Vinyl vs CD, which one sounds better? 

Haven't you read the description, have you? There's an uncompressed version available for download

+TheWalkmanArchive How can anyone judge vinyl based on DIGITAL file? Another proof the digital is better in therms of quality ( of corse nothing compares to handling a phisical record)

Because this comparison is not aimed to be the absolute one. Of course it won't be. It's aimed to show many people that never heard a good turntable that it sounds pretty good.

Stephen Vogt yea it all sounds the same on RU-vid but I know hearing it in Person they sound completely different

I was about to ask the same question because if you hear it on RU-vid it's basically 100% Digital not Analog

Modern vinyl is the same digital audio file. Its digtal transfered to a analog source

True.

A properly mastered CD would sound better than a LP. CD audio allows for more dynamic range than LP, especially the inner groves. God forbid they just left the original masters alone and issued those on CD.

@@bigblueassbaby9074 I heard that it also depends of the quality of the vinyl record manufacturing etc. CD doesn't have those flaws. It's just 0s and 1s, so only mastering can be fucked up here.

@@bigblueassbaby9074 CD masters weren't given the compressed loudness treatment until much later on in the late 90s and early 2000s but even with the 80s CDs, still doesn't change the fact that their sound is still inferior when you have high quality setups for both formats. If CD in general was so great, why did they need to make SACD and Blu Ray Audio then? Even with those formats, audiophiles would not agree on those sounding better either with their flawed mastering and just the fact that a digital wave is not as smooth as a analog wave. CD is the easiest format to get decent sound out of, but it's generally inferior to its analog counterparts. We all know that DJs prefer Vinyl!

+Alan Harley but you still can hear some differences in favor of vinyl

+José Feliciano That's the real point, thanks for telling.

Its a little different, vinyl is more quiet, more flat... CD is up to your ears due to the larger quantity of compression. Theres people who dislike the loudness of CDs - some people like it powerfull and loud.

I disagree. Vinyl is not necessarily 'more quiet' in that it does not have a 'lower volume' or 'smaller amplitude' than the signal that leaves your cd player. It all depends on how the signal is amplified (and, of course, how you handle the volume button). Besides, whether music on vinyl is "more flat" depends on what you mean by that. The frequency range of cd players is most definitely "more flat" than those of turntables; which is speaking in favor of cd players. The dynamic range, however, is "flatter" or smaller with turntables than with cd players, yet another point in favor of cd players. Lastly, the audio on a cd is NOT compressed. Please remember: NOT compressed. Not lossy, not lossless. Simply NOT.

It is.. By saying compressed i mean that it has digital compressor when it being mastered and mixed.. its already a digital distortion , so vinyl mix always has to be less compressed because the loudness can really distort the sound paths..

+James Reeno The BIGGEST one as well.

Exactly, and that's why no one can ever settle this "debate". It's like everyone is arguing about which is the better of two paintings, but they're entirely focused on whether painting on canvas is better than painting on paper, forgetting that the skill of the artist has a much bigger impact than the medium.

@@fountaincap excellent analogy.

+Art Vandelay Exactly! My first turntable was a cheap 1961 valve record player (Philips RA 2411) with a broken arm repaired with electric tape. Recently bought a good amp and turntable. Ended up going back to my old record player, the sound was much better to my ears

+Art Vandelay So nice to see there are more people like me out there :)

+Art Vandelay Vinyl contains the perfection of seamless analog frequency and amplitude modulation archiving of the recording more accurately than digital, AND is uncolored. Yes, you are correct in saying that turntables color the playback. It is nearly unavoidable to cancel the mechanical resonances which color the sound, as there will be symmetrical sympathetic vibrations throughout the physical playback apparatus. If you have 12 grand you can LISTEN to an uncolored piece of music on vinyl by way of the worlds first asymmetric phono cartidge and needle. However, I don't need all the playback coloration removed or avoided in my listening experience anymore than I expect a real symphony to be present in my living room every time I wish to listen to one. That 'color' which is so controversial in music is the very thing that makes music beautiful. I'm a musician who became proficient on acoustic instruments before I discovered electric based ones and I can testify to the fact that there is a very wide margin when it comes to what 'coloration' to audio even means. When it comes to electric guitar and electric/electromechanical/electrostatic organ playing we come to desire the 'tone of that Celestion or Jensen speaker', ' tone of that alnico guitar pick-up'...we learn how incredibly musical the materials themselves are to music. When we are dealing with a needle tracking a groove in a record and the very simple translation of stylus to electromagnetic field disturbance-to-speaker-to-ear, I can assure you that the 'coloration' is very minimal, but very welcome. Especially when the listener comes to realize that it is not 'color' which separates a good sound from a bad one, it's what kind of color. There is nothing more gratifying than the feeling I get when listening to a particular piece of music on a particular hifi system. As you say, it's a matter of personal taste. Being a musician I literally look for tonal and timbral embellishments when listening to music, whether it is in a live setting with acoustic instruments, or electric, I am very aware that the makers of various amplifiers and speakers have always seen coloration as something to be embraced ultimately. Once an audiophile understands this the real love of home listening can begin.

Theroux Burroughs Expect a very long detailed explanation as to why you are wrong. I just don't have time now. While you prepare yourself, look up my kit. Cyrus DAC X signature, Cyrus X power signature, DALI IKON 6mk2.

Theroux Burroughs I didn't say coloration is bad. I said you can't compare analog with digital. Just because analog gives a continuous wave form doesn't mean it's an accurate waveform that represents what you're hearing in the room. Digital recording is capable of more dynamic range and frequency range than analog. Analog recordings and formats are great, and they defined the sound of an entire era of popular music, but there is a reason digital recording came to prominence, and that is because the recording is more accurate, which is why it is favored by the classical community, while analog is more favored by rock and roll, a genre that is built on coloration from alnico pickups, Celestion speakers, etc. Analog is fine, but it's not better than digital, just different.

Casparus Kruger i beg To differ. All depends On The quality of original source recording And The quality of The playback equipment. Blanket statements like The one You just made have there origins in personal bias.

@@jogmas12 Actually no, less speed in the grooves does mean information gets lost, every time. That's why 45 rpm sounds better and 16 rpm was used for books and background music.

Armadillo Well the Digital formats like CD do give the more accurate sound and more convenient. But vinyl despite being technically inferior,is the one that sounds "pleasant" and "right" "warm" and stuff it's simply a far better format at make you feel good listening to and all kinds of feel. Oh and just watching the record spins around and around kinda makes me feel high!

Barebare kun I totally agree :)

Barebare kun Vinyls definitely feel "warmer" and digital "colder" for me... Would it be due to the distortion, or would you say otherwise?

+Barebare kun lmao I love it all too!

+Armadillo To those digital die-hard fans, since all the master tapes before 1977 are analogue, and they think their street copy of cd is more genuine than the 'grandfather'(copy is better than original), they simply don't know how to appreciate music!

it can't be compared like this. It depends, what coil you use on vinyl player ect.

no the cd just sounds better

@@marielltoimeta4409 exactly it changes the sound a lot

@@phenixreturns CD is way better because it's digital and there's less things to change the sound

More often than not, vinyl also sounds better.

It's like comparing a modern car to a classic car. Modern ones probably perform better and are more efficient but the driving experience is just dull. A classic car will have it's idiosyncrasies but are such a joy to drive.

A better analogy is that vinyl suits the person who uses music to get satisfaction from the media while CDs suit the person who uses the media to get satisfaction from the music.

something like that (I think)

Not at all. I don't get satisfaction (not as much anyway) with bad CD production which has been prevalent for a long time. Not always, but, too many times the vinyl sounds better - especially vinyl that was originally available pre-CD format. Obviously, there are CD's that sound better than the vinyl release but from my experience, these are later issues that used the best qualities of the format. i.e:increased dynamic range etc.

+Lasha Tavlalashvili (Bazda's Laboratory) Analogue television, VHS video and analogue film photography are also softer than their digital equivalents. No-one there is claiming that it is more natural because of it.

i know

Really?,watch this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PtwwX5ZXo2A.html

Oh garbage.. garbage in ... garbage out... scratches, hiss, crackles pops rumble... no thanks!!!!

How about thousands for a mediocre dac for cds, or files that getl lost that dont sound as good as cd, or sacds, or dsd streaming. Or files that you buy that gets lost. At least vinyl is cheap on ebat used. How about copying youtube free vinyl files to WAV that dont wear out like vinyl. So people think free isnt worth doing.

yeah, the loudness war is the devil

ErikGPL For the most part I agree. The problem you’ll have is finding the “perfect” CD that hasn’t been dynamically compressed to hell and back.

Everything about a CD is based on computer analysis not human , we are analog creatures , vinyl is analog the groove in a record is the exact waveform of the sound and it's reproduced with an analog function , if you can hear ,vinyl should sound a billion times better than a CD . I have spoken

@@LastGenGaming675 You sound pretentious.

@@AFellowCyberman thank you

@@LastGenGaming675 Welcome.

+CraigTube yes, that's right. Another guy already noticed me. thanks.

+TheWalkmanArchive Maybe you inverted the wires on the stylus cartridge ?

+def creator I prefer the m2 red

Charles St-Pierre Not always the case. Several albums have the channels reversed for the CD release.

How about thousands for a mediocre dac for cds, or files that getl lost that dont sound as good as cd, or sacds, or dsd streaming. Or files that you buy that gets lost. At least vinyl is cheap on ebat used. How about copying youtube free vinyl files to WAV that dont wear out like vinyl. So people think free isnt worth doing.

That's it. If you prefer a deeper thicker sound like vinyl, go for it. CD digital can sound thinner and a little less deeper.

Not always, it depends on the skill of the mastering engineer. All things equal though, vinyl does sometimes sound bassier because an analog recording thickens the bass whereas digital will be fairly precise.

If you prefer a quieter yet thick sound go with vinyl. If you prefer a louder, clearer sound go with cd. If you prefer to go to Spotify and get a poorly mastered sound of the songs you like go for it. It’s your choice.

This is my main criticism of this sound comparison. The median volume level isn't matched between the three sources.

You don't understand copyright laws. RU-vid does not strike for posting music, because they have the license to allow it. If you read the full description below the video, you will see the license: UMG (on behalf of Polydor Records); BMI - Broadcast Music Inc., UMPG Publishing, UMPI, CMRRA, SOLAR Music Rights Management, LatinAutorPerf, and 12 Music Rights Societies

XD

+Simon Coles When a CD player converts digital information to analog current the analog current becomes a physical representation of sound.

+Simon Coles There are many factors to consider. One is that they have done testing on audiophiles who have been blind tested using CDs with errors and CDs without errors and in almost every instance they chose the CDs which contained the errors. People tend to want some "grit" and vinyl provides friction which causes aural sensations that are generally excluded from a digital listening experience. I personally think the industry went too quickly with digital formats and should have introduced CDs more gradually and without the deception that they cost more to make and more to transport... And they should have kept vinyl, Reel to Reel and Cassette Tapes available instead of pushing the vinyl out of the market. Now it is making a comeback and at the same time some of the best CDs of older analogue tapes are being made as well. The recent Led Zeppelin CDs and High Res Digital are excellent in my opinion because of Jimmy Page's respect for the pluses and minuses of both mediums. Certain things have never sounded better than the original vinyl, even the 90 gram of yesteryear, like Pink Floyd's Animals or Dark Side Of The Moon. There has been too much emphasis on volume or loudness. The Beatles 2009 Re-Masters were in most respects an improvement over the 1987 CDs but they don't need to be so loud in my opinion and they do come off as being a little cold or overly bright. Some of this was about the decision not to add another valve stage to the transfer process which should have added warmth. The loudness wars has hurt the presentation of many CDs though if you do some research you can find some very well done CDs though I have been burned a few times. Ones to avoid... The more recent Stevie Wonder and Jimi Hendrix because of the clipping of the audio signal... Ones I like... The 2014/15 Led Zeppelin Re-Masters, "For Everyman" by Jackson Browne... The more recent one... Be careful because it looks exactly like the older one from the 80's... The Moody Blues DSD re-masters and the ATCKO Rolling Stones re-masters from the early 2,000s. Neil Young's CDs - the older and the newer re-masters are both very good. Tom Petty's Greatest Hits is a great sounding CD also...

+Simon Coles : That's not how digital audio works actually... should check this out: /watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

ipsurvivor Let me know if you've got a link on the thing with CDs with errors.

+Simon Coles Shannon-Nyquist states that if you sample at twice the highest frequency of the analog signal, the result is an exact copy of the analog signal. By quantifying the analog signal and representing it digitally we can encode the data so that it is readable without errors even if there are scratches on the disc. CIRC encoding is used with CD's to accomplish that. By not physically touching the media when reading it, there is no degradation due to repeated playing and a stylus coming in contact with the disc. A vinyl record may be very good at the beginning of it's life it has no ability to resist scratches and wear from the stylus. Also the quality of a record is better on the outside than on the inside due to the constant speed of the record. Near the center of the record the stylus does have as much groove moving underneath it as it does near the edge. In short, with digital you can be assured that what you record is what you get back, no changes. We could even digital encode the data and put it on a vinyl disc with enough redundancy so that if you really scratched up the record you'd still not get any errors in readback. Of course we would record the data in such a way that a laser and not a stylus would read the data. Rule number one of recording data, the heads or stylus never touches the media. It's ok to have the heads float above the disc platter but they never touch it. Vinyl breaks this cardinal rule to it's detriment. Rule number two, encode the data so that it is somewhat resistant to defects in the media. Scratches happen. Take that into account. Unfortunately the vinyl record does not do this. If the media is particularly sensitive to damage, use redundancy and plenty of it if necessary. Remember, even 1 measly bit out of place is unacceptable.

+Jeremy D That's because CDs are WAV, which is even better than FLAC.

+Juan Sebastian Amador Bjarner That is not true, first FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. The lossless means that there is no loss of information. You can convert between wav and flac and get the same exact file out of each in. Therefore they will sound exactly the same a reproduce the same frequencies. The advantage with flac is smaller filesize. The only potential step for loss in that, is ripping cds to wav/flac but that is unlikely. In fact flac/wav technically can be "better" than cd in the way that you can have higher sampling frequencies and bit depth. (cd is 44.1Khz @ 16-bit where as wav/flac can be at 192Khz @ 32-bit, maybe even higher idk) Second, cd's are not wav. Yes they store PCM audio data, same as wav(and other audio formats as well) however they use different container formats.

+Juan Sebastian Amador Bjarner Flac is lossless, they are equivalent to wav files, just smaller. You can convert from wav to flac and back to wav and do a bit for bit comparison and you will see that you have the exact same file back. You can't do that with MP3 and lossy formats.

No, I don't think the CD sounds tinny. I think it has everything to do with the fact that the CD is digital. There is a very low noise floor, meaning when there is no sound intended, no sound is heard. Whereas on vinyl, there's always a bit of noise, since something physical (instead of optical) is happening.

+maskei better my ass

And mine test - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3USZ9FJ7WZ0.html

1234gregor Agreed, the original mastering/mixing is quite important. Also are personal preferences, some prefer the accurate sound of CDs which sound close if not exact like the master, while other prefer that distorted, hazy, coloured sound of vinyl.

Comparing the same master to master, CD is better.

CD data is always compressed, my nigga. Your typical CD file has the standard bit rate of 1411 kbps while the studio master is 4200 kbps and even up to 9200 kbps.

***** You can compress without loosing quality. What do you think lossless formats like FLAC and ALAC are for? That's the file on the editing software but when you export it, the editing software does the same thing lossless technology does. The same thing happens when you export 1080P video to blue-ray. Mind you, their is no audible difference to the human ear just like you won't be able to tell the difference with your human eye between streaming 1080P or from a blue-ray.

shechshire CD files are compressed. Like I said previously, you have to take a look at the total bitrate and you'll see. CD files sound flat and harsh compared to studio masters at the full bitrate. No doubt about that. I have listened and heard the difference.

***** Like I said, comparing MASTER(for CD) TO MASTER(for vinyl), Not MASTER TO CD. Again, compression is possible without loosing quality. Bit rate doesn't necessarily mean loss of quality because it depends on the efficiency of the codec technology. Also to make a fair comparison you would have to use a dacless cd player going to the same dac and receiver you used to hear the master on. Anyway, I've done the blind test myself and chosen CD because I could hear the higher resolution despite having a flat EQ while the expensive record player with a mint condition vinyl had a lower resolution but with varying tones in bass, treble, and to some extant, a certain level of reverb almost.

+Mehdi Saad I bet the cd version is more compressed, which drums can end up a casualty when that happens.For the record this is not the same as file compression this is Dynamic Range Compression. I would read up on the Loudness War, of which vinyl is effected less by because of its limitations. This is one reason a lot of people think vinyl sounds better, because of the more dynamic range the vinyl version will have. Where as cd technically have more dynamic range, the mastering process for them generally ends up killing that. Otherwise there is no reason digital audio should sound worse than records. That stair step representation of digital audio is crap lies, because the analog wave is generally preserved when converting to digital,.There will be some distortion, but probably less than records have. Mp3's however are a whole other story, A good quality record should better than the general crappy mp3's. Mp3's produced from a good lossless source are decent enough though, however I find this is rarely the case with many mp3 music collections... Also yes i like records, for me its a bit about the fun of the hunt and surprise about finding good records and music you never knew you would like :D Also, yeah your simple comment sparked a bit of a rant... haha oh well.

TIL you can hear vinyl on RU-vid

@@mortimore4030 But todays CD and other digital music is always very loud (loudness war) except classical music cd discs.

​@@mortimore4030 Yes you are right but this kind of music is rare. I have studied the matter and about 90% 1990-2019 pop, rock, heavy, rap music is very loud. Classical music is not because it is mostly listened to by professional equipment who can play dynamic music. For this reason, record labels are gently mastering classical music.

Incorrect. The CD is not always louder. Nearly all early CD pressings, those manufactured between 1983 and 1990, were mastered at a rather low level and (at least in theory) without dynamic range compression from the source material. Record companies wanted their CD editions to exhibit the advantages of CD in terms of uncompressed low bass, superior stereo separation, and wide dynamic range without the LP mastering and manufacturing compromises made to accommodate the real-world limitations of LP playback gear used by most consumers. Once CD was firmly established as a mainstream consumer format, many in the industry discovered that many ordinary consumers preferred "loud" over "dynamic" sound qualities particularly when playing on a CD boombox or car CD player, leading to the tendency of many CDs to be much louder than earlier CDs but lacking the dynamic range, subtlety and nuance which many (but not all) early CDs offered.

How about thousands for a mediocre dac for cds, or files that getl lost that dont sound as good as cd, or sacds, or dsd streaming. Or files that you buy that gets lost. At least vinyl is cheap on ebat used. How about copying youtube free vinyl files to WAV that dont wear out like vinyl. So people think free isnt worth doing.

i thought the fly was real man!!!

Andrew Houghton I think we're not missing the point at all. You're right: this way of showing an analog vinyl in a digital stream is not faithful. Completely agree. There is some important part of the perceived quality that is not kept here, but only if you seat in front of a good TT with good gear. I already know that, of course. But... can you explain me how can we discuss about these here in RU-vid? If I don't do this, there's no way we can discuss about analog sound. Many people are comparing a Vinyl vs DC just by recording their gear with a videocam or a phone, which leads to a horrible result. My video shows a much closer result to the originals, though it's impossible to hear the original analog here. PS: That Police album was recorded in analog, mastered in analog and the vinyl master were cut in 100% analog way. Just look behind the CD, it states AAD, so you guess... PS2: There's no ADC inside a mic, they are all in the computer or in other gear in the studio. PS3: CDs cannot reach 108dB, just 96 with their 16 bits.

TheWalkmanArchive Yes they can through intelligent dithering. The 96db is already a very low noise floor and it assumes an equal distribution of noise across the frequency range. With dithering some of the noise can be shifted and distributed to the extremities of the low and high frequency where human hearing is very quiet or non-existent thus achieving 108db or better. Not to many people would notice the difference though as 96db is already fairly low. Btw, I have the original AAD release of the CD. Imo it sounds great, much better than the later remasters. It seems they traded off some of the benefits of more modern ADC convertors with compression, which is a pity.

Being a complete pedant here 93dB as O0 and FF are reserved but 108dB recorded digitally and uncompressed can be expanded to 108 in dBW terms and you won't hear noise.

A mic with an ADC as close to the source of the electrical signal is how you achieve 108dB S/N AES to the desk. It looks like an analog mic but the XLR carries AES these days. Not all miss I grant you.

Mics

My thoughts exactly. Have all formats if you can each one serves a purpose , digital is handy, cd is well... compact, and vinyl is the greatest form of appreciation for the musical piece.

I understand where you’re coming from, Vinyl is an experience in of itself, with the placing of the needle, and the turning of the table and everything. But it all just comes down to the experience and nostalgia (or fake nostalgia consumerism/popularity) of it all. The warmness of Vinyl is actually distortion of the sound, where the Vinyl is taking the record and giving it its own sound, in addition to the pops, crackles, and hisses of a record. Someone also brought to light that the placing of the needle in the grooves also affects the way that the higher sounds come together, such as the inner grooves having muddying of hi-hats in certain Vinyls. CDs also have a larger dynamic range, with brighter, cleaner sound. And a cheap CD setup nowadays can get you equal if not better quality than a 5000 dollar Vinyl rig. CDs may not be “as fun” as Vinyl, but they produce better quality of recording than streaming services, cassettes, and Vinyl. Not to mention, CDs are incredibly cheap. The mastering of the recording also matters for the CDs and Vinyl. A poorly mastered CD will be worse than a well-mastered Vinyl, yes. So a good mastering also affects it. But in modern times, Vinyls are often created digitally and put onto an analog source now, so it’s not even the way it used to be before digital media. So much of the Vinyl wave is marketing. Vinyl is fun, but it’s just not superior to CDs. But, at the end of the day, no matter whether you pick CD, Vinyl, Cassette, etc., you own that music, and that’s what counts. It has buy and sell value, unlike media services. In summary, CDs are technically better. Vinyls may garner a stronger fanbase and emotional, nostalgic feel, but the sound in every way will be the altered sound of a Vinyl. CDs will be the crisp, clean, perfect sound without any added change to recording. CD is a music sound source to a Vinyl. Edit: I also forgot to mention, stating that “Vinyl listening is the way the artist intended” is not necessarily correct. Artists produce music for art, but also, for money. Not for the benefit of society, but for money. Often, artists have listened to the final draft on a phone recording, or even a car and said “yes, that’s it!”. To state that “Vinyl is the way artists intend” is reiterating a common assumption and fallacy.

The video is quite useful actually. It demonstrates that even the lowish bit rate digital codec of you tube is transparent enough to hear the difference in the masterings. It also demonstrates that you could record that LP to a CD and it will sound exactly the same as the LP. I've done it many times.

ianmeesters88 But reality proves that false because I can definitely tell the difference. There is 100% definitely scraping and crackling in the vinyl played version

not me: You speak as if EQ, dynamics compression and other studio audio processing did not exist before digital came along. To the contrary! Studio processing has existed since WW2. But as that war introduced nuclear warfare, digital introduced processing on a nuclear scale. In mixing and mastering, compression ratios of 6 to 8:1 are commonly used, followed by brickwall limiting of the top 6dB peaks. That shit just wasn't done in the vinyl/analog era. Why do you think vinyl records are making a comeback? Because in analog that level of squashing and over loudening of the music is physically not possible - at least, not advised. (!) Thus the vinyl, relative to the over-processed digital, sounds heavenly by comparison. The difference between vinyl and digital? It's all in the processing! ;)

Zickcermacity I am not saying it didn't exist before digital, but compression/loudness and EQ are different for digital. Also don't forget dithering. I have recorded digital for over 25 years and most of my equipment (amps - mics E.Q.s etc) are designed or set to bring out warmth and remove digital harshness. There is no doubt the loudness wars have messed up mastering of music today, but the reason I listen to vinyl is more about the natural wave tones and the feeling you get from them. Digital is amazing but just like CGI you can still tell a difference.

not me You can prefer the sound of vinyl, for whatever reason, but the wave forms are not "more natural", in fact it is far from it. Anyone can verify that digital can be an exact representation of the original analog input signal whereas the inaccuracies inherent with analog devices and media result in a deviation from the original signal. There are some you tube videos by audio engineers which also demonstrate this with scopes. A good quality 15ips reel to reel recording will be close to the original signal, but still will not be as accurate as digital. Put it another way, I do a needle drops of my LPs, recording at 24/96 and downsampled to 16/44 for making CDs. When playing those CDs on the same stereo as the donor turntable, they sound identical under double blind tests. So most of what you say has nothing to do with digital or analog per se but rather how the signal is processed. As you should know, digital signals can be processed to a far larger degree than analog - if only due to the limitations of analog media (ie tapes and vinyl). That can be good or bad depending on the skills and objectives of the mastering engineer and of course, subjective sound preferences. I use both analog and digital consoles when mixing/mastering recordings and there is nothing that can be done for analog sounds that cannot be done for digital, but there is a lot more that can be done with digital which would either cause tape saturation (on tapes) or cause the stylus to mistrack the grooves (on vinyl). My digital recordings are never harsh, in fact many times I have to process the recording if it comes from an analog tape where the original recording is harsh. Some people like "warmth", I don't unless it is in the actual recording, that is, what the artist intended, rather than an artificial warmth from vinyl inaccuracies. You can always EQ for warmth if that is your thing. Me personally, I just like good recordings/masterings regardless of the media it is on. However, after listening to a well mastered CD recording, listening to vinyl is a relatively dull experience, particularly the less clarity in treble and the inarticulate bass. Interestingly, several controlled double blind tests with the general public comparing live unprocessed digital recordings with unprocessed analog had the same results with the majority preferring the digital recording, particularly on clarity, separation of instruments, bass and treble. Not surprising given the measurements of each compared to the original signal, as discussed earlier.

Ok but all these advantages you mentioned have nothing to do with the sound

@@thedawnoftheblackhearts2745 who said it had anything to do with the sound? they're just giving their opinion

Here is proof why lp sounds better than cd. The video I show shows how a 50 year old album sounds much better than a 25 year old album. Because the master tape wears out on newer albums. You cant find a 50 year old cd. The sound on a 50 year old album sounds better than a 25 year old cd. Because once the master tape is put on cd, it is worn out. On this link there is 2 lps, an old lp, & a new lp. But the old master tape cant be put on either a cd or an lp, because the master tape is worn out by the time one puts it on a cd. An old lp is ALWAYS BETTER than a new cd. Click link. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UBsHL7DcdVo.html

FLACs ripped from CD and Vinyl? Lmao

Hey, it works for him.

@@PeterKropotkin42069 you such a troll hahaha

+Tim Ramich That is true, you would need to have a fair amount of redundancy in order to maintain error free reading of the disc. However, using good encoding techniques as well as an effective method of putting the 1's and 0's on the vinyl, it may work out. You'd want it to be read by a laser, not a stylus of course. It would be possible to record the digital data as an audio stream and read it with a stylus but that would have a lot of drawbacks. If you did record digitally onto vinyl and read it back error free then yeah, it would be perfect. Nice thing about digital, doesn't matter if it's on a memory stick a 5400 rpm HDD, a CD, a DVD, a 10,000rpm hdd, 15,000 rpm hdd, it sounds the same.

+Tim Ramich FM requires much higher frequencies than you could reliably etch into a vinyl record, remember these things have trouble just playing back cymbals, they're not going to perfectly store a multi-MHz signal.

+Tim Ramich You'll recall that the early hard drives used MFM which stood for modified frequency modulation. I don't know the best way of recording as much digital data onto a vinyl disc. In the case of many hard drives they did determine that Modified FM was a good way to record the data onto the platter. FM is also used in VHF to record the black and white part of the signal. JJ Warner is correct in that if you were to convert a baseband audio signal to FM then record it on a record, that would be difficult as it would require nearly 200 kHz of bandwidh. You'd have to take a 100 kHz signal and frequency modulate it. I see no benefit. Whether or not FM or modified FM would be a good way to record digital on vinyl, I don't know that either.

Scott Currier Well, we could potentially use amplitude modulation, but I doubt the vinyl record is accurate enough to read that back properly, either. You'd need plenty of redundancy, or else one single pop and your data is corrupt. It would be nice if we could just plate the thing in glass and replace the plastic with metal. Oh wait...

+JJ Warner You could take a 100 kHz signal and frequency modulate it and it may just be able to handle 20 kHz. That would be challenging to record on vinyl. Even if you did record it, the stylus would probably erase it. My reading indicates that a 20 kHz base band audio signal will require about 200 kHz of bandwidth. You'll note that FM radio stations use 150 kHz of bandwidth but they don't go up to 20 kHz. I think 15 is the high end, so 20 kHz would probably take 200 or 225 kHz of bandwidth. You wouldn't need to modulate a signal of several mHz you would modulate a signal just high enough to be able to handle the bandwidth. Of course, we were talking about recording digital data. Since we are not talking about magnetic recording onto anything, I wouldn't use FM or AM but rather pits in the vinyl that can be read by a laser. Something along those lines. FM and AM are usually used when either recording onto magnetic media or transmitting over the air. FM and AM and even Single side-band can be used to multiplex signals onto a single transmission line. Convert telephone conversations up and use single side band and you still are only using 3 kHz of bandwidth but you can have a lot of conversions on a single cable. It's also my understanding that underwater telephones will transmit a single sideband signal over an audio frequency for communications under water between subs. Any have any info on that?

hukes yes but vinyl has a softer sound therefore makes it easier to hear every little detail and note coming from the vinyl depending of course on whether or not you have a good turntable and not a shit one and depending on whether or not you actually know how to handle your records

@MF Nickster Sure, it isn't what the computer is doing that the CD player isn't, it is what the person recording and downloading to youtube is doing, that the analog vinyl record is not doing in real life. If we were in the room listening in real life, we would hear an analog vinyl record on an analog turntable playing in comparison to a digital CD playing on a digital CD player. There would be no digital processing associated with that real life vinyl sound. But here remotely listening on a computer, we are listening to only a single digital sound system reproduction because the analog record playing has been digitally recorded and fed through digital processing to play that analog recording on our digital computers. There is still something here to compare, but it isn't a pure unadulterated sound comparison, and that is why I said to fully compare them, that you need to hear them both live. I have done that and the difference is significantly more that what you can hear from our computers.

Vinyl has limited Dynamic Range at around 64 db of dynamic range. Cd is capable of around 120 db.

@@rickg7579 yes, but that's meaningless when it isn't used. Too many CD's are compressed to hell. That's why they sound so bad. Digital in principle is far superior to analog where distortion and colorization of the sound is inevitable, but only when the digital recording isn't butchered by idiots who think 'louder is better'. Also, the distortion that analog has is sometimes even preferred by many listeners. Like a little bit of salt in your soup or sugar in your coffee.

Look at the measurements I just posted. The dynamic range of the vinyl recordings, as stored in the digital FLAC, is much poorer than in the cd recording. Besides, the OP forgot to keep the volume levels the same. The Clear Audio recording is about 3 dB louder than the other two, which renders this 'direct comparison' unusable because of contamination.

@@BlaBla-jj6sh indeed most of my cds I have are loudly mastered for example when I put a cd rip in audicity you can see that it isn’t dynamic at all only my old cds have good dynamic range

How about thousands for a mediocre dac for cds, or files that getl lost that dont sound as good as cd, or sacds, or dsd streaming. Or files that you buy that gets lost. At least vinyl is cheap on ebat used. How about copying youtube free vinyl files to WAV that dont wear out like vinyl. So people think free isnt worth doing.

Yep. When You listened to the vinyl right from your turntable that's when the Magic begins

nonsense

cd is a big mistake a big shit nothing else

LoL. Capacity of 700 MB in year 1981 is what made it so remarkable. Of course today you can use any other newer type of storage.

takismi ?????

rob b no

Analog is naturally superior and more expensive.

@@ranbirroy4627 Now that's debatable. Only because something is expensive, it doesn't mean it's superior. Look at the iPhone Xr. There are better phones for half the price.

Since you recall the mastering process The main difference between CD and Vinyl mastering is exactly what I just said.

Just like our hearing and our bodies deteriorate. Anyway I have some vinyl that's 40 years old and sounds as good as new and I have cds that are suffering from cd rot that are 20 years old. How ironic is that. Nothing against CDs. They're great to have playing in the car. What we shouldn't lose there point that regardless whether we prefer CD or vinyl the main thing is we all love music. It doesn't really matter what the format is. So if you're into refined classical or dirty-ass Rock n' Roll. Its about the enjoyment you get out of it.

That's an overgeneralised statement. Not all vinyl holds its value and the extent to which it does hold its value is highly dependent on its condition and collectibility, most new vinyl depreciates. Likewise not all CDs lose their value, again it depends on its rarity and collectibility. For example I have both David Bowie's original press Hunky Dory LP and the original RCA CD, both are worth around $100. I also have a red face target Led Zep IV CD which go for around $1k as it is a collector's item. Some LPs are definately worth more than their CD versions but for others it is the other way round, for example, a sealed copy of the original 2 track Wish You Were Here CD was sold for just over $3k on ebay a couple years back and no Pink Floyd LP (even the MFSL versions) go for anywhere near that amount. The moral of the story is that collectible albums can be worth a significant amount of money regardless of the format. As for durability, you are basing it on one anecdote of CD rot? I have over 3000 CDs and about the same LPs, I have never experienced CD rot but I have had a few records warping or developing mould. Records deteriorate everytime they are played whereas my early 80s CD sound exactly the same as they did when they were new. I take far more care with my LPs than CDs because that is essential to keep them at NM condition.

Its only worth what people are willing to pay. Hunky Dory great album regardless how you listen to it. You've got good taste.

Brian Smith Anything and everything is only worth what people are willing to pay. Agree with you on Hunky Dory :-)

Yes, we compare everything via RU-vid and ignore, that RU-vid's sound is digital and compressed... In the 1950's, the people were smarter, never tried to demonstrate the advantages of FM radio with an AM broadcast or the advantages of vinyl records on 78 rpm shellac or the advantages of 4 or 6 channel movie sound on a film with optical mono sound track.

JDmsz oh please, may i ask What turntable your dad used??? Not all vinyl play back equipment is made equal. Large variations in quality as You go up in price And To make The blanket statement You just made shows me You think all turntables regardless of age And price all sound The same when they do not!!!

JDmsz “vinyls”????

@Juan Redman I don't know too many generation X'ers (I'm one myself) born in 1971 being able to afford a CD player in the early/mid 1980's. The average price for a CD player in the mid 80's was $500-$600 and no maxi singles on that format were available. I was buying 45's and LP's right up until the end of the decade. The recording industry killed LP's and 45's from the retail markets because CD's are a cheaper/cost effective medium to distribute compared to vinyl records.

Not sure about your claim about cd's in the 80's being mastered poorly. For one, they don't suffer from the brick wall limiting that post-2000 cd masters suffer from.

James Reeno Yes it would be a mistake to say they all were. What I really want to say is, the medium of vinyl itself is extremely limited compared to modern CD. For instance, a song on the outer grooves sounds better than one on the innermost grooves near the label due to far more surface area passing by the needle per second on the outer grooves, thereby more media and more detail. This is not a concern with digital. However, back in the day the master sounded much better due to the analog equipment. It is the master that is making vinyl sound better, not the medium. That is my point. Then when "remastered" for CD sometimes it did a great deal of harm, like with Off the Wall or other records.

Vinyl anthusiasts mostlly but also hi-res enthusiasts are like flat-earthers they all live in their illusioned world : 16bit which provides 96db dynamic range and 44.1 KHz which provides 22050Hz is what best for the human hearing What matters is the mastering and if it's as it should not like < loudness war } Cd is superior by far than vinyl . Now as about the HI-RES enthusiasts they think that can hear something better although the human hearing is unable to catch up the diferences that < THERE ARE > of course but unditectable to us unless if someone is either BATMAN / DOGMAN or CATMAN haha Vinyl is also great but not better . Personally i prefer CD .

How about thousands for a mediocre dac for cds, or files that getl lost that dont sound as good as cd, or sacds, or dsd streaming. Or files that you buy that gets lost. At least vinyl is cheap on ebat used. How about copying youtube free vinyl files to WAV that dont wear out like vinyl. So people think free isnt worth doing.

If you think the cd is compressed you are wrong; it isn't

TheWalkmanArchive The file they put on a CD is 320 kbps and the source version has a much higher bit rate so yeah it is compressed

No. The CD has a PCM file with a bitrate of 1400 kbps, uncompressed, BTW. Read it at wikipedia, i.e.

+TheWalkmanArchive 1411 kbps 16 bit uncompressed DIGITALLY, big difference.

+MeinKampfyChair I think you arent' talking about the same. We were talkign about data compression, not dynamic range compression.

SFtheGreat You are exactly right.

The Rolling Stones released in 2002 were remastered with tubes and really sound much better than the older cds. I like Let It Bleed the best here on youtube. But all of these are tube recorded albums of the: White Stripes, the Black Keys, & the Kings of Leon, the cds sound as good as the lps. Generally, I prefer listening to the older tube recorded lps, caled AAA. But, I would rather listen to the old 1971 & before tube recorded albums on cd, than listen to the newer transistor digital recorded albums on lps. DDD vinyl will never sound as good as tradional AAA vinyl. DDD vinyl will never sound as good as (the old Analog recorded albums put on the newer) cd, either.

+SFtheGreat Totally agree. AAA vinyls (which actually looks like some sort of absurd description, ha ha) sound much better than digitally recorded and mastered ones (DDA actually). I've just need a few seconds hearing any vinyl to know if it's AAA or DDA.

I sent you a link on Bob Ludwig remastering all the Rolling Stones albums with tubes.

I sent you a link on Bob Ludwig remastering all the Rolling Stones albums with tubes. Bob Ludwig: Master of Mastering - TapeOp tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/ 800000 copies ... Bob Ludwig started cutting lacquers at A&R Recording with producer Phil ... digital-to-analog converter [DAC], do all the mastering in the analog ..

Sven Pieloth Amen brotha

Why not both?

That's why vinyl is better cause can't sound like cd end of story

It's the other way around. While you can convert analog to digital you can't convert digital back to analog retaining the original quality. Your analog eyes can see digital video . Not vice versa.

Had a turntable for years and loved hearing the sound. Since I switched don’t really enjoy it as much. But I think you need a decent hifi to get the same enjoyment from cd

Technics Guy What you call tinny I would call a more accurate reproduction of high frequency.

Technics Guy only in this case however. I know tinny when I hear it

That's only because it is noticeably louder.

@@hloyhesit8403 And he's Technics Guy you can imagine if he wasn't haha

+Igor Wapovalov Can you say it in english, please?

TheWalkmanArchive It is important that the vinyl was recorded in the original, now it is recorded with a digital carrier, so there is no difference, but if you take the old original recording, then the blame will be better

+Igor Wapovalov at some point you right, but is hear it on good studio monitors and i hear the deference, the vinyl are little bit more natural and the volume balance between the sounds are better to me..

+Igor Wapovalov Totally agree, but to show it here I may record it digitally... However, there's a difference. If you can't hear it, maybe your gear is not good enough.

if nuemann studio monitors are not good enough, i don't know what to say :P

Thanks for the tip. I have Focusrite and Roland USB interfaces and recording at 96 khz and 196khz give pretty focused sound, and when I render said recordings directly to CD, the fidelity is amazingly preserved. So theoretically, it is possible to get really great sound from just 16 bits and 44.1 khz if you do everything perfectly.

And mine test - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3USZ9FJ7WZ0.html

How about thousands for a mediocre dac for cds, or files that getl lost that dont sound as good as cd, or sacds, or dsd streaming. Or files that you buy that gets lost. At least vinyl is cheap on ebat used. How about copying youtube free vinyl files to WAV that dont wear out like vinyl. So people think free isnt worth doing.

+Matt Thompson I can confirm that listening to good vinyls with a good cup of wine at home (preferably at nigh) is a very very nice experience. Very recommendable!

TheWalkmanArchive Right?!?!!? I understand people's obsession with CDs and MP3s..I do..but to really EXPERIENCE music, vinyl is the way to go...dim light, a good glass of wine..no better way to unwind. If it wasn't for vinyls, I would never know if I liked the whole album..you can not put on a CD or a MP3 the same way you do vinyls...

Matt Thompson “vinyls”???

TheWalkmanArchive “vinyls”????

+Eleanor Tischler It could be that vinyl is slightly slower or faster as it's analog. But, as the turntable is quartz lock direct drive, the difference could be 0,001% or less, so you guess... ;-)

+TheWalkmanArchive Thank you. :-)

D Yang deaf man

Audio CDs have some sort of good error correction, because it's digital it doesn't need to correct much.