Vinyl better than digital? This may be why

[pmconcierge]

Pure, simple, unadulterated logic. Interested in how anyone could disagree. Someone will though

 

[Frank Harvey]

Mastering for vinyl has always been a balance between loudness and playing time. The louder you want a song to be, the wider the groove needs to be in order to accommodate the larger amplitude of the album. Since there’s only a limited amount of usable surface area per vinyl disc, gaining dynamic range means sacrificing playing time, especially on a long playing (LP) record where upwards of six songs are often fit on each side of the disc.

Hence albums recorded at 45rpm and albums spread over 2, 3, or even 4 discs. Of course, if you want all this to come across as negative towards vinyl, you can choose to not mention it at all..

Why is this important? Because when you compress music, the lower level details become more apparent and take an unnatural loudness relative to everything else. All the cues that give us space, ambience, soundstage, reverberation and room size are to be found in those low level details.

I tend to find these qualities better on vinyl.

I think Mark’s argument has merit. I think he’s right. And if he is, one should be able to add the same compression techniques used by mastering engineers for vinyl, to digital audio and get the same results without having to transfer to vinyl.

I don't think Mark's argument has merit. I think he's wrong. Hence why you'll never find a CD that sounds like its vinyl counterpart (decent mastering assumed).

As with other offers I've made, feel free to pop in and compare CD and vinyl...

 

[Frank Harvey]

What does interest me is the number of people (including friends whose views I'm reluctant to dismiss) who prefer vinyl to digital despite evidence to the contrary which I find quite persuasive. Paul McGowan is a hifi designer and enthusiast whose views should not be easily discounted. So tell me, why does a legacy device with an inferior dynamic range which with every play corrupts the vinyl on which it depends still command the loyalty of so many?

"Supposedly" inferior dynamic range...

It is an interesting point, and one has to ask how vinyl has pretty much outlasted every single format ever released up to the end of the last century. Will downloads outlast it? Maybe, maybe not. There's a 'collectors' aspect to vinyl, which even if it doesn't sound as good as a HD download, owning a vinyl copy makes you feel like you actually own something. That aside, compare most CD and vinyl counterparts and the digital version normally sounds flatter and more two dimensional, with anti-vinylists bringing up crackles and pops - much like supposed film fans negatively mentioning grain in relation to films...

Over the summer, many of our regulars have been popping in on Saturdays and listening to a lot of vinyl. There's also been CD comparisons, and if the outcome didn't come out in favour of vinyl, many of them wouldn't have bought Michell Gyro SE's, and Rega RP6's and RP8's.

 

[davedotco]

No offence taken - I don't really have a view, having never compared vinyl and digital under test conditions. What does interest me is the number of people (including friends whose views I'm reluctant to dismiss) who prefer vinyl to digital despite evidence to the contrary which I find quite persuasive. Paul McGowan is a hifi designer and enthusiast whose views should not be easily discounted. So tell me, why does a legacy device with an inferior dynamic range which with every play corrupts the vinyl on which it depends still command the loyalty of so many?

I suspect it may depend on the quality of the mastering on the CDs that they've listened to, as well as the source they have used for the comparison.

I have been lucky enough to have gone from decent TTs, to a great CDP to a very good streamer,......which has given me reasonable insight into how they all compare.

Very much to the point Cno.

The truly crazy thing is that most of the people I see and hear extolling the virtues of vinyl have pretty poor players, often third rate or worse.

My own experience was simply that the better the CD player and the better the record player the closer together they sounded in terms of sound quality.

For a brief period I was able to compare my own player, an SME20A/Red signature with the comparibly priced Wadia 860 and on some recordings the differences were actually difficult to hear, some modern, for the time, Deutsche Grammaphon DDD and DDA releases for example.

Edit for spelling.

Lol...... I think thats the reason for alot of the disagreement on this forum, some systems are just not up to the task.........

saying that is that just plain old snobbery though..... a cheap turntable can sound excellent by any standard if set -up just right.

and the noise floor (hiss) on a turntable no matter how good or dear it is is what stops vinyl from being a serious contender, but if you like that sort of thing then I can see the argument from the other side.

Er no it isn't.

It is pretty easy to tell if someone has any idea what they are talking about, and in this case you have not got a clue.

High end turntables with quality vinyl can sound quite fabulous, sadly there are so few in use now that most people never get to hear them.

Players that are capable of such quality are rare and expensive, especially these days, so few people have experienced the way that a fine player deals with background noise and the other 'limitations' that are handled so poorly on lesser players.

 

[Frank Harvey]

McGowan says that a cd recording of a vinyl record is indistinguishable thus confirming there is no inherent superiority in analogue - interesting if true.

Yes it is true, I have done it many times myself and the CDR recording of an LP sounds identical to the original LP.

I have done several blind tests so that I did not know which one I was listening to and I found it impossible to hear any difference .

In technical terms, that is impossible. I'm not saying it isn't, but bear in mind that CD has a brick wall 20kHz filter, whereas vinyl has been shown to have information up to around 60kHz.

 

[Frank Harvey]

See I was reading only last night that MP3s sound better than vinyl, and that really all one needs these days is an iPod and speakerettes. I guess all those turntable designers are wasting their time, then. :rofl:

Speakerettes :rofl:

Made me laugh anyway

 

[Frank Harvey]

I have another theory. Often, the noise floor of records is much higher than that of a good digital recording.

This 'fills' the gaps between notes, making for a more cohesive 'whole'. The brain has to work less hard to decipher and piece together the information.

Look at equipment like Cambridge Audio's 840's and other, very good measuring stuff. All the detail you could want but somehow it doesn't come together into a musical whole (for some people). Other equipment, perhaps not so acurate measuring, sounds more cohesive.

I am broadly generalising and I myself err on the side of accuracy for preference but could it be that there can be to much detail, to much stereo separation etc?

I know where you're coming from. In the early 90's, a friend of mine asked for advice on buying a £200 hi-fi amplifier. I told him to check out the favourite (as it was then), but also check out an amp that was clearly better. He preferred the favourite, as he didn't like the separation of the instruments with the alternative. This just shows that preference plays a big part in what people like the sound of.

 

[davedotco]

McGowan says that a cd recording of a vinyl record is indistinguishable thus confirming there is no inherent superiority in analogue - interesting if true.

Yes it is true, I have done it many times myself and the CDR recording of an LP sounds identical to the original LP.

I have done several blind tests so that I did not know which one I was listening to and I found it impossible to hear any difference .

In technical terms, that is impossible. I'm not saying it isn't, but bear in mind that CD has a brick wall 20kHz filter, whereas vinyl has been shown to have information up to around 60kHz.

I take it you are not familier with the concept of oversampling....... :?

In any case the fundamentals of vinyl and Red Book playback systems are so fundamentally different that trying to compare them in technical terms is a complete waste of time.

The problem with vinyl playback is simple, the cost.

The entry and mid priced players mentioned earlier are ok for the price, but a long, long way from what is possible and although a lot of people seem to think they have heard serious vinyl systems it is pretty clear from their comments that this really is not the case.

My last player was sold not because of the lack of dynamic range, or high levels of distortion or even background noise, it was sold because the capital investment and the running costs were just too much, simple as that.

 

[Electro]

McGowan says that a cd recording of a vinyl record is indistinguishable thus confirming there is no inherent superiority in analogue - interesting if true.

Yes it is true, I have done it many times myself and the CDR recording of an LP sounds identical to the original LP.

I have done several blind tests so that I did not know which one I was listening to and I found it impossible to hear any difference .

In technical terms, that is impossible. I'm not saying it isn't, but bear in mind that CD has a brick wall 20kHz filter, whereas vinyl has been shown to have information up to around 60kHz.

This is true but unfortunately at my age I struggle to hear anything above 14KHZ even on a good day .

This chart plots the upper and lower frequencies of some common instruments and is quite interesting .

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/images/main_chart.jpg

 

[Frank Harvey]

The truly crazy thing is that most of the people I see and hear extolling the virtues of vinyl have pretty poor players, often third rate or worse.

Lol...... I think thats the reason for alot of the disagreement on this forum, some systems are just not up to the task.........

saying that is that just plain old snobbery though..... a cheap turntable can sound excellent by any standard if set -up just right.

There's a flip side to the statement in bold. There are many that will be pro digital that have or have only heard or owned budget analogue sources. A turntable's quality is purely down to its fine engineering, and the higher the budget, the more accurate it will be. There are plenty who speak of turntables negatively that have only heard budget models but are comparing to highly priced digital sources.

 

[Frank Harvey]

This is true but unfortunately at my age I struggle to hear anything above 14KHZ even on a good day .

There is the belief that the frequencies above 20kHz affect how we hear the ones below 20kHz. But that's another debate

 

[davedotco]

The truly crazy thing is that most of the people I see and hear extolling the virtues of vinyl have pretty poor players, often third rate or worse.

Lol...... I think thats the reason for alot of the disagreement on this forum, some systems are just not up to the task.........

saying that is that just plain old snobbery though..... a cheap turntable can sound excellent by any standard if set -up just right.

There's a flip side to the statement in bold. There are many that will be pro digital that have or have only heard or owned budget analogue sources. A turntable's quality is purely down to its fine engineering, and the higher the budget, the more accurate it will be. There are plenty who speak of turntables negatively that have only heard budget models but are comparing to highly priced digital sources.

This is a difficult thing to get across to many of todays enthusiasts.

A decent digital source is available at a pretty low cost so people, quite reasonably, see no reason to pay more. Some enthusiasts know enough about the whole 'computer audio' situation to extract very high quality sound at modest cost.

But hear is the rub, the big thing that you are rarely told, a better digital playback system does not, in the main, increase your appreciation of the music. Sure, if you analyse it certain aspects of the sound is improved, better definition, more separation etc, etc, but does it get you closer too the music? Mostly no, it does not.

This is most definitely not the case with vinyl, a better player simply gets you closer to the music, I'm not talking about the budget and mid priced players that dominate on this forum but really good players, the ones that reduce noise to irrelevance, produce all the detail, clarity and dynamic range of the best digital playback then produce the performance in a musically coherent and meaningful manner that digital playback can still not match.

Players of this stature do exist but, in the real world they are very rare, I am just pleased that, over the years, I have been able to hear some of them, (owned a couple too), and nothing else short of the real thing, comes close.

 

[Frank Harvey]

A decent digital source is available at a pretty low cost so people, quite reasonably, see no reason to pay more. Some enthusiasts know enough about the whole 'computer audio' situation to extract very high quality sound at modest cost.

Agreed, a budget CD player can sound clean, and lack the 'noise' of an equivalently priced vinyl player, but which one would people choose? Those that choose academic usually choose it because they can't hear a pop or a crackle, whereas those who choose the vinyl do so because it sounds more like music, regardless of any shortcomings, if any.

 

[stevebrock]

Agreed, a budget CD player can sound clean, and lack the 'noise' of an equivalently priced vinyl player, but which one would people choose? Those that choose academic usually choose it because they can't hear a pop or a crackle, whereas those who choose the vinyl do so because it sounds more like music, regardless of any shortcomings, if any.

This is very true and matter of fact and I agree totally but why do I find myself trying to find music I want on vinyl first? I have a reasonable Turntable with a nice cart/phono and to me in my environment is the best way for me to listen to muisc. Yes I do occasinally listen to my DAC for convenience but listening to vinyl is much more involving and sounds fantatsic.

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

McGowan says that a cd recording of a vinyl record is indistinguishable thus confirming there is no inherent superiority in analogue - interesting if true.

Yes it is true, I have done it many times myself and the CDR recording of an LP sounds identical to the original LP.

I have done several blind tests so that I did not know which one I was listening to and I found it impossible to hear any difference .

In technical terms, that is impossible. I'm not saying it isn't, but bear in mind that CD has a brick wall 20kHz filter, whereas vinyl has been shown to have information up to around 60kHz.

anoter glorious, knowledgable contribution from Davy. are you a bat-man in disguise Davy if the ultrasonic frequency extension should matter?

if anything feeding ultrasonic signal into an amp may cause it to generate more IM distortion than expected, if the amp has a slew rate not up to the task. and that IM distortion caused by ultrasonic components may actually feed into audible range if the amp is particularly poorly designed (like the ones which start to sharply roll off freq response right after 20kHz treshold). so having a brick wall right filter right above 20kHz is actually beneficial for overall better system performance. and since I'm 99% sure you can't hear anything above 18kHz I don't know how ability to reproduce 60kHz signal should matter.

 

[CnoEvil]

But hear is the rub, the big thing that you are rarely told, a better digital playback system does not, in the main, increase your appreciation of the music. Sure, if you analyse it certain aspects of the sound is improved, better definition, more separation etc, etc, but does it get you closer too the music? Mostly no, it does not.

This is precisely why I like the Linn DSsss (especially combined with Valves or SS Class A and the right speaker), as they (imo) draw you into the music by involving you in it........and the Klimax DS is the best I've heard.

Also, Audio Note make some great sounding CDPs (with NOS Dacs), with Pathos not being too shabby either.

DCS is an example of a brand I greatly admire, but the sound leaves me a little cold.

 

[Frank Harvey]

So are you saying that that 40kHz frequency range will have no effect whatsoever on the signal? If there's any nuggets of actual fact that you can throw on the subject, or even any opinions as to why vinyl is (arguably) better than digital, we're all ears...

Oh, and Batman can't hear ultrasonics. Batman is just an ordinary man, so has normal hearing like the rest of us.

 

[BenLaw]

He said 'a bat-man' not 'Batman', if you really insist on being so lame.

 

[Frank Harvey]

:rofl:

 

[Thompsonuxb]

No offence taken - I don't really have a view, having never compared vinyl and digital under test conditions. What does interest me is the number of people (including friends whose views I'm reluctant to dismiss) who prefer vinyl to digital despite evidence to the contrary which I find quite persuasive. Paul McGowan is a hifi designer and enthusiast whose views should not be easily discounted. So tell me, why does a legacy device with an inferior dynamic range which with every play corrupts the vinyl on which it depends still command the loyalty of so many?

I suspect it may depend on the quality of the mastering on the CDs that they've listened to, as well as the source they have used for the comparison.

I have been lucky enough to have gone from decent TTs, to a great CDP to a very good streamer,......which has given me reasonable insight into how they all compare.

Very much to the point Cno.

The truly crazy thing is that most of the people I see and hear extolling the virtues of vinyl have pretty poor players, often third rate or worse.

My own experience was simply that the better the CD player and the better the record player the closer together they sounded in terms of sound quality.

For a brief period I was able to compare my own player, an SME20A/Red signature with the comparibly priced Wadia 860 and on some recordings the differences were actually difficult to hear, some modern, for the time, Deutsche Grammaphon DDD and DDA releases for example.

Edit for spelling.

Lol...... I think thats the reason for alot of the disagreement on this forum, some systems are just not up to the task.........

saying that is that just plain old snobbery though..... a cheap turntable can sound excellent by any standard if set -up just right.

and the noise floor (hiss) on a turntable no matter how good or dear it is is what stops vinyl from being a serious contender, but if you like that sort of thing then I can see the argument from the other side.

Er no it isn't.

It is pretty easy to tell if someone has any idea what they are talking about, and in this case you have not got a clue.

High end turntables with quality vinyl can sound quite fabulous, sadly there are so few in use now that most people never get to hear them.

Players that are capable of such quality are rare and expensive, especially these days, so few people have experienced the way that a fine player deals with background noise and the other 'limitations' that are handled so poorly on lesser players.

Whattttaaaahhhhh! (sound effect from Enter the dragon - added for effect.....)

Pls spare us your snobbishness, high end turntables my eye...... :roll:

So generally speaking the majority of vinyl fans would only know the sound of third rate decks, so the sound held most high is not even the sound you are speaking of is it?

when you think about it, its more a romantic imagining of what could be above and beyond those 3rd rate decks (i.e a quality cd deck)

that said a quality amp capable of delivering the signal from its source intact to speakers capable of delivering the full range of said signal to its listener - that low level hum (friction of the stylus moving along the track) is very audible.

I totally agreed with Drummerman - and personally believe it is that very hum which gives vinyl 'that sound' that many enjoy.... regardless of cost for another (older) generation, for todays generation brought up on quality digital play back will most likly tell you how 'noisy' a TT is , the better the kit the more they'll notice it too.

some of you guys......I swear.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think many would be surprised at the lack of background noise on decks like the Rega RP3 and RP6 - great sounding decks, and not stupidly expensive either.

 

[davedotco]

I think many would be surprised at the lack of background noise on decks like the Rega RP3 and RP6 - great sounding decks, and not stupidly expensive either.

If you find that surprising you should actually hear what a player like an SME20A/Red Signature/Arc Phono 2 does with surface noise.

But your unintentional point is really well made, the Regas are great sounding decks, it is the sound of the decks that dominate, not the sound of the vinyl........ :wall:

I know real hi-end players are stupidly expensive and 'elitest' but until you have spent some time with one, you really have no idea what good vinyl sounds like, and trust me, it does not sound anything like what you think it does.

 

[stevebrock]

I think many would be surprised at the lack of background noise on decks like the Rega RP3 and RP6 - great sounding decks, and not stupidly expensive either.

Agree the RP6 is a fnatastic deck for the money, yes there are better TTs but I am still shocked it how good 95% of my vinyl collection sounds, sounding much nicer to my ears than CD. What Noise Floor? Crackles & Pops? Hum? Give me Vinyl over CD any day for pure listening pleasure!

 

[matt49]

If you find that surprising you should actually hear what a player like an SME20A/Red Signature/Arc Phono 2 does with surface noise.

I know real hi-end players are stupidly expensive and 'elitist' but until you have spent some time with one, you really have no idea what good vinyl sounds like, and trust me, it does not sound anything like what you think it does.

Dave, you almost had me interested there. I was thinking of arranging a demo of a high-end TT. But then I went back and read the bit in bold. How much time would that be exactly?

Also, could you perhaps elucidate the following? It sounds perilously like you're saying there's something mysterious and indefinable about the "music" from a high-end TT. Could you say what it is?

But here is the rub, the big thing that you are rarely told, a better digital playback system does not, in the main, increase your appreciation of the music. Sure, if you analyse it certain aspects of the sound is improved, better definition, more separation etc, etc, but does it get you closer too the music? Mostly no, it does not.

This is most definitely not the case with vinyl, a better player simply gets you closer to the music, I'm not talking about the budget and mid priced players that dominate on this forum but really good players, the ones that reduce noise to irrelevance, produce all the detail, clarity and dynamic range of the best digital playback then produce the performance in a musically coherent and meaningful manner that digital playback can still not match.

 

[BenLaw]

'Getting you closer to the music' is just a meaningless subjective phrase from an (ex-)salesman.