Why vinyl sounds warmer 

I agree. In the 1970's I sold hifi for the Audio Warehouse in Akron, Ohio. We had a turntable with two tone arms so the listeners could compare the sound of cartridges while paying an album. We are able to match the output of each cartridge so the volume was the same when compared. The differences in sound characteristics were VERY noticeably different in frequency response, channel separation and dynamic range.

As you were talking about vinyl in this video I kept saying "it's the cartridge, Paul" and you finally heard me. So to speak. I agree. It's the way phono cartridges translate vibrations into sounds. I find streaming very convenient. And, I like the wide range of music available at a moment's notice. But LPs are like comfort food for the ears.

I quit vinyl for the same reasons as most: convenience and sound clarity. Up until recently, I've been listening to music through iPods and now Hi Res portable devices through speakers of any kind. One afternoon I saw a record store and got in, I saw a title I liked and the owner offered to play it for me. He had a Stanton turntable, a mixer as preamp, an old amp, and speakers. I cannot tell you how amazing music sounded through that cheap set up. A whole world I've been missing all these years and that got lost in the digital era. It wasn't nostalgia, it was just how better music sound like in vinyl. So I'm back to Vinyl when I swore I would never come back. I suppose the quality of audio has been sacrificed in the altar of higher resolution and digital components.

I lived next door to Jan August, a pianist who had success with his versions of Miserlou and Babalu on 78 rpm records 1946. When he moved approx 20 years later he put the master disks out on the sidewalk to be picked up by the garbage men. My 12 year old brother scooped them up along with lots of regular 78s. The masters were thick and heavy. The surface looked gold (more like champagne) and the outer edges were very rough and irregular. They played perfectly on our parents’ Zenith console. And no, they haven’t survived the 55 years since.

This from musician, recording engineer Michael Connolly: “I want to emphasize again that distortion is not necessarily a bad thing! I like the sound of analog distortion and the warmth it adds, as do many listeners and other audio professionals, and I take active steps to add it to recordings that I produce. In the 70s, distortion was an unavoidable side effect of using magnetic tape, vacuum tube equipment, and mastering to vinyl-but it added musical qualities to recordings that are still aesthetically valued today. In my digital recording studio, my recording system exhibits extremely low distortion, but I often take additional processing steps to add it for musical effect. Engineers often refer to using special equipment to “warm up” a sound source by adding this distortion”

I have learnt so much from this gentleman and his channel, to the betterment of my set-up. Many thanks ! (UK fan)

You're spot on about the cartridges: The reason that vinyl sounds warmer than digital, is the same reason why regular tube amplifiers sound warmer than solid state: In the case of the tube amplifiers, it is the output transformers that add second harmonics. In the case of playing vinyl, the vast majority of pick up elements use magnetism, and add second harmonics. Some years ago I used the Stax electrostatic cartridge, via OTL amplifiers connected to ESL loudspeakers. So, no magnetism anywhere in the audio chain. On that set-up, there is not much difference anymore between the same recording played back from CD or LP.

The vinyl will sound different than a digital counterpoint due to phono cartridges (like Paul stated) because there are resonant frequencies and harmonics produced by the mechanical nature of vinyl playback which are not produced by playing a cd or digital file.

The cutting head doesn't change, it is the pitch of the lathe that changes. When there are high levels, the pitch is increased so that the cutting stylus does not cut over. When the levels are low, the pitch is decreased to obtain longer recording times. This can be done manually as Sheffield Records did on their Direct to Disc Analog recordings.or it can be automated with a delay, but this would require a tape or digital transfer. If you left the lathe with a constant wide pitch, you would only get about 4 minutes on one 12" record side.

Thanks Paul, have watched many of your videos. I have been an audio repair tech for nearly 50years. It is so nice to hear honesty when a CEO or rep talks about products they sell/ manufacture.. Once again Thank You!

Yes Paul you are right. Every phonocartridge (+preamp) has its own NONLINEAR frequency response. You'll need a TEST Vinyl Record (TEST LP) that has White Noise or Pink Noise recorded on it. Whenever I get a new Cartridge, I use the TEST LP and digitize the sound using Audacity. Then I pick the Pink Noise or White Noise portion and run a Spectrum Analysis. Once I get the Spectrum Analysis I can tell which frequencies need to be compensated for or fixed. Thereafter, whenever I need to listen to a record, I always EQ the sound coming out of the of the turntable preamp in order to adjust the frequency response est VOILA! The sound I get from Vinyl is IDENTICAL to that of the digital versions of the music in at least 80% of cases. The only difference in most cases is that the Dynamic Range of the music on Vinyl is larger (by 2 to 5 dbs generally) and that's because the CD and mp3 versions of songs have their Dynamic Range crushed by the sound engineers (to make them louder aka "Loudness War"). I don't know if you have tried a TEST LP to adjust the nonlinearity of the vinyl system. Once you do the adjustments you'll get the same identical sound. I've been doing this for years.......

When you go to an Arabic country such as Egypt it's useful to learn the number system. You can see how much things actually cost and won't get to ripped off.

Very thorough and gradual explanation to get to the conclusion where the difference could actually be. I have enjoyed in this particular video very much.

This is an interesting discussion. I have always been aware of the unique sonic differences between an LP and it's CD version. However, about 15-20 years ago I bought a Super Audio CD release of a Carpenters collection album. Not knowing if I would ever be able to play the disc, I bought it thinking it would make an interesting collector's item. Some time later I learned that my DVD changer could play SACD discs. I must say the listening experience was very different than anything I had heard from a CD before and the most analog/vinyl kind of sound I have ever heard from a digital source in my home - very rich, enjoyable, warm, and easy on the ears. I didn't even play it on what I would consider high-end audio equipment, but I was still amazed at the difference. What I concluded was that in addition to whatever good sound engineering was employed on that particular recording/transfer, that bits & sampling rate must make a significant difference and that IT IS POSSIBLE to obtain more analog kind of sound qualities from modern digital recordings. Perhaps the limitations of the standard CD format has been the main issue?

As Paul said, the warmer or less warm sound of the vinyl is given by the frequency response of the cartridge which can be extremely variable according to the brand and model while for the digital the response is always perfectly linear.

Personally, I've advocated Paul's position for at least a Decade, there's no war to start here - I was delighted when he went to "cartridges" - - it's iron & coils vs digital conversion - - simple - - the beginning of the two playback chains are two completely different approaches so of course they sound different, but it's no longer a "night and day" thing - I love having both, digital, imho, has come so far that it's totally enjoyable - when I want vinyl magic, I'm playing records - twice the fun.

Excellent observation Paul! I love both digital and records, and your thinking makes a lot of sense!

Thank you Paul for your great answer Wishing you the best

I'm glad you got to that final point about the phono cartridge because I assure you that I was going to post that question...lol! Thanks for the lessons, always.

Analog recording is also about capturing the subtle overtones and harmonics and tape saturation .

As a bass player every link in the chain is in a way an instrument. From the bass itself to the pedal to the amp to the speaker. I like to think of my stereo set up the same way: each is an instrument by choice. The source, the amp the speakers. Adding this all up gives a result, which I like or maybe dislike. But it is always personal. If I had the "perfect" audiophile system it would not be personal. So I choose coloured, teinted, distorted, warm, cold any time over perfect.

I think that you are absolutely correct. there is no other plausble explanation.

Jumped into vinyl only some weeks ago, and after decades of listening to digital music I am delighted just HOW GOOD vinyl sounds. My streamer & DAC combo matches the sound, but only and if the mastering of the digital music version was done properly. For most 70s/80s (soul, R&B, funk,... ) music in my system the vinyl sounds at least as good.

Thanks Paul. The dynamic range difference is really only useful when recording. Larger dynamic range allows for easier recording. But by the time it's mixed down, most music goes through some form of compression to make it more listenable. Myself, starting off in the days of tape, I usually compressed vocals by 3-6 dbs on the peaks going to tape. Then about the same on mix down if needed, as vocals can have huge dynamic swings. I don't think it's a dynamic difference that causes the warm sound. What many have said regarding the mechanical physics makes the most sense. The sonic difference from going from the heavier moving mass of moving magnet cartridges verses moving coil was huge, and let's not talk about strain gauge cartridges, which I owned - Electro Research EK-1. The mm cartridge was warmer, slower, and less detailed than mc. At least the ones I heard. Both though, compared to digital, from what I can remember from long ago, gives more body to the instruments than digital and I think that is from a frequency response issue, as one can gain that type difference of sound via changing eq. www.youtube.com/@ronvaillant2234/videos

You are genious . You esplain as a teacher do in class , is new for me . Thanks for your eford for make the sound better . I wish I can visit your studio and have a tour .

The best of the "warm" sounding records were produced in the late 50's, 60's and 70's. RCA Living Stereo, Audio Fidelity and Deutsche Grammophon all were produced with the best of the tube equipment that was available at the time. Most of those records have a warm cozy sound to them if played on a decent system. They can be found at your local used record store.

I agree as well. Your outguess is perfect.

Paul, thank you for this insight.

The major point is not the dynamic it is the physic of vinyl wich softens transients. And it is limited in reproducing transients, therefore a transient limiter is standard at most cutting setups. And right, the cartridge also. First, modern stylus shapes beyond Shibata have better contact to the groove and less uncontrolled movement. Second is the mass of the moving parts, a nude stylus and a light cantilever is better to follow transients. The type is vice versa since modern magnetic materials are available, but at my experience MC is still quicker and tighter than MM at transients. At least the cutting material, a copper cutting (DMM) is less warm than a laquer cutting. And finally, you're also right with the source. In my collection it is clearly audible if the source is analog or digital, which means, vinyl is better than analog tape in transients , also if tape is recorded with noise reduction like Dolby A etc. So, the dynamic is not the point. Which also means, that every demo of a tape copy of vinyl or an analog master tape does not proove the quality of analog tape. As conclusion overall, to cut and pickup mechanically is softening transients anyhow and that add warmth to the sound, and analog tape also.

To both Paul and Mohamed, thank you for another interesting discussion. As I have grown older I do sense the warmth of vinyl but I attribute it to my declining hearing simply muffling sounds.

This is an interesting topic, and I have the sense that Paul is right about the source of "vinyl sound": that it actually originates with the phono cartridge rather than analog recording techniques or the physical characteristics of the vinyl disc itself. Perhaps one way to test this idea would be to listen to LPs played on an ELP Laser Turntable, which uses lasers to read the grooves on the vinyl disc, and completely eliminates the stylus, magnets, and coils of a phono cartridge. (By the way, the company that makes these laser turntables states that the audio path remains analog and is not digitized during playback). An A-B listening test between a phono cartridge and the laser turntable playing identical vinyl recordings might very well lend support to Paul's theory.

Best recoding's I have are music that was mastered for albums and then ended up going stright on to CD. Best of both worlds.

Hi Paul, Hope things are well, great video and your (very well articulated) take on the different sources and platforms music is presented to us. I too love vinyl and agree it sounds great, I too listen to music via streaming services just for the sheer convenience but every now and again I put on the vinyl and I'm always blown away by the interest grabbing effect it has on me. Is digital more technically correct - Yes and without doubt. Does vinyl sound better than digital - well, thats down to the individual to decide. Which Is more enjoyable - to me, at least and without doubt - vinyl. Slight correction, to your description of the vinyl cutting process, the signal that is cut is the delayed signal not the non-delayed signal, the non-delayed signal has to tell the cutter head what to expect and do to compensate for depth/width and any other issues whilst cutting the groove. The most famous and widely used cutting lathe is/was the Neumann VMS-70, and 80(s) variants, they had analogue to digital - digital to analogue converters to delay the analogue signal a bit to give it enough time to be corrected for cutting issues before cutting to vinyl - so in effect we are listening to a A-D then D-A processed audio signal. This goes back since the 40's with 4bit, 8bit resolution A-D & D-A converters! However, there are some direct to disk cutting LP's out there which is must to listen to if you can find them. Working with DSD, i would like to know how you would delay the signal before converting it back to analogue to be cut. or why not dispense with the AD-DA DSD conversion and go full direct to disk cutting, must be better.

Interesting subject and I feel I have to agree that the largest differences are from the cartridges used on Vinyl. And yes I too worked in a Hi-fi Shop in the late 70's where we had 4 arms on a turntable so we could compare up to 4 cartridges at the same time...the differences were quite noticeable - so we have the final say on how we enjoy our vinyl by way of choice or preference of cartridges we use

You can't do a 1:1 copy from DSD/SACD/PCM/etc to vinyl, simple because you need to apply the RIAA filters, when people play the vinyl, it has to pass through another RIAA filter to revert the first process. Not to say, the dynamic range of vinyl is 75 dB, that's your limit, so, if you take a source with more than 100 dB you'll have to cut or "volume down" the levels to fit the 75 dB limitation.

It seems to me that the cutting head itself will act as a 'mechanical compressor' simply due to the fact that it has mass that has to be moved, and that may not always exactly match the input signal. The same applies to the cartridge.... it too has mass that must be moved, thus it's output will again be slightly different than what is in the groove that it is reading (it's input). So, what we hear from a vinyl record IS somewhat compressed as related to the original source material. I would wager that if you digitized the vinyl playback and compare it to the original source you will see the difference, i.e., the artifacts of this 'mechanical compression'.

I think the higher compression and crosstalk of vinyl can mask poor recordings so that glaring recording problems that jump out when listening to digital formats are hidden to a certain degree by the vinyl format. Vinyl acts like the audio version of a smart phones portrait filter.

I love your attitude about it. This is your opinion, based on your expertise, but that opinion might change with new facts. So refreshing in the audiophile world.

The media I purchase my music on depends on how I feel about the music I'm purchasing, if it's something that takes my breath away I buy it on vinyl, if it's something I really enjoy and want to own I buy a CD. Not everything needs to be quantified, things can be relegated to just a feeling, it can be utterly satisfying to finally figure out how to get your vinyl records to sound as good as they can and it can be utterly convenient and borderline perfection from a listening standpoint to effortlessly drop a CD into a tray. However, qualitatively speaking, we are analog, the world is analog, and something somehow for some reason, waveforms reproduced off of a physical waveform impregnation feel real. Digital music feels like a recreation, like our brains can understand it because it follows the rules of physics but hearing amplified mechanical vibrations feels like it literally resonates from something tactile, like something we evolved with, it feels natural and that's good enough for me.

Thanks for your explanation. Yes I think the cartridge adds its own flavor to being warm but the elephant in the room is the record itself. In the digital domain both channels are totally isolated from each other but on the record we have one groove to carry both, encoded 45 degrees (?) from each other. And the groove center moves depending on which channel is louder at the moment which the cartridge tries to track. I don't know if any of this adds warmth but with all else being equal I think so.

Remember the video recorder with Hi Fi sound recorded in Frequency Modulation? When I watch/listen the music video, I hear the same warmer sound from this FM recording as the vinyl, and they is no cartridge nor mechanic vibration involve here in FM recording.

Just like speakers, phono cartridges are mechanical. They do the opposite of speakers in that they turn movement into electrical signals, so each has it's own particular mechanical/sound characteristic. Presumably, even without compression, you still used RIAA filtering to compensate for the vinyl limitations.

I always think when you are listening to a record that has been cut from a digital source, that the process of cutting the record and then play back in your own home is a replacement for a DAC. And I really like that you focused on the cartridge, and in a way thinking of that cartridge being the center of the playback chain, that is the DAC for that original file that was cut on to vinyl. And that is the reason I prefer a well done record from a digital source over a file. Because that playback chain from cutting heads to cartridge, does a way better job of communicating the music from the recording session than my humble digital front end ever will.

Such a great company to post videos like these.

What an interesting analysis. Phono cartridge would definitely change sound. Not sure how it makes vinyl warmer than digital exclusively. Fun hearing audiophiles engineering approach to music. Enjoy your vids and explanations. Thanks.

I love records and CDs both. I prefer records usually but I can't really argue against the clear sound of the CD. The only real thing that ever bugged me about CDs that I didn't have to deal with with a record was the crazy volume. There are too many CDs that are just loud as hell from start to finish. It's nice when I find new music that chooses not go that route. I'm not super knowledgeable about all the tricks required to create a record but it's my understanding that the reason I don't have any records that are brick walled on volume is simply because vinyl has a space limitation? I don't know that I actually perceive a "warmth" from vinyl. Maybe that's just the cartridge I'm using (Stanton). I think I just prefer the range better even if I get some clicks or static from time to time. Records are more fun to play anyway. Not sure why but the physicality of using a record player is just more entertaining than a CD player for some reason.

I began subscribing to High Fidelity and Stereo Review magazines as a young kid back in the late-70s. I still remember, quite vividly, the many articles about CD sound when they hit the scene in 1982. The most common complaints were "harshness" and "digital fatigue." And for good reason, because both of those things were very real. As for why that was, there were multiple reasons. For one thing, most CDs in the early days were rushed to market to cash in on the excitement. But record companies just used the same master that had been used to make vinyl records. The problem with that, IIRC from the aforementioned articles, is that that master had the RIAA equalization curve applied to it because it was intended to make vinyl records sound best on people's stereos & record players at home (and to a lesser extent commercial cassettes & 8-tracks, which of course were both analog mediums too). But that RIAA equalization curve made CDs sound terrible, and it took quite a long time for record companies to get their acts together. [*EDIT: See my comment at the end of this posting.] Another reason, as theorized by the writers in those magazines (Julian Hirsch, et al.), was that from the get-go, the sampling rate was too low. A common consensus was that it should have been 48 KHz rather than 44.1. Or better yet, 96 (48 doubled). And their lengthy explanations why seemed to make sense (to me, anyway). People can use all the techno speak they want to describe how CDs are supposedly superior to vinyl, but my ears tell me otherwise. Vinyl sounds better in most cases -- IF the record was mastered properly and IF the listener has high-end stereo equipment. Vinyl never sounded great on a cheapy department store all-in-one stereo that cost $125 back in the day. But it sure did sound good on a Technics or Dual or Pioneer high-end turntable with a Shure V15 Type IV or Ortofon moving coil cartridge (or comparable) thru a high quality amp or receiver and good speakers. CDs have always sounded "harsh" to me, even after record companies started doing a better job at mastering them. I do appreciate their wider dynamic range and lower noise floor when listening to classical music, but really, I have a lot of classical vinyl records that sound great in their own way despite the noise floor and occasional click or pop. And how often is there 100 dB of dynamic range in live music? Rarely, even in classical. So it's not like the vinyl can't reproduce what the musicians played in most cases. There is just something more organic about the way analog music is recorded and transferred to vinyl. With digital, it would seem that there are millisecond (or whatever the correct term is) gaps between each time the waveform is sampled. It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second, but it's there. The higher the sampling rate the less gaps there are, but with analog there isn't any gap whatsoever. The recording is a continuous, unbroken stream of analog signal instead of tens of thousands of digitally sampled snapshots (of the waveforms) in succession. [*EDIT: Based on some subsequent comments, it appears I didn't understand this aspect of digital audio correctly. Apparently there aren't any relevant "gaps" in audio that has been sampled at at least double the frequency of the waveform -- which w/ a 44,100 Hz rate should be sufficient to adequately sample frequencies out to 22,000 Hz, which is beyond the range of human hearing. Thanks to Steven Lang, below, for the detailed explanation.] That said, I agree that the phono cartridge is extremely important in the vinyl listening chain. No doubt about that. Thoughts, anyone? Feel free to correct anything I've said here. I won't be offended. *EDIT: After reading the replies below, my recollection about when the RIAA equalization curve was applied may or may not be accurate. Some of you guys are saying that the RIAA curve wasn't applied to the master tape, but rather during the cutting process of the vinyl master. That may be the case, and maybe my recollection is a little hazy after 40 years. But that doesn't explain the aforementioned articles that I remember specifically mentioning that the RIAA eq curve was being used during the mfg of many CDs and what a big mistake that was. If anyone wants to chime in again with further clarification, by all means do.

I believe you are absolutely correct when you attribute the cartridge to the sonic differences between listening to vinyl playback and listening to DSD masters. I also wonder if the likes of DS-Audio's optical cartridges would minimise that difference?

I think it’s because the needle being a mechanical device can sometimes bounce or “overshoot” the waveform and causes that unique sound much like a lower frame rate causes professional movies to look the way they do.

Nonsense. A vinyl album created from an original unequalised digital master would sound horrible or may even be unplayable. Vinyl masters require dynamic compression and RIAA equalisation giving bass cut and treble boost. Deep bass must also be mixed to mono. Phono stages apply reverse RIAA equalisation and a vinyl album as described by Paul would sound bass heavy with little treble and probably be impossible for the stylus to track.

It’s got to be that second order harmonic of distortion that’s making vinyl sound great.

Straight from the vinyl the signal goes: needle>cartridge>phono preamp. That's three stages that can alter the sound. Needles can be not so new, cartidge is mechanical so what's the quality (mm or mc?), phono preamps have their own circuitry..... That's a lot of variables.

I agree with the stuff Paul said and found it very insightful, especially about direct transferring DSD to vinyl.... but I did hope he would have differentiated between dynamic range (which he talked about) and frequency range (which I think the questioner was asking more about). Also, there is the RIAA curve which definitely has to be applied, and having that pre and post emphasis applied is a factor which does perceptibly alter the way a frequency contour's harmonics presents itself.

The amount of cartridges are of the charts with the price range and the vast amount of the selections of MC and MM versions . ..

I didn't know it is possible to use non-compressed recordings to cut a vinyl record. I was always told that master tapes had wider Dynamic Range and vinyl records were not able to acommodate it due to physical restraints. I believe you're right, Paul. The difference is in the reproduction, and cartridges are responsible for that. Their coils interact with each other, annuling some frequencies and amplifying others.

I totally agree with you on this one Paul.

You can say one sounds better than the other but it's subjective. What is a fact is that digital and analog sound different. Whether it's from distortion, compression, magnetism or added harmonics is likely all dependent on one's particular setup. Mastering obviously plays a large role from artist to artist as well. Overall both formats bring me lots of enjoyment, some of my favorite records from the golden era of vinyl mastering and recording sound far better to me than their digital counterparts, while some more recent artists have horrible sounding vinyl records (to me) whereas their digital recordings sound spectacular! The fun in being an audiophile is experimenting and tweaking and enjoying the music in many different rooms, different setups, different formats and different days/moods. Rather than argue one sounds better or worse - enjoy your blessing of the ability to hear and appreciate beautiful musical arts!

Yes Paul i will be happy to expand on your conclusions of the differences in sound between vinyl and digital. Yes the cartridge is a factor in the sound differences, but so is the turntable, tonearm, phono cable, phono preamplifier, everything in the vinyl playback chain makes a difference in the sound of vinyl. The digital chain also is a factor as all digital equipment sounds different as well as how its decoded and reconverted back to analog. With that said, why i prefer the sound if analog over digital is analog sounds more like the original source and digital always sounds like a artificial recreation of the original source.

Paul McGowan asserts that it is due to the phono cartridge in particular that vinyl sounds warmer. I think this is only a part of the story. The electronic match with the phono preamp is even more crucial, in my opinion. If applicable, the finetuning options of a phone stage enables the listener to hear that a certain impedance setting just sounds a little thinner or warmer; the gain also matters not only in volume but also in soundstage etc. If the input signal of a record player (sum of impedance of the cartridge, capacitive value of the cable) matches perfectly with the preamp, the difference is mainly the soundstage. Which is often wider on vinyl. The way the RIAA filtering is implemented also matters. Some time ago, we experimented with a RIAA filter as a plugin into a DAW (could be Audacity); we recorded a vinyl track without phono preamp/RIAA and instead listened to what the digital RIAA EQ would do. The sound was OK but not convincing at all. It wasn't near the quality even a simple phono stage could produce. Finally, the fact that the frequencies below 100-200Hz (depending on the preferences of the mastering engineer) are mixed in mono on a vinyl master, provides a firmer layer in the low end which again increases the illusion of more warmth. So far my 2 cents.

Vinyl has several technical limitations, and that is what it makes sound different (warmer). Comparing an LP with a CD is like comparing the same song on tape at 9,5 cm/sec and 19 cm/sec. You can't make an exact copy of the 19 cm recording on a 9,5 cm tape speed. The 9,5 will sound worse. The other way round, they will sound almost the same. My point is that if you make a recording of an LP on a CD recorder, that cdr will sound exactly the same as the LP. I made a few cd copies of my best LP's and you couldn't tell the difference. I have a high end stereo system.

I had to replace my cartridge on my turntable because it got broken moving the stereo upstairs to the bedroom from our living room. The cartridge I could find to replace the original with since it was beyond just replacing the needle was almost $98 usd.The new one makes the turntable sound completely different and better to me than the original early 1970's cartridge that came on it. It's amazing that you can just replace a old turntables cartridge and have it sound better than before.

Excellent video Paul

Makes sense. All components in the chain will affect the sound to a greater or lesser extent. I like Ortofon.

This is very interesting as many have said the "vinyl" analog grooves is the cause of the warmth (harmonics), so the cartridge argument is less common. And the cartridge is a transducer also in addition to the speakers. What would be helpful is if Paul talked more about the specific why of the cartridge effect? That said, if the cartridge is so big a factor, only a few of them are likely to be "the best" in this context, and many others not as good. So the decision on which to buy becomes almost as important as the speakers. I had Shure V15 Type 2 back in the day, reputed to be one of the best. Meanwhile, there may be some audiophiles who buy a gazillion $ turntable but a sub-optimal cartridge for their vinyl, especially today where there are few places to go to A-B them. An advantage of digital is that it takes the risk of making a mistake on buying the "wrong" cartridge out of the equation and if the music doesn't sound good (to you) you can blame it on the amp or speakers :)

Ken5244 issued a quite the dissertation... IMHO, CDs and CD audio quality streaming have come a long way. After I got my main Stereo System for my LR in 1987 [NAD 1300 Preamp, NAD 2600 Amp, a Dual CS5000 TT with a Shure cartridge and a Pair of KEF 104/2 Speakers) which I still have to this day - and plays wonderfully without EQs or SWs, I purchased Springsteen's Born in the USA CD. I had the LP. When I played the CD - it was too tinny sounding , not as Full as the LP. Yes, No Clicks or Cracks but Tinny to my ear. Then i purchased Santana's Abraxis - Remastered CD, and that Blew me away. CDs had improved and i began to buy records in CD format only. Recently, I have replaced some older LPs that were damaged from playing on inferior equipment and not really cared for. The Who's Tommy is one example. The Vinyl still "feels" a bit Warmer, but the CD has better Dynamic Sound !. The Battle continues. Throw in HiFi Streaming (Tidal, Spotify, etc), for even more Dynamic sound.

years ago i did a series of "blind" tests with LP albums and CD's of the same albums using a "£50" TURNTABLE and a cyrus dad 3q CD player (bought for close to £1000). in each case the LP's sounded warmer, brighter, deeper and just plain better. I then used a different turntable (a Rega plana III) and the difference increased. I have no knowledge of the underlying cutting/manufacture process; however I sensed the effects of hand-made vs mass-production here - which Paul has alluded to in several other videos. Very interesting discourse here in though 👍👍

Yes Paul, I believe there's something correct about your assumption, and I will add to that, in that I believe the difference in sound is affected quite noticeably by the "reverberated" sound in the listening room coming back around and hitting both the needle itself and the cartridge too, therefore adding that "warmth" that you hear with vinyl. I think it has a good bit to do with the cartridge and needle getting physically impacted by the sound waves in the room. The reason I believe that is because a friend and I did a little experiment in college with that assumption in mind, and one time we totally physically separated, in totally different rooms, our turntable from our speakers one time, and that same "warmth" in the sound disappeared, and instead the music just sounded more like it was coming from a CD or tape instead, so that room to needle/cartridge soundwave reverb definitely makes vinyl sound "different", and arguably "warmer" than a tape or CD recording of the exact same song/album, etc.

I think, more, I observe that you got right conclusion. Not my own experience but somenoe I know well and he was using Audio Technica turntable with audiotechnica pickup. For reason of more automatic operation he purchased old Lenco with Shure and with the same system it is no comparable sound to previous.

I HAD NO IDEA WHERE HE WAS GOING WITH THIS. FINALLY SOMEONE SPEAKS MY MIND

There's channel bleed over in vinyl playback which makes it sound fuller. In the 80's, noise reduction was applied and it takes the edge off and the fade sounds terrible. This was applied in the cd era so new pressings of titles may have it regardless of format. I have a Technics receiver and like the compression and boosting properties that it allows. It doesn't sound flat line and may be similar to one's "vinyl experience." FM always sounded good to me and that is highly compressed and you don't noticed things like a fade until the song is really faded out.

This is very interesting. I have personally attributed this to sample rate/quantization based on my own un-scientific experiments. I did an empirical test some years back listing to the same music/recording (not necessarily the same mastering) between vinyl (Project X-pression turntable w/Ortofon Black cartridge) and my Marantz BD and SACD players. To me, the 192Khz (Bluray) and DSD (SACD) sources felt very close to the warmth of vinyl (surface noise and pops a side), where the PCM (44kHz CD) was the easiest to decern as the odd man out. My hearing has degraded over the years along with Tinnitus so not sure I appreciate the difference as much as my younger self would, but really more about the experience with vinyl, listening to the composition of the album as a whole. With all that said, I tend to my my music in both CD and vinyl. And while the latter is still my preference, most of my consumption by far is digital (from my personal library) in the car, on riding my bikes, or working around the house, etc. So glad I get to live in a world with both.

Yeah warmth sounds like it’s probably a cartridge thing, agree with @BoredSilly. Distortion will always be a factor in phono playback since it’s mechanically and physically analogue. Jitter from the movement of the head, no matter how stabilised will create that warmth to different degrees of tone and taste. My AT VM Shibata stylus is still warm, however differently so to the standard VM 95E stylus. And with a nice phono preamp, that warmth can be exacerbated or phased out, depending on the pre-amps characteristic, circuitry, ICs and or valves. My setup, with the Shibata, going into a Project Tube box S2, then going into an AB power amp into 70S JBL monitors, it’s full bodied, warm and can be airy. Distortion (warmth) is amplified in the mids by my preamp, while the highs are quite smooth and rolled with nice balance of warmth and clarity. With treble tone control I can make it more crisp and analytic sounding, which is when warmth is overpowered by clarity and can almost become harsh.

Could the difference in sound come from the mechanic inertia smoothening the waves and the frequency response of the cutting head/record player system? It would be interesting to record the Vinyl and compare the waveforms with the digital master.

Fascinating! Octave Records experience is making new observations available. I am ignorant of vinyl reproduction. It seems to make sense that the cartridge would contribute heavily. Could also be the cutting head. There could be some distortion just in the rise time of the signal. Add to that there is the RIAA conversion. I am pleased to see good digital become very pleasant. Glad I left the vinyl behind. And I recognize how contradictory it is that I also use triodes. Digital is closing in on that one as well.

Fascinating film, Paul! So, the logical next question is: "Which phono cartridge do you use?" (LOL!) Keep up the great work!

Records can be cut only so "hot" because neither a cutter nor a playback cartridge can deal with more than a certain amplitude. The available range from softest to loudest is far less than what digital can do. As long as the dynamic range on the master tape is no greater than can be readily put on a vinyl disc, there is little about which to be concerned. I still don't get what people really mean by "warmth". A recording should be an honest represntation of what was picked up by the microphone(s). If it isn't, maybe it Then becomes 'warm' ?

our ears are likely to perceive a cd as sounding better if compared for a few seconds and we're listening for crispness or vividness. vinyl tends to be gentler on our ears, over longer listening periods. it's limitations create a welcome soft distortion which adds a bit of a glow to the sound. to my ears, cd's tend to be a bit abrasive. they're all fun and oftentimes tapes are my favourite. i think there's something more special about knowing a tiny mechanism is brushing against physical imprints, similar to a music box, there is something physically happening in order to generate the sound and tapes via magnetic signal is still really fascinating to me. no app or popup window or notification is going to disrupt your turntable. unless there's some dumb "smart-turntable" out there, it's an overall more immersive and grounding experience. also, all sound our human ears perceive is analogue in the end of the day. it also depends on the audio, which format it suits best. a glitchy electronic album would maybe benefit from the softness of vinyl sound. whereas gentler music maybe clasical could benefit from the vividness of a cd. hiphop and techno sound amazing on cassette, which have incredible potential when made w/care.

I tend to agree with you about the vinyl playback process where the cartridge will be a dominate factor in sound quality. I have always wanted to see some one make a cd from a vinyl record then see if anyone can tell tell the difference between the cd and the vinyl original. I believe the inherent imperfections of the vinyl medium (including the turntable/tone arm/cartridge) are simply more appealing to many listeners. A cd can make virtually perfect sound reproduction within limitation the of a human ear, so if the sound it is reproducing is a vinyl record, it will have the same appeal to the listener that likes vinyl.

That was a great answer. I to have often wondered why. I suspected it had to do with a continuous signal as opposed to a digital quantized signal. More rich harmonic overtones would be present in vinyl than a digital version. However, the reissued Led Zeppelin records sound better than my old originals. I am told Jimmy Page used digital masters to remix the new records, so that’s that.

I sold hi-fi between 1976 and 1983. I currently have roughly 3,500 records and four turntables and eight cartridges. Whenever I'm "just" listening to music, it's always vinyl. I love the whole experience. But given the same source material, there is no way they sound as good as even a CD. But one thing that is weird is that I've never thought of vinyl as sounding "warm". I honestly don't know where that comes from. All I can figure out is that, for vintage hi-fi, solid state vs tube, etc., "warm" seems to always be used to describe a source that sounds "better" than other sources. It's a subjective term that means as much to me as when people say a good bourbon has hints of caramel, etc. It's just subjective nonsense, using words that sound positive. I agree with you regarding the cartridge, BTW. The two things that really do bring the most difference in sound are cartridges/stylus and speakers. They are also the parts that have to physically interact with the real world.

If by warmth you mean, a pleasant timbre and spatial shift (phase), but not a change in pitch or overall intensity, then "phono warmth" is created by the frequency response (fr) ratios of the left and right in-phase signals to the fr of the mid and side stereophonic channels unique to the phono playback system, predominately induced by the cutting head and the cartridge.

The reason why vinyl records sound "warm" is basically the same reason guitarists like tube amps: analogue distortion and compression. The holy grail sound for many guitar parts is known as "edge of breakup". We all like it, we all recognise immediately when a guitar player hits exactly the right amp tone, just the right amount of distortion, for a given part. The level of distortion from vinyl reproduction though the groove-needle-cartridge-arm signal chain is a lot less of course but it's there and perhaps more importantly it varies in character from one record player, arm, cartridge etc to another. Today, when all music is recorded and mixed digitally "in the box" every producer/mixer/sound engineer has an arsenal of distortion plugins, all of which have their own characteristic sounds and colours, which are frequently applied in some measure to both individual instrument and vocal tracks and to sum buses and mix channels. Some popular ones you'll hear on many records today are Waves' Distressor, Sound Toy's Decapitator and Fabfilter's Saturn. Another trick many producers use is to feed a mix through an old 24-track studio tape recorder and use the result in the final mix to get that vinyl like sound. So "warmth", a product of additional compression and distortion, is being put back into digital music today liberally (in a way it wasn't in the CDs of the '80's and '90's for example). But, instead of simply duplicating as close as possible the classic studio sound of the 60's, 70's and 80's (which came from all the analogue studio gear and the 2" 24 track studio mag tape as well as from the vinyl itself, all of which added compression, distortion and colour), although that's sometimes what folks shoot for, digital compression and distortion is applied in many different creative ways to apply many different sounds and colours depending on the music in question, the options are endless now. Some top sound engineers and record producers are exceptionally good at this, which is why they are top producers of course, but equally this was also true back in vinyl's heyday, some classic vinyl/analogue recordings sound noticeably better than others. Plus ca change.

The playback method matters a lot with vinyl. There's a significant difference when using a solid state amp vs. a tube amp, and a wood case speaker enclosure makes a different tone than one made of plastic. There's more factors involved than just the recording technology.

Learning Egyptian is very easy. The two most important phrases are: Falafel Ana mesh faahem

The much ignored elephant in the room is the very laws of physics. You have physical movement and and friction within the reproduction process. no matter how little noise is present. it still is present. It is very subtle but pleasing noise. Resonances are also a factor, which is another element everyone wants to eliminate. Again, because of the physical nature, it is still in the chain. These, combined with other physical forces, add up to the warmth of vinyl sound. The best example would be the sound of a crackling fire as a backdrop to a deep voice reciting poetry. I've discovered this by digitizing my vinyl records of varying conditions. When I listen to the CD versions of the same recordings, it's easy to hear why those less than perfect disks are much warmer. Obviously, excessive noise needs to be minimized, but the physical properties remaining are like cream in coffee.

Paul you nailed it right on the button bud! I am a cutting engineer and you're absolutely right. Some of the comments on here crack me up!

I've been saying that for years as I did may test at the start of the CD release in the US. Prior to that I owned a C3 and 3340S...

I sold all my records a few years ago.. Got paid big bucks .. my vinyl was perfect.. played on my VPI table with a Grado …

I just saw a video about the first pressings of the Thriller album, how MJ cried of how awful it sounded and how it had nothing to do to the sound of the mixes in the studio. That it had to be retouched in the mixes and mastering so when pressed again it could retain most of the original sound. That is why I think that at the very least, digital is better, because the sound from the original mixes to the mastering and at the end to some digital delivery service, is retained. And the artist, not the listener, is sure of the sound that is being delivered. What I’ve heard old school engineers say is that before you had to have a lot of guess work to know how the sound would be affected even by the analog tape. With digital the guess work is out, what you hear is what you get.

Hi Paul, Clear and logical explanation, but could you add or elaborate more on the step of RIAA filtering both in the vinyl cutting step and the reproduction step. After all it is a form of compression (bass mostly) and decompression at playback, with by definition different filters. PS : during history several different cutting RIAA filters were used, so playback of different era vinyl records is never exactly reproduced on the same riaa reproduction/ playback system

Given the large number of different phono cartridge designs that mostly all produce recognizably "vinyl sound", perhaps it has something to do with phase changes provoked by RIAA curve equalization.

Vinyl reproduction has a lot more second harmonic distortion.

I've long suspected that it has to do with harmonic content. I question whether digital recordings have the resolution to capture all of the subtle harmonic overtones that occur in music while analog recorders have theoretically infinite resolution. Digital converters will try and interpolate between data points but they can't really anticipate what harmonic content to insert in the gaps. Where some of the harmonic content is missing, people may perceive that as "colder" sounding because they perceive something is missing but can't put a finger on what. The phono cartridge may play a part as some may pick up the content where others may not but if the content simply isn't there as with digital it won't matter.

It's important to point out RIAA irregularities and explain the curve before the cutter and the one in the phono preamp. They are not exact.

I believe you are 100% correct insofar as warmth is concerned. But regardless of the cartridge, I've never heard any vinyl that sounds the same as a live performance. Digital can come much closer to that. Tape mastering + vinyl recording combine to create an aural narcotic that often sounds better than the real thing to addicted ears.

After moving to a PS Audio Stellar Phono Preamp and a moving coil cartridge, I hit my “this can’t be improved” happiness. Vinyl is a Japanese tea ritual.

I think you're correct, but it's also the exact opposite on the dynamics from what the letter writer believes. There is a tendency to compress the hell out of digital recordings in a way that vinyl doesn't seem to get subjected to as often due to mechanical constraints... I'm referring to studio produced recordings, not like a live acoustic recording that may require a little compression for vinyl to bring up the quietest sounds. While vinyl has a higher noise floor, other than audiophile acoustic recordings like classical music from noted labels that often do get a little compression to bring up the quiet stuff so it's not too buried in that noise floor, most vinyl records use *more* dynamic range than commercial digital releases. Overly loud vinyl that also has a lot of high frequencies will tend to cause many cartridges to distort, and therefore vinyl records are less tolerant of such extreme loudness and historically were mastered with more roll off and more dynamics than most digital is now. In later years, though, Bob Ludwig did start the unfortunate vinyl trend of making louder records that were less tolerating of lesser cartridges, and therefore more likely to wear out and even damage the high frequencies with IMD from the stylus. It was Ludwig's efforts to appease the marketing shills in vinyl loudness that bled over into the digital realm. Nonetheless, much of the rest of the difference the listener hears is the phono cartridge, and there are definitely carts that sound like a good digital reproduction, such as moving coils as opposed to something like a moving iron design. The rest is from crummy digital masters that are too compressed, too loud, and are stupidly exploiting the tolerances of digital..

Hmmm, the mechanical inertia of the cutting head and the phono cartridge. That makes sense. In digital, no mechanical input is involved in the audio mastering and playback.

It has to be eq with the riaa curve only if you're bypassing that on the phono stage, otherwise you're going to have extremely high baas and a dull top end. Yes cartridge is a big factor so is the arm and compliance., And speed stability. what cartridges are you running?

I believe there's studies looking into different harmonic distortions and how we perceive them, I'm guessing that vinyl might add some, perhaps...