General / Off-Topic Why do people say vinyl sounds better?

[AluminumAlloy]

Urm, if the digits are the same in both cases, what is the difference?

Audio codecs and specific tones recorded physically from a vinyl disc would certainly have a difference.

Tracks downloaded from internet copies that were previously downloaded from another source have tinkered codecs, thus the track sounds more "pop-ish" so that it can hit the market with the latest trend of audio tones in a faulty attempt to make the track sound as if was a recently released music track, with also another technique to make the track sound similar to popular music, such as that stupid Wrecking Ball or that plagiarized whatchamacallit version of Eye of the Tiger sung by that woman celebrity, what was her name again?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Audio codecs and specific tones recorded physically from a vinyl disc would certainly have a difference.

Tracks downloaded from internet copies that were previously downloaded from another source have tinkered codecs, thus the track sounds more "pop-ish" so that it can hit the market with the latest trend of audio tones in a faulty attempt to make the track sound as if was a recently released music track, with also another technique to make the track sound similar to popular music, such as that stupid Wrecking Ball or that plagiarized whatchamacallit version of Eye of the Tiger sung by the woman celebrity, what was her name again?

If those specific tones (I am not sure if you use the term audio codecs the way I do, so I'll ignore that) are also present in a digital recording of it, then that literally means those different tones CAN be represented binary. Strictly speaking, you could type the digital code from scratch and it would sound identical to your recording! At this point all you have left is suggest that using vinyl is easier to get a specific sound, which is not much of a point in this discussion.

After all, you could just make ONE vinyl, record it, and then just use digital formats for distribution. Vinyl enhousiasts wouldn't stand for it though!

 

[Ian Skippy]

I wonder if one of these sounds better on vinyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_piano

Ha, digital sampling is actually start to become insanely good. Hardware samplers such as digital pianos are generally very limited, but PC libraries are getting ever closer to a real recording.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q0NPhGC8Fg

 

[AluminumAlloy]

If those specific tones (I am not sure if you use the term audio codecs the way I do, so I'll ignore that) are also present in a digital recording of it, then that literally means those different tones CAN be represented binary. Strictly speaking, you could type the digital code from scratch and it would sound identical to your recording! At this point all you have left is suggest that using vinyl is easier to get a specific sound, which is not much of a point in this discussion.

I wasn't trying to imply something about listening to the vinyl directly instead of implying about a track copied from an analog vinyl player to a digital format on a computer, was I? If it seems so that I was, there wouldn't be a way to change the wording anyhow. Before starting a passively-aggressive argument about debating each-other instead of the topic, which has likely already started, i'm just going to leave my point as it is.

 

[Zenith]

While I usually agree that digital recordings are "better", there is something vinyl has going for it that digital can't seem to get right.

Dynamic range.

For a number of years now, there's been a "loudness war" with record producers pushing the amplitude all the way up so the waveform clips at maximum volume all the time.
This image shows the same track with vinyl on top and CD below. Notice how much variation the vinyl wave has without maxing out the loudness/amplitude.
Now look at the CD, it's like a constant wall of loudness. In practical terms this makes the track sound louder, but you're losing the fine detail in the quieter sounds.

Spoiler

So what does this mean for vinyl? Instead of amplifying the source recording, you have a source with a variety of audio ranges within the limitations of the media.
If you pump too much amplitude into a recording on vinyl, it will jump the stylus out of the groove!
This is why there was a big interest in after-market amplifiers for vinyl. You couldn't crank up the source, so you cranked up the output instead.

This video pretty much nails what I'm trying to get across.
[video=youtube;DsJ0BldwB5w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsJ0BldwB5w[/video]

 

[Ian Skippy]

MP3 would be another topic as that's a 'compressed' format (where certain frequencies believed not to be audible by human ears are cut out, mainly to save disc space). Very good ears might probably hear the difference. I don't know, mine don't.

Depends on the MP3 and the context. 128kbps, which was youtube's format in the old days, was EASILY detected as worse than a CD recording by the average human in most settings. 192kbps is better, but most can still hear it when sitting in a quiet environment. 320kbps is perfectly fine for most settings, and pretty much identical to CD when played in a 'listening' situation but with mediocre consumer gear. On decent (not super expensive, mind you!) gear audiophiles can easily detect the two in ABX, like foodies can detect differences in stuff that I had never noticed.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if I understand you right. Did you actually comment on the link http://www.redsharknews.com/audio/item/2368-the-sound-of-vinyl-is-just-an-effect-here-s-the-proof ?
and read the 2 pages? It's surely worth to read, including the following discussion.

It's basically a proof to what you've said before but also an explanation as to *why* some people prefer vinyl over digital. Basically cause vinyl provides an additional *effect* to the original source that some may like and and others won't. Just a matter of taste in the end but surely not something to be qualified as objectively "better".

Nah, you ninja's me. That link is pretty good, gives some additional and valid reasons too.

 

[Ian Skippy]

While I usually agree that digital recordings are "better", there is something vinyl has going for it that digital can't seem to get right.

Dynamic range.

For a number of years now, there's been a "loudness war" with record producers pushing the amplitude all the way up so the waveform clips at maximum volume all the time.
This image shows the same track with vinyl on top and CD below. Notice how much variation the vinyl wave has without maxing out the loudness/amplitude.
Now look at the CD, it's like a constant wall of loudness. In practical terms this makes the track sound louder, but you're losing the fine detail in the quieter sounds.

Spoiler

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/att...stering-vinyl-vs-cd-in_rainbows_waveforms.jpg

So what does this mean for vinyl? Instead of amplifying the source recording, you have a source with a variety of audio ranges within the limitations of the media.
If you pump too much amplitude into a recording on vinyl, it will jump the stylus out of the groove!
This is why there was a big interest in after-market amplifiers for vinyl. You couldn't crank up the source, so you cranked up the output instead.

This video pretty much nails what I'm trying to get across.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsJ0BldwB5w

That is true, but a different point. The loudness war is an abomination, but it isn't tech dependent. What happens is that indeed the average dB is higher due to compression, but the variance (ie. dynamics) is reduced. You could theoretically have the same loud mix on vinyl with just an added limiter on top reducing it to the maximum for vinyl. It would be absolutely stupid to do (HELLO noise!), so Vinyl mixes generally do not suffer from it. But thats not the fault of the digital medium, you could likewise just throw a more dynamic mix on the CD. In a sense its a bit like arguing that porcelain plates are better than ceramic plates because chefs often wash the ceramic plates in a urinoir.

BTW, the loudness is not just purely intentional. When I mix tracks I have to consciously resist doing that too. Compressors/maximizers are a bit like the contrast/vibrance settings on a monitor. At every given point upping both a tiny bit makes you go "WOW, this is so much better!". And as you tend to work on mixes over a prolonged period of time its easy to gradually slip into some kind abyss. Its gotten to the point where many amateur producers like me, and professional producers as well, have resorted to frequent visual and statistical checks to make sure we are not deceiving ourselves. When your hi-hat looks like a brick something went horribly wrong.

Btw #2, while this is all just pretty harmless fun, psycho-accoustics can have nasty consequences. For example, for a long while female and non-caucasian musicians had a very, very hard to getting into the better orchestras and ensembles. They were at some point actually invited for audition, but then they kept losing to male musicians that seemed at odds with the ratio of males/females. At some point blind auditions were introduced, and suddenly their level of musicanship dramatically improved. A dark skinned acquintance of mine is a cellist and classical composer. When he auditioned at a local orchestra the all-white jury looked at him before he even played a single note and then casually remarked how interesting it was that a jazz-musician took an interest in classical music.

People, even the most experienced ones, are highly influenced by the context when judging music. Sometimes it enhances the experience, sometimes it doesnt. Either way, understanding what is true and why that is so is always a good thing.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I wasn't trying to imply something about listening to the vinyl directly instead of implying about a track copied from an analog vinyl player to a digital format on a computer, was I? If it seems so that I was, there wouldn't be a way to change the wording anyhow. Before starting a passively-aggressive argument about debating each-other instead of the topic, which has likely already started, i'm just going to leave my point as it is.

I am getting confused now. :S So lets put it like this: The topic being discussed seems to me to be whether or not there actually is a unique propery of music on vinyl that cannot be digitally reproduced. Thats why vinylheads buy vinyl, rather than download a vinyl rip from the internet. But when you show the difference using only digital formats, it directly implies that whatever the 'vinyl sound' is, it clearly can be digitally recreated. Obviously, if you record one specific mix to both a CD and vinyl, they will sound different due to the properties of both mediums. And obviously people have their own mind about which sounds better to them.

But when discussing which medium is better, I look at it like this: the producer has a certain vision, a sound that he wants. He has different mediums, with different properties. So he'll have to pick one, and then mix specifically for that medium. But in the end every final output of a vinyl track can be digitally represented extremely accurately as there is no data vinyl can hold that CD cannot. But conversely vinyl can not reproduce every possible output you can have on a CD. So CD is better. That doesn't mean the CD version sounds better than the vinyl version, as that depends on what the producers did with both.

If I misrepresented what you were trying to say, that was not my intention!

 

[Adept]

MP3 would be another topic as that's a 'compressed' format (where certain frequencies believed not to be audible by human ears are cut out, mainly to save disc space). Very good ears might probably hear the difference. I don't know, mine don't.

Like .jpg the bad reputation comes mostly from idiots with wooden ears who ramped up the compression to make their MP3s as little as possible. Maybe they couldn't tell the difference, or didn't care, but there was a ton of really crappy MP3s out on the web in the early days.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Hmm - realaudio and page embedded midi files

 

[metatheurgist]

It's the same school of thought that produces ideas like "space should be cinematic".

 

[Caramel Clown]

I'll take CD quality digital over vinyl any day. Won't dive into the discussion. Just personal preference. However, I use tube guitar amps. Let's just say I like my sound coloured in the right places

 

[Robert Maynard]

While I usually agree that digital recordings are "better", there is something vinyl has going for it that digital can't seem to get right.

Dynamic range.

For a number of years now, there's been a "loudness war" with record producers pushing the amplitude all the way up so the waveform clips at maximum volume all the time.

The digital mix *could* be the same as the vinyl one - as digital (beyond about 14 bits) has more dynamic range (c.6dB per bit of resolution).

From the perspective of some producers, louder is better (and in comparative testing, a fraction of a dB in loudness can sway respondents towards the louder in terms of which is preferable).

An interesting wiki article on vinyl: http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'll take CD quality digital over vinyl any day. Won't dive into the discussion. Just personal preference.

... and with the advent of lossless audio codecs*, there's no reason to compromise that on portable devices either.

*: FLAC; WavPack; TaK, etc.

 

[Geraldine]

Vinyl sounds better to me but maybe that's because of the sort of music I listen too, has a life about it that I find lacking in more modern music and playing it on vinyl is all part of the package. It tends to lend itself more to vinyl as that is what it original came out in...
[video=youtube;eiwgzNKSj-E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiwgzNKSj-E[/video]
Some may hate that, others, less so. It's all about what you think is best for you yourself.

 

[Rampant]

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?" <snip>

Whether you did it intentionally or not I couldn't say, but you did pervert the message I delivered by steering the discussion towards objective measurements. My message was that what "people prefer", being a subjective assessment, does not always equate to objective or empirical measurements.

Allow me to provide another analogy. My Mrs and I are car enthusiasts. Sports car people. We own both a (now modified) 2005 Mitsubishi Evo IX and a 2002 Porsche 996 C4S.

The Evo is faster in a straight line. Faster through the bends. Grippier in the snow, the wet and the dry. Also far, far easier to drive at 8 tenths than the Carrera. It is cheaper. Cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain (clutch change £800 versus £2,000) cheaper to fix (when things go wrong). It has 5 useable seats. Bigger load carrying capacity. By every single objective measurement you care to come up with thevEvo is arguably "better". Perhaps with the sole exception of depreciation or residual value...

Subjectively, though, the Carrera illicits more satisfaction. As an ownership proposition it delivers more pleasure. As an object to look at it is prettier. The exhaust note is aurally more satisfying. And when you string some corners together well it is more rewarding, because it makes you work for that reward.

Objectively. Evo is "better" in perhaps every measure. Like digital music can be measured to be "better".

Subjectively, which do I prefer. Difficult question. Heart says Carrera. Mostly. Which can I evangelise more about? Definitely the Porsche.

Humans can be odd.

Like I said before. You do have a point. But your point is not 100% of the story.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

Yours Aye

Mark H