonearms make $15K each and I can't make enough of them. I'll bring out a turntable this year, it'll sell for >$50K and I won't be able to make enough of them.
The reason your analogue reproduction is crap is because you can't afford the real-deal. If you think a Linn Sondek is the limit for analogue you're sadly mistaken. True, genuine Hifi will become the reserve of the few masters - not a brand.
Genuine thoughts, I think you need to spend $100K on an analogue front-end to stay ahead of digital for the next 20 years. You probably can spend $100K on a digital front-end, but it'll be using the same $3.64 chips as everyone else.
@@BrianHall-Oklahoma I have loads of classical box sets, I really do love putting them on in the background. Over the last couple of years I find myself listening to just instrumental music. Old film soundtracks like "vertigo, the pink panther, star wars", one I have recently been enjoying is " basic instinct and the mission".
Great channel. Thanks. I prefer cd's .They are easier to care for, sound great, etc. Never been a fan of crackle in my music.
I agree completely! Crackle is an abomination! (An opinion that seriously impeded my 1st job - which was a sound engineer for a Rice Krispy's commercial).
Honestly, I am over this debate. As an electronic engineer I have some background to understand the technical chains and know that using the digital way is far easier to grant a perfect transmission of all the data from the source to the final conversion. But, I still listen and buy vinyls, mainly old ones. Why? Because I like the object itself and the physical involvement in conscious music listening. At the same time, if I just need some background music, I get it from the streamer and it perfect. Just what you like, knowing that you just can't be wrong.
Bravo! Excellent explanation. 👏👏👏
Good to see the Daily Mail mixing in just enough truth to convince those who don't know better of the lies they included... what a mess!! Thanks for pointing out their nonsense.
Normal people don't read the Forger's Gazette.
Referencing the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, the article touches upon the theoretical underpinnings of digital audio. How does the practical application of this theorem in digital audio technology ensure accurate sound reproduction within the audible spectrum, and what misconceptions persist about its implications for audio quality? Moreover, how does high-resolution audio (beyond CD quality) fit into this theoretical framework, particularly in terms of perceptible differences in sound quality?good content
I'm pondering my latest hearing test. I'm finally showing some high frequency loss... should I boost those frequencies above 7K to reproduce what I might have heard if I'd listened when I was younger or keep it flat to reproduce what I would hear if I listened to live music now?
This is a question for your audiologist. My unofficial comment though is that, for me, what's gone is gone and I don't feel that I miss it. I enjoy music just as much and often more than I ever did in the past.
As an old fart approaching 60, I LOVED my record collection... but I don't miss the skips, warped sound, crackle and pops. Boy do people have rose-colored glasses. It didn't help that the loudness wars ruined music and is still ruining music. The modern hit pop album sounds horrible if you listen to it loud for more than 5 minutes. There are some exceptions. Oh... and I love this channel.
Excellent, as always, and a hoot.
This is no doubt cathartic for a lot of specialists who read on occasion mainstream media on their own areas of specialty.
I've been an audiophile since Nixon was president. I have about a dozen recordings in both digital and vinyl formats. There are things about each format I like better than the other, but the ways that vinyl might sound better than digital are marginal.
The biggest problem with vinyl is the enormous expense one has to go through to experience those marginal differences. An adequate turntable/cartridge/phono preamp combinantion can easily run you $2000 and many spend a lot more than that. New records cost $20, and from that, you get about a dozen tracks, only half of which you'll likely want to hear a 2nd time.
For $20/month, you can subscribe to a high resolution streaming service like Tidal and have access to millions of tracks. Digital is a MUCH better value.
My simple observation! I have over 8000 Vinyl albums, mostly classical, and in that subset organ and choral. Very little of that has been released to CDs. I have over 10,000 Cds and enjoy them all. I found that in early CD days that CD sound was 'hard', lacking the warmth and ambience of the LP. My sound system in the 70s was all Acoutic Research [I lived just outside of Brattle Square.] from turntable to speakers. I now have a Denon AVR with a pair of Klipsch subwoffers, a pair of Fisher tower speakers, a Thorens TD160 in addition to my Fisher turntable and my AR turntable. Right now I am more than satisfied with the sound I have. I do have a pair of BSR 'ambience' speakers with 15 inch woofer and speakers on top [that's for my music room sound system.]
David! You have restored my faith in you. As a gray hair that grew up with vinyl (and my family had lots of shellac 78's too) I thought the LP was transformational. And it was. Remember too when I was a child in the sixties stereo was just beginning to beginning to be widely accepted. Yes, early adopters could get stereo sound in the '50's but people like my uncle had to be persuaded to get a new amp and a second hopefully matching speaker (my uncle's second speaker didn't match exactly). Early adopters were not yet "a thing".
Vinyl is good. Much better than shellac certainly. CD's are better. If you need to spend or can get some tangible benefit to spending ungodly amounts on moving coil cartridges, moving coil pre-pre amps, nude shibata elliptical stylus, turntable with air or magnetic bearings, SME tone arm (or what ever's in vogue today) and lastly a half a ton of granite to sit the contraption on (don't want feedback do we?) you're trying too hard. And don't forget David's $1000 "interconnect". You want the warmth of vinyl? Roll off the highs. CD's are better. I'll stop now. I'm feeling OK I got that off my chest.
The thing is, listening to records is a choice, doesn’t have to be an argument that needs winning! I can listen to pretty well any format and I haven’t spent much money at all on anything to get a sound that I enjoy on a format that I find fun to look at and collect. Add this to the fact that my hearing is completely shot to pieces, undoubtedly due to sitting in very loud ensembles for years! Perhaps I need digital ears to enjoy digital reproduction!😉
Ohhh, no, you're just one more person who never figured out how to make their vinyl sound good, and it's even more sad that it sounds like you spent a lot of money but didn't acquire the skills to use it properly. I've got a much cheaper setup than any of that but it sounds incredible and frequently rivals CDs, because I learned how to clean and lubricate the records and ground out the static. There's a lot of small savvy things that make records sound good but most people never figure it out and want to pretend like 'well I did the best possible stuff and it still sounds bad' but it isn't the format's fault, it's yours.
I always find it fascinating that we within this hobby have to categorize things as what sounds the best. I am far from a hipster and do not own a vinyl collection because it is the current vibe. I never got out of vinyl, keeping my records and table when CDs became the thing, these days I have kept my CDs now that Streaming is. I like and enjoy all three formats, and do not feel one is better than the other, just more convenient.
Here is the thing though, when I get serious and want to spend my day having fun with a dedicated listening session. I find myself grabbing a stack of records and playing them one after another until the wee hours of the morning. I do not do that with my CDs or streamed contend. When I play those formats, it is relegated to background music.
No argument from me that records are far from perfect being the Diva of all the formats. Regardless, Cassette has its drawbacks too, even on good decks I remember hearing wow and flutter on the quiet passages as the mechanicals within the cassette affected the tape as it passed over the head. Another thing I used to hate is over time the tape would stretch or get brittle and then wrap itself around the capstan of the deck. I certainly do not miss cleaning out broken tape. Like the notorious 8-Track I do not miss that format at all.
Cassette never sounded better to me, when I played tapes, like the CD of today, it was only on occasions when I wanted music in the background and did not want to fuss with a record.
Sir...your wonderful speaking voice keeps me listening...I find this controversy amusing as a 71 year old who started listening on all manner of contraptions that simulated music via recordings....seems to me we're being distracted by something sinister and its not really about vinyl or Cd's...its really about selling stuff...eh ?
Does vinyl sound better than 'digital'... no, but...
Most people who visit my place will comment on how good vinyl sounds on my system, and how much better it sounds than what they get from their 'hires audio' files...
But that has everything to do with their 'audio system', and nothing whatsoever with vinyl sounding better than 'digital'. On my system, a well mastered digital source, even if it is 'mere' CD quality, sounds superior to the best vinyl can do.
There is fun in playing records, there is the 'experience' of selecting what to play, the cover art, putting the record on the turntable, etc. It has 'hands-on involvement' which can be really enjoyable, and it can sound quite good enough to enjoy listening to it.
I have a good system for both records and cds. I don’t know what it is but listening to records is by far a more enjoyable experience. CDs just seem compressed and soulless. Also is should be “is analogue better than digital” vinyl can be both.
@@stevethesweep6962 No, vinyl is always analog. It can be digitally mastered, but that doesn't change how sound is represented on, and reproduced from vinyl is inherently analog.
What you mention can have 2 simple reasons:
- the masters used for those records and CDs
- personal preference, this IS what matters in the end, but is subjective, not the same thing as being objectively better, and much of what people tend to like about vinyl, tape, etc when it comes to sound quality, are 'pleasant flaws' but flaws nonetheless.
In the end all that matters is enjoyment, not having objectively the highest quality reproduction of a recording.
Sadly many 'modern' remasters are clearly made for listening in a noisy environment, and have so little dynamic range, no medium which has been in common use in the last half century would be the limiting factor for that.
One of my pet peeves is the remastered version of Supertramp's Crime of the Century, and specifically the track Asylum... Yes, the remastered version does away with the distortion that track has on vinyl (last track of side 1, and a fairly dynamic piece of music), but it has been compressed to h*ll and back... which makes the vinyl version so much more pleasant to listen to.
But, I can easily make a digital capture of that vinyl version, which will be indistinguishable from the vinyl version. The 'digital' remastered version sounding the way it does has nothing to do with it being 'digital', but with choices someone made during the remastering.
@@nicksterj I have both the CD and vinyl version, both original release from the 1980s.
Both sound excellent, about as good as you can hope to get from those formats.
At the time, it was one of the first DDD CDs, at least for 'popular music', so both the LP and CD were created from a digital master.
@@nicksterj When playing vinyl, you'll probably hear things you won't hear when playing the CD version of the same recording... that is obviously a flaw of vinyl because those things shouldn't have been there to begin with 🙂
In this case it is especially hilarious because the original recording of Brothers in Arms was done at 44.1khz in 16bit, so.. 'CD quality'.
Some people believe in magic it seems.
As usual, when these sorts of discussions come up, people who are not vinyl lovers delineate all the reasons why vinyl can't sound better than digital. But that can never answer the question of whether it actually does sound better, because better is a matter of personal preference. It's like trying to determine which woman is more beautiful by comparing proportional measurements.
Thats why i keep my old records in perfekt shape
Vinyl is subject to the most intense advertising propaganda which I would describe as audio grooming.
Despite its current growth in popularity, most music lovers, including hi-fi obsessives, choose digital.
It is all about the hobby mentality. Digital maniacs get obsessed with digital minutia too. Bits and sampling rates, lossless this and that, specific DAC chips and special implementations. Isn't a DAC that allows you to swap out the chip set the same as swapping out a phono cartridge?
It was the hipsters though that led the resurgence of vinyl. I regret being priced out collecting vinyl back when had sl1200's and cd's ( in particular cd-r) decks were just seeming like a good idea.
I would need win a lottery now to go back to vinyl.
@@DAVID-io9nj Pretty good analogy, though was not aware of a DAC that could do that with.
There's certainly a lot more nonsense stuff around digital music that was far less of a thing when doing analogue.
I bought my first record player in 1975 when I was 11, am I a hipster now?
@@benwu7980I would say the nonsense is just as pervasive in both markets. Remember, it is marketing trying to sell you something you didn't know you needed.
It's pretty hilarious that for some genres, albums provide a greater dynamic range than CDs (see: Loudness Wars). So much music is squished to within an inch of its life and then put on media that can go from quieter than you can hear to louder than you can stand. In any case, I love music, so digital, cassette, or vinyl, whatever contains the music I want to hear will get listened to by me. Vinyl is pretty fun, but really, it's the expense and inconvenience that keeps me hooked to my turntable.
Very interesting analysis. I would though add that the other major factors are the age/hearing profile of the listener and the frequency response of the headphones/speakers/earbuds being used. It's one thing capturing a 'perfect' sound, its another hearing it! Plus, of course, compromises are made in mastering to translate to a wide of playback situations, none of which is likely to be a treated space such as the studio it was mixed and mastered in. If it sounds good to me and moves me in some way, then it is good.....no matter what may be technically wrong with it.
Yes, you should dedicate a whole video to the RIAA curve as I think it is something about 99% of everydody is ignorant of. I, for one, would appreciate knowing more.
Just found your channel. Really enjoy your views, but I have several CDs that don't work. Any idea why?
From Sony... www.sony-mea.com/en/electronics/support/articles/00027417
Well that was fun ! but I hope you can capture Phil's reaction to the possibility of a new title....cheers.
The gear-head in me considered that vinyl==CD as carburetor==fuel injection. But then I remembered that carburetors work.
Digitally, we could have much better. Streaming also. If what we all miss is the size of artwork, lyrics and credits, all that could be included beautifully in a virtual interactive package, just like Apple was trying to do with the short lasting iTunes LP-remember that?! That would also be an immersive and delightful musical experience.
The warm sound of vynil is coloration as the result of the physical and
electronic limitation of that source. You can reproduce that effect by
digital manipulation and or equipment use and placement.
No, don't be one more person blurting out stupidity on a subject you don't really understand. The shitty sound of average digital files is because they're badly-rendered at too small of file sizes, and that's why digital music is the loser against vinyl: technicallly digital CAN be great, but usually isn't as good as a record. Sorry, loser.
@@jamescarter3196 Yes largely so. So lets fix that. Is not about winners
and losers. Cheer up.
There's more truth and facts in the Beano than there is in the Daily Mail.
😂 I don't know what Beano is, but I'm positively sure that you are right...
@@imjustherefortheks The Beano is a children's comic.
@@jimdavis5230 thanks!
Who would have imagined that the reaction to streaming would favor vinyl records so strongly? The debate is very polarized, people strongly stick to their positions, and ultimately, the debate becomes boring. Even this digital versus analog binary is reductive, because ultimately, it is a question of mastering, and how to reproduce a sound source as faithfully as possible. Currently being an audiophile is like being a wine connoisseur, who claims to detect obvious nuances, particularly in the vinyl community. To be a fairly serious music aficionado (still buying vinyl records and CDs, not based on sound, but availability of the music), I think that vinyl brings this new thing into the equation: different pressings. Original pressing, MOFI, Analogue Productions, etc. These different pressings also exist with CDs (remastered versions), but in the world of vinyl, these different pressings have reached unimaginable heights. And obviously, the OG, the pure analogue, or the MOFI at US$150 are going to sound so much better that the quad 256 DSD. Analogue offers so much punch, details, subtleties etc., because whoever holds this in their hands ultimately can afford such excesses. If you pay 150$ for a record, I hope it sounds good, so much better than the poor 20 bucks CD. And if you do not hear the difference, it does not matter, that's because "you" are not an audiophile "like me". The world of vinyl ends up, in certain cases, becoming for certain wealthy individuals, who 'know' to hear the difference. Like wine: a Grand Cru is so superior. And yet, there are excellent bottles of wine at much cheaper prices. The musical experience of putting the needle on, and the beauty of the vinyl covers, these elements are incomparable and the CD never won on these aspects. But for the quality of sound, properly mastered, it seems obvious to me that digital is unbeatable. Maybe a question: Is Debbie single?
Thank you for your detailed and insightful comment. Regarding Debbie however, GDPR prevents me revealing her status.
Digital COULD be unbeatable if it were actually USED that way, but most digital files still have obvious artifacts and flat sound, so in the real world that doesn't 'win' any contest except above cassettes, sometimes. That's the thing, we can talk hypotheticals all day but definitive answers have to include stuff like the best-available digital file of 'Aja' by Steely Dan compared to the top-quality vinyl pressing it just received-- most people have no idea. The conversation is about formats, and people keep trying to act like these formats with great variance in playback quality are defined by their best qualities if we LIKE the format, and the worst qualities if we DON'T like the format, and I find the 'digital-only' people really don't have any good arguments because they actually believe the word 'digital' solves all problems and never creates, you know, horrible tinkly glassy noises and crappy sound if you do it badly. There's a ludicrous amount of evidence that the typical digital music isn't good, but some people just have no idea at all and still want to blurt out whatever they imagine.
I have a lot of LPs and a turntable and I like that it gives me another "version" of the music and sometimes sounds better. It's also an experience paying the records, lots of extra work but fun. For my big library it's all digital from CD. The reason is I do a full restoration and remastering of every song and I can't do that on vinyl. If there is an issue with either the original recording or the media there is no way to fix it unless I record it and then fix it. It's just easier with CD. As for well known classic recordings there are often more than one release of the CD and they can be VERY different quality. The recent ones are usually a victim of the loudness wars and un-useable and unfixable. However, the older UPC codes can provide a very good starting point with full dynamics available.
I'd be very interested in knowing a little more about the work you're doing, sounds fasinating!
@@jamesportrais3946 It’s like when folks use Photoshop to restore old photos but with sound. All you need is Sound Forge software a good audio interface and good headphones.
Case in point. Tracy Chapman has only released 8 CD albums spanning 35 years. Out of all her albums only ONE is CD Redbook standard and also was a masterfully engineered recording. It is: Let It Rain (2002)
Tracy Chapman (1988)
Crossroads (1989)
Matters of the Heart (1992)
New Beginning (1995)
Telling Stories (2000)
Let It Rain (2002)
Where You Live (2005)
Our Bright Future (2008)
The remaining CD albums are compressed with a few maybe as low as 10 or 12 bit.
Really? I've only got one Tracy Chapman album & I'm pretty certain everything she's ever done can be compressed into that...
Huh? How's your net worth as of 2023? Cheers.@@jamesportrais3946
And all the DM had to do was consult experts in the field (as they surely would for a sports report). But that would require journalism.
The Mail puts it into 'reasonable perspective' - that must be a first!)) Great video though. I don't have the room or money for collecting vinyl now, but I bought a lot of lps as a teen in the 90s dirt cheap when people didn't give a stuff about vinyl, so I get the appeal. But in someways it doesn't matter what format you're listening on, nothing is stopping you from making a drink, sitting down and really listening...
Technically, the headline "vinyl vs. digital" is wrong to begin with as it makes roughly as much sense as contrasting "apple" and "green" where one rather is a possible attribute of the other.
Not only could digital data also be carried on vinyl, carpets or flower pots, but doesn't the term "digital" predicate any quality level either per se, either to compare it to.
Of course, what is mostly being referred to is the quite primitive analog usage of the raw vinyl material vs. probably something similar to CDDA specs, being PCM@44.1 kHz / 16 bit and here, the story can be cut very short: no chance; despite all the high-end voodoo, there is yet one to be found to succeed in recognizing some vinyl source from half a dozen of A/D-D/A-cascades in a blind test and PCM at those parameters by far exceeds the rumble-mumble of usual records anyway. Besides understandable nostalgia and haptics, there is simply nothing accounting for records, at least not when used analog and not as digital data storage which is probably very rared due to the required error correction and rather low achievable data rate.
Ironically, records on vinyl prove one thing: that technical parameters can be pretty bad while still possibly delivering an enjoyable audio performance. AAC or MP3 on vinyl would sound a lot better (as long as no one would know about the oh so evil digital processing and data reduction right from the devil).
You can have rectangular boxes.
Vinyl is just like live concerts... you don't go to a live concert for the best audio quality, you go there for the experience.
A good analogy. I don't like concerts as a rule because they sound like chit and they experience didn't offset the ear splitting terrible distorted sound. Been to a few concerts that sounded quote good (James Taylor comes to mind) but most sounded terrible and I didn't enjoy it.
like....emptying the wallet, tolerating weird people , tinnitus , the toilets, and being glad to get home ...AHH.. I get it!
Spot on!
@@marxman00That's.... really stupid and makes no sense.
Wow, so you're saying you've never been to a concert with good sound, and you don't know how to get good playback out of records. That's 0-2 against you so far. Any other failings in your entertainment attempts that you'd like to share? How about carnivals, do you fall out of the rides all the time?
I read the Daily Mail too! Online. I want to hear your lecture. I gave up vinyl a long time ago. Digital music on Amazon's subscription service sounds pretty good. I know this comment is a commercial but hearing older songs that I've only heard on the radio in a much better frequency is worth the monthly subscription. Especially 70s funk recordings.
Back in the '80s, I was increasingly irritated by poor-quality vinyl pressings, especially for mid-line (budget) re-releases of older albums from the major labels. CDs seemed at first like an escape from all those problems, but it didn't take long to realize that some CDs sounded awful, either made from bad tape copies, or EQ'd strangely, or whatever. While CD technology clearly could make great-sounding discs, all too often it didn't, and over time the trends in this area have gotten worse, particularly with regard to excessive volume levels, heavy peak limiting, and over-emphasis of bass and treble in EQ. These days I sometimes buy vinyl LPs even for new albums because despite the limitations of vinyl records, they sound better than dynamically-squashed CDs with exaggerated EQ. (And HD download releases often sound just as bad as the corresponding CDs in that regard, though not always.) I think part of what's going on is that the music companies are thinking about people who are listening to music on their phones, not even using earbuds, but just playing music over the phone speaker. Exaggerated EQ and maxed-out volume probably helps the music to sound better over phone speakers (not that it will ever sound GOOD that way), but it guarantees that the music will sound absolutely awful in a real stereo system.
I just loved this video. I understand that my lust for a Rega Planar 10 or a Project RPM-10 or a Musical Fidelity M8 or a Clearaudio Innovation Basic or a Brinkmann Taurus (and so on) isn't rational. I don't want them because they will sound better than digital, because they won't except in my imagination. I want them as art and would rather own one than an original painting because I have a weakness for purposeful machines as art. Sadly, being of ordinary means I own neither original art nor a turntable that cost 5x what I paid for my first car. I'll survive somehow.
Have you considered high end espresso machines?
@@nicksterj $2700 ain't much.
I never got rid of my turntables or vinyl and enjoy listening to them occasionally, but these days I mostly stream. The sound is better and it is much more convenient.
Exactly where I'm at
It is very true, but keep hold of your turntable, you may go back. I have ! Digital is far superior in sound quality, but there is something nice about putting on some vinyl.
P : “i love vinyl!”
M: “cool. listen to this vinyl recording I made yesterday”
P: “can’t you get rid of all those crackles with software?”
You can get rid of crackles by cleaning and lubricating the records and getting the static out of them. You people are clueless about the format and you keep saying these bonehead things about 'pops and clicks' which is YOUR limited experience talking, and not the experiences of people who actually know how to use records properly. You're just mad that vinyl takes more effort than just pushing a button and magically hearing music come out.
@@jamescarter3196 More effort for an inferior quality isn't exactly optimal. The needle will also wear down the plastics the more its used
I generally dont find surface noise on vinyl a problem. The wonderful thing about vynil and CD is you listen to the whole album, at least when first purchased, unlike streaming where you tend to only stream tracks you have already heard elsewhere. I admit my vinyl system is top quality but careful matching of arm, cartridge, etc is needed to get the best from this format. People who are ignorant about vinyl are gobsmacked when I play a well pressed vinyl album. I also enjoy CDs and streaming, finding some streaming seems compressed. If the music is good and well recorded any format will suffice.
In 1983 I binned all my vinyl and have never looked back. Happy 2024!
I agree with what you say, however, it remains that a vinyl with all its flaws can be heard better than many digital recordings where there is an excess of compression (Loudnees war) that for those with a serious playback system is unlistenable. I have dabbled over the years in transferring many of my vinyls to digital using reference software and appropriate hardware and the result is amazing managing to get a sound similar to analog is a quietness close to that of digital and using measured compression one can eliminate the excess dynamics of some vinyl recordings. This is to say that the two (analog and digital) can coexist peacefully if done correctly always remembering that we are analog beings.I follow you with interest, a greeting.
I really enjoyed your video. I would like to see a video of you comparing the sound of audio cassettes to vinyl.
That would be an extremely short video because it's night-and-day difference in sound quality. Records are head-and-shoulders better than tapes.
Just went to an indoor flea market and went through the LP bins. Lots of 70 rock with prices from $15 to $45. Purchased an old Aerosmith record that I had on tape as a young man and am looking forward to a listen tonight.
I'd say that we are a similar age. I prefer MY vinyl. And what I mean by that is that my vinyl is from or near the first pressings and often from a better than average pressing. As most have encountered, and as you have mentioned, when record gets remastered for CD, it can get messed up with the "loudness wars" crap. When CDs came out, I would deliberately get CDs of LPs I had and would do A-B on listening and the early CDs were definitely rough (the AAD CDs). As I've heard more recent CD offerings of classic titles, it is a hit and miss thing. Many just kill the dynamics sometimes someone felt the need to "EQ" the recording such that the timbre is all different. So, if by mere imprinting on what I grew up with or due to how things are mastered today, I prefer MY vinyl to modern CD or digital of a classic recording.
I can't say I've bought ANY modern vinyl. I'm not nostalgic for surface noise and other such "features" of analog but neither am I jazzed about harsh digital. I just want it to sound good.
What I think I'd really want is a 1:1 dupe from a master tape (if mastered on tape) to a ¼" ½-track tape at 15ips. I figure that would be about as close to what the engineer heard. Back in the day, I used to record local bands and that would be my mastering format. I'd then make cassettes from that master to distribute to the band. No matter how good people think cassettes are...just about the most bottom end reel-to-reel will beat the best of the best cassette in most every quantifiable measure and reel-to-reel beats vinyl too.
I do like that with, at least some, of the vinyl releases, they are offering good artwork and other niceties that goes with the 12" size (and it keeps imperial measure around!). I just haven't been compelled to buy any.
You should learn about how to reduce/eliminate surface noise. If you have a good setup with clean records which have been lubricated and static grounded out, you shouldn't be hearing 'surface noise' very often. The vinyl noise floor isn't audible by itself.
@@jamescarter3196 Quite right James. Also, be aware that your earliest experiences of vinyl were typically through the most frugal of means. Yes, you do need to spend a lot more on analogue than digital. Don't expect your $1K TT to compete with digital, you need to spend much, much more.
Unless of course you're prepared to do a little DIY, analogue front-ends are horrifically expensive if any good.
I build this stuff - I know.
Also, on vinyl, frequencies below about 200hz are blended to mono. This is not much of a big deal on playback as midbass and lower signals tend to be unidirectional still, it is yet another difference.
When the wavelength exceeds the distance between the speakers, you no longer have stereo. In my humble system that would equate to 170Hz
one thing I really enjoy about physical media (format doesn't matter) is that it's far easier to commit to listening to a full album. And I like that. With streaming, while absolutely possible, it's often far too tempting to select your preferred tracks or go random. But for random listening I prefer a good radio station
Your wisdom is good.
Whether a stereo system listening experience is more pleasurable than another is not solely whether it is CD or vinyl. The quality of microphones used to make the recording, the quality of the amp and speakers has a lot to do with it, and even if the music is acoustic, or electrified instruments makes a difference. I have speakers that sound warm for orchestrated and acoustic music, but is not clear for rock or electronic music. Plus ultimately listening to music is a subjective individual experience. It is like arguing whether oranges are a better fruit than a banana. I can tell you that a s pianist who composes electronic music and records with digital recording gear, digital is more accurate than any analogue medium. Just because a sound wave is continuous analog rather than chopped up into hundreds of thousands of bits per second does not mean the playback medium is actually producing what went into the microphones.
As others have said here, the source material and the quality of the output system are what matter most. I have records that sound superior to the same album on the CD copy I own and vice versa. Also some of the streaming "24bit" audio sounds like garbage and others sound fantastic. The 24bit Flaming Lips - Yoshimi... from HDtracks sounds incredible while a lot of "24bit" stuff I have tried streaming from Amazon Music sounds like garbage (try listening to their copy of the Who's Tommy; blah). I have a large collection of records now but have recently turned to CDs or downloads because a.) I am running out of space and b.) the cost of records has become re-dick. I still enjoy good audio either way.
I think a big moment in the early CD history occurred when George Martin's Magical Mystery Tour was released ( he hired 4 musicians who called themselves the Beatles🙃) on CD. The vinyl digital break happened in the song Strawberry Fields Forever. Prior, to this digital release fans believed it said "I buried Paul." at the end as listeners used vinyl at the time. The CD release clearly reveals "Cranberry Sauce" and it might even be said again in a trail off.
Ther is no "vynil" vs "digital". There's just enjoying music in various ways.
I have a few duplicates in my collection on Vinyl and CD, and having got used to how the vinyl version sounded many years before buying the CD version when CDs first came out in the 80s and 90s, I often prefer the Vinyl version as my brain has learnt where all the odd pops and crackles occur and I miss them if I listen to the CD. Im sure that if I had heard and got used to the CD version first I would have hated the surface noise and crackles that unfortunately blighted many of the LPs released in the 70s.
Additionally I usually only now buy non 'Remastered' versions due to the loudness war destroying some if not all dynamic range on re-released CDs. Many years ago I remember digitising one particular LP from my collection, recording it several DBs below full volume so it could then be safely maximised (not compressed) and de-clicked if needed, and was surprised when listening to what was one part of the recording thinking it was a click to hear it was a single kick drum on the track that was about 7dB louder than anything else on the LP. I bet that dynamic would never survive the current studio practiced of compressing everything to an inch of it life.
Just a thought.....
My Elton John live in Australia CD from 1987 also has too much dynamic range. It was fixed with the 1998 remaster when it was compressed a bit.
Can't we get over the fact that some people enjoy vinyl more? Nobody should have to give reasons for their preferences in food, music or sex partners.
I call it Daily Maul... As the old joke goes... ' Two things the really drew me to vinyl were the expense and the inconvenience'. It's better than admit that one's dumb to choose vinyl and parted with their money for no benefit at all.
Did article mention that the vast majority of new records are cut from digital? Some would argue that this in itself defeats the purpose, as far as sound quality is concerned. I have a reasonably large record collection. Mostly jazz and 60's , 70's era rock, which was created for 33/3 album format. All of my classical collection is on SACD/CD format, as flipping sides and high level of SN (during quiet passages) break the immersion.
This argument is tedious. Vinyl IF DONE PROPERLY will sound better BUT the equipment can be expensive. However, digital can also sound good, is cheaper and arguably more convenient. Most vinyl from the mid 80's was made with a digital file which complicates the issue even more. So, vinyl for sound quality - digital for convenience (imho)
I got the ultimate answer to all this controversy. Just listen to everything live. I know it gets a bit expensive, but you won't believe the audio fidelity. Please, I'm a little deff on my left side, so send all complaints to my left ear. Thank you, and have a nice day.
It seems to me that a filter could easily be made for digital files to make them sound like vinyl. Various pops and other noises should be added, but repeated exactly for subsequent playing since they eventually become an expected part of the music.
You jest, but a filter that could emulate the perceived warmth of vinyl without the problems might be interesting to many.
I have read of DSP being used to equalize the output of tube amps. I am sure a digital filter could be made to add random noises to simulate vinyl. But I don't think anyone yearns for ticks, pop, and hiss. You only read about how quiet and warm the best playback is.
Might we add a groove skip or repeat as well? Earthoid, you should patent your idea.
Sony is way ahead of you and their new Walkman players do have a vinyl filter to add "low-frequency resonance, tone-arm resistance and surface noise to deliver an authentic listening experience"
You're just one more person who mistakenly thinks the appeal of vinyl is 'pops and clicks' but the funny thing is that those of us who know how to use vinyl properly don't end up with a lot of pops and clicks, so any argument about vinyl which pretends like audible noise is 'inherent to the format' is just wrong. You're just one more person who doesn't know how to make vinyl sound good, so you don't understand what it's really about aside from lazy nostalgia for people who want to hear noise.
Whatever the reason, there's nothing that can explain why listening fatigue is so pervasive when listening to digital formats.
Thats the reason I got back to vinyl.
Finicky and fragil media, a pain in the a...rse, but a relief to my ears.
More transients maybe preserved on a file that is sent for vinyl cutting.. Most people want loudness in say a wav or mp3 to get this you will sacrifice some sound elements clarity by clipping or pushing the limiter..
CDs sound better, but I continue to buy old records because not everything is available in digital formats.
A modern car is objectively better than an old-timer, but some people subjectively prefer old timers.
I prefer listening to digital, but on occasion enjoy the nostalgic experience and ritual of vinyl, taking me back to first childhood experiences with intentional engagement with music.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only reason I would prefer vinyl is for the ceremony and its non-musical aspects - browsing albums in a record store; reading all the info/lyrics on the cover and sleeve; enjoying the album art; putting a record on; turning a record over; skinning up on an album cover; and having a shelf full of albums to admire. One might even say it's just nostalgia! And I do desperately miss all of that (though I don't toke anymore). However, when it comes to the listening experience, I don't miss the rumble and the scratches.
Exactly this. But most record enthusiasts won’t admit to it, they seem to think that proclaiming vinyl is “warmer” or “better” makes them more sophisticated and nuanced.
With your brimming-with-substance videos style, would highly appreciate if the Master can give guidelines on when to use a sub-woofer, and when to do without one, especially on a 2.0 system.
I like all formats but vinyl has something special
to my ears, vynal record playback is superior.
It's a common miss-conception (promoted by CD shills) of the Nyquist frequency - repeated here - The Nyquist Frequency is the sample frequency to "identify a frequency" - Not to "Reproduce a frequency".
Whats better vinyl from tape or from digital sources?
Vinyl cut from the mic. I have a couple, and it’s very good.
Digital sources.
Best of all, forget vinyl, and go 24/192 to 16/44.1 CD.
I came to vinyl by way of hi quality digital.
My vinyl records never buffer, lose, connection, reduce quality for lower connection speeds, require a log in, app update, monthly fee OR get deleted from a provider because they lost the licensing rights. But... my digital does! Plus, I can't get most of what I want on HiRes digital. I bought a turntable to harvest my own Hi Res using my studio recording equipment. It worked and produced great results, but it took too long and I realized that the record sounding great on it's own. With a bonus of never needing to deal with the incessant, pestering messages of my Sony dac trying to force me to connect to wifi and allow them to download my files/information.
The best HiRes digital files sound good, but so does a clean record on a reasonably priced phono system.
And yet "normal" people still choose to read the crap.
Imho the focus on soundquality alone is beneath the point. Its more a trend back to a physical medium that
is good enough to be enjoyable and comes with the bonus of tactile and optical satisfaction. And the feeling
that you own it.
Certainly you can have noise freer sound on a fingertip,but especially people from the younger generation who
grew up with that comfort long to a more physical experience. So basicly its not all about soundquality but also
psychological.
I have a large collection of vinyl, dating back to when I became a Hi-Fi obsessive, back in high school, in the early 1970s. I love my vinyl. I love my turntable. I love my phono cartridge. But I'm in the process of copying my vinyl to digital (FLAC). I'm doing this for the convenience of being able to play my music on more devices, and on the go (in cars, where vinyl doesn't play well). And you know what? After I've copied my vinyl to digital, it sounds exactly the same! Even if I synchronize the vinyl and the digital copies, level balance, and do an A/B comparison. But then, after transcribing to digital, I'll run an 8 Hz notch filter on it (to reduce rumble and cartridge/tonearm resonance), run the click removal tool, and then spend another couple of hours in Audacity repairing all of the clicks and pops that the click removal tool missed. And now, my digitized vinyl sounds better than the original vinyl.
If I created a new audio file format with only 60 decibels of dynamic range, 30 decibels of stereo separation, a high level of harmonic distortion, and a noise floor only 60 decibels down, you'd think I'd lost my mind. Yet, that's a pretty good summary of vinyl. That said, I do not stream music, and never will. If I can't have a permanent version with no DRM, regardless of format or how I obtain it, I won't listen to it. My entire collection is on CD, or in FLAC format, except for a few MP3s where a FLAC version was not available.
My favourite disk, Ian Dury and the Blockheads' New Boots and Panties - unlimited gold vinyl edition, with glitter, illustrates nicely the nuanced experience of listening to vinyl recordings.