How can Vinyl still sound good compared to digital?

[STC]

We are now having the best measuring equipments. Digital’s dynamic range now can exceed 140dB. THD can be as low as 0.001%.  
 

OTOH, vinyl is nowhere close to any of the current measurements except the theoretical unlimited HF. However, we still have have good sounding vinyl setup that can be as good as the best digital setup. Why?

 

It looks like the measurements are no longer important. Is it the room acoustics? Or is it the imperfection that makes vinyl sounds better with stereo playback?  

 

Or does vinyl sound worst than digital with headphones? Frankly, I have not listened to vinyl with headphones. Anyone here listen to vinyl with headphones? Do you think they sound better than digital?
 

 

[STC]

10 hours ago, SJK said:

Any LP that I’ve recorded to digital format at 24/96 is indistinguishable from the LP, and in some cases can be better if it was an older LP with light scratches or crackle as that can be filtered out.

 

A fair comparison would be pressing the digital format to a vinyl. 

[STC]

9 hours ago, Jud said:

Mostly LP doesn't sound as good as digital, if my experience at audio shows with stratospherically priced playback systems for both is any indication.

 

I am afraid I have to disagree with you on this one. I can't speak for all the LPs out there but I have done comparisons with Tracy Chapman on Clearaudio Statement TT vs Boulder and Esoteric digital. all of them driven by Krell Master Reference monoblocks. In a recent AV show I have also compared Norah Jones LP and digital (but I have to say it was a challenge to distinguish them).

[STC]

9 hours ago, John Dyson said:

Vinyl is technically not as good as digital, but *usually* vinyl has been mastered correctly, but digital, not so much.

 

Ignore the past. Take the best version of current vinyl and digital. Norah Jones and Tracy Chapman are good reference to do the comparisons.

[STC]

8 hours ago, PeterSt said:

What are you trying to prove this time ? that measurements are not important ?

 

Depending what you are measuring.

[STC]

6 hours ago, John Dyson said:

If you send a link to a Dropbox (by email), then I can upload it directly into your account.   Don't send it through Dropbox, becuase then the upload will charge against my very small account.

 

I can create a folder in my onedrive where you can upload the original and your best decoded version.

[STC]

6 hours ago, Blackmorec said:

Live music is involving and exiting without demanding anything from the listener and I want my hi-fi to sound the same way. 

 

That is the purpose of buying high end.

 

5 hours ago, gmgraves said:

However, vinyl  and, indeed, analog in general, has, inherent in it, a number of engineering compromises that introduce into the finished recording a certain euphonic "quality" that many people regard as being more musical than digital which they see as "sterile and soulless.

 

This is true. I have been a digital man for a long time although as a toddler I probably listened to the gramophone and vinyl more. I do not deny when you compare a good vinyl and digital playback via loudspeakers, you sense the vinyl sound to be fat and easier on the ears. Subjectively, you can prefer either one and asking audiophiles for such opinions usually tainted with prejudice. 

 

I was hoping to hear from headphone listeners because I suspect they may prefer digital.

[STC]

34 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I'll tell you though, considering the comments that I've gotten in the past "oh, this is a good one", subsequently finding out not-so-good.

 

Are you referring to my feedback? Can you point me where I have contradicted myself? If so I must be either going senile or deaf.  

[STC]

40 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Okay -- I have the 'audiophile' version that is so beloved, but also am going to produce a distortion free version in a day or so.  I'll PM you my email address.

 

John

 

 

I have created the folder for you. Please don't exceed 950GB  

[STC]

6 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

With this in mind, I think the discussion should be phrased in terms of "how or why is vinyl still relevant, given digital's superiority based on specs?"

 

Please feel free to change the topic as I am unable to change them. I thought the OP could change the title in the past.

[STC]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

Digital is indisputably the more accurate format - in that sense it has higher fidelity to the source than vinyl does. That does not, however, mean that digital always sounds as good or better than vinyl to many people (personally I tend to prefer digital).

 

As for why vinyl sounds so good to so many people, I believe there are many possible reasons, However, as time as gone on and I have read and listened more, I have become convinced that a major factor - perhaps the major factor - is inter-channel crosstalk produced by phono cartridges. This crosstalk:

• Varies by frequency, cartridge, and LP/cutting/pressing;
• Generally is greater in the midrange and treble; and
• Tends to be out of phase with the primary L and R channel content.

The result is a variable, mechanically/electrically induced bit of midrange and high-end "air"/ambience and "sweetness."

 

Combined with mechanical resonances in the vinyl playback chain that often produce a bit of bass or mid-bass warmth (aka added harmonics), this IMHO goes a long way towards explaining the "organic," "natural" sound signature that many attribute to vinyl playback.

 

Of course the technical limitations of vinyl also sometimes produced sonic differences between LPs and CDs that can make LPs sound better. Levels and compression cannot be pushed as hard on vinyl, so as noted by many already, CDs often feature harsher, more extreme compression and peak-limiting than LPs. Many LP cuttings also have to attenuate the treble slightly, which can produce a less harsh, or a mellower, sound that many prefer and associate with "natural" aka "real" sound. And many LP cutting masters have to have the L-R channel separation reduced, or even summed to mono, in the bass frequencies, which increases DR Meter ratings and can potentially increase the perception of dynamics.

In short the sound heard by us need to be too pristine to be perceived as natural?

[STC]

Maybe it isn’t about the medium at all. It is about the sound that reaches your ears. I will never go back to vinyl because I believe that digital is far more accurate to be utilized for perfect sound reproduction. 

Unlike digital, there is no one accepted standard for vinyl reproduction. Unlike digital, vinyl is pressed with EQ and again the playback is also used with EQ. Unless one is using the same RIAA for the pressing/cutting and the playback, I do not think you can have flat response as intended in the original recordings. 
 

Then we have subjective preference where some ( and generally virgin audiophile wannabe) preferring the vinyl sound. 
 

For seasoned audiophiles, the digital version that they think most accurately represent the sound as natural are those recorded with stereo microphones far away from the source. In a way, the sound of direct and the ambiance mixture. IOW, the not so pristine sound. 
 

Have you seen a pure sine wave from a vinyl compared to one from the digital medium?  
 

@tmtomh pointed out about the crosstalk. I think what he meant is channel separation. Vinyl does not have good channel separation like the digital medium. Technically this can be considered as a flaw but at the same time it can also be a blessing in disguise because the sound produced by a system with poor channel separation will be more like mono. It will feel fat and large. And you still get the soundstage but only for those really loud at either side which causes less stress to the brain trying to decode the location of the phantom image. It sound more natural for localization. 
 

It is not the accuracy but the correctness of sound perceived of vinyl playback is what makes them still desirable. IMO. 
 

Guys, surely there must be someone here listening to vinyl playback via headphones. Your input is much appreciated.

[STC]

Distortion got many meanings. If you don’t like distortion in any form then most likely you have throw away most of your album because they can have some sorer of distortion one way or another. To me even EQing is distorting the original sound. 
 

 

[STC]

35 minutes ago, semente said:

Many people confuse the purpose of a hi-fi system with that of an instrument.

Yes but yet they are still confused. Unless you listen in an anechoic chamber or with headphones all sound that reaches your ears are “distorted”. They no longer represent the same sound that was in the recording. 
 

Guys, any LP headphones listeners here?

[STC]

1 hour ago, semente said:

On the other hand, an equipment which adds effect (i.e. something which can be perceived as increased reverb) is no longer representing "the same sound that was in the recording".

Without the graph and the explanation you have no idea whether a recording got an intentional or natural boast at those frequencies. 
 

I always believe never never use any kind of EQ or manipulation to the original sound. Having said that I also thing it is not wrong for people with poor room to use the bass or treble or even a little DSP. I personally do not use them. 

[STC]

26 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I know you like digital with a lot of ambient information. Are you saying this sounds less good than vinyl to you?

That is not true. I like music to sound like you are hearing them in the best acoustic and my room’s natural RT is 0.28s. I brought up a little later because it was too dead. 
 

The most detailed solo vocal sound so clean in such room. You don’t like ambiance. You choose the right ambiance. Otherwise, concert halls shouldn’t exist. 
 

I wonder why Audiophile’s got no problem with diffusers, absorbers and all kind of room tuning device but when I use real active ambiance where I can control the perfect ambiance that no audiophile could even dream off, it is becoming a joke. 

[STC]

20 minutes ago, semente said:

 

You keep confusing the recording/signal with its reproduction.

 

If the system is to reproduce the recording accurately then the system response using pink noise must be flat.

A flat system will accurately reproduce an "intentional or natural boast at those frequencies" that's what is in the recording.

 

If Gravesen had not added the notch filter to his speakers then the speakers would add a "boast" on top of the recordings' "boast" if there was one, or just a "boast" on top of a good recording, or make a recording that needed the "boast" sound better.

 

Weren't you using Harbeths at some point? They use notch filters to flatten the frequency response.

 

 

A very slight room EQ adjustment below 100Hz (simulation) - attenuated peaks and perceived reduction of decay at those frequencies:

 

 

I am just telling that your example of the notch wouldn’t be known to exist without the graph. And you would not even hear if it’s adding reverbs or not without the explanation provided by the designer. 

[STC]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

You have to compare it with other speakers and use recordings that are meant to sound realistic.

Do you need side by side comparison when listening live to know it sounds good to the ears?

[STC]

3 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Because it screws up other aspects of sound which for me/us are more important than ambience.

 

A well executed 2-channel recording of a classical music recital will capture both the direct sound from the instrument, the reflected sound and the reverberation:

 

 

A pair of stereo loudspeakers in a reasonably damped room will recreate some of the illusion of being in the venue. Stereo has its limitations but for some people it's good enough.

Others who are looking for a more immersive experience prefer omni-speakers which interact more with the room, go multi-channel or use DSP to create an echoey effect.

I have heard a pair of stereo speakers in 0.3 to 5s reverbs room. Have you? 
 

Before that reading stuff also made me think that was wrong. Perfect and accurate sound should always be from the two stereo speakers irrespective what the inventor Blumlein told in the patent what it couldn’t do and what it was wrongly doing. 

[STC]

11 minutes ago, semente said:

 

I've heard speakers in many different rooms and also outdoors, so probably yes.

Just a few posts ago you mentioned about comparisons. You even illustrated your point with some graphs. Now how is it even possible that listening to different speakers in different rooms can be a valid comparisons? And they are no where would reach 2 RT without sounding muddy and boomy. 

 

 

[STC]

8 minutes ago, semente said:

Reality is reality, there's no "sounds good" or bad.

[STC]

28 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

That's avoiding the main question and the thread topic.

 

However you prefer your digital sound, are you saying it doesn't sound as good as vinyl to you?

I am a digital man and always will use digital for my setup because my setup requires digital process to do convolution. However, the main speakers format can be anything and it doesn’t matter to me. 

 

This is not about me. It is about vinyl and why Audiophile’s still like them despite their inferior measurements.  I think it is more than pops and ticks with vinyl. in the past I was obsessed with digital and thought vinyl could come close to a good digital setup but I have to admit there is always something different with the sound which makes easier to listen which is in away what I do with the digital files. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, semente said:

 

It looks as though he's trying to make a point that vinyl sounds more realistic because it adds distortion which is perceived as reverb or spaciousness and then extrapolate that to DSP-processed space enhancement.

It is actually the other way round. Anyway, the point is despite whatever claim that audiophile make about hires and ultra high measurements, a vinyl spec is good enough. Otherwise, no audiophiles would be buying turntables. 

[STC]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

This says a lot about where your priority lies.

Read the edited version again. I am not the one using Sharp speakers. 

[STC]

6 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

While I personally prefer digital and prize (and enjoy!) accuracy over distortion-induced "warmth," I would say that many people seem to prefer the sound "softened" in some of the ways that vinyl tends to create.

 

A somewhat related analogy: I recently moved into a new house, where I now have a music-listening room that is about twice as large as my previous one. It also has double drywall, concrete floors (under carpet), and fewer windows than my old space. The result is that the new space is less resonant than the old one and allows for more flexibility with speaker placement. While working on speaker placement and room treatments in the new space, I realized that bass resonances (aka room modes aka standing waves) were contributing to the sound in my old space more than I was aware at the time. Initially in the new space, this produced some unpleasant surprises, as some of my music did not sound as warm or have as much apparent bass impact as I remembered from my old space. I have since been able to pretty well "dial in" the sound in the new space, achieving better, cleaner bass than in the old space - but it took awhile to find speaker placement that simultaneously gave me enough bass and also did not do so via artificial bass resonances like my old space had.

 

That is a good observation. I too suffered similar fate when my newly designed room based on golden ratio and double wall for studio 0.28 s RT. Somehow, I thought it sounded accurate but not real. 
 

We are very good in disregarding reverbs although that’s what add to naturalness and music in a live room provided no execute boom is more desirable than a dead room.  I will quote again in my other topic related to ambiance.
 

6 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

 

I would suggest that this is similar to the vinyl/digital divide: a good number of folks simply like the types of distortions/nonlinearities introduced by the vinyl medium and playback chain - and when it comes to the particular kind of crosstalk I discussed above, that type of nonlinearlity is as far as I know unique to the vinyl medium. 

 

It is that but also could be the lack of channel separation. Try adding ticks and pops, little wobble to a digital file so that it sounds like a vinyl. But it will never feel like listening to a vinyl recording. The only thing that will be different here is the channel separation.