Lies about vinyl vs digital

[semente]

48 minutes ago, GUTB said:

There is a massive proliferation of misinformation regarding vinyl in relation to digital. I realize much of that is just willful ignorance on the part of non-audiophiles / class warfare activists, etc.... however all senior audiophiles seem to know that LPs crush CD and streaming, but if you to get a technical or even theoretical basis for that phenomena by researching it all you find is misinformation about why digital is better.

 

Lie: vinyl suffers from heavy dynamic compression — so why do my LPs display vastly better dynamic power/force?

Lie: vinyl has less resolution — macro resolution is greater in my digital that’s true, but why is inner detail and tonal color so much better on vinyl?

Lie: vinyl suffers from a lot of distortion — perhaps, but why do my LPs sound more live and lifelike than my digital?

 

So what’s going on here? Could the issue be that these aren’t lies so much as not accounting for awful ADCs and digital mastering techniques?

 

This piece may interest you:

 

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page1.html

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/goodresolutions/page2.html

 

Total Noise Level	‘flat’ 20 Hz - 20 kHz	A Weighted
CD-A	-92 dB	-94 dB
LP	-46 dB	-61 dB

 

 

 

[semente]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

You forgot to mention the vast difference in channel separation !

 

Indeed.

In this page Hi-Fi World explains cartridge measurements:

 

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/vinyl-lp/70-tests/103-cartridge-tests.html?showall=1

[semente]

This looks like the perfect time to link the Sound On Sound piece about Analogue Warmth ?

 

Analogue Warmth
The Sound Of Tubes, Tape & Transformers

Published February 2010
By Hugh Robjohns

 

Analogue warmth seems to be the Holy Grail in these digital days. But what is it, why does it hold such appeal, and how can you use it to enhance your recordings?

Get a group of recording engineers together, and sooner or later the conversation will turn to a discussion (probably quickly escalating to an argument) about 'analogue warmth' and how things sounded so much better 'BD' (Before Digital) — and even engineers and musicians who've never worked in earnest with all‑analogue systems (digital having become mainstream as far back as the 1980s) seem keen to bring this perceived 'warmth' into their productions.

 

What Is Analogue Warmth?
Not everyone has had first‑hand experience of magnetic tape recording and other analogue recording technology, of course, but we've all heard and admired the vast back catalogue of classic records made using this technology from the 1950s onwards.

There are many factors that combine to create character in recordings, ranging from instruments, musicians and performances, through the rooms and mics used, to the preamps, processors and effects (and the way in which they're used), but when we talk about analogue warmth, we're usually referring to the character that the analogue processing/recording equipment and the recording medium add to the sound.

In this article, I'll look at some of the key analogue technologies often associated with 'analogue warmth', and explain why they create the sound they do. Hopefully, this will enable you to make more informed gear choices and create mixes with an analogue feel, if that's what you're after. Some of 'the science' may seem daunting, but the alphabetical 'Technical Terms Explained' boxes should help with that.

 

Analogue Versus Digital
I cut my professional teeth on analogue equipment, but I think modern digital recording is a significant step up from the best of analogue in many practical ways. A lot of the early digital gear certainly didn't live up to the hype that surrounded it, but understanding and technology have come on in leaps and bounds since then, and to my mind digital recording systems can now deliver pretty much all that was once promised: a near‑perfect recording medium that gives back exactly what was recorded.

That's great in some circumstances, but it's not always what we want: in many cases, the technical limitations and imperfections of analogue systems have become an integral part of the quality of the recorded sounds that we all grew up with — and the end result is perceived by many people as being more pleasing than we can easily achieve today with all‑digital recording chains. Further than that, some of the sounds resulting from 'abuse' of analogue gear have become recognised effects in their own right (tube overdrive and tape saturation being obvious examples).

Interestingly, sound recording isn't the only industry that has found this. Digital cameras and imaging software usually provide a range of 'picture‑style image processing' options. My own camera offers Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful, Monochrome, and three user‑defined modes, for example, each changing the tonal balance, colour saturation, sharpness, and contrast in different ways, to enhance the subject

In short, enjoyment of an artistic product (be it a sound recording, a photograph, a film or whatever) isn't necessarily about precision and accuracy: more often, it's about mood, character and subtle enhancements that make the end result more vivid and interesting than real life.

When it comes to audio, some aspects of analogue technology introduce artifacts and distortions that are perceived as pleasant, and are often musically enhancing — and this is something that lies at the heart of the idea of 'analogue warmth'. Of course, mechanical equipment can be expensive or impossible to acquire, and a hassle to maintain or use. Small wonder, then, that so many people seek (and so many manufacturers now provide) software and hardware tools that aim to reintroduce some 'analogue character' into digital production chains. Some of it works well, some of it not so well — but what is it actually trying to emulate?

 

continues here -> https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/analogue-warmth

[semente]

18 minutes ago, 4est said:

Seriously? This would have to be one of the more outlandish things you have said IMO then. I prefer to listen to analog recorded and mastered for analog and digital recorded and mastered for digital. If I get you, you are suggesting that your DSP can not only make up for the A>D conversion(which typically includes a remastering process of sorts as I understand it), but replicate specific tube gear AND do room correction.

 

Gosh, forgive me, but I call bullshit on that one. Even if the hardware could somehow do this, you are suggesting that there is some sort of universal EQ that you could apply or that you have the time and talent to reverse engineer the works of people such as Barry D who have made the CDs from the tapes.

 

You may find these two videos interesting:

 

 

 

 

[semente]

Another tape-emulation plug-in:

 

 

[semente]

2 minutes ago, Rexp said:

Can you explain why digital recordings generally sound better on vinyl than cd?

 

I think he means that they sound "tastier" to him. ?

...

Or maybe it's just the way they're mastered.

[semente]

19 hours ago, mordante said:

 

I might be an idiot. No I know I'm an idiot but I really like the inconvenience of vinyl. With digital sources it's too much a press play and forget. So when I listen to my ripped CDs (don't have a streaming service) I tend to go and do other things. Read Facebook troll on 9GAG etc. Because with vinyl I have to stay focused I tend to enjoy the music more.

A LP is normally 20 minutes per side. I like that. Because it gives you the opportunity to get some coffee, cognac, beer water etc. With digital playback you don't have that. What sounds better is not interesting to me. Since I enjoy vinyl more I spend more money on it. 

 

I keep the laptop close to the system. I have to stand up, browse with iTunes, drag-drop into HQ Player. I don't use playlists.

 

I'd hate having to flip a record, clean it and zap it with an anti-static gun every 20 minutes. I'd hate it even more if I had to do this in the middle of a musical piece...

 

Besides, vinyl is not eco-friendly (see here) and downloading avoids delivery which in Europe is mostly done using not so modern delivery vans with diesel engines.

[semente]

15 hours ago, GUTB said:

@gmgraves revealed the truth behind the LIE of vinyl noise that even I bought into without thought -- the noise floor of vinyl isn't a floor in the digital sense, it just the level of spurious noise.

 

If a digital recording peaks out, it sounds awful. We've all heard it. I have yet to hear my LPs peak out...a crashing crescendo, screaming vocalist, etc., is very loud but no evidence of bumping into a ceiling is present -- obviously you need an amp with enough muscle to follow your speakers through these peaks, but we're talking about the source here. Some of my CDs obviously peak-limited, some are obviously compressed / processed to be loud. Soft sound following by loud sounds is an indispensable component of enjoyable hi-fi -- that's preaching top the choir I suspect, but why are my LPs good at this while my digital sucks at it?

 

Okay guys, help me out. What CDs or digital albums feature powerful dynamics / transients?

 

A couple of examples (first plot 30dB wide, second plot 66dB wide):

 

 

Pixies "Gigantic"(4ad)

 

 

 

Pixies "Hey" (4ad)

 

 

 

Bartok "Rondos On Folk Tunes, Sz84 - I. Andante" (Kocsis/Denon)

 

 

 

Bruckner "Symphony No.9 In D Minor, WAB109 - II. Scherzo. Bewegt, Lebhaft - Trio. Schnell" (Giulini/DG)

 

 

 

Morales "Missa Mille Regretz - Kyrie" (The Hilliard Ensemble/Almaviva) - acapella choir, it's only vocals

 

 

 

Pink Floyd "Hey You" (Harvest) - taken from "Echoes"

 

 

 

Joanna Newsom "Three Little Babes" (Drag City)

 

[semente]

28 minutes ago, acg said:

 

 

That is so funny... the freakin internet is far and away the largest user of energy on the planet... It's probably near half of the world's energy use right now...

 

Let's stick to shopping shall we; there are people using cars and motorbykes and boats and planes and helis for recreation too. A long hall trip for a single passenger can waste as much fuel a that same person's whole year of driving.

Goods travelling across the planet by boat, plane or lorry, and local deliveries use a lot of fuel. In many civilized countries electricity is produced by clean sources like sun, wind or water.

[semente]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Supertramp's Crime of The Century in "original" CD fashion.

 

I only have the "The Very Best of Supertramp" on CD.

Here's the Leq plot for "Rudy" - impressive, even if this is not the widest-range mastering of the track:

 

[semente]

This one of my test tracks, the 1st movement of Rach's Symphonic Dances Op.45 (Jansons/EMI):

 

 

 

Chabrier's España (Gardiner/DG) is also a nice test track:

 

[semente]

6 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Most of the CD's I own show better dynamics than their vinyl counterparts, but pick them (remasters are never among it).

 

My experience with classical music remasters contradicts this, although I completely agree if you are referring to rock and pop.

 

But dynamic range isn't everything and some remasters have a better tonal balance;  if the loss in DR is just marginal I may go for the better tone.

[semente]

19 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

 

Has signature of a typical pop 'remaster' - although many a mastering engineer over on Head-Fi will tell you it's "better than the original relase on CD"  and "use your ears, ignore the brickwall limiting" shown in that DAW".

 

By the way, what tool are you showing that in?

 

I'm using AudioLeak:

 

http://www.channld.com/audioleak/

 

 

If you think that this is bad take a look at a couple of Radiohead tracks:

 

Radiohead "Karma Police" (original CD edition of OK Computer)

 

 

 

Radiohead "Nude" (original CD edition of In Rainbows)

 

[semente]

50 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I have three versions of that. The track Rudy, which again shows -0dB on  the two versions I listed as the worst (OK, some like to call that the best), shows -10.5, -12.0 and -13.5 dB respectively. So if you think you have it impressive already, you can grab another 12dB (and go sit outside).

 

The album that I use for "average reference" shows -16.5 dB in this regard (this is AC/DC' Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap). Anything at a distance of 6dB of that, I depict as "usable" (thus also 6dB more compressed I regard usable). But not 16.5dB more dynamic, like the Supertramp example. Btw, I have no worse examples than this Supertramp that I know of.

 

Btw, the AC/DC I also have in a -15dB and a -9 dB version, so might you gonna try what this so-called reference would be ... doesn't work again (you could have the -9dB version).

 

From the DR Database website, Rudy track:

• MFSL CD - DR16

• both '83 and '97 CD editions DR13

• '90 The Very Best Of CD - DR12 (I get the same DR using the TT DR Offline Meter 1.1 for mac)

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=supertramp&album=crime+of+the+century

[semente]

1 hour ago, Rexp said:

I would to take up such a challenge, while there are many poor quality digital recordings that sound similar on vinyl and CD, the better recordings sound much better on vinyl. 

 

By "sound much better" you mean that you enjoy it more.

You don't listen to classical music do you?

[semente]

43 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

Digital's frequency response is truly flat - analog, and human hearing for that matter, are anything but.

 

What do you mean and why are you mixing/confusing reproduction with listening?

[semente]

22 minutes ago, The_K-Man said:

Because sonic differences in CONTENT faaaaaarrr outweigh any differences between 'vinyl and CD', or between any other two formats?

 

It's still not clear what you're trying to say.

 

That the difference between one same recording adequately mastered to vinyl and to CD is in the master not the medium and its reproduction?

Or something else entirely?

[semente]

20 minutes ago, mjb said:

There's nothing wrong with vinyl, except: the crackles and pops, dust, static, dropping the stylus in and smashing track walls, not lifting the stylus squarely and scraping half an inch, the crackles and pops, and the static. Did I mention crackles and pops? Thats it really. I can fully appreciate that a good pressing on a good rig can sound out of this world, I've heard it too, but I'm just too careless for it long term.

 

You are forgeting channel bleeding, monaural low-bass, high-passed sub-bass, high-frequency roll-off in inner groovers, off-centered records, speed stability, arm and cartige resonances, airborne and platter vibration pickup, RIAA filter, transduction... What else, stampers start losing accuracy after first use?

[semente]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

The only things vinyl has going for it are the expense and the inconvenience.

 

Well, and the large covers and booklets.

[semente]

5 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

So why do my records have better dynamic performance?

 

I listened to the MQA version of Ruby (Supertramp) which works well now that Roon supports core decoding (oversampled to DSD512 through HQPlayer as per usual). First of all, AWFUL, compression games and boosting does nothing for me. Second of all, the dynamic swings are obviously artificial — and finally, they real dynamic performance is still limited. Imagine viewing a countryside through a window slit vs through a regular sized window, that’s what the difference between the dynamic performance of my vinyl vs digital seems like to use a visual reference. You can get closer to the window slit to see more of the outside, you can light up the outside and they will look brighter. The full sized window shows you a lot more of the picture.

 

Take for example, someone playing a guitar. In my best vinyl, I can hear more of the natural dynamic range of the artist playing chords stronger or lighter — I can hear that in the digital version too, but the dynamic peaks less loud, less present. The overall effect is to increase the sense of live performance, ie, the goal of hi-fi.

 

Maybe you need to get a good DAC.

[semente]

The Audiocheck website is back on again today so here's the link to the 16-bit dynamic range test:

 

Audible Dynamic Range Sound Test

Dynamic range represents the ratio between the loudest signal you can hear and the quietest. Dynamic range is expressed in terms of decibels (dB). Being a ratio, the decibel has no units; everything is relative. Since it is relative, it must be relative to some reference point that has to be defined. Our reference point here is the loudest level you can comfortably bear for one second.

This test helps you benchmark the dynamic range of your sound system.

The file first starts with a reference point: a slightly compressed pink noise which tops out at 16-bit full scale (0dbFS). This noise plays for 1 second. Adjust the level of your system so that this noise plays loudly, without being uncomfortably loud.

Right after the noise, a voice is played back at a specified level. Noise references and voiceovers alternate with each other, with the voice being played at decreasing levels.

Play the file until you can't hear the voiceover anymore. The dynamic range of your system is roughly given by the level the voice message was playing at when it was still (barely) audible.

Interestingly, much emphasis is put on 24-bit audio recordings nowadays, with a dynamic range exceeding 140dB. Our example is only 16-bit, with a maximum dynamic range of 96dB, yet that should be plenty. Judge for yourself.

 

https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_dynamiccheck.php

[semente]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

At my normal moderately loud listening volume, I can hear to 78db below.

 

At full volume, on a different but similar test, I still can hear a signal at 114 below with my ear by the speaker. 

 

That's impressive: either your room is very large and quiet (<30dB) and/or your normal listening level is quite loud.

How far are you sitting from the speakers?

[semente]

Just now, firedog said:

Fortunately, the system is designed not to playback something that will blow it out. The DSP is supposed to kick in and prevent it. 

I'm not going to test it for you just to find out...

 

?

[semente]

1 hour ago, GUTB said:

So what’s going on?

 

1. Do my DACs just all suck in the ability to render high dynamic performance?

2. Are some posters without the ability to discern high end sound?

3. Has my brain fooled me?

 

And the answer is ra-ta-ta-ta: #2. You are without the ability to discern high end sound.

[semente]

40 minutes ago, davide256 said:

 

I never got much joy out of a PC source solution... it was like bad solid state amplification. And apparently power supply for digital behaves like platter and motor system for vinyl, the tiniest electrical noise sucks out the clarity required for dynamic contrast just like poor platter isolation/stability.

 

Or maybe it's the Non-Oversampled Redbook... ?