Does vinyl sound better?

[lucas vigor]

I got a record player last Christmas. I'm 16 and had never experienced a vinyl record in my life. My parents also got a bunch of records such as Ratt and Blue Oyster Cult to start off my collection.

It is a Crosley system with the speakers built in. I fell as though I can hear things clearer, as they're less compressed. I haven't had the chance to plug it into high-end speakers, but I can hear the bass and every other part of the music fairly well, unlike most CD recordings. Also, I like the very mild distortion I get from it. It reminds me of a tube amp.

I will say some records in worse condition sound noticeably worse than CD. But I collect most of them just because I think they're cool. I have 35 or so and got most of them for $5 or less

I prefer playing old records then new stuff. By old, I mean 1950s and earlier. Somehow it just "fits".

I also have a Crossley. I have a small console and one of those briefcase players. No speakers that really sound good, though.
What is really cool is to buy one of those old wooden consoles...the big ones, and then have it restored. Someone I know has one, and it has tubes. Amazing sound! Turning it on and playing a record fills the room with golden, fat bass warmth.

 

[Tupac]

An undamaged vinyl record on a great record player does have a higher resolution than that 16 bits 44 khz a Cd can offer. I doubt though that it's better than the 24 bit digital downloads some artist offers.

Wait... really? I always thought that a CD ripped in FLAC was the highest you can go. Well I'll be damned, that's about the only legitimate argument I've heard in terms of sound quality.

 

[96tbird]

Vinyl is not an image, it's the truth. Sound waves cut into solid material, stored energy, waiting to be unleashed as pure sonic energy on command. Digital is only a picture of a piece of music, there's nothing physical there, just a translation of energy. Something gets lost in the re-translation back to energy. So it seems to me.

 

[12bass]

Vinyl is not an image, it's the truth. Sound waves cut into solid material, stored energy, waiting to be unleashed as pure sonic energy on command. Digital is only a picture of a piece of music, there's nothing physical there, just a translation of energy. Something gets lost in the re-translation back to energy. So it seems to me.

LOL.... there is no way to transduce sound with 100 % accuracy, no matter whether the medium is analog or digital. Microphones and preamps electrically alter the signal from its "pure" acoustic form, as does the process of mixing and mastering. Both analog and digital recording and playback require the "translation of energy" from one form to another and back. However, if accuracy of reproduction from input to output is what is under discussion, digital is far more accurate. Subjective preference is another matter....

 

[96tbird]

LOL.... there is no way to transduce sound with 100 % accuracy, no matter whether the medium is analog or digital. Microphones and preamps electrically alter the signal from its "pure" acoustic form, as does the process of mixing and mastering. Both analog and digital recording and playback require the "translation of energy" from one form to another and back. However, if accuracy of reproduction from input to output is what is under discussion, digital is far more accurate. Subjective preference is another matter....

See your such a digital robot your sense of humor has left you. Still accurate or not, it doesn't have something, It's an intangible, warmth? Even with the hiss of a diamond in a groove, the occasional click and pop, vinyl sounds "nice".

 

[12bass]

See your such a digital robot your sense of humor has left you. Still accurate or not, it doesn't have something, It's an intangible, warmth? Even with the hiss of a diamond in a groove, the occasional click and pop, vinyl sounds "nice".

Your earlier post appeared to be making the claim that vinyl represented the "real musical truth", while digital was some sort of poor facsimile. In reality, the opposite is the case. In terms of measurable criteria for accuracy of reproduction of sound, CDs far exceed the capabilities of vinyl.

What I find interesting is that proponents of the supposed superiority of analog tend to use metaphorical language. It is one thing to have a personal preference for one thing over another, and quite another to boldly claim superiority as objective truth.

 

[cnltb]

Do you think vinyl sounds better than cd?

If the vinyl is in great condition and the player is set up properly I'd say that it can sound better than CD.But when's the last time I've seen a well set up player?...looooong time ago.
I think the whole experience is a different one and I like it. A good player is also too expensive for my humble tiny income.

 

[zon6c-f]

I have never owned what I consider High Quality Stereo components and turntable.

With a minimal stereo system with a CD player, I hear nuances on CD that I never heard before on vinyl.

Dynamics seem increased to me as well. Both are images; reflections of what was produced by musicians, singers, instruments etc.

I would love to own a sophisticated Hi-Fi sytem, butI believe that a turntable worthy of CD quality would be prohibitive in itself.

Every time you play vinyl, you are causing actual wear. If a reader was invented that could read and reproduce the sound imprinted on vinyl, then that would be a difference to be heard and appreciated vs CD.

My fave vinyl is so precious that I no longer play them; I buy the CD versions and play as often as I want without fear of deteriorating the CD; although CD's can be damaged and need to be cleaned and handled with care, as well as vinyl.

Decades ago I was told that recording onto blank VCR was nearly identical in headroom as CD..Kind of an obsolete technique though, now.

 

[12bass]

VHS Hi-Fi is close to CD quality... but still has the problems associated with tape. Was definitely a step up from the previous quality of sound available from videotape.

 

[Freight Train]

Do you think vinyl sounds better than cd?

Well recorded and produced CD's sound fantastic. Poorly recorded and produced vinyl sounds horrible. But comparing apples to apples, most CD's produced since 1995 don't have a chance to sound as good as vinyl because they have been so hyper-compressed and limited, and therefore distorted. Even when a group release both CD and vinyl of the same project, if it's done correctly the mastering for the vinyl has much more open dynamics, so the vinyl almost invariably sounds better.
Vinyl is an extremely pleasant sound, and is extremely inaccurate. Playing the record back involves an enormous transducer (the cartridge) which can totally color the sound one way or another, and then the sound has to be run through an eq doing a large amount of boost and cut plus a line amp (the phono pre-amp). All of this affects the accuracy of the sound, but it also adds to those magic analog qualities that make most people prefer the sound.
So no doubt the CD is more accurate, but everything else being equal, the 44.1k/16 bit CD standard puts a limitation on how good it can SOUND, not how accurate its specs are. Vinyl purists are correct when they talk about a grainier, harsher, less defined sound from the CD. Very similar to the further loss when you go from CD to mp3. But vinyl purists who have the opportunity to hear correctly reproduced 88.2 or 96k/24 bit digital audio or above, or SACD, love the sound. It has the detail they're used to hearing in their vinyl, and the richness in the bottom end.
It's almost always the case that people who have had a chance to compare and don't really hear a difference are people who don't have a turntable and vinyl to listen to all the time. The human ear is easy to train, and once it's exposed to quality sound it can get very particular pretty quickly. The analog/vinyl listener's ears are tuned to this extra detail, whereas the CD or mp3 guy who has not been exposed to it for long periods of time, or has never heard it, simply can't perceive it in most cases. Some people have these so called 'golden ears' and can perceive differences like this immediately. Most of us however have to train our ears to be able to hear nuances like we're talking about.
Just a little soapboxing: The music industry is in serious trouble. Three of the biggest culprits are the continued rampant thievery of music, the lowering of standards for what is now acceptable as 'professional' productions, and the continued lowering of standards in consumer formats. We took one step back when we went from vinyl to CD. Essentially the selling point of CD over vinyl comes down to convenience and CD's lower noise. Then we took another step backwards with mp3. And once again convenience wins over quality. The bigs tried to bring us back with DVD-Audio and SACD, but both failed miserably and the majority of consumers were never even aware they were available. Now there's a pretty big push to open up the availability of high-definition downloads through our common download sites for those who are willing to pay the little extra for the better quality. Let's hope that happens. We need all the help we can get.

 

[Freight Train]

Decades ago I was told that recording onto blank VCR was nearly identical in headroom as CD..Kind of an obsolete technique though, now.

No doubt they were talking about the original consumer PCM digital recording systems, which used video tape to store the data, but has nothing to do with Beta or VHS Hi-Fi. The PCM converter/video deck combo could record 44.1 or 48k, and they could record 16 bit, but especially with VHS the dropouts were so horrible you had to use it in 14 bit mode and it would use the extra DSP for error correction. This was several years before CD, and there was a small catalog of major label releases in Beta PCM format. The esoteric hi-fi/tape recorder shop I worked in carried almost all that was available, including The Wall.

 

[Freight Train]

With a minimal stereo system with a CD player, I hear nuances on CD that I never heard before on vinyl.
Dynamics seem increased to me as well. Both are images; reflections of what was produced by musicians, singers, instruments etc.

The reason you're hearing those nuances in the CD is the lack of surface noise. And that lack of surface noise on the CD also allows it to be produced and mastered with increased dynamics. But instead we went the opposite direction and got mired in this ridiculous loudness war, starting in 1995, and instead of CD fulfilling its promised potential of better dynamics, most pop music is now mastered so there's practically no dynamics at all. If you're talking about current productions, what your describing as increased dynamics is probably just the opposite, and is the effect of everything being pushed up to the top 6dB or so. If you could hear good productions with truly good dynamics, it would knock you over it sounds so punchy.

 

[96tbird]

Your earlier post appeared to be making the claim that vinyl represented the "real musical truth", while digital was some sort of poor facsimile. In reality, the opposite is the case. In terms of measurable criteria for accuracy of reproduction of sound, CDs far exceed the capabilities of vinyl.

What I find interesting is that proponents of the supposed superiority of analog tend to use metaphorical language. It is one thing to have a personal preference for one thing over another, and quite another to boldly claim superiority as objective truth.

I direct you to the thread title... "....sound better?" Nothing to do with accuracy. BTW, I agree with you in a way. Modern digital recording to a hard drive is cleaner and more accurate than analog, given the media induced distortion. Final production of cd's and the ridiculous use of compression these days robs the music of dynamics. Disgusts me. But then artists and their art have long been abused by the boardrooms schmucks.

 

[zon6c-f]

I readily acknowledge inconsistant overall sound quality in CD's. One of my faves in vinyl is MudSlide Slim, by James Taylor. I practically wore my vinyl out; replaying repeatedly, as Sklar is one of my "mentors". Mudlside is the epitome of Sklars work; although I was misled for decades; believing he also did, " So Far Away", with Carole King. ..I digress...

As my vinyl was deteriorated, Mudslide was the first CD I purchased; having been overwhelmed by listening to others' CD's and only played on a walkman. I was very disappointed; expecting Sklar's bass to be more "in-my-face". Same with Berry Oakley on first 2 Allman Broithers albums; bass was buried as deeply on CD as on my vinyl.

Other CD's from same bands offer inconsistencies on overall volume; having to turn this one up higher than previous 2 for same output.

Nothing is perfect, but I don't miss pop-n-hiss and constant crackle. I know.. ddd..dii..dighi..digital stutter is equally annoying.

OH..I miss hearing the "ch-ch-ch-ch-ch" of Hendrix's echoplex turning on at the into to Redhouse; not audible on my CD versions; however they may be from different takes of same cut; different from his Smash Hits on vinyl. I do hear ocassional amp buzz on certain SRV cuts, which I consider part of the overall recorded vibe.

 

[12bass]

FWIW, I just listened to a 24/96 flac of vinyl version of The Anarchist from Rush - Clockwork Angels. I noticed a few differences from the CD. The vinyl is not as compressed, but sounds "crunchy", as in slightly distorted (not sure of THD/IMD of vinyl, but I'm guessing it is fairy high). The CD is way too compressed (which I've mentioned on the CA thread), which has nothing to do with digital and everything to do with bad mixing/mastering choices. Compared to the CD, the record is lacking in fullness in the bottom end, which is especially noticeable when the Taurus pedals double the bass line an octave lower. I'd say that the vinyl track might "sound better" in a way, but not because of the medium... because it has not been compressed to the density of a neutron star.

 

[walldaja]

I don't have high end audio gear because of my discount store hearing and couldn't tell the difference anyway. Assuming I could hear it.

 

[lucas vigor]

Freight Train, thank you for your information. I just learned a few things I did not know, from reading your posts.

 

[Freight Train]

Freight Train, thank you for your information. I just learned a few things I did not know, from reading your posts.

Thanks Lucas. I started my audio engineering career in 1974, so I am born-and-bred analog. But I was also using and selling digital from the start in 1977/78, and was involved in the first digital recordings in the Southwest. So I'm very much into both worlds. I know how good and bad both formats can be.
One thing I said that sounded contradictory and if you want details this is good to know. In my first post I said vinyl reproduces nuances that CD can't, and that's what vinyl listeners are attune to that they miss in CD. Then zon6c-f posted that from the the start he heard nuances in CD's that he never heard on vinyl, and I said that's because of the poor signal-to-noise ratio of vinyl vs CD. But we're talking different kinds of nuances. I think what zon6c-f is talking about is very low level elements in the mix - some engineers call it 'ear candy' - that you often have to listen carefully for, and other things going on like lip-smacks, studio chatter etc. that just the rumble from the turntable, and the surface noise even on a fresh record will obscure somewhat or completely. The jet-black backdrop of digital brought all of that right up front.
The nuances I'm talking about are for one thing more harmonics-oriented. Even though we theoretically can only hear up to 20k Hz, and realistically most over the age of probably 15 or 16 can't hear much beyond 16k or so. But musical instruments contain harmonics that extend way up to100k Hz and beyond. Even though we can't directly perceive those, they add what some term a richness to the fundamentals and harmonics that we can hear. So with 44.1k digital audio having, to simplify it, a brick wall low pass filter at 20k Hz., it is not reproducing those upper harmonics. It satisfies the technical side of it, since even the best of us can only hear up to 20k, but it is not satisfying the esthetic, unmeasurable side of things, which is clearly audible if your ears are accustomed to and have learned that sound. That's why vinyl and analog purists who finally get to hear 88.2k and 96k/24 bit digital or above with proper conversion, they almost always love the sound, and some eventually admit they like it as well as their analog. 88.2k extends filtering out to beyond 40k, 96k digital extends to 48k, so it's still not getting it all but apparently it's getting what the analog guys miss in CD resolution files.

 

[M.Wrenn]

CDs sample sound at a rate of about 40,000 times/second. While this is pretty much enough for very high quality sound, it causes the sound wave to have edges, basically a subtle squarewave, instead of being a smooth soundwave, which is what vinyl produces. There's lots of science behind it, but that's the idea. So yeah, vinyl is higher quality.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

CD has a much wider dynamic range and fairer output than vinyl.
As a consequence, records that once were mastered for vinyl and transfered directly onto CD sound cold and flat. This can largely be compensated by remastering sources to fit the peculiarities of CD.

Now, CD is a 30 year old technology. Updated digital standards such as CDDA offer much more convincing results. You won't hear much difference on a basic reproduction system though.

Well if you want to talk about mastering. CD's have a theoretically flat response from 20hz to 20khz. Except as part of the process the put a low pass filter on the digital to analog conversion to take away the digital artifacts or "stairstepping". In good converters this does it's job and gets our of the way. In bad converters it will either let too much digital hash through or it will reach down into the audio band.
Contrast with records, they must master for the idiosyncracies fo the medium. Meaning that the bass cannot be too high in volume or the needle may skip. Treble can not be too high in amplitude or else the mastering lathe may burn out.
Stereo must be balanced so that excessive x or y movement does not skip the needle.
I think a lot of the vinyl sound is a result of the kind of processing the use to remain within these parameters. Mid side compression. High frequency compression/limiting might account for why LP masters sound hard and brittle when dumped straight to digital.