Both analog and digital has the potential to sound incredible. It’s a matter of fun factor and personal preference, the way I see it. Just enjoy the music, the reason why all this stuff exists to begin with. :)
I like vinyl because I love to collect records, but i also like digital because it is simply more convenient and you don't have to worry about records scratching or your stylus wearing out
The problem is that he didn't give the whole story. CD will not reproduce the ultrasonic frequencies above 20khz, but vinyl will. These frequencies are present in most musical instruments and have been shown to have a positive effect on humans. In all his videos he never gives the complete story because he just doesn't get it.
Correct! And CD Still has the ability to have a larger frequency range and accurate reproduction with no physical parts touching each other (ie. Stylus to the vinyl.)
Another technical point: many early analog-to-digital converters really only had about 13 or 14 usable bits of resolution, with the last two or three being overwhelmed with the converter’s internal noise and distortion - the result being that this affected the sound produced by early digital masters. Depending on the processes used and the style of music this can be either a tolerable quirk or disastrous - electronic-heavy 80’s pop and EDM, especially if it’s recorded as separate tracks and then mixed digitally, would have a very different outcome than a classical orchestra piece where it’s just two room mics going straight into a digital recorder.
Full disclosure Iam a vinyl fan. However this is one of the best explanations on this topic that I have ever heard. I have equal money invested in my vinyl playback system as into my CD system. ( I have not gotten into streaming as yet). I often prefer the vinyl version when I have both format's of the same recording. Bottom line as stated "it depends" on many factors and a blanket statement of one is better than the other is not a scientific approach to this topic!
get into DSD or SACD, almos the same thing. not that much music out there, can only hope you will find what you like to listen, but... the sound is incredible over and over every time you listen that kind of digital. i also love analogue, got tape machines and good vinyl stuff. nothing compares with DSD
44.1 kHz - can we agree this is a misnomer? it is 22.05 kHz per channel and these are written alternatingly. The sum frequency is 44.1. It's like a sine wave with an up and a down part. That sine wave's frequency is 22.05 kHz, using a half sine for left and the other for right. We end up with 44.1k digital 16 bit samples, but go back to the 22.05 in DA conversion.
Paul's right about how the music was recorded and played. Some groups like ELP , Pink Floyd, Steely Dan seemed to aim for high quality studio sound. ELPs 1st lp is SO dynamic from quiet delicate piano passages to DEEP heavy rumbling low ends from synthesizer and drums.
Just listened to ELO New World Record on a nice pair of JBL L26 Decades - low end of the good stuff - and it blew my mind. I had never heard the original ELO sound.
Pops and clicks are not accurate, they're distortion - pure and simple. I used to search far and wide for expensive European pressings - and eventually, their surface noise became burdensome. I was at PolyGram when we introduced the CD and nonetheless got talked into buying a Linn LP-12 a few years later, with a K9 cartridge, as part of a high-resolution audio system build around Apogee Acoustics Calipers (still a wonderful smaller-scaled ribbon loudspeaker, especially if properly rebuilt by one of the tech authorized by Graham Keet). But I could never get past the surface noise of LP, even when compared to the same recording when played on a first-generation CD through a first-generation Philips CD player. Go figure. For me, the most important thing in audio is where they put the microphones and whether the engineer got it right; everything else is secondary. Analog, digital, it doesn't matter. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. The other thing is that older analog recordings contain distortion at climaxes, in orchestral scores, for instance, that is simply not there in a digital recording. Digital recordings have their issues - but properly done they are much more capable of reproducing the sound of an orchestra playing double- or triple-forte (assuming that the engineers know what they're doing and are not playing around with levels or using too many microphones). IMHO, the most important component in an audio chain are the loudspeakers / headphones.
Absolutely agree. Since CDs and players were into the market (beginning the 80's), I said "goodbye" to vinyl for ever. To my relief, I had not to hear "clicks", "clocks", "plings", "plongs", "hisses", "rumbles" and so forth anymore. And, at least in my case, it wasn't a question of convenience, but of listening peace and pleasure (at last!).
Good quality vinyl doesn't make those extra noises. I have a 180 gm pressing from the 70's that's clean and crisp and you'd think you were listening to HD digital unless I told you otherwise--I'm still shocked every time I play it. Unfortunately, that's the exception and not the norm.
Dear Paul thank you for this excellent video. May I add that since the 80s I started to experience descent HiFi with CDs. I couldn’t go back to vinyl unless I spend a fortune on équipent which I can’t afford.
Technical point: the term “compression” is used to mean two very different things: level compression, which affects dynamic range (it’s a process of automatically turning the volume down when it gets too high, this is the sort of thing that the recording engineer chooses to use to sculpt the sound); and data compression, which comes in two varieties - lossy (where the system throws away data that it’s psychoacoustic model says you won’t miss, examples include MP3 and AAC) and lossless (where it’s just a more efficient way of representing the data; the output is exactly the same as the input, down to every last bit, examples include FLAC and ZIP’s ‘deflate’ algorithm). Lossy data compression can vary in how bad it is, depending on the settings used; even with the same algorithm - the data rate being the primary factor at play here.
Totally agree, but I'd add one more type of compression - the bit rate specified. In effect, this establishes the maximum quality and quantity of digital information available, because despite excellent interpolation between sample points you are always going to lose data. Whether this matters or not to the ear can be debated for ever, but in theory, analogue will ultimately be better because there is no loss whatsoever. Now, of course, in the real world we don't come near to achieving that, nor do we achieve the lack of background noise, or the dynamic range, or zero clicks from scratches and faults on the record; so it's a theoretical advantage that can't actually be realised at present. I do wonder if at some time in the future a new way of recording analogue will be developed that gets round these issues. In the meantime, it was nice to see this video state the truth that dares not speak its name - namely that it's the quality of the recording and not the format that has way more influence on sound quality than all other factors put together.
@@rogerking7258 I think that too much emphasis is placed on the fact that digital recording will inevitably lose some information. A good digital recording will record sound at the highest bit rate possible, at the highest sampling rate possible and introduce no compression of any kind. It WILL lose some information, but the amount and type of information loss is trivial and totally insignificant. It is NOT true to say that analogue recording loses no information, it does, LOTS. The difference is that it can't really be quantified and it is assumed that just because a complete waveform is recorded that it is necessarily more accurate than a reconstructed digital waveform. This assumption is false. It should also be recognised that a digital recording will only necessarily lose information at the recording stage only. All other processing, recording and pressing needn't introduce any further degradation to the sound. With analoge, every step from recording to vinyl record, and there are a lot of them, will introduce distortion and losses from the original recording.
I remember the introduction of the CD format, and how the world marveled on how much cleaner and clearer those early CDs sounded. Much wider frequency response, much wider dynamic range and near zero noise. Later, CD quality only improved as digital audio recording gear and computing power improved. Then came the 'loudness wars'. Then came the MP3 compression format. Then came streaming (a huge step back in quality) "Digital" went from being the best thing ever, to a dirty word. Public perception can be a funny thing.
With lossless streaming like "Tidal" it is once again the ultimate King. Early CDs sounded prett crappy. DDD was a workflow that needed refinement. And oversampling wasn't there yet either.
Well, I remember those 128kbps MP3's I used to listen in high school. Listening to them today, definitely sounds like crap. So much details lost, especially in the high frequencies (cymbals, hi-hats etc). But that was what was popular back then because internet speeds weren't very fast (I remember, it was still taking like an hour to download one song at that 128kbps bitrate) and we had low data caps. Nowadays though, unless you set it to lower quality, streaming services default to 320kbps, and let's be honest, it's very hard to tell the difference between uncompressed, unless you're A/B'ing and purposely looking for differences. And formats like ACC and OGG has higher quality for the same bitrate. But those 128kbps MP3's definitely didn't help with the reputation of digital audio.
I don’t know what system you had but early cds didn’t sound better at all in general. They sounded more like fake sounds. Clean yes but not realistic. Very flat
Honest statements, there are so many variables in both analog and digital situations. The wildest thing you can do is to find what makes your ears happy with the sound that you are listening to. Kudos, BOULDER Colorado, my hometown....
People sometimes forget that records were engineered to fit 22 minutes of music on a 12” platter ( if I remember correctly). So the lows were taken out and the highs were attenuated to fit more grooves. The turntable pre amp re-added the lows (RIAA equalization curve). You can test this by setting your turntable to line in to bypass the preamp. You’ll hear just highs and hiss. The LP plastic disk also has pink noise from just the stylus scraping along the grooves. You can get a blank LP and when you play it, you will hear noise. Music is then put on top. Maybe that low level distortion creates the illusion of breathing or warmth or whatever.
One of the biggest benefits records have had is that they were the dominant format during the golden age of audio when a large percentage of the music released was mostly produced by a relatively small group of trained producers and technicians. Vinyl has limitations, but they usually don't get in the way of the music when proper care is taken. The digital age made it possible for anyone to take over the entire process themselves with the CD simply being the final storage medium and we saw a huge drop in overall production quality. This might have been a problem if the average age of the music consumer hadn't also been dropping. Today we have a huge legacy of compromised recordings and poor mastering which really obfuscates the issue of what format is really best.
Also the Napster shift post Y2000 didn't help in that the record companies laid off a lot of talented people who helped make the music in the 'golden years.'
"Trained producers and technicians" who didn't know half of what we now know today and were using massively inferior equipment. A lot of their "training" was either working around technical limitations, or complete anecdotal experimentation that wasn't based on any hard data. Today, I can Google "How to record a drum set" and get better real world results than someone like RVG could have ever gotten for the majority of his career. People act like the "golden age" was so good, when RVG was recording in his parents living room at night and working as an optometrist by day, and Motown was a few random houses in the middle of nowhere that used to be a photography studio.
4 года назад+5
I am very impressed by your factual down to earth views which I feel you are an authority in.
Hey Paul. I have a 1980 vinyl album by Santana on CBS, it is not an early 1980's CBS CX vinyl albums, however, it does have a rather good explanation on the cover which reads as follows:- "This album has been recorded "digitally". "In simple terms, the music itself is not recorded as with conventional magnetic tape recordings". "It is first converted into numerical (digital) code, and this code is stored on the tape". "The result is increased clarity, elimination of tape noise and hiss, wow and flutter, and other distortions". "In order properly to reproduce the digital recording on disc, we chose to make the album four shorter sides rather than squeezing all the music onto a 2 - sided lp". "This allows us to make the fullest use of the extended transient response and clarity of digital recording". "David Rubinson - Producer". Is this an early example of a kind of CX prototype, or is this something completely different altogether? I have videod the cover for your perusal which can be viewed via the link below. ruclips.net/video/iVmKyMqzzFQ/видео.html
Thanks, Paul. Both digital and analogue media can sound absolutely wonderful when sufficient care is taken during the recording process.Sadly, that is too often not done.
This is by far the most accurate and to-the-point simple analysis regarding Analogue vs. Digital audio. Many sound engineers agree that for sometime now, there is a different mastering technique for CDs (you can hear the brickwalled mastering, just for the purpose of car playback!) and a different one for Hi-Res files, just to promote the "superior" sound of Hi-Res audio! I do own some CDs from Telarc & Narada that could easily blow away many Hi-Res music files, so I do agree with you 100%. Thank you so much for these awesome videos, Paul! Keep on rocking! :)
I say we just have fun with music. Digital, Analog, I have means to do both in casual and active listening environments. Just turn it on, crank it up, enjoy the show is how I see it.
I thought the issue with digital was not compression but sampling rate. The original CDs sounded cold, and they had a sampling rate of 4400. Is that still the case?
In a perfect world the vinyl mastered disk, the CD mastered disk, the cassette mastered tape, and even the R2R mastered tape (all of these being the commercially sold versions) should be mastered for the individual formats as there are differing requirenments for each. Even iTunes and MP3 versions should be mastered individually for the format. They all have different s/n ratios, different acceptable peak levels, and different frequency limitations. In theory a 24-192 recording is going to blow all of these away but that doesn't necessarily happen when you are listening back. Some may prefer the L to R (side to side) restrictions of a vinyl disk, the bass drum and bass guitar mixed to centre of the vinyl, or the increased side to side and depth of a CD, R2R, or even cassette. 24-192 doesn't suffer these restrictions. Your kick drum kit could be panned from centre to right with a second drummer and kit panned from centre to left. Imagine what the Allman Brothers would sound like if they remixed with that in mind. With digital it theoretically doesn't matter. Ther bass guitar and kick drum could be panned anywhere as could multiple instrumental or vocal tracks. Whatever is in the stereo spectrum can go from hard L to hard R just like in real life and you could even use a 360 degree microphone and have true surround sound and be unable to tell the difference between live and recorded with 24-192 recordings. The art of mastering plays a major role in the finished product. Just like a movie soundtrack doesn't necessarily use 100% accurate sound (the footsteps, doors, clothing swishes, and a million other sounds are usually dubbed in the foley stage after the film is edited by highly trained specialists. So also music is often treated with equalization, compression, limiting, pitch variation, level riding, and many other tricks of the audio trade which can either ruin or magically augment the finished audio production which you listen to in your home theatre, music room, computer, headphones, or automobile.
The PROBLEM is.... We were sold on a medium with a huge dynamic range of 96dB (CD), of which the current music industry is only using about 6dB. They do this to serve themselves.... to make their "product" louder... not because people like it, or that it makes the art better.
The best way is to listen to the formats and choose what sound best to you. ez 😉👌 I listen to all depending on where I am. I think the question really being asked is, should I add vinyl? I did and I'm pleasantly happy with the choice.
1:30 - I think by "compression", the text did not refer to dynamic compression, but to *bandwidth* compression, most notably _lossy_ compression, like MP3 or WMA. Well then: 1) which technology has got the highest _potential_ quality and 2) how often do media for this format usually _reach_ that full potential? After all, we are discussing the overall everyday experience here, not some academic exceptions. Also, I _have_ done cross checks of 16/44.1 to 32/192 and I personally was _not_ able to tell the difference in a blind test. I *_was,_* on the other hand, able to tell a subtle, but noticeable difference between uncompressed WAV and highest resolution MP3. I *_also_* found out that the "enhancer" function on my Yamaha receiver reconstructs the lost high frequency material so faithfully to the original that I was unable to tell the difference between uncompressed WAV and enhanced MP3. These are the relevant results to me, and with all due respect, I have come to consider anything more hair splitting than this to be snake oil. I have yet to hear the difference that you talk about.
Hi Paul, This video is the best video you have ever done. My understanding is that, from a technical standpoint, CD or digital is "more accurate" than a vinyl record. However, humans hear in a more analogue friendly manner. Therefore more often than not the human ear enjoys the sound of records (analogue) better than a digital recording. Now, I am grossly over simplifiying this concept and I am not a recording engineer, engineer or tech of any kind. What I am is a 61 year old music lover that enjoys listening to CD as well as records. In fact, I still enjoy tape as well. I will not get into a debate as to digital vs. analogue. However, if you ask which I enjoy better it would be records simply because I enjoy the practice of cleaning the record and playing it as well as reading the covers and enjoying the artwork. I also enjoy the convenience of CD and feel that recordings that started out as digital and ended up as CD sound amazing also plus I can take them in the car with me. Am I an audiophile, yes. Do I put formats and equipment ahead of the music itself, absolutely not. And Yes I have a modest stereo system valued at about $20,000. This is all I know and have to say on this subject...Thank you Paul for making this information available to us from an engineer's point of view.
I’ve played in bands had my own pro-audio/live sound business and a studio (I’m c70 years) I hear some terrible and great masters in all formats. Hi Res streaming (eg Tidal) is consistently good and reliable. Vinyl is inconsistent but at it’s best just as, if not more, enjoyable than digital. The format can get in the way. I just enjoy what I feel like playing in whatever format I’m in the mood to listen to it in. Excellent channel. Greetings from the U.K.
I agree. Especially today, so much vinyl is pressed so poorly. Distortion, sibilance, skipping, bad mastering, off center, no fill, the list of issues go on and on. But when you get a good record… amazing. Such a great experience.
It seems in every field where consumers are involved there is a small percentage of folks who become more interested in the gear than in the actual activity - cars, model trains, guitars, music, etc. At some point they actually go from being focused on the enjoyment of the subject to being focused on the production of it. It is up to the individual to pursue what they find most enjoyable. Who am I to tell someone else what they should enjoy?
Very balanced response. My own experience illustrates this point exactly. I have 3 different recordings of Bernstein conducting Copeland’s ‘Billy the Kid’. Vinyl from Columbia, CD from Columbia, and Vinyl from a Smithsonian music sampler my dad got for a music appreciation college course. The recordings are all from the same master tape. The Columbia CD & vinyl are both strident, but I may prefer the CD version due to lack of surface noise. But by far the Smithsonian version is hands down superior to either Columbia version. Far greater sound stage openness and depth. Obviously better mastered. Only problem is the sampler only includes ‘Introduction: The Open Prairie’.
@MrLizardisle in this world if no music life got no meaning, actually CD sound also not bad, but since young we use record to listen music, so the feeling are still there!!
The RIAA curve is really just compensation for the way magnetic cartridges work. Since we're carving a waveform into plastic, we really want the stylus deflection to correspond to dB level across the spectrum. This is pretty much what you get with a ceramic cartridge. But, lathes needed to use a magnetic cutting system and magnetic playback cartridges began to gain popularity as the superior choice. Magnetic systems will produce less and less output as the frequency decreases because they don't produce a signal representing the amount of deflection, but rather the rate of deflection. Since the rate drops with frequency, the RIAA curve simply makes things flat again.
RIAA is most definitley compression. To think otherwise is obsured. The main issues is the lack of understanding between the differences and similarities between analog and digital compression. Analog compression, that most would be farmillar with is the use of a compressor/limiter to normalize levels across a spectrum of frequencies using filters. tweaks can be made to greatly reduce some levels and increase others. Vinyl relies on the physical deflection of a needle that if directly corresponded to the amplitude of the signal would rely on a much wider track and more needle deflection, this would also reduce dynamic range by the small deflections being overwhelmed by the larger more energetic ones. Think of the dynamic range of a 78rmp single, and how much play time is on the disc. If you apply RIAA compression, the groves are changes such that then physical deflections of the needle are normalized, reducing the space a track takes up and also increasing dynamic range by allowing the minute needle vibrations of the high frequencies to be picked out and amplified. An inverse RIAA function is then applied to the phono signal to re-create the signal as close to the original as possible. And yes there are losses and distortion introduced from the needle, cartridge and stylus, and the filters on both end of the RIAA. This is essentially an extremely simplified example of how digital compression works, by removing unneeded information and in the case of vinyl that is extreme amplitudes, and using an inverse function to restore it. Digital does the same but uses much more clever algorithms that can remove repetative information and use forms of interpolation to use existing data to recover discarded data. Viny is very much compressed, but it does sound lovely.
02:20 - "Horse Patootie" - an extremely technical engineering/scientific expression used to identify comments or observations which are or may not be completely accurate.
Hi Paul, I love your videos and have been watching them for some time. In fact you have helped me on my Audio system upgrade path enormously, I found a dealer here in England who is happy to let me sit and play music, swap equipment over - listen again. This video had my hackles up as soon as it was a Vinyl Vs Digital in the title but i need not have worried as you expertly explained everything in your inimitable even handed and invaluably experienced manner. I love vinyl but it is the whole process for me, a tactile and sonic adventure that I do not get with digital formats but I can hear the difference on my system and sometimes I have to admit digital does sound better, whether it is dynamics, spacial or just a better copy. Many Thanks and please keep up the excellent work you do.
@@volpedo2000 Hi Will, the dealership is the "Audiobarn", 2 Feltimores Park Chalk Lane, Old Harlow CM17 0PF. The guys name is Jack Satchfield. Hope this helps.
Vinyl is a more intentional experiance which typically results in a diffrent approach to music. Consider the care required to play and maintain a record. Press and play requires less care, therefore the music is more easily dismissed.
Great explanation, you always have to take everything on a case by case basis. There are some things I will only ever listen to on LP, some things I will only ever reach for the CD, and then some things I will only ever refer to the hi-res download. It all depends! Ultimately I think vinyl has the greatest potential to sound most like an original analog master tape, short of a 1:1 30ips copy.
Analogue vinyl records when you contemplate and stare at one and holding it for a long time... it looks somewhat like a frisbee disc and frisbee discs are what kids play with back in the 1980s decade. The sight of a frisbee disc makes you feel very young again... But suddenly that frisbee morphs into a vinyl record. So cool, sir.
It gets strange in listening when the digital audio played only occasionally will require your stereo to go from a size LARGE to wear a size MEDIUM for a period until a proper break in happens. I realized this in the 80's while playing with my few CD's.
Thank you, well explained. Sometimes it becomes so stressful to shut up when people with insufficient knowledge begin to wise on such topics - when you have the technical background to know that it is rubbish they pour off. For example, when a "skilled" seller tries to explain why you need to use special Audio specified network cables to stream music.
I have come to this same conclusion so when do I purchase a record over digital sourcing. A digital record can sound great but there doesn’t seem to be enough information on the formats to know which format to purchase? Frustrating.
Well, MQA is supposed to resolve this if you're using MQA hardware or computer programs to play it back, but I've heard that it also has copy protection stuff built into it that's degrading, as well as if you don't have MQA stuff to play it back from, the measurements have indicated it's inferior to the 16/44.1 commercial release version. I haven't done the measurements myself, though, and I don't know all the specifics about MQA's copy protection schemes they're using. The tests I've seen done by others on, say, Tidal hi res, though, didn't look that appealing, but I don't know if that was with proper MQA playback.
I love it when someone like you with a modern engineering background has a long winded justification of why they know more about how one thing sounds better than another. I think the listener , hopefully a musician without hearing damage, can tell you that the dynamics on a clean analog lp is more satisfying to hear than a digital cd or mp3, etc. Of course, with computer aided recording techniques, an engineer is hindered by the limitations of the equipment which filters more than old equipment and can be construed as " Compression", such as limiters in the studio are called Compressors. Given the fact that old blues recordings were given dirt sound by red lining the meters, in digital recordings this is done by synthetic means. From a musicians standpoint, there are huge benefits from analog recording. You've spoke of dynamics before, as a musician, dynamics and rises in volume on an older lp are quite satisfying and more like the actual performance than a cd or much digital can offer.
It's a personal thing. I tossed out all of my vinyl immediately after hearing my first CD and have never looked back. Some people love the tactile hands on of records and the clicks, pops seem endearing to others.
I'm more or less with you. I always hated the surface noise of vinyl. There are tracks that I still anticipate pops in certain places, even though I ditched the vinyl copy 30 years ago.
CD does not reproduce ultrasonic frequencies that are present in most musical instruments but vinyl does. I wouldn't have chosen CD unless I could add the ultrasonics back into it.
Vinyl played even here as clips on youtube beats anything digital. It's alive, stuff going on in the background is just as alive and clear as anything at the center. No digital source, including SACD, does that. No idea why, but it's clearly audible.
That's hogwash. Anything you hear on youtube was recorded on a digital microphone and then streamed at low resolution. You are listening to low-res digital audio no matter what the actual source is. So if Paul plays an audiophile pressing on that VPI over his sweet IRS 5 speaker system, you will basically hear that output recorded on an iphone and then streamed at something like 128kbps, probably with some volume leveling thrown in.
You don't have to explain how youtube videos work. I know. That's why I said good vinyl sounds better EVEN on youtube. Go to "MrVinylObsessive"'s channel and every song on there will sound better than any CD you have of the same song. If all you care about is resolution and numbers I'm sure you won't hear it sounding good at all. I just listen. I'd rather enjoy good sounding music than sit and know I'm right about numbers.
@@thegrimyeaper it just sounds like my phone. More to the point, his vinyl won't sound better than my CDs because my CD's are played back on my CD player through my DAC, while his vinyl will play back as basically a 128kbps mp3 through my phone, even if I play it back over my stereo. FTR, I'm not anti-vinyl. I listen to both records and CD's at home. But I suspect a certain amount of cognitive bias in your example. The sheer amount of sonic information lost in low-quality re-recording, compression, and playback will smear any noticable differences. It's the equivalent of saying one power cable sounds better than another when you are testing them on a boombox.
There are two main reasons folk like certain vinyl recordings over CD versions: 1. Analogue equipment, from pre-amps through mixing desks to the records themselves and the record players that play them all introduce compression and distortion to the sound. We like compression. We particularly like distortion. It sounds musical and "warm" to us. Today music recorded and mixed totally "in the box" often has additional distortion and compression added to it to emulate this "warmth" and there is a whole industry making digital plug-ins that emulate the distortion, compression and EQ effects of classic analogue studio equipment (which often costs the price of a small family car to buy second hand) for this purpose. But "warmth" and "accuracy" are diametric opposites technically speaking. 2. The classic records that sound so good on vinyl do so primarily because they were engineered specifically to sound good on vinyl. When you listen to a studio recording your are never, ever, listening to what the music would sound like if you were standing next to the band in question. You are listening to what the band and the sound engineers together considered the best way to make it sound as good as possible on the sound equipment most of their audience would be using to play it using a battery of recording and post-production techniques. Top producers and engineers (and many of the top bands themselves) were (and are) extremely good at doing this and it is one big reason why some records sound way better than others. But it is not "accurate", It just sounds good. So what Paul says here is exactly correct. Especially the bit about analogue being more "accurate" being total grade 1 BS. If you got a pristine first pressing of Kind of Blue or Exile on Main Street then yeah, go ahead and get a record deck to play them on, they'll sound divine. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.
Speaking of mastering, I saw the Quiet Riot album metal health at Walmart and thought why not? When I saw the seafoam green vinyl I thought OMG this is gonna sound like crap! I am stunned at how absolutely quiet (no pun intended) this album is. No "groove noise" ,clicks or pops or anything between the songs and I have a pretty decent setup just for vinyl .
Sure, record the groove is analog, but consider the inherent opportunities for distortion that exist in the analog processing - the RIAA equalization that's needed. The reduction of headroom for dynamic range that's necessary due to the compression of the wave forms as the stylus get's closer to the center of the record. The inherent tracking errors due to the difference in angle between the playback stylus and he angle of the stylus of the original cutting head). Or just the fact that you're vibrating a shaft of metal with a diamond tip through a magnetic field to get your music signal, not to mention the impurities often found in the vinyl (creating hiss, and pops and clicks)- all this adds up to cd's being a much better medium, despite not being perfect.
Hello Paul just signed up for your channel and I am into a lot of audio sound Vinyl and digital also I have some records in storage cause with family I am staying in a hotel but gonna purchase a turntable in the near future after getting a place to play my records on but also wanna get into digital 180 vinyl. Are there any turntables that will play both kinds of vinyl or would I need t buy 2 separate turntables? Or if I buy one turntable is there an extra device that I need to purchase to play both analog and 180 digital on one turntable. Thanks, David San Diego California
I think the main problem is that analog forces a certain kind of mixing techniques which for the most part encourage keeping dynamics and headroom. Digital removes the headroom and doesn't have to worry about physicality of playback like vinyl, so a lot of digital recordings tend to focus on 'loudness' and other 'experimental techniques' because it can get away with it. Really, both can sound good or bad, but one encourages sounding bad and the other encourages not messing up the medium playing it back. I.e. in digital, you can crank up the bass to stupid levels, but in vinyl, if you do this too much, you risk bouncing the needle out of the groove, so you have to balance the bass frequencies in certain ways, especially in a stereo field, where digital can literally pan bass all the way to one side with no consequences.
I have a Peter Nero Direct to disc LP from the 1970’s. It still sounds just brilliant. The direct to disc records were produced directly from the master I believe .I agree with every word you are saying.
- Vinyl : “I sound better than you, I’m warm and emotionnal !" - Digital : "Yeah yeah grandpa, do you want to talk about dynamic range?" - Reel-to-Reel....having a seat and a popcorn bucket: "Don”t worry about me guys, keep going on, enjoying the show now ☺️"
Laurentz Duba Probably because very few can afford to buy and maintain them. They only sound good at high tape speeds and the cost of tape is prohibitive. New tape heads and servicing of the machine will make a good stylus or a new cd transport look inexpensive. Turntables and CD players are very reliable, records and CDs relatively affordable. Selection of music available must be pretty limited for tape enthusiasts in this century !
One of your more useful explanations. In a nutshell either digital or vinyl can be really good if great care is taken from beginning to end in the production process. If not your audio quality mileage may vary from format to format.
Hi Paul, thank for the great explanatory videos! I have another question for you: If a recording is made at 24/192 (so you don't run into traditional problems with the LPF's and ADC you need at 44.1) and afterwards, you convert it to 16/44.1 and then, you use an upsampling DAC to 24/192 when payed back (so again, no nasty filtering), would the difference still be audible?
0neyedK Upsampling can not restore details that were lost in the downsampling. It’s like image resolution. If you take a photo of a crowd of people in high resolution and can recognize the faces, then downscale to some much lower pixel resolution where you can not judge the faces, the upscaling back to the same higher resolution doesn’t mean the faces can be recognized again. Rather jagged pixelated lines will be smoothed in such process. Similarly for audio when upsampling it, curves with rough steps get smoothed.
@@ThinkingBetter I took upsampling into the equation, as it's the only way to simplify (thus improve) the LPF at the end of the DAC. (the stepup from 16 to 24 bit is irrelevant) In a digital perspective, you are absolutely correct, downsampling is loosing data, this loss cannot be recovered. Real question is, is this audible?
Consider the resolution in two contexts.... the first is the number of bits defining the dynamic resolution, and the second is the sampling rate defining the spectral resolution and bandwidth. If the sample rate is high enough, you can drop the number of bits of dynamic range down to just one bit and achieve unmatched clarity in the highs as DSD and especially high rate DSD aptly demonstrate. If you reduce the sampling rate similarly, the number of bits used is inconsequential and more bits won't help because the frequency content will be compromised. In your example, the spectral data will be truncated by the conversion to 44.1KHz and a 24/192 upsampling DAC may process the results into something better sounding by sidestepping the frequency domain issues encountered when using a slower DAC, however I believe that in a critical listening environment you would readily distinguish between a source that was better than 44.1KHz and one truncated to 44.1KHz. The 44.1KHz figure can be confusing because it specifies the resulting bandwidth at the Nyquist frequency and at that frequency a digital recording is only able to replicate triangle waves which smear into sine waves as system bandwidth drops. While I dearly love synthesizers of the 70s and 80s with their triangle waves, I prefer vocals and acoustic instruments to have more complex wave shapes and those shapes invariably collide and result in high frequency information that becomes more compromised as you approach the sample rate. By raising the sampling rate high enough that any wave at the limit of human perception is still digitally represented by a number of points rather than just two, sparkling highs can be captured that simply evade the 44.1KHz world. The clarity in the highs you can achieve by going beyond Red Book have been able to melt my knees in sonic ecstasy while a Red Book spec recording has not yet done that for me.
@@Peter_S_ Interesting comment ;) Now tell me, what's the highest frequency where your ears can distiguish the difference between a sine, a triangle or even a square wave? (with my ears, that's up until nearly 6kHz!!!) I will not go into the DSD-debate, but there the only advantage lies in the way the DAC can be setup, wich is a clear (and audible) advantage...
@@0neyedK When downsampling audio, it can be highly audible of course when the downsampling removes significant details. For example, if you downsample 16 bits PCM to 8 bits PCM your theoretical maximum dynamic range drops from 96dB to 48dB and lots of details will be lost. Of course dropping from 24 bits down to 16 bits is far less audible as what you lose are details below -96dB of max peaks. To put it in perspective, the details you lose in such downsampling would not even be theoretically possible to store and retrieve ever on vinyl as such details are well below the noise floor of vinyl. However, a major argument for 24 bit is that it allows headroom for attenuation (volume control), mixing and audio processing in DSPs (e.g. active cross over, EQ etc.) in a digital audio architecture.
One thing missing from this discussion is longevity. In a safe place, suppose you put a vinyl record on a shelf along side a reel-tape, a CD and a hard drive. Come back in 100 years. The ONLY format that will be viable will be the vinyl record!
They’re made of vinyl. Ok, but hats the difference between a regular LP and a Master copy? Now I have in my collection, three versions of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon. One says it’s AAD, a for analog and d for digital. The next is ADD, and the last one is, you guessed it, DDD. But I don’t care as long as it’s clean and you can’t hear any losses between them, so back to my question! And one more question, can up sampling on a CD help get around the scratches your wife puts on your discs?
i like tape reel becuase i like the tapes spinning and also for record music is more easy because i hate that mouse "click" everytime yopu want to record , and more fun to fast foward
Do you think the dynamic of digital mastered vinyls means that these vinyl LPs provide absolutely no acoustic benefit over straight “digital” products?
OMG you answered! I was like whaaaaaaaa! Thank's Paul, appreciate it (meanwhile listening to some good DSD music i have just bought). Have a great day!
I have some DSD files, they take up a lot of hard drive space and for no sound gain. Who would have thought. Must be my system is not up to it or I have untrained ears. Even my wife in the other room can't tell when I play the DSD files.
I have always been predictably turned off by the statement "CD's sound better than records", since the year 1982 when I first enjoyed the sound of first generation CD's and the absolute convenience of the new format. Blanket statements are rarely based on Science, Technology and Sound. Blanket statements also break the rules of logic across any field, artistic, scientific, political or social. Paul has made, in this video one of the most important proclamations I have ever heard in my entire Engineering career: "Lets not confuse the Facts of Technology", holy mooolyyyyy, wow. The proof of this, is readily found across the dozens of Audio Forums.... where we can read from plenty of generally "well meaning enthusiasts" with absolutely "Zero Technological Basis", expressing 'opinions', and often, with a touch of Hate. Thank you Paul as this whole narrative of this vs. that has been finally and succinctly de-bunked. As Paul Klipsch had a small Lapel Pin that we can all google what it said. My pro-bono website is an oasis of truth and experience, not the angry audio thought police ready to slay Giants with Keyboards and and opinions. This wonderful hobby is all about "the love of Music", so just enjoy it from an Edson Cylinder, 78rpm Shellac Records, Cassettes, 44.1, 192, all the way up to the Master Streams available today. PS Audio is dedicated to the highest standards of Technology so I suggest that all Haters learn to Play an Instrument so they can experience what real sound does to the soul and mind. Thank you Paul another Home Run.
Anything is good as long as you like it. There is always a danger of listening to your equipment rather than enjoying the sound. Vinyl CD or whatever, enjoy your listening experience is my motto.
One of the best sounding pieces of music I have is a 24 bit 192 digital file of the eagles hotel California. I mean it's perfect. The base is strong and tight, lead and background vocals are right where they should be very prominent in the sound stage. All instruments clearly defined. Then I have other HD downloads that aren't that great at all.
Agree. Though I call myself a Vinyl guy. I find that a lot of folks are really over hyping the record as the golden ticket to Audio Nirvana. Likewise, I found your listening experience really depends on the quality of the recording. I have plenty of old records totally recorded and mixed in analog that sound awful. I also have a lot of modern albums that were recorded and mastered entirely within the digital domain. Some sound good, some do not. So for me, one format is not Superior to the other. It really comes down to the level of genius behind the mixing console. Some engineers do a better job than others. Another observation. What defines analog these days? Can one call a Vinyl record that has been recorded and mixed solely by digital equipment, truly analog? I have found these modern records do not sound much different from their CD counterpart. Such albums do not have the same sonic flavor an notable recording from the 1970's does. Yes you can account for advances in technology, but to my ear even an all digital remix direct from the masters do not sound the same as the original release.
The Jimi Hendrix Experience 3 records sounds amazing on vinyl. The Digital version is not there, at least for me. Most digital has a shrill sound to me. Maybe not always at first, but after some time listening, I get turned off. Most original pressings or a solid later analog pressing are softer and appealing, but not just EQ'd, it that "vinyl warmth" maybe are ears simply prefer music coming from a mechanical and physical touch. Again, for me, the digital giveaway me dar fatigue.
@@galus14436 Feel the same. Most CD releases of music from the era of classic rock, sound horrible. I would wonder how an vinyl reissue that's been remixed in digital would sound? Would it have the same life as the original pressings? They did this with an big-buck reissue of the Beatles catalog not too long ago. They did not sound near as good as the original releases.
@@galus14436 Digital does suck, I heard Black Sabbath on 44/128kB MP3, it was boring, broke out the vinyl version, it was way better (MP3 was played at friend's place)
I think the Pioneer 1250 sounded better than the 1980. I'm with you on the Sansui 9090. That's a great sounding receiver. What surprised me was the Realistic receiver. It was in the top five from what I could hear. RUclips isn't going to reproduce the same quality level as what what you were hearing.
I like both vinyl and CD. I agree with many other comments that the majority of people in this hobby tend to forget about recording, mixing, and mastering quality. These attributes make the big difference. I have a Little River Band album on both mediums and I like both for different reasons. But overall playing WAV and FLAC from my music PC is my main source.
Thank you for all the points in this video. I've been a DJ for 35 years and if I hear one more person use the blanket statement "vinyl sounds better than digital" I'm going to choke slam them lol.
Vinyl records may often be better-mastered or have better dynamic range than their CD counterparts, but surface noise completely ruins the listening experience for me. I also hate having to clean every record in an attempt to achieve a better listening experience. I was thrilled to get my first CD player in 1984, as it meant the end of surface noise and cleaning. I’ve never really looked back. Sure, I still play some vinyl - mostly stuff that isn’t available on CD like some 12" singles and 1950s & 1960s LPs - but I cannot understand why anyone would think crackling or popping sounds are acceptable or even preferable in any way.
It very much depends on the recording and the medium it's rendered to. There are two types of compession: signal and data. Oftentimes, the analog signal MUST be compressed to be playable on vinyl. Otherwise, the needle would jump the groove. CD's don't have that requirement, but early CD's often were just transferred from an analog master that had been compressed for vinyl. From a data perspective, standard CD is an uncompressed format. But the sample rate is a compromise dating to the early 80's and some people can tell the difference. MP3's are always data compressed to one degree or another. If you're ripping a CD to MP3, try different compression rates to see what works best for you. Personally, I do not recommend anything less than 192.
what nobody seems to unstand is vinly and CD are both DIGITALS. Vinil uses a dimond styles to get the DIGIAL sugnel off the CD and a CD player uses a pickup with 3 tiny laser beams to get it.oterwise ir is exacly the same thing.
When people wonder if vinyl records are better, they are wondering if, for the SAME MIX, which they should buy: a CD or a Vinyl Record? I feel that there are problems with the explanation given, i.e.: - First, a thing to consider: each time you listen to your vinyl record, the quality decreases due to wear. Physics. - We have a limited hearing range (~20-20K), so how about the 192k files? - "Compression" can mean many things in this field: dynamic range compression? how about lossless compression? or lossy compression? - How do you think your 192k hi-fi music will do through 50-17K freq range speakers?! These points are not bonus material, but very important topics which needed to be addressed. Digital is a much superior format due to many advantages. And you say that "it depends how the music was mixed", but if you want to compare "apples to apples", the answer should suffice the question: "for the SAME MIX, which I should buy: a CD or a Vinyl Record?"
I pretty much agree, it's the actual recording process. ( maybe, see pt. 3 ) Now, do the major companies have any incentive to upgrade their recording setups - heck, has Sony studios ( I believe they have actual artists signed ) upgraded THEIR setup to SACD standards ? What about movies, isn't current blue ray audio 'the best' , how do they handle the actual recordings ? third - I think You can actually see a difference when simply up formatting a standard DVD to HDMI. ( 480 to 720 or 1080 ) and that is strictly in the on the shelf equipment. would that not also be true for the much simpler audio info stream ?
Paul I always find your videos informative but putting your arm right next to that expensive system's stylus (such as 4:07 ) gave me anxiety like you wouldn't believe.
is it the format or the mixing/mastering that makes the difference? For instance the CD version of Jeff Wayne's The War Of The Worlds sounds utterly lifeless and crappy, while the SACD version sounds fine, comparable the vinyl. Could it be that CD gets a bad rep because they tried to make older recordings sound too clean?
Then there is the 500 Hz RIAA roll-off found on so many on yesterdays vinyl. Loudness contour has existed for a very long time in the "HiFi" industry. Fun stuff
They may not be excellent from a specifications standpoint, but a well mastered vinyl record on a beautiful turntable playing through a tube amp can be downright heavenly to listen to in spite of the imperfections. Well mastered vinyl on a beautiful turntable playing through a superior amp is unquestionably a pinnacle of sound reproduction technology.
@@Peter_S_ A great recording on metal tape played on a well-engineered cassette deck is also a pinnacle of sound reproduction technology. But the technology is obsolescent, and newer technologies have their own pinnacles to reach.
Paul, love your explanation in regards to different mediums qualities based on how the recording is done. My question to you is, how me as a consumer who own both analogue and digital system will know which format sound ( I hate to say better) than other format? If the 16 bit CD will sound better than a hi Rez for same album, What are the available resources out there that will allow me to choose the correct better sounding format ? Thanks again for a great informative videos.
This is what i always say to people. You can have a dsd128 that sounds worse than a 16/44.1. BUT if all things are constant, only the recording is the variable, yes dsd will outperform any flac. Its just sonically better.
The unfortunate problem is alot of the masters are crap, especially in rock/pop. The company's just turn them out and most of the consumers wouldn't know what sounds good if it was to slap them in the face. Just my thoughts.
Jim Albruzzess Yes, the young studio people nowadays are probably happy with the sound you get out of a pair of crappy Apple earbuds or a cheap Bluetooth speaker. The mass market music consumer has gone cheap and smaller is better for most young users.
@@QoraxAudio Yes, your right. I just got a wake up call recently when listening to CD music from the 80s. But some CD music wasn't bad even at that time.
@@ThinkingBetter Bear in mind that when CD first hit the market, players were expensive and discs cost three times as much as vinyl. It had to appeal to audiophiles, and it did. The first CDs were excellent. They had to be. The problems came a few years in, when all the record companies rushed to release their back catlogues on the new format and corners were cut. That, and not "the loudness wars", is the reason why many were later remastered.
That is correct, they just play it in on their Crosley and go yup, that's how vinyl sounds, microphonic and lofi. Hifi nerds like us are only a small group of people who actually care about fidelity.
The confusion is amplified by the loudness war. Michael Fremmer have published a interest(at leas!) video about he’s involvement in the Michael Jackson estate vs the recording studio That released Jackson’s music to the point the audio distorted 400 a second!
This guy has seen and heard it all. He's a massive fan of both mediums, so I have faith he's put in his time. Love that he's subjective about everything. Breath of fresh air. My 2 cents if anyone cares. I had a Rega Planar 3 (2016) with an ortofon black. It was good. Never felt it bested digital. I recently got a Planar 10 with and Apheta 3, and 8/10 times its better than digital. Not sure if its coloration or what, but its better on my ears. Sure it cost me a TON of money to get there, but its incredible. Not advocating spending that much, just thought id chime in and say Vinyl CAN sound better.
The Nyquist-Shannon Theorem means that anything above 44kHz is going to translate as inaudible. A bit depth of 16 bits, as you said, translates to 96dB of dynamic range. Considering that the noise floor of most rooms is at least 50dB, a CD carries enough dynamic range information to deafen someone over a few hours. Vinyl is limited by the mechanical features of the disc itself. It cannot encode deep bass, the treble is inevitably rolled-off, and there unavoidable timing issues as the needle proceeds toward the center. Redbook CD is closer to a perfect reproduction than anyone could tell in any blind testing. Come on, Paul. I know you know all of this.
Both analog and digital has the potential to sound incredible. It’s a matter of fun factor and personal preference, the way I see it. Just enjoy the music, the reason why all this stuff exists to begin with. :)
Amen!
I like vinyl because I love to collect records, but i also like digital because it is simply more convenient and you don't have to worry about records scratching or your stylus wearing out
Agree !
One of the most fun and dynamic CDs I own is copied from a direct to disc record that now sells for $100's or even over $1000 on Ebay.
@Bobby Brady I bought the record new back in the 70's for around $17.
At 72 , I knew all this . The difference is YOU explain it better than I typically can .Great job !!
The problem is that he didn't give the whole story. CD will not reproduce the ultrasonic frequencies above 20khz, but vinyl will. These frequencies are present in most musical instruments and have been shown to have a positive effect on humans.
In all his videos he never gives the complete story because he just doesn't get it.
The focus should be more one how the music was recorded and mastered vs. what mass media format the mastered audio was put on.
Correct! And CD Still has the ability to have a larger frequency range and accurate reproduction with no physical parts touching each other (ie. Stylus to the vinyl.)
I sold almost all of my vinyls collected over 35 yrs, been buying CDs now for 15 years, no regret as long as the mastering is good.
What if one of your favorite records is mastered well on vinyl but poorly mastered on CD ?
They’re called records, not “vinyls”.
Some people call them, vinyl records.😀
Dave G - True and also correct.
@@crusheverything4449 Vinyls ? Isn't that something you wear or is it furniture ?
Agree with you 100%. Especially on the mastering process. That’s what makes the most difference.
I was thinking the same thing.
Master quality recordings of sound are of importance.
Another technical point: many early analog-to-digital converters really only had about 13 or 14 usable bits of resolution, with the last two or three being overwhelmed with the converter’s internal noise and distortion - the result being that this affected the sound produced by early digital masters. Depending on the processes used and the style of music this can be either a tolerable quirk or disastrous - electronic-heavy 80’s pop and EDM, especially if it’s recorded as separate tracks and then mixed digitally, would have a very different outcome than a classical orchestra piece where it’s just two room mics going straight into a digital recorder.
Full disclosure Iam a vinyl fan.
However this is one of the best explanations on this topic that I have ever heard. I have equal money invested in my vinyl playback system as into my CD system. ( I have not gotten into streaming as yet). I often prefer the vinyl version when I have both format's of the same recording.
Bottom line as stated "it depends" on many factors and a blanket statement of one is better than the other is not a scientific approach to this topic!
get into DSD or SACD, almos the same thing. not that much music out there, can only hope you will find what you like to listen, but... the sound is incredible over and over every time you listen that kind of digital. i also love analogue, got tape machines and good vinyl stuff. nothing compares with DSD
@@SuspiciousAra thanks 4 the info. is dsd used only SACDs or is it also used on dvd? is 1 better than the other?
Keywords...same money invested: in my setup that vinyl money blows the digital money out of the water in most cases.
@@sebastiannowakowski5084 Agreed! As stated "in most cases"
Richard F yeah those other cases it already is a great recording like Muddy Waters Folk singer that already sounds great on Qobuz for example
I was nervous about how close your forearm was getting to that no doubt very expensive cartridge!
That was exactly my thought too !
I’m sure he’s exactly as cognizant of it as we would be!
Same here.
I think his forearm is more expensive than the cartridge!.
44.1 kHz - can we agree this is a misnomer? it is 22.05 kHz per channel and these are written alternatingly. The sum frequency is 44.1. It's like a sine wave with an up and a down part. That sine wave's frequency is 22.05 kHz, using a half sine for left and the other for right. We end up with 44.1k digital 16 bit samples, but go back to the 22.05 in DA conversion.
Paul's right about how the music was recorded and played. Some groups like ELP , Pink Floyd, Steely Dan seemed to aim for high quality studio sound. ELPs 1st lp is SO dynamic from quiet delicate piano passages to DEEP heavy rumbling low ends from synthesizer and drums.
Just listened to ELO New World Record on a nice pair of JBL L26 Decades - low end of the good stuff - and it blew my mind. I had never heard the original ELO sound.
Pops and clicks are not accurate, they're distortion - pure and simple. I used to search far and wide for expensive European pressings - and eventually, their surface noise became burdensome. I was at PolyGram when we introduced the CD and nonetheless got talked into buying a Linn LP-12 a few years later, with a K9 cartridge, as part of a high-resolution audio system build around Apogee Acoustics Calipers (still a wonderful smaller-scaled ribbon loudspeaker, especially if properly rebuilt by one of the tech authorized by Graham Keet). But I could never get past the surface noise of LP, even when compared to the same recording when played on a first-generation CD through a first-generation Philips CD player. Go figure.
For me, the most important thing in audio is where they put the microphones and whether the engineer got it right; everything else is secondary. Analog, digital, it doesn't matter. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. The other thing is that older analog recordings contain distortion at climaxes, in orchestral scores, for instance, that is simply not there in a digital recording. Digital recordings have their issues - but properly done they are much more capable of reproducing the sound of an orchestra playing double- or triple-forte (assuming that the engineers know what they're doing and are not playing around with levels or using too many microphones).
IMHO, the most important component in an audio chain are the loudspeakers / headphones.
HPLeft this guy engineers
Absolutely agree.
Since CDs and players were into the market (beginning the 80's), I said "goodbye" to vinyl for ever.
To my relief, I had not to hear "clicks", "clocks", "plings", "plongs", "hisses", "rumbles" and so forth anymore.
And, at least in my case, it wasn't a question of convenience, but of listening peace and pleasure (at last!).
Good quality vinyl doesn't make those extra noises. I have a 180 gm pressing from the 70's that's clean and crisp and you'd think you were listening to HD digital unless I told you otherwise--I'm still shocked every time I play it. Unfortunately, that's the exception and not the norm.
@@theragingdolphinsmaniac4696 You're very right: that is the rare exeption and not the norm, even for 180 gr vinyl pressings.
@@venturarodriguezvallejo9777 ? We
Dear Paul thank you for this excellent video. May I add that since the 80s I started to experience descent HiFi with CDs. I couldn’t go back to vinyl unless I spend a fortune on équipent which I can’t afford.
Technical point: the term “compression” is used to mean two very different things: level compression, which affects dynamic range (it’s a process of automatically turning the volume down when it gets too high, this is the sort of thing that the recording engineer chooses to use to sculpt the sound); and data compression, which comes in two varieties - lossy (where the system throws away data that it’s psychoacoustic model says you won’t miss, examples include MP3 and AAC) and lossless (where it’s just a more efficient way of representing the data; the output is exactly the same as the input, down to every last bit, examples include FLAC and ZIP’s ‘deflate’ algorithm). Lossy data compression can vary in how bad it is, depending on the settings used; even with the same algorithm - the data rate being the primary factor at play here.
Totally agree, but I'd add one more type of compression - the bit rate specified. In effect, this establishes the maximum quality and quantity of digital information available, because despite excellent interpolation between sample points you are always going to lose data. Whether this matters or not to the ear can be debated for ever, but in theory, analogue will ultimately be better because there is no loss whatsoever. Now, of course, in the real world we don't come near to achieving that, nor do we achieve the lack of background noise, or the dynamic range, or zero clicks from scratches and faults on the record; so it's a theoretical advantage that can't actually be realised at present. I do wonder if at some time in the future a new way of recording analogue will be developed that gets round these issues. In the meantime, it was nice to see this video state the truth that dares not speak its name - namely that it's the quality of the recording and not the format that has way more influence on sound quality than all other factors put together.
@@rogerking7258 I think that too much emphasis is placed on the fact that digital recording will inevitably lose some information. A good digital recording will record sound at the highest bit rate possible, at the highest sampling rate possible and introduce no compression of any kind. It WILL lose some information, but the amount and type of information loss is trivial and totally insignificant. It is NOT true to say that analogue recording loses no information, it does, LOTS. The difference is that it can't really be quantified and it is assumed that just because a complete waveform is recorded that it is necessarily more accurate than a reconstructed digital waveform. This assumption is false.
It should also be recognised that a digital recording will only necessarily lose information at the recording stage only. All other processing, recording and pressing needn't introduce any further degradation to the sound. With analoge, every step from recording to vinyl record, and there are a lot of them, will introduce distortion and losses from the original recording.
use a BOSS guiat eqlizer if it is too loud or tuen don the voume on the receiver or tape playar.
The first thing you describe is 'limiting'. Compression is both raising and lowering levels, mostly to obtain a less dynamic result than the original.
@@zboy303 ...and a less accurate result as well.
I remember the introduction of the CD format, and how the world marveled on how much cleaner and clearer those early CDs sounded.
Much wider frequency response, much wider dynamic range and near zero noise.
Later, CD quality only improved as digital audio recording gear and computing power improved.
Then came the 'loudness wars'.
Then came the MP3 compression format.
Then came streaming (a huge step back in quality)
"Digital" went from being the best thing ever, to a dirty word.
Public perception can be a funny thing.
With lossless streaming like "Tidal" it is once again the ultimate King.
Early CDs sounded prett crappy. DDD was a workflow that needed refinement. And oversampling wasn't there yet either.
@@evil_twit I have Tidal, the "hifi" version. I like it but I wouldn't assign it any authority for how something should sound.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind you are free to believe in cable sound too, so have at it :)
Well, I remember those 128kbps MP3's I used to listen in high school. Listening to them today, definitely sounds like crap. So much details lost, especially in the high frequencies (cymbals, hi-hats etc). But that was what was popular back then because internet speeds weren't very fast (I remember, it was still taking like an hour to download one song at that 128kbps bitrate) and we had low data caps. Nowadays though, unless you set it to lower quality, streaming services default to 320kbps, and let's be honest, it's very hard to tell the difference between uncompressed, unless you're A/B'ing and purposely looking for differences. And formats like ACC and OGG has higher quality for the same bitrate. But those 128kbps MP3's definitely didn't help with the reputation of digital audio.
I don’t know what system you had but early cds didn’t sound better at all in general. They sounded more like fake sounds. Clean yes but not realistic. Very flat
Honest statements, there are so many variables in both analog and digital situations. The wildest thing you can do is to find what makes your ears happy with the sound that you are listening to. Kudos, BOULDER Colorado, my hometown....
I really appreciate you being able to let me know about audio quality in very smart and easy way , thank you 🙏🏻
People sometimes forget that records were engineered to fit 22 minutes of music on a 12” platter ( if I remember correctly). So the lows were taken out and the highs were attenuated to fit more grooves. The turntable pre amp re-added the lows (RIAA equalization curve). You can test this by setting your turntable to line in to bypass the preamp. You’ll hear just highs and hiss. The LP plastic disk also has pink noise from just the stylus scraping along the grooves. You can get a blank LP and when you play it, you will hear noise. Music is then put on top. Maybe that low level distortion creates the illusion of breathing or warmth or whatever.
One of the biggest benefits records have had is that they were the dominant format during the golden age of audio when a large percentage of the music released was mostly produced by a relatively small group of trained producers and technicians. Vinyl has limitations, but they usually don't get in the way of the music when proper care is taken. The digital age made it possible for anyone to take over the entire process themselves with the CD simply being the final storage medium and we saw a huge drop in overall production quality. This might have been a problem if the average age of the music consumer hadn't also been dropping. Today we have a huge legacy of compromised recordings and poor mastering which really obfuscates the issue of what format is really best.
Also the Napster shift post Y2000 didn't help in that the record companies laid off a lot of talented people who helped make the music in the 'golden years.'
"Trained producers and technicians" who didn't know half of what we now know today and were using massively inferior equipment. A lot of their "training" was either working around technical limitations, or complete anecdotal experimentation that wasn't based on any hard data. Today, I can Google "How to record a drum set" and get better real world results than someone like RVG could have ever gotten for the majority of his career. People act like the "golden age" was so good, when RVG was recording in his parents living room at night and working as an optometrist by day, and Motown was a few random houses in the middle of nowhere that used to be a photography studio.
I am very impressed by your factual down to earth views which I feel you are an authority in.
Hey Paul. I have a 1980 vinyl album by Santana on CBS, it is not an early 1980's CBS CX vinyl albums, however, it does have a rather good explanation on the cover which reads as follows:-
"This album has been recorded "digitally".
"In simple terms, the music itself is not recorded as with conventional magnetic tape recordings".
"It is first converted into numerical (digital) code, and this code is stored on the tape".
"The result is increased clarity, elimination of tape noise and hiss, wow and flutter, and other distortions".
"In order properly to reproduce the digital recording on disc, we chose to make the album four shorter sides rather than squeezing all the music onto a 2 - sided lp".
"This allows us to make the fullest use of the extended transient response and clarity of digital recording".
"David Rubinson - Producer".
Is this an early example of a kind of CX prototype, or is this something completely different altogether?
I have videod the cover for your perusal which can be viewed via the link below.
ruclips.net/video/iVmKyMqzzFQ/видео.html
Thanks, Paul. Both digital and analogue media can sound absolutely wonderful when sufficient care is taken during the recording process.Sadly, that is too often not done.
I'd like to see the impulse response of a record to a pro reel to reel tape.
This is by far the most accurate and to-the-point simple analysis regarding Analogue vs. Digital audio.
Many sound engineers agree that for sometime now, there is a different mastering technique for CDs (you can hear the brickwalled mastering, just for the purpose of car playback!) and a different one for Hi-Res files, just to promote the "superior" sound of Hi-Res audio!
I do own some CDs from Telarc & Narada that could easily blow away many Hi-Res music files, so I do agree with you 100%.
Thank you so much for these awesome videos, Paul!
Keep on rocking! :)
Is there some sort of database that lists which records are far better on vinyl than CD? I’d love to know if it’s treated on a case by case basis
I say we just have fun with music. Digital, Analog, I have means to do both in casual and active listening environments. Just turn it on, crank it up, enjoy the show is how I see it.
I thought the issue with digital was not compression but sampling rate. The original CDs sounded cold, and they had a sampling rate of 4400. Is that still the case?
Such a balanced way of looking at things. Great video.
In a perfect world the vinyl mastered disk, the CD mastered disk, the cassette mastered tape, and even the R2R mastered tape (all of these being the commercially sold versions) should be mastered for the individual formats as there are differing requirenments for each. Even iTunes and MP3 versions should be mastered individually for the format. They all have different s/n ratios, different acceptable peak levels, and different frequency limitations. In theory a 24-192 recording is going to blow all of these away but that doesn't necessarily happen when you are listening back. Some may prefer the L to R (side to side) restrictions of a vinyl disk, the bass drum and bass guitar mixed to centre of the vinyl, or the increased side to side and depth of a CD, R2R, or even cassette. 24-192 doesn't suffer these restrictions. Your kick drum kit could be panned from centre to right with a second drummer and kit panned from centre to left. Imagine what the Allman Brothers would sound like if they remixed with that in mind. With digital it theoretically doesn't matter. Ther bass guitar and kick drum could be panned anywhere as could multiple instrumental or vocal tracks. Whatever is in the stereo spectrum can go from hard L to hard R just like in real life and you could even use a 360 degree microphone and have true surround sound and be unable to tell the difference between live and recorded with 24-192 recordings. The art of mastering plays a major role in the finished product. Just like a movie soundtrack doesn't necessarily use 100% accurate sound (the footsteps, doors, clothing swishes, and a million other sounds are usually dubbed in the foley stage after the film is edited by highly trained specialists. So also music is often treated with equalization, compression, limiting, pitch variation, level riding, and many other tricks of the audio trade which can either ruin or magically augment the finished audio production which you listen to in your home theatre, music room, computer, headphones, or automobile.
The PROBLEM is.... We were sold on a medium with a huge dynamic range of 96dB (CD), of which the current music industry is only using about 6dB. They do this to serve themselves.... to make their "product" louder... not because people like it, or that it makes the art better.
word!
@@TheMirolab 100% agree.
@@TheMirolab 6dB is garbage, that's why ppl are flocking back to vinyl
The best way is to listen to the formats and choose what sound best to you. ez 😉👌
I listen to all depending on where I am. I think the question really being asked is, should I add vinyl?
I did and I'm pleasantly happy with the choice.
1:30 - I think by "compression", the text did not refer to dynamic compression, but to *bandwidth* compression, most notably _lossy_ compression, like MP3 or WMA.
Well then: 1) which technology has got the highest _potential_ quality and 2) how often do media for this format usually _reach_ that full potential? After all, we are discussing the overall everyday experience here, not some academic exceptions.
Also, I _have_ done cross checks of 16/44.1 to 32/192 and I personally was _not_ able to tell the difference in a blind test. I *_was,_* on the other hand, able to tell a subtle, but noticeable difference between uncompressed WAV and highest resolution MP3. I *_also_* found out that the "enhancer" function on my Yamaha receiver reconstructs the lost high frequency material so faithfully to the original that I was unable to tell the difference between uncompressed WAV and enhanced MP3. These are the relevant results to me, and with all due respect, I have come to consider anything more hair splitting than this to be snake oil. I have yet to hear the difference that you talk about.
Hi Paul,
This video is the best video you have ever done. My understanding is that, from a technical standpoint, CD or digital is "more accurate" than a vinyl record. However, humans hear in a more analogue friendly manner. Therefore more often than not the human ear enjoys the sound of records (analogue) better than a digital recording. Now, I am grossly over simplifiying this concept and I am not a recording engineer, engineer or tech of any kind. What I am is a 61 year old music lover that enjoys listening to CD as well as records. In fact, I still enjoy tape as well. I will not get into a debate as to digital vs. analogue. However, if you ask which I enjoy better it would be records simply because I enjoy the practice of cleaning the record and playing it as well as reading the covers and enjoying the artwork. I also enjoy the convenience of CD and feel that recordings that started out as digital and ended up as CD sound amazing also plus I can take them in the car with me. Am I an audiophile, yes. Do I put formats and equipment ahead of the music itself, absolutely not. And Yes I have a modest stereo system valued at about $20,000. This is all I know and have to say on this subject...Thank you Paul for making this information available to us from an engineer's point of view.
I’ve played in bands had my own pro-audio/live sound business and a studio (I’m c70 years) I hear some terrible and great masters in all formats. Hi Res streaming (eg Tidal) is consistently good and reliable. Vinyl is inconsistent but at it’s best just as, if not more, enjoyable than digital. The format can get in the way. I just enjoy what I feel like playing in whatever format I’m in the mood to listen to it in. Excellent channel. Greetings from the U.K.
I agree. Especially today, so much vinyl is pressed so poorly. Distortion, sibilance, skipping, bad mastering, off center, no fill, the list of issues go on and on. But when you get a good record… amazing. Such a great experience.
It seems in every field where consumers are involved there is a small percentage of folks who become more interested in the gear than in the actual activity - cars, model trains, guitars, music, etc. At some point they actually go from being focused on the enjoyment of the subject to being focused on the production of it. It is up to the individual to pursue what they find most enjoyable. Who am I to tell someone else what they should enjoy?
So when deciding to purchase a recording how do you decide whether to purchase the CD or the Vinyl Record?
Very balanced response. My own experience illustrates this point exactly. I have 3 different recordings of Bernstein conducting Copeland’s ‘Billy the Kid’. Vinyl from Columbia, CD from Columbia, and Vinyl from a Smithsonian music sampler my dad got for a music appreciation college course. The recordings are all from the same master tape. The Columbia CD & vinyl are both strident, but I may prefer the CD version due to lack of surface noise. But by far the Smithsonian version is hands down superior to either Columbia version. Far greater sound stage openness and depth. Obviously better mastered. Only problem is the sampler only includes ‘Introduction: The Open Prairie’.
Great to have both available!
This question begs to be asked of you. All variables being equal which format is the most pleasurable listening experience? For me its vinyl.
I still love vinyl records, love the touch and the sound.
@MrLizardisle in this world if no music life got no meaning, actually CD sound also not bad, but since young we use record to listen music, so the feeling are still there!!
All points well taken except the wow and flutter comment. With high end turntables, you don’t hear wow and flutter.
@@singaporethomasgiam5608 I do love my LPs very much although i do love CDs too never sold any of them so far and never will :-)
Crap in = Crap out :)
Also, vinyl is also compressed, the RIAA curve.
The RIAA curve is just an EQ. It does not affect the dynamics of the signal.
@@alexreeve You are right.
The RIAA EQ is reversed by the pre-amp. I forgot this. My bad.
The RIAA curve is really just compensation for the way magnetic cartridges work. Since we're carving a waveform into plastic, we really want the stylus deflection to correspond to dB level across the spectrum. This is pretty much what you get with a ceramic cartridge. But, lathes needed to use a magnetic cutting system and magnetic playback cartridges began to gain popularity as the superior choice. Magnetic systems will produce less and less output as the frequency decreases because they don't produce a signal representing the amount of deflection, but rather the rate of deflection. Since the rate drops with frequency, the RIAA curve simply makes things flat again.
@@bryede Yes. This also allows for more rotations on the vinyl without the groove overlapping itself at low frequencies.
RIAA is most definitley compression. To think otherwise is obsured. The main issues is the lack of understanding between the differences and similarities between analog and digital compression. Analog compression, that most would be farmillar with is the use of a compressor/limiter to normalize levels across a spectrum of frequencies using filters. tweaks can be made to greatly reduce some levels and increase others. Vinyl relies on the physical deflection of a needle that if directly corresponded to the amplitude of the signal would rely on a much wider track and more needle deflection, this would also reduce dynamic range by the small deflections being overwhelmed by the larger more energetic ones. Think of the dynamic range of a 78rmp single, and how much play time is on the disc. If you apply RIAA compression, the groves are changes such that then physical deflections of the needle are normalized, reducing the space a track takes up and also increasing dynamic range by allowing the minute needle vibrations of the high frequencies to be picked out and amplified. An inverse RIAA function is then applied to the phono signal to re-create the signal as close to the original as possible. And yes there are losses and distortion introduced from the needle, cartridge and stylus, and the filters on both end of the RIAA. This is essentially an extremely simplified example of how digital compression works, by removing unneeded information and in the case of vinyl that is extreme amplitudes, and using an inverse function to restore it. Digital does the same but uses much more clever algorithms that can remove repetative information and use forms of interpolation to use existing data to recover discarded data. Viny is very much compressed, but it does sound lovely.
02:20 - "Horse Patootie" - an extremely technical engineering/scientific expression used to identify comments or observations which are or may not be completely accurate.
Which sounds better - Van Halen at 16bit or me at 192bit?
Hi Paul, I love your videos and have been watching them for some time. In fact you have helped me on my Audio system upgrade path enormously, I found a dealer here in England who is happy to let me sit and play music, swap equipment over - listen again. This video had my hackles up as soon as it was a Vinyl Vs Digital in the title but i need not have worried as you expertly explained everything in your inimitable even handed and invaluably experienced manner. I love vinyl but it is the whole process for me, a tactile and sonic adventure that I do not get with digital formats but I can hear the difference on my system and sometimes I have to admit digital does sound better, whether it is dynamics, spacial or just a better copy. Many Thanks and please keep up the excellent work you do.
Hey Steve, what's the name of the dealer. Really struggling here in London.
@@volpedo2000 Hi Will, the dealership is the "Audiobarn", 2 Feltimores Park Chalk Lane, Old Harlow CM17 0PF. The guys name is Jack Satchfield. Hope this helps.
Steve Lewis Cheers Steve!
Vinyl is a more intentional experiance which typically results in a diffrent approach to music. Consider the care required to play and maintain a record. Press and play requires less care, therefore the music is more easily dismissed.
Great explanation, you always have to take everything on a case by case basis. There are some things I will only ever listen to on LP, some things I will only ever reach for the CD, and then some things I will only ever refer to the hi-res download. It all depends! Ultimately I think vinyl has the greatest potential to sound most like an original analog master tape, short of a 1:1 30ips copy.
Analogue vinyl records when you contemplate and stare at one and holding it for a long time... it looks somewhat like a frisbee disc and frisbee discs are what kids play with back in the 1980s decade. The sight of a frisbee disc makes you feel very young again... But suddenly that frisbee morphs into a vinyl record.
So cool, sir.
I agree. I have found that it is down to personal preference. Everyone is different. Thanks to Paul for explaining the debate perfectly.
It gets strange in listening when the digital audio played only occasionally will require your stereo to go from a size LARGE to wear a size MEDIUM for a period until a proper break in happens. I realized this in the 80's while playing with my few CD's.
Best explanation I’ve heard Paul! Thank you for making it very clear...
Thank you, well explained.
Sometimes it becomes so stressful to shut up when people with insufficient knowledge begin to wise on such topics - when you have the technical background to know that it is rubbish they pour off.
For example, when a "skilled" seller tries to explain why you need to use special Audio specified network cables to stream music.
I have come to this same conclusion so when do I purchase a record over digital sourcing. A digital record can sound great but there doesn’t seem to be enough information on the formats to know which format to purchase? Frustrating.
Well, MQA is supposed to resolve this if you're using MQA hardware or computer programs to play it back, but I've heard that it also has copy protection stuff built into it that's degrading, as well as if you don't have MQA stuff to play it back from, the measurements have indicated it's inferior to the 16/44.1 commercial release version. I haven't done the measurements myself, though, and I don't know all the specifics about MQA's copy protection schemes they're using. The tests I've seen done by others on, say, Tidal hi res, though, didn't look that appealing, but I don't know if that was with proper MQA playback.
I love it when someone like you with a modern engineering background has a long winded justification of why they know more about how one thing sounds better than another. I think the listener , hopefully a musician without hearing damage, can tell you that the dynamics on a clean analog lp is more satisfying to hear than a digital cd or mp3, etc.
Of course, with computer aided recording techniques, an engineer is hindered by the limitations of the equipment which filters more than old equipment and can be construed as " Compression", such as limiters in the studio are called Compressors. Given the fact that old blues recordings were given dirt sound by red lining the meters, in digital recordings this is done by synthetic means. From a musicians standpoint, there are huge benefits from analog recording. You've spoke of dynamics before, as a musician, dynamics and rises in volume on an older lp are quite satisfying and more like the actual performance than a cd or much digital can offer.
Agree 100%. You are intelligent.
It's a personal thing. I tossed out all of my vinyl immediately after hearing my first CD and have never looked back.
Some people love the tactile hands on of records and the clicks, pops seem endearing to others.
I'm more or less with you. I always hated the surface noise of vinyl. There are tracks that I still anticipate pops in certain places, even though I ditched the vinyl copy 30 years ago.
CD does not reproduce ultrasonic frequencies that are present in most musical instruments but vinyl does. I wouldn't have chosen CD unless I could add the ultrasonics back into it.
Vinyl played even here as clips on youtube beats anything digital. It's alive, stuff going on in the background is just as alive and clear as anything at the center. No digital source, including SACD, does that. No idea why, but it's clearly audible.
That's hogwash. Anything you hear on youtube was recorded on a digital microphone and then streamed at low resolution. You are listening to low-res digital audio no matter what the actual source is.
So if Paul plays an audiophile pressing on that VPI over his sweet IRS 5 speaker system, you will basically hear that output recorded on an iphone and then streamed at something like 128kbps, probably with some volume leveling thrown in.
You don't have to explain how youtube videos work. I know. That's why I said good vinyl sounds better EVEN on youtube. Go to "MrVinylObsessive"'s channel and every song on there will sound better than any CD you have of the same song. If all you care about is resolution and numbers I'm sure you won't hear it sounding good at all. I just listen. I'd rather enjoy good sounding music than sit and know I'm right about numbers.
@@thegrimyeaper it just sounds like my phone. More to the point, his vinyl won't sound better than my CDs because my CD's are played back on my CD player through my DAC, while his vinyl will play back as basically a 128kbps mp3 through my phone, even if I play it back over my stereo.
FTR, I'm not anti-vinyl. I listen to both records and CD's at home. But I suspect a certain amount of cognitive bias in your example.
The sheer amount of sonic information lost in low-quality re-recording, compression, and playback will smear any noticable differences. It's the equivalent of saying one power cable sounds better than another when you are testing them on a boombox.
Okay, I'm just gonna pretend I didn't see these comments so I don't pull my hair out.
@@thegrimyeaper cool. Have a good day.
There are two main reasons folk like certain vinyl recordings over CD versions:
1. Analogue equipment, from pre-amps through mixing desks to the records themselves and the record players that play them all introduce compression and distortion to the sound. We like compression. We particularly like distortion. It sounds musical and "warm" to us. Today music recorded and mixed totally "in the box" often has additional distortion and compression added to it to emulate this "warmth" and there is a whole industry making digital plug-ins that emulate the distortion, compression and EQ effects of classic analogue studio equipment (which often costs the price of a small family car to buy second hand) for this purpose. But "warmth" and "accuracy" are diametric opposites technically speaking.
2. The classic records that sound so good on vinyl do so primarily because they were engineered specifically to sound good on vinyl. When you listen to a studio recording your are never, ever, listening to what the music would sound like if you were standing next to the band in question. You are listening to what the band and the sound engineers together considered the best way to make it sound as good as possible on the sound equipment most of their audience would be using to play it using a battery of recording and post-production techniques. Top producers and engineers (and many of the top bands themselves) were (and are) extremely good at doing this and it is one big reason why some records sound way better than others. But it is not "accurate", It just sounds good.
So what Paul says here is exactly correct. Especially the bit about analogue being more "accurate" being total grade 1 BS. If you got a pristine first pressing of Kind of Blue or Exile on Main Street then yeah, go ahead and get a record deck to play them on, they'll sound divine. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.
Speaking of mastering, I saw the Quiet Riot album metal health at Walmart and thought why not? When I saw the seafoam green vinyl I thought OMG this is gonna sound like crap! I am stunned at how absolutely quiet (no pun intended) this album is. No "groove noise" ,clicks or pops or anything between the songs and I have a pretty decent setup just for vinyl .
Sure, record the groove is analog, but consider the inherent opportunities for distortion that exist in the analog processing - the RIAA equalization that's needed.
The reduction of headroom for dynamic range that's necessary due to the compression of the wave forms as the stylus get's closer to the center of the record.
The inherent tracking errors due to the difference in angle between the playback stylus and he angle of the stylus of the original cutting head).
Or just the fact that you're vibrating a shaft of metal with a diamond tip through a magnetic field to get your music signal, not to mention the impurities often found in the vinyl (creating hiss, and pops and clicks)- all this adds up to cd's being a much better medium, despite not being perfect.
Hello Paul just signed up for your channel and I am into a lot of audio sound Vinyl and digital also I have some records in storage cause with family I am staying in a hotel but gonna purchase a turntable in the near future after getting a place to play my records on but also wanna get into digital 180 vinyl. Are there any turntables that will play both kinds of vinyl or would I need t buy 2 separate turntables? Or if I buy one turntable is there an extra device that I need to purchase to play both analog and 180 digital on one turntable. Thanks, David San Diego California
I think the main problem is that analog forces a certain kind of mixing techniques which for the most part encourage keeping dynamics and headroom. Digital removes the headroom and doesn't have to worry about physicality of playback like vinyl, so a lot of digital recordings tend to focus on 'loudness' and other 'experimental techniques' because it can get away with it.
Really, both can sound good or bad, but one encourages sounding bad and the other encourages not messing up the medium playing it back. I.e. in digital, you can crank up the bass to stupid levels, but in vinyl, if you do this too much, you risk bouncing the needle out of the groove, so you have to balance the bass frequencies in certain ways, especially in a stereo field, where digital can literally pan bass all the way to one side with no consequences.
I have a Peter Nero Direct to disc LP from the 1970’s. It still sounds just brilliant. The direct to disc records were produced directly from the master I believe .I agree with every word you are saying.
So basically the way it was recorded mixed, and mastered determines the quality of the sound and not necessarily the medium used for playback.
Yup - Crap IN = Crap OUT everytime
- Vinyl : “I sound better than you, I’m warm and emotionnal !"
- Digital : "Yeah yeah grandpa, do you want to talk about dynamic range?"
- Reel-to-Reel....having a seat and a popcorn bucket: "Don”t worry about me guys, keep going on, enjoying the show now ☺️"
Sometimes makes me wonder why those old prerecorded open reel tapes don't generate this much discussion. 🤔
Laurentz Duba Probably because very few can afford to buy and maintain them. They only sound good at high tape speeds and the cost of tape is prohibitive. New tape heads and servicing of the machine will make a good stylus or a new cd transport look inexpensive. Turntables and CD players are very reliable, records and CDs relatively affordable. Selection of music available must be pretty limited for tape enthusiasts in this century !
One of your more useful explanations. In a nutshell either digital or vinyl can be really good if great care is taken from beginning to end in the production process. If not your audio quality mileage may vary from format to format.
Hi Paul, thank for the great explanatory videos! I have another question for you: If a recording is made at 24/192 (so you don't run into traditional problems with the LPF's and ADC you need at 44.1) and afterwards, you convert it to 16/44.1 and then, you use an upsampling DAC to 24/192 when payed back (so again, no nasty filtering), would the difference still be audible?
0neyedK Upsampling can not restore details that were lost in the downsampling. It’s like image resolution. If you take a photo of a crowd of people in high resolution and can recognize the faces, then downscale to some much lower pixel resolution where you can not judge the faces, the upscaling back to the same higher resolution doesn’t mean the faces can be recognized again. Rather jagged pixelated lines will be smoothed in such process. Similarly for audio when upsampling it, curves with rough steps get smoothed.
@@ThinkingBetter I took upsampling into the equation, as it's the only way to simplify (thus improve) the LPF at the end of the DAC. (the stepup from 16 to 24 bit is irrelevant) In a digital perspective, you are absolutely correct, downsampling is loosing data, this loss cannot be recovered. Real question is, is this audible?
Consider the resolution in two contexts.... the first is the number of bits defining the dynamic resolution, and the second is the sampling rate defining the spectral resolution and bandwidth. If the sample rate is high enough, you can drop the number of bits of dynamic range down to just one bit and achieve unmatched clarity in the highs as DSD and especially high rate DSD aptly demonstrate. If you reduce the sampling rate similarly, the number of bits used is inconsequential and more bits won't help because the frequency content will be compromised. In your example, the spectral data will be truncated by the conversion to 44.1KHz and a 24/192 upsampling DAC may process the results into something better sounding by sidestepping the frequency domain issues encountered when using a slower DAC, however I believe that in a critical listening environment you would readily distinguish between a source that was better than 44.1KHz and one truncated to 44.1KHz.
The 44.1KHz figure can be confusing because it specifies the resulting bandwidth at the Nyquist frequency and at that frequency a digital recording is only able to replicate triangle waves which smear into sine waves as system bandwidth drops. While I dearly love synthesizers of the 70s and 80s with their triangle waves, I prefer vocals and acoustic instruments to have more complex wave shapes and those shapes invariably collide and result in high frequency information that becomes more compromised as you approach the sample rate. By raising the sampling rate high enough that any wave at the limit of human perception is still digitally represented by a number of points rather than just two, sparkling highs can be captured that simply evade the 44.1KHz world. The clarity in the highs you can achieve by going beyond Red Book have been able to melt my knees in sonic ecstasy while a Red Book spec recording has not yet done that for me.
@@Peter_S_ Interesting comment ;) Now tell me, what's the highest frequency where your ears can distiguish the difference between a sine, a triangle or even a square wave? (with my ears, that's up until nearly 6kHz!!!) I will not go into the DSD-debate, but there the only advantage lies in the way the DAC can be setup, wich is a clear (and audible) advantage...
@@0neyedK When downsampling audio, it can be highly audible of course when the downsampling removes significant details. For example, if you downsample 16 bits PCM to 8 bits PCM your theoretical maximum dynamic range drops from 96dB to 48dB and lots of details will be lost. Of course dropping from 24 bits down to 16 bits is far less audible as what you lose are details below -96dB of max peaks. To put it in perspective, the details you lose in such downsampling would not even be theoretically possible to store and retrieve ever on vinyl as such details are well below the noise floor of vinyl.
However, a major argument for 24 bit is that it allows headroom for attenuation (volume control), mixing and audio processing in DSPs (e.g. active cross over, EQ etc.) in a digital audio architecture.
One thing missing from this discussion is longevity. In a safe place, suppose you put a vinyl record on a shelf along side a reel-tape, a CD and a hard drive. Come back in 100 years. The ONLY format that will be viable will be the vinyl record!
They’re made of vinyl. Ok, but hats the difference between a regular LP and a Master copy? Now I have in my collection, three versions of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon. One says it’s AAD, a for analog and d for digital. The next is ADD, and the last one is, you guessed it, DDD. But I don’t care as long as it’s clean and you can’t hear any losses between them, so back to my question!
And one more question, can up sampling on a CD help get around the scratches your wife puts on your discs?
Bravo Paul, PERFECTLY explained!!!
i like tape reel becuase i like the tapes spinning and also for record music is more easy because i hate that mouse "click" everytime yopu want to record , and more fun to fast foward
Do you think the dynamic of digital mastered vinyls means that these vinyl LPs provide absolutely no acoustic benefit over straight “digital” products?
OMG you answered! I was like whaaaaaaaa! Thank's Paul, appreciate it (meanwhile listening to some good DSD music i have just bought). Have a great day!
Thank you for your excellent question.
I have some DSD files, they take up a lot of hard drive space and for no sound gain. Who would have thought. Must be my system is not up to it or I have untrained ears. Even my wife in the other room can't tell when I play the DSD files.
I have always been predictably turned off by the statement "CD's sound better than records", since the year 1982 when I first enjoyed the sound of first generation CD's and the absolute convenience of the new format. Blanket statements are rarely based on Science, Technology and Sound. Blanket statements also break the rules of logic across any field, artistic, scientific, political or social. Paul has made, in this video one of the most important proclamations I have ever heard in my entire Engineering career: "Lets not confuse the Facts of Technology", holy mooolyyyyy, wow. The proof of this, is readily found across the dozens of Audio Forums.... where we can read from plenty of generally "well meaning enthusiasts" with absolutely "Zero Technological Basis", expressing 'opinions', and often, with a touch of Hate. Thank you Paul as this whole narrative of this vs. that has been finally and succinctly de-bunked. As Paul Klipsch had a small Lapel Pin that we can all google what it said. My pro-bono website is an oasis of truth and experience, not the angry audio thought police ready to slay Giants with Keyboards and and opinions. This wonderful hobby is all about "the love of Music", so just enjoy it from an Edson Cylinder, 78rpm Shellac Records, Cassettes, 44.1, 192, all the way up to the Master Streams available today. PS Audio is dedicated to the highest standards of Technology so I suggest that all Haters learn to Play an Instrument so they can experience what real sound does to the soul and mind. Thank you Paul another Home Run.
Anything is good as long as you like it.
There is always a danger of listening to your equipment rather than enjoying the sound.
Vinyl CD or whatever, enjoy your listening experience is my motto.
One of the best sounding pieces of music I have is a 24 bit 192 digital file of the eagles hotel California.
I mean it's perfect. The base is strong and tight, lead and background vocals are right where they should be very prominent in the sound stage. All instruments clearly defined. Then I have other HD downloads that aren't that great at all.
Agree. Though I call myself a Vinyl guy. I find that a lot of folks are really over hyping the record as the golden ticket to Audio Nirvana. Likewise, I found your listening experience really depends on the quality of the recording. I have plenty of old records totally recorded and mixed in analog that sound awful. I also have a lot of modern albums that were recorded and mastered entirely within the digital domain. Some sound good, some do not. So for me, one format is not Superior to the other. It really comes down to the level of genius behind the mixing console. Some engineers do a better job than others.
Another observation. What defines analog these days? Can one call a Vinyl record that has been recorded and mixed solely by digital equipment, truly analog? I have found these modern records do not sound much different from their CD counterpart. Such albums do not have the same sonic flavor an notable recording from the 1970's does. Yes you can account for advances in technology, but to my ear even an all digital remix direct from the masters do not sound the same as the original release.
The Jimi Hendrix Experience 3 records sounds amazing on vinyl. The Digital version is not there, at least for me.
Most digital has a shrill sound to me. Maybe not always at first, but after some time listening, I get turned off. Most original pressings or a solid later analog pressing are softer and appealing, but not just EQ'd, it that "vinyl warmth" maybe are ears simply prefer music coming from a mechanical and physical touch. Again, for me, the digital giveaway me dar fatigue.
@@galus14436 Feel the same. Most CD releases of music from the era of classic rock, sound horrible. I would wonder how an vinyl reissue that's been remixed in digital would sound? Would it have the same life as the original pressings?
They did this with an big-buck reissue of the Beatles catalog not too long ago. They did not sound near as good as the original releases.
@@galus14436 Digital does suck, I heard Black Sabbath on 44/128kB MP3, it was boring, broke out the vinyl version, it was way better (MP3 was played at friend's place)
I think the Pioneer 1250 sounded better than the 1980. I'm with you on the Sansui 9090. That's a great sounding receiver. What surprised me was the Realistic receiver. It was in the top five from what I could hear. RUclips isn't going to reproduce the same quality level as what what you were hearing.
I like both vinyl and CD. I agree with many other comments that the majority of people in this hobby tend to forget about recording, mixing, and mastering quality. These attributes make the big difference. I have a Little River Band album on both mediums and I like both for different reasons. But overall playing
WAV and FLAC from my music PC is my main source.
The best and most important video PS Audio and Paul has made
Thank you for all the points in this video. I've been a DJ for 35 years and if I hear one more person use the blanket statement "vinyl sounds better than digital" I'm going to choke slam them lol.
Vinyl is better than digital
@@manFromPeterborough He’s gonna chock slam you
Vinyl records may often be better-mastered or have better dynamic range than their CD counterparts, but surface noise completely ruins the listening experience for me. I also hate having to clean every record in an attempt to achieve a better listening experience. I was thrilled to get my first CD player in 1984, as it meant the end of surface noise and cleaning. I’ve never really looked back. Sure, I still play some vinyl - mostly stuff that isn’t available on CD like some 12" singles and 1950s & 1960s LPs - but I cannot understand why anyone would think crackling or popping sounds are acceptable or even preferable in any way.
I was under the impression, that digital music had to be compressed to fit on a CD. Also am I wrong that vinyl is a lossless media?
It very much depends on the recording and the medium it's rendered to. There are two types of compession: signal and data. Oftentimes, the analog signal MUST be compressed to be playable on vinyl. Otherwise, the needle would jump the groove. CD's don't have that requirement, but early CD's often were just transferred from an analog master that had been compressed for vinyl. From a data perspective, standard CD is an uncompressed format. But the sample rate is a compromise dating to the early 80's and some people can tell the difference. MP3's are always data compressed to one degree or another. If you're ripping a CD to MP3, try different compression rates to see what works best for you. Personally, I do not recommend anything less than 192.
@@sschmidtevalue 192 is DVD audio spec
What about direct -to-disk recording??
what nobody seems to unstand is vinly and CD are both DIGITALS. Vinil uses a dimond styles to get the DIGIAL sugnel off the CD and a CD player uses a pickup with 3 tiny laser beams to get it.oterwise ir is exacly the same thing.
When people wonder if vinyl records are better, they are wondering if, for the SAME MIX, which they should buy: a CD or a Vinyl Record?
I feel that there are problems with the explanation given, i.e.:
- First, a thing to consider: each time you listen to your vinyl record, the quality decreases due to wear. Physics.
- We have a limited hearing range (~20-20K), so how about the 192k files?
- "Compression" can mean many things in this field: dynamic range compression? how about lossless compression? or lossy compression?
- How do you think your 192k hi-fi music will do through 50-17K freq range speakers?!
These points are not bonus material, but very important topics which needed to be addressed.
Digital is a much superior format due to many advantages. And you say that "it depends how the music was mixed", but if you want to compare "apples to apples", the answer should suffice the question: "for the SAME MIX, which I should buy: a CD or a Vinyl Record?"
I pretty much agree, it's the actual recording process. ( maybe, see pt. 3 ) Now, do the major companies have any incentive to upgrade their recording setups - heck, has Sony studios ( I believe they have actual artists signed ) upgraded THEIR setup to SACD standards ?
What about movies, isn't current blue ray audio 'the best' , how do they handle the actual recordings ?
third - I think You can actually see a difference when simply up formatting a standard DVD to HDMI. ( 480 to 720 or 1080 ) and that is strictly in the on the shelf equipment. would that not also be true for the much simpler audio info stream ?
Paul I always find your videos informative but putting your arm right next to that expensive system's stylus (such as 4:07 ) gave me anxiety like you wouldn't believe.
is it the format or the mixing/mastering that makes the difference? For instance the CD version of Jeff Wayne's The War Of The Worlds sounds utterly lifeless and crappy, while the SACD version sounds fine, comparable the vinyl. Could it be that CD gets a bad rep because they tried to make older recordings sound too clean?
Then there is the 500 Hz RIAA roll-off found on so many on yesterdays vinyl. Loudness contour has existed for a very long time in the "HiFi" industry.
Fun stuff
Can you mention which record will blow my socks off? I like records that are like that.
I am often blown away by chemical brothers - long way home.
What I know as my ears hear is best for me. I love vinyl, and that's the truth.
No arguing with personal taste :)
They may not be excellent from a specifications standpoint, but a well mastered vinyl record on a beautiful turntable playing through a tube amp can be downright heavenly to listen to in spite of the imperfections. Well mastered vinyl on a beautiful turntable playing through a superior amp is unquestionably a pinnacle of sound reproduction technology.
I have to agree. Maybe a bit nostalgic, but they just sound proper. I feel the difference is in the mid-range.
@@Peter_S_ A great recording on metal tape played on a well-engineered cassette deck is also a pinnacle of sound reproduction technology. But the technology is obsolescent, and newer technologies have their own pinnacles to reach.
Peter S Adding more distortion and harmonics can sound great, yeah.
A beautifully rendered answer, one of your best, imho.
Excellent reply Paul. Here's another stupid question I'm sure you get often: "Which amplifier brand is the best? or Which speaker brand is the best."
Paul, love your explanation in regards to different mediums qualities based on how the recording is done. My question to you is, how me as a consumer who own both analogue and digital system will know which format sound ( I hate to say better) than other format? If the 16 bit CD will sound better than a hi Rez for same album, What are the available resources out there that will allow me to choose the correct better sounding format ? Thanks again for a great informative videos.
This is what i always say to people. You can have a dsd128 that sounds worse than a 16/44.1. BUT if all things are constant, only the recording is the variable, yes dsd will outperform any flac.
Its just sonically better.
The unfortunate problem is alot of the masters are crap, especially in rock/pop. The company's just turn them out and most of the consumers wouldn't know what sounds good if it was to slap them in the face. Just my thoughts.
Jim Albruzzess Yes, the young studio people nowadays are probably happy with the sound you get out of a pair of crappy Apple earbuds or a cheap Bluetooth speaker. The mass market music consumer has gone cheap and smaller is better for most young users.
@@ThinkingBetter Early CD masterings weren’t that great either...
@@QoraxAudio Yes, your right. I just got a wake up call recently when listening to CD music from the 80s. But some CD music wasn't bad even at that time.
@@ThinkingBetter Bear in mind that when CD first hit the market, players were expensive and discs cost three times as much as vinyl. It had to appeal to audiophiles, and it did. The first CDs were excellent. They had to be. The problems came a few years in, when all the record companies rushed to release their back catlogues on the new format and corners were cut. That, and not "the loudness wars", is the reason why many were later remastered.
That is correct, they just play it in on their Crosley and go yup, that's how vinyl sounds, microphonic and lofi. Hifi nerds like us are only a small group of people who actually care about fidelity.
The confusion is amplified by the loudness war. Michael Fremmer have published a interest(at leas!) video about he’s involvement in the Michael Jackson estate vs the recording studio That released Jackson’s music to the point the audio distorted 400 a second!
This guy has seen and heard it all. He's a massive fan of both mediums, so I have faith he's put in his time. Love that he's subjective about everything. Breath of fresh air. My 2 cents if anyone cares. I had a Rega Planar 3 (2016) with an ortofon black. It was good. Never felt it bested digital. I recently got a Planar 10 with and Apheta 3, and 8/10 times its better than digital. Not sure if its coloration or what, but its better on my ears. Sure it cost me a TON of money to get there, but its incredible. Not advocating spending that much, just thought id chime in and say Vinyl CAN sound better.
Great presentation of your thoughts and ideas. Thx for sharing…
The Nyquist-Shannon Theorem means that anything above 44kHz is going to translate as inaudible. A bit depth of 16 bits, as you said, translates to 96dB of dynamic range. Considering that the noise floor of most rooms is at least 50dB, a CD carries enough dynamic range information to deafen someone over a few hours. Vinyl is limited by the mechanical features of the disc itself. It cannot encode deep bass, the treble is inevitably rolled-off, and there unavoidable timing issues as the needle proceeds toward the center. Redbook CD is closer to a perfect reproduction than anyone could tell in any blind testing. Come on, Paul. I know you know all of this.
Excellent perspective. Something I'm adopting in my explanations. Thanks a lot .