A really good article about vinyl, digital files and cd's

Quite possibly, it's not removing digital artifacts -- because there rarely is such a thing -- but rolling off high frequencies in a manner that you find pleasing.
No actually it's filling in all the gaps between the 1's and O's, just as SACD etc attemps over Redbook CD. The cutting lathe is incapable of reacting to the digital signal as abruptly as the laser can follow the pips, the same for the tape decks magnetic head, hence a more musical flow to the recording.
 
What fills THESE gaps? Oh, and you might wish to work out the "bit rate" implied by apparent stylus speed moving past the vinyl "bits" and compare it to the bit rate of digital sources. You might just learn something about "flow" and music.

microscopic-needle-grooves.jpg
 
Every digital audio source is ultimately converted back to analog by the time it gets to your amplifier and speakers!
Of course, but it's not the same. It's like saying "just buy Gatorade powder and make it yourself". Ever wonder why it's not the same?

Now I'm not implying it's for the same reason lol, but it's not the same method of transference. No physical mechanical moving parts involved in the transfer to smooth over the bumps as it were.
 
What fills THESE gaps? Oh, and you might wish to work out the "bit rate" implied by apparent stylus speed moving past the vinyl "bits" and compare it to the bit rate of digital sources. You might just learn something about "flow" and music.

View attachment 1079980
Are you implying the stylus can't follow the path of the cutting lathe? Maybe you need a new stylus, or a better table.
 
Last edited:
No actually it's filling in all the gaps between the 1's and O's, just as SACD etc attemps over Redbook CD. The cutting lathe is incapable of reacting to the digital signal as abruptly as the laser can follow the pips, the same for the tape decks magnetic head, hence a more musical flow to the recording.
Say what?
 
Say what?
Read back, I was only explaining why converting digital to analogue can sound smoother, and why so many prefer vinyl. It's not a matter of rolled off highs, it's definitely not a matter of being more accurate to the original digital recording, it's about musicality.

Ok, maybe this will help. Imagine what the digital signal would sound like if we didn't smooth the signal by dithering.


This leads to the dither solution. Rather than predictably rounding up or down in a repeating pattern, it is possible to round up or down in a random pattern. Dithering is a way to randomly toggle the results between 4 and 5 so that 80% of the time it ended up on 5 then it would average 4.8 over the long run but would have random, non-repeating error in the result.

If a series of random numbers between 0.0 and 0.9 (ex: 0.6, 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, etc.) are calculated and added to the results of the equation, two times out of ten the result will truncate back to 4 (if 0.0 or 0.1 are added to 4.8) and the rest of the times it will truncate to 5, but each given situation has a random 20% chance of rounding to 4 or 80% chance of rounding to 5. Over the long haul this will result in results that average to 4.8 and a quantization error that is random — or noise. This "noise" result is less offensive to the ear than the determinable distortion that would result otherwise.
 
Last edited:
The article is correct in that what sounds better to a person is likely to be his or her preferred medium. I think this is somewhat generational. If you came of age in the 60's, there is a better than even chance that you will prefer the sound of vinyl through a quality reproduction system (read high-end). If you came of age after 1990, there is a good chance you prefer digital formats and, further, if you are not an obsessive audio person (like most people reading this thread), you probably rarely listen to a high-end audio system. You likely listen to most of your music on ear-buds or phones. Can it sound good? You bet. Can it sound as good as vinyl through a Thorens turntable, McIntosh preamp and amp, and top of the line Klipsch speakers? Not in a million years. But, as I've stated in other threads, us older guys came up willing to sit down in a listening space, block out everything else, and absorb the wonder of the reproduced performance. Most people under the age of 40 are unlikely to put their phone, iPad and laptop down for 40 minutes to listen to an LP equivalent of music (Again, present company excepted). Does any of this mean one way is "better" than the other? Not at all. It just means we are all looking for different things from our music listening. I absolutely believe the techs in the article who claim that all electrical measurements prove that digital recording is more accurate. But when I want to spend some time in dedicated listening to music, it will likely be from a vinyl source.
 
The article is correct in that what sounds better to a person is likely to be his or her preferred medium. I think this is somewhat generational. If you came of age in the 60's, there is a better than even chance that you will prefer the sound of vinyl through a quality reproduction system (read high-end). If you came of age after 1990, there is a good chance you prefer digital formats and, further, if you are not an obsessive audio person (like most people reading this thread), you probably rarely listen to a high-end audio system. You likely listen to most of your music on ear-buds or phones. Can it sound good? You bet. Can it sound as good as vinyl through a Thorens turntable, McIntosh preamp and amp, and top of the line Klipsch speakers? Not in a million years. But, as I've stated in other threads, us older guys came up willing to sit down in a listening space, block out everything else, and absorb the wonder of the reproduced performance. Most people under the age of 40 are unlikely to put their phone, iPad and laptop down for 40 minutes to listen to an LP equivalent of music (Again, present company excepted). Does any of this mean one way is "better" than the other? Not at all. It just means we are all looking for different things from our music listening. I absolutely believe the techs in the article who claim that all electrical measurements prove that digital recording is more accurate. But when I want to spend some time in dedicated listening to music, it will likely be from a vinyl source.

Nicely put, and the historical aspect you highlight is interesting, if anecdotal.

Just as the guy in the article says, somewhat more pithily: "Some people like marmalade and some people like mustard. If people like to listen to vinyl, do so, enjoy life. But don't say that the sound is better."
 
If you are musician and want to your CD sound perfect you can to doing very simple things... :)
Say to your mastering engineer that your music want to be only played on LP record, not to be played anywhere, only on LP record.
After that, mastering engineer will produce perfect mastered material which include RIAA equalization. When you have your digital copy with RIAA equalization on it and ready for pressing, just copy all your music to computer and place inverse RIAA equalisation on all songs and burn songs on your CD. Thats it. You have perfect sound from CD. :)
 
Read back, I was only explaining why converting digital to analogue can sound smoother, and why so many prefer vinyl. It's not a matter of rolled off highs, it's definitely not a matter of being more accurate to the original digital recording, it's about musicality.

Ok, maybe this will help. Imagine what the digital signal would sound like if we didn't smooth the signal by dithering. ...
How digital audio works is fascinating. Good starting points are


...and...

 
The article is correct in that what sounds better to a person is likely to be his or her preferred medium. I think this is somewhat generational. If you came of age in the 60's, there is a better than even chance that you will prefer the sound of vinyl through a quality reproduction system (read high-end). If you came of age after 1990, there is a good chance you prefer digital formats and, further, if you are not an obsessive audio person (like most people reading this thread), you probably rarely listen to a high-end audio system. You likely listen to most of your music on ear-buds or phones. Can it sound good? You bet. Can it sound as good as vinyl through a Thorens turntable, McIntosh preamp and amp, and top of the line Klipsch speakers? Not in a million years. But, as I've stated in other threads, us older guys came up willing to sit down in a listening space, block out everything else, and absorb the wonder of the reproduced performance. Most people under the age of 40 are unlikely to put their phone, iPad and laptop down for 40 minutes to listen to an LP equivalent of music (Again, present company excepted). Does any of this mean one way is "better" than the other? Not at all. It just means we are all looking for different things from our music listening. I absolutely believe the techs in the article who claim that all electrical measurements prove that digital recording is more accurate. But when I want to spend some time in dedicated listening to music, it will likely be from a vinyl source.
Precisely^^^^^^

It's not about measurements it's about music. I don't think anyone denies digital measures better, but just mention measurements when talking TT's, speakers, etc as a measuring tool for superiority and you better have a shit umbrella around here, and it's no more of a measure of superiority in this case either.
 
Last edited:
If it seemed I was stating digital can't sound better to others I apologize, we all have our preferences. Hell, my wife preferred listening through the TV speakers, she said it sounded better to her.

Now mind you here I was looking at thousands of dollars worth of equipment and my darling little wife was telling me the TV sounded better, but who could argue? ROFLMAO Absolutely true story, I kid you not,
 
This "noise" result is less offensive to the ear than the determinable distortion that would result otherwise.
Yes, but the noise is not just less offensive, it's normally inaudible relative to the audible signal. In a 16bit digital conversion, it's more than 96db below the maximum signal level. In most cases, that makes it lower than the background noise -- often called "hiss" -- naturally present in any analog circuit.
 
I do some ripping vinyl to 16bit 44.1khz files using Audacity and a Behringer ADC and even though the Behringer is a cheap model I would have a damn difficult time choosing which one is playing. This is an interesting comparison because the music is being reproduced using the same equipment (stylus, TT, etc) and the same exact source copy so if there were any differences in digital it would seem likely show up here. Too bad I can't do the reverse, press a vinyl record from a CD I own and compare it that way. Wonder how it would compare?
 
I do some ripping vinyl to 16bit 44.1khz files using Audacity and a Behringer ADC and even though the Behringer is a cheap model I would have a damn difficult time choosing which one is playing. This is an interesting comparison because the music is being reproduced using the same equipment (stylus, TT, etc) and the same exact source copy so if there were any differences in digital it would seem likely show up here. Too bad I can't do the reverse, press a vinyl record from a CD I own and compare it that way. Wonder how it would compare?

From the OP's cited article:

In 1968, a 23-year-old audio engineer named Bob Ludwig at New York's A&R Recording was asked to create a test pressing of The Band's debut, Music From Big Pink, so that the producers could hear what it would sound like on LP. During the process, he especially tried to preserve as much as possible of the deep low end of the band's sound, which he believed was critical to its music.

But when he heard the final LP that was released, he was stunned. "All the low, extreme low bass that I knew was there, was chopped right off."

Years later, when Ludwig was hired to provide the final edit (known as mastering) for a greatest-hits package for The Band, he got the album's master tapes back from Capitol Records. On the box was a note from the cutting engineer who'd made the original vinyl master, saying the album's extreme low end had to be cut out.
 
How digital audio works is fascinating. Good starting points are
And yet Monty and his sillyscope don't have the remotest clue about the audible effects of brickwall filters necessitated by the crude, 1980 technology limited Redbook standard.

Fortunately, the recording industry ignores such ignorance. I'm particularly enjoying John William's latest film score mastered in 192/24.
 
And yet Monty and his sillyscope don't have the remotest clue about the audible effects of brickwall filters necessitated by the crude, 1980 technology limited Redbook standard.
If you know of an equally or more accessible video introduction to digital audio that addresses your concern, I'd be pleased to link to it from now on.
 
Back
Top Bottom