Problem with CD is in the mastering. The style today is LOUD, compression, and that screws up CD. CD has EVERY advantage, only if you take advantage of it.
After listening to this like 5 times, I feel like the lp was better all around, the cd almost has a compression sound when it hits the lows. I'm happy that the record sounds that good. You gotta think of what is actually going on, data lasers vs. a needle picking up sound, it's just amazing that it still sounds that good.
Its so counterintuitive how we mix and master as loud as acceptable for CD but we do the exact opposite for Vinyl even though it has an audible noise floor.
This video was amazing! I was raised on cassette tapes, so I never experienced vinyl. Even though I do appreciate analog recordings, this has opened up my eyes to levels I didn't even know existed! Thank you for making this video. I can tell there is passion in what you do!
DAMN ! I just LOVE this CD but am a vinyl junkie first ( 24/96 recordings from my own if I have to ). If you have the ear, this last track tries to be louder and louder on CD but always fails ( to me ). I didn't realise there was an alternative. Every time you switched to the vinyl, it came alive. The mastering of the CD left nothing in reserve. Thank you and damn you. How can a medium with 35db of dynamic range outshine something with 105db. It's something I've asked myself often.....
The funny part is that as we are all listening to it on a digital medium, that any difference we hear is due to different mastering preferences and the extra distortion from the analog medium, as reproduced by a digital system that we are all now listening to.
OK, but that another story cause we are all listening to two different version of the same song through the same system, each one at his home cause speakers count, the point is the difference between the master: more analogue version here: ruclips.net/video/U-GamX1R_bM/видео.html i listen to more depth here
Thanks for doing this Ian - it's the first of your videos I've seen. I think there are more obvious factors than the differences between vinyl and CD versions and the resultant EQ/Dynamic range complications when comparing the two. After all, many of us only possess one means of playing music - whether it's CD, Vinyl, radio or downloads. Loudness mastering (and lets not forget there are plenty of records that have been loudness mastered too, albeit in different ways) is responsible for the curious effect of the smoothing out of volume and dynamics between tracks and sections of tracks that are supposed to be contrasting. I'm not explaining myself very well here but let's give a couple of examples. When watching TV, I suspect we've all noticed that often the adverts are a lot louder than the actual program content. It's as if the TV channel would rather draw your attention to ads (the source of their revenue) rather than the (often) drivel they're putting out in the name of entertainment! With commercial radio the opposite tends to be true. DJ's voices, adverts, jingles, news bulletins and musical content all appear to the ear to be at the same volume level and the result is an aural assault. Whether it's actual volume or EQ or something else that's responsible for this is almost immaterial - it's the effect on the listener that counts. I personally find commercial radio unbearable to listen to - and the non-commercial BBC is not much better, but there seem to be less aggressive algorithms used so it's (to my ears) more bearable. As far as albums are concerned, let's say a track starts out with piano/vocal and progresses to full rock band in verse 2. At a gig, my ears would perceive a considerable volume difference between these 2 sections, which is how it's meant to be of course. A loudness mastered recording would aim to even out these contrasts. Furthermore, let me quote the example of a perennial fave of mine (because it takes me back to being 12 years old!) - on ABBA's Super Trouper LP, sandwiched between 2 fairly dynamic ballads (The Winner Takes It All and Andante Andante) there is a rock pastiche called On & On & On. It's not their best song, but it's made worse by the fact that it's had all the life compressed out of it and what should be a heavy rock band actually ends up sounding quieter than the two ballads! The result of all this dynamic smoothing out for me is that I tend to zone the music out and wonder if I need to catch up on a good book or do the ironing! I'm not suggesting that rock musicians should aim for classical music mastering, but it does seem to me that those albums where attention has been paid to realistic volume levels between contrasting sections of songs and the tracks that precede and follow are the most satisfying to listen to. I could take this a step further - I once illustrated on YT (although they made me take it down) the huge discrepancies in volume between the grunge metal of Nirvana's Nevermind CD (original 90's master) and a mid noughties Michael Bublé song. Musically, you could take your granny to see Bublé but she would keel over at a Nirvana gig. Yet volume-wise on the recordings, it's the Bublé that would have her spitting her false teeth into her cup of tea. Sorry this has been rather lengthy but I think this is an oft overlooked factor when discussing sound quality and I wondered if you had made any videos or had any thoughts on this. Thanks for reading.
There are a lot of variables when you go from a master recording to vinyl. The engineer must make sure the cut never exceeds any of the limitations of the LP format. He may add some eq as well. On the playback end, every cartridge has a different frequency response curve (much like speakers), tonearm to cartridge matching will affect the balance as well. Then add in your phono preamp and cartridge loading and it becomes difficult to know what the LP really sounds like without spending more time evaluating the neutrality of the system. One reason people like vinyl is the process of fine-tuning an analog rig.
You are right on some of your comments. As a former record chain buyer in the 70's and 80s. Level matching is important. The difference in vinyl and cd is layering effect,in other words the orchestra pit effect.You can only get that from vinyl cd is a wall of sound. To hear the bent note in Jazz or the the depth of classical only can be done on vinyl.
ironically, this causes difference in eq, as they often try to eq a compressed master to make it sound better. the attempt here was nice, but this sadly doesn't really show enough info. there are clearly dynamic peaks being squashed in the waveform. although very small compared to other poor masters, to some people like myself, a very slightly squished dynamic can have a noticeable impact on the sound. there are way too many variables in this video, including youtube compression that render it fairly useless to compare the two source masters other than to simply show that, sure, eq can have a hufe effect. "the vinyl still edges it and sounds more open"... it may not be a major difference to him, but it might be to someone else... I master music myself, and especially during certain parts of the music, even slight peak compression can make an otherwise spacious sounding mix sound claustrophobic in comparison. I must say even the cd release sounds phenomenal, but i have always wished to here the "true" studio master of this album.
Love it. Thank you. The vinyl had a denser low end which I think created more contrast in the overall mix, thus allowing the listener to perceive that the vinyl version sounded more open and dynamic. Cymbal crashes are very different between the 2 as well. Anyhow. I loved the album and I have the cd and it is lovely to play on HD equipment. Nothing harsh or ear fatiguing at all. Thank you Bob Ludwig!!!
Well done! A good comparison between (discrete signal), bit-streams, pulse code modulations, clock signals, cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes, sampling rates, DACs, anti-aliasing filters and (analog signal) diamond cuts, cartridges, phono preamplifiers, analog-to-digital converters. Since there are many influences on the music and given the fact that we know so little about how to measure it properly, it is keeping the whole industry busy.
***** You do know the actual technical terms. All I'm saying, when you did the comparison and switched between the two. The vinyl sounded a lot more opened, while the CD sounded more muffled. Like you mentioned in the video, there's not a lot of difference, and we would hardly notice if it wasn't for the side by side comparison. But I did hear the difference.
***** The difference is not that big because this vinyl used the same original master that this CD did. If you catch an original album pressed with an analogical original master, and compare with a poor 90's CD from the same album, i'm sure the diference will be quite big. There is the issue about the set too. What set are you using? If you are comparing a mid-end vinyl set (at least a good turntable and cartridge, with a eliptical stylus) with a mid-end CD set, i'm pretty sure the vynil will also sound quite better then the CD (including the case of the same original sound). Did you put a independent DAC on the CD set? That also counts. There's a lot of details to be explored! Your point is a good one, though. Nowdays, the companys are releasing remastered albuns with a digital original master (not that this master is no good, it is great!). Greetings from Brazil!
Dynamics in the case of audio refers to level based processing i.e.affecting the volume.examples are compressors, limiters, gates and expanders.EQ is frequency based processing where you have certain controls that allow you to boost or attenuate specific frequencies of an audio signal.If a snare was played inconsistently on a recording in terms of volume, I could use a compressor to even out the level of the hits. If the snare was too harsh sounding I could use EQ to cut the offending freq.
Surely the whole point of buying a record is so that when you listen to it from that point on, you are going to be avoiding any digital processing when listening. It has been mastered specifically for the analogue domain, and any audiophile will not have digital amps or anything, it will go record deck, preamp, amp, speakers. I don't really think you can get a fair comparison by this test. Especially not when then going on to use digital eq's etc... In a way it may be a better test to get a good stereo pair of microphones and record both versions that way. Obviously the room matters but I imagine yours is treated and at least it can be volume matched easily etc. it will still be coming back into the digital domain though. I guess in that respect its almost impossible to get a fair test... Still a good video though and pointed out some very interesting things, cheers :)
***** Actually you don't have to 'believe' digital can remove quality of the sound at all, I can easily PROOF that! At least when CD standard is being used. Don't believe me? Try this: Fire up a program like Audacity. Set the recording standard at 16bit 44.1 Khz. Now go to "Generate" and generate a Sine tone at let's say something like 10.000 hz (easily within human hearing range). A sine wave should have completely smooth curves. But now zoom in on the waveform and see the 'horror'. It's nowhere near smooth and perfect round as a sine wave should be. It actually looks more like a distorted sawtooth, than a sine wave. At CD standard there is simply not enough resolution to produce 'perfect' waveforms even well within human hearing range. Of course analog sound reproduction has a lot of problems on it self, but they are of a different kind. Only if you use very high resolution digital recording (at least 24 bit 96 Khz or better) the waveforms will be accurate within human hearing range.
Thanks for the great vid Mr. Shepard! Personally perceived the slight difference as a major one (I have extremely sensitive ears, I can perceive a difference down to 0.5dB) Since the average difference is around 3-5 dB (give or take). NOTE to the other commentators, this difference is PARTICULAR TO ME and obviously won't be applicable to most other people.
Thanks Ian. A bit late to this one but very interesting. Seems like what you are hearing is dependent on so many variables - equipment, source, EQ - rendering the debate about which sounds better - vinyl or CD - sort of "beside the point". For any recording you need to balance X variables to obtain the best result which strikes me as a sort of alchemy despite all of the technology we throw at the problem. Just a few questions: 1) I have read that bass can be a problem on vinyl transfers - disk space issues, dynamic range limitations of analogue - so it is typically pulled back a touch - or a lot- depending on the situation. Is this a possible explanation for the sense of openness we usually associate with vinyl? Could they also make the top end "hotter" to increase the effect? 2) Could you create the same effect by adjusting the relative loudness of instruments on a digital master?
I had avoided "Random Access Memories" until now, because I was annoyed by a clip from "One More Time" on the radio. The song sounds like a Sound Blaster stuck in a loop, and contains samples so chopped up that it takes an engineer to pick up the pieces. "Contact" by itself is also is pretty awful. I heard it some time ago on the web. Now that the media hype is over, I was pleasantly surprised by this album. It gave me an impression of a continuous journey, whereas pop albums today tend to feel more like compilations of tracks. The pure dynamics were not great. I felt that the bass was "thick" at times, like on a saturated tape. But the character of the music changed significantly from one song to the next. The Giorgio Moroder's speech, with space around it, fit well in the album. I love film music by this composer. At times RAM sounded like a funky video game sound track, and also remined me of Space music from late 80s. Perhaps this was not intentended to be so, but "Horizon" seemed like it showed a new calm world either here on earth or beyond a stargate, after aliens had come and destroyed everything during "Conctact". Usually "bonus" tracks do not fit on the album they've been added to, and lower its integrity. If this song wasn't there, perhaps we could think that we had arrived into the boring distorted present day, and that is the end. I'm glad RAM won the Dynamic Range award. I've also noticed that the more a track is clipped, the more the peak level can be artifically increased by dumb phase shift. Sometimes by 8 dBs. Whereas the envelope of a "normal" waveform changes only a little. I've removed my older comment to avoid flooding this thread.
My recording career began nearly 40 years ago and I welcomed digital when it came to restoring old recordings but it always sounded brittle to me.Then it seemed to improve [or my ears began to accept it] Awesomely clean sound especially for live recordings but something was missing. On this example I hear a depth and excitement from the vinyl while the CD is lacking. I'll bet it also depends on the material as well. Thanks for posting this observation!
good job... this "adjustment" is what I do to Timbre match different speakers... it is completely possible to get timbre to fairly closely match by careful eq'ing.
this is very interesting!! but with vinyl you have a lot more room to make mods to cater to your listening preferences. the stylus, tonearm adjustment,tonearm, preamp, plinth, damping, the list goes on and on. what it really comes down to for me is having convenience (mp3, wav, cd) when I'm out and about, or when 'm at home and I can control my musical environment (speakers, amp, speaker placement, room conditioning, etc). whatever makes your music experience the best for you.
i didn't have patience to read every comments here but there's a point.... To make a FAIR comparaison, and start with an equitable basis, he should have recorded in analog both source, with the same sound card, to avoid EQ differences between the both samples. Here in your example, we have a CD dump i suppose, and the vinyl have been recorder through a sound card (and yes, a phono Riaa preamp, with preemphasis) Your test is interesting, but for me it would have been more convinient to sample both sourses from analog through a same soundcard... Hope i have been understandable lol
I bought the HD tracks version, and at first glance, it looks crushed, but then I zoom in, and I can see dynamics. The vinyl still has a better dynamic contrast, and I'm not sure how that happens.
I have the vinyl version of this record and the CD rip (by amazon lol) and with my setup they sound pretty much identical (Ortofon OM10 & Yamaha A-S700). The Yamaha amp and the OM10 are both very neutral. I'm pretty sure the choice of stylus and amp/preamp will have much more of an impact than the mastering itself.
Haven't read all of comments, but i did some experiment with get lucky, using soundforge 11.using CD, the vinyl and the hi-rez download. Haven't mess for hour with EQ, but i did match the levels best i can. I recorded and played the vinyl via a Steinberg UR 44 at same frequency rate than the hi-rez download using the best sounding and tracking cart on my Technics SL 1100, the AT 120. To my ears, the TT came up with the more pleasant listening experience overall, A little more livelier, maybe not as truthful as hi-rez, but that little extra life added by vinyl catched my ears.Hi-rez download comes close second. It sounds more detailed than vinyl ,but a little more ironed if i can can that. CD finishes third.I never listened to the CD ever since, except for road trip. Maybe if i had a megabucks CD player and DAC i would change my mind. But for the money, i think the analog way is the way to go .My TT set up costs only 700$ including the Cambridge preamp.I don't think you can get this good sound with a CD player of the same price. And it is a lot easier to swap cartridges to get the most of your record than swapping CD players.
I actually kinda like Contact like that. A little compressed. It's loud, but on the WEB downloads it's actually not distorted. It impacts. But the other tracks sound so much better so dynamic. I also still think CD sounds slightly sharper on the highs when you factor in the preamp on the vinyl being top end heavy.
Why does the vinyl master have more dynamics if vinyls don't allow as much dynamic range as the CD does? Good video btw, I've definitely learned something new. I find terrific how the CD version sounds in comparation with the vinyl.
I think that they might have EQ'd the vinyl version to compensate for low dynamic range on home record players. Alternately, the CD version might have been EQ'd to match the sound of a record player they had in the studio - to give it a specific kind of coloration.
What many don’t realise is, there’s eq in your earphones too, as well as your speakers, and many playback devices such as iPhone.. and if you aren’t conscious of this, then they can compound and totally ruin the sound. So a lot of folks drive around streaming their music through their eq’d phones via Bluetooth which downgrades the sample rate, and killing their hearing with fatigue and awful audio reproduction. And yes with vinyl, the sound can vary drastically depending on your equipment. There are some who rip somewhat professionally, and have very expensive equipment to ensure a clean, neutral sound. Of course, something will always be lost when converting analog signal to digital, and if they then use declick filters, this can degrade the sound further. RAM on vinyl was mastered by arguably the best in the business, Bob Ludwig. I can’t recall if he did the CD mastering, but if not, then I would assume the vinyl sounds better. By how much all depends on what he had to work with you guess. I believe they recorded the tracks both AAA and digitally, but the final master is digital. It would be interesting to know if an aaa cut is possible 🤔 or even a partial analog cut? On 45? 😂❤
The final mixes and masters were all digital (although with analogue processing) and the same master was then used for the vinyl cut. At this point there is additional analogue processing (always) but the exact impact of this is difficult to judge.
We could say all roads lead to Rome, but no matter what that record was cut from, if I find the whole thing on vinyl better sounding than the CD/digital release, then it's good enough for me. Regardless of EQ, mistracking shenanigans, that is. Worst case scenario, it just avoids me from doing some home remastering trickery with those files to get them to sound less bloated. That's my two cents.
The CD sounds better in my opinion. You can obviously hear more detail to each symbol hit while the vinyl version is just more like "fizz". For one thing, the last track on a vinyl is ALWAYS the worst sounding track on a vinyl because there is a phenomenon called "inner-groove distortion" basically what happens is there is gradually less vinyl material going past the needle each minute as it inches closer to the center of the record. CD on the other hand doesn't suffer from this. Vinyl records are also extremely dependent on the tools used between the record and the loudspeakers or output which can possibly add all kinds of coloration to the sound. Personally, I'd like to hear a comparison between analog reel to reel master tape versus the digital "solid state" master.
using the eq to roll off is not required..if the upper freq is better with vinyl then i would say its a better overall sound. the depth of the sound was not addressed in the loudness test. if the resolution of the music is better by virtue of its source i go with the higher rez source. this testing using the eq to mod the sounds is interesting and thoroughly enjoyed it. thanks for sharing. ( I will keep both sources) :)
Thank you for your effort in making this comparison... it helps. I have a question to you: what is the result when you compare them directly on your audio equipment ? After all... you make a comparison here on youtube... the sound on youtube it's far from stellar.
Very nice video, i think it would have been a great idea if you had recorded the CD file WITH the EQ, in order for us to see how the shape of the CD waveform changed because of the EQ, and see if somehow the new cd waveform kinda looked like the vinyl waveform, instead of looking like a big block of heavily compressed audio. It can be an interesting observation. I am sorry for my english, i am still practicing :), I hope you did understand! Thanks! J.
Ian, here's an idea, what about inverting your EQ curve, and applying it to the CD? I think it'd be awesome if you could say "here's how to make the CD sound as 'good' as the vinyl". Oh, and by the way, thank you SO MUCH for spending time on this. It was enlightening to me, and I've been doing indie mastering work for years.
5dB is not a big difference at all when comparing digital and analog. I can get a 5dB DR rating boost on some heavily clipped DR5 digital sources just by recording it to cassette and back to digital. Obviously there is no real increase in dynamics. One way to tell if the dynamics is real is to zoom all the way in to the waveform and look for smooth sections in transient sounds (drums, beats, etc). Analog systems may tilt, bend or even move the clipped flat sections close to the zero-crossing but they don't remove it. If you see tilted tops or sections of the waveform that are unnaturally smooth compared to its surroundings, it may have come from clipping.
You've got a CD there that obviously wasn't 'overdone' by the loudness war, so you got 2 comparable samples from CD and the LP. For tests like these, that seems to me as a requirement in the fist place. The sections you were comparing were still very loud after all. So compliments for the cd-cut if it wasn't hurt by the 'loudness war'. I liked the part where you were trying to equal both the EQ settings of the vinyl and the CD. My conclusion would be that you need a CD recording that represents the recording in a good way, so without the 'loudness torture', which it apparently was in this video, and vinyl record in a pristine state played with a quality record player as well. To the mass, the cd or any type of digital music medium is better in quality and easier to use. Vinyl might be equal, better or close, but it requires much more preciseness of the equipment. Next to your interesting comparison of CD and vinyl, I'd expect some reflection on playing gear.
you can see in the waveforms how compressed the cd is (probably due to the limitations of the frequency response of cds), even if the vinyl recording had high end added by the pre amp setup the vinyl waveform shows no compression at all. vinyl is more open but cds do sound little thicker due to the formats compression as thats what compression does to the low end but the top dynamics get crushed by it. In the end there's is no discussion for which is better but purely for what an individual prefers.
Compression is not a factor of the CD format itself. And the waveform of the vinyl track is very misleading, the same master was used for both the CD and the vinyl so they both have an identical dynamic range.
The difference is due to different master modifications; in CD a compressor was used to mantain a continuous level of sound pressure. This example is not valid to compare the two formats. You can hear a lot of CD without any manipulations of the recorded signal (eq, compressors, digital reverbs, etc.)
Thank you for your answer. I do know the differences between both formats, I actually have both vinyls and cds and a good system at home. I agree about the cost, it isn't worth it. But I ask myself, with today's technology, producers and engeneers have more than enough tools to make them sound the same and yet they don't. Can't understand why. Thanks again.
mp3 is a digital coding for music so that more data can be stored on a computer. There is a huge difference when talking to an engineer. I know it all sounds complicated but it's physics not a computer. A good example can be getting shocked by anything to get the same result of an analog set up in front of everybody. (Daft Punk) This is why they give you that effect either way.
I'm just happy to see a comparison video using enjoyable music instead of using some male or female vocalist who I wouldn't want to listen to unless i'd been dead for 50 years or more!
Thank you for the comparison / breakdown, but it is a difficult task to define a musical perspective when all that was recorded in that sound byte was nothing but a bunch of nasty square waves! And before we tolerated that, I used to love Daft Punk!
Vinyl all about the cartridge and phono pre. Spend $150-300 on a cart, $500-1000 on the phono pre and cds will lose every time. But, the vinyl experience is best IN analog and not compressed digitally.
#1: Not the same source, the master on vinyl is different from the CD master. Also the #1 reason why vinyl myths have come about, not understanding how recording process works. Instead of saying "vinyl is better" one should say "vinyl master is better". #2: Why the HELL did you continue your test when you saw that #1 (i can see it from here, don't need to even listen to it) and that the RIAA used in the capturing/recording was NOT up to specs, he said it had boosted highs.. Then you match by ear using EQ? No No NOOOOO!!!! So you compare two different masters with faulty equipment: boosted highs probably sound better to the listener but since we are doing objective analysis here, it needs to be as flat and up to specs as possible.. Getting same master for both.. not gonna happen, the most chances are between vinyl and HiRes digital audio files that they would be much much closer. Which brings the next myth in the line: HiRes is soo much better... When it is the same fault in logic: they are not from same master..
+Ian Shepherd +SquidCaps I think you are both right. For the story, after two years of preparation in studio Gang in Paris, the recording and the mix of this album have been made in USA on tapes. Once the recording was done, the tapes were transported by car (to avoid damaging them when passing airport gates) to be digitized by Bob Ludwig. Only one digitization of the album have been made, 88.2k/24bits, which was the format at which Bob's gears sounded the best. The data was then bounced back by internet in Paris to be mastered by Chab. After digitization, the main problem was that the album had a lack of overall punch. They corrected that with top notch dynamic EQs (Weiss). They made more than 50 differents masters in 88.2k/24 to finally keep only one which was the base for the 3 other supports: Vinyl, CD and iTune mp3. Imo it is very unlikely that the vinyl was intended to have more or less bass or highs than the HD or CD master. The preamp here have a lot to do with the heard differences in Equing. However, Chad said itself that they tried to compensate the downs of each support so it is very likely that each versions have slight differences in dynamics, but nothing audible on youtube. Also, you don't have the original vinyl, only a badly digitized version of it (the highs are blurred). So as there is no direct comparison of the two sources, the test is scientifically pointless. I will add that equing being a linear transformation, it normally doesn't change the dynamic of a piece of sound at all. It is changing the overall dynamic of the track, but in no case the dynamic of the concerned frequencies (it's a bit too complex to explain here: the demonstration of this behavior involve very heavy mathematics. You can have a feel of this when you observe that changing the order of two eq in a chain doesn't affect the sound, but changing the order of a compressor and an eq in a chain gives two different processes.). Anyway, for me trying to match two tracks by equing to spot on what are the differences in dynamics is ok. Overall I liked this video. Some links: www.chabmastering.com/ fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ludwig
Haha, no the Bob Ludwig step was really only about digitization. But, it's more important that it sounds like. Equing and levels adjustment is done here and must be perfect during the sampling to avoid further issues. Apparently Bob only used the magneto and it's built in eq, which is badass and clever; the less you put devices in a chain, the better the sound =) He made a fantastic work !
+Ian Shepherd So you actually have not personally spoken to Bob either... I am quite amazed on how you can compare these recordings without even knowing where at least one came from or how it was made. I usually read your articles with quite some interest, but you completely shot a blank here...
8 лет назад
+Ian Shepherd No offence, but as you are a sound professional I would of thought you wold have a better audio mic. This sounds really bad! Too much bass and very muffled. Sounds like you are talking with a sock on your head. Sometimes its really hard to understand what you are saying and no I am not a self-proclaimed audiophile or some such nonsense that means nothing, just a guy with ears.
I do not share the whole approach. We need to exclude all other sources of differences. What we hear it is vinyl LP played with specific cartridge and phono amplifier. My experience is that both matter and it is heard because I have two preamps - tube and solid and also I replaced my plate cartrigge with eliptical due to sonic quality. It is all different for experienced ear. . CD was made of original recording or recorded from vinyl on another plate with another preamp then plate here. I made such comparaison in following way - I put LP on my plate and copied to digital file. Then I burned CD with 48 kHz, put it to my CD player. Then I started simmuntaneously LP and CD an switched between them with one click. With my experience I had no clue what is what. So all differences I observe in old and new technologies I count to remastering. And that makes me crazy because for me it is unification of tiimbres.
I'm not going to sit here and throw around a bunch of technical terms to voice my opinion, because to me it's not about what the EQ meter is set on or any of that. (Yes, I know the EQ and Dynamics are really important in sound, obviously. I'm just here to state which I think is better.) With that being said I don't hear a HUGE difference, but there IS a difference. I like the vinyl better, because it seems more open and loud, which allows some of the sounds to be heard more clearly and it kind of gives it a "live" sound as opposed to the CD, which seems more controlled and studio-like (may just seem that way because the vinyl is louder).
Ian, why match EQ by ear and by hand when you have Ozone? It has EQ matching built in which is easy and will match them perfectly and instantly show the difference..
Perception is everything.... When you first played the Vinyl version: it absolutely sounded more defined on the bass range.... the EQ is brighter, so we can hear more of the high kick from the BassDrum and, of course, with a little less compression.... Incredible how a slight EQ change can make such a difference in our perception... is the iTunes version different, since it's "Mastered for iTunes"?
Great video. Thanks. To my ear, even at the end, the vinyl seemed to sound more "open", and the CD "Creamier". The drums, on particular on the vinyl sounded more "live". The reason I like vinyl is the pre-mastering or eq'ing seems to always be better, perhaps being done in a more "caring" type of a way?
Ian, this comparison should have started with you getting a quality turntable, an doing the transfer yourself, making sure 100% that you got it source right. Also it would be very interesting to investigate what processes are being done ( or rather not being done) to typical modern vinal mastering. Vinyl as a medium, is really not better than any digital high res media. The mastering often sounds better, and the core of it all is the stupid loudness war! The db database is a great tool to try to avoid the worst releases.
A turntable may sound different if we use different cartridges, different tone harm cables and if the turntable is properly calibrated. Many different turntables may sound different between different turntable manufacturers. On the cd player side, the cables used for the demo can make a huge change in the sound. So, even if the cd player and the turntable are in the same price range, it's difficult to compare them side by side. You can take 3 different CD players and they will soud different... But, if you are comparing them with the master track coming from each other. That's an other story. And then, i think that you will hear a real difference. But in each case, the mastering process done for each (media player) will be different as you already might know. Another point is, if you analyse congestionned music, it will be hard to make comparisons. You had to tweak them to get different results. ...Maybe i missed the whole point.
So, after all the digital adjustments on the digital computer using digital software they sound similar. Plus you're obviously playing from recordings so what format were they saved/encoded into?
you really have to be there to really get an idea, i have a record player myself and a record player in my opinion is much warmer, especially using super sound EQ
Hi, I am considering buying a record playing setup (turntable, phono preamp, speaker) and I was curious as to which phono preamp your friend was using to get that sound quality from the record. If possible, can you tell me what their full setup is? Thanks.
it change before the EQ the sub seems less prominent in the Vynil version but more defined than in the CD the rest as you said at 2:25 where the sub are more presents to compare, the congestion seems to affect the entire frecuency range, you can do match EQ with Fab Filter pro Q or similar :-) thanks nice channel, still think there is a difference in dynamiques the metter show it as well what you call congestion which is still present after EQ-ing, for dynamique why you don´t focus on the depth as well instruments sparation that´s what reveal the dynamiques, the Vynil still is a little better after EQ, before EQ it is nught and day
I could hear the difference on Steelseries Siberia V2 (GREAT headset, well worth the money). The Vinyl sounded fuller and more fleshed out, kind of like it was surrounding me and just naturally there, while CD sounded a bit muted and squished and felt like it was coming out of a speaker.
What are the odds? I'm also using Siberia v2. I got them right before they were discontinued. I keep meaning to get a better, more professional set of headphones but I've gotta say for the money I really love these ones.
Yeah the only real way to compare is to listen to the vinyl directly and then listen to the cd....and not digitize the vinyl like this video, otherwise they are both digital files. You will find there is a fluidity (no bit rate) to vinyl.
Apart from anything - modern music extensively uses digital samples. It's impossible to improve the fidelity of a digital sample by transferring it to an analogue medium. All you can do is change the sound. If the vinyl diverges from the CD - it is because it has distorted the sound in some way. More high or low end means it has distorted the original sound. With the pono putting studio original audio in your hands the superiority of digital goes from 99-100%
The vinyl for this particular album was actually mastered from digital files. Sad, but true. I know that "Random Access Memories" was recorded using analogue equipment in the studio, but it was then mastered to digital, compressed for more "punch", and then put on vinyl. You'd be better off doing a comparison with "Homework", which is a HUGE difference.
***** I have a problem with digital mastering on vinyl, even when the digital file isn't smashed. Unless the album was recorded and mixed in digital in the first place, there should be no reason to digitally master an album onto vinyl that was analogue to begin with. Why bother with vinyl if I'm just paying for the digital files slapped onto records? The process isn't as transparent as many in the business would like to believe. It's certainly more economical, though. There's a reason there's a demand for analogue-pressed records.
***** If I'm going out of my way to purchase vinyl from an artist that I know was recorded in analogue, I expect it to be analogue. I can just as easily download a digital uncompressed file, and not bother. I could care less about the nostalgia and aesthetic of vinyl so much as the difference in sound quality. Otherwise, I feel ripped off.
***** And I think you're wrong. Digital is scientifically not as transparent of a format, even if it sounds like it to a lot of ears. I'm not just a hipster who buys vinyl to be cool. :P
It doesn't matter if it's digital or analog being put on vinyl. What matters is how it's mastered. For example... look up Dire Straights Brothers in Arms. The CD version actually has more dynamic range than the vinyl version. This album was produced back in 1985 and was mastered to make full use of the CD mediums increased dynamic range. Then look up Adele 21. The vinyl version has significantly more dynamic range than the CD version because they were both mastered differently. If record companies actually used CD's/digital to its full capacity it would blow away vinyl.
The problem with this you didn't use a spectrum analyzer to show the difference in frequency range. If what it's true regarding using a 88.2kHz master for the vinyl mastering then technically the vinyl should sound better than the CD (being at 44.1).
***** Yes it's true that no human can hear above 20kHz, hell I can't hear a 18kHz pure tone. BUT understanding the science of audio you'll see that upper overtones ( of a sound that does in fact have an affect on the overall characteristic of the sound of what we hear. So it is possible to hear a difference. You could look up info on the physics of harmonics.
***** I've known people with Masters degrees in accounting that couldn't add the price of 2 postage stamps together in their head. A degree doesn't mean shit.
Your observation wasn't wrong at all but there's nothing magical to say about that, the fact that vinyl has more detail mids and airy hi are just part of different frequency response. CD version has more bass and less treble thus masking certain instruments yet some instruments will sound fuller on it. While there might be difference in DR but it isn't night and day to make it worth costing 3x more with all its expensive tools and maintenance.
My opinion on the very infamous analog vs digital topic is that yes, (well-done) digital does sound as good as analog. However, let's take for example a VST-virtual synth- which is obviously digital. I own a Roland Jupiter 8. a true analog machine, and I also own the VST made by Arturia, which they claim it is a true representation of the Roland Jupiter 8. There is NO WAY, that it sounds the same, NO WAY. I believe that digital recordings can sound as good as analog recordings, however, digital will NEVER sound as good in terms of "emulating" analog, well that's my opinion. I hope this makes sense to you, Thanks! Jerome B.
To me, I feel like both mediums are being compared unfairly. If you look at the instruments being used, you may agree. The drums, to my ears, sounded much more pleasing on the vinyl. However, when you take the synths and put them on a CD, they are much more articulated and sound better on that medium. I could see recording this particular song digitally and then NOT compressing the drum tracks -That would yield the best results for this particular song. Adversely, I feel like vinyl still is the superior medium for non-electronic instruments. If you are recording a classic rock album with 'acoustic' or mic'd instruments/amplifiers, I believe reel-to-reel, analog and vinyl are the way to go. I don't really care about the EQ, per se -The artist will have the album EQ'ed to whatever their vision may be. I care more about the natural sound of the instruments being played. To me, it's simple fact that CD's are typically compressed and vinyl is not. If using modern techniques and modern synths, go with the modern medium. If using old school genres and traditional instruments, go with the medium of yesteryear. Listen to an orchestral movement on vinyl vs. CD and then listen to this Daft Punk on a CD vs. vinyl and you'll see what I mean. No matter what, I see absolutely no benefit in recording in digital and going to vinyl or recording over tape and going into ProTools; Whichever way you go, I'd say to stay true to that method.
Im not sure if this is going to be seen or not but the CD EQ had to be tweaked a whole hell of alot just to get it to sound like the vinyl while only minor adjustments were needed for the vinyl to give it just a bit more punch. just by this alone the vinyl wins. i am not going to sit at my equalizer for 2 hours just to get it to sound like the vinyl.
yeah i state the vinyl is better because in the video it is stated to get the CD to sound like the vinyl it took like 3 hours worth of tinkering with the CD copy to get it to sound close to the vinyl while only a small amount was done to the vinyl to give it a slightly better sound. who wants to sit at their equalizer for 3 hours to make a cd sound like a vinyl? sounds like a big waste of time to me.
thats fine. i wasn't trying to "win" an argument. i was just stating what i had learned from this video. i did re read your earlier post to double check and i think what i stated still stands.
Also I get the sense that comparing this things are useless since it depends a lot on the system your playing it back. I personally prefere vinyl simply because I get a nostalgic feel when putting it on and watch it spin.. also we can hear the crackles, it sound GOOD especially on older records. I've always got the feel that vinyl has really good low end which is odd, we know all about those vinyl physical limitations when it comes to bass.. I guess it's my amp..
Maybe my ears are getting more critically able, but I can clearly hear the difference in favor of the vinyl, although very subtle as you have said, even after your EQ edits.
Explain the difference between dynamics and EQ to me. You can say there's a 'difference' between those two terms? I would have it this way: EQ would be a way of achieving a better dynamic range, or rather a tool - and Dynamic range is how a track is balanced in frequencies so that the elements in the track sounds nice, clean and present. Right or wrong, or perhaps a better way of explaining it? :)
The cymbal, in particular, on the vinyl version, even at the end, to my ears, sounds more naturally metallic than the CD version, more "silver" if you will..... So. Are we to assume in a nutshell that due to the eq'ing, and possibly a touch of accentuated dynamics, the vinyl sounds more natural, and the CD sounds more precise? Both equally as good attributes, and depends on the taste of the listener. I am a believer, also, that at very loud volumes, vinyl is less fatiguing to the ears. Does anyone agree with that?
just by looking at the whole waveforms you can easily see how much compression was applied (probably multiband compression) on the volume of the cd version. comparison listening is totally unnecessary both for the reason i explained and due to youtube.
320kbps mp3 is under 50% of the original sound. Divide it by half to get 160kbps mp3 and you get less than 25% of the original sound. Also add all the filters and loss of frequency. 128kbps mp3 cut off to 16 khz usually, while a 320 kbps can reach max 20khz unless the lowpass is turned off.
For those arguing about the mastering etc, isn't the point to show which has the better sound for the consumer? It doesn't really matter what the reason is for this context..?
There sound like some high end distortion on the vinyl version that I dare say would come from the cartridge and the preamp rather then be a mastering decision and the CD sound better to my ears, and DR6 isn't that loud for a song considering how much blanket noise this track has (it isn't a dynamic piano ballad).
Great job as usual, Ian. You tested a few bars of the CD / Vinyl where the DR seems to be the lowest, abd you mention that there still is a DR difference of up to 5dB at times. Isn't that still a big difference, proportionately? And how important is the DR differences elsewhere ? Does it overwhelm the difference in EQ? My guess would be that it does.
you should compare the vinyl LP with the High Res version avaible on the French Website Qobuz, it's sound as good as the LP and it was in 88 KHZ 24 bit in Wave, it was the source, that was used for both version (CD and LP), this album was fully recorded in 96 KHZ 24 bit, and put on Analog Tape, before down convert in 88 Khz by Bob Ludwig and remastered by Chab in Paris.
Meteotrance the DR rating of both the CD and the Deluxe USB version is the same - I have both, and can hardly tell the difference, the piano sounds better on the Hi-res version a bit.
It sounds like the CD was mastered with more limiting, which would lift the bass and reduce the top end. You can't get super low dynamic range on vinyl because the playback would be too wild and would have to be cut very quietly. So to maximize volume, the vinyl master likley would have been cut with a bit more dynamic range. Also, a very heavily compressed/limited track cuts the top end, which also reduces the chances for aliasing effects and other artifacts when file compressed down to .mp3. All this is to say I think the differences you are hearing are two things: 1) slight difference in EQ due to cartridge and phono preamp vs. digital converter, 2) difference in how the track was mastered for each medium. And I think #2 is bigger and it would be interesting to talk to the mastering engineer to confirm this. What you said at 13:32 I agree with, and I am just saying that can also attribute to some of the EQ differences you are hearing as well.
***** I think you have done and excellent anlaysis of the two formats, but you have to consider that they are different masters. And I don't think there is anything wrong with your TT meter. It may actually be more accurate than you think. It is of my opinion that the spiker waveforms are in fact due to more dynamic range and the CD you can see is clearly brick wall limited. You are right on point with them being about the same volume, but the vinyl has a bit of dynamics that is peaking through whereas the CD is limited. My overall point is that the only way to truly compare both mediums is to have the same exact reference on both. Vinyl does seem to sound better to me and others because the limitations do not allow for such extreme compression or brick wall limiting, however those things are what make the music louder and sound more of the same across many different types of playback systems. Radio stations and TV stations multi-band compress and limit for the same reasons. You can't get away with this on vinyl because the needle would jump a track or you have to make it quieter. Spec wise vinyl is horrible, but the way it it is mastered and dynamic range has much to do with the sound that is so pleasing to our ears. "Because vinyl's restrictions do not permit the same abuse of audio levels as the CD, Mayo says that listeners might hear a wider dynamic range in an album mixed separately for vinyl over a compact disc version optimized for loudness - even though vinyl, as a format, has a narrower range than CD." - from www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162 Also, check out this article that references a highly technical article that argues that vinyl actually has more dynamic range than CD's - www.analogplanet.com/content/does-vinyl-have-wider-dynamic-range-cds-heres-some-math It is not surprising to me that DSD is the closest to analog. So I just don't think your waveform images or TT meter is not working correctly or deceiving you in any way.
I never said PCM does, but DSD does: www.merging.com/products/pyramix/dsd-dxd My point also is that for some recordings, 16/44.1 is enough and does not have much benefit over that. It all is more dependent on source material and mastering process. Also, check out this article: archimago.blogspot.com/2015/01/musings-what-is-value-of-high.html Archimago is a pretty brilliant fellow and I urge you to read some more of his blog posts if you have the time.
And by the way Ian, you are correct...you CAN cut a record with high compressed levels. I suspect "Death Magnetic" was cut quieter to not damage the cutting heat on the cutting lathe. They also kept the grooves wide as it is 2 records cut on 4 sides and the correct length per side. However, the "Master of Puppets" LP clocks in at 26:48 for side A, and 27:12 for side B. Just a bit over the 22 minutes per side standard. Why? Quieter grooves means you can push them together more. The album after that, "And Justice for All..." was a 2 record set. You're point that extra dynamics can appear to be there due to the nature of the medium and not reflective of the mastering is somewhat plausable. Mostly due to the complex playback of a small diamond stylus following and vibrating a small stem, that is then amplified many times over and eq'd. The RIAA dictates that high frequencies are boosted in encoding, which, even if eq'd down for playback, is not severely accurate. Not to mention the amount of op amps and coloration from the circuit and the cartridge. So, is it peaky due to the vinyl process? You would have to still put the EXACT same output to the lathe that you put to CD or digital stream and find out for absolute certainty.
That is like, um, their opinion man. I see no facts here. I will agree that is is not perfect or accurate - nowhere near. If you read one of the articles I posted claims that even some jazz recordings only need 11-bits. For others, you need way more. I have heard a 1/2" master direct from the tape and even with the best converter, 24/96 was close, but not truly what was coming off that tape machine. And if all you care about is accuracy, then digital is certainly what you would want.
Also, might it be possible that when cutting and playing back the vinyl, the needle just isn't capable of physically reproducing a 'smashed' signal? So even if the same master is used for CD and vinyl, the vinyl record might just become more dynamic because of the needle 'shooting over'. How should a needle be able to instantly stop moving at every peak that's been cut off by a limiter??
There are a lot of factors that influence the sound. the analog waveform of the vinyl has gone through digital conversions encoding and decoding. You have added a digital flavor to it. Thus your not getting a true comparison in your test of how the vinyl compares sound wise. The only way to do this is compare in real time playback of the vinyl not an interpretation of the pure analog signal by some integrated circuits a processing if you will . An analogy would be a fresh handmade pizza to a frozen processed pizza they may both taste good but to most people the fresh would stand out as the better with all things being equal.
It all depends on the quality of the electronic components in the recording and playback. Computers are the worst for recording and playback of audio. there is to many PLL and hi frequency noises form components that cause gitter.. If you play "a good digital recording of the vinyl" on a ipod vs nn MSB DAC you going to notice a difference. A chain is only as good as its weakest link.
Most people I know from the older generation ended up replacing their records with cd. Im usually told becuase records are more difficult to maintain. Though they may sound better at first, a cd wont sound any different in 20 years after continuous play. I have an aunt that told me she dont like listening to her favorite song on her record player because all the scratches and clicks make her feel old. lol. She says she likes CD because it "sounds new" still. lol
But then again there are plenty from that generation that say vinyl sounds better because the cracks and pops sound nostalgic! :) I find in practice that with those really beaten up records of mine, I can zone out most cracks and pops as the actual physical contact between the stylus and the groove seems to grab music by the scruff of the neck and thrust it in front of the listener. There's a real presence to vinyl sound even played on modest hifi separates like mine that I don't think any waveform or spectrum analyser can quite get its head round. Conversely, minor cracks and pops of even fairly well preserved vinyl sound absolutely terrible when digitised. And then they sound even worse after YT has mangled up the sound - it's evident even in Ian's Daft Punk vinyl transfer as a mushiness in the background that mixes in with the digital jitter of the computer soundcard to end up sounding just - messy!
I have never seen nor heard of a compact disk lasting 20 years with continuous play. I own records that sound great and are 40 years old. CD's just don't last.
Great video as always Ian. I do have a question in regard to this album, was it recorded from a digital source or analog source? And how can one tell if a vinyl album was recorded from a digital source or analog source? Since most albums don't tell you this on their album line notes, there is no way of knowing. Thanks!
Problem with CD is in the mastering. The style today is LOUD, compression, and that screws up CD. CD has EVERY advantage, only if you take advantage of it.
CDs from the 80's and early 90's sound fantastic, almost close to the records. But then, you know, the Loudness Wars happened...
After listening to this like 5 times, I feel like the lp was better all around, the cd almost has a compression sound when it hits the lows. I'm happy that the record sounds that good. You gotta think of what is actually going on, data lasers vs. a needle picking up sound, it's just amazing that it still sounds that good.
The vinyl cymbals sound so good.
Its so counterintuitive how we mix and master as loud as acceptable for CD but we do the exact opposite for Vinyl even though it has an audible noise floor.
Daft Punk's RAM has to be one of the best sounding albums I've heard since the 90s. I guess it all comes down to mastering.
yes, yes it does!
And every aspect of the recording methods, production, mixing...
This video was amazing! I was raised on cassette tapes, so I never experienced vinyl. Even though I do appreciate analog recordings, this has opened up my eyes to levels I didn't even know existed! Thank you for making this video. I can tell there is passion in what you do!
DAMN ! I just LOVE this CD but am a vinyl junkie first ( 24/96 recordings from my own if I have to ). If you have the ear, this last track tries to be louder and louder on CD but always fails ( to me ). I didn't realise there was an alternative. Every time you switched to the vinyl, it came alive. The mastering of the CD left nothing in reserve. Thank you and damn you. How can a medium with 35db of dynamic range outshine something with 105db. It's something I've asked myself often.....
The funny part is that as we are all listening to it on a digital medium, that any difference we hear is due to different mastering preferences and the extra distortion from the analog medium, as reproduced by a digital system that we are all now listening to.
You Sir got the point, thank you!
OK, but that another story cause we are all listening to two different version of the same song through the same system, each one at his home cause speakers count, the point is the difference between the master: more analogue version here: ruclips.net/video/U-GamX1R_bM/видео.html i listen to more depth here
Thanks for doing this Ian - it's the first of your videos I've seen. I think there are more obvious factors than the differences between vinyl and CD versions and the resultant EQ/Dynamic range complications when comparing the two. After all, many of us only possess one means of playing music - whether it's CD, Vinyl, radio or downloads. Loudness mastering (and lets not forget there are plenty of records that have been loudness mastered too, albeit in different ways) is responsible for the curious effect of the smoothing out of volume and dynamics between tracks and sections of tracks that are supposed to be contrasting. I'm not explaining myself very well here but let's give a couple of examples.
When watching TV, I suspect we've all noticed that often the adverts are a lot louder than the actual program content. It's as if the TV channel would rather draw your attention to ads (the source of their revenue) rather than the (often) drivel they're putting out in the name of entertainment! With commercial radio the opposite tends to be true. DJ's voices, adverts, jingles, news bulletins and musical content all appear to the ear to be at the same volume level and the result is an aural assault. Whether it's actual volume or EQ or something else that's responsible for this is almost immaterial - it's the effect on the listener that counts. I personally find commercial radio unbearable to listen to - and the non-commercial BBC is not much better, but there seem to be less aggressive algorithms used so it's (to my ears) more bearable.
As far as albums are concerned, let's say a track starts out with piano/vocal and progresses to full rock band in verse 2. At a gig, my ears would perceive a considerable volume difference between these 2 sections, which is how it's meant to be of course. A loudness mastered recording would aim to even out these contrasts. Furthermore, let me quote the example of a perennial fave of mine (because it takes me back to being 12 years old!) - on ABBA's Super Trouper LP, sandwiched between 2 fairly dynamic ballads (The Winner Takes It All and Andante Andante) there is a rock pastiche called On & On & On. It's not their best song, but it's made worse by the fact that it's had all the life compressed out of it and what should be a heavy rock band actually ends up sounding quieter than the two ballads! The result of all this dynamic smoothing out for me is that I tend to zone the music out and wonder if I need to catch up on a good book or do the ironing!
I'm not suggesting that rock musicians should aim for classical music mastering, but it does seem to me that those albums where attention has been paid to realistic volume levels between contrasting sections of songs and the tracks that precede and follow are the most satisfying to listen to. I could take this a step further - I once illustrated on YT (although they made me take it down) the huge discrepancies in volume between the grunge metal of Nirvana's Nevermind CD (original 90's master) and a mid noughties Michael Bublé song. Musically, you could take your granny to see Bublé but she would keel over at a Nirvana gig. Yet volume-wise on the recordings, it's the Bublé that would have her spitting her false teeth into her cup of tea.
Sorry this has been rather lengthy but I think this is an oft overlooked factor when discussing sound quality and I wondered if you had made any videos or had any thoughts on this. Thanks for reading.
There are a lot of variables when you go from a master recording to vinyl. The engineer must make sure the cut never exceeds any of the limitations of the LP format. He may add some eq as well. On the playback end, every cartridge has a different frequency response curve (much like speakers), tonearm to cartridge matching will affect the balance as well. Then add in your phono preamp and cartridge loading and it becomes difficult to know what the LP really sounds like without spending more time evaluating the neutrality of the system. One reason people like vinyl is the process of fine-tuning an analog rig.
You are right on some of your comments. As a former record chain buyer in the 70's and 80s. Level matching is important. The difference in vinyl and cd is layering effect,in other words the orchestra pit effect.You can only get that from vinyl cd is a wall of sound. To hear the bent note in Jazz or the the depth of classical only can be done on vinyl.
CD is a medium that has a better dynamic range than vinyl but the mastering system killed everything.
One of the best mastered cds I have ever heard. But the vinyl still sounds better.
A bit late to the party, but the difference in dynamic range is visible in the waveforms. You can see the spikes in the vinyl, you can't in the CD.
ironically, this causes difference in eq, as they often try to eq a compressed master to make it sound better. the attempt here was nice, but this sadly doesn't really show enough info. there are clearly dynamic peaks being squashed in the waveform. although very small compared to other poor masters, to some people like myself, a very slightly squished dynamic can have a noticeable impact on the sound. there are way too many variables in this video, including youtube compression that render it fairly useless to compare the two source masters other than to simply show that, sure, eq can have a hufe effect. "the vinyl still edges it and sounds more open"... it may not be a major difference to him, but it might be to someone else... I master music myself, and especially during certain parts of the music, even slight peak compression can make an otherwise spacious sounding mix sound claustrophobic in comparison. I must say even the cd release sounds phenomenal, but i have always wished to here the "true" studio master of this album.
RAM is one of this records, that sounds better on CD (to me), than on vinyl. Sound is much tighter, bass is more controlled and more enjoyable.
Love it. Thank you. The vinyl had a denser low end which I think created more contrast in the overall mix, thus allowing the listener to perceive that the vinyl version sounded more open and dynamic. Cymbal crashes are very different between the 2 as well.
Anyhow. I loved the album and I have the cd and it is lovely to play on HD equipment. Nothing harsh or ear fatiguing at all. Thank you Bob Ludwig!!!
Well done! A good comparison between (discrete signal), bit-streams, pulse code modulations, clock signals, cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon codes, sampling rates, DACs, anti-aliasing filters and (analog signal) diamond cuts, cartridges, phono preamplifiers, analog-to-digital converters. Since there are many influences on the music and given the fact that we know so little about how to measure it properly, it is keeping the whole industry busy.
I still hear the difference, clear as day! CD sounds too compressed, Vinyl sounds very opened, free flowing. Vinyl sounds very clear!
***** There just seems to be more dynamic range with the vinyl version. The CD, just sounds muffled.
***** You do know the actual technical terms. All I'm saying, when you did the comparison and switched between the two. The vinyl sounded a lot more opened, while the CD sounded more muffled. Like you mentioned in the video, there's not a lot of difference, and we would hardly notice if it wasn't for the side by side comparison. But I did hear the difference.
***** The difference is not that big because this vinyl used the same original master that this CD did. If you catch an original album pressed with an analogical original master, and compare with a poor 90's CD from the same album, i'm sure the diference will be quite big. There is the issue about the set too. What set are you using? If you are comparing a mid-end vinyl set (at least a good turntable and cartridge, with a eliptical stylus) with a mid-end CD set, i'm pretty sure the vynil will also sound quite better then the CD (including the case of the same original sound). Did you put a independent DAC on the CD set? That also counts. There's a lot of details to be explored! Your point is a good one, though. Nowdays, the companys are releasing remastered albuns with a digital original master (not that this master is no good, it is great!).
Greetings from Brazil!
Other thing, and this is for the people listening the comparison here on RUclips - we are listening shit quality version of this comparison!
you're an idiot because this video compresses the audio to basically identical and cannot show you a difference.
Dynamics in the case of audio refers to level based processing i.e.affecting the volume.examples are compressors, limiters, gates and expanders.EQ is frequency based processing where you have certain controls that allow you to boost or attenuate specific frequencies of an audio signal.If a snare was played inconsistently on a recording in terms of volume, I could use a compressor to even out the level of the hits.
If the snare was too harsh sounding I could use EQ to cut the offending freq.
Surely the whole point of buying a record is so that when you listen to it from that point on, you are going to be avoiding any digital processing when listening. It has been mastered specifically for the analogue domain, and any audiophile will not have digital amps or anything, it will go record deck, preamp, amp, speakers. I don't really think you can get a fair comparison by this test. Especially not when then going on to use digital eq's etc... In a way it may be a better test to get a good stereo pair of microphones and record both versions that way. Obviously the room matters but I imagine yours is treated and at least it can be volume matched easily etc. it will still be coming back into the digital domain though. I guess in that respect its almost impossible to get a fair test... Still a good video though and pointed out some very interesting things, cheers :)
***** Actually you don't have to 'believe' digital can remove quality of the sound at all, I can easily PROOF that! At least when CD standard is being used. Don't believe me? Try this: Fire up a program like Audacity. Set the recording standard at 16bit 44.1 Khz. Now go to "Generate" and generate a Sine tone at let's say something like 10.000 hz (easily within human hearing range). A sine wave should have completely smooth curves. But now zoom in on the waveform and see the 'horror'. It's nowhere near smooth and perfect round as a sine wave should be. It actually looks more like a distorted sawtooth, than a sine wave. At CD standard there is simply not enough resolution to produce 'perfect' waveforms even well within human hearing range. Of course analog sound reproduction has a lot of problems on it self, but they are of a different kind. Only if you use very high resolution digital recording (at least 24 bit 96 Khz or better) the waveforms will be accurate within human hearing range.
MacXpert74 people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
Thanks for the great vid Mr. Shepard! Personally perceived the slight difference as a major one (I have extremely sensitive ears, I can perceive a difference down to 0.5dB) Since the average difference is around 3-5 dB (give or take). NOTE to the other commentators, this difference is PARTICULAR TO ME and obviously won't be applicable to most other people.
Thanks Ian. A bit late to this one but very interesting. Seems like what you are hearing is dependent on so many variables - equipment, source, EQ - rendering the debate about which sounds better - vinyl or CD - sort of "beside the point". For any recording you need to balance X variables to obtain the best result which strikes me as a sort of alchemy despite all of the technology we throw at the problem. Just a few questions:
1) I have read that bass can be a problem on vinyl transfers - disk space issues, dynamic range limitations of analogue - so it is typically pulled back a touch - or a lot- depending on the situation. Is this a possible explanation for the sense of openness we usually associate with vinyl? Could they also make the top end "hotter" to increase the effect?
2) Could you create the same effect by adjusting the relative loudness of instruments on a digital master?
I had avoided "Random Access Memories" until now, because I was annoyed by a clip from "One More Time" on the radio. The song sounds like a Sound Blaster stuck in a loop, and contains samples so chopped up that it takes an engineer to pick up the pieces. "Contact" by itself is also is pretty awful. I heard it some time ago on the web.
Now that the media hype is over, I was pleasantly surprised by this album. It gave me an impression of a continuous journey, whereas pop albums today tend to feel more like compilations of tracks. The pure dynamics were not great. I felt that the bass was "thick" at times, like on a saturated tape. But the character of the music changed significantly from one song to the next. The Giorgio Moroder's speech, with space around it, fit well in the album. I love film music by this composer. At times RAM sounded like a funky video game sound track, and also remined me of Space music from late 80s.
Perhaps this was not intentended to be so, but "Horizon" seemed like it showed a new calm world either here on earth or beyond a stargate, after aliens had come and destroyed everything during "Conctact". Usually "bonus" tracks do not fit on the album they've been added to, and lower its integrity. If this song wasn't there, perhaps we could think that we had arrived into the boring distorted present day, and that is the end.
I'm glad RAM won the Dynamic Range award.
I've also noticed that the more a track is clipped, the more the peak level can be artifically increased by dumb phase shift. Sometimes by 8 dBs. Whereas the envelope of a "normal" waveform changes only a little.
I've removed my older comment to avoid flooding this thread.
+j7ndominica0 its annoying song 'one more time'. this band doesnt have a good sense of that.
In vinyl version cymbals breath and the mix is very dynamic and tasting. Thank you
They both use the same master and therefore have identical dynamics. The difference in EQ is part of both the preamp and the distortion of vinyl.
My recording career began nearly 40 years ago and I welcomed digital when it came to restoring old recordings but it always sounded brittle to me.Then it seemed to improve [or my ears began to accept it] Awesomely clean sound especially for live recordings but something was missing. On this example I hear a depth and excitement from the vinyl while the CD is lacking. I'll bet it also depends on the material as well. Thanks for posting this observation!
I can't hear any difference on the 1/2 inch speakers on my smart phone.
good job... this "adjustment" is what I do to Timbre match different speakers... it is completely possible to get timbre to fairly closely match by careful eq'ing.
this is very interesting!! but with vinyl you have a lot more room to make mods to cater to your listening preferences. the stylus, tonearm adjustment,tonearm, preamp, plinth, damping, the list goes on and on. what it really comes down to for me is having convenience (mp3, wav, cd) when I'm out and about, or when 'm at home and I can control my musical environment (speakers, amp, speaker placement, room conditioning, etc). whatever makes your music experience the best for you.
i didn't have patience to read every comments here but there's a point....
To make a FAIR comparaison, and start with an equitable basis, he should have recorded in analog both source, with the same sound card, to avoid EQ differences between the both samples. Here in your example, we have a CD dump i suppose, and the vinyl have been recorder through a sound card (and yes, a phono Riaa preamp, with preemphasis)
Your test is interesting, but for me it would have been more convinient to sample both sourses from analog through a same soundcard... Hope i have been understandable lol
I bought the HD tracks version, and at first glance, it looks crushed, but then I zoom in, and I can see dynamics. The vinyl still has a better dynamic contrast, and I'm not sure how that happens.
I have the vinyl version of this record and the CD rip (by amazon lol) and with my setup they sound pretty much identical (Ortofon OM10 & Yamaha A-S700). The Yamaha amp and the OM10 are both very neutral. I'm pretty sure the choice of stylus and amp/preamp will have much more of an impact than the mastering itself.
Haven't read all of comments, but i did some experiment with get lucky, using soundforge 11.using CD, the vinyl and the hi-rez download. Haven't mess for hour with EQ, but i did match the levels best i can. I recorded and played the vinyl via a Steinberg UR 44 at same frequency rate than the hi-rez download using the best sounding and tracking cart on my Technics SL 1100, the AT 120.
To my ears, the TT came up with the more pleasant listening experience overall, A little more livelier, maybe not as truthful as hi-rez, but that little extra life added by vinyl catched my ears.Hi-rez download comes close second. It sounds more detailed than vinyl ,but a little more ironed if i can can that. CD finishes third.I never listened to the CD ever since, except for road trip.
Maybe if i had a megabucks CD player and DAC i would change my mind. But for the money, i think the analog way is the way to go .My TT set up costs only 700$ including the Cambridge preamp.I don't think you can get this good sound with a CD player of the same price. And it is a lot easier to swap cartridges to get the most of your record than swapping CD players.
I actually kinda like Contact like that. A little compressed. It's loud, but on the WEB downloads it's actually not distorted. It impacts. But the other tracks sound so much better so dynamic. I also still think CD sounds slightly sharper on the highs when you factor in the preamp on the vinyl being top end heavy.
Why does the vinyl master have more dynamics if vinyls don't allow as much dynamic range as the CD does?
Good video btw, I've definitely learned something new. I find terrific how the CD version sounds in comparation with the vinyl.
I think that they might have EQ'd the vinyl version to compensate for low dynamic range on home record players.
Alternately, the CD version might have been EQ'd to match the sound of a record player they had in the studio - to give it a specific kind of coloration.
What many don’t realise is, there’s eq in your earphones too, as well as your speakers, and many playback devices such as iPhone.. and if you aren’t conscious of this, then they can compound and totally ruin the sound. So a lot of folks drive around streaming their music through their eq’d phones via Bluetooth which downgrades the sample rate, and killing their hearing with fatigue and awful audio reproduction. And yes with vinyl, the sound can vary drastically depending on your equipment. There are some who rip somewhat professionally, and have very expensive equipment to ensure a clean, neutral sound. Of course, something will always be lost when converting analog signal to digital, and if they then use declick filters, this can degrade the sound further.
RAM on vinyl was mastered by arguably the best in the business, Bob Ludwig. I can’t recall if he did the CD mastering, but if not, then I would assume the vinyl sounds better. By how much all depends on what he had to work with you guess. I believe they recorded the tracks both AAA and digitally, but the final master is digital. It would be interesting to know if an aaa cut is possible 🤔 or even a partial analog cut? On 45? 😂❤
The final mixes and masters were all digital (although with analogue processing) and the same master was then used for the vinyl cut. At this point there is additional analogue processing (always) but the exact impact of this is difficult to judge.
We could say all roads lead to Rome, but no matter what that record was cut from, if I find the whole thing on vinyl better sounding than the CD/digital release, then it's good enough for me. Regardless of EQ, mistracking shenanigans, that is. Worst case scenario, it just avoids me from doing some home remastering trickery with those files to get them to sound less bloated. That's my two cents.
The CD sounds better in my opinion. You can obviously hear more detail to each symbol hit while the vinyl version is just more like "fizz". For one thing, the last track on a vinyl is ALWAYS the worst sounding track on a vinyl because there is a phenomenon called "inner-groove distortion" basically what happens is there is gradually less vinyl material going past the needle each minute as it inches closer to the center of the record. CD on the other hand doesn't suffer from this. Vinyl records are also extremely dependent on the tools used between the record and the loudspeakers or output which can possibly add all kinds of coloration to the sound. Personally, I'd like to hear a comparison between analog reel to reel master tape versus the digital "solid state" master.
using the eq to roll off is not required..if the upper freq is better with vinyl then i would say its a better overall sound. the depth of the sound was not addressed in the loudness test. if the resolution of the music is better by virtue of its source i go with the higher rez source. this testing using the eq to mod the sounds is interesting and thoroughly enjoyed it.
thanks for sharing. ( I will keep both sources) :)
Thank you for your effort in making this comparison... it helps. I have a question to you: what is the result when you compare them directly on your audio equipment ? After all... you make a comparison here on youtube... the sound on youtube it's far from stellar.
Very nice video, i think it would have been a great idea if you had recorded the CD file WITH the EQ, in order for us to see how the shape of the CD waveform changed because of the EQ, and see if somehow the new cd waveform kinda looked like the vinyl waveform, instead of looking like a big block of heavily compressed audio. It can be an interesting observation.
I am sorry for my english, i am still practicing :), I hope you did understand!
Thanks!
J.
Ian, here's an idea, what about inverting your EQ curve, and applying it to the CD? I think it'd be awesome if you could say "here's how to make the CD sound as 'good' as the vinyl".
Oh, and by the way, thank you SO MUCH for spending time on this. It was enlightening to me, and I've been doing indie mastering work for years.
5dB is not a big difference at all when comparing digital and analog. I can get a 5dB DR rating boost on some heavily clipped DR5 digital sources just by recording it to cassette and back to digital. Obviously there is no real increase in dynamics. One way to tell if the dynamics is real is to zoom all the way in to the waveform and look for smooth sections in transient sounds (drums, beats, etc). Analog systems may tilt, bend or even move the clipped flat sections close to the zero-crossing but they don't remove it. If you see tilted tops or sections of the waveform that are unnaturally smooth compared to its surroundings, it may have come from clipping.
The drums sound LIVE on the vinyl version!! The music comes alive
You've got a CD there that obviously wasn't 'overdone' by the loudness war, so you got 2 comparable samples from CD and the LP. For tests like these, that seems to me as a requirement in the fist place. The sections you were comparing were still very loud after all. So compliments for the cd-cut if it wasn't hurt by the 'loudness war'. I liked the part where you were trying to equal both the EQ settings of the vinyl and the CD. My conclusion would be that you need a CD recording that represents the recording in a good way, so without the 'loudness torture', which it apparently was in this video, and vinyl record in a pristine state played with a quality record player as well.
To the mass, the cd or any type of digital music medium is better in quality and easier to use. Vinyl might be equal, better or close, but it requires much more preciseness of the equipment. Next to your interesting comparison of CD and vinyl, I'd expect some reflection on playing gear.
you can see in the waveforms how compressed the cd is (probably due to the limitations of the frequency response of cds), even if the vinyl recording had high end added by the pre amp setup the vinyl waveform shows no compression at all. vinyl is more open but cds do sound little thicker due to the formats compression as thats what compression does to the low end but the top dynamics get crushed by it.
In the end there's is no discussion for which is better but purely for what an individual prefers.
Compression is not a factor of the CD format itself. And the waveform of the vinyl track is very misleading, the same master was used for both the CD and the vinyl so they both have an identical dynamic range.
The difference is due to different master modifications; in CD a compressor was used to mantain a continuous level of sound pressure. This example is not valid to compare the two formats. You can hear a lot of CD without any manipulations of the recorded signal (eq, compressors, digital reverbs, etc.)
Thank you for your answer. I do know the differences between both formats, I actually have both vinyls and cds and a good system at home. I agree about the cost, it isn't worth it. But I ask myself, with today's technology, producers and engeneers have more than enough tools to make them sound the same and yet they don't. Can't understand why.
Thanks again.
mp3 is a digital coding for music so that more data can be stored on a computer. There is a huge difference when talking to an engineer. I know it all sounds complicated but it's physics not a computer. A good example can be getting shocked by anything to get the same result of an analog set up in front of everybody. (Daft Punk) This is why they give you that effect either way.
I'm just happy to see a comparison video using enjoyable music instead of using some male or female vocalist who I wouldn't want to listen to unless i'd been dead for 50 years or more!
Thank you for the comparison / breakdown, but it is a difficult task to define a musical perspective when all that was recorded in that sound byte was nothing but a bunch of nasty square waves! And before we tolerated that, I used to love Daft Punk!
I just like watching the record play, more presentation!
Vinyl all about the cartridge and phono pre. Spend $150-300 on a cart, $500-1000 on the phono pre and cds will lose every time. But, the vinyl experience is best IN analog and not compressed digitally.
I absolutely agree. Just have a good set of equipment (preferably tube phono pre amp and tube amp) for vinyl and it will take your breath away
#1: Not the same source, the master on vinyl is different from the CD master. Also the #1 reason why vinyl myths have come about, not understanding how recording process works. Instead of saying "vinyl is better" one should say "vinyl master is better".
#2: Why the HELL did you continue your test when you saw that #1 (i can see it from here, don't need to even listen to it) and that the RIAA used in the capturing/recording was NOT up to specs, he said it had boosted highs.. Then you match by ear using EQ? No No NOOOOO!!!!
So you compare two different masters with faulty equipment: boosted highs probably sound better to the listener but since we are doing objective analysis here, it needs to be as flat and up to specs as possible.. Getting same master for both.. not gonna happen, the most chances are between vinyl and HiRes digital audio files that they would be much much closer. Which brings the next myth in the line: HiRes is soo much better... When it is the same fault in logic: they are not from same master..
+Ian Shepherd +SquidCaps I think you are both right. For the story, after two years of preparation in studio Gang in Paris, the recording and the mix of this album have been made in USA on tapes. Once the recording was done, the tapes were transported by car (to avoid damaging them when passing airport gates) to be digitized by Bob Ludwig. Only one digitization of the album have been made, 88.2k/24bits, which was the format at which Bob's gears sounded the best. The data was then bounced back by internet in Paris to be mastered by Chab. After digitization, the main problem was that the album had a lack of overall punch. They corrected that with top notch dynamic EQs (Weiss). They made more than 50 differents masters in 88.2k/24 to finally keep only one which was the base for the 3 other supports: Vinyl, CD and iTune mp3.
Imo it is very unlikely that the vinyl was intended to have more or less bass or highs than the HD or CD master. The preamp here have a lot to do with the heard differences in Equing. However, Chad said itself that they tried to compensate the downs of each support so it is very likely that each versions have slight differences in dynamics, but nothing audible on youtube. Also, you don't have the original vinyl, only a badly digitized version of it (the highs are blurred). So as there is no direct comparison of the two sources, the test is scientifically pointless.
I will add that equing being a linear transformation, it normally doesn't change the dynamic of a piece of sound at all. It is changing the overall dynamic of the track, but in no case the dynamic of the concerned frequencies (it's a bit too complex to explain here: the demonstration of this behavior involve very heavy mathematics. You can have a feel of this when you observe that changing the order of two eq in a chain doesn't affect the sound, but changing the order of a compressor and an eq in a chain gives two different processes.). Anyway, for me trying to match two tracks by equing to spot on what are the differences in dynamics is ok.
Overall I liked this video.
Some links:
www.chabmastering.com/
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ludwig
Haha, no the Bob Ludwig step was really only about digitization. But, it's more important that it sounds like. Equing and levels adjustment is done here and must be perfect during the sampling to avoid further issues. Apparently Bob only used the magneto and it's built in eq, which is badass and clever; the less you put devices in a chain, the better the sound =)
He made a fantastic work !
Aha ! Very interesting ! I got these infos from an interview of Chab. Will check it, I may be misinterpreting something.
+Ian Shepherd So you actually have not personally spoken to Bob either...
I am quite amazed on how you can compare these recordings without even knowing where at least one came from or how it was made. I usually read your articles with quite some interest, but you completely shot a blank here...
+Ian Shepherd No offence, but as you are a sound professional I would of thought you wold have a better audio mic. This sounds really bad! Too much bass and very muffled. Sounds like you are talking with a sock on your head. Sometimes its really hard to understand what you are saying and no I am not a self-proclaimed audiophile or some such nonsense that means nothing, just a guy with ears.
I do not share the whole approach. We need to exclude all other sources of differences. What we hear it is vinyl LP played with specific cartridge and phono amplifier. My experience is that both matter and it is heard because I have two preamps - tube and solid and also I replaced my plate cartrigge with eliptical due to sonic quality. It is all different for experienced ear. . CD was made of original recording or recorded from vinyl on another plate with another preamp then plate here. I made such comparaison in following way - I put LP on my plate and copied to digital file. Then I burned CD with 48 kHz, put it to my CD player. Then I started simmuntaneously LP and CD an switched between them with one click. With my experience I had no clue what is what. So all differences I observe in old and new technologies I count to remastering. And that makes me crazy because for me it is unification of tiimbres.
I'm not going to sit here and throw around a bunch of technical terms to voice my opinion, because to me it's not about what the EQ meter is set on or any of that. (Yes, I know the EQ and Dynamics are really important in sound, obviously. I'm just here to state which I think is better.) With that being said I don't hear a HUGE difference, but there IS a difference. I like the vinyl better, because it seems more open and loud, which allows some of the sounds to be heard more clearly and it kind of gives it a "live" sound as opposed to the CD, which seems more controlled and studio-like (may just seem that way because the vinyl is louder).
Ian, why match EQ by ear and by hand when you have Ozone? It has EQ matching built in which is easy and will match them perfectly and instantly show the difference..
Perception is everything.... When you first played the Vinyl version: it absolutely sounded more defined on the bass range.... the EQ is brighter, so we can hear more of the high kick from the BassDrum and, of course, with a little less compression.... Incredible how a slight EQ change can make such a difference in our perception... is the iTunes version different, since it's "Mastered for iTunes"?
What about Currents by Tame Impala?
Dr5 for Cd and 24 bit, and Dr9 for Vinyl.
Great video. Thanks. To my ear, even at the end, the vinyl seemed to sound more "open", and the CD "Creamier". The drums, on particular on the vinyl sounded more "live". The reason I like vinyl is the pre-mastering or eq'ing seems to always be better, perhaps being done in a more "caring" type of a way?
Ian, this comparison should have started with you getting a quality turntable, an doing the transfer yourself, making sure 100% that you got it source right. Also it would be very interesting to investigate what processes are being done ( or rather not being done) to typical modern vinal mastering. Vinyl as a medium, is really not better than any digital high res media. The mastering often sounds better, and the core of it all is the stupid loudness war! The db database is a great tool to try to avoid the worst releases.
A turntable may sound different if we use different cartridges, different tone harm cables and if the turntable is properly calibrated. Many different turntables may sound different between different turntable manufacturers. On the cd player side, the cables used for the demo can make a huge change in the sound. So, even if the cd player and the turntable are in the same price range, it's difficult to compare them side by side. You can take 3 different CD players and they will soud different... But, if you are comparing them with the master track coming from each other. That's an other story. And then, i think that you will hear a real difference.
But in each case, the mastering process done for each (media player) will be different as you already might know. Another point is, if you analyse congestionned music, it will be hard to make comparisons. You had to tweak them to get different results. ...Maybe i missed the whole point.
So, after all the digital adjustments on the digital computer using digital software they sound similar. Plus you're obviously playing from recordings so what format were they saved/encoded into?
you really have to be there to really get an idea, i have a record player myself and a record player in my opinion is much warmer, especially using super sound EQ
Hi, I am considering buying a record playing setup (turntable, phono preamp, speaker) and I was curious as to which phono preamp your friend was using to get that sound quality from the record. If possible, can you tell me what their full setup is? Thanks.
it change before the EQ the sub seems less prominent in the Vynil version but more defined than in the CD the rest as you said at 2:25 where the sub are more presents to compare, the congestion seems to affect the entire frecuency range, you can do match EQ with Fab Filter pro Q or similar :-) thanks nice channel, still think there is a difference in dynamiques the metter show it as well what you call congestion which is still present after EQ-ing, for dynamique why you don´t focus on the depth as well instruments sparation that´s what reveal the dynamiques, the Vynil still is a little better after EQ, before EQ it is nught and day
I could hear the difference on Steelseries Siberia V2 (GREAT headset, well worth the money). The Vinyl sounded fuller and more fleshed out, kind of like it was surrounding me and just naturally there, while CD sounded a bit muted and squished and felt like it was coming out of a speaker.
What are the odds? I'm also using Siberia v2. I got them right before they were discontinued. I keep meaning to get a better, more professional set of headphones but I've gotta say for the money I really love these ones.
Yeah the only real way to compare is to listen to the vinyl directly and then listen to the cd....and not digitize the vinyl like this video, otherwise they are both digital files. You will find there is a fluidity (no bit rate) to vinyl.
Apart from anything - modern music extensively uses digital samples. It's impossible to improve the fidelity of a digital sample by transferring it to an analogue medium.
All you can do is change the sound.
If the vinyl diverges from the CD - it is because it has distorted the sound in some way. More high or low end means it has distorted the original sound.
With the pono putting studio original audio in your hands the superiority of digital goes from 99-100%
The vinyl for this particular album was actually mastered from digital files. Sad, but true. I know that "Random Access Memories" was recorded using analogue equipment in the studio, but it was then mastered to digital, compressed for more "punch", and then put on vinyl.
You'd be better off doing a comparison with "Homework", which is a HUGE difference.
***** I have a problem with digital mastering on vinyl, even when the digital file isn't smashed. Unless the album was recorded and mixed in digital in the first place, there should be no reason to digitally master an album onto vinyl that was analogue to begin with. Why bother with vinyl if I'm just paying for the digital files slapped onto records? The process isn't as transparent as many in the business would like to believe. It's certainly more economical, though. There's a reason there's a demand for analogue-pressed records.
***** If I'm going out of my way to purchase vinyl from an artist that I know was recorded in analogue, I expect it to be analogue. I can just as easily download a digital uncompressed file, and not bother. I could care less about the nostalgia and aesthetic of vinyl so much as the difference in sound quality. Otherwise, I feel ripped off.
***** And I think you're wrong. Digital is scientifically not as transparent of a format, even if it sounds like it to a lot of ears. I'm not just a hipster who buys vinyl to be cool. :P
***** Binary code. It may be a bit-accurate approach, but I don't believe it's as transparent as analogue.
It doesn't matter if it's digital or analog being put on vinyl. What matters is how it's mastered.
For example... look up Dire Straights Brothers in Arms. The CD version actually has more dynamic range than the vinyl version. This album was produced back in 1985 and was mastered to make full use of the CD mediums increased dynamic range.
Then look up Adele 21. The vinyl version has significantly more dynamic range than the CD version because they were both mastered differently.
If record companies actually used CD's/digital to its full capacity it would blow away vinyl.
More cymbals on the record version, but a CD can easily do that because it allows content clear to 22kHz
The problem with this you didn't use a spectrum analyzer to show the difference in frequency range. If what it's true regarding using a 88.2kHz master for the vinyl mastering then technically the vinyl should sound better than the CD (being at 44.1).
***** Yes it's true that no human can hear above 20kHz, hell I can't hear a 18kHz pure tone. BUT understanding the science of audio you'll see that upper overtones ( of a sound that does in fact have an affect on the overall characteristic of the sound of what we hear. So it is possible to hear a difference. You could look up info on the physics of harmonics.
*****
I've known people with Masters degrees in accounting that couldn't add the price of 2 postage stamps together in their head. A degree doesn't mean shit.
Your observation wasn't wrong at all but there's nothing magical to say about that, the fact that vinyl has more detail mids and airy hi are just part of different frequency response. CD version has more bass and less treble thus masking certain instruments yet some instruments will sound fuller on it.
While there might be difference in DR but it isn't night and day to make it worth costing 3x more with all its expensive tools and maintenance.
My opinion on the very infamous analog vs digital topic is that yes, (well-done) digital does sound as good as analog.
However, let's take for example a VST-virtual synth- which is obviously digital.
I own a Roland Jupiter 8. a true analog machine, and I also own the VST made by Arturia, which they claim it is a true representation of the Roland Jupiter 8.
There is NO WAY, that it sounds the same, NO WAY.
I believe that digital recordings can sound as good as analog recordings, however, digital will NEVER sound as good in terms of "emulating" analog, well that's my opinion.
I hope this makes sense to you,
Thanks!
Jerome B.
To me, I feel like both mediums are being compared unfairly. If you look at the instruments being used, you may agree.
The drums, to my ears, sounded much more pleasing on the vinyl. However, when you take the synths and put them on a CD, they are much more articulated and sound better on that medium. I could see recording this particular song digitally and then NOT compressing the drum tracks -That would yield the best results for this particular song.
Adversely, I feel like vinyl still is the superior medium for non-electronic instruments. If you are recording a classic rock album with 'acoustic' or mic'd instruments/amplifiers, I believe reel-to-reel, analog and vinyl are the way to go. I don't really care about the EQ, per se -The artist will have the album EQ'ed to whatever their vision may be. I care more about the natural sound of the instruments being played.
To me, it's simple fact that CD's are typically compressed and vinyl is not. If using modern techniques and modern synths, go with the modern medium. If using old school genres and traditional instruments, go with the medium of yesteryear.
Listen to an orchestral movement on vinyl vs. CD and then listen to this Daft Punk on a CD vs. vinyl and you'll see what I mean.
No matter what, I see absolutely no benefit in recording in digital and going to vinyl or recording over tape and going into ProTools; Whichever way you go, I'd say to stay true to that method.
i love this double album...
Im not sure if this is going to be seen or not but the CD EQ had to be tweaked a whole hell of alot just to get it to sound like the vinyl while only minor adjustments were needed for the vinyl to give it just a bit more punch. just by this alone the vinyl wins. i am not going to sit at my equalizer for 2 hours just to get it to sound like the vinyl.
I will always love vinyl, it sounds 100x better than any digital file
its a fact according to this video. what i said was based off of everything done in the video.
yeah i state the vinyl is better because in the video it is stated to get the CD to sound like the vinyl it took like 3 hours worth of tinkering with the CD copy to get it to sound close to the vinyl while only a small amount was done to the vinyl to give it a slightly better sound. who wants to sit at their equalizer for 3 hours to make a cd sound like a vinyl? sounds like a big waste of time to me.
thats fine. i wasn't trying to "win" an argument. i was just stating what i had learned from this video. i did re read your earlier post to double check and i think what i stated still stands.
This was really interesting. Thank you!
Also I get the sense that comparing this things are useless since it depends a lot on the system your playing it back. I personally prefere vinyl simply because I get a nostalgic feel when putting it on and watch it spin.. also we can hear the crackles, it sound GOOD especially on older records. I've always got the feel that vinyl has really good low end which is odd, we know all about those vinyl physical limitations when it comes to bass.. I guess it's my amp..
Maybe my ears are getting more critically able, but I can clearly hear the difference in favor of the vinyl, although very subtle as you have said, even after your EQ edits.
Explain the difference between dynamics and EQ to me. You can say there's a 'difference' between those two terms?
I would have it this way: EQ would be a way of achieving a better dynamic range, or rather a tool - and Dynamic range is how a track is balanced in frequencies so that the elements in the track sounds nice, clean and present.
Right or wrong, or perhaps a better way of explaining it? :)
@Production Advice - what cart/stylus, table, phono pre were used in the vinyl rip here?
The cymbal, in particular, on the vinyl version, even at the end, to my ears, sounds more naturally metallic than the CD version, more "silver" if you will.....
So. Are we to assume in a nutshell that due to the eq'ing, and possibly a touch of accentuated dynamics, the vinyl sounds more natural, and the CD sounds more precise? Both equally as good attributes, and depends on the taste of the listener.
I am a believer, also, that at very loud volumes, vinyl is less fatiguing to the ears. Does anyone agree with that?
Yes, really that's what I'm saying. Often, the mastering for vinyl is just done better. So it's a mastering issue rather than a formatting issue, yes?
just by looking at the whole waveforms you can easily see how much compression was applied (probably multiband compression) on the volume of the cd version. comparison listening is totally unnecessary both for the reason i explained and due to youtube.
Exactly. And the cut off peaks account for the difference in dynamic range. Very simple. Interesting video though.
I would like to see a comparison like this that brings in the Hi-res digital version.
320kbps mp3 is under 50% of the original sound. Divide it by half to get 160kbps mp3 and you get less than 25% of the original sound. Also add all the filters and loss of frequency. 128kbps mp3 cut off to 16 khz usually, while a 320 kbps can reach max 20khz unless the lowpass is turned off.
For those arguing about the mastering etc, isn't the point to show which has the better sound for the consumer? It doesn't really matter what the reason is for this context..?
There sound like some high end distortion on the vinyl version that I dare say would come from the cartridge and the preamp rather then be a mastering decision and the CD sound better to my ears, and DR6 isn't that loud for a song considering how much blanket noise this track has (it isn't a dynamic piano ballad).
Interesting video!! What software are you using here??
Great job as usual, Ian. You tested a few bars of the CD / Vinyl where the DR seems to be the lowest, abd you mention that there still is a DR difference of up to 5dB at times. Isn't that still a big difference, proportionately? And how important is the DR differences elsewhere ? Does it overwhelm the difference in EQ? My guess would be that it does.
you should compare the vinyl LP with the High Res version avaible on the French Website Qobuz, it's sound as good as the LP and it was in 88 KHZ 24 bit in Wave, it was the source, that was used for both version (CD and LP), this album was fully recorded in 96 KHZ 24 bit, and put on Analog Tape, before down convert in 88 Khz by Bob Ludwig and remastered by Chab in Paris.
Meteotrance the DR rating of both the CD and the Deluxe USB version is the same - I have both, and can hardly tell the difference, the piano sounds better on the Hi-res version a bit.
recording vinyl sounds like needle was already worn out ...
I feel like something your doing is coloring the audio because it never sounds that distorted when I listen to it on Spotify.
It sounds like the CD was mastered with more limiting, which would lift the bass and reduce the top end. You can't get super low dynamic range on vinyl because the playback would be too wild and would have to be cut very quietly. So to maximize volume, the vinyl master likley would have been cut with a bit more dynamic range. Also, a very heavily compressed/limited track cuts the top end, which also reduces the chances for aliasing effects and other artifacts when file compressed down to .mp3. All this is to say I think the differences you are hearing are two things: 1) slight difference in EQ due to cartridge and phono preamp vs. digital converter, 2) difference in how the track was mastered for each medium. And I think #2 is bigger and it would be interesting to talk to the mastering engineer to confirm this. What you said at 13:32 I agree with, and I am just saying that can also attribute to some of the EQ differences you are hearing as well.
***** I think you have done and excellent anlaysis of the two formats, but you have to consider that they are different masters. And I don't think there is anything wrong with your TT meter. It may actually be more accurate than you think.
It is of my opinion that the spiker waveforms are in fact due to more dynamic range and the CD you can see is clearly brick wall limited. You are right on point with them being about the same volume, but the vinyl has a bit of dynamics that is peaking through whereas the CD is limited.
My overall point is that the only way to truly compare both mediums is to have the same exact reference on both. Vinyl does seem to sound better to me and others because the limitations do not allow for such extreme compression or brick wall limiting, however those things are what make the music louder and sound more of the same across many different types of playback systems. Radio stations and TV stations multi-band compress and limit for the same reasons. You can't get away with this on vinyl because the needle would jump a track or you have to make it quieter.
Spec wise vinyl is horrible, but the way it it is mastered and dynamic range has much to do with the sound that is so pleasing to our ears.
"Because vinyl's restrictions do not permit the same abuse of audio levels as the CD, Mayo says that listeners might hear a wider dynamic range in an album mixed separately for vinyl over a compact disc version optimized for loudness - even though vinyl, as a format, has a narrower range than CD." - from www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162
Also, check out this article that references a highly technical article that argues that vinyl actually has more dynamic range than CD's - www.analogplanet.com/content/does-vinyl-have-wider-dynamic-range-cds-heres-some-math
It is not surprising to me that DSD is the closest to analog. So I just don't think your waveform images or TT meter is not working correctly or deceiving you in any way.
I never said PCM does, but DSD does:
www.merging.com/products/pyramix/dsd-dxd
My point also is that for some recordings, 16/44.1 is enough and does not have much benefit over that. It all is more dependent on source material and mastering process.
Also, check out this article:
archimago.blogspot.com/2015/01/musings-what-is-value-of-high.html
Archimago is a pretty brilliant fellow and I urge you to read some more of his blog posts if you have the time.
And by the way Ian, you are correct...you CAN cut a record with high compressed levels. I suspect "Death Magnetic" was cut quieter to not damage the cutting heat on the cutting lathe. They also kept the grooves wide as it is 2 records cut on 4 sides and the correct length per side. However, the "Master of Puppets" LP clocks in at 26:48 for side A, and 27:12 for side B. Just a bit over the 22 minutes per side standard. Why? Quieter grooves means you can push them together more. The album after that, "And Justice for All..." was a 2 record set.
You're point that extra dynamics can appear to be there due to the nature of the medium and not reflective of the mastering is somewhat plausable. Mostly due to the complex playback of a small diamond stylus following and vibrating a small stem, that is then amplified many times over and eq'd. The RIAA dictates that high frequencies are boosted in encoding, which, even if eq'd down for playback, is not severely accurate. Not to mention the amount of op amps and coloration from the circuit and the cartridge.
So, is it peaky due to the vinyl process? You would have to still put the EXACT same output to the lathe that you put to CD or digital stream and find out for absolute certainty.
In your humble opinion.
That is like, um, their opinion man. I see no facts here. I will agree that is is not perfect or accurate - nowhere near. If you read one of the articles I posted claims that even some jazz recordings only need 11-bits. For others, you need way more. I have heard a 1/2" master direct from the tape and even with the best converter, 24/96 was close, but not truly what was coming off that tape machine. And if all you care about is accuracy, then digital is certainly what you would want.
Also, might it be possible that when cutting and playing back the vinyl, the needle just isn't capable of physically reproducing a 'smashed' signal? So even if the same master is used for CD and vinyl, the vinyl record might just become more dynamic because of the needle 'shooting over'. How should a needle be able to instantly stop moving at every peak that's been cut off by a limiter??
Your friend should probably get a more linear phono stage, something from Cambridge Audio would work.
There are a lot of factors that influence the sound. the analog waveform of the vinyl has gone through digital conversions encoding and decoding. You have added a digital flavor to it. Thus your not getting a true comparison in your test of how the vinyl compares sound wise. The only way to do this is compare in real time playback of the vinyl not an interpretation of the pure analog signal by some integrated circuits a processing if you will . An analogy would be a fresh handmade pizza to a frozen processed pizza they may both taste good but to most people the fresh would stand out as the better with all things being equal.
It all depends on the quality of the electronic components in the recording and playback. Computers are the worst for recording and playback of audio. there is to many PLL and hi frequency noises form components that cause gitter.. If you play "a good digital recording of the vinyl" on a ipod vs nn MSB DAC you going to notice a difference. A chain is only as good as its weakest link.
Most people I know from the older generation ended up replacing their records with cd. Im usually told becuase records are more difficult to maintain. Though they may sound better at first, a cd wont sound any different in 20 years after continuous play. I have an aunt that told me she dont like listening to her favorite song on her record player because all the scratches and clicks make her feel old. lol. She says she likes CD because it "sounds new" still. lol
But then again there are plenty from that generation that say vinyl sounds better because the cracks and pops sound nostalgic! :) I find in practice that with those really beaten up records of mine, I can zone out most cracks and pops as the actual physical contact between the stylus and the groove seems to grab music by the scruff of the neck and thrust it in front of the listener. There's a real presence to vinyl sound even played on modest hifi separates like mine that I don't think any waveform or spectrum analyser can quite get its head round. Conversely, minor cracks and pops of even fairly well preserved vinyl sound absolutely terrible when digitised. And then they sound even worse after YT has mangled up the sound - it's evident even in Ian's Daft Punk vinyl transfer as a mushiness in the background that mixes in with the digital jitter of the computer soundcard to end up sounding just - messy!
I have never seen nor heard of a compact disk lasting 20 years with continuous play. I own records that sound great and are 40 years old. CD's just don't last.
Great comparison.
Great video as always Ian. I do have a question in regard to this album, was it recorded from a digital source or analog source? And how can one tell if a vinyl album was recorded from a digital source or analog source? Since most albums don't tell you this on their album line notes, there is no way of knowing. Thanks!