Why vinyl?

norah jones is not my cup of tea, but beyond the sound quality issue, 10yrs from now what will the cd version be worth and which one will you still be listening to? which one will you pull out to try and introduce your children to the music you love?. records have been spinning for over 100yrs, cds dead before they are 30. vinyl, i believe, will out live us all.

I am new to vinyl; I purchased a turntable in January. CD and vinyl presentations are very different. I enjoy them both. Since January, I have spent 90% of my time listening to my turntable mostly because it is new. However, today I listened to a B-tribe CD, which only comes in CD and it was extremely enjoyable. I don’t think there needs to be a B-tribe vinyl record, although; it might be interesting to hear B-tribe on vinyl.

I got interested in audiophile equipment a couple of years ago, so this is basically all new to me. It took me about two years to figure out how to get all the parts of my Audio system and environment to work synergistically together and to sound good. Since the rest of my system was set up fairly well when I got my turntable, all I’ve had to do since then, is learn what is necessary to make the turntable sound good in my system. That has taken about two months and I am still learning.

The turntable presentation in my system is a little bit thicker, a little bit more forward, has more of a feel to it, is slightly more 3-d and makes me feel like I am in the middle of it. The CD presentation is weaker in treble, the soundstage appears to be a little further back, and gives the impression of watching from a distance or the outside. They offer two different ways of enjoying the same presentation. Both my CD player and turntable are sweet sounding (especially after I figured out that you have to clean the needle every once in a while); both are very good at what they do and both are very enjoyable.

The way I see it, as long as I have a CD player, I am going to make sure it sounds good and is enjoyable. The same goes for my turntable. After two years of playing around with my system, there is one thing I’ve learned: I can always change something in my system to alter its sound and make it sound better, if I don’t like the way it sounds.

I have a lot of good SACDs and CDs; and I am building a nice collection of vinyl records. I like music so I will buy music in whatever format it comes. I probably have enough music so that if I were to decide to go through my whole collection, it might take me a few months. Basically, I probably don’t need any new CDs, SACDs or vinyl so if any of the formats disappeared, I could live with it as long as I could get parts for my CD player and turntable.

I really don’t’ think either CD or vinyl is going to disappear, though. CDs are convenient and can be very enjoyable in a properly set up audio system. Vinyl on the other hand is gaining a well-deserved reputation for a good quality rendition of music, which is attracting new comers like myself and a friend of mine who also bought a turntable a couple of months before I did.

"I've got both and much prefer the LP. It's not just overall sound quality, but the mix seems better. I don't know why they wouldn't come from the same two-channel master, but the CD is more compressed and the vocals not as rich, among other things."

I also prefer Norah's LP, but probably not as much as you do. My listening may not be as refined as yours, or my analog system is not as good as yours, but difference I hear is, well, subtle or marginal. Rather spending $30, I would go for $6 used CD. Maybe, when I become well off to spend for higher quality cartridge and amplifier (and speaker), I would not spend $30 for newly released albums; I would rather spend $30 for 10 used LPs.
There is an exception - I would not hesitate to spend $30 for albums like Muddy Waters' folk singer. Its sound quality is absolutely superb.

03-19-08: Ihcho said:
"...I just wonder whether $30 for Norah's LP was well spent for the the marginal difference.
Anyway, for those of you who have both Norah's LP and CD, do they sound quite close in your systems or quite different?"

I've got both and much prefer the LP. It's not just overall sound quality, but the mix seems better. I don't know why they wouldn't come from the same two-channel master, but the CD is more compressed and the vocals not as rich, among other things.

Dave

I have to wonder how much the warmth and appeal of many older well recorded LPs from the 60s, etc., is due to the fact that they were LPs so much as the fact that these recordings were mastered using the analog tape and tube recording systems of the day, whereas these days most new recordings (like Norah Jones, I would assume) are mastered using SS and digital?

Some of the new albums come in both digital (CD) and anglog (LP) format.
If you prefer LP in general, have you compared CD and LP for newly released albums?
The only new album I have for both CD and LP is Norah Jones' Come Away with me. On my system, Norah Jones' LP sounds a little bit (very subtle) better with warmth, depth and detail than CD. But my wife does not think so. She just cannot feel any difference. Well, my wife at least recognizes the difference between CD and LP for those early 60/70's LPs and their reissue CDs -- She think LP is much better.

My systme is
Clearaudio bluemotion with Aurum Classic Wood Cartridge, Clearaudio microbasic preamp, Yaqin MC10L tube amplifier (with Siemens EL34 and RCA 6922s replacing Chinse 6N1s), Tyler Taylo 7U speakers, Zu Wax biwire cable, and NAD C541i.

I just wonder whether $30 for Norah's LP was well spent for the the marginal difference.
Anyway, for those of you who have both Norah's LP and CD, do they sound quite close in your systems or quite different?

I agree with the packaging and fun factor of collecting vinyl, I was just in London and picked up this funk compilation album "FUNK DROPS: Breaks, Nuggets and Rarities from the Vaults of Atlantic, Atco, Reprise and Warner Bros 1968-1974" (I wasn't even born yet) and it comes with these liner notes with a brief history of the songs and the musicians...very cool.

I also just got a tube preamp (first one, tube anything) and hooked up my crappy turntable and it sounds awesome... I was just A/B-ing the gear with some friends.. and I'm beginning to see what what people on Audiogon mean about soundstaging, speakers disappearing and "holographic" images.

Very happy with my $40 turntable today.... can't wait to get a proper power amp that is a good impedance match.

Played a 1969 live John Mayall record too.. and it seems fine musicians playing acoustic instruments sound so much better on vinyl.... I don't think it matters as much when I'm playing JT (Justin Timberlake) but I think I saw Sexyback on LP.... (just kidding... sorta)

I think if they just packaged CDs into larger format LP-like packaging with some interesting artwork, etc., like the olden days, I would be very happy. I have thought about storing CDs of albums that I burn myself back in the original LP covers in protective sleeves, along with the vinyl. Haven't perfected this approach quite yet though.

Although I do like the sound of good vinyl, it's mostly the fun factor (and readability) of the whole package that appeals to me more so than the inherent sonics of vinyl alone.

Nothing the size of a CD will ever be as much fun as LPs were/are as long as it is packaged into a tiny, mostly unreadable case, as are CDs.

THese days, you get a lot more information about music online than you do anywhere else, so the days of fancy physical packaging of music may be over, I'm afraid.

Les, in a sense, analogue also suffers from resolution limits, for example, the tape that is used cannot resolve the sound to smaller discrete packages than the size of the magnetic particles on the tape. And, of course, the playback of the tape is really just an integration (reassembling)of discrete particles of information into a coherent ensemble. The math behind the digital is superior to the 'mechanical' method of integration used by analogue.
Nyquist theory, anyone?

Bob P.

Well I am definitely a fan of vinyl. For a number of years I, too, only bought CDs (well a few records here and there). I know this is a familiar story but I just listened to music a lot less as time went on. When I got back into listening to music part of the reason was that I was back into vinyl. A new amp and speakers and now I listen to music all the time.

I was lucky in that I never sold my TT or my records so I still have them all.

That said I still listen to CDs, they still give me great musical experiences. I just prefer vinyl, it just sounds better. Oh, and the fun of having vinyl and taking care of it is part of the experience too.

DS

Les, my priorities are close to yours; vinyl first, SACD or DVD-A second, CD third, LossLess Download fourth and that's it, no tape for me, anymore. I think Dolby screws up good recordings and I gave up on costly reel-to-reel decades ago. Those high speed tapes make $50 LPs seem cheap.

Within a year or so I'll have a hard drive music server with true hi rez digital archiving and wireless transfer throughout the house. It's not available today at a reasonable price, but it will be very soon. Of course, I'll keep all my old LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, etc.

Dave

Mrmitch,

You mirror much of how I feel on the topic.

Back in the early 80's I was getting into the hobby and of course the LP record reigned supreme for the consumer. I began to read up on digital though and the CD and was pulled into it by its hype and marketing. Yes it sounded different, it had a cleanliness to it and combined with the hype of telling us what we cannot hear (clicks and pops) we were told that it was Perfect Sound Forever. I have said here in earlier posts that I was hooked into digital not realising what I was losing in terms of vinyl. By the fall of '86 I had switched to CD's 100%. My old turntable and a few dozen LP's were boxed away and some even sold off.

It remained for me until just after Christmas 2002. I began to read online about vinyl and record players being made. I found my old JVC LA-11, vulcanised platter mat, bent Shure cartridge stylus, a slipping belt, and my remaining LP's. Hooked it up and cued up some Alan Parsons Projects. Um it was like being hit in the head with a book. I realised even with this wonky old setup was playing something I had not heard in 16 years.

Soon I had bought a new turntable in my case to wet my appetite it was a Music Hall mmf2.1 and began shopping thrift stores for used vinyl. Reading up online trying tweaks etc. and a rebirth to vinyl for me.

It was so revealing for me I had to then get a better CD player. Soon I had a new Cambridge Audio D-300se and even though it still lacked something compared to my vinyl rig it was close enough for me to still enjoy throwing in a CD when I wanted to.

You are correct some LP's are not available on CD and many CD's will never be made on vinyl. I was originally turned off my CD's once I got my mmf2.1 but the D-300se helped get me to accept CD's. Time and other tweaks along with just not getting to anal about it all has helped me see that hey a well made CD (sadly most made in the last 10 years suck in how they are recorded) can sound very good using decent gear. Some CD's are not much off an LP version and lets face facts not all of the millions of LP's pressed were well made. I have a few DOGS!

5 years down my rebirth into vinyl I kick myself for losing 16 years of its fun, feeling and sonic pleasure. But I can't change that now. I have really reshaped my mind into thinking more about that it is about the music and a good CD on a nice player can sound great. Yes, I prefer vinyl most of all, from the sound to the hunt of shopping thrift store and the ritual of playing vinyl. It is one of the best parts of this hobby BUT! I am more than happy to have and use CD's too. Recently after doing reading online I took an old PlayStation unit and did some tweaks to it and discovered that it can be tweaked into a decent ol' CD player. In fact I was happy and thrilled enough after I tweaked it out a bit to sell my D-300se to put that money into other electronic toys for my system. Honestly to me the PlayStation unit tweaked sounds almost analogue-like. The D-300se had a better overall sound but the PlayStation has a more precise sound and I like it. BTW tweaks include a full tear down and cleaning making sure all parts are cleaned, shielding is in place and a full flat black painting to help keep out stray light. I used differing materials to pad and dampen parts that can rub and resonate. I drilled out more holes for added cooling and for making home made spiked feet. I built a sprung iso platform to seat the unit and its spike feet onto and the spikes sit into brass plates. It truly sounds pleasant and it cost me next to nothing to tweak.

Anyways back to your point. I can enjoy good CD sound and good vinyl sound. As I said, I prefer vinyl first but am not averse to using my CD player. I to have taken it to bring back by buying a nice 3 head cassette deck into my system for the fun of cassette recordings. I have a stand alone Pioneer CD recorder and it is used to make digital copies of my fav LPs etc. but I wanted to return back to using a good cassette deck to make good analogue copies of some of my fav. vinyl. Along with having another source to playback the multitude of use cassettes at trifts too.

Now I can shop for vinyl first and foremost, CD's as a second choice and analogue cassettes as a third.

As time progresses for me it is about having pleasant sounding gear and maybe playing the upgrade game over time for each.

I've had both analog and digital in my stereo system concurrently since 1983. I prefer vinyl for high-end sound, but can enjoy cd's too. Some pieces of music have never been available on digital (usually orchestral or jazz from the classic era), and some more contemporary music has only been ava ilable on cd. The point I'd like to make is that I'd r ather see people sit down and listen to music and get themselves involved in it, understand it, do their homework about the artists and pieces, and truly enjoy it, no matter what the medium. To say that one medium is more modern, wont be around in the future,or is bandwidth-limited, misses the point, IMHO.--Mrmitch

Dave,

Yes I have heard DVD-A and it is generally quite nice. I find it still has an edge to it that sounds not quite right but if I never was into good quality vinyl playback and was willing to re-buy my digital CD library in DVD-A it would be a good choice. I'll say the same with SACD but both formats are all but dead.

The DSD you talk about is obviously not a format for consumers (yet if ever at all). But if it is as good as you say it will be very nice with only one caveat. It again requires the listener to re-buy their libraries in this format. Add to that untold millions of records that where produced on vinyl and even cassette tape will likely never see this format. It will probably be pricey if/when it becomes a consumer format and will suffer the potential of it falling on its face as SACD and DVD-A has.

Sadly all too many consumers have been brainwashed and PURE LIED TO that lossy MP3 and iPod type sound is as good as even CD sound. So they accept it given no real test of reference to even a good CD sound let alone quality vinyl DVD-A, SACD. So the industry has cut its nose to spite itself (nothing new with the recording industry) and it will likely do the same if this DSD type format becomes a consumer format. It will cut its nose off again because it will price it too high for the general consumer to want to buy into.

The magic of vinyl regardless of it being a digital or an anlogue master is the used library world wide is MASSIVE! New vinyl is being made as a niche (GREAT!) and it has a sensation to it in ways digital media seems to lack.

As I said if a master is made of a great high-rez digital format and then cut a vinyl disc from it I'm 100% fine with it. If they make an affordable optical discs from it that can be easily played (not likely going to happen) then great too. But short of what will be a niche market even high-rez digital is in trouble today.

I appreciate you educating me some basics of DSD stuff you note and if it can capture and recreate the nuance of audio/sounds as a mastering format so that it is as good or better than the best analogue masters and can then be used to cut new vinyl from personally I WILL LOVE IT!!! because it requires me not to have to buy a new playback unit or whatever to hear it.

"I believe that digital is just now catching up with analog, but, based on what I hear, it's the gap has disappeared. Unfortunately, you can't buy much at the highest possible resolutions."

I totally agree with this statement. To me, standard redbook audio is inherently flawed due to its low resolution. When the redbook standard was invented, the ability to fit 650 MB/60-70 minutes of audio on a small plastic disc was amazing, considering hard drives at the time could store about 10 megabytes. They most likely chose 16 bit 44.1 kHz because it allowed a full 60-70 minutes of audio on this 650 megabyte disc, and also because they found that that sampling rate still captured the frequency range of normal human hearing. If they would have had the technology to put more than 650 megabytes onto a disc at that time, they most likely would have chosen a much higher sampling rate.

Les, you're talking about OLD digital technology.

Using DSD @ 5.6MHz the "packets" are as dense as the oxide particles on tape and dozens of times denser than the 16-bit technology you're using as a reference. I agree with you about old 16-bit with harse filters and other shortcomings, but the new digital is leaping forward by an order of magnitude every few months. Your arguement no longer holds water.

A DSD, i-bit, 5.6MHz sample does NOT lose data in replication. It's truly archival. Using professional-level programs you can copy the file and it will be "bit-perfect" in ALL generations. This issues you address have all been addressed and corrected.

With 130dB of headroom I hardly need to worry about overload; however, if I am worried I can add attenuation or a filter. The 130dB is only the starting point, but it gives the recordist tons of options to never reach clipping.

Let me think a little. I've read some good summaries of today's state of the art. You seem interested enough that if I can find you some links you'll start getting up to date. Have you heard good DVD-A? It's not as good as DSD, which has twice the resolution, but it'll give you some idea of what's possible in the digital domain.

Please note, I still have a very good TT, tube, phono-preamp and a big library of LPs. I believe that digital is just now catching up with analog, but, based on what I hear, it's the gap has disappeared. Unfortunately, you can't buy much at the highest possible resolutions.

Dave

I don't believe digital is inherently more accurate. It has its strengths but is has its flaws. It takes an analogue signal and chops it up into little digital packets where to play back a microprocessor tries to reassemble the packets to recreate an analogue wave form.

I've been trying to think of a visual analogy so if I may.

16 bit digital is like looking through a screen door. You see the outside world image but the screen effectively blocks the image into little packets invariably obscuring the cleanliness of what the real world image should look like. Higher rez digital just has a less apparent screen door effect. Your mind sees the outside world image and can understand it but the mesh is acting like an A to D converter effectively breaks the image into its little block pattern. I hope this makes sense. Analogue recording is like looking out a window without screen but through a pane of glass that may not be perfectly crystal clear and may even have a film of dust and dirt on it. You see the outside world image. Your brain can understand it but its imperfections in the window glass and maybe the film of dust obscures it from perfection. Both formats suffer inaccuracies but maybe different ones. IMO we humans are more willing and accept and maybe even enjoy the inaccuracies of the typical analogue playback over inaccuracies over the digital ones.

Where digital can be quieter and can have expansive dynamic range etc it also in the A to D and D to A process suffers and loses things humans not only can hear but can sense.

Fact is whether one records on analogue or digital from the master on down to the final consumer product we must accept errors and inaccuracies in the final sound.

There are certain luxuries for a engineer to record in digital but so to there are luxuries to record in analogue. Its about what compromises you are willing to accept.

Just one point to compare in this simple regard:

Push a signal above digital 0db and you run out of bits and instant massive clipped distortion. Go too far into the red on an analogue recording and you get a general but progressively higher distortion.

Pick your poison I guess.

03-15-08: Inpepinnovations asked:
"Dave, ever try recording 72 brass + 25 percussion of drum & bugle corps? I perfectly understand your need for 130+ db dynamic range in recording!! Do the microphones even have that range?
I feel that the preent state of digital, recording and playback has more potential to do justice to the recorded event, but unfortunately, not many recordings are done with quality in mind, just loud sounds."

No, I haven't recorded a DC, but I've heard it up close, when I helped provide the side for one of the Texas Region regionals. Florida State now marches 430+ in their marching band and I've been 20-feet from the front line. AMAZING. Next November I hope to record over 100 trumpets at the Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest. I love the BIG sounds and nothing beats being right in the middle of it.

Yes, my AKG condensor mics have 130dB and that's it. It works for just about anything recorded at any distance. I've got a 20dB pad in case I want to record trumpet with the mic right in the bell or a drum close up.

I'm hearing a lot of good all-digital recordings, by the likes of Diana Krall, Jane Monheit, Rebecca Pidgeon, Dave Gruisin, many Concord artists and others. Playback in 2-channel SACD or DVD-A is stunning. I even bought a Radiohead album in vinyl that was DDA and found it amazing and only 16-bucks.

So, I think there's hope for all formats. Digital playback is progrssing so fast (32-bit will be readily available at responsible prices within a few months) that the digital-to-vinyl gap is disappearing quickly.

I'm very happy that'll I'll be able to buy a true hi-rez harddrive, music server by the end of this year that'll do justice to my D2D recordings that I've been collecting since the 1970s. BTW, I will NOT be sending $20k Linn's way. (What a crock).

Dave

Les, in response to my comment, you are effectively saying that for the same digitally recorded event, most people (you included) will prefer the LP playback to the digital playback due to the nicer distortions added during the playback. I agree, but I still contend that the digital recording and playback is more faithful to the original event.
Dave, ever try recording 72 brass + 25 percussion of drum & bugle corps? I perfectly understand your need for 130+ db dynamic range in recording!! Do the microphones even have that range?
I feel that the preent state of digital, recording and playback has more potential to do justice to the recorded event, but unfortunately, not many recordings are done with quality in mind, just loud sounds.

Bob P.

Les, my friend, no offense taken at all. Yeah, we're all just talking here and trying to learn. I understand what you saying and feel the spirit.

I suspect from you comments that you've never really done any serious recording. The 20dB of ambient noise that you mention uses up part of the dynamic range and it's often really higher.

Say you have a fine consumer reel-to-reel recorder with 115 to 120dB of dynamic range at its highest speed. Your goal is to have as little tape noise as possible, so you'll need to record at the highest level possible without exceeding the recorder's dynamic range. So, you have the group play their loudest passage and set the recording level so it's just below or just touches 0dB (115dB in this case). You're recording trumpets and trombones that easily have dynamic range of 40 to 50dB: therefore, your recorder will be set so that the quietest levels are recorded at 65dB (115dB -50dB) which is very soft, even in a quiet room.

With tape, those quiet levels will have too much noise. Of course if you use the very best professional recorder a 30ips (burning very expensive tape) you'll gain 10 more dB of dynamic range. Anyway, back to our consumer machine, you've got a problem, the dynamic range IS too huge. What you do is move your mic back or use a compressor.

With the Korg, I've an extra 15 to 20 dB of dynamic range, which is a huge advantage. For instance, at the Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest, which features a 64-trumpet ensemble at one point, I can set my mics at the front of the stage and have someone play a few loud notes from close range and then back of 15 or 20dB for my average recording level. Since the mics are 20-feet or so from the performers and the noise level of the Korg is so low that I don't have to sit at the recorder and "ride the gain" to avoid overload. I can actually play in the ensemble, record everything and edit later.

Good pop recording have 20-30 dB of dynamic range in them. Get a Radio Shack SPL meter and hold while you listen to Nora Jones or Jane Monheit. They'll start many songs at around 72dB at the beginning then average around 83dB and then peak for just a few seconds at 92 or so dB. On a good system with a good recording, that's very pleasant, not fatigueing at all.

Now listen to a something really dynamic, like Hugh Mesekala's Simela on 45rpm LP. It goes from about 65dB to just under 100dB at my listening position. It's really exciting. They hold the peak for more than a second or two, making the peak VERY dramatic by holding it for 15 seconds or so. That's loud, but still just under 100 dB. Some on this forum might actually let that peak get up to 110 dB, particularly if they set the level based on the very quiet beginning.

So, you're still saying, "that's not 130dB" and you're right. The extra 20 to 30dB allows the recording engineer ease of recording. If Stimela were ever going to get any air play, it'd need to be compressed. Listen to Motown from the '60s and '70s or EW&F from the '70s. The trumpets are actually blowing their brains out, but they sound like toys on those recordings, due to very serious compression, used to fit the trumpet within the context of the rest of the music. Drums are also seriously compressed on most pop recordings.

So, to summarize, the 130dB of dynamic range gives the recordist the luxury of being able to set and forget and still get a high quality. Brass and percussion can be difficult to put on any recording other than those meant to be played on the very best equipment; therefore, post recording mixing will often change the level on the final master.

Dave

But how can you use 130db dynamic range though? Any home listener to take advantage of this about a minimum 20db household background noise would endure 150db volume peaks. Nobody can stand that level for any length of time. You as a recording engineer may like the idea of 130db dynamic range available to you but me as listener cannot ever use it. If you use it in your recordings any low level sounds will be lost to me in order to not blow me out of my house or car along with suffering hearing damage and blown electronics. Or you will force me to ride to gain control talking way the relaxation and enjoyment of it all.

As I said if digital recording is employed properly and of a high resolution format I'd suspect LP's made from such will be very good. But good analogue gave and can still give us very good quality to master by too.

BTW just to make things clear, I'm not arguing or trying to be a jerk, just enjoying a good clean discussion and debate which all just gives us all good things to exercise our brains over.:-)

Les, if you've ever recorded large brass ensembles live you'll appreciate the safety that 130dB of dynamic gives. I can record 40dB under 0dB and get a wonderful, low noise, hi resolution recording. With tape I'll need to be right up against the tapes limit to capture the full dynamic range (40-50dB).

You compare good analog to bad digital. I'm comparing good digital to good analog and I see them as equal today and the balance actually turning toward digital, but slowly. Good 2-channel SACDs and DVD-As now rival my best D2D analog, IMHO.

Produceers in both formats make bad choices, but that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the potential of both systems.

Dave

130db dynamic range is unusable in any home listening or likely any other venue environment. The typical home will have a general background noise floor of 20-40db. If you go with 130db the max. dynamic range to be above the background noise floor will have to be a volume of 150-170db. Totally unrealistic even at rock concert levels.

I'm not against a good digital masters for vinyl but the fact is probably 99.9 % of all vinyl has been made with analogue masters.

Usable digital mastering today has been corrupted by lousy techniques aka: the LOUDNESS controversy and in reality the 16 bit digital format including the CD has more than enough dynamic range, too much really for anything but the most dynamic classical recordings. Rock, Pop, Country, Jazz etc. all have much lower levels of dynamic range, enough for vinyl to cover fair enough and the CD too as well. It's about resolution and the 16bit digital was borderline. 24/96 will give you a much better resolution capacity but reel to reel analogue covered all the resolution needed for decades now and the LP did so as well. All formats I list here had enough dynamic range for as a source for home listening. Commercial digital mastering of most music today has been destroyed by the compression to get max loudness. Too bad the industry squandered the one true superior trait 16 bit digital had over any analogue, dynamic range.

vinyl had at min 60db on lesser quality discs and 75+ db on the best discs made

R to R with Dolby NR had a similar dynamic range between 65-75 db using DBX it was over 80db

analogue cassettes were 55db with cheap tapes and no Dolby B to 75db witch Dolby C or Dolby S, again over 80db with DBX.

16 bit digital of course maxed mathematical a 96db.

But it is resolution that hurts ordinary 16bit digital and is mostly (arguably) overcome by 24bit digital. Resolution and harmonics were never an issue with good quality analogue gear. Only distortion and bottom line signal to noise ratio was. With the proper use of Dolby or DBX that was mostly gone and with better grade tapes even distortion was not a factor anymore.

I'm glad that 25+ years after digital mastering and the CD that digital has a venue for better sound now especially to make new vinyl with but the general consumer is happy as pigs n' s**t with MP3 or iPod garbage. Go figure by the time digital began to get it truly right nobody really cares except us here who want and enjoy good quality music sound be it quality analogue or digital on CD, downloaded or to make great new vinyl with.

03-14-08: Les_creative_edge said:

"In the end I think an LP from analogue masters will sound truer to what the music should sound like than one from a digital source or from a CD made from the analogue masters will likely sound better than digital masters. I...

I think the best source for quality recorded sound is better to best analogue reel to reel machines. But are not as practical for most consumers. Vinyl will be less accurate but will vary from deck to deck because of how it all works. Digital is chock full of possible compromises and other errors. In the end an LP is likely more accurate overall and more natural to our ears than a CD. A digital LP will likely be more pleasing than the CD version because the few inaccuracies it may add will more likely be heard as more pleasing to the listener where as the inevitable inaccuracies in CD playback are nothing but negatives to the listener. ..."

I don't understand why you're concluding these things. We're talking about digital masters, not CDs. If you'd heard a 1-bit DSD master at 5.6MHz I think you'd have a hard time saying that reel-to-reel is "better" or "more accurate".

I think that the best of both analog and digital are very, very good. With 24/192 and soon-to-be widely available 32-bit, or maybe even consumer 1-bit DSD (really already here in the form of the Korg MR1000 DSD recorder for around $1000) the analog advantage has pretty well disappeared, at least to my ears.

As an amateur recordist, the convenience of 130 dB of dynamic range, lack of tape noise or compression is hard to beat.

Dave

Why vinyl? Very simple, everything about it is more fun and allows for more interaction between the listener and the source.

Example, the album cover. It holds the record, same as a cd case but, can also be used in frames as wall art. I often read the backs of albums, I never read the folded up liner notes that come with cds.

Cleaning the record can be a art and meditation in itself. I know it sounds stupid but, at this time you are actually developing a relationship with the vinyl. You are caring for it and examining it. Who handles digital?

Once playing the record you actually listen to the whole record. No temptation to skip tracks. I can't count how many times I have discovered something new in the music because I couldn't skip a song. Plus, getting up and flipping the record keeps the listener alert.

The record player is a whole source of entertainment in itself. They are interesting to look at. They can be almost infinitely "tweaked" to adjust the sound. Just the arm itself has many features that can be tuned to change the sound. Not to mention different cartridges. For a audiophile, playing with and admiring the equipment is part of the deal. I just don't think any of us get the same thrill from looking at even the best cd box as we do from looking at a exotic turntable.

The debates about which sounds better is a waste of time. The research is in, they data has been well looked at and discussed to death. Sometimes a particular record will sound better than it's digital counterpart. Sometimes a cd will be preferred.

All that matters is that, for some of us, the analogue chain has a very high fun factor. Others prefer the never leave the couch, hold the remote, aim at box, factor of cds. Most of us like having both available plus, some type of digital server for when all you want is continuous background music.

That's "why vinyl?".

Inpepinnovations,

I think it is both.

On an anlogue mastered tape the sounds, frequencies and harmonics are left 100% in analogue form from the moment the tape recorded them to the cutting of the master disc and the pressing of vinyl. Every step of the chain can add or detract to the sound and colour. Poor master disc cutting will affect the sound but good master disc cutting will eventually give you a superior mold to press vinyl from. Poor vinyl material will affect the sound good vinyl material will preserve sound better. A better turntable, tonearm, cartridge all set up and in proper working order will retrieve sound from the groove better.

I think a cut master from a high quality say 24/96 digital master will produce a good vinyl LP. The cartridge will track it well if the cartridge is well made and in good order. The cartridge will possibly add to the harmonics of the sound and that will affect sound.

Digital will not be perfect either. Mix downs to errors in transfers and all generations of digital transfers and production have bit code errors. Quality of components and ultimately quality of the discs and CD players will all affect sound quality of the music. The saying that all CD players sound the same is untrue. Not all CD discs themselves are same quality. So no matter what you used analogue or digital by the time the consumer gets the product it has been affected by the chain of production. Some cases worse others not be they both CD or vinyl including a cd from analogue or digital masters or be it a vinyl LP from a digital master or an analogue one.

In the end I think an LP from analogue masters will sound truer to what the music should sound like than one from a digital source or from a CD made from the analogue masters will likely sound better than digital masters. It is all degree of compromise to the consumer. This is why some listeners are fine with $29 CD players and with MP3 sound when others spend thousands on a CD player. This is why some consumers are fine wit $79 cheapy turntables but others will spend thousands.

I think the best source for quality recorded sound is better to best analogue reel to reel machines. But are not as practical for most consumers. Vinyl will be less accurate but will vary from deck to deck because of how it all works. Digital is chock full of possible compromises and other errors. In the end an LP is likely more accurate overall and more natural to our ears than a CD. A digital LP will likely be more pleasing than the CD version because the few inaccuracies it may add will more likely be heard as more pleasing to the listener where as the inevitable inaccuracies in CD playback are nothing but negatives to the listener. I hope this all makes sense.

.

03-14-08: Ojgalli asked:

"And a related question that goes out to all.

Do LPs from an analog master sound better than LPs from a digital master?"

Generally I think the answer is "yes" so long as we're talking hi rez digital, such as 1-bit DSD @5.6mHz. Some early digital cannot be rescued, but the good stuff, with good mics and good mastering are incredibly good. Even the best analog tapes have tape noise and or tape compression. However, there are so many great, historic and well done analog recordings that just can't be ignored.

Some of the very best recordings I have are DSD-mastered SACD or DVD-As in two-channel. These rival my very best D2D analog LP, which tend to blow away most, but not all, of my analog tape mastered LPs. We I make DSD archives of my D2D LP at 5.6mHz, I can't tell them from the original disc.

Dave

So, Les,
you are saying that the vinyl version of a digitally recorded event sounds better because of the 'added' distortion inherent in analogue playback?
I agree, but this does prove, of course, that analogue doesn't sound better because it 'preserves' or 'records' better the original sound, but because pleasant euphonics are added.

It is hard to compare LPs from analogue to digital masters as the masters are one or the other. So engineering during process will be different. In other words take say Steely Dan, Gaucho, it is an analogue mastered disc, there is no digital recorded version made at the same time so to notice any difference is impossible. I will say that IMO a high quality analogue master will produce a better LP copy than a digital master will BUT! some LP's made from digital master such as Donald Fagen's, Night fly and Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms both sound great as LP's. Other LP's made via digital masters sound thin and lifeless for the most part, maybe not as bad as their CD counterparts but not as good as if they were to have been mastered from analogue. It all comes down to the technicians, the gear and the resulting production chain.

I think LP's still sound better than the CD counterparts from digital master only because again the stylus tracks a groove even if that grove was cut from an original digital master. The additional harmonics the stylus may give can lead to a warming up of the sound.

Conversely same goes if you record an LP onto a CD and play it vs. a commercially made version the Home made one seems to hold onto the added dimensions and harmonics the commercially made one often lacks.

But what would be needed is a good engineering crew running a high quality analogue master setup and a similar digital setup to record and produce the masters of the artists at the same time and after such each master needs to be equally and carefully mixed down and made into production master for LP's to be made from. That is not likely to happen as there is no financial need to nor wanted to devote to such in a commercial way.

Jdaniel: Not sure I follow you. Are you saying that IF the original master is 24/96 or higher, the LP is cut directly from that master through a 24/96 DAC, and that CDs are pressed from a downconversion, 24/96 to 16/44? What if, as is the case most of the time, the original recording is 16/44? And can an LP handle all of the information on a 24/96 recording without loss?

And a related question that goes out to all.

Do LPs from an analog master sound better than LPs from a digital master?

Ojgalli writes, what's to gain on a digital lp? I'd take a digital lp any day over the same CD, at least for orchestral music. Presumably, the Lp is cut directly from the master digital tape, which preserves the hi-rez. The tape is "number-crunched" when transcribed to CD with "flattening" and harsh results. I still like analog, (or at least the better, more tasteful recording technology that came with it), but digital lps work for me too.

Agree with ojgalli 100% + very good point!

With good playback equipment (ie your medium to higher-end home stereo/audio system) mastering and production is by far more important than delivery medium.

There are some very old recordings that are full of technical flaws from a modern perspective yet sound most wonderful and enjoyable on a good system.

For example, I've heard some very old stuff by Louis Armstrong broadcast over the internet on WWOZ, New Orleans, using my Roku Soundbridge, on Christmas Day (wish I could remember exactly what the recordings were??) that blew me away as much as anything I've heard on the best vinyl or CD.

One thing stands out from many of the responses. The quality of the recording and mastering is the primary delimiter whether LP or CD.

One person asked a question that has yet to be answered. If new releases on vinyl are from a digital recording/master, what's to gain on the LP?

Digital gets a bad rap. The current CD format is 25 years old already (amazing, isn't it). 331/3 Lps were the bomb for only about 30 years. I have many CDs that sound better than many LPs.

The medium is not so important as the will of the manufacturer to do it right.

Digital technology today can support much higher quality although cost for mass market consumption is probably an issue. The best possible seldom finds it's way to the masses, but it does to those willing or able to pay.

The big unknowns surround which channels will be most successful in delivering the higher quality stuff.

So love your vinyl, but do keep an open mind to better things that are possible both today and in teh near future.

When I was at teens (late 70s and early 80s in Korea), I had spent $2~$3 for new albums (licensed copies made in Korea) with my own pocket money. I guess I've bought over 300 LPs, all bought new.
Now, there are many other sources of related entertainment -- CDs, movie and music DVDs, downloads, computer games, ..., and well LPs. I have about 600 CDs, mostly bought new (from stores or BMG, CBS, ...), and 100 DVDs, mostly new at around $20 (but no downloads and no games). But spending $20 for a new LP is still a bit odd to me now. (Even though I had spent about $2000 for TTs, cartridges, and preamps over last two years.) A few reasons:
1. I can salvage garage/estate sales and buy bulk of 20 LPs at $10~20. In most cases, half of them are in very good condition.
2. I live in a small town that has only one record store that sells very limited LPs. I can count them that probably at 100~200 new LPs. Most likely what I am looking for is not there.
3. If I go to the Internet or ebay, there is $4.00 minimum shipping/handling charges per piece.

The best LP I bought recently is Muddy Water's Folk Singer. The sound quality is amazing. $30 well spent.
Few other reissue LPs from Lenard Cohen, Rolling Stones, John Coltrane, and Miles Davis were so so, not any better than listening to CDs. So, I am very cautious in buying new LPs. I won't just walk into a record store and grap one that looks appealing as I have done for CDs and DVDs. I will only select some of those which have high regards on recording and sound quality.

The resurgence of vinyl has, IMHO, much more to do with the recent increase in turntable/cartridge sales. Those who have spent on new turntables have not spent as much on new LPs.

By the way I forgot to mention. I have 10 gigs of digital music on my home laptop (listening to Joni Mitchell through headphones now), another couple gigs on my work laptop and we have a music server at work.
Mapman, I loved the big font comment. I first got glasses at 41 because I couldn't read the back of CDs - completely true.
We all use digital, it's convenient for casual listening or checking out music we may be interested in.

Digital is still in its infancy. I think that digital, maybe not cd but maybe 24/96 downloads or whatever comes next, will surpass the best sound quality available today in the not too distant future.

As far as sales numbers go, there's a January 10, 2008 Time magazine article about the resurgence of vinyl that has the 2007 numbers.

According to Nielsen SoundScan, of total album sales for 2007:
vinyl makes up about 0.2%
digital downloads are 10%
cds are 89.7%

The article says that Nielsen SoundScan may undercount vinyl since they don't always include sales at smaller indie shops where vinyl does best.

The 0.2% equals 990,000 vinyl albums sold in 2007, up 15.4% from 858,000 units sold in 2006.

So let's say they missed half the vinyl album sales, if we double the vinyl sales for 2007 we are still under 2 million sold for the entire year and have an increase of only 264,000 units over 2006.

The real growth is not in vinyl, downloads or cds. Video games on dvd are by far the fastest growing home entertainment product.

1) cheap used
2) very good sound is possible
3) older coots like me have a big investment in vinyl from the olden days already so why not more?
4) larger format with artwork that adds to the package and text fonts large enough to read.

I bought a lot of LPs for under $5, BUT my D2D and "audiophile" recordings were mostly in the mid-teens and some higher. I think you have to compare 180 gram current pressing to the high-end recordings of the 1970s and 1980s. When you do that, the cost ($30) feels comparable to me. $50 is a different story.

I've paid $50 for a lot of reissues. So far, the quality of the master and the pressings (particularly 45 rpms) have been worth it. (Thanksfully I make way more, inflation adjusted, money than I did in the '70s and '80s)

Dave

Oh, I forgot to mention, Telarc records in '82 were $16.99. I bought one in Musicland. An audiophile label of course, just like the $30 new lp's of today. Let's not forget the huge weight, (and today's freight charges) involved in getting the lp's to the warehouse. Of course, I was a teenager in the late '70's, so $8.99 seemed like a load of money. $30 today also equals 6 Big Mac meals. Yuck.

Ihcho, I buy a lot of new vinyl, as much of it in my opinion is very good. I also buy good old unopened vinyl, and mint used. I find life is to short for crappy beatup vinyl to experiment. Are people buying new vinyl, if you read my post early on in this thread, I talked about The RTI pressing pland, who has never seen the volume of backlog for vinyl. For instance they mention they have orders in house initially for 50,000 of the Led Zeppelin box 4 LP sets. This is after the CDs has been out for awhile. Obviously that is 200,000 lps to produce, so yes there are a few customers. This does not includes all the other labels. So is it more then CD, no, but I do not think anybody ever thought it would be. But it is growing at a fast rate, while CDs fall off year by year to MP3 downloads. To a point that maybe even now daily MP3's aquired in some kind of legal or illegal download are actually used more daily then CD for music play.

Thanks for the responses, I don't begrudge 180 gram LPs selling at $30.00 a pop (so to speak) - that's the nature of the business today. I would like it to be less, but that's true for a lot in audio, I'd rather it was healthy and viable rather than cheap.

I just questioned the justification that $8.00 = $30.00, given how buying three records in 1978 felt and contrasting that with what buying three records does to the wallet now. I like the Bank of Canada number more, but I get in trouble when I start talking about "feelings" and currency value, but so be it.

As someone who collects mono records, I'm beginning to think I'd pay a premium for undamaged, clean 50's classical LPs (forget Jazz, my income would have to increase exponentially). I also have a hard time spending $18-20 for CDs.

Gregg

While I know much specialty vinyl is 25-50 bucks, don't forget Sundazed for instance, at 15-18 bucks for good sounding vinyl, also the last Van Morrison, Willie Nelson, and Bob Dylan were super cheap for the quality of the vinyl I got. Seems like Willie and Van Morrison were like 15 bucks or less.

Greggdeering,

Using the Bank of Canada inflation calculator $9.00 in 1985 is equal to about $16.50 today.

New vinyl toady an be pricey because its still cottage industry and lower volume than in the 70's-80's. In terms of dollar for dollar, new vinyl will likely always be more pricey factoring inflation than it was in the 70's and 80's. Just not as much is sold even though vinyl is enjoying a resurgence.

I'm curious, does anyone (who was around at the time) believe that $8.99 equals $30.99, regardless of what an academic estimate of money is?

It doesn't seem the same to me at all, and I used to buy a lot of records. Let's not deal with the 1980s LP inflation due to the cost they wanted to ring out of us as they introduced the cash-cow CD format...

Gregg

Ihcho,

Just too assure, if vinyl was to regain popularity as it did in the 60's-70's the price of new vinyl would drop closer to the $15.00 range based on volume sale alone. This would put it inline with CD sales and priced competitively among other recorded media products. But I think most vinyl lovers will keep buying vinyl even if used bins dried up (not likely to happen) but of course the pace would slow down.

Part of the fun is getting used vinyl cheap but I think for most of us it's still about how the LP's sound.

Ihcho, it may or may not make you feel better, but the cost of new vinyl in the '70's--$8.99 to $11.99 for Classical on major labels--probably gets very close to $30 in today's money. Inflation calculator anyone? : )

I wonder how many members in Analog forum buy new LPs in regular basis, maybe more than 20 a year?
I have about 600 LPs, and all but about 5 are bought used. I paid $10~25 for those new LPs, all reissues from originals.
Are you (we?) into vinyl enough to pay $20+ each? Or, are majority in this forum just happy to listen to 60~70's recordings?
I just wonder whether much of the reason of LP's coming back is that there are still many used (cheap and in good sound quality) LPs around.
What if there were not much good used (cheap) LPs available and all have to pay $20+ for each LP? Would vinly still be as popular as in today?

Kthomas,
I agree we do get caught up in the format thing, this is the Analog fourm after all.
I also agree that finding new music and talking about what's out and even discussing older music with younger listeners (especialy family) is so enjoyable.
So what if their interest is not audiophile - it's still music.
It's the same as before digital. Some go the extra and get into audio as a hobby - some don't. If not it doesn't mean they don't enjoy music.

I think the concern with us audiophiles is the possible loss of the better formats due to "hype" and convenience.

My family takes listening a little further. My brother and I were in a band years ago, now we play in the family band. At family functions we play, myself on drums and/or keyboard, my brother and two nephews with guitars (one nephew also plays drums).
Now that's fun.

Fun articles - thanks for posting.

The whole format thing is, IMO, something only we get worked up about. I have two kids, and both of them love music, constantly listen, are always listening to new music. Neither has the money to focus much on sound quality, but there is always a conversation to be had with them around what they're listening to lately, something any parent relishes with their teenagers.

And I have lots of friends for whom music is somewhere between a strong interest and a passion. Again, the format is something nobody cares to talk about, but music is always a relevant topic.

All of the angst about music becoming less a part of people's lives just doesn't ring true with my experience.