It all boils down to convenience and laziness. I'm sick of soldering, desoldering, etc., but truth be known, I've become interested in Ambiophonics, which has kind of forced my hand ... if I have to go digital, I might as well keep it there (keep the adc/dac steps to a minimum).
Well I think that is one logical answer, and I also think that it could be down to the total experience of vinyl (the large artwork, the cleaning of the shiny disc, the ceremony of placing it on the turntable and lowering the arm, the sheer anticipation of being forced to wait for the music to start, and then to listen to the whole side of the album rather than hopping from track to track). In other words, the actual sound may only be part of the answer.
All the other answers to my question about why vinyl sounds superior to digital even in cases where the signal has passed through a digital path, were variations on 'using a different master'. No one actually wanted to claim, in a technical sense, that there is something inherently 'better' (magical) that the vinyl process imparts on the once-digital signal because, logically, that would be silly..?
The conclusion, then, must be that it is only the record companies that stand in the way of giving us an equally well-mastered digital version of an album.
(We can argue over the merits of CD vs. 24 bits, but I don't know how to determine whether a vinyl recording has gone via 16 or 24 or 32 bits or analogue only. Do vinyl enthusiasts know if their records are 'DAA' or 'DDA'?)
Here's an interesting page:
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
Particularly the example of the Stooges CD from 1990 vs. 1997 (!)
And there are some interesting things here, 'from the horse's mouth':
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
"In many cases a good sounding master created for CD will also make a good vinyl master."
"...Another important way in which vinyl's physical nature differs from the CD is the degradation in high-frequency response which occurs as the needle moves toward the middle of a disc. This is due to the fact that as the radius of the disc decreases, the speed at which the groove is moving past the needle decreases as well. The innermost usable area on a disc has a circumference that is less than half of that found at the beginning of a disc. Since the speed is constant, this much smaller circumference leaves a lot less area in which to cut a high frequency groove which swings back and forth a lot faster. By the inside of the disc, this becomes so tight that the cutting stylus can actually begin to wipe out the high frequencies with it's own rear edge as it moves past the waveform it just cut with its leading edge."
"...you may find that something unpleasant happens on those heavy cymbal crashes or "S" vocal sounds which wasn't there on your mix. Excessive high frequency material is the Achilles' heel of record cutting."
"...when an especially intense burst of high frequency information is encountered by a playback stylus, it can actually end up making the needle begin to just bump up over the grooves, which is heard as distortion. Bursts of high-frequency material often have this problem. For this reason, one of the more common corrective processes in vinyl mastering is the use of the de-esser (also called a high-frequency limiter). This device (much as the name suggests) reduces "S" sounds and other excessive high frequency material. In the age of vinyl as the predominant format, recordings were often a good deal darker in tone partly to avoid this problem. In the current digital age, mixes are often made quite bright (sometimes ear-shreddingly so) and vocal sibilance is often accentuated rather than reduced."
"...When low-frequency material contains a good deal of out of phase content (panned bass synthesizers or bass guitars perhaps), the groove must begin to make each wall of the groove do different things, which it can only do by cutting up and down rather than side to side. Excessive vertical motion makes for a groove that can be difficult for many turntables to track during playback and is usually compensated for for in a couple of different ways. One is the use of an elliptical equalizer, which uses an adjustable frequency, below which all frequencies (the bass material) are summed together into mono. This takes care of vertical groove cutting problems, but may do things to the program material that were not intended or desired. The other method is to split the signal into its mono and stereo components and then to use a limiter on the stereo portion to reduce movement in the out-of-phase portion of the signal. Both of these processes can be made to work, but ultimately, the best solution is to avoid the problem during mixing by keeping bass instruments more or less in mono when vinyl is a possible release format. "
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
Particularly the example of the Stooges CD from 1990 vs. 1997 (!)
And there are some interesting things here, 'from the horse's mouth':
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
"In many cases a good sounding master created for CD will also make a good vinyl master."
"...Another important way in which vinyl's physical nature differs from the CD is the degradation in high-frequency response which occurs as the needle moves toward the middle of a disc. This is due to the fact that as the radius of the disc decreases, the speed at which the groove is moving past the needle decreases as well. The innermost usable area on a disc has a circumference that is less than half of that found at the beginning of a disc. Since the speed is constant, this much smaller circumference leaves a lot less area in which to cut a high frequency groove which swings back and forth a lot faster. By the inside of the disc, this becomes so tight that the cutting stylus can actually begin to wipe out the high frequencies with it's own rear edge as it moves past the waveform it just cut with its leading edge."
"...you may find that something unpleasant happens on those heavy cymbal crashes or "S" vocal sounds which wasn't there on your mix. Excessive high frequency material is the Achilles' heel of record cutting."
"...when an especially intense burst of high frequency information is encountered by a playback stylus, it can actually end up making the needle begin to just bump up over the grooves, which is heard as distortion. Bursts of high-frequency material often have this problem. For this reason, one of the more common corrective processes in vinyl mastering is the use of the de-esser (also called a high-frequency limiter). This device (much as the name suggests) reduces "S" sounds and other excessive high frequency material. In the age of vinyl as the predominant format, recordings were often a good deal darker in tone partly to avoid this problem. In the current digital age, mixes are often made quite bright (sometimes ear-shreddingly so) and vocal sibilance is often accentuated rather than reduced."
"...When low-frequency material contains a good deal of out of phase content (panned bass synthesizers or bass guitars perhaps), the groove must begin to make each wall of the groove do different things, which it can only do by cutting up and down rather than side to side. Excessive vertical motion makes for a groove that can be difficult for many turntables to track during playback and is usually compensated for for in a couple of different ways. One is the use of an elliptical equalizer, which uses an adjustable frequency, below which all frequencies (the bass material) are summed together into mono. This takes care of vertical groove cutting problems, but may do things to the program material that were not intended or desired. The other method is to split the signal into its mono and stereo components and then to use a limiter on the stereo portion to reduce movement in the out-of-phase portion of the signal. Both of these processes can be made to work, but ultimately, the best solution is to avoid the problem during mixing by keeping bass instruments more or less in mono when vinyl is a possible release format. "
Yes, it can be explained by the fact that a lot of digital is implemented in a way that misses it's true potential & thus falls short of the engagement that vinyl can elicit, if done well. Maybe you are swapping one set of know distortion in the vinyl playback system for another set of, as yet not fully categorised & investigated, set of distortions?
I'm in a rush to get somewhere, but I suddenly had a thought, and couldn't resist quickly coming back to type it in. jkeny, you've beaten me to it.
Yes, many years ago I once played with analogue companding around 8 bit digital audio. The companding transformed the sound, masking the most obvious weaknesses of the digital system. Vinyl enthusiasts could, logically, claim something similar...
First off you have changed the question. It is vinyl vrs CD, not vinyl vrs digital.
To get the music on the CD the digital file is decimated. Then pressed onto a master. Then CDs made. And it is of note that 2 masters made from the same digital file can sound different, so we already have an indication of some further degradation.
To back that up, from the (controversial) BAS study, CDs were rarely if ever as good as the directly decimated DDS master file.
Vinyl LPs are not great storage mediums, anything put on them gets degraded & degrades further from there. On a (good) LP, the source is analog, which has much, much higher levels of information than the decimated master file in a digital recording -- and if from a digital master file is not decimated before being made analog and put onto the master disk from which the stamper is made... and we know that the 1st pressings off a stamper are generally better than later ones, so another degradation process.
That a good piece of vinyl on a good rig can sonically outperform a CD on a good rig, is a testament to the resolving capability (particularily time) of the ear/brain.
When our regular source for music is hi-resolution files downloaded off the interweb, the equation will change... but i bet that when we get there, we'll still have 90% plus crap just like with both CD & vinyl today (or in its heyday). Digital has huge potential... we just aren't there yet.
dave
"Don't you guys have parties anymore? You know, where people get drunk, dance around, and fall on the turntable? Vinyl was and is a ******* nightmare."
I think you have the wrong thread you need the one titled
"How better is a Turntable compared to a CD when drunk at a party I am?" (how good is Yoda's hearing? he is getting on 🙂)
An example of the low signal to noise ratio and spurious transients in this thread, how can the digital/cd guys even stand to read it?
The analogue guys are obviously deaf to the added noise or enjoy the euphonic? howling.
rgds
James
I think you have the wrong thread you need the one titled
"How better is a Turntable compared to a CD when drunk at a party I am?" (how good is Yoda's hearing? he is getting on 🙂)
An example of the low signal to noise ratio and spurious transients in this thread, how can the digital/cd guys even stand to read it?
The analogue guys are obviously deaf to the added noise or enjoy the euphonic? howling.
rgds
James
Last edited:
Analogue playback & it's issues have been studied & are probably better understood than digital, at the moment. So the map for how to get to excellent analogue playback is probably better laid out. The problem is that it turns out to be expensive to achieve an excellent level of analogue playback.
In the digital world it would seem that it's easy (& cheap) to reach an acceptable level of digital playback but getting beyond acceptable is not as well mapped or agreed as in the analogue playback world. It may well prove to be even more sensitive to perturbations than analogue playback & even more difficult to achieve?
Perhaps throwing high-res files at it will improve matters somewhat but the underlying implementations issues will still remain.
Last edited:
I dont have a turntable for 20 years now , i still have some vynils for collection since i have them on cd. If i would like to make a recording of a new vynil never played before , i would connect the turntable to the PC and record it at 24/192 (any decent sound card does it).This way the new "original" sound would be , as much as possible , kept and available forever.
In order:
Outside of that niche, there isn't any.
And yes, that's right, MP3 qua MP3 is no longer marketed. No one cares, that format has won in the market. It's fortunate that there's a niche for higher res formats, but let's not kid ourselves, MP3 format is far and away the most popular. Downloaded music has totally kicked hard formats to the curb so that the format is given no more thought than jpg vs. png for the person looking at pictures on his computer.
There are many reasons why vinyl recordings can sound superior to cds. None of them have anything to do with the limitations of Redbook CD technology. The two technologies are worlds apart. The proof is that even with consumer grade equipment, you can burn a cd from ANY vinyl phonograph record that is either indistinguishable or almost indistinguishable from the vinyl on careful AB comparison. With carefully calibrated commercial grade equipment you can make them indistinguishable every time. The reverse cannot be said to be true.
Among the many reasons for the inferiority of many cds are;
Despite their far greater dynamic range, when overmodulated CDs hit a brick wall creating very high distortion. This is often done deliberately with recordings manufactured for being played on radios etc. On average they are louder and more attention getting. Vinyl and tape when overloaded will increase in distortion more gradually.
Vinyl phonograph records were mostly made at a time when major studios carefully equalized their monitoring systems using calibrated microphones once a week. This gave them greater uniformity of FR from recording to recording, even from company to company. Today sound engineers who master recordings often wouldn't think of using an equalizer in their monitoring systems. Therefore, FRs are all over the map. I have to equalize and record the optimal settings for each CD individually. Ironically, even without knob twiddling common in the vinyl era, all vinyl recordings undergo at least 6 levels of equalization when you count the NAB for mastering and mixdown tapes and the RIAA equalization for the vinyl (only two for the very rare direct to disc.) If the recording was made on Dolby A there are at least 14. Horror of horrors, not only does Dolby A split the signal into 4 bands each equalized separately and then recombined on playback, the degree of equalization is dynamically dependent. If the system isn't calibrated perfectly it wreaks havoc. Fortunately it usually is.
Old master tapes reissued on CD have often deteriorated between the time they were issued as vinyls and the time they are issued as CDs decades later. Making them fast and cheap to sell to the nostalgia crowd often results in disappointment.
Signals for vinyls were carefully manipulated by expert knob twiddlers to optimize them for what was accepted as a technologically limited format. This included dynamic compression (makes the reverberation at the end of each musical phrase louder which is pleasing) and of course lots of equalization. CDs are often made using minimalist techniques, part of the bizarre psychology of today which has it that less is more ($5000 for a pair of 2 way 6" mini monitors driven by a four tube $3000 amplifier for example all worth about $300 or less combined in the real world.)
Early CDs were sometimes made and played back with poor A/D and D/A chips. By around 1991 things got much better. Today perfection in playback from a cd player can be had for about $20 to $30. Not as much fun though as watching my Empire 698 spinning round and round with its beautiful gold plating in a sleek glass and teak enclosure. All that's lacking is a C22 and an MC275 to add a warm blue and orange glow in a dark room to it. An electronic hearth that reminds me of my youth.
The SACD, DVD-audio and MP3 were just examples of the marketing of digital within the last twenty years.
You'll have to point me in the direction of any marketing of vinyl qua vinyl in the time since Columbia came out with the Microgroove. Sure people advertise vinyl playback equipment just as they do cd players, but the resurgence of vinyl in the last fifteen years is due mainly to word of mouth from users. I'm not convinced of any of this ceremony BS from detractors and you guys act like there is a inconvenience on the order of spending two hours preparing a meal.
Record players are inconvenient for background music at a dinner party, but for casual or serious listening not so much.
John
I recall plenty LP exchange and duster routines inbetween McDinner in the ERA(*)/SME3009 years.
(* Etudes et Recherches Acoustiques, Mr John constant angular frequency Verdier)
(* Etudes et Recherches Acoustiques, Mr John constant angular frequency Verdier)
He mentioned perfection, not me - I just wanted to know what it sounded like as he must be one of the very few people who has had the privilege of hearing it
I agree there's inconvenience & a bit of a problem for the anally retentive who worry over whether their system is set-up to perfection for every LP. But, I posit that these types will have a similar approach to digital playback.
To balance out the inconvenience you also have the large format packaging with all the artwork & sleeve notes that this large format allows. I miss some of these album covers & the ability to sit in a chair & have a read about the album, artists, etc while listening - a multi sensory experience. Al that's missing is the superior smell of Steve Eddy's cables 🙂
To balance out the inconvenience you also have the large format packaging with all the artwork & sleeve notes that this large format allows. I miss some of these album covers & the ability to sit in a chair & have a read about the album, artists, etc while listening - a multi sensory experience. Al that's missing is the superior smell of Steve Eddy's cables 🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.