Does vinyl really sound better?

monquixote

Audacity uses LAME which is about the best. 

I can only assume that either the bitrate was set very low, something made the track clip (which happens a lot when you rip overly hot CDs), or audacity was having one of it's "let's randomly put glitches all over the track" moments.

imalone

TheMarlin said:

Years of experience, great equipment, bloody good set of ears, and a methodical A/B testing of one sources vs another has led me to this conclusion (it was very evident, very early on).  I'm not the only one, there are lots of us who love vinyl, not because it's a pleasure to handle, but just because it simply sounds better.

To my ears, good analogue sounds better than digital.

Yes, if you have a cheap shitty turntable/amp/speaker combo, the CD player will sound better, but through decent quality equipment, vinyl seriously kicks ass.  

My system has taken me twenty years to put together.  Twenty years of methodical testing and listening to, what for me is, the perfect home listing rig has helped with this conclusion.  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.

Marlin

Monquixote and others have covered some of this already, but you're confusing at least three things:
1. Solid state vs valve.
2. Digital vs analogue.
3. Fidelity vs sounding good.

Digital modelling amplifiers are digital. Solid state and valve amplifiers are analogue. Valve amplifiers are used because they don't have great fidelity to the input signal. The entire setup of guitar and amplifier has very poor fidelity to the strings themselves (probably a good thing). Which brings us onto fidelity and sounding good. A while ago (before the phono thing) Neil Young was pushing a plugin to make mp3s sound like vinyl. It's a codec standard, you can't reconstruct what's not recorded, so what something like that is actually doing is just filtering the sound. That's all a record player is, it's a particular filter on the playback, you can spend lots of time trying to tweak it, but your tweaking a filter. Some things may have been mastered for that, but that's about as optimistic as you can get, that old recordings were mastered to sound better through the limitations of the technology.

chillidoggy

I think the argument is a purely subjective one.

For me, having heard LP's played via a high-end turntable, I can say that it opened up my eyes (and ears). But ICBM's point about needing a decent system otherwise it's a waste of time is one I'd agree with.

mudslide73

What about vrips? I do like what pbthal et al do with vinyl.

I love the idea of a turntable too but I've gone 24/96 instead. I only have entry level separates so the outlay to make the most of a Rega etc. would be beyond me atm. Then I'd have to remember all the blokes I've lent my records to .

viz

I'm slowly replacing all my cds with records. It's getting expensive! Perhaps I should just invest in a really good CD player?

Danny1969

The point is the threads called does vinyl really sound better ..... it's not actually called does vinyl have more resolution than a CD (which it probably does but a shit load of noise as well ) so a lot of the arguments about which is technically better are pointless. 

I record a drummer, a really detailed exact stereo image of his kit, sounds like the kit did in the room when you play it back. Drummers not gonna be impressed but still a lot of compression and EQ on the kick and snare and exaggerate the width and he's generally happier. Music isn't about realism, it's about what sounds good. 

bluechargeboy

monquixote said:

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. 

Interesting that the way to induce the "warm" degraded signal is just to run it through an analogue circuit or bounce it onto actual tape; you would think that modelling technology was sufficiently advanced that you could just press a "make it sound like tape/vinyl" button in Pro-Tools and call it done.

My band buddies are obsessed with the idea of recording on tape and I am convinced that it should not be necessary!

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

The point is the threads called does vinyl really sound better ..... it's not actually called does vinyl have more resolution than a CD (which it probably does but a shit load of noise as well ) so a lot of the arguments about which is technically better are pointless. 

I record a drummer, a really detailed exact stereo image of his kit, sounds like the kit did in the room when you play it back. Drummers not gonna be impressed but still a lot of compression and EQ on the kick and snare and exaggerate the width and he's generally happier. Music isn't about realism, it's about what sounds good. 

Exactly. And vinyl really does sound good, either through a high-end system or conversely (in a totally different way) through a cheap 1960s record player. CD can sound great through a high-end system, although the cheap systems that have been available since CD came out have generally sounded crap rather than 'different but good'.

Low-bitrate mp3 sounds crap through a good system and OK through one that hides the flaws in the encoding. High-bitrate mp3 sounds OK through a good system - I'm willing to accept that most people probably can't tell the difference between it and CD. (Although that's not the same as saying that *no-one* can.)

Given the choice of any system I honestly prefer CD to vinyl through a high-end system, and not just because of the practical problems with vinyl. But I also enjoy listening to vinyl through a pair of 60s record players linked in stereo round at my mate's house. It sounds 'worse', but in a really cool way, and you do really hear different nuances in the same music.

Not an exact comparison but -

Vinyl is like a valve guitar amp.

CD is like a solid-state (analogue) guitar amp.

mp3 is like a digital modelling guitar amp.

Not only do people generally think valve amps sound better even though they're technically worse, they are more *forgiving* in the same way that vinyl seems to be. It's absolutely true that you can get great tones through either solid-state analogue or modelling amps… but it usually takes a great deal of tweaking, and often if you then change guitar or playing style it sounds bad and you have to start the whole process again. But mostly, if you plug a guitar into a valve amp and play anything, it sounds at least OK.

bluechargeboy said:

Interesting that the way to induce the "warm" degraded signal is just to run it through an analogue circuit or bounce it onto actual tape; you would think that modelling technology was sufficiently advanced that you could just press a "make it sound like tape/vinyl" button in Pro-Tools and call it done.

You would think that modelling amps were good enough by now that they could sound exactly like valve amps too.

I think the problem is that analogue distortion - which is what makes vinyl sound good, *not* accurate reproduction - is incredibly complex at the finest level and probably semi-chaotic, so may be beyond the power of modelling to reproduce.

bluechargeboy

ICBM said:

You would think that modelling amps were good enough by now that they could sound exactly like valve amps too.

I think the problem is that analogue distortion - which is what makes vinyl sound good, *not* accurate reproduction - is incredibly complex at the finest level and probably semi-chaotic, so may be beyond the power of modelling to reproduce.

Well OK, but many would make the argument that we are more or less there with high-end digital modelling. I suppose it is a question of where you are willing to draw the line and call it close enough. I mostly listen to MP3s so I guess I am easily pleased.

sweepy

If you have particularly revealing speakers such as studio nearfields, many lower bitrate Mp3's are actually unlistenable, just my ten pence worth and still having pretty good hearing after all these years

Phil_aka_Pip

chillidoggy said:

I think the argument is a purely subjective one.

For me, having heard LP's played via a high-end turntable, I can say that it opened up my eyes (and ears). But ICBM's point about needing a decent system otherwise it's a waste of time is one I'd agree with.

Quite. Which is why I referred to "certain values of 'better'".

Drew_TNBD

These people who go "it's just an opinion..."

What if your opinion is an ILL INFORMED opinion? What then? HUH? HUH?!?!

JayGee

Just to muddy the waters a little there's also the question of whether, if you're comparing vinyl and CD versions of the same album you're actually comparing the same thing....

In the early days of CD there were some truly horrible transfers of analog material to CD, sometimes it was like they'd been remastered by someone who just didn't care and you'd end up with something which sounded like something in the chain was clipping, sometimes it was like they'd sought to remaster something to sound more "modern" with insensitive use of EQ to put a sheen on the treble and a bit of extra thump into the bass, and extra compression to make it sound "louder".

These days we're getting premium vinyl issues of "native" digital material which I suspect are again being remastered or even remixed only this time with "radio friendly" or "iPod friendly" versions being replaced with something a little more dynamic (within the constraints of what vinyl can do) and a little more "musical". 

Either way, if you choose the vinyl version you could end up listening to a technically less accurate reproduction of "better" source material and, with the right kit, have a net gain...

bluechargeboy

sweepy said:

If you have particularly revealing speakers such as studio nearfields, many lower bitrate Mp3's are actually unlistenable, just my ten pence worth and still having pretty good hearing after all these years

Well I've got a Sony iPod dock thing in my kitchen and it sounds fine to me! My ears are within spec for my age too! It's good to be like this, it is cheaper.

Having said that, I imagine if I was to listen to a high-end system I would disturb my world-view and then be forced to re-encode everything to FLAC, buy vinyl and OFC directional cables etc. This is also why I never play guitars outside my price range.

sweepy

It would indeed  my APS Aeon's really do show up Mp3's as sounding harsh and grainy compared to lossless formats, one reason i re-ripped my CD's to lossless then wondered why I needed a bigger hard drive . In a noisy environment, car house or out and about, Mp3's are fine, but when you listen in a reasonably soundproof and neutral room, Mp's poke you in the eye a bit

Danny1969

bluechargeboy said:

monquixote said:

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. 

Interesting that the way to induce the "warm" degraded signal is just to run it through an analogue circuit or bounce it onto actual tape; you would think that modelling technology was sufficiently advanced that you could just press a "make it sound like tape/vinyl" button in Pro-Tools and call it done.

My band buddies are obsessed with the idea of recording on tape and I am convinced that it should not be necessary!

There is a Protools plugin called Phoenix which pretty much does that, Recording to tape probably isn't necessary but it does change the manner in which you record. You don't have the editing options available with tape that you do with digital. 

bluechargeboy

Danny1969 said:

There is a Protools plugin called Phoenix which pretty much does that, Recording to tape probably isn't necessary but it does change the manner in which you record. You don't have the editing options available with tape that you do with digital. 

Cheers.

ExactIy; I am OK with recording digitally and running through tape at the end, but recording on tape just seems like cargo cult stuff to me. Bloody expensive in consumables too!

ICBM

Danny1969 said:

There is a Protools plugin called Phoenix which pretty much does that, Recording to tape probably isn't necessary but it does change the manner in which you record. You don't have the editing options available with tape that you do with digital. 

You can deliberately deny yourself those options with digital though. Just because you *can* micro-edit stuff, you don't have to - if you want you can use it exactly like tape... I often do. Not because I'm a purist but because I'm lazy .

Cirrus

holnrew;421870" said:

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

Wax cylinders are way too harsh, I prefer the original wire recorder.

ICBM;422015" said:

Danny1969 said:You would think that modelling amps were good enough by now that they could sound exactly like valve amps too.

I think the problem is that analogue distortion - which is what makes vinyl sound good, *not* accurate reproduction - is incredibly complex at the finest level and probably semi-chaotic, so may be beyond the power of modelling to reproduce.

This is it. In modern DSP you can have 64 bit mix engines and basically whatever sample rate you want, and at that point there are basically no sonic limitations at all even if you've got bat's ears. The limitation is the programmer's understanding of exactly what it is that the equipment being modelled - be it tape, some analogue compressor, a valve amp, a vinyl pressing - is doing to the sound. 

In my opinion most of the difference between formats is in the decisions you make with them. The brain perceives sound very differently in different contexts. As a music maker, you may well play differently when running through a chain of analogue gear vs going straight into a computer. As a recording engineer you'll make different decisions. As a mixer you'll perceive the music differently if it's on a tape machine than you would if it's on a computer and you're being bombarded by visual stimulus - and that will affect the decisions you make. As a mastering engineer your process will be totally format dependent - you're likely to be much more conservative in stereo width and spectral content mastering to vinyl. Then as a listener again the format informs the experience. When you put on a vinyl you expect it to have some undefinable musical 'thing'. When you put on a cd you expect it to be clear and bright, maybe harsh if you're that way inclined. Cassette is warm and a bit mushy up top. MP3 is either for when you turn off your critical listening and enjoy, or for raping music with nasty algorithms and ruining it - as demonstrated in this thread. 

So any actual technical limitation/ truth about the medium in question is only half the story. The difference is also hugely about the effect of the medium on the process of music record creation, and the psychological effect on the listener as they enjoy that music. Me personally, I think modern digital is amazing and CDs can sound fantastic if they're treated right. If they're brick-walled and high-passed and clipped to get sheer volume the technology is being abused and they're shit. If as in the 80's they're made by running third generation master tape copies through poor converters at a low enough level that they're not even using 16bits, they're cold and harsh sounding. If vinyl is made by a competent cutting engineer and the playback system is high quality it can sound amazing. If the vinyl is mastered badly or it's 40 years old and worn and being played through a shit playback system it's going to be crap. And the same with mp3 - there are algorithms that sound better or worse, different program material is encoded better or worse (enharmonic information- Cymbals etc often get raped a bit). There can often be some indefinable thing about certain recordings on certain media. 

When I'm listening to something, I like to imagine that behind the speakers is a little wormhole to the place and time it was recorded. I rarely get that with CDs - I'm always aware that the sound I'm hearing is coming from the speakers and the speakers are just being driven by the hi fi amp. A few months ago I came across an old all In one vinyl player in a charity shop - like an old table with a single mono speaker on the underside. It happened to have Queens 'Hammer to fall' in it so I sneakily turned it on and dropped the needle. The sound had some amazing quality to it - I felt if I could have crawled through the mesh into the speaker I would have ended up in the studio with Queen, it felt real in a very primal way. This despite the old record, single speaker that probably topped off at 8k, amp that was audibly adding distortion... But it felt real, pleasing, musical. It achieved the illusion that the sound of the record had some kind of weight to it in a way that I'm actually finding hard to describe - the drums, bass, guitar and vocals felt real. 

What is the cause of that feeling? Was I on drugs that day? Is there some aspect to sound we don't understand yet? Do the right limitations in the medium leave gaps in the music that our imagination fills in, and is that more pleasing than a higher fidelity system that joins all the dots for you from 20-20k? I have no clue. But I do get the feeling that the technical limitations of whatever medium you're talking about have almost nothing to do with how well that medium can present you with something that hits you square between the eyes - in much the same way that an impressionist painting can have all the emotional impact of a high quality photo.

imalone

Danny1969;421983" said:

The point is the threads called does vinyl really sound better ..... it's not actually called does vinyl have more resolution than a CD (which it probably does but a shit load of noise as well ) so a lot of the arguments about which is technically better are pointless. 

Yes, you can have that discussion, but when it moves onto "vinyl is better because it records things CD can't" it's verging into voodoo.