The Truth About Vinyl - Vinyl vs. Digital
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 04. 2024
- Get 2 months of Skillshare for FREE using this link: skl.sh/realengineering17
New vlog channel: / @brianmcmanus
Patreon:
www.patreon.com/user?u=282505...
Facebook:
/ realengineering1
Instagram:
/ brianjamesmcmanus
Twitter:
/ thebrianmcmanus
Discord:
/ discord
References:
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Narrator/Director: Brian McManus
Writer: Seán McManus
Co-Director: Stephanie Sammann (www.stephanie-sammann.com/)
Co-Director: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.businessinsider.com/techn...
[2] blog.echonest.com/post/6224812...
[3] thevinylfactory.com/news/reco...
[4] www.bbc.com/news/entertainmen...
[5]web.archive.org/web/200607061...
[6]web.archive.org/web/201002081...
[7]www.aes.org/aeshc/pdf/how.the....
'Disc Playback Characteristics', Wireless World, April 1956, p. 171.
[8]drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
[9]www.acrwebsite.org/search/view...
[10]www.theguardian.com/technolog...
[11]web.archive.org/web/201008250...
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Songs:
Future Yellow - Ooyy
Wear The Crown - Pure Indigo
A Nifty Piece Of Work - Anders Bothén
Sunday - Otis McDonald
Twenty Seconds Later (Instrumental Version) - Tommy Ljungberg
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Karl Andersson, Mark Govea, Hank Green, William Leu, Jason A., Chris Plays Games, Tristan Edwards, Ken Coltan, Andrew McCorkell, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Christopher Lam, Deven Warren Rathbun. - Věda a technologie
I like vinyl for the expense and inconvenience.
Weirdly enough, the inconvenience really plays a big part why I like vinyl. I enjoy the convenience of streaming music, for example in my car or if I just want some background music.
But the "inconvenient" procedure of selecting a record, putting it on and not being able to skip songs puts me in a different mindset. I find that I listen to vinyl records in a more attentive, intense way and generally, enjoy the music more because I am more invested in it.
@@nerigalvb8779 Thank you for sharing this
@@nerigalvb8779 I'm similar but with my minidisk collection (although obviously I can still easily skip tracks). I've just started buying some vinyl because the artwork on some albums just shines on the larger format. I'll eventually get to listening to them when I buy a player....
@@nerigalvb8779 I don't like a wireless frequency going crazy around me to stream (I know there are many frequencies all around, but I don't want to direvtly add to it), and having a monitor open around me all the time just to listen to music is really getting old. Vinyl is not digital and that feels so good.
@@nerigalvb8779 IOW, you're interested in emotion, not more accurate reproduction.
Collecting vinyl is just fun. The record stores, the hunt, having a tangible piece of art, and listening to an album all the way through is such a lost practice. I love it.
Same thing for me, a lot of albums being produced for digital lost that format.
Sure but vinyl is incredibly toxic and is practically impossible to dispose of.
@@josefnaus5898 I never buy new
@@beter7112 that's good
Struth
as a Gen Z kid, having grown up with technology at a click of a button, a computer in the house, CZcams etc. and entering my teenagedom with a phone in hand therefore having access to countless videos and music in less than a second, getting my first record player around 3 days ago was another level of joy. the feeling of physically having a copy of a beloved song just hits differently, and i couldn't give less shits about whether it's as "high quality" as the Spotify version, watching a physical and real record spin and the stylus sliding in the grooves physically picking up sound is just such another level of musical experience. digital versions of music is still overpowering analog in my life since i always have my earbuds in when i'm out of the house going somewhere, but analog is much more deeply appreciated by me.
this is before having watched the video, i'm interested to learn! :D
As a gen z kid too, I whole heartily agree. There's just something magical about being able to listen to your favourite tunes play live from a simple disc, and it blasting out of your speakers. I got a few Pink Floyd albums for Christmas and now I play each of them nearly everyday (not just because they're amazing albums) but because there's just a novelty and beauty to them that is hard to replicate for me
Vinyl is better sound quality than Spotify these days. CD is better than both but I prefer vinyl
@@0rgaSMM SACD 😊
@0rgaSMM sadly 😥, u need a nice turntable, reciever to get good sound. These budget USB turntables are laughable. I have a decent audia technica, 350 bucks. I want to upgrade someday
Sometimes I feel like it would have been fun to grow up in a time period when vinyl records, or other physical copies of music like 8-track tapes or cassettes, were the predominant form of collecting music. It seems like it would have been a really cool experience when your favorite band releases a new album and you and your friends can go down to the record store and see all the other people who are fans of the same band, looking to get their hands on the new album. But I probably only think that because I didn't grow up in that time period. It seems desirable because it's not mandatory. Having unlimited access to basically the entire discography of any band or any artist to listen to anywhere and anytime I want to, FOR FREE, is a modern luxury that cannot be overstated. Having a limited supply of physical copies of music, each one only containing one album or a certain number of tracks, and having to pay money for them is not nearly as fun when it's your only option.
I've actually conducted research on digital sampling rate, and that project followed the standards for A/D and D/A audio signal processing that requires anti-aliasing filters. In preparation of that study we monitored wave-forms side by side on a dual channel scope as we processed pure sine waves from 20Hz to 20Khz. While that step-like effect you depict can exist without the filter it is completely removed by the RLC circuit (resistor -inductor-capacitor circuit) of the filter. Across all frequencies the perfect sinusoidal waveform was recreated to perfection. There is absolutely no step like effect on the recreated signal. The real differences between analog and digital recording is that 16 bit amplitude coding, at 6dB per bit yields 96 dB range while the best full track 1/4" professional tape can only yield 60 dB. So actually the vinyl record process is forced to compress the dynamic range. More perceptually important, the instantaneous rise-time of certain musical sounds cannot be reproduced on a record. Neither the lathe cutter nor the playback stylus can reproduce a rise-time equivalent to a gunshot (or a cymbal or rim shot) but digital sampling can. The potential problem with digital processing is that it reveals recording flaws like phase cancellation between multi-miked instruments that were previously masked by analog recorders. It's like having poor eyesight, finally getting a pair of glasses and seeing all that dust! You could go slightly into "the red" with analog recording, in digital that is the horrible sound of chopping the tops off wave forms (clipping). That "warmer" sound on vinyl is not how it sounded to the musicians in the studio.
Nice to see factual information. The comments here are very entertaining though.
Huge vinyl fan and collector and I fully agree with you. I love collecting records because they feel more “real” there’s a certain connection to the music they provide that I cannot get in the digital/streaming form. The whole ritual is something I don’t want to put aside and it forces me to listen to an album in its entirety. Having said that, the clarity and detail offered by a well recorded and produced album in digital (uncompressed) form is something that cannot be replicated by any analogue means, especially not LP.
am I missing something. you mention 1/4 inch professional tape, my understanding is that pro tape can be 2 inches wide running at 30 inches per second.
does this guy know how to party or what?! -waynes world. no but seriously this is a better examination that the video, very cool thank u!
@@colininglis8918 that’s the big multi track tape you’re referring to, that gets transferred to 1/4” stereo tape in the final mix
Vinyl, CD? I will not settle for less than a chamber orchestra in my living room 🧐
Ah yes
Yes, the superior audio experience
I just need the piano.
Our local priest is a hi-fi enthusiast. He tried to place choir in a surround configuration to test out the acoustic properties of the church.
Good idea, because some equipment costs more than a chamber orchestra! LOL
CDs vs Vinyl?
The true audiophile breaks into the studio and listens to the original master tape!
Probably not many UMG music though...
People think vinyl is better because almost everything digital is released at 16 bit/44.1kHz. The noise floor on 16 bit isn't low enough, it induces audible distortion at low levels. 44.1kHz is just barely passable at high frequencies, 14k upward, turn into saw waves. Everything should be mastered at higher than 32/192k and released at 32/96k. It should also be mastered in 5.1 instead of stereo.
@@NeolithGrey the noise floor on a CD is a hell of a lot lower than vinyl. I have transferred enough of it to digital to know. 80% of the signal coming from vinyl is noise.
Vinyl is a plastic disc where a needle gets dragged along. This generates rumbling, hiss and rice crispy noises.
The best way to listen to analog would be magnetic tape. Hence I'm only half joking in my previous post.
If I took a vinyl and digitally recorded it and played both through a good stereo, the vinyl and the digital file, no one (and I bet any money) will be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
@@jochenstacker7448 I never said the vinyl noise floor was better than CD. 16 bit isn't good enough for low volume because there's audible distortion. Turn the volume up as music fades out, that fizzle you hear is distortion. In 24 bit it's almost nonexistent, in 32 bit it's not there at all. I'm just saying that 24/96k is slightly better than analog tape and 32/192k is far superior. The digital transfers will still be around 100 years from now, the analog tape will have long since disintegrated.
@I've bobbed mi sen Sometimes. If it wasn't too bad, I left it as is. The problem with running the snap, crackle and pop filter, is that you sometimes remove something you don't want to remove.
As a sound engineer, I have always had a problem with most of the digital v analogue argument, and that is the listeners involved have never heard the master tape - especially when we worked in analogue - so are making the wrong comparison. How close is what you are hearing to the original recording. We often mixed down to tape running at 30 inches per second - normally 1/4 inch tape, but 1/2 inch in some studios. While still being analogue, these were incredibly high-quality recordings. But the resultant vinyl pressings were always disappointing. As you pointed out, they could not reproduce the frequency response of the master, and to that was added increased cross-talk between left and right channels, effectively narrowing our lovely stereo field. And then there was noise. Every time the audio signal passed through another set of amps, the signal to noise ratio became that little bit worse. Add dust, and the final playout via an over-compressed radio station was depressing.
When we first heard digital, especially CDs, it was wonderful! It wasn't completely like the master because the master was played through professional amps and speakers, and home gear (even the so-called high end domestic gear sold at rip off prices) came nowhere close. But it was so much closer than analogue.
Vinyl is fun, it has its own characteristics which are lovely in itself, but it isn't as close to the original as is digital. And for the engineer or producer, that is important too.
That's why the Sennheiser HD 280 Pro studio monitor headphones I use regularly are a mixed blessing. I can hear how incredible a well mastered CD sounds, and how lousy the same music sounds on vinyl. I really wish people could get the ridiculous notion out of their heads that vinyl is in any way superior to CD.
I agree with everything you say there, other than the bit about when we first heard CDs. I first heard them as a teen in the late 80s and knew there was something very wrong with the sound. I later found out it was jitter causing that flawed sound. Although CDs are every bit as good potentially as vinyl, it took so long for affordable dacs to sound good and the jitter to be reduced enough to not degrade sound, that streaming was just around the corner and cd development was no longer viable.
Quadro could never work satisfying on records. The attempt to record and play ultrasonic to encode the additional channels, resulted in records with very fragile quadro information.
The other matrix encoded systems has the problem, that channel separation isn't good enough, therefore you won't find Dolby Surround on vinyl records.
Why did you people hate CBX so much?
When you first heard CDs in the 1980s (like me), Phase Locked-Loop technology (PLL) was already installed even on domestic equipment. Jitter couldn't be heard even way back then because it was removed completely by simple buffers, filters and a highly accurate oscillator. Some of the crappy sound released on CD in the 80s was because Mastering Engineers were still getting to grips with the massively extended Dynamic Range, very accurate Frequency Response, and ultra low noise floor of the IEC 60908 Red Book Standard digital data available to them. Mastering for vinyl often left CDs lacking midrange and bass components; sounding "tinny" as a consequence. This was not a sonic artefact introduced by a flaw in the encoding or reproduction technology, just people learning how to do something new.
Worse problems were evident in many legacy recordings that were being transferred to CD. Errors throughout the recording, mastering, and pressing processes that had been masked by the much lower fidelity vinyl reproduction equipment were now being revealed everywhere. The industry realised that this could cause a problem that might be blamed on the new technology, and many labels included a disclaimer on CDs pointing out that previously inaudible tape hiss, wow, flutter and harmonic distortion could now clearly be heard on domestic systems. CDs did not sound potentially as good as vinyl - they were orders of magnitude better in every measurable respect. They are only surpassed by 24-bit Lossless signals.@@kieranhynes9072
As an "old guy", I grew up with vinyl and the never-ending pursuit of improving my stereo system. Still buy records and play both my old classics and newer versions, but I like CDs and streaming as well. While I have friends and family members who insist the sound is better on vinyl, I honestly can not tell the difference. Some say vinyl has a "warmer", more natural sound. Maybe, but I have never been able to discern it. It's all good when you are playing a great song.
I too collected records since I was 13, and have 500 or 600 albums all together, which in the grand scheme of things isn’t a large collection. But I still have them, and they still play well, and I have no intentions of throwing them out. I too have spent all these years improving my system, and have what I think is a fairly impressive set up. I’ve got about $3500 invested in my vinyl playback setup and I also have a Cary CD player that sold for near $6,000 when new. They both sound great!
But what I find, when listening to the CD player I enjoy playing one, maybe two, and I’m done. But when I play vinyl records, one leads to another, and another, and before I know it, it’s 3am and I’ve lost track of time! That is why I think vinyl is better than CD. It somehow pulls me into the music, I have a greater emotional response, and it leaves me wanting more. I can’t say any particular part sounds better, but the proof is in the listening.
Hey, I like your comment. I compared a lot of different sources on many different components.
To me and my HiFi-friends it seems to be a way better sound while listening to digital music. But this will of course just show up if you use a good DAC, with a good clock and if possible a good streamer. And obviously a high resolution streaming service. We like the sound of Qobuz the most. Spacial information is better on digital music, detail is better, it sounds more neutral so more natural. But for "feeling" you would maybe want to listen to some music like buena vista social club still on vinyl.
Maybe this is some shared impression that makes you try out new things in your music hobby.
But I am so glad to read your last sentence: it´s about the music, not about equipment. We sometimes lose this perspective.
It’s the freaking crackling. 🤦♂️
@@CalikoTube if you don’t take care of you vinyl, that’ll happen. I’ve got albums I’ve had since I was 13, I’m now 60, and they do not pop and crackle. It does require more care than CD’s, and record cleaning machines are expensive.
First, if the CD to which you're listening has an "A" in the format, it is just as much shit as the vinyl or tape onto which it was mastered.
There are very few CD recordings available which are "DDD". Therefore, you won't hear any difference because there is none. If you want to hear impressive CDs, check out Telarc! They have really nice samplers plus hundreds of true audiophile selections where you CAN hear the difference. Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" is also a "DDD" (not from Telarc). You have never heard "Money for Nothing" sound so wonderful. Warm sound, cold sound, bullshit sound! Try to imagine over 96 dB of dynamic headroom bearing in mind that every 3 dB is twice as much power where tapes, at BEST, make around 52-55 dB.
Wanna know why your CDs sound just like the f***king vinyl. Because they were recorded in analog!
I will not watch this video until it comes out on VHS
jondeauxman ...or laser disc.
VHS actually can play back 1080i HD movies czcams.com/video/jiu0LPeLQPE/video.html
I want it in Betamax!
oooooooooooooo snaap, hahaha
I'll wait till the book comes out
The picture is bigger on the vinyl cover.
That is a good point, the cover sold the record
@KoivuTheHab Thank you, I spend too much time correcting others and should tend to my own garden more often, but I love that you pointed this out because it shows that you care. Warm wishes.
The picture is what sells the record @KoivuTheHab
Sorry Yeah I liked the picture as did most other people I was making a point. It is surprising what makes people buy things, often it is a simple logo or endorsement by a celebrity. Next time you watch a sports event turn the volume off and you will understand that is as much the atmosphere and commentary as the sport itself. @KoivuTheHab
Never bought any records. I bought a tape recorder and later a cassette recorder and recorded the music off the radio or borrowed the records and taped them.@KoivuTheHab
One thing that wasn't mentioned is that a phonograph needle travels slower as it moves to the middle and thus the sound quality is lower than on tracks on the outside of the record. I also remember that 12" E.P. vinyl records had much better fidelity thanks to their wider grooves.
Wider grooves for a dance music 12" vinyl was its own Loudness War in itself. It makes the output louder. Bear in mind that a record is mastered to play through an standardised RIAA EQ which is in every phono pre-amp, so even though the cut can be louder the chances of overdriving the playback equipment becomes bigger, especially with consumer hi-fi.
A higher chance of distortion further down the chain doesn't really augment the fidelity radically if I'm not mistaken. A well built DJ mixer could take it but not all home equipment. Cut too loud to play on home equipment, it happened.
I was just going to comment about the same thing. I had noticed that quality decreases the further in the record goes. For me digital canes anything that came from vinyl.
@@patricksmith4424 Depends if the turntable has a 'dust bug' or similar, plus the the stylus needs cleaning gently after use. I've also noticed some of my LPs are more prone to dust and distortion than others and they are all stored the same way. Given all that I still prefer a non compressed song any day - that's the reason some radio stations have more 'ears' as it is less tiring to listen to.
Exactly right. Another reason why 45's, despite a faster rotation, had crummy audio.There was no way to compensate for this fundamental deficiency. Also, another deficiency was the tone arm tracking. All mechanical tone arms had points on the arc across the disk where the cartridge was not aligned with the groove. There were expensive turntables that remedied this, but were expensive. The good old days.
@@nigelrowe2204
Are you storing all your records in plastic lined anti-static sleeves?
Or keeping the records in the paper/art sleeves most records come in?
I find that those sleeves extremely cut-back on dust.
Also, a $20 anti-static dry brush is a quick 20 second swipe before you lay down the needle, helps keep everything clean physically and sound-wise🙌
Honestly, I'm just a fan of their analog nature. I like the idea of the sound literally being encoded in such a way that running a needle through the grooves recreates the song!
It is definitely fun to use records, they just need to make them cheaper.
@@svenlima CDs store music digitally though. Not the same thing. If I run a little needle along the tracks of a music record, the needle will vibrate to recreate the music. Your light saber would not make sound if it could read a CD, you would have to process the data somehow to get music back.
well it has nice harmonic distortion in a nice way not bad distortion good distortion there a difference that way is sounds good
why do you think i got a Moog analog synth well just like Vinyl there sound really good aka warm and fat sound so yeah cool stuff
@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745, the data is processed so fast that the "delay" is imperceptible.
buying vinyl to me is like the collectors edition of my favorite albums
not in the 60's or 70's. it was normal. but yes today its weird because you grew up knowing cd or digital as being the only way to listen to music.
@Jimmy Gibbs people buy vinyl they also like digital idk. i listen to digital even though i love my vinyl i just listen to digital more because im lazy and forget i even own vinyl.
@Jimmy Gibbs true
Weirdly enough, I'm really into cd's and not vynil. I'm in my 20s tho so probably nostalgia effect comes to me with cd's.
It really is it makes it official (plus some oldies and rarities can’t be found on digital or disc) ✨
i just like having the physical media and album art
THIS is the biggest loss to music, in my opinion. Of course, without smaller physical media formats (or digital) we wouldn't have all this great portability. But all those great album covers and liner notes..? (Sniff)
No way.
Literally nobody misses looking at porn on a foldout magazine or on fuzzy low def VHS.
I can appreciate album artwork even more. Best part it it isn’t constrained by a physical media anymore. Remember cassette artwork? It was crap for the most part and full of micro print lyrics that Spotify can read for us now.
CDs are the most convenient physical medium
@@theguynamedgio : what? more convenient than a micro-sd card!
@@dabcorn while ur right I also have to say ur wrong since we're taking physical media that is personalized/dedicated to albums and collections of officially released music
I have done many A/B tests with high end vinyl and high end digital. I have had friends switch over in blind tests and I rarely select digital. I stress that vinyl is not better than digital but vinyl has a character of its own that I like, just as I prefer the random grain pattern on film photographs, rather than the extremely ordered "grain" of digital. There's more theatre with vinyl, the cover pictures are better and I like watching the disk spin around.
Personal preference.
Vinyl is more tactile.
I agree fully with your discovery, the division in people is not in the ears (hearing) but in the mind (processing).
Vinyl has ultrasonic frequencies that are also present in live music. CDs don't have most of these ultrasonic frequencies as they were removed by engineers who thought they were being clever. This may be why many prefer vinyl to CDs.
@@dtz1000 That's very perceptive of you. I hadn't thought of that. We think of human hearing as only 20Hz-20,000Hz but there's so much extra going on that happens in the subconscious. Might infrabass be involved as well?
I have a fairly high end CD player and I was listening to Jennifer Warnes's Famous Blue Raincoat - doing A/B comparisons. I managed to get the sound levels exactly the same. Friends and I constantly picked the vinyl as the nicer sound. The LP is as clean and clear as I have ever had - (I have an ultrasound cleaner and I use carbon fiber cleaners etc etc). In short, it makes no more noise than the CD. I do believe it was a fair A/B comparison. I'm prepared to accept that the signal to noise, dynamic range and frequency response (according to specifications) is better in a CD but to reduce something as human as music down to a serious of mathematical algorithms doesn't credit humans with any more awareness than a robot. Apart from anything else, I love my Thorens TD 124 Mk2 turntable, my Lux 300b tube amp and my Klipsh "Belle" speakers. I'm not short of a few dollars and if I heard a setup that sounded better to my ears, than my system, I'd probably get it. I've been to some people's places who have systems that cost as much as a house and I wasn't that impressed. They certainly looked good - no argument with that - but the sound was, somehow, "sterile" and unengaging. I'm probably an old dinosaur. I like large format film photography (5"×4" negatives). I think the results look vastly superior to digital and the same arguments as audio apply.. Mathematically, digital is superior - except that it isn't...
Analog has an appeal - maybe it's the haphazard representation. The most beautiful girls I've seen aren't quite perfect. It's that "close to but not quite there" perfection that appeals. Maybe that's what I like about vinyl????
Yes, vinyl records are fun and nostalgic, but I remember listening to my best vinyl records and wishing someone would invent a cleaner and higher fidelity medium. When CDs came out it was a dream come true, but I do miss the larger record album covers with fold-out pages of photos and lyrics, maybe that should still be used for CDs also.
@Denis , CDs are of much better quality for many reasons. They will not wear out. They sound the same every time you play them. They have a much larger dynamic range.
Vinyl is fun and enjoyable, but it is in no way "better".
@Anvandarnamn, that's not even close to true. Vinyl has an extremely limited dynamic range, as well as inaccurate sound reproduction due to the nature of the medium.
CDs will, when mastered correctly, always sound better than vinyl due to the much better sound accuracy and dynamic range.
Digital methods can achieve even higher quality "HD sound reproduction" due to higher sampling rates and better algorithms.
@@Anvandarnamn1234 did you even watch this video completely? He just explained why, what you're saying is totally false.
@@Anvandarnamn1234feels like you're blind follower like a flat earther. I've just got my vinyl player this weekend, but can't deny what author says in the video. He's not speaking opinions, just facts
@@Anvandarnamn1234 dude have you seen the video? The quality of digital recordings have much bigger bitrate than human eat can recognize. If the author is "just ant vinyl", what of things he said is false?
Vinyl is superior in music storage. None of my records have ever been removed due to copyright infringement.
I see what you did there
nor are they region-locked
@@klausstock8020 That is unfortunate to learn.
I used to keep a list of all the songs I liked on youtube, but after 7 years over half of the playlist was removed.
Nothing beats having your music on your NAS.
Same with compact disks
I just like “owning” a physical object
buy a CD then
@@ShihammeDarcCDs don’t look as nice. You also don’t get the sleeve or the little booklets or the other lil shits
@kjL3080 Absolutely.I like looking at a disc(vinyl) that`s playing what you`re hearing and the physical sellection of them.
@@ShihammeDarc i love cds, their compact and hold ~70 min of audio; nostalgia as a neat bonus
@@kjl3080 Actually, CDs do have booklets! I mean, they're not guaranteed to have extensive liner notes, but a lyrics booklet at least is always there. But yeah, not as nice looking for sure
I love both digital and vinyl. They both sound great, but they’re different experiences. Digital’s convenience means I can explore lots of different artists in a cost-effective way. I love vinyl because I love to treasure hunt at record stores. Nothing beats the feeling of finding a good, used copy of a record you’ve wanted for a good price. Vinyl also encourages me to listen to the entire album and find the deep cuts that most would otherwise skip over. I also like the problem-solving and technical aspect of vinyl and like to explore how seemingly simple changes can make big difference in sound quality: type of turntable, stylus shapes, nude vs. bonded stylus diamonds, cartridge generator types, tonearm adjustments, phono preamp load/capacitance settings, different types of preamps, etc. When you get into it, vinyl is basically a hobby whose side effect also involves listening to music.
Accurate statement as far as I can tell. If the band I am listening to was producing their music pre digital I try to go with Vinyl. Also, as a younger person, I can listen to a concert recording of a band recorded in the 60s-70s whose members are no longer with us, or the band is no longer touring, etc. Listening to a record cut at the venue or cut from tapes of the performance, on gear from the era is the closest I will ever be able to get to listening to that show, other than maybe a video recording to go along with it. Plus so much of the gear in that era was built so well/ so robust. I can listen to the same records, on the same turntable, on the same stereo, that my dad was listening to when he was a young man.
We can not oppose vinyl to digital.
Digital what? 8bits/22khz? CD? MP3? Hi-res? DSD?
16bit/44.1khz is not enough for some instruments harmonics.
The sampling/recording, mixing, down sampling, depending the way it is done, could result to excellent or shit CD 💿 (both “digital”)
As well, some vinyls could become far better (or not) if they have been created with their physical limitations in mind during the recording/mastering. Then, even with less “dynamic”, you hear the scene, you feel the band playing all around you.
A feeling that I hear less often with CD, but come again with SACD or hi-res…
So digital/vinyl is not exactly a comparable
Since most of us couldn't afford the state-of-the-art turntable that you see in dance clubs, I always said that if you're buying vinyl for the sound, you're missing the point. It's supposed to sound like a product of its time.
If you compare digital to vinyl, you have completely missed the difference. There IS NO COMPARISON between analog and digital except to compare analog to a skateboard and digital as a rocket ship!
As any true musician knows, both records and CDs have their strengths and weaknesses -- records are better for rolling joints and CDs are better for chopping up lines of coke.
And both are HIGH-definition.
You can’t push a pin through a cd cover like you can an album cover. Long live the 33-1/3!
which is probably why most of modern music has deteriorated to the extent it has.
Ha ha ha. Good one!
i.e. the White Album😅
For me, listening to a record is an experience. When I listen to a record, I go to my living room, I look through all the vinyls there with all the pretty artwork, each one conjuring memories of where the record came from or of times I have listened to it in the past. Then I find a record, I carefully place it on the turntable, gently place the needle and I sit down on the living room couch without a phone, or a book, or a tablet and I listen to the entire album. I just sit and listen to art. Its a process, its something you do with intent.
We've become so accustomed to streaming music that its not something you really do with intent anymore. Its a background task. Its something you do while you do something more important, like read emails or surf facebook, and the music is relegated to background noise, barely listened to. I find myself listening to random songs, but I may become interested in something else and may stop randomly after 2 or 3 songs. I never sit and listen to an album, start to finish. I have some very high resolution audio files, I think that is probably the highest quality audio I own, not my vinyls, but even these, there is not so much intent. It does not engage the mind and memory in the same way. I often dont listen to a full album on my digital files, but I almost always do with a vinyl. Perhaps these are just my peculiarities, but I think there is something to this. Its not the sound quality that I keep going to vinyl for, its for the experience of listening to a vinyl record that I keep coming back to.
You can replace the word vinyl with CD in what you just wrote and you would have the same end result. You don't need vinyl to be able to enjoy an album. It's all on your head. What you're really saying is you don't have the discipline to just sit down and listen to music. You need to artificially limit yourself.
@@Wordsalad69420 Youre absolutely right about not needing vinyl to enjoy an album, and I totally recognized that in my post. As I said, my best quality audio is in my high quality digital files, particularly the DSD ones, not my vinyl. So you clearly dont need to have vinyl to listen to nice music (you dont need DSD files to enjoy listening to music either). I also said that these may just be my own proclivities. My point is only that, for some people, it is the process of listening to a record and yes, the "romance" of it. This is what draws us, and I think that very subjective, purely psychological, benefit can result in something that actually DOES improve the listening experience.
I relate to that. I really love the ritual of finding one of my records and putting it on for a spin. It's the ritual that attracts me. I also listen to tons of music from digital files from my own collection on hard disk, mostly while working and I stream lots as well, but the experience of really choosing a record to put on makes it more special in a way.
@@onomehtenialb there are a few minor inaccuracies with some of what you said, and as for whether we can tell differences in sound at a subconscious level, that's not something I could address one way or the other. And in either case I haven't the energy to argue. One thing I am fairly certain of with audio equipment (not necessarily audio recordings though) is that while it does introduce noise and inaccuracies to an extent, our imperfect human ears like some kinds of inaccuracies. A perfectly reproduced, flat response curve sound tends to be quite harsh. Thats why you mostly only see flat response equipment in the recording and sound engineering industries. So while a tube amplifier may actually reproduce sound less accurately, it introduces the sorts of inaccuracies we find pleasing.
In any case, I am merely glad you are enjoying your recordings. Sounds like you have some good ones to enjoy! I sadly don't have any of my nice listening equipment out yet as we just recently moved and reintroducing that equipment to its new home will take some effort (and also money). Instead I have opted for the opposite, and occupied myself with the creating and recording of music! Enjoy those recordings, and keep those old pieces of equipment fresh!
This is 100% why I've just started to buy my top 100 albums on vinyl. I still stream music but I don't feel I have any ownership of tha music. It's just instant gratification. You see the album art as a thumbnail. With vinyl you get to experience the artwork in all it's glory. The artist has likely chosen that artwork to greater enhance their creative vision for the music. Sure, CDs are sort of able to also do this but having a 12" artwork to look at far exceeds a CD inlay. There's also something to be said about the physical nature of placing a needle carefully at the start of a track you want to hear. There's a bit more connection with the album structure than pressing a few buttons on a CD player. It's an experience and you do feel a lot more engaged with the process as an event.
A few months ago I had zero albums on vinyl and hundreds of albums saved in my music streaming apps. More than I can remember, yet now I can list the 40 or so albums I own physically and I think this helps me to identify to myself my music tastes and what genres and artists are my favourites. It feels more focussed. This may change a little as my collection grows but I feel a lot more connected to my music now I physically own this music. I also like that vinyl comes in recyclable cardboard and it feels a lot more wasteful that the plastic used for CD cases.
For vinyl newbies, note: The 4:40 diagram/animation of the moving stylus is technically correct, but where the magnet is in the process is not. All of that magnet stuff is actually only happening at the very tip of the tonearm, at the cartridge. Where the animation shows the wiggling / magnet is actually the counterweight in most turntables.
Above said, the entirety of this video is simply an awesome lesson in the subject.
I burst out laughing when I saw that. I've also seen gross errors in other videos this guy has done. He simply does not have a deep understanding of the tech that he's talking about. Chances are that you are never going to install a new stylus and rebalance a tonearm, but maybe a couple of you will. Details are important.
@@jservice6594 Might not be him, but the animators mis-understanding. Who knows? Very few people these days will invest in vinyl, if if they do, they will know whats what.
You were much kinder here than I was with my comment above.
@@jservice6594 , i think its fair to say that, though his knowledge of the subject is impressive, he's never owned a record player.
vinyl for me is a way of memorializing what I believe to be a truly great album if you really want a physical copy, I think vinyl is superior to a cd for three reasons. First of all, if you’re memorializing it, it isn’t really about practicality and vinyl has a romance to it that the CDs don’t have. It’s really cool that the music is physically etched into the surface. Second you have a larger album art that you can display. And finally there is something extremely cool about listening to modern music in such an old format
Welcome to the nineteenth century.
You do realise a CD is also pressed wish the data physically on it too? It's not just a shiny plastic disc, it has a groove too, it's just read by a laser and more like a diamond disc rather than an LP.
@@Martipar A 12" album jacket is better for displaying artwork than a 5" plastic CD jewel box.
@@franciscolopez7101 a poster is even better.
you forgot to mention that the sound is superior to anything else.
Concerning the introduction of digital; I was attending an Audio Engineering Society meeting where Marshall Buck of Cerwin-Vega was promoting his company's new linear phase speaker. He hauled in the first CD player I'd ever seen..it was large; it was heavy, and only played a single disc. The transient response, low end, and silky highs were like something from another intelligence; at that point I knew the turntable was dead. I wasn't alone; many of the group acutely focused in on the player rather than the speakers (although they were impressive).
One problem, however, was serious enough for my many complaints at subsequent CD meetings; the decay of a piano always had a distorted decay just before it went inaudible. This annoying effect was quantization distortion and was solved by Canadian mathematician Dr. Lipshitz.....the solution is what saved CDs in my view. It was called dither. The brute force solution is to go 24 bit and sample at 96 khz, which puts that distortion so low in level it can't be detected, even without dither. This is more common in mastering but ultimately dither is employed when printing to CD, still being 44.1 khz sample rate.
Pianos never sound real on CD. On rare occasion they can sound real on vinyl.
@@emory0, bwahahahahahaha! I have yet to hear any performance on vinyl that caused me to believe I was at a concert. ESPECIALLY pianos!
Vinyl has a ~55 dB dynamic range limitation so you will NEVER hear a true piano sound from vinyl. Pianos have more than 100 dB of dynamic range. (Probably in reality more than 150 dB.) Each 3 dB is twice as much power.
Cerwin Vega has consistently made the worst speakers in the world for a name-brand. The product is specifically targeted to a non-discriminating user.
@@fmalitz, Cerwin Vega. Might as well be Pyramid. I think they are both the same quality. I also include Pioneer, Sony, Panasonic, Technics, Sansui, and a hundred others in the same light/category. Mid-Fi with a high price to make you think it is good shit!
If the HF end doesn't go AT LEAST to 20 KHz, you are missing tons of information. Remember, a 3 dB loss is half of the power. You don't miss that shit ever in a live concert!
@@emory0 Yeah... pianos sound like banging dustbin lids. No. I doubt you or virtually anyone else could tell if a piano had been recorded on a CD, or a high rate mp3.
4:28 UUhhhhhhhh...? I mean, generally the description is correct but the figure is completely inaccurate. The magnet and coil are located in the cartridge, not anywhere in the tonearm, and certainly not where depicted. That would be the counterweight for the tonearm & stylus assembly, which is a completely static mechanical component.
Exactly. The entire pickup mechanism is in the pickup head.This should be corrected ASAP.
Lol as soon as that graphic came up I immediately starting looking for the first comment to point that out. Good job lol.
Contemporary turntables, yes. But it is possible his diagram is for an older type of record player? Not sure
Could you imagine if they put the pickups behind the tonearm?
Like, imagine correcting for that. Imagine having to clean grime off your tone arm because you start to lose highs after a while.
Imagine all the products they would be selling, like wooden and glass arms to create different timbre.
@@Thermosporeeven electric tonearms for shellac records (before vinyl ones) had wires transferring results of the reading. Another point to consider: inertia of the whole tonearm is much bigger than of tiny pickup needle, therefore reading waves can't be well accomplished in this design. In ancient records we had needles or stylus directly converting into vibes of membrane of pickup head (soundbox), that were passed further into amplification parts as audible sound waves.
As a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s, coming home from a store with a new album was exciting. Looking at the album art, reading liner notes, etc, was a treat.
I have tonnes of CDs, but today I still enjoy the tactile ritual of removing vinyl from its inner sleeve, placing it gently on the platter, and carefully lowering the tone arm and making sure the stylus is lined up properly to land in the groove at the right place.
Then waiting for the music to begin...
To me that’s part of the whole at home music listening experience.
100% facts!
If you play a record 3 times in succession, it's just about clean enough to listen to on the fourth play - after de-fluffing the stylus again.
Same
...waiting for the crackles to begin.
@Focal Point Images To me? digital music formats is like having sex in the missionary position every single day.
Analog is like picking up a copy of the Kama Sutra. it's different every single time.
adding tubes to your system is kind of like doing LSD but since I've never done drugs I can only speculate :-)
I used to work for Audio Note, I had a turntable with one of their bottom end cartridges on and put on the Elgar Cello Concerto. There was some record noise whining at the top. But that evening I had found a lost cartridge, a near top end model. After installing it and rebalancing the arm I put the same disk on and I was blown away at the difference! That 'record noise' was actually the upper end harmonics of the cello!
I have two Audio Note DACs and they use the AD1865 DAC chip, known as 'the vinyl chip' which runs as a resistence ladder via current coupled output to the output valve, no oversampling, no noise shaping and the sound is gorgeous, clear, open, stunning! Put it on a scope and it is noisy, but humans can't hear it.
The conclusion? Digital is amazing and has come on leaps and bounds in the last 10 years but vinyl just has an indefinable something, the thing that makes this human. People talk of 'warmth' but its not, its the reactance and stereo imaging. You can tell which way a singer is facing on a stage - thats difficult to reproduce with digital, as is brass. But thats a whole other page of text!
Something not so well known is that since the 1980s, most vinyl has been cut using a digital delay in the signal path, to allow the equipment to adjust the groove pitch dynamically. Even if the album was recorded and mixed using analogue equipment (reel to reel and mixing desk etc.) it will still be turned into a digital signal before and back before it gets onto the record itself.
This, i wanted to search for this info online and i couldn't find it. Your comment is a godsend. I forgot the exact reason why they wrote the signal in digital and you helped me remember!
With vinyl you also get superior album cover art.
I think another reason for vinyls resurgence, is the "ritual" of playing vinyls:
Flipping through the the physical library of music, pulling out a specific album, checking out the cover art, flipping it over looking through the song list to see if what you're looking for is an A side or B side track, pulling the vinyl out of the sleeve, a quick inspection for scratches, laying it down on the turn table, turning it on, dusting off the vinyl (crucial), lowering the needle and waiting for that initial "thump" in the speakers indicating the needle is in the groove. Magic time.
Don't forget rolling a blunt on the cover! 420
One argument I've heard in favor of vynils that always made me think was that in the process of digitizing the music, audio engineer cleaned the sound, specially on older recording with older, lesser, recording tecniques and, in doing so, while they reduced noise but also reduced nuance in the recordings.
I don't know the merit of that, could you comment?
I couldn't agree with you more. I know that the vinyl will sound no better than a CD in a good system, but the enjoyment of playing a record is everything you just stated. Best answer in the talkback by far. Have an up vote.
@@herrerasauro7429 that is called a remaster. When labels rerelease an old record, they usually announce if they remaster it or not. If that version is better or not really depends, but I find that usually, it is. For example with The Beatles, back when they released their albums they had mono and stereo versions of albums. But stereo was completely new and the engineers and producers really didn't know what to do with it. So the original stereo versions are almost unlistenable today, you'll have ALL the drums and one stray guitar on the right and ALL the vocals on the left, and stuff like that, which is just horrible with headphones. So in that case I'll take a stereo remaster any day. In other cases the engineers might go overboard and make a classic record too modern and compressed. There is no rule of thumb, listen for yourself!
the main reason why people think analogue is better than digital is that back before the digital age, audio devices where huge, the internal components where spread apart and didn't interfere with one another, cases where more rigid and wood was widely used, all things that contribute to the sound quality.
my father still has a huge clunky east german radio and that thing still makes better sound than most devices you'll find in stroes today.
the miniturization and cost reduction that went along with the introduction of digital media is the reason why many people percieve digital media as inferior, because the devices used to play back digital music are of inferior quality, cases aren't as rigid, internal components are grouped more closely together, the whole thing is lighter, the speakers are crap and the list goes on, not to mention the media themselfs get worse over time due to cost reduction as well, back when CD's where a new thing you could still get soudn systhems capable of playing CD's with good quality speakers and rigid construction and CD's back then where expensive, but also much better quality so the sound systhem my grandpa had back then was amazing, especially because he still kept his old ass huge wooden speakers which where even older.
For me it has nothing to do with the most "faithful" audio, I just love having my favourite music on a physical media.
Same
then why not CD?
@@CamelliaCorn I like both. I have a massive CD collection, but also a record and tape collection.
@@RevOwOlutionary woah thats impressive
we didn't have many records but tapes used to be really prevalent in my country, i miss my grandma's collection of them
@@CamelliaCorn cd‘s are digital not physical
So low frequencies are a challenge for records and high frequencies are a challenge for records. I love digital audio.
The biggest benefit of digital recording is they don't degrade with each use. All analog recordings loose quality with every use. Digital also allows you to customize your play list without having to physically change the medium.
I have played some of my records since the 80’s with no commercials or monthly fee.
I'm surprised vinyl players these days don't come with commercials built in before it let's you play your music.
There is another way how to do that digitally and we all know what it is
@@soundmapper Modern ones usually suck unless you're spending a bit. If you're buying a Crosleym you're buying shit.
And they were all free, right?
Don't you pay the electricity bill monthly?
Haha, I love the not-so-subtle use of EQ in the video to provide a nice example.
Graham my audio engineer deserves the credit there!
Hey thanks! I thought it would be silly not to do EQ and compression for the examples
@@Ghaerther Graham cares, if don't nobody else care.
Got my brand new over the ear headphones yesterday. Perfect video to truly listen to!! Thank you!
I have a sinus infection so I kept trying to pop my ears. Once I realized what was going on it adds an awesome extra layer to the video.
Vinyl was music and a physical "book" at the same time. The record, the artwork, the sleeve, the lyrics, and an entire album of songs. That's what's cool about it IMHO.
cd provides all these too, in fact more in some cases, with the benefits of digital
@@pooky3391 True. But even CDs have gone the way of the dinos. I have to try and cram album art, song art, creds and lyrics into an mp3 tag and hope that people have the software and the know-how to see them lol.
If you are talking about the original albums, they were shellac, not vinyl.
As a dj, collecting vinyl isnt about the sound quality, but about uncovering oldies that u just can’t get digital because they were never distributed digitaly. A lot of old electronic music has a distinct caracter to it, derived from the constraints that old machines posed to artists. Its a sound you can only get on vinyl.
How can i get a vinyl player ?
There's one more physical issue overlooked here:: The linear speed (speed of the groove past the needle) is much slower towards the center of the disk vs the edge. Which means that the waves get smaller as the record plays, while the size of the stylus remains the same. This results in diminished audio quality at the end of the record. Recording engineers knew this and often placed the more demanding cuts first because they would be at the edge of the record.
That's obvious in hindsight but never thought about it, very interesting, thanks!
Yes. I always noticed reduced audio quality near the center of the record. Digital eliminated that problem.
I never really thought of that but it is really interesting. Thanks for pointing it out!
Well Wally….Piss off what you don’t understand…..Is it’s all in the ear.
That's why many records leave blank space near the center.
At 4:26 the stylus act on a magnetic coil to transform the dents in the groove into electric signal, but that does not occur on the counter weight of the tonearm as displayed in the drawing, that occurs in the cartridge and it is trasmitted to the amplifier through copper wires.
I see you beat me to it. By 8 months. It's SUCH a glaring error, that I had to look at the views count. Oh, 3.5 million, eh... sigh
I saw that and thought "what the heck?" That was when I realized this guy has NO earthly idea what a record player, or turntable, really does.
Only a child could think that's how a record player works.
The biggest problem is the improper mastering and remastering of so much of existing popular music. Also, in the ‘80’s, the digital technology was not yet as mature and widely misunderstood.
In fact, it seemed that when they first started they hadn’t learned anything from analog recording, because of so many perceived differences, so no referencing ability whatsoever, hence, a lack of dynamics and tonal balance in a format that was actually even more capable if adjusted appropriately.
The problem with that lie is it's simply not true. Everything we know about digital audio was discovered in the 1920s, and was _very_ mature technology by 1980. Digital audio was in production since WWII, and high fidelity recording became cost effective in the 1970s, with companies like Soundstream making recordings that have stood the test of time. Just because _you_ don't understand it doesn't mean that others can't!
@@StringerNews1
You’re looking through a different filter (pun).
I was referring to consumer audio CD technology, which didn’t come out until the early 80s, and the proof is in the plethora of lousy CDs that exist from over the past four decades. 👨🏻
@MF Nickster Good response, thanks! 😉👨🏻
@@shipsahoy1793 I'm not looking through any lens, I'm just reading what you wrote: "Also, in the ‘80’s, the digital technology was not yet as mature and widely misunderstood." That's your claim, and you have the burden of proof to support it, but as I outlined before, it's completely untrue.
Now you're claiming "the plethora of lousy CDs that exist from over the past four decades" and that too is your claim, and your burden of proof. But we both know that you're lying.
@@StringerNews1 No legal claims have been made or filed on my opinions, so no “burden of proof”
is necessary. Also, by definition, an opinion is not a falsehood. Hence, you can “outline” or “claim” whatever, but that doesn’t change anything.
I love vinyl because of the physical element. There's a stronger connection with the creativeness of not only the music but the visuals as well. It gives more of a story between the artist/band and listener. Plus the liner notes and extra info included. Most streaming digital platforms don't even have basic liner notes. I always learned about what went into music by looking at who the producer was and who played what instruments. And using that knowledge, I could look at other related music (i.e. other music the producer worked on and maybe, for example, the drummer worked with another band) and discover more bands this way.
And the digging aspect is just fun, like others have mentioned. When you find something and it's just there in your hands, possibly even being a limited or rare copy, calling your name. Or you come across an album that you thought you'd NEVER lay your eyes on - right there in your hands. YES.
There are SO MANY bands and music that only exists on vinyl out there that one can only discover it if they are into vinyl. Many bands only made an album or two, then disappeared into the ether. But maybe they have some great music. If you only stream music, you'd never discover this.
And so many ways to create the record sleeve/packaging that it's a whole art unto itself.
And because it's vinyl, the way the grooves are cut can even be changed. I had a record that had 3 sides on it - one side had "one side" and the other side had "two sides" - which blew me away when I discovered they could do that. So cool. Love that stuff.
I used to have a nice collection until everything was stolen. I had all originals, too. *sigh*
But I will always buy records because it gives me joy. That's what matters.
Those are a lot of claims. I'm not holding my breath for any evidence to support those claims, though. You sock accounts never do that.
Imma be honest I just think the spinning is cool I can’t really tell the sound difference
Yes you can. Listen to the vinyl and the digital side by side. Not saying one is better than the other but im 100% sure you'll be able to hear the difference
It's less of a quality difference, and more of a texture difference, I think.
But I agree, vynil is pretty cool
I have figured out that people have very strong feelings about vinyl vs digital and I would like to clarify this was a joke and not serious although the spinny part is cool
@@iLL-iNNeR-GrOoVe how fucking much of your life have you devoted to this shit bruh 💀💀
iLL- GrOoVeS! Yup most morons are speaking about sound with there crosley tables with plastic arms and platters.
I grew up in a time where the process of consuming music was roughly as follows:
Save up money
Travel to a record store and purchase vinyl LP.
Take it home and unpack it
Look over the cover artwork
Smell the vinyl
Put the record on the player and carefully place the needle on the record...
Now...
Search for song on Spotify
Get angry when it takes more than 10seconds...
advertising.
@@Braulios_Penesecou what?
@@itsohaya4096 spotify and other streaming platform has annoyin advertising unless you pay. Its better to pay for something physical.
@@Braulios_Penesecou I get that, but you can pay for their product to have access to all their music and without ads. In the long run you'd save a lot more money streaming the songs than to buy a physical copy (not to mention you can listen to far more songs on digital)
Or just pirate lol
I had that with CDs too.
At the time that CD's came on the scene, many of my favorite bands weren't played on the radio much, so vinyl and cassettes were the only formats I had ever heard them on. Getting to hear that stuff on CD for the first time, with so much dynamic range, was truly incredible, and almost orgasmic.
@Denis , CDs are much more accurate than vinyl. They also have a much larger dynamic range. Vinyl has a very limited dynamic range.
The main reason I collect vinyl is in the case of a solar storm that will fry all my electronics. There will be a physical version of my favorite albums and that's reassuring to me
I buy both vinyl and CDs. I just want to have the music I love the most in a physical format.
I agree! I buy and collect both! Streamers don't get it!! 😂😂😂
@@Lee.Higginbotham I stream too though, but I still want to support some of the artists.
Facts
Ensure you have a way to copy them to preserve the music. Vinyl wears out, and CDs do not last forever... I had learnt it the hard way.
Vinyl is bad for environment
A lot of the bad reputation that early digital got was about it's hardness and harshness. This was because Master Mixdowns that had been created in the era of vinyl were simply put onto CD exactly as they were originally mixed.
The process of creating a vinyl record involves several transfers and quality can easily be lost during these processes, especially for high-end detail. Skilled Mixing and Mastering engineers allowed for this in creating their mixes so that at the end of the chain of manufacturing processes the final result would be bright enough and detailed enough in the high end.
Taking those vinyl intended mixes and simply digitizing them resulted in a sound on CD which was harsh and toppy.
To do the job properly, the original multitrack master-tapes need to be remixed with digital in mind.
Criticism from respected audio engineers and the recorded artistes themselves soon ended the practice of just burning the original vinyl intended mix onto CD.
But the echos of that initial problem linger still.
- further waffle which may or may not interest you :-)
In the late 70's and the 80's I ran a small studio, mostly doing demos but we did make four - perhaps five - LP's so I had to learn what was required so that the Cutting Engineer did not need to correct my mistakes. I went down to CBS in London for the cutting and spent the time chatting with the engineer and learning what I could so that I could do better on any future projects.
Because the engineer needs to play through every track and make adjustments if needed and then make the actual cut in real-time, it's not a rapid process. We got there at 10am and left at 5.30pm as I recall which is quite a long time considering that the LP overall was about 50 minutes long.
Back in the day, you took your 2-track master tape (stereo mixdown from mutitrack tape) to a cutting engineer who cut a master called a laquer. A laquer can be played but it is so soft that it quickly degenerates if you keep playing it.
Several processes were required to turn that laquere into a Stamper suitable for mass reproduction by pressing it into hot vinyl.
Once the Stamper was made, a couple of test-pressing were made so that the producer, artist and record company could check that the end result was good enough. If it was not then the entire process of cutting a new Acetate and turning it into a Stamper had to be repeated.
If you read interviews with bands and recording techs from that era you will find many instances of people saying things like "We had a fabulous mixdown sound in the studio and when the Test-Pressing came it sounded like a dinner-plate."
The skill of the engineer who cut the Acetate was crucial. They had sophisticated EQ gadgets which altered the tonal balances without introducing any new phase anomolies as well as "transparent" compressors and limiters and they used them to tame any aspects which might cause a problem when cutting the Acetate.
The laquer was a very thin aluminium disk coated on one side with laquer and the cutting lathe had a heated cutter which rather than being a needle was actually a "V" shape, so that it actually cut a channel into the laquer and the hair-thin thread of material it had cut out of the laquer surface had to be sucked away rapidly so that it did not foul the cutting head and spoil the cut.
The biggest disaster you could have was loud out of phase bass - it made the cutting head drive vertically down into the laquer and in the worst cases right through it into the aluminium substrate which not only ruined the Cut you just made, but also destroyed the cutting head itself. Cutting heads were extremely expensive and getting the new one properly set up and aligned etc was a fiddly job.
Each side of a vinyl record needed to be cut onto it's own laquer, so there needed to be two. Each laquer needed to be cut in one pass for the whole thing, so if you were making an LP with seven songs on a side, each song was audio adjusted/corrected by the cutting engineer and mixed to a new bit of tape. The songs were then edited together (stuck together with sticky-tape) to form one continuous tape which was the whole side of the record and this was then cut to an Acetate in one pass and in real-time. (so if you had a 25 minute side to an LP, it took 25 minutes to cut.)
The width of the grooves depended on the frequency and volume of the music - a tom-tom fill under a microscope looks like a string of sausages and needs a wide groove. So cutting a track that was mostly quiet but had a loud bit in one place meant that you had to set the width of the grooves wide to accommodate that loud bit. The quiet bits of course were then spread out quite thin and widely spaced and it was a waste of space during all the quiet bits.
Cutting lathe designers therefore came up with a solution. There was a "read-ahead" playback head on the cutting lathe which "saw" what was going to arrive at the cutting-head in a couple of seconds time and adjusted the width of the groove so that every part of it took up only the space that it needed. So quiet bits have smaller grooves which are closer together so no space was wasted and the cutting lathe would automatically adjust the spacing to widen out just before the loud bit got there and would close them up again as soon as it had passed.
The spaces between songs that you can see on a vinyl record are where bit of non-magnetic tape (Leader tape) was inserted by the cutting engineer when he made his Cutting Master and stuck all the songs for that side of the record together so that it could be cut in one pass, as I explained above. I cannot recall whether the engineer physically pressed a button to spread the grooves out to create those visible "bands" between tracks or whether it was automated and driven from the "read-ahead" function which adjusted groove width.
@Freline Is this the reason as to why they stamp CDs with 3 letters "ADD" as oppose to "DDD"? A friend once told me ADD mean Analog Master to Digital Master to Digital Reproduction.
No, there were no mixdowns specifically for vinyl, that would be daft. What Sophie seems to be forgetting is that music wasn't just distributed on vinyl. There were open reel tapes, 8-track tapes and Compact Cassettes. Nobody did separate mixdowns for each medium because 1.) it would have been a costly waste of time, and 2.) wasn't necessary. The RIAA equalization for records or pre-emphasis for magnetic tape is applied at the machine itself, not in the recording studio. Trying to do it in the studio with analog tape would have been an exercise in futility without matching levels exactly. And of course every studio tape deck required its own pre-emphasis for recording and de-emphasis for playback; trying to compound that would have created a mess!
The whole reason why the audio on a CD sounded brighter was because it _was_ brighter! Anyone who has experience with tape recording and vinyl records knows that your average LP or 7" 45 record has poor frequency response in the treble when compared to a good analog or digital tape recorder. People who only listened to records were conditioned to listening to less treble than there really was. When they heard the spectral balance that the artist had originally intended, it was "too bright" in their estimation, but in reality was just right. It took people who had listened to music on inferior media some time to adjust. But make no mistake, the adjustment was theirs to make, not the recording artists'.
@@StringerNews1 Hi
The frequency response of vinyl changed greatly from it's beginnings. Early on apart from no treble there wasn't much bass either.
quote - "Nobody did separate mixdowns for each medium....." but in the next lines quote "The RIAA equalization for records or pre-emphasis for magnetic tape is applied at the machine itself...." So you are saying right there that different equalisation curves were applied. Correct.
"The Mixdown" i.e. the relative tones and balance of tracks was finalised in the studio and the two-track Master created.
The cutting engineer re-processed that tape and created his own 2t-Master which was then used to cut one side of a record. As you correctly say, RIAA curve was then applied to that during the cut. If the recording was also going to be issuued on Compact Cassette or other medium then any appropriate curve e.g Dolby B would be applied.
Production of cassettes was only done in Real Time in small studios such as mine.
For Mass Production the duplication was done at high-speed. A 2-t Master needed to be made that contained multiple copies of the record/album. This was because cassettes were actually mass-produced by a machine which was loaded with a magazine of blank cassettes. These are merely shells and contain only leader tape, attached to both spools.
The machine was loaded with a "pancake" of tape already recorded. This tape was cassette sized and 4-track with an entire reel of copies of the album one after another. (alternate stereo tracks plus another stereo pair recorded backwards so that it played correctly when the cassette was turned over)
The cassette loading machine pulled the leader tape out of the blank cassette, cut it and spliced it to the start of one side of the album. The entire tape/album was wound into the cassette and the machine then spliced the end of the album onto the leader tape at the other end of the cassette.
The "master" for creating the pancakes had to be created first and track order was often different to the order on a vinyl record. This Master for cassettes needed to have the 4 tracks on it, two forward and two backwards (the other side of the cassette)
Once that Master was created it could then be duplicated at high-speed to produce the pancakes of cassette-sized tape to feed into the cassette loading machine.
For a good while, two actual mixdowns from multitrack were made, one Stereo and one Mono - you can find lots of comment about this with regard to The Beatles.
btw.....you do know that there's a dog-whistle i.e. supersonic signal on Sgt Peppers?
I did not say or imply that a new MIXDOWN was created for different commercial formats. The Mixdown was over when the 2-t Master left the recording studio.
However, cutting engineers made alterations to the overall tone of the product if they deemed it necessary and also applied compression/limiting.
If you look up "Orban Equalisers" you will find that they were ubiquitous in cutting rooms so clearly there was some re-equalisation going on.
Two things apply here - 1) Cutting Engineers sometimes added a touch of treble boost, compensating in advance for what would probably be lost in the cutting/stamping and 2) Cutting engineers knew that any excess treble would get rolled off by the filters on and limitations of the processes/machines following.
The mistake with early CD's was that the record companies just burnt those Masters onto CD's and the extra HF response of the CD format brought it through.
Outraged by the hard, sharp sound, Jimmy Page actually remixed the Zep catalogue because of this - i.e. he felt that an entire new Mixdown was often needed to suit the frequency response of digital formats.
The 2-t Master produced in the studio at Mixdown was THE Master, the definitive recording of that album. As such it was precious and was used as little as possible. All Masters for any sort of production run were made from duplicates of that original Master but 2t studio machines ran half-inch tape and at a minimum speed of 15 inches per second (ips) The best studio 2-t were 30 ips so although some degradation was inescapable with any tape duplication it was as minimal and insignificant as possible. It's a different world to copying a cassette where the tracks are only 1/32 of an inch wide and the tape is only travelling at 1 and 7/8ths ips!
In my studio, I HATED hearing what happened when we duplicated cassettes onto normal ferric-oxide tapes. Hearing all our collective hard work sounding so dull was crushing. So we only ever used Chrome tapes, even swallowing the extra cost ourselves sometimes rather than have dull sounding tapes circulating with our brand on them.
@@sophiemilton5939 no doubt the gramophone record improved over the long term, but at the time the CD came along to replace it, it was as good as it could get, and that was far from "flat" frequency response. As a teenager in the '70s I remember the ill-fated attempts at making quad records by using ultrasonic subcarriers for the back channels. This failed mainly because the average consumer turntable with coins stacked atop the cartridge to prevent mistracking just flattened the tiny undulations flat in no time. By 1980 I was using the best record playing equipment that I could afford, like the Linn LP12, with low output moving coil cartridges to reduce the unsprung mass to the minimum that technology allowed, and I still regularly replaced records that I played often when the HF part was physically ground off by the daimond stylus. That was an inevitable consequence of using a very physical medium, and even attempts at laser playback never overcame the inherent limitations. Listening to a CD was very much like listening to an early generation stereo mixdown (I try not to say "master" to avoid confusion with people who don't understand the various contexts) tape. As a music consumer, getting a recording as good as what came out of the recording studio is indeed as good as it gets.
Yes, mastering for gramophone records involved some electronic processing in addition to the RIAA curve, specifically because the physical medium's limitations. Even with RIAA, bass was a real space hog, and had to be constrained for LPs. The 45 RPM EP singles made by labels like Wax Trax and others were as good as they got on vinyl, but were really costly. I was lucky to get a lot of mine free because I was a DJ at my college radio station, and did parties with a friend who spun house music. As a consumer it was cheaper to but a CD EP, and the quality was uniform, so LPs were just as good as singles. BTW, I don't need to look up Orban, we used Orban Parasound EQ a lot in radio and TV broadcasting. We also used Orban's multiband compressor called the Optimod. Kids today think that loudness wars started with CD, when in reality it dates back to AM radio. I remember when WLS-AM and WCFL were duking it out on AM in Chicago in the '60s, then WLUP and WKQX on FM in the '70s. When I got into TV engineering, every transmitter room had an Optimod to keep audio levels legal. With TV, overmodulation interfered with the NTSC picture.
Yes, there is Dolby NR, and in the studio one of the more important jobs for the engineer or tape op was to calibrate all analog tape machines for the right levels for the Dolby A cards that gave almost no tape hiss before digital. Calibrate them wrong and you got audible "pumping" and "breathing" when the companding process wasn't working in unison. Dolby B was a different animal. Dolby Labs only released it as an IC chip that was installed in consumer recorders. And because Compact Cassette only had one normal speed, you couldn't use it for high speed duplication. That's why no mass-produced tapes had the Dolby logo, at least not lawfully. The only exception was Mobile Fidelity, who duped in real time on Nakamichi recorders with the Dolby chips inside. IIRC they also used Type II tapes, not Chrome but cobalt-doped iron oxide that used the chrome EQ setting. While open reel tape didn't use anything but ferric oxide, cassettes used several different magnetic materials, and each required different bias frequencies & levels, and different EQ settings. This was separate from Dolby, which was a companding scheme. Regular Type I tapes used 120 microsecond pre-emphasis, and Type II and IV (metal) used 70 microsecond. Open reel tape decks used EQ as well, but it was fixed. But that's why you couldn't make a master tape with pre-emphasis or Dolby NR for the target medium on the open reel master, because it was level dependent and had to be done at each individual machine.
Now obviously I can't say that some CD wasn't produced with the wrong EQ, after all the audible tweaking needed to keep a record's groove from crashing was a necessary step, and people who just didn't understand digital may have tried to apply the same old tricks to CD. But because the CD is a digital medium, no such alteration is necessary. The spiral of pits and lands always stay at a constant pitch. There was also an analog pre-emphasis option for CD that AFAIK nobody used, but maybe by mistake. But I'm not talking about peoples mistakes, I'm talking about properly made CDs that sounded bright to people who had been listening to records their whole lives. If Jimmy Page did remix the whole catalog because his ears were calibrated wrong, the joke was on him! He should have had better technical advice. I too experienced the phenomenon, but because I was by then an electrical engineer and knew the cause, I just kept listening to CDs until they were the ones that sounded normal. I already knew that even with the best playback equipment, that records had a lot of distortion and poor frequency response.
BTW, I remember sitting for a demonstration of Dolby SR at the 1985 NAB show IIRC, and it was awesome! 1/2" tape running at 30 IPS on a Studer machine, and to me it sounded every bit as good as a CD. But that would never have made it in the consumer market... Before I switched to CD, I would transcribe new records to tape, and play the tape. I also made Mini Disc "mix tapes" because it allowed digital dubs. When CD ripping became possible, that's when things got really good. I was a Peter Gabrial fan, and was dismayed that his eponymous albums sounded "muddy" and lacking in HF response even on CD. I never learned what caused it, but when those were remastered to restore the HF content, it gave them new life!
Very interesting post. I’m not technically expert, but I’ve always bought and built the best hi-fi system I could afford, to do justice to good recordings...the down side is that they really show up bad stuff.
There’ve always been a few vinyls that have been poorly recorded, but on the whole they’ve provided stellar quality and listening pleasure...I’ve got plenty from the 60’s/70’s that are played to death, but well looked after, and they still sound great.
A lot of our listening is from Qobuz at the moment, with some CD. My wife’s into Soul/Motown, and Northern Soul, and many of the reissues transferred from vinyl sound awful...hard to tell whether they were badly recorded in the first place.
Thank God for the likes of Jimmy Page, Billy Gibbons etc (and yourself by the sound of it), for going to the trouble of remastering for digital, and putting out good recordings in the first place. I wish all artists and engineers took equal trouble. For instance, we listened to around 15 different recordings of Carmina Birana on Qobuz, to try and find one that was well balanced, and didn’t slice your head of in the louder passages (just as our CD version does). A few came close, but only one recording proved truly listenable, ‘St Louis Orchestra and Chorus, Leonard Slatkin’, with a provocative nun on the cover (can’t be bad)...great sound.
There’s another anomaly that keeps rearing its head on digital streaming and recording platforms, where the same album (ostensibly), crops up on the same page, that sometimes drastically differ in quality from each other. One being ‘Otis Blue’ where several transfers in hi-res are quite razor-like, and the one that’s not hi-res, is brilliant, just like a good vinyl.
I realise there’s a lot of subjectivity involved, but good recordings/transfers really stand out, and it’s worth sifting through several offerings of albums you like, when downloading digital.
Anyway, I thought your enlightening post warranted a bit of a response.
Some years ago a friend and I had this same discussion. We worked in the engineering lab with all kinds of test equipment and decided to evaluate some of our sound equipment. One of the things we found was that the ANALOG filtering of the D to A conversion process was hit or miss. The most startling was that a true LCR filter would behave as expected. ( As long as good non ceramic capacitors were used.) However, almost every active filter we tested had a problem: First, they would all pass their spec. with single sine waves unless their input amplitude was exceeded. Adding another frequency caused intermodulation distortion above some input level depending on the filter and the frequencies. Some filters could only handle low input levels before the audio "tone" changed. We could hear the distortion some were complaining about. This distortion increased slowly with amplitude. It turned out that the op amps in the filters were slew rate limiting with the multi tone inputs. The distortion was not like clipping, but was much "softer". Through my engineering car rear I Had occasion to specify and design with hi end op amps and saw vast improvements in specification. Today, if the device is selected carefully from the specifications on the data sheet and TESTED IN CIRCUIT under realistic conditions the problems we saw no longer apply.
An aspect I find very amusing nowadays are with the older catalog reissued LP albums I've seen at retailers that are selling at near $25 (US). As back in the early 1980s, those same albums were selling at the "clearance" record section shelves for $2.
Yes!
I personally use vinyl because I like actually holding the music, and I feel like its good training for my patience and attention span, as I can't switch to the next song the second I don't like the current song.
That makes perfect sense
I don't subscribe to vinyl worship but you have identified the positives here succinctly. Particularly the not being able to easily switch from track to track if you don't like the first ten seconds of a song, surely results in the positive experience of having a song that didn't first appeal growing on you gradually until it can in some cases become preferable to those 'instant gratification' tracks that you previously first listened to. I have personally experienced this many times in the distant past . . . the seventies in my case. Eventually I came to see an album as a whole work and not just a collection of songs. 'The whole is greater than the sum of its parts'.
The glory days of the true Long Play album. Listening to it as the artist had intended. It's crazy how much popularity difference artists experienced once the "single" was an item. There are very many long play records that are cast aside because they do not have that single smash hit.
@@nofreebeer Singles preceded LPs of course..... LPs were the new thing on the block ....
Norway 2 - you make a good point about listening to the entire album rather than playing certain tracks you prefer. However, I used to do just that as a teenager even with a record - I just stayed close to the turntable and would move the needle to where i wanted it - bit less convenient but very do-able.
Richard Thompson (a fantastic song writer/guitarist and singer from the UK) has also lamented the fact that few people listen to an entire album these days - he sees an album as a collection of songs written to be listened to together.
4:28 I'm pretty sure in most turntables, the needle cartridge (down at the end of the tonearm where the needle is) is what contains the magnet and coil assembly that translates the needle movement to electronic signals. This video makes it seem like this happens in the opposite end of the tonearm where the counterweight is, which is not normally how this works.
Spot on
Yeah, I think that was a really colossal error the uploader made. You'd get no signal whatsoever at the back end of the tonearm, with a large coil and magnet like that.
You are correct: It is a big boo-boo by the Engineer or the illustrator! Cheers, Geoff.
Later on, he indicated that high amplitude signals cause the RECORD to bounce around, when he clearly meant the needle & tonearm. This video has a lot right with it, but got some fundamental things quite wrong.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, bitch about minor details.
I went to a concert some years back and loved the opening act, so much so that I purchased a vinyl from their merch table. The lead singer was ecstatic!
There’s no denying that streaming is wildly convenient, and with more streaming services embracing lossless compression, the quality is outstanding.
I enjoy vinyl for unquantifiable reasons. There’s something about relaxing on a Friday evening with a glass of scotch while listening to your favorite LP on wax.
I audition with Apple Music before buying on vinyl. Records are expensive. It’s OK to enjoy both worlds.
I enjoy the static and crackles of vinyl. Who am I kidding? It drives me crazy. 😂
@@drinkinslim Yeah that's one of the big reasons I'm not into that format. But I understand that some people don't mind it. There's plenty of room for all of us in the market.
@@drinkinslimDon't be cheap. Purchase a quality record cleaner and some anti-static fluid. Problem solved.
@@almo2001 Anti-static fluid, and/or a record cleaner can alleviate if not completely eliminate this. My step-grandfather had something similar for 78's. There's some maintenance involved, and one has to properly adjust tracking, initial calibration of the tone-arm's cartridge. There's pros and cons to each format.
@@Renshen1957 No pros for me. I have no room to store the records. I want it to sound the same the hundredth time I play it. I can detect if the hole is even slightly off center as I listen to a lot of drone ambient. I don't like having to flip the record. I get that there are reasons other people want vinyl, but literally zero of them apply to me. Except maybe album art.
Grew up with vinyl, the introduction of CDs and digital recording blew my mind and still retains its clarity. I’ve done a lot of time in studios and when things went digital we could actually take something home from the studio which was identical to what was recorded. FLAC forever for me.
Found the opposite, someone tried to show off with CD in my youth before I'd ever got one which was MUCH MUCH later ( I think when required in PC),
perhaps they were using lofi equipment attached to the CD but it just sounded non vibrant flat and dead.
Perhaps didnt help we had a relatively expensive Hi Fi component separates at home at the time to compare to -
I'd been listening to bands like Def Leppard within this scope sounded almost like it was in live setting other than the odd crackles with the amp firmly cranked to rock !
Which oddly those kind of little imperfections in vinyl for me managed to convince you somehow that its even more "real".
Whilst the flat digitally perfect sound or mastering has been a bit offputting for me when listening to music.....
go listen to real music in a pub.....its not flat and perfect there are issues with noise etc :D
Admittedly the issues with early sound sampling (particularly on PC file quality) which was pretty rubbish early on when compressed, have been replaced with far better imperceivably good quality now with good compression formats.
Although I'm not an audiophile now and so haven't invested in the music kit like my dad did back then, it was a clear lesson to me there can be a big difference between HiFi equiptment and others. Perhaps even more important than whether you are listening to one format or another is the cost/quality of the amplifier/speakers or headset too!
Though as a rock guitar guy I'm more "crank it and make noise" and not so much the discerning for the most ideal sound type though could be if I wasn't so tight....
@@afoster1621 Yes, back in the day, there was no way a teenager could afford audiophile systems to play their vinyl. I certainly couldn’t! I was always reduced to those ‘all in one’ stacks with tape and radio tuner built in. As for the speakers……😞 When CDs came out I managed to afford another ‘all in one’ unit but this time, as well as a turntable, it had a much sought after CD player. A Panasonic system I think. Even though I already had the vinyl, I purchased Led Zep 3 on CD and discovered the much talked about Bass drum pedal squeak which had been captured on tape during ‘Since I’ve Been Loving You’. Even on a basic low-end unit, the pedal squeak was crystal clear. Throw on the vinyl and it was inaudible. Maybe this could be heard on unaffordable equipment on the record pressing, but I’d never get to find out. The CD really opened up my listening experience, even on a basic unit a teenager would get for Christmas. When I finally got separates and better speakers the CD listening experience got better. It was already clear that everything audible to the human ear which had been captured onto tape on original masters had been transferred to CD. All the audible information a human can hear was there. Now it was about what a decent amp and speakers could do to reproduce the same experience the band and producer were hearing when they made the final mixes in the studio control room. Providing the mastering process to CD was faithful (hopefully ‘flat’ because there’s no need for EQ loss compensation like there is with mastering for vinyl), it was finally possible to get a studio control room experience at home. I remember how great it was after a day in a recording studio listening to mixes to go home with a CD of the mixes instead of a lousy cassette tape! With CD, we could test our mixes for reproduction on inferior units, like radios, ghetto blasters and in-car systems. We knew a final mix played on even the most basic of separates Hi-Fi units would sound faithful. Unlike mastering for vinyl where the compromises were about deciding what you could get away with losing to fit on the limitations of the media, mastering to CD was about finding a sound which would be consistent with the limitations of the equipment it would be played on!
I don’t buy vinyl because it sounds better (and I really wish the myth of vinyl’s superiority would end). I buy it because when I really like a band or artist, I want to support them in some meaningful but cool way, because vinyl is COOL. I like how big vinyl is, I like the artwork and items artists sometimes included with my record, and I like knowing that I am supporting artists. They get A LOT more money if you buy a concert ticket, download their music, or buy a vinyl than if you were to just stream their stuff.
Ease of access is great. I listen to most of my music via downloads and streaming. Most people who own vinyl’s do. But streaming music isn’t sexy. Vinyls are sexy.
i have about 250+ vinyl's, being 23 years old, i just like being able to hold my music instead of seeing it as an icon in a computer folder, don't know, just means more to me..
but have you ever claimed that vinyl have better sound? be honest
also when it comes to physical midia, vinyl can easily outlast CDs/DVDs since its much less fragile.
A vinyl from 50 years ago still can be played and still has value for collectors and the like. A CD from 20 years ago is worthless and possibly already corroded.
It does sound better. Not better than an digital signal, but better than the digital signal we have otherwise acces to, which is streams. I am not sure what the difference between vinyl and CDs are, but I can certainly hear the difference of a spotify stream and a vinly. The reason isn't that "analog sounds better" but rather that Spotify uses much less data to play back the music than any physicsl medium would and thst is a good thing, for the most part, because it keeps the data usage down. You can hear the diference if you are used to listen to a song on physical media and then listen to it on a stream (emphasis on listen to it). I know that Tidal offers CD level audio quality, but hardly anyone uses Tidal and I imagine that hardly anyone using Tidal uses that feature since it like doubles the monthly cost. I really dig this video, but wish that he had talked about that.
Btw you really don't need to be an expert to notice this. Like I said, if you are used to one level of quality, you will notice a drop in quality.
I'm convinced that part of the reason for this "digital vs. vinyl" debate has to do with some very bad audio engineering that happened in CD re-releases. For example: a Stan Kenton recording on vinyl vs. a CD and the vinyl sounds way better. But the cause was that the CD had tons of unbalanced reverb added, and too much audio compression and would sound like it was recorded in a cheap tin foil box. Bad engineering can impact the quality of the sound way, way more than any mechanical format and data transferring quirks.
Yeah, there's a nice video of Seru Giran comparing their release of "La Grasa de las Capitales" vinyl vs CD vs their own remastering (made by the bassist). You can find it here: czcams.com/video/H860CDmUst0/video.html. The difference is astounding. I have a CD copy of that record and I had always wondered if the weird stuff in the recording were due to them being old or some other stuff. It turns out the CD remaster was not done with too much love.
The art of mastering is lost , hell some even do it on a pc.
@@davidspendlove5900 What problem do you have with using a pc to master?
I'm curious about which Kenton recording you're speaking of. I used to record in the hall named after Kenton at North Texas in the 90s. Engineering for big bands during Kenton's era was probably crude by even 60s 2-4trk standards.
I'd bet someone tried to enlarge the recording with various digital FX.
And this reminds me I have a reel to reel of Kenton's band playing at NTU that someone made for my grandfather... No player, just the tape.
@@chestyvulva They did not have pcs in the 60s or 70s
I too believed that there was no actual benefit to having vinyl at all and had no desire for any physical media at all. That was until I was at my cousin's house who had the proper setup and, I don't know the best way to describe it, but I "felt" the music was right there, in a way I hadn't really heard before except with live music. Fast forward about a year, I got a nice pair of older, well-broken in speakers that sounded FANTASTIC on the paid Spotify 320kbs stream. After enjoying that for awhile I eventually did want to try vinyl and see if it really was worth it, and I absolutely have to say, and this is specifically with modern manufacturing techniques, especially 180g vinyl, it is ABSOLUTELY living up to the hype. Sure, older records have their issues, but many of the problems highlighted in the video have been engineered around these days.
It's hard for me to describe what specifically is different, but I feel like, while a high quality digital file can capture clarity to a completeness undiscernable to the human ear, there definitely seems to be more proper resonance in the analog format. Cymbals sound like cymbals, and not a recording of a cymbal. I don't know the technical details as to why this is, just an observation. Additionally, the volume can go up without any unpleasant artifacts from the digitization either, this is especially more noticeable in analog synthesized music i.e. Kraftwerk, you can turn that up really high volume and not even notice it until you try to talk to the person next to you.
Really, I was just as skeptical as anybody else at first, and while vinyl itself may not necessarily outperform other analog formats i.e. ISO9660 CD, or tape, or FLAC, there is a significant difference that I can tell, especially in modern manufactured vinyl. Listening to Pink Floyd's Animals on newly-remastered, re-released on 180g vinyl was... just amazing.
"Cymbals sound like cymbals, and not a recording of a cymbal." Are you comparing to uncompressed digital? Compression ill-effects are most commonly heard on cymbals and other high frequency instruments, but that problem should not be there with CDs or higher res digital files.
@@TassieLorenzo it's something I know I'm going to need to test more, I haven't hooked up a cd player to my phone setup, so I have only had Spotify to compare it to , which is compressed, although I do pay for the 320kb/s stream, don't remember if I tested FLACs on it but I know those will compare to vinyl very well
After listening to my records on crappy turntables for the last 55 years, I finally bought an expensive turntable and needle that required careful setting up. I have collected hundreds of CD’s over the last 36 years along with more vinyl records. With a great turntable and needle I can honestly say my records sounds as crystal clear as any digital recording. Some records sound more intense with vinyl than others. A lot depends on who mixed and recorded the music and what quality control measures were incorporated into the vinyl record. Some reissued popular records of specific rock bands are far superior than the original releases over 40 years ago. The vinyl record itself is thicker, physically flatter with less wobble judging by the needle travel when turning. Improvements have been made with record production. I am sad many record stores died within the last 15 years but now you find Walmart stocking more and more LP records, which is great for us record consumers.
That is the point. For analog you need rather good and expensive equipment to get all about the stored music. For digital $50 cd player is rather same as $50000 cd player. Yeah there are some differences, but the quality difference in the sound is really hard to catch and needs special instruments to spot (jitter etc).
Compressed digital formats are different. In there you can definitely hear difference at least in some instruments and when compression rate is high. But that is competely different matter.
That's because most vinyl was recorded and mixed digitally then transferred to vinyl after. It sounds as clear as a digital recording cause it is.
I buy vinyls for the album art.
Buy the record, throw away the disc and put up the art like a poster :D
Muufle id be happy to take the disc off your hands
basically
The concept of a self contained album has disappeared with the internet, which is quite an irony in the age of media.
@@eamesaerospace2805 Why would you need the disc?
Music is overrated tbh
Vinyl allows everyone to be record-holders...... I'll see myself out
Lol
PUN ALERT!
What u r talking about.
..... haha I got the joke. Put away beer & enjoyed the pun.
@@AndreAndFriends He did. Dont need think too much about it. He did. And then left. Woooosh *we left standing gasping then spending evening explaining it to aþnþan probably ending up on some other subject than the original misunderstanding was all about. He left cuz he wins and being of that quality and worth.. he knew what was best for him... makes it prrfect! Aaaaaaaaaaaaa
No contest.. we have no choice but to absorb its genius.. or reject it cuz process it and go nuts in the process celebrating and/or cringe dodging like our primals say🤘😊
LMAO!!!
FCKN BRILLIANT! You just won the 'net!
One needle traversing one groove and producing stereo channel is still a marvel which is why I love vinyl.
This is a very good video, but it does not cover the quality loss due to lossy digital compression as well as the fact, that today's music usually passes somewhere through a digital stage before getting pressed on vinyl. Vinyl records also wear out. We all know the crackling noise from damages or dust.
Lossy formats, like MP3, remove audio information. As lower the bitrate, as more will be removed. MP3 often cuts very high and low frequencies, but it also removes information in the rest of the audible spectrum.
There is an easy way to see and hear what MP3 is removing, as shown in the following video: czcams.com/video/UoBPNTAFZMo/video.html
320 kbps MP3 are still sound good enough to be played on large systems, but below that the losses may be audible to the younger crowd or just create the feel of less energy.
I really liked that the video touched the topic of mastering for vinyl. Even pressing a small batch of vinyl records can be expensive. Screwing up the mixdown or mastering can render the whole batch useless. So, it is a good idea to hire a professional, instead of attempting DIY or using an automated online service. A good mastering engineer can improve the sound significantly. Mastering is an artform in itself, were the decisions are made, which influence the feel of the record. Some vinyl sound better, just because they invested in better mastering. In my opinion, the craft is making the real difference and not the format. Though, working on a vinyl release may result in better mastering decisions.
[Added Jan. 14, 2023:]
I want to clarify that I meant file size compression (eg. MP3) and not dynamic compression when I was talking about "lossy digital compression". I thought this was obvious. Apparently I did not made this clear enough when looking at some of the answers.
tbh I feel like the lossiness of different formats is largely overstated, ultimately what matters is that the people making the music are actually working within (and paying attention to) the constraints of the compression during mixing.
ie, in visual media, paletted images are a form of compression. Poorly downsampled media will look terrible at 256 colors, but there's also artwork that is genuinely stunning because they went in knowing they had 256 colors to work with.
A song that's both quiet and loud would want a high bit depth for more dynamic range, but might genuinely be ok at low sample rates if they don't use any of the cut off frequencies. The trouble I guess is that most streaming platforms only want one audio format, even if MPEG/others provide more tuning options.
@@ShinyQuagsireMP3 bitrate limitations are very different from color pallet limitations. MP3 has an algorithm, which removes audio it thinks are less noticeable to the listener. As more you compress, as more noticeable the loss of audible information will be. Maybe don't think of it as reducing the color pallet of a PNG. Think of it more like the quality slider when saving JPGs. As lower the JPG quality, as smaller the file, as worse the picture.
Dynamic range compression affects the volume. I do not think that MP3 compression does much in this regard. As a producer you can control that the MP3 is not clipping. Maybe there are some instruments you mach choose, which are not as badly affected from lossy compression, I don't know. But overall it is not very predictable what exactly the MP3 algorithm removes.
Of course, you can produce really bad sounding lo-fi crap with glitches and whatnot, where an MP3 compression can't make it much worse. But this would be a very special case.
This said, I agree with you that lossy compression is overrated on most home hi-fi systems. Streaming services can get away with pretty low bitrates, but you can fall on your face playing a low bitrate MP3 on a Function-One. I think that 320 kbps MP3 is just good enough and delivers the energy needed for large events, but there are some people saying that they only play lossless on those systems, event though the audience makes a lot of noise, too. This can be debated endlessly and probably depends on the type of music and the type of event.
redbook CD audio has a theoretical maximum sound to noise ratio of 96dB. Most vinyl can't achieve more than 80dB. Thats 16dB of detail/noise floor that is very difficult to explain away objectively as being "equal" in quality.
I guess what is really being said here is that, because of the nostalgia factor, most people subjectively feel or perceive no difference. That doesn't mean there is not.
Mastering/treatment and the actual quality of the recording plays such a big role in the perceived quality, but if you have *exactly* the same for both mediums, there is objectively more detail that can be perceived with a digital recording
Streaming/downloading digital copies of a recording is infinitely more convenient than dealing with any physical format, and depending on the bit rate and the compression the sound quality can be just as good or better than any physical format.
There's no utility in owning a physical copy of a recording anymore. Vinyl is the best physical format because it offers better artwork and liner notes on a big 12" album jacket. 7% of record buyers don't even own a turntable, and nearly half never listen to the records they buy. People don't buy records because they want a useful item, they buy them because they want a piece of art.
@@RedScotland Sorry to break the news for you that using CZcams will allow "them" to create profiles of you and that your cellphone has GPS to track you. I don't think that they invented the CD back rhen to track us. The average consumer did not even have internet, yet. You can secretly embed encoded information in audio. But this can be done in analog audio, also.
In my opinion a vinyl record played on a good quality turntable with decent components has an extremely satisfying sound. The actual frequency measurements won't compare to a CD or high bitrate lossless audio file, but to my ears it's a high quality naturally pleasing sound that seems to draw me into the music. I still listen to a lot of digital music day to day, but when I just want to sit down and really take in the music I spin a record.
Alot of cartridges will go way past 20k hertz easily surpassing red book CD format.
Wrong , some high end cartridges go well over 20 k.
That's respectable. We know that digital and CD's are superior, but love that elusiveness that vinyl gives us.
@@topherkrock Technically superior, but the mastering of the CD can make it sound lifeless.
@@dropit7694, the same can be said of *ANY* mastering that is sub-par. The same *quality of mastering* on CD will produce a much more vibrant and alive sound than that of vinyl.
I own, and can re-sell, my vinyl and CDs. Digital music is fine for the convenience factor, but you don’t get the album art, liner notes, and collectibility of physical media. Additionally, your favorite artists can’t autograph or take pictures with your digital media. So, from the perspective of someone that enjoys the act of listening to and admiring works of art, physical media is superior simply because it provides me a connection with the music in addition to a reproduction of its sound.
Well said.
Yes you can take a bath on resale, and you should because both vinyl and cds will wear out. The art and notes are great on an album but absolutely suck on a CD and I can look all that up anyway online. Autographs? Please you are trying too hard. Physical media is not superior in any area by your points, and of course you don't mention the upside of files. I can find all my songs and albums or artists in a database in a flash, and I can get out of my house with all 10,000 albums in one hand if I have a fire, or want to take it on vacation. I never get that bummer of the new scratch, and I can give copies to friends if I wish.
John Smith stfu
@@johnsmith1474 It ain't that deep bro...
Now if we can get people back to using horse-drawn carriages...
At one point, I had amassed something like 2,000 vinyl LPs. But, I've gotta say I'm spoiled by the lack of surface noise of digital.
What surprised me in this video is the intentional reduction in dynamic range employed by current digital producers to make the music "louder", which negates some of the extra range available in digital. It sounds like the compression used by radio stations.
Back in the days of analog tape I was frustrated with the best equipment I could buy (I had some good gear), when I was trying to make nature sounds recordings. Like recording a thunderstorm, for instance. It was impossible to set levels so that thunderclaps weren't oversaturated, and not have more subtle sounds buried in hiss. Twenty years ago, I bought a Marantz CDR300 portable CD recorder and a pretty nice single point stereo microphone, and was finally able to make recordings that satisfied me. Incredible dynamic range simply not available in analog media. And it seems these producers are taking a portion of that advantage and throwing it away.
@smart451cab, I am so very glad that your statements corroborate my comments regarding digital vs. analog. Some people just can't seem to grasp the concept of an extra 55 dB of dynamic headroom nor zero tape hiss!
That was an interesting choice. Why did you choose a CD recorder for outdoor use, when surely a DAT machine would have been more practical? Did you not have trouble with short battery life and laser skipping?
@@musicandfilms9956 The CDR300 had an optional lead-acid battery (Yup, lead-acid like a vehicular battery only smaller, maybe motorcycle size). The battery charge was more than sufficient to record a couple CD sides. This setup was more luggable than portable, but it suited me alright.
No problems with laser skip. Since the goal was the exclusion of manmade sounds, the recorder was always stationary when recording. The biggest problem I had was years later discovering that I failed to finalize some disks and no longer had the Marantz to do it with.
A DAT recorder might've worked too. But, with the CDs I could just pop the disks into my PCs optical drive and be good to rip, which was convenient. DAT was winding down at the time, and production of the recorders ended a year or two later.
Another option that I used on occassion was to record direct to HDD on a laptop.
@@Vector_Ze Thanks for that!
CD marked the most noticeable audible improvement to music playback, in my lifetime. Early ADD recordings were like vinyl, without the pops and static. Of course, now that I have learned to restore and maintain my records, the difference is less concerning. CD was less susceptible to things like subsonic feedback and such when listening at louder volumes. It's just nice to have options.
0:33
My hand hurts looking at that...
Why? I dont understand
@@asyafiqnugroho7900 If you got your -hand- ex-hand stuck in it........
@@sabersz *your ex-hand
@@tigara1290 true 😂
Oh God true
"I use vinyl because it's expensive and inconvenient"
Linecraftman literally me
Honestly, if you want high quality music just try to find a lossless compression version like a .flac file.
@@durnsidh6483 Strictly speaking it's impossible to have a truly 'lossless' digital recording due to the very nature of a digital recording, but of course, if you ignore the digitisation process itself, then a lossless compression format stores the exact result of the digitisation step, while a lossy format is throwing out and approximating large chunks of information.
Then again, people have this mistaken belief than an analogue recording has infinite resolution/quality, which it doesn't, because there's still a limit to how precisely you can record a waveform onto a physical medium, no matter the method used. (whether vinyl, tape or anything else.)
@@durnsidh6483 Did you watch the video? I ask because I didn't hear that suggested or that it was needed.
I think its just more of a fun experience
The thing i love about Vinyl is the limitation on Dynamic range. The limitation forces the signal to conform to a narrower range of the frequency spectrum and causes some compression of the audio giving way to harmonic distortion which I think sounds great. That along with the subtle white noise generated by the needle (or tape) and the analog components results in a unique sound. Obviously it’s contextual and dependent on how the music is mixed and whatnot, but it absolutely does not sound the same as digital.
I love digital for the ability to capture more dynamic range as well (i’m a sound designer who specializes on low end frequencies), but yeah digital and analog have their time and place.
After I've heard the differences between digital and analog on a psylocibin trip, I can't unhear it anymore. The warmth and soul in analog music , it was otherworldly. Like the music was a person crawling out of the speakers. The feeling and sound didn't change much after I got sober again. That's what convinced me that the sound of vinyl is better than digital.
You wrote this even after he explained, with sources, that analog and digital have NO discernable difference due to the high sample rate. Any difference you're hearing is due to equipment.
@@dhkatz_ no it's not. many modern albums have two different masters for digital and analog to fit their medium better. so vinyl of modern albums actually sounds different.
The nice thing about youtube is that i sometimes hear people say things that makes me less lonely in this world.
I can't let this one go. At 4:30, the drawing is completely false. All the electronic parts are located in the front end of the arm, in the cartridge. The part of the arm shown is the counter weight, to keep the arm balanced. It's an engineering video, it should be factually correct.
at that point I completely stopped listening to his descriptions.
i said the same thing...
Didn't think I'd be the first person to spot that
tru dat
Very good Zed. It's stunning people watched this for 2 months before you pointed this out.
Back in the 80s there were people who claimed they could hear a difference between identical amplifiers if the case was black or silver.
Thermal expansion and radiation from black surfaces may have altered the performance of small electrical components.... but its probably psychosomatic.
@@recklessroges How is it psychosomatic when your brain affects your brain?
Those differences people thought they heard were obviously just in their heads.
Psychosomatics is when you suddenly have back pain because of stress in your brain.
If you want a laugh google for directional speaker cables.
Albeit, back in the 80's, digital audio recording was nothing compared to what it is today. I'd be somewhat inclined to believe that there was a legitimate difference back then.
Nope, it was all people who massively overestimated the quality of their ears.@@BRICK8492
Thanks so much for this! I have collections of both digital and vinyl and I love both.
You didn't mention a very important fact. The art on the album cover adds so much to our experience of our music. I'm sticking with vinyl no matter what. Have a nice day.
Buy a poster.
That’s called a cover
Which you can still have presented to you for viewing, even if you can't hold it. What other reasons you got that can be knocked down?
Records are a cool thing to have, something you can actually touch and appreciate. It’s a whole process. You don’t get that feeling from streaming music off your phone
You also dont have to worry about a video (or entire channels) getting taken down for copyright.
One of my go to YT Channels for music, Xerf Xpec, got two strikes on his channel, meaning if he were to get another his channel would be terminated making it risky to continue uploading. Fortunately one strike was removed and he continued to upload but this is one example.
@@Trippsy05 i love Xerf Xpec
also large high quality album art is cool
@@nielsbaumann6485 exactly
You can hold CDs, too, and they don't ream out the grooves and collect dust, crackle, and pops over the years.
It always amazed me how all the ensembled instrument's sounds could be reproduced in a single plastic groove.
@Erok Magnag It's like, I kind of understand how modulation works. But, thinking about it hurts my brain. Especially with radio waves. It's hard for me to fathom how many electromagnetic waves are passing through me right now loaded with information. It's all magic.
and now you know
Your comment was balanced and sensible.
If you’re amazed by that wait until you discover a tv.
@@vitorfernandes651
We're not referring to people found their record player in a trash dumpster.
I definitely have the want to own the albums i love most physically, I'd say all of the vinyl albums i own are albums with multiple songs i love and can repeat over and over again. I usually listen to music digitally, but holding it in my hand feels so cool. I've never really been into CDs or casettes because of how finicky they can be, so i naturally went to vinyl, part of that being my love of retro or older technology.
The "stairstep, jagged, non-continuous" diagram of digital PCM is true only while stored. All Digital to Analog converters (even cheap ones) create a continuous and smoothed wave on output.
Geee, guys! At 4:45, you show the counterweight as the transducer, which is not how pickups are built!
It's the needles that feel for sound vibration
@@rob6154 I know, but the magnets and coils are both in the pickup, not in the counterweight as the video seems to imply
@@eddieolsson5449 100% correct it is a totally wrong depiction of how it works. the coil is upfront at the end of the needle
I don't think he is wrong. It's just an bad diagram of the cantilever that is inside the stylus head. I think this is what he tried to depict.
www.google.com/search?q=stylus+vinyl+how+it+works&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enSE758SE758&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=bVoKnG5v_e31RM%253A%252CFZ4Y38wUDVnNDM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kTuwqV9Sx51ziNHFisezQrNSQ2gfA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx25nZvJnjAhWDpYsKHbReCGIQ9QEwGHoECAMQCA#imgrc=m7ixFYXY7jZAQM:&vet=1
Yup just 100% wrong. Always best to get someone who actually knows how stuff works when presenting it.
At 4:30 the process that you portray as happening inside the counterweight but the process is really happening in the cartridge on the other end of the tonearm.
You also forgot to take the ‘moving coil’ design into consideration here, which is the same process the other way around.
Other than that, good video!
Yes, AFAIK no turntables work that way.
Said the same, must be talking about some old tech or something.
It always happens in the cartridge , be that Moving Coil, Moving Magnet (or Ceramic in the 60s ) or any other transducer technology .The tone arm cannot respond fast enough owing to its mass.
Thanks! I was just about to write the same.....
That was a throwback to the first magnetic cartridges in 1926 where they had a half pound horse shoe magnet. :D
Of course this is a channel about engineering, and this video covered many topics related to vinyl, but there's so much more to say about it. Vinyl is a format that brought music to the people, it allowed the creation of a music industry, it has an incredible cultural impact across several generations. And, of course, the nostalgia factor is important for many people, but more than that is the fact that vinyl was a way to enjoy music. Your collection of vinyls was something precious, it was a part of your identity. It was a relatively fragile format, so you had to treat it with care, and in the end it was a way to give value to music. Vinyls also had a big cover with artwork, in a time where there was no internet to search for graphic material about your music heroes, so that artwork was your visual connection with that music
Digital music is just better, more convenient, easy to access, and you don't need to clean records, or change the stylus or anything like that, and still it will sound always perfect. Technology made everything better, except for one thing: it made it so easy to create and so easy to access, that now music has lost its value. And it's not technology's fault, but the streaming services that took over the music industry and changed the way we "consume" music. Even the word "consume" is very revealing.
I don't necesarily miss the clicks and plops or any of the inconveniences of the format, but i value the excitement every time i had a new record, and the deep connection i had with every one of them
I agree! Streaming means the demise of ownership of an art form. Ownership of things by individuals has always been a part of the Human Condition.
You missed some important points regarding the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. 1) The audio has to have passed through a low-pass filter that cuts off all frequencies past 20kHz. 2) Once you've done that, after you sample the waveform at twice that rate (40kHz), and then you convert those samples back to a wave, there is EXACTLY ONE waveform that will pass through those samples, and it's smooth and continuous. Therefore, a digital file sampled in this way PERFECTLY reproduces the original waveform. (The one that's been though the low-pass filter.) The resultant wave is NOT a stairstep pattern like you show. It's a perfect, continuous wave. (It's actually impossible to create a true square wave or stairstep wave. It's always a summation of a large number of sine waves; it's always smooth. That's just how electricity works.) (The extra 4kHz in the 44kHz sampling I believe is for eliminating aliasing artifacts in frequencies very close to 20kHz.)
@MF Nickster Right. I was just using the example from the video regarding CD audio. MP3 for instance, uses a 16 kHz low-pass filter.
i remember when cd's first came out. the audio quality was mind blowing. i was a big head phone user. the cd's being produced back in the late 70's and 80's, (some were prototype units we were evaluating) I can distinctly remember i could hear everything - every instrument - on the recording clearly. it seems that over the years, the "sound engineers" , or people that call themselves engineers have been mixing and compressing everything so it can be reproducible on small devices with piezo type transducers (which coincidentally sound like crap) so the sound quality would be somewhat acceptable on the small device. but yea, the digital format can hold much more information and at one time sounded so much better. but what a lot of people don't realize that the final mix down of the recording is probably the biggest reason many of the old recordings on vinyl sound so good despite the technical advantage of digital.
That's the hard part these days-trying to find a record label that applies the audio fidelity that you prefer. There are still astonishingly exquisite recordings being made for the mass market.
I concur
@@JazzWithJakeInSF Serban Ghenea and Jaycen Joshua have really fantastic work as mix engineers for the "mass market"
So true... The CDs were a revelation as they came out, so much superior to anything else but live ...
And this is one biggest reason I shun the remasters nowadays - they are ALWAYS inferior in mastering quality to the originals.
I remember hearing complaints about the early CD's especially, having too much dynamic range, causing difficulty hearing the quiet passages. Some listeners were so accustomed to the compression or gain riding required for vinyl recordings, that they had no knowledge of the real dynamic range in music.
I just now realized that the shape of the A in Real engineering is the shape of the tooth of a gear. Das it mane.
Can't unsee
I thought it was the gateway arch in St. Louis
except theres no videos on actual gears :(
@@extraox3879 I always assumed it was arch because arches have been a part of engineering for millennia.
Its about owning a physical copy of it too. Today most media we consume is leaning more and more to streamed. You don't own anything anymore. If the service goes down at any time or the piece is taken out of the service, you lose access to all that media. Owning physical copies allow you to still enjoy it even if the service goes away.
Option C: 🏴☠️
Nostalgia is a large part of the appeal, but its also the fact that the recording is not just analogue, but physical. Put a record on, disconnect the speakers, put your ear near the needle and you will hear the music. Devise some sort of crank system and you could even play it back with zero electricity (albeit without perfect control over rotational speed)
Yes, the stair-step presentation of a digital waveform is completely wrong.
As you stated, there's something called the nyquist sampling theorem that states and mathematically proves that you can reproduce EXACTLY the original sampled waveform as long as you're sampling rate is double the nyquist frequency, which is the highest frequency you're interested in reproducing.
Since humans have a limit in hearing frequencies at around 20khz, using 22.050hz as your nyquist frequency ENSURES that the reproduction of any waveform using sampling rate of 44.100hz is perfect. It ever surpasses your ability to hear and thus allows for anti aliasing filter to be added to make sure ultrasounds (frequencies that exceed your nyquist frequency) won't alias back to the hearing range. If you use even higher sampling rate you just allow the AA filter to be much mellower in slope, thus ensuring there's no issues that steep angle filters can have at the corner frequency.
There's a a relay good video regarding this issue and you really can't argue with science of it at all. It's well established and rigorously tested and shown to be a fact over decades.
czcams.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/video.html
+1
At the risk of asking something covered in the vid, wihich is lquite ong: How comes if I reduce 44100@16 to 44100@8, I either get dithering noise or without dithering a different kind of noise, crumbly, like what you would expect a waveform with a harsh step-pattern would sound like? Doesn't that mean that the audio equipment is pretty good at reproducing the digital signal in those micro-details? Or does this mean my computer is not applying any anti-aliasing filter and we just have to assume other types of equipment specialized for music does? If so, which does and which doesn't? And why have I never encountered such a filter as an option I can turn on or off on my computer?
I'm still a believer in 24 bits for listening. (And of course 32 bits for editing.)
@@Dowlphin You think this video is long? THIS here is a long video: czcams.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/video.html
I strongly recommend you watch it, because it answers your questions. The effects of lower bit-depths are discussed starting at 8:45. In short, you get quantization errors, which lead to a raised noise floor. That's NOT what a "waveform with a harsh step-pattern would sound like". Also, you can't hear the difference between properly mastered 16 bit and 24 bit.
@@Dowlphin Very often the anti-aliasing filter is a physical LP-filter on the circuit board or circuitry inside AD-converter at the input because they assume you never need to set it on/off by choice. And even if it's DSP filter, they usually don't let you mess about with it since you really do need it or you'll get aliasing which is basically never something you want when sampling anything.
@Dowlphwin The raw idea is that with 16 bits, the signal to noise rato is 96db. If your 'quiet' listening room has 30db noise level, then you'll have to listen to your 16-bit music at the volume level of 126 db, before the digitalization noise raises above your room noise. Hardly anyone listens to music that loud and if you did, you'd hear enough ringing in your ears that you wouldn't hear any quiet sounds anyway.
For all practical purposes, 16 bits is just about as much as we could possibly hear in ideal condition.For all practical purposes red, green and blue dots on TV screens are enough. It would be nice to have infrared and ultraviolet dots as well. But for practical purposes of human perception, RGB is all we need.
The one thing I miss about vinyl is the artwork, digital album art is a small square and there are no credits, that’s what’s missing for me. It would be nice if the likes of Apple Music and Spotify did more in the way of credits and artwork.
I agree. Album liners are a must!
Yes, agree. Album art with vinyl was a big plus.
Why are you talking in past tense? Almost all bands release their new stuff on vinyl. And many albums come with many different colored version. vinyl is truly back now
@@HeavyMetalGamingHD true but my point is the digital releases should also include digital art credits etc, a hi res pdf would be nice.
@@HeavyMetalGamingHD, I knew the world wasn't ready for digital electronics in the 70s, but this is completely and utterly ridiculous. Here we are 50 years later and probably 99.44% of people still can't tell the difference between digital and analog. Of course they have probably never experienced the difference since MOST recordings these days still have analog somewhere in the menu and those same 'most' don't even know for what to look/listen.
Vinyl will never hold a candle to digital, but sadly, some people are motorheads who think Pioneer, Cerwin Vega, and JBL sound great. :( :( :(
I have been spinning vinyl since the 50's when my dad used to take me to Wolfson's Records in my home town every Friday night. He used to take me out to eat and then give me a dollar for a 45. Then he used to go bowling. This record I got for .77 cents used to keep me entertained for the evening. There were no babysitters or people to tell me not to touch the record player or do this or do that or 'turn it down'. It was pure bliss and still is!! This was our laptop or phone today. RIP Ricky Nelson!!
As someone who grew up with vinyl, all I remember is all the excess noise it created over the music.
Since my streaming playlist has 4k songs, vinyl gives me more connection to my fav songs and artists who are otherwise lost in my sea of music. It also helps remove me from my phone dependency while working.
I always find it weird when people talk about the nostalgic appeal of vinyl. I grew up listening to vinyl (and occasionally cassette) and I HATED it. Endlessly trying to clean the disk, always worrying about fingerprints and dust, worrying about tracking pressure, worrying about how old your stylus was, the expense of a good turntable, treating disks like they were priceless artifacts, and after all that STILL getting music that was full of pops, crackles and hiss ... Augh!
@No Idol Digital Sucks. Most of us never moved away from vinyl so it's unfair to say that people will be sucked into anything.
I always find it weird when people complain about pops and crackles in vinyl.
i'm a new collector (only started 5 yrs ago)
I have over 300 records, spanning from the 60s to the present.
only ~5% of them have what I would call "crackle and pops"
the rest are all basically dead quiet.
James James: You've either got some great filtering circuitry on your hi-fi equipment, or you've got something wrong with your ears.
@@JamesJames-gc2kl I think the problem most have is with releases from the oil crisis era when record labels sought to decrease costs and made records thinner at the expense of sound quality. Many people into older music especially younger people, like a lot of the 70s and 80s output which just wasn't a good time for finding well made vinyl records. Nowadays vinyl is thicc and weighty, so this isnt the issue it once was.
@@KarlBunker Or he plays his albums "wet" like radio DJs used to. Dramatically reduces pops and hiss at the cost of some high frequency response being lost. VWestlife did a good video on it.
Also the needle and the needle box change the sound a little bit so there is some variation how the music sound based on the physical components that are used to reproduce the sound.
So I am quite sure that digital can represent the music more like it was recorded and edited, some people may prefer the sound of LP just because how the LP format change the original music. The difference is small, but it is there. We also know that the speakers also cause changes to the sound aka the music sound different when played trough different speakers. Same effect in here, but at smaller difference (unless the LP record player is really bad).
Digital does produce a continuous wave function. You were correct with the "lolli pop" representations of sample instances and then went in to La La land with the step functions....Where did the infinite bandwidth for the instantaneous change between samples come from? Each sample shuld be thought of as a truncated sinc (sin x /x ) function, with the lower post pulse ripples of each sample adding and subtracting from the following samples. This "joins" the samples together into a continuous wave function, usually accomplished in the reconstruction filter post DAC.
I've had a small collection of vinyl my aunt gave me years ago. Been slowly adding to it over the years. It's fun hunting for originals in decent condition at a reasonable price.
I really enjoyed the presentation. Thank you. One correction: Your image of the phonograph showed movement in the counterweight of the arm at the source of conversion of movement to electrical waves. However that conversion happens in the magnetic cartridge to which the stylus is attached.
I agree with you, although I do wonder whether the original, first magnetic pickups did operate that way, before they figured out how to sufficiently miniaturize the mechanism to actually fit it directly into a reproduction cartridge.
Thanks for that comment because the animation had me as confused as hell. I thought "no way", but even so began to doubt myself.
thanks, just watched that. editors must have missed, and calls to question...
@@mjstow that's not the only thing that is incorrect. Digital sound DOES NOT look like stair steps, the sound is sampled just as he said in the video. For CD it is sampled 44,100 times a second. I have an audio program that clearly shows that digital audio looks EXACTLY like analog audio. There aren't ANY stair steps AT ALL. Trust me if there were you WOULD hear it.
@@darinb.3273 Actually at the highest frequencies as the 22K limit is approached, the wave would become square in shape and some distortion of the wave would occur... Original CD players that sampled the recording at only 44K would have HF filters in the circuit to make this distortion go away... Newer transports and D/A converters make all this a moot point but there is still the limit of the 44K encoding and the quality of the high frequency content still exists for PCM CD format... Higher sampling frequencies help this effect greatly and like in video formats, higher resolution audio hopefully will be adopted uniformly...
The biggest contrast I can see is that of data compression. The vast majorityof music is subjected to various forms of lossey compression such as the mp3 codec that can radically reduce file size for storage and streaming, but also causes permanent data loss.
Most average users don't notice the difference or care, but to most audiophiles that loss is a big deal.
In reality these losses are not nearly as severe as many audiophiles suggest. They are actually quite minuscule compared to the very audible losses in vinyl production and reproduction.
Great video, but here are some things or two:
1. All the recordings digital or analog must have the bass in mono, not because they will end up pressed on vinyl but because is the correct way of dealing with low frequencies, ask ANY mixing engineer.
2. You must also pay attention to the dynamics of the song, if is too dinamyc you will have problems playing it.
Also, due by physical limitations of vinyl you need to avoid high levels of compression.
All this together are very close to a technically well done mix, you see, all this limitations is making you do a great master, and the lack of bass i mentioned above, it is compensed and bring back by the capsule and your phono input (that's whi some old amps have the "rumble" filter.
That's the real reason of why almost any vinyl record sound DIFFERENT to us in the first place, and "better" it is a more subjective thing.
Also old records made with analog equipment still sound better than its digitally remastered editions for clear reasons.
Im not sayng that vinyl sounds better than a CD or a digital recording, but it is mastered different, and converted back to sound pressure with a different process, with all its imperfections (even a little distortion) makes it sound "wharmer", a different experience, and it is inmune th that stupid lowdness war.
----------------------------------
Now, from a more poetic and nostalgic point of view, it is a lot better, you have bertter music, the cover, the physical thing, the record store, the ritual of listening a record.
It is true thay nowadays anybody with a computer can make a record but a good sounding one?
Thats depends, in the vinyl era, the songs where mixed and mastered by professionals.
All this have no comparison with a Spotify stream that sounds like crap (IMO)
for me, its the experience you have while putting on a vinyl record. its like fast food vs a nice dinner
Agreed
Terrible analogy. A better comparison would be like eating a pizza using your hand vs eating it with utensils. There's no difference on the end result after eating the pizza, but the latter needs preparation and makes you look pretentious.
@I totally agree with you. Yea,but except ,that records weren’t made to look ,“pretentious “.they were made to be listened to .your analogy failed terribly.
@@nycbass78 That's like saying using a typewriter in a class instead of a computer is not being pretentious because they were made to type texts. We're past the point of using records to listen to music because digital is better in many ways. Anyone who uses records over digital music to listen to "better quality music" is just being pretentious.
@@Vyz3r Bravo for your comment!
I like the soul of vinyl, hearing an occasional pop and seeing the record spinning is so much more personal than digital music, although I admit digital music is clearly superior, Its where I listen to the majority of my music, there is something to Vinyl. Also, the fact that the song is mine and can't be removed from my library is appealing. Oh and a bunch of my records were my dad's and my uncle's so there's that too.
The exact same for me. Besides the uncle part. I can’t stop thinking of my dad when I listen to his old records. He died of cancer earlier this year. Playing them seems like what he would have wanted.
@@iamfilleg In really sorry to hear about your dad, I know he’s looking down on you while you’re listing to his tunes. Stay safe out there man
@@Jason-mg3fk Thanks man.
Digital music is NOT superior.... its more convenient.... thats all.
Mostly great points, but flacs/wavs/e.t.c. on hdds or ssds can't be removed either
What I love when I play records is the output potency, sounds powerful even on a lower volume but digital sounds a little muffed like and weak so I always turn up the volume much higher
No mention of vibration sensitivity of turntables when dancing! I love my old records but have to remind the kids not to jump up and down.
I know this is late coming but, securing a shelf on the wall solves most turntable vibration issues......
I bet that some of them come with rubber to counteract that. Steel is used, I think
Hence the ultimate turntable, with the 17,000 lb unit mounted on a buoyant pole floating in a column of water while the solid granite turntable floated on a cushion of air powered by a pump located half a mile away to minimize induced vibrations...