The likely reason why vinyl sounds better is because there is different front-end equipment being used for vinyl vs. digital. When listening at home, what DAC are you using to convert DSD to analog? How does your DAC differ from what the studio used to convert the DSD to analog? At home, what transport are you using to send the bits to your DAC? How does your transport differ from what the studio used to transfer the bits to the DAC? What kind of power conditioning are you using at home? DACs send noise back into the power line, and that noise spreads into your other stereo equipment. (use a quality power cord for your DAC / CD player, and you will not know how you lived without it) Your turntable will not create that noise. Your phono-amp will not create that noise. It is all well and good to have the perfect capture of a performance. But the playback of that captured sound will vary wildly, depending on the equipment being used for the playback. @3:39 "You got, you know, a needle wiggling back and forth..." Stereos have no needles Needles are for sewing and flu shot.
I find recording digital audio from my DAC to an RTR, often makes the recording sound more pleasant, but it’s certainly not higher fidelity than it’s source. It’s the characteristic of the media. Not terribly unlike taking a an image that was rendered and printed digitally, and using photo emulation to produce a silk screen print in layers. The end reproduction is certainly not higher fidelity than it’s origin. The inherent characteristics of the media rendered, make it more desirable and pleasant to look at.
@@rollingtroll Unfortunately, not yet. Sony TC-758, mostly. Got a sweet Sansui WS-X1 6track cassette recorder that I love to use for analog multi-tracking, though. I have a few mono-RTR’s too. I really dig the 60’s Westinghouse one, in particular, it achieves a really rich saturation level. I gotta Tascam 4 track tape recorder too, but I use it rarely, and mostly only in the instance I wanna ping-pong the 6 track to a tape dually running twice speed, instead of to the digital recording interface, or Sony TC-758.
@@revelry1969 yeah,.. pretty much. I mean,.. it’s an analog RCA connection to the RTR. I’ve got a 16x08 interface. A 1/4 inch TRS patch bay, outboard effects, and snakes running to different levels of my studio. Yeah can pretty much send any signal wherever I want, throughout. The Tascam 16x08 interface supports my midi keyboards too. It just really depends on the configuration at any given moment, as to what is going where, and how I’m using it.
@@revelry1969 As matter of fact, the other day, I just noticed a DIN connection on the RTR,.. looking something like a MIDI connector and I’m trying to figure out how that’s intended to be used. I never noticed it before. It might be for running the transport remotely,.. I dunno yet.
@@polarbear3427 Everyones ears are different too. So even our ears are not "perfect". This is a discussion about who was first. The chicken or the egg. It depends on the equipment and the ears. If that match is "almost perfect" than we have a winner. But that is each on his own.
Well . . . Yes there probably is some distortions that are distinct to analog recordings and analog playback. But the key is it sounds more like the original recording and master tape or even more importantly sounds like the original performance than digital. Digital has always sounded like a artificial simulation, one that sounds dead and lifeless, strips the harmonic richness and tone of instruments. Why ? Because it’s not capturing important aspects of music. It’s better as resolution increases but it’s still missing important aspects of the music that make it un involving. This is conclusive by some of the best mastering engineers, Bernie Grundman, Steve Hoffman, and many of the top audiophiles in the industry. Go to any high end audio trade show and a majority of the higher end rooms are either playing vinyl or Master Tape. For many of those I know in the industry it’s still analog.
@@ohjoy40 I see what you’re saying. However analog media does have a resolution, per say, too. It’s just not distributed in binary, but the otherwise randomized distribution of the media on a microscopic scale, in tandem with the speed of the media, and depth of dynamic range. It’s all oscillations of waveforms from source to playback at the end of it all. Everything from the microphone, to the preamp, mixing, outboard, capture and playback monitors, introduces some level of bias that’s not gonna be an absolutely perfect 1:1 representation of the source. It’s the skill of manipulating those factors to produce desired results. If anything, the ‘trouble’ with an adequately high resolution digital recording respective to analog media, is that it’s too clean, and relative lack of inherent bias and coloring to the signal, makes it tend to sound uncanny and lifeless, especially without prior or post filtering and optimization. So, it’s not that digital recording media is omitting or subtracting essential qualities from the source, but rather that analog recording media generally adds useful and pleasant sounding qualities, inherently. Neither is fundamentally better or worse. Analog recording is certainly more fun, and generally requires more skill from the performers and sound engineer to pull off and get great results. I think, one of the other primary reasons that digital recordings tend to come off sounding so artificial, is because of the nearly limitless degree that one can ‘perfect’ the tracks in post, overzealously, and suck the life and human element away from the original performance.
@@ohjoy40 For some reason, now you have me wondering what a record would sound like if it were pressed into a sheet of Teflon, as opposed to vinyl, or if it’s possible to saturate a spool to spool chromium wire so much that it negates the tremolo effect from twist-over.
Live In Paris is the one album of hers I really like. I have the CD and vinyl double-LP. The hype sticker on the vinyl LP says it was "Mastered by Bernie Grundman from the original analogue master tapes" so I will assume it was recorded to analog(ue) tape. My impression is that the CD and vinyl sound about the same. For the record, my system consists of: SME 20/3 turntable, SME V arm, Dynavector XV-1s, van den Hull "The Grail" phono pre, dCS Rossini DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock, Audio Note Kondo Ongaku amp, Avantgarde Duo Mezzo speakers. I don't find, in this case, with my system, to my ears, that vinyl sounds better. Different but not better. What I do find is that generally the best sounding medium tends to be the one of the original recording. Two examples: Nina Simone's "Little Girl Blue" sounds better in its LP version than its SACD version (both mastered at the same time by Ryan Smith from the original analog tapes in the 2015 AP release). Similarly, Todd Garfinkle's recording of "Sera Una Noche", captured in digital beautifully, sounds better in digital than vinyl. There's some magic lost in translation. BTW, I just learned from you guys that Live In Paris is available in SACD, and I just bought it. Thank you! I might report back here how it compares to the CD version.
Ok here goes my review of DK's "Live in Paris" in the three versions even though noone might read this... Firstly, it is al analog tape recording, you can hear the tape hiss in the quiet portions. I am extremely familiar with the CD version. The SACD which I got recently is leaps and bounds better. The 45rpm LP is good. Given that the master is analog, I would have expected the LP to sound best. But this is not the case. Her voice on the LP has a similar subtle graininess that I detect on the CD whereas the SACD is revelatory in its tonality, spatial depth, the silkiness of her voice, etc. LP is better than CD but not by a whole lot, the SACD in this case takes the cake. Now, it might well be that the master used for the SACD was a lower generation, or better in some way. I reiterate the strange perception I get that the LP has some of the same bad characters of the CD - especially a hint of graininess in her voice. Makes me wonder about the provenance of the source for the LP frankly. Finally I will add that the last track, which was not recorded at the concert, does not sound as good as the rest of the SACD.
@@michaelrovner4165 Ok interesting. I assumed it was analog tape because the hype sticker on the vinyl says “remastered by Bernie G from the original analog tapes” and I thought the quiet end of Case of You sounded like tape hiss. But you might be right and might explain why the digital version sounds, to me, better than the LP. It also brings into question the real provenance of the master used to cut the 45rpm LP, as it sounds to me like some of the grittiness of the CD is present in the LP (ameliorated by the vinyl medium but still there). Maybe they cut the 45rpm off of the CD??? :)
@@michaelrovner4165 Actually, Al Schmitt might have recorded this to analog tape. He recorded DK to analog tape (Neve 8068 console and Studer tape machines) during her “When I Look In Your Eyes” sessions in 1999 (found this on a Pro Audio article from May 2001). Live In Paris is Nov 2001, so not that much later. Also, in 2001 I don’t know that ProTools was at a real production Al-Schmitt-level sort of maturity. Finally, the recording has a few small glitches here and there, probably microphone cable noises - if he was using ProTools he could have easily removed them.
@@michaelrovner4165 There's a 2007 interview in Mix Magazine where he says he mostly records to analog. Sorry for the multiple replies, I just find the topic very interesting.
Great topic, Paul! There are some mastering engineers around town here in LA who know all about the differences you describe. One experiment that was tried a while back was to carefully cut an acetate lacquer from a very high sample rate PCM or DSD master, using all the engineer's skill, judgement, custom cutter head amplifiers, and eq/dyanamics-control gear for the cutting process. The acetate was then quickly re-recorded using a high end ADC and phono cart, tonearm and preamp. Result: Digital files with all of the finesse of the lacquer mastering process, and lacquer playback embedded in the new digital file. Some mastering engineers now offer this process as an extra service to those ordering CD (or digital file) mastering, since the response has been very positive. Upon hearing the results, some old gaffers sometimes exclaim "That's a CD we're listening to...?!?" Cost varies depending on the run time of the recording, and choice of cutting at 33 or 45 RPM. And, you end up with lacquer recordings as a souveneir!
For me, a lover of loud and dynamic Classical music, the digital playback of a recording can’t be beat. I’ve listened to albums and CDs. The superior S/N ratio, frequency response and dynamic range of CDs won me over decades ago. But… I understand that many types of music may sound “better” to people when listening to vinyl.
And I might add, the physical characteristics of the vinyl will eventually lead to pops, hiss and possible warpage. All for a higher price also. No thanks.
@@billstahlin1774 True, but you'd have to listen to the same piece hundreds of times before it noticeably degrades. You'd probably be tired of hearing it and move on to something else long before that happens.
this points out something important. If the goal of our equipment is fidelity to the source, accuracy, transparency, then clearly the digital source wins hands down. But obviously many people prefer the sound of vinyl. Whether it's the dynamic compression, the low frequency resonances, the comforting noise profile, the blurred channel separation...something about it makes it more pleasing to many ears. I just feel like it's important to note that if we prefer the vinyl playback of a digital source, we are specifically preferring LOWER fidelity to higher fidelity.
Some listeners just enjoy the euphonic coloration that the vinyl playback system (physical sound wave groove +stylus+cantilever+cartridge+phono preamp) imparts to the sound, adding some harmonics and distortion, removing some frequencies and other sound characteristics. No different than guys who prefer the "tube sound" or "tape sound." A transfer function could probably easily be made digitally to replicate what the vinyl system adds/subtracts from the sound as recorded from the mics to the recording medium, ie analog tape or pcm, dsd digital during the session. Make foobar or other Media player plugins to replicate any vinyl stylus, cart, table, phono preamp combo, pending the DAC quality of course.
I'm an audio engineer. Records always sound more compressed than an original tape master(or high quality digital copy). I'm into open sounds not compressed sounds, but that's just me. 🙃
yeap, but compression could be a good thing, everything sounds more focused when it's compressed in the right way. I'm not talking about hyper compressed CD releases but I think vinyl dynamic range is usually acceptably good and sounds beautiful.
@@net_news I think the dynamic range of vinyl is all we really need assuming the original material was not compressed more that what was needed to fit on vinyl. (edit: I meant to say "a vinyl." My apologies to the millennials and gen x'ers who may be watching. My boomer roots are showing again.) Beyond that a lower noise floor is the main advantage to digital although not the only one. Now that I said that it occurs to me that a little noise can take the edge off, making it more listenable in some cases.
Ripped the vinyl to FLAC.. played through stand alone DAC from USB output...as warm as Vinyl with no digital Brightness or harshness...I don't know the reason but I love it.
Rule of thumb for me is, Vinyl for analog recordings and CD or Hi-res for Digitally recorded music. I have a competent rig for both cases. I noticed that the final mix (sound engineering) in digital recordings is mostly done to sound good on a digital medium. #2 Recent presses or reissues are a hit and miss in most cases. I got tired of spending money (30-40$)on a new vinyl or doing research on a fresh pressed vinyl to see if the quality holds. Try a newly pressed Amy Winehouse or Oasis vinyl and you will find out that there only good to put on a table to be use as a coaster for the giant glass of Scotch needed to console me after spending 40$ on them.
The home playback equipment comparison is the most important variable that will directly effect perceived differences however there's something even more basic to consider. Since vinyl playback lies in the analog domain, despite all of it's technical limitations it theoretically can provide "infinite frequency response." You can make the argument that vinyl under ideal conditions can reproduce harmonic series overtones produced above the fundamental notes of an acoustic instrument in a more realistic way for human hearing even if everything started out as digital in the recording process. IMHO - Digital is great for increased dynamics, a lower noise floor, lower measured distortions, etc., but when it comes to reproducing pure harmonics of natural acoustic instruments, I believe vinyl may win out for some listeners for this reason. It's all about that little vibrating stylus in the groove. Picture drawing a bow across a string, striking a drum, hammers striking the strings on a grand piano, etc. There are physical similarities here. This is my "hypothetical" explanation. P.S. I love both platforms for different reasons. They do live together side by side in my home system.
It depends on how much you can afford to spend even your ears are not Good enough, just pretend you hear it and say wow I like the sound its airy, its bright, great dynamics , the bass is forward and build a good story to make a good review. Making sound gears sounds a paranormal Horror movie.
It's A Trap! Lol. Great answer, Paul. Truly a question for which the line "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is a perfect answer. Sometimes there's just a bit of magic in the air. I remember an audio cassette that sounded better than both the vinyl and the CD versions of the same album. It just happens.
Don't forget that most SACD players have 'cheap' Sony DACs in them. If you are comparing that to a multi thousand dollar vinyl setup, we are not comparing apples with apples. Also, we tend to acclimatise to the sounds were are or were used to, e.g. vinyl.
Just switching between a crap or excellent turntable like an SL1200MKII is a trip. I prefer digital these days, I feel vinyl adds stuff that isn't there. Play that stuff through a large PA sustem and you know what vinyl pressing is good or not. Coming back to digital-> no hassle, and I can choose my sound accordingly pre or post from the source.
Is sl1200 really so great? I have one, and it is noisy as hell. I never could figure out if it is surface noise or my flimsy stand that rumbles the spinning platter sound into a low frequent background noise. I do think possibly it is my stand because even the slightest tapping makes it to the pick-up.
@@roygalaasen Noisy? you might want to take it for a service. Any turntable is sensitve to a wobbly stand, so make it as solid as possible. It could also be a flimsy needle/element connection/ bad grounding too. (the last one you should hear without any music). Fasten the ground cable really tight,( maybe replace it with a more rugged wire). Also (bad) audio-cables might be worth a check.
@@Projacked1 honestly I do think it is the stand. Possibly the pickup system, which I do have long term plans of upgrading at some point. It is not a grounding problem. That noise you simply can’t mistake. My guess is that even with the direct drive mechanism, noise reverberate through the whole setup from the spinning platter. If you are telling me that there should not be noise from this part of the assembly, then perhaps you are right that I need to take it for service. I do think that I would be able to reduce the noise using a solid stand though. I am imagining a combination of solid wood/rubber ad concrete. In some order to absorb as much noise as possible.
Is it like a rumble (low) noise? That would be the platter I think. Lots of factors in a turntable. But easy to fix/upgrade with the SL. I'm thinking one could make the bottom part more heavy/ damped. But the base needs to be solid, period,-> facts. Also check the pick-up element .Is it fastened tight/ properly connected? In the 'worst' case-scenario maybe some components are old/faulty like in the RIAA filter? Also, easily upgraded/repaired., or actual physical wear? but that is very far fetched with such a solid product. These machines are built to last. What model do you have?
Maybe the physical cutting of grooves "smooths" out the digital signal as it gets its final conversion to analog??? Digital Hf has always sounded a bit harsh to me. I watch and learn from this channel all of the time. Love it.
Yes what annoys me is even DSd is only sampling the actual audio which IS analogue and has to converted BACK to analogue so we can hear it again always less than perfect either way but digital if far more complex method
How it was recorded and what format it was recorded onto is of course an important factor but only part of the scenario. Analog tape vs digital just simply sounds different. There is no denying that. But I think the biggest factor of which version sound better at the consumer level is how it was mastered, and how well it was mastered onto each format. I have some analog recorded versions that were mastered both onto vinyl and digital and the digital version sounds better. and vice versa. I think the one that surprises me the most is when a digital recording sound better on vinyl than a digital version. It really comes down to how it was mastered and then mastered onto each format.
A lot depends on the equipment. The home digital transport is not going to be as good and robust as the commercial version used in the mastering. Also there wouldn't be such a wide disparity in prices of phono cartridges and turntables if the equipment didn't matter.
Also not true , if you ever been in a studio they don't use super high end gear. Matter in fact I know a good few that are audio engineer. They laugh their ass of seeing what audiophiles do to get "quality sound"
I have one track on a CD, that sounds way better in my car - a 20 year old Ford, with factory sound - than it does on my home system. The car's audio systems distortion is just what is needed to make this track sound the best to my ears.
@@MichelLinschoten Doesn't take much to pass off as en engineer these days. I assure many of the best engineers that master or produce stuff to be played back in a proper two channel system does not make such short cuts. Content to be played back on a smart phone or in the car does not need much.
Suggest that we'd have to look at the psychoacoustics of overwhelming stimuli, to really get to the bottom of why a lower resolution component like vinyl is preferred by some people over the higher resolution PDM or PCM encodings. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that we humans don't like too much information simultaneously incoming (this is true in taste, and smell, and definitely vision.) Remember, "hearing" is a process in the brain, something we construct and experience _as a result_ of stimulation via ears. The actual sound waves are *not* the act of hearing. The act of hearing is a brain process.
Maybe, but the phenomenon isn’t exclusive to audio media, either. Like, for instance, a very high quality, high resolution video recording, simply doesn’t have the same qualia as a high quality film recording, whether the fidelity or frame rate is rendered to be comparable or not. You could put a film effect over a video, but in the best case scenario, it’s just gonna look like a video recording of a film. If you video record a film, you can introduce artifacts and much of the qualia from the film to the video. On the other hand, if you film a video, you’re not so much introducing the qualia of the video, to the film, unless the video is already much lower visual fidelity than the film recording it. Most people’s brains, generally filter out excess information, subconsciously, automatically, in general. So, I don’t reckon that’s the case. I reckon, it’s a preference for a certain qualia or aesthetic that one’s neurons and synapses are predisposed to, and wired for, more than anything. Like, for instance, I and many people still prefer to consume video media or play video games on a cathode ray tube display, over an LCD or OLED, in many circumstances, when practically feasible. It’s not that the disparities between the displays inherently make either better or worse. It’s rather an aesthetic that my mind is preconditioned to perceive as pleasing.
@@WizardClipAudio Note I did include "vision" in my list of senses about which the issue of over-stimulation is a problem. Yes, our brains do filter out information - this in audio is continuous. Our environment is noisy and we can filter out *some* of that noise. And if we are put into essentially a noiseless environment we recognize that quickly. We don't think about the noise when it's there, but we notice it if it all goes away. When CDs first came out and in the early years the problem I had was the screechiness of so many CDs with string instruments. The CDs were just too good at capturing the inherent unpleasantness of a string that in normal life when going to a concert hall one does not hear because one is a hundred feet or so away from the instrument. Regarding film: a reasonable analogy but (silver based) film does have some significant advantages over solid-state capture devices. Film has a shoulder (on an exposure graph) which really can be exploited in cases where too much light is in the field. Silicon devices are too linear and saturate and the image gets ugly artifacts and information is lost (so in this case analog actually preserves more of the original.) And that gets back to what Paul suggested, that the nonlinear nature of vinyl audio (what with compression curves) may be what we humans find appealing.
My humble opinion is that, due to reduced dynamic range of the record, the mix for the record need to be compressed, with the side effect that it sounds louder. And often louder seems better but is not. With the compression you add noise, loose clarity, soundstage and so on.. Let's face it, vinyl is a lossy format.
funny thing is vinyl releases usually have more soundstage and more realism than their digital counterparts. IMHO noise could be a good thing and sound more "real" even if they are less perfect... digital is so clean that sounds synthetic.
@@net_news Soundstage, realism, are subjective parameters that no one can scientifically measure and it depends a lot from the age. Moreover Paul forgot to make a net separation between analog and digital masters. Analog master are on reel to reel machines that have a much smaller dynamic range with respect to a 192Khz 24 bit digital recordings, although they are superior to vinyl: less difference, less compression. BUT if you are comparing a modern digital studio recording with its new vinyl "brother" the difference is huge. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE vinyls because they are wonderful objects and the ritual of starting a play of a record is fantastic. But as far as realism (I'm a musician and sound engineer) digital is far nearer to the reality of a studio recording than as vinyl. That's only my humble opinion.
@@paolovolante digital sources tend to be lifeless when mastered. This is because of crap mastering and inferior playback systems. Modern mastering bites ass unless you get a good mastering engineer
@@paolovolante yeap, musical enjoyment is subjective. Thing is, most people find vinyl more real and more enjoyable... so I think should be an objective reason to that.
Yeah I've got "out of thin air" and "say somethin" on vinyl. Not only is the music great, the sound quality is amazing too... among the best in my collection. Octave Records did a great job on those. Keep up the good work! 👍
@@johnholmes912 Yes, I've heard reel-to-reel players and they can sound awesome and better than red book CD quality, but digital audio can also sound better than CD quality.
i guarantee you "nearly 100%" doesn't use 'modern digital audio' because of it's audio fidelity, but only due its convenience (and marketing and popularity.) Digital is being sold and praised for certain reasons, actually. Away with the physical and 'analogue'. People simply believe experts, who they don't know are there to sell them something, while pretending to be offering their own objective opinions, based on their golden ears no one else can check. Yeah, trust a salesman and force yourself to enjoy the digital, because after all, you were told its better by people you trust!
@@itnaklipse1669 Agree, the vast majority of consumers use digital audio foremost because of convenience. Smart phones, smart speakers, laptops and other internet connected devices supporting streaming are what the mass market is using to consume music.
your suggesting perhaps compression is making vinyl sound better....yet everyone complains compression is the reason modern CDs sound like crap ...hmmm
I love DSd, did not realize just how much better it was than pcm before I got my SACD player. Analog sounding, really. My two favorites are my sacd player and my turntable
🤗👍THANKS PAUL …for a great objective explanation 👏👏👏 But sadly this is not in most people’s budget 😞 SO we need a friend who has this available 🤗 And is willing to share with us with Champaign tastes …😁😍😍😍
So the old vinyl technology the old sound enginieers have the answer of this mystery which is like an old black magic ...I love the magic around the vinyl sound ,great video ,cheers from Argentina 🎊🥳🥂
I prefer SACD's \ DSD to vinyl. I understand the ritual side of vinyl, the tactile side, the artwork associated with vinyl but it sound "better" than DSD... not to me!
It's on Verve, which is owned by Universal Music. The early 2000s Universal SACDs are heavily Brick Walled to DEATH. That is why it sounds bad. My cat could master it better.
The converter you guys use to in the process of transferring the master to the vinyl is probably better than what most of us have at home - and then - - - the magic of coils and magnets come into the equation during the playback of a record - - which imho, has always been a key factor in that vinyl magic we all love - for me, especially with better pressings, there even seems to be more in the way of dynamics which if actually measured is likely not true, certainly there's less in dynamics in the vinyl itself which would seem to lead to considering what the cartridge is actually doing to provide that dynamic sense - like how the cartridge is designed and performs must play a key role - - and yes, of course, we all know everything else matters too - - personally, I'd hate to live without both sources, I truly enjoy both, but I'd still take vinyl if I could only have one or the other.
I’ve compared high quality digital files to my vinyl rig. Upon first listen, digital does appear to sound better. But with extended listening I start to notice that the sum of the parts of digital just don’t add up. Something is missing. Sure, the deepest of bass notes are mostly better with digital files, but everything above that is where vinyl wins every time and over time. I can listen to vinyl for hours on end without fatigue, but with digital, I’m ready to shut it down after an hour at most. I don’t know why this is, but this is what I personally find every time I make direct comparisons. Harmonics, even order distortion, synergy? I don’t know, but I like it.
First guess would be your system synergy, or even specific components (usually speakers) that are just more harsh than you are looking for. if you list your major components, one of the viewers familiar with them may be able able to point you in the right direction.
@@l0zerth system is professionally calibrated for audio, room is mostly treated, speakers are Salks, sub is Seaton Submersive+ dual 15”, amp is Parasound Halo series. System definitely not bright or harsh.
"but with digital, I’m ready to shut it down after an hour at most." - because the digital chain preserves the signal. It is exactly because digital is accurate that we find it fatiguing. Human hearing evolved to be able to distinguish location and (often in a quite savannah) other human voices, not massed violins or an entire horn section blaring away.
Digital recording has to be frequency constrained, and results in very steep filtering. Analogue has to be dynamically constrained ( for vinyl). It's the steep HF roll off that makes digital so harsh to listen to. If you have money to burn, invest in HQ analogue reel-to-reel....that is still the best sound that money can buy ;)
@@johnholmes912 It doesn't have to result in steep filtering, whether at the A/D stage or D/A. I'm curious what the high-res files were, as the cutoff frequency and therefore filter curve move higher up out of the audible range the higher the sampling rate.
I'd bet that the compression to put music on an LP allows the internal dynamics of the music to be more easily hear. The experiment PD Audio could do is take the digital file after its been prepared for the cutting layth minus the RIAA compensation and make that PCM file available with the record. I bet they sound equally "superior" I prefer digital so that's my bias.
PS: I am amased (and unpleasantly suprised) to here Paul saying that he loves vinyl since I saw an earlier (from a few years ago) video of his (which is now gone from the channel) in which he quiet clearly (and funny) explained why he loves CDs and why he is happy not have to listen to vinyl anymore (with all the husle using records supposed). And now he loves vinyl again...Strange change of opinion... 🤔 Frankly, I love better the older videos when it was more about ways to improve how music sounds and less about gear and hidden pro domo marketing. 🙄
Here is the real question, why do you need DSD? You have at hand a format (vinyl) that came out in the 50s/60s and can still be played on a turntable that also hasn’t really changed since then. And it STILL sounds better than any other format currently available. Name me one other format that has had that staying power. Add to that their collectibility, the large format artwork, the tactile feeling of being able to hold the album and read the liner notes, etc. and it’s a slam-dunk for me over digital. And yes I still listen to digital for convenience, but there’s nothing sweeter than pulling out a vinyl album, placing it on the TT, pouring yourself a bourbon, and placing the needle in the groove.
@@mr.b4444 very true and some people believe it. To be fair, records were not vinyl until the 40's bit they were around in 1912. Cylinders started in the 1880's.
A lot of listeners are attracted to the distorted effects that are created by the creation of vinyl record plus the enhancements to the midrange frequencies which is where we hear the most of, its not worse they are just not the same
Hey Paul, been watching your videos for a while, and love the content. I don't have the amount of experience you do with professional audio, but I've had some in the past. I would simply say it's a difference between analog and digital. real life isn't digital, it's analog. and analog can have a warmer richer sound that digital. That's always been my understanding, and my experience when I listened to more analog sources when younger such as records, and cassettes, etc. Love the videos. Have the great day!
The end user is not using the same digital to analogue converters as the studio uses so they will be many variable in reproduction Same as there will be different cartridges , tone arms, turntables and preamps which also dont have the same sound I t would be interesting to do a direct cut to vinyl recording with the same time on DSD and compare in the studio and with audiophile home set ups
Well the answer is simple... Take the DSD file.. apply the RIAA curve of bass cut, treble boost and compression to it.. save it in DSD, play it back with the phono equalization reverse RIAA curve, and voila... the DSD recording will sound identical to the LP minus the groove noise and ticks and pops!!!!
I agree with pauls explanation almost sounds similar to dan dagostino explaining how one of his best sounding amps was far from his best measuring amp seems like some distortion can add something good to the sound
I think in this matter the words are not used properly. Digital recordings on digital suport will always sound better than on vinyl suport. This is a fact. Yet, some recordings (even digital) on vinyl suport may sometimes sound nicer for us (NOT better, but nicer, more pleasant) than on digital suport. So the proper word to use when making this comparison is nicer. Not better. And that is because "nicer" expresses more accurately the combination of technical and psychological aspects that determine how we actually appreciate the way music sounds for us.
Digital Master: A prime grade rib eye steak. Vinyl: That same steak, only grilled on a charcoal grill seasoned with salt and pepper. Then slow simmered in butter, garlic, thyme, rosemary, and served with a nice cold beverage of your choice.
One importan question from me? A DSD CD, does it only "works" through a SACD or another kind of player? Would i benefit using DSD recorded CD's om my older Linn Ikemi HDCD ??
Great digital recordings have a wider dynamic range and amazing detail which is more of a strain on the equipment the playback room acoustics - and our brains The amazing detail maybe is a bit too much for us ? Vinyl compromises smooths all that out and sound engineer compromised choices done well makes the listening process easier Listening to a vintage Decca classical recording engineered by Kenneth Wilkinson doesn’t actually sound like a live orchestra laid out in front of you - but is a beautiful version/ illusion of such a thing
Hello, first I would like to congratulate you for this channel since the technical content is interesting. I see that you have a lot of patience and you are an educated person when responding patiently to those who think they know about audio quality but are ignorant in the technical aspect, for many of them who have joined the fashion and myths of vinyl and who we know It is nothing more than a convenient commercial strategy since nobody has a vinyl recorder in their home and it is a physical format that wears out and over time it will sound worse, therefore they will not have the problem of piracy and that is why they have popularized it both, inventing myths as it has a great sound, etc. We must tell consumers that it is a low-fidelity format with 60 db of dynamic range and a lot of noise, that the master to create it has been digital for many years and it is necessary to lower the quality of the original to master it to vinyl, reducing the dynamic range, the frequency response and not to mention the noise, the efforts of engineers to create new formats and develop the CD, SACD, Bluray Audio, DVD Audio; they have been a gift to our ears bringing us closer to high fidelity, unfortunately those who do not have technical knowledge are carried away by myths.
While listening to recorded audio we are dealing with "brain games of reception" which constantly varies it's standards with actual brain "program" Im my opinion that is avoided in case when brain gets parallel constant 'delivery" of background. At best at whole usable range of harmonics. Like digital clock keeping our hearing at best timing . Or frame around the painting which sets boundaries to neighbouring wall patterns which by comparison sets white balance to vision. That may explain why we feel unpleasant listening to pure instruments in environment far from natural , like complete silence. I am always relaxed to hear any natural sounds acompanying performance and it is normal to hear natural background ex people in concert hall or probably unwilling sound of guitar moved aside afer singer has already fiished track. Or sounds of compressor during chruch organ performance while people moving walking in church . It sets right programming of hearing . With studio digital recordings it is all considered waste. Or (may be) below digital resolution I found even one certain recording like cut instantly to null before ended naturally . In recording to tape or vinyl we are additionaly supplied with low level noise ranging 20-20kHz, like "cover up' of natural environment which is often below that noise and it fills the gap raised by lack of natural environment . By natural I mean low level sounds not processed by sound effects which are willingly used for mastering . Just my idea based on still comfortable for me listening after tape/vinyl (with considerable natural noise layer included) was transferred to digital
It doesn't matter what it's recorded in, that is the master, all you have. but to then have a derivative that sounds better - well that is interesting. 'Vinyl distortion' for want of a better word, as an audio 'improver' Although I think Paul is onto something when he discusses the compression user to make it fit into vinyl's limitations.
My old petrol powered vehicle is noisy. I have to work at gear changes. It stalls if I don’t get clutch, handbrake and accelerator balance just right. Maintenance is expensive, and the pollution that it creates nags my environmental conscience. Recently I drove a friend’s new electric car. Straight off, It’s acceleration was way better, it was almost silent and suffers none of the other problems of my own vehicle, and has several other pluses. But I still prefer the actual driving experience of my old banger. Same for vinyl.
Of course the simplest exercise to settle the matter is record the output of your preferred vinyl system to 24/96 or higher (probably not needed, 20/48 probably more than enough) then compare your digital recording to the vinyl playing in realtime, switching between the two in a blind abx If you can reliably distinguish the two, then you might need to test a couple of Dacs in the quality, cost range of your vinyl and amp, speaker chain. I'm confident there are Dacs that would make such an abx indistinguishable
Not really, you might be able to identify the vinyl as it has some other sounds (pop etc), the point might be that it sounds good to some people and only some recordings. My friend, who created a cd, told me that now they are adding hiss sounds from tape (even when recording was digital). So it depends on so many factors and I agree that digital should souind better.
@@daniloreyes2 Presumably, a pcm or dsd recording from vinyl would have any surface noise, pops, dust that playing the vinyl in realtime would have. I assume no post processing or cleanup of any kind to the digital recording
Maybe it could be the brain's perception of the organic nature of vinyl sound compared to that "you can hear everything" sound of "digital" Like there is less to work with so there is some relaxation to the overall processing of that sound by the brain and as such, there is a perception of focus, like it becomes easier to focus on the main highlight sound during playback of the song/audio. its the same in photography, those ancient/classic films with their grains, sort of mellow, monotonic colours feel better than a similar digital photo in like HDR mode or something. the emotional connection to these 'analogue' systems just communicate with our sensory inputs much better
Vinyl and DSD records are played by different machines, therefore some sound differences could appear due to this reason, even if the rest of audio chain is the same. What means "better" and what is "more life" in sound? Are these objective or subjective sound attributes?
I suppose that Paul is explaining that it is comparing apples to pears. If you have changed equipment for great improvents you will understand what he is telling with 'better' 'live' 'true' 'image' etc. In some tracks I can hear the back wall bounce of the sound, behind me. This might seem ridiculous but it is a shared experience between people. Your auditory system is truly amazing and it gets better once you learn to use your senses better for enjoying music and playback. At least, that is my experience and opinion,.
Whatever source is used, as long as the vinyl cut is cut specefic for vinyl. Mastered to laquer, it often says on a sticker or on the back cover? So how Diana was recorded that night, comes down to what next step is taking and which format used? That is my thoughts ✌️❤️🇩🇰
Because hi-fi is one of those delicious areas which cross the mysterious objective-subjective divide, what matters is less all the objective measurements and more just what it sounds like. I suspect that Paul has a point in suggesting that it is largely the squeezed dynamic range (objective fact) that is responsible for this pleasant effect (subjective fact). I further suggest that this 'squeezing' becomes more appreciated with ageing, as one's ability to cope with larger dynamic range becomes restricted. I am constantly having to turn up the quite stretches, then rapidly turn down the louder parts. I regret having dispensed with my vinyl and turntable years ago when it made less difference. Can anyone out there tell me if there is domestically available equipment that can 're-squeeze' digital sources, without making a pig's ear of things? And Paul, I love your videos.
Well what if you use a Luxman D-10x or some other exotic SACD Player? Many factors play in. You can also play the album on Michael Fremer's Caliburn and have a magical experience 🪄
Often times, we just like harmonic distortion. It's as simple as that. A lot of times in mixing and mastering, the engineer may intentionally use something like a channel strip on a given console, a certain mic pre or they might track to tape just to get a little extra character out of the source. In fact, there's a unit called the black box that is only used as a tube buffer (usually in the context of mastering). It's not a mic pre, or a console where the harmonics are a happy accident, it is specifically designed for adding harmonic distortion
Only Paul can masterfully keep two sides happy like in this video. Us who understand that original can never be better than original and the cult who’ve started playing vinyl again or always played vinyl and found it superior over digital. I agree old analogue recordings might not be better converted to digital (although I don’t quite understand why with today’s technology) but new digital recordings converted to vinyl sounding better than the original digital copy? Nah, but at least musicians are making some money again thanks to the vinyl cult.
Greetings Paul, been watching your videos for a while, and love the content And hear we go again with the emperor’s new cloths Way back when there were only records I bought all the SME pick up arms and turntables But I always dreamed of cd’s with their pure sound Lp’s do not sound better When I go to a live concert and listen to a string quartet I do not hear crackles and pops like you get on a record These crazy people are not listening to the music they just love watching the turntable going round, I am a photographer who used film for decades and now use digital its the same as the records move on they are just tools typical because we believe this ridiculous degree of audiophile you assume we are hateful jealous people, No its because we believe in spending our time listing to music not equipment
You're making a fool of yourself. Why is it that people like you have to fabricate information, and for no reason. No one here is going to fault you for liking digital better. There's plenty of hard core audiophiles that prefer digital. And that's a very good thing because if no one supported digital, we wouldn't have all the advances that have taken us from that first CD player in 1982, to now. "typical because we believe this ridiculous degree of audiophile you assume we are hateful jealous people," You simply can't back that statement up with any facts whatsoever. Its pure fabrication, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying such a thing.
I think when looking at sound reproduction technology, digital is superior when you look at all the measurements (like he said in the video). I think it really does boil down to what interacts with our psychology in a more pleasing way. He is definitely on to something when he mentions the squeezing of information (less dynamic range). Digital outperforms our ears!! What's the point?? Make it pleasing to the human ear, not a computer measuring things.
I wonder if some artists don't care about all the digital and engineering and mastering tricks that go on. They just want to sound good. And if that involves a lot of electronics or if it is far removed from what they actually laid down in studio that wasn't so great to begin with that's why that stuff exists.
Paul, I'm pretty sure I can give you an answer as to why vinyl sounds better than digital. It may not explain 100% , but at least part of it. I have 2 reasons. First, is the playback gear. I remember when SACD first came out and I wanted to try it. I bought a fairly run of the mill player. If I remember correctly, it was a Sony 9000ES. I started playing some disks, and was disappointed. When I played the redbook layer on my Wadia 861SE, it was no contest. The Wadia easily beat it. But that wasn't the SACD's fault, it was mine. I assumed the format itself would be enough to overcome the difference, and it just wasn't true. In order to compete with the Wadia fairly, I needed to get an SACD player in the same league. My second reason is not so obvious. When you want an SACD or CD player, you go out and buy one. Not so with vinyl. You go out and buy a turntable, tone arm, cartridge, phono preamp and sometimes an SUT. Its a partial build. While you don't actually make the pieces yourself, you select them all given your taste in sound. You end up with a solution based heavily on your personal bias. And there is nothing wrong with that. No one would ever expect you buy something you don't like. I figured this out a long time ago when a friend of mine said he didn't understand why a store bought CD didn't sound as good as when he recorded the same album on vinyl using his CD burner. He's not just recording the record. He's also recording the sound of a bunch of components that he hand selected. I told him to try recording the record on someone's turntable setup you don't like. You'll get different results.
I tend to agree with you about the compression making it sound "better". My hypothesis in why, is the fact that live shows are magnitudes higher in sound output level. When you scale the volume down so much in your system, you are not going to easily hear the soft sounds. And for that reason it doesn't sound as good.
I've always hypothesized that one of the reasons people prefer vinyl and analog in general is the sloppy phase relationship between the left and right channels. As the medium plays along through the track the phase changes ever so slightly as the stylus continually tries to find it's center and as slightly stretched portions of the tape go by the heads. Our senses do not prefer things that are in perfect order. This is why there are plugins for synth drums that deliberately mess up the timing (and therefore phase) ever so slightly.
our brain prefers robust, meaning precise with some give for adaptive movements, over rigid "fragile" perfection. there is nothing more fragile than perfection. vinyl sound rolls with the punches and our brain enjoys that
Can’t wait for the in-house vinyl. Hopefully the price will come down a bit. I’ve got Temporary Circumstances on vinyl, and I really love the bonus track. One question, was the album recorded live to two channel, or were the vocals and piano recorded separately. Thanks in advance.
People are so delusional! Modern music is recorded digitally with wide stereo projection, lots of dynamics and clarity on the instruments that you couldn't achieve with gear from the 60's-70's. This music is recorded DIGITALLY. Vinyl isn't better than DSD or vice versa. It all depends on the quality of the gear that you're playing your music with.
I mostly agree with you. However, to me, it depends on what genre will sound better on which medium. Orchestral and chamber music deserve DSD, and can also live with PCM. Rock, funk, soul, R&B all benefit from vinyl. Jazz is tricky because there are so many subgenres.
Perhaps, it is these analog imperfections, distortions resulting from the reproduction technology that are the magical living element that makes them more natural and closer to our ears, and Digital sound ... Well, probably it's just unnatural perfection.
Definitely not an expert but compression might be a significant part of the equation, I certainly don’t listen to music via vinyl any more. That said as someone that spent half their life mixing bands live, volume and the intimacy of a live performance comes into play in that environment. Lots of factors for sure, in the home, digital vs analog, to each their own. In the end just enjoy the music via whatever way you do. If it touches your heart then all is good. And please support the artists and manufacturers of audio equipment that brings you joy, those folks really matter. Damnit but music is awesome. Last thing, as a old dude I heard many great songs on a crappy transistor radio that moved me, music and artists first, technology second. Rant over.
Depends if you like the crackle dust scratch clipping distortions. They call it a vinyl character. Yeah you ll have payout 5k plus to get rid of some of that.
I'm curious....If the original studio digital masters are then compressed and reworked for vinyl pressings/production ...then surely those digital (vinyl) remasters could also be sold in digital format in limited additions for hifi people too? I appreciate that the physical mechanical cartridge, tonearm, turntable and vinyl also add or subtract some sonic influence too! But perhaps the digital (vinyl) master might get some of us half way there 😆?
I remember that when I was a little boy we had lots of vinyls at home… I am into audiophile listening and after seeing your videos I discovered DSD which I love. I wanted to get a good turntable and vinyl but then I did a bit of research and found out how toxic it is to the environment and to ourselves (I’m not buying my turntable 😢). Will your vinyl record production take this point into consideration and use different process or materials?
I suppose that in the end it all comes down to taste. But one should consider that a great taste is the result of knowledge and experience. If you have heard all gear, and know your preferences, only then you can choose. A taste may be self-fulfilling. If I like my records and dislike digital, am I objectively able to evolve my taste in playback? Am I capable to understand that my budget does not allow the best and therefore I am likely to convince myself that my cheaper gear is 'almost as good'? In the end, every capture of reality will not result in the same reality with playback, only an 'image' which might even be more enjoyable or not. I am lucky, I own the best audio system in the world ;)
I have a theory to add to the confusion. A vinyl pressing is closer to the digital master. Think of the mastering process. You go from digital master tape in PCM to a DA converter to a vinyl pressing. There is only one convetsion from digital to analogue. The RIAA equalisation doent matter because its still in the analogue domain. On the other hand the SACD process is this. PCM Master to DA to DSD then encoded onto SACD and then converted to analogue during playback. In other words the mastering chain has less format changes during the mastering process with vinyl. Now if you record In DSD and play it back in native format it would be better than vinyl. The inference from this is that vinyl is a red hearing in this case. The speriority is because of the simpler mastering chain but not because its vinyl.
Hi Paul, I am a bit confused by DSD, what is the rise time of a set sample rate like the base dsd64 at 3.4 MHz. How could a single bit limited pwm even compete against a set value high bit resolution unless the smoothing of the signal is what you are after? Best regards Marcus, Lund, Sweden.
Whilst CD / SACD has a higher DR in theory, it rarely does in practice since the loudness wars - a lot of digital music sounds very limited when compared to vinyl. Also, when the vinyl is cut the DA convertor used will be of the highest quality, probably a lot higher than many people have at home, so the music cut to lacquer will be a very clean digital to analogue conversion which will aid the sound quality.
you could test your theory by doing the same thing on the sacd to the same compression as the record. you need to use that programming from that German bloke in Germany, for your lacquer cutting, a better result. mofi use it I don't know who else uses this digital programming for the lathe, it's a guy who's making the laser cut stampers, I don't know what's happening about them if he's putting it in production yet, seems to have gone quiet on that side. you need to use Manley labs valve amplifier with switch mode power supply for the lathe machine not the Philips
Vinyl “life” can only be from distortion in the vinyl playback system. Preferring the vinyl version of a digital recording over a well mastered digital release surely proves this?
I have recently discovered 8D music on UA-cam. You have to have a good center speaker. You don't need Dolby Atmos but at least a 3.1 system. The music is better than all the other recordings. Try The Doors Riders on the Storm in 8D. Steve Guttenberg has a recent video on the subject.
So, really the defects of the vinyl tickles the nostalgia gland? Could we make a vinyl effect to apply on digital music to make them sound worst so it sounds better?
The nostalgia argument is an interesting one. I wonder if people that grew up listening to CD and mp3, in general also prefer the sound of vinyl over DSD?
Well, I mean in theory, you could. Tape emulation plug-ins are pretty standard fare on digital recordings, even. In practice, I think applying a vinyl emulation effect over the entirety of the recording would probably just sound uncanny in most instances. There’s an awful lot of variability between the playback of the record, and the condition of the record, and an individual’s inherent familiarity and taste for the specific attributes of how the format is played back. Like, certain audiophiles prefer a certain sort of stylus, with a certain cartridge, belt driven, direct driven, quartz locked, or manual speed control, tracking weight, vinyl weight, phono-preamp, etc. So, even if you could program all those variables into a global plug-in, it’s not like the mastering engineer’s specific preferences for those settings is gonna translate to the consumer’s to the consumer’s preferences. It’s a lot more nuanced than nostalgia for vinyl’s limitations or defects, it’s also, much to do with the sense of agency over how the vinyl record is played back, no less, if not more so.
this is what actually is being done when making lo-fi hip hop music. so just search lo-fi hip hop here on youtube and you get answer to your question. in short - all these noises and sound degrading sound pleasant if we talk about music playing on background
@@vincentwerner4856 It's probably not as simple as that, but yes for many I believe being brought back to a time where listening to music required finding it in places full of people sharing the passion, having all the ritual associated with playing a vinyl and the resulting "color" of the music brings them back to a time where scarcity, price, knowledge made music less of a mass product and more of art, that's fine. Yet as it's said in this video if digital is closer to the original, then vinyl is just an expensive, inconvenient, artificial filter that could also be recreated digitally but doing so might ruin it's nostalgia appeal. very human!
I am convinst dsd is the best. But why vinyl sounds better. Original mastering is yes the best. But it's is the dac that we play it on. So Digital converting to analog. I have a very good and expensive highend turntable. And vinyl is at that point yes sometimes a dust particle that gives a pop noise wich is sounding far underneath the music level. And yes distortion and wow and flutter. All that yes. But I hear from the dac a clean sound very true. But it lags on the bigness of the soundstage. Some vinyl I can hear sounds from left and right channel almost next to my ears like a 15° out of my shoulder. I never experienced it with digital and I gave a quality dac. That's why I gave almost 500 Lp's and maybe 50 cd's or digital files.
I compared The Zuell Baileys Bach cell solo sonatas on SACD and Vinyl. My conclusion is that the Vinyl comes astonishing (so old...) close to the SACD (DSD). The hart says Vinyl, the Brain says SACD!
I honestly think as far as clarity vinyl doesn’t beat pcm honestly I’ve never listened to dsd. Don’t get me wrong love vinyl but clarity and fidelity are not the reasons.
Can you apply the "limitations" that can be heard on vinyl to playing DSD file as it plays to see if it gain the vinyl properties. I refer to limited bandwidh, more noice, and compression, then back to DSD again with the added bits removed, all this on the fly. Would it be possible?
Just remember. It depends on the equipment one uses. Sure a 3.000 analog rig sounds better than 1.000 dac. Also the tracks at the end of the record sound significantly dryer with les dynamic range. There is also the illusion that a softer sound or image contains more information that our brain can’t analyse enough. Digital gives all there is and we don’t like that.
I would think the major difference between a DSD recording and a record is the medium's Dynamic range. An LP made out of perfect vinyl LP would have a theoretical dynamic range of 70 dB. Measurements indicate maximum actual performance in the 60 to 70 dB range. DSD is claimed to be around 120dB in the audible frequency range. In comparison, CD measures around 96dB. Since our ears hear in averages, the slightly compressed dynamic range of an LP may sound more pleasing to some listeners while the extended dynamics of both DSD & CD recording may be preferred by others. So which is better? "Beauty is in the ear of the beholder."
analogue possesses a greater frequency range; digital a greater dynamic range. They are like chalk and cheese; Both media have their strengths AND weaknesses
he is 100% right! if you record music digitally on a computer then that is what has the original and correct sound. if you put it on a vinyl record, you color the sound and change it! why do people think vinyl has better sound? 1. not always people have such good DAC. cd player setup. 2. you have more expensive vinyl player, riaa amplifier than the dac. you have. almost impossible to compare apple against apple when it comes to vinyl vs digital
@@johnholmes912 You need to see how the technology works a little in depth and see what it does! Audio tape has several weaknesses such as more noise and less dynamics. Tape touches the sound head which creates noise. Vinyl has several weaknesses such as poor dynamics and some noise and other things. The only audio format that records the sound with the least weaknesses is a good digital recorder! Almost everything today is recorded digitally. If you take the digital recording and convert it to vinyl, you will add things that were not there in the original recording!
The likely reason why vinyl sounds better is because there is different front-end equipment being used for vinyl vs. digital.
When listening at home, what DAC are you using to convert DSD to analog?
How does your DAC differ from what the studio used to convert the DSD to analog?
At home, what transport are you using to send the bits to your DAC?
How does your transport differ from what the studio used to transfer the bits to the DAC?
What kind of power conditioning are you using at home?
DACs send noise back into the power line, and that noise spreads into your other stereo equipment. (use a quality power cord for your DAC / CD player, and you will not know how you lived without it)
Your turntable will not create that noise. Your phono-amp will not create that noise.
It is all well and good to have the perfect capture of a performance.
But the playback of that captured sound will vary wildly, depending on the equipment being used for the playback.
@3:39 "You got, you know, a needle wiggling back and forth..."
Stereos have no needles
Needles are for sewing and flu shot.
"DACs send noise back into the power line, and that noise spreads into your other stereo equipment. " LOL
D/A conversion always loses information.
I find recording digital audio from my DAC to an RTR, often makes the recording sound more pleasant, but it’s certainly not higher fidelity than it’s source. It’s the characteristic of the media. Not terribly unlike taking a an image that was rendered and printed digitally, and using photo emulation to produce a silk screen print in layers. The end reproduction is certainly not higher fidelity than it’s origin. The inherent characteristics of the media rendered, make it more desirable and pleasant to look at.
Revox by any chance?
@@rollingtroll Unfortunately, not yet. Sony TC-758, mostly. Got a sweet Sansui WS-X1 6track cassette recorder that I love to use for analog multi-tracking, though. I have a few mono-RTR’s too. I really dig the 60’s Westinghouse one, in particular, it achieves a really rich saturation level. I gotta Tascam 4 track tape recorder too, but I use it rarely, and mostly only in the instance I wanna ping-pong the 6 track to a tape dually running twice speed, instead of to the digital recording interface, or Sony TC-758.
Curious how you take the dac output and run thru RTR. You record the Dac output to RTR? So you have RTR of a digital source?
@@revelry1969 yeah,.. pretty much. I mean,.. it’s an analog RCA connection to the RTR. I’ve got a 16x08 interface. A 1/4 inch TRS patch bay, outboard effects, and snakes running to different levels of my studio. Yeah can pretty much send any signal wherever I want, throughout. The Tascam 16x08 interface supports my midi keyboards too. It just really depends on the configuration at any given moment, as to what is going where, and how I’m using it.
@@revelry1969 As matter of fact, the other day, I just noticed a DIN connection on the RTR,.. looking something like a MIDI connector and I’m trying to figure out how that’s intended to be used. I never noticed it before. It might be for running the transport remotely,.. I dunno yet.
It’s vinyl’s distinct artifacts, coloring, and harmonic distortion characteristics, which make it sound so pleasant, I reckon.
maybe even less channel separation (usually around 22-24 dB) adds to the positive effects.
@@polarbear3427 Everyones ears are different too. So even our ears are not "perfect". This is a discussion about who was first. The chicken or the egg. It depends on the equipment and the ears. If that match is "almost perfect" than we have a winner. But that is each on his own.
Well . . . Yes there probably is some distortions that are distinct to analog recordings and analog playback. But the key is it sounds more like the original recording and master tape or even more importantly sounds like the original performance than digital. Digital has always sounded like a artificial simulation, one that sounds dead and lifeless, strips the harmonic richness and tone of instruments. Why ? Because it’s not capturing important aspects of music. It’s better as resolution increases but it’s still missing important aspects of the music that make it un involving. This is conclusive by some of the best mastering engineers, Bernie Grundman, Steve Hoffman, and many of the top audiophiles in the industry. Go to any high end audio trade show and a majority of the higher end rooms are either playing vinyl or Master Tape. For many of those I know in the industry it’s still analog.
@@ohjoy40 I see what you’re saying. However analog media does have a resolution, per say, too. It’s just not distributed in binary, but the otherwise randomized distribution of the media on a microscopic scale, in tandem with the speed of the media, and depth of dynamic range. It’s all oscillations of waveforms from source to playback at the end of it all. Everything from the microphone, to the preamp, mixing, outboard, capture and playback monitors, introduces some level of bias that’s not gonna be an absolutely perfect 1:1 representation of the source. It’s the skill of manipulating those factors to produce desired results. If anything, the ‘trouble’ with an adequately high resolution digital recording respective to analog media, is that it’s too clean, and relative lack of inherent bias and coloring to the signal, makes it tend to sound uncanny and lifeless, especially without prior or post filtering and optimization. So, it’s not that digital recording media is omitting or subtracting essential qualities from the source, but rather that analog recording media generally adds useful and pleasant sounding qualities, inherently. Neither is fundamentally better or worse. Analog recording is certainly more fun, and generally requires more skill from the performers and sound engineer to pull off and get great results. I think, one of the other primary reasons that digital recordings tend to come off sounding so artificial, is because of the nearly limitless degree that one can ‘perfect’ the tracks in post, overzealously, and suck the life and human element away from the original performance.
@@ohjoy40 For some reason, now you have me wondering what a record would sound like if it were pressed into a sheet of Teflon, as opposed to vinyl, or if it’s possible to saturate a spool to spool chromium wire so much that it negates the tremolo effect from twist-over.
These type of informational videos is what makes you a priceless audiophile resource.
Thank you for what you do.
Live In Paris is the one album of hers I really like. I have the CD and vinyl double-LP. The hype sticker on the vinyl LP says it was "Mastered by Bernie Grundman from the original analogue master tapes" so I will assume it was recorded to analog(ue) tape. My impression is that the CD and vinyl sound about the same. For the record, my system consists of: SME 20/3 turntable, SME V arm, Dynavector XV-1s, van den Hull "The Grail" phono pre, dCS Rossini DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock, Audio Note Kondo Ongaku amp, Avantgarde Duo Mezzo speakers. I don't find, in this case, with my system, to my ears, that vinyl sounds better. Different but not better. What I do find is that generally the best sounding medium tends to be the one of the original recording. Two examples: Nina Simone's "Little Girl Blue" sounds better in its LP version than its SACD version (both mastered at the same time by Ryan Smith from the original analog tapes in the 2015 AP release). Similarly, Todd Garfinkle's recording of "Sera Una Noche", captured in digital beautifully, sounds better in digital than vinyl. There's some magic lost in translation.
BTW, I just learned from you guys that Live In Paris is available in SACD, and I just bought it. Thank you! I might report back here how it compares to the CD version.
Ok here goes my review of DK's "Live in Paris" in the three versions even though noone might read this... Firstly, it is al analog tape recording, you can hear the tape hiss in the quiet portions. I am extremely familiar with the CD version. The SACD which I got recently is leaps and bounds better. The 45rpm LP is good. Given that the master is analog, I would have expected the LP to sound best. But this is not the case. Her voice on the LP has a similar subtle graininess that I detect on the CD whereas the SACD is revelatory in its tonality, spatial depth, the silkiness of her voice, etc. LP is better than CD but not by a whole lot, the SACD in this case takes the cake. Now, it might well be that the master used for the SACD was a lower generation, or better in some way. I reiterate the strange perception I get that the LP has some of the same bad characters of the CD - especially a hint of graininess in her voice. Makes me wonder about the provenance of the source for the LP frankly. Finally I will add that the last track, which was not recorded at the concert, does not sound as good as the rest of the SACD.
it was recorded by Al Schmidt who records with Pro Tools at 96khz 24 bit...it wasnt using analog tape
@@michaelrovner4165 Ok interesting. I assumed it was analog tape because the hype sticker on the vinyl says “remastered by Bernie G from the original analog tapes” and I thought the quiet end of Case of You sounded like tape hiss. But you might be right and might explain why the digital version sounds, to me, better than the LP. It also brings into question the real provenance of the master used to cut the 45rpm LP, as it sounds to me like some of the grittiness of the CD is present in the LP (ameliorated by the vinyl medium but still there). Maybe they cut the 45rpm off of the CD??? :)
@@michaelrovner4165 Actually, Al Schmitt might have recorded this to analog tape. He recorded DK to analog tape (Neve 8068 console and Studer tape machines) during her “When I Look In Your Eyes” sessions in 1999 (found this on a Pro Audio article from May 2001). Live In Paris is Nov 2001, so not that much later. Also, in 2001 I don’t know that ProTools was at a real production Al-Schmitt-level sort of maturity. Finally, the recording has a few small glitches here and there, probably microphone cable noises - if he was using ProTools he could have easily removed them.
@@michaelrovner4165 There's a 2007 interview in Mix Magazine where he says he mostly records to analog. Sorry for the multiple replies, I just find the topic very interesting.
Great topic, Paul! There are some mastering engineers around town here in LA who know all about the differences you describe. One experiment that was tried a while back was to carefully cut an acetate lacquer from a very high sample rate PCM or DSD master, using all the engineer's skill, judgement, custom cutter head amplifiers, and eq/dyanamics-control gear for the cutting process. The acetate was then quickly re-recorded using a high end ADC and phono cart, tonearm and preamp. Result: Digital files with all of the finesse of the lacquer mastering process, and lacquer playback embedded in the new digital file. Some mastering engineers now offer this process as an extra service to those ordering CD (or digital file) mastering, since the response has been very positive. Upon hearing the results, some old gaffers sometimes exclaim "That's a CD we're listening to...?!?" Cost varies depending on the run time of the recording, and choice of cutting at 33 or 45 RPM. And, you end up with lacquer recordings as a souveneir!
For me, a lover of loud and dynamic Classical music, the digital playback of a recording can’t be beat. I’ve listened to albums and CDs. The superior S/N ratio, frequency response and dynamic range of CDs won me over decades ago. But… I understand that many types of music may sound “better” to people when listening to vinyl.
voices are more real with vinyl
And I might add, the physical characteristics of the vinyl will eventually lead to pops, hiss and possible warpage. All for a higher price also. No thanks.
@@billstahlin1774 yeap price is a big bummer
@ Richard Von Nostrum, (Seinfeld) lol I loved my music loud back in the 60s-90s, and why I am...DEAF now. Not completely deaf but I can't use phones.
@@billstahlin1774 True, but you'd have to listen to the same piece hundreds of times before it noticeably degrades. You'd probably be tired of hearing it and move on to something else long before that happens.
this points out something important. If the goal of our equipment is fidelity to the source, accuracy, transparency, then clearly the digital source wins hands down. But obviously many people prefer the sound of vinyl. Whether it's the dynamic compression, the low frequency resonances, the comforting noise profile, the blurred channel separation...something about it makes it more pleasing to many ears. I just feel like it's important to note that if we prefer the vinyl playback of a digital source, we are specifically preferring LOWER fidelity to higher fidelity.
Some listeners just enjoy the euphonic coloration that the vinyl playback system (physical sound wave groove +stylus+cantilever+cartridge+phono preamp) imparts to the sound, adding some harmonics and distortion, removing some frequencies and other sound characteristics.
No different than guys who prefer the "tube sound" or "tape sound."
A transfer function could probably easily be made digitally to replicate what the vinyl system adds/subtracts from the sound as recorded from the mics to the recording medium, ie analog tape or pcm, dsd digital during the session.
Make foobar or other Media player plugins to replicate any vinyl stylus, cart, table, phono preamp combo, pending the DAC quality of course.
I'm an audio engineer. Records always sound more compressed than an original tape master(or high quality digital copy). I'm into open sounds not compressed sounds, but that's just me. 🙃
yeap, but compression could be a good thing, everything sounds more focused when it's compressed in the right way. I'm not talking about hyper compressed CD releases but I think vinyl dynamic range is usually acceptably good and sounds beautiful.
@@net_news I think the dynamic range of vinyl is all we really need assuming the original material was not compressed more that what was needed to fit on vinyl. (edit: I meant to say "a vinyl." My apologies to the millennials and gen x'ers who may be watching. My boomer roots are showing again.) Beyond that a lower noise floor is the main advantage to digital although not the only one. Now that I said that it occurs to me that a little noise can take the edge off, making it more listenable in some cases.
@@InsideOfMyOwnMind I totally agree!
and the constrained frequency response of CD doesn't bother you ? Or all the HF noise in 1-bit recordings ?
Ripped the vinyl to FLAC.. played through stand alone DAC from USB output...as warm as Vinyl with no digital Brightness or harshness...I don't know the reason but I love it.
Rule of thumb for me is, Vinyl for analog recordings and CD or Hi-res for Digitally recorded music. I have a competent rig for both cases. I noticed that the final mix (sound engineering) in digital recordings is mostly done to sound good on a digital medium.
#2 Recent presses or reissues are a hit and miss in most cases.
I got tired of spending money (30-40$)on a new vinyl or doing research on a fresh pressed vinyl to see if the quality holds.
Try a newly pressed Amy Winehouse or Oasis vinyl and you will find out that there only good to put on a table to be use as a coaster for the giant glass of Scotch needed to console me after spending 40$ on them.
I have yet to hear any vinyl record that sounded as good as, let alone better than, a CD of the same title.
The home playback equipment comparison is the most important variable that will directly effect perceived differences however there's something even more basic to consider. Since vinyl playback lies in the analog domain, despite all of it's technical limitations it theoretically can provide "infinite frequency response." You can make the argument that vinyl under ideal conditions can reproduce harmonic series overtones produced above the fundamental notes of an acoustic instrument in a more realistic way for human hearing even if everything started out as digital in the recording process. IMHO - Digital is great for increased dynamics, a lower noise floor, lower measured distortions, etc., but when it comes to reproducing pure harmonics of natural acoustic instruments, I believe vinyl may win out for some listeners for this reason. It's all about that little vibrating stylus in the groove. Picture drawing a bow across a string, striking a drum, hammers striking the strings on a grand piano, etc. There are physical similarities here. This is my "hypothetical" explanation. P.S. I love both platforms for different reasons. They do live together side by side in my home system.
It depends on how much you can afford to spend even your ears are not Good enough, just pretend you hear it and say wow I like the sound its airy, its bright, great dynamics , the bass is forward and build a good story to make a good review. Making sound gears sounds a paranormal Horror movie.
Thanks for the explanation and perseptions...
It's A Trap! Lol. Great answer, Paul. Truly a question for which the line "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is a perfect answer. Sometimes there's just a bit of magic in the air.
I remember an audio cassette that sounded better than both the vinyl and the CD versions of the same album. It just happens.
Don't forget that most SACD players have 'cheap' Sony DACs in them. If you are comparing that to a multi thousand dollar vinyl setup, we are not comparing apples with apples.
Also, we tend to acclimatise to the sounds were are or were used to, e.g. vinyl.
Just switching between a crap or excellent turntable like an SL1200MKII is a trip. I prefer digital these days, I feel vinyl adds stuff that isn't there. Play that stuff through a large PA sustem and you know what vinyl pressing is good or not. Coming back to digital-> no hassle, and I can choose my sound accordingly pre or post from the source.
Is sl1200 really so great? I have one, and it is noisy as hell. I never could figure out if it is surface noise or my flimsy stand that rumbles the spinning platter sound into a low frequent background noise. I do think possibly it is my stand because even the slightest tapping makes it to the pick-up.
@@roygalaasen Noisy? you might want to take it for a service. Any turntable is sensitve to a wobbly stand, so make it as solid as possible. It could also be a flimsy needle/element connection/ bad grounding too. (the last one you should hear without any music).
Fasten the ground cable really tight,( maybe replace it with a more rugged wire). Also (bad) audio-cables might be worth a check.
@@Projacked1 honestly I do think it is the stand. Possibly the pickup system, which I do have long term plans of upgrading at some point. It is not a grounding problem. That noise you simply can’t mistake. My guess is that even with the direct drive mechanism, noise reverberate through the whole setup from the spinning platter. If you are telling me that there should not be noise from this part of the assembly, then perhaps you are right that I need to take it for service. I do think that I would be able to reduce the noise using a solid stand though. I am imagining a combination of solid wood/rubber ad concrete. In some order to absorb as much noise as possible.
Is it like a rumble (low) noise? That would be the platter I think. Lots of factors in a turntable. But easy to fix/upgrade with the SL. I'm thinking one could make the bottom part more heavy/ damped. But the base needs to be solid, period,-> facts. Also check the pick-up element .Is it fastened tight/ properly connected? In the 'worst' case-scenario maybe some components are old/faulty like in the RIAA filter? Also, easily upgraded/repaired., or actual physical wear? but that is very far fetched with such a solid product. These machines are built to last. What model do you have?
Maybe the physical cutting of grooves "smooths" out the digital signal as it gets its final conversion to analog??? Digital Hf has always sounded a bit harsh to me. I watch and learn from this channel all of the time. Love it.
Yes what annoys me is even DSd is only sampling the actual audio which IS analogue and has to converted BACK to analogue so we can hear it again always less than perfect either way but digital if far more complex method
How it was recorded and what format it was recorded onto is of course an important factor but only part of the scenario. Analog tape vs digital just simply sounds different. There is no denying that. But I think the biggest factor of which version sound better at the consumer level is how it was mastered, and how well it was mastered onto each format. I have some analog recorded versions that were mastered both onto vinyl and digital and the digital version sounds better. and vice versa. I think the one that surprises me the most is when a digital recording sound better on vinyl than a digital version. It really comes down to how it was mastered and then mastered onto each format.
The bells are ringing! It’s the mastering mostly!
A lot depends on the equipment. The home digital transport is not going to be as good and robust as the commercial version used in the mastering. Also there wouldn't be such a wide disparity in prices of phono cartridges and turntables if the equipment didn't matter.
Also not true , if you ever been in a studio they don't use super high end gear. Matter in fact I know a good few that are audio engineer. They laugh their ass of seeing what audiophiles do to get "quality sound"
I have one track on a CD, that sounds way better in my car - a 20 year old Ford, with factory sound - than it does on my home system. The car's audio systems distortion is just what is needed to make this track sound the best to my ears.
Of course equipment matters a lot, especially when doing a side by side comparison like this one!
@@paulstubbs7678 Love that vintage sound.
@@MichelLinschoten Doesn't take much to pass off as en engineer these days. I assure many of the best engineers that master or produce stuff to be played back in a proper two channel system does not make such short cuts. Content to be played back on a smart phone or in the car does not need much.
Listening to Diana Krall’s “Girl in the Other Room” on SACD just blows my mind off. I find it as satisfying as the vinyl recording
it is the quality of the mix that sets the quality of the sound. the media is irrelevant: all the media does is get the signal into the amp.
Suggest that we'd have to look at the psychoacoustics of overwhelming stimuli, to really get to the bottom of why a lower resolution component like vinyl is preferred by some people over the higher resolution PDM or PCM encodings. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that we humans don't like too much information simultaneously incoming (this is true in taste, and smell, and definitely vision.) Remember, "hearing" is a process in the brain, something we construct and experience _as a result_ of stimulation via ears. The actual sound waves are *not* the act of hearing. The act of hearing is a brain process.
Maybe, but the phenomenon isn’t exclusive to audio media, either. Like, for instance, a very high quality, high resolution video recording, simply doesn’t have the same qualia as a high quality film recording, whether the fidelity or frame rate is rendered to be comparable or not. You could put a film effect over a video, but in the best case scenario, it’s just gonna look like a video recording of a film. If you video record a film, you can introduce artifacts and much of the qualia from the film to the video. On the other hand, if you film a video, you’re not so much introducing the qualia of the video, to the film, unless the video is already much lower visual fidelity than the film recording it. Most people’s brains, generally filter out excess information, subconsciously, automatically, in general. So, I don’t reckon that’s the case. I reckon, it’s a preference for a certain qualia or aesthetic that one’s neurons and synapses are predisposed to, and wired for, more than anything. Like, for instance, I and many people still prefer to consume video media or play video games on a cathode ray tube display, over an LCD or OLED, in many circumstances, when practically feasible. It’s not that the disparities between the displays inherently make either better or worse. It’s rather an aesthetic that my mind is preconditioned to perceive as pleasing.
@@WizardClipAudio Note I did include "vision" in my list of senses about which the issue of over-stimulation is a problem.
Yes, our brains do filter out information - this in audio is continuous. Our environment is noisy and we can filter out *some* of that noise. And if we are put into essentially a noiseless environment we recognize that quickly. We don't think about the noise when it's there, but we notice it if it all goes away.
When CDs first came out and in the early years the problem I had was the screechiness of so many CDs with string instruments. The CDs were just too good at capturing the inherent unpleasantness of a string that in normal life when going to a concert hall one does not hear because one is a hundred feet or so away from the instrument.
Regarding film: a reasonable analogy but (silver based) film does have some significant advantages over solid-state capture devices. Film has a shoulder (on an exposure graph) which really can be exploited in cases where too much light is in the field. Silicon devices are too linear and saturate and the image gets ugly artifacts and information is lost (so in this case analog actually preserves more of the original.)
And that gets back to what Paul suggested, that the nonlinear nature of vinyl audio (what with compression curves) may be what we humans find appealing.
@@TheDanEdwards humans are indeed non-linear processors.
My humble opinion is that, due to reduced dynamic range of the record, the mix for the record need to be compressed, with the side effect that it sounds louder. And often louder seems better but is not. With the compression you add noise, loose clarity, soundstage and so on.. Let's face it, vinyl is a lossy format.
funny thing is vinyl releases usually have more soundstage and more realism than their digital counterparts. IMHO noise could be a good thing and sound more "real" even if they are less perfect... digital is so clean that sounds synthetic.
@@net_news Soundstage, realism, are subjective parameters that no one can
scientifically measure and it depends a lot from the age.
Moreover Paul forgot to make a net separation between analog and digital masters.
Analog master are on reel to reel machines that have a much smaller dynamic range with respect to a 192Khz 24 bit digital recordings, although they are superior to vinyl: less difference, less compression.
BUT if you are comparing a modern digital studio recording with its new vinyl "brother" the difference is huge.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE vinyls because they are wonderful objects and the ritual of starting a play of a record is fantastic.
But as far as realism (I'm a musician and sound engineer) digital is far nearer to the reality of a studio recording than as vinyl. That's only my humble opinion.
@@net_news yes, vinyl has a distortion of the source that is pleasant
@@paolovolante digital sources tend to be lifeless when mastered. This is because of crap mastering and inferior playback systems. Modern mastering bites ass unless you get a good mastering engineer
@@paolovolante yeap, musical enjoyment is subjective. Thing is, most people find vinyl more real and more enjoyable... so I think should be an objective reason to that.
Yeah I've got "out of thin air" and "say somethin" on vinyl. Not only is the music great, the sound quality is amazing too... among the best in my collection.
Octave Records did a great job on those.
Keep up the good work! 👍
Perfection isn't always the best
Modern digital audio is superior to vinyl in convenience and audio fidelity and that’s why it is near 100% of what the world is using.
You obviously not heard a decent record player; Even better is analogue reel-to reel which is orders of magnitude better than the best digital.
@@johnholmes912 Yes, I've heard reel-to-reel players and they can sound awesome and better than red book CD quality, but digital audio can also sound better than CD quality.
i guarantee you "nearly 100%" doesn't use 'modern digital audio' because of it's audio fidelity, but only due its convenience (and marketing and popularity.) Digital is being sold and praised for certain reasons, actually. Away with the physical and 'analogue'. People simply believe experts, who they don't know are there to sell them something, while pretending to be offering their own objective opinions, based on their golden ears no one else can check. Yeah, trust a salesman and force yourself to enjoy the digital, because after all, you were told its better by people you trust!
@@itnaklipse1669 Agree, the vast majority of consumers use digital audio foremost because of convenience. Smart phones, smart speakers, laptops and other internet connected devices supporting streaming are what the mass market is using to consume music.
your suggesting perhaps compression is making vinyl sound better....yet everyone complains compression is the reason modern CDs sound like crap ...hmmm
The compression context is "limited bandwith" i believe, not actually loudness war compression.
I love DSd, did not realize just how much better it was than pcm before I got my SACD player. Analog sounding, really. My two favorites are my sacd player and my turntable
those SACD aren't recorded in DSD,. You can't edit DSD, so they record in PCM then convert to DSD
🤗👍THANKS PAUL …for a great objective explanation 👏👏👏
But sadly this is not in most people’s budget 😞 SO we need a friend who has this available 🤗
And is willing to share with us with Champaign tastes …😁😍😍😍
If you take LSD and listen to DSD you will actually be at the concert and might even get Diana Krall's autograph😂😂
So the old vinyl technology the old sound enginieers have the answer of this mystery which is like an old black magic ...I love the magic around the vinyl sound ,great video ,cheers from Argentina 🎊🥳🥂
I prefer SACD's \ DSD to vinyl. I understand the ritual side of vinyl, the tactile side, the artwork associated with vinyl but it sound "better" than DSD... not to me!
It's on Verve, which is owned by Universal Music. The early 2000s Universal SACDs are heavily Brick Walled to DEATH. That is why it sounds bad. My cat could master it better.
The converter you guys use to in the process of transferring the master to the vinyl is probably better than what most of us have at home - and then - - - the magic of coils and magnets come into the equation during the playback of a record - - which imho, has always been a key factor in that vinyl magic we all love - for me, especially with better pressings, there even seems to be more in the way of dynamics which if actually measured is likely not true, certainly there's less in dynamics in the vinyl itself which would seem to lead to considering what the cartridge is actually doing to provide that dynamic sense - like how the cartridge is designed and performs must play a key role - - and yes, of course, we all know everything else matters too - - personally, I'd hate to live without both sources, I truly enjoy both, but I'd still take vinyl if I could only have one or the other.
I’ve compared high quality digital files to my vinyl rig. Upon first listen, digital does appear to sound better. But with extended listening I start to notice that the sum of the parts of digital just don’t add up. Something is missing. Sure, the deepest of bass notes are mostly better with digital files, but everything above that is where vinyl wins every time and over time. I can listen to vinyl for hours on end without fatigue, but with digital, I’m ready to shut it down after an hour at most. I don’t know why this is, but this is what I personally find every time I make direct comparisons. Harmonics, even order distortion, synergy? I don’t know, but I like it.
First guess would be your system synergy, or even specific components (usually speakers) that are just more harsh than you are looking for.
if you list your major components, one of the viewers familiar with them may be able able to point you in the right direction.
@@l0zerth system is professionally calibrated for audio, room is mostly treated, speakers are Salks, sub is Seaton Submersive+ dual 15”, amp is Parasound Halo series. System definitely not bright or harsh.
"but with digital, I’m ready to shut it down after an hour at most." - because the digital chain preserves the signal. It is exactly because digital is accurate that we find it fatiguing. Human hearing evolved to be able to distinguish location and (often in a quite savannah) other human voices, not massed violins or an entire horn section blaring away.
Digital recording has to be frequency constrained, and results in very steep filtering. Analogue has to be dynamically constrained ( for vinyl). It's the steep HF roll off that makes digital so harsh to listen to.
If you have money to burn, invest in HQ analogue reel-to-reel....that is still the best sound that money can buy ;)
@@johnholmes912 It doesn't have to result in steep filtering, whether at the A/D stage or D/A. I'm curious what the high-res files were, as the cutoff frequency and therefore filter curve move higher up out of the audible range the higher the sampling rate.
I'd bet that the compression to put music on an LP allows the internal dynamics of the music to be more easily hear. The experiment PD Audio could do is take the digital file after its been prepared for the cutting layth minus the RIAA compensation and make that PCM file available with the record. I bet they sound equally "superior" I prefer digital so that's my bias.
PS: I am amased (and unpleasantly suprised) to here Paul saying that he loves vinyl since I saw an earlier (from a few years ago) video of his (which is now gone from the channel) in which he quiet clearly (and funny) explained why he loves CDs and why he is happy not have to listen to vinyl anymore (with all the husle using records supposed). And now he loves vinyl again...Strange change of opinion... 🤔
Frankly, I love better the older videos when it was more about ways to improve how music sounds and less about gear and hidden pro domo marketing. 🙄
A lot , too much , Marketing in Paul's videos the last 2 years... Sad :(
Here is the real question, why do you need DSD? You have at hand a format (vinyl) that came out in the 50s/60s and can still be played on a turntable that also hasn’t really changed since then. And it STILL sounds better than any other format currently available. Name me one other format that has had that staying power. Add to that their collectibility, the large format artwork, the tactile feeling of being able to hold the album and read the liner notes, etc. and it’s a slam-dunk for me over digital. And yes I still listen to digital for convenience, but there’s nothing sweeter than pulling out a vinyl album, placing it on the TT, pouring yourself a bourbon, and placing the needle in the groove.
Vinyl has been around since the early 1900s. Cylinders were around in the 1800s.
@@analogkid4557 BS has been around forever
@@mr.b4444 very true and some people believe it. To be fair, records were not vinyl until the 40's bit they were around in 1912. Cylinders started in the 1880's.
Vinyl is excellent but nowhere near as good as analogue reel-to reel
This all begs the question: Have you actually heard DSD on a good (subjective, I know) system?
A lot of listeners are attracted to the distorted effects that are created by the creation of vinyl record plus the enhancements to the midrange frequencies which is where we hear the most of, its not worse they are just not the same
what about all the HF distortion in the digital domain?
I have noticed the same but I can't explain it, I just spin with it!
Hey Paul, been watching your videos for a while, and love the content. I don't have the amount of experience you do with professional audio, but I've had some in the past. I would simply say it's a difference between analog and digital. real life isn't digital, it's analog. and analog can have a warmer richer sound that digital. That's always been my understanding, and my experience when I listened to more analog sources when younger such as records, and cassettes, etc. Love the videos. Have the great day!
The end user is not using the same digital to analogue converters as the studio uses so they will be many variable in reproduction Same as there will be different cartridges , tone arms, turntables and preamps which also dont have the same sound I t would be interesting to do a direct cut to vinyl recording with the same time on DSD and compare in the studio and with audiophile home set ups
Well the answer is simple... Take the DSD file.. apply the RIAA curve of bass cut, treble boost and compression to it.. save it in DSD, play it back with the phono equalization reverse RIAA curve, and voila... the DSD recording will sound identical to the LP minus the groove noise and ticks and pops!!!!
I agree with pauls explanation almost sounds similar to dan dagostino explaining how one of his best sounding amps was far from his best measuring amp seems like some distortion can add something good to the sound
Great to here Paul!
I think in this matter the words are not used properly. Digital recordings on digital suport will always sound better than on vinyl suport. This is a fact. Yet, some recordings (even digital) on vinyl suport may sometimes sound nicer for us (NOT better, but nicer, more pleasant) than on digital suport. So the proper word to use when making this comparison is nicer. Not better.
And that is because "nicer" expresses more accurately the combination of technical and psychological aspects that determine how we actually appreciate the way music sounds for us.
Digital Master: A prime grade rib eye steak.
Vinyl: That same steak, only grilled on a charcoal grill seasoned with salt and pepper. Then slow simmered in butter, garlic, thyme, rosemary, and served with a nice cold beverage of your choice.
One importan question from me?
A DSD CD, does it only "works" through a SACD or another kind of player? Would i benefit using DSD recorded CD's om my older Linn Ikemi HDCD ??
Great news, waiting impatiently for the end result!
Great digital recordings have a wider dynamic range and amazing detail which is more of a strain on the equipment the playback room acoustics - and our brains
The amazing detail maybe is a bit too much for us ?
Vinyl compromises smooths all that out and sound engineer compromised choices done well makes the listening process easier
Listening to a vintage Decca classical recording engineered by Kenneth Wilkinson doesn’t actually sound like a live orchestra laid out in front of you - but is a beautiful version/ illusion of such a thing
Hello, first I would like to congratulate you for this channel since the technical content is interesting. I see that you have a lot of patience and you are an educated person when responding patiently to those who think they know about audio quality but are ignorant in the technical aspect, for many of them who have joined the fashion and myths of vinyl and who we know It is nothing more than a convenient commercial strategy since nobody has a vinyl recorder in their home and it is a physical format that wears out and over time it will sound worse, therefore they will not have the problem of piracy and that is why they have popularized it both, inventing myths as it has a great sound, etc. We must tell consumers that it is a low-fidelity format with 60 db of dynamic range and a lot of noise, that the master to create it has been digital for many years and it is necessary to lower the quality of the original to master it to vinyl, reducing the dynamic range, the frequency response and not to mention the noise, the efforts of engineers to create new formats and develop the CD, SACD, Bluray Audio, DVD Audio; they have been a gift to our ears bringing us closer to high fidelity, unfortunately those who do not have technical knowledge are carried away by myths.
While listening to recorded audio we are dealing with "brain games of reception" which constantly varies it's standards with actual brain "program" Im my opinion that is avoided in case when brain gets parallel constant 'delivery" of background. At best at whole usable range of harmonics.
Like digital clock keeping our hearing at best timing . Or frame around the painting which sets boundaries to neighbouring wall patterns which by comparison sets white balance to vision.
That may explain why we feel unpleasant listening to pure instruments in environment far from natural , like complete silence. I am always relaxed to hear any natural sounds acompanying performance and it is normal to hear natural background ex people in concert hall or probably unwilling sound of guitar moved aside afer singer has already fiished track. Or sounds of compressor during chruch organ performance while people moving walking in church . It sets right programming of hearing . With studio digital recordings it is all considered waste. Or (may be) below digital resolution I found even one certain recording like cut instantly to null before ended naturally .
In recording to tape or vinyl we are additionaly supplied with low level noise ranging 20-20kHz, like "cover up' of natural environment which is often below that noise and it fills the gap raised by lack of natural environment . By natural I mean low level sounds not processed by sound effects which are willingly used for mastering .
Just my idea based on still comfortable for me listening after tape/vinyl (with considerable natural noise layer included) was transferred to digital
It doesn't matter what it's recorded in, that is the master, all you have. but to then have a derivative that sounds better - well that is interesting. 'Vinyl distortion' for want of a better word, as an audio 'improver'
Although I think Paul is onto something when he discusses the compression user to make it fit into vinyl's limitations.
My old petrol powered vehicle is noisy. I have to work at gear changes. It stalls if I don’t get clutch, handbrake and accelerator balance just right. Maintenance is expensive, and the pollution that it creates nags my environmental conscience. Recently I drove a friend’s new electric car. Straight off, It’s acceleration was way better, it was almost silent and suffers none of the other problems of my own vehicle, and has several other pluses. But I still prefer the actual driving experience of my old banger. Same for vinyl.
Of course the simplest exercise to settle the matter is record the output of your preferred vinyl system to 24/96 or higher (probably not needed, 20/48 probably more than enough) then compare your digital recording to the vinyl playing in realtime, switching between the two in a blind abx
If you can reliably distinguish the two, then you might need to test a couple of Dacs in the quality, cost range of your vinyl and amp, speaker chain.
I'm confident there are Dacs that would make such an abx indistinguishable
Not really, you might be able to identify the vinyl as it has some other sounds (pop etc), the point might be that it sounds good to some people and only some recordings. My friend, who created a cd, told me that now they are adding hiss sounds from tape (even when recording was digital). So it depends on so many factors and I agree that digital should souind better.
@@daniloreyes2 Presumably, a pcm or dsd recording from vinyl would have any surface noise, pops, dust that playing the vinyl in realtime would have.
I assume no post processing or cleanup of any kind to the digital recording
I love the sound of clicks, pops, and scratches in the morning. Idk. It sounds like...Victory.
Maybe it could be the brain's perception of the organic nature of vinyl sound compared to that "you can hear everything" sound of "digital"
Like there is less to work with so there is some relaxation to the overall processing of that sound by the brain and as such, there is a perception of focus, like it becomes easier to focus on the main highlight sound during playback of the song/audio.
its the same in photography, those ancient/classic films with their grains, sort of mellow, monotonic colours feel better than a similar digital photo in like HDR mode or something. the emotional connection to these 'analogue' systems just communicate with our sensory inputs much better
Vinyl and DSD records are played by different machines, therefore some sound differences could appear due to this reason, even if the rest of audio chain is the same. What means "better" and what is "more life" in sound? Are these objective or subjective sound attributes?
I suppose that Paul is explaining that it is comparing apples to pears. If you have changed equipment for great improvents you will understand what he is telling with 'better' 'live' 'true' 'image' etc. In some tracks I can hear the back wall bounce of the sound, behind me. This might seem ridiculous but it is a shared experience between people. Your auditory system is truly amazing and it gets better once you learn to use your senses better for enjoying music and playback. At least, that is my experience and opinion,.
Whatever source is used, as long as the vinyl cut is cut specefic for vinyl. Mastered to laquer, it often says on a sticker or on the back cover?
So how Diana was recorded that night, comes down to what next step is taking and which format used?
That is my thoughts ✌️❤️🇩🇰
Because hi-fi is one of those delicious areas which cross the mysterious objective-subjective divide, what matters is less all the objective measurements and more just what it sounds like. I suspect that Paul has a point in suggesting that it is largely the squeezed dynamic range (objective fact) that is responsible for this pleasant effect (subjective fact). I further suggest that this 'squeezing' becomes more appreciated with ageing, as one's ability to cope with larger dynamic range becomes restricted. I am constantly having to turn up the quite stretches, then rapidly turn down the louder parts. I regret having dispensed with my vinyl and turntable years ago when it made less difference. Can anyone out there tell me if there is domestically available equipment that can 're-squeeze' digital sources, without making a pig's ear of things?
And Paul, I love your videos.
Well what if you use a Luxman D-10x or some other exotic SACD Player? Many factors play in. You can also play the album on Michael Fremer's Caliburn and have a magical experience 🪄
Often times, we just like harmonic distortion. It's as simple as that. A lot of times in mixing and mastering, the engineer may intentionally use something like a channel strip on a given console, a certain mic pre or they might track to tape just to get a little extra character out of the source. In fact, there's a unit called the black box that is only used as a tube buffer (usually in the context of mastering). It's not a mic pre, or a console where the harmonics are a happy accident, it is specifically designed for adding harmonic distortion
Only Paul can masterfully keep two sides happy like in this video. Us who understand that original can never be better than original and the cult who’ve started playing vinyl again or always played vinyl and found it superior over digital. I agree old analogue recordings might not be better converted to digital (although I don’t quite understand why with today’s technology) but new digital recordings converted to vinyl sounding better than the original digital copy? Nah, but at least musicians are making some money again thanks to the vinyl cult.
Greetings Paul, been watching your videos for a while, and love the content
And hear we go again with the emperor’s new cloths
Way back when there were only records I bought all the SME pick up arms and turntables
But I always dreamed of cd’s with their pure sound Lp’s do not sound better
When I go to a live concert and listen to a string quartet I do not hear crackles and pops like you get on a record
These crazy people are not listening to the music they just love watching the turntable going round, I am a photographer who used film for decades and now use digital its the same as the records move on they are just tools
typical because we believe this ridiculous degree of audiophile you assume we are hateful jealous people, No its because we believe in spending our time listing to music not equipment
You're making a fool of yourself. Why is it that people like you have to fabricate information, and for no reason. No one here is going to fault you for liking digital better. There's plenty of hard core audiophiles that prefer digital. And that's a very good thing because if no one supported digital, we wouldn't have all the advances that have taken us from that first CD player in 1982, to now.
"typical because we believe this ridiculous degree of audiophile you assume we are hateful jealous people,"
You simply can't back that statement up with any facts whatsoever. Its pure fabrication, and you should be ashamed of yourself for saying such a thing.
I think when looking at sound reproduction technology, digital is superior when you look at all the measurements (like he said in the video). I think it really does boil down to what interacts with our psychology in a more pleasing way. He is definitely on to something when he mentions the squeezing of information (less dynamic range). Digital outperforms our ears!! What's the point?? Make it pleasing to the human ear, not a computer measuring things.
Analogue is dynamically constrained, whilst digital is frequentially constrained. They both have strengths and weaknesses
I wonder if some artists don't care about all the digital and engineering and mastering tricks that go on. They just want to sound good. And if that involves a lot of electronics or if it is far removed from what they actually laid down in studio that wasn't so great to begin with that's why that stuff exists.
Paul, I'm pretty sure I can give you an answer as to why vinyl sounds better than digital. It may not explain 100% , but at least part of it. I have 2 reasons. First, is the playback gear. I remember when SACD first came out and I wanted to try it. I bought a fairly run of the mill player. If I remember correctly, it was a Sony 9000ES. I started playing some disks, and was disappointed. When I played the redbook layer on my Wadia 861SE, it was no contest. The Wadia easily beat it. But that wasn't the SACD's fault, it was mine. I assumed the format itself would be enough to overcome the difference, and it just wasn't true. In order to compete with the Wadia fairly, I needed to get an SACD player in the same league.
My second reason is not so obvious. When you want an SACD or CD player, you go out and buy one. Not so with vinyl. You go out and buy a turntable, tone arm, cartridge, phono preamp and sometimes an SUT. Its a partial build. While you don't actually make the pieces yourself, you select them all given your taste in sound. You end up with a solution based heavily on your personal bias. And there is nothing wrong with that. No one would ever expect you buy something you don't like. I figured this out a long time ago when a friend of mine said he didn't understand why a store bought CD didn't sound as good as when he recorded the same album on vinyl using his CD burner. He's not just recording the record. He's also recording the sound of a bunch of components that he hand selected. I told him to try recording the record on someone's turntable setup you don't like. You'll get different results.
I tend to agree with you about the compression making it sound "better". My hypothesis in why, is the fact that live shows are magnitudes higher in sound output level. When you scale the volume down so much in your system, you are not going to easily hear the soft sounds. And for that reason it doesn't sound as good.
I've always hypothesized that one of the reasons people prefer vinyl and analog in general is the sloppy phase relationship between the left and right channels. As the medium plays along through the track the phase changes ever so slightly as the stylus continually tries to find it's center and as slightly stretched portions of the tape go by the heads. Our senses do not prefer things that are in perfect order. This is why there are plugins for synth drums that deliberately mess up the timing (and therefore phase) ever so slightly.
our brain prefers robust, meaning precise with some give for adaptive movements, over rigid "fragile" perfection. there is nothing more fragile than perfection.
vinyl sound rolls with the punches and our brain enjoys that
Can’t wait for the in-house vinyl. Hopefully the price will come down a bit. I’ve got Temporary Circumstances on vinyl, and I really love the bonus track. One question, was the album recorded live to two channel, or were the vocals and piano recorded separately. Thanks in advance.
People are so delusional! Modern music is recorded digitally with wide stereo projection, lots of dynamics and clarity on the instruments that you couldn't achieve with gear from the 60's-70's. This music is recorded DIGITALLY. Vinyl isn't better than DSD or vice versa. It all depends on the quality of the gear that you're playing your music with.
In audio "better" is subjective and even arbitrary from person to person... Thats why this debate will NEVER be settled
I mostly agree with you. However, to me, it depends on what genre will sound better on which medium. Orchestral and chamber music deserve DSD, and can also live with PCM. Rock, funk, soul, R&B all benefit from vinyl. Jazz is tricky because there are so many subgenres.
Perhaps, it is these analog imperfections, distortions resulting from the reproduction technology that
are the magical living element that makes them more natural and closer to our ears, and Digital sound ...
Well, probably it's just unnatural perfection.
Definitely not an expert but compression might be a significant part of the equation, I certainly don’t listen to music via vinyl any more. That said as someone that spent half their life mixing bands live, volume and the intimacy of a live performance comes into play in that environment. Lots of factors for sure, in the home, digital vs analog, to each their own. In the end just enjoy the music via whatever way you do. If it touches your heart then all is good. And please support the artists and manufacturers of audio equipment that brings you joy, those folks really matter. Damnit but music is awesome. Last thing, as a old dude I heard many great songs on a crappy transistor radio that moved me, music and artists first, technology second. Rant over.
Depends if you like the crackle dust scratch clipping distortions. They call it a vinyl character. Yeah you ll have payout 5k plus to get rid of some of that.
I'm curious....If the original studio digital masters are then compressed and reworked for vinyl pressings/production ...then surely those digital (vinyl) remasters could also be sold in digital format in limited additions for hifi people too?
I appreciate that the physical mechanical cartridge, tonearm, turntable and vinyl also add or subtract some sonic influence too! But perhaps the digital (vinyl) master might get some of us half way there 😆?
I remember that when I was a little boy we had lots of vinyls at home… I am into audiophile listening and after seeing your videos I discovered DSD which I love. I wanted to get a good turntable and vinyl but then I did a bit of research and found out how toxic it is to the environment and to ourselves (I’m not buying my turntable 😢). Will your vinyl record production take this point into consideration and use different process or materials?
I suppose that in the end it all comes down to taste. But one should consider that a great taste is the result of knowledge and experience. If you have heard all gear, and know your preferences, only then you can choose. A taste may be self-fulfilling. If I like my records and dislike digital, am I objectively able to evolve my taste in playback? Am I capable to understand that my budget does not allow the best and therefore I am likely to convince myself that my cheaper gear is 'almost as good'? In the end, every capture of reality will not result in the same reality with playback, only an 'image' which might even be more enjoyable or not. I am lucky, I own the best audio system in the world ;)
I have a theory to add to the confusion. A vinyl pressing is closer to the digital master. Think of the mastering process. You go from digital master tape in PCM to a DA converter to a vinyl pressing. There is only one convetsion from digital to analogue. The RIAA equalisation doent matter because its still in the analogue domain. On the other hand the SACD process is this. PCM Master to DA to DSD then encoded onto SACD and then converted to analogue during playback. In other words the mastering chain has less format changes during the mastering process with vinyl. Now if you record In DSD and play it back in native format it would be better than vinyl. The inference from this is that vinyl is a red hearing in this case. The speriority is because of the simpler mastering chain but not because its vinyl.
Hi Paul, I am a bit confused by DSD, what is the rise time of a set sample rate like the base dsd64 at 3.4 MHz. How could a single bit limited pwm even compete against a set value high bit resolution unless the smoothing of the signal is what you are after? Best regards Marcus, Lund, Sweden.
Whilst CD / SACD has a higher DR in theory, it rarely does in practice since the loudness wars - a lot of digital music sounds very limited when compared to vinyl. Also, when the vinyl is cut the DA convertor used will be of the highest quality, probably a lot higher than many people have at home, so the music cut to lacquer will be a very clean digital to analogue conversion which will aid the sound quality.
you could test your theory by doing the same thing on the sacd to the same compression as the record.
you need to use that programming from that German bloke in Germany, for your lacquer cutting, a better result. mofi use it I don't know who else uses this digital programming for the lathe, it's a guy who's making the laser cut stampers, I don't know what's happening about them if he's putting it in production yet, seems to have gone quiet on that side.
you need to use Manley labs valve amplifier with switch mode power supply for the lathe machine not the Philips
Go on, tell us more about those valve reverbs please!
Vinyl “life” can only be from distortion in the vinyl playback system. Preferring the vinyl version of a digital recording over a well mastered digital release surely proves this?
I have recently discovered 8D music on UA-cam. You have to have a good center speaker. You don't need Dolby Atmos but at least a 3.1 system. The music is better than all the other recordings. Try The Doors Riders on the Storm in 8D. Steve Guttenberg has a recent video on the subject.
So, really the defects of the vinyl tickles the nostalgia gland? Could we make a vinyl effect to apply on digital music to make them sound worst so it sounds better?
The nostalgia argument is an interesting one. I wonder if people that grew up listening to CD and mp3, in general also prefer the sound of vinyl over DSD?
Well, I mean in theory, you could. Tape emulation plug-ins are pretty standard fare on digital recordings, even. In practice, I think applying a vinyl emulation effect over the entirety of the recording would probably just sound uncanny in most instances. There’s an awful lot of variability between the playback of the record, and the condition of the record, and an individual’s inherent familiarity and taste for the specific attributes of how the format is played back. Like, certain audiophiles prefer a certain sort of stylus, with a certain cartridge, belt driven, direct driven, quartz locked, or manual speed control, tracking weight, vinyl weight, phono-preamp, etc. So, even if you could program all those variables into a global plug-in, it’s not like the mastering engineer’s specific preferences for those settings is gonna translate to the consumer’s to the consumer’s preferences. It’s a lot more nuanced than nostalgia for vinyl’s limitations or defects, it’s also, much to do with the sense of agency over how the vinyl record is played back, no less, if not more so.
this is what actually is being done when making lo-fi hip hop music. so just search lo-fi hip hop here on youtube and you get answer to your question. in short - all these noises and sound degrading sound pleasant if we talk about music playing on background
@@vincentwerner4856 It's probably not as simple as that, but yes for many I believe being brought back to a time where listening to music required finding it in places full of people sharing the passion, having all the ritual associated with playing a vinyl and the resulting "color" of the music brings them back to a time where scarcity, price, knowledge made music less of a mass product and more of art, that's fine. Yet as it's said in this video if digital is closer to the original, then vinyl is just an expensive, inconvenient, artificial filter that could also be recreated digitally but doing so might ruin it's nostalgia appeal. very human!
there are plenty of defects in digital. try Googling "The unique evils of digital audio"
It doesn't matter to me what sounds best. I like vinyl and that can't be debated.
I am convinst dsd is the best. But why vinyl sounds better. Original mastering is yes the best. But it's is the dac that we play it on.
So Digital converting to analog.
I have a very good and expensive highend turntable. And vinyl is at that point yes sometimes a dust particle that gives a pop noise wich is sounding far underneath the music level. And yes distortion and wow and flutter. All that yes.
But I hear from the dac a clean sound very true. But it lags on the bigness of the soundstage. Some vinyl I can hear sounds from left and right channel almost next to my ears like a 15° out of my shoulder. I never experienced it with digital and I gave a quality dac. That's why I gave almost 500 Lp's and maybe 50 cd's or digital files.
I compared The Zuell Baileys Bach cell solo sonatas on SACD and Vinyl. My conclusion is that the Vinyl comes astonishing (so old...) close to the SACD (DSD). The hart says Vinyl, the Brain says SACD!
I like the thumbnail of this video, it kind of looks like you've got your fingers in years ears saying 'I cant hear you'
And about the Direct Cut LPs Paul...
Yes !
What if you squeeze the DR as you do for LP, but save and listen it as DSD? Will it have "more life" in the same way as LP does?
I honestly think as far as clarity vinyl doesn’t beat pcm honestly I’ve never listened to dsd. Don’t get me wrong love vinyl but clarity and fidelity are not the reasons.
Can you apply the "limitations" that can be heard on vinyl to playing DSD file as it plays to see if it gain the vinyl properties. I refer to limited bandwidh, more noice, and compression, then back to DSD again with the added bits removed, all this on the fly. Would it be possible?
Just remember. It depends on the equipment one uses. Sure a 3.000 analog rig sounds better than 1.000 dac.
Also the tracks at the end of the record sound significantly dryer with les dynamic range.
There is also the illusion that a softer sound or image contains more information that our brain can’t analyse enough. Digital gives
all there is and we don’t like that.
@vago, GO AHEAD! MAKE ME GAY!!!! L0L (I just noticed yer Dirty Harry icon).
Or maybe not.
@@mr.blackhawk142 I suppose you feel lucky punk…
I would think the major difference between a DSD recording and a record is the medium's Dynamic range. An LP made out of perfect vinyl LP would have a theoretical dynamic range of 70 dB. Measurements indicate maximum actual performance in the 60 to 70 dB range. DSD is claimed to be around 120dB in the audible frequency range. In comparison, CD measures around 96dB. Since our ears hear in averages, the slightly compressed dynamic range of an LP may sound more pleasing to some listeners while the extended dynamics of both DSD & CD recording may be preferred by others. So which is better? "Beauty is in the ear of the beholder."
analogue possesses a greater frequency range; digital a greater dynamic range. They are like chalk and cheese; Both media have their strengths AND weaknesses
he is 100% right! if you record music digitally on a computer then that is what has the original and correct sound. if you put it on a vinyl record, you color the sound and change it! why do people think vinyl has better sound? 1. not always people have such good DAC. cd player setup. 2. you have more expensive vinyl player, riaa amplifier than the dac. you have. almost impossible to compare apple against apple when it comes to vinyl vs digital
a digital recording is no more correct than an analogue one. Digital has at least as many issues as analogue, just different ones
@@johnholmes912
You need to see how the technology works a little in depth and see what it does!
Audio tape has several weaknesses such as more noise and less dynamics. Tape touches the sound head which creates noise.
Vinyl has several weaknesses such as poor dynamics and some noise and other things.
The only audio format that records the sound with the least weaknesses is a good digital recorder!
Almost everything today is recorded digitally. If you take the digital recording and convert it to vinyl, you will add things that were not there in the original recording!