Just as an aside the Sheffirld and the Miller and Kriesel recordings changed the course my audiophile career.
The truth about vinyl.vinyl vs digital
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
I will throw some thoughts out.
I believe that analog has the advantage that errors tend to be relatively benign in their nature, leading to additional colouration, that according to taste, we make find unobjectionable. Take for example 2 Linn LP12 turntables, one with all the upgrades (DC motor, Keel, Arm) against an early vintage Linn. They will sound different with the newer model having greater precision and more detail, but the early one can stlll sound very enjoyable
From my experience (in mastering), digital is extremely fragile and is easily "broken". I always performed transformation such as compression and EQ in analog, as I found the digital processing destructive. I also found sample rate conversion to be very destructive, and preferred to transfer out to analog 1/2" tape and then bring back in at the new sample rate. By destructive, I mean a loss of feeling, emotion and precision and fine detail.
I find that the ADC and DAC processes can be almost inaudible ( non destructive ), which make digital a good storage medium. However just because you can represent music as a set of numbers does not mean you can perform processing on those numbers and it will still sound like the same music when you convert them back
I do find that DACs that do a lot of digital processing / filtering to sound a lot less convincing than a simple approach such as R2R, especially NOS followed by an analog filter.
I believe that analog has the advantage that errors tend to be relatively benign in their nature, leading to additional colouration, that according to taste, we make find unobjectionable. Take for example 2 Linn LP12 turntables, one with all the upgrades (DC motor, Keel, Arm) against an early vintage Linn. They will sound different with the newer model having greater precision and more detail, but the early one can stlll sound very enjoyable
From my experience (in mastering), digital is extremely fragile and is easily "broken". I always performed transformation such as compression and EQ in analog, as I found the digital processing destructive. I also found sample rate conversion to be very destructive, and preferred to transfer out to analog 1/2" tape and then bring back in at the new sample rate. By destructive, I mean a loss of feeling, emotion and precision and fine detail.
I find that the ADC and DAC processes can be almost inaudible ( non destructive ), which make digital a good storage medium. However just because you can represent music as a set of numbers does not mean you can perform processing on those numbers and it will still sound like the same music when you convert them back
I do find that DACs that do a lot of digital processing / filtering to sound a lot less convincing than a simple approach such as R2R, especially NOS followed by an analog filter.
Another 122 posts on the A v D topic. I admire your passion but I think this topic is WBF's version of the movie Groundhog Day.
Peter A is very unlikely ever to have a digital-based system. Al M is very unlikely ever to have an analog-based system.
Each of us has different hearing sensitivities and different subjective sonic preferences. For my hearing sensitivities and subjective sonic preferences digital makes more difficult my suspension of disbelief. (As Kedar observed and reported a long time ago I simply do not relax while listening to digital.)
No matter how much we post and talk and listen to each other's systems and try to understand each other these chasms of different sensitivities and different subjective preferences will never be bridged. And that is perfectly okay.
Different sonic sensitivities and subject sonic preferences mean we like different things. Shortly after I ordered the Gryphon Pendragons Mr. T snarled at me: "I PITY THE FOOL who thinks he can combine a ribbon driver with an active woofer column!"
Each of us has different hearing sensitivities and different subjective sonic preferences. For my hearing sensitivities and subjective sonic preferences digital makes more difficult my suspension of disbelief. (As Kedar observed and reported a long time ago I simply do not relax while listening to digital.)
No matter how much we post and talk and listen to each other's systems and try to understand each other these chasms of different sensitivities and different subjective preferences will never be bridged. And that is perfectly okay.
Different sonic sensitivities and subject sonic preferences mean we like different things. Shortly after I ordered the Gryphon Pendragons Mr. T snarled at me: "I PITY THE FOOL who thinks he can combine a ribbon driver with an active woofer column!"
Last edited:
This puts it pretty well, Ron. I like "different hearing sensitivites" - it captures difference while not dismissing the fact we all have human ears. For all the talk about bandwidth and distortion, etc. we can't prove preference a priori.
As long as we enjoy our music it really doesn’t matter if it’s digital or analog or streaming.
Sure, except that the discussion very much has evolved from earlier discussions on the topic. People are not at each other's throats anymore about the question if digital or analog sounds better, or which is "superior". Everyone has their preferences and they are clear, but there is little heat around that nowadays, and it seems people don't strive to "convince" each other about preferences anymore. Some have expressed no particular preference either way. I guess the discussion has shifted also because digital these days is so much better than it used to be.
The discussion so far has been more about misinformation and correcting it, mastering and the role of mastering on the issue if LP or digital sounds better on a given recording, the relation of vinyl or digital to master tape, the recording process, the role of LP pressings etc.
Inflammatory posts, or ones that, justified or not, were perceived as such, are not anymore about analog vs digital per se.
Among just a few posters they have been, if I am not mistaken, about technical understanding, personal hearing abilities and the role of listening vs measurements, and apparently have involved some personal sensitivities (all this again not principally about A v D).
Last edited:
Sure, but I have nothing against the sound of analog -- on the contrary, I love the sound of great vinyl.
The reasons for me not buying an analog rig have more to do with the availability on vinyl of music that I listen to, with cost, with the wish not to complicate things for me with dual sources and the difficulties of proper setup of a vinyl rig, and with clicks and pops. While when listening in friends' systems I can tolerate or even ignore clicks and pops (even more than my hosts who sometimes complain about them!) they absolutely would drive me crazy if the vinyl was my own. In my teenage years I had serious OCD about them and trying to get rid of them by, in hindsight, not the best attempts at cleaning records. The CD thankfully freed me from this OCD, and I never looked back.
When in someone else's system I find that on a given day for some reason of setup the vinyl rig sounds better than the digital, I very much prefer to listen to the vinyl and enjoy it. I am not married to digital.
Again while we are often invoted to freely indulge our fantasy of vinyl superiority that oppurtinotu continues to shrink.
The high end community has dragged digital into high fidelity while it kicked and screamed along the way. Like a recovering drug addict it is prone to relapse at any moment. There are many who continues to deny the existence and osignificance of basic digital artifacts.
I for one hope digital reaches its" true potential. Like it or not is the future.
The high end community has dragged digital into high fidelity while it kicked and screamed along the way. Like a recovering drug addict it is prone to relapse at any moment. There are many who continues to deny the existence and osignificance of basic digital artifacts.
I for one hope digital reaches its" true potential. Like it or not is the future.
Why do you think it the future? Record pressing plants are back up and running, sales are outpacing CD’s, record stores have popped up everywhere and there are huge lines for record store day.
It looks like the future generations have embraced vinyl.
The original Kind of Blue is the best without doubt. I actually prefer the original mono the best of all.
True. But a lot of today's vinyl is digitally recorded, and young people seem to prefer turntables with USB output -- an ironic contradiction when it comes to cherishing the "pure analog experience". So today's vinyl resurgence is mainly digital after all. Not among older audiophiles of course, but these make up a small percentage of buyers of vinyl.
Yes, if tools are of poor quality or poorly used surely the result will be poor. It took some time before proper tools were developed and mastering engineers adapted to a format with different properties that needed a different approach. I find curious that many people unconsciously approach analog versus digital referring to the best recordings of analog and the poor early digital ones or simply analog sourced ones.
IMHO many of the digital recordings of labels such as Deutsche Grammophon , Harmonia Mundi or Aliavox (I could add a longer list or refer to HiRez labels. just giving a few examples) played in adequate systems, are excellent.
I have no experience at all with professional audio and recording, but could not fail to notice that several recordings I consider excellent use the Merging Technologies Pyramix DAW and converters. Unfortunately many top quality recordings omit the details on the technical aspects of the recording and we know little about the digital systems used by known labels.
Surely you can kill the music with poor processing - but as soon as we keep the raw files there is always hope that some time some on will do it adequately.
Your preference, currently not mine and or that of many others.
Yes it's odd. I follow a lot of upcoming bands on Bands In Town and purchase their music either direct or through Bandcamp. I never ceases to amaze me how many of these up and coming bands offer only Vinyl as the hard copy media of choice. Sure you have a range of digital downloads you can burn if you want. You go to see them and it's tee shirts, vinyl and stickers at the merch tables.
It is definitely a niche as most of these people were born in the digital age yet they whole heartily embrace the Vinyl. They swear by if ask them what their preference is.
Rob
Vinyl is good, but in the end, it is a boomer love, just look at the amount of streaming, downloads, and they make both CD and Vinyl minor players. But I still like the physical and continue to collect CDs and will continue to do so. I grew up with Vinyl and sold my collection in 1992, now with the number of CDs I have and many titles will not be on Vinyl or streaming. Then of course in my case, what, buy what I have on CD again? over and over, or buy downloads just to stay current, nope that be irresponsible and a waste of money already spent. The sound of CDs and playback units as progressed as much as vinyl did and its turntable did between the 1930s and the 1970s Both medium got better and I laugh when I read people still talking about CD sound from its earliest days and make it there put why Vinyl sounds better, well I owned a huge collection of vinyl and most 1st pressings, never the inferior sound reissues (RE) printed on the back over of the LP. And many after 1968 through the '70s sounded compressed and muddy for rock & roll, or bright, then the quality of vinyl went to hell, and records were stamped on thin vinyl and they sounded that way. In my collection mastering and sound was the golden age of the '50s into the early 60's when producers tried to reproduce the sound as close as possible to what they heard in the studio when all musicians played in the same room, unlike today's music production. The debate about Vinyl vs, the CD has too many variables, with Vinyl having the most inconsistent sound, due to what arm is used, cartridge used, turntable used, and on top of that who set the table up. All changed the sound of the same vinyl record being played. In the end it is for enjoyment and that is how I enjoy my CD collection and pat vinyl collection for the enjoyment of music.
Actually I think digital is the future and present. Vinyl remains a niche product. Physical media cannot accurately compared against the major streaming houses
That is a silly argument Al, vinyl is vinyl, even when it is digitally sourced. Yes most young users don't buy it for the improved sound but probably for the bragging rights and cool factor. Just like most digital users don't buy it for the sound, but the convenience and portability. Most of the first generation CD's where sourced from analog master tape, so are many of the early rock and jazz recordings. They don't count as digital when you play them on your CD player ?
The majority of the big recording plants get their data through the net - we must remember that current vinyl is a victory of digital. Most of the plants do not even own a tape machine - and if they owned it they would not be able to align it. And some of the few who have it have cutters with digital delay lines - only purist audiophile labels seem to have machines with analog tape loops to preview the signal feeding the mechanism that determines the size and shape of the groove to be cut .
The cost of manufacturing of packed LP's (12" gatefold 180g) is now under $2 for small quantities. They are pressed in automated factories - digital data enters one side, boxes with the LPs leave a few days later.
Considering statistics the more relevant number is that vinyl sales represented around 5% of the revenue of the industry in 2020 and showed an increase of 30% in 2020 (RIAA data). Comparing to CD sales is meaningless, as CD is a vanishing format.
IMHO reasons for the vinyl rise are mostly sociologic and behavioral, and have little relation with sound quality. But yes, music is the real winner in this movement.
"In my collection mastering and sound was the golden age of the '50s into the early 60's when producers tried to reproduce the sound as close as possible to what they heard in the studio when all musicians played in the same room, unlike today's music production."
One could argue that many artists today would not be able make it if they had to record the way they did back in the golden era for the simple reason that they just are not good enough. There was no hiding anything back then. Recording studios exposed all. You either had it or you did not. Talent was real in the Golden age. Thats not say that there are no more talented people today. There are, they are just not what people want.
While it's great news for independent artists and music nerds alike, the rise in vinyl sales is dwarfed by streaming service revenue. Physical sales make up only 9% of 2020 revenue while streaming services take up a whopping 83%. Digital downloads bring up the rear with only 6% of revenue.Mar 1, 2021
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |