Is vinyl truly better than digital? Does digital recording compress the sound or is it the opposite? Learn the truth. If you want to learn more, grab a copy of Paul's new book, The Audiophile's Guide. www.amazon.com...
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
I choose vinyl because I love the experience. Finding my system, hunting down rare or albums I really want, having a huge gatefold for the album cover, some have gatefolds and even more artwork inside, taking pride in the cleaning and adjusting or the best sound, crave digging and finding gems, learning which type of press I like. You just can’t get that with other forms of music. I love it. Nothing wrong with streams, cassettes, or cds because I use all three.
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.
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
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very well put. I love vinyl and have 3 turntables, but also listen to CD, FLAC, SACD, DVD-Audio, Blu-ray Audio and, yes, cassettes. I enjoy them all equally. I do use Apple Music but only when working out or in the car. Unfortunately, my old car has BOSE speakers 🔊.
@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!!
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.
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.
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’.
- 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 ☺️"
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So both formats can be good and I play both CDs and records. On my system CDs win over records when A B comparing the same recording (standard issue product). I do not think vinyl playback for less than 10- 20 thousand dollars (like Pauls unit) will challenge a $2 -3 thousand digital system . So if one has a limited budget (most people do) what is going to sound better is based on what you can afford, not some theoretical based on "state of the art" performance that is beyond what may be affordable. These days digital close to "SOTA" seems to be more affordable than vinyl. This dissertation by Paul was one of my favourites he has done.
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)
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.
I don't miss those thanks, although I do have 180 gm vinyl that sounds clean and crisp, and you'd swear you were listening to a digital copy if I didn't tell you otherwise.
@Fat Rat There's no magic bullet where everything sounds perfect.Z I doubt the average person is going to replace their entire collection for any format.
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?"
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.
@@satyanpatel6403 I agree, vinyl I grew up on and love the sound, but when you are talking price, CD's are now to be found used (in clean copies) for less than 2 or 1 dollars apiece at used stores. That beats the high priced "vintage vinyl" found in record stores at ridiculous prices or new albums for 20-30 dollars a copy. Now that is absurd. right now the timing allows a market flooded with CD's. Streaming is the next media step. Good luck. Thanks
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.
I grew up in the 60's as a musician. Analog was the common mode. Digital was yet a dream. Analog had a way to smooth out the bumps and pits in what real live music sounds like. Being a musician, I was always frustrated as to getting certain instruments to sound like the real thing. Analog (to me) homogenized the sound. It was a smoother than real life sound. When I began listening to digital I was hearing real instrument sound for the first time. Having performed as a musician I knew that what I was hearing was much closer to the real thing.. warts and all.. Digital in its early days had its own worms to work out in its implementation. But, there is so much fine detail missing with analog. Some prefer the simpler sound of analog because its not realism they seek. I have heard some excellent analog. But people forget that lots of analog can sound like crap in its own way. I can achieve a sense of realism with digital that was impossible with analog. Yet? Taste and preferences is the name of the game.
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 didn't know there were any lies about vinyl. My opinion is that digital methods are more likely to give an accurate reproduction of almost any sound source. Thanx for all the great info-videos.
Analog is the way to listen for collectors and album lovers. It’s a very tangible medium, which adds to the “fun factor.” It certainly doesn’t sound better, but can be fun to listen to for some types of music.
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.
You did not mention the mystery box that determines the quality of digital music....the D to A for the audiophile and A to D for the engineer. DAC's can be a 10 cent item on your computer, or a $1000.00 dedicated hardware. Is this letter writer considering the DAC in the equation...and what program (genre) music is he listening to?
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paul, after listening to "Paul's Picks" (via digital sources) I have a greater appreciation for how music is recorded and processed for listening use. The songs on your list make my meager setup sound like I have never heard it before. Mass produced music is so much more difficult to listen to on the same components I used to listen to selections from your list that it is almost not enjoyable. Thanks for your great videos!
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.
My experience, as a musician for forty years, is, that vinyl generally sound best with less bass heavy music, classical for example, and CD's are better for, hiphop and the like. IF both are recorded and mastered properly. But in general, CD's sound better all round. To MY ears. :)
Any format can sound amazing, hell even cassette! We're at the mercy of the original source material, with each format having its own issues. I buy vinyl for a few nostalgia classics and to support younger bands I like as they don't get much money from streaming. The way I see it, they get the vinyl sale AND streams from me and I get to check out the vinyl master which sounds different, but not always better.
Hey, I'm nostalgic for cassettes, but no way can they ever "sound amazing". You either put up with a ton of very audible hiss, or you use noise reduction to reduce some hiss by messing with the recording. Then you have the limitations of channel separation and dynamic range and wow and flutter to contend with.
My number one pet peeve about cassettes is that if they get within an inch or two of electric guitar and electric bass pickups, the high frequencies will vanish - something I've experienced first hand as a budding guitarist back in the 1980s.
@@thisisnev thisisnev I've heard some comparisons that changed my mind. The later cassette tape formats and noise reduction really came a long way, check out Techmoans video on this (cassettes better than you remember). A tape dub of a CD can sound so close to be imperceptible, imagine what a real cassette master could sound like! I do realise original cassette releases are always on lower quality tape so unless there is change to this you'll have to stick with the "mid-fi" sound.
@@mdrumt You're funny. I remember when metal tape came out, because I go back a ways and I've recorded on them many times. I've tried several NR systems, and most of the compander types left audible, irritating artifacts like 'pumping' hiss. The best tape dub of a CD still falls way short in dynamic range, noise floor, channel separation and wow and flutter. Sure, it sounds great compared to a commercial cassette release, but that's not exactly difficult. They were rubbish. It doesn't hold up to the CD. Try monitoring on a 3-head deck - you can always tell the source from the tape. I don't need to imagine what a 'real tape master could sound like' because back in the 80s bands would demo their songs on 4-track cassette Portastudios and sometimes release the demos as bonus tracks on CD. The sound wasn't great. Digital Portastudios and interfaces couldn't come soon enough. I have a PC-based home studio, and the idea of mastering to cassette is just laughable. To end on a light-hearted note: if you can't tell a cassette from a CD, it's not advisable to apply the term "mid-fi" to people who can. :¬D
@@thisisnev So you're comparing masters from a home recording done on a portastudio to a professional studio that tracks to a 2 inch tape!? You're funny. I've used the old tascam gear and modern recoding gear too, whoopty doo. I understand cassettes limitations, sure you don't like the sound of tape, that's fine, that's your opinion. It has an aesthetic that's not going to appeal to everyone. But my opinion is that it can sound great, and this doesn't include a sub par recording done at home.
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.
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.
What many don't realize is most vinyl records from the 1980s on are sourced from digital. But there is one very distinct advantage vinyl has over digital formats: it's physically impossible to brickwall a vinyl record, the way so many modern recordings sadly are. If a record was brickwalled, the stylus would be violently thrown from one extreme side to the other, and likely start riding over the lands in the groove like teeth of a sawblade.
I feel like we discount the value of a good 16/44.1 recording too. Most people aren't even listening at that level of audio these days and oh, BTW there have been some really great CD's made over the years. The truth is we have learned a lot about how to make a mess of digital audio and with that how not to dig ourselves into hole with it. As and example we used to convert a project between analogue and digital audio numerous times. We've learned that it bites us bad so we try to avoid it now... Yes there is validity to mixing "inside the box." The second thing with this is that DA/AD converters are not what they used to be. Does your current system not sound better than the one you had 20 years ago? AD/DA converters are one of the things that engineers have spent the most time futzing with because they make a huge difference. Then there is more regarding the player itself. CD's at only 44.1kHz/16 bits can sound really good too!
UberPilot A 14K US$ CD player deserves to get crushed as there is no intelligent argument why it cost that much money to correctly get the exact bits out of a CD disc. In fact, a US$5 USB flash drive with the same music ripped is technically a much more reliable “transport media” and using the same DAC will play the music even better. Some snake oil is very pricey.
@@ThinkingBetter- The "intelligent argument" is very simple. The manufacture can charge *whatever price they want* for their products. It seems that many people can not understand such a simple thing. This is nothing new, it exists in all forms of manufacturing including the service industry (As long as they aren't providing products or services to a Government body. Then, yes. it can "somewhat" be controlled.) Or, would you rather live in a society where dictatorship rules all, and forces people/manufactures to charge what they deem to be correct? You can not "get around" the fact that the manufacture has the right to charge what they want. If you think 'calling out' these people and relying on their 'good conscience' to keep the prices to a minimum or what some would call fair well, your just dreaming. This is why such statements as 'Buyer Beware' exists.
@@Mark-lq3sb Of course companies shall be allowed to set the price to whatever people are willing to pay for it. Snake oil audio is no worse than when bottled water costing cents per gallon to produce is sold for Dollars per gallon. It's an unfortunate fact that premium audio done by passionate well paid engineers is produced by companies having a hard time making a business out of it while crappy audio engineered in China by newly graduated inexperienced non-passionate engineers is what the mainstream consumers buy massively. A few exceptions exist from this.
@@ThinkingBetter- The term Snake Oil has nothing to do with the price a manufacture sets for it's equipment. Weather a piece of audio equipment cost $2.00 dollars or 2 Million dollars has nothing to do with the fact that it actually does or doesn't do what the manufacture claims. The term Snake Oil has become confused with the word overpriced. When it should be used in terms of manufacturer claims. If the manufacture of your dollars per gallon water tells me I'll become 20 years younger by drinking their water then this should be considered Snake Oil. Not because it cost $20.00 dollars a gallon. If that 14k Mark Levinson CD player performs as the manufacture claims then why is it Snake Oil? Simply put... it's overpriced (for the majority of the population, not all.)
WRT compression, the irony is that digital by itself does not compress, but analog does. Analog productions are recorded on tape, and tape compresses the sound (quite a bit actually). Actually analog productions are typically recorded on tape twice (once on the multitrack, once on the master tape), so it compresses at least twice (more if there was bouncing going on). So you have your analog master, which will have hiss, compression and distortion to various degrees. Then a vinyl master is created which in essence means the tape is played back, and the analog signal is scratched onto it, which will introduce lots of imperfections. Not only that, but the signal is heavily filtered when it's put on the vinyl master (the lows are turned to mono and heavily reduced). Your phono stage will correct the reduced lows with another filter (the RIAA equalization), but the low frequencies are in the end still collapsed to mono. So that's a LOT of imperfections in analog. Digital on the other hand has essentially one main feature that will reduce quality: The need for an anti-aliasing filter when recording and the reconstruction filter when playing back. These filters are the only reason that high sample-rates make sense: You need less drastic filtering which will have less artifacts (which is a rather subtle difference, but it's there). There's jitter, but that's inaudible in anything other than a REALLY bad DAC. The kicker though: All these analog imperfections, the tape compression, the distortion, they often sound really pleasing. As if they 'enhance' the sound. And those nice sounding imperfections are hard to emulate digitally. The first all-digital productions (CD's with the 'DDD' label, remember those?) often sounded a bit flat and dull. They were missing the awesome sounding analog imperfections. In recent years, (digital) music productions arguably went a bit overboard with adding distortion and compression to excite the sound. Often merely just to make them sound louder. I think that's what gave digital a bad rep. But digital is in essence the format that most closely captures reality.
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
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. RU-vid isn't going to reproduce the same quality level as what what you were hearing.
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.
for me, albums before 1994 generally sound better with vinyl, after 1994 i choose CD or tidal to listen better. But i agree with Paul, depends on which album. and why choose? just get all three, vinyl, cd and streaming, enjoy all.
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.
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.
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.
Upsampling reduces error. so it can sound better depending if the error is noticeable. Take a DSD and down sample to 24/96/192 or 16/44. If you can't hear the loss of quality sell your equipment and a Get an am radio. Analog sounds different. Some analog records sound better then others. My original blood on the tracks sounds far less better then my 45 mfsl. I like the sacd rip of it too. Sometimes I chose digital as I like that sound at that moment. Using the word better is the problem. Some can't except that paradigm doesn't apply to everything. Cultural problem
It all depends on the recording and tape to vinyl transfer. For analog on vinyl to sound better it is usually the warm sound that is produced that appeals to a broader listening base. Digital can be impressive but not as warm sounding. Most vinyl junkies prefer the orchestra pit effect that only vinyl can produce. Digital sound is a wall of sound and therefore not the same.
my thoughts exactly: a good LP will sound 3 dimensional while music in the digital realm sounds one dimensional even though very clear. digital is liking a beautiful flat canvas painting while good analog is like 3 dimensional art
The bottom line to this whole argument is all about preference. Preference. You can prefer CD of whatever recording over the vinyl of that same recording on whatever system you have it playing on or you can prefer vinyl of that same recording over the CD on whatever system you to have it playing on. I simply prefer to play a vinyl record. I got about $15,000 up in my complete audio component system and I have over 8000 vinyl records that I have been seriously collecting over the last 40 years. I was 15 years old when I started to take care of my vinyl records I started out on my audiophile journey. On my system I will play a record 100 times quicker than any CD at any time because it's simply my preference. To me, CDs are dry and brittle and this compress thing whatever the hell that means, IDK but I don't get any excitement from a CD. I can get a lot volume behind a vinyl record and I get a warm sound that I prefer over the much upper mid range-y and seriously ear fatiguing CD. But everybody is different. My friend has an audio component system of $40,000 up and completely swears by CD and no vinyl. Preference. Simply preference. That's it!
One way of seeing it is that, on average, while digital has raised the floor its also lowered the ceiling. The same process has taken place in digital photography - its ease and cheapness of use has encouraged more people to make content of which most is of mediocre utility and quality.
Correct, sir! It is the recording master that starts the chain of quality. I have an AAD Bonnie Raitt CD, excellent. Her next CD was DDD . . . CRAP. I have a ZZ Top vinyl LP that I can play cleanly at any volume (if you know what I mean). I bought the 2019 Remastered Beatles Abbey Road. CRAP. Streaming is getting better. I stream Pandora (was crap, now better) and Amazon . . . RU-vid . . . and that can be good, and better with a couple boxes for streaming and DAC. But, without a well-engineered master, all are unlistenable on critically fine audio equipment.
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.
Digital recordings are never done in CD format anymore. Reason is the CD format does not allow for the manipulation required during the mastering process. It is there where so called hirez is required, especially the increased bit depth. However, with regards to the end consumer product I challenge anybody to distinguish between CD and hirez format if the recording has been done right, which means in so called hirez, to enable correct non destructive manipulation for mastering. So for the end consumer product 44.1/16 is fine. I won’t go into the digital vs vinyl discussion because I think it is pretty silly.
For me at 70+ I find vinyl and tape to project the "time factor" as in you can feel time movement in the piece you are hearing. I don't feel that with any digital format. You hear the drag or projection of time with analog. This goes for "digitally remastered" and back to vinyl like the Beatles big black box release, sounds like crap worst $300 I ever spent. Thanks for your great show! Z.K.
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?
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.
I have to acknowledge people for recognizing the most proper way of respectfully interfacing with such prized gear and taking it to heart. The builder in me thanks you, Sir. That level of care ensures these exquisite creations will deliver enjoyment well into the future and thus should be commended.
Hahaha, I’m sure Paul could get it fixed if he fucked it up. Plus I’m sure he knows how not to fuck it up. Don’t be upset that his armrests are your high end turntables.
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.
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!
Hi, Based on what you've said in this video the actual recording is an important factor when it comes to how good a cd or vinyl record sounds. That is why audiophiles tend to try and obtain either analogue versions of vinyl recordings or hd recordings on vinyl, ie 90's recordings done by music on vinyl or from a cd perspective obtain 24 bit recordings (hd) or good japanese cd recordings. My biggest issue with cd has been the loudness wars where cds do sound compressed and sound harsh to my ears with poor dynamic range. I have some cds from the 80's taken from an analogue recording that sound better than recent cd recordings. Conversley there are a number of vinyl lps taken from digital sources, sometimes they sound great, hd, and others from an 18bit source, or poorly recorded sound awful. Could you do a video discussing the advantages and disadvantages of cd vs vinyl? Im starting to lean towards cd because of reduced cost extras like dvds and blu ray you can get, and not having to worry about warped records changing the cartridge on your turntable time cleaning records and cost of vinyl. Regards Andy H
2:33 i learn so much from these videos. But today I learned that “horse batodie” is a word. Great video as always though, love your American politeness when wanting to swear
To me vinyl is so cool not because it is better, but because it is vinyl :-) I have a very modest setup, and purely technologically and sound-wise Spotify is better all the times, but I also into playing the vinyl, and it is so much more going on here other then just "the sound". The memories, the smells, the visual, so on. Music is so much more than just soundwaves.
