Deleted member 110222
D
I'm genuinely none the wiser.
General / Off-Topic Why do people say vinyl sounds better?
verminstar
Banned
Anyone can mix tracks on a laptop, but it will sound too perfect ergo it sounds false. Vinyl mixes are rarely perfect as it takes years of practice to get it right, but it sounds real. Vinyl just sounds more authentic and mixes are personalized as opposed to done by machines.
Dunno if that sounds right...I talk from the perspective of a house music fan. A DJ that mixes with vinyl and decks and is good will pull in a huge crowd as opposed to someone using a laptop and just hitting buttons...no art, no feeling, no emotion.
Its like comparing custom hand made and some clone of a production line...the quality is just superior even if its not technically superior. Same with anything handmade...the quality and individual character is miles ahead of anything else.
Dunno if that sounds right...I talk from the perspective of a house music fan. A DJ that mixes with vinyl and decks and is good will pull in a huge crowd as opposed to someone using a laptop and just hitting buttons...no art, no feeling, no emotion.
Its like comparing custom hand made and some clone of a production line...the quality is just superior even if its not technically superior. Same with anything handmade...the quality and individual character is miles ahead of anything else.
Last edited:
Horses for courses I guess, some say it's a richer fuller sound. Go to a top end audio shop and get them to play the same song on the best system they have for each - see which you prefer. I also think the cover art plays a part, in days of instant digital downloads it often feels like you haven't really bought anything but a big old fold out LP cover feels substantial. I love having a kindle and going on holiday it's very handy but I do miss the feel, even the smell of a book. In part maybe member berries play a part as well.
Vinyl is like the old amps, there is the heat of the sound
Its mostly . There are two reasons why it gained traction.
1) The freq range of vinyl is terrible compared to digital media. As a result, engineers used to boost the upper freqs a lot for vinyl mixes. When CD arrived, labels all rushed to re-release old albums on CD. Often these were not properly remixed for CD and as a result sounded very harsh and shrill. Nowadays every decent producer makes seperate mixes/masters for radio/vinyl/cd/MP3 etc.
2) Vinyl purists often have high-end amps and speakers. The average non-vinyl purist does not. When a audiophile invites a mate over to listen, he is pretty much guaranteed to be wowed. Not due to the vinyl, but due to the superior gear.
Vinyl does have one massive advantage though: artwork is epic! or the rest its pretty much garbage compared to modern digital formats. Its running time is limited, dynamic range is limited (grooves merging!), freq range is limited, its just objectively worse. A properly mixed vinyl record works around these issues, and it sure can sound great. But digital can sound like vinyl, whereas vinyl cannot come close to digital.
Now dont get me started on the retro-hype about casette disks...
1) The freq range of vinyl is terrible compared to digital media. As a result, engineers used to boost the upper freqs a lot for vinyl mixes. When CD arrived, labels all rushed to re-release old albums on CD. Often these were not properly remixed for CD and as a result sounded very harsh and shrill. Nowadays every decent producer makes seperate mixes/masters for radio/vinyl/cd/MP3 etc.
2) Vinyl purists often have high-end amps and speakers. The average non-vinyl purist does not. When a audiophile invites a mate over to listen, he is pretty much guaranteed to be wowed. Not due to the vinyl, but due to the superior gear.
Vinyl does have one massive advantage though: artwork is epic! or the rest its pretty much garbage compared to modern digital formats. Its running time is limited, dynamic range is limited (grooves merging!), freq range is limited, its just objectively worse. A properly mixed vinyl record works around these issues, and it sure can sound great. But digital can sound like vinyl, whereas vinyl cannot come close to digital.
Now dont get me started on the retro-hype about casette disks...
Casette tapes were always cheap and nasty. Anybody nostalgic about them is properly off their rocker.
For those poor people without a disc drive though, they were often the only option for loading software
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For those poor people without a disc drive though, they were often the only option for loading software
Dont.... I still get flashbacks of getting to just about the end of a game load on the ZX Spectrum for it to fail.
.... and don't get me started on the serial nature of access nor the reliability of save games!
the joys!
I think what you say does hold some truth in it, but I can't agree in the final statement as 100% truth.
Like you mention about audiophiles with high end gear... Take 2 high end setups. 1 for vinyl with rich amp tonal qualities and another setup from CD with matching high end player, (possibly a DAC?), matched amplifier, interconnects, cables, top level speakers, and isolation stands, etc...
Sometimes, not always, but sometimes the vinyl does sound more rewarding to the ear. Despite the so called limitations of dynamic range and frequency bandwidth on vinyl, the overall recording can often sound more fulfilling to the human ear/brain.
Some of the older analogue setups with valve Amos or electrostatic speakers can sound so exquisitely fresh, full, and with much more actual presence in the music. Perhaps they might lack the outright clarity the best digital music setups can offer, but they can balance that disadvantage with an overall musical sound that doesn't "feel" over-produced or "bitty" or digitally rendered.
I could liken it to the following. A recording made in a studio can be produced to be "just so". Perfect, even. Perfect balance of tonal qualities, dynamic range and timings. But it sometimes still doesn't set the soul on fire as much as being at a live concert, even though during a live concert the music isn't played nearly as perfectly OE the audio system doesn't deliver as well as a proper HiFi system could with the perfectly produced studio recording.
There *is* something about vinyl. It isn't all .
But you do still have a point.
Yours Aye
Mark H
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
A digital recording of vinyl playback can reproduce everything that the vinyl / deck / arm combo can produce.
The reciprocal is not the case.
The reciprocal is not the case.
Last edited:
The difference is that you are descriving different mixes, and claim sometimes a vinyl mix sounds better. To you.
Sure, fine. But if a skileld audio engineer wanted he could make the CD sound like vinyl. You can reduce the freq/dyn range of a CD to what vinyl has, but not the other way around. So while it is certainly true that you may prefer a commercial vinyl mix over a commercial CD mix, if you were the artist you should ALWAYS go for the best technical medium and then make it sound like however you want to. As an anlogy: you may like black&white TV movies, but that is no reason to use a black&white TV. Get the best TV you can, and then direct the movie so it looks B&W if it is appropriate.
Someone once asked me that question..whats the difference between vinyl and digital..
well, like most classically trained people, (in my case piano, other keyboard instruments) we can tell the difference.
Digital recordings tend to sound "choppy" for me, missing harmonics or just sounding flatter.
Its kinda difficult to explain but heres my thoughts..
I listen for high frequency abnormallities..
example.. listen to the "crash and ride" of a cymbal.. the initial hit and the decay-over-time..
on analogue/vinyl, the crash would be a more fuller sound, the "ride" would have more harmonics.
on digital, the crash would seem weaker , the ride "flatter" and "choppy".
To make vinyl the old fashioned way..simplified version.
musician is in soundproof room.. full frequency microphone takes sound and deposits the signal on tape..
tape is played back through a turntable and "cut" into an acetate disk..acetate is then used to make a die used in a press which cuts a copy of the signal into the vinyl that is then sold to Joe Public.
Ideal playback for vinyl would be through a system that mimics the original environment or equipment that the music was recorded from..
Jimi Hendrix through Marshalls would really need a Marshall stack equivalent to what Hendrix used in the first place
I am 52years old and have seen and listened to some amazing technology over the years.. but I will NEVER sell my vinyl
edit: I remember my old Physics teacher at school saying that Radio4 .. Classic FM now I think its called.. had the ideal transmission quality and clarity for setting up audio systems.
I always tune in to a classical transmission and adjust mixer settings on any output system to match the room acoustics.
It gives a "reference" sound setting for playback of most material I want to hear.
well, like most classically trained people, (in my case piano, other keyboard instruments) we can tell the difference.
Digital recordings tend to sound "choppy" for me, missing harmonics or just sounding flatter.
Its kinda difficult to explain but heres my thoughts..
I listen for high frequency abnormallities..
example.. listen to the "crash and ride" of a cymbal.. the initial hit and the decay-over-time..
on analogue/vinyl, the crash would be a more fuller sound, the "ride" would have more harmonics.
on digital, the crash would seem weaker , the ride "flatter" and "choppy".
To make vinyl the old fashioned way..simplified version.
musician is in soundproof room.. full frequency microphone takes sound and deposits the signal on tape..
tape is played back through a turntable and "cut" into an acetate disk..acetate is then used to make a die used in a press which cuts a copy of the signal into the vinyl that is then sold to Joe Public.
Ideal playback for vinyl would be through a system that mimics the original environment or equipment that the music was recorded from..
Jimi Hendrix through Marshalls would really need a Marshall stack equivalent to what Hendrix used in the first place
I am 52years old and have seen and listened to some amazing technology over the years.. but I will NEVER sell my vinyl
edit: I remember my old Physics teacher at school saying that Radio4 .. Classic FM now I think its called.. had the ideal transmission quality and clarity for setting up audio systems.
I always tune in to a classical transmission and adjust mixer settings on any output system to match the room acoustics.
It gives a "reference" sound setting for playback of most material I want to hear.
Last edited:
The difference is that you are descriving different mixes, and claim sometimes a vinyl mix sounds better. To you.
Sure, fine. But if a skileld audio engineer wanted he could make the CD sound like vinyl. You can reduce the freq/dyn range of a CD to what vinyl has, but not the other way around. So while it is certainly true that you may prefer a commercial vinyl mix over a commercial CD mix, if you were the artist you should ALWAYS go for the best technical medium and then make it sound like however you want to. As an anlogy: you may like black&white TV movies, but that is no reason to use a black&white TV. Get the best TV you can, and then direct the movie so it looks B&W if it is appropriate.
Sure thing. Point kinda taken. If you want to win the internet by perverting my point, that is.
The point I was making, and I think you know this already, is that sometimes the *released version* of vinyl does sound better through a decent analogue rig than the *released version* on CD played on an equivalently decent digital rig.
when I say "sounds better", this is of course purely subjective.
Perhaps the skilled sound engineer's intended version just doesn't suit some people's ear.
I hate radio. With a passion. Radio mixes have intentionally suppressed dynamic range and other intentionally produced qualities that make listening to music on radio particularly unsatisfying to me, annoying even...
Like I said already, you do have a point with numbers. But music isn't all about numbers.
I am a recreational guitar player. I have a relatively cheap home setup. But when I was taking lessons my guitar sensai, Johnny, had an incredibly well put together pedals/amps setup. Playing my relatively inexpensive guitars through proper valve amps. What a thrill.
There is a quality that analogue music reproduction methods possess that is apparently difficult for digital reproduction methods to emulate. I'm talking about a very human reaction, feeling, sensation, call it what you will.
Then there is also the phenomenon of long gone artists or old recordings that when converted to digital just somehow don't come out quite right. The new digital reproduction may even bebof a higher "quality" than the existing old vinyl. But still doesn't illicit the same enjoyment as the old vinyl records played through a half decent setup, even with their warts and all scratches and background hiss or hum.
Muddy Waters, for instance. I've enjoyed antique vinyl playback better than remastered "superior" CD. Which when written down in black and white, sounds a little bizarre. Happens to be true, though...
Music. More than the sum if its sounds.
Yours
Mark H
it's crazy to suggest that, as a playback medium, vinyl is better. digital is objectively better, as has already been pointed out : dynamic range etc.
however i think it's worth saying that you should listen in the best format you can. subjecting anything to the butchering of mp3 is criminal, and don't get me started on Beats headphones (4forks sake).
i certainly agree with verminstar regarding the Djing ascept. there's nothing better than seeing someone with a mastery of vinyl. yes, all the new fangled technology can add many new dimensions to the craft but if you can't put two records together no amount of twiddly knobs will save you.
oh, and the artwork for vinyl is a different level to anything else.
but purely as a playback medium, Nah, it's not better.
however i think it's worth saying that you should listen in the best format you can. subjecting anything to the butchering of mp3 is criminal, and don't get me started on Beats headphones (4forks sake).
i certainly agree with verminstar regarding the Djing ascept. there's nothing better than seeing someone with a mastery of vinyl. yes, all the new fangled technology can add many new dimensions to the craft but if you can't put two records together no amount of twiddly knobs will save you.
oh, and the artwork for vinyl is a different level to anything else.
but purely as a playback medium, Nah, it's not better.
Last edited:
I am not sure why you think I 'perverted' your words, I think I pretty much said what you said in the second post. And the point is that that doesnt answer the question of "Why do people say vinyl sounds better?" You may say that, depending on taste some people might find some recordings sound better on vinyl. Again, fine, its not really a statement one can disagree with. But its also not a statement that unequivocally supports the idea that vinyl sounds better in general. And that is because, as a technical medium, it simply isn't better in general. If you say "I like mix X on medium Y bets of this specific recording." you are just expressing a specific, subjective, preference. Noone can really argue much with it. But if you were to claim you liked every vinyl version of every song better than any other version, you'd be telling falsehoods. I know that the latter is not what you were saying at all, and that is why I wanted to distinguish between the 'taste' vs 'technical medium' bits.
The 'Muddy Waters' example is quite understandable. Maybe you dont like 5.1 surround mixes of recordings? Thats perfectly fine: stereo is not objectively worse than surround. But a medium that can deliver stereo/mono and surround sound is better than a medium that can only deliver stereo/mono sound. So the more one makes claims about vinyl being better in general, the more wrong one factually is.
Btw, I am also a recreational guitar player, and I run my guitars through a variety of gear. From pure transistor, digital amps, a simple Class A Epiphone tube amp and also digital VSTs such as Amplitube and Guitar Rig. The different characteristics between these are very different from a 'vinyl vs digital' discussion. Its just a very different thing, feel free to start a new topic about it.
Google it, I am sure you already know what you'll find. People will talk about 'feeling', 'warmth' and 'authentic', all words that literally mean nothing, it conveys no information at all. Some will use more factual terms, such as the "less harmonics in digital media." These can be easily checked and measured, and people who say this are always wrong. In that sense its a personal belief not unlike religion. As long as you use vague and meaningless terms you can easily say you "feel a divine presence wanted you to succeed." Its again meaningless, so its beyond discussion. As soon as people make more concrete statements (the world is 6000 years old and Noah;'s Ark is burried over that hill there) people can start checking and inevitably, every single time, the statement will be proven false.
Vinyl is objectively worse sonically compared with digital formats. There is no debating that, it is factual and can be checked by everyone. Beyond that one may always claim that for whatever reasons they enjoy X over Y, which is totally fine.
Last edited: