Does vinyl really sound better?

robinbowes

Phil_aka_Pip;421590" said:

@robinbowes sound quality is always a reason to prefer ANYTHING over mp3. mp3 is simply shite. even a cassette with a 12.5k bandwidth is better than mp3.... CD is way better than mp3. 

As others have already said, it's not always about the sound quality.

That said, I'd wager that you would struggle to differentiate 320bps VBR and lossless audio.

R.

richardhomer

The concept to 'musical information' is an interesting one.

Linn Products pioneered the 'Tune Dem'. The concept is that you play an unfamiliar piece of music on a variety of of hi-fi systems and the one which enables you to make sense of the various strands of instrumentation is the most 'accurate' - as opposed to the one which sounds simply tonally accurate.

Naim Audio suggest you evalute systems on their 'Pace, Rhythm and Timing' - their assertion is that sound systems blur rhythmic detail which gets in the way of a listener's perception of groove/swing. And Naim gear is particularly good at delivering 'PRAT' - but always renders music 'hard' sounding in the mid-range, to the point that listening to it for long periods of time is tiring.

Whilst the source limitations of MP3 is detectable when played via a high-resolution system - my nephew's Naim network player allows you to hear the difference - there isn't enough 'missing' to prevent me 'getting' the musical message.

I have met a number of classical musicians over the years - including a man who played trumpet in the Halle and studied with Barbarolli. None of them have ever had a decent hi-fi system.

I have heard a 96kh/24 bit recording of Peter Gabriel streamed through my nephew's Naim - and it is slightly better than the same thing played off CD through the same system. That said, the CD sounds preferably to either (to my ears) when played through my system.

Most people play their music through amplifiers and speakers which are simply not capable of revealing qualitative differences between formats.

Played on a well set up Linn turntable, with an expensive arm and a high end moving coil cartridge and phono stage, vinyl can sound magical. A top spec turntable minimises the subjective impact of surface noise/rumble, etc but is not immune from such annoyances - and warped records, or those where the holes are not centred suffer from pitch variations which live music and digital formats don't.

Clearly in the real world - digital is a 'better' solution....

ICBM

On a system which is good enough for the difference to matter, you can tell. If the system isn't good enough for it to matter, then more or less any mp3 is fine.

Oddly enough I prefer fixed bitrate - even 128k - to VBR. I don't know why, but VBR sounds more artificial.

So I choose...

128kbps mp3 for portability

CD for quality

Vinyl for hanging out with your best mate and some wine

monquixote

TheMarlin said:

 I take this seriously, hifi for me is a passion, my third favourite hobby after playing with the wife, and playing guitar.

There is a lot of hostility here to the idea that analogue sounds better than digital.  I'm not trying to force my opinion down your throat, I'm just answering the OP's question, honestly. How many of you prefer valve guitar amps to solid state?  By your rational, the solid state should sound better - but, invariably, it doesn't.

It's an opinion, take it or leave it.

It's also a passion for me, but it's also my living. I've worked as a broadcast engineer for the last 12 years and had a hand in building a chunk of BBC radio and iPlayer amongst other things so I'm not just being contrary for the sake of it and I'm certainly not intending to be hostile.

There is no sensible comparison to make between guitar amps and hi-fi amps. People like valve guitar amps because they are low fidelity and introduce distortion. (Not to mention that SS and Valve amps are both analog devices!)

You are welcome to prefer whichever medium you wish, but fidelity is not a subjective thing it is an objective, measurable quantity (namely how similar the input is to the output) and vinyl is not an especially hi-fidelity medium. It makes no more sense to have an opinion about it than having an opinion about the sky being green, or black being white.

It's quite simple to disprove the "Infinite bandwidth of analog" that gets pedaled around. Nearly all digital media (Digital tape, fibre optics, HDMI video, hard discs, etc) are ultimately analog systems ("There are no bits on a wire" is an adage of communications engineering) once you get down to the lowest level. The amount of digital information that can be stored is determined by the underlying bandwidth of the system. There is absolutely nothing to stop you storing digital information on a vinyl record (Using ASK for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplitude-shift_keying) and if it had the oft claimed limitless bandwidth then you could use it to store an infinite amount of data which it should be obvious makes no sense!

bluechargeboy

I was debating this with our drummer the other day. Is it possible to master a digital recording so it sounds like vinyl? I mean, you are starting with more information (slicing the analogue waveform into lots of tiny bits notwithstanding), and you just need to chop away enough info to match the vinyl frequency response, right? Or apply some filter that matches the frequency response?

I don't know if that technology exists but it must be theoretically possible to match it if you are starting off with more information. I refuse to believe that vinyl has magical qualities that cannot be replicated.

monquixote

bluechargeboy said:

I was debating this with our drummer the other day. Is it possible to master a digital recording so it sounds like vinyl? I mean, you are starting with more information (slicing the analogue waveform into lots of tiny bits notwithstanding), and you just need to chop away enough info to match the vinyl frequency response, right? Or apply some filter that matches the frequency response?

I don't know if that technology exists but it must be theoretically possible to match it if you are starting off with more information. I refuse to believe that vinyl has magical qualities that cannot be replicated.

Yes I believe Portishead used to run samples back through a vinyl lathe and then record them again. 

Also it's quite common for people to bounce out something done on pro tools to tape and back just to get a bit of tape saturation on to it. You also get analog summing boxes and various other things. 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun12/articles/spotlight-0612.htm

If you look at this roundup of analog summing boxes you will notice that many of them have controls to introduce harmonic distortion. It's the low fidelity element of the equipment that people like, much as with a valve amp. 

Phil_aka_Pip

ICBM said:

If you turn up an AM radio to the point it's distorted, like the cleaning staff at somewhere I used to work did, then I would agree, but it's not ridiculous to suggest that mp3 is anywhere near that bad, 'cos it's f__kin' disgusting

I find it perfect shite for any kind of listening, and the musical content is horribly "spoiled", so you're dead right

fixed that for you

UnclePsychosis

TheMarlin said:

Upshot is, all CD players, no matter how good, as flat and two dimensional compared to a quality Vinyl pressing.  There is so much more data in vinyl, no digital source can get close to a quality vinyl pressing.

Marlin

When I read this all I could think of was this:

monquixote

Phil_aka_Pip said:

ICBM said:

If you turn up an AM radio to the point it's distorted, like the cleaning staff at somewhere I used to work did, then I would agree, but it's not ridiculous to suggest that mp3 is anywhere near that bad, 'cos it's f__kin' disgusting

I find it perfect shite for any kind of listening, and the musical content is horribly "spoiled", so you're dead right

fixed that for you

I bet you my life savings, against your ten pound note that you can't differentiate a 320kbps mp3 from a CD. 

Phil_aka_Pip

Well since I've made 320k mp3s out of wav files of my own recordings, and found them way inferior to the original wav, I'm somewhat inclined to take you up on that, subject of course to your life savings being worth more than £10.

monquixote

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Well since I've made 320k mp3s out of wav files of my own recordings, and found them way inferior to the original wav, I'm somewhat inclined to take you up on that, subject of course to your life savings being worth more than £10.

I'm planning to make up a test at some point though I probably won't get a chance for a while so I'll take you up on it

littlegreenman

I always upload my recordings as 320 mp3's. Yes, they're not WAV quality but bloody good enough.

The statement was CD quality though, not WAV, so I reckon @monquixote's bet still stands.

I'd post a duplicate WAV/ mp3 to do a blind test, but the file size would give the game away and dictate the result.

monquixote

What I'd do would be MP3 compress a WAV file of CD quality and then convert it back to WAV again as Jeff Atwood did here: http://blog.codinghorror.com/concluding-the-great-mp3-bitrate-experiment/

CD is 44.1 16 bit linear PCM so it's identical to the contents of a CD.

My only fear is that it's quite possible to cheat if you have a mind to.

ICBM

@Phil_aka_Pip - editing my post doesn't make you right . Since the music is not "spoiled" for me, you've turned your opinion into an incorrect 'fact' .

Frankly, I think you're just being a snob. I'm happy with mp3 even though I know full well it's not the best format, because I'm more interested in hearing the *song* while I work. I used to do the same with AM radio, then FM radio and cassette. And no, cassette is *not* better than mp3. At least not if you're playing it on an ancient ghetto blaster it isn't.

I do agree with you that I think I could tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a CD as well, but it would have to be on a high-end system when I was sitting down and listening carefully. I'm also not willing to bet my savings on it. Going through the old mono cabinet in my workshop, no chance. It's of no importance when I'm tinkering with an amp or a guitar anyway.

Axe_meister

These days I either listen vinyl with a Linn Sondec or MP3 (ripped at 320k). I like both. Now with vinyl listening is less tiring in my opinion, I find however I listen to the music however rather than listening for instruments as such. Now with MP3 which does seem to show more detail, I find I listen to the production a lot more, then again my listen position is very different using near field monitors rather then my hi-FI tower speakers. My hi-FI amp however is a very warm sounding amp. Vinyl through a very revealing bright amp does tire me out (and shows up centre record distortion)

TheMarlin

I used Yamaha NS1000m's as speakers for a few years.  Fantastically details, but exhausting after a while. They fetch good money these days.  Big Tannoys and Quad Electrostatics are my weapons of choice these days.  95% of the detail, but with non of the fatigue.

M

Phil_aka_Pip

@ICBM I refer you to the experience I had of converting WAVs into MP3. I did it with Audacity. The MP3 was dreadful compared to the WAV. Trust me, it was dreadful.

holnrew

MP3s and CDs are bad because they're modern. Wax cylinders are the best way to listen to something.

hungrymark

I listen to mp3s in the car, and cds. I prefer mp3 when in driving because the storage allows more variety without having to change the CD whilst in motion. In the car you can't tell the difference anyway because of all the background noise and distraction.

ICBM

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@ICBM I refer you to the experience I had of converting WAVs into MP3. I did it with Audacity. The MP3 was dreadful compared to the WAV. Trust me, it was dreadful.

I don't doubt it was worse, but "dreadful" is pushing it, let alone "spoiling" the music.

I've never used Audacity - how old is it? A lot of the earlier mp3 encoding algorithms are pretty poor, newer ones are much better. I've always used the standard iTunes one and the difference between the early versions and the recent ones is very noticeable even at 128k, so much so that when I can be bothered I'm going back and re-ripping a lot of my older music.

Don't get me wrong, I love the quality of CD on a good system, I can hear the difference, and if I could get that quality everywhere, all the time, I would... I think! Although sometimes I actually think it's better if you listen at low quality for daily background music so when you do sit down to listen to it properly, you really appreciate it.

No different to the old days when I would record my vinyl albums onto cassette for day-to-day listening really. Listening to the original vinyl again was always nicer, but it didn't stop me enjoying the cassette version.