Regardless of all the arguments for and against, vinyl is a far more emotionally satisfying experience to work with than CDs. I own the technics sl1200s,and cannot express enough the passion and pleasure of working with vinyl on these.
There are some word issues here that we might look at. Data is a piece of information, perhaps some, perhaps all the information. At bit or byte is data, so is an analog event such as the continuous music moving your ear drum. We want to move information (as in music) from one place and time to another. We do it by converting sound air vibrations into data points, transferring them through time and space to recreate those air vibrations again. 1 - From the beginning of audio we stored music as a physical place in a 2-D space. Huh? Well it is like this, if you slice at a right angle and magnify a record groove each is seen a 'V". The location or amplitude of displacement of the walls of the "V" groove are the Data. How many individual spots can the tip of the stylus occupy at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second? 2 - We then found we could magnetize metal and read that magnetic field leading to wire and tape recording. The amplitude of magnetic field at any given time is the Data. How many magnetic levels can you have at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second? 3 - We then found that we chopp the information stream up into electrical samples, convert their amplitudes into numbers. We know how to make numbers into bits, and have a way to move and store bits , and we have a way to move air,. How many individual data points can you have at any given time? There is no "Perhaps" in this, it's digital. Look at 24 bit at 96 kHz, that 24 X 96,000 or Exactly 2.304 million bits per Sec. So Analog is Data just as digital is an expression of that same date, and records can contain more Data Points than can current digital formats. Let me add an aside, ment in humor and metaphor. Consider that the bias signal on a tape recorder could be viewed as a kind of 'sampler', it chopped up the audio signal to make the tape more linear at lower levels. We see that as the tape recorder manufactures came out with higher bias frequencies with associated comments about improved performance. Now professional tape decks reach up to the +500 kiloHertz just our digital tastes are pushing 400 kiloHertz area And yes when we hit 32-bit 384 kilosample (kHz) we do get to 12.3 million bits per second and the brass ring, we finally get to the Direct-to-Disc level. Show less REPLY
I set up my new Denon DL 103r last night. I loved what I was hearing and got out some old records to re listen. I enjoy the heck out of my records. Bought my first one in 1956.
I don’t understand why all vinyl enthuses like my self wont just admit that: Vinyl is nostalgic and tells a story that CD’s don’t. Its takes us back to a precious time and memory.
Intrinsically records are quite, dust and debris are the microscopic primogenitors of the noise the infuriates you. perhaps it is time for some good record cleaning to get rid of the disturbances. Give it try and enjoy the results. Merry Christmas and a most crackle free New Year
Brilliant video. The whole digital problem is that increasing resolution on digital source does not move away digital sound: dead and poor timbres, plastic sound, poor dynamics etc.
Thank you. The inescapable fact of the matter is that to digitize is to chop up, throw away, reconstitute, and then try to fool the the best real time audio processing system in existence - your mind and associated ears.
i agree that records give a better viberation to the speakers and this is because the stylus picks up the viberations from the groove and these are then sent to the speakers therefore perfectly reproducing the soundwave where as digital formats can only go up in steps which means tiny tiny tiny parts of the wave are cut off now i'm not saying there arent hi end formats i.e FLAC but mp3 ect just doesnt match analogue formats
Personally, I enjoyed both Vinyl and Audio CDs. But I would NEVER claim vinyl sounded superior. It's such a crude process manufacturing a vinyl record, and hopefully, the stamper isn't worn out for YOUR vinyl LP. Gouge a groove with a needle and watch it wiggle, add some accurate RIAA compensation since vinyl had its limitations. Toss all that garbage ticks & pops of yesteryear out and find a well mastered CD, direct from the first generation master or, even better, find someone who remixed the songs from multi-tracks, in a digital world, don't even have to store that analog recording master on noisy magnetic tape, THEN compare. Nice video! :)
I'll bet it was, but your remark triggered a thought. I have been designing and building a DAC as part of my music system. I am confronted with the reality that DAC chips come in to families of concern to the listener, those are voltage or current output. Where the bits of digital turn into the electrical current we call an analog signal is the conundrum. The 'switches" that open and close, one for each 'blt', are brought together they are added together or 'summed' as a current to represent the signal level at that instant. It is in the form of a current. Pull or push current through a resistor and you get voltage. Ahh, here is where the audio starts. But the physics of IC design for the switching stuff degrades performance unless it is in the current mode. So make all this switching work best you need to sum the signals in the current mode, the output of the chip wants to see a ground so that only current flows and no voltage is developed. Out technology solution for this is a current summing operational amplifier in a 100% feedback mode. Everybody does it because the chip manufacture tells you that is how you get the most out of the chip. Chip tech lit is filled with proven production schematics to build from. This point in the signal process, this transition from Digital to Analog, is done with some kind of Current-to-Voltage Converter. We call it the I/E stage (I is a symbol for current, E is for voltage) and Op-Amps do it very, very well. Amps in one side and volts out the other. If you go to my website you will see papers I have written on Feed-back and its effects on the audio experience and the illusions we are trying to invoke as listeners. So I took my current-mode amplifier circuit (I call it a Magnifier) that has worked so well in the Black Amp and the Concept Amp and applied it to the output of a standard "good" DAC chip, in this case an Analog Devices AD1955 I could buy cheaply on a full board from China. Cut off the audio stuff and went directly to the chip output. Today I connect the last 10 wires between the boards and will see how it works. Oh yea, information. If you believe as I do that data reduces to information which begets knowledge offering up wisdom, and there is both raw data and metadata, then you have to watch out which you are thinking about. Off to the bench, have a good day
7 лет назад+4
So how come some of my well-mastered CDs sound phenomenal?
Because they were "well-mastered" and likely mixed for digital playback. That being said, a well mastered LP (played on excellent equipment) will slay any well masted CD.
Unlike yesteryear, you can do a TON more to audio in a digital (with analog recordings) than they EVER could do in an analog world, in a fraction of the time. So, assuming you are hearing the actual master tape, a CD should kick the analog llama's behind! :)
Give me one example of any LP which has slayed its CD rival, which was well mastered. I have not heard reports of any LP victory yet. I have some really great Diana Krall LP's, none deliver her performances as well as CD, and CD's do not deliver her performances as well as SACD.
@@genuineuni I still dont hear something as creative as sgt peppers. And they did that on a 4-track. Tracks are unlimited, production is efficient, quality sound, so where are the masterpieces??? Where
I believe the reason is that vinyl records in most cases are recorded with more dynamic range than cd's and does not suffer from "The loudness war". Cd's does actually contain so much that every time I improve or tweek something in my system I hear new thing that was was not detectable before. When a good vinyl recording are playing I hear more dynamic range and therefore things seems to come to life for me. The digital media offers huge amount of dynamic range but the problem is how producers chooses to record them because of "The loudness war". Therefore the end product in many cases comes with a lot of dynamic compression and that seems to kill the music. That's how I see it.
Recording processing has traditionally been very observant of the needs of radio as that was the media that they were sold though. Radio needs limited dynamic range and no peaks to work well. An actual dynamic range of 30 db was just fine so compression was the word of the day. Things have changed with advent of digital but the reality is that a recode still only has 50 dB signal to noise on a damn good day. Digital can be 1/1000th the noise without too much work. In the recording studio, the room itself as a musician plays an instrument, may, the signal to noise may, on a good day and the right place, hit 60 dB for a non-electric instrument, 70 for an electric. The issue is not dynamic range, that is a Red-Herring to keep you busy and distracted. www.austinaudioworks.com I have measured many cartridges using test records (you can get a copy of my paper at "Getting Your Cartridge Loaded For Better Music" at my currently being rebuilt web site . Since I am designing a DAC now I have spent a lot of in the world of frequency response, both are quite adequate, so that too is a Red Herring. There is something else, perhaps something to do with timbre, the relationship between all the different energies (acoustic energy at different frequencies) that make up a 'sound'. The relationships are measured in amplitude and phase and can get a bit complex. Timbre is a 'gestalt' issue, the sum is greater than the parts because the human brain and passion are involved. And this can start off a whole discussion that I can not participate in at this moment as I need to get finished for RMAF in around 48 ours, good luck.
I believe you're missing the whole picture. In real life it doesn't really matter how much signal to noise or dynamic range the digital media offers compared to a turntable. Most cd's today comes with a dynamic range of 6 - 8 dB because of dynamic compression. In most case the same music on vinyl typically has about 14 -16 dB of dynamic range. In both cases it's below what the media offers. So in my view the problem is not the media itself. It's how how they've chosen to master the recording. I know this is a simplified view of what's going on. A lot of others factors are a important. I still believe this is the most important one. Please look up "The loudness war". It explains why cd's are recorded that way in most cases. I think my ears are much more sensible to dynamic variations than they are to detect information above 20kHz. Here is database that contains info about dynamic range of several albums on both vinyl and cd dr.loudness-war.info/
Loudness Wars are more common in more current music, not as common with past music, aka, "Oldies".Many claim greater dynamic with vinyl. However, if you had the analog multi-tracks to remix in a digital world, you would not have to store them of noisy magnetic tape - less of a noise floor equates to the greatest dynamics.
when CD's came out in the 80's they would brag about more information on them compared to Vinyl and tape, now they say the opposite. is it because of the loudness war between producers that killed dynamic range? it'snot that the CD can't store more info it's that they are too loud?
cd's have mid-range smearing due to the A to D process, second the recording has to constrain the high frequency, then the D o A conversion is inherently lossy
Stereo vinyl vs Stereo CD? I choose vinyl. That is REAL separation. the needle is literally in a physical groove and the way its carved actually separates the sound and creates the stereo. I dunno, just sounds better to me. Bass seems more live and thumping on vinyl as well, but you can get that on a CD.
People either convince themselves that the Vinyl Gods handed down the almighty Plastic Disks immaculate and perfect, or can't handle the truth, which is compressed, simplified LPs were more familiar, in a warm, cozy, fuzzy and vague way that crisp, crystalline clear digital via CD challenged; listeners had to recalibrate to listen critically in order to perceive nuances and make poor recordings or performances stand out. High Fidelity sounded swell, too, as I remember, but that was the 1950's and stereo was a gimmick.
some people blaming pop's and crackles that's because it's a damaged record buy a new one that's the same as a scratched cd they will both not play properly errhhh .
The original music was once captured on reel to reel at 15ips or higher. To say records is better than tape is an erroneous statement. Vinyl to digital is the actual music versus a facsimile. Much like a painting is to a photograph. The methods used in studios today do not equate to a common CD as some have said.
Wet cleaning and the glue cleaning really does make the record very nice. Give it a shot. But please dont waste ur time on new records. New shit is for digital, CD is useless. Vonyl is for all the pre digital stuff. Trust me, it's just better. I have German vinyl pressing of the stones black and blue. It puts any digital version to shame. Why? Because it does
OK, is it? Everything we hear in reproduced music is an illusion, there is no band there, no singer, no anything but some vibrations in air. Yet when it works out right you get feelings that are hard to describe but totally real. I have just finished my DAC design work and I walk a way from it saying digital should be perfect, and the vinyl record should be a poor copy. Digital technology is better and not mechanical, it should have higher resolution, be faster, have less noise, and it does! But when you listen to the horrible old vinyl mechanical process this technical exactitude doesn't always seem to matter. Along with the noise and scratches, and the known limits of the process comes a quality of sound that the ever so pure digital process has trouble rendering. Is digital too quite between the notes? is the digital process to pure? Is it the the different digital and analog recording rules put on the recordist? Does the character of the entropy of the two processes produce different ensemble and timbre in the reproduction? Is it the as simple as the issue of sampling, that is no mater how well we do it, chopping continuous audio data up into pieces means that it the data now fundamentally different and can never really be reassembled exactly into the original continuous stream? We have no way to rationally discuss the gestalt of our personal sensual experiences and too may variables can effect the out come. If you can get your vinyl music system to give you feelings you can't get on a digital equivalency then you have the only answer that matters, it makes you feel good and that is about all you can ask from your time alive. I wish you good listening and a lot of fun. Thanks, Barry
And hear we go again with the emperor’s new cloths Way back when there were only records I bought all the SME’s and turntables But I always dreamed of cd’s with their pure sound Lp’s do not sound better When I go to a live concert and listen to a string quartet I do not hear crackles and pops like you get on a record These crazy people are not listening to the music they just love watching the turntable going round, I am a photographer who used film for decades and now use digital its the same as the records move on they are just tools typical because we believe this ridiculous degree of audiophile you assume we are hateful jealous people, No its because we believe in spending our time listing to music not equipment
No, those people that prefer vinyl ARE listening to the music. BUT, they aren’t concentrating on the pops and ticks. They are truly listening to the music. Any digital format is an approximation, incapable of getting it right as much as analog can. Recently, I have stumbled upon pictures of analog impulses recorded digitally from 320 mp3 up to 256 DSD. Anything less than the DSD showed severe loss in faithful reproduction of the impulse, even at 192/24. The 256 DSD was very, very close to being accurate, but not quite there. I wish they had included 512 DSD. That, I think, may have been spot on. But, it showed clearly, that the vast majority of digital does not reproduce accurately. Attacks, delays, ambiance and everything else that makes the recording come as close as possible to the live recording are compromised. But, if you prefer digital, go for it, and I truly hope it satisfies you. But, unfortunately, I can hear the difference. Viva vinyl!!
Vinyl pops must be the more information you are alluding to. They do not improve the vinyl experience. Pops distract from the pleasure. Show me how I can eliminate pops and I'll believe your story. Multi-channel SACD sounds best today of all formats out there.
Total nonsense. Vinyl has less data on it than a CD, your understanding of digital and sampling is wrong. Not to mention a very large percentage of vinyl was cut using a digital preview delay. If digital had less data, and vinyl has more, were did that extra data come from? This video is total mythology.
Nope. The record does indeed contain more "data" but it's not the data that was put down in the studio. It's distortion and noise. If people think it sounds better it's because they like that sound. But objectively, scientifically, empirically it's not "better".
Digital has a sample rate. lol at you claiming the extra data is distortion and noise, you ever hear a clean record? And 44.1 even 96khz, what about in between all those samples? there is data, whether or not it's perceivable or not has still yet to be proven, and our ears are still more advanced than can be understood. Not saying vinyl's better but your wrong with your assumptions because you can not "objectively" say music in any form is better. It's perception of music, totally subjective. The reality is the limited dynamic range of vinyl forces mastering to cram in information subsequently bringing up subtleties like a guitarists hands sliding on a guitar neck, or the drummers kick pedal. THAT sound is why we like vinyl, it makes it sound like they are in the room with us. There is another video online of a mastering engineer explaining this. Call it "harmonic distortion" whatever you want. It brings you closer to the music, I have heard guitar parts on zeppelin albums that are completely buried on cd masters. Really depends on the mastering though, on some records it is clear as day "better" to me. Even digitized, old records can sound better than new cd's because the mastering was better on the original.
The old guy has the right attitude but totally fucked up the explanation. It all comes down to analog vs digital. Analog = humanity. Digital = skynet. You be the judge!
No! WRONG! Vinyl has LESS Information, and sounds better, tastes better, smells nicer, and the existence of god, are not physically measurable things. 1) When prepping to cut vinyl, music passes a 40Hz high pass filter and a DYNAMIC COMPRESSOR so that it fits the limited dynamic ability of vinyl grooves, else your needle would jump out of the groove and adjacent grooves would be cut to touch each other. This means less information. 2) Practically ALL new pressings made today are from DIGITAL sources, some from 44.1 CD sources because the way it was produced or missing in the archive, analog tape deteriorated or NA etc. 3) READ CAREFULLY, Non linear distortion adds harmonics, = frequencies that where not part of the original source, it is these added distortion induced harmonics that some people find as sounding better, Sure is easier on the ears, but not part of the original tape, and results in less detail yet easy pleasurable sound. I prefer a CD, unless sometimes for remastering they find in the vault a better source tape to make the vinyl from, so that is not a vinyl property, its the better source material that just happens to be put on vinyl instead of a CD.
There are some word issues here that we might look at. Data is a piece of information, perhaps some, perhaps all the information. At bit or byte is data, so is an analog event such as the continuous music moving your ear drum. We want to move information (as in music) from one place and time to another. We do it by converting sound air vibrations into data points, transferring them through time and space to recreate those air vibrations again. 1 - From the beginning of audio we stored music as a physical place in a 2-D space. Huh? Well it is like this, if you slice at a right angle and magnify a record groove each is seen a 'V". The location or amplitude of displacement of the walls of the "V" groove are the Data. How many individual spots can the tip of the stylus occupy at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second? 2 - We then found we could magnetize metal and read that magnetic field leading to wire and tape recording. The amplitude of magnetic field at any given time is the Data. How many magnetic levels can you have at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second? 3 - We then found that we chopp the information stream up into electrical samples, convert their amplitudes into numbers. We know how to make numbers into bits, and have a way to move and store bits , and we have a way to move air,. How many individual data points can you have at any given time? There is no "Perhaps" in this, it's digital. Look at 24 bit at 96 kHz, that 24 X 96,000 or Exactly 2.304 million bits per Sec. So Analog is Data just as digital is an expression of that same date, and records can contain more Data Points than can current digital formats. Let me add an aside, ment in humor and metaphor. Consider that the bias signal on a tape recorder could be viewed as a kind of 'sampler', it chopped up the audio signal to make the tape more linear at lower levels. We see that as the tape recorder manufactures came out with higher bias frequencies with associated comments about improved performance. Now professional tape decks reach up to the +500 kiloHertz just our digital tastes are pushing 400 kiloHertz area And yes when we hit 32-bit 384 kilosample (kHz) we do get to 12.3 million bits per second and the brass ring, we finally get to the Direct-to-Disc level.
Barry Thornton beautiful explanation! thank you! the problem then becomes the source it seems. as it was mentioned, most of todays recordings are from digital source, recorded straight to digital, many times around 24bit/48kHz and then you cut the vinyl.
Proves most people do believe instead of experience ......you can't argue with anyone's belief system .....and this generation grew up and believes in digital .....digital has become their daily perceived ( virtual ) reality ...... I don't believe ....I listen and that tells me what medium i can connect better to the music.... When you were teached to type on a keyboard only , you didn't develop the ability to write , a handwritten signature seems to be only a crabbed mark without meaning . FIRST : One has to unlearn ...... before learning ..... So when you question or oppose a belief system , people often get angry ..... But some discover and connect with the ( unknown) emotions they could not experience before. And analog and vinyl lives on .......with GOOD reason .
Yes, any modern music that originate from a digital master will never turn analog again through a vinyl disc. Unfortunately, too much of our music listening is over-compressed digital audio, but the poor sound is not due to audio being digital. Actually the dynamic range of digital audio can be hugely better than analog vinyl.
Crackle, pop hiss, hum...oh that sounds SO GOOD! You vinyl fanboys need to wake up! Bear in mind, here is an old man ( with perfect hearing no doubt ) attempting to convince us that vinyl is better...? PLEASE!
U have no clue. Play a record from the 70's in decent condition against the original CD or some remastered new version, then come back and tell me vinyl is just about old people jibber. Do it!
the crackles, pop hiss and hum are a result of bad equipment and filthy records where the grooves and filled with dust. it is not supposed to be there.
Видеоклипы
Regardless of all the arguments for and against, vinyl is a far more emotionally satisfying experience to work with than CDs. I own the technics sl1200s,and cannot express enough the passion and pleasure of working with vinyl on these.
Excellent, without rambling you got right to the essential point. I wish more YTrs would do this.
There are some word issues here that we might look at. Data is a piece of information, perhaps some, perhaps all the information. At bit or byte is data, so is an analog event such as the continuous music moving your ear drum. We want to move information (as in music) from one place and time to another. We do it by converting sound air vibrations into data points, transferring them through time and space to recreate those air vibrations again.
1 - From the beginning of audio we stored music as a physical place in a 2-D space.
Huh?
Well it is like this, if you slice at a right angle and magnify a record groove each is seen a 'V". The location or amplitude of displacement of the walls of the "V" groove are the Data. How many individual spots can the tip of the stylus occupy at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second?
2 - We then found we could magnetize metal and read that magnetic field leading to wire and tape recording. The amplitude of magnetic field at any given time is the Data. How many magnetic levels can you have at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second?
3 - We then found that we chopp the information stream up into electrical samples, convert their amplitudes into numbers. We know how to make numbers into bits, and have a way to move and store bits , and we have a way to move air,. How many individual data points can you have at any given time? There is no "Perhaps" in this, it's digital. Look at 24 bit at 96 kHz, that 24 X 96,000 or Exactly 2.304 million bits per Sec.
So Analog is Data just as digital is an expression of that same date, and records can contain more Data Points than can current digital formats.
Let me add an aside, ment in humor and metaphor. Consider that the bias signal on a tape recorder could be viewed as a kind of 'sampler', it chopped up the audio signal to make the tape more linear at lower levels. We see that as the tape recorder manufactures came out with higher bias frequencies with associated comments about improved performance.
Now professional tape decks reach up to the +500 kiloHertz just our digital tastes are pushing 400 kiloHertz area
And yes when we hit 32-bit 384 kilosample (kHz) we do get to 12.3 million bits per second and the brass ring, we finally get to the Direct-to-Disc level.
Show less
REPLY
wow neat ,thanks for explaining
I set up my new Denon DL 103r last night. I loved what I was hearing and got out some old records to re listen. I enjoy the heck out of my records. Bought my first one in 1956.
Nice video .thanks
I don’t understand why all vinyl enthuses like my self wont just admit that: Vinyl is nostalgic and tells a story that CD’s don’t. Its takes us back to a precious time and memory.
Intrinsically records are quite, dust and debris are the microscopic primogenitors of the noise the infuriates you. perhaps it is time for some good record cleaning to get rid of the disturbances. Give it try and enjoy the results. Merry Christmas and a most crackle free New Year
Brilliant video. The whole digital problem is that increasing resolution on digital source does not move away digital sound: dead and poor timbres, plastic sound, poor dynamics etc.
Thank you. The inescapable fact of the matter is that to digitize is to chop up, throw away, reconstitute, and then try to fool the the best real time audio processing system in existence - your mind and associated ears.
Barry why does vinyl record better than CD? please let me know thanks kind regards William c adlam thank you
I thought vinyl had cracking sounds in them
i agree that records give a better viberation to the speakers and this is because the stylus picks up the viberations from the groove and these are then sent to the speakers therefore perfectly reproducing the soundwave where as digital formats can only go up in steps which means tiny tiny tiny parts of the wave are cut off now i'm not saying there arent hi end formats i.e FLAC but mp3 ect just doesnt match analogue formats
steps??that is not true
did you say more data?
Personally, I enjoyed both Vinyl and Audio CDs. But I would NEVER claim vinyl sounded superior. It's such a crude process manufacturing a vinyl record, and hopefully, the stamper isn't worn out for YOUR vinyl LP. Gouge a groove with a needle and watch it wiggle, add some accurate RIAA compensation since vinyl had its limitations. Toss all that garbage ticks & pops of yesteryear out and find a well mastered CD, direct from the first generation master or, even better, find someone who remixed the songs from multi-tracks, in a digital world, don't even have to store that analog recording master on noisy magnetic tape, THEN compare. Nice video! :)
I'll bet it was, but your remark triggered a thought.
I have been designing and building a DAC as part of my music system. I am confronted with the reality that DAC chips come in to families of concern to the listener, those are voltage or current output. Where the bits of digital turn into the electrical current we call an analog signal is the conundrum. The 'switches" that open and close, one for each 'blt', are brought together they are added together or 'summed' as a current to represent the signal level at that instant. It is in the form of a current.
Pull or push current through a resistor and you get voltage. Ahh, here is where the audio starts.
But the physics of IC design for the switching stuff degrades performance unless it is in the current mode.
So make all this switching work best you need to sum the signals in the current mode, the output of the chip wants to see a ground so that only current flows and no voltage is developed.
Out technology solution for this is a current summing operational amplifier in a 100% feedback mode. Everybody does it because the chip manufacture tells you that is how you get the most out of the chip. Chip tech lit is filled with proven production schematics to build from.
This point in the signal process, this transition from Digital to Analog, is done with some kind of Current-to-Voltage Converter. We call it the I/E stage (I is a symbol for current, E is for voltage) and Op-Amps do it very, very well. Amps in one side and volts out the other.
If you go to my website you will see papers I have written on Feed-back and its effects on the audio experience and the illusions we are trying to invoke as listeners.
So I took my current-mode amplifier circuit (I call it a Magnifier) that has worked so well in the Black Amp and the Concept Amp and applied it to the output of a standard "good" DAC chip, in this case an Analog Devices AD1955 I could buy cheaply on a full board from China. Cut off the audio stuff and went directly to the chip output.
Today I connect the last 10 wires between the boards and will see how it works.
Oh yea, information. If you believe as I do that data reduces to information which begets knowledge offering up wisdom, and there is both raw data and metadata, then you have to watch out which you are thinking about.
Off to the bench, have a good day
So how come some of my well-mastered CDs sound phenomenal?
Because they were "well-mastered" and likely mixed for digital playback. That being said, a well mastered LP (played on excellent equipment) will slay any well masted CD.
Unlike yesteryear, you can do a TON more to audio in a digital (with analog recordings) than they EVER could do in an analog world, in a fraction of the time. So, assuming you are hearing the actual master tape, a CD should kick the analog llama's behind! :)
Give me one example of any LP which has slayed its CD rival, which was well mastered. I have not heard reports of any LP victory yet. I have some really great Diana Krall LP's, none deliver her performances as well as CD, and CD's do not deliver her performances as well as SACD.
@@genuineuni I still dont hear something as creative as sgt peppers. And they did that on a 4-track. Tracks are unlimited, production is efficient, quality sound, so where are the masterpieces??? Where
liked you said some and is a lot more less with cd than it is with vinyl
I believe the reason is that vinyl records in most cases are recorded with more dynamic range than cd's and does not suffer from "The loudness war". Cd's does actually contain so much that every time I improve or tweek something in my system I hear new thing that was was not detectable before. When a good vinyl recording are playing I hear more dynamic range and therefore things seems to come to life for me. The digital media offers huge amount of dynamic range but the problem is how producers chooses to record them because of "The loudness war". Therefore the end product in many cases comes with a lot of dynamic compression and that seems to kill the music. That's how I see it.
Recording processing has traditionally been very observant of the needs of radio as that was the media that they were sold though. Radio needs limited dynamic range and no peaks to work well. An actual dynamic range of 30 db was just fine so compression was the word of the day. Things have changed with advent of digital but the reality is that a recode still only has 50 dB signal to noise on a damn good day. Digital can be 1/1000th the noise without too much work.
In the recording studio, the room itself as a musician plays an instrument, may, the signal to noise may, on a good day and the right place, hit 60 dB for a non-electric instrument, 70 for an electric.
The issue is not dynamic range, that is a Red-Herring to keep you busy and distracted.
www.austinaudioworks.com
I have measured many cartridges using test records (you can get a copy of my paper at "Getting Your Cartridge Loaded For Better Music" at my currently being rebuilt web site .
Since I am designing a DAC now I have spent a lot of in the world of frequency response, both are quite adequate, so that too is a Red Herring.
There is something else, perhaps something to do with timbre, the relationship between all the different energies (acoustic energy at different frequencies) that make up a 'sound'. The relationships are measured in amplitude and phase and can get a bit complex. Timbre is a 'gestalt' issue, the sum is greater than the parts because the human brain and passion are involved.
And this can start off a whole discussion that I can not participate in at this moment as I need to get finished for RMAF in around 48 ours, good luck.
I believe you're missing the whole picture. In real life it doesn't really matter how much signal to noise or dynamic range the digital media offers compared to a turntable. Most cd's today comes with a dynamic range of 6 - 8 dB because of dynamic compression. In most case the same music on vinyl typically has about 14 -16 dB of dynamic range. In both cases it's below what the media offers. So in my view the problem is not the media itself. It's how how they've chosen to master the recording. I know this is a simplified view of what's going on. A lot of others factors are a important. I still believe this is the most important one. Please look up "The loudness war". It explains why cd's are recorded that way in most cases. I think my ears are much more sensible to dynamic variations than they are to detect information above 20kHz. Here is database that contains info about dynamic range of several albums on both vinyl and cd dr.loudness-war.info/
Loudness Wars are more common in more current music, not as common with past music, aka, "Oldies".Many claim greater dynamic with vinyl. However, if you had the analog multi-tracks to remix in a digital world, you would not have to store them of noisy magnetic tape - less of a noise floor equates to the greatest dynamics.
@@genuineuni but u dont!!
when CD's came out in the 80's they would brag about more information on them compared to Vinyl and tape, now they say the opposite. is it because of the loudness war between producers that killed dynamic range? it'snot that the CD can't store more info it's that they are too loud?
cd's have mid-range smearing due to the A to D process, second the recording has to constrain the high frequency, then the D o A conversion is inherently lossy
Can scratches on a record ruin your stylus?
YES
@@renaissance6745 I suppose is they are gouges. But if they are small, the stylus just thinks it's part of the music. Am I wrong?
Stereo vinyl vs Stereo CD? I choose vinyl. That is REAL separation. the needle is literally in a physical groove and the way its carved actually separates the sound and creates the stereo. I dunno, just sounds better to me. Bass seems more live and thumping on vinyl as well, but you can get that on a CD.
@Çerastes so do ur actual ears
People either convince themselves that the Vinyl Gods handed down the almighty Plastic Disks immaculate and perfect, or can't handle the truth, which is compressed, simplified LPs were more familiar, in a warm, cozy, fuzzy and vague way that crisp, crystalline clear digital via CD challenged; listeners had to recalibrate to listen critically in order to perceive nuances and make poor recordings or performances stand out. High Fidelity sounded swell, too, as I remember, but that was the 1950's and stereo was a gimmick.
some people blaming pop's and crackles that's because it's a damaged record buy a new one that's the same as a scratched cd they will both not play properly errhhh .
The original music was once captured on reel to reel at 15ips or higher. To say records is better than tape is an erroneous statement. Vinyl to digital is the actual music versus a facsimile. Much like a painting is to a photograph. The methods used in studios today do not equate to a common CD as some have said.
Vinyl is groovy. Digital is black and white.
Whoever wants to listen to snap , crackle and pop can be my guest. I don't care if the turntable costs a zillion bucks. I'm sticking to CD.
Wet cleaning and the glue cleaning really does make the record very nice. Give it a shot. But please dont waste ur time on new records. New shit is for digital, CD is useless. Vonyl is for all the pre digital stuff. Trust me, it's just better. I have German vinyl pressing of the stones black and blue. It puts any digital version to shame. Why? Because it does
try cleaning them.......it ain't rocket science
hello why vinyl is better? Barry
OK, is it? Everything we hear in reproduced music is an illusion, there is no band there, no singer, no anything but some vibrations in air. Yet when it works out right you get feelings that are hard to describe but totally real. I have just finished my DAC design work and I walk a way from it saying digital should be perfect, and the vinyl record should be a poor copy. Digital technology is better and not mechanical, it should have higher resolution, be faster, have less noise, and it does! But when you listen to the horrible old vinyl mechanical process this technical exactitude doesn't always seem to matter. Along with the noise and scratches, and the known limits of the process comes a quality of sound that the ever so pure digital process has trouble rendering.
Is digital too quite between the notes? is the digital process to pure? Is it the the different digital and analog recording rules put on the recordist? Does the character of the entropy of the two processes produce different ensemble and timbre in the reproduction?
Is it the as simple as the issue of sampling, that is no mater how well we do it, chopping continuous audio data up into pieces means that it the data now fundamentally different and can never really be reassembled exactly into the original continuous stream?
We have no way to rationally discuss the gestalt of our personal sensual experiences and too may variables can effect the out come.
If you can get your vinyl music system to give you feelings you can't get on a digital equivalency then you have the only answer that matters, it makes you feel good and that is about all you can ask from your time alive.
I wish you good listening and a lot of fun.
Thanks, Barry
And hear we go again with the emperor’s new cloths
Way back when there were only records I bought all the SME’s and turntables
But I always dreamed of cd’s with their pure sound Lp’s do not sound better
When I go to a live concert and listen to a string quartet I do not hear crackles and pops like you get on a record
These crazy people are not listening to the music they just love watching the turntable going round, I am a photographer who used film for decades and now use digital its the same as the records move on they are just tools
typical because we believe this ridiculous degree of audiophile you assume we are hateful jealous people, No its because we believe in spending our time listing to music not equipment
No, those people that prefer vinyl ARE listening to the music. BUT, they aren’t concentrating on the pops and ticks. They are truly listening to the music. Any digital format is an approximation, incapable of getting it right as much as analog can. Recently, I have stumbled upon pictures of analog impulses recorded digitally from 320 mp3 up to 256 DSD. Anything less than the DSD showed severe loss in faithful reproduction of the impulse, even at 192/24. The 256 DSD was very, very close to being accurate, but not quite there. I wish they had included 512 DSD. That, I think, may have been spot on. But, it showed clearly, that the vast majority of digital does not reproduce accurately. Attacks, delays, ambiance and everything else that makes the recording come as close as possible to the live recording are compromised. But, if you prefer digital, go for it, and I truly hope it satisfies you. But, unfortunately, I can hear the difference. Viva vinyl!!
How about this??? It's not Vinyl it's a record and it's made out of PVC!!!!!
Vinyl pops must be the more information you are alluding to. They do not improve the vinyl experience. Pops distract from the pleasure. Show me how I can eliminate pops and I'll believe your story. Multi-channel SACD sounds best today of all formats out there.
Total nonsense. Vinyl has less data on it than a CD, your understanding of digital and sampling is wrong. Not to mention a very large percentage of vinyl was cut using a digital preview delay. If digital had less data, and vinyl has more, were did that extra data come from? This video is total mythology.
Nope. The record does indeed contain more "data" but it's not the data that was put down in the studio. It's distortion and noise. If people think it sounds better it's because they like that sound. But objectively, scientifically, empirically it's not "better".
Digital has a sample rate. lol at you claiming the extra data is distortion and noise, you ever hear a clean record? And 44.1 even 96khz, what about in between all those samples? there is data, whether or not it's perceivable or not has still yet to be proven, and our ears are still more advanced than can be understood. Not saying vinyl's better but your wrong with your assumptions because you can not "objectively" say music in any form is better. It's perception of music, totally subjective. The reality is the limited dynamic range of vinyl forces mastering to cram in information subsequently bringing up subtleties like a guitarists hands sliding on a guitar neck, or the drummers kick pedal. THAT sound is why we like vinyl, it makes it sound like they are in the room with us. There is another video online of a mastering engineer explaining this. Call it "harmonic distortion" whatever you want. It brings you closer to the music, I have heard guitar parts on zeppelin albums that are completely buried on cd masters. Really depends on the mastering though, on some records it is clear as day "better" to me. Even digitized, old records can sound better than new cd's because the mastering was better on the original.
The old guy has the right attitude but totally fucked up the explanation. It all comes down to analog vs digital. Analog = humanity. Digital = skynet. You be the judge!
Ok boomer
No! WRONG!
Vinyl has LESS Information, and sounds better, tastes better, smells nicer, and the existence of god, are not physically measurable things.
1) When prepping to cut vinyl, music passes a 40Hz high pass filter and a DYNAMIC COMPRESSOR so that it fits the limited dynamic ability of vinyl grooves, else your needle would jump out of the groove and adjacent grooves would be cut to touch each other.
This means less information.
2) Practically ALL new pressings made today are from DIGITAL sources, some from 44.1 CD sources because the way it was produced or missing in the archive, analog tape deteriorated or NA etc.
3) READ CAREFULLY, Non linear distortion adds harmonics, = frequencies that where not part of the original source, it is these added distortion induced harmonics that some people find as sounding better,
Sure is easier on the ears, but not part of the original tape, and results in less detail yet easy pleasurable sound.
I prefer a CD, unless sometimes for remastering they find in the vault a better source tape to make the vinyl from,
so that is not a vinyl property, its the better source material that just happens to be put on vinyl instead of a CD.
There are some word issues here that we might look at. Data is a piece of information, perhaps some, perhaps all the information. At bit or byte is data, so is an analog event such as the continuous music moving your ear drum. We want to move information (as in music) from one place and time to another. We do it by converting sound air vibrations into data points, transferring them through time and space to recreate those air vibrations again.
1 - From the beginning of audio we stored music as a physical place in a 2-D space.
Huh?
Well it is like this, if you slice at a right angle and magnify a record groove each is seen a 'V". The location or amplitude of displacement of the walls of the "V" groove are the Data. How many individual spots can the tip of the stylus occupy at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second?
2 - We then found we could magnetize metal and read that magnetic field leading to wire and tape recording. The amplitude of magnetic field at any given time is the Data. How many magnetic levels can you have at any given time? Perhaps 10's of millions per second?
3 - We then found that we chopp the information stream up into electrical samples, convert their amplitudes into numbers. We know how to make numbers into bits, and have a way to move and store bits , and we have a way to move air,. How many individual data points can you have at any given time? There is no "Perhaps" in this, it's digital. Look at 24 bit at 96 kHz, that 24 X 96,000 or Exactly 2.304 million bits per Sec.
So Analog is Data just as digital is an expression of that same date, and records can contain more Data Points than can current digital formats.
Let me add an aside, ment in humor and metaphor. Consider that the bias signal on a tape recorder could be viewed as a kind of 'sampler', it chopped up the audio signal to make the tape more linear at lower levels. We see that as the tape recorder manufactures came out with higher bias frequencies with associated comments about improved performance.
Now professional tape decks reach up to the +500 kiloHertz just our digital tastes are pushing 400 kiloHertz area
And yes when we hit 32-bit 384 kilosample (kHz) we do get to 12.3 million bits per second and the brass ring, we finally get to the Direct-to-Disc level.
+Barry Thornton excellent Barry, thank you!!
Barry Thornton beautiful explanation! thank you! the problem then becomes the source it seems. as it was mentioned, most of todays recordings are from digital source, recorded straight to digital, many times around 24bit/48kHz and then you cut the vinyl.
Proves most people do believe instead of experience ......you can't argue with anyone's belief system .....and this generation grew up and believes in digital .....digital has become their daily perceived ( virtual ) reality ......
I don't believe ....I listen and that tells me what medium i can connect better to the music....
When you were teached to type on a keyboard only , you didn't develop the ability to write , a handwritten signature seems to be only a crabbed mark without meaning .
FIRST : One has to unlearn ...... before learning .....
So when you question or oppose a belief system , people often get angry .....
But some discover and connect with the ( unknown) emotions they could not experience before.
And analog and vinyl lives on .......with GOOD reason .
Yes, any modern music that originate from a digital master will never turn analog again through a vinyl disc. Unfortunately, too much of our music listening is over-compressed digital audio, but the poor sound is not due to audio being digital. Actually the dynamic range of digital audio can be hugely better than analog vinyl.
Crackle, pop hiss, hum...oh that sounds SO GOOD! You vinyl fanboys need to wake up! Bear in mind, here is an old man ( with perfect hearing no doubt ) attempting to convince us that vinyl is better...? PLEASE!
U have no clue. Play a record from the 70's in decent condition against the original CD or some remastered new version, then come back and tell me vinyl is just about old people jibber. Do it!
the crackles, pop hiss and hum are a result of bad equipment and filthy records where the grooves and filled with dust. it is not supposed to be there.
Why do records sound better? They don't.