What a ridiculous situation. One of the touted benefits of CD upon its introduction was the wide dynamic range available from 16-bit digital. Now we have 24-bit and the dynamics are squashed more than they were on cassette tape releases. Just stupid.
Yeah, disgusting people making mixing and mastering decisions to destroy generations of art. Sometimes you can get decent mastering by purchasing old CDs but often you're screwed.
I think the real problem is that DR scores are not required to be printed on labeling. As soon as this happened it would force people to understand this measurement more and at the same time make the record labels and artists more keen to optimize the value.
The problem is a digital audio workstation vst (plugin) called the "Maxamizer" which you set all upper level for and then raise the quieter part of the signal. This is how dynamic range gets squashed. Unfortunately, for the average person that doesn't have any idea what good dynamic range can sound like, louder is always better.
I'm glad someone in the UA-cam/Influencer age with a big platform is finally talking about dynamic range compression. Those of us who were veterans of The Loudness Wars from back in the 2000s have discussed this topic (and its negative impact on music quality) for years. I acknowledge that all things being equal (e.g. identical master) I would always choose a high res lossless (or even 16/44) file over vinyl. Vinyl has less overall dynamic range capability than 16/44 or higher, is subject to wear and tear over time, hiss and pops, etc. But we almost never get the same mastering (aka not overcompressed) file. So I accept the weakness of vinyl to get the better mastered music, especially if the digital file is clearly overcompressed. BTW another reason to crush dynamic range for digital files is the thought that people use those files "on the go" so it has to sound good in the car (road noise), on the go (city/street noise) all of which can make the quieter parts of songs inaudible. So to fight that they boost up the quieter parts. The assumption is: if you're listening to vinyl, you're in a controlled environment and really listening to the music for best quality. Also, if you master a record too loud, it risks having the needle jump the groove. In an ideal world, we'd get the final approved master from the band and its mixer and engineer, and have that put on high res lossless and call it a day. But we rarely ever get that.
The older I get, the fewer fucks I give about the format my music is on. I just like to just listen to the damn music and forget about the equipment. A good song is a good song, whether played from a vinyl record or a CD on my hifi system, a "hi res" stream through headphones or my studio monitors or via bluetooth on a mono JBL speaker. Edit: grammar.
I don’t give much about format, but stereo versus mono and dynamic range is a big deal. And yes, good music is still good music on a simple Bluetooth speaker, but more enjoyable on better equipment.
You've got it right brother. Music enthusiasts use audio hardware to listen to music. Audiophiles use music to listen to audio hardware. I know which camp I fall into.
My son purchased a record player a year ago and the unexpected benefits we have reaped are incredible! It is hard to explain, but it seems the limitations imposed by a record player: you cannot -easily- skip songs or switch albums, etc., you’re kind of obligated to listen through. Forced into this situation seems to relieve of us of making decisions, reduces anxiety, helps put more focus on every song. It’s funny, sometimes the whole family (all 5 of us) will gather around the record player and listen to an album. So, is vinyl technically better…no, but does it provide a better experience, it is very possible.
Agree with many of the comments. Lived through the late fifties era and the 60s into the 70s just enjoying LPs and singles on an auto exchange record player. I am 72 and been into hifi since got a full time job in the 70s. Have chased through that time to get listening perfection but for me never had that until CDs entered the market. A Rega Planar 2 was my final turntable and have never bothered with vinyl again. A friend had a superb set up with Quad speakers and a Linn Sondek LP3? A soon as he had bought the 1st Philips CD player, the CD100 I think, he couldn’t wait to bring it round for me to hear it! That was the end of vinyl for him too. I now only listen to Amazon Music via Shure KSE 1200 electrostatic earphones which give me the best musical experience I’ve ever had.
You hit the nail on the head. It all boils down to the mastering. If the mastering and EQ is the same for both, digital will win. I have different versions of famous albums. All the CD that were mastered in the late 80s and early 90s have much better dynamic range 12-15 (in my opinion just as good or better than vinyl) versus the newly "remastered" and botched releases that are very straining to listen to with DR of 4-8.
I'm 59 and, of course, started out listening to vinyl and then CD's. I still have all my albums and CD's. I do not use them. I have Hi-Res services from Amazon and Qobuz. My Blusound Node, Freya+ tube amp, Bifrost 2/64, Emotiva RMC-1L, and XPA-DR-2 (all balanced) sending non sounding compressed music to ELAC Carina's sounds awesome! No hiss or crackle. Having access to any song ever made far exceeds the nostalgia of a crackling record taking up a lot of space. I do enjoy your videos and to each his own! 🥂
It's refreshing to hear someone in the audiophile community (aka you) discussing the enjoyment of the music and not just listening to the hardware. Too often people discuss the equipment and the not the enjoyment it provides. However there is a small elephant in the room - so to speak. While some vinyl cuts may have a better dynamic range and sound more natural, the cost of the hardware to listen to this music is significantly higher for vinyl than it is for digital. I am fortunate enough to have heard some crazy expensive vinyl setups and while I have to admit they sound really good the cost is prohibitive. Similar musical enjoyment can be had from a digital setup at a fraction of the cost. In the ideal world, it would be nice if the record companies could release an 'audiophile master' without dynamic compression so we could actually hear what it should sound like.....
this is why i still buy cd and vinyl and havent moved to streaming. i want quality over convenience. ive invested an ungodly amount into media, amps, speakers, treatment, cd players etc and refuse to eat shyte.
I love how you are using talking heads music to discuss this issue. I remember listening to psycho killer on the radio when it was first released. It blew my mind. Changed my orientation to music forever. 46 years later and we're still enjoying that song. A lot of credit has to be given to Tina and that wonderful bass line.
My hearing has always been compromised, and music has always been my priority. Combine both and you get an a-audiophile. Years on and the listening fatigue due to digital has compromised my hearing even more, way more. To cut the long story short, when I listened to vinyl again in a used records shop I felt my ears were brought back to life.. I embraced the digital era, arms open wide and ditched the frustrating vinyl experience, and today is the opposite. Therapeutical reasons, I guess because I got 2 choices: to stop listening to music for the rest of my life, or listening to music again in a format I got divorced from and now remarried so I can listen to music properly again. Great video,, it encapsulates in comprehensible terms what digital audiophiles can't understand about analog formats, even if that took you hours to record, lol. I could see the fumes coming out of your ears and nostrils.
The older I’ve become the less things I want to own in my life, owning lots of “things” just don’t do it for me anymore. Every thing gone and currently replaced by a Bluestone Powernode, Chord speaker cables and a set of KEF ls50 meta speakers which I love, it’s as good as I’ll ever need in my small home. Also the amount of new music I’ve found over the last couple of years of streaming is incredible
This is fast becoming my favourite channel. I love it when audiophile youtubers say stuff like "you need lossless 24-bit/192kHz audio through this $10k system so that you can really hear what the artist intended" when the reality is typically, at best, you are hearing what the mastering engineer intended, at worst what the record company instructed the mastering engineer to do. It would be interesting to hear from somebody in the business regarding their views on how vinyl mastering differs from mass market digital mastering.
When I put some tubes in the path of my High Res Audio it sounds just as natural as vinyl. It smooths out any digital sheen, while retaining the musical information. No crackling :p Tubes will obfuscate any digital character.
You know, I'm beginning to see the light on a tube power amp for that very reason, just to smooth out as you say the sheen. There are just so many to choose from these days, which is a good thing but difficult to weed through.
Seems to me we have an amazing luxury of choosing between infinite streaming high quality music and the enjoyable quest to find a perfect vinyl recording. And I say to myself, what a wonderful world.
Whether CD, hi-res or Vinyl, it really depends on which type of music fan you are. If you like me as an orchestra fan, I would choose CD and hi-res streaming as which are very similar to a real orchestra replay in a concert hall which has incredible depth in 3D sound stage and clarity. I will be very easy to identify the position and type of the musical instruments. Vinyl will not be able to achieve this. However if you are a solo piano, violin fan prefer small size instruments, Vinyl will be able to shine as it has more musical feeling and touches.
Vinyl can certainly achieve this however a quality setup could easily cost more than a cd transport. Most of my classical vinyl collection outshines cd versions but this wasn't the case until I upgraded my deck and cartridge more recently. Streaming quality is getting very close and you do avoid surface noise in both steaming and cd however vinyl can still outshine based on the mastering source
Yes indeed a time and place for all formats. At home I usually have vinyl in my car that’s a different but equally satisfying format. Life without music isn’t life at all.
Wow, lots of outtakes at the end. You are very patient! I have not listened to any modern vinyl, as I have not had a turntable set up for ages. I still have my old record albums from the 1970s-late 1990s, when I started to only purchase CDs, and I remember hearing a distinct difference in sound quality on vinyl when purchasing discs from notably high quality vinyl producers who also used top quality master recordings for source material (Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Sheffield Lab, Direct-Disk Labs, etc), as compared to the standard issue vinyl from CBS, etc. As far as dynamic range goes, I think the big selling point of greater dynamic range for CDs was really because they had a much lower noise floor than vinyl did. Yes, CD could also have a higher end as well (due to the limitations caused by groove tracking of high level signals by the cartridge), but I think the bigger impact was the lower noise floor. But the bottom line is that the source material (master) used to produce the media is the ultimate decider. Garbage in, garbage out! With the advent of higher quality digital recordings, it reflected badly on recording engineers who did a bad job of mastering the original music, so they needed to up their game.
Exactly. CD's are capable of somewhere around 90 db dynamic range. Loudness Wars reversed all the benefits of that DR for a low noise floor and high output. Which often ruins the listening experience with fatigue. Although and honestly, natural music DR in itself can be fatiguing to listen to in a home environment on a consistent basis. What is a useful option that streaming does offer is an adjustable DR compression for late night listening.
Love this. After reading nearly all of the thousand comments here, I'm happy to give my take. 59 years old with not-too-compromised ears. I like vinyl ONLY for those albums that my brain remembers from back in the '70's. Breakfast in America. Hotel California. Hot Streets. I know where every instrument and note "was" in the soundstage, as originally masteted and transferred in the very best way they could at the time. As for any other presentation - original CD, today's high-def, etc. - the specs are infinitely better. But to my brain, for those old albums, it simply sounds wrong, lol. Now as for that new Stones album, I'll enjoy it in the manner that it was just recorded, and it will a great musical experience as well. An old audiophile's "muscle memory" is what this conversation is really all about!
Great subject to dive into John! In the end, the engineer and producer (and sometimes the artist) have a lot more to do with sound quality than the format. Analog tape and vinyl both have pretty severe limitations that never-the-less can deliver great musical enjoyment, Modern vinyl is so expensive that I think the engineers are extra careful to get the best result. Digital (especially hi-res) is capable of capturing live sound without limitation, but that is almost never what we get. There are different kinds of compression used depending on the medium. A very compressed recording (average loud level) really eats up playing time on an LP, but peak limiting is very important to not overload the cutting head and cause tracking problems. As noted, deep bass is mono on vinyl and is rolled off pretty steeply below 40 or 50 Hz to save space and prevent tracking problems. In the days when vinyl was the only choice, the sound and the quality was overall very poor. The discs were thin and usually warped (causing warp wow when played) and usually incorporated reground vinyl (old records that didn't sell, ground up paper labels and all). The most common customer complaint was 'skipping' usually caused by using really cheap crappy turntables and ceramic cartridges. Customers returned records and demanded their money back. For this reason, dynamic range and frequency response were usually purposely severely reduced compared to the master tape. 45RPM singles (used in jukeboxes) were especially bad sounding. These were considered disposable. 33RPM LPs weren't much better with a few exceptions. Big selling albums would require multiple pressing dies (stampers), each one a little worse as the mother wore out, and these dies would be used well past their prime to get the required million discs for sale. Today's vinyl is usually heavy 180g virgin vinyl pressed using long heating/cooling cycles to get beautiful quiet surfaces. I think it also assumed that even modestly priced turntables are very capable these days and the resulting LP can be a bit closer to the master tape. BTW, using a digital master allows the engineer to 'know what's coming' to the cutting head with the benefit that the levels can be pushed a little higher without risk of unintended distortion. Followers should check out: dynamicrangeday.co.uk/ This group is dedicated to ending the 'loudness war'.
The limitations of analog followed, insures at least good sound, and with skill, great sound. Your digital can be done easily by keyboard warriors with high amounts of technology who never were taught how to make a basic Stereo, 3 microphone recording of a live Jazz or Classical ensemble. I know how to do this properly.
I own and run a record store, but I'm still mostly interested in original pressings of older recordings. That said, I do get excited about all analog, repress/remasters of classic albums, especially those that are hard to find, or were never released on vinyl.
The compression af the dynamic range of the music is because it sounds better on a car stereo. I was told this 25 years ago. At that time people even found that a copy of a CD to a casette tape for the car sounded better than a copy of a LP. A person named Garry Miller mentioned some of the same.
Superb video. You hit on all the points I thought were missing from the previous Stop Making Sense video. I am not the utmost authority on audio but I am pretty savvy... and I must say that your description in this video aligns 100% with my understanding. I look forward to hearing the interview with PBTHAL.
You make a fascinating point! Last week I performed a live version of Rachmaninov symphony 2 under the baton of Andrew Litton and we worked very hard on dynamic range. I’ve also performed the same piece with other conductors and I can safely say that focusing energies on d.r. results in a massive impact on the audience satisfaction. In essence you’ve also inadvertently made a pro argument for live classical music. Just pop down to your local symphony orchestra. I can see you worked really hard on this one, you’ve definitely made your point in a very clear manner, congrats as usual !!
I think too much music today is being mastered for playback on mobile phones...through the crappy little built in speakers, because so many people DO listen to music that way. And those of us who listen to music on better playback devices, are effectively getting the short end of the stick.
@rebeccaschade3987 Back in the 60s Berry Gordy (Motown founder) deliberately reduced the quality of his “hit factory” releases (reduced DR, reduced bass, boosted midrange etc) in order to make them sound best on cheap portable transistor radios because he knew that’s how most of his target audience would hear them. And he was right - his “factory” became the most successful pop production company in that period. It’s the same thing now with smart phones - what goes around comes around😄
Vinyl mastering engineers actually ask for the files supplied to have the least compression applied possible. It allows them to fit more music on the record, since they can make the track spacing narrower when it's quieter, and only wider in the loud parts where it's really needed. If only labels would also release the same less-compressed masters as high-res files...
Thank you so much for sharing this kind of thoughts, too - not just reviews and comparisons. It makes a lot of sense to all of us, active listeners of digital audio formats and vynil.
9 dB of dynamics is outrageous! I remember when in the 90s I was disappointed when I found out the Dire Straits Brothers in Arms DDD CD had “only” about 30 dB of dynamic range compared to the 90 dB range available in the CD format! Man, times have changed….
Are you accounting for secondary, tertiary, etc, harmonic distortion? To me, the added junk from vinyl (e,g.rumble) will produce the extended range that the measurement device reported.
With modern vinyl cutting, I find the 4kHz range needs adding or removing. With one beautiful pressing I have to add 9dbB to equalise it. Apparently this has to do with the natural resonance of the mass of the cutting head which apparently needs constant monitoring and compensating for during cutting. This information comes from an old boy who still works in high end studio gear. He also told me that
The "problem" with audible gains made in dynamic range using vinyl, is that you immediately lose that gain advantage by all the noise inherently in vinyl - pops, crackles, humming. Having grown up with vinyl in the 80s, it took me ages to transition to CD, and when I made my first CD purchase (REM automatic for the people) I was just blown away by the sheer clarity and purity of the sound...I was an instant convert overnight and sold almost all my vinyl and began the arduous journey of replacing with CD. I went through exactly the same process with streaming about 10 or so years ago, having already begun dipping my toe in, ripping my CD collection onto a server and thinking "why would I need to pay for a streaming service"...but then, having gradually got used to spotify and then the higher res Tidal, I cannot imagine listening to music any other way. The sheer amount of artists Ive discovered just leaving the player running after an album finishes and does its own thing, is just wonderful. The ability to easily make playlists for a specific social occasion, a dinner party, or just to share with close pals...brilliant! The absolute joyous fun and laughter me and my pals have when they come over, chatting about music and us all pinging our favourites in turns to the streamer or new artists we've found! I still sit and listen critically and focussed to my music as its one of my main loves in life, but I feel completely liberated by streaming now and don't miss vinyl in the slightest. If I want to listen to a record AND read the sleeve details, I can do that easily online. I really don't miss having a physical "thing" in my hands, and I can't help feel that my past vinyl addiction had far more to do with collecting trophies than it did the music itself. It was an attachment to a thing, and that thing (my collection) was part of my identity. I'm glad I let go! All that vinyl space has been replaced by books :)
Great vid and a necessary follow-up from the first one - thanks. The answer to 'why are the digitals mastered with less dynamic range?' To me, likely to be the fact that individual digital tracks could be competing with other individual tracks within PLAYLISTS. However, on Vinyl, the format is only competing with itself for a 20min period of intentional listening of each SIDE... so it could/should have whatever dynamic range it likes... without the competition track-to-track that digital playlists could bring up.
I really enjoyed your analysis of DR and how it compares between vinyl and digital formats. I can tell you, however, that the only real reason I buy vinyl is because I love the physical, tangible nature of vinyl. For all intents and purposes, my music needs "for work" as a DJ are focused around the latest digital performance equipment that I rely on when playing on stage, so my vinyl collection is about 85-90% "for pleasure" and, to be frank, it's more about escaping digital fatigue for me. It's the same reason I buy video games on physical media and, when my budget allows for it, I prefer to pick up physical copies of my favorite movies. My profession likely makes my relationship with music more of an outlier than the average person, but it definitely affords me a certain level of awareness around the "why" of my vinyl habits. I think your analysis is spot-on but, respectfully, I think the attraction to physical media and the effects of digital fatigue are grossly underplayed (no pun intended) within the 21st-century vinyl community. That said, whatever the reason for each individual's format preferences, I appreciate videos like this that offer a different way to approach a nuanced conversation.
I'll take the hi-res digital files every time. I did the record thing back in the '80s when it was the best low-cost source for music, but have since moved on to better and more convenient digital options, beginning with CDs after they became more affordable.
We buy compressed audio because it is ahem... "louder". If we bought more audio with performance-level dynamic range, the producers would release it that way on digital. "We have met the enemy and he is us"
I remember watching a movie in it's original language and having the reaction "wow it is far quieter than the dubbed version". The sound was better, but it seems dubbed versions are also "quiet" nowadays so you have to rely on whatever sound system you're hostage to.
To me, I love vinyl for all the reasons mentioned, but also: pure enjoyment, fun to play, nice to care for the record, and the sound quality most often. How does the DR14 original CD sound compared to the rip?
With streaming you get a black or silver box with a screen and maybe a led light or two. Record albums often come with a big beautiful cover and artwork. With remastered music from the past and newer music you get a compressed audio experience on digital.
By the late 70s many - not all, but many, many, many - mastering facilities (at a time when vinyl was the mass market format!) had moved to using digital delay lines rather than tape preview heads. Ampex and other studio tape deck manufacturers really pushed this technology, and mastering facilities were quite enthusiastic adopters of digital (and quite low-bit at that!). So by the late 70s many - not all, but many, many, many - vinyl records in the marketplace were already digital in the final step, or AAD if you prefer. And that's before digital started to move into the studio setting for tracking with the early machines from Sony, Mitsubishi, etc. in the 1980s, and before ProTools etc. arrive in the 1990s.
I've heard about the 12-bit delay being a thing, but I have yet to hear exactly how widespread the usage of it really was, because I've heard at least one vinyl-mastering engineer who worked in the '70s and '80s say he never saw or heard of anyone using it in his company, and didn't know who did otherwise. I think it was the English guy who makes videos with titles like 'vinyl is coming back and it's so wrong on so many levels'. He explains things well but I hate the clickbait and he comes off strangely snarky in comments.
I'm pretty sure the whole audio chain was analogue until at least the mid-1980's. Stereo masters were mixed onto analogue Ampex and Studer two track machines, and it was those that were delivered to mastering engineers. All the eq's and compressors that were then used were all analogue too. There were outlier digital recordings made in the early 1980's, but as a working studio musician in London the first time I started seeing digital tape machines was around 1988/89 and that was for specialist, big budget albums. Most people were still recording to tape on analogue machines. A few pioneers started using pro-tools around 1990, but when I bought my first system in 1992 it was still quite basic and very expensive.
@@ChrisWhittenMusic I think maybe you misunderstood the original comment you’re responding too - he’s not talking about digital in the studio he’s talking about in the pressing plant I think ?
Dynamic range has always been the reason I prefer Vinyl on the whole. Some CD reissues butcher the sound, not because CD is incapable of superb sound, but because the studio butchered it. One of the reasons I prefer Vinyl which I think is inherent in the format and the dynamic range (yes I'm aware the format has less SNR than CD is capable of) is that it's less fatiguing. When I was younger I liked to listen to my hifi *really* loud. With CDs that would cause my ears to ring and my head to ache after a while. With Vinyl I found I could listen at high levels for long periods without any fatigue. Excuse the analogy but highly compressed CD is like living in an ultra modern house with sharp shiny surfaces and Vinyl is more like living is 1970s house full of plants while wearing comfy corduroy slacks!
I have a problem with streaming these days. Many albums that were available aren’t anymore. Sometimes they remove access of 2/3 of the album and only two tracks are available. Why « Sonno » from Alessandro Cortini is no more accessible? I bought the album years ago but removing music from the platform happens too often
That is another huge problem with digital files, in addition to the flatness and digital artifacts (which the average person doesn't even seem to notice because 'digital is perfect' in their minds), the inconsistency and sometimes borderline-criminal behavior by distributors, like Google Play. They only sold music for a few years before 'rolling' it into UA-cam Music, but I bought like $200 worth of music off GP and within a month of my last purchase, they sent a notification saying I had 30 days to download my music purchases or they'd be gone forever, and they've just made it an absolute mess trying to accomplish that. Among other things, I bought from them a copy of 'Changesbowie' which cost $12 for solely music, and genuinely sounds far worse than my cassette tape of the same, and not even in the ballpark of CD quality. I'll just say I'm going to get my money's worth from these MF's one way or another.
Interesting video, very well done. I saw this concert and it was fabulous and strangely enough the sound was one of the best and balanced live performances I have ever heard.
I am always super surprised how much I really enjoy well made vinyl that is cut from digital files. Michael Fremer says as much in his MoFi/Music Direct tour video. At the end of the day, it’s all about the chain of mastering and manufacturing and the end users equipment. Great video!
There's a Wikipedia article about the Loudness War. Especially mechanic Instruments sound weird with to much compression. I like the digital domain for the details and fast impulses but dropped a lot of titles from my collection because of the gruesome compression. Dynamic compression may be useful in a car on a highway or on a construction site but not on a good stereo system in a quiet home. Record labels should let the stereo systems do the dynamic compression as only the stereo system can know the listening environment and the preferences of the listeners. Or at least offer a natural edit with full dynamic range and a compressed loudness edit for loud environments.
For me, it’s not about the vinyl it’s about what’s on it, and I can safely say you can’t unscratch a vinyl record and if you have a favourite recording you frequently listen to either for enjoyment or as a musician to learn from it ( some of us still like to learn by ear) , it just can’t compete to a cd on either durability or price
Since we are all in this hobbie for the love of music . I figured I’d start posting some great songs to enjoy.. Mingo Fishtrap- Not the Same Jamie cullum- Lover, you should have come over Lake street Dive- I want you back Seth walker- I must be in a good place now Fever - Ray Charles It would be cool if everyone started putting some of there favorites out. Discovering new music is what has made the streaming algorithm so great.
You've hit the nail on the head regarding the masters used making the most difference rather than the format itself. I'm a mastering engineer with four decades experience and I recently got back into vinyl myself. One of the major reasons for this is that it is far easier to find original pressings of some of my favourite albums without all the hyper compression, brick wall limiting and even intentional clipping done on many digital releases. These "loudness wars" releases are fatiguing and harsh to listen to. While vinyl is technically lacking in some aspects, the vastly superior masters used on the original pressings (in many cases) makes these releases far more engaging to listen to.
That's the pity of it: vinyl is demonstrably inferior even to 16-bit 44.1 KHz by every relevant metric, but there's a flood of poorly mastered CDs out there--exacerbated by the Loudness Wars, not to mention mastering from degraded tapes, using safety copies, using masters EQ'd for vinyl that require, and suffer from, corrective EQing--that have led the underinformed to the bizarre position that 16-bit 44.1 KHz is somehow inherently inferior to vinyl.
Two days before my son sent me the link to this post, I watched a movie from 1946, Two Sisters From Boston. In the film, there is a scene where Lauritz Melchior records Prize Song from Die Meistersinger. When he finishes he has the following exchange with a record company exec. You can find the clip online. Record exec: You wasn’t loud enough. People don’t want records that they have to listen to. Melchior: But it is the right rendition of the aria Mr. Gibson. Record exec: Who cares about the song. It’s the phenomenon. That’s what the people want. It’s the noise that comes out of the box.
The loudness war has caused a post-1990 degradation on CD releases in terms of Dynamic Range (DR). It's no secret that many audiophiles seek older CD releases and avoid like the plague new remasterings. Vinyl is indeed more resilient to that trend.
I think vinyl has a higher noise floor, so introduces noise and colouration which may be detected as widening the dynamic range when it could be just extra introduced noise.
Very interesting and informative video, as your video's always are. Nice to see the bloopers afterwards; it seems to me a frustrating process to get it al right in as few takes as possible and that you're a perfectionist. Don't be too hard for yourself at this aspect; some flaws are a consequence of being a human. Keep up this good work!
not just a mastering stand point but a mixing stand point, true stereo microphone techniques were more common for vinyl because of how music fits in a single groove (ex: panning drums left / vocals right / bass center)...also from a mixing stand point todays modern digital music has too much AIR (high end freq boosting) = more sibilance and harshness and when that high end has less dynamic range (over-compressed) it really creates ear fatigue . Vinyl physically not having the high frequency content will make the music more enjoyably for longer periods of time. digital will always be a "higher quality" but that doesn't make it better. Modern music high end focus today vs older records more mid range focus and more awareness to true stereo mixing techniques plays a large part in what you're talking about.
Having explored every music format since the early 60s, including vinyl, reel-to-reel, 8-tracks and cassettes, I now make both lossy and CD quality playlists on iTunes. Can't beat the convenience!... and won't abide by vinyl ticks and pops!
I like the feel of records and their covers, I like turntables, i like how cartridges work, I like the process of playing a record, I like the sound of a lot of lps, not all. I like analog v digital.
Is radio play still a factor that would make producers compress their reissues? Are there focus groups preferring a louder sound? I wonder (in my free time). I definitely see the phenomenon of highly compressed tracks when I try to even out different songs for my radio show. Perhaps "boutique" and indie labels (e.g. Craft, Cherry Red, Esoteric, Rhino) are less likely to restrict dynamics in their CD/BluRay/SACD reissues. I still prefer the sound of CDs *mostly.*
It couldn't be radio play, the Optimod and its ilk tend not to like heavily compressed / clipped audio all that much iif memory serves. My best guess is car playback, because for some reason dynamic range compression does not appear to be standard in equipment designed to go into a potentially rather noisy environment? Also, when levels are not (properly) normalized, you easily fall prey to "louder = better" when choosing between mastering levels to choose from. Consumers tend to use their volume controls a lot more readily than the folks behind the desk... IMHO it should be on the playback equipment to provide good dynamic range compression when likely to be operated in compromised environments... portable players and car radios in particular. One of the many reasons I insist on a Rockbox-powered DAP.
Dynamic range keeps going down because dumb record executives, and the artists themselves, will not go against the grain of LOUDER UNTIL IT BLEEDS. This is the real cause. The original Stop Making sense, recorded digitally and released at the onset was probably the best sounding of the bunch, but when CDs became mainstream, the loudness wars also began. And it has gotten worse. Vinyl isn't better, and neither is tape. What is better about those formats is that they cannot be pushed. That's it. That's the whole thing. IF an artist releases material with a full dynamic range and leaves it alone, the digital file and CD it will blow all other formats out of the water. Especially a 24bit, 48k file, with over 100db of dynamic range. Leave them things alone and we get back to music, not loudness.
You’ve truly amazed me. I’ve always figured that one of the attractions of vinyl was the necessary compression that comes with the format compared to digital! And the reverse is true. You learn something new every day!
E1DA is a russian engineer living in China in order to design an manufacture some incredible audio equipment. A real cool down to earth guy. Great video. For us who lived through the cd revolution remember when they had symbols on cds telling you how it it was recorded, mixed qnd master.
the hi-res has more low and hi-frequency info which the DR program will add in as loudness (especially the bass) in the quiet parts and the dr meter is just giving you a measurement of the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of the track. like i've said before, it's not always about the numbers, sometimes you got to use your ears.
It seems to me the factor that isn't being considered in all the technical discussion of relative dynamic range on various old/new releases is the listening volume. When a high dynamic range source is played at moderate volumes, the quietest sounds/instruments in the recording can be too low in volume to be audible, meaning the listener misses out on a part of the listening experience they get from playing a lower dynamic range source at a level which sounds just as loud in its peaks.. Vinyl records (and similarly, analogue dubs of them on cassette recorded with Dolby C noise reduction) can sound far more complete in terms of being able to hear the more subtle elements of music without cranking the volume knob up high, trying to emulate the full dynamic range a listener might experience standing near the stacks at a live concert. Personally, I don't feel my listening experience is improved by a 120dB SPL in a household room environment, when that level has long-term consequences to my hearing, not to mention the good will of my neighbors. A satisfying listening experience is the one that presents me the fullest possible audible detail with a minimum of extraneous noise (eg. old fashioned analogue tape hiss) at levels that don't leave me partially deaf an hour later. Generally speaking old vinyl satisfies these parameters better than re-releases with higher dynamic range..
This is exactly the reason so many audiophiles prefer vinyl: It's more suitable to a domestic environment listening. CD and hires, would never play at their full, theoretical dynamic ranges, without interfering badly with your room acoustics and your gear limitations. They're practically forced to perform in the vinyl DR area.
What I truly enjoyed in the last 2 videos is your demonstration that the key is mastering quality. Thanks for that. At the same time, dynamic range is NOT the only factor. Agreed that the loudness war leaves us poorer in sound quality. However, depending on what you are listening to, HI RES files played from a good source (streaming has it's own problems with jitters, internet quality, EM noise, etc.) may provide the best format...if the mastering (or remastering) is of high quality. How to rate and evaluate quality mastering is therefore the true test, not the medium itself (Vinyl or Digital).
But was is the dynamic range limits of the technology between streaming, CD or vinyl? Are you experiencing these differences in the musical pieces or labels you chose? Would be nice if all releases on all formats listed the dynamic range of that particular recording.
I second a comment that I am not convinced dynamic range is the sole explanation of why records can and often do sound “better” than a digital counterpart, though it is one of several potential reasons. Others may the distortions inherent in all analog recording and replay, eg utilization of tubes, second harmonics or other distortions of analog tape source, tape noise riding along w the sound, tape saturation, cartridge frequency response or second order harmonics, etc etc. I am a huge advocate of needle drops. With a high quality A>D, the record played against the rip is indistinguishable to my ear. I think that speaks to the transparency of digital. @johndarko did you find the needle drops sound the same as the “live” LP playback?
Solution: make it mandatory for record labels to state the dynamic range of every track on the back cover of the CD and on the streaming service page, then hit them in the balls by refusing to buy any release with a dynamic range smaller than 12 dB. Force the record labels to stop interfering with the mastering engineers and allow them to bring back the dynamics. Usually, every track release should be mastered in different versions: for vinyl recod, for CD, for streaming platforms and for promotional use (online or on the air).
The compression process can also work the other way. The tubular bells at end of the first side of Mike Oldfield’s album were recorded using a claw hammer rather than the standard mallet to give them a brighter, louder, ringing sound. The problem was that they had to be reduced in volume when it came to the tape for cutting the master lacquer as otherwise the huge increase in volume towards the end of the side would have caused heavy distortion, or even the stylus on some decks to jump out of the groove. When it came to producing (I think) the SACD version they were able to restore the original dynamic range. It would be interesting to know roughly how many LPs cut nowadays use a less compressed digital master than for the streaming/download version. I think it’s correct that dynamic range can make a difference (though not always) but how often are there the kinds of differences noted with this recent edition of “Stop Making Sense”? It’s a good point but to what extent can one extrapolate?
Excellent video. I'm an audio engineer and an avid collector of records. The truth of the matter is certainly that, with the exception of One-Step records costing hundreds of dollars on release, most of the records we hear nowadays are indeed digitally sourced... and it doesn't detract whatsoever from the experience. I think a lot should be said for the tactile and aesthetic experience of having a large physical copy to hold and look at rather than limited credits on a screen with only front cover art. Ear fatigue is another issue that too many people eschew when considering the differences between Hi-Res Digital Vs Vinyl masters. I can listen to Grindcore, Psych, Metal or furious Jazz without limit on vinyl. If I try the same via 192kHz Flac/Wav, it's only a matter of time before I start tuning out. A rewarding and engaging experience is subjective of course, but for my money, you are bang on here. Cheers
Great point. It's very hard to explain but playing anything digitally streamed on a decent system can be wearing after a while. DR compression maybe fools the ear but not the brain...or vice-versa!
The MoFi One Step releases were quite recently outed as having gone through a DSD or DXD AD/DA in the mastering, so not even those (though the manufact). There are still some, but few who are not doing this. And honestly, I'm not even sure I care. As long as recording, mixing, and mastering is competently and tastefully done, I'm good with most equipment likely to be involved.
I recorded a bunch of records from the 70's (full Led Zeppelin album library, Jimmy Hendrix, the Cars, Supertramp... ) with a Kenwood linear tracking tt I got in 1985, through the 1/4-inch jack out on a PYLE phono preamp into my HP laptop 3.5mm mic jack using Windows basic recording software and they are the best record recordings I've ever heard. Super simple with only one external component (phono preamp). Love your videos. Thanks!
So limitations of vinyl format don't allow publishers to enforce that crazy level of dynamic compression that they want and that can be reached with digital formats, and that spoils perception of music more than imperfections and limitations of vinyl media. Totally works for me! :)
Good points but I think there is one correction needed: the more the DR the more "surface" you will need on the vinyl, in the video at 7:00 you said the opposite. On a vinyl the peak DR is the ratio between the larger and the smaller oscillations in the grove. The smaller oscillations cannot be reduced below a certain point or the useful signal will be comparable to the mechanical and electrical noise. So if you want a vinyl with high DR you can only allow for more space to accommodate larger peak oscillations ... so traces need more space and you can fit less songs on a disk. As you said the issue with low DR in digital audio is not a problem of the digital nature of the format but a bad decision in the marketing / mastering. From the physical point of view a vinyl will never have the DR that is feasible on a 16 or even better a 24bits file. DR compression was common also on CDs especially after ‘90, known as "loudness war". I saw CDs from major artists with fully clipped audio tracks ! It is so also because starting from that period and nowadays most of the listeners are not using real high quality audio systems and on those a low DR file may actually sound apparently better. Back in the days mastering was done with Hi-Fi in mind (maybe sound engineer were not yet so conditioned by marketing people). The same for vinyls today, maybe because they are targeted to listeners that have generally better equipment the producer decided to master them with a little more DR ... just a guess.
I think he's correct stating higher DR allows you to cut more time on vinyl. Variable width groove cutting (based on loudness) has been a thing since the 1970s, allowing more time on a side of an LP.
@dloorkour1256 This is very interesting and I thank you for pointing it out, this technique will for sure optimize the time capacity of an LP. You are also right that it is a process that was used already many many years ago. I may be wrong but still I'm not sure that a larger DR will allow to pack more songs on a LP, at least on one of good quality, if we want an acceptable SNR in the playback, we cannot reduce too much the width of the grooves during low volume sections and if the DR is large the high volume sections will need much larger width. If we have instead a low DR mastering, we can use a pretty small and constant track width and the noise will not be so noticeable because of the almost constant volume of the music. I do not pretend to be right but it seems not so easy to put together all the variable to say for sure that high DR will save space on the disk.
@PaoloLuraschi Picking up on your comment that one reason ‘music companies’ may produce “fully clipped audio” (and maybe also use other compromises) is because “listeners are not using real high quality audio systems” - mostly consuming on their iPhones? This is exactly what happened 60 years ago when Berry Gordy (Motown) instructed his sound engineers to optimise the records produced by his “hit factory” to sound best on small and cheap transistor radios. Gordy was a smart guy, focused on the money, and he understood that cheap portable radios were the devices on which most of his target market were consuming his product. And that’s why those records often sound so disappointing today - no DR, little bass, boosted mid-range. But, hey, the songs are still great and he sure got the sales!
Its also bands and producers and engineers. Ive spent decades making records and almost anytime you delever even a rough mix to a ckient, they want it louder. The rough unfinished mix needs to conpete with polished, mastered tracks. I talk and rant about this all the time, but NO ONE is willing to let dynamics exist anymore. It bums me out.
Hello Mr Darko, following your youtube channel I have learned so much about how in the world you can play music in a better and different way, I would love to hear more from you about the dynamic range compression, thank you!
Old AAD CDs have note tonal color of instruments. In other words they sound closer to the real thing. I have around 50 or more remasterd CDs along with the originals. In EVERY case the original has more tonal color. Every single one of them
I think the real reason, why the dynamic range decreases from release to release is: It should sound good on any device, especially the cheap modern mass consumer devices and BT boom boxes which are not capable of handling a dynamic range of 14 or more.
John - really appreciate the recent content about hi res and analog vs digital. I’ve been in this hobby a long time and just now realizing that some of the old ways of doing things can be more enjoyable than the new ways. For example, I have an old burr brown pcm63 base DAC that will not accept signals above 16/48, but I enjoy listening to that setup more than the many newer DACs that I’ve owned over the years that can play all of the latest formats at super-high resolution.
Analog master tapes have a dynamic range around 77 db, vinyl has a dynamic range a little bit above 70db. Real to real multitrack tapes have a dynamic range between 60 and 70 db. High res audio of 24bit 96kHz has a dynamic range of 144 db. Let's say you listen to a high res recording of an orchestra that's recorded with high end converters straight into digital, maybe even recorded with 32bit floating point, the noise floor will be inaudible and the dynamic range will be off the charts, any analog engineer who recorded on tape in the olde days will trade for digital noiseless system anytime. There is something else that colours a recording, namely all the analog equipment colours the sound in a unique way, which gives it its character. That's why digital tends to sound 'cold' and analog 'warm" and that's why engineers in the digital domain love to use analog emulations. Tape and vinyl aren't the best mediums but I love them for their sound above 'cold' clean digital any day.
This really explains why vinyl collectors tend to gravitate towards certain genres. Those that benefit from from DR more than separation etc. Busy mixes require digital sources for me but sparse and dynamic (Jazz is an obvious one) sounds fantastic on vinyl.
Thanks for the video and history. Love your take on the subject. Also thanks on the bluperpers. I can see that as person with a bit OCD how fun your recording can be.
Besides the discussion of what's better, vinyl or digital, what you John are really putting a spotlight on is the importance of really good recordings! In the end it doesn't matter if with an excellent analogue or digital recording we get into our audiophile nirvana, it is the voice of this community (audio playback gourmets) which needs to be heard to stop the corrosion of music sources! It is important that the studio bosses get to know and learn that for the only-mobile-phone-playback-generation it doesn't matter, but for those who really care, now, and also in the future! Thank you John! Enjoy the music! Best regards, Matthias
I’d love to know which model of Thorens turntable you have in the video. I’m not familiar with that model, it looks absolutely lovely compared to my old TD 124. LOL.
There’s a major problem in my opinion.. People are buying vinyl ( at premium prices) and playing it back on ..at best Mid Fi ..I mean the place that will sell you a $40 vinyl copy of Taylor Swifts’ new album ..will sell you a Crosley Portable record player to play it on 🤦♂️
Yes but the record might just last a lifetime and sound better with each hardware upgrade. Buy the best possible version (hopefully AAA) and move on. Buy a crappy pressing and it will always sound crappy, no matter what turntable or phonostage you pick up down the line.
Before having to put up with a plastic abomination with a ceramic cartridge, I'd rather just collect the vinyl because it has a big sleeve and looks cool and put it on the shelf, while playing back the digital version instead... that'll sound a lot better for sure. Most young folks these days should have decent digital playback facilities.
I think it's no coincidence that since about the '80s, the average consumer turntable has been mediocre-to-bad, and now these Crosley-Victorola things are cheap and abundant for those who just want to see the black circle spin and make a noise.... and the average comments against vinyl are about all the problems caused by bad equipment and record-handling. So now we've got people who only know what bad turntables and dirty records sound like, and they pretend like 'that's all there is to the subject' instead of avoiding the opportunity to say something laughable.
This is good information. I agree with your conclusions. The public generally assumes “remastered” is a good thing. Many times, it’s worse. This however assumes the dynamic range across all frequencies. If I found an old cassette/vinyl with good dynamic range but sounds muffled or noisy, I would probably choose the format with more compression but better overall frequency response and that isn't a constant reminder of the noisy media it is being played on.
What a ridiculous situation. One of the touted benefits of CD upon its introduction was the wide dynamic range available from 16-bit digital. Now we have 24-bit and the dynamics are squashed more than they were on cassette tape releases. Just stupid.
Yeah, disgusting people making mixing and mastering decisions to destroy generations of art.
Sometimes you can get decent mastering by purchasing old CDs but often you're screwed.
People are too lazy to use the volume control today.
I think the real problem is that DR scores are not required to be printed on labeling. As soon as this happened it would force people to understand this measurement more and at the same time make the record labels and artists more keen to optimize the value.
The problem is a digital audio workstation vst (plugin) called the "Maxamizer" which you set all upper level for and then raise the quieter part of the signal. This is how dynamic range gets squashed. Unfortunately, for the average person that doesn't have any idea what good dynamic range can sound like, louder is always better.
Sounds like the loudness war, but with extra steps.
My favorite aspect of vinyl is that I see no way for companies to make me subscribe to their streaming service.
I'm glad someone in the UA-cam/Influencer age with a big platform is finally talking about dynamic range compression. Those of us who were veterans of The Loudness Wars from back in the 2000s have discussed this topic (and its negative impact on music quality) for years. I acknowledge that all things being equal (e.g. identical master) I would always choose a high res lossless (or even 16/44) file over vinyl. Vinyl has less overall dynamic range capability than 16/44 or higher, is subject to wear and tear over time, hiss and pops, etc. But we almost never get the same mastering (aka not overcompressed) file. So I accept the weakness of vinyl to get the better mastered music, especially if the digital file is clearly overcompressed. BTW another reason to crush dynamic range for digital files is the thought that people use those files "on the go" so it has to sound good in the car (road noise), on the go (city/street noise) all of which can make the quieter parts of songs inaudible. So to fight that they boost up the quieter parts. The assumption is: if you're listening to vinyl, you're in a controlled environment and really listening to the music for best quality. Also, if you master a record too loud, it risks having the needle jump the groove. In an ideal world, we'd get the final approved master from the band and its mixer and engineer, and have that put on high res lossless and call it a day. But we rarely ever get that.
And - you often get a beautiful jacket and artwork.
With analog, you can record below the noise floor...
The older I get, the fewer fucks I give about the format my music is on. I just like to just listen to the damn music and forget about the equipment. A good song is a good song, whether played from a vinyl record or a CD on my hifi system, a "hi res" stream through headphones or my studio monitors or via bluetooth on a mono JBL speaker.
Edit: grammar.
That’s my memory of the 70s. Records, cassette, 8 track, reel to reel, radio…it was just about the music, not this modern format fan boy bollocks!
I’m the same as you. I used to be sucked in with gear and the format. Now I couldn’t give two rats about it. Just play the music and be done with it.
*fewer fucks, not less 👍
I don’t give much about format, but stereo versus mono and dynamic range is a big deal. And yes, good music is still good music on a simple Bluetooth speaker, but more enjoyable on better equipment.
You've got it right brother.
Music enthusiasts use audio hardware to listen to music.
Audiophiles use music to listen to audio hardware.
I know which camp I fall into.
My son purchased a record player a year ago and the unexpected benefits we have reaped are incredible! It is hard to explain, but it seems the limitations imposed by a record player: you cannot -easily- skip songs or switch albums, etc., you’re kind of obligated to listen through. Forced into this situation seems to relieve of us of making decisions, reduces anxiety, helps put more focus on every song. It’s funny, sometimes the whole family (all 5 of us) will gather around the record player and listen to an album. So, is vinyl technically better…no, but does it provide a better experience, it is very possible.
Agree with many of the comments. Lived through the late fifties era and the 60s into the 70s just enjoying LPs and singles on an auto exchange record player. I am 72 and been into hifi since got a full time job in the 70s. Have chased through that time to get listening perfection but for me never had that until CDs entered the market. A Rega Planar 2 was my final turntable and have never bothered with vinyl again. A friend had a superb set up with Quad speakers and a Linn Sondek LP3? A soon as he had bought the 1st Philips CD player, the CD100 I think, he couldn’t wait to bring it round for me to hear it! That was the end of vinyl for him too.
I now only listen to Amazon Music via Shure KSE 1200 electrostatic earphones which give me the best musical experience I’ve ever had.
I learned more watching this video than I have in the last 3 years of listening to vinyl. Flawless. Sublime video
You hit the nail on the head. It all boils down to the mastering. If the mastering and EQ is the same for both, digital will win. I have different versions of famous albums. All the CD that were mastered in the late 80s and early 90s have much better dynamic range 12-15 (in my opinion just as good or better than vinyl) versus the newly "remastered" and botched releases that are very straining to listen to with DR of 4-8.
I'm 59 and, of course, started out listening to vinyl and then CD's. I still have all my albums and CD's. I do not use them. I have Hi-Res services from Amazon and Qobuz.
My Blusound Node, Freya+ tube amp, Bifrost 2/64, Emotiva RMC-1L, and XPA-DR-2 (all balanced) sending non sounding compressed music to ELAC Carina's sounds awesome! No hiss or crackle. Having access to any song ever made far exceeds the nostalgia of a crackling record taking up a lot of space.
I do enjoy your videos and to each his own! 🥂
It's refreshing to hear someone in the audiophile community (aka you) discussing the enjoyment of the music and not just listening to the hardware. Too often people discuss the equipment and the not the enjoyment it provides. However there is a small elephant in the room - so to speak. While some vinyl cuts may have a better dynamic range and sound more natural, the cost of the hardware to listen to this music is significantly higher for vinyl than it is for digital.
I am fortunate enough to have heard some crazy expensive vinyl setups and while I have to admit they sound really good the cost is prohibitive. Similar musical enjoyment can be had from a digital setup at a fraction of the cost.
In the ideal world, it would be nice if the record companies could release an 'audiophile master' without dynamic compression so we could actually hear what it should sound like.....
this is why i still buy cd and vinyl and havent moved to streaming. i want quality over convenience. ive invested an ungodly amount into media, amps, speakers, treatment, cd players etc and refuse to eat shyte.
I love how you are using talking heads music to discuss this issue. I remember listening to psycho killer on the radio when it was first released. It blew my mind. Changed my orientation to music forever. 46 years later and we're still enjoying that song. A lot of credit has to be given to Tina and that wonderful bass line.
As a 50yo, Vinyls never again neeeeeeeveeeeeerrrrr! With that said, enjoy music, enjoy your music regardless the format, peace ✌️
I am 55, I completely agree, sold all my LP’s 15 years ago and will never return…..
I'm 56
54 and love my vinyl more than ever. But most of it is original 70s and 80s. And often I enjoy my old uncompressed ripped CDs more than HiRes streams.
My hearing has always been compromised, and music has always been my priority. Combine both and you get an a-audiophile.
Years on and the listening fatigue due to digital has compromised my hearing even more, way more.
To cut the long story short, when I listened to vinyl again in a used records shop I felt my ears were brought back to life..
I embraced the digital era, arms open wide and ditched the frustrating vinyl experience, and today is the opposite.
Therapeutical reasons, I guess because I got 2 choices: to stop listening to music for the rest of my life, or listening to music again in a format I got divorced from and now remarried so I can listen to music properly again.
Great video,, it encapsulates in comprehensible terms what digital audiophiles can't understand about analog formats, even if that took you hours to record, lol.
I could see the fumes coming out of your ears and nostrils.
The older I’ve become the less things I want to own in my life, owning lots of “things” just don’t do it for me anymore. Every thing gone and currently replaced by a Bluestone Powernode, Chord speaker cables and a set of KEF ls50 meta speakers which I love, it’s as good as I’ll ever need in my small home. Also the amount of new music I’ve found over the last couple of years of streaming is incredible
Very good point! It is a wonderland for music lovers! ✌️😎
This is fast becoming my favourite channel. I love it when audiophile youtubers say stuff like "you need lossless 24-bit/192kHz audio through this $10k system so that you can really hear what the artist intended" when the reality is typically, at best, you are hearing what the mastering engineer intended, at worst what the record company instructed the mastering engineer to do. It would be interesting to hear from somebody in the business regarding their views on how vinyl mastering differs from mass market digital mastering.
When I put some tubes in the path of my High Res Audio it sounds just as natural as vinyl. It smooths out any digital sheen, while retaining the musical information. No crackling :p Tubes will obfuscate any digital character.
You know, I'm beginning to see the light on a tube power amp for that very reason, just to smooth out as you say the sheen. There are just so many to choose from these days, which is a good thing but difficult to weed through.
Seems to me we have an amazing luxury of choosing between infinite streaming high quality music and the enjoyable quest to find a perfect vinyl recording. And I say to myself, what a wonderful world.
Whether CD, hi-res or Vinyl, it really depends on which type of music fan you are. If you like me as an orchestra fan, I would choose CD and hi-res streaming as which are very similar to a real orchestra replay in a concert hall which has incredible depth in 3D sound stage and clarity. I will be very easy to identify the position and type of the musical instruments. Vinyl will not be able to achieve this. However if you are a solo piano, violin fan prefer small size instruments, Vinyl will be able to shine as it has more musical feeling and touches.
Vinyl can certainly achieve this however a quality setup could easily cost more than a cd transport. Most of my classical vinyl collection outshines cd versions but this wasn't the case until I upgraded my deck and cartridge more recently.
Streaming quality is getting very close and you do avoid surface noise in both steaming and cd however vinyl can still outshine based on the mastering source
Records are just nicer !
I use streaming !
I like my cds !
I love my records !
Yes indeed a time and place for all formats. At home I usually have vinyl in my car that’s a different but equally satisfying format. Life without music isn’t life at all.
Wow, lots of outtakes at the end. You are very patient!
I have not listened to any modern vinyl, as I have not had a turntable set up for ages. I still have my old record albums from the 1970s-late 1990s, when I started to only purchase CDs, and I remember hearing a distinct difference in sound quality on vinyl when purchasing discs from notably high quality vinyl producers who also used top quality master recordings for source material (Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, Sheffield Lab, Direct-Disk Labs, etc), as compared to the standard issue vinyl from CBS, etc.
As far as dynamic range goes, I think the big selling point of greater dynamic range for CDs was really because they had a much lower noise floor than vinyl did. Yes, CD could also have a higher end as well (due to the limitations caused by groove tracking of high level signals by the cartridge), but I think the bigger impact was the lower noise floor.
But the bottom line is that the source material (master) used to produce the media is the ultimate decider. Garbage in, garbage out! With the advent of higher quality digital recordings, it reflected badly on recording engineers who did a bad job of mastering the original music, so they needed to up their game.
Exactly.
CD's are capable of somewhere around 90 db dynamic range.
Loudness Wars reversed all the benefits of that DR for a low noise floor and high output. Which often ruins the listening experience with fatigue.
Although and honestly, natural music DR in itself can be fatiguing to listen to in a home environment on a consistent basis.
What is a useful option that streaming does offer is an adjustable DR compression for late night listening.
Love this. After reading nearly all of the thousand comments here, I'm happy to give my take. 59 years old with not-too-compromised ears. I like vinyl ONLY for those albums that my brain remembers from back in the '70's. Breakfast in America. Hotel California. Hot Streets. I know where every instrument and note "was" in the soundstage, as originally masteted and transferred in the very best way they could at the time. As for any other presentation - original CD, today's high-def, etc. - the specs are infinitely better. But to my brain, for those old albums, it simply sounds wrong, lol. Now as for that new Stones album, I'll enjoy it in the manner that it was just recorded, and it will a great musical experience as well. An old audiophile's "muscle memory" is what this conversation is really all about!
Great subject to dive into John! In the end, the engineer and producer (and sometimes the artist) have a lot more to do with sound quality than the format. Analog tape and vinyl both have pretty severe limitations that never-the-less can deliver great musical enjoyment, Modern vinyl is so expensive that I think the engineers are extra careful to get the best result. Digital (especially hi-res) is capable of capturing live sound without limitation, but that is almost never what we get.
There are different kinds of compression used depending on the medium. A very compressed recording (average loud level) really eats up playing time on an LP, but peak limiting is very important to not overload the cutting head and cause tracking problems. As noted, deep bass is mono on vinyl and is rolled off pretty steeply below 40 or 50 Hz to save space and prevent tracking problems.
In the days when vinyl was the only choice, the sound and the quality was overall very poor. The discs were thin and usually warped (causing warp wow when played) and usually incorporated reground vinyl (old records that didn't sell, ground up paper labels and all). The most common customer complaint was 'skipping' usually caused by using really cheap crappy turntables and ceramic cartridges. Customers returned records and demanded their money back. For this reason, dynamic range and frequency response were usually purposely severely reduced compared to the master tape. 45RPM singles (used in jukeboxes) were especially bad sounding. These were considered disposable. 33RPM LPs weren't much better with a few exceptions. Big selling albums would require multiple pressing dies (stampers), each one a little worse as the mother wore out, and these dies would be used well past their prime to get the required million discs for sale.
Today's vinyl is usually heavy 180g virgin vinyl pressed using long heating/cooling cycles to get beautiful quiet surfaces. I think it also assumed that even modestly priced turntables are very capable these days and the resulting LP can be a bit closer to the master tape. BTW, using a digital master allows the engineer to 'know what's coming' to the cutting head with the benefit that the levels can be pushed a little higher without risk of unintended distortion.
Followers should check out: dynamicrangeday.co.uk/ This group is dedicated to ending the 'loudness war'.
The limitations of analog followed, insures at least good sound, and with skill, great sound. Your digital can be done easily by keyboard warriors with high amounts of technology who never were taught how to make a basic Stereo, 3 microphone recording of a live Jazz or Classical ensemble. I know how to do this properly.
You're spot on with this. DR is considered the most important parameter in assessing the remastering of a recording by most audiophiles.
I own and run a record store, but I'm still mostly interested in original pressings of older recordings. That said, I do get excited about all analog, repress/remasters of classic albums, especially those that are hard to find, or were never released on vinyl.
Yep, I almost always try to buy originals.
The compression af the dynamic range of the music is because it sounds better on a car stereo. I was told this 25 years ago. At that time people even found that a copy of a CD to a casette tape for the car sounded better than a copy of a LP. A person named Garry Miller mentioned some of the same.
Superb video. You hit on all the points I thought were missing from the previous Stop Making Sense video. I am not the utmost authority on audio but I am pretty savvy... and I must say that your description in this video aligns 100% with my understanding. I look forward to hearing the interview with PBTHAL.
You make a fascinating point! Last week I performed a live version of Rachmaninov symphony 2 under the baton of Andrew Litton and we worked very hard on dynamic range. I’ve also performed the same piece with other conductors and I can safely say that focusing energies on d.r. results in a massive impact on the audience satisfaction. In essence you’ve also inadvertently made a pro argument for live classical music. Just pop down to your local symphony orchestra.
I can see you worked really hard on this one, you’ve definitely made your point in a very clear manner, congrats as usual !!
I think too much music today is being mastered for playback on mobile phones...through the crappy little built in speakers, because so many people DO listen to music that way. And those of us who listen to music on better playback devices, are effectively getting the short end of the stick.
@rebeccaschade3987
Back in the 60s Berry Gordy (Motown founder) deliberately reduced the quality of his “hit factory” releases (reduced DR, reduced bass, boosted midrange etc) in order to make them sound best on cheap portable transistor radios because he knew that’s how most of his target audience would hear them. And he was right - his “factory” became the most successful pop production company in that period. It’s the same thing now with smart phones - what goes around comes around😄
Vinyl mastering engineers actually ask for the files supplied to have the least compression applied possible. It allows them to fit more music on the record, since they can make the track spacing narrower when it's quieter, and only wider in the loud parts where it's really needed. If only labels would also release the same less-compressed masters as high-res files...
Thank you so much for sharing this kind of thoughts, too - not just reviews and comparisons. It makes a lot of sense to all of us, active listeners of digital audio formats and vynil.
9 dB of dynamics is outrageous! I remember when in the 90s I was disappointed when I found out the Dire Straits Brothers in Arms DDD CD had “only” about 30 dB of dynamic range compared to the 90 dB range available in the CD format! Man, times have changed….
Are you accounting for secondary, tertiary, etc, harmonic distortion? To me, the added junk from vinyl (e,g.rumble) will produce the extended range that the measurement device reported.
Phono preamps like ifi phono will filter out rumble.
@@dextercool You can't filter out rumble without also filtering out bass.
With modern vinyl cutting, I find the 4kHz range needs adding or removing. With one beautiful pressing I have to add 9dbB to equalise it. Apparently this has to do with the natural resonance of the mass of the cutting head which apparently needs constant monitoring and compensating for during cutting. This information comes from an old boy who still works in high end studio gear. He also told me that
The "problem" with audible gains made in dynamic range using vinyl, is that you immediately lose that gain advantage by all the noise inherently in vinyl - pops, crackles, humming. Having grown up with vinyl in the 80s, it took me ages to transition to CD, and when I made my first CD purchase (REM automatic for the people) I was just blown away by the sheer clarity and purity of the sound...I was an instant convert overnight and sold almost all my vinyl and began the arduous journey of replacing with CD. I went through exactly the same process with streaming about 10 or so years ago, having already begun dipping my toe in, ripping my CD collection onto a server and thinking "why would I need to pay for a streaming service"...but then, having gradually got used to spotify and then the higher res Tidal, I cannot imagine listening to music any other way. The sheer amount of artists Ive discovered just leaving the player running after an album finishes and does its own thing, is just wonderful. The ability to easily make playlists for a specific social occasion, a dinner party, or just to share with close pals...brilliant! The absolute joyous fun and laughter me and my pals have when they come over, chatting about music and us all pinging our favourites in turns to the streamer or new artists we've found! I still sit and listen critically and focussed to my music as its one of my main loves in life, but I feel completely liberated by streaming now and don't miss vinyl in the slightest. If I want to listen to a record AND read the sleeve details, I can do that easily online. I really don't miss having a physical "thing" in my hands, and I can't help feel that my past vinyl addiction had far more to do with collecting trophies than it did the music itself. It was an attachment to a thing, and that thing (my collection) was part of my identity. I'm glad I let go! All that vinyl space has been replaced by books :)
Why not eBooks?
@@phonomat1587Haha that was exactly my thought 😂
A maintained turntable/records don't exhibit noise like you describe.
Vinyl breaks down every time you listen to it. Dynamics are possible in digital world with a good mastering.
Please explain how vinyl breaks down.
Great vid and a necessary follow-up from the first one - thanks. The answer to 'why are the digitals mastered with less dynamic range?' To me, likely to be the fact that individual digital tracks could be competing with other individual tracks within PLAYLISTS. However, on Vinyl, the format is only competing with itself for a 20min period of intentional listening of each SIDE... so it could/should have whatever dynamic range it likes... without the competition track-to-track that digital playlists could bring up.
I really enjoyed your analysis of DR and how it compares between vinyl and digital formats. I can tell you, however, that the only real reason I buy vinyl is because I love the physical, tangible nature of vinyl.
For all intents and purposes, my music needs "for work" as a DJ are focused around the latest digital performance equipment that I rely on when playing on stage, so my vinyl collection is about 85-90% "for pleasure" and, to be frank, it's more about escaping digital fatigue for me. It's the same reason I buy video games on physical media and, when my budget allows for it, I prefer to pick up physical copies of my favorite movies. My profession likely makes my relationship with music more of an outlier than the average person, but it definitely affords me a certain level of awareness around the "why" of my vinyl habits.
I think your analysis is spot-on but, respectfully, I think the attraction to physical media and the effects of digital fatigue are grossly underplayed (no pun intended) within the 21st-century vinyl community. That said, whatever the reason for each individual's format preferences, I appreciate videos like this that offer a different way to approach a nuanced conversation.
I'll take the hi-res digital files every time. I did the record thing back in the '80s when it was the best low-cost source for music, but have since moved on to better and more convenient digital options, beginning with CDs after they became more affordable.
We buy compressed audio because it is ahem... "louder". If we bought more audio with performance-level dynamic range, the producers would release it that way on digital.
"We have met the enemy and he is us"
I remember watching a movie in it's original language and having the reaction "wow it is far quieter than the dubbed version".
The sound was better, but it seems dubbed versions are also "quiet" nowadays so you have to rely on whatever sound system you're hostage to.
To me, I love vinyl for all the reasons mentioned, but also: pure enjoyment, fun to play, nice to care for the record, and the sound quality most often. How does the DR14 original CD sound compared to the rip?
With streaming you get a black or silver box with a screen and maybe a led light or two.
Record albums often come with a big beautiful cover and artwork.
With remastered music from the past and newer music you get a compressed audio experience on digital.
By the late 70s many - not all, but many, many, many - mastering facilities (at a time when vinyl was the mass market format!) had moved to using digital delay lines rather than tape preview heads. Ampex and other studio tape deck manufacturers really pushed this technology, and mastering facilities were quite enthusiastic adopters of digital (and quite low-bit at that!). So by the late 70s many - not all, but many, many, many - vinyl records in the marketplace were already digital in the final step, or AAD if you prefer. And that's before digital started to move into the studio setting for tracking with the early machines from Sony, Mitsubishi, etc. in the 1980s, and before ProTools etc. arrive in the 1990s.
I've heard about the 12-bit delay being a thing, but I have yet to hear exactly how widespread the usage of it really was, because I've heard at least one vinyl-mastering engineer who worked in the '70s and '80s say he never saw or heard of anyone using it in his company, and didn't know who did otherwise. I think it was the English guy who makes videos with titles like 'vinyl is coming back and it's so wrong on so many levels'. He explains things well but I hate the clickbait and he comes off strangely snarky in comments.
I'm pretty sure the whole audio chain was analogue until at least the mid-1980's. Stereo masters were mixed onto analogue Ampex and Studer two track machines, and it was those that were delivered to mastering engineers. All the eq's and compressors that were then used were all analogue too. There were outlier digital recordings made in the early 1980's, but as a working studio musician in London the first time I started seeing digital tape machines was around 1988/89 and that was for specialist, big budget albums. Most people were still recording to tape on analogue machines. A few pioneers started using pro-tools around 1990, but when I bought my first system in 1992 it was still quite basic and very expensive.
@@ChrisWhittenMusic I think maybe you misunderstood the original comment you’re responding too - he’s not talking about digital in the studio he’s talking about in the pressing plant I think ?
Dynamic range has always been the reason I prefer Vinyl on the whole. Some CD reissues butcher the sound, not because CD is incapable of superb sound, but because the studio butchered it.
One of the reasons I prefer Vinyl which I think is inherent in the format and the dynamic range (yes I'm aware the format has less SNR than CD is capable of) is that it's less fatiguing. When I was younger I liked to listen to my hifi *really* loud. With CDs that would cause my ears to ring and my head to ache after a while. With Vinyl I found I could listen at high levels for long periods without any fatigue.
Excuse the analogy but highly compressed CD is like living in an ultra modern house with sharp shiny surfaces and Vinyl is more like living is 1970s house full of plants while wearing comfy corduroy slacks!
I have a problem with streaming these days. Many albums that were available aren’t anymore. Sometimes they remove access of 2/3 of the album and only two tracks are available. Why « Sonno » from Alessandro Cortini is no more accessible? I bought the album years ago but removing music from the platform happens too often
That is another huge problem with digital files, in addition to the flatness and digital artifacts (which the average person doesn't even seem to notice because 'digital is perfect' in their minds), the inconsistency and sometimes borderline-criminal behavior by distributors, like Google Play. They only sold music for a few years before 'rolling' it into UA-cam Music, but I bought like $200 worth of music off GP and within a month of my last purchase, they sent a notification saying I had 30 days to download my music purchases or they'd be gone forever, and they've just made it an absolute mess trying to accomplish that. Among other things, I bought from them a copy of 'Changesbowie' which cost $12 for solely music, and genuinely sounds far worse than my cassette tape of the same, and not even in the ballpark of CD quality. I'll just say I'm going to get my money's worth from these MF's one way or another.
Interesting video, very well done. I saw this concert and it was fabulous and strangely enough the sound was one of the best and balanced live performances I have ever heard.
I am always super surprised how much I really enjoy well made vinyl that is cut from digital files. Michael Fremer says as much in his MoFi/Music Direct tour video. At the end of the day, it’s all about the chain of mastering and manufacturing and the end users equipment. Great video!
There's a Wikipedia article about the Loudness War. Especially mechanic Instruments sound weird with to much compression. I like the digital domain for the details and fast impulses but dropped a lot of titles from my collection because of the gruesome compression. Dynamic compression may be useful in a car on a highway or on a construction site but not on a good stereo system in a quiet home. Record labels should let the stereo systems do the dynamic compression as only the stereo system can know the listening environment and the preferences of the listeners.
Or at least offer a natural edit with full dynamic range and a compressed loudness edit for loud environments.
And you should never use Wiki as any sort of source, as it can be written by anyone who has a verified account.
For me, it’s not about the vinyl it’s about what’s on it, and I can safely say you can’t unscratch a vinyl record and if you have a favourite recording you frequently listen to either for enjoyment or as a musician to learn from it ( some of us still like to learn by ear) , it just can’t compete to a cd on either durability or price
Since we are all in this hobbie for the love of music . I figured I’d start posting some great songs to enjoy..
Mingo Fishtrap- Not the Same
Jamie cullum- Lover, you should have come over
Lake street Dive- I want you back
Seth walker- I must be in a good place now
Fever - Ray Charles
It would be cool if everyone started putting some of there favorites out. Discovering new music is what has made the streaming algorithm so great.
You've hit the nail on the head regarding the masters used making the most difference rather than the format itself. I'm a mastering engineer with four decades experience and I recently got back into vinyl myself. One of the major reasons for this is that it is far easier to find original pressings of some of my favourite albums without all the hyper compression, brick wall limiting and even intentional clipping done on many digital releases. These "loudness wars" releases are fatiguing and harsh to listen to.
While vinyl is technically lacking in some aspects, the vastly superior masters used on the original pressings (in many cases) makes these releases far more engaging to listen to.
That's the pity of it: vinyl is demonstrably inferior even to 16-bit 44.1 KHz by every relevant metric, but there's a flood of poorly mastered CDs out there--exacerbated by the Loudness Wars, not to mention mastering from degraded tapes, using safety copies, using masters EQ'd for vinyl that require, and suffer from, corrective EQing--that have led the underinformed to the bizarre position that 16-bit 44.1 KHz is somehow inherently inferior to vinyl.
John. I love this video. Thank you for your time. Terrific what you do. Also the outtakes are hilarious. 😅
Two days before my son sent me the link to this post, I watched a movie from 1946, Two Sisters From Boston. In the film, there is a scene where Lauritz Melchior records Prize Song from Die Meistersinger. When he finishes he has the following exchange with a record company exec. You can find the clip online.
Record exec: You wasn’t loud enough. People don’t want records that they have to listen to.
Melchior: But it is the right rendition of the aria Mr. Gibson.
Record exec: Who cares about the song. It’s the phenomenon. That’s what the people want. It’s the noise that comes out of the box.
The loudness war has caused a post-1990 degradation on CD releases in terms of Dynamic Range (DR). It's no secret that many audiophiles seek older CD releases and avoid like the plague new remasterings. Vinyl is indeed more resilient to that trend.
I think vinyl has a higher noise floor, so introduces noise and colouration which may be detected as widening the dynamic range when it could be just extra introduced noise.
Very interesting and informative video, as your video's always are. Nice to see the bloopers afterwards; it seems to me a frustrating process to get it al right in as few takes as possible and that you're a perfectionist. Don't be too hard for yourself at this aspect; some flaws are a consequence of being a human. Keep up this good work!
not just a mastering stand point but a mixing stand point, true stereo microphone techniques were more common for vinyl because of how music fits in a single groove (ex: panning drums left / vocals right / bass center)...also from a mixing stand point todays modern digital music has too much AIR (high end freq boosting) = more sibilance and harshness and when that high end has less dynamic range (over-compressed) it really creates ear fatigue . Vinyl physically not having the high frequency content will make the music more enjoyably for longer periods of time. digital will always be a "higher quality" but that doesn't make it better. Modern music high end focus today vs older records more mid range focus and more awareness to true stereo mixing techniques plays a large part in what you're talking about.
Having explored every music format since the early 60s, including vinyl, reel-to-reel, 8-tracks and cassettes, I now make both lossy and CD quality playlists on iTunes. Can't beat the convenience!... and won't abide by vinyl ticks and pops!
I like the feel of records and their covers, I like turntables, i like how cartridges work, I like the process of playing a record, I like the sound of a lot of lps, not all. I like analog v digital.
YES! Excited for that podcast conversation. Sometimes videos like this are so I don't have to repeat myself and just point to a direction.
Is radio play still a factor that would make producers compress their reissues? Are there focus groups preferring a louder sound? I wonder (in my free time). I definitely see the phenomenon of highly compressed tracks when I try to even out different songs for my radio show. Perhaps "boutique" and indie labels (e.g. Craft, Cherry Red, Esoteric, Rhino) are less likely to restrict dynamics in their CD/BluRay/SACD reissues. I still prefer the sound of CDs *mostly.*
It couldn't be radio play, the Optimod and its ilk tend not to like heavily compressed / clipped audio all that much iif memory serves. My best guess is car playback, because for some reason dynamic range compression does not appear to be standard in equipment designed to go into a potentially rather noisy environment? Also, when levels are not (properly) normalized, you easily fall prey to "louder = better" when choosing between mastering levels to choose from. Consumers tend to use their volume controls a lot more readily than the folks behind the desk...
IMHO it should be on the playback equipment to provide good dynamic range compression when likely to be operated in compromised environments... portable players and car radios in particular. One of the many reasons I insist on a Rockbox-powered DAP.
Can you please share with us where you got the 13 dynamic range file from? We'd like to shop there! Brilliant video!
you’re totally correct, it’s all in the mastering!
Dynamic range keeps going down because dumb record executives, and the artists themselves, will not go against the grain of LOUDER UNTIL IT BLEEDS. This is the real cause. The original Stop Making sense, recorded digitally and released at the onset was probably the best sounding of the bunch, but when CDs became mainstream, the loudness wars also began. And it has gotten worse. Vinyl isn't better, and neither is tape. What is better about those formats is that they cannot be pushed. That's it. That's the whole thing. IF an artist releases material with a full dynamic range and leaves it alone, the digital file and CD it will blow all other formats out of the water. Especially a 24bit, 48k file, with over 100db of dynamic range. Leave them things alone and we get back to music, not loudness.
No need to for them to compete. One can have both.
You’ve truly amazed me. I’ve always figured that one of the attractions of vinyl was the necessary compression that comes with the format compared to digital! And the reverse is true. You learn something new every day!
E1DA is a russian engineer living in China in order to design an manufacture some incredible audio equipment. A real cool down to earth guy.
Great video. For us who lived through the cd revolution remember when they had symbols on cds telling you how it it was recorded, mixed qnd master.
the hi-res has more low and hi-frequency info which the DR program will add in as loudness (especially the bass) in the quiet parts and the dr meter is just giving you a measurement of the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of the track. like i've said before, it's not always about the numbers, sometimes you got to use your ears.
It seems to me the factor that isn't being considered in all the technical discussion of relative dynamic range on various old/new releases is the listening volume.
When a high dynamic range source is played at moderate volumes, the quietest sounds/instruments in the recording can be too low in volume to be audible, meaning the listener misses out on a part of the listening experience they get from playing a lower dynamic range source at a level which sounds just as loud in its peaks..
Vinyl records (and similarly, analogue dubs of them on cassette recorded with Dolby C noise reduction) can sound far more complete in terms of being able to hear the more subtle elements of music without cranking the volume knob up high, trying to emulate the full dynamic range a listener might experience standing near the stacks at a live concert.
Personally, I don't feel my listening experience is improved by a 120dB SPL in a household room environment, when that level has long-term consequences to my hearing, not to mention the good will of my neighbors.
A satisfying listening experience is the one that presents me the fullest possible audible detail with a minimum of extraneous noise (eg. old fashioned analogue tape hiss) at levels that don't leave me partially deaf an hour later.
Generally speaking old vinyl satisfies these parameters better than re-releases with higher dynamic range..
It's uncommon for modern reissues to have more dynamic range than the originals. They usually have less, which I believe was the point of this video.
This is exactly the reason so many audiophiles prefer vinyl: It's more suitable to a domestic environment listening. CD and hires, would never play at their full, theoretical dynamic ranges, without interfering badly with your room acoustics and your gear limitations. They're practically forced to perform in the vinyl DR area.
Great video! All the vloggers that keep repeating the "pleasant distortion" bs when talking about the sound of vinyl should be obliged to watch this.
check it with a scope plugin. waveform analysis. that way u dont have 2 rely on > sounds loose / more separation
What I truly enjoyed in the last 2 videos is your demonstration that the key is mastering quality. Thanks for that. At the same time, dynamic range is NOT the only factor. Agreed that the loudness war leaves us poorer in sound quality. However, depending on what you are listening to, HI RES files played from a good source (streaming has it's own problems with jitters, internet quality, EM noise, etc.) may provide the best format...if the mastering (or remastering) is of high quality. How to rate and evaluate quality mastering is therefore the true test, not the medium itself (Vinyl or Digital).
But was is the dynamic range limits of the technology between streaming, CD or vinyl? Are you experiencing these differences in the musical pieces or labels you chose?
Would be nice if all releases on all formats listed the dynamic range of that particular recording.
I second a comment that I am not convinced dynamic range is the sole explanation of why records can and often do sound “better” than a digital counterpart, though it is one of several potential reasons. Others may the distortions inherent in all analog recording and replay, eg utilization of tubes, second harmonics or other distortions of analog tape source, tape noise riding along w the sound, tape saturation, cartridge frequency response or second order harmonics, etc etc.
I am a huge advocate of needle drops. With a high quality A>D, the record played against the rip is indistinguishable to my ear. I think that speaks to the transparency of digital.
@johndarko did you find the needle drops sound the same as the “live” LP playback?
Solution: make it mandatory for record labels to state the dynamic range of every track on the back cover of the CD and on the streaming service page, then hit them in the balls by refusing to buy any release with a dynamic range smaller than 12 dB.
Force the record labels to stop interfering with the mastering engineers and allow them to bring back the dynamics. Usually, every track release should be mastered in different versions: for vinyl recod, for CD, for streaming platforms and for promotional use (online or on the air).
The compression process can also work the other way. The tubular bells at end of the first side of Mike Oldfield’s album were recorded using a claw hammer rather than the standard mallet to give them a brighter, louder, ringing sound. The problem was that they had to be reduced in volume when it came to the tape for cutting the master lacquer as otherwise the huge increase in volume towards the end of the side would have caused heavy distortion, or even the stylus on some decks to jump out of the groove.
When it came to producing (I think) the SACD version they were able to restore the original dynamic range.
It would be interesting to know roughly how many LPs cut nowadays use a less compressed digital master than for the streaming/download version. I think it’s correct that dynamic range can make a difference (though not always) but how often are there the kinds of differences noted with this recent edition of “Stop Making Sense”? It’s a good point but to what extent can one extrapolate?
Simple answer, vinyl feel soooo good holding it in your hands.
Excellent video. I'm an audio engineer and an avid collector of records. The truth of the matter is certainly that, with the exception of One-Step records costing hundreds of dollars on release, most of the records we hear nowadays are indeed digitally sourced... and it doesn't detract whatsoever from the experience. I think a lot should be said for the tactile and aesthetic experience of having a large physical copy to hold and look at rather than limited credits on a screen with only front cover art. Ear fatigue is another issue that too many people eschew when considering the differences between Hi-Res Digital Vs Vinyl masters. I can listen to Grindcore, Psych, Metal or furious Jazz without limit on vinyl. If I try the same via 192kHz Flac/Wav, it's only a matter of time before I start tuning out. A rewarding and engaging experience is subjective of course, but for my money, you are bang on here. Cheers
Great point. It's very hard to explain but playing anything digitally streamed on a decent system can be wearing after a while. DR compression maybe fools the ear but not the brain...or vice-versa!
The MoFi One Step releases were quite recently outed as having gone through a DSD or DXD AD/DA in the mastering, so not even those (though the manufact). There are still some, but few who are not doing this. And honestly, I'm not even sure I care. As long as recording, mixing, and mastering is competently and tastefully done, I'm good with most equipment likely to be involved.
Does anyone know where Roon gets it's dynamic range data from?
Thanks,
Andy
Hi, Roon uses the R128 formula for measuring DR. This is covered in the Roon FAQs
I recorded a bunch of records from the 70's (full Led Zeppelin album library, Jimmy Hendrix, the Cars, Supertramp... ) with a Kenwood linear tracking tt I got in 1985, through the 1/4-inch jack out on a PYLE phono preamp into my HP laptop 3.5mm mic jack using Windows basic recording software and they are the best record recordings I've ever heard. Super simple with only one external component (phono preamp). Love your videos. Thanks!
Great video John, I look forward to doing your podcast soon and breaking down the whole vinyl rip thing, thanks in advance
Thanks as always! Oh and Thanks for the outtakes! Great to see beyond your beautifully edited video that you're a human too!
So limitations of vinyl format don't allow publishers to enforce that crazy level of dynamic compression that they want and that can be reached with digital formats, and that spoils perception of music more than imperfections and limitations of vinyl media. Totally works for me! :)
Good points but I think there is one correction needed: the more the DR the more "surface" you will need on the vinyl, in the video at 7:00 you said the opposite. On a vinyl the peak DR is the ratio between the larger and the smaller oscillations in the grove. The smaller oscillations cannot be reduced below a certain point or the useful signal will be comparable to the mechanical and electrical noise. So if you want a vinyl with high DR you can only allow for more space to accommodate larger peak oscillations ... so traces need more space and you can fit less songs on a disk.
As you said the issue with low DR in digital audio is not a problem of the digital nature of the format but a bad decision in the marketing / mastering.
From the physical point of view a vinyl will never have the DR that is feasible on a 16 or even better a 24bits file.
DR compression was common also on CDs especially after ‘90, known as "loudness war". I saw CDs from major artists with fully clipped audio tracks ! It is so also because starting from that period and nowadays most of the listeners are not using real high quality audio systems and on those a low DR file may actually sound apparently better. Back in the days mastering was done with Hi-Fi in mind (maybe sound engineer were not yet so conditioned by marketing people). The same for vinyls today, maybe because they are targeted to listeners that have generally better equipment the producer decided to master them with a little more DR ... just a guess.
I think he's correct stating higher DR allows you to cut more time on vinyl. Variable width groove cutting (based on loudness) has been a thing since the 1970s, allowing more time on a side of an LP.
I didn't notice that but I did notice him saying it the right way at one point, that higher DR requires more surface.
@dloorkour1256 This is very interesting and I thank you for pointing it out, this technique will for sure optimize the time capacity of an LP. You are also right that it is a process that was used already many many years ago. I may be wrong but still I'm not sure that a larger DR will allow to pack more songs on a LP, at least on one of good quality, if we want an acceptable SNR in the playback, we cannot reduce too much the width of the grooves during low volume sections and if the DR is large the high volume sections will need much larger width. If we have instead a low DR mastering, we can use a pretty small and constant track width and the noise will not be so noticeable because of the almost constant volume of the music. I do not pretend to be right but it seems not so easy to put together all the variable to say for sure that high DR will save space on the disk.
@PaoloLuraschi
Picking up on your comment that one reason ‘music companies’ may produce “fully clipped audio” (and maybe also use other compromises) is because “listeners are not using real high quality audio systems” - mostly consuming on their iPhones? This is exactly what happened 60 years ago when Berry Gordy (Motown) instructed his sound engineers to optimise the records produced by his “hit factory” to sound best on small and cheap transistor radios. Gordy was a smart guy, focused on the money, and he understood that cheap portable radios were the devices on which most of his target market were consuming his product. And that’s why those records often sound so disappointing today - no DR, little bass, boosted mid-range. But, hey, the songs are still great and he sure got the sales!
Its also bands and producers and engineers. Ive spent decades making records and almost anytime you delever even a rough mix to a ckient, they want it louder. The rough unfinished mix needs to conpete with polished, mastered tracks.
I talk and rant about this all the time, but NO ONE is willing to let dynamics exist anymore. It bums me out.
Hello Mr Darko, following your youtube channel I have learned so much about how in the world you can play music in a better and different way, I would love to hear more from you about the dynamic range compression, thank you!
Old AAD CDs have note tonal color of instruments. In other words they sound closer to the real thing. I have around 50 or more remasterd CDs along with the originals. In EVERY case the original has more tonal color. Every single one of them
Great presentation/topic...!!! Your time spent and hard work invested on this subject are much appreciated...!!! Kudos...!!!
I think the real reason, why the dynamic range decreases from release to release is: It should sound good on any device, especially the cheap modern mass consumer devices and BT boom boxes which are not capable of handling a dynamic range of 14 or more.
John - really appreciate the recent content about hi res and analog vs digital. I’ve been in this hobby a long time and just now realizing that some of the old ways of doing things can be more enjoyable than the new ways. For example, I have an old burr brown pcm63 base DAC that will not accept signals above 16/48, but I enjoy listening to that setup more than the many newer DACs that I’ve owned over the years that can play all of the latest formats at super-high resolution.
Analog master tapes have a dynamic range around 77 db, vinyl has a dynamic range a little bit above 70db. Real to real multitrack tapes have a dynamic range between 60 and 70 db. High res audio of 24bit 96kHz has a dynamic range of 144 db. Let's say you listen to a high res recording of an orchestra that's recorded with high end converters straight into digital, maybe even recorded with 32bit floating point, the noise floor will be inaudible and the dynamic range will be off the charts, any analog engineer who recorded on tape in the olde days will trade for digital noiseless system anytime. There is something else that colours a recording, namely all the analog equipment colours the sound in a unique way, which gives it its character. That's why digital tends to sound 'cold' and analog 'warm" and that's why engineers in the digital domain love to use analog emulations. Tape and vinyl aren't the best mediums but I love them for their sound above 'cold' clean digital any day.
You can "see" the difference between tape recorded movies in the old days and digital recorded now. 😁😁
This really explains why vinyl collectors tend to gravitate towards certain genres. Those that benefit from from DR more than separation etc. Busy mixes require digital sources for me but sparse and dynamic (Jazz is an obvious one) sounds fantastic on vinyl.
One thing JD forgot to mention. The original recording of this album is actually early digital, done at 16/44.1
Never Hi Res then?
Thanks for the video and history. Love your take on the subject. Also thanks on the bluperpers. I can see that as person with a bit OCD how fun your recording can be.
I love my vinyl , wonderful sound . i love digital for convienience . i don't need to choose one or the other .
Besides the discussion of what's better, vinyl or digital, what you John are really putting a spotlight on is the importance of really good recordings! In the end it doesn't matter if with an excellent analogue or digital recording we get into our audiophile nirvana, it is the voice of this community (audio playback gourmets) which needs to be heard to stop the corrosion of music sources! It is important that the studio bosses get to know and learn that for the only-mobile-phone-playback-generation it doesn't matter, but for those who really care, now, and also in the future!
Thank you John!
Enjoy the music!
Best regards,
Matthias
The only thing i could afford on your table is ..... the door stop 😂😂😂
I’d love to know which model of Thorens turntable you have in the video. I’m not familiar with that model, it looks absolutely lovely compared to my old TD 124. LOL.
Pretty sure it's a TD 1500.
Don't belittle the TD124 There are many upgrades you can make. And the retro look is so cool. You know there's a remake at around €10 000?
There’s a major problem in my opinion..
People are buying vinyl ( at premium prices) and playing it back on ..at best Mid Fi ..I mean the place that will sell you a $40 vinyl copy of Taylor Swifts’ new album ..will sell you a Crosley Portable record player to play it on 🤦♂️
Yes but the record might just last a lifetime and sound better with each hardware upgrade. Buy the best possible version (hopefully AAA) and move on. Buy a crappy pressing and it will always sound crappy, no matter what turntable or phonostage you pick up down the line.
Before having to put up with a plastic abomination with a ceramic cartridge, I'd rather just collect the vinyl because it has a big sleeve and looks cool and put it on the shelf, while playing back the digital version instead... that'll sound a lot better for sure. Most young folks these days should have decent digital playback facilities.
I think it's no coincidence that since about the '80s, the average consumer turntable has been mediocre-to-bad, and now these Crosley-Victorola things are cheap and abundant for those who just want to see the black circle spin and make a noise.... and the average comments against vinyl are about all the problems caused by bad equipment and record-handling. So now we've got people who only know what bad turntables and dirty records sound like, and they pretend like 'that's all there is to the subject' instead of avoiding the opportunity to say something laughable.
This is good information. I agree with your conclusions. The public generally assumes “remastered” is a good thing. Many times, it’s worse.
This however assumes the dynamic range across all frequencies. If I found an old cassette/vinyl with good dynamic range but sounds muffled or noisy, I would probably choose the format with more compression but better overall frequency response and that isn't a constant reminder of the noisy media it is being played on.