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

[wil]

The quality of the recording makes a bigger difference in my enjoyment of the music than the format.
John

Bingo!

 

[Kofi Baffour]

We're this deep into audio and still want videos of systems playing when we know videos aren't gonna be usable to learn fuck all about a system? Lol what?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

We're this deep into audio and still want videos of systems playing when we know videos aren't gonna be usable to learn fuck all about a system? Lol what?

early in the day for popcorn. but might get interesting. maybe a cinnamon roll or two.....

 

[Al M.]

We're this deep into audio and still want videos of systems playing when we know videos aren't gonna be usable to learn fuck all about a system? Lol what?

Right. My invitation extends further. Any WBF member in the Boston area, or visiting there sometime, who is interested in hearing my system, please feel free to PM me.

Videos won't do it, as you say.

 

[Al M.]

early in the day for popcorn. but might get interesting. maybe a cinnamon roll or two.....

Well, I'll have a smoked salmon ciabatta sandwich later on, with cucumber and capers. From my favorite café around here.

 

[microstrip]

@Al M. your self-praising words about your system warrant sonic evidence. Thinking a video does not represent your system is not a reason to avoid one -- let others assess its character on their own.

In fact it can be more than enough reason. We do not ask people to show measurements of their rooms, as we know they can be meaningless and misleading to those who can't interpret them properly. Besides why should some one having a good digital system show videos whose main interest is showing the variability of vinyl artifacts?

No one claims that a video and in-room listening are the same, but phone recordings tell more truth than not.

Nice to have your never proved opinion, but we disagree. IMO the reduced bandwidth and artifacts of phone recordings favor systems with enough coloration to mask them and have low real dynamics.

Stereo creates an illusionary sound field that can't be recorded with a mobile phone.

Reports of shows and demos usually include phone recordings. I have listened to many videos of top systems that I listened to and most people considered sounding really good and the videos sounded miserable.

Also the opposite - the video sounds nice and the real system lacked bass, imaging or any vestige of realism.

I say very little to convince people about my own system's sound and let my videos speak directly to others. Give it a try.

Fortunately you say something more than just sounds "natural" ...

Do you consider that your videos show people the characteristic Lamm sound more than your words?

 

[SoundMann]

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

This is do to digitals lack of fine resolution.

This likely involves mixing more than medium, where the mixes for vinyl might actually have been given more dynamic range than the digital mix

Analog sourced vinyl records have much greater dynamic range of scale.

I like The Grateful Dead, and their new Plangent process releases, even on vinyl, sound kinda digital.

Nearly all records made today are sourced from digital masters.

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!

Again, analog sourced vinyl records contain many times the resolution of lossy digital. This is especially heard in the bass.

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!

This depends mainly on the speed accuracy of your table.

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

Technical and subjective differences are often 2 different things.

 

[SoundMann]

Vinyl
- can be very beautiful if not always entirely accurate or complete;

More accurate and more complete do to higher resolution and truer sound.

Digital
- distortions seem to be more intrusive and less natural;
- errors more of commission - something added;

Digital distortion and nonlinearity can be very difficult to counteract, especially with Redbook.

- best is similar to vinyl but can have more structure and precision, bigger bass;

High end dacs use clever parlor tricks to achieve this.

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.

Yes, and I have been working on this problem since the introduction of Redbook cd.

My own preference is for digital replay without digital filtering, but (like Audio Note) transformer filtering or (like my own) clever analog filtering.

Me too.

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.

What YOU prefer is all that matters.

 

[Anton D]

Again, analog sourced vinyl records contain many times the resolution of lossy digital. This is especially heard in the bass.

I find this very interesting. LP's are summed to mono at about 100 Hz, digital is not.

This might also account for differences!

 

[Audiohertz2]

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.

Digital when lazy or hunting for new music , LP’s lastly as a treat , music as it should be alive and well with distractions …

 

[PeterA]

Right. My invitation extends further. Any WBF member in the Boston area, or visiting there sometime, who is interested in hearing my system, please feel free to PM me.

Videos won't do it, as you say.

I agree videos sound different from the actual system, but your recent written observations of sonic improvements heard in my system after some changes correspond with what Bonzo hears from my recent system videos demonstrating those changes. So there is that for whatever it is worth.

And I suspect if Mike or others with both vinyl and digital shared videos, they would support written descriptions of the sonic diiferences relating to the thread topic.

 

[Iamrael]

Maybe someone can come up with a standard recording technique and recording device that can be used to take out as many variables as possible so that evaluating systems via video can be more comprehensive?
Differentiating digital v vinyl even in the context of one’s own system can be better understood as well, I would think.

Of course anyone that is going to post a video is likely going to want the best sounding recording upload/downloading to showcase their system but in the interest of comparing it might be good.

Someone in the know can provide standards by which anyone can participate…..maybe even start a thread which has videos only done accordingly.

 

[microstrip]

Maybe someone can come up with a standard recording technique and recording device that can be used to take out as many variables as possible so that evaluating systems via video can be more comprehensive?

It will be always an intrinsically incomplete experience, even you use a set up similar to what is used for binaural recording and play it in such conditions, adequate to your particular ears. It involves concepts such as head-related transfer function (HRTF) and keeping interaural time differences (ITD) and interaural level differences (ILD).

Differentiating digital v vinyl even in the context of one’s own system can be better understood as well, I would think.

Of course anyone that is going to post a video is likely going to want the best sounding recording upload/downloading to showcase their system but in the interest of comparing it might be good.

Someone in the know can provide standards by which anyone can participate…..maybe even start a thread which has videos only done accordingly.

The subject is not new - we had reports in the magazines of the 60's and 70's of audio designers taping the performance of stereo systems with reel to reel machines for evaluation. However they never published any results on the method and it seems it was abandoned. But the industry embraces it for marketing purposes - we can find some anecdotal evidence of it.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I find this very interesting. LP's are summed to mono at about 100 Hz, digital is not.

This might also account for differences!

while that is a common practice, especially for more modern electronic music and the playback gear it's mostly intended for, it's not close to being universal. not disputing that technically digital does not have some advantages in the lowest octaves. but musically analog makes a better bass performance case for the better recordings. more realism, tunefulness and weight. and it carries more ambient information in the lowest octaves which then completes the musical picture and better defines the venue. digital does ambience too, of course, but just not as completely.

i have some superb digital live recordings, but my best analog one's are degrees better. YMMV.

my room supports deep bass; my speakers (on paper) are -3db @ 7hz, -6db @ 3hz. so very linear in the teens. with lots of amplification headroom. if the media has it, i hear it. i like 'sneaky' bass; i only want it when it's really there. and i found that my highs improved (became more real and lively) when my deep bass was optimized. lots of HF overtones in the deep bass.

an interesting exercise is to listen to how a room can 'hook up' and the venue get defined when the music starts between tracks or the lead in groove. depending on the deep bass extension of the system. quite different analog verses digital. different from recording to recording for sure, but my experience is that analog just generally does it better and more predictably. that is a significant part of realism in a recording. do our senses get it, how do our bodies react? do my shoulders relax? how much? that ease, flow and liquidity in the music. am i sucked in? and my digital is good at this too, but not where my analog is.

 

[Al M.]

while that is a common practice, especially for more modern electronic music and the playback gear it's mostly intended for, it's not close to being universal. not disputing that technically digital does not have some advantages in the lowest octaves. but musically analog makes a better bass performance case for the better recordings. more realism, tunefulness and weight. and it carries more ambient information in the lowest octaves which then completes the musical picture and better defines the venue. digital does ambience too, of course, but just not as completely.

i have some superb digital live recordings, but my best analog one's are degrees better. YMMV.

my room supports deep bass; my speakers (on paper) are -3db @ 7hz, -6db @ 3hz. so very linear in the teens. with lots of amplification headroom. if the media has it, i hear it. i like 'sneaky' bass; i only want it when it's really there. and i found that my highs improved (became more real and lively) when my deep bass was optimized. lots of HF overtones in the deep bass.

an interesting exercise is to listen to how a room can 'hook up' and the venue get defined when the music starts between tracks or the lead in groove. depending on the deep bass extension of the system. quite different analog verses digital. different from recording to recording for sure, but my experience is that analog just generally does it better and more predictably. that is a significant part of realism in a recording. do our senses get it, how do our bodies react? do my shoulders relax? how much? that ease, flow and liquidity in the music. am i sucked in? and my digital is good at this too, but not where my analog is.

Now you are describing sound characteristics after all, Mike. That's great! I wouldn't mind more of this.

 

[tima]

And it works. I noticed changes/improvements in your system without you writing about it.

And, as with Peter, your impressions correspond to my own. David does this also. You both have good ears.

 

[tima]

Tim, I don't need to explain for the umpteenth time why I do not post system videos, as so many others on WBF do not do as well, for similar reasons.

Have ever you made a video of your own system to confirm your reasons?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Now you are describing sound characteristics after all, Mike. That's great! I wouldn't mind more of this.

on Saturday i had some visitors; two long time friends and WBF members and a music lover/non audiophile. we began with a track list my friend brought of a dozen excellent well recorded country/folk vocals on streaming digital. "his" music he lives with daily.

we all very much enjoyed them and i'm happy that my Roon history will now have them as i will be able to revisit them as it's music i like but don't really know that much. not in my normal personal wheelhouse. it's a great part of collective listening is new music horizon's it opens. the gift that keeps on giving. really outstanding unpretentious music. in the past when i hear country music i like i have wished i knew more about it. this can help me to get into it. it has real feeling to it. not as much of a construct as most pop/light jazz.

after we finished those, i played 4 quick cuts of vocals on vinyl that i thought my friends would enjoy to give them a sense of how vocals on vinyl compared.

1--Crosby Stills and Nash, 45rpm single disc 'Lady of the Island and Helplessly Hoping.
2--Eagles Live, 33rpm 'Seven Bridges Road'
3--Nat King Cole, Love is the Thing, 45rpm---'When I Fall in Love'.
4--the non audiophile visitor mentioned he liked opera, so i also played Pavarotti singing 'Nessun Dorma' from a 1973 recording London box set of Puccini's Turandot.

no; i did not go to the trouble to find and play the digital versions of those analog recordings; but i have in the past heard all of those many times on digital because the music is superb and i love it. they are nice on digital.

the digital vocals were fully satisfying. they pulled you in and the flow and boggie factor of the recordings touched all the bases. it's a playlist i will explore. honest and pure. but the vinyl vocals were on another level of human touch. obviously iconic recordings each one. great artists. degrees more real and pulsing with real tactile energy. kind of laser focused and profound. transcendent. a more physical experience. leaves you breathless. makes you forget everything else. where i like to be.

i'm just relating my own perceptions. there were plenty of oohs and ahhs from my visitors but i don't want to speak for them.

we played music for 2 more hours before we ran out of time and there was more of that stuff, i'm just citing one part of the session.

 

[Tuckers]

I've been building a vinyl system again after 15 years of no vinyl. I am currently evaluating the differences between vinyl and digital. My vinyl system is more pedestrian I think than anybody debating here, but I've been working really hard to have it transcend its roots, and have succeeded to a degree I am happy with. One of my best tools lately is comparing digitally recorded music on both record and high resolution files on my digital front end. This is allowing me to hear more precisely what the differences are, without the difference of analog vs digital. Hence I can hear where my vinyl falls short, and vice versa.

In my system currently, vocals sound fuller and more present on vinyl, universally. Soundstage and imaging is also wider, deeper, and more realistic. Bass is different, but I chalk that up more to shortcomings on my vinyl rig, and maybe to the summing of bass channels. On some material those qualities are not enough to make me like the vinyl better, all things considered. Overall on high quality sounding digital recordings, the differences are quite small if both the the pressing and the digital file are top quality.

But amazing analog records create this bubble that brings the original event to life within it, and brings a tonal saturation which leaves digital behind in all the ways I value in audio. Great digital can also be very realistic, convincingly cast a scenario, even be tonally accurate - but it just presents it at a distance, and with some emotional distance as well. However, I would rather listen to an amazing digital recording of a piece of music, over a poorly pressed, compressed, bleached sounding record (of which there are many) and vice versa. But this is not a comment on digital vs vinyl, but of the intense variability of music releases.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Well, I'll have a smoked salmon ciabatta sandwich later on, with cucumber and capers. From my favorite café around here.

Cucumber and capers on smoked salmon?
Sounds like major colorations, a tweak and mod too far.
Clearly too much noise in your system, a light squeeze of lemon to reveal the dynamics of the salmon should be enough.