The magic of vinyl is, pulling it off the shelf, opening the record player, pulling it out of the sleeve, placing it on the player, dusting the record off, placing the needle down, turning up your amp, and sitting down for 20 mins
I remember back in the day Mikey would have a CD he burned from vinyl. It sounded amazing on our show systems. Asked him why the hell does this sound so good, he said “it's the Boulder” (phono stage).
1:57 "...there's a certain amount of magic that happens in vinyl. Now we've discussed before, I think it's a combination of the vinyl process, of the squishing of the dynamics which kind of makes it a little bit more lively..." Notice how Paul tiptoes around the fact that audio recorded to vinyl is a severely lossy process and the original recording, even if it was recorded to analog tape, is highly distorted. First of all, what Paul calls "the process of squishing of the dynamics", is, in fact, compression which can be quite extreme depending on the dynamics of the original performance and the need to get above the higher noise level that is inherent in vinyl. The "vinyl process" that Paul tiptoes around is the fact that all of the mid-low to low frequencies of the original recording are stripped out of the original recording because of vinyl's lack of ability to reproduce low-frequency content due to needle excursion. This low-frequency information is then artificially re-EQed back in, in the turntable electronics which can vary from turntable to turntable even amongst the same manufacturer and is constantly applied regardless of the mid-low to low-frequency content which means this equalization is also applied to the inherent noise that is in vinyl and increases that noise.
@@Wizardofgosz Unintentionally (I presume), it's probably quite a good reflection of the (huge) area of this hobby where objectivity ends and subjective preferences begin. These can vary depending on our mood and also particular genre of music, which means that if one keeps talking long enough, they are almost bound to start contradicting themselves at some point. ;-) It's one of those rabbits that cannot be caught (especially when no-one is really interested in catching it).
I see things a bit different. When I read your post and some of the responses, all I see is some miserable people sitting around watching youtube videos on topics they already know they won't like, or have an interest in, just so they can make negative comments. All I can say to that is its almost dinner time. Put some pants on and go upstairs so your mom doesn't have to yell.
@@AT-wl9yq Too bad you have such limited vision because what is really happening is the truth is being exposed. You seem to be under the illusion that Paul is correct just because he is charismatic. Unfortunately, this couldn't be farther from the truth, as is much of what Paul is saying. Instead of spending time verifying what Paul says is truthful, you choose instead to attack those that would expose his hypocrisy.
Agreed. You can capture vinyl sound digitally with great fidelity. I still have a Sandisk e140 mp3 player. One day, I played mp3 files of tracks from an album by the Dutch band Golden Earring. I plugged this player on an integrated amplifier and pressed play. Then, I noticed the woofers were vibrating without producing any sound, just like it happens when we play some vinyl records. Some amplifiers have a Lo-Cut filter to avoid damaging the woofers. And sure enough, these digital files were converted from a vinyl record to mp3. The woofers were responding to frequencies below my capacity to listen to them, however both the mp3 player and my integrated amplifier were able to reproduce it.
There are getting to be too many different ways of making recordings that sound like the live event now and I’m not understanding any of these new digital techniques anymore. It’s maddening. It’s not worth my time and effort to try to keep up with what’s happening on a day-to-day basis. Going back to listening and enjoying music like I have been for the past year. It’s so much better emotionally for me than winding up trapped in these twisted new technologies. Time to stop and smell the flowers again. Happiness is more life fulfilling than Hi Fi technology. Don’t lose sight of the fact that music matters.
Right you are, it's become a scam now to bamboozle and confuse you with new terms and buzzwords just to con people into thinking they will get better sound if they buy new stuff. You can get awesome enjoyment from old equipment, vintage turntables and vintage speakers. You can even wire up your speakers with 18 gauge house lamp wire and it will still sound great. Try it as a test. Don't get conned by today's world. It's just a shadow of yesterday's world.
Take Neil Young Live at the Roxy; on my Thorens 160/syrinx arm/fidelity research cartridge/little bear t11 stage it sounds like you're actually there at the Roxy amongst the audience. Every little live nuance comes through, the amount of 'air' in the recording is breathtaking but on digital a lot of that 'air' is lost to too much purity. Does this make sense?
The moment it was digitized all the life-like attributes was stripped away. That's how I hear it. Sumiko Blackbird De Paravicini EAR phono Primaluna Amp Troels Gravesen Speakers
Paul. In this video you touched on missing Bascom H. King. I did not realize that he had passed. Sad!. My deepest condolences to all that knew him personally and his family. I am a non-engineering background (as I always stated - I'm a 'wanna be' elec. eng.!!) I really appreciated the series of interviews with BHK. (RUclips) Excellent. What an articulate humble man. I can only wish I am close to being that sharp at age 84 (72 now) How smart and lucky are you (and PS Audio) to have the great tribute of your series on BHK amps. Take a bow. I can only imagine what a lose it is of great minds like BHK. I read your tribute to him on your PS website. I watched a couple of videos again. I am at a lose.....I wish I had met him over the past time/years. Maybe a time machine in the future Ha! Take care. PS: I really appreciate your time and attention to your videos. Thanks
With the right setup, conversions from vinyl to flac files (as first clean playthroughs (no clicks or pops)) then played back through a system was amazing. I could not tell the difference between the actual vinyl and those recordings, which is great assuming you like that sound.
Think of it another way. The original recording, recorded directly from the instrument and microphones onto tape or digitally onto a hard drive in the studio, then it is this one that has best and most accurate sound. If you transfer this to vinyl, you will change/weaken the sound! this is the way it is. in the same way as if you make a drawing and copy it on a copy machine, the original is best. If you take the first Digital PCM. copy that is at the studio and makes a normal music CD disc and plays it through the same DAC. EQUIPMENT IN THE STUDIO, I don't think you will hear any differences in an A B test.
When listening to an imperfect vinyl playback you feel the music is more human made due to the audible effects like noise and clicks. Vinyl playback is like a painting compared to a photo in a way.
@@vinylrules4838 I have 800+ LPs and most are in pristine condition but those I’ve played most or have involved some careless use by some other people are in worst condition. Especially when buying used LPs it can be a hit or miss. I have a friend who owns the world’s largest LP collection of 1.3 million and I’m sure most of them have never seen a needle.
@@ThinkingBetter Wow! 1.3 million lps? Is that in the US? Many times an ultrasonic cleaner can make a big difference with the noise from an lp provided it is scratched up.
@@vinylrules4838 Then you have also hundreds of lps that also have noise from the actual vinyl itself. I'm not any side here, and unless you are playing with words, nobody's collection has all or mostly super quiet vinyl.
I actually traded emails with Taylor at PS Audio about this a few days ago. PS Audio used to sell a phono preamp called the Nuwave Phono Converter which included an A2D converter. Seems like an obvious combination, but its been discontinued. Would be nice if PS, Gold Note, Project or other companies who sell phono preamps would at least offer a good/high quality A2D converter as an optional add on to their phono preamps. I'm now looking around for a used Nuwave Phono Converter.
Tube distortion and vinyl distortion can be cool effects but overall I tend to prefer the purest sound to the original master. To me the vinyl distortion (wow & flutter, noise, clicks, compression etc.) can remind me of past listening moments with some nostalgia feel to it.
@@jasonkillsformomy If we are talking about pre digital recordings, it does not matter how the music sounded in the studio, what made you and whoever love the music is because of the songs and the sound. In most cases, that sound my friend was tape mastered to vinyl. I remember pre-recorded cassettes in the 80's and I could not stand the sound, what we loved was vinyl and for convenience and multiple playback it was all about recording vinyl to cassette. And then there was the 90's.. Nirvana Nevermind on CD (which most people had) sounded blah... It was not until I heard the vinyl that Bernie Grundman mastered from the Analog masters that actually showed how good that recording sounded. It is what it is.. haha Just another guys opinion from real world experience.
@@Brian-qg8dg Sure a excellent produced vinyl will sound better than a badly produced CD. That wasn't my point. My point was that a excellent produced digital is better than excellent produced vinyl. Apples to apples comparison and not apples to oranges. Digital has more dynamic range and will never loose sound quality no matter how many times you listen to it. As a technology digital is superior in every way.
Vinyl processing goes through at least one compressor and radical EQ BEFORE it reaches the cutting head. Much of that equipment is state-of-the-art and some may also be tube-based. In addition different cartridges and styli each have their own acoustic fingerprint. That's the VINYL sound. I have several copies of the same recording on both CD and LP. In most cases I prefer the sound of the LP to the CD, especially if the CD was made in the 80's, when digital circuits were still novel with lower sampling rates.
I still do not understand the appeal of vinyl outside of nostalgia. Similarly I do not understand the appeal of vintage speakers despite the fact I sell them on the used market. I've always chalked both up to nostalgia. Vintage speakers have a very unique sound quality that has become popular. The thing is they don't sound very nice and I'm continually amazed at what people will pay for them. I think these things amount to reminding people of "the good old days".
@2:05 "...squishing of the dynamics, which kind-a makes it a little bit more lively..." Squishing the dynamics makes a more lively sound-field? I thought that squishing (or compressing) the dynamics kills the liveliness of music? Loudness wars are an example of compression, and such songs have awful sound quality. Paul, please elaborate. What am I not understanding?
of course i'm not paul and i couldn't elaborate his point but i play electric guitar with many analog effects and from my perspective compression is a "cheap" way to create loudness and can make any uncompressed signal sound bigger.if with no compression 99% of your signal is at low volume and only the peaks use the full headroom ,with compresson you have that 99% at a higher volume.Of course it's not an accurate representation of what was recorded,it's just a matter of taste
He didn’t mean lively, he means like in your face; the compression brings everything to the foreground, and the ubiquitous loudness makes everything more obnoxious imho. Regardless of the type source on analog or digital, poor recording engineering, including the mixing or mastering stages, can make any recording sound good or bad on any of those media. Unfortunately, there’s also Subjectivity involved, so all these conversations end up being a lot of bullshit.
@@shipsahoy1793 "He didn’t mean lively, he means like in your face..." I tend to go with what was said (or wrote, as the case may be). Unless Paul states otherwise, or replies with more information, or you got a phone call from Paul, then he said "lively", and that is what he meant. You might be right. But I do not assume that what was said means something else.
What you are not understanding is this is Paul's sales pitch to the "vinyl crowd". In other videos where Paul is trying to sell DSD, he talks all about how vinyl is a huge compromise and that "squishing audio" is bad.
It is not magic. I studied for Deutsche Grammophone in the 70s the phenomenon why some analog orchestra recordings distort more than others. Reason (strongly shortened) because the addition of the non-linear distortions of the tape with those of the tone arm track angle become audible and if the mastering is a tape copy, the audible distortion occurs more clearly, which is not yet perceptible from the tape. So it happens only at the vinyl playback and also depends significantly on the mechanical conditions of the turntable. That’s why you can capture it on digital if you copy analog to digital. It has primary nothing to do with dynamic range or frequency response. So if you compare the turntable recording with the master or even original tape, you can reproduce the difference.
I've captured (Ripped) LP to 96/24 wave with a decent ADC ... Playback of the wave is very close, maybe 95% of the vinyl sound -- I'd guess a better ADC would get closer to 100%
My father got into the Quadraphonic 4-ch' vinyl reproduction fad of the 70's. He went the whole hog & bought all 3 of the only avajlable Quadraphonic decoder systems (to cover any & all Quadraphonic encoded L.P.s that all Quadraphonic L.P.s used one of) The 3 systems were the called the 'SQ' the 'QS' & thd 'CD-4' Quadraphonic system, made by Sony, Sansui & JVC respectively. The best or most noticable discreet 4 channel effects came with JVC's CD-4 Quadraphonic system decoder & i think it was just that one tho i'm not sure about the SQ & QS systems, that came with information as to which phono cartridges to use that would work with it to properly decode the 4'channel encoded L.P.s. The cartridges were very few & had to be able to pick up the 30'Khz carrier wave in the grooves The QS & SQ from Sony & Sansui were compatible but produced different sound steering, apparently not that i could notice it. While JVC's CD-4 Quad' system was different again (the D stood for discreet, not digital as it was the early to mid 1970's) & it came with a very small list of cartridges that were capable of picking up a 30'Khz carrier wave for decoding the L.P.s 4- channel steering that relied upon rdcidving 30'Khz carrier wave to reproduce the 4 discreet channels via the CD-4 decoder. All the hi-fi mags recomended the Sure V15 mk 2 (or 3?) & JVC's X1 cartridge as being the best suitable for reproducing that 30'Khz carrier wave. Many other cartridges not on the recommended list went to 20, 22 & 25"Khz at best except the 4 or so cartridges that JVC recomended, inc' JVC's own X1 Cartridge that had a shibata stylus & did the 30'Khz carrier wave better than the Sure V15 did. I.m.o. When the fad died for my dad & in general, I was allowed to adopt the JVC X1 cartridge as it did stereo far better than what I had at the time. My point is: according to that Quadraphonic suitable cartridge info, at lesst some cartridges could reproduce that 30'Khz carrier wave as was required for at least JVC's CD-4 Quadraphonic system. Maybe the QS & SQ system also, i'm not sure about those. All I remember is Floyd's "Dark side.. .." had the sudden wake-up surprise bells on side 2 going around the 4 speakers ...Whoop-de-do! I thought. All else was subtle & not worth the extra speakers, amp & decoders while the few labels that did buy into it ...soon dropped it. Warner Bros was one & Santana & Zappa L.P. were released on Quadraphonic. Some phono cart's of the mid 70"s could do 30'Khz least at 3 or 6 (?) Decibels down (wasnt stated but was my opinion as one recommended cart' the JVC X1 shibata could decode the 4'channels better than the Sure V15 tho both were recomended as suitable to retrieve that 30'Khz carrier wave for the relevant decoders sound steering.
Paul tactfully uses the word "magic" and not the other word. I have suggested before on his videos when this comes up that IMO there is more then enough computing power in his D/A converters to dial in as much "magic", and the type of "magic", that is desired.
Paul also tactfully bypasses the fact that the magic is added in PCM because DSD can't be edited to create the necessary compression and RIAA equalization. PS Records DSD "masters" come from PCM files.
When I hear people talk about vinyl, I automatically think about the horse and buggy period, and how they were accustomed to traveling slowly as compared to quickly. I get it… I’m sixty eight years old, but for me, the nostalgia wasn’t what I was after, it is the reproduction of the actual instruments and vocals, and for that, digital comes much closer. Granted… in the early days of digital, vinyl was better… even with all the crackling of dust particles on the records, and so I stay away from early cds, they are crappy sounding.
Thank you for stating what should be obvious.👍 While somebody's listening preference is their own, to come out and call yourself an audiophile and claim an inferior format riddled with distortions, noise and compression is better is ridiculous.
Ever heard the vinyl v cd of the Adele albums? The vinyl versions have a better dynamic range than the cd versions, even though it ought to be the other way round.
Aren't Digital recordings limited by the capability of analogue microphones to capture the frequency responses. For instance are there any microphones designed to revird music that can go far beyond 20Khz. So what is the point of DSD veing able to capture sounds way beyond this, isn't that just noise?
When I first bought my CD recorder over twenty years ago, the first thing I did was recording my favorite records on cdr. When I played these cdr's on my CD player, they sounded exactly the same as the record. So people who say that Records sound better than Cd's, don't know what they're talking about.
Hmm. CDs have an absolute theoretical high frequency limit of 22,050 Hz. LPs can go much higher. In fact, the old CD4 Quad format REQUIRED response up to 45KHz to work properly, and that was 45 years ago
If you check it out, most stylus go from 20-20k, is it really Worth getting a stylus to 1000$. Good luck going over/under with analog. Analog is to expencive, thats why its dying.
The magic is in the cartridge, tone arm, deck and preamp. Most only hear cds on cheap players and really have no idea what digital can produce when done right. Dsd is a storage format that is converted to pcm for the converter to go to analog.
Imagine playing an vinyl recording on DSD (and don't tell it to some listeners ) and in same time acting you put needle on a record without telling that was the DSD recording playing.... could be surprise for some...:)
This conversation again? Old technology distorted the sound. Some people found this sound aesthetically pleasing. Then technology improved and the sound could be reproduced more accurately. It didn't sound right any more. It was too perfect. So mixing artists spent lots of time and made lots of tools to reproduce the old distortion in a controlled manner. And they got it spot on! The distortions of valves and vinyl are not that hard to model mathematically. And if you have a model, you can write a program to apply it to sound. Usually in the form of a plugin. There. All questions answered. There is no analog magic.
It's odd to me that Paul looks down on tone controls but will happily add distortion and noise with vinyl. To my thinking, the pursuit of high fidelity in the modern era would entail eschewing vinyl's distortion in favor of digital.
However, at least for pre-digital music, many of us fell in love with the music and the sound because of how it sounds. This sound was from tape to vinyl, not from the master itself. Many bands in the newer heavy area all tend to sound the same now due to being able to record and reproduce such high quality. However, some of the music seems to resonate more when the bands use less in the box and more from outside the box. Like actually using microphones to amps and drums.. The sound is never as dynamic or wide, yet it resonates more. Just because your car can extremely drive fast doesn't mean that it is as enjoyable as driving fast. Just another guys opinion..
@@alex_stanley Modern equipment is capable of high fidelity, but it isn't used that way for music. That's what you have an expert just to do the mixing - someone with the experience to work with an array of filter algorithms and make the music sound as good as possible.
So many vinyl records from the early 80’s, even from the late 70’s. They sound perfect when they were recorded digitally and they were PCM, just old PCM, good old CD quality. But telling the truth those older CD’s sound even better if you play them on top quality equipment. Digital sound better, it should sound better theoretically and if you know what you’re doing the will sound better practically. There is no practical need for vinyl now to get any sound “magic”. Let’s leave magic to magicians and vinyl to collectors. BTW, I love vinyl and if can sound amazing. But digital can sound even better!)
It’s the vibrating stick that makes the difference. The cantilever vibrates which is physical. Music comes from something physical. In digital the source is not physical.
Despite limitations vinyl rates better, why? Where is the science of this? Is it psychoacoustics, it’s unlikely to be bias since it is too universal whilst Tt’s and their cartridges change the world over. It’s got something to do with the sound and it’s perception… that yields such widespread appreciation. I haven’t seen any studies, have you? In case you think I’m a vinyl lover I’m not, I hate those clicks and pops that derail my listening experience of vinyl. So I’m not biased towards vinyl. But I’d love to understand why limited dynamics and higher noise floors rate so well as they do… through proper studies.
I have not heard anyone talk about vinyl's inherently poor channel separation specs. Digital is near perfect. On delicately balanced and tuned systems this is very apparent. Does it not at least deserve a mention?
I struggle with the concept of Vinyl having any sort of "magic" over digital. It surely sounds different. Maybe it is the memory triggers for those individuals hearing that original sound that creates the magic and that is of course impossible to reproduce for anyone else.
I agree 100%. While I still have my record collection and 1970s vintage manual turntable, I prefer CD and digital. I keep the LPs because many have never been transferred to CD or digital. The first time I listened to a CD (Philips 'Hear the Light') I was 'sold' by the music starting out of a black velvet nothingness. No snaps, crackles or pops. 😁
The magic of vinyl for me is not the sound. It is that you have to keep more focussed on the player and the music as you have to turn it over at the end. So you experience the music more than for instance a stream as you need to be more focussed.
Here is somewhat of a video equivalent -- Star Wars Episode 2 shot on digital video, converted to film for compatibility with cinemas at the time, then scanned back in to digital video ruclips.net/video/jeu1_sgd1Ac/видео.html
'Capture Vinyl sound', fairly easy, I have converted my very limited collection to digital, from needle drop to liftoff, with only the side A to B bit being trimmed. I cannot tell the difference, I can also enjoy my old turntable that long ago died and was sent back to it's creator (as in dust to dust) Initially I tied cutting it into individual tracks for a CD, however the fading from the vinyl background to absolute nothing in digital, then fading back for the next track never sounded right (I didn't know of gapless back then) I just keep each LP as a single file, yes a tad tricky to get to a favourite track, but you soon learn how to. I used PCM, as in WAV files on my PC. Paul was yet to make his appearance and start spruiking DSD, not that I have anything really up to showing their is any difference, other than a rapid loss of HDD space In my circles, the fight is not DSD vs PCM, it's PCM verses Blutooth and the crappy 'retail' speakers that come with it - and no I'm not talking KEF LS60's etc here, think a LOT lower.
BBC compression is what gives vinyl it's unique sound. Squeezing the dynamics down to work within the physical constraints of vinyl (both groove size and limits of cartridges), and then expanding them again on playback inevitably alters the result. You are correct that digital can faithfully record and reproduce that result. That raises the question, if vinyl actually is "superior" why do we not have a line of "recorded from vinyl" digital offerings? My belief is that a lot of people (myself included) were used to the sound of vinyl when CDs came out, and equated what we were familiar with as "better", and this attitude has been passed down through a couple of generations of audiophiles. I have come to love the DSD sound now though, and no longer even own a turntable, although I do seek out every SACD, BluRay Audio, etc disc that I can find.
It would be an interesting experiment to run a track through BBC compression, cut it onto vinyl, play it back through a phone stage, and directly record the output to DSD. Then do the same thing, but skip the cut/playback step and compare the two with the vinyl to see what differences might exist.
May be true in many cases but I for one grew up on vinyl so I was as familiar with the sound of vinyl as anyone but I’ve always been after the best sound reproduction possible. The first time I ever heard a CD on a good system I immediately started seeking out all my favorite albums on digital because I recognized right away that it was superior in pretty much every single way. Nostalgia is fine and well but I don’t understand how anyone could prefer the sound of static, micro particles and limited frequency response over the clean,full bodied sound of digital. It’s funny because I got my friend into vinyl years ago and at that time he was more of a CD guy. Now he argues with me that vinyl is better when as you and I know it’s not. I still love vinyl from a collectors standpoint because I love having the cover art and liner notes but as far as superior sound goes I’ll take the digital every time
Magic in the context of audio playback seems to be short for desirable distortion. It seems some people confuse music performances (like a DJ remixing on the fly) and music reproduction.
Live microphone feed? As far as my experience is concerned, I put a Hybrid SACD in a Blu-Ray player and thought I was hearing studio-quality sound. That was one of only two true studio-quality experiences I have had. Drums and vocals were very life-like. One was a Hybrid SACD by Carly Simon, and it was called Hotcakes, mastered by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. The other one was a stand-alone CD, and it was called Reflections: Carly Simon’s Greatest Hits, mastered by Rhino Records and BMG. Both masters were mastered directly from the original tapes. So, my question is: would it be accurate to conclude that it’s all about the source material and the mastering process, or just one or the other? I know it’s not about the format.
Paul: “yes it can”. Me: no Paul, it can’t, which is why you admitted in a recent video that when you listen to music on vinyl it sounds better, for reasons you can’t fully explain.
It would be great if the industry would produce vinyl to digital versions ....as although direct digital masters are a very impressive format and technically better..... it does seem that sometimes less is definitely more! And although adding valves to the amplification and using R2R DACs can bring some of that vinyl (?) Flavour and quality back....vinyl still has that magic something and ability to present music and connect on a slightly different sonic/emotional(?) level.
Makes you wonder what the actual dynamic range would be on the DSD from vinyl would be measured at? One would suspect that the DSD would only record the range of the vinyl, if that is true and it sounds better with less range (70db), wouldn't it work against the DSD dynamic range argument a bit? Now I want to know more about the new mono blocks and why they are even better now Paul? Congrats!
I think whatever flavor one should prefer or have in one’s system, it should be of the highest quality one can afford to obtain. Fantastic analog and digital playback will have its rewards. There’s lots of good stuff out there. Take advantage of it!
Remember that many of today's sacd. DSD. music CD discs are not properly DSD. and was not recorded in DSD originally! but in PCM. Then you won't get DSD. magic.
I haven’t heard a single digital piece of music - DSD or otherwise - that sounds as good to me as the same music on vinyl. And yes, the digital pressed to vinyl sounds better to me than the same file on a cd or sacd. I see all the science on paper that says digital should be superior in every way, but my ear prefers the vinyl. 💁
I grew up with records and made cassettes from some of them. Some sounded really good, but CDs have ALWAYS beaten them by at least a small margin. And, yes, you can capture the "magic" of vinyl on a CD --- I've done it --- but a commercially made CD of the same thing sounds better!
@@harackmw YES. In this way, vinyl is constructed and works, vinyl has much lower dynamic and more noise and not as wide frequency. No matter how good vinyl plays you have, vinyl has these weaknesses compared to digital.
@@harackmw Think of it another way. The original recording, recorded directly from the instrument and microphones onto tape or digitally onto a hard drive in the studio, then it is this one that has best and most accurate sound. If you transfer this to vinyl, you will change/weaken the sound! this is the way it is. in the same way as if you make a drawing and copy it on a copy machine, the original is best. If you take the first Digital PCM. copy that is at the studio and makes a normal music CD disc and plays it through the same DAC. EQUIPMENT IN THE STUDIO, I don't think you will hear any differences in an A B test.
@@ford1546 Right, but people that enjoy vinyl likely don't care, they want that vinyl sound. I have first play through vinyl caputured files in flac format and they are basically identical to playing the actual vinyl, it is a great way to preserve what it sounded like. Assuming one likes vinyl sound , of course. Not everyone does.
Very disappointing, Sorry Paul digital does not capture the magic of analog. Ask yourself, what sources does most everyone play at the high end audio shows ? And why ? It’s not digital sorry to say, it’s either master tape or vinyl. I don’t think digital will ever compare to analog in its ability to capture the harmonic richness in tone of instruments and the ambient decay that helps give you the holographic sense of space. I hope your followers will have the opportunity to listen for themselves and on a system that is of high enough quality to resolve the differences in formats.
This audiophile BS is tiring. There is no difference when digitizing analog tape to PCM or DSD or any three letter acronym you like and transferring that to "vinyl", which is back to analog. The "vinyl" still will carry that "digital anomaly" some of us do not care for. There is no "magic" in DSD vs PCM, etc. Even with the technology of today with the Mo-Fi stuff and such, you still get that "digital sound" on vinyl. If you want to talk about the "magic" that vinyl has, if you want to use that descriptive, fine. There is something about a AAA vinyl record that is hard to describe with accuracy and ironically that "magic" lies in its limitations rather than abilities. Transferring any digital to vinyl is like being mesmerized by a great magic act that blows the mind and then accidently discovering all the secrets completely destroying the joy one had in the show. Another analogy would be like paying $100+ to go see a live concert then getting there only to discover that it is just a big screen TV showing an edited show previously recorded so that commercials could be played every 10 minutes. Maybe someday they will come up with a way to capture and preserve analog masters or "magically" transform a digital signal into vinyl that retains the essence of analog, but that has not happened yet. As mentioned, right now the reverse is possible though, one can take an analog source, such as vinyl in this case, transfer it to digital and retain that "magic" if done correctly. (That won't happen without some processing mind you, it is still not a straight transfer). This can be done at home at this point, if one wants to take the time to do it. It also makes no sense to try to exceed the limits of human hearing exponentially since we can't hear that in the first place, nor can our brains processes it then. That is why realistically, digital is not "better" than analog and why it doesn't matter whether it is PCM, DSD, High-rez, etc. Let it be what it is, but there is no magic in it, we can't hear it so whatever format you listen to it IS good enough. Our ears are the finest measuring devices we have because they are what feed our brains signals to process when we listen. That is why it has never made sense to me to get caught up with how a piece of gear measures on lab equipment as the end all of knowing whether it sounds good or not or if one will like it or not.
I have long suspected, with nothing to quantify it, that digital artifacts and the “metallic” timber heard on some digital is in fact digital “filling in” information where no information existed in the original source, be it live or analog recording.
@@offplanetradio Interesting point. I'd like to see if someone can quantify that. In the meantime, I take what you said as possibly true, after all we are going from a limited frequency and dynamic range, but within the complete ability of human hearing and dropping that into a format that is frequency and dynamic range infinity.
Vinyl is for those that can't handle the truth. Too harsh, or too low. There is no magic. You are just taking of some edges. Nothing beats a good digital recording. If it sounds 'digital' , as Paul mentioned, it's not a good recording.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
The magic of vinyl is, pulling it off the shelf, opening the record player, pulling it out of the sleeve, placing it on the player, dusting the record off, placing the needle down, turning up your amp, and sitting down for 20 mins
And not thinking about dsd for any of those 20 mins lol👍
Nothing like old school music on vinyl...Amen!!!!!😎🎵🎹
Well said
@@elviejitosalserojesusolavarria yep, when will the dsd people finally catch on lol
I remember back in the day Mikey would have a CD he burned from vinyl. It sounded amazing on our show systems. Asked him why the hell does this sound so good, he said “it's the Boulder” (phono stage).
1:57 "...there's a certain amount of magic that happens in vinyl.
Now we've discussed before, I think it's a combination of the vinyl process, of the squishing of the dynamics which kind of makes it a little bit more lively..."
Notice how Paul tiptoes around the fact that audio recorded to vinyl is a severely lossy process and the original recording, even if it was recorded to analog tape, is highly distorted.
First of all, what Paul calls "the process of squishing of the dynamics", is, in fact, compression which can be quite extreme depending on the dynamics of the original performance and the need to get above the higher noise level that is inherent in vinyl.
The "vinyl process" that Paul tiptoes around is the fact that all of the mid-low to low frequencies of the original recording are stripped out of the original recording because of vinyl's lack of ability to reproduce low-frequency content due to needle excursion.
This low-frequency information is then artificially re-EQed back in, in the turntable electronics which can vary from turntable to turntable even amongst the same manufacturer and is constantly applied regardless of the mid-low to low-frequency content which means this equalization is also applied to the inherent noise that is in vinyl and increases that noise.
I smirked when I heard that the "squishing of the dynamics" makes things sound "livelier"... Mmm 💩
@@Wizardofgosz Unintentionally (I presume), it's probably quite a good reflection of the (huge) area of this hobby where objectivity ends and subjective preferences begin. These can vary depending on our mood and also particular genre of music, which means that if one keeps talking long enough, they are almost bound to start contradicting themselves at some point. ;-) It's one of those rabbits that cannot be caught (especially when no-one is really interested in catching it).
I see things a bit different. When I read your post and some of the responses, all I see is some miserable people sitting around watching youtube videos on topics they already know they won't like, or have an interest in, just so they can make negative comments. All I can say to that is its almost dinner time. Put some pants on and go upstairs so your mom doesn't have to yell.
@@AT-wl9yq Too bad you have such limited vision because what is really happening is the truth is being exposed.
You seem to be under the illusion that Paul is correct just because he is charismatic.
Unfortunately, this couldn't be farther from the truth, as is much of what Paul is saying.
Instead of spending time verifying what Paul says is truthful, you choose instead to attack those that would expose his hypocrisy.
@@Wizardofgosz What is he trying to sell us here? I doubt Octave Records makes more from vinyl compared to a digital sale.
Agreed. You can capture vinyl sound digitally with great fidelity. I still have a Sandisk e140 mp3 player. One day, I played mp3 files of tracks from an album by the Dutch band Golden Earring. I plugged this player on an integrated amplifier and pressed play. Then, I noticed the woofers were vibrating without producing any sound, just like it happens when we play some vinyl records. Some amplifiers have a Lo-Cut filter to avoid damaging the woofers. And sure enough, these digital files were converted from a vinyl record to mp3. The woofers were responding to frequencies below my capacity to listen to them, however both the mp3 player and my integrated amplifier were able to reproduce it.
PCM at what is possible with real State of the Art equipment that most don't have is breathtaking with Great Source Material.
There are getting to be too many different ways of making recordings that sound like the live event now and I’m not understanding any of these new digital techniques anymore. It’s maddening. It’s not worth my time and effort to try to keep up with what’s happening on a day-to-day basis. Going back to listening and enjoying music like I have been for the past year. It’s so much better emotionally for me than winding up trapped in these twisted new technologies.
Time to stop and smell the flowers again. Happiness is more life fulfilling than Hi Fi technology. Don’t lose sight of the fact that music matters.
Right you are, it's become a scam now to bamboozle and confuse you with new terms and buzzwords just to con people into thinking they will get better sound if they buy new stuff. You can get awesome enjoyment from old equipment, vintage turntables and vintage speakers. You can even wire up your speakers with 18 gauge house lamp wire and it will still sound great. Try it as a test. Don't get conned by today's world. It's just a shadow of yesterday's world.
The music should not serve the equipment,
The equipment should serve the music!💯👍
Take Neil Young Live at the Roxy; on my Thorens 160/syrinx arm/fidelity research cartridge/little bear t11 stage it sounds like you're actually there at the Roxy amongst the audience. Every little live nuance comes through, the amount of 'air' in the recording is breathtaking but on digital a lot of that 'air' is lost to too much purity. Does this make sense?
The moment it was digitized all the life-like attributes was stripped away.
That's how I hear it.
Sumiko Blackbird
De Paravicini EAR phono
Primaluna Amp
Troels Gravesen Speakers
Paul. In this video you touched on missing Bascom H. King. I did not realize that he had passed. Sad!. My deepest condolences to all that knew him personally and his family. I am a non-engineering background (as I always stated - I'm a 'wanna be' elec. eng.!!) I really appreciated the series of interviews with BHK. (RUclips) Excellent. What an articulate humble man. I can only wish I am close to being that sharp at age 84 (72 now) How smart and lucky are you (and PS Audio) to have the great tribute of your series on BHK amps. Take a bow. I can only imagine what a lose it is of great minds like BHK. I read your tribute to him on your PS website. I watched a couple of videos again. I am at a lose.....I wish I had met him over the past time/years. Maybe a time machine in the future Ha! Take care. PS: I really appreciate your time and attention to your videos. Thanks
With the right setup, conversions from vinyl to flac files (as first clean playthroughs (no clicks or pops)) then played back through a system was amazing. I could not tell the difference between the actual vinyl and those recordings, which is great assuming you like that sound.
Think of it another way.
The original recording, recorded directly from the instrument and microphones onto tape or digitally onto a hard drive in the studio, then it is this one that has best and most accurate sound.
If you transfer this to vinyl, you will change/weaken the sound! this is the way it is.
in the same way as if you make a drawing and copy it on a copy machine, the original is best.
If you take the first Digital PCM. copy that is at the studio and makes a normal music CD disc and plays it through the same DAC. EQUIPMENT IN THE STUDIO, I don't think you will hear any differences in an A B test.
When listening to an imperfect vinyl playback you feel the music is more human made due to the audible effects like noise and clicks. Vinyl playback is like a painting compared to a photo in a way.
@@ThinkingBetter Noise and clicks? I have hundreds of lps that are quiet other than hearing the needle touch the vinyl.
@@vinylrules4838 I have 800+ LPs and most are in pristine condition but those I’ve played most or have involved some careless use by some other people are in worst condition. Especially when buying used LPs it can be a hit or miss. I have a friend who owns the world’s largest LP collection of 1.3 million and I’m sure most of them have never seen a needle.
@@ThinkingBetter Wow! 1.3 million lps? Is that in the US? Many times an ultrasonic cleaner can make a big difference with the noise from an lp provided it is scratched up.
@@vinylrules4838 Then you have also hundreds of lps that also have noise from the actual vinyl itself. I'm not any side here, and unless you are playing with words, nobody's collection has all or mostly super quiet vinyl.
Love how that floro light tube blew out at 0:34 right as you said "...even better" lol.
I actually traded emails with Taylor at PS Audio about this a few days ago. PS Audio used to sell a phono preamp called the Nuwave Phono Converter which included an A2D converter. Seems like an obvious combination, but its been discontinued. Would be nice if PS, Gold Note, Project or other companies who sell phono preamps would at least offer a good/high quality A2D converter as an optional add on to their phono preamps.
I'm now looking around for a used Nuwave Phono Converter.
Tube distortion and vinyl distortion can be cool effects but overall I tend to prefer the purest sound to the original master. To me the vinyl distortion (wow & flutter, noise, clicks, compression etc.) can remind me of past listening moments with some nostalgia feel to it.
In this case it's nice to compare when the newer technology is better than the old in every way. The same can't be said about everything.
@@jasonkillsformomy If we are talking about pre digital recordings, it does not matter how the music sounded in the studio, what made you and whoever love the music is because of the songs and the sound. In most cases, that sound my friend was tape mastered to vinyl. I remember pre-recorded cassettes in the 80's and I could not stand the sound, what we loved was vinyl and for convenience and multiple playback it was all about recording vinyl to cassette. And then there was the 90's.. Nirvana Nevermind on CD (which most people had) sounded blah... It was not until I heard the vinyl that Bernie Grundman mastered from the Analog masters that actually showed how good that recording sounded. It is what it is.. haha Just another guys opinion from real world experience.
@@Brian-qg8dg Sure a excellent produced vinyl will sound better than a badly produced CD. That wasn't my point. My point was that a excellent produced digital is better than excellent produced vinyl. Apples to apples comparison and not apples to oranges. Digital has more dynamic range and will never loose sound quality no matter how many times you listen to it. As a technology digital is superior in every way.
Vinyl processing goes through at least one compressor and radical EQ BEFORE it reaches the cutting head. Much of that equipment is state-of-the-art and some may also be tube-based. In addition different cartridges and styli each have their own acoustic fingerprint. That's the VINYL sound. I have several copies of the same recording on both CD and LP. In most cases I prefer the sound of the LP to the CD, especially if the CD was made in the 80's, when digital circuits were still novel with lower sampling rates.
I still do not understand the appeal of vinyl outside of nostalgia. Similarly I do not understand the appeal of vintage speakers despite the fact I sell them on the used market. I've always chalked both up to nostalgia. Vintage speakers have a very unique sound quality that has become popular. The thing is they don't sound very nice and I'm continually amazed at what people will pay for them. I think these things amount to reminding people of "the good old days".
@2:05 "...squishing of the dynamics, which kind-a makes it a little bit more lively..."
Squishing the dynamics makes a more lively sound-field?
I thought that squishing (or compressing) the dynamics kills the liveliness of music?
Loudness wars are an example of compression, and such songs have awful sound quality.
Paul, please elaborate. What am I not understanding?
of course i'm not paul and i couldn't elaborate his point but i play electric guitar with many analog effects and from my perspective compression is a "cheap" way to create loudness and can make any uncompressed signal sound bigger.if with no compression 99% of your signal is at low volume and only the peaks use the full headroom ,with compresson you have that 99% at a higher volume.Of course it's not an accurate representation of what was recorded,it's just a matter of taste
He didn’t mean lively, he means like in your face; the compression brings everything to the foreground, and the ubiquitous loudness makes everything more obnoxious imho. Regardless of the type source on analog or digital, poor recording engineering, including the mixing or mastering stages, can make any recording sound good or bad on any of those media. Unfortunately, there’s also Subjectivity involved, so all these conversations end up being a lot of bullshit.
@@shipsahoy1793 "He didn’t mean lively, he means like in your face..."
I tend to go with what was said (or wrote, as the case may be). Unless Paul states otherwise, or replies with more information, or you got a phone call from Paul, then he said "lively", and that is what he meant.
You might be right. But I do not assume that what was said means something else.
What you are not understanding is this is Paul's sales pitch to the "vinyl crowd".
In other videos where Paul is trying to sell DSD, he talks all about how vinyl is a huge compromise and that "squishing audio" is bad.
It is not magic. I studied for Deutsche Grammophone in the 70s the phenomenon why some analog orchestra recordings distort more than others. Reason (strongly shortened) because the addition of the non-linear distortions of the tape with those of the tone arm track angle become audible and if the mastering is a tape copy, the audible distortion occurs more clearly, which is not yet perceptible from the tape. So it happens only at the vinyl playback and also depends significantly on the mechanical conditions of the turntable.
That’s why you can capture it on digital if you copy analog to digital. It has primary nothing to do with dynamic range or frequency response.
So if you compare the turntable recording with the master or even original tape, you can reproduce the difference.
What about FILTERS incorporated into digital playback these days ? Like , "tube" or "vinyl" settings.
I've captured vinyl on 24/192 PCM and DSD128. The raw vinyl sounds much better.
Those amps are beautiful. Maybe one day I can get out there and see one.
Oh, Baschom is no longer around, Yikes iv'e been living under a rock. He will be remembered dearly!
There you go, you can take your vinyl collections on the road with you..😀
I've captured (Ripped) LP to 96/24 wave with a decent ADC ... Playback of the wave is very close, maybe 95% of the vinyl sound -- I'd guess a better ADC would get closer to 100%
Same here on ripping LP to 96/24 aiff. I've done the route of getting a BETTER DAC's. The file playback still comes up short of a 100%. LOL!!!
My father got into the Quadraphonic 4-ch' vinyl reproduction fad of the 70's. He went the whole hog & bought all 3 of the only avajlable Quadraphonic decoder systems (to cover any & all Quadraphonic encoded L.P.s that all Quadraphonic L.P.s used one of) The 3 systems were the called the 'SQ' the 'QS' & thd 'CD-4' Quadraphonic system, made by Sony, Sansui & JVC respectively. The best or most noticable discreet 4 channel effects came with JVC's CD-4 Quadraphonic system decoder & i think it was just that one tho i'm not sure about the SQ & QS systems, that came with information as to which phono cartridges to use that would work with it to properly decode the 4'channel encoded L.P.s. The cartridges were very few & had to be able to pick up the 30'Khz carrier wave in the grooves The QS & SQ from Sony & Sansui were compatible but produced different sound steering, apparently not that i could notice it. While JVC's CD-4 Quad' system was different again (the D stood for discreet, not digital as it was the early to mid 1970's) & it came with a very small list of cartridges that were capable of picking up a 30'Khz carrier wave for decoding the L.P.s 4- channel steering that relied upon rdcidving 30'Khz carrier wave to reproduce the 4 discreet channels via the CD-4 decoder. All the hi-fi mags recomended the Sure V15 mk 2 (or 3?) & JVC's X1 cartridge as being the best suitable for reproducing that 30'Khz carrier wave. Many other cartridges not on the recommended list went to 20, 22 & 25"Khz at best except the 4 or so cartridges that JVC recomended, inc' JVC's own X1 Cartridge that had a shibata stylus & did the 30'Khz carrier wave better than the Sure V15 did. I.m.o. When the fad died for my dad & in general, I was allowed to adopt the JVC X1 cartridge as it did stereo far better than what I had at the time. My point is: according to that Quadraphonic suitable cartridge info, at lesst some cartridges could reproduce that 30'Khz carrier wave as was required for at least JVC's CD-4 Quadraphonic system. Maybe the QS & SQ system also, i'm not sure about those. All I remember is Floyd's "Dark side.. .." had the sudden wake-up surprise bells on side 2 going around the 4 speakers ...Whoop-de-do! I thought. All else was subtle & not worth the extra speakers, amp & decoders while the few labels that did buy into it ...soon dropped it. Warner Bros was one & Santana & Zappa L.P. were released on Quadraphonic.
Some phono cart's of the mid 70"s could do 30'Khz least at 3 or 6 (?) Decibels down (wasnt stated but was my opinion as one recommended cart' the JVC X1 shibata could decode the 4'channels better than the Sure V15 tho both were recomended as suitable to retrieve that 30'Khz carrier wave for the relevant decoders sound steering.
Paul tactfully uses the word "magic" and not the other word. I have suggested before on his videos when this comes up that IMO there is more then enough computing power in his D/A converters to dial in as much "magic", and the type of "magic", that is desired.
Paul also tactfully bypasses the fact that the magic is added in PCM because DSD can't be edited to create the necessary compression and RIAA equalization.
PS Records DSD "masters" come from PCM files.
The magic is around 1% 2nd order harmonic distortion
love it
When I hear people talk about vinyl, I automatically think about the horse and buggy period, and how they were accustomed to traveling slowly as compared to quickly. I get it… I’m sixty eight years old, but for me, the nostalgia wasn’t what I was after, it is the reproduction of the actual instruments and vocals, and for that, digital comes much closer. Granted… in the early days of digital, vinyl was better… even with all the crackling of dust particles on the records, and so I stay away from early cds, they are crappy sounding.
Thank you for stating what should be obvious.👍
While somebody's listening preference is their own, to come out and call yourself an audiophile and claim an inferior format riddled with distortions, noise and compression is better is ridiculous.
Ever heard the vinyl v cd of the Adele albums? The vinyl versions have a better dynamic range than the cd versions, even though it ought to be the other way round.
Aren't Digital recordings limited by the capability of analogue microphones to capture the frequency responses. For instance are there any microphones designed to revird music that can go far beyond 20Khz. So what is the point of DSD veing able to capture sounds way beyond this, isn't that just noise?
When I first bought my CD recorder over twenty years ago, the first thing I did was recording my favorite records on cdr. When I played these cdr's on my CD player, they sounded exactly the same as the record. So people who say that Records sound better than Cd's, don't know what they're talking about.
This is like the 5th time I see this topic on this channel
Hmm. CDs have an absolute theoretical high frequency limit of 22,050 Hz. LPs can go much higher. In fact, the old CD4 Quad format REQUIRED response up to 45KHz to work properly, and that was 45 years ago
If you check it out, most stylus go from 20-20k, is it really Worth getting a stylus to 1000$. Good luck going over/under with analog. Analog is to expencive, thats why its dying.
Paul really doesn't understand the tech I'm afraid
@@Error2username Vinyl’s dying? You could fool me
@@gotham61 Exactly. More and more lp presses are being put in service each year. They can't keep up with demand.
AAD and ADD red book cds are good. Not as compressed, hi res and grating dynamic range as SACDs,DSDs and DDDs cds
The magic is in the cartridge, tone arm, deck and preamp. Most only hear cds on cheap players and really have no idea what digital can produce when done right. Dsd is a storage format that is converted to pcm for the converter to go to analog.
i've always wondered what type of media(and from what source) one could possibily consume to have a reason to purchase these products
Mikey Fremer's new channel is called the Tracking Angle.
Imagine playing an vinyl recording on DSD (and don't tell it to some listeners ) and in same time acting you put needle on a record without telling that was the DSD recording playing.... could be surprise for some...:)
This conversation again?
Old technology distorted the sound.
Some people found this sound aesthetically pleasing.
Then technology improved and the sound could be reproduced more accurately. It didn't sound right any more. It was too perfect.
So mixing artists spent lots of time and made lots of tools to reproduce the old distortion in a controlled manner.
And they got it spot on! The distortions of valves and vinyl are not that hard to model mathematically. And if you have a model, you can write a program to apply it to sound. Usually in the form of a plugin.
There. All questions answered. There is no analog magic.
It's odd to me that Paul looks down on tone controls but will happily add distortion and noise with vinyl. To my thinking, the pursuit of high fidelity in the modern era would entail eschewing vinyl's distortion in favor of digital.
However, at least for pre-digital music, many of us fell in love with the music and the sound because of how it sounds. This sound was from tape to vinyl, not from the master itself. Many bands in the newer heavy area all tend to sound the same now due to being able to record and reproduce such high quality. However, some of the music seems to resonate more when the bands use less in the box and more from outside the box. Like actually using microphones to amps and drums.. The sound is never as dynamic or wide, yet it resonates more. Just because your car can extremely drive fast doesn't mean that it is as enjoyable as driving fast. Just another guys opinion..
@@alex_stanley Modern equipment is capable of high fidelity, but it isn't used that way for music. That's what you have an expert just to do the mixing - someone with the experience to work with an array of filter algorithms and make the music sound as good as possible.
So many vinyl records from the early 80’s, even from the late 70’s. They sound perfect when they were recorded digitally and they were PCM, just old PCM, good old CD quality. But telling the truth those older CD’s sound even better if you play them on top quality equipment. Digital sound better, it should sound better theoretically and if you know what you’re doing the will sound better practically. There is no practical need for vinyl now to get any sound “magic”. Let’s leave magic to magicians and vinyl to collectors. BTW, I love vinyl and if can sound amazing. But digital can sound even better!)
Is it better? No. Sound awesome? Yes.
Very good way to put it
Hey Paul my question is what about, IEEE float 64 bit, would it be close to DSD or is this just another type PCM like format? thanks
It’s the vibrating stick that makes the difference. The cantilever vibrates which is physical. Music comes from something physical. In digital the source is not physical.
In digital the digital file is converted to an analog signal prior to amplification in an analog amplifier.
Digital IS physical
@@JonAnderhub nope, still nothing physical. Nothing touching anything , nothing moving any thing.
There's MAGIC in Vinyl - My LP Record Collection disappeared a long time ago .. !!!
Despite limitations vinyl rates better, why? Where is the science of this? Is it psychoacoustics, it’s unlikely to be bias since it is too universal whilst Tt’s and their cartridges change the world over. It’s got something to do with the sound and it’s perception… that yields such widespread appreciation. I haven’t seen any studies, have you? In case you think I’m a vinyl lover I’m not, I hate those clicks and pops that derail my listening experience of vinyl. So I’m not biased towards vinyl. But I’d love to understand why limited dynamics and higher noise floors rate so well as they do… through proper studies.
I have not heard anyone talk about vinyl's inherently poor channel separation specs. Digital is near perfect. On delicately balanced and tuned systems this is very apparent. Does it not at least deserve a mention?
In the 90's they sold a device to add to a CD player that would add crackles so it sounded like vinyl. 😂
I struggle with the concept of Vinyl having any sort of "magic" over digital. It surely sounds different. Maybe it is the memory triggers for those individuals hearing that original sound that creates the magic and that is of course impossible to reproduce for anyone else.
I agree 100%. While I still have my record collection and 1970s vintage manual turntable, I prefer CD and digital. I keep the LPs because many have never been transferred to CD or digital. The first time I listened to a CD (Philips 'Hear the Light') I was 'sold' by the music starting out of a black velvet nothingness. No snaps, crackles or pops. 😁
The magic of vinyl for me is not the sound. It is that you have to keep more focussed on the player and the music as you have to turn it over at the end. So you experience the music more than for instance a stream as you need to be more focussed.
What about reel to reel, how does it compare to vinyl?
reel to reel was the holy grail for audio but wasn't very practical and hard to find recordings.
@@harackmw if you can afford Pauls best stuff you can afford to buy master tapes😎
@@dans550 Haha, indeed, though when I looked at their product list I truly wondered who is buying all that...
It seams that the question posed in the topic is illogical.
No magic can ever be captured - because it's a MAGIC not reality... ;)
Create an illusion then.
Here is somewhat of a video equivalent -- Star Wars Episode 2 shot on digital video, converted to film for compatibility with cinemas at the time, then scanned back in to digital video ruclips.net/video/jeu1_sgd1Ac/видео.html
'Capture Vinyl sound', fairly easy, I have converted my very limited collection to digital, from needle drop to liftoff, with only the side A to B bit being trimmed. I cannot tell the difference, I can also enjoy my old turntable that long ago died and was sent back to it's creator (as in dust to dust)
Initially I tied cutting it into individual tracks for a CD, however the fading from the vinyl background to absolute nothing in digital, then fading back for the next track never sounded right (I didn't know of gapless back then)
I just keep each LP as a single file, yes a tad tricky to get to a favourite track, but you soon learn how to.
I used PCM, as in WAV files on my PC. Paul was yet to make his appearance and start spruiking DSD, not that I have anything really up to showing their is any difference, other than a rapid loss of HDD space
In my circles, the fight is not DSD vs PCM, it's PCM verses Blutooth and the crappy 'retail' speakers that come with it - and no I'm not talking KEF LS60's etc here, think a LOT lower.
My vinyl ripped to CD sounds exactly like vinyl
Can tube magic be captured?
BBC compression is what gives vinyl it's unique sound. Squeezing the dynamics down to work within the physical constraints of vinyl (both groove size and limits of cartridges), and then expanding them again on playback inevitably alters the result. You are correct that digital can faithfully record and reproduce that result. That raises the question, if vinyl actually is "superior" why do we not have a line of "recorded from vinyl" digital offerings? My belief is that a lot of people (myself included) were used to the sound of vinyl when CDs came out, and equated what we were familiar with as "better", and this attitude has been passed down through a couple of generations of audiophiles. I have come to love the DSD sound now though, and no longer even own a turntable, although I do seek out every SACD, BluRay Audio, etc disc that I can find.
It would be an interesting experiment to run a track through BBC compression, cut it onto vinyl, play it back through a phone stage, and directly record the output to DSD. Then do the same thing, but skip the cut/playback step and compare the two with the vinyl to see what differences might exist.
May be true in many cases but I for one grew up on vinyl so I was as familiar with the sound of vinyl as anyone but I’ve always been after the best sound reproduction possible. The first time I ever heard a CD on a good system I immediately started seeking out all my favorite albums on digital because I recognized right away that it was superior in pretty much every single way. Nostalgia is fine and well but I don’t understand how anyone could prefer the sound of static, micro particles and limited frequency response over the clean,full bodied sound of digital. It’s funny because I got my friend into vinyl years ago and at that time he was more of a CD guy. Now he argues with me that vinyl is better when as you and I know it’s not. I still love vinyl from a collectors standpoint because I love having the cover art and liner notes but as far as superior sound goes I’ll take the digital every time
Magic in the context of audio playback seems to be short for desirable distortion. It seems some people confuse music performances (like a DJ remixing on the fly) and music reproduction.
fremboi goes off on a tangent.. lol well he calls it a tracking angle.
I have a fresh vinyl, fresh needle and the Apple Lossless music sounds better using the same amp and speakers.
Do you want to capture vinyl's magic? Simply add distortion.
Or buy a record.
Live microphone feed? As far as my experience is concerned, I put a Hybrid SACD in a Blu-Ray player and thought I was hearing studio-quality sound. That was one of only two true studio-quality experiences I have had. Drums and vocals were very life-like. One was a Hybrid SACD by Carly Simon, and it was called Hotcakes, mastered by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab. The other one was a stand-alone CD, and it was called Reflections: Carly Simon’s Greatest Hits, mastered by Rhino Records and BMG. Both masters were mastered directly from the original tapes. So, my question is: would it be accurate to conclude that it’s all about the source material and the mastering process, or just one or the other? I know it’s not about the format.
Paul: “yes it can”. Me: no Paul, it can’t, which is why you admitted in a recent video that when you listen to music on vinyl it sounds better, for reasons you can’t fully explain.
It would be great if the industry would produce vinyl to digital versions ....as although direct digital masters are a very impressive format and technically better..... it does seem that sometimes less is definitely more!
And although adding valves to the amplification and using R2R DACs can bring some of that vinyl (?) Flavour and quality back....vinyl still has that magic something and ability to present music and connect on a slightly different sonic/emotional(?) level.
Makes you wonder what the actual dynamic range would be on the DSD from vinyl would be measured at?
One would suspect that the DSD would only record the range of the vinyl, if that is true and it sounds better with less range (70db), wouldn't it work against the DSD dynamic range argument a bit?
Now I want to know more about the new mono blocks and why they are even better now Paul? Congrats!
I think whatever flavor one should prefer or have in one’s system, it should be of the highest quality one can afford to obtain. Fantastic analog and digital playback will have its rewards. There’s lots of good stuff out there. Take advantage of it!
Vinyl still the best!
Micheal is mr vinyl
all that "magic' can be done in a plugin.. vinylizer or something.
I am positive clicks and pops can be added to digital copies.
No
Remember that many of today's sacd. DSD. music CD discs are not properly DSD. and was not recorded in DSD originally! but in PCM.
Then you won't get DSD. magic.
My thought of why Vinyl just sounds so good is because of its imperfections (less dynamic range, w&f's etc ) hence much more natural..
Better to capture vinyl on 176/24 EQ as necessary then transfer to dsd 128 and pcm 44.1.
How about the supposed experts focus on getting everything in or off a recording and adding absolutely nothing with their junk pre and post processes
I haven’t heard a single digital piece of music - DSD or otherwise - that sounds as good to me as the same music on vinyl. And yes, the digital pressed to vinyl sounds better to me than the same file on a cd or sacd. I see all the science on paper that says digital should be superior in every way, but my ear prefers the vinyl. 💁
I grew up with records and made cassettes from some of them.
Some sounded really good, but CDs have ALWAYS beaten them by at least a small margin.
And, yes, you can capture the "magic" of vinyl on a CD --- I've done it ---
but a commercially made CD of the same thing sounds better!
If you copy vinyl to digital, you will get all the crackling and noise
not if it is done properly
@@harackmw YES. In this way, vinyl is constructed and works, vinyl has much lower dynamic and more noise and not as wide frequency.
No matter how good vinyl plays you have, vinyl has these weaknesses compared to digital.
@@harackmw Think of it another way.
The original recording, recorded directly from the instrument and microphones onto tape or digitally onto a hard drive in the studio, then it is this one that has best and most accurate sound.
If you transfer this to vinyl, you will change/weaken the sound! this is the way it is.
in the same way as if you make a drawing and copy it on a copy machine, the original is best.
If you take the first Digital PCM. copy that is at the studio and makes a normal music CD disc and plays it through the same DAC. EQUIPMENT IN THE STUDIO, I don't think you will hear any differences in an A B test.
@@ford1546 Right, but people that enjoy vinyl likely don't care, they want that vinyl sound. I have first play through vinyl caputured files in flac format and they are basically identical to playing the actual vinyl, it is a great way to preserve what it sounded like. Assuming one likes vinyl sound , of course. Not everyone does.
So Paul if PCM is so bad then why are your DSD masters just going to be DSD copies of PCM mixes?
Inquiring minds want to know!
No need of vinyl when philips dacs already exist
Stop bashing PCM it is much superior to DSD
It can't be captured cause there is no magic in them.
Very disappointing, Sorry Paul digital does not capture the magic of analog. Ask yourself, what sources does most everyone play at the high end audio shows ? And why ? It’s not digital sorry to say, it’s either master tape or vinyl. I don’t think digital will ever compare to analog in its ability to capture the harmonic richness in tone of instruments and the ambient decay that helps give you the holographic sense of space.
I hope your followers will have the opportunity to listen for themselves and on a system that is of high enough quality to resolve the differences in formats.
Spotify, a pc, some cheap speakers, away you go! Music quality for our times
Vinyl "magic" is distortion, as is tubes. It isn't better. It is different (distorted). It still sounds okay.
This audiophile BS is tiring. There is no difference when digitizing analog tape to PCM or DSD or any three letter acronym you like and transferring that to "vinyl", which is back to analog. The "vinyl" still will carry that "digital anomaly" some of us do not care for. There is no "magic" in DSD vs PCM, etc. Even with the technology of today with the Mo-Fi stuff and such, you still get that "digital sound" on vinyl. If you want to talk about the "magic" that vinyl has, if you want to use that descriptive, fine. There is something about a AAA vinyl record that is hard to describe with accuracy and ironically that "magic" lies in its limitations rather than abilities.
Transferring any digital to vinyl is like being mesmerized by a great magic act that blows the mind and then accidently discovering all the secrets completely destroying the joy one had in the show. Another analogy would be like paying $100+ to go see a live concert then getting there only to discover that it is just a big screen TV showing an edited show previously recorded so that commercials could be played every 10 minutes.
Maybe someday they will come up with a way to capture and preserve analog masters or "magically" transform a digital signal into vinyl that retains the essence of analog, but that has not happened yet.
As mentioned, right now the reverse is possible though, one can take an analog source, such as vinyl in this case, transfer it to digital and retain that "magic" if done correctly. (That won't happen without some processing mind you, it is still not a straight transfer). This can be done at home at this point, if one wants to take the time to do it.
It also makes no sense to try to exceed the limits of human hearing exponentially since we can't hear that in the first place, nor can our brains processes it then. That is why realistically, digital is not "better" than analog and why it doesn't matter whether it is PCM, DSD, High-rez, etc. Let it be what it is, but there is no magic in it, we can't hear it so whatever format you listen to it IS good enough.
Our ears are the finest measuring devices we have because they are what feed our brains signals to process when we listen. That is why it has never made sense to me to get caught up with how a piece of gear measures on lab equipment as the end all of knowing whether it sounds good or not or if one will like it or not.
Your first sentence sounds good on vinyl
I have long suspected, with nothing to quantify it, that digital artifacts and the “metallic” timber heard on some digital is in fact digital “filling in” information where no information existed in the original source, be it live or analog recording.
@@offplanetradio Interesting point. I'd like to see if someone can quantify that. In the meantime, I take what you said as possibly true, after all we are going from a limited frequency and dynamic range, but within the complete ability of human hearing and dropping that into a format that is frequency and dynamic range infinity.
Magic is not real. Lol
It is a matter of belief.
Vinyl is for those that can't handle the truth. Too harsh, or too low. There is no magic. You are just taking of some edges. Nothing beats a good digital recording. If it sounds 'digital' , as Paul mentioned, it's not a good recording.