Hard truth: most vinyl is digital anyway

[@Boinzy476]

The two things that really drew me to vinyl are the expense and inconvenience.

[@s_r_v]

😂

[@gediminaskontrimas7992]

@@Boinzy476 Don't underestimate the huge space dedicated to storing vinyl records.

[@ZakiWasik]

What drew me to vinyl is backing my favourite artists and receiving a physical token of doing so while listening to their music on streaming services :D

[@MintPuma]

I'm particularly drawn to the unnecessary additional consumption of fossil fuels.

[@robroufla]

@@ZakiWasik you probably don't know the margin artists get from a vinyl then. They're expensive to make, expensive to ship, to sell, everyone taking a big chunk on the way. Artists get more money from digital, particularly if you buy on Bandcamp. Not mentioning the huge pollution record plants make, which most vinyl addicts don't give a shit about.

[@hansemannluchter643]

"Why does it take 41 Country-singers to change a lightbulb?" "1 to change the bulb, 40 to sing a song about how good the old one was"

[@devon-graves-studio-D]

Than't awesome! :)

[@JadoubeX]

Professional Recording Engineer (retired)... can confirm. I lived and worked through the digital transformation. You are 100% correct. But you already know that :-).

[@rik575]

Same here, and totally agree!!!

[@bobbytesback]

pleb here m, and there was a reason people were in a rush to replace their LPs with shiny new CDs in the beginning

[@stuartwinter2758]

​@@bobbytesback Yep.

[@vstrvcvrtv]

Man, the hi-fi guys arguing with engineers and producers is so hilarious.

[@kaczynski2333]

@@vstrvcvrtv I saw one yesterday who said something along the lines of "I don't read Scientific or technical documents, but..." It's embarrassing.

[@frankie5671]

this is the science lol l

[@DrRinse]

These are the guys who think a £500 RCA jack interconnect makes a big difference when in any studio I've been in, including some very, very good ones, the mic cables are all £20 ones from Studiospares and there's a high chance the snare was miked with a £90 SM57.

[@ropeburn6684]

​@@DrRinse And the mic cables are only 20$ because they're like 10m long and they bought them, instead of having the intern make them. 😂

[@mikeg2491]

Analog CRTs are technically inferior to OLEDs or LCD in picture quality yet they give off a particular glow and refresh rate method that can’t be replicated fully by newer display tech and look aesthetically pleasing when displaying low-res content, particularly older pixel video games. Is the CRT “better” than my 65” OLED? From a scientific perspective, no. From a subjective standpoint for particular use cases, yes. Likewise the same for vinyl, it presents music in a pleasing, different form even if it’s not the final word in transparency.

[@Douglas_Blake]

The audiophile myth arose from early experience with the "loudness war" ... they would buy a CD to augment their vinyl copy and it would be LOUD and right in your face, compared to the vinyl. As pointed out this is a result of different mastering techniques not the medium itself. Years ago I took a lot of my vinyl collection and transcoded it to MP3/320. Once I got the levels right I could not tell the difference between them... Doing A-B comparisons I would actually have to get up and look to see which was playing. Then came the CD loudness war and I just skipped right over CDs and went completely digital. So there is a good reason why my pop music collection dead ends in 1995. I find it truly ironic (and a bit tragic) that the best medium was used to deliver the worst music... and in many cases it still is. The point is that CDs and WAV even MP3 can far exceed the capabilities of Vinyl ... it's not about the medium, it's about the mix and master.

[@CuttinChopps]

EXACTLY!!!! Garbage in, garbage out!

[@rosssmith8481]

I still have vinyl. Not much and mostly stuff that is either rare, autographed, or not streamed anywhere. I play vinyl through a pricey cartridge, a Thorens TT, and an Audio Note tubed phono pre-amp, and it sounds like crap compared to my digital collection. And something new that I have never experienced in the 20th century is defective pressings. I bought records from the 70's to the early 90's. Never once did I ever have to return a defective record. I don't really buy much vinyl. And half of the new re-releases I have bought were garbage. Some so bad, I thought something was blown in the stereo.😊

[@Douglas_Blake]

@@rosssmith8481 I sold off my vinyl about 15 years ago. My music now resides in a 4tb SD drive in a small compter.... even the transcoded vinyl sounds better there.

[@bridgestreetdesign]

I disagree, but I’m not saying that one, either one, is better than the other. That’s personal preference. But the inherent natures of the mediums are a factor. It’s not just the mix and the master, even though those are very important. Obviously to make a recording work on vinyl the audio must be dumbed down a bit to function within vinyl’s limitations. But the medium adds something in the midrange that I find captivating. A few years ago third man records released a 3 vinyl disc edition of patsy cline recordings, and “I fall to pieces” sounds like like the musicians are in your living room - its most noticeable in the standup bass. Obviously that was an excellent recording in the first place and the tracks were I’m sure painstakingly cut. But there are plenty of cds of that recording and none of the ones I’ve heard have that “in the room” quality. But again, that’s my personal preference.

[@Speed-Daemon-123]

That's interesting, because I remember the loudness war, it was on radio.

[@lizichell2]

The loudness war is what caused audiophiles to prefer records.

[@scottgfx]

That's an interesting thought. There was also a problem in the early days of CD mastering. In the mad rush to get CDs mastered and pressed, they were taking the tapes with RIAA equalization and going with those. I don't know how many, but there were discs getting to consumers with a huge high frequency boost; the EQ that makes vinyl LPs sound good. I'm a fan of vinyl, but I would never say that it's best. The 33 1/3 LP is an amazing example of materials science and engineering from CBS in the late 1940s.

[@ksteiger]

The RIAA curve has never been part of the tape. It's simply a fixed curve used for every cutting process.

[@givolettorulez]

@@scottgfx Very early consumer DAC chips were not linear and were actually 14 bit and not 16. Basically Philips has to select every TDA1540 they made for linearity. The most linear were used in Marantz CD players, the other in Philips ones. Then they made the TDA 1541 that at leas was 16 bit. Linearity problem were solved in the SAA7321 that used 1-bit "PWM" bitstream the linearity problem was solved. So early CD players, epecially if used with a system designed for vynil sounded with a lot of high frequencies and tinny.

[@scottgfx]

@@ksteiger You are probably right. It was something I remember hearing in the confluence of stuff going on back then. Perhaps an excuse?

[@piccalillipit9211]

I think you are probably correct. Im a recovered addicted audiophile - ive had £50k CD systems and £50k Vinyl and there is no way CD is more enjoyable to listen to. I could put on an LP and listen for 8 hours. CD Im tired before the end of the CD. BUT 24 BIT FLAC is a whole different ball game. My dislike is CD...!!! Now that may not be the technology - it may be how people used it. CD was amazing the second you turned it on, and it was great for low cost systems.

[@ycmneo]

Calling those less slammed masters HDR for “High Dynamic Range” might work. Turn it into the positive it is, point to it directly. They have better range, that’s the point of that master, they’ll be quieter and louder, just like an HDR video file is brighter and darker. People seem to get that. Marketing that concept is surely easier than a “no limiter” version that sounds quieter at first, especially when that wording might violate laypeople expectations about what a “volume limiter” would be.

[@thejman3489]

@ycmneo That's a big part in why Blu-Ray is so popular with movies enthusiasts. You watch on streaming services and they run the audio through dynamic compression. Basically gets rid of all dynamic range. If you want the full range of dynamics back, you pretty much have to get a Blu-Ray player. Of course Blu-Ray also has uncompressed audio. That's a big draw too.

[@ount252]

For me, to get the absolute best sounding mastering of an album, 75% of the time it's on vinyl. Yes, it's a vastly inferior medium, but the medium for all it's faults often gets the better mastering. Example - I have the SACD of Dark Side of the Moon, but my mass produced vinyl release from 2016 is much more dynamic sounding to me. It's actually easier to find the exact version you want with vinyl vs. streaming. Trying to find the exact master you want via spotify is a crapshoot and you don't know if they are actually using different files for different re-masters. Edit - At 14:00 or so he makes my point. And yes, if producers and studios gave us the "non-slammed" files I would flip to mainly digital listening in a heartbeat!

[@frankgarcia9834]

The digi guys are the ones that killed music since 98

[@dgross2009]

I agree. I prefer the way music is mastered for vinyl. The last 30 years of loudness wars due to the higher dynamics of digital to me sounds terrible. Also, not really on topic but related to new tech is the pitch correcting and auto-tuning which makes everything nowadays sound sterile. Old music on vinyl is preferable to me. It's more real and sounds fresh.

[@frankgarcia9834]

@dgross2009 it makes them sound sterile, and it makes everyone sound the same as well.

[@user-yk4gd1fl4z]

Funny how he does not know, or care to mention that init? Kids...they know it all.

[@nos4me]

you know you can download vinyl rips right

[@lacedj51]

As an engineer with 40 years in the biz, I learned early on that you can't reason with the unreasonable but I give you props for trying. I think many people get confused because in the studio we use analog devices to add flavor in the creative process. It does not help that when trying to explain digital you are fighting against an entire industry that benefits from maintaining the myth of analog.

[@052RC]

Do you think any of the cable claims are true? Some people say they can hear the differences between copper and silver, or solid core vs stranded wire. As an engineer, do you think there's anything to that argument? I can't find any good references that are based in science that would either confirm or deny these claims. I guess that what I'm trying to ask is, if I went to school to become an engineer, am I going to come across information that would imply, yes, it is possible differences in cables may be heard, or not? One of the things that make me very skeptical is, even if there isn't any formal science that can be referenced, setting up a listening test that meets the requirements needed to be considered legitimate science is not that difficult. Simply, is there a difference between A and B? Yes or no. So, even if we can't explain why there is a difference, we can at least prove if there is a difference.

[@FernandoARisso]

@@052RC audiophiles need to probe the super powers in A B... but🤔 don t show up😕

[@tmtdca]

A/B tests over a short time period are notoriously faulty. There can be differences in cables and similar equipment, but those differences will evidence themselves over time, not in a 10 minute test.

[@mikeg2491]

It sounds contradictory to say we use analog devices to add flavor and then for others to say you can’t A/B between an analog and digital source and tell the difference. Obliviously this is admission analog DOES color the sound to some extent.

[@MrFryfish]

As long as the "unexplained" difference makes YOU pay more.. that absolutely ok with me. Don't come back and cry after that..

[@jeremycarroll451]

As a mastering engineer myself, I am constantly being told that I am incorrect on this by the hifi flat earthers. What they fail to realise is that a digitised signal is *exactly* the same as the analogue source, up to the frequency of half the sampling rate. It’s mathematically exact. What’s worse is that the mathematics behind why this is true isn’t exactly new, having been discovered by the genius Joseph Fourier in 1817.

[@piccalillipit9211]

So how do you explain that people who spend £100k on a system prefer vinyl...???

[@jeremycarroll451]

@@piccalillipit9211 It's not for me to try and explain people's motivation for anything. People spend their money how they feel. Even if they are wrong. Personally, I like vinyl as well. I have a vintage Garrard 301 turntable and SME reference tonearm with a Decca head. Total lot is worth about £8,000. Stuff sounds lovely. But I'm not deluded as to why it sounds lovely. I have spent over 2 1/2 decades in studios working professionally. I know what's happening.

[@piccalillipit9211]

@@jeremycarroll451 I was not being ****** - it was a genuine question. Im an ex audiophile and I prefer Vinyl to CD, but i prefer 24 Bit Flac to Vinyl. Someone said it was the "Loudness w4r" that caused this debate and I think it probably was - Iver had £50k vinyl and £50k CD setups and I just find CD exhausting. "Garrard 301". Very very nice

[@jeremycarroll451]

@@piccalillipit9211 Makes sense. What I'm saying is that high quality vinyl on good gear sounds beautiful. It's just quite far removed from what was heard in the studio. Much further than a digital print. By a long way. So, those who claim some kind of 'authenticity' to vinyl are just plain incorrect.

[@piccalillipit9211]

@@jeremycarroll451 No ive never claimed that - Ive only ever claimed it "sounds better" which is subjective, it SOUNDS BETTER to me. I have tube amps - they are nothing like linear but I love them. Music is about enjoyment, if its technically worse but it moves you more and you get more out of it - surely THAT is what matters...?? But to me the whole argument falls apart when you get to the high end digital files, they are really really good. the issue I have is Apple has removed the optical output from the new iMacs so I currently have no way of getting the output to my DAC...

[@jinXeD546933]

The no-lim versions: it’s all about marketing it. You need to call it something, that sounds like it has higher perceived value, like UNLIMITED DYNAMIC MASTER :)

[@givolettorulez]

And for British sci-fi mans they should call Sacha Dhawan, John Simm and Michelle Gomez as testimonials.

[@debranchelowtone]

"director cut" master, sorta

[@PreschoolFightClub]

“Listening to vinyl when you were still in liquid form” is definitely going to be the craziest sentence I’ll read all month.

[@APMastering]

lol yeah I was pretty shocked by that one too lol

[@ErikPelyukhno]

😅

[@AitchAitch999]

I’m an audiophile but try not to be an audiophool! I also think you are 100% right. I prefer vinyl (I have around 2000 LPs) and tube amps, but don’t pretend they are of a higher fidelity than digital, ‘cos they are not. If you add up all the distortions in the vinyl playback process it would not be pleasant reading…I haven’t as, for example I don’t actually know how far out my stylus offset is from optimum, but even it was exactly optimum it’s only ever “correct” in two places: I haven’t measured crosstalk from the stylus: I know what my valve amp adds and generally it’s less than 1%, higher at low frequencies…and I suspect the distortion would be several thousand times the distortion from a digital source using a solid state amp (which I expect is close to zero). I also don’t fall for the speaker wire or the power cord fantasies and other audiophile snake oil…I obviously don’t have a sufficiently resolving system to hear any difference ;)

[@Alex-cw7xf]

Distortion on vinyl is primarily generated by stylus tracing errors and is dependent on stylus shape and size. A standard 18 µm radius spherical stylus produces >10% harmonic distortion above 5 kHz, upwards of 20% closer to 20 kHz. Smaller diameters and more exotic shapes like elliptical or shibata on average produce lower distortion, but still higher than almost any loudspeaker system.

[@sneakercrushing]

@@Alex-cw7xf at 66 I didn't even know you had different styli shapes!

[@piccalillipit9211]

This was my comment in respect of the "loudness war" being the core of this problem: I think you are probably correct. Im a recovered addicted audiophile - ive had £50k CD systems and £50k Vinyl and there is no way CD is more enjoyable to listen to. I could put on an LP and listen for 8 hours. CD Im tired before the end of the CD. BUT 24 BIT FLAC is a whole different ball game. My dislike is CD...!!! I PREFER to listen to vinyl on tube amplifiers and I am not bothered if its better or worse, its more enjoyable for ME. Im happy to listen to 24 Bit FLAC. I dont like CD.

[@piccalillipit9211]

" I also don’t fall for the speaker wire or the power cord fantasies". Yeah, I did some tests on this. It turns out that every speaker wire filters out a different part of the spectrum. No need to spend a fortune on high end speaker wires - just run 5 different low-end speaker wires - even use CAT 5 internet cable and household electrical cable. You can easily test this - just go buy a few meters of the hard wire you use in your house walls and run it in parallel to the existing wire - I promise you it will sound better. If it does not just ignore this internet ***** LOL Power cord you just need a thick cable and clean connectors - what will make a difference is you are using tube amplifiers is to use a separate GROUND. Buy a copper ground connector and bank it into the ground outside the house and then run a cable to the chassis of your tube amplifier. Tube amplifiers NEED a really good ground and most houses don't have one. There is usually +/-20 v to +/-50v on the ground of a house

[@AitchAitch999]

@@piccalillipit9211 I like CD, and streaming, but Vinyl most of all because it is so visually and aesthetically pleasing…vinyl reminds me of days long ago (I’m 67 now, so very very long ago). I recently bought a fairly old and inexpensive CD player, purely as it had a great transport which I use straight via Toslink to my DAC, sounds great to me.

[@SILVERxCHRONO]

You managed to upset flat earthers talking about vinyl. That's fighting the good fight brother! Keep it up 😂

[@EnergySpin]

Inaccuracy and error is the point of analog, not purist fake hi-fidelity. I spin vinyl records because of dirt, static, accidental warmth. To say I do it in search of the most accurate sound would be nonsense. But I must say I hide from digitally normalized music (Spotify) and I don't digitally limit my own music.

[@RowanBolton-wz8nk]

@@EnergySpin ☝️☝️☝️ I go my whole life and not care how a record was recorded by a certain master. But I am okay with it being a digital recording too I have many flacs and CDs too but just saying now after all our making it all cheaper by consumption, demand now integrated into our lives we still ended up living in the dystopian hell which which we were told would never happen and we should just accept the beautiful optimistic future where anything’s possible and we did … now we have people who can code a heavily patented computer but can’t even provide the actual needs of a community or themselves to thrive as a human. And when we do look for answers, computer like a lotta control to me. Where the rich can finally really control the narrative after conditioning in a way never done before where the prisoners are proud of what they’ve built and learned but that power isn’t theirs to keep

[@vetirtal1168]

Spotify does not compress, normalize, limit or whatever - it only sets the volume of the entire song so you don't have to manually adjust it when switching songs. Sure, there is the 'loud' volume level setting which does but it's not the default. That said, it'll still sound like any other digital music file so maybe not your cup of tea.

[@RowanBolton-wz8nk]

@@vetirtal1168 you’ll own nothing and be happy-the rich

[@vetirtal1168]

@RowanBolton-wz8nk Irrelevant reply

[@EnergySpin]

@@vetirtal1168 You'r right! They technically do not normalize anymore, although they used to, and affected an untold number of tracks on the process. Before they stopped compressing, music that pre-dates the digital era was being digitized and distributed (distrokid is also to blame) through a terrible process of digital limiting and compressing which ruined dynamics and transients alike. Most music uploaded until a couple years back in KZbin Topics and automated official channels went through this horrible process aswell. Just in case you didn't know!

[@NotJustBikes]

Bold of you to assume that anyone will actually read the description. I gave up on that year's ago! I bet half of the people who commented didn't even watch the *video* they just commented based on the title. Thanks for breaking these myths. I love vinyl too, but I'm not about to believe in some magical analog fantasy. I just prefer the physical experience, just like you mention at the end.

[@MagicMaus29]

Analogue playback, whether from a record or tape, has a sonic influence on the end result in addition to the haptic aspect. And this is independent of the source material. So I have to disagree here, that in the end it is all about transparency. When it comes to records, this is difficult to understand, as you already have an end product that you can no longer influence. That is why I am using tape as an example here. I use Hi-Res streaming almost exclusively for compiling playlists and then recording them on tape. Why? Because I think the analogue end result sounds more pleasant. I deliberately do not say 'better'! There is definitely a 'colouring' of the sound. And thus actually a 'falsification'. But one that sounds more emotional and pleasant to my ears than the digital source material.

[@hansemannluchter643]

So, you like wow and flutter, got it...

[@EvilChameleon420]

copium

[@kellymichael9567]

@@MagicMaus29 in a sense you are remastering a digital file to your preference. Nice!

[@MagicMaus29]

@@kellymichael9567 I believe that a lot of digital masterings these days are not designed for playback on highly revealing devices and for critical listening, but rather for the mass market, which prefers 'casual listening' in the background. That's why a lot of it seems too intrusive to me... too sharp-edged. Recording on tape seems a bit like 'sanding down' those rough edges. In my opinion, the sound characteristics gain from this very 'loss'.

[@MagicMaus29]

@EvilChameleon420 Whatever it is, it works for me.

[@johnorourke1636]

I completely agree with you on this. I stopped using vinyl about 15 years ago and sold my turntable. I started selling my records for a while but it was a drag to package and post them. I recently bought a high quality direct drive turntable on a whim and started playing my remaining vinyl. It was wonderful to hear music leap from these records, which hadn’t been played for over 20 years. I really regret selling some of them and it has been fun to play them again. I agree that vinyl doesn’t have a special sound but it is a wonderful medium.

[@johnorourke1636]

I should add that it’s the medium I grew up with. Buying the latest 7 inch singles then moving on to saving pocket money for albums.

[@dgross2009]

I went through a similar transformation. A Tom Petty box set came with a record and I wanted to play it so I refurbished my old turntable and liked the experience so much I dove head first back into vinyl with many new albums and upgraded turntable.

[@dropLove_]

We all love you. Please don't stop. You're greatly appreciated. It's just fear, probably no hate at all and possible that hate isn't even real. Go, music!

[@Chiller11]

There’s also a shitpile of cash invested in turntables, tape decks, amplifiers, preamps, speakers etc. by audiophiles that massively bias (conscious or unconscious) opinions.

[@DrRinse]

Stevie's Hotter Than July was cut on a Sony digital machine in 1980 I think and sounds great. Likewise, Dire Straits' Brothers in Arms was tracked to a Sony digital multitracker and sounds fab; crisp, clean, yet warm and not at all "digital" sounding, if such a sound exists. It's often used by the analogue fans to slate digital recordings as "cold", "sterile" or "brittle".

[@CANKRAFTWERK]

The needed 20 Neve EQ in Line too make IT Sound Not digital ( Brothers in Arms )

[@bacarandii]

Also, very few multi-track recordings issued commercially since the 1960s ever involved recording the sound of a group of musicians playing together at the same time in a single room. Every instrument may have been recorded and processed (including electronic/digital echo, pitch and rhythm correction, etc.) independently. There was no group performance at all, just a whole bunch of separately altered fragments edited and layered into a polished track. No ensemble ever performed "I Am the Walrus" or Beyonce's "Cowboy Carter," so there is no "what it sounded like in the room." You're listening to a carefully assembled collage of many sounds captured in bits and pieces by various means in different places under different circumstances at different times. It only exists as playback, not as performance.

[@APMastering]

why is that good or bad?

[@bacarandii]

@APMastering It is neither good nor bad. It's just the way it is. So, when people say they want to reproduce what happened between the musicians in "the room," they're imagining something that never happened.

[@razisn]

Literally all of classical music recordings and much of jazz involve the sound of a group of musicians playing together at the same time in a single room. Also, virtually all live concert recordings of most any genre. It's funny how people tend to generalise and talk in absolute terms when all they have to go by is their own bubble.

[@jdraven0890]

There are exceptions. Audio Lab Japan issued consistently amazing recordings, usually "direct to disc" (one take) and they did capture an actual performance of a group. These were usually small jazz ensembles or a solo pianist. Some of the jackets show you the arrangement of the players in the recording space and the playback seems to match this (as much as two speakers can attempt to replicate it). All that said, I am pretty sure that Audio Lab Japan used digital processing, and the DBX encoded versions require processing through a hardware device.

[@bacarandii]

@@jdraven0890 Yes, there are definitely specialized "audiophile recordings" being made in various quarters, in the USA and overseas. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. I was referring to run-of-the-mill mainstream commercial popular music aimed at the general audience.

[@GrahamDyson-h9z]

Not if a vinyl collection is pre 1980 though ~ Which the majority of mine is.

[@APMastering]

well the first digital record on vinyl was 1971

[@GrahamDyson-h9z]

@APMastering Oh really, which album was that ? Out of curiosity.

[@blackhawk606]

@@GrahamDyson-h9z "Steve Marcus & Jiro Inagaki - Something". And it's 32 kHz and only 13 bits Less than CD. And it sounds wonderful.

[@jdraven0890]

There is an era of vinyl, late 70s early 80s where they were actively marketing that it was DIGITALLY RECORDED. These were the audiophile discs of the time, demanding a higher price tag because it was a new and superior method of recording and mastering. I collect DBX encoded vinyl from this era whenever possible, because it really does reduce surface noise and it's always a very good recording.

[@Keith-ux9ku]

@@jdraven0890 1812 Overture vinyl brags about digital cannons.

[@cyber.purgatory]

High res/no lim dynamic versions on bandcamp is a brilliant idea. I'm with you on the audiopholery of the high end audio world... there's a lot of nonsense price at people who have millions to throw away. With that said though, I'm curious to ask - have you actually sat down and listened to any high performance playback systems with and without 'high-end' power cables, or power supplies in place? I've done the testing, and on a highly resolving headphone system (Chord Dave), the quality of power cable, and power supply used had an enormous impact on the quality of sound. It wasn't subtle, and I can easily a/b it with 100% accuracy.

[@sh1tster]

I met Ry Cooder outside the Sweetwater in Mill Valley, CA in 1987 and he autographed my Bop Til You Drop cd (Ry added the year to his autograph, that's how I can be sure of the year it happened). His son was with him and asked what that was, the cd. Ry replied something along the lines of "Oh that's a format that will soon be obsolete."

[@snakeyengel]

That's a great room to play in! I bet that show was great.

[@sh1tster]

@@snakeyengel I didn't get into the show. It was some sort of star studded get together, maybe a tribute or celebration, no chance of getting ticket, tiny club only room for the luminaries and their entourages. I made the 2 hour round trip drive strictly in hopes of getting Ry's autograph. I did see many other great shows there, though. Alos, had a memorable make out session in the alley adjacent with my later-to-be wife.

[@danehenas]

@@sh1tster The show was probably a Village Music party...

[@fijnevent3565]

When you buy a really expensive turntable with a good needle and clean your vinyl with some fancy machine the lp can sound almost as good as a cheap cd.

[@hazardeur]

a "cheap" cd?

[@kinggizzard8499]

You are 100% correct! CD quality digital is an optimum consumer format in terms of sound quality. These people assume digital audio is like a digital image; all pixelated and low resolution. They need to read up on digital sampling (Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem) and understand that digital offers a true digital to analogue band limited solution from 0 to 22Khz with way more dynamic range than you need, much higher than vinyl. Vinyl is technically flawed in many ways and the warmth people attribute to it is distortion... and distortion can be pleasant ... but that is not what the artist heard in the studio and that warmth could, if they want, be perfectly captured on CD.

[@hazardeur]

ah yes thank you. that is what i was looking for..the warmth. i always thought my records sound different on vinyl and "warmth" perfectly describes it. i think this is the root of the problem, this is why people think it sounds "better"

[@philippkemptner4604]

I know that one trick to deal with those people: "Really? Fancy a double-blind test? I can arrange that whenever and wherever you want". Sadly noone ever had time for that.

[@NickP333]

@@philippkemptner4604 I’ll make the time. Where are you located? I’d gladly take a doubt blind test. ****⭐️ To be very clear, this is all for fun. i am absolutely not trying to come at you in an argumentative manner in the least. Again, this stuff is all for fun. I’m far from one of those snooty audiophiles who look down on someone based on their record collection, knowledge, or what gear they use. Everyone has to start somewhere, and you pick up info here and there, because you find it extremely interesting. I’ve also been a record collector for 35+ years, am a musician, and have made music a part of my life as not just a hobby, but also a profession since I was 18. 🔊😊🎶⭐️****💜

[@brunoitey822]

You made me remember the silliness during the transition to digital of the photography and advertising businesses: So we shot photos on film, ektachrom, showed it to the client for approval , then used quite imperfect scanners to digitalise it, then post-produced the digital file, then got an other ekta, out of this digitally edited file, to show to the client, OK from him, then scanned this back for the printing process..... All this quality ruining, expensive and time consuming , not to say crazy, procedure just because the clients were nervous, with the idea of making their mind, looking at a computer monitor.

[@APMastering]

lol. i know very little about that process but that sounds pretty crazy!

[@brunoitey822]

​@APMastering Simply because art directors, clients, even some photographers were not familiar with the new tools.... They were used to look at diapositives on a light box, or prints. Actually ektachroms, with their poor dynamic range, colors shifts, compared to negative films, were just used because it was more convenient and cheap.... More I think about it, more I see parallels between our two domains. As an "audiophile" I remember listening to my first "realTime digital recording" (1982 Miller & Kreisel Sound Corporation), acoustic jazz on my JBL 4310, it was great. This guys seemed to know how to use the new tools, at least to my ears... 🙂

[@garagetube2830]

So what left as analog? reels?

[@APMastering]

mostly yeah but its kind of expensive but the problem there is, there is degradation when you manufacture tape releases for consumption because its a copy of a copy of a copy

[@OrangeMicMusic]

Yep....100 % true. Lots of analog/vinyl enthusiasts don't know that little detail: most of mastering studios in the 80s had the Studer A80 that converts the signal to digital before cutting the vinyl 😅

[@willnorth6339]

Digital is defined by 0s and 1s, you cannot write 1s and 0s to a piece of material, nor does it interpret them - thus technically analogue.

[@bertroost1675]

But yet lots of vinyl collectors buy records made before the 80's.

[@OrangeMicMusic]

@@willnorth6339 how the Studer A80 with a digital delay line works: 1. Analog (from the tape recorder) → 2. Digital (in the delay unit) → 3. Back to Analog → 4. Then engraved onto vinyl. The digital conversion was done at 12-14 bit, 44.1KHz (not even CD quality) Almost every major release after 1980 was done at a mastering house that used this way of mastering. So, no more analog, since the vinyl was cut from a digital signal

[@willnorth6339]

@@OrangeMicMusic Again, vinyl is an analogue playback medium - once you’ve pressed from an originally digital source (in your example) to an analogue medium it becomes analogue. There is no longer any samples containing bits of information, the pressing become a continuous path of sonic information - an analogue vibration. Your example is like taking water, freezing it to ice and then still calling it water.

[@OrangeMicMusic]

@@willnorth6339 the discussion in this video (and the comments here) is about having an all analog path from recording to vinyl. Once an audio signal was converted to digital and back to analog, that path it's no longer 100% anlaog

[@earl007]

I would love Steve the Audiophiliac to hear this. I unsubscribed him because I was sick of him saying he could hear digital music and vinyl is totally analog. Well done mate.

[@CuttinChopps]

Vinyl CAN sound better.... depends on the mix/master of each audio format. Plenty of vinyl releases sound like trash compared to digital. Visa versa also. The limited DR on vinyl seems to tame the "loudness war" on properly mastered records... FOR ME. Regardless, analog colors a sound, sometimes favorable, sometimes junk, so many variables that analog makes it fun to experiment with IE different cartridges, heads, preamps, and of course "synergy". Analog is great for playing, digital (file or streaming, I don't do optical media) is great for the efficiency/lazy/convenient reasons, again, for me. As a TV engineer, I confirm the crusty jack fileds and miles of NOT "audiophile" cable through my tours of recording and radio studios.

[@Eolithmusic]

This guy is 100% right. Most people can't tell the difference between a 256kbps mp3 and a wav file either. Everyone should only listen to mp3's and send me all of your inferior records.

[@marxman00]

You have made the definitive explanation on the subject .I remember hearing a 2" tape being mastered onto 1/4 tape ...when listening between the input monitor and playback head the massive loss was obvious .. the answer at the time was DAT. These days most mobile phones have superior resolution ..I guess some people want "good old" analogue problems to extend their "quest" to find what is already found .

[@LasseHuhtala]

Last time I sent a master to a premier vinyl cutting house, they requested a digital file, 16/44.1 to be exact.

[@KRAZEEIZATION]

CD sounds fantastic, especially the early CD issues. Vinyl has a distorted sound that’s more elastic and less accurate. I love both and have been buying vinyl and CD for 40 years now. Vinyl is now being pressed from high definition digital files because it’s far easier to do this rather than use a complete analog path. The Nightfly was recorded on a 3M digital machine. ABBA had one from 1981 onwards, The Power Station recorded studio in New York had one that Nile Rogers liked to use. There are many flaws with vinyl, inner groove distortion is incredibly annoying, especially for songs you love, CD excels here. Clicks, pops in the wrong places are torture too. CD is accurate, powerful and transparent. What I hate about CD remasters is the loud compressed audio that’s going on for the last 25 years. Compressed modern vinyl is even worse as it’s now €40 a pop! Expensive rubbish.

[@sounddoctor5decades]

Actually, ABBA, The Visitors, was the FIRST commercially produced CD, not the first sold that was Billy Joel (and was an analog recording), but ABBA was the first produced, and it was digital end to end, it was also the LAST CD they did before their break up, they have since issued an album more recently Voyage in 21'.

[@KRAZEEIZATION]

@ As far as I know, the first 3 tracks of the Visitors were analog, then digital from there on. There’s a definite snappiness to the drums that’s not on the first three songs. I have a “Red Face” 1983 CD of The Visitors and The Singles double CD.

[@sounddoctor5decades]

@@KRAZEEIZATION I was not aware, I'm from the industry and was always told it was D end to end, but I was not at the sessions and never saw the mix, so you could be correct, D was not super wide spread yet in 80/81 other than perhaps with classical recording, they seamed to start earlier.

[@KRAZEEIZATION]

@ I read that about Visitors a while back. I’m obsessed with music and recording so I’m always annoyed when album details are not comprehensive enough for me! From Wiki- The members of ABBA and their personnel have memories of the recording sessions for this album being rather difficult. To begin with, their sound engineer Michael Tretow had to become accustomed to using the new 32-track digital recorder that had been purchased for Polar Music Studios. He said, "Digital recording...cut out all the hiss, but it also meant that sounds were sharply cut off below a certain level. The sound simply became too clean, so I had to find ways of compensating for that". The first three tracks for the album had already been recorded using analogue tape and therefore Tretow had to transfer all subsequent tracks from digital to analogue and back again to avoid a difference in quality.

[@sounddoctor5decades]

@@KRAZEEIZATION Excellent!! I love that you have passion for the industry, I'm no longer active, but I listen to my huge collection of virtually all media types every single day. Nothing gives me so much enjoyment!

[@baaltroth1957]

I like the experience with vinyl, and I like that the digital conversion was more upstream so the amplification happens on the physical wobble sounds of the stylist. I also like cd format or digital for playing with conversion devices. To me, it's all about fun hearing differences. However, I love physically holding media and my preferred is cd issued in an earbook or artbook

[@mvv1408]

It's the same for synthesisers: just Google "Why Modern Digital Synthesis Is More Analog than Analog" by Mark Barton. That said, I still like vinyl with some types of music. The low-level pink noise blanket and crosstalk gives it the often mentioned "warm" or mellow sound. And the size makes the artwork stand out more, the ritual of putting on a record slows you down a bit, so you listen more attentively, etc. Bur for sound quality, CD is better, sure (and "Hi Res" overkill for home use).

[@sostakovic]

I remember when the vendors used to speculate on "Jitter" for CD players .Ahh the good old times LOL .

[@ambienthangout]

And no one can tell me what "jitter" sounds like.

[@SiloSoundStudios]

As soon as a digital delay line was available, most mastering facilities started using them to cut masters. This goes back to the late 70s.

[@CS-iq4xn]

@@SiloSoundStudios this is really interesting.. so this lathe delay device, it actually digitizes the signal chain?

[@SiloSoundStudios]

@CS-iq4xn yes.

[@mrburpler]

I totally agree with your take on "releasing the vinyl 'HDR' master" digitally. I wish more bands/acts would do that. Having a well mastered digital file/CD is always my preference. It's why the late 80s early 90s CDs are the one I go for when I buy CDs.

[@agsmith001]

i think a lot of people were fooled by remastered versions of old analog material. a lot of stuff that came out on CD was reprocessed changing the sound and in the 80's engineers pretty much ruined everything and those of us who had been listening on vinyl for years missed the originals.

[@ephjaymusic]

I only master my music onto Edison wax cylinders using OTT and Sausage Fattener to help get that "analogue sound". Thank you for another great video!❤

[@APMastering]

LOL

[@Coneman3]

Try adding some beef dripping

[@ephjaymusic]

@@Coneman3 damn! I never thought of that! I'll let the fat drip over the cylinder as the grooves are being inscribed.

[@rienpost]

Never mind the audiophools.

[@Eightplex]

Crazy. Since most of my LP’s were made when digital didn’t exist I suppose you are wrong. Do you really believe that most who listen to vinyl only listen to vinyl manufactured after 1980? The newer vinyl I buy mainly comes from Kevin Gray and I can assure you that there isn’t anything digital about them…

[@APMastering]

yes most people who listen to vinyl do not predominately have only pre 70s cuts. if you do, then you probably have a boring collection

[@Douglas_Blake]

@APMastering Most of today's kids don't even know music existed before 2000! Look around the "reactions" channels at all the guys faking hearing older music for the first time, you'll get the idea... right now Sultans of Swing seems to be the favourite.

[@thevi_olin]

plot twist : all digital is analog at its core!

[@gdwlaw5549]

Many people here won’t get that….

[@frankgarcia9834]

😂

[@Douglas_Blake]

ALL electrical signals are analog at core ... what matters is how you produce and interpret them. Hint: try listening to raw digital signals sometime.

[@seed_drill7135]

Sounds like Lou Reed’s MMM.

[@GingerDrums]

​@@Douglas_Blake Try listening to the jack cable coming out of a bass... Mind blowing analogue fidelity

[@pirate0jimmy]

Most vinyl masters have been pushed through a-d/d-a during cutting since early 1970's. It was trying to be a 14 bit chain, but maybe 12 or 13 bits actual. It still rawked! 13 bit audio can be VERY VERY GOOD, and still a few dB quiter than the best vinyl record playback. If recordists and mastering of CD's were intent on best s:n and lowest distortion, not overall mostest-loudest, CompactDisc would never have had the hate, and older cd's would sound EVEN BETTER as newer-cheaper-better d-a converters got into $1000 consumer stereos. Loudness War remastering was a crime against consumers of music.

[@BorisBarroso]

Thanks for presenting the concepts and the way vinyl mastering is done. I love analog sound when I hear tape saturation or other processing it really helps to the sound.

[@chrissmart9761]

Hahahahahaha! I took a twelve-week mastering course and have read a few books on the topic, and never learned this. That's hilarious! :) This is even funnier than the Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs scandal a few years back, when all the purists found out that many of their treasured MoFi productions were digitized. Wait, you couldn't hear the inherent digital-ness? but I thought digital was cold and soulless... LOL

[@HDSPKSRecords-gi1ob]

If you play a vinyl record which contains material from a digital source, it will sound 'warmer' than a straight digital copy. A bit of surface noise and saturation will creep in, imparting 'soul'. Sorry!

[@jkwhtsll]

You nailed the difference for most consumers with the term “high end”. Playing digital at home requires a DAC, whereas the record producer used their DAC to produce the vinyl. Can folks tell the difference between analog streams coming from different DACs?

[@mikeables]

That is why vinyl lovers look for early first presses. Most of us don't buy new music because it sucks.

[@APMastering]

well i think some digital remasters sound better than the first pressing

[@mikeables]

@APMastering I agree. Some albums got no love at all from the label, artist or pressing plants. I have heard some pretty terrible music on cds as well.. I know a ton of people wish Jimmy Page would let go of some tapes so they could be remastered and put on vinyl because the latest mixes Jimmy put out are stale.

[@PJ-oy5bc]

Got my first CD player back in 1987, never played a vinyl record since! Why would I 😂

[@user-JM1967]

Não existe som digital, mas apenas arquivos digitais. Não existe áudio digital. O áudio é analógico. O computador nos dá uma simulação, nada mais. O mundo digital é virtual, não é real. O analógico é real e o digital é virtual.

[@APMastering]

very true! this could form the basis for an entire video

[@frankklemm1471]

At the end of the 1980s, there were reports on progress in the production of records (magazine: rfe, GDR). Although the central topic was direct metal mastering (production of the master by cutting a master record into an electrolytically applied amorphous copper layer), it also dealt with further improvements through the use of digital technology for optimum tracking and to compensate for known shortcomings in the cutting process. The last sentence of the article series ended with “The technology that gets the most out of records, however, will probably also be the cause of its death.” That was at the end of the 1980s and in the technologically backward GDR. The important points were: * Direct Metal Mastering, cutting into a less bouncy substance * DDD, completely digital recording and mastering * Digital compensation of cutting errors * Optimal feed, calculated not from an envelope curve but from the actual deflection * Precise planning of the entire groove feed Das war, soweit ich mich erinnere, Anfang 1989.

[@APMastering]

DMM war nicht unbedingt wegen bounciness aber eher weil man im presswerk zwei schritte überspringen kann. aber das ist heute weniger relevant da das nur vorteilhaft wird nach ein paar tausend stück und heute presst man normalerweise weniger schallplatten

[@dominicbout]

A love letter reads better by candlelight than under cold fluorescent light. You hit the spot on that's it's about the experience. You draw terrible though :D

[@APMastering]

my drawing is indeed especially bad

[@Brian-qg8dg]

And if the Donald F. Record sounds better on vinyl than a digital source, yet the original source was digital, doesn't that tell you that the mastering and natural presentation of a physical media is the reason the vinyl sounds better

[@hansemannluchter643]

The vinyl of the Donald FAGan recording doesn't sound better.

[@amremorse]

Watch it again. It went right over your head.

[@Brian-qg8dg]

@amremorse more towards the comments, not literly your stream. Cheers.

[@Afe.j.69]

Vinyl wasn't digital until digital came along.

[@Munakas-wq3gp]

Vinyl was also worse before digital came along because the analog systems degraded the sound in the mixing process.

[@deeppeace156]

⁠@Munakas-wq3gpto be very specific, tape going over play and record heads repeatedly killed the sound. This is avoidable by making first gen copies. There isn’t any other way analog magically “degrades” sound quality

[@net_news]

Vinyl wasn't and will not be digital... unless you record binary data on it and create a decoder (software or hardware) to transform that analog audio signal into digital. Back in the day, some ZX Spectrum games were distributed on vinyl in the UK using this technique.

[@Munakas-wq3gp]

@@deeppeace156 Of course there is. The SNR levels of analog tapes and vinyl is about 65db which is poor compared to digital. Also every analog copy is worse than the original where on digital you can make high bit masters and have non-degraded work copies as much as you need.

[@MrFryfish]

"This is avoidable by making first gen copies." ..out of (too many times) replayed analog master??

[@randommixes1865]

I agree that the slammed digital master and the hi-res digital vinyl master should be made available to the user: always. For me there is now room for a new format, lets call it WAV2 where in WAV2 one WAV2 digital file always contains the 2 digital WAV files: i.e. the slammed and the vinyl digital. On playback, the player has a switch to choose A the slammed or B the digital vinyl. There should also be a C position. This is the slammed A level matched (by LUFS) to the vinyl digital B, so enthusiast can switch between B and C usually to compare or if in doubt default to A. WAV2 just contains 2 files. The C version is derived from the A version on playback by one dB offset burnt into meta-data in the WAV2 file at creation. Thanks, really love your channel: inspiring.

[@piccalillipit9211]

*THATS JUST FACTUALLY INCORRECT* as 80% of the vinyl in existence was pressed before 2000

[@paulmckenna5224]

Well, he said most vinyl mastering switched over to digital delays in the late 70s-early 80s, so you might want to change your numbers.

[@bakerlefdaoui6801]

Just like for movies, high quality non limited music should have the HDR logo for high dynamic range. You would have on spotify the regular version, and on bandcamp the same with a little HDR logo next to it. It might even work on some streaming services too like Tidal or Apple music. This would clarify everything for the end listener without conflict between different versions of a master.

[@678ktm]

Who really cares, I have old cars and they are slow. But so much fun, vinyl is the same ❤

[@APMastering]

yeah i actually agree

[@net_news]

absolutely, their limitations make them more desirable.

[@klexen]

the whole video is missing a few important points in my opinion. Thanks for clarifying the other advantages of vinyl (possession, listening experience) but I think I can contribute something as I did a lot of academic research on the topic ;) for the discussion vinyl vs digital is doesn't really matter whether in the production of the music or the lathe there are digital components involved or not (although shout out on how you explained the variable pitch cutting). Of course your are absolutely right about the advantages of digital cutting and recording technologies. And of course you are right about that many so called "audiophiles" don't have really a clue what they are talking about and thus fall victim to a lot of voodoo. There are two dimensions about the term "sound quality": an analytical and an aesthetic one. Both have their place and relevance. you are focussing on the analytical dimension only, where you simply measure in the input (the masters) and output (the medium) and come to a conclusion. here, of course, vinyl is objectively worse then digital formats not just because of surface noise but because of other distortion which is introduced in the signal chain. in practice, most people don't have a proper turntable, pick ups or pre amps. even if they spend tens of thousands on the equipment there is just so much which can go wrong that it is save to assume then in 99% of all households, vinyl sounds simply worst then it even could be (and by extension worse then the digital lossless copy). which leads to the aesthetic dimension: this is exactly what (some) people like. it is the little imperfections, noise, distortions which are so much loved by many people. call it retromania or nostalgia - in many areas of the society the fetishisation of older times is happening and vinyl is as much a part of it as it is analog photography or other equivalents. A lot of people like the aesthetics of analog photos even if they are less perfect then any digital camera nowadays and this is seemingly similar for vinyls. so if many people prefer the sound and the overall experience of vinyl, they tend to frame it as "it sounds better" which might be wrong from a pure technical point of view - but it still has a relevance and should not just be framed as bullshit in my opinion.

[@jjcale2288]

You just certified the sonic superiority of vinyl in what concerns dynamics of the sound vs compressed/limited digital. You are still victim of the *loudness war*.

[@ScottyWilkins]

Well said, growing up in the 80s cassette tapes were a thing. some of the music is not on streaming services, so im getting the old vinyl and enjoying the rediscovery.

[@APMastering]

yeah some things i own and love are not on spotify either

[@AllSeeingIrishMan]

Vinyl is essentially a facetime filter for the original piece of music.

[@fjgaston]

Hi, Im not sure if it's the analog vibe but I remember trying some crappy analog gear to record some demos and the sound was noisy and distorted but I remember that I liked something about it, like the vocals were more "real". I'm not sure how to put it in words but I definitely noticed something I never experienced with any digital gear. But in the end, maybe it's all the mess created by the noise the distortion that made a special sauce that I liked at that time ???

[@bardhi09]

Analog recording has no quantization noise so it could be that Could also be that digital cuts off frequencies above 22.05khz

[@atmobeat]

I wonder why some sort of people have to call you offensive names, just because you have a different point of view on a technical topic ☹

[@APMastering]

the internet is a strange place

[@StagAR1984]

They've invested significant amounts of their personal income to reinforce their deeply held beliefs. Anything that contradicts those beliefs can feel like more than just an insult to their audiophilia; it becomes a direct challenge to their personal identity. Tribalism is alive and well.

[@francobuzzetti9424]

i though everyone agreed that vinyl sounds the same or in some cases objectively worsethat the origina recording but it makes it up with on the experience and feel of it. just putting on a vinyl ,sitting on a chair and relaxing is WAY different that just loading up spotify on your earphones edit1: what do you mean with "high res, no-lim masters?" i'm intrested, is it just a non smashed master that sounds more like the mix than the squished master?

[@MARZILLI]

FINALLY AN ORIGINAL, HONEST AND REAL AUDIO PRO!!! Tired of the retail shills…

[@bertroost1675]

@@MARZILLI who is he?

[@PrettyRandomNoises]

The funniest part of this whole analog vs digital debate and whichever is better is that it's flipped upside down :D Audiophiles prefer vinyl and analog exactly because it is not only not 100% accurate representation of what happened in the studio, but also because it's not 100% identical between listening sessions. Those tiny discrepancies is what is perceived as more authentic. I create synthesizer music and a lot of my effort goes into adding organic feel to it. This usually means adding feedback loops in many different places and exploiting temperature instability of oscillators. By the nature of the beast, each time I run a piece that is currently patched, it is a tiny bit different, resulting in a more authentic feel. If I then run a 96khz raw recording of the same patch through the exactly same system it has the same quality as the live version, but it's always exactly the same, bit by bit. After just a couple of replays it begins to flatten, as I get accustomed to every detail. From my perspective the biggest reason why audiophiles believe what they believe is because they don't create music themselves so never had the opportunity to learn how it really works.

[@sostakovic]

and they never built an amplifier themselves too :-) nice post

[@StereoAnthony]

The vinyl hoards hate facts!

[@leonnaffin]

This is my favourite so far! Love it. Can’t stop smiling while watching

[@VinylRage3676]

Just do to how records are played back it's still analog regardless of the source it was recorded from. No problems either way enjoy the music that's what it's all about.

[@BrentLeVasseur]

A lot of streaming software normalizes every track automatically, so if you publish a low compression high rez version, it will be normalized and sound louder than normal automatically in most cases (which is good). Roon uses 64bit float depth conversion prior to volume normalization, so no headroom is lost.

[@redoregan]

I'm a jazz bass player with a formal education and all of this nonsense about vinyl was explained to us by our lecturers when we were studying. Nothing annoys me more than vinyl snobbery and dj snobbery. Think they're connoisseurs and creators. They're not.

[@periurban]

Whilst you are factually correct, you may be missing a key factor. My faith in the inferior quality of vinyl (as an unfoolable sound engineer/producer) was shaken only once, when listening to an orchestral recording featuring nicely recorded strings. They sounded AMAZING! I checked the CD against what I was hearing, and the CD version of those strings was simply ordinary (in other words, accurate). So, what you might be missing is that the nature of vinyl, whether because of some kind of crappy stylus, poor pre-amplification or inaccurate frequency response, sometimes leads to more musical outcomes. Less accurate, yes. The result of flaws in the reproduction, yes. But sometimes sounding "nicer".

[@APMastering]

have you heard the brass section on Savoy Truffle? do you think it would have sounded better recorded digitally with buckets of headroom? probably not. So I agree distortion can do something cool, but it is a creative mix choice and not really something that you should be merely subjected to at random.

[@periurban]

@APMastering True, but nevertheless I do think it explains some of the voodoo around vinyl.

[@periurban]

@APMastering Regarding the brass on Savoy Truffle, if memory serves it always sounded terrible on the original 60s vinyl, but then so did everything!

[@kond1]

This channel is basically Myth Busters for audio recording 😄

[@olivergretz]

Nobody claims that vinyl has "better" sound quality - it has just a certain character which is unique to vinyl and so many people love! Although your source material was digital, all the RIAA equalization, physical properties of the cutting and playback head, and how audio is recorder in the grooves gives it that special sound!

[@net_news]

Vinyl sound fidelity is lower than CD... but vinyl (usually) sounds better than CD b/c our brain loves some types of distortion.

[@olivergretz]

@@net_news Of course it is lower in terms of frequency spectrum and noise etc. but this is not what defines a good sound!

[@net_news]

@@olivergretz I agree 100% to me vinyl sounds much better than CD in most cases.

[@ceticobr]

@@olivergretz a lot of people do claim vynil sounds better than digital. That's why videos like this are needed.

[@olivergretz]

@@ceticobr With "better" sound quality I was referring the to technical specs of the medium (CD/vynil) and not to the subjective impression of the sound.

[@alexjenner1108]

You forgot to mention for the benefit of all those audiophiles listening to their favourite classic 1980s rock album, on their discrete component class-A vacuum tube amplifiers, the album was probably mixed on an SSL console full of NE5532 Op amps.

[@Alex-cw7xf]

Since you didn't read or respond to my previous comment, I'll make it shorter for you. You've shifted the narrative from there is "no vinyl sound" to basically say "vinyl is digital." You're still missing the fact that vinyl is an electromechanical process and introduces non-linearities to the signal. I implore you on your next video to an FFT comparison with high block size and no smoothing between multiple high quality digital 24 bit / 96 khz and a scan of record at 96 kHz or 192 kHz-and you'll see vinyl adds 6-12 dB of saturation to the signal in multiple frequency bands, in particular the side signal due to the differential lateral and horizontal forces experienced by the stylus in the groove. *In no way am I saying that vinyl is superior to digital* , however claiming that saying that "vinyl doesn't have a sound" or "most vinyl comes from digital masters so it's basically digital" is completely ignorant. Also, your point from the main video seems to be that everything *but* the vinyl medium creates the "sound", but from what I can tell you made no mention of different formulations of vinyl from styrene to PVC or "Quiex"... lastly I am not sure who your intended audience is because, you would be much better off interviewing a cutting engineer and get some updated information-you should go watch Helmut Lang's videos on his YT channel about the "Simulathe" software that allows cutting engineers to get a near-identical copy of a digital master cut to vinyl, including heavily brickwall limited dance music with heavy bass and low dynamic range.

[@_floeter]

thanks for this reply

[@kaczynski2333]

A bunch of people arguing over an inferior, and more expensive, medium.

[@theostragonidis7548]

Basically you are admitting that vinyl is inferior when it comes to an accurate representation of a recording, which it is. Digital is superior in that regard, check what Nyquist-Shannon Sampling Theorem states. I know you're talking about something else here but I just wanted to point that out.

[@ghfjfghjasdfasdf]

Not inferior, just different due to its unique saturated character of sound.

[@Alex-cw7xf]

​@@theostragonidis7548 i actually don't think you're fully understanding what i am trying to say. my primary point has really nothing to do with which medium is superior or not, i am simply trying to debunk this idea that there is no fundamental difference or reason for people favoring vinyl over digital or claiming it has a "warm" sound. this is just complete bollocks. vinyl playback adds harmonic distortion, primarily in the second, third, and fourth partials (+1 octave, +1 octave + perfect fifth, +2 octaves), primarily in the side signal. saturated side signal with a relatively undistorted mid signal can produce an artificially augmented sense of width and harmonics in a dynamic way that are not present in the exact copy of the digital signal. period. cutting engineers have known of vinyl distortion of horizontal vs lateral cuts since the practically beginning of the phonograph, and this is why we use a disc rather than a cylinder the way Edison originally designed. this is a fact and the evidence is easily reproducible, all someone has to do is an A/B with digital/vinyl FFT analysis for themselves, color code the mid/side signals from each and note the massive discrepancies between peaks, and notice additional harmonics in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th integer multiples of that signal. You can even do this with a test-tone pressing or even a "digital" timecode vinyl that produces a 1 or 2 kHz sine wave tone to make it even more obvious. on another note, with music ownership going the way of the dinosaur for the general population, the value proposition of vinyl (or physical media in general) is that it fosters a deeper connection and loyalty to the artist and lasts longer than digital.... yes... you heard me. (Ted Gioia articulates this fact better than I can) physical media outlasts digital media. how many computers and hard drives have you had in the past 20 years? how many times did those drives or computers become obsolete, or fail? how many times did a single hairline scratch render a CD completely unlistenable? it almost seems like in the pursuit of some type of audiophilic digital delirium of perfection people have forgotten that the digital CD age also brought about brickwall limiting and completely squashed dynamics, and now most streaming services that max out around a 320 kpbs. this is superior to past music that is more dynamic was NEVER released digitally? vinyl has been around almost 100 years and with all of the technological improvements cutting engineers have invented vinyl playback has *IMPROVED*... digital arguably has *DECLINED*.

[@ec8107]

Audiophools have an "Alex Jones" understanding of audio engineering, but it's the Rick Rubins of the world that destroyed the reputation of digital.

[@adamyelle4901]

Thank you so much for speaking the truth on these subjects. I recently came across your channel and find it so refreshing that you're willing to just lay it all out there with solid facts. I genuinely appreciate your insight and look forward to your videos.

[@Hansepans68]

True. Even The Nightfly by Donald Fagen is recorded, mixed and mastered entirely on 3M digital equipment in 1982, before it was put to vinyl.

[@dshpayer9907]

I already don't trust audiophiles.. they claim that expensive 10000000000 dollar cables are a gods send of sound.... my thin rca cables can get the same signal hahahaa

[@Douglas_Blake]

It's what happens when predatory marketing and pseudoscience meets the incurably ignorant. Most audiophiles have no clue what goes on inside those expensive boxes. One of life's harder lessons: Those who know the least are always the easiest to lie to...

[@sidesup8286]

It's not mostly shmucks that hear differences in expensive cables. It's usually ones who can afford them, and afford the associated equipment where their qualities can best assert themselves. About half of them are doctors I'm told by someone who has a retail store. Perhaps all doctors are quacks with bad perception, and their brain work in figuring things out in saving so many lives (including my own) was just sheer coincidence. On the other hand some less smart people have bricks for ears, and all the book learning in the world doesn't help them a bit. It might even bias them, with their delusion that they understand everything about electron behavior. The right cables make a nice improvement just like anything else of quality. Only make light of things you fully understand. It's good our world is influenced by open minded scientists, instead of them, or rust laden cranks would be on everything. Science is our highest knowledge and just about all our advances happen because of science. Don't doubt what you do not fully understand. Scientists are smart enough to know when they don't understand things in totality.

[@dshpayer9907]

@@sidesup8286 all I can say is, copper is copper..

[@Douglas_Blake]

@@sidesup8286 Do you have any idea how much "science" exists in the audiophile community that is either decried or outright laughable outside of it? Seriously some of the stuff that comes out of audiophiles mouths is plain hilarious.

[@sidesup8286]

We are all different beings with different sensory apparatus, and equipment; I try not to confuse what I hear with what others hear, or confuse my equipment and recordings with other people's equipment and recordings. We are all unique individuals, and many people stoop to making light of other peoples being different from themselves, as though their own experience is the only one. If someone likes broccoli and I don't; I just figure that's them and they're not me. No problem, no confusion, no debate needed.

[@hazardeur]

noob here but i have to ask: could it be that when playing vinyl, that diamond going through the groves kinda adds some noise that is not on a digital mix? i mean, a diamond scratching plastic has to sound different somehow than a digital version. not saying its better or worse but i did notice that my favorite records sound "different" when heard on vinyl. not sure if i would say better, just a bit different. could it be or was it just in my head?

[@APMastering]

yeah it adds noise. remarkable that it doesn't sound like absolute crap

[@andrewmathewson8083]

I love it when the vinyl digital debate comes up. I go into a lot of technical differences between vinyl and digital. Then as the final nail in the coffin I tell them about the Ampex ADD-1 and it’s bit/sample rate and I usually have to lift their chin off the floor. Vinyl doesn’t sound better it sounds different.

[@APMastering]

soundstream was also interesting. actually slightly higher res theoretically than CD

[@bertroost1675]

Amazing story buddy😂

[@willnorth6339]

No one’s arguing that it sounds subjectively or objectively better, they’re arguing it sounds different in comparison to its digital master (or even digital vinyl master file)

[@anotheryoutubed]

I was wondering when someone was finally going to point this out. No one is recording completely to tape, mixing completely in the box, and then having a master acid press record pressed in house to be sent out and copied at a record mfg. factory. It doesn't happen.

[@middleman9183]

Yes it does...............

[@anotheryoutubed]

@@middleman9183 ok bud.

[@rolando_j_]

Here's the thing about the digital delay. What was said is true. But audio digital delay is not used for every record. And the mastering studios who've stuck with cutting vinyl incorporated methods to use split the analog signal between the delay device that controlls the cutting head and the signal sent to the cutting head. What is suggested is that the signal passed through the digital and then in series sent to the cutting head. And this is possible, but the engineers who build this stuff know how sent the signal in parallel. This maintains the analog signal sent to the cutting head. What is suggested is probably true for mastering studios who've recently migrated from digital. And the truth is that the source recordings are likely digital in the first place, so this doesn't matter. But established mastering studios have staff that both build and maintain the circuitry of their signal path done in mastering. They can easily just add parallel circuit to keep their signal unaaltered by the digital processing needed to control the lathe cutting drive. What I don't like about what is presented here, is that a technology invented in 1979 is assumed to not have been obsoleted since. The guys working in mastering studios are engineers. They don't call them that because they drive trains. These guys understand they understand their signal path. And if they don't like that a lathe has to work by using a digital delay, they will redesign the signal path. Again they're engineers. These are creatives that fully understand the science of all the equipment that is used in their studios. Do some research. The best mastering studios not only have engineers working in the studios, they also have technicians on staff to assist the engineers. These guys aren't stupid. If they need the delay, they will figure out a way to keep the signal analog. And to suggest that this couldn't be figured in 45 years, is silly. The truth is, it was probably figured out in weeks. It might have tanken additional time to implement the changes to the equipment to solve this problem, but the design is simple enough to change a circuit from in series to parallel.

[@electricwhiterabbit]

If the cutting signal is passed though the digital delay and in series to the cutting head....it is still delayed in which it is still passing though an AD/DA converter. That is what 'series' means. There is no other way around it for most. Redesigning the signal path is either delay or no delay. Most LP's since the 80's are all digital. I do not understand why people have a problem with it. If a signal is in parallel, then there is no delay to one signal. That is a problem.

[@vjmcgovern]

He’s not arguing whether its possible to do that, he’s saying that running records through a digital delay is “standard practice” for mastering nowadays. A digital delay was used in the cutting process for most analog albums in produced in the last 40 years. That’s what engineers are doing nowadays because it works better and allows for more dynamics.

[@MichaelSchuerig]

As far as I understand it, the digital delay in the lathe provides just enough lookahead time to adjust the pitch. By necessity, it is the audio signal that gets delayed, not some sidechain control signal. The video shows a purely analog way of achieving the same with two tape heads, but apparently that's very rare.

[@hepphepps8356]

This happened even way before 1979 in many places, with the early Lexicon units and other early digital delays. I usually keep this information for very last in any discussion with a vinyl maniac.

[@chordpop6259]

Amen brutha. Been enjoying rubbing this hilarious last digital step informational tidbit into certain vinyl enthusiast's faces for years.

[@Cartoonist_Music]

Great video, I explain this to clients all the time. I'm still p/ssed about your pro mastering vid, lol, but that's what it's all about, imo, healthy debate and learning.

[@APMastering]

the ableton thing? i stand by that and am happy to debate or discuss on camera defending that

[@NickP333]

Excellent video. I’ve got some nice gear, but it’s to get as much out of the music as possible out of said gear. I enjoy the sound of, both SS and tube, and I’m never going to spend 4 figures on a cable. In fact, I build a lot of my gear including most of my cables. Vinyl is my favorite format for the reasons you mentioned, and I’ve been collecting for 35+ years. I also managed a music store and played professionally for years, fortunate enough to tour the world, so I’ve been in plenty of studios. One of my best friends is a recording and mastering engineer. His name is George Borden in case you’re interested. He’s done a lot in teaching younger generations to learn the skills he has. Your explanation of formats and their pluses and minuses was pretty spot on. I still listen to CD’s or even my iPod in the car, mostly vinyl at home, but if I’ve got people over, I’ll put on a record or run someone’s playlist via a phone through my preamp. All formats are valid, and I listen to most except reel to reel tape being one that’s prohibitively expensive. Thank you for sharing your thoughts based on experience and real life situations.

[@FeelingPoyChina]

true.

[@big-smoke-rc]

I really could care less what people think is better. It's subjective. You look like a lostprophets fan.

[@kaczynski2333]

Vynil is fragile, expensive, a complete pain, and has inferior attributes. Some believe the Earth is flat, so whatever.

[@bertroost1675]

Then, of course, don't buy it. End.

[@net_news]

well all my 50+ yo vinyls are playable but many 80s (and even 90s) CDs are not. Tell me that vinyl is "fragile".

[@bertroost1675]

@@net_news Vinyl, not vinyls. But your point is nice.

[@net_news]

@@bertroost1675 you are right, thanks!

[@kaczynski2333]

@@net_news I started buying CDs in the 80s; none have rot. Vinyl is fragile.

[@mckengineer5727]

I’m into HiFi, Linn, Rega with BBC spec speakers and yet your spot on. The quality of the sound is down to the skills of the recording and mastering engineers…the quality of music down to the artist. What I noticed in the transition to digital is that many early 60’s 70’s records that were digitised were much poorer than the vinyl, but modern engineers seem to have improved this…plus probably the quality of the digital kit improved…as a computer scientist I know that access to high quality at reasonable costs changes rapidly. Also liked you sound cloud suggestion, this rammed music is tiring.

[@willnorth6339]

⁠@APMastering Vinyl is not cut/pressed to atom-perfect standards, so there is always going to be distortion, that is imperfect nature of material science - this isn’t NASA, nor is it cut to a sample rate so there is continuous sonic information between the samples in comparison to its digital counterpart. Please, go ahead any find an atom-perfect cutting lathe, completely dustless environment, completely flat needle/playhead, completely flat pre-amp and A/D converter and null them in any DAW of your choosing (none of which exist) - if hypothetically you can find these I can assure you they will not null with their digital vinyl master file.

[@APMastering]

you can't null because wow and flutter. but id be interested to see what kind of cancelating you'd get using the playback pickup on a Neumann vms70 as they have essentially no wow and flutter as its so heavy

[@willnorth6339]

@APMastering I just want to refer back to your previous video last week where you said I quote “vinyl doesn’t have a sound in my personal opinion” - yet you’ve just concluded that vinyl has wow and flutter - objectively is that not the sound of vinyl? - Imperfections that will never align to the digital vinyl master counterpart. I’d also argue that the wow/flutter are not the only sonic characteristics but also subtle distortion that is introduced from the imperfect cutting from the lathe contributes to a warmer sound (see below) “24-bit precision gives you about 16.77 million values. Assuming a total groove width of 50 x 10^-6m, the maximum movement of the cutter is physically bounded at about half that. Much more and the cutter will be in the space for an adjacent groove. Thus, 50 microns width divided by 16.77 million gives us about 3 x 10^-12m, i.e. ~0.03 angstroms. The diameter of a hydrogen atom is 1.0 angstroms (1 x 10^-10m). That would make the resolution of a 24-bit digital signal equivalent to an analog cutter whose resolution is just about 1/30 the width of a hydrogen atom. Sadly, this seems to be physically impossible, as none of the particles smaller than atoms are stable enough to be used in records. Of course, records aren't made of hydrogen, they're made of the polymer pvc. One molecule of pvc is about 100,000 angstroms. This means that, if the cutters were actually removing single pvc molecules the vinyl records would have about 11 bits of resolution. Sadly, they don't get even that precise, though I'm not sure the actual precision. To get down to a record made of hydrogen atoms (possible under very low temp/very high pressure I suppose) one would need 19 bits. Anything beyond that is useless as long as the laws of physics hold”

[@wimleurink220]

Finally someone talking sense , my compliments. When the CD came out the sound was so amazing, so clear, enormous channel separation and dynamics and silence. The vinyl enthusiasts your belt drive turntable were sold 3 times cheaper in the eighties

[@HDSPKSRecords-gi1ob]

If the transparency of digital is so great, why do people spend so much time and money trying to replicate the sound of old analogue machines? I think we both know that digital lacks soul! The sound has no context - it is cut to bits (literally) and re-synthesized before getting to our ears - whereas analogue can be an unbroken signal from recording to output. The signal is not hacked to pieces and remade from machine guesswork.

[@bertroost1675]

Your last sentence makes no sense.

[@theonlinething1039]

Vinyl sounds better than digital because it makes me be the elite if I tell people I only listen to the purest form of music, cavemen beats played with sticks and stones, on vinyl!

[@designer0798]

Where reel to reel really shines is for live music. A tape can hold 3 hours of music which works really well for concerts. And you just make the tapes yourself. That's the real purpose of tapes. Anyone who is into tapes is into making their own, or trading, and they aren't buying a lot of pre-recorded stuff. And making your own recording is simply something you can't do with records at all.