That phrase has long been debunked not belonging to Parsons. In any case as I said in similar comments, the truth, in most cases including my self is both! But my final goal is actually to enjoy music and so I do al ost every day.
how good the recording sounds will all goes down on how well the albuum was recorded, mixed and mastererd and not the format along. I have plenty of album that i both owned on vinyl and CD as well as digital file. and vinyl does not always sounds better. It depends on the recording
Agreed, I hear dramatic differences when streaming various songs from different masters at different resolutions. Maybe its because I have a good tube dac and very dynamic and transparent speakers (Forte IVs). It's no different than how many re-released albums can sound quite different. In fact, some of the worst sounding recordings I've heard are poorly mastered old albums. Saying all digital sounds the same is nonesense. Some Hi res digital and DSD clearly sounds better than cd, casset, and many old albums. Listen to many songs on greatest hits compilations compared to the original releases and whether listening in analog or digital the better mastering on the original is apparent.
Vinyl may not always sound better but it will be more satisfying and engaging because it has the ultrasonic frequencies emitted by musical instruments. CDs do not have those frequencies so are vastly inferior even if they do sound very clear.
No, that's not true. Because doing the best possible work, a god-like mastering on both mediums will clearly show how superior digital is. You're confusing things. Just because an incapable recording engineer can botch the job, doesn't mean there is no difference between the mediums.
all analog advantages i heard here were subjective so i think it makes sense what you are saying, its not only the medium, its the recording and the listener with his ear and idiologies
Sound is a very subjective thing and every format out there has a unique sonic signature. Starting from the microphone, the end result is a distortion of the live event - the limitation comes from the source. Audiophiles (and I consider myself one with this disease) can easily get obsessed with sound and become less engaged with the music. To me, an inspiring musical event necessarily transcends the media for which it is played on. I’ve listened to many high end analog/systems that sound wonderful, but won’t get into a debate about which format sounds better. Science can easily explain the differences between different formats, but in the end struggles to explain those differences in sonic signatures (measurements do not tell the whole story) that are audible to some people and rely too much on dogma that agrees with their own world view. Just enjoy the music!
I've been an audio enthusiast since the mid 70s. What's interesting to me is my own experience is the exact opposite of yours. I like the sound of digital formats waaaaay more than the way vinyl sounds. I still enjoy spinning vinyl, mainly for nostalgic reasons. Also, on a side note, I know that you enjoy a variety of types of music. In the pro audio classical/orchestral recording and mastering world, this idea that analog is better in any sort of definitive way does not exist.
Sounds like you probably listen to a lot of classical? If so, I'm not surprised. The first and largest market for CD's at their arrival was for classical music aficionados due to the quiet passages and dynamic range.
The important is that we can discuss and respect each other like a big family, thanks for that! I am glad that my audience isn't only analog-only buffs because I am not, although I do have a preference and I think it was time to state that.
@@asplmn Hey, those vintage Telarc CDs were amazing! I had one with famous movie themes that I loved! Those were all digital, too -- meaning DDD, really amazing sound quality. Anyway, I do enjoy classical music; Beethoven's Lenore Overture (No. 3) is one of my favorites, along with Elgar's Incidental Music from the Starlight Express. Although, I actually don't listen to classical much compared to pop/rock and ambient.
@@anadialog Like you, my friend, I listen to both formats. I also enjoy your channel very much and find your topics very interesting. The video you did on DSD recordings, where you made your own DSD dub of your r2r copy of Saxophone Colossus is one of my favorites. In my opinion, that DSD dub you made walks all over any vinyl I've ever heard. It was also better than any of the free DSD samples you can find around the internet. (Just wanted to add, I've been listening to vinyl since I was a little boy.....we're talking the mid to late 60s.)
@@batman.darthmaul Yes, the vintage Telarcs are fantastic. Of the Bach cantatas I have the Telefunken LP version, and the CD release. The CD is superb, yet the LP has better sound in every respect. Although, I have to add that my LP setup is quite far out, not what one typically hears.
Bernie Grundman is not stupid. He is sitting in a meeting with Chad that is a employer and will give him projects. And Chad is a analog guy. So he is having his sell pitch indirectly.
Guido have you ever heard the saying "Music lovers buy their equipment to listen to their music ; audiophiles buy their music to listen to their equipment ". Which one are you? Time to get over it, enough DRAMA. Yesterday's news....just enjoy because your hearing will degrade over time too like all of us . Stick to reviewing stereo components.
"Better" is subjective! So lets get something completely clear... music is about "Entertainment". I like Vinyl and tape because i (i'm speaking for myself now), i find it more "Entertaining"! For me... music HAS to be on vinyl even though the music recorded within the last 20 years has a digital source. Vinyl has a better community than CD and streaming. It has bigger and better artwork and it even smells better. Then there is the ritual of cleaning, caring and preparing. I'm emotionally attached to my vinyl as i grew up with it. Does it sound better? Who cares... it's more "entertaining" and gives me great pleasure. So say what you want... use all the science you want... show me all the studies you want... vinyl is better... always has been... always will be. Because for me... it is more "ENTERTAINING!"
Absolutely 💯 I think a well mastered CD 💿 blows vinyl out of the water far as sound goes, but being a child of the 80's I still LIKE vinyl better. Yes I said it!!
@@life5161 Some of the music i "LOVE"... is not that well recorded... mean while, some of the music i think is "really good" is fantastically recorded. Do i stop listening to the stuff i love because the quality is not top notch... NO! Moreover, i'm usually content UNTILL i hear something better.... so sometimes it's better to live with what you have and just enjoy it. A time will come when all the tape masters have disintegrated... and our vinyl will be the closest thing to the original. Who knows what future tech will bring... Maybe somewhere down the line we will find a better way of playing back vinyl... cos like they say... Necessity is the mother of invention
"I do find a well recorded and mastered all digital recording can be quite musical but those are more the exception."- Once again folks conflate the issue. If you don't like the way modern recordings are produced that's one thing but it's not the medium. You conflate issues here.
The classical music recording industry had largely abandoned analog recording in the beginning of the 1980s already - despite the fact that digital recording was back then an enormously expensive and cumbersome process. They cared about sound quality - the faithfulness to the original signal coming from the microphones. It was only later when audiophiles came up with the idea that analog technology with accumulating layers of distorion and noise is somehow sacred and pure. Nothing could be further from truth, of course.
There are different types of listeners and also comes genre and specific esthetics. I guess when it comes to the faithfulness of recording, digital should win, but audio gear and its artifacts can in a way be used as a musica instrument as well, and then analog is mostly more forgiving in use.
I do not expect that recording industry abandoned analog recording for the reason of caring of sound quality. It could be a personal dream of managers of companies but let's face it - thay rarely are making own private dreams come true in their bizeses. They think about company profits. Analog was very expensive in production, no many customers could afford to buy a decent gear. it was big , required massive furniture, It was hunted by noise and dirt and many faults, .Only few procent of customers had enough desire and experience to keep them in shape. Customers were loosing hope. And then comes new idea - relatively cheap player with two small motors and one very small pickup that doesn't quickly wear like turntable and do not require expensive new pickup. .It's size is part of LP player. Wear is not an issue. dirt is not affecting reading - easy to clean by anyone with tissue at hand . Digital solution and CD data storage already developed in PC. They saw a a great window of opportunity in tens of milions costomers who would like to accept replacement their analog with digital for one reason - noiseless reproduction. It was allowing to elevate sopranos and bass as much as only personally desired, to overhelming levels. . For 99.9% listeners this change was convincing. As we know analog techonology set limits to elevate sopranos and bass with hum and hiss. That was freedeom of timbre manipulation that had won market .
@@Mikexception You might want to check your facts. Classical recordings were done digitally several years before first cd players and PCs hit the market. Among first storage mediums for digital audio data were Sony U-matic video tapes. Computer disks capable of storing even one cds worth of audio data were unheard of at that time.
@@nyquist5190 . Yes you are right - I was refering to popular consumer market. But even if the registration in studios was made in digital recorders probably those machines were less troublesome, smaller thus cheaper in maintenance then high speed very expensive studio analog tape recorders. I do not remember that Sony classic digital recordings would be known for better quality than analog but cannot a opposite too. .
Through the years I've done many digital vs. analog comparisons and I came to the conclusion that high resolution digital (24/96) is a way more honest recording media than ANY analog media. In fact all analog recording systems introduce euphonic distortions and compressions, which add that special character to the sound that some people enjoy so much.
" I came to the conclusion that high resolution digital (24/96) is a way more honest recording media than ANY analog media." Changing sound into 1's and 0's can never be "honest" like analog.
@@Vebinz Empirical evidence does not support your view, unfortunately. You can make an audibly indistinguishable copy of an analog original with digital. You cannot make it with analog. And that's it.
@Denis Accuracy is not a subjective quality like "naturalness, fidelity, reproducing timbral decay for example". In sound reproduction it means that the output is audibly as identical to the input as possible. This is why digital is more accurate than analog. Preferences do not count here.
10:25 “simply the ears don’t lie” and “I do not have a bias”. Well I think you don’t fully understand how we hear and how cognitive bias work. Ears lie all the time, and bias is not an option, even you pretend to throw them away. You like more analogue music reproduction than digital, fine, me too by the way. But there is no single technical aspect of vinyl better than digital. Not a single one. Your arguments many times in the vídeo enter the real of magic and esoteric to justify vinyl is better when it takes to sound quality. You can enjoy more vinyl than cds. That’s Perfect. But please don’t justify a personal choice on anti science arguments… as just one example, I think you mention Digital 44khz files are cut above 22khz where analogue end of high frecuency is not that abrupt… really? That’s a serious argument? You think your brain cares what is above 20khz (usualy 14-16khz our age). That’s anti science. Sorry if I misanderstood your argument, that’s what I thought you said.
3:43 This a straw man argument. It cannot be used in favor of analog media because it's has nothing to do with a limitation nor a deficiency of the digital signal processing and recording itself, but with an abuse of the technology by incompetent or indolent engineers. Well processed and recorded digital audio is vastly superior to analog in preserving the dynamic range of the original sound. The proof is that not all digital recordings adolece of the problems caused by the so called "loudness war".
Guido, I like u and respect u. But now you are wrong. First because dynamic range is not the only and most important parameter of measuring quality. And second because vinyl has pops and clicks and 65 dB dynamic range. Pops and clicks are NOT part of live concerts and original master tapes so... they are not part of music at all. I do not want to hear anything beside the original studio master. Softness on vinyl is simply distortion. Although there are very high quality LP rips in 32bit/192kHz format or DSD I like so much and some sounds better than CD, but 99% it is not the case. SACD has 120 dB+ dynamic range with huge soundstage without pops and clicks. Pops and clicks and looking spinning discs are the requirement of old and deaf people due to nostalgia. No more. Believe me. I like analog sound, also like tape and vinyl... but they are far from the best. Only original master tapes are but after 1981 (Abba - Visitors) you will get digital master tapes only. So...what you mention is only dream but no reality. I like you and your channel apart from that. :)
Vinyl is not a solution to the loudness war. My original CD copy of Poison "Open Up and Say Ahhh" has a DR of 16dB. I got the 2018 reissue 30th Anniversary red vinyl version and it sounds flat and lifeless, and the deadwax shows it was likely based off a newer digital remaster of the album. The real problem is customers are not demanding better. 90% listen through systems that don't expose the differences and they couldn't care less.
Yep, I think Steve Wilson said he mixes it up to sound good on a car stereo at best. Kind of scary, but somewhat understandable since target audience mostly listen with airpods I suppose. Homes where most homes had two speakers in the living room is long gone I suppose.
@@puttyputty123 Car stereo? I don't know where you heard that but Steven mixes for home audio, including multichannel, and usually includes a flat transfer along with high resolution stereo on his remixes of Jethro Tull, XTC, King Crimson, Porcupine Tree, etc. I find his work produces reissues that are clearly superior to my LP copies.
@@patbarr1351 ruclips.net/video/CWG-9qiabsg/видео.html Listen from 18:40 and on. I am sure his stuff sounds fine, but he seems kind stand-offish towards high-end in general in this interview with Alan Parson. Which is odd since he was some sort of representative for the high-end mass in Munich until Alan Parson took over.
Begging your pardon, but my hearing tops off at about 12 kHz, according to the audio tests I have tried on RUclips. I know for younger people it might go 15, 16, up to 20 kHz. With this limitation on hearing, how can one benefit from the extended reproductions of higher frequencies?
First of all we must always remember that subsonics and ultrasonics (below 20hz, above 20khz) greatly influence the audible spectrum, in true life and in playback. Plus there are several reasons that I have explained and scientific demonstrated with the aid of peer-reviewed papers in this video: ruclips.net/video/Btn572ZIC8k/видео.html
Guido I apologise if I came across upset but I really liked your programs, it just seems you are too caught up with format war. I liked your older videos because it was about the music and the best way to get audio quality no matter the format. That is what I loved about your programs. Do you think you can return to the music ?
Thanks for this message. :-) Music is always the foundation of my channel. But the words of Bernie were very inspiring. As you all know I love both formats when correctly done and this video is just a way to explain to you and my self why I am more attracted towards analog media. No wars...there are enough out there!
When I listen to a digital medium, it just feels like I'm listening to the music for fun. When I listen to an analog medium (even if it's recording a cassette with a digital source), the experience feels better and you actually feel like that you can understand the message better listening to the source on an analog medium instead of a digital medium. The overall point is that listening to music on a digital medium is not the same and exciting experience as listening to it on an analog medium.
You and I agree totally and for the exact same reasons (as I explained in my previous comment), but you were able to expand on the explanations far more than I could. And like you, I too have been threatened because I believe analog music ALWAYS sounds better than digital.
True fidelity is lost no matter how music is recorded. The only way to hear music’s true fidelity is by listening to live, unamplified acoustic instruments and voices. Beyond that, everything is a matter of compromise and degradation. Most people do their best within the limits of technology and the tastes and expectations of current consumers. While musician and engineers are artists, they are generally not philanthropists with bottomless budgets creating sonic purity for the ages. They are limited by time, energy, technology and money and do the best they can.
Each to their own, I guess. While I do respect your opinion, I do not agree with it. Most audiophiles are already aware of the limitations of both formats. You talk about compression in digital, but the RIAA equalisation is technica;;y also a form of comnpression applied during the recording / cutting process, which is why you have a phono stage in your preamp to unravel the signal. BTW, as the recent so-called Mofi scandal has demonstrated - no one managed to pick up that many of the so-called all analog pressings were actually made from a 4XDSD master. So much for being able to hear the difference. Having been an all analog person for more than 30 years, I've now been enjoying digital for the past 18 years and to be honest, I don't hear a difference, but I am nearing 70 and the hearing is not what it used to be.. For me, one is not better than the other, rather they can stand shoulder to shoulder as alternative mediums in their own right. You are absolutely correct about one thing - music was born analog. Have a nice day. Cheers.
Maybe I understand that wrong, but isn't the "digital disease" also problem for vinyl records and another analog media? Because I guess most of sound mixing even for analog media is done digitally nowadays, or am I missing something?
"Maybe I understand that wrong, but isn't the "digital disease" also problem for vinyl records and another analog media? " You cant listen to a vinyl record while driving in a car or train or while walking through the city. All these places have a high background noise compared to the living room there you are normally listening vinyl. But as people which bought a mp3 player of have a cd player in their car want to use it to listen to music this music has to be mastered in a different way considering this surrounding noise. You may call that a disease - but many people are very happy to be able to listen to their music also outside of their living room.
It's really interesting I love digital formats, I do also love vinyl, however, to me, a digital (pcm) format is far more consistent, the whole point is to maintain the integrity of the original recording faithfully, remember these formats are purely carriers for the music, and whilst an excellent analogue recording and replay chain can sound wonderful, lower cost digital systems will still be generally more consistent across the board. If I had to choose one physical format it would be CD. The manipulation that is being discussed surely is in the recording stage, the creative process, not the mastering and duplication. I think really it should be more the Analogue Disease, as analogue formats are inherently more open to performance degradation and distortion. As I say I like them all really, even some of those compressed digital formats can sound fantastic, enjoy the music, enjoy the experience and the technologies... We can all enjoy our favourite formats and the discussions that go with them :)
Just a generalization but I have listened to various CDs of originally analog recordings and have found that the album simply sounds more engaging and natural, and definitely smoother. Granted more than a few are from earlier CD releases but regardless there is a noticeable difference. I do find a well recorded and mastered all digital recording can be quite musical but those are more the exception. I have a late 1990's CD for example, of a 1969 album by Petula Clark. ( Memphis ) It was put out by a small U.K. label and thought it was very good sounding until I found the record locally for 1.00 and of course when I did listen to it the end result was that the original analog LP was definitely not only more dynamic but much more enjoyable, the songs simply had more emotion behind them for lack of a better description. I will never stop appreciating great sounding music no matter the format, I even find quite a few pre recorded cassettes are very good as well but certainly glad to have a good sized record collection that provides many hours of pleasurable appreciation for an artist's work.
Wonderful summary! I also had the same observation, that digital looses the lowest signal level. Technologically, it is likely due to the fact that even though digital measuring devices see digital format as king (= they measure their own technology super well AKA digital is perfectly suited for digital). Yet, the bottom end of digital signal level means hitting an extremely nasty brick wall hash, which contaminates everything, even 30dB above it. With analog, the noise floor is not the bottom of the perception, we can hear well below the dB level that measuring gear perceive as the noise floor. (There is a vital difference between DSP and ASP - DSP of gear, and the analog signal processing mechanism of the brain). Also, the brain requires a noise floor as a reference for proper dynamic perception.... and that's where digital takes a hit, as there's no low level reference for the brain to map the information...
Digital does not loose the lowest signal level. This can be easily detected by listening alone - or with analog measuring equipment. The signal can be heard under the noise floor, just as with analog. Dithering solved the low level problem decades ago. The difference is that with digital the analog noise floor is very much lower. People often think they can hear more low level information with analog. This is because analog recordings - particularly vinyl - have to be dynamically compressed. This of course makes the former low level information louder and hence more audible. Is it natural? No, but many people like the effect.
@@nyquist5190 Thank you for your superb reply. I don't think we can make blanket statements about compression & media... the vast majority of (digital) recordings done today have much higher compression compared to vinyl recorded in the 50s-60s, judging media by their worst specimen does not cover the entirety of the selection. With compression in mainstream current digital recordings, their low level details should be astonishing as they all ride at a high level. (And yes, smack of the lips, "you can hear the saliva", those special effects - they are the result of compression on modern audiophile recordings.) Yet, the whisper soft layer is still dead, and what should be a whisper is now a shout... No matter whether digital has compression, or no compression, the finest dynamic shades are missing to my ears. I agree, the low level problem was solved on paper, but paper alone. Not that most people take notice, as most systems do not resolve down to that level. Digital is a good compromise for mainstream systems, and the brochures make the users happy with their choices.
What analog tape recorder can achieve 80 to 90 db of dynamic range? Used to own the Revox B-77 and even biased with Ampex Grandmaster 456, not even close, at 15 ips. So, who is still manufacturing, "Current tape", and what formulations are being utilized to achieve 90db of dynamic range in the analogue domain, and on which machines? You have piqued my curiosity. Albums were never designed, to be a high-end medium. They were designed to be a playback medium for the masses, whose reproducing gear was mediocre at best. The record company executives admitted as much 50 years ago, placing profits ahead of quality, with 30 second pressings while bragging about records pressed with recycled vinyl. Open reel, Tape playback of prerecorded tapes was the medium of the connoisseur. We were lucky to find albums with a dynamic range of 55db. What will be apparent, is tape saturation distortion, from the master, which many find euphonic. Never got rid of my twice played albums, archived via the B 77, or my Revox B 790 TT, because I enjoy the music on them. So, I'm not biased against albums, just pissed that they were the only medium we had back then, and they sucked. Sometimes returning poor pressings more than 5 times, only to find the entire batch of pressings shipped, were flawed. I'm truly amazed by this near religious fervor that record adherents profess, for this rather lousy, inconsistent, medium. An electromechanical, microphonic prone, physically constrained, medium. With proper DAC Topology, employing R2R architecture, reconstructing what was actually recorded, VS the delta-sigma algorithm guessing at what was recorded, the least compromised I/V conversion, of resistor/transformer/resistor, instead of limited op amp techniques, along with shunt regulated power supplies, even CD's 16 bit/44.1 KHz can match or outperform in most aspects, albums, in the criteria of dynamic range, frequency response, surface noise, feedback, inherent distortions, greater than1+%, etc. Remember many albums were pressed when the RIAA equalization standard only reached out to 15KHz and even the mixed down decks were poor performers, along with the limitations of record cutting amplification and how much information could be crammed into the microgroove of the lacquer.
Scott, you are a voice of reason in a sea of chaotic chatter. The points that you make here mostly fall on deaf ears. Thanks for the post. By the way, the only R2R DAC that I am aware of with a shunt regulated power supply is Mike Moffit's Yiggy unit. I am curious as to which player you are referencing?
I have to agree, that seems like a lot of dynamic range! I suppose it could be achieved with noise reduction processing. Another point is that, well, are magnetic tape formulations superior in the 21st century? Seems like few companies make the stuff anymore and I wonder if their R & D budgets allow that sort of progress.
@@johnshepherd708 Thanks John, check out AudioNote Kits, their level 5 unit. I'm running Valve OTLs kits from Transcendent Sound, currently too, for amplification. Post building out Old Colony/Audio Amateur's, Lang Amp, pc boards, utilizing, J Peter Moncrieff and Nelson Pass writings, for Class A MOSFETs with multitiered power supplies. So employing a soldering iron and multimeter doesn't intimidate.
@@patbarr1351 My first R/R was the Teac 2300 SD with Dolby B. Teac claimed an 80 db SN ratio when biased for the Ampex 456 tape which was sold in Berlin CT at a Studio there. I also had a DBX 119, compander, to try in the signal path. But the B 77 was superior sounding with no noise reduction and the Grandmaster tape. I'm not currently aware of any tape manufacturers, just observe exorbitant prices for NOS tape. Post my first undergrad, I enlisted into the Navy's Flight Program and the sheer weight of the Tape was impractical to keep moving. I sold the B77 and tape, so never observed any tape shedding issues. I have been using a Tascam CD recorder to real time burn CD's from the multitude of Libraries around me, for the meager cost of blank CD's and an outboard Audionote Kit DAC.
Its very expencive to get a rig that plays vinyl as good as a hdcd player. A good hdcd player secondhand 50-100$. A good secondhand turntabel with preamp 500$+++
The "problem" is that the majority of people who is buying vinil since... forever... claims that vinil sounds better, but, unfortunately, does not have an analogue rig (Phono Preamp, Turntable and Cartdridge) that can demonstrate what is beeing told by others. Very easily, a well chosen entry level digital rig can surpass an entry level analogue rig.
My digital rig is more expensive than my analogue. My analogue is better. I actually went to analogue because I was so disappointed with digital music. I still listen to both of course, streaming is just so easy and nice to discover music and much that only exist in that domain.
Vinyl could maybe do higher dynamic ranges (as per Keith Johnson) if it has no bass or low-mid at all, and for it to be that loud it would also allow only a very short amount of music on the record. Otherwise it's not practical as the stylus would jump out of the groove and the record would not be playable on most equipment. Regardless, people think louder things sound better, and thus people tend to think more compressed things sound better (to a point), since most of the sound is closer to the maximum volume (ie, it's louder and thus sounds better to our ears), which is one of the reasons why people sometimes prefer vinyl or other analog media, since it naturally compresses the dynamic range. Saturation (distortion) is another reason people sometimes prefer analog, since it adds higher harmonics in a generally pleasing manner. This has the effect of filling in the mid-range and making things (particularly voices) sound both more present and fuller and more connected across the frequency range. Crosstalk is another, since it fills in more interesting imaging information than might have been present in the original recording. Another is the typical roll-off of high frequencies which can make recordings sound warmer, and sometimes a slight increase in resonance of bass frequencies which can make them sound fuller. Even some background noise (hiss, hum, pops, crackles) can sometimes give people a sense of comfort compared to silence, since they know how quiet it will get (no quieter than the noise, obviously), meaning they won't need to strain to hear even quieter things. The noise may also provide a sense of pleasing nostalgia and connectedness to a moving physical medium all on its own. Analog tape and vinyl are good media for COMFORTABLE LISTENING, not because they are more accurate than digital, but precisely because they are LESS accurate than digital. By the way, THERE ARE NO STAIRSTEPS IN DIGITAL AUDIO, EVER. It's just as smooth, rounded, and continuous as entirely analog audio. The notion of "stairsteps" is a fiction that never actually occurs in the audio (due to the low-pass filter), other than in the noise floor itself. The only limitations in a modern digital audio system are that it very quickly rolls off frequencies above the Nyquist frequency (dependent on the sampling frequency), and that it has a digital noise floor (dependent on the bit depth), but above that noise floor and below that frequency it is a 100% perfectly accurate representation of the audio being input into the system, which cannot be said of any physical analog media such as tape or vinyl, which introduce compression, distortion, noise (higher levels than CD let alone 24-bit), and crosstalk (and maybe speed variations as well). Audio engineers frequently use analog tape or vinyl emulations (as well as lots of other vintage analog devices, either real or as plug-in emulations) as "effects" plug-ins to distort and modify the sound (usually in pleasing ways, of course). There is no "digitalize" plug-in since digital recording does not modify or distort the sound (unless it's very low resolution, or low bitrate compression or something). It's easy to record a vinyl record or analog tape onto digital and the result sounds like a vinyl record or analog tape. If you record a digital recording onto vinyl record or analog tape, it sounds like a vinyl record or analog tape. If you want your vinyl record to sound like it was first recorded on analog tape, just record the digital audio onto analog tape then put that on a record. Or just use a "vintage tape" plug-in, since plug-ins are so good these days.
@@johnholmes912 Really? How so? I am 61, and have been enjoying the best sounding music all my adult life. I guess you have never listened to a well mastered and engineered CD. In blind tests ALL listeners preferred CDs. GOOGLE IT! I first purchased Pink Floyd's DSOTM on CD when it came out and it was much better than the original vinyl. The fist all digital CD I purchased was one of RUSH's CD, AAA, which absolutely blew me away! Does vinyl sound better? No. This is so subjective, and that is why blind tests are so important. Is it warmer? to some, and I can see this give tube amps and early transistor amps. Vinyl limits dynamic range and frequency. tape is better for dynamic range. Try not to be so closed minded and biased and ou will enjoy the listening experience much better. Great CAPS by the way...
Very good video, and thank you for being thorough and objective as well as your opinions. Are CDs engineered or able to be engineered (digital files) to be mixed and handled the same as vinyl? You mentioned 'loudness wars, brick wall, levels pushed up' so there's a loss of dynamics in a song, but what if they DIDN'T do that? When a re-mastering of an older album is done and issued on both vinyl and CD, is that CD mastered additionally? Say like Analog Productions re-mastering and re-issued albums, who also have SACDs issued? I wonder if you could digitize an album and get the exact same essence and feel? What if they made digital files/DSD/PCM audio-engineered the same as an album?
Thanks! That is the point of my recent video: ruclips.net/video/x5MlbvTJZog/видео.html and also further test here ruclips.net/video/iLOVOCHm4d4/видео.html
Yeah the fidelity of CD's is as good or better than all the analogue formats. If a recording, mixing or mastering engineer wants it to be that way and take advantage of the CD format fantastic results are possible. Problem is, those same people have since the mid-1990's opted to do the opposite in a lot of cases and we the listeners have missed out.
Great video and a LOT of great bits of info, thought and conjecture. At my studio, we do analog (16 track) and digital (PCM and Merging DSD) recording. One thing, you do NOT have to convert to PCM (or DXD) to run EQ, mixing or Effects with DSD. Instead, you do it all in the analog domain on the input side. Then you are simply left with straight cuts done in DSD with no conversion. Obviously, non of this is trivial. Also, just like all analog gear is not the same, DSD gear is not at all created equal. When I first went from other very good and expensive digital gear over to Merging (a Swiss company now owned by Neumann), i realized I could never go back to what is otherwise great pro digital gear. However, you also need high rail to rail voltage analog gear (at least 100 Volts) and good, clean power to take full advantage of what high end DSD can deliver compared to all but the very, very highest pure analog, which no other studio I have been to actually has or uses due to cost of acquisition, operation and maintenance. Short of that, DSD is not a limiting factor in your recording or playback chain, while much of the popular “high quality” analog and digital gear is.
Do you realize that at the point of contact with the record by the stylus, the temperature is around 500 degrees, thus destroying the vinyl a bit every time you play it. Second, the RIAA phono pre-amp equalizes the signal, which means coloration and that the media has limits that need to be overcome. Yes, direct to disc is better, but the physics of vinyl remains. So, keep moving up towards digital that is at high, high sample rate and be happy that it will stay the same FOREVER.
I have noticed that when i crank the volume up with digital music, it hurts my ears from how harsh and bright the sound gets. Doesn’t happen with analog records, and I’ve tested my limits with those.
For me CD's are good, however the music indistry has abuse that format without shame and still doing it for the digital format. What I am taking about is the unfamous loudness war. When analysed those recordings their wave form has no dynamic rage. I heard that CD have quit this process but the damages are done. One record that comes in mind is Cher Believe the cd is awful when compare to the LP release. Also like you explained the Digital compression is limited to what we hear. However, I believe also that we are not only hearing the sound but we also will feel frequencies that we can't hear and sometime that is why listening a vinyl record the listenig will affect us physicly in a good way when digital won't.
I like to describe it in photographic terms where no matter how good a digital photo is, and they are very good now, they will always look like a photo of a photo to me. When I look at a chrome slide on a light table through a loop, I feel as though it's almost possible to physically walk into that photo. There is a presence, and as you said "engagement", that is lacking in the digital, as though it's a copy of a copy. Well done presentation also, it's difficult to describe tangible concepts that evoke subtle emotions but you did it in a superb way, thank you.
Totaly correct ..................many comments on digital versus analog are mental masturbation just like tube versus solid state..........with digital it is the difference between processed food versus real food ! How perfectly ingenious it is processed it will never be like the real thing even when the real analog world is not witout it flaws or limitaionds you can still engage with it !
@@nyquist5190 It's certainly "end of story" to the brilliant marketing team who dreamed up that mantra but to the silly physicist or engineer, it's barely the beginning.
I personally enjoy the use/sound of analog more. That isn't to say amazing things haven't been made purely digital, but it really is night and day sometimes at how well analog can sound on it's own vs heavily processing to try and get a similar result. More work and sometimes sucks the fun out of things. I love soft synths, but I'll probably use analog now 95% of the time. Good vid
The -14 LUFS streaming standard is a huge win for dynamic range....perhaps it could be a bit higher, but it is pretty reasonable. Now Cd's are still very compressed, but who even still has a CD player? I do not. Glad folks are going to bat for high DR music!
@@ThisMichaelBrown this was something I've not heard of, I'll look into that, thankyou. My music collection is entirely ripped cd's, and I am intending to get a cd transport eventually, once the rest of my system is complete-ish
@@shreddherring I just sent an email to some folks....vinyl videos on RUclips are a decent place to get some protection from the loudness wars....vinyl masters were a bit more gentle so ive read, due to overloud masters causing the needle to bounce off the groove? And / or maybe cause they are bit older chronologically. But I have measured some nice high DR RUclipss of vinyl....lots of mastering now shoots for -14 LUFS for streaming and a significantly louder one for CD's......loud masters are turned down on streaming services so there is no reward for very loud mixes. PS....older Cd's may have some kinder mastering as well....will post a link that measures lots of recordings DR's
The Bernie Grundman comment pricked my ears too - I've never heard of that before so thanks for putting us onto it. I'll watch Michael's (45rpm) video as well. Cheers, Ian
The longevity of the medium was never mentioned. I've been collecting vinyl records and cassette tapes since the 1970s and I still enjoy them to this day. However, not a single one of these sound as good now as they did when they came out of the package 30 or 40 years ago. Needles, tape heads, oxidation, and time despite the care we can give them will do their damage over time. I've also been collecting CDs since the late 1980s and except for a few exceptions (due to scratches on the CD surface) music on those CDs sound just as good as the day I bought them. While I won't ever get rid of my analog music it would be a hard sell to convince me that my analog music is going to sound great in the year 2050 compared to something digital that you can play over and over with no degradation over time.
I have no problems at all with a lot of records, which I own 40 years+ and "loved to death". My turntables have been alway very good ones, and I took always great care of them... They still mostly sound better to their digital counterpart. I own a PS Audio DMP/DSD Combo, which is great in its own way...
Most of my records are over 60 years old. I have cleaned and looked after them and have played them on top quality equipment, They still sound brand new. Actually, when i update to a new cartridge, i hear things on the records, that i never noticed before.
@@janedoe6350 I gave an excessive answer to Your question, but ist is erased now (why Guido?) - maybe because I mentioned brand names? Here the very short version: Once after buying a new one, and once before playing an old one.
Great video! In my opinion, however, it boils down to this: "What's better - chocolate or vanilla?" Simply put, it's a moot point. Enjoy your music, folks!
What about all those MOFI fanboys who found out that that they are in fact listening to a digital file of the " Original Analogue Mastertape. Suddenly all the real analogue sound was sivved away from their beloved overpriced plastic leaving no nuggets well only fools gold perhaps ....moral of the story..... You create your own reality in your head Or for us Audiofools ,to slightly misquote my favourite film Casablanca as Bogie said ""Ears looking at you kid ". Yep we've all been shafted once again by the big boys.
Hi Guido could you share your thought on the technics su r1000 which digitize the analog signal of vinyl without being class D, does this technique makes any difference. Your knowledge would be highly appreciated because i'am thinking of buying this amp.
IMHO it sounds like a terrible idea to digitize an analog signal. Might as well listen to digital. Class D isn't actually digital. That is a common misconception.
I liked your zeroing in on engagement, and I would add connectivity to our emotional centers. I have more records than CDs by maybe 10 + fold so I do known what I like on a recorded presentation. Records do sound smoother, more emotional and changes my mood faster than listening to CDs or ripped CDs from an external hard drive. But digital is WAY EASIER to enjoy a variety of music, so being basically lazy, I listening to my ripped music 98% of the time. But when I want something special I’ll throw a record on and sit back and get immersed in the glory of analog.
I am not entirely convinced about this. "Engagement" and "connectivity to our emotional centers"? Are these properties of yourself - as a listener - or are you suggesting that they are objective properties of analog reproduction? If the latter, why do I and so many others find digital reproduction so much better? If the former, how does it differ from simple personal preference? I usually prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla. However, I am not suggesting that vanilla ice cream is plagued by "vanilla disease". Nor am I suggesting that engagement is a property of chocolate or that is has greater connectivity to my tasting centers.
@@nyquist5190 me, I’m not astute enough to go beyond what puts a smile on my face. In the end it’s the ease of use that wins for me, being able to sit in my chair, and switch tunes at will, helps me get to where I want to be. Sometimes I only want a part of a song or part of an album, then inspiration dictates I need something different to push to the mood I’m seeking at that particular time. Great thing about ripped CDs you can jump at will to whatever your heart desires.
As stated we are talking audiophile AAA releases mainly but hey there are also amazing digitally sourced vinyl records and I ain't talking MoFi since I have only 6 or 7. I also tape high res digital on tape. The passage on an analog medium makes it more pleasing and engaging. Pure analog is even better OR, as I said, little touched digital like DVD-audios. People don't even pay attention to what I am really saying here and other videos. Digital has great potential but it is constantly raped!
@@anadialog I do pay attention. I meant that there are out there such great digital titles that counting them out is crazy or downright stupid. I see your point which to some degree I share. AAA well done, 👍. DDD, ADD, AAD... well done 👍
Yes I experience this if I record a vinyl record that I know is AAA at 24/192 with no editing or enhancements at all and I then compare my recording against the same album downloaded from hdtracks in 24/192 the one I recorded has a few pops maybe, but it is a also a much more dynamic version of the album. My recordings have more shimmer on cymbals and decay in a natural way that just sounds closer to live music. Digital is good for the masses, but analog is for the lover who not only listens to music, but know the true beauty of live music! Analog recordings are as close as we will ever get to being at our favorite concerts or being in the studio with an artist!
Digital is objectively more accurate in every respect. Your comparisons are apples and oranges, since you do not know if the digital version was mastered differently. My challenge is to digitally record the output of a vinyl record, then compare the two in a double blind test. You will not be able to tell which is which. This is evidence that digital is sonically transparent.
@@RobertR3750 First of all you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree that digital is superior in every way. It they both have merit. Strengths and weaknesses exist in both. Currently today mastering of digital recordings largely have the tendency of the loudness wars and it can clearly be seen if you look at the frequency in certain applications. The music will look like a centerline that runs across the screen and each channel will hit the upper and low limits or be right next to those limits. God help me i have forgotten the name of this today. This record technique kills your dynamic range. (The volume of the highest and lowest sounds) Digital has a higher dynamic range if the recording engineer understands this and cares, but it is now common practice to record digital in this loudness wars way because it does jump out at people who listen to bad pop music! What i buy most are old vinyl records because they were mastered with this loudness equalization. If I buy new I look for all analog mastering. I know nothing of you analog experience so I won't say you just haven't heard good analog music! Maybe you have and just don't hear what I experience in my system.
@@toddcrookham515 “you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree that digital is superior in every way.” It is not my “opinion” that digital is superior in every way. It’s objective fact. One need only look at the numbers for frequency response (both with respect to flatness and extension), S/N ratio and dynamic range, distortion, and channel separation to know this. Couple this with lack of wear, convenience, immunity to rumble/vibrations, wow and flutter, etc. and it’s no contest. “Strengths and weaknesses exist in both. Currently today mastering of digital recordings largely have the tendency of the loudness wars” Digital is stronger in every way. Mastering is NOT a “weakness” of digital, it’s a weakness of RECORDING PRACTICES, which are NOT the same thing as digital technology. “This record technique kills your dynamic range.” Exactly. RECORDING TECHNIQUE, not digital technology. “Digital has a higher dynamic range if the recording engineer understands this and cares” Again, you are critiquing RECORDING ENGINEERS, NOT digital. I have CDs with STEPENDOUSLY wide dynamic range that vinyl can’t get ANYWHERE close to. “I know nothing of you analog experience so I won't say you just haven't heard good analog music!” You indeed know nothing about my experience. I have heard vinyl on turntables costing tens of thousands of dollars, part of a system costing hundreds of thousands. I have heard 15 ips analog reel to reel. Digital is superior.
@@RobertR3750 I don't fault digital recordings because they are digital! I fault them for the lazy, poor methods employed today. Second you are using numbers and statistics as evidence of what you suggest and on paper you are absolutely right and if done correctly if is wonderful, but we don't listen to statistics. We listen to music and we hear with our ears and the human ear is analog as is our brain! There is a difference between analog and digital and analog done correctly on great equipment just has a special quality. I have high end digital equipment and love it very much, but I grew up on reel to reel and vinyl records. You're entitled to your love of numbers. I chased high end digital for years and then I heard vinyl again after 30 years and it has a sound and presence that most digital recordings seem to lack. Every time I play vinyl for people that never heard it before or only remember the worst, they come away from the experience with a desire for more! Have a great weekend. Enjoy some music and the last days of warm weather!
@@toddcrookham515 “I don't fault digital recordings because they are digital! I fault them for the lazy, poor methods employed today.” That’s _the point_. You are faulting recording engineers, not digital technology. “on paper you are absolutely right and if done correctly if is wonderful” Thank you, I know it is right. “There is a difference between analog and digital” Yes, analog is inferior. “and analog done correctly on great equipment just has a special quality.” That’s a subjective statement. It doesn’t change the fact that digital reproduces more accurately, which is what high fidelity means. “Have a great weekend. Enjoy some music and the last days of warm weather!” Thanks, you too.
@MF Nickster well, that depends on what “ signal” we are speaking on. So it’s more about a digital recording that sounds like what we heard when it was live.
@MF Nickster maybe when people think of “Digital” they think of the recording technique. The higher the sample rate and the better recording equipment and techniques will produce a great sound
@MF Nickster so what do you think about Michael framers take on listening from an analog source versus a digital source? Personally, they do sound different or what about the baker from Sony music to masters in super audio but makes a different mix for the CD and a different mix for the vinyl recording?
I’ve been collecting vinyl records since 1970. So that’s what I’m most used to. It took many years to be able to buy a decent stereo system, which has evolved and improved. With that being said, I like both vinyls and CDs. Which sounds better? I dunno? In some ways the records sound better, in other ways the CD does.
Can i ask you a question jmad627? Do you "enjoy" your music more.... now you have a decent system? Please understand... i'm not asking about the improvement is sound quality!... i'm asking about the pleasure it brings.... did you enjoy it as much when it was Lo-Fi .... as you do now it's Hi -Fi ????
@@janedoe6350 this is a good question you ask, and I do understand your point. And the answer is, yes. I do enjoy it as much now as I did listening on a crappy plastic record player in 1970. The sound, no doubt is a huge improvement, but yes I enjoy it just the same.
@@janedoe6350 I'm in the same boat. A better, high-end system has allowed me to enjoy my music at a higher level. It's just so much more immersive -- easier to get lost in now. :) Happy listening!
I think digital sound is a Frankenstein, another kind of creature that tries to persuade us it’s human. As in the famous movie, there are people that sympathize with it(him). And in the analog reproduction of digital sound, it eventually sounds good, as long as we make an effort to rescue remnants of original sound in our well-trained memory. It’s something like fake an orgasm.
The CD format (44.1Khz, 16bit) is perfectly capable of reproducing audio with VERY high fidelity. Yes, that means that if you digitally record that vinyl that you think sounds better than digital, and you play it back, you get the same "warm" vinyl sound that you deemed better than the CD. What does this mean? Digital is objectively superior and more "HiFi". However, analog can subjectively sound better just because of different mastering and also specific characteristics of the audio-playing processing which introduces sound variations that can be perceived as "warm". Same goes for tube vs digital amp. TLDR:Digital is objectively superior, analog can be subjectively perceived as sounding better.
@@karl-erikmoberg5668 Jitter and its effects can be measured (how else would we know of its existence?). Except for some horrible high-end products, jitter has been a complete non-issue for decades.
It's the best comment here, I challenged my friend who's only listen to vinyl, we recorded his vinyl to digital using 24/192 sampling, A B 'd it and my friend could not tell the difference, including some friends who listened to the same. Digital done right will always be closer to the original master tape. You have to compromise the original recording to cut vinyl. Due to the physical limitations. See this link, honestly said. ruclips.net/video/rc2LA9kC-4U/видео.html
People who don't believe, try this record your LP audio to PC (can use Audacity or other software) without any effect editing, you still able to hear the warm character of analog sounds from your PC audio... After you mess around with it convert to others format, that purity started to change.
I am a Zookeeper in Atlanta and I regularly feed the Hippos day old Sausages so they have a taste of their home. I put strings on the sausages and swing them around the Hippos they get so Mad at me and Scream but it's an obsession sometimes the hippos try and Break out of their Cages but I keep swinging those hotdogs in Wide Circles over their heads. Luckily my Boss doesn't know I do this or my Coworkers
Digital is like a contemporary standard sportscar, it is convenient, it has electronic aids, you don't actually need to know how to drive a sportscar, it will be decently quick anyway. Analog is like a racecar. Not easy to set up but if done correctly it will outperform any standard car by leaps.
Before I could diagnose the "digital disease," I re-calibrated my own assumptions. First, I auditioned two types of amplifiers: a modern Class D and a 1980s era Class A/B. I chose the pure analogue A/B which sounds so much more alive than the not-so-analogue class D. Then it came down to sources: streaming, CD, and vinyl. I cued up the same recording of a work in each format. I listened to each source for some time, and then switched back and forth among them. I even had a friend switch among the sources without my knowing which. Let's get streaming out of the way first. Whether Sonos or BluOS, the result was the same -- everything sounds the same. The music reclines in a strange acoustic that puts the sound under a coat of lacquer, not something I'd want to listen through in order to listen to. CDs and vinyl are more realistic and clearer sounding than streaming. The acoustic is faithful to the recording without having the life sucked out of it. The "winner" between the two comes down not to "better or worse," or "diseased or healthy," but just to what difference between the two one prefers, as long as each is well-mastered. I invariably prefer to listen to analogue vinyl. It has the often cited traits of warmth, presence, and immediacy. When I listen to it, my mind is far less likely to wander. It coalesces around me this way: analogue vinyl is the story; digital CDs report the story. I listen to CDs. I experience records.
Hi. To remaster a CD to sound like a vinyl is not so difficult. 1. Rip the CD in wav files at 44.1/ 16b with a good ripper 2. Apply a low pass filter at 15000-16000 Hz with 12 or 24 dB / octave (it depends of how the CD is mastered) 3. Apply a high pass filter at 30-40 Hz with 32 - 48 dB / octave 4. Mix the stereo track in mono for all frequencies below 250Hz 5. Apply a de-esser if necessary (apply very carefully !!!!) 6. Compress the dynamics to have peaks -3 dB and RMS -13 -14 dB.... 7. If you want, you can add white noise at -65 -70 dB and clicks and pops... 8. Export the file in any lossless format you want...
@@anadialog Yes... Now all the vinyls are made from digital master recordings, but, due to the mechanical limitations of vinyls, there are different masterings for digital HiRes recording, for CD and for vinyls. In digital you can make almost what you want but in vinyl there are a lot of limitations. Yes, in theory, a turntable cartridge can read up to 50 kHz, or even more but no cutter can cut these frequencies on a vinyl because of overheating. That's why the master is limited to less than 18-20 kHz by using a low-pass filter. . Also the sibilances must be reduced as much as possible.... The low frequencies must be reduced and mix in mono, to limit the vertical component of the needle movement.... If not, the needle jumps.... or even all the record is compromised. Compression must be higher due to the noise and clicks and pops.... But maybe all these limitations make the warmth the vinyl sound... Many times, when I don't like how a cd sounds, I rip the cd and remaster it myself.... vinyl or digital like.... depends of the kind of music....
Is there a sequel or follow up planned to The Loudness Wars? I’ve always been a bit of a Boy Scout & prepping my bugout bag for when new audiophile hostilities breakout?
No one really knows what's better: Analog or Digital. Unless you have the very best CD playback equipment there is, and no one knows exactly just what that may be, how can you say analog is better than digital? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "Analog sounds better than the very small tiny % of digital equipment out there that I've been able to hear? That would be far more accurate. Corrected. Digital could be second to none. I haven't heard it all either. The "sameness" over everything that the guy you showed said and you agreed upon, is "electronic signature". Most peoples digital playback does have audible electronic signature. Like there is a subtle or not so subtle electronic palor over the sounds The signal has to pass through so many different things. When LP playing, the output of the cartridge simply goes through some tonearm wires. Analog has a big advantage in it being a simpler signal path. But just like the best solid state amp designers have conquered audible electronic signature, you can do the same with CD playback. It is not the digital section itself that causes the electronicy sound, its all the electronic circuitry that the signal has to go through. That's what he's hearing... In my mods I have tamed that to the point you cannot hear electronic signature anymore. I did not achieve it by lessening the highs or any frequencies. For something that literally has to take the music apart and then put it back together again, I think digital is pretty remarkable.
Before watching today’s segment I watched the entire RUclips video with Bernie Grundman, Chad Kassem et al. I don’t think that people are going to hate you Guido over this presentation because you are correct in everything that you said. A simple digital transfer like Mapleshade records sounds wonderful on CDs but they are in the minority with their minimalist approach to recording. Paul McGowan is simply trying to push the envelope of technology to its current limits and I must admit one or two of his Octave releases sound really beautiful as long as there are less than four instruments playing at one time. Any more than that causes a congestion in the overall sound to my ears. I have an extensive CD Collection as well as Close to 800 cherry picked vinyl records which to me are a pain in the butt as I have to get up every 15 to 20 minutes to either flip the record or remove it and place another record on the turntable. So for me, I reach for higher quality CD recordings in PCM or stream music. Perhaps I’m lazy but more than likely it’s just easier for most of my listening especially when I am doing chores or cooking at home. Give me an Analog Productions vinyl record any day of the week and there are other fantastic labels that produce high-quality vinyl recordings. You cannot pry them out of my hands even after my death. So in the end analysis of my perception of analog versus digital there is no question in my mind that analog is the better medium because of all of the reasons you have stated.
@@dobermanguy9437 what clicks and pops? Do you ever listen to live music in a real jazz club or auditorium? if you do do you enjoy the excitement despite all of the noise around you? If you don’t you’re missing something so clicks and pops on occasion may be annoying but they do not change the fact that I’m an alarm recording still sounds the best to most peoples years.
Uh. I don't want to get yelled at but this is all opinion based on a feeling and most of what you say is proven in audio labs to be untrue. CDs do not have less frequencies they can reproduce. The noise floor is so much less than analog that analog can not compete. The usable dynamic range is greater. It is just better in every way. If you get a bad digital recording it is not because it is digital. It is just a bad recording. Digital can be just as smooth and mellow if recorded properly. Analog is inferior in every way.
I would never yell to anyone when they explain their point of view. So welcome! I can only add that I love both types with a clear preference for analog media. Explore the channel and you will see what this video is all about. Start here: ruclips.net/video/fYOR23B6O3k/видео.htmlsi=7ko709XdZHcJ_M-y
The soft hill of frequency cutoff is just just surface noise though, it has nothing to do with the music. If distortion is fine then you can just throw out the whole O. Johnsons speech as he talks about imperfections and distortions in digital specs also. The ears do lie though. Or are you saying its infallible? Grundmans disease speech is a nice story, thats all. He has told it many times before by the way, its not off the cuff. Too bad that he is just completely and factually wrong about digital in many areas though, as he has also claimed that simply 1 to 1 copying of a file degrades the sound audibly which is just ridiculous and even a simple google search will tell you so.
I am on the vinyl side. If I am in a critical listening mood and I have a vinyl copy of what I want to listen to, I will choose the vinyl in most instances. The vinyl on good recordings in good condition always sounds better (than streaming, CD, SACD via I2S) particularly in the areas of timbre and ambience retrieval and the recreation of the recording space. These observations are based on a comparison of an analog system that is less than 1/3 the cost of the digital equipment.
Yeah no can't agree with any of this, the only reason vinyl ever sounds any better is because of the mastering. I've tested this myself by recording digital needle drops and then a/bing with the original vinyl they sound identical. Also I shockingly recorded the needle drops at only 44.1 khz 16 bit oh noes!
I believe analogue does sound better, to me, I grew up with it... I don't analyse audio like I used to when I first became hifi aware in the 70s... now my hearing is compromised by age and tinnitus... my experience of music now is purely emotional and nostalgic. I know one thing, I'm baffled by how good my system sounds while listening to your comparison tests... especially when you did DSOTM... after your video I played my reissue DSOTM on my turntable, then played it through spotify... obviously the vinyl wins... for me... like I said, records are a comforting connection to the past... all that said... nothing will compare to getting my first copy of DSOTM in 73, rushing home and being blown away by the stereo separation, the dynamics and of course the amazing art I was hearing for the first time... something that is denied to younger generations bought up with iPods... Keep up the good work, the best presented audiophile channel on the Tube.. My opinion.
I'll tell you something, I live with both formats and I can't stop appreciating the benefits of the 0-1, much more versatile, less wear, etc., etc., but when I want to listen to music with another personality, the Revox is the answer . I hope you're still alive (ha ha ha)
When someone says “vinyl demonstrates 5Hz-100kHz”, he/she must specify that music has NO such frequencies (because of a mastering for vinyl, and because of a disk base). These are artifacts. And I’m afraid vinyl starts artefactings deeply prior 5-100. On a neighbor channel they demonstrated a difference between stock and Yeti power cables. “Audiophile” power cord sounded more flat. This is what artifacts (in this case EMI) makes to a sound, “improving” it.
But what is to say about most if not all music post 1980 have all been mastered digitally and then pressed to vinyl? Wouldn’t that be just degrading it to a lesser medium vs the straight tape to vinyl?
I'm not sure how it does, given that live recordings need to go through microphones, preamps and other signal processing gear before they ever hit tape or A/D convertors. You can make excellent live recordings using analogue or digital.
Curious if the masses of audiophiles will ever be able to honestly say ever that they actually heard a truly secured signal chain of reproduction that spans THE ACTUAL AUDIBLE FREQUENCY RANGE in Digital or Analog? Why is that standard that is actually possible not required by even one manufacturer of components or source material? Why?
Great video, great knowledge, thanks! A note about the video setting: Just wanted to make you aware of this tiny little light reflection in the background above your right shoulder. It constantly draws my attention to it and makes it harder for me to focus on your face while you are explaining things. Removing it would help a lot in my opinion. But really, your content opened my eyes... and ears. Thank you!
My ears are almost 67 years old and far from perfect. However, in a quiet environment, they will pick up little nuances and subtleties on analog media (whether vinyl or magnetic tape or radio) that are next to impossible to detect on any digital media. It's almost like those nuances and subtleties are missing; in reality, they're simply hiding. The digital signal isn't "clean" enough to unhide or reveal them. A lot of that difference has to do with the type(s) of wave patterns that are produced by the media used. And I would say 90% of people couldn't detect the difference in actual sound, but will detect the 'warmth' or 'comfort' in the way the analog music makes them feel versus digital sound.
Try a decent digital player and not some junk. Youll be amazed. Thats the problem of digital. Its assumed that its good in ever privé range which offcourse it isnt
What is going to happen when a ballpark $1000.00 non audio jewelry perfected digital player hands a $25,000.00 plus digital player it's walking papers? Digital has been done wrong and audio listeners sadly fell for the allure of jewelry.
Bradford Lewis.... My ears are also getting on.... I find i can listen to analogue for far longer than i can digital before feeling fatigued. Not so 35 years ago. But 35 years ago... i could easily hear a sign wave at 18kHz.... now my hearing rolls off at 10kHz on a good day. Although i can no longer hear a sign wave at 12kHz.. if i boost the sound of a recording +3dB at 15kHz... i clearly hear the difference. Why??? because i'm changing the way the air moves and reflects around the room and that has an impact on the frequencies that are within my hearing range... I find, as i age.... i'm starting to use a "21 band Graphic EQ (studio quality )" far more often for home listening... but better still.... i am happier listening to cassette and AM radio far more than i was 20 years ago.... because now.... these formats fit my range so much better. So Bradford, i totally understand where you are coming from. I bought a copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" in the Summer of 1973. I've been listening to that album on a whole range of both Hi-Fi and Lo-Fi equipment, on a regular basis for almost 50 years. I know it like the back of my hand.... Now I can just sit with the sheet music and hear everything, note-for-note, inside my head as i follow the score.... even when there is no music playing and i'm sitting in total science. And in my mind..... it sound perfect.... and it still blows me away! So Bradford...... stick with your analogue... you know whats in, and what is not... in that mix, right?
Of course you ears are picking up some "nuances and subtleties" from vynil and tape. Anyone can, it's called "distortions, colorations, compressions and noise" not in the original recording.
@@joemarz2264 you will never eliminate distortions and colourations because of he constraints of speakers. In the real world the sounds from a 64 piece orchestra come from many points in space.... not just two points in front of you like in stereo hi-fi.... so why try? The whole idea of home music reproduction is "ENTERTAINMENT" not perfection. If you are chasing perfection you will always be disappointed... however, the Hi-Fi industry will love you.... because you will always be buying new equipment trying to satisfy the currently unachievable. How joyous it is to find contentment and satisfaction from ageing sub-perfect equipment.
I really do enjoy your channel but I have 2 major complaints here about what you said about digital (keep in mind I agree with you that analog does sound better and is better). When you talked about analog summing vs digital summing Dan Worral made some very good points about the difference and dedicated a very good video to this. I would watch his video. However the second one is the statement about the recording being at 192khz and then once you "mess with it" in editing and in the mix that it's hard to keep the 192khz recording. This right here is a very big lie you told. I think what you meant to say the sound is not the same anymore because it now has eq, compression, editing, etc. Adjusting eq in a DAW does NOT change sample rate. Also people record with eq, hpf, compressors going into tape and converters all the time. I can argue that no matter whether you record analog or digital if you are not in the room while it's being recorded then you are not hearing the original. The signal chain either way colors it or degrades it like you have said. Also it has already been proven time and time again that recording higher than 24bit/48khz has zero benefit in what you hear back. Modern day production and Dan Worral go over this very well. Last comment I want to make is that you seem to be speaking more from the consumer side and the final product but not of making the product. I am not sure your experience with recording, pre-production, production, editing, mixing, or any audio engineer experience but it does seem like you are lacking in that perspective and makes me feel that you have very little experience in that realm. I just recorded an album on a beautiful Daking Console for a band here out of Orlando, Florida. I would be very happy to talk to you about my process, gear I used, studio we rented, challenges, difficulties of today ad an audio engineer, modern day musicians and so on. I think you will have a very good take away from out conversation if you chose to reach to me. I hope to hear back.
I will always be the analog guy but CDs/SACDs sound great also and it is converted to an analog signal from the players anyways .. Eye in The Sky /Alan Parsons Project was recorded on analog tape but mixed and finished on a digital tape master back in 1981 and then put on vinyl and tape and CDs for consumers . It all goes back and forth now depending on what format it will be transferred to and has been since the 80s ..
This is a great video. I like how you explain analog versus digital. I have rebuilt my vinyl collection and now I'm dreaming of a cassette deck or reel-to-reel. In my youth, I had both. Should have kept them!
@@continentalgin I did already - have R2R and turntable and cassette. Put a lot effort to revitalize all fuzzy and dirty casstette tapes and reels and LPs. Because it is main issue. And I am even surprised that specially last days in cassette recordings which I make from FM with my old "special" radio I hear so wide and "juicy" sopranos which in digital CDs I already had forgotten they existed. In digital they are like standarized. I am also in my 70ties but it remainds me soprano sounds of my young days,. They are at very low level comparing to general music but are surprisingly audiible just as then . I do ot use EQ except original Loudness Correction in tube amplifier which corrects in low range only.
If you have a good system, you can definitely hear the difference between analog and digital on the same recording. For example, the Beatles stereo vs the Beatles mono catalog. The Beatles stereo catalog, released on Parlophone in 2012 (?) had a dead, lifeless unengaging sound. It was made from a digital source. The mono catalog, released a few years later, was an AAA recording and had a rich, organic, foot-tapping sound.
Excellent video…considering the recent MOFI debacle, most audiophiles can’t hear the difference between digital and analog. If this is true, it’s also true that “most” audiophiles don’t have a dedicated listening room. Most audiophiles don’t have their speakers 6ft pulled out into their room. With that in mind, what I also observe is that folks claiming analog is “better” also have a $10k+ invested in their phono preamp alone, not counting $5k+ turntable and $4k+ stylus. Comparison are made to a $5500 R2R DAC and $500 CD transport. It doesn’t add up. I have an Audio Resaerch PH8 pre (circa 2010) with a $2k turntable and a $1500 stylus cartridge. Is it better then my Holo Audio spring KTE 3? Yes! But would a $15k DaC sound better then my analog set up? Maybe.
Thaaank you so much for youre video, it made things so much more clearer for me, especially "avoiding manipulating too much sound through digital", Incredible work and vibe 😀⭐🙏🏾
On aspect that hasn't been mentioned in most of these discussions about digital vs vinyl is the quality of the vinyl itself. In the 80's American record labels generally used recycled vinyl for their releases. I have even purchased albums that had such poor quality control that pieces of label not properly removed before reuse of the vinyl were sticking out of the record. The alternative was to purchase Japanese imports which were all virgin vinyl and generally more dynamically mastered than the U.S. version. There were also various other imports and audiophile recordings available that were superior and exhibited less surface noise. I prefer the sound of the vinyl to the CD versions generally if I'm listening through my quality gear at home or through headphones on the same equipment. Streaming is for riding the bike and listening through Bluetooth headphones.
![ANA[DIA]LOG](http://yt3.ggpht.com/50CpmGNilS8aoMlarZVhI_GxRDoZdbj4ZgwCMZXg-Rq2PrEvCytlE6RVyLUrNY-rwE_sAlZ1Zw=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
“Audiophiles don’t use their equipment to listen to music. Audiophiles use your music to listen to their equipment”. Alan Parsons
That phrase has long been debunked not belonging to Parsons. In any case as I said in similar comments, the truth, in most cases including my self is both! But my final goal is actually to enjoy music and so I do al ost every day.
"I didn't say all that crap!" (Confucius)
how good the recording sounds will all goes down on how well the albuum was recorded, mixed and mastererd and not the format along. I have plenty of album that i both owned on vinyl and CD as well as digital file. and vinyl does not always sounds better.
It depends on the recording
Exactly
Agreed, I hear dramatic differences when streaming various songs from different masters at different resolutions. Maybe its because I have a good tube dac and very dynamic and transparent speakers (Forte IVs). It's no different than how many re-released albums can sound quite different. In fact, some of the worst sounding recordings I've heard are poorly mastered old albums. Saying all digital sounds the same is nonesense. Some Hi res digital and DSD clearly sounds better than cd, casset, and many old albums. Listen to many songs on greatest hits compilations compared to the original releases and whether listening in analog or digital the better mastering on the original is apparent.
Vinyl may not always sound better but it will be more satisfying and engaging because it has the ultrasonic frequencies emitted by musical instruments. CDs do not have those frequencies so are vastly inferior even if they do sound very clear.
No, that's not true. Because doing the best possible work, a god-like mastering on both mediums will clearly show how superior digital is. You're confusing things. Just because an incapable recording engineer can botch the job, doesn't mean there is no difference between the mediums.
all analog advantages i heard here were subjective so i think it makes sense what you are saying, its not only the medium, its the recording and the listener with his ear and idiologies
Sound is a very subjective thing and every format out there has a unique sonic signature. Starting from the microphone, the end result is a distortion of the live event - the limitation comes from the source. Audiophiles (and I consider myself one with this disease) can easily get obsessed with sound and become less engaged with the music. To me, an inspiring musical event necessarily transcends the media for which it is played on. I’ve listened to many high end analog/systems that sound wonderful, but won’t get into a debate about which format sounds better. Science can easily explain the differences between different formats, but in the end struggles to explain those differences in sonic signatures (measurements do not tell the whole story) that are audible to some people and rely too much on dogma that agrees with their own world view. Just enjoy the music!
I've been an audio enthusiast since the mid 70s. What's interesting to me is my own experience is the exact opposite of yours. I like the sound of digital formats waaaaay more than the way vinyl sounds. I still enjoy spinning vinyl, mainly for nostalgic reasons. Also, on a side note, I know that you enjoy a variety of types of music. In the pro audio classical/orchestral recording and mastering world, this idea that analog is better in any sort of definitive way does not exist.
Sounds like you probably listen to a lot of classical? If so, I'm not surprised. The first and largest market for CD's at their arrival was for classical music aficionados due to the quiet passages and dynamic range.
The important is that we can discuss and respect each other like a big family, thanks for that! I am glad that my audience isn't only analog-only buffs because I am not, although I do have a preference and I think it was time to state that.
@@asplmn Hey, those vintage Telarc CDs were amazing! I had one with famous movie themes that I loved! Those were all digital, too -- meaning DDD, really amazing sound quality. Anyway, I do enjoy classical music; Beethoven's Lenore Overture (No. 3) is one of my favorites, along with Elgar's Incidental Music from the Starlight Express. Although, I actually don't listen to classical much compared to pop/rock and ambient.
@@anadialog Like you, my friend, I listen to both formats. I also enjoy your channel very much and find your topics very interesting. The video you did on DSD recordings, where you made your own DSD dub of your r2r copy of Saxophone Colossus is one of my favorites. In my opinion, that DSD dub you made walks all over any vinyl I've ever heard. It was also better than any of the free DSD samples you can find around the internet. (Just wanted to add, I've been listening to vinyl since I was a little boy.....we're talking the mid to late 60s.)
@@batman.darthmaul Yes, the vintage Telarcs are fantastic. Of the Bach cantatas I have the Telefunken LP version, and the CD release. The CD is superb, yet the LP has better sound in every respect. Although, I have to add that my LP setup is quite far out, not what one typically hears.
Bernie Grundman is not stupid.
He is sitting in a meeting with Chad that is a employer and will give him projects. And Chad is a analog guy.
So he is having his sell pitch indirectly.
You are right. A saw another video with Bernie, he told that electronic music and hip-hop sounds very good 😊. And i think he is right 😄.
Guido have you ever heard the saying "Music lovers buy their equipment to listen to their music ; audiophiles buy their music to listen to their equipment ". Which one are you? Time to get over it, enough DRAMA. Yesterday's news....just enjoy because your hearing will degrade over time too like all of us . Stick to reviewing stereo components.
I unsubscribed because of this video; this really peaked high on the BS meter
"Better" is subjective! So lets get something completely clear... music is about "Entertainment". I like Vinyl and tape because i (i'm speaking for myself now), i find it more "Entertaining"! For me... music HAS to be on vinyl even though the music recorded within the last 20 years has a digital source.
Vinyl has a better community than CD and streaming. It has bigger and better artwork and it even smells better. Then there is the ritual of cleaning, caring and preparing.
I'm emotionally attached to my vinyl as i grew up with it.
Does it sound better? Who cares... it's more "entertaining" and gives me great pleasure.
So say what you want... use all the science you want... show me all the studies you want... vinyl is better... always has been... always will be.
Because for me... it is more "ENTERTAINING!"
Absolutely 💯 I think a well mastered CD 💿 blows vinyl out of the water far as sound goes, but being a child of the 80's I still LIKE vinyl better. Yes I said it!!
@@life5161 Some of the music i "LOVE"... is not that well recorded... mean while, some of the music i think is "really good" is fantastically recorded. Do i stop listening to the stuff i love because the quality is not top notch... NO!
Moreover, i'm usually content UNTILL i hear something better.... so sometimes it's better to live with what you have and just enjoy it.
A time will come when all the tape masters have disintegrated... and our vinyl will be the closest thing to the original. Who knows what future tech will bring... Maybe somewhere down the line we will find a better way of playing back vinyl... cos like they say... Necessity is the mother of invention
very good point!
Very nice articulated argument! I agree completely!!!
"I do find a well recorded and mastered all digital recording can be quite musical but those are more the exception."- Once again folks conflate the issue. If you don't like the way modern recordings are produced that's one thing but it's not the medium. You conflate issues here.
The classical music recording industry had largely abandoned analog recording in the beginning of the 1980s already - despite the fact that digital recording was back then an enormously expensive and cumbersome process. They cared about sound quality - the faithfulness to the original signal coming from the microphones. It was only later when audiophiles came up with the idea that analog technology with accumulating layers of distorion and noise is somehow sacred and pure. Nothing could be further from truth, of course.
There are different types of listeners and also comes genre and specific esthetics. I guess when it comes to the faithfulness of recording, digital should win, but audio gear and its artifacts can in a way be used as a musica instrument as well, and then analog is mostly more forgiving in use.
I do not expect that recording industry abandoned analog recording for the reason of caring of sound quality. It could be a personal dream of managers of companies but let's face it - thay rarely are making own private dreams come true in their bizeses. They think about company profits.
Analog was very expensive in production, no many customers could afford to buy a decent gear. it was big , required massive furniture, It was hunted by noise and dirt and many faults, .Only few procent of customers had enough desire and experience to keep them in shape. Customers were loosing hope.
And then comes new idea - relatively cheap player with two small motors and one very small pickup that doesn't quickly wear like turntable and do not require expensive new pickup. .It's size is part of LP player. Wear is not an issue. dirt is not affecting reading - easy to clean by anyone with tissue at hand . Digital solution and CD data storage already developed in PC. They saw a a great window of opportunity in tens of milions costomers who would like to accept replacement their analog with digital for one reason - noiseless reproduction. It was allowing to elevate sopranos and bass as much as only personally desired, to overhelming levels. . For 99.9% listeners this change was convincing. As we know analog techonology set limits to elevate sopranos and bass with hum and hiss. That was freedeom of timbre manipulation that had won market .
@@Mikexception You might want to check your facts. Classical recordings were done digitally several years before first cd players and PCs hit the market. Among first storage mediums for digital audio data were Sony U-matic video tapes. Computer disks capable of storing even one cds worth of audio data were unheard of at that time.
@@nyquist5190 . Yes you are right - I was refering to popular consumer market. But even if the registration in studios was made in digital recorders probably those machines were less troublesome, smaller thus cheaper in maintenance then high speed very expensive studio analog tape recorders. I do not remember that Sony classic digital recordings would be known for better quality than analog but cannot a opposite too. .
@@Mikexception And how do you know this? Just a moment ago you were incorrect about timeline, too.
Through the years I've done many digital vs. analog comparisons and I came to the conclusion that high resolution digital (24/96) is a way more honest recording media than ANY analog media. In fact all analog recording systems introduce euphonic distortions and compressions, which add that special character to the sound that some people enjoy so much.
Yeah he said that. But he's saying it's a good thing. Sounding better isn't the same as accuracy.
" I came to the conclusion that high resolution digital (24/96) is a way more honest recording media than ANY analog media."
Changing sound into 1's and 0's can never be "honest" like analog.
@@Vebinz Empirical evidence does not support your view, unfortunately. You can make an audibly indistinguishable copy of an analog original with digital. You cannot make it with analog. And that's it.
@Denis Accuracy is not a subjective quality like "naturalness, fidelity, reproducing timbral decay for example". In sound reproduction it means that the output is audibly as identical to the input as possible. This is why digital is more accurate than analog. Preferences do not count here.
@@nyquist5190
Oh, you again.
I prefer analog sound, BUT the idea of tracking error make me thing that audio cassettes are the right compromise sometimes.
10:25 “simply the ears don’t lie” and “I do not have a bias”. Well I think you don’t fully understand how we hear and how cognitive bias work. Ears lie all the time, and bias is not an option, even you pretend to throw them away.
You like more analogue music reproduction than digital, fine, me too by the way. But there is no single technical aspect of vinyl better than digital. Not a single one. Your arguments many times in the vídeo enter the real of magic and esoteric to justify vinyl is better when it takes to sound quality.
You can enjoy more vinyl than cds. That’s Perfect. But please don’t justify a personal choice on anti science arguments… as just one example, I think you mention Digital 44khz files are cut above 22khz where analogue end of high frecuency is not that abrupt… really? That’s a serious argument? You think your brain cares what is above 20khz (usualy 14-16khz our age). That’s anti science. Sorry if I misanderstood your argument, that’s what I thought you said.
3:43 This a straw man argument. It cannot be used in favor of analog media because it's has nothing to do with a limitation nor a deficiency of the digital signal processing and recording itself, but with an abuse of the technology by incompetent or indolent engineers. Well processed and recorded digital audio is vastly superior to analog in preserving the dynamic range of the original sound. The proof is that not all digital recordings adolece of the problems caused by the so called "loudness war".
Guido, I like u and respect u. But now you are wrong. First because dynamic range is not the only and most important parameter of measuring quality. And second because vinyl has pops and clicks and 65 dB dynamic range. Pops and clicks are NOT part of live concerts and original master tapes so... they are not part of music at all. I do not want to hear anything beside the original studio master. Softness on vinyl is simply distortion. Although there are very high quality LP rips in 32bit/192kHz format or DSD I like so much and some sounds better than CD, but 99% it is not the case. SACD has 120 dB+ dynamic range with huge soundstage without pops and clicks. Pops and clicks and looking spinning discs are the requirement of old and deaf people due to nostalgia. No more. Believe me. I like analog sound, also like tape and vinyl... but they are far from the best. Only original master tapes are but after 1981 (Abba - Visitors) you will get digital master tapes only. So...what you mention is only dream but no reality. I like you and your channel apart from that. :)
Takk!
Vinyl is not a solution to the loudness war. My original CD copy of Poison "Open Up and Say Ahhh" has a DR of 16dB. I got the 2018 reissue 30th Anniversary red vinyl version and it sounds flat and lifeless, and the deadwax shows it was likely based off a newer digital remaster of the album.
The real problem is customers are not demanding better. 90% listen through systems that don't expose the differences and they couldn't care less.
Yep, I think Steve Wilson said he mixes it up to sound good on a car stereo at best. Kind of scary, but somewhat understandable since target audience mostly listen with airpods I suppose. Homes where most homes had two speakers in the living room is long gone I suppose.
I agree, MASTERING is the bottom issue. Analog does get a better treatment in most cases and the format is more forgiving.
@@puttyputty123 Car stereo? I don't know where you heard that but Steven mixes for home audio, including multichannel, and usually includes a flat transfer along with high resolution stereo on his remixes of Jethro Tull, XTC, King Crimson, Porcupine Tree, etc. I find his work produces reissues that are clearly superior to my LP copies.
@@patbarr1351 ruclips.net/video/CWG-9qiabsg/видео.html Listen from 18:40 and on. I am sure his stuff sounds fine, but he seems kind stand-offish towards high-end in general in this interview with Alan Parson. Which is odd since he was some sort of representative for the high-end mass in Munich until Alan Parson took over.
Begging your pardon, but my hearing tops off at about 12 kHz, according to the audio tests I have tried on RUclips. I know for younger people it might go 15, 16, up to 20 kHz. With this limitation on hearing, how can one benefit from the extended reproductions of higher frequencies?
First of all we must always remember that subsonics and ultrasonics (below 20hz, above 20khz) greatly influence the audible spectrum, in true life and in playback. Plus there are several reasons that I have explained and scientific demonstrated with the aid of peer-reviewed papers in this video: ruclips.net/video/Btn572ZIC8k/видео.html
i agree completely,ive always loved more the records but i didnt know why now i know thanks Guido for the good explanation!
Guido I apologise if I came across upset but I really liked your programs, it just seems you are too caught up with format war. I liked your older videos because it was about the music and the best way to get audio quality no matter the format. That is what I loved about your programs. Do you think you can return to the music ?
Thanks for this message. :-) Music is always the foundation of my channel. But the words of Bernie were very inspiring. As you all know I love both formats when correctly done and this video is just a way to explain to you and my self why I am more attracted towards analog media. No wars...there are enough out there!
When I listen to a digital medium, it just feels like I'm listening to the music for fun. When I listen to an analog medium (even if it's recording a cassette with a digital source), the experience feels better and you actually feel like that you can understand the message better listening to the source on an analog medium instead of a digital medium. The overall point is that listening to music on a digital medium is not the same and exciting experience as listening to it on an analog medium.
The truth is most people like listening to music with the sound they prefer. Nothing to do with analog vs digital per se.
YES !
@spinningthevinyl1017 I agree with you. This is called placebo.
"feelings" are not objective reality.
Marketing can do this to a person.
Where can I buy that t-shirt in the video???
New version here: anadialog-gear.creator-spring.com/listing/new-music-is-born-analog?product=373
@@anadialog Awesome, thanks.
You and I agree totally and for the exact same reasons (as I explained in my previous comment), but you were able to expand on the explanations far more than I could. And like you, I too have been threatened because I believe analog music ALWAYS sounds better than digital.
True fidelity is lost no matter how music is recorded. The only way to hear music’s true fidelity is by listening to live, unamplified acoustic instruments and voices. Beyond that, everything is a matter of compromise and degradation. Most people do their best within the limits of technology and the tastes and expectations of current consumers. While musician and engineers are artists, they are generally not philanthropists with bottomless budgets creating sonic purity for the ages. They are limited by time, energy, technology and money and do the best they can.
Each to their own, I guess. While I do respect your opinion, I do not agree with it. Most audiophiles are already aware of the limitations of both formats.
You talk about compression in digital, but the RIAA equalisation is technica;;y also a form of comnpression applied during the recording / cutting process, which is why you have a phono stage in your preamp to unravel the signal.
BTW, as the recent so-called Mofi scandal has demonstrated - no one managed to pick up that many of the so-called all analog pressings were actually made from a 4XDSD master. So much for being able to hear the difference.
Having been an all analog person for more than 30 years, I've now been enjoying digital for the past 18 years and to be honest, I don't hear a difference, but I am nearing 70 and the hearing is not what it used to be..
For me, one is not better than the other, rather they can stand shoulder to shoulder as alternative mediums in their own right.
You are absolutely correct about one thing - music was born analog.
Have a nice day. Cheers.
I agree with you about the RIAA eq standard. It's the worst thing that has ever happened to music playback on any format.
Maybe I understand that wrong, but isn't the "digital disease" also problem for vinyl records and another analog media? Because I guess most of sound mixing even for analog media is done digitally nowadays, or am I missing something?
Indeed!
"Maybe I understand that wrong, but isn't the "digital disease" also problem for vinyl records and another analog media? "
You cant listen to a vinyl record while driving in a car or train or while walking through the city.
All these places have a high background noise compared to the living room there you are normally listening vinyl.
But as people which bought a mp3 player of have a cd player in their car want to use it to listen to music this music has to be mastered in a different way considering this surrounding noise.
You may call that a disease - but many people are very happy to be able to listen to their music also outside of their living room.
It's really interesting I love digital formats, I do also love vinyl, however, to me, a digital (pcm) format is far more consistent, the whole point is to maintain the integrity of the original recording faithfully, remember these formats are purely carriers for the music, and whilst an excellent analogue recording and replay chain can sound wonderful, lower cost digital systems will still be generally more consistent across the board. If I had to choose one physical format it would be CD. The manipulation that is being discussed surely is in the recording stage, the creative process, not the mastering and duplication. I think really it should be more the Analogue Disease, as analogue formats are inherently more open to performance degradation and distortion. As I say I like them all really, even some of those compressed digital formats can sound fantastic, enjoy the music, enjoy the experience and the technologies... We can all enjoy our favourite formats and the discussions that go with them :)
Very very interesting! I do agree that dynamically analog sounds better to me!
Our ears were designed to listen to analog music.
@@big_fat_hen yeah click some pops
Great stuff, as a drummer analog is much preferred as cymbals sounding better and have more sustain, one could even pick up if its zildjian or paiste
had a great time watching. Thank you! Also, merch is awesome! Add a link to Tube next time ;)
Just a generalization but I have listened to various CDs of originally analog recordings and have found that the album simply sounds more engaging and natural, and definitely smoother. Granted more than a few are from earlier CD releases but regardless there is a noticeable difference. I do find a well recorded and mastered all digital recording can be quite musical but those are more the exception.
I have a late 1990's CD for example, of a 1969 album by Petula Clark. ( Memphis ) It was put out by a small U.K. label and thought it was very good sounding until I found the record locally for 1.00 and of course when I did listen to it the end result was that the original analog LP was definitely not only more dynamic but much more enjoyable, the songs simply had more emotion behind them for lack of a better description.
I will never stop appreciating great sounding music no matter the format, I even find quite a few pre recorded cassettes are very good as well but certainly glad to have a good sized record collection that provides many hours of pleasurable appreciation for an artist's work.
sigh....
That CD you have was probably mastered with compression, which would make it sound less emotional.
Where do I get one of the shirt you’re wearing in this video
The T-shirt I am wearing comes from Studio Gibli Japan! While MY T-shirts are below any video or here: anadialog-gear.creator-spring.com/
Wonderful summary! I also had the same observation, that digital looses the lowest signal level. Technologically, it is likely due to the fact that even though digital measuring devices see digital format as king (= they measure their own technology super well AKA digital is perfectly suited for digital). Yet, the bottom end of digital signal level means hitting an extremely nasty brick wall hash, which contaminates everything, even 30dB above it.
With analog, the noise floor is not the bottom of the perception, we can hear well below the dB level that measuring gear perceive as the noise floor. (There is a vital difference between DSP and ASP - DSP of gear, and the analog signal processing mechanism of the brain). Also, the brain requires a noise floor as a reference for proper dynamic perception.... and that's where digital takes a hit, as there's no low level reference for the brain to map the information...
Digital does not loose the lowest signal level. This can be easily detected by listening alone - or with analog measuring equipment. The signal can be heard under the noise floor, just as with analog. Dithering solved the low level problem decades ago. The difference is that with digital the analog noise floor is very much lower. People often think they can hear more low level information with analog. This is because analog recordings - particularly vinyl - have to be dynamically compressed. This of course makes the former low level information louder and hence more audible. Is it natural? No, but many people like the effect.
@@nyquist5190 Thank you for your superb reply. I don't think we can make blanket statements about compression & media... the vast majority of (digital) recordings done today have much higher compression compared to vinyl recorded in the 50s-60s, judging media by their worst specimen does not cover the entirety of the selection.
With compression in mainstream current digital recordings, their low level details should be astonishing as they all ride at a high level. (And yes, smack of the lips, "you can hear the saliva", those special effects - they are the result of compression on modern audiophile recordings.) Yet, the whisper soft layer is still dead, and what should be a whisper is now a shout...
No matter whether digital has compression, or no compression, the finest dynamic shades are missing to my ears. I agree, the low level problem was solved on paper, but paper alone. Not that most people take notice, as most systems do not resolve down to that level. Digital is a good compromise for mainstream systems, and the brochures make the users happy with their choices.
@@realworldaudio As already stated, digital’s superior low level capability is easy to hear by listening alone. No measurements or brochures needed.
Don't they press vinyl from DSD digital files? If so, how can it sound better if cd and vinyl come from the same source?
They dont.
The People Just imaginaire it.
Because of the ritual
What analog tape recorder can achieve 80 to 90 db of dynamic range? Used to own the Revox B-77 and even biased with Ampex Grandmaster 456, not even close, at 15 ips. So, who is still manufacturing, "Current tape", and what formulations are being utilized to achieve 90db of dynamic range in the analogue domain, and on which machines? You have piqued my curiosity.
Albums were never designed, to be a high-end medium. They were designed to be a playback medium for the masses, whose reproducing gear was mediocre at best. The record company executives admitted as much 50 years ago, placing profits ahead of quality, with 30 second pressings while bragging about records pressed with recycled vinyl. Open reel, Tape playback of prerecorded tapes was the medium of the connoisseur.
We were lucky to find albums with a dynamic range of 55db. What will be apparent, is tape saturation distortion, from the master, which many find euphonic. Never got rid of my twice played albums, archived via the B 77, or my Revox B 790 TT, because I enjoy the music on them. So, I'm not biased against albums, just pissed that they were the only medium we had back then, and they sucked. Sometimes returning poor pressings more than 5 times, only to find the entire batch of pressings shipped, were flawed. I'm truly amazed by this near religious fervor that record adherents profess, for this rather lousy, inconsistent, medium. An electromechanical, microphonic prone, physically constrained, medium.
With proper DAC Topology, employing R2R architecture, reconstructing what was actually recorded, VS the delta-sigma algorithm guessing at what was recorded, the least compromised I/V conversion, of resistor/transformer/resistor, instead of limited op amp techniques, along with shunt regulated power supplies, even CD's 16 bit/44.1 KHz can match or outperform in most aspects, albums, in the criteria of dynamic range, frequency response, surface noise, feedback, inherent distortions, greater than1+%, etc.
Remember many albums were pressed when the RIAA equalization standard only reached out to 15KHz and even the mixed down decks were poor performers, along with the limitations of record cutting amplification and how much information could be crammed into the microgroove of the lacquer.
Scott, you are a voice of reason in a sea of chaotic chatter. The points that you make here mostly fall on deaf ears. Thanks for the post. By the way, the only R2R DAC that I am aware of with a shunt regulated power supply is Mike Moffit's Yiggy unit. I am curious as to which player you are referencing?
I have to agree, that seems like a lot of dynamic range! I suppose it could be achieved with noise reduction processing. Another point is that, well, are magnetic tape formulations superior in the 21st century? Seems like few companies make the stuff anymore and I wonder if their R & D budgets allow that sort of progress.
@@johnshepherd708 Thanks John, check out AudioNote Kits, their level 5 unit. I'm running Valve OTLs kits from Transcendent Sound, currently too, for amplification. Post building out Old Colony/Audio Amateur's, Lang Amp, pc boards, utilizing, J Peter Moncrieff and Nelson Pass writings, for Class A MOSFETs with multitiered power supplies. So employing a soldering iron and multimeter doesn't intimidate.
@@patbarr1351 My first R/R was the Teac 2300 SD with Dolby B. Teac claimed an 80 db SN ratio when biased for the Ampex 456 tape which was sold in Berlin CT at a Studio there. I also had a DBX 119, compander, to try in the signal path. But the B 77 was superior sounding with no noise reduction and the Grandmaster tape. I'm not currently aware of any tape manufacturers, just observe exorbitant prices for NOS tape. Post my first undergrad, I enlisted into the Navy's Flight Program and the sheer weight of the Tape was impractical to keep moving. I sold the B77 and tape, so never observed any tape shedding issues. I have been using a Tascam CD recorder to real time burn CD's from the multitude of Libraries around me, for the meager cost of blank CD's and an outboard Audionote Kit DAC.
Do u think Telarc vinyls in the old days sounded better than their SACD re-releases?
Its very expencive to get a rig that plays vinyl as good as a hdcd player. A good hdcd player secondhand 50-100$. A good secondhand turntabel with preamp 500$+++
Analog sounds alive.
Yes i liked my own comment
The "problem" is that the majority of people who is buying vinil since... forever... claims that vinil sounds better, but, unfortunately, does not have an analogue rig (Phono Preamp, Turntable and Cartdridge) that can demonstrate what is beeing told by others. Very easily, a well chosen entry level digital rig can surpass an entry level analogue rig.
Agree!
"Thats Sardo, no mister, accent on the do."
not in my experience: even the best digital sounds flat and lifeless
My digital rig is more expensive than my analogue. My analogue is better. I actually went to analogue because I was so disappointed with digital music. I still listen to both of course, streaming is just so easy and nice to discover music and much that only exist in that domain.
@@johnholmes912 Something is wrong with your ears then.
Vinyl could maybe do higher dynamic ranges (as per Keith Johnson) if it has no bass or low-mid at all, and for it to be that loud it would also allow only a very short amount of music on the record. Otherwise it's not practical as the stylus would jump out of the groove and the record would not be playable on most equipment.
Regardless, people think louder things sound better, and thus people tend to think more compressed things sound better (to a point), since most of the sound is closer to the maximum volume (ie, it's louder and thus sounds better to our ears), which is one of the reasons why people sometimes prefer vinyl or other analog media, since it naturally compresses the dynamic range.
Saturation (distortion) is another reason people sometimes prefer analog, since it adds higher harmonics in a generally pleasing manner. This has the effect of filling in the mid-range and making things (particularly voices) sound both more present and fuller and more connected across the frequency range.
Crosstalk is another, since it fills in more interesting imaging information than might have been present in the original recording.
Another is the typical roll-off of high frequencies which can make recordings sound warmer, and sometimes a slight increase in resonance of bass frequencies which can make them sound fuller.
Even some background noise (hiss, hum, pops, crackles) can sometimes give people a sense of comfort compared to silence, since they know how quiet it will get (no quieter than the noise, obviously), meaning they won't need to strain to hear even quieter things. The noise may also provide a sense of pleasing nostalgia and connectedness to a moving physical medium all on its own.
Analog tape and vinyl are good media for COMFORTABLE LISTENING, not because they are more accurate than digital, but precisely because they are LESS accurate than digital.
By the way, THERE ARE NO STAIRSTEPS IN DIGITAL AUDIO, EVER. It's just as smooth, rounded, and continuous as entirely analog audio. The notion of "stairsteps" is a fiction that never actually occurs in the audio (due to the low-pass filter), other than in the noise floor itself. The only limitations in a modern digital audio system are that it very quickly rolls off frequencies above the Nyquist frequency (dependent on the sampling frequency), and that it has a digital noise floor (dependent on the bit depth), but above that noise floor and below that frequency it is a 100% perfectly accurate representation of the audio being input into the system, which cannot be said of any physical analog media such as tape or vinyl, which introduce compression, distortion, noise (higher levels than CD let alone 24-bit), and crosstalk (and maybe speed variations as well).
Audio engineers frequently use analog tape or vinyl emulations (as well as lots of other vintage analog devices, either real or as plug-in emulations) as "effects" plug-ins to distort and modify the sound (usually in pleasing ways, of course). There is no "digitalize" plug-in since digital recording does not modify or distort the sound (unless it's very low resolution, or low bitrate compression or something). It's easy to record a vinyl record or analog tape onto digital and the result sounds like a vinyl record or analog tape. If you record a digital recording onto vinyl record or analog tape, it sounds like a vinyl record or analog tape. If you want your vinyl record to sound like it was first recorded on analog tape, just record the digital audio onto analog tape then put that on a record. Or just use a "vintage tape" plug-in, since plug-ins are so good these days.
That VERY REAL Processing sound that Bernie Grundman refers to is "COMPLETELY FIXABLE"
I'm 60, I would never come back to analog, I can't stand wow, cracks, rumble, surface noise, on and on 🙂
Only because of crappy loudness wars!!! The best mastered CD will always sound better than analogue PERIOD!!!
CD SOUNDS MUCH WORSE THAN ANALOGUE
the most convincing argument is for sure the PERIOD in capital letters followed by 3 exclamation marks 😂
@@joerglemann I sarcastic idiots coming out of the woodwork...
@@johnholmes912 Really? How so? I am 61, and have been enjoying the best sounding music all my adult life. I guess you have never listened to a well mastered and engineered CD. In blind tests ALL listeners preferred CDs. GOOGLE IT! I first purchased Pink Floyd's DSOTM on CD when it came out and it was much better than the original vinyl. The fist all digital CD I purchased was one of RUSH's CD, AAA, which absolutely blew me away! Does vinyl sound better? No. This is so subjective, and that is why blind tests are so important. Is it warmer? to some, and I can see this give tube amps and early transistor amps. Vinyl limits dynamic range and frequency. tape is better for dynamic range. Try not to be so closed minded and biased and ou will enjoy the listening experience much better. Great CAPS by the way...
Absolutely.
But it has to beplayed be a hi end setup
No crap
Very good video, and thank you for being thorough and objective as well as your opinions. Are CDs engineered or able to be engineered (digital files) to be mixed and handled the same as vinyl? You mentioned 'loudness wars, brick wall, levels pushed up' so there's a loss of dynamics in a song, but what if they DIDN'T do that? When a re-mastering of an older album is done and issued on both vinyl and CD, is that CD mastered additionally? Say like Analog Productions re-mastering and re-issued albums, who also have SACDs issued? I wonder if you could digitize an album and get the exact same essence and feel? What if they made digital files/DSD/PCM audio-engineered the same as an album?
Thanks! That is the point of my recent video: ruclips.net/video/x5MlbvTJZog/видео.html and also further test here ruclips.net/video/iLOVOCHm4d4/видео.html
Yeah the fidelity of CD's is as good or better than all the analogue formats. If a recording, mixing or mastering engineer wants it to be that way and take advantage of the CD format fantastic results are possible. Problem is, those same people have since the mid-1990's opted to do the opposite in a lot of cases and we the listeners have missed out.
Great video and a LOT of great bits of info, thought and conjecture. At my studio, we do analog (16 track) and digital (PCM and Merging DSD) recording. One thing, you do NOT have to convert to PCM (or DXD) to run EQ, mixing or Effects with DSD. Instead, you do it all in the analog domain on the input side. Then you are simply left with straight cuts done in DSD with no conversion. Obviously, non of this is trivial.
Also, just like all analog gear is not the same, DSD gear is not at all created equal. When I first went from other very good and expensive digital gear over to Merging (a Swiss company now owned by Neumann), i realized I could never go back to what is otherwise great pro digital gear. However, you also need high rail to rail voltage analog gear (at least 100 Volts) and good, clean power to take full advantage of what high end DSD can deliver compared to all but the very, very highest pure analog, which no other studio I have been to actually has or uses due to cost of acquisition, operation and maintenance. Short of that, DSD is not a limiting factor in your recording or playback chain, while much of the popular “high quality” analog and digital gear is.
Thanks for sharing that!
Very interesting comment; thank you for sharing.
Do you realize that at the point of contact with the record by the stylus, the temperature is around 500 degrees, thus destroying the vinyl a bit every time you play it. Second, the RIAA phono pre-amp equalizes the signal, which means coloration and that the media has limits that need to be overcome. Yes, direct to disc is better, but the physics of vinyl remains. So, keep moving up towards digital that is at high, high sample rate and be happy that it will stay the same FOREVER.
Analog is the sound. Digital is a representation of the sound.
LMAO analog is the analogy of the sound
I have noticed that when i crank the volume up with digital music, it hurts my ears from how harsh and bright the sound gets. Doesn’t happen with analog records, and I’ve tested my limits with those.
That's because your digital system sucks
For me CD's are good, however the music indistry has abuse that format without shame and still doing it for the digital format. What I am taking about is the unfamous loudness war. When analysed those recordings their wave form has no dynamic rage. I heard that CD have quit this process but the damages are done. One record that comes in mind is Cher Believe the cd is awful when compare to the LP release. Also like you explained the Digital compression is limited to what we hear. However, I believe also that we are not only hearing the sound but we also will feel frequencies that we can't hear and sometime that is why listening a vinyl record the listenig will affect us physicly in a good way when digital won't.
For the newbie, could you please do a video defining common audio terms.
Good idea!
I like to describe it in photographic terms where no matter how good a digital photo is, and they are very good now, they will always look like a photo of a photo to me. When I look at a chrome slide on a light table through a loop, I feel as though it's almost possible to physically walk into that photo. There is a presence, and as you said "engagement", that is lacking in the digital, as though it's a copy of a copy. Well done presentation also, it's difficult to describe tangible concepts that evoke subtle emotions but you did it in a superb way, thank you.
Very interesting and apt comparison!
Not a very good comparison I am afraid. You can easily make an audibly indistinguishable digital copy of the analog original. End of story, really.
Totaly correct ..................many comments on digital versus analog are mental masturbation just like tube versus solid state..........with digital it is the difference between processed food versus real food ! How perfectly ingenious it is processed it will never be like the real thing even when the real analog world is not witout it flaws or limitaionds you can still engage with it !
@@nyquist5190 It's certainly "end of story" to the brilliant marketing team who dreamed up that mantra but to the silly physicist or engineer, it's barely the beginning.
@@asbcustom What a pity then that current empirical evidence fully supports my view.
I personally enjoy the use/sound of analog more. That isn't to say amazing things haven't been made purely digital, but it really is night and day sometimes at how well analog can sound on it's own vs heavily processing to try and get a similar result. More work and sometimes sucks the fun out of things. I love soft synths, but I'll probably use analog now 95% of the time. Good vid
I think it would behove all us to start growing a vocal movement against the loudness wars. It shortchanges everybody, and helps no-one
The -14 LUFS streaming standard is a huge win for dynamic range....perhaps it could be a bit higher, but it is pretty reasonable. Now Cd's are still very compressed, but who even still has a CD player? I do not. Glad folks are going to bat for high DR music!
@@ThisMichaelBrown this was something I've not heard of, I'll look into that, thankyou. My music collection is entirely ripped cd's, and I am intending to get a cd transport eventually, once the rest of my system is complete-ish
@@shreddherring I just sent an email to some folks....vinyl videos on RUclips are a decent place to get some protection from the loudness wars....vinyl masters were a bit more gentle so ive read, due to overloud masters causing the needle to bounce off the groove? And / or maybe cause they are bit older chronologically. But I have measured some nice high DR RUclipss of vinyl....lots of mastering now shoots for -14 LUFS for streaming and a significantly louder one for CD's......loud masters are turned down on streaming services so there is no reward for very loud mixes. PS....older Cd's may have some kinder mastering as well....will post a link that measures lots of recordings DR's
The Bernie Grundman comment pricked my ears too - I've never heard of that before so thanks for putting us onto it. I'll watch Michael's (45rpm) video as well. Cheers, Ian
The longevity of the medium was never mentioned. I've been collecting vinyl records and cassette tapes since the 1970s and I still enjoy them to this day. However, not a single one of these sound as good now as they did when they came out of the package 30 or 40 years ago. Needles, tape heads, oxidation, and time despite the care we can give them will do their damage over time. I've also been collecting CDs since the late 1980s and except for a few exceptions (due to scratches on the CD surface) music on those CDs sound just as good as the day I bought them. While I won't ever get rid of my analog music it would be a hard sell to convince me that my analog music is going to sound great in the year 2050 compared to something digital that you can play over and over with no degradation over time.
I have no problems at all with a lot of records, which I own 40 years+ and "loved to death". My turntables have been alway very good ones, and I took always great care of them... They still mostly sound better to their digital counterpart. I own a PS Audio DMP/DSD Combo, which is great in its own way...
How often do you deep clean your records?
Most of my records are over 60 years old. I have cleaned and looked after them and have played them on top quality equipment, They still sound brand new. Actually, when i update to a new cartridge, i hear things on the records, that i never noticed before.
@@janedoe6350 I gave an excessive answer to Your question, but ist is erased now (why Guido?) - maybe because I mentioned brand names? Here the very short version: Once after buying a new one, and once before playing an old one.
Great video! In my opinion, however, it boils down to this: "What's better - chocolate or vanilla?" Simply put, it's a moot point. Enjoy your music, folks!
What about all those MOFI fanboys who found out that that they are in fact listening to a digital file of the " Original Analogue Mastertape. Suddenly all the real analogue sound was sivved away from their beloved overpriced plastic
leaving no nuggets well only fools gold perhaps ....moral of the story.....
You create your own reality in your head
Or for us Audiofools ,to slightly misquote my favourite film Casablanca as Bogie said ""Ears looking at you kid ".
Yep we've all been shafted once again by the big boys.
Hi Guido could you share your thought on the technics su r1000 which digitize the analog signal of vinyl without being class D, does this technique makes any difference.
Your knowledge would be highly appreciated because i'am thinking of buying this amp.
IMHO it sounds like a terrible idea to digitize an analog signal. Might as well listen to digital. Class D isn't actually digital. That is a common misconception.
@@anadialog 🤔thank you very much
I liked your zeroing in on engagement, and I would add connectivity to our emotional centers. I have more records than CDs by maybe 10 + fold so I do known what I like on a recorded presentation. Records do sound smoother, more emotional and changes my mood faster than listening to CDs or ripped CDs from an external hard drive. But digital is WAY EASIER to enjoy a variety of music, so being basically lazy, I listening to my ripped music 98% of the time. But when I want something special I’ll throw a record on and sit back and get immersed in the glory of analog.
I am not entirely convinced about this. "Engagement" and "connectivity to our emotional centers"? Are these properties of yourself - as a listener - or are you suggesting that they are objective properties of analog reproduction? If the latter, why do I and so many others find digital reproduction so much better? If the former, how does it differ from simple personal preference? I usually prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla. However, I am not suggesting that vanilla ice cream is plagued by "vanilla disease". Nor am I suggesting that engagement is a property of chocolate or that is has greater connectivity to my tasting centers.
@@nyquist5190 me, I’m not astute enough to go beyond what puts a smile on my face. In the end it’s the ease of use that wins for me, being able to sit in my chair, and switch tunes at will, helps me get to where I want to be. Sometimes I only want a part of a song or part of an album, then inspiration dictates I need something different to push to the mood I’m seeking at that particular time. Great thing about ripped CDs you can jump at will to whatever your heart desires.
Most of the vinyl records which you praise so much come from a digital source. Is that what makes vinyl a better choice?
As stated we are talking audiophile AAA releases mainly but hey there are also amazing digitally sourced vinyl records and I ain't talking MoFi since I have only 6 or 7. I also tape high res digital on tape. The passage on an analog medium makes it more pleasing and engaging. Pure analog is even better OR, as I said, little touched digital like DVD-audios. People don't even pay attention to what I am really saying here and other videos. Digital has great potential but it is constantly raped!
@@anadialog I do pay attention. I meant that there are out there such great digital titles that counting them out is crazy or downright stupid.
I see your point which to some degree I share. AAA well done, 👍.
DDD, ADD, AAD... well done 👍
Yes I experience this if I record a vinyl record that I know is AAA at 24/192 with no editing or enhancements at all and I then compare my recording against the same album downloaded from hdtracks in 24/192 the one I recorded has a few pops maybe, but it is a also a much more dynamic version of the album. My recordings have more shimmer on cymbals and decay in a natural way that just sounds closer to live music. Digital is good for the masses, but analog is for the lover who not only listens to music, but know the true beauty of live music! Analog recordings are as close as we will ever get to being at our favorite concerts or being in the studio with an artist!
Digital is objectively more accurate in every respect. Your comparisons are apples and oranges, since you do not know if the digital version was mastered differently. My challenge is to digitally record the output of a vinyl record, then compare the two in a double blind test. You will not be able to tell which is which. This is evidence that digital is sonically transparent.
@@RobertR3750 First of all you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree that digital is superior in every way. It they both have merit. Strengths and weaknesses exist in both. Currently today mastering of digital recordings largely have the tendency of the loudness wars and it can clearly be seen if you look at the frequency in certain applications. The music will look like a centerline that runs across the screen and each channel will hit the upper and low limits or be right next to those limits. God help me i have forgotten the name of this today. This record technique kills your dynamic range.
(The volume of the highest and lowest sounds)
Digital has a higher dynamic range if the recording engineer understands this and cares, but it is now common practice to record digital in this loudness wars way because it does jump out at people who listen to bad pop music! What i buy most are old vinyl records because they were mastered with this loudness equalization. If I buy new I look for all analog mastering. I know nothing of you analog experience so I won't say you just haven't heard good analog music! Maybe you have and just don't hear what I experience in my system.
@@toddcrookham515 “you are entitled to your opinion. I don't agree that digital is superior in every way.”
It is not my “opinion” that digital is superior in every way. It’s objective fact. One need only look at the numbers for frequency response (both with respect to flatness and extension), S/N ratio and dynamic range, distortion, and channel separation to know this. Couple this with lack of wear, convenience, immunity to rumble/vibrations, wow and flutter, etc. and it’s no contest.
“Strengths and weaknesses exist in both. Currently today mastering of digital recordings largely have the tendency of the loudness wars”
Digital is stronger in every way. Mastering is NOT a “weakness” of digital, it’s a weakness of RECORDING PRACTICES, which are NOT the same thing as digital technology.
“This record technique kills your dynamic range.”
Exactly. RECORDING TECHNIQUE, not digital technology.
“Digital has a higher dynamic range if the recording engineer understands this and cares”
Again, you are critiquing RECORDING ENGINEERS, NOT digital. I have CDs with STEPENDOUSLY wide dynamic range that vinyl can’t get ANYWHERE close to.
“I know nothing of you analog experience so I won't say you just haven't heard good analog music!”
You indeed know nothing about my experience. I have heard vinyl on turntables costing tens of thousands of dollars, part of a system costing hundreds of thousands. I have heard 15 ips analog reel to reel. Digital is superior.
@@RobertR3750 I don't fault digital recordings because they are digital! I fault them for the lazy, poor methods employed today. Second you are using numbers and statistics as evidence of what you suggest and on paper you are absolutely right and if done correctly if is wonderful, but we don't listen to statistics. We listen to music and we hear with our ears and the human ear is analog as is our brain! There is a difference between analog and digital and analog done correctly on great equipment just has a special quality. I have high end digital equipment and love it very much, but I grew up on reel to reel and vinyl records. You're entitled to your love of numbers. I chased high end digital for years and then I heard vinyl again after 30 years and it has a sound and presence that most digital recordings seem to lack.
Every time I play vinyl for people that never heard it before or only remember the worst, they come away from the experience with a desire for more! Have a great weekend. Enjoy some music and the last days of warm weather!
@@toddcrookham515 “I don't fault digital recordings because they are digital! I fault them for the lazy, poor methods employed today.”
That’s _the point_. You are faulting recording engineers, not digital technology.
“on paper you are absolutely right and if done correctly if is wonderful”
Thank you, I know it is right.
“There is a difference between analog and digital”
Yes, analog is inferior.
“and analog done correctly on great equipment just has a special quality.”
That’s a subjective statement. It doesn’t change the fact that digital reproduces more accurately, which is what high fidelity means.
“Have a great weekend. Enjoy some music and the last days of warm weather!”
Thanks, you too.
They sound different, and it does depend on the system. Digital sounds better at high volumes and analog sounds better low volumes.
@MF Nickster well, that depends on what “ signal” we are speaking on. So it’s more about a digital recording that sounds like what we heard when it was live.
@MF Nickster maybe when people think of “Digital” they think of the recording technique. The higher the sample rate and the better recording equipment and techniques will produce a great sound
@MF Nickster one of the shortfall in digital sampling is the noise floor needs to be introduced in the form of dither. Look it up.
@MF Nickster so what do you think about Michael framers take on listening from an analog source versus a digital source? Personally, they do sound different or what about the baker from Sony music to masters in super audio but makes a different mix for the CD and a different mix for the vinyl recording?
@MF Nickster likewise brother
I’ve been collecting vinyl records since 1970. So that’s what I’m most used to. It took many years to be able to buy a decent stereo system, which has evolved and improved. With that being said, I like both vinyls and CDs. Which sounds better? I dunno? In some ways the records sound better, in other ways the CD does.
Can i ask you a question jmad627? Do you "enjoy" your music more.... now you have a decent system? Please understand... i'm not asking about the improvement is sound quality!... i'm asking about the pleasure it brings.... did you enjoy it as much when it was Lo-Fi .... as you do now it's Hi -Fi ????
@@janedoe6350 this is a good question you ask, and I do understand your point. And the answer is, yes. I do enjoy it as much now as I did listening on a crappy plastic record player in 1970. The sound, no doubt is a huge improvement, but yes I enjoy it just the same.
@@jmad627 Me also! :)
@@janedoe6350 I'm in the same boat. A better, high-end system has allowed me to enjoy my music at a higher level. It's just so much more immersive -- easier to get lost in now. :)
Happy listening!
I think digital sound is a Frankenstein, another kind of creature that tries to persuade us it’s human. As in the famous movie, there are people that sympathize with it(him). And in the analog reproduction of digital sound, it eventually sounds good, as long as we make an effort to rescue remnants of original sound in our well-trained memory. It’s something like fake an orgasm.
The CD format (44.1Khz, 16bit) is perfectly capable of reproducing audio with VERY high fidelity. Yes, that means that if you digitally record that vinyl that you think sounds better than digital, and you play it back, you get the same "warm" vinyl sound that you deemed better than the CD. What does this mean? Digital is objectively superior and more "HiFi". However, analog can subjectively sound better just because of different mastering and also specific characteristics of the audio-playing processing which introduces sound variations that can be perceived as "warm". Same goes for tube vs digital amp. TLDR:Digital is objectively superior, analog can be subjectively perceived as sounding better.
The CD format is very capable as long as you can control the timing aspects, eg jitter creates smearing.
@@karl-erikmoberg5668 Jitter and its effects can be measured (how else would we know of its existence?). Except for some horrible high-end products, jitter has been a complete non-issue for decades.
@@nyquist5190 Jitter can be measured, rather expensive apparatus. How can effects of jitter (time dist and smearing) be measured?
It's the best comment here, I challenged my friend who's only listen to vinyl, we recorded his vinyl to digital using 24/192 sampling, A B 'd it and my friend could not tell the difference, including some friends who listened to the same. Digital done right will always be closer to the original master tape. You have to compromise the original recording to cut vinyl. Due to the physical limitations. See this link, honestly said. ruclips.net/video/rc2LA9kC-4U/видео.html
People who don't believe, try this record your LP audio to PC (can use Audacity or other software) without any effect editing, you still able to hear the warm character of analog sounds from your PC audio... After you mess around with it convert to others format, that purity started to change.
I am a Zookeeper in Atlanta and I regularly feed the Hippos day old Sausages so they have a taste of their home. I put strings on the sausages and swing them around the Hippos they get so Mad at me and Scream but it's an obsession sometimes the hippos try and Break out of their Cages but I keep swinging those hotdogs in Wide Circles over their heads. Luckily my Boss doesn't know I do this or my Coworkers
You keep swinging those hotdogs man!
If those hippos want them, they better figure out how to get out of the cage and take them from you.
Hahahaha hahaha
They will now....dohhhh
Haha, this is so....out there!
Digital is like a contemporary standard sportscar, it is convenient, it has electronic aids, you don't actually need to know how to drive a sportscar, it will be decently quick anyway.
Analog is like a racecar. Not easy to set up but if done correctly it will outperform any standard car by leaps.
Nice analogy…or digilogy! ;-)
Before I could diagnose the "digital disease," I re-calibrated my own assumptions.
First, I auditioned two types of amplifiers: a modern Class D and a 1980s era Class A/B. I chose the pure analogue A/B which sounds so much more alive than the not-so-analogue class D.
Then it came down to sources: streaming, CD, and vinyl.
I cued up the same recording of a work in each format. I listened to each source for some time, and then switched back and forth among them. I even had a friend switch among the sources without my knowing which.
Let's get streaming out of the way first. Whether Sonos or BluOS, the result was the same -- everything sounds the same. The music reclines in a strange acoustic that puts the sound under a coat of lacquer, not something I'd want to listen through in order to listen to.
CDs and vinyl are more realistic and clearer sounding than streaming. The acoustic is faithful to the recording without having the life sucked out of it.
The "winner" between the two comes down not to "better or worse," or "diseased or healthy," but just to what difference between the two one prefers, as long as each is well-mastered.
I invariably prefer to listen to analogue vinyl. It has the often cited traits of warmth, presence, and immediacy. When I listen to it, my mind is far less likely to wander.
It coalesces around me this way: analogue vinyl is the story; digital CDs report the story. I listen to CDs. I experience records.
Thanks for sharing that! Passing from different roads I reached the same conclusion.
WELL said ......................listening or experiencing ..................
I wholeheartedly agree with this gentleman even if I don’t have a clue what he’s talking about whatsoever.
Hi. To remaster a CD to sound like a vinyl is not so difficult.
1. Rip the CD in wav files at 44.1/ 16b with a good ripper
2. Apply a low pass filter at 15000-16000 Hz with 12 or 24 dB / octave (it depends of how the CD is mastered)
3. Apply a high pass filter at 30-40 Hz with 32 - 48 dB / octave
4. Mix the stereo track in mono for all frequencies below 250Hz
5. Apply a de-esser if necessary (apply very carefully !!!!)
6. Compress the dynamics to have peaks -3 dB and RMS -13 -14 dB....
7. If you want, you can add white noise at -65 -70 dB and clicks and pops...
8. Export the file in any lossless format you want...
That was done mainly in the past. Audiophile releases are nothing like that, at least that is what they claim.
@@anadialog Yes... Now all the vinyls are made from digital master recordings, but, due to the mechanical limitations of vinyls, there are different masterings for digital HiRes recording, for CD and for vinyls. In digital you can make almost what you want but in vinyl there are a lot of limitations. Yes, in theory, a turntable cartridge can read up to 50 kHz, or even more but no cutter can cut these frequencies on a vinyl because of overheating. That's why the master is limited to less than 18-20 kHz by using a low-pass filter. . Also the sibilances must be reduced as much as possible.... The low frequencies must be reduced and mix in mono, to limit the vertical component of the needle movement.... If not, the needle jumps.... or even all the record is compromised. Compression must be higher due to the noise and clicks and pops.... But maybe all these limitations make the warmth the vinyl sound... Many times, when I don't like how a cd sounds, I rip the cd and remaster it myself.... vinyl or digital like.... depends of the kind of music....
Is there a sequel or follow up planned to The Loudness Wars? I’ve always been a bit of a Boy Scout & prepping my bugout bag for when new audiophile hostilities breakout?
No one really knows what's better: Analog or Digital. Unless you have the very best CD playback equipment there is, and no one knows exactly just what that may be, how can you say analog is better than digital? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, "Analog sounds better than the very small tiny % of digital equipment out there that I've been able to hear? That would be far more accurate. Corrected. Digital could be second to none. I haven't heard it all either.
The "sameness" over everything that the guy you showed said and you agreed upon, is "electronic signature". Most peoples digital playback does have audible electronic signature. Like there is a subtle or not so subtle electronic palor over the sounds The signal has to pass through so many different things. When LP playing, the output of the cartridge simply goes through some tonearm wires. Analog has a big advantage in it being a simpler signal path. But just like the best solid state amp designers have conquered audible electronic signature, you can do the same with CD playback. It is not the digital section itself that causes the electronicy sound, its all the electronic circuitry that the signal has to go through. That's what he's hearing... In my mods I have tamed that to the point you cannot hear electronic signature anymore. I did not achieve it by lessening the highs or any frequencies. For something that literally has to take the music apart and then put it back together again, I think digital is pretty remarkable.
Any thoughts on when the best mastering done from an analog reel-to-reel recording was cut to digital on a CD?
Before watching today’s segment I watched the entire RUclips video with Bernie Grundman, Chad Kassem et al. I don’t think that people are going to hate you Guido over this presentation because you are correct in everything that you said. A simple digital transfer like Mapleshade records sounds wonderful on CDs but they are in the minority with their minimalist approach to recording.
Paul McGowan is simply trying to push the envelope of technology to its current limits and I must admit one or two of his Octave releases sound really beautiful as long as there are less than four instruments playing at one time. Any more than that causes a congestion in the overall sound to my ears.
I have an extensive CD Collection as well as Close to 800 cherry picked vinyl records which to me are a pain in the butt as I have to get up every 15 to 20 minutes to either flip the record or remove it and place another record on the turntable. So for me, I reach for higher quality CD recordings in PCM or stream music. Perhaps I’m lazy but more than likely it’s just easier for most of my listening especially when I am doing chores or cooking at home. Give me an Analog Productions vinyl record any day of the week and there are other fantastic labels that produce high-quality vinyl recordings. You cannot pry them out of my hands even after my death.
So in the end analysis of my perception of analog versus digital there is no question in my mind that analog is the better medium because of all of the reasons you have stated.
You forgot to mention the clicks and the pops
@@dobermanguy9437 what clicks and pops? Do you ever listen to live music in a real jazz club or auditorium? if you do do you enjoy the excitement despite all of the noise around you? If you don’t you’re missing something so clicks and pops on occasion may be annoying but they do not change the fact that I’m an alarm recording still sounds the best to most peoples years.
Uh. I don't want to get yelled at but this is all opinion based on a feeling and most of what you say is proven in audio labs to be untrue. CDs do not have less frequencies they can reproduce. The noise floor is so much less than analog that analog can not compete. The usable dynamic range is greater. It is just better in every way. If you get a bad digital recording it is not because it is digital. It is just a bad recording. Digital can be just as smooth and mellow if recorded properly. Analog is inferior in every way.
I would never yell to anyone when they explain their point of view. So welcome! I can only add that I love both types with a clear preference for analog media. Explore the channel and you will see what this video is all about. Start here: ruclips.net/video/fYOR23B6O3k/видео.htmlsi=7ko709XdZHcJ_M-y
The soft hill of frequency cutoff is just just surface noise though, it has nothing to do with the music. If distortion is fine then you can just throw out the whole O. Johnsons speech as he talks about imperfections and distortions in digital specs also.
The ears do lie though. Or are you saying its infallible?
Grundmans disease speech is a nice story, thats all. He has told it many times before by the way, its not off the cuff. Too bad that he is just completely and factually wrong about digital in many areas though, as he has also claimed that simply 1 to 1 copying of a file degrades the sound audibly which is just ridiculous and even a simple google search will tell you so.
I am on the vinyl side. If I am in a critical listening mood and I have a vinyl copy of what I want to listen to, I will choose the vinyl in most instances. The vinyl on good recordings in good condition always sounds better (than streaming, CD, SACD via I2S) particularly in the areas of timbre and ambience retrieval and the recreation of the recording space. These observations are based on a comparison of an analog system that is less than 1/3 the cost of the digital equipment.
Yeah no can't agree with any of this, the only reason vinyl ever sounds any better is because of the mastering. I've tested this myself by recording digital needle drops and then a/bing with the original vinyl they sound identical. Also I shockingly recorded the needle drops at only 44.1 khz 16 bit oh noes!
Analog is for ever!
You lose the Red Book standard when you download from sites like HD tracks.
I believe analogue does sound better, to me, I grew up with it... I don't analyse audio like I used to when I first became hifi aware in the 70s... now my hearing is compromised by age and tinnitus... my experience of music now is purely emotional and nostalgic. I know one thing, I'm baffled by how good my system sounds while listening to your comparison tests... especially when you did DSOTM... after your video I played my reissue DSOTM on my turntable, then played it through spotify... obviously the vinyl wins... for me... like I said, records are a comforting connection to the past... all that said... nothing will compare to getting my first copy of DSOTM in 73, rushing home and being blown away by the stereo separation, the dynamics and of course the amazing art I was hearing for the first time... something that is denied to younger generations bought up with iPods...
Keep up the good work, the best presented audiophile channel on the Tube..
My opinion.
"My experience of music now is purely emotional and nostalgic...". Well that sums it up pretty well.
I'll tell you something, I live with both formats and I can't stop appreciating the benefits of the 0-1, much more versatile, less wear, etc., etc., but when I want to listen to music with another personality, the Revox is the answer . I hope you're still alive (ha ha ha)
When someone says “vinyl demonstrates 5Hz-100kHz”, he/she must specify that music has NO such frequencies (because of a mastering for vinyl, and because of a disk base). These are artifacts. And I’m afraid vinyl starts artefactings deeply prior 5-100.
On a neighbor channel they demonstrated a difference between stock and Yeti power cables. “Audiophile” power cord sounded more flat. This is what artifacts (in this case EMI) makes to a sound, “improving” it.
But what is to say about most if not all music post 1980 have all been mastered digitally and then pressed to vinyl? Wouldn’t that be just degrading it to a lesser medium vs the straight tape to vinyl?
Analog can get you closest to live but in reality this is only important to handful of people like us
I'm not sure how it does, given that live recordings need to go through microphones, preamps and other signal processing gear before they ever hit tape or A/D convertors. You can make excellent live recordings using analogue or digital.
Curious if the masses of audiophiles will ever be able to honestly say ever that they actually heard a truly secured signal chain of reproduction that spans THE ACTUAL AUDIBLE FREQUENCY RANGE in Digital or Analog? Why is that standard that is actually possible not required by even one manufacturer of components or source material? Why?
Congrats for releasing this video even with the hesitation of backlash. I enjoyed it very much.
Great video, great knowledge, thanks! A note about the video setting: Just wanted to make you aware of this tiny little light reflection in the background above your right shoulder. It constantly draws my attention to it and makes it harder for me to focus on your face while you are explaining things. Removing it would help a lot in my opinion. But really, your content opened my eyes... and ears. Thank you!
👍
My ears are almost 67 years old and far from perfect. However, in a quiet environment, they will pick up little nuances and subtleties on analog media (whether vinyl or magnetic tape or radio) that are next to impossible to detect on any digital media. It's almost like those nuances and subtleties are missing; in reality, they're simply hiding. The digital signal isn't "clean" enough to unhide or reveal them. A lot of that difference has to do with the type(s) of wave patterns that are produced by the media used. And I would say 90% of people couldn't detect the difference in actual sound, but will detect the 'warmth' or 'comfort' in the way the analog music makes them feel versus digital sound.
Try a decent digital player and not some junk.
Youll be amazed.
Thats the problem of digital.
Its assumed that its good in ever privé range which offcourse it isnt
What is going to happen when a ballpark $1000.00 non audio jewelry perfected digital player hands a $25,000.00 plus digital player it's walking papers? Digital has been done wrong and audio listeners sadly fell for the allure of jewelry.
Bradford Lewis.... My ears are also getting on.... I find i can listen to analogue for far longer than i can digital before feeling fatigued. Not so 35 years ago. But 35 years ago... i could easily hear a sign wave at 18kHz.... now my hearing rolls off at 10kHz on a good day.
Although i can no longer hear a sign wave at 12kHz.. if i boost the sound of a recording +3dB at 15kHz... i clearly hear the difference. Why??? because i'm changing the way the air moves and reflects around the room and that has an impact on the frequencies that are within my hearing range...
I find, as i age.... i'm starting to use a "21 band Graphic EQ (studio quality )" far more often for home listening... but better still.... i am happier listening to cassette and AM radio far more than i was 20 years ago.... because now.... these formats fit my range so much better.
So Bradford, i totally understand where you are coming from. I bought a copy of "Dark Side of the Moon" in the Summer of 1973. I've been listening to that album on a whole range of both Hi-Fi and Lo-Fi equipment, on a regular basis for almost 50 years. I know it like the back of my hand....
Now I can just sit with the sheet music and hear everything, note-for-note, inside my head as i follow the score.... even when there is no music playing and i'm sitting in total science. And in my mind..... it sound perfect.... and it still blows me away!
So Bradford...... stick with your analogue... you know whats in, and what is not... in that mix, right?
Of course you ears are picking up some "nuances and subtleties" from vynil and tape. Anyone can, it's called "distortions, colorations, compressions and noise" not in the original recording.
@@joemarz2264 you will never eliminate distortions and colourations because of he constraints of speakers. In the real world the sounds from a 64 piece orchestra come from many points in space.... not just two points in front of you like in stereo hi-fi.... so why try? The whole idea of home music reproduction is "ENTERTAINMENT" not perfection.
If you are chasing perfection you will always be disappointed... however, the Hi-Fi industry will love you.... because you will always be buying new equipment trying to satisfy the currently unachievable.
How joyous it is to find contentment and satisfaction from ageing sub-perfect equipment.
Great Job ! Thanks for the Video 😃
I really do enjoy your channel but I have 2 major complaints here about what you said about digital (keep in mind I agree with you that analog does sound better and is better).
When you talked about analog summing vs digital summing Dan Worral made some very good points about the difference and dedicated a very good video to this. I would watch his video.
However the second one is the statement about the recording being at 192khz and then once you "mess with it" in editing and in the mix that it's hard to keep the 192khz recording. This right here is a very big lie you told. I think what you meant to say the sound is not the same anymore because it now has eq, compression, editing, etc. Adjusting eq in a DAW does NOT change sample rate. Also people record with eq, hpf, compressors going into tape and converters all the time. I can argue that no matter whether you record analog or digital if you are not in the room while it's being recorded then you are not hearing the original. The signal chain either way colors it or degrades it like you have said. Also it has already been proven time and time again that recording higher than 24bit/48khz has zero benefit in what you hear back. Modern day production and Dan Worral go over this very well.
Last comment I want to make is that you seem to be speaking more from the consumer side and the final product but not of making the product. I am not sure your experience with recording, pre-production, production, editing, mixing, or any audio engineer experience but it does seem like you are lacking in that perspective and makes me feel that you have very little experience in that realm.
I just recorded an album on a beautiful Daking Console for a band here out of Orlando, Florida. I would be very happy to talk to you about my process, gear I used, studio we rented, challenges, difficulties of today ad an audio engineer, modern day musicians and so on. I think you will have a very good take away from out conversation if you chose to reach to me.
I hope to hear back.
I will always be the analog guy but CDs/SACDs sound great also and it is converted to an analog signal from the players anyways .. Eye in The Sky /Alan Parsons Project was recorded on analog tape but mixed and finished on a digital tape master back in 1981 and then put on vinyl and tape and CDs for consumers . It all goes back and forth now depending on what format it will be transferred to and has been since the 80s ..
This is a great video. I like how you explain analog versus digital. I have rebuilt my vinyl collection and now I'm dreaming of a cassette deck or reel-to-reel. In my youth, I had both. Should have kept them!
I just got a tape deck again and it's been FUN!! Takes me back to a much better and simpler time in life.
@@life5161 I'm thinking of doing the same!
@@continentalgin I did already - have R2R and turntable and cassette. Put a lot effort to revitalize all fuzzy and dirty casstette tapes and reels and LPs. Because it is main issue.
And I am even surprised that specially last days in cassette recordings which I make from FM with my old "special" radio I hear so wide and "juicy" sopranos which in digital CDs I already had forgotten they existed. In digital they are like standarized. I am also in my 70ties but it remainds me soprano sounds of my young days,. They are at very low level comparing to general music but are surprisingly audiible just as then . I do ot use EQ except original Loudness Correction in tube amplifier which corrects in low range only.
@@Mikexception Well done!
And digital productions sounds better dumped to tape. Aphex Twin 'selected ambient works VOL 1 proves this.
If you have a good system, you can definitely hear the difference between analog and digital on the same recording. For example, the Beatles stereo vs the Beatles mono catalog. The Beatles stereo catalog, released on Parlophone in 2012 (?) had a dead, lifeless unengaging sound. It was made from a digital source. The mono catalog, released a few years later, was an AAA recording and had a rich, organic, foot-tapping sound.
the difference in those two was entirely the mastering.
Good mastering sounds better.. good digital mastering sounds even better.
Indeed, but it is so rare that it’s practically a myth
Excellent video…considering the recent MOFI debacle, most audiophiles can’t hear the difference between digital and analog. If this is true, it’s also true that “most” audiophiles don’t have a dedicated listening room. Most audiophiles don’t have their speakers 6ft pulled out into their room. With that in mind, what I also observe is that folks claiming analog is “better” also have a $10k+ invested in their phono preamp alone, not counting $5k+ turntable and $4k+ stylus. Comparison are made to a $5500 R2R DAC and $500 CD transport. It doesn’t add up. I have an Audio Resaerch PH8 pre (circa 2010) with a $2k turntable and a $1500 stylus cartridge. Is it better then my Holo Audio spring KTE 3? Yes! But would a $15k DaC sound better then my analog set up? Maybe.
I can clap my hands for free & it will sound better than any equipment which reproduces sound. I hope you understand...
@@frederf69 yes. It’s all fake. But it’s feel better to hear my clapping coming out of my hifi system. I hope you understand.
Thaaank you so much for youre video, it made things so much more clearer for me, especially "avoiding manipulating too much sound through digital", Incredible work and vibe 😀⭐🙏🏾
It doesn't.
Thanks for the information, now I know
On aspect that hasn't been mentioned in most of these discussions about digital vs vinyl is the quality of the vinyl itself. In the 80's American record labels generally used recycled vinyl for their releases. I have even purchased albums that had such poor quality control that pieces of label not properly removed before reuse of the vinyl were sticking out of the record. The alternative was to purchase Japanese imports which were all virgin vinyl and generally more dynamically mastered than the U.S. version. There were also various other imports and audiophile recordings available that were superior and exhibited less surface noise. I prefer the sound of the vinyl to the CD versions generally if I'm listening through my quality gear at home or through headphones on the same equipment. Streaming is for riding the bike and listening through Bluetooth headphones.
Having such an advanced sense of hearing must be a terrible burden.
not at all, it is a big gift 🎁