Does Vinyl Sound Better? CDs and Downloads Compared by an Audio Engineer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 апр 2024
- The age-old debate between audiophiles: does vinyl sound "better" than CDs or high-resolution downloads? Today, we're exploring why vinyl sounds different, although perhaps not "better" for all.
---
Music from Musicbed; Get 1 Month Free with Link: www.musicbed.com/invite/m3BCI
Camera: Sony FX3
Lens: Sony 24-70mm GMaster II
Filter: Nisi 1-5 VND
Recorder: Atomos Ninja Ultra
Software: Final Cut Pro X
Color: Sony SLog3.Gamut3/ProRes Raw/Fictive Flame Grade
Directed, Shot, and Graded by: Nicholas Young
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](/img/1.gif)
CD all day long, my vinyl collection is fun to mix with, lovely to handle and collect and good copies can sound stunning but nothing beats the durability, sound and convenience of CDs for me.
A band I'm a fan of likes their compression, all their songs are brickwalled by choice. A few years ago they released an LP of one of their albums, and the vinyl version was for all intents and purposes sounding exactly like the CD. I even recorded both, made the levels the same and then cut them intertwinedly, and you couldn't tell where the cuts were. All songs on the vinyl looked like sandpaper with shiny bits in between (the pauses between the songs), no recognizable groove difference. The level on the LP was overal lower than that of a dynamic LP because otherwise the songs wouldn't have fit because of the groove width. So yes, vinyl can be made to sound "as bad as digital" or even worse, if you mean by "sounding bad" the mastering compression that's being applied.
I gave them advice saying that if I would be buying an LP for its sound quality, that this wouldn't be what I had in mind. Their subseqent release they had had mastered especially for vinyl, with a lot more dynamic range. It sounded fantastic compared to the digital version, but that was only because of the mastering. On the surface you could see the loud and the quiet parts, and the drum hits. I digitized the vinyl and listen to that instead of the official digital version.
Funny how we nowadays have to resort to a medium with limited dynamic range for being able to enjoy more dynamic range 🙂
Furthermore I agree with everything you said; I enjoy vinyl mostly because of the mastering, the artwork and the sleeves. I also enjoy cassette, 8-track, R2R, 78s and even wax rolls. I love to listen to history and am amazed by how good things could sound (or in the case of wax rolls, could even sound at all) with only such a limited technology being available back then. It gives me an extra kick when listening to the music, warts and all (and oh does 8-track have warts 🙂). Also with vinyl, I don't mind old crackly records because the cracks tell you that the record has a history.
Also let it be known that *nothing* goes out into the world on CD without the artist and producer first approving it. The same cannot be said for vinyl, in which *if* a test cut is done and approved, and *if* test pressings are approved, they're still at the mercy of the playback setup: tonearm balancing, cartridge type, alignment and weight, stylus shape, along with the expertise of the cutting engineer(s) if done cut at more than one facility.
I prefer CDs because they're easier to handle and it's easier to deal with a CD player than a turntable which can be a hassle, I think that how well the recording is and how good it's mastered is more important than whether it's on vinyl or CD, both can be excellent for me personally, I understand that people love them for different reasons, I just can't really get into it, too much of a hassle, CDs have done right by me so far.
Oh the effort in flipping a vinyl.
Don't get blisters !!
It makes me pay attention to the music, so I don't mind; but to each their own. Nothing is wrong, if you're enjoying the music.
of course there is the literal wear and tear on the vinyl, the dust, mistracking, etc,,,, NONE of which are inherent in the CD, let alone the mastering and transferring issues.
@@secretfader maybe, rather paying attention to the Interruption of the music.
People talk about the "digital sound," but any decent converter will be audibly transparent, regardless of sampling rate (CD or higher). The added noise and distortion are negligible. The output sounds _exactly_ like the input. It's not colored at all, unlike with tape and vinyl which always have audible coloration. That's fine for people who prefer that, but unprocessed digital does not have a "sound."
Some converters do color the output but not as much as the outboard gear you’re running it through for amplification and reproduction, that’s for sure.
You can reach higher peaks (and quieter valleys) in a digital master; no question. That was my main point here, but that isn’t always used nor is it always desirable for some listeners.
@@secretfader That's why I said "any decent converter" will be transparent.
Also when a converter has an audible effect on the signal, it's always due to the filtering and not the conversion itself. Several different DACs may use the same chip but sound different due to differences in how the filters are designed.
@@nicksterj funny how people think they’ve painted me into a corner. I’m an EE as well, so digital filters are my bread and butter.
I didn’t contradict anything you said, just added more detail you obviously didn’t possess.
@@secretfader I'm not trying to paint anyone into a corner, I'm just saying that what most people think of as the difference between analog and digital has nothing to do with being analog or digital, it's always some other factor.
Vinyl is Dynamically limited, but CD is frequency limited. The sharp roll off at 20k on CD creates a very unsatisfying sound
Nope. In fact, if you put a low-pass filter on any source and start lowering the cutoff, most people don't even notice any difference until you get below 15 kHz. 20 kHz is more than enough bandwidth!
Humans cannot hear anything above 20khz. Most adults over 25 can't hear anything above 16Khz.
@@frossbog more like 10kHz max by 35.
@@reverend11-dmeow89hey it’s not that bad. I could hear up to 17kHz in my 40s. Now in my 50s it has dropped to 14kHz though 😕
You do not hear 20 khz to say that, music is below 14 khz
I like CDs for less storage space and also the ability to easily program and repeat selected tracks from the album as on most albums I have preferred tracks. I will also add that after buying a Puritan grounding cable attached to a Puritan power conditioner (to which all my electronics in turn is plugged into, including subwoofer), the noise floor of my system reduce dramatically and detail across the spectrum improved, cymbals now shimmer. I suspect this impact to be more significant than vinyl versus CD.
it depends on the mastering and your system but on the whole i think vinyl sounds more organic.
It’s mostly a factor of the requirement for less compression, as I mentioned.
You can test this theory by getting access studio tapes from the 60s-80s; those were the source for many vinyl LPs, and still sound great when converted to high resolution digital without remastering. In fact, many recordings that weren’t “remastered” still sound better to my ear, regardless of format, due to the higher dynamic range index.
Thanks for watching!
I have both cds and vinyl. A lot of vinyl. I find myself pulling an lp to play most often. Usually every day. I tend to be more engaged with lps. Cds sound good, are more convenient, but don't grab me. Plus the record covers are more satisfying than the little cd cases. But I'm ocd so I don't mind cleaning lps, putting em in sleeves, etc.
Exactly. I, too, find comfort in the process and routine of vinyl records.
Thanks for watching!
Exactly. Despite all the limitations, the fact that most of the music is SO dynamically crushed by choice is crazy, you can't do that on vinyl.
@@giedmich my point exactly, thanks for watching!
Oh yes you can and it is done regularly and systematicall, to assure that the record playing mechanically is not compromised.
The only CDs that are 'compressed' that I run across, are 'bargain basement ones, or "collections. Same thing goes for LPs. This again is at the doorstep of the companies, engineers, etc, as stated in other places.
Thanks for your video & your explanation about CDs & Vinyl, or records as we use to call them. I grew up with vinyl & cassettes though l never really bought cassettes except for blank ones. l just used them for making mixed tapes from my records. I kept buying records until they were no longer available then got into buying CDs which l must say has way surpassed my vinyl collection. I enjoy both formats & it really depends on where l am in the house as to what format l listen to, but tend to listen to a lot from my ipod as it's so convenient. I have to mention that these are all bought albums or CDs that I'm ripping to my computer or ipod so l don't rely on downloads. Ill buy a particular vinyl edition if l like the artwork, but generally its CDs that l buy simply because you get more value for your buck, especially when it comes to boxsets. Cheers 😊
I’m glad you find joy in the music no matter how it is played. Thanks for watching. Cheers!
3:30 Vinyl is almost always better than a compressed CD version. Compression immediately throws aways one of THE major advantages of digital.
So many pre-1980 LPs and 45s never got to sound good on CD.
unless they are compressed LPs
I sold off all my vinyl and turntable 15 years ago and never regretted it. However, now my CD collection is collecting dust since converting it all to FLAC and streaming lossless from Apple and Tidal, with quality DACs where I need them. I even sold my Emotiva CD player.
I went for a format that I don't have to store anything and I have a person tell me before hand what tune it is ....its called the radio 😂
Resonance on vinyls is so alluring and the dynamics of it.
This is exactly the point I was after. Even if the source is a modern, perhaps less-compressed digital master destined for the vinyl plant - the results will be inherent to the medium the sound is reproduced in, and in the case of vinyl, the forced dynamic requirements make it more pleasurable to listen to.
Thanks for watching!
@@secretfader "forced" dynamic requirements are not a good thing. imho. The greater "listenable" dynamic range on a CG is truly marvelous.
After considering this for a bit - I think the attraction is in large part the nostalgia of memories. When the technology changed to CD. When I picked up CD titles of which I had the vinyl they sounded a bit different to me, noticeable, preferring the vinyl.
The dynamic range of CD is said to be superior. Well, that is always nice, oops not always that nice. There are times when I want to figure out a way to compress my theaters signal - I have my AVR dynamic range set to low. It depends on the material for music especialy classical digital range if way good. For movies it makes it hard to hear low level then blows the room up when the movie blows up.
That vinyl is said to be “warmer”. I don’t describe this difference only a warmer. To me and my musical senses vinyl is not only less sterile but also seems to me to be whole. Like that CD’s are just missing some of it - seeming to be a little hollow not quite as full. It just seems to me that more so on some titles I really think I can hear there is less frequency content - and really why should it be that a human that is conditioned to perform and listen to music would not be able to hear the difference. And here is what seems like a significant take away. It is not just me, you know. Many people who are particularly drawn to the higher end of audio fidelity in fact claim to hear that - ok.
The BASS range of CD is said to be superior. Been said that the phono cartridge can't resolve below 20Hz - Well if you want to believe that, do. It seems odd to me that my AT15Sa spec claims 5Hz - 45kHz my Definitive Sub claim to 13-125Hz and you would be correct if said cannot hear it - but I sure can feel that momma. I don’t know does the CD do that? Ah - maybe not? Somday if live long enough might test with REW software.
WEAR - Is a big deal for those super hi audiophile vinyl LPs - I take them ever so carefully out their pack and record them and really can’t hear the difference of playback - so I can save the LP and wear our the tape. Isn’t that the way they say it goes?
There may be more but my back says I done.
Yes, CD goes down to practically 0 Hz...I have tested it on an oscilloscope to below 1 Hz but it starts to fall apart. It will go as low as you will ever need, lower than vinyl or tape. It doesn't go higher than 20 kHz, but you can't hear anything above that anyway.
No, those ultrasonic frequencies do NOT impact the ones you can hear - unless there is intermodulation distortion due to a non-linearity in the chain, which sounds bad and you don't want it.
In short, CD covers everything you can hear. It's not "missing" anything.
(Caveat: that doesn't any way imply that a given CD will be well mixed and EQ'd!)
Digital Audio can vary in quality obviously, But you cannot beat high quality lossless digital! It's just worlds apart from anything including what they typically burn on CDs.
@@mozzjones6943 In the real physical world, of course nothing is perfect. But hi-res digital is already as close to "perfect" reproduction as we're ever going to get, in the sense that further technical advances are possible but will yield no audible improvement. :)
Digital downloads also have the “does not expire” feature. Have you tried Roon? The integrated realtime lyrics (where available) is something else. Also I find the metadata in Roon displayed on a large iPad far richer than what’s printed on a vinyl sleeve or CD booklet. You can open links to biographies of each artist, the composer, the composition, similar artists, entire discography of a band, etc.
The comment about when the Internet is down only applies to online streaming services.
I do not reply on these services. All my non-vinyl music playing is either on my computer or on CD and I don't need the internet to play it.
While I have a large collection of vinyl, I find it cumberson and in this busy world, having to turn the vinyl over to play the other side becomes a PITB.
CD's are easier and on a 6-CD player system, I can randomise tracks, play just one album at a time, program whatever I want, while I work and also enjoy my collection of music.
My CDs are looked after because I learnt at a young age to look after vinyl and so I take the same care with my CD's.
However, I am finding that I am now using a laptop with a good external DAC to play back my music, more and more. And I can take it with me wherever I go.
The lack of Internet doesn't phase me at all, but the lack of electrical power would though and that transends the media used as none will work without it.
I like the look and feel of vinyl and it's large artwork, and in that I am in complete agreement. I will not get rid of my vinyl and I have some original and valuable records still in excellent condition because I recorded it digitally so I could play it more often.
I did not want to end up where a favourite record had deteriorated to such a degree that I could hear the wear defects and have to stop listening to it.
I love vinyl and yet I prefer digital playback for the consistant quality and ease of selection of what I want to listen to. It doesn't deteriorate over time and usage.
Vinyl will though, have a special part in my soul.
If vinyl sounded better, the music industry would use it as a master source for digital files, not vice versa.
Is anyone making the argument tape sounds better than other formats? It was the source for many years…
Not that I suggested it did sound better. Just different.
Wrong assumption. Loudness war seems to be the more important topic in digital formats, not sound and dynamics. You could use the vinyl master for digital releases but it would simply be not loud enough to compete in the digital music universe - has nothing to do with sound, just loudness.
@@secretfader Оно было источником много лет пока не изобрели лучший источник.
"Это не просто другой". Это устаревший, несовершенный со дня рождения, неисправляемый.
@@Error2usernameyeah as if i only grind my di*k through the groove and open my mouth for the sound to come out.. 🙄
Depending on what genre of music you play, vinyl is better for me as I play reggae, here’s the reason why.
Audiophiles believe music does not need bass & treble & should be listened to the way it was recorded.
My genre of music is drum & bass lead, most reggae aficionados do not like digital reggae, we prefer real instruments.
Most reggae sound systems, especially here in the U.K. will pay thousands of pounds & wait weeks for a pre amplifier, built to each customers specific needs.
These pre amplifiers are not like your every day preamp, they are built to get the best sound quality from the vinyl you are playing, granted these sound systems are high powered, however we even build our own power amplifiers.
You cannot buy these items off the shelf, they are built for ultimate sound quality.
Me personally cannot stand downloads or CDs, talk to any sound system expert in the reggae field & they will tell you vinyl reigns supreme & is still pressed today.
Cannot underestimate the warm music and pleasant vocals of Vinyls. Need very good phono preamp and dual mono power amp for the best stereo experience.
Spot on my friend. I happen to think that more pleasant tone is an effect of the requirements for mastering vinyl, but regardless of how we get there, it’s wonderful.
or you just need to throw in a tube preamp to get that warm analog feel
People have obviously been rediscovering the virtues of once-rare "physical media" in the last few years. For decades, when most of my LPs were in storage (because I didn't have a turntable to play them in the early 2000s, or enough space to keep my library), I missed the things you describe: the feel of the discs, the physical act of playing them, the artwork, the labels on the records themselves... In addition to LPs, I listen to my (much larger) library of CDs, having burned them to hard drives and playing them through Roon (via a Mac Mini, using a DAC and vintage '70s audio equipment). That's the closest thing I've found to the analog experience, allowing you to look at high quality artwork (on a phone or a laptop or a tablet or even a TV) and read credits, lyrics, liner notes, reviews, artist bios and other related information as you listen. It's not the same as holding a cardboard LP jacket in your hands, but provides a lot of the same pleasures.
Hi. I think the DnR of a vinyl LP is 55db-65db not 50db. What is most often over looked with this is that most music by and far is well accommodated within this range but Im glad that you voiced the compression problem with CD (which to me anyways) is a crime and causes as you also said listener fatigue. What I've never understood about "brick walling?" is why the artists comply. Imagine if fine arts painters had been told to "paint everything red it will sell more", what a f*k-up that woulda been. A red Mona lisa. A red Starry Night. Musicians should take more pride in what they create.
Theoretically, yes, that would be the dynamic range in an ideal environment. However, you’ll find that is impacted by the grounding, motor noise, bearing friction, and cartridge surface noise (which varies by calibration) and a whole host of issues. What I gave here is a measurement from the system I have, and reflects a more real world number for many folks systems.
It’s mostly the labels who demand louder masters; the artists often back off when fans ask for better: even Metallica has learned louder isn’t always an improvement.
@@secretfaderwhat was your measurement referenced to
Hey, I first thought you were Steven Wilson the prog rock musician. I guess you guys have similar glasses, hair style and facial hair 😊.
In my opinion it is always down to the indiviual what sounds better.
Pre 90s vinyls was lovely as the the vinyl had the analogue master copy .
Now the vinyl is from a digital master mainly.
However the differences are down to tasteits like swapping different synth sound when making music.
2 minute 2 sounds great, then another sounds better..
I love the spund of vinyl in many ways i prefer it.
Then gowever i prefer the clean sound of mt DAC.
All depends what day it is.
There are definitely records I prefer on digital, and now, that I have a set of ribbon tweeters (see the latest video featuring my Adam A7V's), I'm finding some previously intolerable productions are in the realm of enjoyability.
Different does not equal better or worse. The big difference to me is durability. I remember the days when I and my friends would buy a record and immediately make a chrome or metal tape of it. Dust happens and wear happens.
@@wildmouse5888 What I find most fascinating is that despite the culture of taping (and tape collecting) you don’t find many quality cassettes on the resale market. Either format can be maintained, but the wear on vinyl is minimal if your turntable is tuned properly.
@@secretfader When I went entirely to CD and rewriteable CDs I gave a guy 20 years younger than me an entire grocery sack of quality cassettes. I created a throwback monster!
@@secretfader Reel to reel??
Reel to Reel is way above cassettes, they just became common due to portability- Sony Walkman??
All frequencies below 125Hz do *NOT* need to be summed to mono. This is a MYTH. Just mix bass, kick, snare etc panned center. Sibilance and side lengths can be far more of an issue than stereo bass.
Alleged Vinyl lovers crack me up, at least some.
One thread I bumped into over on a different undisclothed location was in a thread some doof was bragging about how much better things were when he bought a $250 MC/MM Phono Pre-Amp.
It was a bit vague wondering what would make this add-on make things so much better.
His gear never had RIAA curve in any pre-amp before, did not know what it was.
Same here brother
Unfortunately, digital remasters form tape recordings are usually bad. When done straight form the tape with perhaps only minor eq adjustments they can sound great. But mastering engineers have the urge to fiddle around. Bob Katz once said the vinyl master sounds better than the digital master but the LP does not necessarily sound better XD
Vinyl is cool because you are able to sonically tweak your front end to your liking/system. Digital is limited in that regard. Also I think the harmonic distortion of vinyl playback adds dimensionality and eases the sound. When comparing a digital recording to the vinyl of the same recording done by the same engineer I hear better soundstage depth and a slightly more relaxed sound (not dull/rolled off, actually a bit brighter). They aren't worlds apart just a bit different. I am not so sure about mono summing, however. My John Coltrane "My Favorite Things" record cut by Bernie Grundman has right channel bass till 35hz. At 50hz I measure 10db crosstalk. That's hardly mono.
If/when my Internet goes out, I can listen to CDs all day/night long, just like you can on vinyl, except I can immerse myself in the music instead of getting up every 20 minutes in a half hour to remove, clean, dust, and check the stylus.
But that’s part of the experience. A record is not something you forget about. You’re always engaged with the music.
@@NateTurnage I'm engaged with the music by actively LISTENING to it. The end of the record disrupts that listening process, especially if there's more on the other side. My musical 'experience' as you put it is, simply put, the listening process.The record, the tape, the CD, the hi-fi system, are only a means to bring me that musical experience, short of listening in a concert hall. The engagement comes from the mind comprehending what I'm listening to, not the interruptions, the crackles, pops, etc.
It's funny how you phrase a question, and then go on answering a completely different question, and make a handful of unwarranted assumptions about how we listen to music to support the vinyl argument.
You're right about one thing: current mastering practices for CDs seem to favour a lot of compressing, and then decapitating the waveform, to make it LOUD. But that is not a fault of digital technology, it is a choice made (reluctantly probably, and under pressure) by the mastering engineer. Luckily the music I preferably listen to (jazz and classical) is relatively unaffected by this loudness war.
When it comes to preserving, nothing beats uncompressed digital. Disk wearing out? Make another copy. File lost? Restore backup.
And if you want more "warmth"? Just introduce a bit (about 1% or so) good old harmonic distortion. There, done.
100 % agree.
Amen, my friend, especially about asking one question and then going to both left, center, and right fields.
When I listened to records in the ‘80s my music taste was varied. Then in 2003 I sold all my records and bought a CD player. For almost 20 years my music taste gravitated to jazz and classical.
2 years ago, I bought a nice turntable and I have spent A LOT of money on it since. However, I have also bought on average about 10 albums a month and guess what, they are from many genres of music. Just like the old days.
Clearly my taste never changed, however, the digital format pushed me into a limited selection in order to enjoy high quality music reproduction. So for me at least, vinyl is king and it will be for a long time to come.
@@markcarrington8565 Why would your musical tastes change because of the media you were playing it on?? It sounds like a $$$ issue, then. And, why sell all your records, only to re-buy them in CD format, and then do the reverse later?? Did your musical tastes flip-flop??? Fine, but what does that have to do with the medium. I still have LPs, and even some 78s, from 50s and 60s,, then R2R tapes and some cassettes, all the way up to when CDs became mainstream and now, -streaming/YT,TV, etc. But I saw no reason to abandon what i had/have, any more than I would abandon an old photograph, merely because newer ones are in higher resolution. Just my thoughts, no personal attacks.
@@divingfe You’re right, circumstances meant selling the turntable and records made sense at the time. Later, I was able to return to music using CD as the main source as that was the direction everyone was going in. My point is that the poor mastering meant that music I used to enjoy on vinyl no longer sounded good.
I put this down to my changing musical tastes as jazz and classical were fine. It’s only when I started listening to records again I realised it was not the case. The original pressings of my old favourites were just as enjoyable as they ever were. So in a way, the medium made me think my musical tastes had changed.
Makes me wonder how many others have experienced this without realising it.
People take this stuff too literal and forget that listening to music is an emotional experience. For a lot of people the overall experience enhances their emotional response and therefore makes vinyl sound better to them. Nothing wrong with that. I listen to music with IEMs & a DAP only because
I don’t have the space for a turntable and full sized speakers.
@@ItsMrMcFly if you’re listening to the original recordings, for sure. When available, I prefer a well transferred digital master that hasn’t been ruined by loudness wars.
If we consider phonograms as a product of their time and understand that result was intended and pursued by the original creators with the existent and available tools, any intervention (re-mixing, re-mastering) made on digital to make them sound "good" according to contemporary standards is sad to hear. As a musicologist, I always prefer listening to older phonograms in their original media, so we can have what has been originally cut. However, I don't see a lot of sense in vinyl reissues where any digital process was involved.
There's no point comparing streaming because it's just an equivalent of radio - something to hear a tune before I decide if I want to buy it. The comparison is between CD and vinyl, both of which formats I have several hundred. Vinyl does sound better. Maybe it shouldn't and the technical capabilities of CD should far exceed those of vinyl but the fact is that vinyl sounds better. I have some albums on the GRP label on both formats and the vinyl versions have more sound information than the CD versions e.g. cymbals ring for longer, sound sharper, you can hear the fingers on bass strings and more room ambience on the vinyl versions than on CD, like the wave is being gated on the digital version for some reason. With vinyl, if I listen to an acoustic band with my eyes shut it really sounds like they are in the room but on CD I can tell it's been processed. Why is this? I dont know but that's just the way it is. Another observation is that with older recordings typically on vinyl, i.e. from the 60s and 70s, the instruments sound natural because they didn't put effects on drums, just recorded them as they were so they actualy sound like real drums sound in the studio. It's rare to find that these days because they usually have some processing that changes the sound. I guess being a musician, I expect things to sound natural and it annoys me when they don't.
I was a fan of Minidisc because it was a high quality and robust successor to tape cassettes but it didn't catch on like it should have I think because car manufacturers didn't adopt it as the defacto format for ICE, but held onto compact cassette for too long then switched to CD which was a really stupid idea. Of course, now that is irrelevant because a USB stick is the best option for the car.
not much sense of vinyl these days as the master file is all pretty much recorded in digital, if you like old songs maybe, new released vinyl are converted from digital. If you like that warm organic analog sound i suggest to get a tube preamp at the input stage
@@MasterofPlay7 You’re mostly right, most vinyl records come from a digital source; however, I’ve mastered for both, and yes, the vinyl output sounds different. The transfer engineer is mostly to credit, but there are frequencies that reproduce differently due to the medium; you can’t get away from that.
I’d also add that integrated amps are more common in home loudspeaker setups these days. Not to argue the point, but should someone need to spend on a tube amp to enjoy analog sound? I think not.
@@secretfader tube preamps are pretty cheap (couple hundred bucks), just to add that organic character to digital source like CD or streaming if you don't like that digital sound
@@MasterofPlay7 that’s still half the cost of a decent US made turntable, you know.
@@secretfader well good turntable and cartridge cost a lot more (couple thousands)
no, Vinyl and 8 Track and MC is not important for me - in sound quality! But, there is plenty of old music, which can be saved in modern form, and still isn't digitalized.
The thing that matters most, is the master, not the product that’s spat out at the end. I’ve heard some recordings which sound great across multiple formats, identical even. And I’ve heard shit recordings not matter what the format.
Objectively: vinyl is lossy. Digital done well beats vinyl done badly (and a *lot* can go wrong, especially on playback), just as vinyl done well beats digital done badly.
CD's sonic problems early on were a combination of masters (often 2nd gen) that were mixed for vinyl, along with the filters and jitter of early A-D convertors and glass mastering systems.
back in 1983 vinyl record players generally sounded fairly poor unless you had an expensive high end system on which it still sounds the best today, along comes CD with its accompanied cd players and new amps and speakers, no surface noise so for many people was a no brainer. Today cd quality has improved but is still 16 bit, it had a chance to improve with 24 bit SACD and DVD -A but no one was interested, a lost opportunity. Things got even worse with downloads and MP3 and surprise surprise vinyl is quite rightly back on top again for quality with our improved systems.
SACD and DVD-Audio showed up just as people were moving to MP3, iTunes and iPods. Sound quality took a back seat to low price, wide selection and convenience. With SACD, you had to buy a new player, buy all your music over again, and you couldn't rip it to your iPod due to the DRM. Of course it failed! :)
24-bit on CDs was always designed to fail, IMO. There’s little you can’t replicate in a good CD master, though; so I see why folks went that way.
Digital masters have the ability to contain so much more sonic information. The main point of this video is it’s sad that they don’t, and that vinyl wins on many fronts due to the ignorance of digital mastering options.
@@secretfader I'm not sure what you mean by 24-bit on CDs? CD (Red Book) is 16-bit only. SACDs are 1-bit DSD, so I'm guessing you're referring to DVD-Audio as "CD"?
I think there just wasn't enough improvement in sound quality to motivate people to buy all their music over again in a new format. I'm halfway convinced the record labels deliberately started making CDs sound like crap (overcompression, clipping) so they could sell us "higher resolution" formats at a premium.
I was an early adopter of CD. The discs were 3 times the price of vinyl and sounded half as good.......... The sharp roll off at 20k might be the reason why CDs don't sound as good
@@johnholmes912 There are a number of reasons why your early CDs might not have sounded so good. The most likely culprit is the mixing - the engineers involved probably hadn't learned how to mix for CD yet. Another possibility is misapplied pre-emphasis. Some players didn't recognize the flag bit for pre-emphasis (which was supposed to compensate for boosted treble) so the discs sounded harsh and tinny on those players.
It's certainly not due to the 20 kHz bandlimit. Vinyl fans loved to scapegoat that because vinyl obviously didn't have that limitation, but almost all the music up to that point was recorded on analog decks that had significant attenuation above 20 kHz. Nobody cared about anything above 20 kHz because you couldn't hear it to mix it, and flat response up to 20 kHz was considered excellent.
I could listen to lps all of the time, not so with cds or anything digital. That being said most of the time on an average or less system, cds will sound better.
The problem with digital, most CDs are compressed to hell unless it is an orchestral recoding. Even remastering of analog recordings is usuall compressed compared to the original lp release. Sad because when digital is done right, it can be phenomenal. The other issue for me is all the digital processing that is being done to modern recordings. Auto tune is the worst invention to happen to digital recording.
The problem with CD's is that they are CD's.
Vinyl its difrent it has it class .
cd has it own class.
the word 'better' is not compare between this two 😊
"Does vinyl sound better?" How could vinyl sound better when the master tape is in digital format?
You seem to be a bit confused. Outside of DAT, tape is an analog format; and even then, it’s often limited to 48 kHz. Many digital audio workstations, and my digital studio, work at 96 kHz.
It isn’t always better, but while digital formats have the ability to reproduce better, the qualities that would enable that simply aren’t used in common practice.
The first recordings in digital form, were made in the mid-1970s. I haven't even mentioned all of the many disadvantages of analog.
@@secretfader If your analog R/R deck is recording, "48Khz", then the low frequencies are absent.
@@scottwolf8633 Check out Jack Endino's article on "The Unpredictable Joys of Analog Recording." He compares the frequency response curves of several pro tape decks and they are all over the map. Comparing to digital, even a cheap Sound Blaster has razor-flat FR even below 20 Hz.
Sound quality is subjective.
You can argue the merits of both, all I know is I don’t get the listening fatigue when listening to vinyl like I do with streaming or with CD’s
Maybe you have some distortion in your CD player/streamer, or, your ears don't like music unless it is compressed for vinyl.
True. Yet the fact that digital music often is dynamically limited isn't because of limitations with the format.
vinyl 35 euros vs cds 20 euros ...i ' m not rich....streamer BETTER of ALL ....MAX FLAC my friend .....
The DAC is an issue that must be taken into account and is frequently absent from the discussion. A Delta Sigma based converter employs algorithms that guess at what was recorded. R2R topology reconstructs what was actually laid down. Audio Note DACs forgo the active, I/V conversion process, usually via op amps, for transformers, the least compromised technique.
Correct, Delta Sigma DACs approximate sub-sample values when translating to analog (I am also an electrical engineer, so welcome to a new facet of this channel). While I agree that is a bit imprecise, how would you suggest improving on the translation in the absence of sampled data? (In this case, I used a 96kHz/32-bit floating point signal downsampled - with mastering grade dithering - to 44.1kHz/16-bit to hopefully account for some of the differences, but I doubt that is perfectly a match. Still, I doubt it is so imprecise the data in this video could be disproven with anything but hearsay.)
Oversampling sigma-delta converters are FAR more accurate than R-2R. That's not even controversial. All converters that support "hi-res" digital are sigma-delta, not R-2R because you simply can't make an R-2R that precise.
@@nicksterj Approximation vs what was actually recorded? We disagree.
@@scottwolf8633 You only disagree because you misunderstand how they work. Sorry, but measurements don't lie!
ruclips.net/video/37cijL-Odog/видео.html
That said, you are never going to hear the difference between 0.0008% and 0.00025% harmonic distortion. Your speakers alone will distort the output 1000x more than that!
No. Okay- sometimes.
Vinyl sounds warm and CD sounds cold. Its that simple. Its your own preference, choose whatever format that makes your happy. 😃
CD outputs exactly what went in. If your CDs sound "cold," it's because they were mixed that way.
I’d say CDs sound neutral, but I guess they might sound cold to someone who prefers a warm sound (nothing wrong with that).
@@bikeman7982 If these guys would just buy an equalizer, they could make their CDs sound just like the vinyl. Trim the treble, and boost the "presence" band (3000 Hz - 6000 Hz)!
@@nicksterj Its very easy to apply very accurate EQ in the digital domain these days. If I feel like a certain track needs warmth, I just choose a different EQ preset I created in my NAD M33 integrated amp.
Do you realize how disingenuous you sound not mentioning CDs?
How so? This is more concerning the comparison between formats which offer perfect digital reproduction versus a “flawed” analog format. I offered up a digital CD rip as part of the conversation, too, so nothing disingenuous here.
What would you have suggested to improve the conversation?
I collect vinyls and EARLY CD issues. Before "loudness war" the CDs sounded very dynamic. SOME new CDs still keep good DR too.
Nope. Never.
Everyone’s got their preference, but it doesn’t contain more total dynamic range. That’s a fact.
Time to stop this nonsense. How much more to pump down our throats. DECENT SERUP ,JUS ENJOY MUSIC.
Do not measure dynamic range, vinyl simply sounds better, but to notice you must change your turntable Rega for a Linn Sondek, the cartridge from 2M blue to a Hana and a excellent phono preamp and is going to sound better than a Mark Levinson transport and dac
The quick answer to the question you used in the thumbnail headline "is vinyl better than digital" is NO.... We can now move on with life.
Maybe not technically, but there are merits as you seem to have picked up from the video. Thanks for watching!
It’s just crap 😂
Stupid question. Too many variables. However, it’s your life, waste it as you will.
I waited assuming you were going to list those variables rather than just dismiss the video as “stupid”. You didn’t, but you watched… so thanks for the boost.
@@secretfader Yes sir. SOME of the variables are: Is the turntable direct drive or belt drive, what is the tonearm, what is the cartridge, what is the stylus type, what is the phono preamp, what is the quality of the pressing, is the record clean, what is the streamer, what is the dac, using xlr, rca, coax, which streaming service, cd player with built in dac or cd transport with external dac, is your system resolving enough to reveal sonic differences? There are other issues but this gives you an idea of what I’m talking about. Attempting to distill all of these issues down to Is Vinyl Better Than Digital gives new meaning to the word absurd.
Here we go again with vinyl vs digital shit . Hohum, Zzzzzzzznggoorrkk…….
No
So another video claiming superiority of vinyl.
I am music and hifi enthusiast who goes to concerts and attends hifi shows (Munich, Ascot, Warsaw) so I have a chance to listen to systems costing even million dollars.
I mostly listen to classical, opera, jazz and genres like Fado.
Yes, vinyl can sound amazing on expensive system but i have never heard analog system below £5k which sounded better than similarly priced digital in the last 10 years. Below £1k there is no contest.
According to vinyl enthusiasts music reproduction must be the only area of technology which did not benefit from digitisation.
Do they still watch 20 inch CRT tv, use analog mobile and post letter typed on Olivetti typewriter?
I happen to know musicians in philharmonic orchestras and opera singers.
None of them uses anything but digital to listen to music.
Only about 10% of people in my circle who listen mostly to classical music etc have analog hifi equipment.
I am 65 and people i know who buy vinyl are mostly in their 20s.
But they admit that their choices are based, in most cases, on non musical aspects of vinyl. Mostly artwork.
Then there is a basic issue of what is actually on vinyl record.
It was recorded and mastered in digital domain. Only then it goes back to analog and gets pressed to vinyl.
So we are introducing extra steps into recording and reply chain.
The only thing this introduces are artefacts, which to some people are preferable to original recordings.
Reality is that most expensive part of audio reply chain to make well are speakers.
So, if you choose digital as source, that allows you to allocate more of your budget to speakers and amplifiers.
If you go to classical music concerts then one thing is obvious: even million dollars music system is not even close to real experience.
That is the basic problem with hifi industry.
Whether source in reply chain is digital or analog is not relevant.
Somehow visual industry progressed much more in the last 40 years than hifi industry.
My friend £25k laser projector is very close to what you get in good cinema (obviously not the size of the picture).
I never found logical explanation as to why hifi industry could not progress the same way.