Sometimes the first run of a new product is overbuilt and lasts way beyond subsequent products (due to cost-cutting & component redundancy) I'm typing this on the first unibody Macbook from 2008
CD was the greatest audible improvement to audio in my lifetime. Gone was the noise from both vinyl and tape. I still have the 70 main vinyl albums I always kept, have a TT and revisit them occasionally but that's about it. Now I stream mostly, Regardless, the speakers have always been the star of my audio show.
Lucky you, I still own over 400 vinyls and can't stand listening to them, I just keep them for emotional reasons. I remember listening to a CD for the first time, in 1980 and feeling a whole new universe was opening to my ears. I was a classical musician and only speak for classical music but there is no debate for me when it comes to CD vs vinyl.
I'm glad I ran across your video. I have nothing against vinyl, I grew up listening to vinyl. But, since 1983-84, I've gone the cd route, at first because I had no choice. Where I grew up, record stores stopped stocking vinyl records. As you have pointed out, cd's don't wear out, and they don't skip, hiss, or pop. Of course, there are faulty cd's, like anything else made in the world. Something else I like about cd's is that I can program them. If I wish to listen to tracks 1, 4, 7, 9 on a record, it's easily done. As I said, vinyl was what I listened to growing up, so I've no problem with it, what bugs me, however, is the attitude of some people, definitely not all, in the vinyl community who seem to look down their nose at cd's and those who collect them. I don't get it, but I see it. Anyway, I'm glad to know that cd's actually sound pretty good, I can rest easy now.
I tend to listen to vinyl when listening actively, cd and digital for passive listening. Both serve a valuable purpose- to perpetuate love for the beautiful gift of music!
@@simonzinc-trumpetharris852He nailed it, streaming is for background music, quick listening or seeing if you want to buy the record. CD are not quite as bad, but you want to get serious, buy a great turntable, cartridge, phono preamp along with a good system. I'll bet you dinner that I could do a blind test with you playing 5 quality pressing and 5 CD's and bet you would say the vinyl was better on the majority.
@@simonzinc-trumpetharris852 No he doesn't. He listens in the manner that gives him the most musical enjoyment and listening satisfaction. You don't get a vote. You do you.
Well done video. At about 7:30 you hit the real difference. If your LP is mastered from digitally recorded material, you will not get the sonic difference other than maybe some reduced highs. But when you master from analogue recorded material, there is a textural difference. Very subtle and would be lost on most casual listeners, but it is there. So if you are buying music recorded in the modern era, in all likelihood it has been recorded in a digital format. So just get yourself a good CD player (mp3's sound OK, but they are not CD quality) and a good system and just enjoy the music. The difference most are experiencing with vinyl mastered from digital is a lack of highs thus making the vinyl give the illusion of warmth. So a good graphic equalizer can do about the same thing. But for that small textural difference that few can hear, the benefits of digital for most will out weigh the benefit. Just my opinion of course. Having said that, I did love my records back in the day! Clicks, pops, scratches and all. Most pop and rock records don't have much dynamic range either by the time they are recorded and mastered, especially today. Orchestral music on the other hand can have a significant range depending on the piece. Oddly enough tho, orchestral music is where I noticed that textural thing I speak of the most. It's a balancing act. I like both formats for different reasons. Oh, and you are so right about the quality of the "record player".
As a vinyl collector I would never say vinyl is superior to CD, because it's clearly false. So why do I collect and listen to vinyls? It's because the listening experience is completely different, you slow down, you study the album cover, the lyrics (usually present on the sleeves), or go looking for the reaper on Iron Maiden covers...it's just a very different experience when you have to get up, walk over, get the LP out, put it on, turn on your pre-amp and amp - all for a max of 20 mins of music. In fact, it's even less for me as I love 45 RPM LPs. That's why I love vinyl, but I also have CDs, Blu-ray Audio and even SACDs (which my last player that could play them broke, so haven't listened to them for a while). The only format which sucks in my opinion is cassette.
Cassette recording can actually be quite phenomenal, depending on your choice of tape deck & your choice of cassette, and whether or not you use Dolby C. Trust me ... with any such great combination, MANY cassette recordings do indeed come very close, and sometimes unnoticeably so, when compared to compact disc.
Back in the 80s I've recorded many records & music off the radio. I've always used new cassettes, TDK, Maxwell on mid grade cassette decks & still have those tapes that sound great!!! If you no good Audio & how to record they're great!!! Lots of today's audio sounds harsh to me, maybe it's me as my ears are older ??? Quality was better back then imo!!! Enjoy💥💥💥
I gave my nephew over 300 lps in 1990, the year I switched to digital music. I have never regretted, never looked back. I feel nostalgic for the collecting of, the jacket art etc. But, as for audio quality I’ll take cds and hi-res lossless audio every time. Good clip. Thanks
I remember the first time I listened to music on a cd. The silence during pauses in our between songs floored me. I never bothered with tapes or vinyl after that. Recently I thought about trying vinyl. Learning that I’d need to spend hundreds of dollars on gear made the decision easy.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for doing this video. Thank you for the facts explained without too many scientific jargons. This is my go-to for explaining vinyl and cds. 4 thumbs up.
I started collecting records in 1972 and unlike many people I know from that era, I kept mine. When I play them, it’s an emotional connection. It’s like getting into a time machine and going back to that time in my life. Some of the sound quality still remains but even after thorough cleaning, there is still some noise. I have some newer records too and it isn’t as much of an issue. I also have several cd’s I started collecting when they were first introduced. I play them occasionally. But these days I’m probably 80% streaming. IMO with a good quality streamer and DAC playing full cd quality or higher. It’s a great way to enjoy music. No other format lets you build playlists on the fly. Just my .02
"Warm Sound" Hi everybody and thank you very much for this REALLY competent and objective explanation on that subject. Having Engineered and being present at countless Final Record cuttings since the early 70ies I can only appreciate this post. Obviously I was part of the whole Digital Recording Process as well. In addition to this post, I would like to mention the situation of the High Frequencies, which are also part of the "Warm Sound" experience. Equal to the situation of the Low End, the Analog/Tape Recordings roll off significantly at 16 KHz. Digital Conversion easily handles 40KHz and above. When we try to listen to a "Dog Whistle" which is above 23 KHz we can't hear it. However it's there and it makes us uncomfortable. In music terms high frequencies even above our hearing capabilities can be used to produce excitement. Now if we understand the limitations of the Analog Audio Recording and consequently Vinyl Sound, We can make a Digital Recording sound very, very similar to the Warm Sound of an Analog Medium. While at the beginning of the Digital Recordings, there was a well founded critic of the Sound Quality at the time.These days however our Digital Converters and the Dynamic Range have being developed to a level, very, very few Golden Years claim to hear the difference. Another Aspect would be the Phase Relationship in a Stereo Recording between Left and Right. A Vinyl Cutting won't allow "Out of Phase" music, or the needle would dive and consequently jump. Digital Recordings allows this to happen but is not pleasing (Warm Sounding) in my opinion. All that said, I still offer a complete Analog Chain Recording and Mixing in my Studio and I love it ha, ha, ha.... Besides to have only 24 Tracks versus 100's of tracks is very challenging and can support creativity and excitement in the Music. Good Recording to all of you ❤
excellent points - and I'll add that another variation is channel separation. in the Digital world - at every level - the left/right channels are purely discreet (meaning there is no unintended bleed between channels. They are separated by an untraversable digital wall), whereas - in a vinyl setup - you need a REALLY good stylus to keep down the crosstalk - and you also have to pay special attention to making sure that your speakers aren't on the same surface as your turntable (a common mistake) or you will start bleeding even worse. It took me years to realize I needed to have every part of the signal chain physically decoupled from each other. Having said that - once you get it right - it does sound phenomenal. As I mentioned above, vinyl can surpass digital - but it takes a LOT of money and work to do it.
@@dtz1000Yes and the drastic low pass filtering needed to enable this 22khz cut off, leaves nasty artefacts (aliasing) audible in the high end of CD audio. That’s what makes listening to CDs tiring and essential annoying. You can’t get away from it. It’s makes me feel uneasy!! A well recorded, mastered and pressed vinyl record, will alway beat a CD for me, noise floor and all!! I have demonstrated this to many non-believers over the years and they all had to admit they they preferred the sound of vinyl.
Great video. Lots of good points raised. As an owner of thousands of both Vinyl and CD and having worked in both Analog and Digital formats, I can say that there are far more advantages to Cd's than Vinyl. Even Hi-Res files are great! Your listening experience is personal but Cd's have a far greater selection of music in all decades. Vinyl stopped being readily available after the big Digital overhaul in the 90's. Cd's last longer, are portable, much quieter, you can clone them and they are far cheaper with far greater liner notes and multi page booklets. A good DAC upgrades the CD and Remastered CD's often contain bonus tracks that cannot be fitted onto a vinyl record without badly affecting audio quality. I love both fornats because it's all about the MUSIC, but building the mother of all Rock Collections is far better with CD's!
The biggest selling point for me personally for Vinyl is that its a physical piece of art. You can ofcourse say the same about CD's, but as someone who listens to hundred thousands of hours to music, i caught myself really wanting to find that "one" song, play it over and over and move on to the next "one" song. The way you cant skip a song on a vinyl player (well, you can, but you know what i mean) and really appreciate the album of a artist opened my world up to appreciate music alot more. The "hunt" for certain vinyls is another big deal for me personally. I love the search and speaking to other music enthousiasts to get in contact with the one person who has the vinyl i so desperately want. You can ofcourse argue that you do the same with CD's ofcourse, but personally, it is a different experience.
Perfectly said! I have bought a LOT of vinyl records in my life.... and they were charming and wonderful in their day. In fact I have 2 Magnavox console stereos from the year 1968... so I have some vintage vinly I keep with them just to play on the Micromatic turntables. However, in 1986 I went all out and bought my first CD deck for 370. A lot of money now, but A LOT more back then.... and the reason was because I could not stand those "ticks" and "pops". So I have over 300 CDs, but now only have a couple of dozen vinyl albums and those are only for nostalgia, not serious listening. THANKS for your incredible video which gives me a TON of useful arguments why I love my CDs. Especially helpful was the reminder that if a record is made from a digital source, it can't possibly be smoother than the digital master. Makes SO much sense. Thank you!
@@foljs5858 To support r.c.'s comment, well the ticks and pops are not a part of the music! 🙂 I'm in the same boat as r.c. - I have maybe 30-40 vinyl albums (mostly bought in the 80-90s), but 400-500 CDs. Another thing to speak about regarding media is that vinyl is not very transportable. You don't see many people playing vinyl in their car! 😉
@@fortworthron "well the ticks and pops are not a part of the music!" they kind of are... they track the record's age and your relationship to it, like wrinkles on a person. Digital is like those plastic fake-ass looking people with no wrinkles at 70
If you play records ona 1968 Magavox you are basically destroying the record. If you play it on a good table with a good cartridge it will last a lifetime
All I want to say is the most gut wrenching Bass I have ever heard is of J S Bach Toccata and Fugue on Cassette - so the recording/Mastering also play's a huge part. Vinyl is different from CD but both Vinyl and CDs are now considered old hat and cassettes dinosaurs - yet I gain huge pleasure from all these formats. I like to own the hard copy and hardware that will play it - digital streaming is evolving but as corporations see ways of wiping out your music by withholding licences for a particular codecs or discontinuing access to a loved streaming service - my hard copy material is playable even if I have to stoke my wood fired generator to get the electricity. I like ownership and control - so hard core old school it may be but consider how LP,s were first introduced in 1949 and still going - nothing beats the best.
One can do both. I personally split music into two categories. The type I’ll listen to the one I will buy. So I stream most music while making sure that I own physical copies of the stuff I love.
The key point here is that vinyl technology is inherently noisy, degrading over time and of course with lower dynamic range than CD, which came many decades after vinyl when technology improved vastly. So, objectively, given a "pristine master tape" of a song, properly engineered cd will beat the s**t out of the vinyl version. (And no, i don't forget that thru the 90s and 2000s there were horribly engineered CDs that started the infamous Loud Wars). And in turn, digital FLAC audio files of today of course beat CDs but only in terms of access time, sample rate, bit depth and the fact that audio files have no moving parts like a delicate cd player with a laser, motor, gears, etc. With digital audio files nowadays you can carry 1000 CDs ripped inside your sata disk in your pocket player (i.e. Raspberry Pi based device) without quality loss and metadata that will allow you to search and arrange playlist by any criteria you like.
@ Point of vinyl well missed - sorry for you having digital ears rather than good old fashioned linear receivers . No joking apart I do listen to streaming and CDs but just get drawn to analogue with no scientific reason - I just appear to prefer it.
You nailed the problem with vinyl: there are too many variables which can cost a lot to get right. For CD playback you do need to purchase a good DAC and then connect it to any old disc player that has a coax output. Done.
Yup... all the media's have positives and negatives. I usually buy the physical media that's least expensive (as long as the record isn't in horrible shape)
My 2 channel system cost about $650 total, and the sound quality smokes most systems that I hear in other people’s homes. Pro-Ject Debut Carbon turntable (used $150), Cambridge Audio Topaz AM10 Integrated Amp (used $175), and Wharfdale Diamond 10.2 bookshelf speakers (New $250). It’s seriously one of the cleanest sounding setups I have ever owned.
@@zacharyyoung1083 As an owner of a very pleasing "mid-Fi" system. Does my heart good to read your reply and the enjoyment you get from the music. It's always about the music.
The stock pcm DAC in any modern cd player will be better than the those sigma-delta ones in for example the old Mitsubishi digital recorders costing a million dollars in the 80's. Those are the ones they had (amongst many other places), in George Martins Air Montserrat , where albums like Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, and Sting - Nothing Like the Sun were recorded (the former even received an engineering grammy). And I think those recordings sound great nonetheless, inferior DACs or not. One of the few older record I've ever noticed sounding "digital" was Donald Fagens The Nightfly album. Very cold and sterile. (another example is Stevie Wonders The Secret Life of Plants and Hotter than July, very early digital technology - and it shows). Furthermore, industry legends like Chris Lord-Alge even held on to his 1989 16-bit Sony 3348 for mixing until the last stock of tape ran out, and how many thousand albums have he mixed? So it's not entirely impossible that people have bought an expensive DAC for their cd players that was in fact vastly superior to the one that the albums they listen to was recorded on and mixed from. Now that's good marketing.
@@asor8037 Interesting....Thanks for the history. I'm now interested and intrigued. Your comment about "The Nightfly" album is an old but, to my ears excellent recording! I'll be giving it a go again - my vinyl's in great shape. I've always thought that recording to be incredibly precise. I never thought of it as "cold" or "sterile". I let my ears judge. Thanks
Great presentation, Tony. You convinced me that CD's have a better sound without offending my love for my 55 year collection of over 1400 vinyl records!
What I have found as a new experience with vinyl is that I feel I need to most-likely spend a lot more than I would want to get the sound quality I achieve with my digital setup. I have about a 20K digital setup excluding the amplifier and I spent roughly 3500 on a vinyl setup and I don’t feel it sounds “better” in any way, different definitely but, not better. Turntables of quality are EXPENSIVE, cartridges of quality are EXPENSIVE then you need a capable phono pre-amp for usually that moving coil cartridge to get it up to snuff.
@guillermomartin8248 3500 for a turntable set up sounds wildly expensive. A second hand SL-1200 can be had for $500 and turntables doesn't get much better than that. A good Technics direct drive is basically just as good as the cutting machine, so while there are better speced spinners out there it really don't matter in practice. Also, you're right. A $50 CD-player easily beats the best/most expensive vinyl rig on the planet when it comes to fidelity.
@felixfranzen7318 I recently took an almost 30 year old Technics SL-QD2 turntable out of the closet. Took me some time to get the tonearm to behave correctly, but I finally did. Put on a new stylus on the original Shure cartridge. As all my albums are in terrible shape, I ordered the Beatles white album, remastered in stereo. It sounded fantastic! I forgot what it was like to handle an LP, clean it, brush the stylus, cue the tonearm. It's a very tactile experience. Does it sound better than cd? No. Does it sound different in a way I like? Definitely. My next album is a remastered Aqualung.
You need to spend $1200 on a pre-amp RIAA, then $1000 on your stylus, and $1000 on a good turntable. THEN you can enjoy your records. Opon this, I have about $30000 in speakers including its poweramps. Can play stereo and surround, though. If you people sit with inexpensive simple gear in a small square flat, please, just STFU.
I remember getting my first cd player on Christmas at a very young age. I was no audiophile but upon playing Steve Winwoods "Back in the Highlife" couldn't help but notice and commented on how digital sounded hollow to my then young ears. Regardless, I still considered cds superior and replaced many of my albums with cds and gave away my 500 vinyl album collection to a dj kid at work. I hugely regret that move and got back into vinyl a little while ago and although I enjoy it I'd forgotten how incredibly fragile and inconsistent vinyl can be. With the new dacs today and convenience of streaming digital is better than ever but for certain favorite predigital bands like Zeppelin I do prefer album or especially reel to reel tape and it has a smoothness and naturalness digital can only begin to match with the best of dacs. Vintage equipment including turntables amps etc. were much better quality and is likely where people get that warm sound description. I went down a rabbit hole when I got back into music trying to rcapture what I remembered from my youth. The secret is warm. powerful vintage equipment and big speakers. Next level is tubes, class A amplification, horns etc. They had it right in 60s and 70s. Digital era effed up the great sound with earbuds, mp3s, and loudness wars dynamic range compression. Lots of old albums sound better simply because the recordings were made from fresher master tapes. Reel to Reel is the original and best if you want to thoeretical like this guy but in reality were limited by cheap mass production and unless you like classical you can't hear what it can really do. Unfortunately, rock music and even the Beatles wasn't taken serously like classical and so didn't get as careful production. So funny given the popularity but how it was back in 50s snd 60s, 70s.
Early CDs sometimes sounded "hollow" or "tinny" compared to the vinyl LPs they replaced, because they often weren't properly mastered to CD and because the CD playback equipment wasn't as good as it is now. High quality DACs are prevalent and affordable today. If CDs are properly mastered, even from older analog tapes, they will blow away the sound quality of vinyl LPs, if the CD is played via a decent DAC. Unfortunately, even some remasters of CDs today are pretty bad. You mentioned The Beatles, it's sad that Giles Martin is currently in charge of remixing and remastering The Beatles catalog. The work he's done sounds like garbage to me, very harsh and off-putting. Just because he's the son of the great George Martin doesn't mean he should touch (and distort) The Beatles' recordings. Yet you can have a good remix of Beatles songs, the best example being the Yellow Submarine Songtrack (not Soundtrack), this remix was done by Peter Cobbin and it improves the original sound quality without trying to sound like "modern music".
Well done, Tony. You've pointed out enough facts about the advantages of the CD format, so as to point out the illogical choice of going with vinyl. Nostalgia is vinyl's biggest selling point.
@@lucalone Yes, indeed: Loudness wars. It's just so absurd. But, you know who is driving this loudness war: The consumer. Musically ignorant consumers, really feel the beat, first. If the beat is loud then they percieve it as attractive. Most people respond in a sensory way first, and an intellectual way second. Adding to this is, the customer doesn't want to become more sophisticated in his listening skills. They simply want something that they can wiggle their a$$es to, or sing along with, or both. The bar is low (hence The Rolling Stones.) Dynamics in music, with lots of current pop music seems to be a lost concept. Record companies are in the business of making money, not really selling art (unless both of these happen to coincide.) This is different, to some degree, when actual musicians, were the executives of record companies. Louder CDs simply sell. And that's good enough for the record company execs and those who follow their ways.
@@KenTeel You can buy fairly cheap CDs from the late 80's and thru the 90's that aren't brick wall mastered. Yes in new releases digital is often inferior to vinyl due to the crazy watering that has become standard. I refer the sound of CD myself.
@@ChrisWhittenMusic OK, Chris, thanks for the response. This is timely. A friend of mine told me that my recordings are clear as a bell. I thought: No way. Then I strapped on a pair of Sony 7506 headphones, and sure enough, the recording that he referred to is very clear. It's the limitation of my multimedia speakers that was adding some distortion I have recently auto mastered some of my stuff through a computer based mastering service. I'm comming to the conclusion that mastering is required to make up for the inefficiencies of people car stereos, living room stereos, etc. My recording sounded better, after mastering, only because of the limitation of my speakers. Through good headphones, the unmastered sounded better. I mastered at -15 LUF in order to leave plenty of headroom for dynamics. I'm not into the volume wars, either.
If brick and mortar stores refuse to stock CDs and stubbornly just sell vinyl, more people are forced to buy the garbage because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. ITS ALSO THE MUSIC INDUSTRY BEHIND THIS SHIT.
I put a record under my USB microscope. It was very interesting to see the dust. I used Elmer's glue to remove the dust. It worked well. I also noticed that the bass notes moved the track perfectly side to side which I soon realized means that the bass is mono on a record. The groove depth only changes a very very tiny amount that my microscope can't really resolve but the side to side motion is large from the bass. Between the mono bass, the constant surface noise and the compression required to make the needle stay tracking and not jumping over the grooves records are far from CD for fidelity, but they are kind of fun to own and play. I have been studying how a stylus tracks a record groove for several weeks. It is interesting to note that different parts of the stylus edge contact the record surface as slopes down, goes flat or goes up, effectively causing phase shifts or jitter. It is apparent that just the stylus tracking the groove is responsible for distortion levels reaching 5% or more at then end of a record at higher frequencies.
I was one of those musician, producers in NYC who was front and center to the DIY revolution. I remember personally walking my physical DAT and CD masters to your place in Chelsea. My personal projects are still distributed by CD Baby to this day. Speaking as a lifetime producer of music and a man of a certain age, I think the most important point of your video was the last one. The nostalgia of original vinyl is unparalleled. And even though there has been a resurgence of attention to vinyl, It’s not something that younger generations have the capacity to truly appreciate. Most younger people are simply following the herd of contemporary vinyl culture. And once someone adopts a certain belief it’s difficult to explain anything that challenges their bias. That goes for people of any age. My most recent quest has been to acquire original pressings of the albums that I think defined my musical foundation and trajectory. A very short list. I’m also fantasizing about finding an original console to play them on the way that I did in the 70’s. And of course the albums prominently displayed on my walls where anyone can pick them up and appreciate the album artwork. That being said, All of your points were laid out in a clear, cogent manor. And I’m quite certain you did not need to caveat your qualifications. There is no arguing the facts and to a lessor degree the subjectivity of perception. Thanks for the video.
Thanks much Tony; this confirmed what I have believed because my ears told me so. It's great to have the technical facts to support our preferences. Your video greatly appreciated!
Digital sound is superior to Analog in every way. Funny when original digital recording sound is converted into vinyl and then "vinyl audiophiles" claim that it sounds superior. I don't even mention noise, cracks and pops of vinyl. Vinyl was re introduced by Corporations to prevent piracy and some "audiophiles" swallowed the bait. CD costs say 10£ and vinyl £30- and more and that's the secret of good salesman...
@meindertsprang7491 without looking through the whole thread I assume you referring to the 60khz is the carrier for the sound that has been de modulated to extract the sound to give the four channels of sound
@@mafi211 There's nothing wrong calling vinyl records the vinyl records dude .. after all the vinyl is the kind of the material , by my opinion vinyl reord is a completed phrase than just vinyl . Anyway have a happy new year and happy listenings .
I hear lots of folks talk about the “ritual” around playing a record that adds to the experience and make records better than CDs. I sheepishly admit, i don’t understand to what this refers. If this means the action of playing a record (this is what i assume is referred to), then how does that differ from the ritual playing a CD? Would be glad to hear your thought on what the ritual means and what makes it special.
@@mikewinburnwhen they say ritual , they prob mean , putting the vinyl on , wiping and cleaning it down before playing , anti static brush etc. not just putting the lp on
@@Pillitoes- thanks for your insight, partner. In the 90s, when CDs were a big item, along with audiophile CDs magazines, one could find the disc cleaners, brushes, polishers… practically everything one did with records, it was sold and marketed as valuable for quality listening sessions with C’s as well. So given your excellent reply, I might venture to guess the “ritual” is the same for both audiophile camps - those with vinyl collections and those with optical collections. Just seems the vinyl crew weren’t or aren’t aware that the optical crew still maintain the very same ritual.
Vinyl reminds my childhood and today I feel my past while listen to vinyl which CD does not have any emotions attached to. I listen both vinyl and CD but feel better with vinyl. Once I used to listen to cassette and vinyl but again vinyl gave me far more satisfaction than I got from cassette. I understand CDs are far better media but I love vinyl. Thanks.
Well made points, the vinyl vs CD topics comes from the time when CDs were coming into homes. Then there were AAD, ADD and DDD conversions from vinyl to CD and many CDs sounded bad compared to their vinyl versions ( i.e. Twisted Sister Under the blade ) plus the occasional censorship that is easier to happen in the digital recording. As well said since all studios are digital the ADD/AAD/DDD issue exists anymore
Even if your turntable sounds better than CDs, keeping it clean, working correctly isn’t worth it. CDs and high quality digital files are so much easier to keep going without issues. I remember my dad getting our first CD player. It made him so happy. He hated vinyl with a passion. Lol.
your digital theory at 6:34 is *wrong* . The reconstruction filter of a digital-analog converter reconstructs the smooth analog waveform precisely, right up to the bandwidth of half of the sample rate (ie:, 22.05 kHz for CD at 44.1kHz). This filtering is also far better (less harsh) than in the early days of CD. The clocking at the A-D converter (timing of the 44.1k samples) also is far improved, as is jitter at laser beam recorder at the CD plant when making the Glass Master. Done properly, CD is also dithered to prevent quantization distortion.
Well said! 6:30 correcting a misconception: Digitally sampled analog sound is a series of point values x_i at each sampling time t_i. The DAC does not convert these values into a stair step analog signal. It's not like a pixelated digital image. The DAC converts the data into a completely smooth signal just like the input. The stair step visualization of digital data is erroneous and is better represented as a "lolliop" style diagram. Monty Montgomery from made an excellent video illustrating the D/A to A/D process.
@@tmjcbs I'm seeming to run into these [this'] lately. I went ahead and responded this evening. Not sure.. would doing a link to Montie's 'Digital show and tell' be poor form?
Excellent tutorial, full of useful (and critical) information. Thanks for sharing ! I have been an audio enthusiast for over 55 years, and still embrace (and regularly use) a number of formats. Vinyl, CD, reel-to-reel, and even cassettes each have their own charm. I have lots of Redbook CDs as well as a few Chesky recordings, which are outstanding. Same thing with vinyl, the recent "super-premium" LPs like MoFi`s One-Step and the UHQR offerings have raised the bar (and the price !) quite a bit. We are fortunate to have an abundance of good source material available to us. Currently listening to: Alan Parsons Project "I Robot" on CD, great album, excellent SQ.
Hi Tony I am so glad to have came across your wonderful presentation of CD V Vinyl. I am just about to delve back into to the rabbit hole of home music systems and formats. Ive not played vinyl for over 30 years, then had a decent collection of CDs, and recent times inhabited the Dark Side of streaming. I've recently been researching the latest turntables amplifiers...???? speakers etc. I was always under the impression that record always beat CD sound quality hands down !!! I also loved the look of some of the striking turntables available, but as I thought more of practical differences .... storage , PRICE etc I'm so glad that I have watched your video. CDs will suffice for my untrained but appreciative ear. Many thanks for sorting me out. 😀😀
My friend spent on HIFI line, he spent about 300-600 USD per unit on Streamer, turntable, speaker, DAC, amplifier... He has new and old pressed records. We listened to the records, they sounded nice, but the sound was still not the real thing, I thought that the speaker was the weak link When I switched to the Streamer, we listened to music from Tidal, everything that was missing until then appeared, as if the whole system had changed, there was a dynamic , life, deep voice. Thank you for the nicely collected thoughts!
This is no surprise to me as CDs and other low quality digital files do not include the ultrasonic frequencies that are emitted by musical instruments. Vinyl does include those frequencies which have been shown to be important.
Everyone has an opinion which is better vinyl or CD. Everyone can have their own opinion but actually the best quality will always be reel to reel despite how ridiculously expensive the tapes are ($400 for a 50 year old Kiss album recently on eBay. That is just nuts.)
What I take from this is that CD sounds better in theory, and that would probably hold true in reality if the music industry didn't brickwall most of their CD masterings and kill all the dynamics "by choice". So it really comes down to the mastering. A CD that is mastered in the 'old' way, retaining dynamics, should be able to better vinyl most of the time, but we don't live in that world. What is the value of CD having the capability of more dynamic range if the manufacturer "chooses" to compress it all away before selling us the CD? The volume/groove limitations of the vinyl format forces them to make a different choice and re-imposes some sanity back on to the mastering. So for many albums, if you want to hear some space and dynamics in the music, and not have everything loud and in your face at all times, you have to hear it on vinyl. Classical CDs are usually mastered well with good dynamics, other genres tend to be hit or miss, and some almost always miss. So whether a CD or vinyl will sound better in reality will in the end depend mostly on the mastering more than the theoretical advantages or disadvantages of the formats. Also I always thought the "analog warmth" idea had a lot to do with the noise floor. Having that little bit of constant 'white noise' underneath everything either from surface noise or tape hiss has the tendency to soften the edges of everything just a little bit even if you can't hear the noise directly when the music is playing. And that can be perceived as having a warmer sound, while digital audio with no noise floor can leave every edge exposed and seem to sound more harsh or 'cold'.
I am almost 61 now, and bought a great turntable some 5 years ago after only listening to digital since 1990. Reason: It brings me back to my younger days. Pure nostalgy. Vinyl can never beat high quality digital audio when you have a good DAC. Spending several thousands of dollars on an "exclusive" turntable and pick-up cartridge is nothing but madness.
Aside from what you’ve mentioned, Tony, you’ve got the individual’s ‘listening ability’ for lack of a better term. As I have learned to hear more details in audio reproduction, I notice things now that I didn’t when I started listening to music. I think this adds to someone’s preferences which, as you’ve mentioned, figures into what format a person prefers. Well presented as always. Thanks!
True, though that probably applies equally to records and CDs. Another thing I didn’t delve deeply into is the social aspect of listening. Listening to vinyl records, with the ritual of sliding the record out of the jacket and the sleeve, placing it on the turntable, dropping the stylus, and flipping the record over after 20 minutes, had become almost a tiny bit of performance art while hanging with friends. This is perhaps one of the most fun and engaging parts of listening to records.
@@tonyvv : Yes, the album jacket perusal is one thing I miss the most. That was a standard activity for me with new records. I’d read everything on the jacket while listening for the first time. One of the items in my ritual (which I don’t miss at all) was getting out my Discwasher brush & fluid to clean the vinyl before each play. This started in tandem with my Audio magazine subscription. They had one particular article about what happens to the vinyl when played which was co-authored with Audio Technical. I never played an album after that without cleaning it.😀
Tony somehow when I listen to vinyls of music recorded in 70’s and early 80’s they sound better on Vinyl than CDs than the music recorded nowadays on Vinyl. What you think?
Quite possible. For starters it’s a 100% analog production, from multi-tracking to your turntable. Plus, maybe, the nostalgia factor of those old records?
I don't know why someone would chase the "analog" sound when: All the vinyl releases after 1980 done by major mastering facilities, were using Vinyl cutting gear with pre-listen Head (like Studer A80 or Neumann VMS-80). This means the signal was converted to digital and back to analog. So, after this year, no more 100% analog releases. And last, but not least, so many famous albums were recorded on digital machines (like Sony PCM 3324 launched in 1982), then digitally mastered, just to be pressed on vinyl.
I don't think that is entirely true because I saw someone on UA-cam measiring the frequency response of a vinyl record made after 1980 and it was showing a frequency response of up to 60khz. That is way beyond what a CD can do.
@@cjay2 I believe these guys know what they're talking about > I can't post websites links on this channel, but you can read the entire article called Around the World in 80 Lathes, Part Three on PS audio website blogs/copper/around-the-world-in-80-lathes-part-three There are many resources on the web saying same thing
@@cjay2 I believe these guys know what they're talking about > I can't post websites links on this channel because they get deleted, but you can read the entire article called Around the World in 80 Lathes, Part Three on PS audio website. There are many resources on the web saying same thing.
Tony, your presentation here is excellently done and accurate. Adding my two-cents, perhaps the warmth listeners sense is the noise floor of the vinyl. Or, maybe listener opinion of a song played on vinyl may also be colored by the "warm" blank sound after needle drop and prior to song. That "floor" is maintained mentally throughout the music. Idk, just a thought.
This is excellently and irrefutably presented, Mr van Veen, thank you. I have and still will occasionally purchase vinyl but digital is how I record and release music and it is undeniably the more robust medium. I sure do love full size vinyl album covers, tho, a big part of collecting music has gone missing since there is no need for the kind of artistic presentation album design used to offer.
Very good video. A few additional points. 1) Vinyl also has a limited dynamic range because the loudest sounds are limited too. You mentioned that. What you didn't say is that vinyl can only reach its maximum dynamic range on the outer grooves of the record. The inner groove can have 15 dB less dynamic range than the outer groove. Because this variation is clearly audible, the engineer has to compress the outer grooves to match the poor dynamic range inner grooves so there isn't a huge difference across the record. 2) Vinyl has worse stereo separation. It's not possible to completely separate the L and R channel with vinyl because movement of the stylus in one direction can't be completely isolated from movement in the other directions. Some people think this muddying of L/R is what accounts for the vinyl sound. 3) There's room vibration feedback to a vinyl turntable requiring it to be isolated from the room. That chest-thumping bass also will vibrate the turntable which will be picked up by the stylus muddying the bass. Some try to isolate their turntables with vibration damping feet but those aren't perfect. I've actually heard of people that place their turntable on a pedestal that goes through the floor to the ground below without having any contact with the floor (which vibrates). CD players aren't affected by the level of vibration that will mess with a turntable. 4) CDs don't play the 1's and 0's, they convert the digital information to a smooth analog output. 44 kHz was selected on purpose as it contains enough information to accurately reproduce a smooth analog output at 20 kHz - the highest frequency that most people can hear.
Thank you. Good points. Most recording engineers do not limit the outer tracks to 15 db. That is why the outer tracks will almost always sound better and inner tracks are usually chosen to contain quieter songs.
@@rft2001 I didn't say that the outer tracks are limited to 15 dB. I said the inner tracks have 15 dB less dynamic range. While the outer tracks can have 70 dB, the inner can only have ~55 dB. That's why vinyl recordings typically have ~55 dB across the record, not 70 dB. You don't have to turn up the volume on the inner tracks that way.
There are two other issues with vinyl that hardly gets mentioned: 1) RIAA curve: to prevent the stylus from jumping out of the groove, an equalizer is applied, following a strictly defined RIAA curve, which attenuates lower frequencies and emphasizes higher frequencies. The preamp following the player has the opposite curve to correct things to the original frequency response. However, attenuating lower frequencies automatically means reducing the dynamic range even further. On playback, the opposite RIAA curve ensures more gain for lower frequencies, thus also increading low frequency noise and rumble from the drive motor. Also, component tolerances in the playback preamps cause a less than perfect representation of the RIAA equaliziation curve and thus changes the sonic contents. 2) Playing back a digital signal from a CD results in the exact voltage of that binary/digital sample value. Playing back the groove on a vinyl record however, results in a mathematical derivative of the groove shape. This is because the moving coil or magnet only produces an output voltage when it moves. It produces 0V at the peak of the stylus excursion and maximum voltage when the stylus passes the "zero crossing" of the groove. So, the resulting output voltage of the cartridge is always 90º phase shifted on all frequencies at all times. This implies that when the master is cut, the same process and phase shift must be applied. So there are two phase shifts in the entire process from master tape to what goes in your amplifier which, ideally, should be exactly the same. This cannot be guaranteed ever because on playback, this behaviour and its corresponding frequency curve (high pass) heavily depends on the mass and stiffness of the tone arm. Also, this derivative limits the low end of the spectrum because it cannot output a DC voltage, whereas a CD theoretically could. In practise, the low end is purely determined by the capacitors in the total audio chain from mastering to listenig. But CD's can go far lower than vinyl can.
The fact that the debate over whether vinyl or CD's sound better has been going on since CD's came out and is still going on is proof in itself that Vinyl is not superior as the vinyl collectors want you to believe. My conclusion is the regardless of weather you think cd's or vinyl is superior the sound is in ears of the beholder.
I play my remaining CD's on my Sony DVP-S7000 which sits alongside my home-built Tubeamp and an old TEAC TN400 turntable from 1973. All in exceptional working order.
2nd-3rd harmonic distortion on vinyl adds to the lovely colourations and most vinyl LP production is mastered on digital processing, so this in the purest sense isn't derived from analog.
I've been working with audio most of my professional career and have a technical engineering background. You've spoken total truth in your video and I think most reasonable people will agree with it. Kudos for a thoughtful and thorough explanation of a volatile topic. I have a Cambridge Audio 851C and use it only as a DAC, using the windows drivers from CA. The sound is far superior to my Sansui SR939 table with a Grado Gold cartridge, and an AR preamp.
The attraction of an LP record, is similar to the attraction old European, whimsical classic cars have for collectors. There is a greater sense of thrill when the car or motorcycle, which requires special handling and care, finally delivers its ride. Same with the LP, it delivers the sound. Why not just play CDs as they last forever, never wear out, are convenient and deliver far superior dynamics? Probably because there is little involvement in the process of playing one. An LP requires your attention as the play time is about 20-25 minutes while a CD you can play the full 80 minutes as background music. I collect both, and love them equally, but there are more variants of the sound in an LP than from a CD. I believe suitcase record players are crap and that people who are into vinyl should make an effort to buy the best components they can afford, but not to the ridiculous ends I see with turntables costing more than a house, a toneram as much as a car, and a cartridge as much as a motorcycle. I've been to HiFi shows and though the equipment is impressive, I don't think the marginal improvement in playing a record is worth cracking my 401K or mortgaging my house.
People like Michael Fremer of The Tracking Angle are nuts to spend $10K to $200K on LP playback. $1000 gets you an excellent turntable/cartridge (Pioneer PLX1000 and a Denon 103R). Add another $150 for a Schiit Mani 2 phono stage and you will have excellent LP playback. I have the PLX1000 and the Denon 103R. I use an RGR 4 preamp with its phono stage plus a step-up (SUT) transformer to boost the very small voltage from the Denon 103R moving coil cartridge (.3 mv).
The problem with the cover art for vinyl is that many used records you look at have ringwear on the cover. Pure crap. CD's give you multi page booklets with far more detail than I ever get even with a Gatefold vinyl cover.
That's why I haven't bought into the vinyl revival. The last vinyl album I bought must have been around 1988. Since I got my first CD player, I never looked back. The only very few vinyl records I have bought in these last decades have been stuff that was never available on CD.
I’ll take a laser reading a cd flawlessly over a needle being dragged across vinyl, picking up the sound of every speck of dust that may lay in its path, any day.
It's not flawless if it doesn't include the ultrasonic frequencies that are emitted by real musical instruments. That's why CD was flawed from the beginning. It doesn't include those frequencies, but vinyl does.
@@dtz1000no need for ultrasonics, you're not a whale. Any feedback from those ultrasonics that find its way back into the frequency range we can hear should be there from the mixing process.
I often thought of the "analog warmth" as something sounding really good specially in the ears of prog or psychedelic rock. A Moog synth or an electric guitar with a lamp based effects pedal will sound at home on an LP with a good old heat inducing lamp. But what about a quiet piano peace by Chopin? Does it need more "analog warmth"? I don't think so. When I debate about the subject with friends, I always try to separate the question of "best sounding" from the question of "more faithfully" sounding. Two different topics.
I was a record collector and had thousands of albums & 45’s. I didn’t care for tape or CD but I did own 200 CDs. I had a party one night to compare CD against vinyl. I had a beautiful 350w per channel Phase Linear system with amp, preamp and speakers along with subwoofer (2-12” woofer) I was going to show everyone the vinyl was the greatest. I lost but I will always love vinyl.
Guys, I love Vinyl for a reason. I love digital reproduction for anther. I am just unable to listen to MP3 music or FLAC. My heaven is WAV format. I miss cassetes because of the mixes you can make. I loved Chrome tapes more than metal. I pressed Dolby B during recording and unpressed it on playback. Dont care about the hiss but sounded beautiful. For some reasons, I used to like AAD CDs much more than DDD. No explanation!
I love my reel tapes, cassettes, mini discs, 8-tracks, 78's, 33's, 45's, and CDs. I also stream music! They all have good and bad aspects - but I must say my CDs sound the same today as they did when I first started buying them in 1984. "Born in The USA" and "Elvis' Golden Records" sound as PERFECT in 2024 as they did in late 1984! 40 years!?? Now I feel really old. . . . .
When CDs were fairly new, we did a test with my fairly modest Philips CD610 (a 16 bit player) and a very expensive Rega Planar 3 owned by my friend. Same amp and speakers, same albums, just using the amp's input selector to swap between sources.. Even he had to conclude that the vinyl wasn't better. It sounded different (possibly due to the physical unamplified sound from the stylus adding a tinniness; the CD was clearly warmer.
Regarding the part about "analog warmth" and how analog signals are smooth and digital are "ones and zeroes that can't replicate the smoothness of the analog signal". This is a myth based on a misunderstanding of how DACs work. When a digital signal is converted to an analig signal (so your speakers can play them) they do in fact replicste the smoothness of the analog source perfectly. This is something Shannon prooved with the "sampling theorem" back in the 40's. But the mathematics behind it are not that easy to follow so I think you typically don't bunp into it unless you take university level math classes. (Point being, few people actually see this in school.) The limitation you have is that you have is that your sample frequency needs to be at least twice that of the signal you are recording. Otherwise you get artifacts. But as long as you filter out hugher frequencies before you get a perfect reproduction. Personally I think the biggest failing we have in modern digital storefronts for music is that we don't have the option of multiple masters of the music. Its really the mastering that makes a difference. And these days there's nothing really stopping us from having multiple versions of the same song. So you can have one master with loudness when you are going for a walk or in your car, and a different master for when you're at home.
I am one pf those who prefer the sound of a CD over that of vinyl because of clarity and purity. My vinyl collection is mostly from albums I fail to find on CD or records from my childhood that bring back nostalgia. I am already working on converting all my vinyl records to digital WAV files for preservation. The only thing I can confirm about the difference in DACs inside a CD player is that newer DACs are generally much better sounding than older ones. For example, playing the same discs on my Sony Blu-ray player offers much more clarity and separation than playing the same discs on my Pioneer LD Player from the 90s', and playing the same discs on my Denon CD changer as a transport while using the DAC on my 2013 HK 171 AVR or 2020 RZ50 Onkyo sounds even better.
Why does no one ever say that vinyl can sound as cold and lifeless as a CD? I have many examples of this in my collection. Also, what many hardcore vinyl-lovers never mention is the cartridge/stylus, which has a huge impact on what the vinyl will sound like. They never seem to tell you what they are working with. I also submit that if you think vinyl sounds warmer, whatever that means, you are actually hearing the surface noise and probably some element of the turntable. Tony does mention this.
Mastering play the key role. Nowadays in old remastered vinyls make normalisation in waveform and cut many peaks, they have much loudness at 98-99db and hard bass, closed sound comparing to the original old vinyls. And they cost around 50 dollars or euros, each vinyl.
Some great points raised here about vinyl's shortcomings. For me it's all about the Music so I collect music in Vinyl, CD and Flac formats. Vinyl alone doesn't satisfy my huge appetite for a huge collection. It's usually old good for old music we are tired of. I want old and recent music.
@@georgebertozzi8267 Same here. I collect vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A, HDAD, Bluray Audio.....and I enjoy ALL OF THE FORMATS. But what makes a great disc is the production put into the recording itself. Garbage in.....garbage out.
@@platterjockey so sad too hear your experience and that's exactly what I mentioned earlier in my comments. Actually most of the people now lack real knowledge about this format and end up getting the wrong experience and wrong equipments. To cut it short y r better with streaming than records and cd with all bad equipments and wrong.adjustments.
@@saikatbose8370 You misunderstand: I grew up in the vinyl age. And, I am well aware of how good vinyl can sound. I'm just saying that so much of it - average vinyl releases, especially from the 80s, sound cold and lifeless.
that point there 7:30.. they press vinyl only from digital matrix's nowadays, made me give up and embrace digital years ago... at least i go for flac from cd.. mostly
Thank you for your detailed analysis. Human beings often rely on the phenomenon of "confirmation bias", which would be holding pre-conceived notions of how something "ought to be" and then mentally "confirming" that expectation while actually experiencing something, such as playback of a vinyl LP record. Speaking of this, a major anniversary in the industry occurred earlier this year which was ignored by the vinyl LP industry: June marked the 75th anniversary of the vinyl LP record! I think a few veteran album collectors were aware of this historic anniversary, but the industry apparently was not. Go figure!
Actually, dynamic range is the range between the sound of the noise floor and the loudest possible sound that can be played back without distortion. And both vinyl and CD have a noise floor. Vinyl has about 50dB dynamic range, and CDs have about 96dB. 7:00
@@socialite1283 Classical music yes. But are we mainly talking about classical music here? Go check all popular releases today, not to mention good old bands or artist - they all think compression needs to be there. I own both CD and vinyl when it comes to classical music. I tend to listen to my old original Decca SXL classical vinyl records. Nothing tops them.
@@socialite1283 And. my old 60s SXL Decca's is good taken care of. No misuse using a cheap turntable. No pops or fireplace background sounds. Those vinyl records where something - what a quality piece of vinyl they are.
It's like asking: which sounds better, a "clean" guitar sound or a "distorted" guitar sound? The answer is "whichever one you like." If the question is: "which sounds MORE ACCURATE, then CD, without question, wins 100% of the time, by a wide margin.
Well explained, thank you. Now I don't have to argue anymore, just send a link to your video. The secret is to multitrack in Pro Tools (or whatever), and mix down to an analog one inch two track. You didn't kill yourself (and wear out the tape) doing analog multitrack, and have a big transient analog 2 track mix to make a CD from. Another gem for sound quality with CDs ids HDCD.
I use a Maverick Tube DAC, which adds some 'warmth' back in. Either my direct CD or Lossless cuts sound great. I feed this into my SONOS system. works for me. Great Video
I am a product of the 70s and i was a venyl player operator at a young age of 5 , love the 45s back then. Cassette, and Cd came soon and was a hit. Yes i believe nostalgia is the reason we love sticking to antiquated technology etc.
I prefer the sound of CDs over vinyl! I also prefer to own my favorite music rather than stream it! I also like how I can find the original recordings on CD where digital downloads & streaming only offer remastered versions or remixed! I also do not like how they can remove certain albums or an entire catalog without warning! That’s where ownership comes into being a huge factor! Plus I believe in supporting the artist over the platform! A band will make more from one CD sale than they can from a weeks worth of streaming/downloading!
Actually the dynamic range of a CD is even higher than 96dB because of the dithering used in most recordings. Ah yes - there are no digital stairsteps .... not even in theory. There is only digital dirac pulses and smooth analog output after the reconstruction filter. The filter quality however may influence the perceived quality - for people being able to hear in the 20kHz range ;-)
Except for the surface noise, skips and scratches. You also need to have a good-to-great turntable and cartridge and you have to contend with wow and flutter and rumble, especially with belt driven turntables. Tone arms eere always a comprmise, with the exception of a few like the Garrard Z1000.
Well, I like vinyl, cd, streaming, cassettes, DVD-Audio, and SACD. I’m not really concerned about stats and all that stuff. I simply spend my time enjoying listening to music, not looking for flaws. I do have a high end system however which helps. Great video by the way.
All depends of the recording and the music. Can be hard to find a recording for comparison vinyl and CD remastered. I did a comparison with the orginal direct to dish Discovered Again with Dave Grusin and sheffield Lab from1976. The CD was from Lim 24-bit Super Analog Sound and Japan (Lim XR-002 and JVC recording, both from the orginal analog mastertape. The LP Sheffield Lab-5 SL 19/20(sound Labs). Was with my friend and Gyrphone Ethos CD player and Lyra Kleos catridge on a Mitchell turntable. Can hear more ''analog'' noice from the recording in US with the CD, than the LP with surface noice and higher noicefloor. Cd has a bigger dynamic range than the LP, but the analog LP recording had a more airy soundstage and more weight on the percussion and bassdrum. The cybals had another and more natural sound and sustain in the soundstage too. Like both media (digital and analog). It's a german pressing on the D-D LP recording.
I'm sure you're right about the advantages of digital recording. When it comes right down to it though, I often prefer to dig out one of my LPs and give it a spin. You can compare this to the Japanese tea ceremony, in that there are a lot of actions around playing a record (that is, if you want to keep it in good condition), and a lot of associated parts, like the cover and liner notes. I'm not using a high-end turntable, but it and the cartridge mounted are adequate for enjoyable listening without excessive wear - that's 'enjoyable' as I perceive it. When I have less time or am just using music as a background, I'll throw on a CD or streamer. My choice often comes down to which version of a recording I have available. The quality of the original recording and the approach to duplication are probably big factors in the final sound of either media. I've purchased CDs that were absolutely awful, but the same can be said of some LP pressings too.
@@steve-4045 Plus how the lacquer is cut for THAT vinyl record. That's why it sounds 20 times better, or maybe a 100 times better, or 1000 zillion times better. You don't understand this, so just STFU.
I remember when cds first came out, how some artists like Yello took total advantage of the new medium. There was no question then. Of course the cd was the beginning of the miniaturization of the album cover and eventual devaluation of music overall, so its easy to understand why people care about vinyl. The recording and mixing and mastering is more important than the format ultimately. Part of why people still look back to the production standards of the mid 70s to 90s as a golden era.
Being a musician, studio-owner/engineer/producer for over 40 years I can only agree with this. You wont believe how many times I have had these discussions about "vinyl sounding better" etc. Don't get me wrong, I do understand that many prefer vinyl, usually because they like the compression (somethin they are used to now because it's the "radio-sound") and the harmonic distortion and of course that's a matter of taste. However, I always use the argument that vinyl is a compromise (like you point out very well!), whereas a cd can (!) sound the way it came out of the studio! So, can vinyl sound better than a cd? Yes, but then the recording on the cd was bad, the mastering wasn't good or whatever else happened. And last, but not least, you can't program an LP! 😉 BTW, I grew up with vinyl, I still have my recordcollection that I started around 1968 (both 45's and 33's) and I've always been careful with them, but I play either the cd's or use flac's on my computer. I remember the first time one of my productions would be released on cd (around 1986) and finally I heard at home what did in the studio, no compromises!!!!! But, nothing beats the sleeve and the artwork of a great LP!!! 😅 I saved your video, so I can play it the next time! 👌
Sound quality isn't subjective - there really shouldn't be any debate. Vinyl vs. CD isn't even a fair comparison of analog vs digital. Vinyl is HEAVILY flawed as a recording medium. It's insane, to me, that there's even any argument about this. "Loudness wars" aside, CD is vastly superior to even the most insanely expensive vinyl playback system. It's so funny to look back at the "audiophiles" of the 80s, raving about CD, and 40 years later the "audiophiles" are raving about vinyl again. Makes no sense. The "80s Audiophiles" were right...CD blows vinyl out of the water. I certainly don't want any "analog warmth" (distortion!) in my audio! "Audiophiles" talk more nonsense about audio than I can stomach. Personally, I have Technics SL-1200 mk.5, with an AT 440MLa cartridge - not too shabby - I do still own some records "from my past", and sometimes digitize vinyl for clients (mostly I work in video), but as hard as anyone might try, to overcome the flaws of vinyl, no amount of exotic cables, tonearms, cartridges, etc. will ever beat the sound quality of CD. Fact, not opinion, or "personal preference". Just plain facts. It's funny how nobody raves about "the warmth of analog video". 😂 Well... actually...just as I'm writing that, no "professional" does...but plenty of kids (teens, early 20s) are now shooting on old analog camcorders (Hi8, VHS-C, etc) and then paying me to digitize it for online use!! They actually LIKE the imperfections. Bizarre, but there you go. Prefer analog if you like, that's fine, but for God's sake, audiophiles, stop pretending that it's BETTER! It's not. 🙄
When CDs were first introduced to the market they were more expensive than vinyl albums. Now they are less expensive than vinyl albums. I love my CD collection and my vinyl collection is packed away in boxes. I no longer have a working turntable. Thank you for the informative video on the matter.
Case closed in favor of the technically and superior sounding CD. Great video!!!!! I started in my teens collecting vinyl, however once I switched to CDs there was no turning back, playing CDs in the right gear is far more rewarding than vinyl in comparable gear.
Imagine travelling to a world where instead of CDs we had laserdiscs for digital music. We would 3+ GB of space for high res music and most of the enjoyment and ritual of handling a vinyl.
Old vinyl to me sounds like a live-in studio performance in some aspects, which sounds better to me, but I do know the same album on cd would be so much clearer and crisp on the digital format. Case in point is Year of Sunday by Seals and Crofts.
Thank you, Tony. This helped me decide whether or not to get a turntable. I won't. My chief concern has been with archiving and preservation, and nothing beats digital for that. I would still love to know more about psycho-acoustics, that is, what happens in the brain after the sound wave is converted from mechanical to electric. Something must be compensating for the voids (real silences) between samples. Anyway, I liked this video a lot and will put it in one of my playlists.
Vinyls are still cool af though. If you have the money to invest in a turntable setup, it’s still amazing for music lovers. CDs just give you an as good, if not better, music listening experience for a fifth of the price.
@@Scott__C well since you seem to be in the business of correcting people let me correct you warmth is an audio term I'm in the audio business and I hear the word used every single day warm cold hard whatever you want to say East Coast sound West Coast sound blah blah
Fantastic! I didn’t know most of what you covered. I always thought the smooth flowing analog signal vs the digital stepped one was the reason for better sound.
In some cases CD will sound better than vinyl. Not always, however. The Adele albums sound better on vinyl than on CD, and that is due to the fact that the person who is responsible for mastering for CD didn't do it right.
I collect mint pressings of older albums that were cut from tape (recorded via analog). I have a high end system as well as a record cleaner with a vacuum. After that I still clean via solvent spray with a felt brush and then use a Furutech Destat III before every play. Sometimes the records have to be cleaned a few times before they're ready to be played. Given all of this, my vinyl plays are usually flawless with no static pops and no noticeable noise, etc (from the seating position). There are only a very few records I have that I will experience that in certain spots. Then it's up to me if I want to buy another copy instead (which I've done). All in all, I feel the playback is really great. Any albums that were recorded digitally, I just stay digital. However, I have a non-oversampling tube R2R dac with vintage chips which helped the digital sound more "natural" and not as harsh/precise as my Delta Sigma based dacs did. That helped a lot (in what I like). All my system components are all tube as well. Really, the ultimate for me would be Reel to Reel for those older albums but a lot of hassle and expense trying to hunt down really good copies (15ips would be the ultimate) from the master tapes, etc. I've seen some safety copies and such, etc. In my system, the quality of the recording is really dependent upon how well it was recorded, generally not at the mercy of CD or Hi-Rez. A higher sample rate of the same recording yields just a bit more of a "natural/analogue/smoother" quality to my ears. If playing a CD I usually upsample it and it sounds "better" for some reason with more clarity. Go figure. LOL. So bottom line = YES digital is EASIEST and CLEANEST in comparison but its all about 1. The original recording (if done originally in analogue) and 2. The ritual and sound of analogue:)
Great vid, but cd's are boring. You dont need much equipment to get a good sound, you can walk out of a record store with one in your coat pocket. Whereas an album comes in its own special bag, you know you have just spent your hard earned money on something physical. Yes i suppose thats called nostalgia but thats part of the attraction. Also buying a turntable and experimenting with different upgrades to get a better sound is part of the joy. I enjoy both media's, including streaming. However you like it just enjoy your music, its our greatest invention.
Simple answer: any CD player above $200 sound more fiddle to source than any turntable (even $500,000)!! CD and Vinyl are containers of "source sound". The CD format was defined thus, no human ear can distinct between source and reproduction. I can also state that even lab will not see a difference since source is filtered before converting to 44.1K.
I purchased the SONY CDP-101 in 1983, it is still in working order.
I've loved the CD format ever since and the SACD!
Sometimes the first run of a new product is overbuilt and lasts way beyond subsequent products (due to cost-cutting & component redundancy) I'm typing this on the first unibody Macbook from 2008
still working after 83 is impressive, no rubber bands?
I love SACD, but I prefer Vinyl because of the flaws and ritual
I wish more material would be available on SACD...
@@sv1201 nothing better about SACD format. 16bit 44.1khz is already plenty good enough, its the mastering that matters.
CD was the greatest audible improvement to audio in my lifetime. Gone was the noise from both vinyl and tape. I still have the 70 main vinyl albums I always kept, have a TT and revisit them occasionally but that's about it. Now I stream mostly, Regardless, the speakers have always been the star of my audio show.
Lucky you, I still own over 400 vinyls and can't stand listening to them, I just keep them for emotional reasons. I remember listening to a CD for the first time, in 1980 and feeling a whole new universe was opening to my ears. I was a classical musician and only speak for classical music but there is no debate for me when it comes to CD vs vinyl.
@@GhtPTR If you can't stand them, give them to me.
My experience as being a sound-engineer for 35 years make me totally agree - but I still love the LP format :-)
@@srenkrabbe2991 I like the covers
I'm glad I ran across your video. I have nothing against vinyl, I grew up listening to vinyl. But, since 1983-84, I've gone the cd route, at first because I had no choice. Where I grew up, record stores stopped stocking vinyl records. As you have pointed out, cd's don't wear out, and they don't skip, hiss, or pop. Of course, there are faulty cd's, like anything else made in the world. Something else I like about cd's is that I can program them. If I wish to listen to tracks 1, 4, 7, 9 on a record, it's easily done. As I said, vinyl was what I listened to growing up, so I've no problem with it, what bugs me, however, is the attitude of some people, definitely not all, in the vinyl community who seem to look down their nose at cd's and those who collect them. I don't get it, but I see it. Anyway, I'm glad to know that cd's actually sound pretty good, I can rest easy now.
I tend to listen to vinyl when listening actively, cd and digital for passive listening. Both serve a valuable purpose- to perpetuate love for the beautiful gift of music!
You got it the wrong way round.
@@simonzinc-trumpetharris852He nailed it, streaming is for background music, quick listening or seeing if you want to buy the record. CD are not quite as bad, but you want to get serious, buy a great turntable, cartridge, phono preamp along with a good system.
I'll bet you dinner that I could do a blind test with you playing 5 quality pressing and 5 CD's and bet you would say the vinyl was better on the majority.
@@simonzinc-trumpetharris852 No he doesn't. He listens in the manner that gives him the most musical enjoyment and listening satisfaction. You don't get a vote. You do you.
Vunyl is crap
Well done video. At about 7:30 you hit the real difference. If your LP is mastered from digitally recorded material, you will not get the sonic difference other than maybe some reduced highs. But when you master from analogue recorded material, there is a textural difference. Very subtle and would be lost on most casual listeners, but it is there. So if you are buying music recorded in the modern era, in all likelihood it has been recorded in a digital format. So just get yourself a good CD player (mp3's sound OK, but they are not CD quality) and a good system and just enjoy the music. The difference most are experiencing with vinyl mastered from digital is a lack of highs thus making the vinyl give the illusion of warmth. So a good graphic equalizer can do about the same thing. But for that small textural difference that few can hear, the benefits of digital for most will out weigh the benefit. Just my opinion of course. Having said that, I did love my records back in the day! Clicks, pops, scratches and all. Most pop and rock records don't have much dynamic range either by the time they are recorded and mastered, especially today. Orchestral music on the other hand can have a significant range depending on the piece. Oddly enough tho, orchestral music is where I noticed that textural thing I speak of the most. It's a balancing act. I like both formats for different reasons. Oh, and you are so right about the quality of the "record player".
As a vinyl collector I would never say vinyl is superior to CD, because it's clearly false. So why do I collect and listen to vinyls? It's because the listening experience is completely different, you slow down, you study the album cover, the lyrics (usually present on the sleeves), or go looking for the reaper on Iron Maiden covers...it's just a very different experience when you have to get up, walk over, get the LP out, put it on, turn on your pre-amp and amp - all for a max of 20 mins of music. In fact, it's even less for me as I love 45 RPM LPs. That's why I love vinyl, but I also have CDs, Blu-ray Audio and even SACDs (which my last player that could play them broke, so haven't listened to them for a while). The only format which sucks in my opinion is cassette.
Cassette recording can actually be quite phenomenal, depending on your choice of tape deck & your choice of cassette, and whether or not you use Dolby C.
Trust me ... with any such great combination, MANY cassette recordings do indeed come very close, and sometimes unnoticeably so, when compared to compact disc.
Your point is well taken. I've heard cassette recordings played on the Nachamichi Dragon sound quite good. Close but not as good as CD.
Back in the 80s I've recorded many records & music off the radio. I've always used new cassettes, TDK, Maxwell on mid grade cassette decks & still have those tapes that sound great!!! If you no good Audio & how to record they're great!!! Lots of today's audio sounds harsh to me, maybe it's me as my ears are older ??? Quality was better back then imo!!! Enjoy💥💥💥
This is your point of view, i do prefer vinyl
@@johnbarnes3914you’re Right! Recordings from ‘70 and ‘80 were better compared to Modern Productions.
I gave my nephew over 300 lps in 1990, the year I switched to digital music. I have never regretted, never looked back. I feel nostalgic for the collecting of, the jacket art etc. But, as for audio quality I’ll take cds and hi-res lossless audio every time. Good clip. Thanks
I did the same, and since then I never heard a good rock guitar sound again.
I remember the first time I listened to music on a cd. The silence during pauses in our between songs floored me. I never bothered with tapes or vinyl after that.
Recently I thought about trying vinyl. Learning that I’d need to spend hundreds of dollars on gear made the decision easy.
You can get a record player that connects to Bluetooth now you don’t need a speaker or amp. The Sony blue tooth one is $200
@@andrewhale3005 rofl ... are you joking ?
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for doing this video. Thank you for the facts explained without too many scientific jargons. This is my go-to for explaining vinyl and cds. 4 thumbs up.
I started collecting records in 1972 and unlike many people I know from that era, I kept mine. When I play them, it’s an emotional connection. It’s like getting into a time machine and going back to that time in my life. Some of the sound quality still remains but even after thorough cleaning, there is still some noise. I have some newer records too and it isn’t as much of an issue. I also have several cd’s I started collecting when they were first introduced. I play them occasionally. But these days I’m probably 80% streaming. IMO with a good quality streamer and DAC playing full cd quality or higher. It’s a great way to enjoy music. No other format lets you build playlists on the fly. Just my .02
Fuck an A. I hear ya.
"Warm Sound"
Hi everybody and thank you very much for this REALLY competent and objective explanation on that subject. Having Engineered and being present at countless Final Record cuttings since the early 70ies I can only appreciate this post. Obviously I was part of the whole Digital Recording Process as well. In addition to this post, I would like to mention the situation of the High Frequencies, which are also part of the "Warm Sound" experience. Equal to the situation of the Low End, the Analog/Tape Recordings roll off significantly at 16 KHz. Digital Conversion easily handles 40KHz and above. When we try to listen to a "Dog Whistle" which is above 23 KHz we can't hear it. However it's there and it makes us uncomfortable. In music terms high frequencies even above our hearing capabilities can be used to produce excitement. Now if we understand the limitations of the Analog Audio Recording and consequently Vinyl Sound, We can make a Digital Recording sound very, very similar to the Warm Sound of an Analog Medium. While at the beginning of the Digital Recordings, there was a well founded critic of the Sound Quality at the time.These days however our Digital Converters and the Dynamic Range have being developed to a level, very, very few Golden Years claim to hear the difference. Another Aspect would be the Phase Relationship in a Stereo Recording between Left and Right. A Vinyl Cutting won't allow "Out of Phase" music, or the needle would dive and consequently jump. Digital Recordings allows this to happen but is not pleasing (Warm Sounding) in my opinion.
All that said, I still offer a complete Analog Chain Recording and Mixing in my Studio and I love it ha, ha, ha.... Besides to have only 24 Tracks versus 100's of tracks is very challenging and can support creativity and excitement in the Music. Good Recording to all of you ❤
excellent points - and I'll add that another variation is channel separation. in the Digital world - at every level - the left/right channels are purely discreet (meaning there is no unintended bleed between channels. They are separated by an untraversable digital wall), whereas - in a vinyl setup - you need a REALLY good stylus to keep down the crosstalk - and you also have to pay special attention to making sure that your speakers aren't on the same surface as your turntable (a common mistake) or you will start bleeding even worse. It took me years to realize I needed to have every part of the signal chain physically decoupled from each other. Having said that - once you get it right - it does sound phenomenal.
As I mentioned above, vinyl can surpass digital - but it takes a LOT of money and work to do it.
Actually, vinyl has been shown to output frequencies of 50khz and higher. CDs can only output up to 22khz.
@@buckdown4104😅😊
@@dtz1000Yes and the drastic low pass filtering needed to enable this 22khz cut off, leaves nasty artefacts (aliasing) audible in the high end of CD audio. That’s what makes listening to CDs tiring and essential annoying. You can’t get away from it. It’s makes me feel uneasy!! A well recorded, mastered and pressed vinyl record, will alway beat a CD for me, noise floor and all!! I have demonstrated this to many non-believers over the years and they all had to admit they they preferred the sound of vinyl.
@@dtz1000 Theoretically, a 'pop' from an LP can output an enormous frequency range.
Great video. Lots of good points raised. As an owner of thousands of both Vinyl and CD and having worked in both Analog and Digital formats, I can say that there are far more advantages to Cd's than Vinyl. Even Hi-Res files are great! Your listening experience is personal but Cd's have a far greater selection of music in all decades. Vinyl stopped being readily available after the big Digital overhaul in the 90's. Cd's last longer, are portable, much quieter, you can clone them and they are far cheaper with far greater liner notes and multi page booklets.
A good DAC upgrades the CD and Remastered CD's often contain bonus tracks that cannot be fitted onto a vinyl record without badly affecting audio quality.
I love both fornats because it's all about the MUSIC, but building the mother of all Rock Collections is far better with CD's!
The biggest selling point for me personally for Vinyl is that its a physical piece of art. You can ofcourse say the same about CD's, but as someone who listens to hundred thousands of hours to music, i caught myself really wanting to find that "one" song, play it over and over and move on to the next "one" song. The way you cant skip a song on a vinyl player (well, you can, but you know what i mean) and really appreciate the album of a artist opened my world up to appreciate music alot more. The "hunt" for certain vinyls is another big deal for me personally. I love the search and speaking to other music enthousiasts to get in contact with the one person who has the vinyl i so desperately want. You can ofcourse argue that you do the same with CD's ofcourse, but personally, it is a different experience.
Perfectly said! I have bought a LOT of vinyl records in my life.... and they were charming and wonderful in their day. In fact I have 2 Magnavox console stereos from the year 1968... so I have some vintage vinly I keep with them just to play on the Micromatic turntables. However, in 1986 I went all out and bought my first CD deck for 370. A lot of money now, but A LOT more back then.... and the reason was because I could not stand those "ticks" and "pops". So I have over 300 CDs, but now only have a couple of dozen vinyl albums and those are only for nostalgia, not serious listening. THANKS for your incredible video which gives me a TON of useful arguments why I love my CDs. Especially helpful was the reminder that if a record is made from a digital source, it can't possibly be smoother than the digital master. Makes SO much sense. Thank you!
" and the reason was because I could not stand those "ticks" and "pops". So more like OCD than caring about the music
@@foljs5858 To support r.c.'s comment, well the ticks and pops are not a part of the music! 🙂 I'm in the same boat as r.c. - I have maybe 30-40 vinyl albums (mostly bought in the 80-90s), but 400-500 CDs. Another thing to speak about regarding media is that vinyl is not very transportable. You don't see many people playing vinyl in their car! 😉
@@fortworthron "well the ticks and pops are not a part of the music!" they kind of are... they track the record's age and your relationship to it, like wrinkles on a person. Digital is like those plastic fake-ass looking people with no wrinkles at 70
@@foljs5858ok, you can’t handle someone having an opinion & liking what they like!
If you play records ona 1968 Magavox you are basically destroying the record. If you play it on a good table with a good cartridge it will last a lifetime
All I want to say is the most gut wrenching Bass I have ever heard is of J S Bach Toccata and Fugue on Cassette - so the recording/Mastering also play's a huge part.
Vinyl is different from CD but both Vinyl and CDs are now considered old hat and cassettes dinosaurs - yet I gain huge pleasure from all these formats. I like to own the hard copy and hardware that will play it - digital streaming is evolving but as corporations see ways of wiping out your music by withholding licences for a particular codecs or discontinuing access to a loved streaming service - my hard copy material is playable even if I have to stoke my wood fired generator to get the electricity. I like ownership and control - so hard core old school it may be but consider how LP,s were first introduced in 1949 and still going - nothing beats the best.
I will go to my grave without ever hearing Spotify
One can do both. I personally split music into two categories. The type I’ll listen to the one I will buy. So I stream most music while making sure that I own physical copies of the stuff I love.
The key point here is that vinyl technology is inherently noisy, degrading over time and of course with lower dynamic range than CD, which came many decades after vinyl when technology improved vastly.
So, objectively, given a "pristine master tape" of a song, properly engineered cd will beat the s**t out of the vinyl version.
(And no, i don't forget that thru the 90s and 2000s there were horribly engineered CDs that started the infamous Loud Wars).
And in turn, digital FLAC audio files of today of course beat CDs but only in terms of access time, sample rate, bit depth and the fact that audio files have no moving parts like a delicate cd player with a laser, motor, gears, etc.
With digital audio files nowadays you can carry 1000 CDs ripped inside your sata disk in your pocket player (i.e. Raspberry Pi based device) without quality loss and metadata that will allow you to search and arrange playlist by any criteria you like.
@
Point of vinyl well missed - sorry for you having digital ears rather than good old fashioned linear receivers .
No joking apart I do listen to streaming and CDs but just get drawn to analogue with no scientific reason - I just appear to prefer it.
You nailed the problem with vinyl: there are too many variables which can cost a lot to get right. For CD playback you do need to purchase a good DAC and then connect it to any old disc player that has a coax output. Done.
Yup... all the media's have positives and negatives. I usually buy the physical media that's least expensive (as long as the record isn't in horrible shape)
My 2 channel system cost about $650 total, and the sound quality smokes most systems that I hear in other people’s homes. Pro-Ject Debut Carbon turntable (used $150), Cambridge Audio Topaz AM10 Integrated Amp (used $175), and Wharfdale Diamond 10.2 bookshelf speakers (New $250). It’s seriously one of the cleanest sounding setups I have ever owned.
@@zacharyyoung1083 As an owner of a very pleasing "mid-Fi" system. Does my heart good to read your reply and the enjoyment you get from the music. It's always about the music.
The stock pcm DAC in any modern cd player will be better than the those sigma-delta ones in for example the old Mitsubishi digital recorders costing a million dollars in the 80's. Those are the ones they had (amongst many other places), in George Martins Air Montserrat , where albums like Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, and Sting - Nothing Like the Sun were recorded (the former even received an engineering grammy). And I think those recordings sound great nonetheless, inferior DACs or not. One of the few older record I've ever noticed sounding "digital" was Donald Fagens The Nightfly album. Very cold and sterile. (another example is Stevie Wonders The Secret Life of Plants and Hotter than July, very early digital technology - and it shows). Furthermore, industry legends like Chris Lord-Alge even held on to his 1989 16-bit Sony 3348 for mixing until the last stock of tape ran out, and how many thousand albums have he mixed? So it's not entirely impossible that people have bought an expensive DAC for their cd players that was in fact vastly superior to the one that the albums they listen to was recorded on and mixed from. Now that's good marketing.
@@asor8037 Interesting....Thanks for the history. I'm now interested and intrigued. Your comment about "The Nightfly" album is an old but, to my ears excellent recording! I'll be giving it a go again - my vinyl's in great shape. I've always thought that recording to be incredibly precise. I never thought of it as "cold" or "sterile". I let my ears judge. Thanks
Great presentation, Tony. You convinced me that CD's have a better sound without offending my love for my 55 year collection of over 1400 vinyl records!
Yes, vinyl is still better than CDs.
Cds Rule
Sound quality is a subjective matter. Your ears will tell you what kind your prefer, and wont need someone else to tell you what you should like.
The CD is noise while vinyl is quite 😂
And yet when I play an LP and a CD of the same recording everyone says how much more depth the vinyl has
What I have found as a new experience with vinyl is that I feel I need to most-likely spend a lot more than I would want to get the sound quality I achieve with my digital setup. I have about a 20K digital setup excluding the amplifier and I spent roughly 3500 on a vinyl setup and I don’t feel it sounds “better” in any way, different definitely but, not better. Turntables of quality are EXPENSIVE, cartridges of quality are EXPENSIVE then you need a capable phono pre-amp for usually that moving coil cartridge to get it up to snuff.
@guillermomartin8248 3500 for a turntable set up sounds wildly expensive. A second hand SL-1200 can be had for $500 and turntables doesn't get much better than that. A good Technics direct drive is basically just as good as the cutting machine, so while there are better speced spinners out there it really don't matter in practice. Also, you're right. A $50 CD-player easily beats the best/most expensive vinyl rig on the planet when it comes to fidelity.
@felixfranzen7318 I recently took an almost 30 year old Technics SL-QD2 turntable out of the closet. Took me some time to get the tonearm to behave correctly, but I finally did. Put on a new stylus on the original Shure cartridge. As all my albums are in terrible shape, I ordered the Beatles white album, remastered in stereo. It sounded fantastic! I forgot what it was like to handle an LP, clean it, brush the stylus, cue the tonearm. It's a very tactile experience. Does it sound better than cd? No. Does it sound different in a way I like? Definitely. My next album is a remastered Aqualung.
You need to spend $1200 on a pre-amp RIAA, then $1000 on your stylus, and $1000 on a good turntable. THEN you can enjoy your records.
Opon this, I have about $30000 in speakers including its poweramps. Can play stereo and surround, though. If you people sit with inexpensive simple gear in a small square flat, please, just STFU.
I remember getting my first cd player on Christmas at a very young age. I was no audiophile but upon playing Steve Winwoods "Back in the Highlife" couldn't help but notice and commented on how digital sounded hollow to my then young ears. Regardless, I still considered cds superior and replaced many of my albums with cds and gave away my 500 vinyl album collection to a dj kid at work. I hugely regret that move and got back into vinyl a little while ago and although I enjoy it I'd forgotten how incredibly fragile and inconsistent vinyl can be. With the new dacs today and convenience of streaming digital is better than ever but for certain favorite predigital bands like Zeppelin I do prefer album or especially reel to reel tape and it has a smoothness and naturalness digital can only begin to match with the best of dacs. Vintage equipment including turntables amps etc. were much better quality and is likely where people get that warm sound description. I went down a rabbit hole when I got back into music trying to rcapture what I remembered from my youth. The secret is warm. powerful vintage equipment and big speakers. Next level is tubes, class A amplification, horns etc. They had it right in 60s and 70s. Digital era effed up the great sound with earbuds, mp3s, and loudness wars dynamic range compression. Lots of old albums sound better simply because the recordings were made from fresher master tapes. Reel to Reel is the original and best if you want to thoeretical like this guy but in reality were limited by cheap mass production and unless you like classical you can't hear what it can really do. Unfortunately, rock music and even the Beatles wasn't taken serously like classical and so didn't get as careful production. So funny given the popularity but how it was back in 50s snd 60s, 70s.
Early CDs sometimes sounded "hollow" or "tinny" compared to the vinyl LPs they replaced, because they often weren't properly mastered to CD and because the CD playback equipment wasn't as good as it is now. High quality DACs are prevalent and affordable today. If CDs are properly mastered, even from older analog tapes, they will blow away the sound quality of vinyl LPs, if the CD is played via a decent DAC.
Unfortunately, even some remasters of CDs today are pretty bad. You mentioned The Beatles, it's sad that Giles Martin is currently in charge of remixing and remastering The Beatles catalog. The work he's done sounds like garbage to me, very harsh and off-putting. Just because he's the son of the great George Martin doesn't mean he should touch (and distort) The Beatles' recordings. Yet you can have a good remix of Beatles songs, the best example being the Yellow Submarine Songtrack (not Soundtrack), this remix was done by Peter Cobbin and it improves the original sound quality without trying to sound like "modern music".
Well done, Tony. You've pointed out enough facts about the advantages of the CD format, so as to point out the illogical choice of going with vinyl. Nostalgia is vinyl's biggest selling point.
Nostalgia and the damn LOUDNESS WAR MASTERING on compact discs !! And that crap is still far away from being over !!
@@lucalone Yes, indeed: Loudness wars. It's just so absurd. But, you know who is driving this loudness war: The consumer. Musically ignorant consumers, really feel the beat, first. If the beat is loud then they percieve it as attractive. Most people respond in a sensory way first, and an intellectual way second. Adding to this is, the customer doesn't want to become more sophisticated in his listening skills. They simply want something that they can wiggle their a$$es to, or sing along with, or both. The bar is low (hence The Rolling Stones.) Dynamics in music, with lots of current pop music seems to be a lost concept. Record companies are in the business of making money, not really selling art (unless both of these happen to coincide.) This is different, to some degree, when actual musicians, were the executives of record companies. Louder CDs simply sell. And that's good enough for the record company execs and those who follow their ways.
@@KenTeel You can buy fairly cheap CDs from the late 80's and thru the 90's that aren't brick wall mastered. Yes in new releases digital is often inferior to vinyl due to the crazy watering that has become standard. I refer the sound of CD myself.
@@ChrisWhittenMusic OK, Chris, thanks for the response. This is timely. A friend of mine told me that my recordings are clear as a bell. I thought: No way. Then I strapped on a pair of Sony 7506 headphones, and sure enough, the recording that he referred to is very clear. It's the limitation of my multimedia speakers that was adding some distortion I have recently auto mastered some of my stuff through a computer based mastering service. I'm comming to the conclusion that mastering is required to make up for the inefficiencies of people car stereos, living room stereos, etc. My recording sounded better, after mastering, only because of the limitation of my speakers. Through good headphones, the unmastered sounded better. I mastered at -15 LUF in order to leave plenty of headroom for dynamics. I'm not into the volume wars, either.
If brick and mortar stores refuse to stock CDs and stubbornly just sell vinyl, more people are forced to buy the garbage because THEY HAVE NO CHOICE. ITS ALSO THE MUSIC INDUSTRY BEHIND THIS SHIT.
I put a record under my USB microscope. It was very interesting to see the dust. I used Elmer's glue to remove the dust. It worked well. I also noticed that the bass notes moved the track perfectly side to side which I soon realized means that the bass is mono on a record. The groove depth only changes a very very tiny amount that my microscope can't really resolve but the side to side motion is large from the bass. Between the mono bass, the constant surface noise and the compression required to make the needle stay tracking and not jumping over the grooves records are far from CD for fidelity, but they are kind of fun to own and play. I have been studying how a stylus tracks a record groove for several weeks. It is interesting to note that different parts of the stylus edge contact the record surface as slopes down, goes flat or goes up, effectively causing phase shifts or jitter. It is apparent that just the stylus tracking the groove is responsible for distortion levels reaching 5% or more at then end of a record at higher frequencies.
Thanks. You have covered all the aspects in the comparison.
I was one of those musician, producers in NYC who was front and center to the DIY revolution. I remember personally walking my physical DAT and CD masters to your place in Chelsea. My personal projects are still distributed by CD Baby to this day.
Speaking as a lifetime producer of music and a man of a certain age, I think the most important point of your video was the last one. The nostalgia of original vinyl is unparalleled. And even though there has been a resurgence of attention to vinyl, It’s not something that younger generations have the capacity to truly appreciate. Most younger people are simply following the herd of contemporary vinyl culture. And once someone adopts a certain belief it’s difficult to explain anything that challenges their bias. That goes for people of any age.
My most recent quest has been to acquire original pressings of the albums that I think defined my musical foundation and trajectory. A very short list. I’m also fantasizing about finding an original console to play them on the way that I did in the 70’s. And of course the albums prominently displayed on my walls where anyone can pick them up and appreciate the album artwork.
That being said, All of your points were laid out in a clear, cogent manor. And I’m quite certain you did not need to caveat your qualifications. There is no arguing the facts and to a lessor degree the subjectivity of perception.
Thanks for the video.
Thanks much Tony; this confirmed what I have believed because my ears told me so. It's great to have the technical facts to support our preferences. Your video greatly appreciated!
He doesn't know anything and skips many important stages.
Digital sound is superior to Analog in every way.
Funny when original digital recording sound is converted into vinyl and then "vinyl audiophiles" claim that it sounds superior.
I don't even mention noise, cracks and pops of vinyl. Vinyl was re introduced by Corporations to prevent piracy and some "audiophiles" swallowed the bait. CD costs say 10£ and vinyl £30- and more and that's the secret of good salesman...
Is the weather warm up on your soap box ?? What a blow hard.😅
Vinyl can easily go to 60KHz modulation for 4 channels of sound CDs are limited to 20KHz
I think the drum cymbals sound horrible on digital
@@MichaelBraid-xf3dw but you wouldn't be able to hear that, would you?
@meindertsprang7491 without looking through the whole thread I assume you referring to the 60khz is the carrier for the sound that has been de modulated to extract the sound to give the four channels of sound
For me it is Compact Disc for the sound, vinyl records for the ritual. Both formats are nostalgic to me.
Vinyl is actually good for nothing, btw don't call it vinyl record it's just vinyl
@@mafi211
There's nothing wrong calling vinyl records the vinyl records dude .. after all the vinyl is the kind of the material , by my opinion vinyl reord is a completed phrase than just vinyl .
Anyway have a happy new year and happy listenings .
I hear lots of folks talk about the “ritual” around playing a record that adds to the experience and make records better than CDs.
I sheepishly admit, i don’t understand to what this refers.
If this means the action of playing a record (this is what i assume is referred to), then how does that differ from the ritual playing a CD?
Would be glad to hear your thought on what the ritual means and what makes it special.
@@mikewinburnwhen they say ritual , they prob mean , putting the vinyl on , wiping and cleaning it down before playing , anti static brush etc. not just putting the lp on
@@Pillitoes- thanks for your insight, partner.
In the 90s, when CDs were a big item, along with audiophile CDs magazines, one could find the disc cleaners, brushes, polishers… practically everything one did with records, it was sold and marketed as valuable for quality listening sessions with C’s as well.
So given your excellent reply, I might venture to guess the “ritual” is the same for both audiophile camps - those with vinyl collections and those with optical collections.
Just seems the vinyl crew weren’t or aren’t aware that the optical crew still maintain the very same ritual.
Vinyl reminds my childhood and today I feel my past while listen to vinyl which CD does not have any emotions attached to. I listen both vinyl and CD but feel better with vinyl. Once I used to listen to cassette and vinyl but again vinyl gave me far more satisfaction than I got from cassette. I understand CDs are far better media but I love vinyl. Thanks.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge, I found this valuable.
Well made points, the vinyl vs CD topics comes from the time when CDs were coming into homes. Then there were AAD, ADD and DDD conversions from vinyl to CD and many CDs sounded bad compared to their vinyl versions ( i.e. Twisted Sister Under the blade ) plus the occasional censorship that is easier to happen in the digital recording. As well said since all studios are digital the ADD/AAD/DDD issue exists anymore
Even if your turntable sounds better than CDs, keeping it clean, working correctly isn’t worth it. CDs and high quality digital files are so much easier to keep going without issues. I remember my dad getting our first CD player. It made him so happy. He hated vinyl with a passion. Lol.
Just how dirty do you think turntables get? Do you think turntable is a synonym for dinner table?
your digital theory at 6:34 is *wrong* . The reconstruction filter of a digital-analog converter reconstructs the smooth analog waveform precisely, right up to the bandwidth of half of the sample rate (ie:, 22.05 kHz for CD at 44.1kHz). This filtering is also far better (less harsh) than in the early days of CD. The clocking at the A-D converter (timing of the 44.1k samples) also is far improved, as is jitter at laser beam recorder at the CD plant when making the Glass Master. Done properly, CD is also dithered to prevent quantization distortion.
Exactly. So much wrong in this video.
Well said! 6:30 correcting a misconception: Digitally sampled analog sound is a series of point values x_i at each sampling time t_i. The DAC does not convert these values into a stair step analog signal. It's not like a pixelated digital image. The DAC converts the data into a completely smooth signal just like the input. The stair step visualization of digital data is erroneous and is better represented as a "lolliop" style diagram. Monty Montgomery from made an excellent video illustrating the D/A to A/D process.
Indeed! I wrote a similar comment and then proceeded to read other comments, I could have saved me some time...
@@tmjcbs I've done that more than once!
@@tmjcbs I'm seeming to run into these [this'] lately. I went ahead and responded this evening. Not sure.. would doing a link to Montie's 'Digital show and tell' be poor form?
And the DAC still has a long way to go.
Excellent tutorial, full of useful (and critical) information. Thanks for sharing ! I have been an audio enthusiast for over 55 years, and still embrace (and regularly use) a number of formats. Vinyl, CD, reel-to-reel, and even cassettes each have their own charm. I have lots of Redbook CDs as well as a few Chesky recordings, which are outstanding. Same thing with vinyl, the recent "super-premium" LPs like MoFi`s One-Step and the UHQR offerings have raised the bar (and the price !) quite a bit. We are fortunate to have an abundance of good source material available to us.
Currently listening to: Alan Parsons Project "I Robot" on CD, great album, excellent SQ.
Hi Tony I am so glad to have came across your wonderful presentation of CD V Vinyl. I am just about to delve back into to the rabbit hole of home music systems and formats. Ive not played vinyl for over 30 years, then had a decent collection of CDs, and recent times inhabited the Dark Side of streaming. I've recently been researching the latest turntables amplifiers...???? speakers etc. I was always under the impression that record always beat CD sound quality hands down !!! I also loved the look of some of the striking turntables available, but as I thought more of practical differences .... storage , PRICE etc I'm so glad that I have watched your video. CDs will suffice for my untrained but appreciative ear. Many thanks for sorting me out. 😀😀
My friend spent on HIFI line, he spent about 300-600 USD per unit on Streamer, turntable, speaker, DAC, amplifier... He has new and old pressed records. We listened to the records, they sounded nice, but the sound was still not the real thing, I thought that the speaker was the weak link When I switched to the Streamer, we listened to music from Tidal, everything that was missing until then appeared, as if the whole system had changed, there was a dynamic , life, deep voice.
Thank you for the nicely collected thoughts!
I’m back into vinyl after chasing the digital carrot for 35 years.
Music is back in my life like being a teenager again.
This is no surprise to me as CDs and other low quality digital files do not include the ultrasonic frequencies that are emitted by musical instruments. Vinyl does include those frequencies which have been shown to be important.
Everyone has an opinion which is better vinyl or CD. Everyone can have their own opinion but actually the best quality will always be reel to reel despite how ridiculously expensive the tapes are ($400 for a 50 year old Kiss album recently on eBay. That is just nuts.)
@@dtz1000😂😂😂 Ya gotta love sarcasm!
@@djshineboy Where's the sarcasm?
@@dtz1000 I don’t even go there 😂 Vinyl vs CD is like Android vs Apple…
What I take from this is that CD sounds better in theory, and that would probably hold true in reality if the music industry didn't brickwall most of their CD masterings and kill all the dynamics "by choice". So it really comes down to the mastering. A CD that is mastered in the 'old' way, retaining dynamics, should be able to better vinyl most of the time, but we don't live in that world.
What is the value of CD having the capability of more dynamic range if the manufacturer "chooses" to compress it all away before selling us the CD? The volume/groove limitations of the vinyl format forces them to make a different choice and re-imposes some sanity back on to the mastering. So for many albums, if you want to hear some space and dynamics in the music, and not have everything loud and in your face at all times, you have to hear it on vinyl.
Classical CDs are usually mastered well with good dynamics, other genres tend to be hit or miss, and some almost always miss. So whether a CD or vinyl will sound better in reality will in the end depend mostly on the mastering more than the theoretical advantages or disadvantages of the formats.
Also I always thought the "analog warmth" idea had a lot to do with the noise floor. Having that little bit of constant 'white noise' underneath everything either from surface noise or tape hiss has the tendency to soften the edges of everything just a little bit even if you can't hear the noise directly when the music is playing. And that can be perceived as having a warmer sound, while digital audio with no noise floor can leave every edge exposed and seem to sound more harsh or 'cold'.
Amen! You are the 1% sane people in this commentary field.
I am almost 61 now, and bought a great turntable some 5 years ago after only listening to digital since 1990. Reason: It brings me back to my younger days. Pure nostalgy. Vinyl can never beat high quality digital audio when you have a good DAC. Spending several thousands of dollars on an "exclusive" turntable and pick-up cartridge is nothing but madness.
Aside from what you’ve mentioned, Tony, you’ve got the individual’s ‘listening ability’ for lack of a better term. As I have learned to hear more details in audio reproduction, I notice things now that I didn’t when I started listening to music. I think this adds to someone’s preferences which, as you’ve mentioned, figures into what format a person prefers. Well presented as always. Thanks!
True, though that probably applies equally to records and CDs. Another thing I didn’t delve deeply into is the social aspect of listening. Listening to vinyl records, with the ritual of sliding the record out of the jacket and the sleeve, placing it on the turntable, dropping the stylus, and flipping the record over after 20 minutes, had become almost a tiny bit of performance art while hanging with friends. This is perhaps one of the most fun and engaging parts of listening to records.
@@tonyvv : Yes, the album jacket perusal is one thing I miss the most. That was a standard activity for me with new records. I’d read everything on the jacket while listening for the first time. One of the items in my ritual (which I don’t miss at all) was getting out my Discwasher brush & fluid to clean the vinyl before each play. This started in tandem with my Audio magazine subscription. They had one particular article about what happens to the vinyl when played which was co-authored with Audio Technical. I never played an album after that without cleaning it.😀
Tony somehow when I listen to vinyls of music recorded in 70’s and early 80’s they sound better on Vinyl than CDs than the music recorded nowadays on Vinyl. What you think?
Quite possible. For starters it’s a 100% analog production, from multi-tracking to your turntable. Plus, maybe, the nostalgia factor of those old records?
I don't know why someone would chase the "analog" sound when:
All the vinyl releases after 1980 done by major mastering facilities, were using Vinyl cutting gear with pre-listen Head (like Studer A80 or Neumann VMS-80).
This means the signal was converted to digital and back to analog. So, after this year, no more 100% analog releases.
And last, but not least, so many famous albums were recorded on digital machines (like Sony PCM 3324 launched in 1982), then digitally mastered, just to be pressed on vinyl.
I don't think that is entirely true because I saw someone on UA-cam measiring the frequency response of a vinyl record made after 1980 and it was showing a frequency response of up to 60khz. That is way beyond what a CD can do.
on some vocal jazz albums that pre-echo is absolute magical sounding.
Only the control signal for spacing the grooves is driven by the digitized audio. The audio is recorded analog from the master tape.
@@cjay2 I believe these guys know what they're talking about >
I can't post websites links on this channel, but you can read the entire article called Around the World in 80 Lathes, Part Three on
PS audio website
blogs/copper/around-the-world-in-80-lathes-part-three
There are many resources on the web saying same thing
@@cjay2 I believe these guys know what they're talking about >
I can't post websites links on this channel because they get deleted, but you can read the entire article called Around the World in 80 Lathes, Part Three on PS audio website.
There are many resources on the web saying same thing.
Tony, your presentation here is excellently done and accurate. Adding my two-cents, perhaps the warmth listeners sense is the noise floor of the vinyl. Or, maybe listener opinion of a song played on vinyl may also be colored by the "warm" blank sound after needle drop and prior to song. That "floor" is maintained mentally throughout the music. Idk, just a thought.
this video was very informative, thank you for uploading!
This is excellently and irrefutably presented, Mr van Veen, thank you. I have and still will occasionally purchase vinyl but digital is how I record and release music and it is undeniably the more robust medium. I sure do love full size vinyl album covers, tho, a big part of collecting music has gone missing since there is no need for the kind of artistic presentation album design used to offer.
Very good video. A few additional points.
1) Vinyl also has a limited dynamic range because the loudest sounds are limited too. You mentioned that. What you didn't say is that vinyl can only reach its maximum dynamic range on the outer grooves of the record. The inner groove can have 15 dB less dynamic range than the outer groove. Because this variation is clearly audible, the engineer has to compress the outer grooves to match the poor dynamic range inner grooves so there isn't a huge difference across the record.
2) Vinyl has worse stereo separation. It's not possible to completely separate the L and R channel with vinyl because movement of the stylus in one direction can't be completely isolated from movement in the other directions. Some people think this muddying of L/R is what accounts for the vinyl sound.
3) There's room vibration feedback to a vinyl turntable requiring it to be isolated from the room. That chest-thumping bass also will vibrate the turntable which will be picked up by the stylus muddying the bass. Some try to isolate their turntables with vibration damping feet but those aren't perfect. I've actually heard of people that place their turntable on a pedestal that goes through the floor to the ground below without having any contact with the floor (which vibrates). CD players aren't affected by the level of vibration that will mess with a turntable.
4) CDs don't play the 1's and 0's, they convert the digital information to a smooth analog output. 44 kHz was selected on purpose as it contains enough information to accurately reproduce a smooth analog output at 20 kHz - the highest frequency that most people can hear.
Thank you. Good points. Most recording engineers do not limit the outer tracks to 15 db. That is why the outer tracks will almost always sound better and inner tracks are usually chosen to contain quieter songs.
@@rft2001 I didn't say that the outer tracks are limited to 15 dB. I said the inner tracks have 15 dB less dynamic range. While the outer tracks can have 70 dB, the inner can only have ~55 dB. That's why vinyl recordings typically have ~55 dB across the record, not 70 dB. You don't have to turn up the volume on the inner tracks that way.
@@markmeridian3360 Yes, I stated that wrong. Of course, they are not limited to 15 db. That would be crazy.
Great video, Tony! Very informative.
There are two other issues with vinyl that hardly gets mentioned:
1) RIAA curve: to prevent the stylus from jumping out of the groove, an equalizer is applied, following a strictly defined RIAA curve, which attenuates lower frequencies and emphasizes higher frequencies. The preamp following the player has the opposite curve to correct things to the original frequency response. However, attenuating lower frequencies automatically means reducing the dynamic range even further. On playback, the opposite RIAA curve ensures more gain for lower frequencies, thus also increading low frequency noise and rumble from the drive motor.
Also, component tolerances in the playback preamps cause a less than perfect representation of the RIAA equaliziation curve and thus changes the sonic contents.
2) Playing back a digital signal from a CD results in the exact voltage of that binary/digital sample value. Playing back the groove on a vinyl record however, results in a mathematical derivative of the groove shape. This is because the moving coil or magnet only produces an output voltage when it moves. It produces 0V at the peak of the stylus excursion and maximum voltage when the stylus passes the "zero crossing" of the groove.
So, the resulting output voltage of the cartridge is always 90º phase shifted on all frequencies at all times.
This implies that when the master is cut, the same process and phase shift must be applied. So there are two phase shifts in the entire process from master tape to what goes in your amplifier which, ideally, should be exactly the same. This cannot be guaranteed ever because on playback, this behaviour and its corresponding frequency curve (high pass) heavily depends on the mass and stiffness of the tone arm.
Also, this derivative limits the low end of the spectrum because it cannot output a DC voltage, whereas a CD theoretically could. In practise, the low end is purely determined by the capacitors in the total audio chain from mastering to listenig. But CD's can go far lower than vinyl can.
The fact that the debate over whether vinyl or CD's sound better has been going on since CD's came out and is still going on is proof in itself that Vinyl is not superior as the vinyl collectors want you to believe. My conclusion is the regardless of weather you think cd's or vinyl is superior the sound is in ears of the beholder.
I play my remaining CD's on my Sony DVP-S7000 which sits alongside my home-built Tubeamp and an old TEAC TN400 turntable from 1973. All in exceptional working order.
2nd-3rd harmonic distortion on vinyl adds to the lovely colourations and most vinyl LP production is mastered on digital processing, so this in the purest sense isn't derived from analog.
I've been working with audio most of my professional career and have a technical engineering background. You've spoken total truth in your video and I think most reasonable people will agree with it. Kudos for a thoughtful and thorough explanation of a volatile topic. I have a Cambridge Audio 851C and use it only as a DAC, using the windows drivers from CA. The sound is far superior to my Sansui SR939 table with a Grado Gold cartridge, and an AR preamp.
The attraction of an LP record, is similar to the attraction old European, whimsical classic cars have for collectors. There is a greater sense of thrill when the car or motorcycle, which requires special handling and care, finally delivers its ride. Same with the LP, it delivers the sound. Why not just play CDs as they last forever, never wear out, are convenient and deliver far superior dynamics? Probably because there is little involvement in the process of playing one. An LP requires your attention as the play time is about 20-25 minutes while a CD you can play the full 80 minutes as background music. I collect both, and love them equally, but there are more variants of the sound in an LP than from a CD. I believe suitcase record players are crap and that people who are into vinyl should make an effort to buy the best components they can afford, but not to the ridiculous ends I see with turntables costing more than a house, a toneram as much as a car, and a cartridge as much as a motorcycle. I've been to HiFi shows and though the equipment is impressive, I don't think the marginal improvement in playing a record is worth cracking my 401K or mortgaging my house.
I agree! If the CD required as much tweaking as an LP audiophiles would like it more!
People like Michael Fremer of The Tracking Angle are nuts to spend $10K to $200K on LP playback. $1000 gets you an excellent turntable/cartridge (Pioneer PLX1000 and a Denon 103R). Add another $150 for a Schiit Mani 2 phono stage and you will have excellent LP playback. I have the PLX1000 and the Denon 103R. I use an RGR 4 preamp with its phono stage plus a step-up (SUT) transformer to boost the very small voltage from the Denon 103R moving coil cartridge (.3 mv).
Thank you for settling it. This is a technological difference Analog vs Digital
My favourite element of vinyl is cover art.
I've been digital since 86. The only albums I own are for wall art, or ones that were never made available digitally.
For me it’s the hunting, finding , hearing and looking at an old album on vinyl.
The problem with the cover art for vinyl is that many used records you look at have ringwear on the cover.
Pure crap. CD's give you multi page booklets with far more detail than I ever get even with a Gatefold vinyl cover.
That's why I haven't bought into the vinyl revival. The last vinyl album I bought must have been around 1988. Since I got my first CD player, I never looked back. The only very few vinyl records I have bought in these last decades have been stuff that was never available on CD.
I’ll take a laser reading a cd flawlessly over a needle being dragged across vinyl, picking up the sound of every speck of dust that may lay in its path, any day.
It's not flawless if it doesn't include the ultrasonic frequencies that are emitted by real musical instruments. That's why CD was flawed from the beginning. It doesn't include those frequencies, but vinyl does.
@@dtz1000no need for ultrasonics, you're not a whale. Any feedback from those ultrasonics that find its way back into the frequency range we can hear should be there from the mixing process.
@emilspec1227 if you could hear them they'd annoy the crap out of you. It would be as enjoyable as a dog hearing a high frequency whistle.
Do you have bats that listen to CDs?
You don't know much about vinyl cutting and its craft, @danmoss388 And do not respond. It is hopeless to get you people to understand the difference.
I often thought of the "analog warmth" as something sounding really good specially in the ears of prog or psychedelic rock. A Moog synth or an electric guitar with a lamp based effects pedal will sound at home on an LP with a good old heat inducing lamp. But what about a quiet piano peace by Chopin? Does it need more "analog warmth"? I don't think so.
When I debate about the subject with friends, I always try to separate the question of "best sounding" from the question of "more faithfully" sounding. Two different topics.
Thanks for your videos Tony
I was a record collector and had thousands of albums & 45’s. I didn’t care for tape or CD but I did own 200 CDs. I had a party one night to compare CD against vinyl. I had a beautiful 350w per channel Phase Linear system with amp, preamp and speakers along with subwoofer (2-12” woofer)
I was going to show everyone the vinyl was the greatest. I lost but I will always love vinyl.
Guys, I love Vinyl for a reason. I love digital reproduction for anther. I am just unable to listen to MP3 music or FLAC. My heaven is WAV format. I miss cassetes because of the mixes you can make. I loved Chrome tapes more than metal. I pressed Dolby B during recording and unpressed it on playback. Dont care about the hiss but sounded beautiful. For some reasons, I used to like AAD CDs much more than DDD. No explanation!
I love my reel tapes, cassettes, mini discs, 8-tracks, 78's, 33's, 45's, and CDs. I also stream music! They all have good and bad aspects - but I must say my CDs sound the same today as they did when I first started buying them in 1984. "Born in The USA" and "Elvis' Golden Records" sound as PERFECT in 2024 as they did in late 1984! 40 years!?? Now I feel really old. . . . .
Analogue is for LP’s, digital is for high resolution streaming or downloads
When CDs were fairly new, we did a test with my fairly modest Philips CD610 (a 16 bit player) and a very expensive Rega Planar 3 owned by my friend. Same amp and speakers, same albums, just using the amp's input selector to swap between sources.. Even he had to conclude that the vinyl wasn't better. It sounded different (possibly due to the physical unamplified sound from the stylus adding a tinniness; the CD was clearly warmer.
And you compared the exact same album release of that CD and vinyl record? If not, makes no sense.
Regarding the part about "analog warmth" and how analog signals are smooth and digital are "ones and zeroes that can't replicate the smoothness of the analog signal".
This is a myth based on a misunderstanding of how DACs work. When a digital signal is converted to an analig signal (so your speakers can play them) they do in fact replicste the smoothness of the analog source perfectly. This is something Shannon prooved with the "sampling theorem" back in the 40's. But the mathematics behind it are not that easy to follow so I think you typically don't bunp into it unless you take university level math classes. (Point being, few people actually see this in school.)
The limitation you have is that you have is that your sample frequency needs to be at least twice that of the signal you are recording. Otherwise you get artifacts. But as long as you filter out hugher frequencies before you get a perfect reproduction.
Personally I think the biggest failing we have in modern digital storefronts for music is that we don't have the option of multiple masters of the music. Its really the mastering that makes a difference. And these days there's nothing really stopping us from having multiple versions of the same song. So you can have one master with loudness when you are going for a walk or in your car, and a different master for when you're at home.
I am one pf those who prefer the sound of a CD over that of vinyl because of clarity and purity. My vinyl collection is mostly from albums I fail to find on CD or records from my childhood that bring back nostalgia. I am already working on converting all my vinyl records to digital WAV files for preservation. The only thing I can confirm about the difference in DACs inside a CD player is that newer DACs are generally much better sounding than older ones. For example, playing the same discs on my Sony Blu-ray player offers much more clarity and separation than playing the same discs on my Pioneer LD Player from the 90s', and playing the same discs on my Denon CD changer as a transport while using the DAC on my 2013 HK 171 AVR or 2020 RZ50 Onkyo sounds even better.
Why does no one ever say that vinyl can sound as cold and lifeless as a CD? I have many examples of this in my collection. Also, what many hardcore vinyl-lovers never mention is the cartridge/stylus, which has a huge impact on what the vinyl will sound like. They never seem to tell you what they are working with. I also submit that if you think vinyl sounds warmer, whatever that means, you are actually hearing the surface noise and probably some element of the turntable. Tony does mention this.
Mastering play the key role. Nowadays in old remastered vinyls make normalisation in waveform and cut many peaks, they have much loudness at 98-99db and hard bass, closed sound comparing to the original old vinyls. And they cost around 50 dollars or euros, each vinyl.
Some great points raised here about vinyl's shortcomings.
For me it's all about the Music so I collect music in Vinyl, CD and Flac formats.
Vinyl alone doesn't satisfy my huge appetite for a huge collection. It's usually old good for old music we are tired of. I want old and recent music.
@@georgebertozzi8267 Same here. I collect vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A, HDAD, Bluray Audio.....and I enjoy ALL OF THE FORMATS. But what makes a great disc is the production put into the recording itself. Garbage in.....garbage out.
@@platterjockey so sad too hear your experience and that's exactly what I mentioned earlier in my comments. Actually most of the people now lack real knowledge about this format and end up getting the wrong experience and wrong equipments. To cut it short y r better with streaming than records and cd with all bad equipments and wrong.adjustments.
@@saikatbose8370 You misunderstand: I grew up in the vinyl age. And, I am well aware of how good vinyl can sound. I'm just saying that so much of it - average vinyl releases, especially from the 80s, sound cold and lifeless.
that point there 7:30.. they press vinyl only from digital matrix's nowadays, made me give up and embrace digital years ago... at least i go for flac from cd.. mostly
Thank you for your detailed analysis. Human beings often rely on the phenomenon of "confirmation bias", which would be holding pre-conceived notions of how something "ought to be" and then mentally "confirming" that expectation while actually experiencing something, such as playback of a vinyl LP record. Speaking of this, a major anniversary in the industry occurred earlier this year which was ignored by the vinyl LP industry: June marked the 75th anniversary of the vinyl LP record! I think a few veteran album collectors were aware of this historic anniversary, but the industry apparently was not. Go figure!
Actually, dynamic range is the range between the sound of the noise floor and the loudest possible sound that can be played back without distortion.
And both vinyl and CD have a noise floor. Vinyl has about 50dB dynamic range, and CDs have about 96dB. 7:00
And the CD usually only use 5% of that dynamic range. It is hilarious.
@@rabarebra That's not my experience of listening to classical music on CD. Many CDs have a very wide dynamic range.
@@socialite1283 Classical music yes. But are we mainly talking about classical music here? Go check all popular releases today, not to mention good old bands or artist - they all think compression needs to be there.
I own both CD and vinyl when it comes to classical music. I tend to listen to my old original Decca SXL classical vinyl records. Nothing tops them.
@@socialite1283 And. my old 60s SXL Decca's is good taken care of. No misuse using a cheap turntable. No pops or fireplace background sounds. Those vinyl records where something - what a quality piece of vinyl they are.
@@socialite1283 Also, I always listen to death metal on vinyl. And Opera. What's your favourite death metal album and opera classical album?
It's like asking: which sounds better, a "clean" guitar sound or a "distorted" guitar sound? The answer is "whichever one you like."
If the question is: "which sounds MORE ACCURATE, then CD, without question, wins 100% of the time, by a wide margin.
Very concise and clear cut explanation. Wait, this was delivered digitally! Waiting for VHS version! Thank you! ;~)
Well explained, thank you. Now I don't have to argue anymore, just send a link to your video. The secret is to multitrack in Pro Tools (or whatever), and mix down to an analog one inch two track. You didn't kill yourself (and wear out the tape) doing analog multitrack, and have a big transient analog 2 track mix to make a CD from. Another gem for sound quality with CDs ids HDCD.
I use a Maverick Tube DAC, which adds some 'warmth' back in. Either my direct CD or Lossless cuts sound great. I feed this into my SONOS system. works for me. Great Video
I am a product of the 70s and i was a venyl player operator at a young age of 5 , love the 45s back then. Cassette, and Cd came soon and was a hit. Yes i believe nostalgia is the reason we love sticking to antiquated technology etc.
I prefer the sound of CDs over vinyl! I also prefer to own my favorite music rather than stream it! I also like how I can find the original recordings on CD where digital downloads & streaming only offer remastered versions or remixed! I also do not like how they can remove certain albums or an entire catalog without warning! That’s where ownership comes into being a huge factor! Plus I believe in supporting the artist over the platform! A band will make more from one CD sale than they can from a weeks worth of streaming/downloading!
Actually the dynamic range of a CD is even higher than 96dB because of the dithering used in most recordings. Ah yes - there are no digital stairsteps .... not even in theory. There is only digital dirac pulses and smooth analog output after the reconstruction filter. The filter quality however may influence the perceived quality - for people being able to hear in the 20kHz range ;-)
I love analog sound, it relax me.
Except for the surface noise, skips and scratches. You also need to have a good-to-great turntable and cartridge and you have to contend with wow and flutter and rumble, especially with belt driven turntables. Tone arms eere always a comprmise, with the exception of a few like the Garrard Z1000.
Well, I like vinyl, cd, streaming, cassettes, DVD-Audio, and SACD. I’m not really concerned about stats and all that stuff. I simply spend my time enjoying listening to music, not looking for flaws. I do have a high end system however which helps. Great video by the way.
I spent $75,000 on my turntable. I gotta tell you all the crackles and pops sound amazingly clear now.
What a complete waste of money!!
Yep! All that dosh to spin a bit of noisy plastic.
I think he is joking guys.
🤣🤣🤣
Baited
All depends of the recording and the music. Can be hard to find a recording for comparison vinyl and CD remastered. I did a comparison with the orginal direct to dish Discovered Again with Dave Grusin and sheffield Lab from1976. The CD was from Lim 24-bit Super Analog Sound and Japan (Lim XR-002 and JVC recording, both from the orginal analog mastertape. The LP Sheffield Lab-5 SL 19/20(sound Labs). Was with my friend and Gyrphone Ethos CD player and Lyra Kleos catridge on a Mitchell turntable. Can hear more ''analog'' noice from the recording in US with the CD, than the LP with surface noice and higher noicefloor. Cd has a bigger dynamic range than the LP, but the analog LP recording had a more airy soundstage and more weight on the percussion and bassdrum. The cybals had another and more natural sound and sustain in the soundstage too. Like both media (digital and analog). It's a german pressing on the D-D LP recording.
I'm sure you're right about the advantages of digital recording. When it comes right down to it though, I often prefer to dig out one of my LPs and give it a spin. You can compare this to the Japanese tea ceremony, in that there are a lot of actions around playing a record (that is, if you want to keep it in good condition), and a lot of associated parts, like the cover and liner notes. I'm not using a high-end turntable, but it and the cartridge mounted are adequate for enjoyable listening without excessive wear - that's 'enjoyable' as I perceive it. When I have less time or am just using music as a background, I'll throw on a CD or streamer. My choice often comes down to which version of a recording I have available. The quality of the original recording and the approach to duplication are probably big factors in the final sound of either media. I've purchased CDs that were absolutely awful, but the same can be said of some LP pressings too.
Yeah I love the ritual of playing a vinyl record too.
Measurements years ago suggest that the “warmth” in analog string sound comes largely from intermodulation distortion.
@ So it will sound 20 times better because it picks up intermodulation distortion?
@@steve-4045 Plus how the lacquer is cut for THAT vinyl record. That's why it sounds 20 times better, or maybe a 100 times better, or 1000 zillion times better. You don't understand this, so just STFU.
I remember when cds first came out, how some artists like Yello took total advantage of the new medium. There was no question then. Of course the cd was the beginning of the miniaturization of the album cover and eventual devaluation of music overall, so its easy to understand why people care about vinyl. The recording and mixing and mastering is more important than the format ultimately. Part of why people still look back to the production standards of the mid 70s to 90s as a golden era.
Well buying a CD for £12.99 in 1989 was damn expensive. Compare that to £6.99 for a vinyl lp then.
I found the DAC makes the difference for better play back and using Valve amps to amplify it it gives me the warmth
Being a musician, studio-owner/engineer/producer for over 40 years I can only agree with this. You wont believe how many times I have had these discussions about "vinyl sounding better" etc.
Don't get me wrong, I do understand that many prefer vinyl, usually because they like the compression (somethin they are used to now because it's the "radio-sound") and the harmonic distortion and of course that's a matter of taste. However, I always use the argument that vinyl is a compromise (like you point out very well!), whereas a cd can (!) sound the way it came out of the studio!
So, can vinyl sound better than a cd? Yes, but then the recording on the cd was bad, the mastering wasn't good or whatever else happened. And last, but not least, you can't program an LP! 😉
BTW, I grew up with vinyl, I still have my recordcollection that I started around 1968 (both 45's and 33's) and I've always been careful with them, but I play either the cd's or use flac's on my computer.
I remember the first time one of my productions would be released on cd (around 1986) and finally I heard at home what did in the studio, no compromises!!!!! But, nothing beats the sleeve and the artwork of a great LP!!! 😅
I saved your video, so I can play it the next time! 👌
Sound quality isn't subjective - there really shouldn't be any debate. Vinyl vs. CD isn't even a fair comparison of analog vs digital. Vinyl is HEAVILY flawed as a recording medium. It's insane, to me, that there's even any argument about this. "Loudness wars" aside, CD is vastly superior to even the most insanely expensive vinyl playback system. It's so funny to look back at the "audiophiles" of the 80s, raving about CD, and 40 years later the "audiophiles" are raving about vinyl again. Makes no sense. The "80s Audiophiles" were right...CD blows vinyl out of the water. I certainly don't want any "analog warmth" (distortion!) in my audio! "Audiophiles" talk more nonsense about audio than I can stomach.
Personally, I have Technics SL-1200 mk.5, with an AT 440MLa cartridge - not too shabby - I do still own some records "from my past", and sometimes digitize vinyl for clients (mostly I work in video), but as hard as anyone might try, to overcome the flaws of vinyl, no amount of exotic cables, tonearms, cartridges, etc. will ever beat the sound quality of CD. Fact, not opinion, or "personal preference". Just plain facts. It's funny how nobody raves about "the warmth of analog video". 😂
Well... actually...just as I'm writing that, no "professional" does...but plenty of kids (teens, early 20s) are now shooting on old analog camcorders (Hi8, VHS-C, etc) and then paying me to digitize it for online use!! They actually LIKE the imperfections. Bizarre, but there you go. Prefer analog if you like, that's fine, but for God's sake, audiophiles, stop pretending that it's BETTER! It's not. 🙄
When CDs were first introduced to the market they were more expensive than vinyl albums. Now they are less expensive than vinyl albums.
I love my CD collection and my vinyl collection is packed away in boxes. I no longer have a working turntable.
Thank you for the informative video on the matter.
Case closed in favor of the technically and superior sounding CD. Great video!!!!!
I started in my teens collecting vinyl, however once I switched to CDs there was no turning back, playing CDs in the right gear is far more rewarding than vinyl in comparable gear.
This is the most interesting and informative thing I've watched on YT for a long time. Thanks.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed. 👍
Imagine travelling to a world where instead of CDs we had laserdiscs for digital music. We would 3+ GB of space for high res music and most of the enjoyment and ritual of handling a vinyl.
Old vinyl to me sounds like a live-in studio performance in some aspects, which sounds better to me, but I do know the same album on cd would be so much clearer and crisp on the digital format. Case in point is Year of Sunday by Seals and Crofts.
Thank you, Tony. This helped me decide whether or not to get a turntable. I won't. My chief concern has been with archiving and preservation, and nothing beats digital for that. I would still love to know more about psycho-acoustics, that is, what happens in the brain after the sound wave is converted from mechanical to electric. Something must be compensating for the voids (real silences) between samples. Anyway, I liked this video a lot and will put it in one of my playlists.
I went to a very hi end audio show and vinyl was the dominant source medium.
Vinyls are still cool af though. If you have the money to invest in a turntable setup, it’s still amazing for music lovers. CDs just give you an as good, if not better, music listening experience for a fifth of the price.
There are no "voids" or "silences" between samples. Absolutely ridiculous idea!
Just wanted to say how much I appreciate this "video offering" to those of us wondering what the real differences truly are. Great talk - thanks!
The term analog warmth originally came from tube powered gear that distorts differently it's a more pleasant harmonic type of distortion
That's really a marketing term. Warm isn't an audio term.
@@Scott__C well since you seem to be in the business of correcting people let me correct you warmth is an audio term I'm in the audio business and I hear the word used every single day warm cold hard whatever you want to say East Coast sound West Coast sound blah blah
@@Jonhobbs64 I was a sound engineer for 15 years, I heard them all.
Fantastic! I didn’t know most of what you covered. I always thought the smooth flowing analog signal vs the digital stepped one was the reason for better sound.
In some cases CD will sound better than vinyl. Not always, however. The Adele albums sound better on vinyl than on CD, and that is due to the fact that the person who is responsible for mastering for CD didn't do it right.
I collect mint pressings of older albums that were cut from tape (recorded via analog). I have a high end system as well as a record cleaner with a vacuum. After that I still clean via solvent spray with a felt brush and then use a Furutech Destat III before every play. Sometimes the records have to be cleaned a few times before they're ready to be played. Given all of this, my vinyl plays are usually flawless with no static pops and no noticeable noise, etc (from the seating position). There are only a very few records I have that I will experience that in certain spots. Then it's up to me if I want to buy another copy instead (which I've done). All in all, I feel the playback is really great. Any albums that were recorded digitally, I just stay digital. However, I have a non-oversampling tube R2R dac with vintage chips which helped the digital sound more "natural" and not as harsh/precise as my Delta Sigma based dacs did. That helped a lot (in what I like). All my system components are all tube as well. Really, the ultimate for me would be Reel to Reel for those older albums but a lot of hassle and expense trying to hunt down really good copies (15ips would be the ultimate) from the master tapes, etc. I've seen some safety copies and such, etc. In my system, the quality of the recording is really dependent upon how well it was recorded, generally not at the mercy of CD or Hi-Rez. A higher sample rate of the same recording yields just a bit more of a "natural/analogue/smoother" quality to my ears. If playing a CD I usually upsample it and it sounds "better" for some reason with more clarity. Go figure. LOL. So bottom line = YES digital is EASIEST and CLEANEST in comparison but its all about 1. The original recording (if done originally in analogue) and 2. The ritual and sound of analogue:)
Great vid, but cd's are boring. You dont need much equipment to get a good sound, you can walk out of a record store with one in your coat pocket. Whereas an album comes in its own special bag, you know you have just spent your hard earned money on something physical. Yes i suppose thats called nostalgia but thats part of the attraction. Also buying a turntable and experimenting with different upgrades to get a better sound is part of the joy. I enjoy both media's, including streaming.
However you like it just enjoy your music, its our greatest invention.
great information, clearly presented...thank you!!!
Simple answer: any CD player above $200 sound more fiddle to source than any turntable (even $500,000)!! CD and Vinyl are containers of "source sound".
The CD format was defined thus, no human ear can distinct between source and reproduction. I can also state that even lab will not see a difference since source is filtered before converting to 44.1K.