That’s true to some extent (depending on tape type and care) but I often find better mastering chains often sound better in some or all ways. I have a handful of OG Blue Notes but give me the Kevin Gray version every day of the week.
Vinyl and Digital: How does the sound or listening experience differ?
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
That’s true to some extent (depending on tape type and care) but I often find better mastering chains often sound better in some or all ways. I have a handful of OG Blue Notes but give me the Kevin Gray version every day of the week.
Pondering this more since last time. There is something that a vinyl playback system does to the sound that isn't part of the actual music signal that seems to have a salutary effect on the playback experience.
As I've thought about this thread, I think there is an artifact with vinyl that really adds to the frison of the sound. It will seem crazy: when listening to vinyl, take a listen to silent moments - before the first song starts, between cuts, etc.... and those silent parts still produce something that is perceptible - the noise of the groove, the stylus interacting with the LP, the step up circuitry, whatever, that seems to add some low level ambiance that is pleasant. (On Kind of Blue, records seem to add an effect that enhances the feeling of space or place vs. digital experiences I have had with that music.)
Obviously, this is not really part of the musical content at all, so I am praising LP playback for a flaw, really, but it's something that seems to maybe alert the ear that something sonically cool is happening, or, who knows, maybe low level 'rumble' creates a false sensation of enhanced space (like a good woofer can do,) I dunno. It's hard to try to put my finger on it, but since we are all friends here, I thought I'd toss it out. I think vinyl artifacts maybe tend toward being a little euphonic.
****
Edited to add: maybe there is a characteristic of vinyl playback that acts like 'dithering' on digital playback to make the sound more enjoyable. (Could vinyl artifact be introducing some low level random noise (like dithering) that makes us able to feel as though we hear smoother sound and add the sensation of 'preserving detail?'
As I've thought about this thread, I think there is an artifact with vinyl that really adds to the frison of the sound. It will seem crazy: when listening to vinyl, take a listen to silent moments - before the first song starts, between cuts, etc.... and those silent parts still produce something that is perceptible - the noise of the groove, the stylus interacting with the LP, the step up circuitry, whatever, that seems to add some low level ambiance that is pleasant. (On Kind of Blue, records seem to add an effect that enhances the feeling of space or place vs. digital experiences I have had with that music.)
Obviously, this is not really part of the musical content at all, so I am praising LP playback for a flaw, really, but it's something that seems to maybe alert the ear that something sonically cool is happening, or, who knows, maybe low level 'rumble' creates a false sensation of enhanced space (like a good woofer can do,) I dunno. It's hard to try to put my finger on it, but since we are all friends here, I thought I'd toss it out. I think vinyl artifacts maybe tend toward being a little euphonic.
****
Edited to add: maybe there is a characteristic of vinyl playback that acts like 'dithering' on digital playback to make the sound more enjoyable. (Could vinyl artifact be introducing some low level random noise (like dithering) that makes us able to feel as though we hear smoother sound and add the sensation of 'preserving detail?'
Last edited:
Lee, I read this sentiment in many threads and over the last few years. I started this thread not because I’m looking for what people think is best or what they prefer. I started the thread to learn how people describe the differences they hear between the formats. It sounds to me as though you’re suggesting that you do not hear any differences and that they have converged at the highest level. Is that your opinion, that your preference depends on the actual recording, and that neither format at this point has a strength or weakness? Or do I not understand what you are saying?
Well, there would be no comparison taking place. We are comparing these two formats and wondering how to discuss/describe our ideas about the differences we hear.
It’s in the title of the thread: “Vinyl and Digital: How does the sound or listening experience differ?”
Thanks for the spell check!
There's no longer a practical way to answer this question unless one is very specific about what constitures "vinyl" and "digital," and the associated gear driving preferences. If you are going to compare roughly pre-1964 analog recordings with digitized versions of them, that's one set of different experiences. Analog from the pre-multitrack recordings era had a distinctly organic and spatially-rich sound that digitization tended to flatten and make more "forward." All-analog vinyl, remastered all-analog, 16/44 digitized, SACD / 1-bit DSD versions of the same content almost always favor the vinyl for the organic vs "hi-def" experience, that could bring some fatigue. But the almost-everything-is-multitracked era of analog also produced some deeply unnatural and fatiguing recordings that now sound "digital" because of excessive multitracking, too many mics and destroyed phase relationships, -- none of which was ameliorated by stamping it into vinyl. I referenced this before, but again, vinyl-the-medium didn't save Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" (the first major label mass release digital recording - 1979) from sounding appalling. As the everything-is-multracked era segued into the predominantly digital era, early on the digital experience was hampered by the learning curve forced on recording and mastering engineers, the ADCs needed in the chain, and the quality of DACs we had to listen through. Forty-two-to-roughly-twenty years ago, vinyl was relatively organic, natural and relaxing to listen to, and digital was relatively hard, if not harsh, unsubtle and fatiguing, but bass was good.
But as I wrote in a different post, digital has vastly improved and vinyl and mostly not, as media.
Does vinyl sound like we think vinyl does when a digital recording is massaged and transferred to analog and shipped on vinyl, played back via a phono cartridge? No. It might sound different from the digital stream file or a CD, but there's not much experiential differential once you get past the licorice pizza rituals, the disc is spinning on a turntable, and you're in position to listen. A fatiguing digital recording from Redbook or hi-rez remains fatiguing when packaged onto and played back from a vinyl LP. And sometimes a non-fatiguing digital recording sounds more natural and relaxing than the digital-onto-vinyl alternative. Just how much new music are you buying on vinyl that is all analog in its origins?
There's also the matter of playback equipment. There are all-analog recordings that will drive me from the room if played back with a Dynavector or Lyra cartridge, to name two examples, yet I can get a "vinyl experience" from a digital-conversion of same, via hi-rez streaming or even a CD, of the same content if played back on a quality DAC, especially R2R. Change the phono cartridge to something musically more tenable my reactions may well be different.
There's also the problem of parsing opinions on this from people who don't have commensurate vinyl and digital playback gear. IME, more often than not, vinyl analog stalwarts do not have disc spinners, streamers and DACs commensurate to their investments in turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono stage. And equally, digital diehards usually don't have vinyl playback gear commensurate to their investment and choices in digital. However, listeners hearing fairly evenly-matched vinyl and digital playback bring varying conclusions.
I agree that vinyl LPs from the pre-mass-multritrack era when also large-diaphragm microphones and tube consoles were common, have a tonal and spatial subtlety that is far more natural in simple sonic seduction, but that is elusive on modern recordings of any origin. But that's not because of vinyl. It's because of the art of everything upstream from putting a spiral groove into plastic.
Phil
But as I wrote in a different post, digital has vastly improved and vinyl and mostly not, as media.
Does vinyl sound like we think vinyl does when a digital recording is massaged and transferred to analog and shipped on vinyl, played back via a phono cartridge? No. It might sound different from the digital stream file or a CD, but there's not much experiential differential once you get past the licorice pizza rituals, the disc is spinning on a turntable, and you're in position to listen. A fatiguing digital recording from Redbook or hi-rez remains fatiguing when packaged onto and played back from a vinyl LP. And sometimes a non-fatiguing digital recording sounds more natural and relaxing than the digital-onto-vinyl alternative. Just how much new music are you buying on vinyl that is all analog in its origins?
There's also the matter of playback equipment. There are all-analog recordings that will drive me from the room if played back with a Dynavector or Lyra cartridge, to name two examples, yet I can get a "vinyl experience" from a digital-conversion of same, via hi-rez streaming or even a CD, of the same content if played back on a quality DAC, especially R2R. Change the phono cartridge to something musically more tenable my reactions may well be different.
There's also the problem of parsing opinions on this from people who don't have commensurate vinyl and digital playback gear. IME, more often than not, vinyl analog stalwarts do not have disc spinners, streamers and DACs commensurate to their investments in turntable/tonearm/cartridge/phono stage. And equally, digital diehards usually don't have vinyl playback gear commensurate to their investment and choices in digital. However, listeners hearing fairly evenly-matched vinyl and digital playback bring varying conclusions.
I agree that vinyl LPs from the pre-mass-multritrack era when also large-diaphragm microphones and tube consoles were common, have a tonal and spatial subtlety that is far more natural in simple sonic seduction, but that is elusive on modern recordings of any origin. But that's not because of vinyl. It's because of the art of everything upstream from putting a spiral groove into plastic.
Phil
Well, there would be no comparison taking place. We are comparing these two formats and wondering how to discuss/describe our ideas about the differences we hear.
It’s in the title of the thread: “Vinyl and Digital: How does the sound or listening experience differ?”
Thanks for the spell check!
Okay. I did not read your post as a comparison. Since you are comparing, I think you are saying that this salutary effect of analog -- whatever it is -- is missing from a digital playback system? If that is the case I'm inclined away from a mysterious ingredient explanation and simply say "it's analog" with all that means.
This suggests to me that the simpler recording setups of Decca (Wilkinson), Mercury (Fines) and RCA (Layton) engineers is a significant factor -- as you suggest, nowadays too many microphones. So a question for a thread might be: How does the sound or listening experience differ before and after the adoption of multi-miked, multi-tracked recordings.
Then again, when you start taking things apart there seems to be some inevitable loss putting them back together.
I’m saying there seems to be a sonic difference between LP sound and digital playback sound. (As postulated in the thread title.)
My preference is vinyl, and I am wondering which aspects of vinyl playback actually create that preference when I compare these formats. It may be that certain artifacts may sound attractive. Like how some perceive tube distortions as pleasant.
I had also mentioned possible differences in reply #9. I like the topic!
Okay -- let us know if you discover what those are.
I have always played records. For a while I did CDs then stopped to devote my budget to a single format. I don't feel qualified to respond to the OP as I have not engaged with digital for a while.
I've heard most of the top digital sources. There's progress, but...
I recently listened to a friend's audio system.
Tech DAS - AIR FORCE ONE PREMIUM, tonearm, TechDAS pickup, Ypsilon phono vs. I won't reveal the company's name. A digital set costs around 200,000 euros, so the price of analog and digital was similar.
Chie Ayado album.
Maybe this turntable is considered top-of-the-line by audiophiles. For me, it was simply very good, sounding better than the best digital according to reviewers.
Maybe with different music, it would be a tie, maybe in a different system.
Who knows?
Natural freshness, an easy, and light sound are still attributes of analog.
But there's one thing:
We build audio systems around our preferred source, meaning we choose components to achieve the best sound from a single source—let's say, analog—and add a digital source to the system, but one of the sources has more comfortable conditions. Because we matched the cables, preamp, etc. to the analog source.
I mainly listen to digital for convenience, but I try to make the digital sound similar to the old Ortofon SPU, not the modern one.
If you've ever compared them, you know.
I recently listened to a friend's audio system.
Tech DAS - AIR FORCE ONE PREMIUM, tonearm, TechDAS pickup, Ypsilon phono vs. I won't reveal the company's name. A digital set costs around 200,000 euros, so the price of analog and digital was similar.
Chie Ayado album.
Maybe this turntable is considered top-of-the-line by audiophiles. For me, it was simply very good, sounding better than the best digital according to reviewers.
Maybe with different music, it would be a tie, maybe in a different system.
Who knows?
Natural freshness, an easy, and light sound are still attributes of analog.
But there's one thing:
We build audio systems around our preferred source, meaning we choose components to achieve the best sound from a single source—let's say, analog—and add a digital source to the system, but one of the sources has more comfortable conditions. Because we matched the cables, preamp, etc. to the analog source.
I mainly listen to digital for convenience, but I try to make the digital sound similar to the old Ortofon SPU, not the modern one.
If you've ever compared them, you know.
Agree, this is the more pertinent listening-experiences question. The 1950s Decca, Mercury, RCA recordings had more noise but far greater natural ambience and better captured hall acoustics. In studio recorded music, Sinatra's albums sounded distinctly more natural, say, 1966 and earlier, than later. The 1963 recording of Muddy Waters' "Folksinger" is a sonic revelation of audio holography with even modest systems, whereas 1967 "Sgt. Pepper" is obviously a flattened and fake-spaces sonic concoction, and it only got worse as the Beatles recorded more of their tracks in isolation from each other. There are myriad examples.
There are several factors that undermined natural sound as had been attained by the mid-1950s, within a few short years:
1/ Rapid replacement of vacuum tube recording consoles with early solid state.
2/ More use of smaller diaphragm dynamic mics, electrets and similar.
3/ Increasing reliance on multi-tracking and excessive multi-mic'ing...
4/ ...Which led to more and more not having the band in the same room at time of recording.
Some popular musicians limited these trends, Tom Waits and Bob Dylan notably among them, and you can hear the differences. Overall, we got more "factory music" from the technology bloom in music recording, but there was an overall loss of relaxed naturalism, tonal truth and spatial immersion.
There are certainly modern, boutique labels that can give you a lower-noise version of the vintage experience, notably M+A Recordings here in Los Angeles, but only a relative few will be familiar with their repertoire. Whether on vinyl or CD, the recordings are vivid and holistically spectacular. You can find good modern examples if you're open to alternative music.
Listen to Miles Davis recordings before 1966 and after. Chet Baker in the '60s vs the '80s before he died. Beatles before '67 and after. To me, given the evolved state of modern digital, this is a far more demarcating contrast to consider. There are modern labels and artists that emulate the older simple mic'ing, low tracks, everyone in the room, but they aren't what most people are listening to most of the time.
Phil
To add to all this, there is the problem of the preservation of these analog sources and the quality of digital transfers.
My very limited experience tells me that a mint copy of a well recorded vinyl will sound fantastic when played back through an ADC and DAC, so that the digital process itself, if handled with quality equipment, is not an issue. Why would one do this? That’s another discussion.
I listen to a lot of classical. Deutsche-Grammophon had/has a really nice catalog of performers but they are egregious multi-mikers. Too much spot-lighting yields a 'put together' sound on some releases.
Yes, optimizing for one source, often analog, seems to be a factor. I have digital as my only source, and my system is optimized around it (system details in my signature below, visible on phone if turned sIdeways), including speaker set-up.
I am very pleased with the result, and my personal perception is that it compares favorably to the vinyl playback that I have heard countless times in other systems, also in terms of the "natural freshness" that you mention.
However good your digital equipment may be, you are limited by the choice of source material. Depending on what you listen to, this may not be an issue. I often find myself wondering how an original LP would sound like when listening to digital versions of older material.
Agree. As a simple test, on my secondary system I use a Parks Audio Puffin phono preamp. The Puffin converts all analog input to 24/96 digital for the necessary phono processing, including RIAA, tonal adjustment to substitute for MC cartridge loading and MM capacitance loading, and offeres a variety of other manipulation enhancements if you choose to use them. You can use analog out, which means there's ADC>DAC in the path, or digital out to hear the output through your preferred DAC.
If I play a vinyl copy of "Harry Belafonte Sings the Blues" (from IIRC 1958 with everything that entails) through the digital Puffin, it sounds analog and authentic.
More to the point, I use vintage Luxman turntables on both my systems that can host two tonearms. Same table on both. Over the past 8 years when I have had both ADC>DAC phono preamps and conventional analog phono preamps in a system on separate tonearms, I have had numerous audiophile guests (including some from WBF) who listened with enthusiasm without realizing when they were hearing a digitizing phono pre. Generally, after revealing what was what, they left having to rethink some assumptions. It's not that the analog and digitizing phono preamps (in this case both M2tech and Parks Audio) didn't sound different from each other. It's that the sound was enjoyed and evaluated in the moment by listeners who behaved like they were listening to analog vinyl sounds.
In some cases two pure analog circuit phono stages can show a greater difference than is discerned between my digitizing examples and the excellent Nagra. And I say this as a long-time vinyl preferrer.
Phil
Thanks for the reply. It is not so common to find audiophiles who do this - I use an amp that has a single digital input… I have an M2Tech Joplin, but unfortunately the DSP became glitchy, and I decided to try it as a pure ADC with an analog phono stage (Phasemation, entry model) and have not bothered getting it fixed since then (I very rarely play non RIAA records…). I was curious about the Puffin as well.
Last edited:
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |