Vinyl and Digital: How does the sound or listening experience differ?

[M2M]

Rather than argue or debate about which format is better, I would be much more interested in a discussion about how they sound different and why. Many of the analog versus digital discussions are about how one format sounds more and more like the other as it improves, but that does not begin to explain what I consider to be a much more fascinating discussion about their individual sounds. I am not talking about pops and clicks and poor pressings or convenience and access to unlimited streaming. I am also not interested in why people choose what they do. Their choices are theirs and their systems are for them to enjoy.

I would like to know how someone who has both vinyl and digital in the same system would describe the different listening experiences or presentations, and what might cause those differences. I want to avoid a debate about which format individuals think is better. I would like to learn what people actually hear as differences between the formats. We seem to be able to discuss differences between speaker types and amplifier types by pointing out strengths and weaknesses of each without getting into arguments. Some even prefer some speaker types for some genres of music. For amplifiers, it usually comes down to ability to drive speakers, but in both cases, people describe what they actually hear from specific typologies.

I used to visit a good friend who had both high-level vinyl and digital in his system and we would sit around, listen and compare the two formats, often with the same recording on one then on the other and then discuss what we heard. It was always fun and we learned some things for ourselves and from each other. These gatherings were never argumentative or combative.

I would like to try to have such a discussion with the members here and see where it leads us. What differences do we hear, and how do they affect the listening experience?

I have both top units.

Digital Pros: accurate, sound spread equally and perfectly from bottom to the top, not localized at a particular place same as nature sound production, modern, superior resolution, clear no muffle, great definition, able to define frequencies (low, mid, high, …), superior dynamic range and dynamics, accurate timing, composed, musical, potential produce perfect sound production or music instruments like real, able produce thunder bass like explosions, never boring, can be very athletic, very long listening sessions, can be relaxing

Cons: tonal is either complex or out of natural, less complete, slightly difficult to understand or digest or weird and may require some adaptation (but once adapted to its sound, it can be addictive afterward). Sizes and scales are strangely small, either shrinking or compressed like being manipulated. Things nudge together, brightly nosier, can be fatiguing or tiresome. Might cause a person to become a lonely personality. While the best CD remasters sound spectacular in everyway, it's never jaw-dropping! Not all CDs sound to an acceptable level, a poor master will likely be very unenjoyable and many out there. It may require re-mastering in order to bring the sound to an acceptable level and most of my CD collection has gone to this root, but there are very old CDs that sound great without needing a remaster.

Vinyl Pro: a humble experience like down earth, large size and scale, highly musical, immediately engaging, lot air, easy to understand and digest, not complicated or tricky or sophistically manipulated, natural, complete, non-fatigue. Many copies, either old or new, digital or analog, when well pressed they will make a very jaw drop or incredibly impressive. Can make a person more social, open, and happier. All records sound equally good. It's rare to find a copy that sounds bad or requires re-mastering. In fact, even new vinyl remasters which have made great improvements over pre-copies but do not necessarily fix any previous problem, Its unworthy process, can live with un-remastered copies perfectly.

- Cons: less accurate sound production. Most sounds are located in the middle midrange, which gives a warm, pleasing sound but not the same nature sound production, can affect the clarity and definitions. Some LPs don't sound right in terms of differentials between high and low, like there is separation or being equalized electronically, which slightly sounds unappropriated or complex. Moderate dynamics (but it's healthy vs explosive in CDs, which can be very distracting sometimes), less likely able to produce thunder bass like explosion sounds, horrid, sluggish or less athletic, not modern. Old sound production, and many LPs feel “really” outdated, can be inappropriate to listen in these days. May struggle bring music instrument as real life. It can be boring, toward the muffled side, few listening sessions.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Vinyl Pro: a humble experience like down earth, large size and scale, highly musical, immediately engaging, lot air, easy to understand and digest, not complicated or tricky or sophistically manipulated, natural, complete, non-fatigue.

This is what I hear as the sonic advantages of vinyl. These attributes support my personal sonic cues and my personal high-end audio objectives, and so this is why I prefer vinyl over digital.

 

[Atmasphere]

less accurate sound production. Most sounds are located in the middle midrange, which gives a warm, pleasing sound but not the same nature sound production, can affect the clarity and definitions.

How less accurate depends almost entirely on the playback apparatus!

The LPs themselves are remarkably low distortion. This is because for decades, LP recorders (cutting head and associated electronics) employed more feedback than most audio amplifiers did until sometime in the 2000s. This is because the mastering amps had their own feedback and then the cutter head has a feedback output and usually an additional 30dB (that is how much in my rig anyway) of feedback then wrapped around it and the cutter amps. The resulting distortion is exceedingly low, easily rivaling digital systems. With wider bandwidth as well...

Most of what is 'measured' is simply errors occurring in playback.

Based on what you have said about what you hear (so, anecdotal) it sounds as if your playback setup needs some kind of attention. You might want to look into it!

 

[Daro]

An old friend of mine (an audio journalist) was once asked about the difference between digital and analog. He replied that both formats are like having sex, only the sensations are different because digital is sex with a condom and vinyl is sex without a condom.

 

[M2M]

How less accurate depends almost entirely on the playback apparatus!

The LPs themselves are remarkably low distortion. This is because for decades, LP recorders (cutting head and associated electronics) employed more feedback than most audio amplifiers did until sometime in the 2000s. This is because the mastering amps had their own feedback and then the cutter head has a feedback output and usually an additional 30dB (that is how much in my rig anyway) of feedback then wrapped around it and the cutter amps. The resulting distortion is exceedingly low, easily rivaling digital systems. With wider bandwidth as well...

Most of what is 'measured' is simply errors occurring in playback.

Based on what you have said about what you hear (so, anecdotal) it sounds as if your playback setup needs some kind of attention. You might want to look into it!

I'm not a technical person, I could be wrong about something here and there. All my comments are based on long observations.
But let me put this: the whole concept of RIAA processing appeared wrong in the first place. From what I understand: the bass is cut, high is boosted, only at the far end does the phono stage reverse the whole thing bring the sound to the correct parameters. This could be an issue, particularly for a very weak analog single. Which brings us to two issues: 1 — the signal will travel through too many connections and wires, likely, the single will contaminate with noises or errors before reach phono. Perhaps, the correct design for RIAA processing should be either in the cartridge (which seems impossible in reality), or at the end of TT just before RCA output. 2 — When the bass is cut, what exactly happened? Did the cuts delete some data or compress the bass? And how does the RIAA's reverse process, efficiently and “accurately”, bring “buried” bass (particularly consideration) from under the ground and up to the surface, also deal with errors and noise issues? Just an honest inquiry!
Digital, in comparison as I can tell, is doing all processing in the correct way, in one house design, producing “one” sound.
Again, I'm not a technician, all these comments could be wrong or make no sense.

 

[Al M.]

An old friend of mine (an audio journalist) was once asked about the difference between digital and analog. He replied that both formats are like having sex, only the sensations are different because digital is sex with a condom and vinyl is sex without a condom.

Hehe. I guess the key word here is "once" -- I assume this was a good number of years ago?

 

[Daro]

Hehe. I guess the key word here is "once" -- I assume this was a good number of years ago?

Yes, he said a few years ago,

Now it's probably the other way around

 

[Atmasphere]

I'm not a technical person, I could be wrong about something here and there. All my comments are based on long observations.
But let me put this: the whole concept of RIAA processing appeared wrong in the first place. From what I understand: the bass is cut, high is boosted, only at the far end does the phono stage reverse the whole thing bring the sound to the correct parameters. This could be an issue, particularly for a very weak analog single. Which brings us to two issues: 1 — the signal will travel through too many connections and wires, likely, the single will contaminate with noises or errors before reach phono. Perhaps, the correct design for RIAA processing should be either in the cartridge (which seems impossible in reality), or at the end of TT just before RCA output. 2 — When the bass is cut, what exactly happened? Did the cuts delete some data or compress the bass? And how does the RIAA's reverse process, efficiently and “accurately”, bring “buried” bass (particularly consideration) from under the ground and up to the surface, also deal with errors and noise issues? Just an honest inquiry!
Digital, in comparison as I can tell, is doing all processing in the correct way, in one house design, producing “one” sound.
Again, I'm not a technician, all these comments could be wrong or make no sense.

No worries.

The RIAA thing isn't a problem for fidelity. The strength of the signal isn't a problem, since in any decent phono section the EQ occurs after the signal is boosted.

As far as the connections and wires that's really no different in the studio or in playback. The circuits needed for LP playback are far simpler than those needed for digital, if simplicity is a consideration...

When the pre-emphasis is used (during the LP mastering process), the bass is not cut. The characteristic boosts highs instead which is a lot different from cutting the bass! There is no compression involved unless added to save money. In the 20 years I ran my mastering operation we didn't use compression or mono bass processing (which is a passive system operating 80Hz and down; in most rooms bass at these frequencies is 100% reverberant so mono bass is usually inaudible) even once.

The bandwidth of a typical LP is 10Hz to about 45KHz. Any cartridge has that bandwidth in playback. We recorded a 30KHz tone inside the inner grooves once and were able to play it back just fine with a Grado Gold mounted to the arm of an old Technics SL1200 (we kept that machine on hand to test if we had cut a playable groove). The lower limit is usually described by the mechanical resonance of the playback arm and cartridge together.

These days compression is more likely to be used in the digital release, since LPs have no expectation of being played in a car or other noisy environment. On this account I've heard a good number of LPs that seem to have better bass than their digital counterparts. I have a particular love of electronic music, which for the last 30 some years often has a lot of bass below 40Hz. Its fun to show these recordings off at audio shows.

Now to be clear I'm not one of those who says LPs are the best. I think digital is excellent. But if you're going to denigrate LPs, its best done with facts rather than popular myths/made up stories. If you want to know the biggest problems with LPs they are twofold IMO. The first is most people fail to get their setup right and so never hear what the LPs can do. To that end they will often play cartridges that are in serious need of renovation. The second is related: most people use terrible phono sections that generate ticks and pops entirely on their own- IOW ticks and pops that are not on the LP at all.

That is why I suggested you might want to give your playback system a good going over since your comments suggested a desperate condition.

 

[M2M]

Thanks for explanations! I thought the bass is cut. I have Pro-Ject RPM 9.1 and VPI Signature 21. Benz Micro LP-S, Shelter 9000. My phono is Whest PS30RDT SE. I'm thinking about changing it I feel it's more electronic sound.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, he said a few years ago,

Now it's probably the other way around

 

[Socrates428]

If you want to know the biggest problems with LPs they are twofold IMO. The first is most people fail to get their setup right and so never hear what the LPs can do. To that end they will often play cartridges that are in serious need of renovation. The second is related: most people use terrible phono sections that generate ticks and pops entirely on their own- IOW ticks and pops that are not on the LP at all.

Amen to that. I'm amazed at what DS Audio optical cart/phono can do on this front to make for near digital-like low overall noise floor (in room by ear, not measured, of course) and handling of LP imperfections.

 

[M2M]

Now to be clear I'm not one of those who says LPs are the best. I think digital is excellent. But if you're going to denigrate LPs, its best done with facts rather than popular myths/made up stories. If you want to know the biggest problems with LPs they are twofold IMO. The first is most people fail to get their setup right and so never hear what the LPs can do. To that end they will often play cartridges that are in serious need of renovation. The second is related: most people use terrible phono sections that generate ticks and pops entirely on their own- IOW ticks and pops that are not on the LP at all.

I got the exact response when I complained about sound problems with my Krell CD in the mid 2000s, after I added the Transparent cable and the sound became muffled:“ You have the wrong setup somewhere, this cable should give you sound as is. Invest in a $3000 AC distributor and it will solve all your problems." It turned out the filtration box in Transparent is not compatible with Krell electronics. Krell insists never use any kind of filtration with their units.
There are a hundred cartridges and stages, and hype about their performances. In this case, we will chase to nowhere! Sorry!

Back in late 2000, when Digital was at its highest peak and analog at its lowest, when we complained about SQ problems on DVD and CD, Digital defenders were kind of arrogant, and analogue defenders were humble. These days when vinyl is at its peak and CD at its weakest point, the same situation is repeated but in “exact” reverse! Interesting to see how we behave/react toward opposition situations, regardless of how important or small.

 

[Lee]

I believe we are at the point where reference digital and reference analog have converged.

Last night I was at Jim in GAs house listening to his fabulous Orions. The digital was so damn good in his meticulously setup room that I am not sure my Continuum would beat it sonically. On the better recorded tracks, it was so musical and vibrant, my friend Mike and I did not want to go.

At Hugh’s house, the super low noise floor of the Varese creates a playback that honestly sounds like reference vinyl to my ears.

 

[Lee]

I got the exact response when I complained about sound problems with my Krell CD in the mid 2000s, after I added the Transparent cable and the sound became muffled:“ You have the wrong setup somewhere, this cable should give you sound as is. Invest in a $3000 AC distributor and it will solve all your problems." It turned out the filtration box in Transparent is not compatible with Krell electronics. Krell insists never use any kind of filtration with their units.
There are a hundred cartridges and stages, and hype about their performances. In this case, we will chase to nowhere! Sorry!

Back in late 2000, when Digital was at its highest peak and analog at its lowest, when we complained about SQ problems on DVD and CD, Digital defenders were kind of arrogant, and analogue defenders were humble. These days when vinyl is at its peak and CD at its weakest point, the same situation is repeated but in “exact” reverse! Interesting to see how we behave/react toward opposition situations, regardless of how important or small.

Over time my thinking has evolved to one solution: Be Switzerland.

Some recordings sound best on vinyl. Some sound best on digital. Some sound best on tape.

Tape research, mastering, pressing quality, etc. all make a difference.

 

[MrC.]

I am the only CD spinner in my group of friends who all run vinyl. We generally agree that it depends very much on the mastering whether one has an advantage over the other. Obviously choice and quality of the gear and setup are paramount but, to generalize from long experience:

Vinyl
- distortions seem to be less annoying;
- errors more of omission than intrusion;
- can be very beautiful if not always entirely accurate or complete;
- better setups with more detail have similar presentation without anything sticking out;
- noise seems to act like a lubricant that makes listening easier
Digital
- distortions seem to be more intrusive and less natural;
- errors more of commission - something added;
- best is similar to vinyl but can have more structure and precision, bigger bass;
- hi end setups will often present more detail, but not always in the most natural way;
- lack of noise can lead to an artificial dryness that is different to vinyl

To me the technical issues with digital that need to be overcome are to do with digital noise and filtering. The aliasing noise is totally unnatural and most digital filtering is little better. My own preference is for digital replay without digital filtering, but (like Audio Note) transformer filtering or (like my own) clever analog filtering.

A final thought: I watch 4K UHD blu rays on a 65" OLED tv and the contrast between restored classics and modern films is similar to vinyl vs digital. Take Hitchcock's "To Catch a Thief" vs Nolan's "Interstellar". TCAT has beautiful saturated colours, a slightly soft image with lots of grain, whilst Interstellar has a sharper more accurate picture, grain free and impressive. You could argue all day about which is better, I like both.

I have found this to be the case. After spending money and an exhorbitant amount of time chasing digital sound I gave up and surrendered to an all analog system. What the journey did show me was the shocking importance of clocking on digital signals, in many ways more significant to sound quality than they type of d/a converter used.

At the end, I think the majority of sins occurred in the conversion of analog signals to digital. Some of these conversions occurred at the inception of digital and I would wager the vast majority have not been remastered since the original change over to cd’s. Most of the music I like was made before 1980 so I have little hope of modern digital remasters. Modern digital can be very good but different stages in the remix can ruin it too. All analog with a final hi-res digital conversion is best but rare.

 

[Atmasphere]

Some recordings sound best on vinyl. Some sound best on digital. Some sound best on tape.

Tape research, mastering, pressing quality, etc. all make a difference.

Regarding older recordings made prior to the digital era:

Analog tapes degrade over time. On that account alone, if you really want to hear how an older recording really sounded you may have to find the original LP. It could be the best transcription of the master. Decades later, an LP like that may well sound better than the master tape simply because the latter has lost energy over time. This is one reason why some digital remasters can sound less vivacious than the original.

 

[M2M]

When someone limits his inquiry to “what differences” rather than “which is better?” I give him high respect because his question is in the correct spot.
I see the battle Vinyl/Analog vs digital taking place long ago, and continuing over and over because we fail to understand, rather than know. IMO (I insist IMO because I have been accused anecdotal), the difference relies on something far else but understandable. Both are natural sound production and perfect projection, but each one belongs to one of the two different worlds and cannot not merge together in a perfect way.
In my long-time listening experience, the best format is listening to analogue through analogue gear only. On digital, it can sound terrible. Back in mid 2010, I raised concerns about when converting analog to digital might induce errors, and, along with the compression, could delete some data permanently before being stored digitaly, so the cd could produce less correct data, and it is impossible to retrieve the lost data. It’s a concern that needs to investigate. Digital recording on CD, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have a problem. I listened to too many Telarcs and other digital recordings, all perfect with no problems.
Through Krell KPS 20IL, the sound couldn't be better, all musical instruments are so precise and like real life, not achievable through the best TT setup I use. But Krell has a different designee, a lot of stages of filtration vs my Phono Stage, who does not! Perhaps a phono stage with the same Krell design could yield different results, reverse the experience, something like Sutherland 20/20 perhaps?
Ironically and strangely, not always the case, some digital recoding on CD sound is terribly poor, but on vinyl is better. That is one reason why digital “piss me off”! One good example is Empire Strikes back by Gerhardt, or Star Wars Trilogy by Kojian. Through Krell they are incredibly poor.
Perhaps the bottom line is: listen to analogue recording “only” through analog gear, and listen to digital through both analog and digital gears. That all IMO.

 

[M2M]

Regarding older recordings made prior to the digital era:

Analog tapes degrade over time. On that account alone, if you really want to hear how an older recording really sounded you may have to find the original LP. It could be the best transcription of the master. Decades later, an LP like that may well sound better than the master tape simply because the latter has lost energy over time. This is one reason why some digital remasters can sound less vivacious than the original.

I heard this fact once long ago. Even the film cinema mm eventually degrades, even periodically applying a cleaning process which is important to preserve their life, but eventually it will fade by itself, and the image becomes pure white. Vinyl shares digital in this regard as long as no noodle hits the groove. This makes vinyl only analogue format bulletproof.

 

[Atmasphere]

I heard this fact once long ago. Even the film cinema mm eventually degrades, even periodically applying a cleaning process which is important to preserve their life, but eventually it will fade by itself, and the image becomes pure white. Vinyl shares digital in this regard as long as no noodle hits the groove. This makes vinyl only analogue format bulletproof.

Yes, the Library of Congress did a study of longevity of formats back in the 80s, which concluded that LPs, if stored properly, could last a century with ease. I have LPs that play fine that are already 75 years old...

 

[microstrip]

Yes, the Library of Congress did a study of longevity of formats back in the 80s, which concluded that LPs, if stored properly, could last a century with ease. I have LPs that play fine that are already 75 years old...

Unfortunately, probably the Library of Congress considers that "stored properly"" means "not played" - they are not strictly audiophile music lovers ... The most referred study comes from 1958/59. As far as I remember, in more recent studies they don’t address or publish a strict lifespan number specific to LPs. Instead, their guidance focuses on preventing deterioration and digitizing content before the physical carrier degrades.