My argument for buying digitally sourced vinyl is simple: I suspect that record companies have much better equipment for converting digital to analog than I have in my budget system. My equipment doesn’t have to do any converting. It’s simply amplifying an analog source. And they sound fantastic to my ears, and that’s really all that matters to me.
This may have been true 20-30 years ago, but modern DACs have become incredibly transparent at very low cost. I doubt that the studio DACs are meaningfully better, at least when the resulting music is played back in a budget home system.
As long as the record is mastered well, from the digital source, you are always going to get an inherently better sounding result. Most people just don't understand digital recordings...
I am a vinyl collector, I love the physical media aspect, the sound, and bigger poster like cover I can relate to more than any other media. Helps me deep dive into the artist and album when I’m listening to it.
Totally agree. When a DSD file is pressed onto vinyl it somehow absolutely does sound better then the CD or even SACD version (although SACDs are darn close). Another point is that analog tape has a finite life. Too keep playing it over and over to make new pressings is irresponsible in my opinion. Much better to make a good, well mastered DSD copy and work from that going forward.
Oh, but then all the AAA snobs will simply insist that "there is NO POINT in even pressing it to vinyl if the ANALOG TAPES are not usable anymore", those morons! Seriously....Whatever you do, don't EVER try to change their minds. They'll always insist that only their logic matters, and the rest of us are "stone-ears" who don't matter.
Adding HISS POP CLICKS, music which is OUT OF KEY cause its playing slightly in the WRONG SPEED (wow and flutter), sound better to you than the original digital???
@@donb722 anyone listening to DIGITAL files ENGRAVED into plastic must be bonkers. I was born before anything else existed and listened to more LPs everything than you ever will, an LP\EP without HISS POPS and CRACKLES simply does not exist even when new out of the pressing machine, a RIAA pre-amp with better 80db S/N DOES NOT EXIST, these pre's HISS BEFORE the needle even hits the record surface, (with exception to high output ceramic pickups, but then those are terrible for other reasons). get the original DIGITAL source they cut the record from.
Love your umami analogy! Totally agree. Also the mastering is absolutely crucial. I listen about 60% vinyl, 40% streaming. With digital it’s background or jumping around. However when I play vinyl (analog or digitally sourced) it’s immersive. I need to sit down and savor that umami!
Hi Rick, I don’t think I disagreed with a single comment. At 70+ I have, for the first time in my life, a very good vinyl system and I love it. It has a good CD player and a streamer included, this covers music that I can’t find on vinyl. I have done my own unscientific comparison of a CD digitally recorded and then later reproduced on vinyl. I can hear the difference, I am quite clear in my own mind that the vinyl, whatever the source, is preferable to my ears. I agree that mastering is the key issue. A recent purchase, Streisand’s Live at the Bon Soir is an analogue recording with all the faults of early live recordings of instrument sounds bleeding into the vocal channel. It has been remastered using technology I can’t comprehend, to produce a thoroughly modern copy of her first recording. I don’t know whether it was converted to digital then back to analogue. All I know and hear is a beautiful copy of the earliest Streisand recording. God bless science and technology for making this possible. Best Pat
The best digital recording I've ever heard was made by me. It's because it wasn't mastered for volume wars and I simply was trying to get the most dynamic range as I could out of the digital recording medium. And it's a simple recording where I was hanging out at the music store in the town that I moved to from Seattle in kentucky. Several really good local musicians would meet every Saturday and jammed together. One beautiful day they pulled all the equipment out on the front porch of the store and just jammed on upright bass and mandolin and guitar and banjo in a semicircle. I simply put my zoom H4 in the middle of that group and they played and sang. When I put headphones on and close my eyes I'm literally there. At least, my brain is there. 🤣
The "it" factor that makes vinyl so much more appealing...Your involvement is so much more immersed than any other medium. Yes, this is subjective, but after 30 decades, it is what got me back into vinyl. And what I really miss is the shopping experience that we had back in the 70s and 80s, even into the early 90s...
Yes. It appears that for many of us older people, nostalgia for certain good experiences that we have enjoyed over a long period of time, doesn't just disappear with passing years and trends. Despite what younger people would call, "old people reliving historical activities from a bygone era", we still remember how it felt to play our favourite music on our outmoded vintage or new replacement stereo hifi gear. For me, that includes playing my wonderful CD collection as well as records but subscription music streaming be damned, I'm not falling for that crap. Jerry, you do realize that 30 decades is 300 years. You are not that old.
What backs this up and is also amusing is that the "all-analog" pundits and AAA audiophiles will showcase how great sounding certain albums are--all of which are digitally sourced: The Dire Straits you show, the Analogue Productions' "Wonderful Sounds..." series of LP's they sell, the Nils Lofgren "reference sounding" live album, and on and on. Both camps--the "all analog" and the digital only for digital playback are off. Great video. The analog lathe can take any source to higher ground. The format 'limitations' sometimes makes for a better product---controlling loudness wars, bloated albums etc.. And it all comes down to the mastering (and the recording / mixing quality, and, finally, the artist performance before that).
I really enjoy your *fireside chat* technique! The only real reason to object to a digital step on an LP is provenance. One could find a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Aire that looks beautiful, as if it came from the showroom, and yet pass it up because the fenders have been replaced by ones custom crafted in to look like the originals in 2010. I don't think I would do that though!
New subber! I agree with using DSD for vinyl. As a user of reel to reel tape the more you play a tape it will start to degrade. I just want the best sound possible from recordings I enjoy.
Hi. Being a vinyl fan, I agree entirely with your comments in this video. I also think that people who champion digital music over vinyl miss out on a basic thing. Instruments are played and singers sing in analogue. We listen in analogue. Quite often bad engineering gets in the way. Whether a vinyl LP is mixed digitally it doesn't matter. Both that LP or the digital version has to be converted to analogue before we can hear it. The vinyl version is converted in a studio using very competent high end equipment. Whereas the digital version is converted using consumer DACs. Do you think this may also be why we prefer vinyl
Exactly! You are TOTALLY spot on! But then, try telling that to these blind-a** closed-minded, IDIOTIC, elitist, self-proclaimed "Golden-Eared" AAA SNOBS (most of them a bunch of crusty old f___ks with bad breath and more money than sense) who choose to stay mired in the false belief that ALL digitally sourced vinyl LP's are nothing but "black, flat plastic CD's or USB sticks" and are therefore "the devil". Oh, and likewise according to their logic, any recordings that don't exist on analog or were recorded digitally should NEVER, EVER be pressed on vinyl. Ever". And lastly, anyone who buys digitally sourced new vinyl "has NO BUSINESS even getting into this hobby or being anywhere within breathing distance of a turntable". And not even the most well-researched FACTS to the contrary (such as what you stated above) will EVER be enough to convince them they're the ones in the wrong. What really gets me is many of them are actually old enough to remember when commercially available vinyl from digitally mixed/recorded/mastered sources first became commonplace towards the end of the 70's and carried through to the entire decade of the 80's (can we say "Bop til you drop" by Ry Cooder", anyone). And record labels both big and small were even hyping the crap of digital vinyl as being superior to their all-analog counterparts (even so much as trotting out their own "Digital" subsidiary labels). But in their quest to always be right, they've apparently erased that era from their memories.
@waynes4491. Consumer DACs are audibly transparent even at the most entry level. They have distortion that is so minuscule it is now bordering on the limits of measurement. Human ears cannot detect any flaws with consumer grade DACs, they are better than our sense of hearing. There is definitely way more measurable and audible distortion or coloration running a stylus through the groove of a digitally sourced LP vs the pure transparency of any DAC today. The thing about human hearing is it can actually prefer those colourations and deviations from perfect that vinyl playback gives. My personal experience is that the better vinyl playback gets the closer it gets to digital accuracy anyway and A/B comparisons become very close. I hope that all comes across ok, I’m not trying to be offensive quite the opposite.
@@michaelb9664 Hi Michael. Good comment very well presented. I enjoy these debates, and I suppose that's why we all watch videos like this. I am far from an expert. Just a hobbyist who is wrapped up with his vinyl system. I suppose I am biased because I got rid of all my CDs years ago. If I am entertaining and have friends around then I will stream music. Who wants to keep on getting up to change a record whilst half drunk and risk damaging that new cartridge!!! When on my own and I want that immersive music experience then it has to be vinyl. But that's me and we are all different. Thanks for the reply
@@waynes4491 I understand exactly what you mean. As much as I am objective I still enjoy spinning records too. There is definitely something about the ritual and experience. Keep on enjoying your music 👍
Even the multitrack tapes of Brother in Arms were digital. The whole album was. There are no analog versions of that album (They could have simultaneously recorded an analog safety, but I doubt it would still exist). There’s quite a few records from the 80’s that were quietly recorded to a PCM machine then released on vinyl
Hey there I’m new to vinyl. I just inherited my parent 200 plus vinyl records from 70’s to the 80’s. I’m no audiophile but I have done many digital recordings on a DAW. I have a really nice Neuman 2.1 monitor setup for my bedroom studio that is acoustically treated so I know a little bit about audio and sound. What I’ve noticed is that on my OG recordings are that they are very dynamic. I love digital but I feel that mastering engineers today are compressing more and putting there stamp on todays sound. I picked a AAA remaster of Stevie Ray Vaughn and is sounds amazing.
Sounds like you have a great start! Having a background in audio is also a plus. Glad to have someone like yourself also comment on the sound quality of those older recordings. It's what keeps me on the vinyl path (and has for decades). Cheers, Ben! 🍺
Agree 100% with this. I think where a lot of people get side tracked is thinking they are just taking the CD form of a record and cutting it to vinyl. Raw digital masters for the past 20+ years are insanely smooth wavelength due to their 24 bit+ 96khz+ mastering technique. Not to mention the fact that people tend to think a CD at 14100 samples per second can't be as "warm" as analog vinyl. The inherent qualities of vinyl come from other things, mostly the setup and equipment choices. I see nothing wrong with digital as a source, we've been recording to ultra high res digital for a long time and it would probably shock people how many of their favorite albums are from a digital source. Subscribed.
Additionally to the mastering, the equipment plays a big role. If you already have a great turntable, cartridge and preamp it could make a difference if your CD or SACD player / DAC is not up to the challenge.
As long as the record sounds good, I don’t necessarily really care about what the source is. As you described, there’s just a certain almost indescribable sound quality that vinyl has and which I prefer. And, no…it’s not distortion, but there’s almost a certain timbre and tonality that it has. I’ve got zero problem with digital playback via a CD or streaming, and I listen to both. But…, when I really want to relax with my preferred medium, I’ll put on a record. That said, a bad mastering job can mess up any recorded format.
Imo vinyl sounds more enthusiastic, it has more drive and you feel more part of the sound than it sat in front of you, it seems to be able to churn out detail at ridiculous speed so the PRaT always excels compared to digital, inner dynamics and harmonics are more prominent, just my take on it, do you guys hear the same??
@@russellparker4568 Hey there, Russell 👋 Right there with you, brother. Good description of something that’s often difficult to describe. 👍 I’ve numerous friends that have wondered why I’ve got thousands of records in numerous rooms, and why I don’t just plug my phone or iPad into my system. It’s fun to sit em in the sweet spot, pour them a drink or twist up something to smoke, and humor them by playing music using their phone, then play the same music on an LP. Then, they get it…lol. Plus, they’re not jumping from song to song, and instead relaxing and listening to a full album. Btw, I checked out your channel, and subbed to you. Sweet system!
@@NickP333 Hi Nick! Haha! I love it! Thats an impressive amount of records, wow 👌🏻 The original reason I moved to vinyl was to get away from track skipping, it was driving me crazy, I’d hardly ever listened to a full track never mind a whole album. Then the turntable journey progressed to the modest setup I have now which revealed a whole different world to vinyl playback, now I can’t get enough of the journey of an album from start to finish, discovering new (well mostly old) artists, I just love it. I even love the process, getting that new record clean, setting everything up and sitting back in amazement, proud to have put this hifi together, carefully chosen parts that result in this sound that’s magically coming off a plastic disk, the sense of accomplishment feels very rewarding. And then theres the hunt for vinyl, going into town to the record shops, finding that rare vinyl online and looking forward to it arriving, digital can’t compete with the vinyl experience, it’s lazy 😂 you won’t hear that very often! But no, our lives are full of so many things that are convenient and easy, it feels good to have an interest thats the complete opposite, it keeps the mind healthy imo.
@@NickP333 Oh and thanks for the sub, tbh my channel is just me messing around, theres no intention for it to be successful in any way, I mostly share the videos with my hifi buddies who live around the country.
Hey Rick, great episode. You make several really good points. The Brothers in Arms Album is a fantastic album, and a great example of how digital and analog recording methods can come together to produce wonderful music. I have that album on vinyl, CD and I stream it on Tidal. So, I listen to it several ways and they all sound terrific. The vinyl version is different from the other two. I wouldn't say any of the formats are better than the other, they just sound different. Sometimes I prefer to put on the record and listen to it that way because I am in the mood to play records. Other times I prefer the convenience of streaming so I don't have to get up. Sometimes I get out a stack of CD's and play through them because I have a good sized collection. I would guess that most vinyl records today are pressed from a digital recording. If it sounds good, who cares? To me, the engineer who does the mastering, and the mastering process itself is more important than anything else in getting the best sound regardless of what format it is. Sometimes people get too wrapped up in the technical aspects of things that they forget to just listen the music and enjoy it.
I raise my glass to that, Neil. I would be really curious to hear what makes the vinyl version different than the other two in your experience. It's another research topic of mine. I don't mean better, but what makes it different. If you ever get the chance - would love to hear your thoughts on it.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Okay Rick, here goes. Sometimes it's hard to describe what is different in terms that everyone can understand. What I hear from the vinyl record that stands out to me is that it is more organic and natural sounding than the digital playback sources are. Now, with that being said, the difference isn't night and day. It is very subtle, but it is there. I have played the record, then the streaming or cd version to other people and the only difference they hear is the lack of any surface noise on the digital formats. So, someone who is not a critical listener like me or you won't necessarily pick up on these small differences. If I am listening to music on cd or streaming all day, my ears get used to the characteristics of the format and I don't necessarily notice it. But, if switch to playing vinyl, my ears definitely pick up on it. If I could ever totally eliminate all of the surface noise on a vinyl record, and the required differences in handling the records, I would probably exclusively listen to vinyl. But, since the digital sources are way more convenient and less fussy I like those attributes and the sonic differences are very small. This why I embrace all these formats and don't get locked into only one of them. It's kind of like craft beer, which I also enjoy. I have a favorite style, but I also like other styles as well and enjoy all of them for different reasons. That could also be applied to bourbon or wine. I don't know if that analogy helps or not, but what the hell, I'm throwing it out there.
@@neilfisher7999 This is great Neil. Thanks. I will want your opinion I'm posting on the site. It's going to probably be tomorrow instead of today (but might be today). I'll put a link to it in the community channel when I do.
Generally I agree to what you are saying. But I have some vinyl produced by a new start up company in a fully analog process and I repeat that... Full analog process all the way from recording to cutting to pressing... And the sound is deeper and warmer that vinyl produced with a digital step along the way. Keep the vinyl alive!!!
Are you from Medford? Great vid, keep em coming. Isn't that Dire Straits album digitally recorded in the first place? 1985 was probably around the time digital methods were heating up. Certainly not like the late 90s however. I don't know much but my fairly inexpensive 60s jazz albums sound 'special' compared to the recent reissues, even the ones that are all analog.
The Dire Straits album was pressed from a digital source - you are correct. Are you asking because of the accent? 😂. Originally from a town called Hanson - about 40 minutes south of Boston
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords oh yeah I know Hanson. From central mass here, Boston suburbs now. You have a slight accent, nothing egregious like Revere. You must love that SNL skit, as I do, where they rifle through all the Mass town names like its the movie The Town. Little wiki research says the Dire Straits album was recorded digitally in 1985. I've wondered, if its originally a digital album is there any downside to digital represses? I'm usually on the fence about buying an album that was made in 2000 or later, I could take it or leave it, can it be improved at all or should I just stream (prefer not to stream)? Be interesting to see how an album like Kid A or Hot Fuss will be improved. I'm just randomly selecting big albums from the 2000s. Thx for the vid
In case your interested do a test on what the actual measured dynamic range is of a compressed cd. Also what about an actual recording? can a microphone and analog inputs to any system actually have a dynamic range of 100dB?
3:54 that's not what mastering engineer does, mastering engineers master the whole track to whatever the format it goes to say like streaming service or CD. Mixing engineers are the ones who does fixes bad recordings and balancing the overall dynamic and color of a track... mastering is just the final gluing session, they may adjust the EQ and add compression and limiter but that's because of the audio format that they are targeting.
The Alan Parsons Project was using at least one digital step from 1982's Eye in the Sky album on. Anyone who claims the Eye in the Sky or Vulture Culture LPs "sound bad" because of that can be safely ignored for any of these conversations because they obviously don't know what they are talking about or how to listen.
I have a bunch of late 70’s and early 80’s vinyl that are digital. As it says on my George Benson album,it’s digitally mastered. I really don’t care. Music after 84, I buy the CD because the technology matured. Hey, “perfect sound forever”, right? As you said, listening is subjective.
Very thought-provoking question/topic. I listen to vinyl for nostalgic reasons. So as a non-audiophile, it wouldn't bother me at all. Excellent and enjoyable video. Thank you.
I believe the first digitally mastered vinyl record was bop till you drop by ry cooder. I could be wrong. I sold HiFi at the time and we had a small record selection for sale and I remember that record being on the shelf. The idea was that everything was "perfect" before it got the vinyl. And I thought that record sounded pretty good it convinced me that it didn't really need to have all that digital in front of the vinyl because it didn't really sound any better than anything else. Then again, I own several Sheffield directed disc albums that I bought at that time and they sound absolutely amazing. Like the band is in the room. Pressure cooker or blow your mind what's 600 watts per channel behind in a couple of ESS AMT 1B monitors. Bi-amped. For me, it's all about transients. Especially in horns and drums.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I realized a few months ago that I've become that "reminiscing old man". I found out I have tons and tons of stories from the "old days" that a few find simply fascinating, but bore most people to tears. 🤣
You are almost correct; It was the first digitally mixed mastered and recorded Pop/Rock album to be released by a major label. But the first digitally recorded album to be commercially released was "Something" by Jazz artist Steve Marcus, in January of 1971 on Japan's Nippon-Columbia label; An early prototype of Sony's digital tape machine was reportedly used in its making. Another fact to stick in the craws of these know-nothing NAZISTIC AAA elitists who think they know better! LOL!
@@Rockstaralan dang! I was wrong once in 4th grade and swore it would never happen again. And yet here I am and it feels as terrible as it did on that day. 😡🤣
I agree with you that there is something intangible about the enjoyment that comes with listening to vinyl. Perhaps because of our age we have a bit of nostalgia about vinyl, and although I own more CDs than vinyl, I get more pleasure from listing to vinyl. The whole process of preparing and playing an album brings more of a physical connection to the music . I think perhaps because it is more flawed, we as flawed beings maybe connect with it in a different way than we do a purely digital sound. I enjoy both, but vinyl definitely brings more joy to the experience for me.
Neumann introduced digital delay into their disc cutting lathes in the 1970s ...so chances are that most vinyl has been digitaly processed..... Vinyl is purely lossy mechanical
Hey, Happy Easter. I think I'm right on this but maybe not, but here goes; the masters for making an SACD and an LP are different. In the case of MOFI, they're making an oversampled DSD copy of the original, sometimes brittle analog tape. Even an SACD will have to have some sort of, I believe Mofi uses the term decimation (truncation of the data) of the digital mastertape to fit the SACD format but in manufacturing the vinyl, the entire data from the digital master can be converted to analog and sent to the cutter head, albeit, assume some dynamic and bass reduction, the highest frequencies naturally rolling off. The bass in cutting LPs by the way is moving more to stereo than mono. An interesting article in RPM's vinyl blog, " 50 Years of Record Cutting and Stereo Bass for Vinyl" by Richard Simpson is a good read and you'll love this he uses Dire Straits as an example of what he means; "In most situations, recording bass in mono works better. Many believe our ears are not good at obtaining directional information from low frequencies. Thus, the stereo image for any low register instruments is trivial. Yet, that’s not always the case and many believe that stereo low-end adds to the sound experience. I agree with that statement. For example, listen to the band Dire Straits or records produced by Mark Knopfler. The low-end surrounds you with a very full sound. That spaciousness of sound is the stereo low-end."
Great analogy, master sound engineer likened unto an alchemist, totally agree. Michael B. Tretow was a great sound engineer alchemist. I recently listened to my original pressing of Carol Kings LP in flawless condition and sounded great, reminded what a truly stellar album ! Also listened to all of the new Judas Priest LP and Wow ! impressive, one of their best I say from the front runners of heavy metal. Cheers Rick !
Regardless of the source analog tape or digital medium, the way the sound is propagated on the vinyl brings more separation and precision in the positioning of the stage. It is the main reason why it attracts more + people.
Interesting. When I bought my 1st new CD player, a hifi dealer said to bring in my own headphones and a cd I knew well to listen to directly..... I did and was immediately surprised to find big differences between the players I was looking at! I remember thinking that the Yamaha was smoother, the Denon was bright, and the Pioneer was somewhat in the middle. I have the Pioneer beside me. Then the amp and speakers made a difference. So with all things being equal..... same recording process, same amp, same speakers. Do those things level out the CD and vinyl mediums? And if you were doing an A-B comparison, do you hear a difference, and if so could you change the physical components to subjectively make them sound the same?? Cheers 😁🖖
That brings up so many other variables - glad you brought that up. It was called out by another commenter as well - even room dynamics can completely change the sounds. Take the exact same components and place them in a different room and the sound may be horrible - or could even be better.
I’m in the line “don’t care” I have other issues that I don’t get about records. I’m just taken back that mostly wonderful stuff gets extracted from that flat thingy that goes round and round. Happy Listening!
Hey Rick I'm finding that the higher up the audio chain one can afford to go (that is, utilizing quality audio components) can really make a difference between mediocre sound and the sound that we all aspire to with our stereo systems. The good thing is that even moderately priced equipment these days (cabling and interconnects included) designed properly can produce exceptionally good sound close to the source, be it digital or analog.
I'm glad you mentioned that, Louis. I'm planning to produce more videos to talk about affordable high-value equipment for vinyl playback (amps, turntables, etc). There are some great turntables for a decent price that are customizable (meaning with the ability to swap carts, etc).
I'll be watching Rick that should be of great interest for anyone trying to put together a reasonsbly priced system that will remain faithful to the source material, be it digital or analog. @TheJoyofVinylRecords
I wouldn't think so - at least not with the VTF set correctly and proper tonearm compliance (among all the other things). But who knows - there's always going to be some distortion even in the best of setups - it may have something to do with it.
Some say the problem with digital is the stair step of collecting information at precise points in time. Claim is it can make the music less "warm". I doubt the phono needle acts in that stair step way. In otherwords, I suspect the process of moving digital to vinyl smooths out the stairs and brings it back to a ramp. Thoughts?
I really like that analogy. I think it fits in well with the "umami" I mentioned. There's something about the "digital-to-vinyl" transfer that is pleasing to the ears (when done well).
Anyone trying to completely avoid digitally sourced music today would have to limit themselves to music recorded no later than the early to mid 70s and only listen to original releases . It makes no sense to be anti digital, it’s a wonderful technology that eradicates many limitations of analogue recording and mastering. Where people make the mistake is blaming digital for brick wall mastering. It’s not because it’s digital that it sounds bad it’s because it’s poorly mastered and sadly the technical benefits of digital makes brick walling possible and easy. Basically digital technology is abused by record companies. The audiophile is in a very small minority. Coming from an engineering background I fully believe in objective scientific technical data. However for some unexplainable reason I still enjoy playing vinyl records. I enjoy CDs and digital also, but I wouldn’t want to give up my turntable. To me a stereo component system is incomplete without a turntable, a CD player and a Network player. All have their benefits, but there is definitely a certain something about dropping the needle so to speak. Great video!
Thanks Michael - I appreciate that! And yes - I'm glad you brought that up - the brick wall mastering. It has led many to believe that's inherent in digital engineering - which of course it isn't.
Everything you said is the way I see it. I got into vinyl just months before the MoFi controversy fired up. I think this timing was good for me, as I could see both sides in a unique way, more or less. Also, I regularly buy FLAC and DSD; I find that the very same titles in digital do not have the same feel (or Unami) as the vinyl counterparts. It's a real thing, yet it is indescribable.
I understood it as sound being a wave and a “digital wave” contains less sound than an analog so, it would contain less information. Because of this an analog record will have more complete sound than a digitally recorded track pressed onto vinyl. Is this incorrect?
Great question! Analog is a continuous, flowing wave of sound. Digital audio breaks the wave into a series of samples. Think of it like taking a series of snapshots of the sound wave rather than a continuous video. The sampling rate-how many snapshots per second-determines how much detail you capture. CD-quality audio, for example, uses 44,100 snapshots per second (44.1 kHz). That’s a lot of detail, but it’s still not technically “continuous.” If the source recording was digital, the music was already sampled. Pressing it onto vinyl doesn’t add back the 'missing' information.
I think honesty has to be the best policy. I'm not very technically minded but some years back i purchased Free's Fire and Water album which was pressed at Abbey Road Studio. All their releases contain information on the processes utilised to create the vinyl version but, at the time, i chose not to read it. However after playing the album it sounded too clinical and with little reverb. I therefore read the notation and, to be honest, i was none the wiser. I investigated further and those with greater knowledge confirmed that a digital process was included. The difference in price between vinyl and c.d versions is quite pronounced here in the U.K and, as such, if the vinyl product is digitised then i will turn to the c.d option unless the packaging is such that the vinyl edition becomes more appealing. At the end of the day it is all about your audio system in conjunction with your ears and i totally concur with your final analysis.
Thank you, Barrie. It's partly why I usually search out the OG pressing (or close to it). Fire and Water is a great example. My OG version is wonderful.
Something I haven't really heard mentioned here that comes into play, sometimes in a positive way, and sometimes negative, is the limitation of the vinyl medium. As an example, I have recently started a project where I found lost digital hi-res masters of a CD I did years ago. Total length of the CD was about 1hr, 20 mins. Vinyl, if you want to. optimize for dynamics, really can only handle about 20 mins or so per side, and since budget constrained me to keep to a single disc, I had to make some tough decisions about what songs to cut and which to keep. The end result? The vinyl version of that album is much stronger than the CD version because I was forced to separate the wheat from the chaff! This is an issue I have with recording artists and mixing engineers today in the digital realm. Yes, digital can sound incredible, yes if you have tons of hard drive space and processing power you can create 367 stems per song, yes the dynamic range is larger than vinyl. However, removing all constraints for the artist and the mixing engineer (digital mastering engineers as well) means nobody has to make any decisions! If you're not forced to make decisions you're not forced to be creative, meaning your filter for what is good gets skewed. I realize this means more latitude and freedom for creativity as well, but I contend that the earlier in the process you are forced to "print" or "commit" something to not be changed, the more it forces the creativity to happen. I will cite a certain superstars' latest album that has 31 songs on it. IMHO. it's not their best work. Why not 10 amazing songs instead of 31 ok songs? Probably because they could. All this said, sometimes the more constraining environments yields the best art. I don't' really care what domain the master comes from, if the vinyl sounds good to me, then the vinyl sounds good to me! Feel free to disagree, just my opinion. Love your channel, please keep it up!
This is an amazing bit of insight I hadn't considered, Mark. You're really onto something there (and of course you're speaking from experience which adds more weight). Adversity or having to deal with a constraint often does lead to innovation and a better product (or piece of art). I'm really glad you brought it up this way.
I love Hans Zimmerman. Live at prague which I have in vinyl and blue ray. i also have blue ray his World of hans zimmer live at Vienna. The blue ray through Onkyo and Emotiva in 5.1.2 never ceases to amaze. I have analog vinyl (many) and love that also on 2 channel. i stream concerts and love that.. At 76 I am fortunate to be able to heart and enjoy.
I have the recently released "Brothers In Arms" on vinyl. I don't know that I needed it, but it's just something I really wanted on vinyl, even if it's a digital recording. My only gripe is having to turn the record over every 10 minutes...
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I hear you! :) To me it just breaks up the experience of getting into the music. I can't get in the groove as well having to flip the record so often. Anyway, I'm sure I need the exercise.
If you have the privilege to go to the studio to listen to the final result, what source would you be listening to? And would you ask them to pull out a record as it's your preference. If you like what was called coloration then buy the vinyl version. Perhaps you should explore what the cartridge is doing to change the sound from what one would have heard from the mixing desk to what one would hear from the turntable. I once owned a Linn LP12, but now prefer the digital experience. It's amazing that we have all generally accepted digital photography, although there are exceptions, without so much fuss. Cheers.
A few items to touch on and unravel: 1) What Mobile Fidelity did was use a DSD master to create the vinyl stamper plate. They did that for the following reasons: 1a) They do not have to replay the master tape, over and over, to create new stampers for vinyl pressings (each stamper wears out, degrading sound quality, after a few thousand slams on the pressing machine). Each time they play the reel-to-reel tape, it degrades. When they need a new master stamper, they just play their DSD master. They can do that infinitely. 1b) Mobile Fidelity's digital DSD master is not what you will hear at home with your DAC. More on that below. 2) Converting the reel-to-reel master to a digital format will have varying sound quality results, depending on the equipment used, and the format used. According to Paul McGowan of PS Audio, going straight to PCM (which is the format of CDs, flac files, wav files, and just about every other file type other than DSD), will result in a degradation of the sound quality. Done right, that degradation will be minimal. But on a quality stereo system, you can hear the difference. So converting from reel-to-reel to PCM is not the best choice. Converting reel-to-reel to DSD will be indistinguishable at the right bit rates (I forget which rate Paul said was ideal). Also, the right hardware and software is required. He has videos where he provided the particulars. Paul went on to say that once you have a proper DSD file, you can convert that DSD file to a high-res PCM file, and that PCM file will be almost indistinguishable from the DSD file. And PCM is necessary if you want to edit the character of the file. With DSD, you can only cut and join parts. You cannot augment the DSD file with audio editing software. 3) Folks have brought up "What is the point of using that DSD file for a vinyl record, when you can just play that digital file directly?" Well, then it comes down to which is better. Your home's transport and DAC? Or your home's turntable, cartridge, tone-arm, and phono amp? You can't expect a Walmart CD player to play that DSD sourced song and have it sound as good as playing it on a vinyl pressing on our host's turntable. Also, even if you have a DSD player, and a really good one, you are at the mercy of a not-so-great, proprietary Sony decryption chip in your DSD player. When you hold in your hand a DSD disk, the DSD file that is on that disk contains the same DSD file that the studio has. But Sony does not want the public to have that DSD file. So what Sony did was encrypt that DSD file before putting it on your DSD disk. Now, in order to play your DSD disk, you are running that encrypted data through the not-so-great, built-in, Sony decryption chip. That decryption chip degrades the sound quality. That is why the vinyl will sound better, with the right equipment and the right pressings (some pressings just get fouled up and do not sound very good). The studio has the non encrypted DSD file. They can play it and hear it in all its glory. They use that non encrypted DSD file to create the vinyl's stamper. So that vinyl's stamper benefits from not being subjected to Sony's not-so-great decryption chip. -- In summary: Vinyl derived from a properly made DSD master has the potential to sound the best, due to the forced use of Sony's not-so-great decryption chip built in to every DSD player. A properly made DSD file sounds indistinguishable from the reel-to-reel master. So it makes sense to use a DSD master for creating vinyl master stamping plates. People who are poking fun at those who say that the vinyl sounds better than the digital version, even though both were derived from the same DSD master, are making fools of themselves, because the vinyl can and often does sound better. The process for creating the record's grooves is superior to the process of funneling the digital bits through Sony's decryption chip.
Digital source is converted to analogue to be recorded on vynil. If done wright - what is the problem? Brothers in Arms is the first album that was recorded on the Sony's first digital platform back in the day so it's kind of history piece. I have a '85 pressing from UK and it sounds great too.
What are your thoughts on Quadraphonic records? Made in the early 70's. I have a 2000 record collection. Started in the 60's. I think vinyl has the best bass sound quality. And I discovered cleaning that small square felt piece improved the sound quality of cassette tapes.
I like vinyl versions sometimes...sometimes I like the digital version. Sometimes not enough care was taken at the vinyl pressing factory resulting in noisy vinyl. When you get a quiet record that has been mastered well it is sublime.
I think people often get mixed up between a digital master and the forms of digital encoding we have presented to us on streaming platforms. You can have an absolutely immaculate digital master it doesn't mean that will transfer perfectly to a streaming service but certainly will transfer in a more pure form to vinyl
“Cupid and Psyche 85” sounds superb on vinyl to me. But apparently it was Ry Cooder, as early as 1979, who produced the first commercially available digital recording. But that early stuff was AAD recordings - it was mixed and mastered to an analogue source before release. Later DDD recordings would have been different though - in preparing for vinyl, wouldn’t the digital source need to be converted to analogue before the record is cut? If I understand it right, unless you master with some finesse, wouldn’t you end up with digital artefacts on the record? Also, however you present it, 80s digital reverb (eg the drum breaks in “In the Air Tonight”) still sound horrible.
That reverb from the 80s... you can tell immediately when you hear the drums can't you? I believe you are right about the conversion to analog during mastering.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Like Fairlight sequencing and That Orchestral Stab (eg Scritti Politti or Art of Noise), 80s producers just couldn’t stop playing with their new toys! In 40 years, musicologists will look back at the 2020s (if they can bear to) and chuckle at the oppressive kick drum, ubiquitous auto-tune and insidious looping 😆
The compression and eq the mastering engineers use is different for vinyl vs cd. The reason we prefer vinyl is vinyl cant be compressed as much and sounds more dynamic because it has to due to its limitations. Wider dynamic range. Slightly rolled of eq at extreme top and bottom. Harmonic distortion is the umami. It is actually adding frequencies that weren't there before If engineer soft clips the dac. 2 digital files. One made for cd, one for vinyl.
I agree with everything you said. Yes, I have some digital step Mofi records, and they sound fantastic, also love the Analog Productions records. The person doing the mastering makes all of the difference.
There are still people among us who do not know this. If you are looking for quality, you should not buy vinyl. Instead, you should buy a quality DAC and Qobuz or CD. If you say, "I love vinyl and analog playback, quality is secondary," choose vinyl. original source: 15€/month qobuz 10€ cd vinyl version (lower quality, worse if the vinyl cut is bad): minimum 20€.
Great topic. I was wondering about The Beatles vinyl stereo box set that came out in 2012(?) The Beatle community seemed freaked out about it being from a digital source. I don't own any of those vinyls. I mean, how bad could they be?
Great summary. It’s the audio engineer that makes the biggest difference. I prefer analog when available but have many records that are digitally sourced but when possible look for digital pressing with an audio engineer. It’s all subjective though. We know what we like and seek it out. If a record doesn’t sound good I don’t keep it. I want to find that experience where the band sounds like they are in my listening room.
It's never been an issue with me as far as the source goes, as long as the final product when pressed to vinyl sounds good. I've always felt that if the digital source is a good high resolution file, and you have someone who is really good at mastering handling it, you can get an amazing final product. The Dire Straits album is such a perfect example.
I could be wrong, but I think most NEW vinyl coming out now are digitally sourced. Unless you are recording onto analogue tape (not done much these days) your source is recorded onto a hard drive and mixed and Mastered in Pro Tools or some other DAW and saved as a Wave file that ia then used to ct the vinyl. I would even go so far as to say old analogues tapes are remastered into digital files and those are used for vinyl creation. So.... I don't know. If it sounds good, what does it matter? And as I've said before, vinyl listening experience is more than just the sound coming out, it's the tactile touching and placing, reading the album cover and linter notes. etc. My 2 cents.
And your 2 cents are worth a dollar. I agree - many analog masters are preserved as a high resolution digital file. It's much cheaper to reproduce (and also easier to drop on a file share than ship across the country in tape form).
The only thing wrong is when people say they like vinyl records because they love analogue sound, when in fact, the vinyl they listen to has been recorded or converted to digital at some point in the production process of those records. The final format is one thing but the production process can be a varied mixture of digital and analogue. Totally analogue is a rare process nowadays and those records are usually very expensive, unless they are original old second-hand records from before the digital music recording era.
My band, RIFLE, records digitally... getting our first vinyl sourced from digital soon, hopefully next week... I expect it to sound better than the CD. I will let you know.
I don't buy records from this century as I would just buy the CD - assuming the same material was transferred to either vinyl or a digital media - what would be the point of the album? For me vinyl is a time capsule from an are when CDs were not available or perfected.
For me vinyl puts just the right amount of distortion that smooths out the sound and makes a more pleasant listening experience. All digital might be clearer but it is also more piercing that ends up fatiguing my ears.For the longest time I hated jazz because it was just too screechy and hurt my ears. In the last five years I started listening to it on vinyl and couldn't believe how well rounded it was. I began to hear the other instruments better because the horns and the discomfort from them on cd was taken away on vinyl.
Remember, the Dire Straits album you’re holding in the thumbnail was one of the first and earliest Digitally recorded albums released on a major label. It said so on the covers - especially the original issue CD. And guess what? It’s still a great sounding album to this day.
Hey Rick - I was noticing those concert photos on the wall behind you. Did you take those or were you too young for that? I'm asking because I used to be a concert photographer through the 1970's.... As for vinyl v digital, I think vinyl can sound better, but sometimes digital sounds better; to me, size matters - I like the 12" size for looking at the art, reading the notes, etc. If vinyl was CD-sized and digital came in the size of 12" LP's, I'd be all over digital.
Maybe a bit too young (I'm 56). My wife's all about photographs and has a small collection of vintage cameras in her scrapbook room. She framed the pictures for me that you saw there. Is your work collected anywhere, Lars?
Definitely it's the mastering I have some Windham Hill CDs that I can't listen to because they sound so compressed (no dynamics or space) compared to the LP version. I recently upgraded to a Hana EL cartridge and I'm rediscovering things on LPs that I thought knew inside and outside 😎.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords What really impressed me about the Hana EL is how black it sounds. When dropping the stylus the first time, it was silent. I had to check if I had selected the correct input on the preamp🤔 . I also upgraded to a Parasound Zphono XRM phono preamp. It uses a pot to select loading from 50 -1050 ohms. And I'm using the XLR balanced outputs to my preamp.
I’ve been in and around the hifi industry for many years, have a wonderful system & listening room. Here is where I got to in my journey that has served me well after wasting a lot of money. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. It’s about the sound the artist/producer intended when they first created the art AND the ‘sound of the era it came from. If recorded analogue at the time when vinyl ruled, where they mixed and mastered for the format/RIAA, get the earliest & best pressing to be transported to what the artist/producer created with the ‘sound’ of the era. Expensive new ‘audiophile’ versions, remasters & new vinyl of analogue music from a digital file try to make it sound impressive, more detailed, or bring the sound ‘up to date’ that in turn robs the art from its original intent, the sound of the era and the magic that made it great. Not to mention new versions are based on old deteriorated master tapes where EQ is used to try to fix the short comings. Of course there are some wonderful exceptions and not always expensive. If recorded digitally, when CD ruled, mixed and mastered for a new wider dynamic range, get the original CD. Not vinyl or a remaster, and hear what the artist/producer/ engineers originally intended and the sound of the era. With a great transport and DAC CD now sounds incredible. If it’s a modern recording made in Hi-Res it’s a problem because it means a streaming service, which is only OK due to the issues we know. If only SCAD + DSD were mass market. It’s incredible we live in a time when ostensibly we have virtually master tape quality and we can only stream it. Sigh. Mono - play it back through one speaker, you will hear how the layered mix works in harmony, producing a musical sound, as the artist/producer heard it and the sound of the era. In most cases when music is remastered it is from an industry engineer, not the original artist/producer or engineer, with no clue as to what the artist intended, or the sound of the era, but told “make it sound modern”, and we are straight into loudness. Sigh. Show less
I agree with everything you said Neil. Streaming, while extremely convenient, robs the listener of what they could experience with a physical format. Again - in how it's mastered. There was a bit of a controversy recently concerning the remaster of Television's _Marquee Moon_ that speaks to exactly what you said at the end.
Also playback process, and set up. I think (without evidence) that folks who love vinyl have great phono preamps and turntable set up that are “better” than their digital playback. Tubes in the playback chain add something that can never be reproduced by solid state.
I see it like this I can buy a CD and put it on a transport and let my DAC give me an analogue signal to my speakers or I can but the LP that has let the Record companies DAC reproduce an analogue signal to vinyl and my turntable takes that analogue signal to my speakers, I just figure their DAC is better that mine. That may be way too simple but, in the end all music ends analogue.
I have two LPs from the 80s recorded in digital and no one made a stink about them back then. Accept's 1985 release Metal Heart states on the back 32-track digital recording that was mastered by Bob Ludwig. Judas Priest's 1986 release Turbo states on the back "This entire album was digitally recorded and mixed exclusively on Sony Digital Tape Machines" and it was mastered by Bernie Grundman. Both albums sound great and I never heard or read anything back then about how bad they were because they were a from a digital source. I have the same Dire Straits LP and didn't realize it was from a digital source, and yes it sounds great as is! Some people need to get a life! 😅
Well said. Someone asked me if "Brothers In Arms" stated the source so I pulled out the inner sleeve and all and there's no mention of it. But the fact is, we simply weren't concerned with that. Nor am I now as long as the mastering is handled the way great engineers do. I think the "loudness wars" causes folks to immediately jump to the wrong conclusions when it comes to digital sources.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords The "loudness" wars came from some artists or groups telling their mastering engineer to make it louder than the other recordings out in the market. I noticed this starting in the late 80s after I had ripped all my CDs to an external hard drive and then saw them in my music app the time (Adobe Audition). So much brick-walling with no realistic dynamics that would normally be heard or seen. I could never understand all of this as it just ruins the music. My question has always been, why? Do artists actually record their music brick-walled like they want it mastered? I believe not! I don't even care for later remastered recordings as some are just ruined. Aerosmith had their library remastered and I listened to it on Qobuz and hated it! All the great dynamic sound was ruined as everything was overdone. Some remasters are done great, but some are worthless to my ears. Yeah, I know this a subject for a whole different video. Love Live Vinyl! 🎸
In all seriousness, perception is reality. That's why to some auto mechanics the sound of a perfectly tuned racing engine is music to their ears while to other people it's just noise. And this gets to why I truly enjoy vinyl.
Hmm… Many years ago I worked as a (pre-)mastering engineer. We had both digital and analog equalizers and compressors. The good thing with the digital was that they were “clean”. I mean that they didn’t have any “personality”. They didn’t color the sound. Whilst the analog colored the sound. Added “a flavor”. Umami. The difference in price between CD:s and records on new produced music is too high to be worth the money. The only “new” records I buy nowadays are those where the (pre-)mastering engineer has crushed the music with compressors so it’s nearly impossible to listen to the CD. I’s not possible to compress the music as much to a vinyl record as to a CD. Greetings from Sweden 🙂 (I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. My English is not that good)
I don’t know why people have to vilify digital so much. You always run in to Mr. Super ears, well I can hear the difference. As you know Brothers in Arms is always the example I use. It is such a great recording, I will admit, I have never heard it on vinyl only have the CD of it, but still wow. Umami that is a good phrase for it. I do like the sound of vinyl better, but you know that is what I grew up with, so to me that Umami is suppose to be there. But still Classical music, on CD is a much better experience, no loud record noises during the softer passages.
Most records from the mid 80s on were recorded digitally. Because of compression, some lps can sound better than cds. One of my favorite recordings is The Nightfly by Donald Fagen. I prefer the lp over the cd even though it is a digital recording. To each his own...
I'll always pick an LP but it's the format I love. The ingredients behind it, as long as they sound great, won't affect my pleasure if they are digital or pure analog.
Well, you're right. I guess it should be said that the MoFi records still sound the same as they did before the "digital step" was revealed. Is that obvious? It oughtta be. Still, MoFi was wrong not to acknowledge it sooner, because people have a right to know what they're buying. Archivists have said that, in the interest of preserving delicate original analog master tapes (most recordings made before the 1980s), it has been common practice to make hi-res digital backups that could be used for making new pressings, internationally or domestically. And every step in mixing and editing can audibly degrade an analog recording. A digital copy, on the other hand, is "bit-perfect" -- absolutely identical to the digital original. Some high-quality record lathes REQUIRE digital conversion as the very last step before cutting a lacquer. My feeling is that sound quality really depends on so many things (what if it was originally made with vintage tube equipment instead of solid state?) that a "digital step" alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. Every signal, digital or analog, HAS to become analog before human ears can hear it. And unless the recording was made in a single take using one or two microphones (if stereo) and preserved direct to media (vinyl, CD, whatever), it's going to be mixed, mastered, EQed, edited and otherwise processed to some extent in many ways before it ever gets to YOUR system in YOUR room -- which unavoidably makes a whole host of other "custom" alterations to the original signals picked up by the microphones. For most recordings, there is no "pure" original sound or performance, but tracks and tracks and tracks of them, all painstakingly adjusted in innumerable ways before you ever get the chance to reproduce it.
I’ll never go back to vinyl. My argument is that if everyone is happy paying $30 for a vinyl record, there should be an equal market on the other side of the aisle for SACD’s. The SACD should’ve been where vinyl came back to by now.
It's hard to get a truly analog source. Even records are cut with the lathe digitally calculating the groove spacing . I'm no engineer simply an enthusiast. I get annoyed over buying a 90 dollar record with very high levels of background noise. Results may vary ofcourse. Every good recording should have clarity and dynamics . At last Dire Straits On Every Street is now on Sacd. It's great and very long overdue. The original Brothers In Arms is great. I buy both vinyl and cd for the reasons you mention. I like putting a record on too. But a cd is fine too being a different experience.
Hi Rick, I disagree with a portion of what you said. I also have the Carole King MoFi Tapestry which is a fine sounding record. No complaint with that one. But Mofi's process which employs DSD at a very high sampling rate (not sure that is the correct terminology) is not your garden variety digital LP. I am not technologically savvy as you are, but I have two comments. 1. I wish there was a standard system of identifying how the record was pressed. What components are analog and what are digital and, if digital, a way to understand where it stands in the digital chain (I am assuming the MOFi process would be at the top of the heap), but how about other ways of employing digital within the record making process. There is not way of knowing if "all digital records are created equal." 2. I have the Beatles Red and Blue collections which were issued in 2014 in Europe and are all analog. I also have a pressing of the Beatles Please Please Me which was sourced from the same digital source as the 2009 Beatles CDs. For my ears at 72, there is a clear difference with the analog pressings that are so much more sonically enjoyable than the digital LP. The Digitally sourced LP is not bad, but it does not match the 2014 all analog pressings of Red and Blue. In summary, if we had a standardized way to judge new pressings, the consumer would be better served and it may force some of the record companies to step up the quality of their digital sourcing to attract more consumers who now have a a way to make an informed choice before purchase. Joe
I love how this digital issue is such a huge turn off for collectors. And what's probably the hilarious part is just how many digital albums from the 80s they probably have in their collections. I tried looking it up to get the correct title. But no luck. Anyways, London Records did a 2 lp box set in Im pretty sure 1979 that was a classical recording. Inside the big silver box was a huge 12x12 4 page sheet explaining the entire digital process they used for recording the entire preformance. And it seems strange that they never added the Digital Recording sticker on that Dire Straits album. Every cassette i seen here in Canada has it in the upper right corner. Since I have never owned the album. I wonder if it is even mentioned on it.
I checked and pulled out the original inner sleeve to look. No mention at all of it being digitally sourced. Might speak to the fact that folks didn't seem to care as much about that back then.
I love this analogy of umami and vinyl records. It’s definitely hard to explain, and very easy to go down a rabbit hole trying to do so 😂… I concur with the fact that a great mastering is of vital importance, I’ve heard some vinyl records that sound awful because of a bad mastering; however, when done right, once the sound waveforms are pressed on the vinyl record and then played back, magic happens. I’d compare it to the sound of an acoustic guitar versus the pure, unadulterated notes of the strings; the acoustic guitar adds harmonics that are in synchronicity with the fundamental notes (they are multiples of them, not random, which would cause harmonic distortion), and this creates a resonance that we perceive as a fuller, richer, “warmer” sound. Ok, see? I’m going down the rabbit hole, let’s stay with umami 🤣… Great content, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this controversial subject 😊
I do agree with you . But when the question comes up " Why Buy Vinyl ?" over CDs. This is my take. I am at the age when vinyl was king and 8 track was just starting. With all the issue of 8 track , cassettes become the portable media of choice. Some of us would lug out records to parties or to a friends house to enjoy the latest toons. As the generations grow and younger folks coming from cassette tape to CDs. Vinyl took a back seat to CDs as the preferred portable media. I feel if someone asks the question today of why buy vinyl over CDs? Its bound to a younger generation who only knows CDs and downloadable music. We older folks who were brought up on vinyl , like the vinyl experience . Yes its very subjective as to what media we like. But all in all its all about the music in the end. I have enjoyed all the forms of media . From records to cassettes to CDs and now downloadable music as well as streaming. It does warms my heart to see an interest in vinyl once more. Music can be a bridge through the generations . So enjoy your music the way you like and share the experience with all how ask and share the stories that come with it. All the best to all.
Many young people buy vinyl for the coolness factor, but never actually listen to them. My daughters do this. They were so excited when I got them a turntable for Christmas, but they've never played a record on it! There was a story last year on how half of the vinyl buyers don't even own a turntable! I'm sure there are some real vinyl fans in the other half.
I'm an audio engineer. I would say that I completely agree with you but what you're saying isn't just an opinion. It is 1000 percent fact. The reasons are legion. Digital audio production has come so far even as recently as the last 10 years. "That indescribable something" is called harmonic distortion. It creates transients which makes even the crappiest source, digital or otherwise, more so. My channel just started. I'll be doing a video on this soon. But kudos to you for your channel and this video.
Your observing that an lp of a digital studio recording played back on lp, sounds different or better than the same digital recording on cd is correct. Especially the "different" part. Different formats sound different and add their own characteristics or flavor to the sound Analog lps add 2nd order harmonic distortion to the sound which softens the sound, just like playing something through tubes almost always softens the sound. Playing an lp and playing a cd is not the same thing, even if it is the same music. In both instances you get the sound of the music + the sound of the format. So they sound different. Solid state and cds (usually) for best purity of sound; lps and tubes with their pleasant distortions for ultimate (apparent) sweetness of sound. There was a time many decades ago, that I didn't think I liked the sound of cds,(it was my cd players at fault). When I put on a digitally mastered cassette, I liked the sound better, except for dynamics. On my super modded cassette tape deck, it softened the showy edges of the music, compared to my cd reproduction. The sound was sweet, not forced or aggressive or occasionally hard of brash. The cassette format smoothed things over on the digitally mastered cassettes. Just like an lp mastering can do. Anytime you play something, you are not only hearing the music, you are hearing a combination of the music and the characteristics of the format you are using. Most people's cd players are not as sweet as decent vinyl playback. What Mofi did years ago, not mentioning it was using DSD mastering instead of all analog, was because it knew that digital was a bad word for many collectors, who wrongly thought they knew digital's sound from their incompetent cd players. Rather than divulge, and lose big sales over these people's bad and incorrect inferences, they chose not to mention it. Like if you were selling your house, when a potential buyer came over, very few people would volunteer that there were people next door who were a minority racial ethicity, that a lot of people associate with bad things. Prejudice is an overgeneralization, and Mofi knew that many people overgeneralize about digital sound. They probably thought something like "Why lose sales over the wrong generalizations just because people have less than great cd players". The better players can run with lps, and even better them in many ways. I still prefer lps a tiny bit for sound quality. The good ones, that is!
I was just playing the circa 1980s Mobile Fidelity Aqualung OMR record lp. It is amazing. So transparent, clear and full of detail. The electric guitars really growl; for some reason they didn't do their suppressing the midrange thing on that one. But through headphones, you can tell ts all analog, especially on piano and the fast strumming of acoustic guitars. Those are two areas where analog still sounds a bit more genuine, and sumptuous. But through speakers, whiich are not as revealing as great headphones, the distinction between the two sounds very slight. If lps were the same price as cds, and I was walking, I don't know that I'd walk an extra 8 blocks to buy the vinyl. I'd have to be feeling pretty energetic that day, and feel like there's a hole burning in my pocket to spend what vinyl collectors spend today. I have mixed reactions about Mofi's not telling people they were using DSD copies. My main reaction though is "It's not that important!" I wonder how many of these Mofi scandal crybabies, would inform potential buyers of their house that there's a minority family living next door?
I began buying records in the early seventies, like LPs from Jethro Tull, King Crimsom, Yes, Mahavishnu, Miles Davis and so on, and began buying CDs in the eighties. Shortly spoken when I and a lot of «us» listen to music, we want to hold the «big» vinyl cover in front of our eies. To look, read, feel and smell the taste of the printed matter. So why not start to make all covers the same size as the great vinyl records to get the «old» feeling of the «past», but with a CD enclosed instead of a vinyl record? We all want the best of both parts, don’t we?
I listen to both analogue and digital music and I believe I can here the difference between vinyl and digital. I think analogue is fuller, more engulfing, particularly at a lower volume. Digital seams crisper, almost clipped. We are analogue beings and live in a analogue environment. That environment is sonically messy and we subconsciously filter a lot of the messiness out. even though it is filtered out we notice when it's not there. When I listen to a CD or streaming I always feel something is missing, I think the messiness of an analogue base is what is missing. As far as the original source is concerned I don't think it matters as long as it was mastered well.
Music, albeit directed to only one sense (hearing) always is very much rich if reaches other senses. That is why we need to see (the band, the disc turning, the tape rolling, the movement of the cone of the wooffer...), we need to touch, we need the vibrations over our bodies (the propioception), and so on. The more we feed our senses, the more fulfilling the experience. Actually is the ABUSE of the digital capabilities what lead to the loudness war. A good mastering "magician" could make our CDs sound celestial.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords looking forward to it, I believe this is one of the reasons of vinyl resurgence as well as we are tactile and are going against at not owning anything since the download era
The Dire Straits record was first recorded digitally and mark knopfler hated the sound so much he ran it through a DAC a dozen times trying to smooth it out. IMO and Bernie Grundman's, the big problem is computer desk mastering which sucks the life out of music. Mr. Grundman says if you have the original high res digital file (not the cd master), and the record company will pay for a proper job, he'll drop the digital file onto his analogue mastering desk and the sonic difference will be very noticeable. In most cases he says they don't want to pay and will hand over the cd master and ask for a fast/cheap transfer to a vinyl lacquer - that's what most people are buying in record stores today, cd masters dropped onto vinyl. No wonder modern records suck.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords yes it is really sad, but the industry is, what it is, we just need find the records that are quality. As a Jazz and Classical lover (with a smattering of the music of my youth) I've learned to follow the people and labels. For example, CTI made great sounding records, and CTI was started by Creed Taylor, who was very involved in every aspect of producing good records. Well follow Mr. Taylor back to his previous label, which was Impulse and wow those are some amazing sounding Jazz records - no one today talks about those records. BTW I like your approach and perspective on your Channel - it's like a breath of fresh air!
Totally agree, it’s the mastering that makes the difference. The fact the the loudness wars doesn’t translate to vinyl mastering is also a plus here.
I second that, Jon!
My argument for buying digitally sourced vinyl is simple:
I suspect that record companies have much better equipment for converting digital to analog than I have in my budget system. My equipment doesn’t have to do any converting. It’s simply amplifying an analog source. And they sound fantastic to my ears, and that’s really all that matters to me.
🎶🎶🎶
And that really is all that matters 🍺
This may have been true 20-30 years ago, but modern DACs have become incredibly transparent at very low cost. I doubt that the studio DACs are meaningfully better, at least when the resulting music is played back in a budget home system.
As long as the record is mastered well, from the digital source, you are always going to get an inherently better sounding result. Most people just don't understand digital recordings...
I am a vinyl collector, I love the physical media aspect, the sound, and bigger poster like cover I can relate to more than any other media. Helps me deep dive into the artist and album when I’m listening to it.
I still throughly enjoy that aspect of it
Totally agree. When a DSD file is pressed onto vinyl it somehow absolutely does sound better then the CD or even SACD version (although SACDs are darn close). Another point is that analog tape has a finite life. Too keep playing it over and over to make new pressings is irresponsible in my opinion. Much better to make a good, well mastered DSD copy and work from that going forward.
Going DSD to vinyl is the best of both worlds 🍺
Oh, but then all the AAA snobs will simply insist that "there is NO POINT in even pressing it to vinyl if the ANALOG TAPES are not usable anymore", those morons! Seriously....Whatever you do, don't EVER try to change their minds. They'll always insist that only their logic matters, and the rest of us are "stone-ears" who don't matter.
Adding HISS POP CLICKS, music which is OUT OF KEY cause its playing slightly in the WRONG SPEED (wow and flutter), sound better to you than the original digital???
@@xprcloud Obviously you have never listened to even a moderately good turntable. I hearn no such issues with mine.
@@donb722 anyone listening to DIGITAL files ENGRAVED into plastic must be bonkers. I was born before anything else existed and listened to more LPs everything than you ever will, an LP\EP without HISS POPS and CRACKLES simply does not exist even when new out of the pressing machine, a RIAA pre-amp with better 80db S/N DOES NOT EXIST, these pre's HISS BEFORE the needle even hits the record surface, (with exception to high output ceramic pickups, but then those are terrible for other reasons). get the original DIGITAL source they cut the record from.
Love your umami analogy! Totally agree. Also the mastering is absolutely crucial.
I listen about 60% vinyl, 40% streaming. With digital it’s background or jumping around. However when I play vinyl (analog or digitally sourced) it’s immersive. I need to sit down and savor that umami!
😀 love that
Hi Rick, I don’t think I disagreed with a single comment. At 70+ I have, for the first time in my life, a very good vinyl system and I love it. It has a good CD player and a streamer included, this covers music that I can’t find on vinyl. I have done my own unscientific comparison of a CD digitally recorded and then later reproduced on vinyl. I can hear the difference, I am quite clear in my own mind that the vinyl, whatever the source, is preferable to my ears. I agree that mastering is the key issue. A recent purchase, Streisand’s Live at the Bon Soir is an analogue recording with all the faults of early live recordings of instrument sounds bleeding into the vocal channel. It has been remastered using technology I can’t comprehend, to produce a thoroughly modern copy of her first recording. I don’t know whether it was converted to digital then back to analogue. All I know and hear is a beautiful copy of the earliest Streisand recording. God bless science and technology for making this possible. Best Pat
Cheers, Pat! And however the Streisand was remastered, all that matters is you have a beautiful copy to listen to 😎
The best digital recording I've ever heard was made by me. It's because it wasn't mastered for volume wars and I simply was trying to get the most dynamic range as I could out of the digital recording medium.
And it's a simple recording where I was hanging out at the music store in the town that I moved to from Seattle in kentucky. Several really good local musicians would meet every Saturday and jammed together. One beautiful day they pulled all the equipment out on the front porch of the store and just jammed on upright bass and mandolin and guitar and banjo in a semicircle. I simply put my zoom H4 in the middle of that group and they played and sang.
When I put headphones on and close my eyes I'm literally there. At least, my brain is there. 🤣
Like many have said on here, if it sounds good I do not care where it was sourced from, i will listen.
You said it so I don't need to. You are Right On 👍🏻
🍺🍺
The "it" factor that makes vinyl so much more appealing...Your involvement is so much more immersed than any other medium. Yes, this is subjective, but after 30 decades, it is what got me back into vinyl. And what I really miss is the shopping experience that we had back in the 70s and 80s, even into the early 90s...
I really miss that too, Jerry. I spent so many hours in the mall record stores
Yes. It appears that for many of us older people, nostalgia for certain good experiences that we have enjoyed over a long period of time, doesn't just disappear with passing years and trends. Despite what younger people would call, "old people reliving historical activities from a bygone era", we still remember how it felt to play our favourite music on our outmoded vintage or new replacement stereo hifi gear. For me, that includes playing my wonderful CD collection as well as records but subscription music streaming be damned, I'm not falling for that crap. Jerry, you do realize that 30 decades is 300 years. You are not that old.
What backs this up and is also amusing is that the "all-analog" pundits and AAA audiophiles will showcase how great sounding certain albums are--all of which are digitally sourced: The Dire Straits you show, the Analogue Productions' "Wonderful Sounds..." series of LP's they sell, the Nils Lofgren "reference sounding" live album, and on and on. Both camps--the "all analog" and the digital only for digital playback are off. Great video. The analog lathe can take any source to higher ground. The format 'limitations' sometimes makes for a better product---controlling loudness wars, bloated albums etc.. And it all comes down to the mastering (and the recording / mixing quality, and, finally, the artist performance before that).
🍺🍺🍺
I really enjoy your *fireside chat* technique! The only real reason to object to a digital step on an LP is provenance. One could find a 1957 Chevrolet Bel Aire that looks beautiful, as if it came from the showroom, and yet pass it up because the fenders have been replaced by ones custom crafted in to look like the originals in 2010. I don't think I would do that though!
I completely get that too, pat. The car analogy works great here.
New subber! I agree with using DSD for vinyl. As a user of reel to reel tape the more you play a tape it will start to degrade. I just want the best sound possible from recordings I enjoy.
Hi Max! And welcome to the channel 🍺🍺🍺
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Thank you! Glad to be here! 🔊
Hi. Being a vinyl fan, I agree entirely with your comments in this video. I also think that people who champion digital music over vinyl miss out on a basic thing. Instruments are played and singers sing in analogue. We listen in analogue. Quite often bad engineering gets in the way. Whether a vinyl LP is mixed digitally it doesn't matter. Both that LP or the digital version has to be converted to analogue before we can hear it. The vinyl version is converted in a studio using very competent high end equipment. Whereas the digital version is converted using consumer DACs. Do you think this may also be why we prefer vinyl
I think you raise a good point there, Wayne. The end result in all cases - when it hits our ears - is analog.
Exactly! You are TOTALLY spot on! But then, try telling that to these blind-a** closed-minded, IDIOTIC, elitist, self-proclaimed "Golden-Eared" AAA SNOBS (most of them a bunch of crusty old f___ks with bad breath and more money than sense) who choose to stay mired in the false belief that ALL digitally sourced vinyl LP's are nothing but "black, flat plastic CD's or USB sticks" and are therefore "the devil". Oh, and likewise according to their logic, any recordings that don't exist on analog or were recorded digitally should NEVER, EVER be pressed on vinyl. Ever". And lastly, anyone who buys digitally sourced new vinyl "has NO BUSINESS even getting into this hobby or being anywhere within breathing distance of a turntable". And not even the most well-researched FACTS to the contrary (such as what you stated above) will EVER be enough to convince them they're the ones in the wrong. What really gets me is many of them are actually old enough to remember when commercially available vinyl from digitally mixed/recorded/mastered sources first became commonplace towards the end of the 70's and carried through to the entire decade of the 80's (can we say "Bop til you drop" by Ry Cooder", anyone). And record labels both big and small were even hyping the crap of digital vinyl as being superior to their all-analog counterparts (even so much as trotting out their own "Digital" subsidiary labels). But in their quest to always be right, they've apparently erased that era from their memories.
@waynes4491. Consumer DACs are audibly transparent even at the most entry level. They have distortion that is so minuscule it is now bordering on the limits of measurement. Human ears cannot detect any flaws with consumer grade DACs, they are better than our sense of hearing.
There is definitely way more measurable and audible distortion or coloration running a stylus through the groove of a digitally sourced LP vs the pure transparency of any DAC today. The thing about human hearing is it can actually prefer those colourations and deviations from perfect that vinyl playback gives.
My personal experience is that the better vinyl playback gets the closer it gets to digital accuracy anyway and A/B comparisons become very close.
I hope that all comes across ok, I’m not trying to be offensive quite the opposite.
@@michaelb9664 Hi Michael. Good comment very well presented. I enjoy these debates, and I suppose that's why we all watch videos like this. I am far from an expert. Just a hobbyist who is wrapped up with his vinyl system. I suppose I am biased because I got rid of all my CDs years ago. If I am entertaining and have friends around then I will stream music. Who wants to keep on getting up to change a record whilst half drunk and risk damaging that new cartridge!!! When on my own and I want that immersive music experience then it has to be vinyl. But that's me and we are all different. Thanks for the reply
@@waynes4491 I understand exactly what you mean. As much as I am objective I still enjoy spinning records too. There is definitely something about the ritual and experience.
Keep on enjoying your music 👍
Even the multitrack tapes of Brother in Arms were digital. The whole album was. There are no analog versions of that album (They could have simultaneously recorded an analog safety, but I doubt it would still exist). There’s quite a few records from the 80’s that were quietly recorded to a PCM machine then released on vinyl
Hey there I’m new to vinyl. I just inherited my parent 200 plus vinyl records from 70’s to the 80’s. I’m no audiophile but I have done many digital recordings on a DAW. I have a really nice Neuman 2.1 monitor setup for my bedroom studio that is acoustically treated so I know a little bit about audio and sound. What I’ve noticed is that on my OG recordings are that they are very dynamic. I love digital but I feel that mastering engineers today are compressing more and putting there stamp on todays sound. I picked a AAA remaster of Stevie Ray Vaughn and is sounds amazing.
Sounds like you have a great start! Having a background in audio is also a plus. Glad to have someone like yourself also comment on the sound quality of those older recordings. It's what keeps me on the vinyl path (and has for decades). Cheers, Ben! 🍺
Agree 100% with this. I think where a lot of people get side tracked is thinking they are just taking the CD form of a record and cutting it to vinyl. Raw digital masters for the past 20+ years are insanely smooth wavelength due to their 24 bit+ 96khz+ mastering technique. Not to mention the fact that people tend to think a CD at 14100 samples per second can't be as "warm" as analog vinyl. The inherent qualities of vinyl come from other things, mostly the setup and equipment choices. I see nothing wrong with digital as a source, we've been recording to ultra high res digital for a long time and it would probably shock people how many of their favorite albums are from a digital source. Subscribed.
Thank you @Kaspurr84 ! Cheers!
Additionally to the mastering, the equipment plays a big role. If you already have a great turntable, cartridge and preamp it could make a difference if your CD or SACD player / DAC is not up to the challenge.
As long as the record sounds good, I don’t necessarily really care about what the source is. As you described, there’s just a certain almost indescribable sound quality that vinyl has and which I prefer. And, no…it’s not distortion, but there’s almost a certain timbre and tonality that it has.
I’ve got zero problem with digital playback via a CD or streaming, and I listen to both. But…, when I really want to relax with my preferred medium, I’ll put on a record. That said, a bad mastering job can mess up any recorded format.
So true, Nick. I've heard some very bad mastering on record.
Imo vinyl sounds more enthusiastic, it has more drive and you feel more part of the sound than it sat in front of you, it seems to be able to churn out detail at ridiculous speed so the PRaT always excels compared to digital, inner dynamics and harmonics are more prominent, just my take on it, do you guys hear the same??
@@russellparker4568 Hey there, Russell 👋 Right there with you, brother. Good description of something that’s often difficult to describe. 👍
I’ve numerous friends that have wondered why I’ve got thousands of records in numerous rooms, and why I don’t just plug my phone or iPad into my system. It’s fun to sit em in the sweet spot, pour them a drink or twist up something to smoke, and humor them by playing music using their phone, then play the same music on an LP. Then, they get it…lol. Plus, they’re not jumping from song to song, and instead relaxing and listening to a full album.
Btw, I checked out your channel, and subbed to you. Sweet system!
@@NickP333 Hi Nick! Haha! I love it! Thats an impressive amount of records, wow 👌🏻
The original reason I moved to vinyl was to get away from track skipping, it was driving me crazy, I’d hardly ever listened to a full track never mind a whole album.
Then the turntable journey progressed to the modest setup I have now which revealed a whole different world to vinyl playback, now I can’t get enough of the journey of an album from start to finish, discovering new (well mostly old) artists, I just love it.
I even love the process, getting that new record clean, setting everything up and sitting back in amazement, proud to have put this hifi together, carefully chosen parts that result in this sound that’s magically coming off a plastic disk, the sense of accomplishment feels very rewarding.
And then theres the hunt for vinyl, going into town to the record shops, finding that rare vinyl online and looking forward to it arriving, digital can’t compete with the vinyl experience, it’s lazy 😂 you won’t hear that very often! But no, our lives are full of so many things that are convenient and easy, it feels good to have an interest thats the complete opposite, it keeps the mind healthy imo.
@@NickP333 Oh and thanks for the sub, tbh my channel is just me messing around, theres no intention for it to be successful in any way, I mostly share the videos with my hifi buddies who live around the country.
Hey Rick, great episode. You make several really good points. The Brothers in Arms Album is a fantastic album, and a great example of how digital and analog recording methods can come together to produce wonderful music. I have that album on vinyl, CD and I stream it on Tidal. So, I listen to it several ways and they all sound terrific. The vinyl version is different from the other two. I wouldn't say any of the formats are better than the other, they just sound different. Sometimes I prefer to put on the record and listen to it that way because I am in the mood to play records. Other times I prefer the convenience of streaming so I don't have to get up. Sometimes I get out a stack of CD's and play through them because I have a good sized collection. I would guess that most vinyl records today are pressed from a digital recording. If it sounds good, who cares? To me, the engineer who does the mastering, and the mastering process itself is more important than anything else in getting the best sound regardless of what format it is. Sometimes people get too wrapped up in the technical aspects of things that they forget to just listen the music and enjoy it.
I raise my glass to that, Neil. I would be really curious to hear what makes the vinyl version different than the other two in your experience. It's another research topic of mine. I don't mean better, but what makes it different. If you ever get the chance - would love to hear your thoughts on it.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords
Okay Rick, here goes. Sometimes it's hard to describe what is different in terms that everyone can understand. What I hear from the vinyl record that stands out to me is that it is more organic and natural sounding than the digital playback sources are. Now, with that being said, the difference isn't night and day. It is very subtle, but it is there. I have played the record, then the streaming or cd version to other people and the only difference they hear is the lack of any surface noise on the digital formats. So, someone who is not a critical listener like me or you won't necessarily pick up on these small differences. If I am listening to music on cd or streaming all day, my ears get used to the characteristics of the format and I don't necessarily notice it. But, if switch to playing vinyl, my ears definitely pick up on it. If I could ever totally eliminate all of the surface noise on a vinyl record, and the required differences in handling the records, I would probably exclusively listen to vinyl. But, since the digital sources are way more convenient and less fussy I like those attributes and the sonic differences are very small. This why I embrace all these formats and don't get locked into only one of them. It's kind of like craft beer, which I also enjoy. I have a favorite style, but I also like other styles as well and enjoy all of them for different reasons. That could also be applied to bourbon or wine. I don't know if that analogy helps or not, but what the hell, I'm throwing it out there.
@@neilfisher7999 This is great Neil. Thanks. I will want your opinion I'm posting on the site. It's going to probably be tomorrow instead of today (but might be today). I'll put a link to it in the community channel when I do.
Generally I agree to what you are saying. But I have some vinyl produced by a new start up company in a fully analog process and I repeat that... Full analog process all the way from recording to cutting to pressing... And the sound is deeper and warmer that vinyl produced with a digital step along the way. Keep the vinyl alive!!!
Hi Tomáš! Is it ok to provide the name of the company? I'd love to check them out.
Are you from Medford? Great vid, keep em coming. Isn't that Dire Straits album digitally recorded in the first place? 1985 was probably around the time digital methods were heating up. Certainly not like the late 90s however. I don't know much but my fairly inexpensive 60s jazz albums sound 'special' compared to the recent reissues, even the ones that are all analog.
The Dire Straits album was pressed from a digital source - you are correct.
Are you asking because of the accent? 😂. Originally from a town called Hanson - about 40 minutes south of Boston
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords oh yeah I know Hanson. From central mass here, Boston suburbs now. You have a slight accent, nothing egregious like Revere. You must love that SNL skit, as I do, where they rifle through all the Mass town names like its the movie The Town. Little wiki research says the Dire Straits album was recorded digitally in 1985. I've wondered, if its originally a digital album is there any downside to digital represses? I'm usually on the fence about buying an album that was made in 2000 or later, I could take it or leave it, can it be improved at all or should I just stream (prefer not to stream)? Be interesting to see how an album like Kid A or Hot Fuss will be improved. I'm just randomly selecting big albums from the 2000s. Thx for the vid
@@ummagumma7826 I try to go for original instead of a post-2000 reissue, but I've made some exceptions to that (some Iron Maiden reissues are great).
In case your interested do a test on what the actual measured dynamic range is of a compressed cd. Also what about an actual recording? can a microphone and analog inputs to any system actually have a dynamic range of 100dB?
Totally agree with ingredients. It's like to add tube preamp to you solid state amp and got the best of both worlds (which I did).
That's awesome! 🍺
3:54 that's not what mastering engineer does, mastering engineers master the whole track to whatever the format it goes to say like streaming service or CD. Mixing engineers are the ones who does fixes bad recordings and balancing the overall dynamic and color of a track... mastering is just the final gluing session, they may adjust the EQ and add compression and limiter but that's because of the audio format that they are targeting.
The Alan Parsons Project was using at least one digital step from 1982's Eye in the Sky album on. Anyone who claims the Eye in the Sky or Vulture Culture LPs "sound bad" because of that can be safely ignored for any of these conversations because they obviously don't know what they are talking about or how to listen.
😎 love that
Another solid episode! Great explanation about a misunderstood subject!
Thanks my friend! Cheers! 🍺
I have a bunch of late 70’s and early 80’s vinyl that are digital. As it says on my George Benson album,it’s digitally mastered. I really don’t care. Music after 84, I buy the CD because the technology matured. Hey, “perfect sound forever”, right? As you said, listening is subjective.
Very thought-provoking question/topic. I listen to vinyl for nostalgic reasons. So as a non-audiophile, it wouldn't bother me at all. Excellent and enjoyable video. Thank you.
Thank you for watching!
I believe the first digitally mastered vinyl record was bop till you drop by ry cooder. I could be wrong. I sold HiFi at the time and we had a small record selection for sale and I remember that record being on the shelf. The idea was that everything was "perfect" before it got the vinyl. And I thought that record sounded pretty good it convinced me that it didn't really need to have all that digital in front of the vinyl because it didn't really sound any better than anything else.
Then again, I own several Sheffield directed disc albums that I bought at that time and they sound absolutely amazing. Like the band is in the room. Pressure cooker or blow your mind what's 600 watts per channel behind in a couple of ESS AMT 1B monitors. Bi-amped.
For me, it's all about transients. Especially in horns and drums.
Man...I forgot all about Ry Cooder....
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I realized a few months ago that I've become that "reminiscing old man". I found out I have tons and tons of stories from the "old days" that a few find simply fascinating, but bore most people to tears. 🤣
You are almost correct; It was the first digitally mixed mastered and recorded Pop/Rock album to be released by a major label. But the first digitally recorded album to be commercially released was "Something" by Jazz artist Steve Marcus, in January of 1971 on Japan's Nippon-Columbia label; An early prototype of Sony's digital tape machine was reportedly used in its making. Another fact to stick in the craws of these know-nothing NAZISTIC AAA elitists who think they know better! LOL!
@@Rockstaralan dang! I was wrong once in 4th grade and swore it would never happen again. And yet here I am and it feels as terrible as it did on that day. 😡🤣
Very nice video , as usual. It was very educational. I didn`t know much about mastering and now I know a lot. All the best from Norway😁
Cheers Ole! Stay warm 🍺
I agree with you that there is something intangible about the enjoyment that comes with listening to vinyl. Perhaps because of our age we have a bit of nostalgia about vinyl, and although I own more CDs than vinyl, I get more pleasure from listing to vinyl. The whole process of preparing and playing an album brings more of a physical connection to the music . I think perhaps because it is more flawed, we as flawed beings maybe connect with it in a different way than we do a purely digital sound.
I enjoy both, but vinyl definitely brings more joy to the experience for me.
I like how you put that, Shawn. We are flawed beings.
Neumann introduced digital delay into their disc cutting lathes in the 1970s ...so chances are that most vinyl has been digitaly processed..... Vinyl is purely lossy mechanical
Hey, Happy Easter. I think I'm right on this but maybe not, but here goes; the masters for making an SACD and an LP are different. In the case of MOFI, they're making an oversampled DSD copy of the original, sometimes brittle analog tape. Even an SACD will have to have some sort of, I believe Mofi uses the term decimation (truncation of the data) of the digital mastertape to fit the SACD format but in manufacturing the vinyl, the entire data from the digital master can be converted to analog and sent to the cutter head, albeit, assume some dynamic and bass reduction, the highest frequencies naturally rolling off. The bass in cutting LPs by the way is moving more to stereo than mono. An interesting article in RPM's vinyl blog, " 50 Years of Record Cutting and Stereo Bass for Vinyl" by Richard Simpson is a good read and you'll love this he uses Dire Straits as an example of what he means;
"In most situations, recording bass in mono works better. Many believe our ears are not good at obtaining directional information from low frequencies. Thus, the stereo image for any low register instruments is trivial.
Yet, that’s not always the case and many believe that stereo low-end adds to the sound experience. I agree with that statement. For example, listen to the band Dire Straits or records produced by Mark Knopfler. The low-end surrounds you with a very full sound. That spaciousness of sound is the stereo low-end."
I just tracked down the article you referenced. Thank you for that! I've added it to my reading list.
Great analogy, master sound engineer likened unto an alchemist, totally agree. Michael B. Tretow was a great sound engineer alchemist. I recently listened to my original pressing of Carol Kings LP in flawless condition and sounded great, reminded what a truly stellar album ! Also listened to all of the new Judas Priest LP and Wow ! impressive, one of their best I say from the front runners of heavy metal. Cheers Rick !
Cheers Bobby! And that Priest album is simply incredible. They can still deliver!
Regardless of the source analog tape or digital medium, the way the sound is propagated on the vinyl brings more separation and precision in the positioning of the stage. It is the main reason why it attracts more + people.
Completely agree!
In 1982 when I purchased Donald Fagen’s the Nightfly, this was not even a question.
Exactly!
Interesting. When I bought my 1st new CD player, a hifi dealer said to bring in my own headphones and a cd I knew well to listen to directly.....
I did and was immediately surprised to find big differences between the players I was looking at! I remember thinking that the Yamaha was smoother, the Denon was bright, and the Pioneer was somewhat in the middle. I have the Pioneer beside me.
Then the amp and speakers made a difference.
So with all things being equal..... same recording process, same amp, same speakers. Do those things level out the CD and vinyl mediums?
And if you were doing an A-B comparison, do you hear a difference, and if so could you change the physical components to subjectively make them sound the same??
Cheers 😁🖖
That brings up so many other variables - glad you brought that up. It was called out by another commenter as well - even room dynamics can completely change the sounds. Take the exact same components and place them in a different room and the sound may be horrible - or could even be better.
I’m in the line “don’t care”
I have other issues that I don’t get about records. I’m just taken back that mostly wonderful stuff gets extracted from that flat thingy that goes round and round. Happy Listening!
It is like magic. Even though I get how it works, the fact that such detail can be etched in a groove and played back is simply amazing.
Hey Rick I'm finding that the higher up the audio chain one can afford to go (that is, utilizing quality audio components) can really make a difference between mediocre sound and the sound that we all aspire to with our stereo systems. The good thing is that even moderately priced equipment these days (cabling and interconnects included) designed properly can produce exceptionally good sound close to the source, be it digital or analog.
I'm glad you mentioned that, Louis. I'm planning to produce more videos to talk about affordable high-value equipment for vinyl playback (amps, turntables, etc). There are some great turntables for a decent price that are customizable (meaning with the ability to swap carts, etc).
I'll be watching Rick that should be of great interest for anyone trying to put together a reasonsbly priced system that will remain faithful to the source material, be it digital or analog. @TheJoyofVinylRecords
Is Umami the same thing as tracking distortion?
I wouldn't think so - at least not with the VTF set correctly and proper tonearm compliance (among all the other things). But who knows - there's always going to be some distortion even in the best of setups - it may have something to do with it.
Some say the problem with digital is the stair step of collecting information at precise points in time. Claim is it can make the music less "warm". I doubt the phono needle acts in that stair step way. In otherwords, I suspect the process of moving digital to vinyl smooths out the stairs and brings it back to a ramp. Thoughts?
I really like that analogy. I think it fits in well with the "umami" I mentioned. There's something about the "digital-to-vinyl" transfer that is pleasing to the ears (when done well).
Anyone trying to completely avoid digitally sourced music today would have to limit themselves to music recorded no later than the early to mid 70s and only listen to original releases . It makes no sense to be anti digital, it’s a wonderful technology that eradicates many limitations of analogue recording and mastering.
Where people make the mistake is blaming digital for brick wall mastering. It’s not because it’s digital that it sounds bad it’s because it’s poorly mastered and sadly the technical benefits of digital makes brick walling possible and easy. Basically digital technology is abused by record companies. The audiophile is in a very small minority.
Coming from an engineering background I fully believe in objective scientific technical data. However for some unexplainable reason I still enjoy playing vinyl records. I enjoy CDs and digital also, but I wouldn’t want to give up my turntable. To me a stereo component system is incomplete without a turntable, a CD player and a Network player. All have their benefits, but there is definitely a certain something about dropping the needle so to speak.
Great video!
Thanks Michael - I appreciate that! And yes - I'm glad you brought that up - the brick wall mastering. It has led many to believe that's inherent in digital engineering - which of course it isn't.
Everything you said is the way I see it. I got into vinyl just months before the MoFi controversy fired up. I think this timing was good for me, as I could see both sides in a unique way, more or less. Also, I regularly buy FLAC and DSD; I find that the very same titles in digital do not have the same feel (or Unami) as the vinyl counterparts. It's a real thing, yet it is indescribable.
Umami is really the best way I can think to put it. The analogy seems to work for me
I understood it as sound being a wave and a “digital wave” contains less sound than an analog so, it would contain less information. Because of this an analog record will have more complete sound than a digitally recorded track pressed onto vinyl. Is this incorrect?
Great question! Analog is a continuous, flowing wave of sound. Digital audio breaks the wave into a series of samples. Think of it like taking a series of snapshots of the sound wave rather than a continuous video. The sampling rate-how many snapshots per second-determines how much detail you capture. CD-quality audio, for example, uses 44,100 snapshots per second (44.1 kHz). That’s a lot of detail, but it’s still not technically “continuous.”
If the source recording was digital, the music was already sampled. Pressing it onto vinyl doesn’t add back the 'missing' information.
When I listen to vinyl it’s all about how it sounds, if it’s a good pressing or not. Whether it’s from an analog or digital source
Cheers to that! 🍺
I think honesty has to be the best policy. I'm not very technically minded but some years back i purchased Free's Fire and Water album which was pressed at Abbey Road Studio. All their releases contain information on the processes utilised to create the vinyl version but, at the time, i chose not to read it. However after playing the album it sounded too clinical and with little reverb. I therefore read the notation and, to be honest, i was none the wiser. I investigated further and those with greater knowledge confirmed that a digital process was included. The difference in price between vinyl and c.d versions is quite pronounced here in the U.K and, as such, if the vinyl product is digitised then i will turn to the c.d option unless the packaging is such that the vinyl edition becomes more appealing. At the end of the day it is all about your audio system in conjunction with your ears and i totally concur with your final analysis.
Thank you, Barrie. It's partly why I usually search out the OG pressing (or close to it). Fire and Water is a great example. My OG version is wonderful.
Something I haven't really heard mentioned here that comes into play, sometimes in a positive way, and sometimes negative, is the limitation of the vinyl medium. As an example, I have recently started a project where I found lost digital hi-res masters of a CD I did years ago. Total length of the CD was about 1hr, 20 mins. Vinyl, if you want to. optimize for dynamics, really can only handle about 20 mins or so per side, and since budget constrained me to keep to a single disc, I had to make some tough decisions about what songs to cut and which to keep. The end result? The vinyl version of that album is much stronger than the CD version because I was forced to separate the wheat from the chaff!
This is an issue I have with recording artists and mixing engineers today in the digital realm. Yes, digital can sound incredible, yes if you have tons of hard drive space and processing power you can create 367 stems per song, yes the dynamic range is larger than vinyl. However, removing all constraints for the artist and the mixing engineer (digital mastering engineers as well) means nobody has to make any decisions! If you're not forced to make decisions you're not forced to be creative, meaning your filter for what is good gets skewed. I realize this means more latitude and freedom for creativity as well, but I contend that the earlier in the process you are forced to "print" or "commit" something to not be changed, the more it forces the creativity to happen. I will cite a certain superstars' latest album that has 31 songs on it. IMHO. it's not their best work. Why not 10 amazing songs instead of 31 ok songs? Probably because they could.
All this said, sometimes the more constraining environments yields the best art. I don't' really care what domain the master comes from, if the vinyl sounds good to me, then the vinyl sounds good to me!
Feel free to disagree, just my opinion. Love your channel, please keep it up!
This is an amazing bit of insight I hadn't considered, Mark. You're really onto something there (and of course you're speaking from experience which adds more weight). Adversity or having to deal with a constraint often does lead to innovation and a better product (or piece of art). I'm really glad you brought it up this way.
I love Hans Zimmerman. Live at prague which I have in vinyl and blue ray. i also have blue ray his World of hans zimmer live at Vienna. The blue ray through Onkyo and Emotiva in 5.1.2 never ceases to amaze. I have analog vinyl (many) and love that also on 2 channel. i stream concerts and love that.. At 76 I am fortunate to be able to heart and enjoy.
That's wonderful!
I have the recently released "Brothers In Arms" on vinyl. I don't know that I needed it, but it's just something I really wanted on vinyl, even if it's a digital recording. My only gripe is having to turn the record over every 10 minutes...
That’s the one trouble with the 2-3 disc reissues. The music is great but the strain on my back from getting up constantly isn’t so great 😂
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I hear you! :) To me it just breaks up the experience of getting into the music. I can't get in the groove as well having to flip the record so often. Anyway, I'm sure I need the exercise.
@@shaneluttrell532 😄
If you have the privilege to go to the studio to listen to the final result, what source would you be listening to? And would you ask them to pull out a record as it's your preference.
If you like what was called coloration then buy the vinyl version. Perhaps you should explore what the cartridge is doing to change the sound from what one would have heard from the mixing desk to what one would hear from the turntable. I once owned a Linn LP12, but now prefer the digital experience. It's amazing that we have all generally accepted digital photography, although there are exceptions, without so much fuss. Cheers.
Hi Andrew! I have zero problem with digital sources. In many instances they are better
A few items to touch on and unravel:
1)
What Mobile Fidelity did was use a DSD master to create the vinyl stamper plate. They did that for the following reasons:
1a)
They do not have to replay the master tape, over and over, to create new stampers for vinyl pressings (each stamper wears out, degrading sound quality, after a few thousand slams on the pressing machine). Each time they play the reel-to-reel tape, it degrades.
When they need a new master stamper, they just play their DSD master. They can do that infinitely.
1b)
Mobile Fidelity's digital DSD master is not what you will hear at home with your DAC. More on that below.
2)
Converting the reel-to-reel master to a digital format will have varying sound quality results, depending on the equipment used, and the format used.
According to Paul McGowan of PS Audio, going straight to PCM (which is the format of CDs, flac files, wav files, and just about every other file type other than DSD), will result in a degradation of the sound quality. Done right, that degradation will be minimal. But on a quality stereo system, you can hear the difference. So converting from reel-to-reel to PCM is not the best choice.
Converting reel-to-reel to DSD will be indistinguishable at the right bit rates (I forget which rate Paul said was ideal). Also, the right hardware and software is required. He has videos where he provided the particulars.
Paul went on to say that once you have a proper DSD file, you can convert that DSD file to a high-res PCM file, and that PCM file will be almost indistinguishable from the DSD file. And PCM is necessary if you want to edit the character of the file. With DSD, you can only cut and join parts. You cannot augment the DSD file with audio editing software.
3)
Folks have brought up "What is the point of using that DSD file for a vinyl record, when you can just play that digital file directly?"
Well, then it comes down to which is better. Your home's transport and DAC? Or your home's turntable, cartridge, tone-arm, and phono amp?
You can't expect a Walmart CD player to play that DSD sourced song and have it sound as good as playing it on a vinyl pressing on our host's turntable.
Also, even if you have a DSD player, and a really good one, you are at the mercy of a not-so-great, proprietary Sony decryption chip in your DSD player.
When you hold in your hand a DSD disk, the DSD file that is on that disk contains the same DSD file that the studio has. But Sony does not want the public to have that DSD file. So what Sony did was encrypt that DSD file before putting it on your DSD disk.
Now, in order to play your DSD disk, you are running that encrypted data through the not-so-great, built-in, Sony decryption chip. That decryption chip degrades the sound quality.
That is why the vinyl will sound better, with the right equipment and the right pressings (some pressings just get fouled up and do not sound very good).
The studio has the non encrypted DSD file. They can play it and hear it in all its glory. They use that non encrypted DSD file to create the vinyl's stamper. So that vinyl's stamper benefits from not being subjected to Sony's not-so-great decryption chip.
-- In summary:
Vinyl derived from a properly made DSD master has the potential to sound the best, due to the forced use of Sony's not-so-great decryption chip built in to every DSD player.
A properly made DSD file sounds indistinguishable from the reel-to-reel master. So it makes sense to use a DSD master for creating vinyl master stamping plates.
People who are poking fun at those who say that the vinyl sounds better than the digital version, even though both were derived from the same DSD master, are making fools of themselves, because the vinyl can and often does sound better. The process for creating the record's grooves is superior to the process of funneling the digital bits through Sony's decryption chip.
Awesome wrap-up. I really couldn't have said it better or added to that. Thanks for that 🍺
Digital source is converted to analogue to be recorded on vynil. If done wright - what is the problem? Brothers in Arms is the first album that was recorded on the Sony's first digital platform back in the day so it's kind of history piece. I have a '85 pressing from UK and it sounds great too.
Exactly my point 🍺🍺
What are your thoughts on
Quadraphonic records? Made in the early 70's. I have a 2000 record collection. Started in the 60's. I think vinyl has the best bass sound quality. And I discovered cleaning that small square felt piece improved the sound quality of cassette tapes.
To be honest, I was buying records when Quadraphonic records were introduced, but I never actually heard one. Maybe someday!
I like vinyl versions sometimes...sometimes I like the digital version. Sometimes not enough care was taken at the vinyl pressing factory resulting in noisy vinyl. When you get a quiet record that has been mastered well it is sublime.
"Sublime"- another great way to phrase it
I think people often get mixed up between a digital master and the forms of digital encoding we have presented to us on streaming platforms. You can have an absolutely immaculate digital master it doesn't mean that will transfer perfectly to a streaming service but certainly will transfer in a more pure form to vinyl
Agreed! Music should be mastered for the format its intended to be heard on.
“Cupid and Psyche 85” sounds superb on vinyl to me. But apparently it was Ry Cooder, as early as 1979, who produced the first commercially available digital recording. But that early stuff was AAD recordings - it was mixed and mastered to an analogue source before release.
Later DDD recordings would have been different though - in preparing for vinyl, wouldn’t the digital source need to be converted to analogue before the record is cut? If I understand it right, unless you master with some finesse, wouldn’t you end up with digital artefacts on the record?
Also, however you present it, 80s digital reverb (eg the drum breaks in “In the Air Tonight”) still sound horrible.
That reverb from the 80s... you can tell immediately when you hear the drums can't you?
I believe you are right about the conversion to analog during mastering.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Like Fairlight sequencing and That Orchestral Stab (eg Scritti Politti or Art of Noise), 80s producers just couldn’t stop playing with their new toys! In 40 years, musicologists will look back at the 2020s (if they can bear to) and chuckle at the oppressive kick drum, ubiquitous auto-tune and insidious looping 😆
The compression and eq the mastering engineers use is different for vinyl vs cd. The reason we prefer vinyl is vinyl cant be compressed as much and sounds more dynamic because it has to due to its limitations.
Wider dynamic range. Slightly rolled of eq at extreme top and bottom.
Harmonic distortion is the umami. It is actually adding frequencies that weren't there before If engineer soft clips the dac.
2 digital files. One made for cd, one for vinyl.
Thanks Paul! Great input 🍺
I agree with everything you said. Yes, I have some digital step Mofi records, and they sound fantastic, also love the Analog Productions records. The person doing the mastering makes all of the difference.
That's another good shoutout, Jeff - the folks at Analog Productions.
There are still people among us who do not know this.
If you are looking for quality, you should not buy vinyl.
Instead, you should buy a quality DAC and Qobuz or CD.
If you say, "I love vinyl and analog playback, quality is secondary," choose vinyl.
original source: 15€/month qobuz
10€ cd
vinyl version (lower quality, worse if the vinyl cut is bad): minimum 20€.
Great topic. I was wondering about The Beatles vinyl stereo box set that came out in 2012(?) The Beatle community seemed freaked out about it being from a digital source. I don't own any of those vinyls. I mean, how bad could they be?
I don't own those either. I do have a handful of the Giles Martin remixes and those are amazing to me.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords - Ok thanks Just curious. I have the Sgt. Pepper 2017 re-mix. It's great but nothing to compare it to.
Great summary. It’s the audio engineer that makes the biggest difference. I prefer analog when available but have many records that are digitally sourced but when possible look for digital pressing with an audio engineer. It’s all subjective though. We know what we like and seek it out. If a record doesn’t sound good I don’t keep it. I want to find that experience where the band sounds like they are in my listening room.
That's what I strive for too. Sometimes with better luck than other records.
It's never been an issue with me as far as the source goes, as long as the final product when pressed to vinyl sounds good. I've always felt that if the digital source is a good high resolution file, and you have someone who is really good at mastering handling it, you can get an amazing final product. The Dire Straits album is such a perfect example.
I was one of those naysayers a long time ago, Stacey. With age comes wisdom (about some things!)
I could be wrong, but I think most NEW vinyl coming out now are digitally sourced. Unless you are recording onto analogue tape (not done much these days) your source is recorded onto a hard drive and mixed and Mastered in Pro Tools or some other DAW and saved as a Wave file that ia then used to ct the vinyl. I would even go so far as to say old analogues tapes are remastered into digital files and those are used for vinyl creation. So.... I don't know. If it sounds good, what does it matter? And as I've said before, vinyl listening experience is more than just the sound coming out, it's the tactile touching and placing, reading the album cover and linter notes. etc. My 2 cents.
And your 2 cents are worth a dollar. I agree - many analog masters are preserved as a high resolution digital file. It's much cheaper to reproduce (and also easier to drop on a file share than ship across the country in tape form).
The only thing wrong is when people say they like vinyl records because they love analogue sound, when in fact, the vinyl they listen to has been recorded or converted to digital at some point in the production process of those records. The final format is one thing but the production process can be a varied mixture of digital and analogue. Totally analogue is a rare process nowadays and those records are usually very expensive, unless they are original old second-hand records from before the digital music recording era.
Cheers to that, Don! 🍺
My wife prefers it when I fry the eggs. I prefer it when she frys the eggs. There is an emotion involved in all this and I believe it is love.
And my wife's grilled cheese always tastes better than when I do it - even though we both do it the same way 🍺
My band, RIFLE, records digitally... getting our first vinyl sourced from digital soon, hopefully next week... I expect it to sound better than the CD. I will let you know.
That's awesome, Sean! Where can I hear your music?
I don't buy records from this century as I would just buy the CD - assuming the same material was transferred to either vinyl or a digital media - what would be the point of the album? For me vinyl is a time capsule from an are when CDs were not available or perfected.
Cheers! 🍺🍺🍺
For me vinyl puts just the right amount of distortion that smooths out the sound and makes a more pleasant listening experience. All digital might be clearer but it is also more piercing that ends up fatiguing my ears.For the longest time I hated jazz because it was just too screechy and hurt my ears. In the last five years I started listening to it on vinyl and couldn't believe how well rounded it was. I began to hear the other instruments better because the horns and the discomfort from them on cd was taken away on vinyl.
Another good point, Matt! The fatiguing aspect of some digital recordings. Not all - but some.
Remember, the Dire Straits album you’re holding in the thumbnail was one of the first and earliest Digitally recorded albums released on a major label. It said so on the covers - especially the original issue CD. And guess what? It’s still a great sounding album to this day.
And I was already typing when you got to mentioning the same album!
Great minds think alike!
Hey Rick - I was noticing those concert photos on the wall behind you. Did you take those or were you too young for that? I'm asking because I used to be a concert photographer through the 1970's.... As for vinyl v digital, I think vinyl can sound better, but sometimes digital sounds better; to me, size matters - I like the 12" size for looking at the art, reading the notes, etc. If vinyl was CD-sized and digital came in the size of 12" LP's, I'd be all over digital.
Maybe a bit too young (I'm 56). My wife's all about photographs and has a small collection of vintage cameras in her scrapbook room. She framed the pictures for me that you saw there.
Is your work collected anywhere, Lars?
Definitely it's the mastering I have some Windham Hill CDs that I can't listen to because they sound so compressed (no dynamics or space) compared to the LP version. I recently upgraded to a Hana EL cartridge and I'm rediscovering things on LPs that I thought knew inside and outside 😎.
I really am thinking about moving to the Hana.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords What really impressed me about the Hana EL is how black it sounds. When dropping the stylus the first time, it was silent. I had to check if I had selected the correct input on the preamp🤔 . I also upgraded to a Parasound Zphono XRM phono preamp. It uses a pot to select loading from 50 -1050 ohms. And I'm using the XLR balanced outputs to my preamp.
I’ve been in and around the hifi industry for many years, have a wonderful system & listening room. Here is where I got to in my journey that has served me well after wasting a lot of money. Of course there are exceptions to the rule.
It’s about the sound the artist/producer intended when they first created the art AND the ‘sound of the era it came from.
If recorded analogue at the time when vinyl ruled, where they mixed and mastered for the format/RIAA, get the earliest & best pressing to be transported to what the artist/producer created with the ‘sound’ of the era. Expensive new ‘audiophile’ versions, remasters & new vinyl of analogue music from a digital file try to make it sound impressive, more detailed, or bring the sound ‘up to date’ that in turn robs the art from its original intent, the sound of the era and the magic that made it great. Not to mention new versions are based on old deteriorated master tapes where EQ is used to try to fix the short comings. Of course there are some wonderful exceptions and not always expensive.
If recorded digitally, when CD ruled, mixed and mastered for a new wider dynamic range, get the original CD. Not vinyl or a remaster, and hear what the artist/producer/ engineers originally intended and the sound of the era. With a great transport and DAC CD now sounds incredible.
If it’s a modern recording made in Hi-Res it’s a problem because it means a streaming service, which is only OK due to the issues we know. If only SCAD + DSD were mass market. It’s incredible we live in a time when ostensibly we have virtually master tape quality and we can only stream it. Sigh.
Mono - play it back through one speaker, you will hear how the layered mix works in harmony, producing a musical sound, as the artist/producer heard it and the sound of the era.
In most cases when music is remastered it is from an industry engineer, not the original artist/producer or engineer, with no clue as to what the artist intended, or the sound of the era, but told “make it sound modern”, and we are straight into loudness. Sigh.
Show less
I agree with everything you said Neil. Streaming, while extremely convenient, robs the listener of what they could experience with a physical format. Again - in how it's mastered.
There was a bit of a controversy recently concerning the remaster of Television's _Marquee Moon_ that speaks to exactly what you said at the end.
Also playback process, and set up. I think (without evidence) that folks who love vinyl have great phono preamps and turntable set up that are “better” than their digital playback. Tubes in the playback chain add something that can never be reproduced by solid state.
Tubes make me happy.
I see it like this I can buy a CD and put it on a transport and let my DAC give me an analogue signal to my speakers or I can but the LP that has let the Record companies DAC reproduce an analogue signal to vinyl and my turntable takes that analogue signal to my speakers, I just figure their DAC is better that mine. That may be way too simple but, in the end all music ends analogue.
Cheers, Jeffrey!
That might have been true 20+ years ago, but modern consumer DACs have become transparent beyond human hearing.
What is one to do when the sources were recorded in the digital domain? Brothers in Arms was recorded digitally.
Nothing to be honest - digital sources are wonderful. It's the mastering that counts.
I have two LPs from the 80s recorded in digital and no one made a stink about them back then. Accept's 1985 release Metal Heart states on the back 32-track digital recording that was mastered by Bob Ludwig. Judas Priest's 1986 release Turbo states on the back "This entire album was digitally recorded and mixed exclusively on Sony Digital Tape Machines" and it was mastered by Bernie Grundman. Both albums sound great and I never heard or read anything back then about how bad they were because they were a from a digital source. I have the same Dire Straits LP and didn't realize it was from a digital source, and yes it sounds great as is! Some people need to get a life! 😅
Well said. Someone asked me if "Brothers In Arms" stated the source so I pulled out the inner sleeve and all and there's no mention of it. But the fact is, we simply weren't concerned with that. Nor am I now as long as the mastering is handled the way great engineers do. I think the "loudness wars" causes folks to immediately jump to the wrong conclusions when it comes to digital sources.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords The "loudness" wars came from some artists or groups telling their mastering engineer to make it louder than the other recordings out in the market. I noticed this starting in the late 80s after I had ripped all my CDs to an external hard drive and then saw them in my music app the time (Adobe Audition). So much brick-walling with no realistic dynamics that would normally be heard or seen. I could never understand all of this as it just ruins the music. My question has always been, why? Do artists actually record their music brick-walled like they want it mastered? I believe not! I don't even care for later remastered recordings as some are just ruined. Aerosmith had their library remastered and I listened to it on Qobuz and hated it! All the great dynamic sound was ruined as everything was overdone. Some remasters are done great, but some are worthless to my ears. Yeah, I know this a subject for a whole different video. Love Live Vinyl! 🎸
@@VinylRescue Cheers to that! 🍺
I can’t tell a difference but I also don’t taste all the subtle flavors in wine, I just don’t do it enough
In all seriousness, perception is reality. That's why to some auto mechanics the sound of a perfectly tuned racing engine is music to their ears while to other people it's just noise.
And this gets to why I truly enjoy vinyl.
Hmm…
Many years ago I worked as a (pre-)mastering engineer.
We had both digital and analog equalizers and compressors.
The good thing with the digital was that they were “clean”. I mean that they didn’t have any “personality”. They didn’t color the sound.
Whilst the analog colored the sound. Added “a flavor”. Umami.
The difference in price between CD:s and records on new produced music is too high to be worth the money.
The only “new” records I buy nowadays are those where the (pre-)mastering engineer has crushed the music with compressors so it’s nearly impossible to listen to the CD. I’s not possible to compress the music as much to a vinyl record as to a CD.
Greetings from Sweden 🙂
(I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. My English is not that good)
Hi Staffan - your English was great. Thank you for offering a perspective from a mastering engineer. I appreciate that!
It would be nice if the record companies would throw in a CD or a PCM digital download with every vinyl record sold.
Completely agree, Darrell.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords cypress hill put a digital download and cd both with their elephants on acid vinyl album. Wish more would follow suit
I don’t know why people have to vilify digital so much. You always run in to Mr. Super ears, well I can hear the difference. As you know Brothers in Arms is always the example I use. It is such a great recording, I will admit, I have never heard it on vinyl only have the CD of it, but still wow. Umami that is a good phrase for it. I do like the sound of vinyl better, but you know that is what I grew up with, so to me that Umami is suppose to be there. But still Classical music, on CD is a much better experience, no loud record noises during the softer passages.
Cheers, Greg!
Most records from the mid 80s on were recorded digitally. Because of compression, some lps can sound better than cds. One of my favorite recordings is The Nightfly by Donald Fagen. I prefer the lp over the cd even though it is a digital recording. To each his own...
I'll always pick an LP but it's the format I love. The ingredients behind it, as long as they sound great, won't affect my pleasure if they are digital or pure analog.
Well, you're right. I guess it should be said that the MoFi records still sound the same as they did before the "digital step" was revealed. Is that obvious? It oughtta be. Still, MoFi was wrong not to acknowledge it sooner, because people have a right to know what they're buying.
Archivists have said that, in the interest of preserving delicate original analog master tapes (most recordings made before the 1980s), it has been common practice to make hi-res digital backups that could be used for making new pressings, internationally or domestically. And every step in mixing and editing can audibly degrade an analog recording. A digital copy, on the other hand, is "bit-perfect" -- absolutely identical to the digital original. Some high-quality record lathes REQUIRE digital conversion as the very last step before cutting a lacquer. My feeling is that sound quality really depends on so many things (what if it was originally made with vintage tube equipment instead of solid state?) that a "digital step" alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. Every signal, digital or analog, HAS to become analog before human ears can hear it. And unless the recording was made in a single take using one or two microphones (if stereo) and preserved direct to media (vinyl, CD, whatever), it's going to be mixed, mastered, EQed, edited and otherwise processed to some extent in many ways before it ever gets to YOUR system in YOUR room -- which unavoidably makes a whole host of other "custom" alterations to the original signals picked up by the microphones. For most recordings, there is no "pure" original sound or performance, but tracks and tracks and tracks of them, all painstakingly adjusted in innumerable ways before you ever get the chance to reproduce it.
A "whole hearted" yes to everything you just said. Especially the last step for playback - the room itself. That changes everything that went before.
I’ll never go back to vinyl. My argument is that if everyone is happy paying $30 for a vinyl record, there should be an equal market on the other side of the aisle for SACD’s. The SACD should’ve been where vinyl came back to by now.
One of the first albums recorded digitally....A brilliant digital to vinyl record - Donald Fagan Nightfly, enough said! 😉
That one's come up a number of times in the past - I really need to check it out.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I believe it was voted in the top ten best ever albums, it's a fantastic album.
I have a tears for fears 1983 re issue in 1985 that was recorded digitally
Bet it sounds great too, Dave!
Dire Straits Brothers in Arms and 10,000 Maniacs In my Tribe were hyped as digital and sound near perfect.
I always enjoyed In My Tribe. Now I want to listen to it. "What the Matter Here" and "Hey Jack Kerouac" were standouts
It's hard to get a truly analog source. Even records are cut with the lathe digitally calculating the groove spacing . I'm no engineer simply an enthusiast. I get annoyed over buying a 90 dollar record with very high levels of background noise. Results may vary ofcourse. Every good recording should have clarity and dynamics . At last Dire Straits On Every Street is now on Sacd. It's great and very long overdue. The original Brothers In Arms is great. I buy both vinyl and cd for the reasons you mention. I like putting a record on too. But a cd is fine too being a different experience.
Exactly! There's no "better". It's what the listener finds pleasing.
Hi Rick,
I disagree with a portion of what you said. I also have the Carole King MoFi Tapestry which is a fine sounding record. No complaint with that one. But Mofi's process which employs DSD at a very high sampling rate (not sure that is the correct terminology) is not your garden variety digital LP. I am not technologically savvy as you are, but I have two comments.
1. I wish there was a standard system of identifying how the record was pressed. What components are analog and what are digital and, if digital, a way to understand where it stands in the digital chain (I am assuming the MOFi process would be at the top of the heap), but how about other ways of employing digital within the record making process. There is not way of knowing if "all digital records are created equal."
2. I have the Beatles Red and Blue collections which were issued in 2014 in Europe and are all analog. I also have a pressing of the Beatles Please Please Me which was sourced from the same digital source as the 2009 Beatles CDs. For my ears at 72, there is a clear difference with the analog pressings that are so much more sonically enjoyable than the digital LP. The Digitally sourced LP is not bad, but it does not match the 2014 all analog pressings of Red and Blue.
In summary, if we had a standardized way to judge new pressings, the consumer would be better served and it may force some of the record companies to step up the quality of their digital sourcing to attract more consumers who now have a a way to make an informed choice before purchase. Joe
And on that we are in complete agreement. I would LOVE a standard system that would offer more information on how and where an album was pressed.
I love how this digital issue is such a huge turn off for collectors. And what's probably the hilarious part is just how many digital albums from the 80s they probably have in their collections.
I tried looking it up to get the correct title. But no luck. Anyways, London Records did a 2 lp box set in Im pretty sure 1979 that was a classical recording. Inside the big silver box was a huge 12x12 4 page sheet explaining the entire digital process they used for recording the entire preformance.
And it seems strange that they never added the Digital Recording sticker on that Dire Straits album. Every cassette i seen here in Canada has it in the upper right corner. Since I have never owned the album. I wonder if it is even mentioned on it.
I checked and pulled out the original inner sleeve to look. No mention at all of it being digitally sourced. Might speak to the fact that folks didn't seem to care as much about that back then.
Watch Vinyl is digital
I love this analogy of umami and vinyl records. It’s definitely hard to explain, and very easy to go down a rabbit hole trying to do so 😂… I concur with the fact that a great mastering is of vital importance, I’ve heard some vinyl records that sound awful because of a bad mastering; however, when done right, once the sound waveforms are pressed on the vinyl record and then played back, magic happens. I’d compare it to the sound of an acoustic guitar versus the pure, unadulterated notes of the strings; the acoustic guitar adds harmonics that are in synchronicity with the fundamental notes (they are multiples of them, not random, which would cause harmonic distortion), and this creates a resonance that we perceive as a fuller, richer, “warmer” sound. Ok, see? I’m going down the rabbit hole, let’s stay with umami 🤣… Great content, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this controversial subject 😊
Hi Joe! I love your analogy to the sound of an acoustic guitar. I might "borrow" that in conversation. Great way to verbalize it.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Thanks! By all means, I’d be honored 😄
I do agree with you . But when the question comes up " Why Buy Vinyl ?" over CDs. This is my take. I am at the age when vinyl was king and 8 track was just starting. With all the issue of 8 track , cassettes become the portable media of choice. Some of us would lug out records to parties or to a friends house to enjoy the latest toons. As the generations grow and younger folks coming from cassette tape to CDs. Vinyl took a back seat to CDs as the preferred portable media. I feel if someone asks the question today of why buy vinyl over CDs? Its bound to a younger generation who only knows CDs and downloadable music. We older folks who were brought up on vinyl , like the vinyl experience . Yes its very subjective as to what media we like. But all in all its all about the music in the end. I have enjoyed all the forms of media . From records to cassettes to CDs and now downloadable music as well as streaming. It does warms my heart to see an interest in vinyl once more. Music can be a bridge through the generations . So enjoy your music the way you like and share the experience with all how ask and share the stories that come with it. All the best to all.
All the best to you as well, Harry!
Many young people buy vinyl for the coolness factor, but never actually listen to them. My daughters do this. They were so excited when I got them a turntable for Christmas, but they've never played a record on it!
There was a story last year on how half of the vinyl buyers don't even own a turntable! I'm sure there are some real vinyl fans in the other half.
I'm an audio engineer. I would say that I completely agree with you but what you're saying isn't just an opinion. It is 1000 percent fact. The reasons are legion.
Digital audio production has come so far even as recently as the last 10 years. "That indescribable something" is called harmonic distortion. It creates transients which makes even the crappiest source, digital or otherwise, more so. My channel just started. I'll be doing a video on this soon. But kudos to you for your channel and this video.
Love the channel title by the way -😂😂😂😂. When you do post it let me know.. Subscribing
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords 😄 Thank you!!
Your observing that an lp of a digital studio recording played back on lp, sounds different or better than the same digital recording on cd is correct. Especially the "different" part. Different formats sound different and add their own characteristics or flavor to the sound Analog lps add 2nd order harmonic distortion to the sound which softens the sound, just like playing something through tubes almost always softens the sound. Playing an lp and playing a cd is not the same thing, even if it is the same music. In both instances you get the sound of the music + the sound of the format. So they sound different. Solid state and cds (usually) for best purity of sound; lps and tubes with their pleasant distortions for ultimate (apparent) sweetness of sound. There was a time many decades ago, that I didn't think I liked the sound of cds,(it was my cd players at fault). When I put on a digitally mastered cassette, I liked the sound better, except for dynamics. On my super modded cassette tape deck, it softened the showy edges of the music, compared to my cd reproduction. The sound was sweet, not forced or aggressive or occasionally hard of brash. The cassette format smoothed things over on the digitally mastered cassettes. Just like an lp mastering can do. Anytime you play something, you are not only hearing the music, you are hearing a combination of the music and the characteristics of the format you are using. Most people's cd players are not as sweet as decent vinyl playback.
What Mofi did years ago, not mentioning it was using DSD mastering instead of all analog, was because it knew that digital was a bad word for many collectors, who wrongly thought they knew digital's sound from their incompetent cd players. Rather than divulge, and lose big sales over these people's bad and incorrect inferences, they chose not to mention it. Like if you were selling your house, when a potential buyer came over, very few people would volunteer that there were people next door who were a minority racial ethicity, that a lot of people associate with bad things. Prejudice is an overgeneralization, and Mofi knew that many people overgeneralize about digital sound. They probably thought something like "Why lose sales over the wrong generalizations just because people have less than great cd players". The better players can run with lps, and even better them in many ways. I still prefer lps a tiny bit for sound quality. The good ones, that is!
I am sure that’s exactly why MoFi opted not to reveal the DSD step. Unfortunate only because of the prejudice you mentioned.
I was just playing the circa 1980s Mobile Fidelity Aqualung OMR record lp. It is amazing. So transparent, clear and full of detail. The electric guitars really growl; for some reason they didn't do their suppressing the midrange thing on that one. But through headphones, you can tell ts all analog, especially on piano and the fast strumming of acoustic guitars. Those are two areas where analog still sounds a bit more genuine, and sumptuous. But through speakers, whiich are not as revealing as great headphones, the distinction between the two sounds very slight. If lps were the same price as cds, and I was walking, I don't know that I'd walk an extra 8 blocks to buy the vinyl. I'd have to be feeling pretty energetic that day, and feel like there's a hole burning in my pocket to spend what vinyl collectors spend today.
I have mixed reactions about Mofi's not telling people they were using DSD copies. My main reaction though is "It's not that important!" I wonder how many of these Mofi scandal crybabies, would inform potential buyers of their house that there's a minority family living next door?
I began buying records in the early seventies, like LPs from Jethro Tull, King Crimsom, Yes, Mahavishnu, Miles Davis and so on, and began buying CDs in the eighties. Shortly spoken when I and a lot of «us» listen to music, we want to hold the «big» vinyl cover in front of our eies. To look, read, feel and smell the taste of the printed matter. So why not start to make all covers the same size as the great vinyl records to get the «old» feeling of the «past», but with a CD enclosed instead of a vinyl record? We all want the best of both parts, don’t we?
We sure do, Ivar 😎
I listen to both analogue and digital music and I believe I can here the difference between vinyl and digital. I think analogue is fuller, more engulfing, particularly at a lower volume. Digital seams crisper, almost clipped. We are analogue beings and live in a analogue environment. That environment is sonically messy and we subconsciously filter a lot of the messiness out. even though it is filtered out we notice when it's not there. When I listen to a CD or streaming I always feel something is missing, I think the messiness of an analogue base is what is missing. As far as the original source is concerned I don't think it matters as long as it was mastered well.
I completely agree with you, John 🍺
Music, albeit directed to only one sense (hearing) always is very much rich if reaches other senses. That is why we need to see (the band, the disc turning, the tape rolling, the movement of the cone of the wooffer...), we need to touch, we need the vibrations over our bodies (the propioception), and so on. The more we feed our senses, the more fulfilling the experience.
Actually is the ABUSE of the digital capabilities what lead to the loudness war. A good mastering "magician" could make our CDs sound celestial.
I agree completely, Pablo 🍺
We as individuals are attracted to analogue and strangely enough distortion same goes for tape
I'm actually posting something about that on my site this weekend. You read my mind (or peeked over my shoulder) 😂😂
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords looking forward to it, I believe this is one of the reasons of vinyl resurgence as well as we are tactile and are going against at not owning anything since the download era
The Dire Straits record was first recorded digitally and mark knopfler hated the sound so much he ran it through a DAC a dozen times trying to smooth it out. IMO and Bernie Grundman's, the big problem is computer desk mastering which sucks the life out of music. Mr. Grundman says if you have the original high res digital file (not the cd master), and the record company will pay for a proper job, he'll drop the digital file onto his analogue mastering desk and the sonic difference will be very noticeable. In most cases he says they don't want to pay and will hand over the cd master and ask for a fast/cheap transfer to a vinyl lacquer - that's what most people are buying in record stores today, cd masters dropped onto vinyl. No wonder modern records suck.
That's really sad. And by the way - great to hear from you - I'm a subscriber to your channel 😎
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords yes it is really sad, but the industry is, what it is, we just need find the records that are quality. As a Jazz and Classical lover (with a smattering of the music of my youth) I've learned to follow the people and labels. For example, CTI made great sounding records, and CTI was started by Creed Taylor, who was very involved in every aspect of producing good records. Well follow Mr. Taylor back to his previous label, which was Impulse and wow those are some amazing sounding Jazz records - no one today talks about those records. BTW I like your approach and perspective on your Channel - it's like a breath of fresh air!