MY vinyl is better than YOUR digital
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- We all know how dreadful vinyl is. All those scratches, all that distortion, and more. But is there a way it can actually be better than digital? (Revivals series)
MORE REVIVALS...
The cassette revival - • The Cassette Revival -...
The vinyl revival - • The Vinyl Revival - So...
The CD revival - • The CD Revival - So wr...
The cassette, vinyl, and CD revivals revisited - • The vinyl, cassette, a...
The analogue tape revival part 1 - • The analogue revival -...
The analogue tape revival part 2 - • The analogue revival -...
The analogue tape revival part 3 - • The analogue revival -...
The analogue tape revival part 4 - • The analogue revival -...
The analogue tape revival part 5 - • The analogue revival -...
The computer audio revival - • The computer audio rev...
The film photography revival - • The film photography r...
If new old tech became available, would you buy it? Would you use it? (Revival series) - • If new old tech became...
The DAT revival - • Why the DAT revival wi...
The MiniDisc revival - • Why MiniDisc failed: E...
Amen to this. My kids have played me some of their favourite more contemporary music (actual bands with actual guitars) and quite a few of the songs I like, but the production and mastering of the recordings is borderline unlistenable. It's so insanely loud and over compressed that it's tiring to listen to and I give up. That's a shame, because the music is often great. I think that well recorded, mixed and mastered digital formats have it all over vinyl but the loudness war has been a blight on modern music.
I don't understand, how does music being loud impede your enjoyment of it to this degree? Most people like it that way. Do you hate distortion THAT much?
@@meis18mofo77 it's hard to articulate, but when I hear an album that has been brick wall limited in the mix and/or mastering stages it starts to smear off all the dynamics (because there are none) and it doesn't breathe. Hard clipping to my ears sounds unpleasant. I'll give you an example. The Rush album Vapor Trails has some fine songs and I enjoy them, but the original mix and master from 2002 is horrible. It's distorted and has some nasty frequencies that need taming. Years later they got Dave Bottrill to remix it and result is much easier on the ears. I spend more time enjoying the songs and less on hating the production. There is a difference, to me, between cranking up the volume on my hifi versus a mastering engineer compressing the shit out of a mix to the point where the waveform is just a solid block.
@@adam872 ok, I can hear what you mean but that's not the fault of the distortion or the loudness, this is an EQ and overlimiting problem. If hardclipping is properly done on an intrument by instrument basis, to minimize intermodulation distortion (basically, if you distort more complex signals it gets noisier) and the signal is already very loud by the time it hits the master rather then being haphazardly cruched into a single limiter, then this doesn't happen. Also, whoever did the original master for it really messed up the spectral balance, they completely overdid the high end and there are like no low and sub frequencys, so of course any distortion that does happen will be harsh and noisy, because the track itself is harsh and noisy. This is not the fault of the track being too loud but rather the mastering engineer just doing a bad job. a good example of a very loud piece of music that I like would be "Control" by The Living Proof, it's on RUclips if you wanna listen to it, the track is mastered 8db over the recommended level at -6 LUFS but it sounds great and dynamic to me. I think the real problem is, that rock and metal mixing engineers from the "loudness war era" just didn't know yet how to do loudness well, more a skill issue then a loudness one, it was new technology at the time after all.
@@meis18mofo77 I think we're in agreement. What I'm referring to is the overall mix and master, not any of the individual instruments. Bob Katz and his honor roll article express better than I ever could.
@@adam872 yea, the secret to loudness is that all the individual parts have to be loud already, you can't fix in the master what you messed up in the mix. And back then people tried to make a song loud by just smushing it into one master limiter which of course went wrong, it's like trying to get a good balance with a single EQ on the master, not gonna happen lol. Things have luckily gotten better in recent years, you should give loudness another chance, engineers are lot better at it now.
you are right: YOUR vinyl sounds better than my digital... but my DIGITAL is a world i live in. Have a great music!
I'm very technical by background and can relate to the fact that vinyl is inherently flawed compared to digital formats. That said, my wife gave me a decent turntable a couple of years ago as a birthday present and she and I have not looked back. We used to grab dinner in front of the TV; we now put a different LP on every night and sit at a candle-lit dinner table and spend quality time together with quality music in the background. I do think that I've probably spent more time optimising that turntable with the right cartridge and phono amp stage to match my amp and speakers so that it sounds just right; if I'd put as much effort into the digital equivalent, I'm sure I could have got as good, if not better results. There is, however, more of an emotional connection with a physical stylus in a groove on a rotating LP. It makes no technical sense I know.
I couldn’t agree more well said I do the same. Also it forces you to listen all the way same as cassettes not like phones swipe swipe swipe never hearing an album in its whole entirety
But vinyl is mostly recorded from digital recordings?
that's funny, your situation is very similiar to ours. We were in Barnes and Noble and noticed the record section, went through and starting thumbing through some albums, telling my 10 year son , how they'll never know the joy of heading out with friends on a Saturday afternoon to the records store. My wife and I then decided to purchase a record player because the nostagia bug bit so hard. Now like you, my wife and put a record on after dinner before bedtime to wind down, turn off the electronics and sit back and enjoy a different record. My son is into and now he knows the joy of going out with his mom and dad going to the record store and the excitement of coming home to play. I'm sorry digital just doesn't bring that type of emotional rewards.
@@sprint955st Now. But if you have well cared for, older pressings, then it was not digital. Vinyl for vinyls sake if it’s a digital master seems pointless to me. It’s like when people upload a vinyl record to youtube…now it’s digital sound so it’s meaningless.
@@brendencarlson5220 since the early 70s it turns out. And I agree with you.
As someone born in the 70s and have endured (or enjoyed) every format since then, this video added one of the final pieces of the jigsaw, I was never aware of the loudness war, but it answer so many questions about the quality of CDs over the dates you mentioned. Hence why I've flip flopped between vinyl & digital. Thoroughly enjoying your content and your delivery and passion is outstanding. Thank you
Agree 100%
Remember your first CD purchase when you looked on the backside where the copyrights were.
CDs all came with this classic note:
"Because of its higher resolution,this compact digital disc can reveal limitations of studio master recordings".
🤷
Yes, or the AAD/ADD / DDD on the capitol/emi CD.
That message tells me that they already knew some people will not like the sound from CD, so they are looking for excuses. I knew CD was flawed the first time i heard it. It wasn't as engaging as vinyl.
@dtz1000 yep, 💯. And now, why does every DAC manufacturer say this "New DAC" has a better analog sound....etc... digital has been trying to chase down analog playback since the beginning and still is. On paper, digital is a better medium, but in reality, it doesn't sound better due to many factors, stonewalling being just one of them.
Last reissue we did from the original cd dynamic range was 4 and we took it at 9, sound was so much better and the album was recorded in an expensive and serious studio. Thank you for all the information you give us
Dynamic range of 4? Lol.
Vinyl is not perfect but it sounds warm in many ways. Listening to CD’s has shown that the volume does change from CD to CD. Playing it loud can lead yo a sense of compression and change harmonics. We lived with vinyl for a long time and enjoyed our music.
Love your comments. Long ago I envisioned a world where the record companies might distribute 2 versions of an album... a loud compressed version, and a dynamic audiophile version. I could see how that idea would be prohibitive in the days of hard media (CD & LP), but now that bits are free, I don't understand why this couldn't be done today. Even on Tidal, many albums have an MQA and a non-MQA version. Unfortunately, the MQA version comes from the same, horrible, over-limited master. Even modern albums are mastered from heavily limited mixes. THIS is why I still love buying old vinyl and old CDs from the 80-90s, before excessive digital limiting.
Spot on! Seems like pure logic! Thing is, that hyper compression would ideally be applied by application. Imagine in the car vs the great system at home. I think that record companies think that the consumer cant figure out what to use at the right time, and confusion will arise 😀
Yes, it's exactly this. Older/ early edition of a CD is usually less compressed and they usually sound a bit better than a late edition. Also, many newer versions of a vinyl might have been cut using a digital compressed master, so when someone tells me it sound better, I think it's suggestive.
The Telark CD recordings in the 80’s were mind blowing. Their technique never caught on for some reason. I miss them.
Enjoying music never was about what is better but what is good enough on a individual level.
I would say enjoying music (on average) is more about lifestyle than about the "pure music." I think people like the whole process of putting on a vinyl-disc, sitting down etc.
well said
Funny how NO ONE tried to debunk your comment,
@@michaels8607 What is there to "debunk" ? And way is is funny ? Enlighten me.
Thanks, David! An obvious description of what I do know since the 90s. I was even surprised surprised to hear from clients that they felt the vinyl warmer, even if it lacked information lower than 50Hz! And that was a starting point for my quest for a more "analogue" digital sound. I am now thrilled about my digital master's. And they cut perfectly to vinyl, too.
My masters respect the new streaming standards, but I always send a mix of at least 9dBFS refreferencesr terms for mix approval. And the mixes get approval way more quickly. So then I send a different mix for the mastering, and if I do mastering myself, I do a "web" version conforming to the new streaming standards (I happily use the loudness meter plugin) and a "CD" version at the -9dBFS ref standard (Still quiet, for some dudes).
About 10 years go I went in to a shop for a new CD player. The assistant asked me to check out a turntable. He said Vinyl was superior as the turntable was about to demonstrate. Now it sounded good. I'll give him that. I asked him how much the turntable and the cartridges would be. About 10 times the price of a CD player! Seriously!. I asked him to connect a CD player to the amp that the turntable was using. He said that would take time and could not do it right now. He knew that amp had very much to do with the quality of the sound. At more than twice the price for inferior vinyl, over superior CD, salesman will be conning the people in to parting with their money. I moved over to CD because I could not find a click free copy of Enya's the Celts. That's close on 40 years ago now. I now have over 1200 CDs and every one of them in mint condition. In all this time, I've only had a problem with 2 CDS and one was because the music on the disc was by Prince and not by Mike Oldfield, as it should have been. What is going on today? Digital recordings are being sold as analogue on vinyl. In about 5 years time people buying those vinyl cons will be heading off to the shops for replacement copies. Vinyl is good for one thing only - and that is the artwork on the covers.
Was one of the 'lesser quality' CDs a mid-80s Warner Prince CD?. A lot of those (not just Prince) were klunkers and caused me to re-purchase later CD updates...
@@adamtparker6515 As I'm not a follower of Prince by any standard of measure, I really couldn't say what the rogue copy was. All I can say is that it was by Prince. It was bought from a place that had its stock from various places that had ceased trading. They exchanged it no problem.
I’m with you sir. I love my vinyls because most of them are 12 inch with just 2 or 4 tracks on for dj’ing. And it’s electronic music you couldn’t find on cd’s in the 90’s. But all the rest of my music (other genres) that I bought was on cd. And they still sound fantastic, with big thanks to the musicians and great audio engineers.
A good amp and speakers are a must...
1200 cds in 10 years? Sure they are in mint condition since you don't even open them. I have collected CDs for 30 years and have less than 300, and there are some (lately due to my lack of time) that I haven't even played
Boy, what a mixed set of feelings on this subject.
Back in the 60s, i worked in a record department of a major department store.
I bought records, and i listened to them until they were worn out.
Then came 8 track players briefly. They worked but had limits. Then came cassettes, and i bought them by the dozens. I even had a Nacamichi player to enjoy the sound. It's not too bad but limited by several factors. Tape speed and life of the pads in the cassette were problems.
Then came CDs 💿! Decent range of frequency. Easy to use and store. Damage tolerant to a point, and they don't need 24 hours to cool off after playing, like records!
Today, i use my computer to make playlists off the internet.
My hearing is limited to about 13,000 hz, so all the negative audio issues with compression and frequency limits or whatever are the latest "problems" with the media I just ignore.
Yesterday, i played from Evita , Dont Cry For me, Argentina. Then Richard Kiley singing "To Dream the Impossible Dream" from an Ed Sulivan show from the 60s.
I've seen both on Broadway live, so I'm familiar with the songs and sound.
In my bedroom where my stereo is set up ,I was transported back to the theater and had chills from the sound.
My stereo is different than most as a 16 channel system with 11 subwoofers and 50 plus active speakers 🔊.
I just can't be bothered with records. The space to store and the time spent just preparing to use the record is just too much work for what it's worth.
I can play a dozen songs in the time it takes getting a record out of its jacket, cleaning it, putting it on the turntable, queuing up the song, and playing it is too much like work.
I guess after 60-plus years watching hi fi evolving, I've gone for quantity over cumbersome.
With 2,700 plus watts of power, i can recreate live performance with the click of a mouse 🐁 🪤 👌.
@arthurriaf8052 lol, so you can't hear. Why should we take your opinion on anything. Lol. Sounds to me you are dirty and kept your records dirty. I clean my LPS once when I get and in less I mess up. I don't need to clean for along time. Second..... 24-hour cool down. I have heard about allegations to me it is total BS.
P.s. crazy sounding system. Must take up a lot of space. But if you can't hear you might as well feel the vibrations...
The reasons I left vinyl behind were the same. The reasons I stopped listening to music at all was the digital mastering, so my return to vinyl obey that urgency of listening to music again, not convenience.
Now I'm willing to tolerate the flaws of vinyl, learn things I didn't know back in the day, and finally sit and listen to music again like originally intended..
I recently updated my turntable, and I have never been happier, like yourself I’m listening again and enjoying real analog once more . Funnily enough digital recordings sound great of records. I think it’s the lack of transients and the care taken in balancing the master for pressing.
@@mikechivy
What are you going on about mate ?
AND If you don't take care of your customers they skip too, dddddshhhh
Cd
Same here. CDs destroyed my enjoyment of music. Now I'm back because I can add the ultrasonic frequencies back into digital files. It is now as satisfying as vinyl.
Music mastered on DSD and distributed in flac sounds as good as the best and better than all other vinyl playback equipment. You would have to spend tens of thousands of $s on a turntable, arm, cartridge & pre-amp to get close to the quality of a digital file played through a £150 soundcard.
I'm a 75 yo, and in the mid 60's started to build up a quality HiFi set up, had the Thorens TD124 Mk 2 deck, SME 3009 + Shure V15 that served me well, then in 1985 I bought the Michell Gyrodec, SME 3009 Series II + Goldring 1042 so a reasonable set up, and over the years bought over 7,000 (Soul and Jazz) albums and 12" records mainly US and Japanese imports, these were sealed and on occasions the US pressings was somewhat under parr, so I exchanged these at my regular shop (City Sounds London) and sure enough the new copy was ok, the Japanese pressing were perfect every time, the reason I'm mentioning this as I found that during the manufacturing of vinyl that after 300 odd pressings degradation takes place before a new stamp is replaced, so you never know if you have in your collection a low or high count purchase.
Now onto CD's in 1983 I bought the Tania Maria album called 'Come with Me', I also bought the CD at the same time just to compare and I have to say listening through my ATC SCM100 speakers there wasn't a noticeable change, so it's debatable what's best, I reluctantly sold all of my vinyl including the Gyrodec but still have a few thousand CD's mainly from the US and Italy. I now download my music and I can tell you that the quality is fantastic, I'm knocking vinyl but to start again with a decent turntable, arm and cartridge you're looking at north of £3,000
I really love taking a break after listening to records for several hours ( no my system does not cause ear fatigue ) and cranking up an Audio Master Class video. Then back to records again. These vid's create a useful fun break and you always learn something new. Priceless!
OH, I have a great future review for for all us if you want to. I would love to here you talk about "new records" being made and digitally mastered to analog. Ha! Are people just buying 12" CD's? NOW that is a big can of worms! Man alive it would be a phenominal review! My fingers are crossed for this one!
The Title could be,, New Records and why it is all so wrong.
My wife even enjoys your channel. Now that is saying a lot! She has spent a lot of time in recording studios back in the 80's. Not as a musician. Long story. Even she knows great audio when she hears it. Cool eh?
Let me see if I have this kinda right. Vinyl sounding "better" is the fault of the recording engineer and not the fault of the technology.
It's no one persons fault. The issue is due to trends in mastering and trends in loudness. I personally don't think that the loudness war has put us in a better place today although, as I say in the video, some people do like heavy mastering. DM
Nostalgia. That is the answer to why some people “think” vinyl sounds better. I’ve engaged in this discussion over the decades since the advent of CDs. They always say analog is “warm” and digital leaves you cold. I can’t hear warm and cold. I can hear snaps and pops vs music suddenly popping out of the speakers without the hiss and hum inherent to vinyl or tape . IE a Cd of Led Zeppelin you can still hear when the original tape starts. Dire Straits Brothers In Arms is the first fully digital recording that I bought and even cranked you hear nothing until the guitar starts. 😃
"I've engaged in this discussion since the advent of CDs" and you still haven't gotten any smarter about it, and you're just stuck in nostalgia for 'me the smart guy with CD'. No, you're pitting the worst of records against the best of digital, and it's a dishonest argument that wins nothing. You're just making it clear you never learned how to use records properly and couldn't get good sound out of them like thousands of DJs and myself somehow are able to do (snaps and pops? what are you, five years old? they don't all sound that way, dude!). Digital has the POTENTIAL to be cleaner-sounding and easier to deal with but when we get into the real-life usages of these things, most digital music is rendered badly and people pretend it's great because 'digital'. Your argument is way too simplistic to take seriously.
@@jamescarter3196 CDs are demonstrably better especially SACD. You’re being a twat to me doesn’t change that. I’m not spending several grand on a high end turntable just to hear noise. 😃
@@jamescarter3196 Agreed. I have a few old OG copies of old 60's jazz records and 70's rock records that are a little noisy, but any quality LP I have purchased new is very quiet. It does help that I clean all my records before playing for the first time, and I have a quality turntable and cartridge. Anyone saying that they hate a record's 'pops and clicks' is ignorant of how one takes care of and listens to LPs. Ultimately, it all is in the mastering. I have some amazing vinyl LPs that are so well mastered that they cannot sound that good on digital. On the other end, I have some digital hi-res copies of some music so well mastered that you cannot hear it any better than that. At the end of the day, this argument is so useless. It all comes down to what one enjoys. There is no better whatsoever other than what you yourself perceive to enjoy.
It's not nostalgia. The reason many people prefer vinyl is because vinyl reproduces the ultrasonic frequencies of the original musical instruments, but CDs cannot reproduce those frequencies as anything over 20khz frequency on a CD is chopped off. These ultrasonic frequencies have been shown to have a positive effect on the human mind.
So all those people telling you the sound of a CD left them cold were right.
@@dtz1000 Wrong
Yes. Exactly. Vinyl format forces - or perhaps rather ensures - a certain retention of soundstage. I love soundstage. As a focussed and rather obsessive listener, I want to appreciate all the details (and even the occasional crackle!). And soundstage is a detail! Yes vinyl requires moderation of highs and bass, but the bass from any number of records from my collection is enough to vibrate my floors.
I'm yet to hear any good vinyl master that doesn't have bass competitive with digital masters. Luckily, my turntable has nice little feet on it that absorb every ounce of that bass vibration, so no feedback reaches the stylus. And it works even though one of the speakers is on the SAME surface as the turntable! Remarkable stuff. Modern turntables really can provide a listening experience that is quiet and hardy enough to endure incredibly high volumes. And with that volume comes a retained soundstage. What's not to love? I'd take the more restrictive vinyl mastering standard over modern digital mastering standards any day - so long as the artist has providesd bespoke vinyl masters for the record and doesn't just turn the digital master down for the vinyl.
I don't understand what you mean by vinyl creating "soundstage". What prevents a digital recording from having an equally good soundstage? Soundstage is created in the master recording. Some audio systems are better than others at reproducing it. More than anything else, it's a function of the loudspeakers you are using. As for bass, vinyl forces all bass frequencies to be mono. It has to be limited in both level and low frequency extension in order for the stylus to track it. If you haven't heard any digital recordings that surpass the bass performance of vinyl, then I can only assume you haven't heard many digital recordings.
Yes digital actually enables for a larger soundstage than vinyl. Unfortunately that ability does not seem to be really utilised in modern masters and has been a side note for the last couple decades.
I am not talking about recordings I’m talking about mastering.
Just so we’re talking about the same thing, soundstage is the depth, width, height and palpable space of the musical stage created by the sound. It’s the space between instruments, sounds, vocals. I’m sure there’s a more formal definition than that but that’s my layman version.
Yes it’s affected by speakers, but I’m assuming you have some great speakers and I also have great speakers.
When labels or producers want to get music ready for commercial release, they create 3 masters: a digital (CD) master, a streaming (mp3) master, and a vinyl master (which 9.9/10 times out of 10 will be in a digital format).
The digital cd master will be limited, maximising volume. The limiting process reduces the volume difference between the quietest parts of the mix and the loudest parts, flattening the sound and thus reducing soundstage. Not all masters do this, but it’s incredibly common. It’s the rule, not the exception. There is a ‘commercial’ ‘competitive’ ‘standard’ for volume maximisation in digital releases.
To be really really clear: limiting is scary stuff. A hard limiter will literally either cut off or squash back down whatever frequencies clip through it. And naturally when a limiter is used, clipping is going to happen the louder and closer to you get to your LUFS target.
Vinyl may have limitations with bass and treble, but it also has minimum requirements for soundstage. You can’t limit a vinyl master the same way as digital, it wouldn’t compute. So instead of extreme limiting, what vinyl masters get is nuanced tweaks to things like eq, maybe a bit of compression, etc etc.
Vinyl masters would not be playable on vinyl if the quietest points and the loudest points were smooshed together like they are in digital, thus vinyl ensures a certain level of soundstage.
The issue is not digital doesn’t allow wider and more vertical soundstage, the issue is mastering engineers don’t use it because that’s not what the commercial priorities are.
@@michaelkyle2150 I understand what you claim Michael, but I am not convinced the reality is so. You are herby requested to give us atleast 2 or 3 exampled where the vinyl is superior to the CD. Some releases we all know or have at least heard before. I for one do not believe the digital CD versions of most releases sound worse in ANY way than the vinyl.
“You are hereby requested to give us 2 to 3 examples” Yeah, it’s a hard no from me. You understand those 2 to 3 examples would be subjective yes? And you could simply disagree with the subjective nature of any examples I give? It’s like you’re asking me to prove why me favourite food is better than yours.
Also, my comment was about soundstage. CD contains more data than vinyl. It is higher res. Also you do not lose treble, bass or panning on CD. So to clarify my comment was specifically referring to the soundstage of vinyl being preserved over some CD masters because CD masters can be hard limited and compressed more than vinyl masters, thus impacting soundstage of CD masters.
I have nothing to prove to you. My point has already been made.
@@michaelkyle2150 @Michael Kyle No, your point has been claimed not made. You were writing your original post as if it was fact, let me quote in case you already forgot
"the digital CD master will be limited, maximasing volume. The limiting process reduces the volume difference between the quietest part of the mix and the loudest parts, flattening the sound AND THUS REDUCING THE SOUNDSTAGE"
What you are talking about is not taste and should be easily demostratable with a simple example or two. Clearly if you have this opinion about the superior soundstage of the vinyl you will have had to have heard the same release on both to make you come to that conclusion.
Great truth being spoken! I refuse to pay the outrageous prices for new vinyl but do buy used CD's to fill in the voids in my collection. I feel the day will come when streaming companies will seek out the best master copies of albums and provide them. I would be willing to pay a premium for this but know that the loudness wars mean that much of the music I like was never mastered well from the start.
What’s interesting is how quiet early CDs were. Now it’s quite refreshing as it means the engineer didn’t compress it to death!
True i have a master of puppets and Sgt pepper og 80s cd pressings and the dynamics are incredible dynamic data base is a handly tool only few albums seem to do it nowadays like dynamic of cmf2 to sounds great book Corey Taylor did record the album the old fashioned way aad always sounds better than DDD
My first nice system was built around a Technics turntable back in the early '80's. As cd's became more popular in the late 80's I put together a rather expensive system around an expensive single cd player. It was good but I didn't like the sound as much as I did vinyl. Now I'm back to vinyl and have no regrets. Yes, I have some pops and skips on some of my older albums but that's ok. Vinyl puts a smile on my face like cd's just can't.
Remember, it was 'Bass' that had the biggest problem with mastering vinyl. Because of the bass frequencies creating 'rumble', if a badly mastered vinyl record (not meeting standards) overdone the bass, the stylus was unable to track the vinyl grooves because it 'bounced' on the grooves. Bass frequencies were the fundamental problem of vinyl when mastering and the treble 'boost' needed to transfer the master to vinyl. I remember, if memory serves, the EQ curve for vinyl from the original master tapes was the RIAA curve or T1=3180 μs, T2=318 μs, T3=75 μs:[3] I remember a conversation with Todd Rundgren in the late 70s explaining the limitations of Vinyl when making his very long playing album @Initiation@ over one hour long. The groves were obviously very tight and the bass was very tame, plus the sound level was lower. He (Todd Rundgren) recommended re-recording the album onto reel to reel louder to compensate the limitations.
As a CD guy through and through, I find this to be the best argument for Vinyl one could make. The description of the loudness war was particularly apt, and all of the details about what can be done while mastering digitally vs what CAN'T be done on a vinyl LP were spot on.
My one addition would be that the ability to screw up CD mastering does not negate the fact that CDs sound better. Any badly mastered CD or stream is the result of a choice that a mastering engineer made. If I drive my Mazda into a ditch, it's a case of me being an idiot, not Mazda suddenly making crappy vehicles. Great video!
I’d like to agree on one thing here - for the most part I prefer listening to vinyl - it’s somehow less tiring to listen to. If I want to show off the capabilities of my system SACD seems to make everything “Pop” but if I just want to listen I’ll grab the vinyl version of the recording over any digital format, even if the studio master is digital the mastering of the vinyl generally is easier to listen to! Purely subjective but perhaps that’s why we are “human”.
Glad you mentioned SACD because as a vinyl enthusiast, that's where my head is too, whereas the average 'digital is better' argument is undermined by the fact that the average person is listening to poorly-rendered digital music, and it might be clean but it's unimpressive for somebody who is listening to details. I think the average digital music is honestly worse than vinyl, not because 'digital can't do it' but because some people just want the files to be smaller, and a lot of them somehow conflate that with 'sound quality' since they forgive horrible digital artifacts that would make you and I cringe, and they bash records for practically the same thing while ignoring the benefits of it. Vinyl might have worse specs on paper but in real-life, some of my records sound WAY better than any other version I've heard of the same stuff including the CD.
This made sense😊
I enjoy both vinyl and digital, but usually prefere vinyl for some reason.
It feels more energetic, had a bit more body🤷🏼♂️
I don't know, and really don't care🙊
Just wish vinyl was a bit less expencive. (Some albums are really expencive).
Vinyl mastering always had some compression to compensate for the limitations of the medium so it might be more pleasant if you're listening to something that has lots of dynamics, or loudness that would be TOO LOUD from a digital master. For Example PDQ Bach's WTWP Classical Talkity Talk Radio.
Go have a talk with Michael Freamer,that should be fun!
I'm a 75 yo, and in the mid 60's started to build up a quality HiFi set up, had the Thorens TD124 Mk 2 deck, SME 3009 + Shure V15 that served me well, then in 1985 I bought the Michell Gyrodec, SME 3009 Series II + Goldring 1042 so a reasonable set up, and over the years bought over 7,000 (Soul and Jazz) albums and 12" records mainly US and Japanese imports, these were sealed and on occasions the US pressings was somewhat under parr, so I exchanged these at my regular shop (City Sounds London) and sure enough the new copy was ok, the Japanese pressing were perfect every time, the reason I'm mentioning this as I found that during the manufacturing of vinyl that after 300 odd pressings degradation takes place before a new stamp is replaced, so you never know if you have in your collection a low or high count purchase.
Now onto CD's in 1983 I bought the Tania Maria album called 'Come with Me', I also bought the CD at the same time just to compare and I have to say listening through my ATC SCM100 speakers there wasn't a noticeable change, so it's debatable what's best, I reluctantly sold all of my vinyl including the Gyrodec but still have a few thousand CD's mainly from the US and Italy. I now download my music and I can tell you that the quality is fantastic, I'm knocking vinyl but to start again with a decent turntable, arm and cartridge you're looking at north of £3,000
Fun debate, let me offer some thoughts after spending many years with high end turntable and digital rigs:
1) Vinyl LPs will 99% of the time have a more midrange centric sound over digital counterparts. The top end will always be rolled off slightly, and the midbass/midrange usually is heavier sounding. Sometimes the very low bass is slightly rolled off. This applies to any decently pressed LP, whether the source is digital or analog, high end audiophile release or not, it's just the nature of analog.
2) Good vinyl of analog recordings tend to have a more three dimensional soundstage and have more ambience to the sound. This is that one intangible observation I see so very often, the one where absent the noise of analog playback, one can tell they're listening to analog.
3) The specs one often sees that states that digital has much higher dynamic range than vinyl I'm not so sure is accurate. For one, I feel there's a unit comparison that's different (i.e. like comparing MPH to KPH for speed). Second, when recording analog you just save the analog output to the analog medium (vinyl, tape), and no conversion is required on playback as it's already analog. Digital will always require a digital to analog conversion to output sound, and this has to have some effect on the sound. After all, there's a reason direct to disc LPs often sound better than the standard pressed ones, so reducing all these conversions should be a factor in how the sound will ultimately present itself.
Thirdly and probably most importantly, the very nature of audio recording is such that the maximization of dynamic range is (almost) never fully exploited. There is always some level of compression/limiting with most commercially recorded music (particularly in the rock, pop, rap, r&B, reggae, country.....most non classical/jazz), that all the "potential" for digital's dynamic range rarely ever gets taken advantage of. If you look up the Dynamic Range database online, you will see that the vinyl releases often have greater dynamic range than the CD releases.....very rarely does the digital get measured as having more. So even if one agreed that digital has more potential dynamic range, it's rarely ever exploited and often the reverse is true (because of the nature of digital playback with ear buds and portable playback, versus vinyl playback).
If you want to hear super high dynamic range, you often need to watch a movie. I have a Lionel Richie concert DVD that has very high dynamic range, possibly higher than most analog I've heard. The one issue though is you would need a horn system to truly extract that level of dynamic range, and the bass levels weren't as high as the typical commercial recordings. It's a wonderful intellectual debate, but the reality is it's something the industry won't solve easily for audiophiles.
4) A small item left out in these debates (actually a MAJOR item, just a small detail), is that rarely ever are we discussing the vinyl playback rig versus the digital playback rig. So in a direct shootout, how good is turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono amplifier combo versus the digital rig of DAC & CD/DVD-A/SACD transport and/or streaming platform? Hardware matters, so as big of a vinyl "homer" as I can be, if you're doing a shootout of a Sonos streamer into an Audio Note DAC 5 Signature versus a Technics 1200 turntable with cheap cartridge and tonearm, then yes, the digital will sound better than the vinyl for sure, 100%. The very best DACs can sound quite "analog", so there is very much an element of how good the hardware is when having this discussion. If you want a vinyl setup to take down "all digital", you'll need to spend into the five figures to do so. But we're talking like $15-20k, not $50k plus. Conservatively, I would say $20k would get you in the 99th percentile of vinyl rigs (vintage Garrard 301 or Thorens TD124 table, Ortofon RS-212D tonearm, Koetsu cartridge, good phono amplifier).
The top DACs will cost around the price of a new luxury car to low six figures. The Audio Note Fifth Element DAC, from what I hear is the world's best, but will cost more than 99.9% of the people watching these videos would be willing to pay for, let alone afford.
5) The real king of formats is pure analog tape. It's analog without any of the "vinyl limitations"......32 minutes per side, with all the dynamic range, bass , etc. one would want, without having to account for inner groove distortion, etc. Like half an hour of what a 12" single would sound like, but even better. A decent prosumer or professional reel to reel tape deck will outperform a super high end vinyl rig with expensive tone arm and cartridge costing significantly more.
I picked up Norah Jones "Come Away With Me" album on 15 IPS , 2 track tape. Even playing it back on the wrong format (CCIR on a NAB machine) it absolutely is breathtaking in dynamic range, openness, ambience, versus the vinyl copies I have and digital. It is jaw dropping, laugh out loud funny I-can't-believe-what-I'm-hearing.....
It's so slap you around good, I don't think the most passionate digital homers could pretend it's not better.
A decent refurbished Technics RS 1500 tape deck at around $2000 playing that tape will sound better than the ultimate six figure vinyl or digital rig, with ease.
In the end, to me it's very simple:
A good digital rig will provide lots of enjoyable listening pleasure, with an incredible amount of convenience. When you wish to step up the listening experience a bit more, then vinyl/tape will give that to you.
My last comment on the topic is that, I feel that good vinyl works best for the "real music" most of the time......the more audiophile/midrange recorded music without tons of processing, versus music with more extreme frequency ranges. It works for everything most of the time, but if you want the most value from vinyl playback, it's in the music genres that are more "musical".
The fact that the most expensive DACs you can buy try their hardest to emulate vinyl tells you all you need to know. They are trying to emulate vinyl because they know it's better.
@@dtz1000 I'm not sure that is correct. Dacs are trying to replicate the music. Vinyl is not the gold standard. The original comment is correct in so many ways. A 5K CD set up will beat Vinyl. But does it matter? Everyone's hearing deteriorates anyway and just enjoy the music what you enjoy in a format you enjoy.
The amp and speakers are so important.
I've decided to hold off on going back to vinyl. After being out of the high dollar audiophile world for the lastt 20 years, I'm going to give streaming a try on Qobuz or Tidal. I used to have a SOTA turntable with 30 lbs of lead shot in the base, ProAc speakers with 25 lbs of sand in the base of the enclosure, tube amp, preamp and all of the BS and all I did in the end was make some other guy rich. I'm going back to enjoying music and trying to forget the technology, as much as possible.
I love the pushing and pulling “suck” sound of really slow over compression but only when it’s done for artistic reasons like in techno for instance.
Pop music that is just brick walled for cheap kitchen radios hurts my soul
I have a story to tell regarding my mother who was born in 1925. When CD's first came out, I purchased my mother a CD player with a number of classical discs. She never took to it or said anything positive regarding the sound. A decade later I purchased an inexpensive turntable and put on a record in the living room while she was around the corner in another room. She did not know what I was doing but immediately commented on how wonderful the sound was and came in to see what I was playing. She has no concept of the format wars but was able to recognize that the LP was superior in some undefinable way to digital. She was so enamored with the LP sound that we went several times together to garage sales to find more records.
Another great presentation, but, my friend, I beg to differ. Should I have taken my wonderful old MGs, Triumphs, and other vintage sports cars and buried them simply because a new Japanese sedan could outperform them? I think not. Yes, the list of weaknesses is similar in length and severity to that of vinyl. But I enjoyed tuning /synchronizing dual SU carburetors in the same way I love setting up a tonearm. It is the joy of a vintage hobby!
Thanks again!
I listen mostly to classical and have over the years (I'm now in my 60's) accumulated a good amount of vinyl and CDs. One thing I've noticed is that any album that was originally on vinyl but then over time re-released on CD seldom sounded the same. And when played simultaneously (switching back and forth) to a friend they noticed, like me, that the vinyl almost always had more resolution. I suspected that remastering was the culprit, as each format is done differently. I now have a very resolving system and seldom play my CDs, unless the performance is only available on CD. Also, I don't even bother with streaming as very little classical (compared to what's recorded) are on those networks. Thank you for this confirming video, as compressed dynamic range reduces resolution.
There is something comforting listening to vinyl on an old system. Its just another way to enjoy the music.
Anything that has me melting away or tapping my feet is a win in my book 😂.
This was about 15+ years ago, and my memory is pretty hazy, but I remember reading about a study where younger listeners preferred the digital artifacts of low bitrate encoded mp3s over the analog noise from the radio or tapes.
I'd take a bit of noise over digital artefacts. How anyone can prefer the sound of ringing, warbling, bubbling mud pools is beyond me. DM
When I first started dabbling in home recording, I tried to push the limiter to the max. I wanted to keep up with the rest of the CDs at the time (late 90's). The sound was terrible (probably due to my lack of experience) so I started to pull it back a bit. Once I did that, I noticed the relationship between the multitrack mix and the stereo mix. The harder I pushed the limiter, the worse the mix itself would get. Things would disappear so it forced me to go back and remix just to make the limiter happy. Once I let go of the hard limiting and only used it to make sure the final mix didn't clip, you could hear the smaller bits in between the louder bits. The final master sounded like I heard it when mixing. If there was a little keyboard bit buried under the guitars/drums, you could still hear it. I will use a loudness meter to keep things in check but I mostly listen with my ears and and let them be my guide. If I kept things in the -15 LUFS range (+/- 2 db), I was pleased with the loudness while not sacrificing quality to my ears. It doesn't mean your mix will match what pop labels/engineers are putting out but then again, be yourself and don't worry about what others are doing.
What a great explanation. Thank you
DSD and up sampling have changed the equation. Hi-res now sounds awesome. DSD64 is truly amazing. Not all music is mixed poorly. There are some fabulous digital recordings out there.
I already had quite a vinyl collection before the CD was invented and getting popular.
The very first CD i bought was 'Brothers in arms' by the Dire Straits. The quality was fantastic and I never looked back to vinyl anymore. I mean I still played my old records but never again bought a new one. Nowadays I don't even own a cd player nor record player. Long live spotify! 🤘
Spotify. Oh dear.
@@dtz1000 Thanks to spotify, RUclips and a few other platforms I (re)discovered great music. 🕺💃
When you buy a vinyl phonograph record and what appears to be the same recording as a CD you are actually getting two different recordings that have been mastered in different ways. The digital recording may have had the source tape sitting in a can deteriorating for decades before it was remastered as a CD. This was often a cheap sloppy way to run up a library in the new format. Later they may have been remastered as CDs more carefully, turned into remastered vinyls, or even converted to digital formats where the tools for manipulation are enormous and powerful, and then released as a remastered analog vinyl recording. All of these recordings are different with an occasional rare exception.
I found one such exception. This was a direct comparison between a nearly unplayed vinyl and a CD of Carol Rosenberger playing "Water Music" on a Bosendorfer piano on the Delos label. Comparing the two and synchronizing them which was easy enough with the CD's cue review buttons I was able to switch back and forth and I heard no difference. The vinyl was played on an Empire 698 turntable with a Shure V15 Type V MR cartridge and the CD was played on a 192 khz 24 bit audio chip in a Toshiba DVD player.
Forgetting deliberately distorted recordings there is no doubt that for its function of storing and retrieving electrical signals that are supposed to be analogs of music in general and unamplified acoustic music in particular (they're not but that's another issue) within the audible frequency range and within the dynamic range of such music RBCDs meet all engineering criteria for all such music, Vinyl phonograph records do not. However, because of the nature of the kind of playback systems in use, the vinyl may have some advantages besides being more carefully mastered taking into account the limitations of the medium. One such advantage is dynamic compression where the gain is boosted at the end of each musical phrase causing the reverberation to be more prominent. Modern electronic reverb units used in mastering consoles and in their software equivalents can compensate for this.
Recently I've been experimenting with my new phone Samsung S22 Ultra and bluetooth listening to streamed music from among other sources RUclips on the experimental sound system I invented myself. I was very much surprised that with high quality analog sources like Analog High End the results were indistinguishable from RBCD digital recordings which I consider the best technology for this purpose I know of. (I have thousands of CDs and thousands of vinyl phonograph records, mostly classical music so I am after much self training a very critical listener.) Now these recordings may have come from magnetic tape, not necessarily vinyl. Where it is clearly from vinyl such as with minor pops and clicks it can still be very good. Many recordings I'd downloaded from Napster when it was still legal are also excellent. So I have become somewhat ambivalent in the vinyl/analog versus RBCD/digital argument. However I will say this, HD or High Resolution is a total fraud. You cannot hear above 20 khz no matter what you think, there is no music I've encountered whose dynamic range does not fit within the capabilities of RBCD, so even if you do get the genuine article, you are not getting something of value. If there are audible differences they are not the result of the HD process.
I love ‘music’ full stop! I listen to it in all its formats, mp3 in the car, streaming on my computer, cd’s and vinyl on a good hi fi system.
I fail to understand the old trope of noise on vinyl playback. I have been playing vinyl from my teenage years to the present (77) and have never been plagued with the so called pops, crackles, skipping etc. it is simply a matter of of taking care of your records and equipment, cleanliness and setup is the simple answer.
I regularly play records from the 80s and they sound as good as the day I bought them and the noise floor could be compared to that of a cd.
What I’m trying to say is take care of your equipment, relax and enjoy the music whatever the format.
Thanks for your informative content, we live and learn.
Please comment.
I asked a friend to transfer the LP to a CD for me. He recorded the LP on DAT and then transferred the DAT recording to CD on a professional CD recorder. This CD has better sound (more natural) than a regular CD.
I'm guessing the DAT may have had the same digital sound 'pre coloring' prior to xfer that my Sony deck had. Also wisely use
the old formula 'Gruv Glide' reserved for only transfers...
Regardless of what you think is the best format, when you play a digital format and amplify it, then the signal becomes analogue so your speakers (transducers) can do their stuff and produce a sound you can understand. Any sound generated that excites your eardrum is effectively mechanical (vibrating air) so without Analogue you would not be able to hear, or should i say, understand your CD, or streamer.
The question is not if CD is better than Vinyl, the question is if the audio information on Vinyl is of a better quality then the audio information that is stored on the CD.
digital media is transparent, vinyl is not. as in, digital media is fully capable of reproducing what vinyl does, if that is the sound one craves.
you can record the output of a record player digitally, play back both to the listener and the listener will not be able to tell which is which in a proper (!) ABX test.
the same thing does not work the other way around.
and thats all thats needed to settle the question about which medium is better, because that question is not about what particular sound aesthetic one likes (which might very well be vinyl, with its space-suggesting noise floor and its warmth-suggesting lowend rumble), but whether or not a particular medium is able to transparently reproduce whatever "sound" aesthetic you throw at it.
digital can. vinyl cant. the end.
Is shaving to hurts and the ratio between the high and the low hurts creates will create random misfires which is a usable Distortion that can be manipulated or controlled you'll probably need to amplifiers connected together with both having variables volume control on both
Is shaving to hurts and the ratio between the high and the low hurts creates will create random misfires which is a usable Distortion that can be manipulated or controlled you'll probably need to amplifiers connected together with both having variables volume control on both
IF you look at the videos on Vinyl mastering from Abbey Road you find that the had to monkey about with the mix so it would play on vinly. This is due to the physical restrictions of cutting and playing vinyl. Also this dictated what could be fitted on one side of an album. Hence on some occasions the play list for each side had to be adjusted so it could all fit on. This is all without the hiss, rumble and other distortions. Hence digitial is far closer to what was intended at the desk in the studio.
Great video! God, I have it all and I enjoy it all. FLAC, Hi-Res, MP3's of all bit-rates, CD's, Vinyl...even cassettes. There's something to love (and hate) about all of them if you're willing to look.
Kudos on the Death Magnetic shoutout. I personally prefer the Guitar Hero III version (or the iTunes remaster) but I totally get why people prefer the "smashed to hell" original mastering. It has a "pop" that the others just don't.
Loudness wars existed long before digital audio. Radio stations used compressors and limiters to make the entire catalog that they played to be louder than the other stations. Musicians who came to me wanted their masters to have that same compressed limited sound that the radio produced and I could do that. The funny thing is that if a compressed/limited master was played by the radio station, their processing equipment would make it sound quieter.
But this was due to AM Radio, how it works and the range, you would "drive" the sending station always near max. - as far as I know
David nails it yet again. I was never a fan of vinyl as it was easily damaged. I find CD to be massively superior. Minidisc was a brilliant concept and an underrated format. Mp3 at 320 kbps isn't comparable to either but at least its convenient. We're due for another format war but what it might be is hard to guess. A return to hard product would be welcomed by many. For me, CD is #1 and many reasons for that!
minidisc is technically compressed with a more rudimentary encoder than MP3 (unless you have one of the late model players that offers a lossless version and choose to use it in spite of the reduced recording capacity)
There are too many physical media formats available already, and everyone of them is a tiny niche compared to streaming.
@@johnstone7697 but you then don't own your music you just own an account that only works with internet. That's why physical media most stay relevant and alive. Also for me CD is king for many reasons but I use other media like wav, FLAC, DSD and yes streaming to.
AGREE 101%
I agree
... to follow up... Turntable setup is absolutely clutch and you can have a new cartridge that's defective. If you look at wam engineering / Wally tools, no I don't work for them... You'll see all the parameters I've set up that matter most people don't do them and some cartridges are so far out of spec when you buy it even really expensive ones that they can't be fixed they need to be sent back. I think those account for the bad experiences with analog. That some people have had. I fortunately got a good cartridge that was well within specs and had a pro set it up. The palpability really kicks the crap out of my digital front end which is actually bothering me I'm trying to figure out how to make it better now. Just my .02 with a little bit of factual information as well
Yes to all of this. The average person doesn't even know how to choose a good turntable, let alone everything else required to make it sound great (just a few years ago at age 45 I learned a good process for cleaning and lubricating records which changed my opinion from 'records are just ok but i like them' to 'records are capable of sounding better than the CD'), and that's why I rarely take any 'vinyl vs digital' arguments seriously, because it's usually somebody who simply doesn't know how to make records sound good. They'll listen to digital music compressed to small file sizes with obvious digital artifacts and say 'that's better than vinyl' because they really don't know any better, but they assume it's smart to just blurt out 'digital good, vinyl bad'. So many of these people are forgetting, or didn't realize, how often they've heard DJs playing records that sounded every bit as good as a CD, and sometimes better.
There are some other advantages to viny. Pre 1980's recordings are quite often remastered and don't sound like the original vinyl pressing and are sometimes unavailable with their original sound in a digital format.
There's are some tracks, B sides, stand alone singles etc, which have never been issued on a digital format and only exist on vinyl.
A very nice feature of a vinyl lp is having the choice of two sides which can change the whole feel of an album and having a sleeve with pictures and information is nice.
And finally, i know i'll never have to pay to listen to my lp's.
I think those audiophiles who like vinyl the best are more into the total package of the large physical disc, the album cover and all it has to offer, the record player with its tone arm from one company, it's cartridge from another, and the platter/drive from another. I have all that and get it, but I still think the sound quality is better via CD and some of the streaming companies these days.
I collect both digital and analog (vinyl). Regarding vinyl, it is not the art, but how much better they are mastered, and how the stylus and RIAA interprets the small waveform and amplifies it. Do you know what happens inside say an active speaker? Same thing. Tiny tiny waveform that gets amplified. Now, you have tons of different stylus'. Get a good MC one and a good RIAA, then one can talk about differences.
@@rabarebra ..unfortunately records wear out over time and get noisier, scratcher with ticks and pops, etc. Needles also wear out and if not replaced do a number on the record grooves and the sound goes south as well. I do get why we have our collections of LPs and turntables ( I have a Fons turntable, Mayfair tone arm and a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge) but I stream most of my music these days through Tidal and look at my old albums once in a while remembering those days.
@Bambam21476 I call bs. You don't have all that because you would never say streaming has got vinyl beat. Lol, phony, I smell bs
@@rabarebra 💯
@Bambam21476 that is life. Just like changing the strings out on a guitar or putting new heads on a kit. You must not be a musician. Analog is mechanical, and so is your music, and things wear down just like our bodies.
Putting aside the superior sound of vinyl, one thing rarely mentioned is the endorance of the format. Guaranteed none of your digital collection will be playable 40 years from now as technology evolves to the "next great thing". I have DVD Audio disks from less than 10 years ago that won't play in any of my current players. Meanwhile my entire vinyl collection from the 60's and 70's and vintage records from the 50's all play on my current turntables and sound better than ever.
@ 2:13 Not true! I've never been able to find an amplifier that "goes to 11."
Agreed 100%. I do recommend the AT ML stylus for getting the least pops and clicks from vinyl records as possible.
Don't screw yourself into the ground comparing vinyl to digital audio. Vinyl is a series of compromises like tape, but tape has fewer compromises than vinyl and that's why studios always made a master tape then pressed vinyl from the master. Vinyl isn't even the best analog format, let alone digital. I thought metal tapes with Dolby C did the job quite nicely 30-40 years ago.
You are one of the few channels who explains the reason why digital sounds different than analog correctly, great video. I am a vinyl guy 100% and I know why. I am a pro musician, I know why and it is not that vinyl is better. 🙂
Nearly all "vinyl " these days is just digital. I look out for second hand analogue lps.
@@trudytrew6337 The stylus and RIAA is not digital, though. Huge difference.
@@trudytrew6337 Along with that and how they are mastered (skills) is what counts.
@trudytrew6337 duh, it is about the mastering. Vinyl will always when on a decent rig. There is a reason they try to make Digital sound more real...... like vinyl. Not the other way around. The stylus is analogous to an instrument vibrating and behaving like a real instrument those lending to a more natural sound. Peace have fun with your brickwalled CDs
Dan Worrall won the loudness war 😋
Those of us from jazz and classical music have a love for the CD since we have greater headroom over albums and streaming files. I listen to (little) popular music so I did not get much of that volume war - until recently producing a CD that wasn't for jazz or classical markets .
Digital files CAN be far superior to CD and albums v - but usually are not, due to the practices you mentioned .
That is why there are thousands of 78's 45's albums and CD's in my collection ...
PS what you spoke of regarding the over lasting in vinyl can be shown on a 1933 shellac 78 FOXY ABD GRAPSEY (Arthur Briggs) - the bass is over modulated one one note twice on the record resulting a record that wears thee after a few plays - most unpleasant, but the record is otherwise well recorded
How do people know they “like the sound of vinyl”? How do they distinguish it from the sound of their “interconnects”, “tube amps”, “power plugs”, “vibration dampners”, and audio carpet and wallpaper?
If by wallpaper you mean actual wallpaper that you hang on the wall then yes it does have a sound. Certainly different to bare plaster walls.
How can vinyl with a maximum dynamic range of 50 dB be better than digital with 95 dB, and the master tapes are available in digital?
I've had a digital front end for 30 years and was really happy with it then my friend talked me into dusting off my old turntable getting it set up properly and a good cartridge on it and I did and I bought 300 records over the last two months. I'm not sure it's so easily explained others would certainly disagree with the statements of this video but I've yet to find anybody without a good turntable/ records like digital sources of the same music as well. If that means anything to you great if it sounds like BS to you all is well
There's a lot of bad-sounding digital music out there, and the average 'digital vs vinyl' comparison people make is like 'the best of digital vs the worst of vinyl' even on informative channels like this one, and it gets really irritating knowing that records CAN sound spectacular, often much-better than the same thing on CD, but most people aren't motivated enough to make them sound that way since it's not as EASY as digital, so most people would rather hear clean, solid-if-unimpressive digital music than have to deal with all the stuff related to records. The average person translates 'clean, ok-quality sound which is extremely easy to accomplish' as 'perfect sound, better than a record every time' when it almost never even matches up if you're really listening closely.
I explained it in many places in the comments. It is because CDs don't have the ultrasonic frequencies that musical instruments emit. But vinyl does. Some people get it, but most don't.
Is Statue lean or Sling from side to side as the rock and roll and occasionally it can do a complete roll that's why it's called rock and roll again if it doesn't Rock if it doesn't roll it's not
I am a fan of both formats and there is things I like and dislike about both CD and Vinyl. I too was a vinyl snob promoting that vinyl simply sounded "better" but after purchasing a quality CD transport my opinion had changed. Subjectively I think it comes down to the mastering on said format and I have heard poor quality examples on both formats
CDs sound so different than live music that’s the problem. It becomes a whole different thing
Again it isnt the fault of the format.
Nobody has answered me, what is a cd?
Ah, the memories. In the deep, distant dark past I saved up my pennies and bought the Beatles' White Album, which cost twice as much as a single LP. So a major investment for a young teenager. I was dismayed to discover that 'Birthday' -- the opening track of the second disc -- skipped in several places. I didn't know at the time that it was too-hot mastering that was the culprit. The mastering engineer had pushed the envelope just a tiny bit too far, resulting in the poor stylus getting over-excited. It's a birthday, after all.
It's ironic that digital delivery, which is technically superior to analogue in many ways, is captured by halfwits who don't give a damn about dynamic range. Back in the old days there was a physical limit to how energetic a vinyl track could be -- the amount of stimulation a stylus could accept before it would jump out of the groove. Which is why many old vinyls sound great, even though the listener often has to endure a chorus of snap, crackle and pop as well.
I do prefer the sound of vinyl and the art and packaging alone is worth the cost (it's why I became a professional artist). But it's far too fragile a medium. It scratches easily and I hate the dust, clicks and pops that are not part of the music.
50 years ago when I was young a primary source for listening was radio - am and fm. When I started listening to pop and rock music in the later 70's it sounded louder than the music my parents listened to on the fm stations. That is because the range of volume was limited and was compressed to fit the format. So when you listened to the record it sounded better.
Here is my point. When listening to classical music recorded live there is a wide range of sound from soft to loud. So if you listen to it at a low level you can't hear the quiet bits. But turn it up enough to hear the quiet bits and the loud bits will damage your speakers or ears. Digital recording allows more range than vinyl but there is a problem. What to do with the quiet bits? On some recordings you can hear the effect of turning a voice mic on and off so you do not hear the back ground noise. In the quiet bits the level is raised and they become audible.
So,, the Point is to look for good mastering production albums and they will sound great in all formats
It's not about how loud it is or how much space there is is how much attitude or personality you can get out of your amplifier they're like heirs are mistakes that you use to your advantage to create your own style without plug-ins are extra circuitry you can change the capacitor or something fine but it's got to be natural distortions
Much to my wife's chagrin, I own multiple copies of the same album on CD and vinyl. In some cases my vinyl copy sound better so I listen to that. In other cases my CD copy sounds better so I listen to that. If the sound quality is really close between the two I'll usually choose the CD because it's easier and has no background noise. I really enjoy both mediums.
Exactly. I have seven different versions of Dark Side of the Moon. Three LP's, and four CD. They all sound different, and they all sound great.
Some people here in the comments say that all CD's are crap, i dont think thats the case, it has the power to produce crappier music if the producers want to, but not all of them did it.
Brilliant!
I like pushing against the limiter only for musical effect, e.g. for a hook/riff in a heavy song, but then backing off for dynamics elsewhere. That's where factory music goes awry, just pushing the limiter nonstop.
Vinyl warmth = muddiness?
Or too much mid-range? Too little bass/treble?
Just a bad mastering job gives muddiness or the quality of the vinyl itself.
It's probably the ultrasonic frequencies that are partly responsible for vinyl warmth. CDs don't have those frequencies, so they sound a bit harsh.
CD was flawed from the beginning because those missing ultrasonic frequencies are present in real musical instruments, so you are losing something by not preserving them.
I have 1500 CDs and 750 approx vinyls. I have been collecting them since the 70's and are still in pristine condition. Contrary to what you say, I do not get hiss, rumble, jumps or static. If you don't believe me you are welcome to my home in Dublin and I will show you. The thing is, if you buy cheap, ie a cheap record player, what the hell world you expect. You'll get all the problems you speak about. I have spent serious money on my equipment. I have a technics sl-1200g and an ortofon bronze cadenza cartridge. I have a top of the range larvardin amp and beautiful danish speakers and a creek cd player. All of this costs £20,000 approx., but hey, you get what you pay for. I play both CDs and Vinyls but I much prefer the sound from my records. I have an anti-static gun if I hear even a hint of static on my albums and before playing any of them, I use a special vinyl brush to gently wife off any dust. I've had much cheaper but good hi-fi when I was younger and had no real money, but I always tried to buy the best I could. I even had the brilliant Pioneer PL-12D deck at one time, but I only heard hiss on the very first, cheap cheap cheap system I purchased and changed it within 3 months as it was driving me mad. So there!
My SL1200 states clearly that via screwed in stamp only one type of stylus can be used😅.
The original beginnings of overuse of compression started with FM radio. It was the "need" to be the "loudest station" on the dial. I do not understand why it would be applied to CDs since the end user has a volume control to get any level he wants?
The loudness war, depending on your exact definition, is much older than the 90's and even pre-dates digital sound. Dynamic range compressors and limiters from companies like Fairchild and Orban arrived in the late 50's/60's. Compressed dynamic range improves a radio station's effective listenable transmission range so the stations have a larger audience share hence better Neilsen ratings. This determine how much money they collect from their advertisers. Also as a listener in their car (a noisy environment) scrolls through their dial they are more likely to be attracted to (and stop and listen to) loud stations. Again , this makes the radio station more money than their competitors.
I think we have different loudness wars here. I think it's a natural consequence of radio that a station that is louder in comparison to noise and interference will be more pleasant to listen to, even though the choice of programme might not be optimal. The 1990s loudness war however I see as a quest for loudness for its own sake. And since any listener can just turn down their listening level, ends up being utterly pointless.
@@AudioMasterclassWhat I find most objectionable to the 1990s loudness war content is not the music's high average level, which indeed, as you point out, I can compensate for on my end with my volume knob, it's the highly compressed dynamic range, the punch, nicely demonstrated in the well known RUclips video "The Loudness War" by Matt Mayfield Music, using a Paul McCartney song. ruclips.net/video/3Gmex_4hreQ/видео.html
@@m.zillch3841 Exactly. I have commented on this in my videos previously and it will, unfortunately, be a topic to which I expect to return. I have a comparison between a very acceptable broadcast mix and the Spotify version here... www.audiomasterclass.com/blog/i-listened-to-26-unmastered-songs-did-they-sound-bad Scroll down to 'Estonia' and 'Estonia on Spotify'. Keep your volume control handy.
@@AudioMasterclassThanks for posting the photoscans of the Stereo Review 1987 article by Ian G. Masters, "Do all amplifiers sound the same?", by the way. I just linked to it in an AVS forum post.
The early releases of cd weren't as loud as the later editions, you can do the research by yourself if you want, and search for the peaks in DB the tracks on a early edition of your favourite CD, and you'll see that the CD made in the early 90s and lates - mid 80s aren't as loud as the ones made later, and there's many different CD editions of the same album. People need to know that like vinyl records, there's bad edition of digital music. Many people think all the CD are the same, and it's far from the truth.
Having purchased a high-res digital copy of King Crimson’s 1969 debut album today, I don’t feel offended at all. 😀
Radio stations wanted to be louder so as you tuned across the dial The louder station would catch your attention....... They would compress the sound and then use something called an exciter before it would go over the air....
I have always suspected master tapes for vinyl releases were modified to suit the limitation of the vinyl, but I never got a confirmation. I have LP's with very little high-frequency (the records are not worn) which I think it is a way to minimise distortion on poor turntables or slightly worn records; I have other LP's were low frequency are greatly reduced, especially if there are more than 20/22 minutes of music per side. In case of compilations with up to 30 minutes of music per side, both of the above are used plus a volume reduction so that groove can be cut very close to each other.
On the other hand I have a Telarc LP from 1979, digitally recorded with their SoundStream system, which contains a cannon blast in its original dynamic and the grove moves laterally for a good millimetre (there is a badge on the cover saying "audio's toughest challenge).
Can we introduce the idea of Vinyl Temperament in the same way Pianos can be tuned to different Temperaments such as Pythagorean comma, Just Intonation, Kirnberger I, Werckmeister etc. Vinyl is just a different mastering Temperament with a large frame artwork and narratives along with a goofy paper sleeve....This opens up a possibility of a digital mastering temperament that mimics vinyl..Can you please create this mastering temperament run it on a 24bit lossless master with the vinyl mastering temperament filter, produce it with your own brand label, patent it and send me a cut of the royalties...?.You can also create different vinyl temperament flavors such as the groovy 70s, the melodic 80s and the grunge 90s masters vinyl series.
Oh, come on. Vinyl looks very cool and has an acceptable sound quality. And it is fun to collect because of its retro style and huge artwork sleeves. If I want to listen to an album that I like every day, of course I'll use my poly-carbonate player or listen to a file, but I don't mind spinning a vinyl record every once in a while.
Yep. Your one year old video on the vinyl revival popped up in my feed yesterday, and I jumped in with a comment on this, which of course you'd already dealt with four months ago.
I'll take my chances once more, but ask this time. Is there a chance that the necessary downmix to mono of bass for vinyl might stress the speakers less than stereo bass which is possible on digital? And to what extent is stereo bass even a thing in digital? Oh, and yes, I am aware, seen it with my own eyes, that warped records can lead to severe excursions in speakers (out of phase and cancelling in room, so inaudible as anything but increased distortion).
Really appreciate your videos, by the way. Edutainment of the best sort. Simple and accessible but not to the point where we don't learn something. Well done!
The idea of mixing the bass into mono will help keep the groove deep. Stereo information is encoded vertically. Also, suppose someone made a track with the bass panned all the way to one side. If it were panned centre it would come out of two speakers rather than one and be louder. Not so important for the home perhaps but significant in a club setting. DM
@@AudioMasterclass Thanks. The point I was trying to get across was the necessity of mixing bass to mono (and quite far up in frequecy unless I'm wrong) for vinyl. Then, assuming that mono bass will put less excursion strain on the speakers than i an entire bass instrument to one channel instead of just the overtones we're able to locate. This is just not possible with vinyl, but can be done with digital (or tape, obviously).
I'm wondering to what extent stereo bass is common in the digital age, how far up, and how that will influence speaker performance.
So, for other readers trying to follow my reasoning: Mono/left and right in phase is lateral stylus movement, opposite phase left and right would be vertical, and a single channel would be at 45 degrees. Bass swings wide, and mono can be allowed for by increasing the width between grooves, anything else would likely lift the cutting stylus out of the laquer at quite low levels.
digital and analogue, are both analogue representations of the information. What we call analogue is a continuous representation, and what we call digital is a discrete repesentation of the information.
I should try putting the speakers on the top of bins..
If it gets your speakers to the right height, then go for it. DM
@@AudioMasterclass You are kidding? What about the resonance?
I prefer Vinyl sound over digital even vinyl rips sound better than digital
Before I sold my vinyl (for other reasons) I picked up a copy of Exit from Main Street which was mastered and pressed back in the 70s, the sound was fantastic, I noticed the same with the majority of Jazz records I got which was mastered and pressed in the 60s and 70s. These days I only by CDs as new vinyl sounds no better and CDs - it got nothing todo with the loudness war, more to how good the people who master it are.
I’m new here and I salute the plastic speaker stands / resonance dampener (I’m assuming)
Does that work well ? Just curious
Just raising them to ear level by the look of it.
I have recently started to digitize my old cassettes of solo and ensemble, and band performances in which I play clarinet. If one is not careful, you lose dynamic contrast.
When I listen to high-quality jazz recordings on vinyl, I hear sound that results from physical vibrations, not digital simulation. It can make a difference in my listening pleasure. If I do digitize an old tape for the sake of preservation and sharing with fellow musicians, I choose to use the wav format whenever possible. I am forced to go to MP3 when the file size gets too big.
I think those vibrations are down to the ultrasonics being preserved by vinyl. Those frequencies are not preserved when you digitise it to a CD quality format such as wav. CD was flawed from the beginning because it doesn't preserve the higher frequencies.
Yeah, you could take the same type of master and put it on a CD (or any digital format) instead and have all the advantages if you like that kind of master.
No, not "any digital format" because they don't all have equal resolution. 'Digital' doesn't mean 'perfect' so people really gotta get over that bs. There is so much badly-rendered music on tv and radio, it's appalling.
Loved this presentation
Excellent explanation. Thank you. I would love to hear you talk about the different noise sources in a digital vs analog stream, aside from the surface noises of the playback method. Also it has always intrigued me that we had 70 or so years of analog experience, tweaking it along the way to get where we were in the 70's. Then digital came along, and today we still do not have as much experience with digital as with analog. That has to make a difference. Yes?
It might make a good topic. My guess is that nearly all of the noise comes from the source - the studio in a recording made with microphones, electronic noise in electronic sources and equipment, producers forgetting that analogue emulations often emulate noise that can build up over multiple tracks. I'll set my subconscious to work on it for a while. DM
I'm no sound engineer, but it seems like an argument that can only be solved by personal preference. Listening involves both the ears and the brain, just like seeing. Analogue sounds are often often enhanced by your brain's pattern recognition systems. How you hear will depend on many physical and psychological factors. For me, the answer was simple. When CD's came out, I was initially excited. But by 1993, I was just no longer listening to music at all. I had no idea why. When I rediscovered vinyl, around 2002, I realized what I had been missing and have not looked back. As a former musician who likes jazz, I know what acoustic music should sound like to my ears. And in the end, all the engineers in the world can't tell me what my ears and my brain want to listen to. That's it. Probably why things like 3D TV and Hi Def virtual reality don't ever really catch on. They are incompatible with how the brain wants to see things. Engineers will never accept that. Just enjoy the music.
I'm trying to take this dude seriously, and then I see his speakers... on f&*# plastic storage boxes lol... it's just too funny :)
Digital audio not exist for ears without digital audio converter so without analog out, Dac have they own sound aswell. I prefer Nos multibit.