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

[PeterA]

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?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

having top levels of each and listening to each daily, has been a focus of my personal listening for a couple decades. it's my wheelhouse. it's hard to honestly write about it without stepping on toes. and my describing top digital involves levels of vinyl pressings as a reference.

when i do 'go there' the reaction is to find ways to invalidate my viewpoint. @microstrip even decided a good method would be to make the case my system is tuned for vinyl. even though my tuning references are all digital, with vinyl as confirmation.

OTOH there are many, many levels of each and so many valid viewpoints.

when i have visitors listening to both digital and vinyl in my system there is never any dispute with the hierarchy. as far as exactly what visitors hear it more varies with the listener how they describe it.

i will observe how this thread goes and see whether i feel i can contribute.

 

[Al M.]

Mike, you only say which one sounds better in your opinion or that of your visitors.

The point of the thread, however, seems to be the question how the sound (characteristics) and the listening experience differ.

It is explicitly, per Peter's opening post, not the question which medium is deemed to sound better. We have had that latter discussion many, many times on WBF. No need for a repeat, thanks.

 

[microstrip]

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.

Not IMO. Some people love such subject, but they are very different formats. The common point is stereo sound reproduction. Digital does not aim to sound like vinyl. Both formats aim to sound enjoyable.

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.

Knowing people preferences can help understanding their comments on the formats. But yes, we already know most of them!

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.

Ok.

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.

What did you learn from such visits?

 

[microstrip]

having top levels of each and listening to each daily, has been a focus of my personal listening for a couple decades. it's my wheelhouse. it's hard to honestly write about it without stepping on toes. and my describing top digital involves levels of vinyl pressings as a reference.

Well, you are just doing what Peter asked us to avoid ...

when i do 'go there' the reaction is to find ways to invalidate my viewpoint. @microstrip even decided a good method would be to make the case my system is tuned for vinyl. even though my tuning references are all digital, with vinyl as confirmation.

I regret you seem unable to separate debating from invalidating. No way I would consider "invalidating" your experience in your system. I am too knowledgeable to pretend such absurd thing as invalidating preferences. However, although I have not listened to your system I know enough about your particular gear to risk explaining it.

OTOH there are many, many levels of each and so many valid viewpoints.

when i have visitors listening to both digital and vinyl in my system there is never any dispute with the hierarchy. as far as exactly what visitors hear it more varies with the listener how they describe it.

Yes, you told us many times about your visitors ... It is not what Peter is asking.

i will observe how this thread goes and see whether i feel i can contribute.

I am sure you can give us some valuable contribute on it.

 

[Another Johnson]

You can compare one specific vinyl set up to one specific digital set up. But there are a myriad of both extant. And then there are also the variations in listener hearing and emotional response.

So … imo, this topic is another highway to perdition. The self established literal Know-It-Alls will howl at each other, beat their breasts, and attempt to sound shame the masses into submission.

Best of luck.

 

[jeromelang]

Fundamental - it's not about what equipment you use, but what and how the 2 different media are being spun.

(1) vinyl - sound is fundamentally influenced by the material that last came into physical contact with the vinyl surfaces.

For the many fastidious, the last material that last touches the vinyl surface before the needle is dropped is the water that was used to clean the records (and also how the record was being dried)

Using distilled water - dulled and closed-in, warm, fat, slowed.

Using tap water - opened, extended, dynamic, vibrant, and effervescent, but can sometimes be thin and lean if overdone repeatedly.

Sometimes a mix of the 2 is necessary, but always the best when tap water is the final

Recommended no physical contact type of drying - high speed spinning.

(2) digital - the whole essence of digital playback is affected by residual memory of the Playback devices be it file or disc playback. The issue is how to prevent the advent of residual memory from degrading digital playback.

There are 2 components to this.

First is clearing residual playback after every track has been played, and prior to the commencement of the next subsequent track to be played.

The next component is cueing up the next track to be played without leaving memory imprint.

with the above procedures for digital, sound from digital playback is fundamentally "changed"
no longer sounds "digital"
but not "like vinyl" as well
closer to the "real thing"



of course, there is also a common problem shared between vinyl and digital playback is magnetic field interference - having extraneous and unnecessary metallic objects in their near vicinity.

 

[jeromelang]

Reduce the metallic count of your turntable - tonearm, platter, plinth, .....

place digital devices as far away physically from the turntable as you possibly can.

avoid metallic racks

avoid subwoofers near the power-amps

no extra pair of unused loudspeakers in the same room

under all above circumstances, the sonic differences between different pressings of vinyl, and optical disc media become even more apparant

 

[Anton D]

This is really tough to put words to. So, stream of consciousness...

Have you been to a recent movie that used music you know as part of the soundtrack?

There seems to be a 'cleaned up' vibe to the new sound compared to my recollections of past mixes.

Digital strikes me as 'cleaner' than vinyl, but can feel a bit scrubbed, sometimes. (This is by no mans a universal finding.)

This likely involves mixing more than medium, where the mixes for vinyl might actually have been given more dynamic range than the digital mix, so some comparisons work better than others, not the fault of vinyl or a necessary virtue of vinyl. Could compression be more distracting with digital vs. vinyl?

I like The Grateful Dead, and their new Plangent process releases, even on vinyl, sound kinda digital. So another difference might be the very low levels of 'wow/futter/speed variation' and digital might remove some very subtle tremolo effect that vinyl might add to the sound and some find more appealing. Not saying better or worse, just looking to chat about what differences it seems we can sometimes pick up.

This may be blasphemy: I've sometimes wondered if turntable rumble might add something in the 20-50 Hz range that adds a feeling of heft to vinyl, as well. Ideally, this is all >70 dB down, so I might be way off!

Perhaps digital might offer faster rise time vs. vinyl, I do not know, but one of the differences between real drums, for instance, and a drum machine is an artificially fast rise time...could a slower rise time appeal to our ears more on vinyl than digital? Or, vice versa!

I like discussing differences, I hope I didn't seem to be promoting one over the other.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Reduce the metallic count of your turntable - tonearm, platter, plinth, .....

Really? Isn't this just personal dogma? (Which is totally fine, of course, but should not be confused with objective fact.)

How do you explain the numerous turntable manufacturers whose turntables and platters and plinths and tonearms are all metal? (For example, Basis Audio, Technics, Vintage Audio Specialties.)

avoid metallic racks

Isn't this just another purely personal, subjective preference thing? Metal stands versus wood stands versus granite stands versus carbon fiber stands?

 

[ravenacustic]

Is digital just one thing today? There’s digital delivered via aluminum disc, digital delivered by recorded aluminum disc on hard drives, and digital from streaming. Do they all sound the same? Not to mention sampling rates for all of these mediums.

 

[Kofi Baffour]

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 experience with both.

Only upside for vinyl is sense of ownership and ritual but that is mitigated if your way of digital is CD, BluRay, then the ritual element remains.

If the mixing and mastering on the digital for the same album is up to snuff, I've always preferred the digital master.

An example being Steve Wilson's Harmony Codex. I adore the album on digital compared to the vinyl even though both are painstakingly done incredibly well by Steve Wilson. The fidelity is not close when the masters are comparable

 

[PeterA]

I have experience with both.

Only upside for vinyl is sense of ownership and ritual but that is mitigated if your way of digital is CD, BluRay, then the ritual element remains.

If the mixing and mastering on the digital for the same album is up to snuff, I've always preferred the digital master.

An example being Steve Wilson's Harmony Codex. I adore the album on digital compared to the vinyl even though both are painstakingly done incredibly well by Steve Wilson. The fidelity is not close when the masters are comparable

Thank you. I understand you own both formats and have a preference for one over the other, but could you describe what you actually hear from each format and if and how the listening experience differs?

If one sounds more like your memory of live music, how so? And if it doesn’t, why does it not?

 

[Al M.]

An example being Steve Wilson's Harmony Codex. I adore the album on digital compared to the vinyl even though both are painstakingly done incredibly well by Steve Wilson. The fidelity is not close when the masters are comparable

What do you describe as fidelity here? Resolution, tonal characteristics, snap and punch? What makes Steve Wilson's Harmony Codex make stand out to you on digital vs vinyl?

 

[dcathro]

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.

 

[Another Johnson]

How many test all the filtering and shaping options on their DAC?

My Rossini Apex offers several customizing options, and they are audible. Sadly, best for one file may not be best overall, but this is also true for tweaks like VTA/SRA on vinyl.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, you only say which one sounds better in your opinion or that of your visitors.

the vast majority of my 'better' comments are responding to that subject when that question is the context. many times in threads or discussions already immersed in that question.

and when i describe digital i'm many times asked about compares. again, not always but regularly. but as i do reference my digital with my vinyl and tape it's normal. but i'm not conflicted about it and do not see it as a distraction. i see analog as the truth format, the complete format comparatively. so this is just part of the landscape of music reproduction to me....in.....my.....system.

yet it's possible to describe digital without referencing vinyl but then mostly at the top of digital (with better recordings) it is only distinctive from analog in degrees. you can use the same words. easier to describe it face to face with others who are there with you. so you can toss around the descriptors and maybe play it again, and again if you like. both digital and analog. there are recordings that demonstrate certain things so well where then the words are easier to relate to what was heard. even if objectively the words come up short.

visitors almost always agree generally, but use different words to describe things they hear and have different personal references and priorities they focus on. people are not always at the same point in their listening skill gestation. other times they are perfectly aligned.

listening sessions are so lacking ambiguity. results hit you in the face. refreshing. i wish i was a better word-smith with musical technical terms.

 

[PeterA]

the vast majority of my 'better' comments are responding to that subject when that question is the context. many times in threads or discussions already immersed in that question.

and when i describe digital i'm many times asked about compares. again, not always but regularly. but as i do reference my digital with my vinyl and tape it's normal. but i'm not conflicted about it and do not see it as a distraction. i see analog as the truth format, the complete format comparatively. so this is just part of the landscape of music reproduction to me....in.....my.....system.

yet it's possible to describe digital without referencing vinyl but then mostly at the top of digital it is only distinctive from analog in degrees. you can use the same words. easier to describe it face to face with others who are there with you. so you can toss around the descriptors and maybe play it again, and again if you like. both digital and analog. there are recordings that demonstrate certain things so well where then the words are easier to relate to what was heard. even if objectively the words come up short.

listening sessions are so lacking ambiguity. refreshing. i wish i was a better word-smith.

Mike, can you describe what you actually hear when you listen to, say, a string trio or piano on vinyl, and then on digital? How is the sound similar and how is it different? We know which you prefer. How do those specific instruments, or others of your choice, sound in your system when presented by the two formats?

 

[facten]

(2) digital - the whole essence of digital playback is affected by residual memory of the Playback devices be it file or disc playback. The issue is how to prevent the advent of residual memory from degrading digital playback.

There are 2 components to this.

First is clearing residual playback after every track has been played, and prior to the commencement of the next subsequent track to be played.

The next component is cueing up the next track to be played without leaving memory imprint.

I can't imagine trying to sit back and enjoy listening to music going through this ritual of constant interruption.

 

[Rexp]

(2) digital - the whole essence of digital playback is affected by residual memory of the Playback devices be it file or disc playback. The issue is how to prevent the advent of residual memory from degrading digital playback.

There are 2 components to this.

First is clearing residual playback after every track has been played, and prior to the commencement of the next subsequent track to be played.

The next component is cueing up the next track to be played without leaving memory imprint.

with the above procedures for digital, sound from digital playback is fundamentally "changed"
no longer sounds "digital"
but not "like vinyl" as well
closer to the "real thing"



of course, there is also a common problem shared between vinyl and digital playback is magnetic field interference - having extraneous and unnecessary metallic objects in their near vicinity.

Interesting, I've noticed two observations recently, one is Tidal sounds better after I've uninstalled and reinstalled the app on my phone and two, a track sounds better if added to a playlist. Digital is indeed mysterious.