Is vinyl really better than digital? Try this experiment.

After watching a video from the channel, Real Engineering, I got excited to make this video, but didn't realize I had a lecture full of information. I don't expect everyone to watch the whole thing so I will leave a time index list below. Watch this video if you're into the topic, if not, listen to it to help fall asleep when you go to bed, haha.
Intro 0:00
Stereo Imaging 3:27
Information Loss 7:19
Signal Warmth/Lower Frequencies 12:40
Noise 17:57
Compression/Dynamic Range 20:03
Distortion 23:58
Vinyl vs. Digital Experiment:
Vinyl Record Ripped to Digital File 26:42
Digital File Pressed to a Vinyl Record 29:18
Closing 32:21
Check out the original video Real Engineering that inspired this video
The Truth About Vinyl - Vinyl vs. Digital • The Truth About Vinyl ...
Check out DJ Odeed’s rebuttal video to my “Why I H@te the Technics SL-1200MK2 Turntable”
Why I Love The Technics SL - 1200 Turntable • Why I Love The Technic...
Check out my original video that Odeed responded to
Why I H@te the Technics SL-1200MK2 Turntable • Video

[@priyonjoni]

Check out these vinyl turntables for DJs: Pioneer DJ PLX-500 direct drive turntable www.zzounds.com/a--3970758/item--PIOPLX500 Pioneer DJ PLX-1000 direct drive turntable: www.zzounds.com/a--3970758/item--PNRPLX1000

[@thomasraven]

Don't lump CDs in with MP3s. They should never be lumped together as "digital". There's great sounding digital (a well-mastered CD) and crappy lossy digital (any MP3). A well-mastered CD is still the best sounding physical medium available due to it's lack of noise, it's wider dynamic range, and it's wide frequency reproduction. But note the caveat: WELL-MASTERED.

[@yolielin4143]

Totally agreed. I have some recently published or remastered CDs that sounded just horrible!! Overly compressed and loud and just awful. The CDs from the mid 90's were great. They sounded better, more robust, and weren't too loud.

[@DJLNR.]

In my world anyway 😂😂😂

[@Ocelopilli]

Lmao 😂

[@JnL_SSBM]

@@yolielin4143 *NO!* Have you ever heard Oasis - Definitely Maybe? It was overcompressed to original tapes worse than digitally compressed and it was released in the mid 90's (1994 exact year)

[@StringerNews1]

You don't know what mastering is, obviously. CD mastering has nothing to do with the "sound" of the recording contained therein.

[@cardellguys4473]

I have to say your very good at making your point and i agree with you 100%! I’m 55 and been DJING from the age of 17 in clubs big clubs with some very large systems! One place i played at has to break the concrete to separate the 4 technique 1200s from the building to stop the feedback from the bass! I played there 10 years! Other place had The turn tables on springs! Last one Hung chains from the ceiling hooked to i table with no legs just to stop feedback! So now i love not having to deal with that problem any longer! Great video

[@iowaudioreviews]

Ive chatted with a lot of older guys that love their vinyl and think digital is all crap and then have a 1080p TV and blue ray player hooked to a surround sound reciever in the living room.....

[@priyonjoni]

IowAudio Review 🤣 gold

[@moscasucio1686]

Yeh sounds like you match beats visually. mp3s are crap

[@jnagarya519]

@@moscasucio1686 I'm certain you can hear the difference between CD and MP3. Sure. Are you in the market for a bridge? I have a warehouse full of some named Brooklyn.

[@moscasucio1686]

@@jnagarya519 if you can't here the difference then your not paying attention.

[@davidwald2938]

Maybe that's because they're into sound quality more than video and some epic classic rock albums and concerts are on DVD audio and video and SACDs still being released today. Not to mention, the new 4k disc players and AVR's are disposable garbage compared to the hay day of these players in the mid to late 90's. My cheap 4k player stopped being supported after 4 years and won't play new 4k disks as a result so I don't buy movies but I can stream them and optical in to my old 90's Denon 4806 with hdmi and native SACD decoding from a compatible Denon DVD audio/SACD player. My Blueray player is Pioneer Elite which none of today's players can match in quality and I got primo examples off ebay for pennies on the dollar (about 2k vs. 6.5 it would have cost in 90s). I have modern equipment streaming through a tube dac as well and this old gear makes great digital transport as well since it was built to such a higher standard back when this stuff was state of the art and in demand. Try spending that same 2k on a modern AVR and 4k disc player and the difference in sound quality will be huge and the cheap new crap will be bricked when the updates cease. Sometimes mixing old and new technologies gives you the best of both worlds! Yes, I'm single and run dozens of cables of various types, lol! But I can play just about any type of digital or analog media. Depending on the album, the old reel to reel sounds best followed by vinyl for analog and I have to give streaming hi res a tie with SACD, Blueray audio, and DVD audio. Streaming through a good dac has come a long way in recent years but your not gonna hear Toys in the Attic and many others in surround which many are mind blowing good.

[@DJ-Dorian]

Great video. Amazing explanations. Really enjoyed every second of it. Very very interesting and informative. This video deserves much more likes and views.

[@djs1wiley972]

Awesome video, I felt totally included and you are well versed. Thank you

[@Tslayer1966]

Man this is the best explanation of this I have found! I never understood the steady hum I was getting when I turned my subwoofer up until now. Makes perfect sense! Thanks!

[@buzzbabyjesus]

I got rid of most of my records in 1990. I was sick of dust pops and scratches, and completely embraced CD's. In January we moved, and circumstances encouraged me to play some of the old records. I'd forgotten how much I loved the experience. I started buying vinyl Lp's again. I bought an album on bandcamp, and immediately downloaded the wav files. I'd listened to it 10X by the time the record arrived. I thought it sounded so good that I A/B'd it with the digital files. They sounded nearly identical, but the vinyl had a certain something it took me a couple months to put my finger on. Besides the album cover, and dropping the needle, I realized that every time you play the record is a unique analog physical performance, which you can hear, whereas the digital file is exactly the same every time, making it feel ever so slightly more canned. I still play CD's, and have 2T's of wav files in my computer. They're all good.

[@dtz1000]

The difference is that vinyl recorded from analogue includes the ultrasonic frequencies that are emitted by musical instruments. A CD does not include those ultrasonic frequencies. That is why vinyl is more satisfying to listen to. Music with ultrasonic frequencies has been shown to have a positive effect on the human mind. You can also add ultrasonic frequencies to low quality digital files which is what I do.

[@buzzbabyjesus]

@@dtz1000 I'll buy that and continue enjoying the vinyl.

[@oscarchua526]

You're the first explaner I've run onto who gave a clear, concise, and easy to understand side by side comparison between vinyl and digital file. You are also correct in stating it's up to the individual listener which he chooses to like. Great job!

[@jnagarya519]

Yeah: I love the vinyl purists who totally ignore that the distortions added to playback of vinyl is the equivalent of looking through a dirty window. The only "purity" is in the uninformed self-deception.

[@edakimling133]

Totally fascinating video. You put so much research and effort into this. Also well explained, you touched on very important points and your narration is well paced. Bravo

[@DJTequilaandIce]

Best explanation I've ever heard- I love the sound of old vinyl- the crack and the pops are so unique. However that was good for all my old music. Today I'd much rather have high quality digital. Also vinyl records today are like $30 each - that is insane.

[@thegoat164]

Yeah, $30 for an obsolete technology which is retarded! That's like charging big bucks for VHS tapes, who the hell wants it?

[@paisleepunk]

People who want it.

[@manchesterexplorer8519]

No different than spending $30 for a hat that you'll wear for a year and then throw out or lose it. Or going out to eat for $30 ....at least with the vinyl you can have it for the duration of your life if you take care of it . Certain albums will always be worth money and collectible making it a hobby such as a comic book.

[@redbishop71]

@@manchesterexplorer8519 my point as well. Absolutely incredibly correct!!!

[@manchesterexplorer8519]

@@redbishop71 I know right , people forget what $30 actually gets you these days....not much.

[@johncecilia4517]

Vynyl advantage is that you hear what older music sounded like when it came out and it what it was designed for. Not saying it's better but a different experience.

[@jnagarya519]

I've always been for better playback. Mono is the way I want to hear, as example, "Beatle" singles. And other recordings intended to be mono. But I can do without the distortions, which has always been the aim.

[@dimachesebastian6407]

That was before loudness war. Peacefull listening back in the days.

[@DJLNR.]

Yes. Correct. There's more factors but that's the overall main one..

[@DJLNR.]

I have a few vinyls out there in the wild, white labels obviously, I found myself grouping layers for the predicted vinyl eq curve, however with cd I would render all layers out to a wave(.wav) file back in mcmxcvii as digital playback would playback like the computer did right. I said all that to push the point that sounds harsh to say this but maybe the reason why older music has stayed with is longer is because extra work went into deciding what layers would be grouped and put through some fx chain once more. Even with tape, because some of us grew up with it we wouldn't mind or notice if the dolby noise reduction was on or off (pink noise) I call it that because when I was young and no google was about that's what it was, I'm sticking with it. Oh just remembered, I think it's called background noise today, how intelligent.. #djlnr

[@petecanthropus9947]

Excellent explanation, very illustrative, thank you very much !

[@millersadventure]

love your stuff man.

[@MegaMuradi]

Always love your objective opinion and explanation, keep it 👆

[@tsohgallik]

You need a magnifying glass to skip to the next song... and a surgeons wrist

[@Deluxeta]

If you need these, you're probably wearing diapers.

[@Celestialrob]

Marvelous explanation. I have a very high end system and prefer the vinyl experience. I 100% agree with your conclusions. they are different not better. For me the key factor is the experience of playing the record, looking at the cover combined with a sound that I prefer. This does not make it better. Your presentation is very compelling. I think that anyone arguing that vinyl is better than digital is failing to understand the recording, mastering and production process.

[@PartyMusic775]

Better at some things, worse at others. And remember it depends a LOT on the quality of your turntable or DAC, and the rest of the stereo. Where money is no object, digital is already beating vinyl quite handily. For the average consumer using a lossy delta-sigma DAC, a good mid-fi turntable with a nice stereo is still a much more musical experience, even before we consider the "romantic factors" like covert art and spinning records and so on.

[@RADIANTSLUDGE]

Good vid! One thing I gotta say regardless of Analog or Digital recording there will always be loss signals either through wiring and or the time the sound travels from the instruments (including voice) to the microphone. That is just nature period. Is it perceivable? Probably not as you mentioned.

[@bcrigg9388]

Pri, thanks for making the time to fully explain the difference for all significant angles. Well Done! I learned... Have you done a comparison between CD and "high-resolution streamed audio"?

[@mcnyregrus]

Great video! Around Christmas 2019 I posted a long "essay" on "The truth about vinyl" about how the frequency response in cartridges create most of the differences we hear when vinyl records sound different. In my experience with remastering music and messing around with an equalizer, volume level and frequency response account for the vast majority of the differences we hear between components and different media. In short, most cartridges have a dip in the harshness region, a spike around 10-15 kHz, and perhaps a slight boost in the bass as well. These last couple of days I've also started to look at measurements of tonearms, and all tonearms have resonances, often around 100 Hz, but frequently going up to 1 kHz, and this will boost the bass as well, giving the impression of a "fuller" and "warmer" sound, although, like with the non-linear frequency response of the phono cartridge, it's actually a colourization, although it might sound very pleasant.

[@galus14436]

And everything recorded in a studio is manipulated too. Even listening to someone play live, the dynamics, sound EQ and ambiance is based on the room, and so much more. If it sounds better to the ear, than so be it. I guess

[@jnagarya519]

@@galus14436 Vinyl: dump tar on tape. CD: tape.

[@glynroberts5434]

Simple test: Find a recording where you have both the vinyl record and the CD. Make a digital recording of the vinyl record and then compare the sound from playing the vinyl record to the sound you recorded to your computer (or whatever other digital recording you make) and then also compare the recording from the CD itself. When I did this I recorded to a FLAC file - not a MP3 file as FLAC is lossless while a MP3 is missing information in order to reduce it's size. But, just for fun - I made both a MP3 and a FLAC recording of the vinyl record. Now, listen to the Vinyl record, the Mp3 from the vinyl record, the FLAC file from the vinyl record and the CD and see if you can hear the difference. You MAY be able to hear the difference between the CD and the vinyl record (or the recordings from the vinyl record) but can you tell the difference between the vinyl record and the FLAC file you made from it - or even the MP3 file you made from it? I will guarantee that you can't reliably say which is the vinyl record and which is the FLAC file. If you get it right 50% of the time - that's the same result as a random guess. If you can detect the difference between the FLAC file and the vinyl record more than 75% of the time then I'm prepared to admit that maybe your ears are better than mine and maybe there is a difference. Make sure that the volume (loudness) of the tracks are the same when comparing them. If one is louder than the other they will sound different and if the FLAC is always played back at (say) twice the volume of the vinyl record you'll be able to detect which is which every time but not because one sounds better - just because one sounds louder. The reason I suggested making a digital recording of the vinyl record is because then you will be making a recording of the coloured sound from the vinyl record - so if you prefer the coloured sound of a vinyl record then you will still have the coloured sound of the vinyl record but just in a digital recording. Vinyl records may sound "warmer" than a digital recording but that is really because the recording and playback process "colours" the sound - it alters the sound - particularly the frequency response. You may prefer the "warmer" sound of a vinyl record but that isn't because it's more accurate than the sound from the CD - it's because it's LESS accurate than the sound from the CD. So, you might be able to play the CD through a graphic equaliser and adjust the equaliser to sound closer or identical to the vinyl record. Recording something digitally does NOT change the frequency response. It does drop off all frequencies above 20,000Hz but you can't hear those frequencies anyway. You can feel infra noise (very low frequency sounds) that you ears may not be able to detect but there is no way for you to be able to detect of feel frequencies above 20,000Hz. There is more crosstalk in the music from a vinyl record - you can hear some of the right channel sound through the left channel and vice versa. You can duplicate this for a CD which doesn't have the same issue by putting a variable resistor between the left and right channels. The lower the value of the resistor the more crosstalk you are introducing. If the value of the resistor is zero ohms then you will hear a mono signal - the same sound tough both speakers. When I bought my first CD player (a A$2,000 DENON DCD-1800) I also bought a couple of Telarc demo CDs which sounded MUCH better than my vinyl records due to the lack of clicks and pops, wider dynamic range etc So I was convinced that CDs sound better. Recently I digitally recorded all of my vinyl records so that I could listen to them in my car and the thing that really surprised me was how good they sounded. There weren't even that many clicks and pops because I looked after them and once I applied a click and pop filter they almost totally disappeared anyway. Now, I'm MUCH older now as well so my hearing isn't as good so maybe that's why I found that when I listened to a digital recording of one of my vinyl records and compared it to the CD version - I still preferred the CD version due to the extra dynamic range and lack of crosstalk. Then there is the other argument that a valve (tube) HIFI sounds better than a transistor (solid state) HIFI. But the argument is the same, Valve amplifiers cannot reproduce sound as accurately as solid state amplifiers. You may prefer the coloured sound of a valve amplifier but that doesn't make it more accurate or better. You can achieve the same thing by running you music through the valve amplifier and the making a digital recording of the result. Again you will have the coloured sound from the valve amplifier - just in a digital recording. I simply do not believe the arguments that valve is better (or more accurate) than solid state or that vinyl is better (or more accurate) than digital. I'll only accept that if someone does a true double blind scientific test of this using my suggestion above where they can find someone who can say accurately (at least 75% of the time) which is which.

[@Brian-qg8dg]

Here is another test for you: Play guitar through a tube amp vs a digital plug in. As you play, it's night and day that the tube amp has more dynamics, feel, sustain, etc etc. over the plug in. However, once recorded, they sound similar. How can that be??? It's about the real and now. We are humans not robots. Here is another thing to think about. In the digital world, speed and sample rates will increase forever. However, in thr real world there are always limitations, like the speed of light. Maybe that's why we enjoy vinyl over digital, there are limits, and engineers make the best of those limits.

[@ReasonablySane]

@@Brian-qg8dg you're absolutely right, but you're talking about the creation of music as opposed to the reproduction of it. A speaker that was designed with a cabinet just like a violin would sound terrible. But the shape of the wood cabinet the violin is put in drastically affects the sound of the violin in a very positive way. Same with a guitar. As a musician myself I firmly believe tube amps are better than solid state amps for guitars, but that's because they are part of the sound of the instrument when you use them. But when it comes to the reproduction of music, you don't want the electronics in the path or even the speakers for that matter to change the sound any more than they have to due to the technological limitations. They're not there to add to the sound or color the sound. They are there to faithfully reproduce it. And the less color they add the better.

[@lemonstrangler]

@@Brian-qg8dg well thats because its recorded?

[@Kwippy]

TLDR

[@jonathanpeters1039]

Agreed. I have a semi-professional digital recorder in my hifi system specifically for digitising records and tapes. The resulting recordings are indestinguishable from the original. I feel sure that would not be the case if I owned a vinyl cutting lathe and cut a record from a CD!

[@gandalfthewhite4097]

Very well done. More logic, science, and rational explanation. Less dogma. Good job!

[@Wookiemonsterfreak]

Yes! Boom! That makes sense! Low rumble feedback is a huge variable, plus the stereo imaging of a stylus blending some pan carryover, makes a great argument regarding coloring characteristics! Yeah man, thanks for explaining that! I discovered this last night with my system. It was the hardest I pushed my system since getting it all together a month ago. As the volume went up, there were some serious coloration bleeding out into the room. Likely some frequencies were getting snuffed out along with some feedback reentering into the vibe of the stylus. May have to experiment with a beefy turntable mat to absorb some resonance and construct a egg-carton foam box cover to enclose the turn table and see if I hear a difference at high volume. There are so many variables to calling anything the best. The resolution by witch we examine characteristics of determining the very best goes on and on. The law of Variables will eventually cause the most rigid person to say “good enough”. The pursuit of such detail is the money maker, or in some cases of perspective, the “money taker”.

[@zorancalic65]

Try it with headphone

[@paulmcwilliams8641]

I owned 5 record decks through the 70's and 80's gradually upgrading finally to a Mitchells turntable with a moving coil cartridge. Yet to preserve the records I always recorded the albums on to cassette immediately after purchase, to avoid the pops and scratches caused by dirt, scratches and my clumsiness, especially when I was in my cups. In fact I damaged three styli which needed replacement at quite a substantial cost. I changed to CD straight away and sold my record deck after a year or so and I have owned 8 models of CD player so far. I also had a 5 or so year musical affair with Mini Disk in the 90's. I now also listen to flac's using a half decent Digital Audio Player. On top I have a few SACD's I enjoy using a blu ray player. I have toyed with going back to vinyl, (I still have 500 or so LP's in the loft), but when I remember all those cracks and pops, oh and having to change sides, the nostalgia disappears in a puff of reality. For me, what really counts, is the recording you have, in whichever format you have it. Just get it going and listen to the music. Once it's playing I get on with enjoying the music and not trying to analyse if I can hear the tiny nuances that some people with an obsessive compulsion disorder seem to prefer to detect.

[@thegoat164]

@Leon Anderson CDs all day everyday! Why would anyone want to put more money into an obsolete technology when you have superior tech to use. I switched to CD in the mid 80's and I would NEVER EVER go back to vinyl EVER!!!

[@mackemint3874]

Really like how you kept it scientific! Only thing I felt you left out is the immense impact of childhood conditioning vinyl has on the enthusiasts. The crackles that appear when putting the needle on the record triggers the placebo effect which makes the track sound more pleasing.

[@priyonjoni]

Macke Mint the effects of nostalgia is covered in the video I referenced

[@user-qk4ot1hd1y]

I love it all, vinyl, cassette, reel to reel, 8 track, cd, sacd, dvd audio, blu ray audio, streaming, files, live in person. Depends on which version on which medium on what equipment in which room I am listening as to which sounds best on that day. I wish it was as easy as pick 1 thing and that is the best. I would save a small fortune if that were the case.

[@SY27196]

Thanks foe wonderful explain This is best video I heard

[@akinkunmicook2977]

Another reason people may like vinyl better is because if you went to a live show, orchestra, opera or rock concert, you would not hear everything. While that is also true of vinyl, vinyl has a more "forgiving" quality akin to live music. Perhaps you covered this when you talked about distortion. Sometimes imperfections can actually be more pleasant and desirable. I think "accurate" can be open to some debate. Mind you I use and love both! Peace!

[@DavidKowalski]

I appreciate your consideration of objective facts rather than just subjective opinions. The only thing I would add to your proposed listening tests is that they should be at equal volumes (as determined by a sound level meter) and double-blind -- controlled by another person. Unequal factors such as volume and confirmation bias are rampant in these controversies when tests are conducted.

[@sueneilson896]

Think that the differences in mixing and saturation of the mix between "then" and "now" is one of the reasons that old vinyl gets the reputation of being better. Its closer to what the listener hears in a live performance. This is mentioned in the video at the 2/3rd mark. Different dynamics driven by fashion.

[@Toddster101]

Mate, i love this finally some objective comparison its a no brainer for me as a pro audio engineer(sse audio group) that digital is as close to transparent and repeatable a format as we have ever had I relate it to the stupid factor Because analogue seems simpler and obvious to people when compared to needing a degree to fully understand digital audio i think people default to analogue and then assert this idea that its superior to support there decision especially when spending ridiculous amounts of money on insane hifi to optimise a compromised limited format such as vinyl . I mean your dragging a needle through material right!?!? That fact alone must interfere with the spectral content when cutting a disc Any way I’m glad you made this video I’m going to use it to educate a few colleagues

[@jnagarya519]

It is the "stupid factor". "I LIKE deceiving myself that a vinyl LP for which I paid $30.00 [over against $3.99 when first issued] sounds better than the equivalent CD without all the befogging distortions!"

[@benjib2691]

I think it all depends on the mastering process. Some albums sound better on vinyl LP and some sound better on CD or other digital uncompressed format or mediums. In my (short) experience, "old" stuff (like Pink Floyd, ACDC, Dire Straits, The Doors, etc...) or new stuff recorded using analogue tapes (like RAM from Daft Punk) usualy sounds best on vinyl. However, I own a copy of Californication from RHCP which sounds like a 64 kbps MP3 on this particular vinyl copy whereas the CD version is far more listenable. As I'm rather young (22), I'm not subject to the nostalgia factor. I love both technologies for what they offer. Digital is far more convenient, Analogue is far more engaging. Digital brings details and durability, Analogue brings warmth, air and presence. I own multiple CDs, multiple vinyls and multiple cassettes, and I can't choose one format to delete from my life over the other two!

[@jimmypaschall7369]

Enjoyed your video. Some recording engineers have both formats (analog tape machines with the DAW) and will sometimes take the digital track to tape and then back to digital. I'd be interested in your analysis of this technique.

[@McRay2001]

Wow, I've never seen a better agumentation. Thank you very much for this upload and your knowlage. Especially the last part with anolog to digital and digital to analog. Awesome work. You got the point exactly. I'm already keen to show your video to some audiophiles who prefer vinyl, because it sounds "warmer". 😀

[@PartyMusic775]

Read my long information correction comment elsewhere here, and you'll get an even better and more truthful explanation. He only scratched the surface and unfortunately quoted some dangerous misinformation.

[@guyboisvert66]

Excellent video and technically accurate. It's very rare to have this kind of quality on youtube... Many people talk about this subject without having the technical knowledge. As en electrical engineer, i read so many false claims and plain wrong stuff... So thanks for this great video!

[@manzanaresantonio]

I love both, as both have PRO's and CON's. I like the fidelity and channel separation of digital, but I love the warm, gentle sound of analog!

[@krypto_9872]

Vinyl for the speakers, digital for the headphones for me!! With headphones the crackles can get annoying. but with speakers you won't notice it. Also i try to get non-remastered CDs as they don't tend to be compressed like modern day CDs.

[@manzanaresantonio]

@@krypto_9872 I haven't tried vinyl on headphones in over 20 years! :))

[@jnagarya519]

@@krypto_9872 Remastering and remixing are not the same thing. These are basics. Compression is in the mix, not in the remastering.

[@380stroker]

You get that same warmth if you copy the vinyl to CD or Hi-Rez because digital doesn't really have an EQ curve like vinyl which why it's superior at reproducing music, which is the point of the video.

[@artjackson6872]

Very well explained. To summarize what he said, digital is more sterile than analog. Digital has a more definitive way of mirroring the master recordings and can be put to any media whether it's vinyl, magnetics, cdd's or any digital files at a more accurate and flawless transfer. I grew up with vinyl, 8 tracks and cassettes and I can relate to the sound quality of analog. The drag of the needle on vinyl, the drag of the magnetic tape on special alloy heads, color the sound quality of analog media. Some of the rumblings in vinyl comes from the platter that the record is placed on, some from the wear. The more you spend on a turntable, the more dampening the equipment has for a more enjoyable listening experience. As for digital, as sterile as it's reproduction, you can color it with bbe sound enhancements or audio control's phase couple activator for that extra sub harmonics frequencies to add warmth that us old schoolers crave or missed.

[@jnagarya519]

So you prefer distortion to actually hearing the source material unimpeded.

[@zorancalic65]

When did he say that digital is sterile? If you record violinist playng concert and hear frim vynil noise, rummble, clics, why should that be beter than original?

[@prixfix6761]

Good Video, my Dude. I prefer vinyl but a lot of good info in this breakdown.

[@RonaldoFabian]

thank you for a nice video and explanation

[@gabrielgolden4336]

Excellent. If more CDs were made from " for vinyl" master recordings, more people would rethink the notion that vinyl sounds better.

[@kimchi_b]

I totally agree and I think the video misses that point largely (for such a long video, disappointingly). However! Not to disagree with you, but just to add - there are frequencies outside of CONSCIOUS human perception that may nonetheless still change how one 'feels' or is affected by the music. CDs can't reproduce those (inaudible) frequencies, this was known and widely talked about when CDs first started becoming the new standard.

[@kronossonork6994]

@@kimchi_b That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. How can a human perceive anything which is inaudible?

[@ShiitaKitsune64]

@@kronossonork6994 I think it's less the fact that you can't hear the high frequencies, but that the high frequencies might have an effect on the sounds you can hear, like change them in some way. But I have a feeling it likely doesn't do much, especially for highly controlled studio recordings (tho I'm no expert so don't quote me). Also I don't think it's that digital is incapable of recording and producing super high or low frequencies, but that they jusy cut off the frequencies at the highest and lowest points just so the computer has some reasonable place to stop in the digitizing process.

[@jnagarya519]

@@kimchi_b False.

[@kimchi_b]

@@jnagarya519 Can you perceive different frequencies of light, and know how much UVA, UVB and UVC is in it? I think not, and yet it will still affect you. The same with the moon and the tides, do you think the water consciously observes what the moon is doing and reacts accordingly, or is it unconscious cause and effect?

[@marleypumpkin4917]

Very good video. The fact is that the majority of people don’t have “golden ears” so can’t perceive much differences. I love cds - one euro now at the charity shop and on a good system simply sound great! 👍

[@puglife6291]

I ripped one side of Metallica death magnetic vinyl to WAV at 44.1khz 16bit and the digital rendering retained the cracks and pops and a kind of representation of the warmer tone, though it did sound flat in comparison to the vinyl. This is likely due to the lower quality of my equipment however. I think a similar comparison may be watching a film in 70mm and then watching the same film in 4k digital, 70mm tends to be more holographic and the colours more organically lucid and warm while the 4k rendering of the 70mm elements although stunning, do have less dimensionality though on the upside reveal more perceivable detail from the film negative.

[@zulumax1]

How do we store digital for future archival and longevity? The compact disk was sold to us as the last medium you would have to buy and would last forever if you took reasonable care of them. Fact is the aluminum layer where the pits are stored start to oxidize and degrade after 20 years. The laser inside the player will slowly dim in output and may not be available anymore when it dies. Flac files, Wave files, AIFF, MP3, etc... where to store them, the cloud? Memory device? Solid State or mechanical hard drive?

[@TheStuF]

Great question.

[@01chohan]

On servers, the Library of Congress has started doing this. That's the beauty of digital, the data remains the same irregardless of the number of times it's copied to other mediums, the same can't be said for analog mediums. Even original analog master tapes are being digitised as a way of backing up.

[@TheMachinedestroyer]

Just a thought about recording the vinyl and listening it back from your PC: if you record a vinyl onto your computer, the signal will have to go through your computer's sound card twice! Once while recording and once again while played back. To obtain a faithful recording of the vinyl and then to play it back faithfully you must have a really special soundcard with completely flat characteristics both ways. I'm quite sure that soundcards like this are really expensive and those found on the motherboard of a PC are far from it, as well as most mass-produced sound cards. So, most people won't hear the same sound from the vinyl and the PC, therefore they will make the conclusion that digital is inferior to analog. I don't say if it is or not, but I say that most people WILL hear a difference between the vinyl and it's recorded digital counterpart.

[@killercat2896]

I came here because of that Michael Jackson album in your thumbnail

[@cimarronhopper4605]

Vinyl is just better

[@cinqo7]

You’re a genius. Thank you for such nice and yet hard fact video. I’m more in love now with vinyls.

[@andredeketeleastutecomplex]

I'm with digital, I concur with the statements in the video. I've played vinyl for 14 years and 9 years with cd's and digital. I've been hearing so much rubbish over the past 10 years that I'm shocked to the core to actually find a person that gets it. Vinyl is very clumsy to carry, it gets too old quickly, it crackles from the get go and it's basically toxic, those are major dealbreakers to me and they were from day 1. I never got to understand why people preferred vinyl for the 'better sound' because it never sounds like a master recording to begin with. I know because I produce myself, it doesn't even come close. CD was real fun to play with, but I had to waste too much time compiling and burning CD's with a worn down pc. Playing digital agrees with me, it's way more functional than the other 2 solutions. Digital means more control over my collection, every track being in the right place to make quick selections for gigs possible. No more heavy weightlifting is needed, I used to carry vinylbags weighing 60kg on my back sometimes 10km far, that's just nuts! Setting up the gear is sometimes a bit of a hassle but I'm a patient man and just deal with it. DJ-ing digitally gives you more time to look for the appropriate music, to check if the sound is right, even talk to someone if you so desire. The only vinyl lovers I get are the 'nostalgic' ones, they want to 'feel' the record, the old technology did it for them. I'm fine with that, as long as they don't claim 'sound superiority', which is frankly just an uninformed opinion with no factual basis. My experiences on the 'sound' of formats: mp3: only 320kbs is acceptable but only in small venues like bars and cafes, only smaller soundsystems like hifi and slightly larger ogg vorbis: great carrier, bitrate over 550-650 is okay but you can even go higher which is even better flac: similar to ogg vorbis, really good alac: never go apple, their time is gone wav: not good for dj-ing, sometimes dj-programs make a highpitched hard noise at the beginning/end of a track, it's really loud. Use them as masters in a collection, make flac's with them other formats: I wouldn't recommend them vinyl: better than mp3's 320kbps in very small venues, but the bigger the sound is the more it's crap, mp3 also has this but for a different reason (needletremmors versus amplifier sound shredding) Recreating 'vinylsound': It is not a big problem to recreate the warmth and softness of a vinyl record with equalisers, this can even make 'loudness wars' music sound aggreable. I use a Huawei mate20lite with a seamless eq app connected to a Native Instruments audio2 external soundcard that is plugged into a pioneer mixer which I also use as a secondary equaliser. In theory you shouldn't do it like that but reality often doesn't agree with that. The rules for the 'vinyl sound' are very simple: Never ever play in the red or the sound will go dead, don't equalise above 0 because that's filtering, keep the bass and 'relax' all else especially the mid-tone. That's for my setup which is fairly simple. Professionally I would recommend at least a dual 20band equaliser, maybe even a dual 30band if affordable to your wallet, just don't ever buy a cheap eq. Everything from 16k onto higher frequencies should look like a 'fade out', 16k being just a tad lower than 0. The midtones should even be lower than 16k's position in a shallow valley. Around the lower mid-tone and higher bass there is a slider on the eq that needs to be approximately 33% down from 0.. Bass at 0, don't set the rest of the bass above 0 especially newer music, older music is less problematic when it comes to filtering. That's my 2cents about creating a warm sound with digital. Thanks for the upload!

[@MaximRecoil]

"ogg vorbis: great carrier, bitrate over 550-650 is okay but you can even go higher which is even better" If you're going that high with the bitrate you might as well just use FLAC. For that matter, considering how cheap storage is these days, there's no reason to ever use anything other than FLAC. I just bought a SanDisk 1 TB USB flash drive for $100, which is about half the size of a pack of gum. At a typical FLAC bitrate of about 900 kbps, you could fit nearly 40,000 songs on a 1 TB drive, which is way more than you'd ever need for a gig, or your entire career, for that matter. "flac: similar to ogg vorbis, really good" FLAC isn't at all similar to Vorbis. FLAC is lossless; Vorbis is lossy. "wav: not good for dj-ing, sometimes dj-programs make a highpitched hard noise at the beginning/end of a track, it's really loud." What does that have to do with WAV files? If FLAC is good for DJing, then so are WAVs, because a FLAC made from a particular WAV is the exact same thing (bit-for-bit identical) as said WAV when it's decoded/played. That's what "lossless" means. "Use them as masters in a collection, make flac's with them" There's no need to keep the WAV files after making FLACs from them, since, like I said, the FLAC is a lossless copy of the WAV. If you want backups, then just make copies of the FLAC files. Keeping WAV files just uses extra space on your drive in exchange for absolutely zero benefit. It would be like ZIPing or RARing a file and then keeping the original file too; makes no sense. It is easy to prove that FLAC files are indeed lossless. All you have to do is make a FLAC from a WAV, then decode the FLAC back to WAV. Then put the original WAV and the second WAV that you just got by decoding the FLAC file, into a folder; name them something like 1.wav and 2.wav. Then open CMD.exe, navigate to that folder, type... _fc /b 1.wav 2.wav_ ... and press enter. This will do a binary comparison of the two files, looking for any differences. Your result will be: _Comparing files 1.wav and 2.wav_ _FC: no differences encountered_ That, of course, proves that no information was lost when you made a FLAC from the WAV. And when you play a FLAC file, it gets decoded in real-time back to its original WAV information, so a WAV and a FLAC made from said WAV sound identical when you play them, because they _are_ identical.

[@mondoenterprises6710]

A lot has to do with the loudness wars cds. They made people go back to vinyl.

[@jnagarya519]

No. Those who wanted to be "different" went vinyl. And they are paying through the nose for their foolish snobbery.

[@mondoenterprises6710]

@@jnagarya519 Oh so the loudness wars and crappy sounding cds is just my imagination.

[@dimachesebastian6407]

U are right. I listen music to relax. No war.. Peace.. Vinyl is symbol of peace.

[@takeiteasy6154]

Absolutely true mostly, I stopped buying CD's when that happened. Sad

[@akinkunmicook2977]

Great video!

[@ingridfong-daley5899]

The basic pattern i've noticed for myself is that i prefer things that were recorded analogue to be played on analogue (LP or good quality tape); electronic music, or music that was digitally recorded or recorded on 'digital' (versus acoustic) instruments, i prefer to hear a high bitrate digital recording of. There are some interesting exceptions to this, like the George & Giles Martin work from the mid-90's forward, and certain bands like Depeche Mode really know how to work both mediums really well. Also, sometimes i'm listening for 'analytical' reasons, and other times i'm listening in a sensory way, like trying to 'recapture' a moment with someone associated with memories of that song, and for analysis, digital is best, but because of my age, analogue feels more 'correct' for the context of re-creating original experience with some music.

[@zorancalic65]

if i play classic music on my clarinet, and record it on vynil, i realy dont want to hear noises, cracles which are mot present on my original playing

[@ingridfong-daley5899]

Oh absolutely--no need to introduce noise needlessly on new music, unless it's for aesthetic effect or something.@@zorancalic65

[@djlogoutofficial]

Thanks for bringing less biased and more technically sophisticated viewpoints to DJing discussions! Being on both ends of records, making them as well as playing them on different formats I've found the whole signal chain to be important in this VS question. Every digital-2-analog or analog-2-digital conversion is a massive degradation in the chain so first of all if in the studio the track had a digital ("in the box") mixdown the digital version is automatically better & closer to the original. One thing a LOT of DJs, even so called vinyl purist ones don't understand is almost all modern mixers, from all post TTM-56 Rane to any Pioneer mixer ever are digital mixers. Just hooking up a turntable to any of these mixers means you've already lost the battle. Of course the CD-version digitized straight from the master tape will sound better than your now digitized vinyl version, which for vinyl's limitations was already a narrowed down version of that same master tape. That's why i found it funny when Rob Swift did a "Digital vs Analogue DJing"-video stressing how important analogue is while using a 57mk2. Analogue recordings on vinyl straight to the amp or in DJ use thru a Xone:62/92 or a rotary? Definitely better. Unless they were crammed full like the first pressing of "3 Feet High and Rising" or otherwise neglected like old Trax-records.

[@TheStuF]

Great comment, I remember about 20 years ago when my friend bought turntables with line level outputs, not the standard phono - I remember asking my mate what was that all about when setting them up, I found out when I tried to scratch on them! After wondering why it sounded bad and some noises just didn't work I looked at the turntable again, read the manual and finally realised they were actually DIGITAL turntables... for some unknown reason the audio from the vinyl was converted inside the turntable and all records sounded different on it (I remember some being awful and others actually being clearer but still weird). Ever since I have looked out for and tried to avoid hardware that converts to digital "unnecessarily" (for our use at the time there was absolutely no valid reason for digital signal/line level output from a turntable as there was no such thing as timecode vinyl or controllers that understood it in general production! I think it was just to make the mixers that went with the decks cheaper to produce as they removed the pre amp???) Your point about the mixers is spot on and many, many DJ's will be caught out there - I've seen Rob's video as well haha! I am very glad I chose to get a standalone DJ controller with jogwheels rather than replace my DJ mixer with a digital one so now I still have a "traditional" set up to mix vinyl and the seperate unit for mixing digital files on my laptop and of course I just plug the controller in to my old mixer.

[@mymixture965]

to me it is about how a CD is mastered, vinyl sounds way better, but not because it is vinyl, it is the mastering. I am a musician and played on a lot of records. I know what they are doing in the studio, I did it myself. Compression and limiting is the problem. The rest on vinyl vs CD would be hard to detect, possible, but hard. So guess what, I collect vinyl:-)

[@galus14436]

Yep

[@ctal615]

Amazing video. Cheers 🍻 The world needs more factual information for audiophiles and music enthusiasts. This is great information.

[@getliquified]

Great video! I prefer the sound of analog but I would not say it's "better" as that is subjective

[@SPAZZOID100]

getliquified most new vinyl is made from music recorded DIGITALLY.

[@Titoroski187]

Define "better"

[@CM-dw3gh]

@@SPAZZOID100 so do you think theres any point on buying vinyl anymore if this is the case? Cos were not getting the full range of a supposed analogue recording?

[@djbryanladd]

I do audio mastering and restorations. Both formats have their pro and cons. No matter how flat I make the sound, a persons speakers or eq choices change the fidelity. The one aspect I would add is mastering. A well mastered cd with a nice dac, it's warm.

[@djkcny6210]

I've been remastering for years. Does it matter? to us Dj's it does, doing gigs they could care less, all they want to do is dance.

[@380stroker]

Yes. Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab transfers Analog tape to CD, SACD the correct way. No hard limiting. All dynamics preserved. A bit spendy though. You can find the CD's on ebay now, but you can still get SACD's and Vinyl's from their website.

[@theoriginalheartstrummer]

In other words, just say "I prefer vinyl", not "vinyl sounds better". Done. Wow. Is it that hard? It's more than just the sound anyway. My friend was over a couple of years ago and we were listening to records. I also use Apple music so I have everything I want. We switched to Apple music for a few songs that I didn't have on vinyl and when we switched back to vinyl it was night and day. He is an audio engineer and earns his living as a musician, engineer and producer. He also doesn't care in the slightest about vinyl. I do, for many reasons. I prefer it. But anyway, when we put the next record on he actually said "wow, vinyl sounds much better doesn't it". He was legitimately surprised. Same system used for both, which is a good one. Whether it is scientifically better or not, we both preferred it that day. By a long way too, I might add. For context, I just have my favourites on vinyl - roughly 800 albums at this point - and about 3000 albums on Apple music. I'm not into having everything, just what I like and actually listen to. I only buy brand new or mint graded vinyls. Quality not quantity for me. I get every album I want as soon as it is released on Apple music and can listen across devices. Then i can sit back and immerse myself with my records and get deep into listening with no devices or computer. Best of both worlds. Also reminds me of how I first built up my album collection as a teenager one cd at a time in the 90s. Tapes before that in the 80s. But when I got my first part time job in the late 90s was when I could start spending all my spare money on music. Choosing which album to buy was a commitment and you immersed yourself in it. It required investment in every sense. Now the last 7 years or so with records I came back to that way of deep immersion in listening, and I love it.

[@user-lc1nh1dd9z]

Vinyl to me sounds more natural. The funny thing is that I have some vinyl recordings that I digitized and have the same recording on a CD. I liked the vinyl that was digitized better than the CD. Maybe it's just personal taste or bias. Remember that in the end, we are all listening to analog with our ears. Go with what is pleasing to your ears.

[@OriginalGuGa]

Experiment Results for Vinyl ripped to digital file (Using RME Studio grade AD converter for the recording): Digital File at 192khz/24 Bit: Indistinguishable from original Vinyl playback. Digital File at 44khz/16 Bit (CD Format): Very very close to original Vinyl playback. Minimal differences in the "openness" of complex high frequency sounds. Digital File at 320kbs (High Res MP3): Similar to CD. Digital File at 128kbs (Low Res MP3): Unsurprisingly this gives a strong audible loss in overall quality versus the original Vinyl playback which is easy to tell in blind listening. When blind listening I can tell the difference between the 192khz/24 Bit vs the 44khz/16 Bit (CD) recording but I can not tell the difference between CD and High-Res MP3. The 128kbs MP3 is noticeable worse than the vinyl playback. So much so, that I find this quality unacceptable to my ears. For blind listening I used RME DA converter - headphone pre-amp - AKG 701 headphones. Conclusion of the experiment: - At 192khz/24 Bit a digital recording basically is identical sounding to its "Master". At least for me, not even the slightest differences are audible. - At CD as well as High-Res MP3 digital quality there ARE audible differences to the "Master". They are extremely slight however - and only audible in direct comparison. - 128kbs (Low Res MP3) breaks the sound. My advice would be to use a minimum of 256kbs MP3 - even for low end. If you want to try yourself: oppodigital.azurewebsites.net/hra/dsd-by-davidelias.aspx There you can find various digital quality of the same song to compare - 24-bit / 88.2kHz, CD quality and High-Res MP3. Differences are very hard to tell - and only if you use very good monitoring equipment. With standard "home" equipment you probably will not be able to tell a difference. As for me, I can hear a difference between 24-bit / 88.2kHz and CD, but not between CD and High-Res MP3 - similar as my result from my own recording test. So is vinyl really better than digital? If I have to answer this exact question I will refuse - because digital has strongly varying quality - so the answer depends on the digital resolution. If the question was: Is vinyl really better than 192khz/24 Bit digital? Then the clear answer is NO. 192khz/24Bit is better than vinyl. If the question was: Is vinyl really better than CD/High-Res MP3? Then my answer would be that this discussion is justified but my personal preference is vinyl. If the question was: Is vinyl really better than low-quality 128kbs MP3? Then the answer is YES, Vinyl is better than Low-Res MP3.

[@pandoraefretum]

I prefer vinyl for solo instruments, or solo instruments with orchestra... Violin, Cello, Voice, even organ. A wide dynamic range is not desirable; it puts extra strain on the amp, incl. more distortion. The specs. of a CD may be superior, but the TONE of analogue is more life like, warmer, and the high end freq. of vinyl has more zing. Hires 96 kHz and especially 24 bit sounds better than CD, more relaxed, but 192kHz sounds even more unforced. My wife and I are professional musicians, violin and cello, and vinyl wins by a mile. Tricks like keeping analogue analogue and digital digital work well (chain). eg Analogue 60s 70s LPs and CDs of the 90s (the 80s was an unfortunate loss while everything was in transition). I don't expect a hifi to sound authentic, and close to live... that's not possible, but just to sound accessible and inviting.

[@pandoraefretum]

..and if you want accurate, forget trying to replicate the real world ; just listen to a live concert.

[@onemanmusic6572]

Whether one sounds better or not, the good thing about digital is its inability to degrade which is unavoidable with media such as vinyl (and tapes). A disc player, MP3 player, or digital file can be replicated perfectly without losing any clarity or quality. However, records and tapes degrade every time they are played and recorded from, or merely touched, taken out of and put away into their containers, or are touched by a stylus or playing head, etc. The stylus and playing head which touch them therefore degrade, too. Records will scratch by virtue of being handled, period. Tapes will rip from getting thinner from wear due to being played. If you like vinyl, enjoy its great frequency range but deal with its inherent physical limitations; it's made of plastic.

[@andredeketeleastutecomplex]

It's not entirely true that digital doesn't degrade. It's true for your original copy on the hd where you put it first, but every time you copy a track, some bits get lost, eventually your 320kbs mp3 degrades to an unbareble mess. Always be careful with cut/pasting tracks. Make sure you know where your masters are and keep them on a safe hd or ssd. I personally use highspeed sd cards these days, I find it to be more practical.

[@ljuboizsiska5448]

@@andredeketeleastutecomplex why are you using MP3? It is a shity format.

[@andredeketeleastutecomplex]

@@ljuboizsiska5448 maybe read the OP again, you might find the answer. I'm not using mp3 (I use flac & ogg) I only gave an example for digital fomats, mp3 just degrades quicker so it's easier to tell the difference. Same goes for flac and ogg btw, small degredations occur when copy pasting.

[@andredeketeleastutecomplex]

@ReaktorLeak you will lose something, thinking otherwise is faulty. Even if you don't copy it and you put a hd in a vault you might lose a few bits. Digital isn't perfect.

[@andredeketeleastutecomplex]

@ReaktorLeak nope, wrong again, people use backups for that. What trust?

[@waltercheslock1466]

I'm a long time 60 years, LP guy. I recently got a decent DAC, and Tidal. My wife heard me yell "holy shit " on 1st listen. I hear things and separation I never heard with LPs

[@Questerry895]

don't forget that the placebo effect works for more than just medicines. If one goes into it with the attitude or belief that vinyl sounds 'better', it will. But if you prefer the enhanced bass response and more limited stereo spread of vinyl to the digital recording, you are in effect remixing the recording to your own preferences. Now it is NOT what the artists originally intended to present. You can listen any way you wish, but don't try to tell us vinyl is more 'accurate' or faithful to the original. The science and the numbers say otherwise.

[@watcher63034]

The reason 99% of the high end digital doesnt sound different has to do with the playback. As complicated as it gets to mastering the details of a natural sound wave and recording it, that becomes exponentially harder to playback from a medium and reproduce faithfully. You need a high def playback device with really good earphones/headphones. Speakers are 100 times more costly to reproduce that way. On cheap systems, records have more noise, but produce more definition than say a CD that is played through a typical amp.

[@DJLNR.]

Tape would be the source recording anyhow especially long ago, the it gets put onto Vinyl and CD.. In the last thirty years majority have been using a pc as the input source to the vinyl cutter rather than the traditional tape or dat machine.. Besides dirt and magnets messing with tape I would say tape is the superior way to edit / store / playback sound overall. USB(hard drives) and cd are great and sound beautiful until one thing goes wrong the whole thing is messed up etc maybe thousands of tracks.. A messed up needle or tape head cannot cause damage to their media unless in the tape cassette's the playback device is a digital tape player meaning it may be messed up to the point when the play button is pressed regardless of the record safety tab being in place the player still goes into record mode which tries to erase or record over any cassette placed within it, vinyl seems to come out on top as the one to less maintain so it's a join venture tape & vinyl. I've had vinyl since I was young and those are the vinyls that give me feelings, it's a lie that people buy an old vinyl now and feel something , no no no, it has to be your old vinyl with your old writing on it somewhere, great feeling, priceless. Infact I think vinyls that are second hand, in okay condition and have first owners writing's on them should be worth more than a blank clean label, the person who wrote on it was a real person and they liked the track enough to write on it, they may not be with us anymore, priceless... #djlnr

[@bidders77]

very intersting stuff. i have old beatles records are hard panned, you can be djing and dependant on the sound system set up you can end up with an instrumental on one side of the room and vocals on the other

[@jnagarya519]

They are not "panned". Easy to find is George Martin's "All you Need is Ears". It is essentially a plain-English explanation of the evolution of recording technology (includes his hearing the "advanced" THREE-track mono recording at Capitol Records).through his twenty-five years in the business up to and including when "The Beatles" appeared. NOT "panning": the standard was to record all instruments on one track, and all vocals on the other track. That was PRE-MIXED MONO -- MONO was the market, and the goal radio airplay, which was MONO. That is why the "hole in the middle" (with some bleeding). He was PISSED when EMI, after "The Beatles" hit in England, and without consulting with Martin, released the PRE-MIXED MONO as "stereo". He essentially said that the PRE-MIXED MONO sound like "shit". "PANNING" is in the MIXING. If one records a sound on one of two tracks, the volume of that sound can be increased or lowered -- but cannot be "panned," which requires that the sound be recorded to BOTH tracks. Listen to both the mono and stereo releases of "The Young Rascal's" "Good Lovin'," which begins, "1-2-3-4". For one, the mono has PUNCH. For another, the "1-2-3-4" of the stereo release are each panned left-right-left-right -- which takes the "steam" out of the mix. That was released in 1965, and now exposes stereo is still being pretty much a gimmick. The first "Beatles" LP consciously intended as stereo was "Help!" -- and it was Martin's first time with stereo. It was primitive, and he wrote that the mix was a mess. Still -- he wrote that "The Beatles" didn't "get" the idea of TWO monitor speakers -- the focus was MONO up to and including "Sgt. Pepper's". Though "The Beatles" (aka "White Album") was released in the UK in both mono and stereo, it was only released in the US as stereo: that was in November, 1968. Before that MONO was the standard and the market. There is much confusion in the various terms -- such as "panning" -- by pseudo-aficionados. Which is all balled up with the claim that vinyl is "warmer," when in fact it is not 'warmth" but DISTORTION. (Some of the distortion, pre-digital, was introduced by the preamp and amp tubes, including during recording.) Again, read George Martin's "All You Need is Ears".

[@aarontharris]

Well done. I love vinyl, but I buy this explanation. There is no doubt that CDs are a cleaner signal, less noise and do not degrade but subjectivity aside there are some cases where a vinyl "just has more". The explanation that this is due to the engineering process tailoring to a loudness war and not as a byproduct of the medium make sense. In other words, a CD has the capacity to have just as much dynamic range (maybe more) as vinyl but it doesn't due to the demand for MORE LOUD.

[@Kwippy]

30+ years ago my brain said CD must be better than vinyl but my ears said vinyl sounded better (if good quality LP on very high quality equipment). With the advent of hi-res format like SACD, DSD and so on, it is undeniable that digital is better than analogue. I have many hundreds of CD's in my collection but it has been many years since I last played them because hi-res format, whether SACD or streaming are much better. I am affected neither by the vinyl revival nor the CD revival.

[@djciscov1]

Good video, I’m not going to say that one sounds better than the other but my personal preference is vinyl. I started buying music on vinyl in 1982 and stopped in 1998. I Dj’d using vinyl for years then went to CDJs and now use Serato Dj or Scratch Live. I really can’t tell what it is that I like so much about the sound of music on vinyl but I just do. And this is not coming from some kid that just wants to be cool so decided to get into vinyl because it’s trendy.

[@jnagarya519]

I bought my first 45 in 1962. My first LP in 1963. Have a ton of vinyl that is occupying valuable space that might be better used as empty.

[@WillCrockett]

You are being very polite here and I can tell by your mannerisms that you are holding back. If you were the maximize both mediums with an ideal mastering of the vinyl and the"first play" of the disc versus a professionally compressed digital version, the sound difference would be HUGE in favor of digital. Todays speakers and amp circuitry can reproduce fully-formed sounds well out of range of any master disc's ability to record/playback. If you used speakers and amps from the 1970's you may have a point that vinyl sounds better... but that was 50 years ago. Vinyl is great, fun, esoteric, enjoy all the aspects of it, but please don't try to convince me it's more accurate or "a warmer, richer, fuller sound" because it's just not - but it doesn't matter. It's made to enjoy so please enjoy it anyway you like.

[@jamiesmith6838]

You laid it out very well. Thank you. I've always believed in the potential of digital. I was, and still disappointed on what the "Loudness Wars" did to the digital medium. That explains the vinyl resurgence of lately. The truth of the story on "new" produced vinyl is too many are "mastered" from digital sources! Only vintage recordings were recorded onto high speed tape machines using analog technology. So, the vinyl crowd might want to rethink the superiority of the older medium with current digital in CD format? Particularly with a respectable DAC in its signal path. I've also experienced CD with artist recordings from vinyl. Now that is a real disappointment for me! I believe the same argument can be made with transistors vs tube. Tubes have long been known to "romanticize" the signal as compared to transistors. Let's include film to digital. Film does not have the luminous dynamic capabilities of digital. Funny thing, digital can mimic either analog or film! Which is best? It all boils down to preferences. *I will say, sound staging/imaging in stereo on vinyl with its inherent bleeding is more satisfying and dear I say more natural sounding than digital's 100% separation capabilities. Depth perception with two human ears does not allow total 100% left right separation in nature. Probably why analog recordings' depth retrival sound more convincing than digital. But, digital can sound more "entertaining", with it's broad separation with two loud speakers! (I personally, never fully embraced multi-channel music recordings) Too gimmicky. More enjoyable in a home theater environment. I guess I'm a traditionalist? 😁 Preferences.

[@marty3888]

I think it all depends on the music you listen to. The only comparison I made is with"Bluebird" by ELO. I have the best of ELO. I also have the album "Secret messages." I compared the two. There's a part where there's tamborines. You can hear them more on the vinyl. But other than that, I don't hear any difference. So the difference is very minute. As far as the stereo separation, if you have to make that kind of test, thast's not important and stereo separation is important to me. I have the vinyl of CCR's first album. On Suzie Q the first verse comes from the right, the 2nd verse comes from the left. The CD version I heard John's voice cmes from both speakers. WhenI heard that, I thought it was the CDs that had limitations on stereo. Again, I don't believe there's a huge difference. In have both a turntable and a CD player. And now a 3rd choice, a laptop where you can bring up almost any song you want. I now always put the word vinyl in front of the title and 95% of the time you can bring up the vinyl with some very expensive and nice sounding turntables.

[@ReasonablySane]

It's funny how the debate has really changed since this video was made. Even us video of fashionados have to admit that digital sounds better than vinyl. That is, if you take the same Master recording and slap it on even a standard CD and then put the exact same signal on a vinyl album, and then compare the two the CD will be superior in every way. I say that even though whenever I sit down just to listen to music it's virtually always vinyl. It's because I love the vinyl experience and I do like the sound. I've said for years that listening to vinyl is like driving around in a Porsche spider on the back roads and twisties of Kentucky on a beautiful spring day. A modern Porsche might be a heck of a lot better and go a lot faster but it's just a completely different experience there's more to it than just the raw performance and there is more to the sound of the various formats than just the raw sound quality. The human element plays a big part in this. That's why, in fact, art is subjective. That's why people like black and white photos. That's why some people are still into film photography. The thing is there is just more to it then the raw quality of the output product. And that goes for everything produced by humans except products that are produced for the sole purpose of solving a problem, a perfect example would be medical equipment.

[@ReasonablySane]

@MF Nickster yeah, you and I are on the exact same page there.

[@CMak3r]

I can understand all those who love vinyl. Because when you have real collection that you can touch physically, then you get attached to it. It’s real human psychology, we always value real things more than those files which exist only in digital media. For me personally vinyl is unaffordable and non-portable. There is no way for me to put 500 vinyl EPs in my pocket. But huge respect for those who loves music so much that they prefer physical media, this is romantic

[@phillipallen5564]

especially on modern equipment that is sensitve to detail itll not even look dirty but once you see dust on your needle sound quality goes to crap especialy in vocals

[@ItsJustMilkISwear]

logical reasons for liking vinyl: big attractive cover art, being able to physically collect music you really like, and preserving a historical type of media so it can be remembered and enjoyed in the future. superior audio quality is not on the list.

[@bigdaz7272]

Some of the Classic Vinyl Albums, especially progressive Rock type, Floyd, Yes, Rush sound way better than todays digital versions. It is clearly down to the mastering and sound engineers of the time and being pressed from the Master Tape which had not degraded over time through use from a pressing taken of of it back in the 70's compared to a commercial remaster to CD from it today or one sold to download in Digital format. Kind of slightly different from the angle you talked about yes but for example i have some classic Floyd albums which are ripped from Original First Vinyl pressings and in one case straight from the original Master Tape to a lossless Digital Flac file and they sound considerably better in every single way imaginable to what you would get on a CD version of said Album released today/recently. Again down to degradation over time of the original analogue and maybe todays sound engineers not feeling that 70's vibe/not actually as good as the engineers involved originally in the moment ect. Long story short, does this all apply to modern EDM music, maybe a little but not so much imho. Good video bro :)

[@jnagarya519]

So your preference for distortion is everyone else's fault that the distortion isn't repeated on CD.

[@bigdaz7272]

@@jnagarya519 I think you completely drew the wrong conclusion from what i said. The Final Product from many Albums of Yester Year on Vinyl sound better than some of todays. Not all, that would be silly to say but 'some' do like i stated above, the Original Michael Jackson 'Thriller' album is another, the original Vinyl has H U G E Dynamic Range in comparison to a Digital Versions of Today because the quieter parts have been remastered Louder so the whole Album is louder but loses a lot of Dynamic Range and subtlety. Do some research on The Loudness Wars, so much Music was ruined for a Time because of that alone.

[@Brian-qg8dg]

@@jnagarya519 we are humans not robots. Distortion is life. The engineers now spend more time creating distortion so the music isn't so harsh. Backnib the day they spent more time trying to lower the distortion. At medium to loud volume, I've never had ear fatigue when listening to vinyl, with digital the music gets tiresome somewhat quickly. But just another guy with human ears opinion. Same with playing guitar, I can play for hours through a tube amp. Touch sensitive, feel, dynamics, warmth, distortion etc etc etc. Play through a plug in or even a non tube amp, the love dies quickly. However, when all three are recorded, the sound really isn't that different. 🤔 try explaining that with math. Haha. Also, the universe has rules, vinyl has rules, digital in theory has no limitations. Maybe we enjoy vinylnrecords because the engineers had much more limitations to work with, and so do we.

[@ZZ-yv5ux]

This is smartest video on this debate.

[@billmorton159]

It seems like there is a simple solution to all these arguments. Since a lot of people like what vinyl does to their sound why not give it to them in the best way possible. Most vinyl lovers are endlessly trying to upgrade their turntables, cartridges and preamps. Some will spend 20k or more to get just a little more out of their vinyl. Why don't the record companies put together the best components money can buy to play vinyl and then do a hi rez rip of their records. Since digital can easily capture this vinyl sound perfectly, people can buy the audiophile rips and then have the best possible vinyl sound in a format which does not get dirty or wear out ever. This would allow people that can't afford high end vinyl equipment to jump to the best sound for only the price of the audio file. And they can listen to that vinyl sound anywhere. No longer any need to lug a bulky turntable around with you. They can sell three versions of albums. The hi rez rip, the hi rez copy of the master tape used to cut the vinyl or the CD. Plenty of money to be made here and everyone happy.

[@priyonjoni]

The real reason is because they know that the sound quality has nothing to do with appeal of vinyl. It’s just that vinyl fans often think it is.

[@Residentombraider1000]

Hi dude i have to say that you are very well informed and so i DO AGREE with you 1000% Now i did the experiment to record a viny album to my desk-top as a wav file 1411kbps , the recording volume for the digital file was almost 100% the same to the play-back level of the turntable when playing the LP album , and the results were AMAZING not only the files the 8 tracks in the hard drive were almost identical but also the CD-R the same . My gear : Turntable 32 years old a Technics SL-BD22 with a Technics P-34 Pmount cart and the recording software the free sound recorder set at 16 bit and 44.1 KHz Amplifier ; Yamaha AX-592 , PC sound card a Realtek { don't remember the model } set the ADC to 16 / 44 and the DAC at 24 / 192 Yes the digital the uncompressed digital can immitate almost 100 % the analog The CD-R sounds just like my Technics SL-BD22 The LP album of 1986 release was a jazz album from blue note records from Mr Charnett Mofett the Nettman not a reissue i bough it back in 1991 the masters were 2 digital recorders the Mitsubishi H-800 and H-80 this album sounds fantastic making my poor Technics 3 times better .

[@priyonjoni]

Residentombraider1000 glad to see the experiment in action!

[@Residentombraider1000]

@@priyonjoni Actually this experiment is 16-18 months old , and before i bought my pc i had the Philips cd recorder the model CD-R 870 in 1997 brand new and as many times i was recording on cd-rs music from the LPs not very loud but much closer to the volume of the LP playback the cd-rs sounded as smooth/soft/& aweet as the records But i've also noticed when i was recording the cd-rs much louder the results weren't that good they sounded very bright and harsh, so by my opinion either in a CD-recorder or in a pc it is better to digitize the LPs at a rec/level the same to playback level of the records honestly the CD-Rs sounds AMAZING -- AMAZING .

[@monteclark1078]

Depends on what your meaning of the word better is. Is a brand new mustang better than a classic one? One you might prefer driving more than the other

[@stevenclarke5606]

Music is subjective, and it’s reproduction depends upon the quality of equipment and also people’s hearing, it’s also affected by the acoustics of the room. Both have there advantages, vinyl does sound good, but it’s fragile and bulky, problems with scratches and pops. Digital is very convenient and easy to use and store. So it’s a personal choice, I personally use both mediums.

[@jnagarya519]

@@stevenclarke5606 "Music is subjective". The rest of your comment concerns the objective. The creative process is "bringing chaos into order" -- transforming the subjective into the objective. The idea that "music," or "art" generally, is "subjective" is intellectual laziness. There are objective criteria, rules, by means of which to assess "art" and its qualities and demerits. But the video is an objective discussion of two objective media, and the objective characteristics of each, not of "subjectivity," which latter DODGE avoids the objective discussion altogether.

[@Vriess123]

The best made records sound better to me than high quality digital. In the end you have to trust what you hear.

[@varungk3388]

Makes so much sense after the Mofi experiment/fiasco 👍

[@dr.timtam6782]

great vid - while i collect vinyl myself for fun, i can’t really see a large gap in quality between a hi-res digital recording and an analog one.

[@TheMadisonHang]

we have to get into physics that kind of analysis i haven't seen

[@vinylaudio4231]

Hi, I'm Amarnath From India, In making vinyl record, there are some technical doubts about the source audio requirements and groove of any size . Can you please explain? How to contact yourself. Thanks.

[@jnagarya519]

You're misusing the term "panning". Recording a sound on the left track is where it is; it is not panned. To record it to both tracks allows one to "pan" it toward left or right IN THE MIX -- it will still be on both tracks.

[@PartyMusic775]

As an audio engineer, I will write my educated reaction to your video as it goes. Accurate information is necessary to prevent a huge disconnect that is blocking the hifi industry from progressing. I have a vested interest in correcting misinformation so that the consumer is well-informed. TL;DR: You are doing a good job of learning for yourself and presenting information to the public. But there's a lot more to learn and I'm literally giving the last word of scientific truth on every subject you brought up in the video. In the interest of truth and a better high quality of sound for the generations that follow us. STEREO IMAGING ------------------------------ Digital is capable of better stereo imaging than vinyl, but on your average mid-fi system someone spent $1000 on, vinyl is going to perform better. In spite of what you say. Because of timing. In digital-to-analog conversion, we have a limited number of samples per second. Those samples aren't always happening on the PEEK on the soundwave. Math algorithms attempt to interpolate -- basically GUESS where the top of the sound wave happens. And the guess is using some good math so it's a very good guess. But it is often off by a certain amount of microseconds. Vinyl doesn't have this problem as it's pure analog. Why does a microscopic timing error matter? Because the human breain is far more accurate at these little micro-timings, for creating an imagined sound stage image inside the brain, than anything else it hears. So, vinyl loses on the crossfeed blending of channels, but digital loses on the timing of transient peeks. Which is better then? Can we call it a draw? Nah. The ear is far more sensitive to timing than it is to a little bit of crossfeed. So does that mean vinyl wins? Nah, because IN THEORY a DAC running better math algorithms at a higher sampling rate, can overcome these timing errors enough to be the hands down winner. But this leads us back to where we were at the start. On your average "I got a decently good system but not ultra expensive", vinyl is going to have better TIMING CUES for the ear to pick up to create sound stage, whereas digital is going to have less crossfeed and thus tighter pinpoint directionality, even while having worse staging. Winner: Undetermined. In practical life, a draw. With different pros and cons. In theory, as HiRes digital recordings become better, digital will eventually win. INFORMATION LOSS - misinformation warning!! Your video quotes misinformation sources. --------------------------------- The Nyquist theorem is mathematically proved and can't be argued. BUT there's a shell-game trick going on at the street booth and you lost track of where the ball was. The Nyquist algorithm ONLY works on a pure sine wave of a single frequency and stable amplitude. In other words a single musical note of a single pitch with no instrumental timbre or overtone harmonics, which never changes its volume. IN ALL OTHER CASES THE NYQUIST THEOREM DOES NOT WORK AND CAN BE PROVED TO NOT WORK. So yeah 44kHz can losslessly capture a single sine wave in the supersonic range of 24kHz which we can't hear, and reconstruct a PERFECT SINE WAVE from it, losslessly -- meaning no information loss. But did you lose sight of which shell the ball was hiding under? Music is not a single pure sine wave that never changes volume. Even a single musical note has timbre, which means overtones, harmonics, attack, decay, transient impact sounds, not to mention articulated changes in volume as the singer or saxophonist expresses changes in emotion. UH OH, we got a problem folks. 16/44 digital to analog conversion is LOSSY. YEP that's right. But don't get too excited because analog recordings are too. Which is more lossy? Turns out it's different. Digital recordings lose a different kind of information than analog recordings do. Which is more lossy will depend on the type of music. A top of the line analog playback system is going to better capture a human voice. A digital recording is going to better capture dynamic range from the sound of mosquito 30 feet away up to the explosion of a cannon in the 1812 overture. Digital recordings are very dependent on the quality of the DAC and what mathematical algorithms it uses to try to be "less lossy" during analog reconstruction. And here's the elephant in the room. It's a bit of a wash. For pure clean natural organic midrange detail and transient timing, analog is going to win. For almost everything else, (except transient timing), digital is going to win. But here's the elephant in the room. When you abandon the shell-game Nyquist lossless myth, and free yourself from 44kHz sample rate, the sky is the limit. Try going up to 768kHz and watch as digital starts becoming superior in every way, IF PLAYED BACK FROM A TOP OF THE LINE DAC. This doesn't even mention DSD which comes at digital recording from a totally different angle that is liberated from the Nyquist myth. Winner: Undetermined. In practical life, a draw that depends on your subjective tastes. Do you favor organic / natural timbre and timing, which vinyl does better, or every other part of the musical information, which digital does better? In theory, as HiRes digital recordings become better, digital will eventually win. But not at 44kHz, which is why we need to correct the MISINFORMATION. continued...

[@PartyMusic775]

SIGNAL WARMTH / LOWER FREQUENCIES --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is confusing the part that "warm" can refer to lower mid-range and upper bass, with the fact that it is also used to mean lushness, organicness, liquidness, and so on. Digital and vinyl can vary in this kind of "warmness" based just on the playback chain. Neither side wins. Different components on the digital or analog side can easily be warmer or leaner and it has nothing to do with analog vs. digital. The stuff about low rumble feedback is true but is mostly off topic and not significant here. What is significant is that bass (low frequencies) are a lot more sensitive to timing. This is because low frequencies become less audible and more TACTILE (feel it with your body). The human brain is crafty though and plays tricks to reconstruct the audibility of a bass note in its head. It does this by focusing on timbre that is perfectly timed and perfectly phase aligned with the fundamental bass frequency. For example, a 30Hz bass tone will generate harmonics at 60 Hz, 90 Hz, 120Hz, and so on. If these higher harmonics are EXACTLY in phase with the fundamental, the human ear is able to "tie" them to the fundamental and use it to construct the "imaginary bass note" you hear inside your head. Even the slightest out-of-synch or shifting of phase will disturb this ability and make the brain hear the harmonics as SEPARATE information rather than UNITED IN A SINGLE MUSICAL NOTE. The result of a united musical note is that the ear will "hear more bass" and indeed that will mean a lot of things such as "warmer". When things are exactly in phase like they are in analog, you're also going to hear that as lush, liquid, and so on. When it's out of phase the fundamental bass note becomes more "timbreless" and is more like a big dark undefined "bass cloud" without as much character. It won't be heard as loud because the brain didn't unite the timbral information with it. On the other hand, a lot of tomfoolery is going on with RIAA equalization curves and other tricks to try to get analog bass out of the noise floor. Digital has none of these problems. In addition, nothing is stopping digital from simply upping its sample rates to jaw-dropping levels of detail like 768 or 1536kHz to overcome its own disadvantages. But in today's real world of digital recordings, we're not there yet. WINNER: Analog, barely. But digital is starting to win in well-mastered HiRes recordings and in 10-20 years will be the champion. NOISE: ------------ Analog and digital have different kinds of noise. SINAD is different , depending on the quality of your turntable or DAC. Nevertheless, digital wipes the floor when it comes to hiss, crackle, pop, and so on. However, digital has different kinds of noise. Artifacts from the brick wall filter being used under the Nyquist Myth, that are created because Nyquist ONLY WORKS ON A PURE SINE WAVE. All kinds of inaudible and barely audible nasties are created by the 20kHz cutoff filter during the mathematical analog reconstruction. And this part depends a lot on WHICH mathematical methods are being used. Not all DACs are the same. That's right. There is no ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL. Every DAC can use different math in its reconstruction. 99% of DACs these days are actually "cheater" delta-sigma DACs that are lossy. They use "guesstimator algorithms" that actually THROW AWAY THE RAW DIGITAL SAMPLE BITS and use interpolated curve-fitting. Meaning they're LOSSY GUESSES. Other DACs such as NOS, R2R, and multibit DACs don't do this, but are in the 1% that cost a lot more. If you're listening off a computer, you got a delta-sigma DAC that's lossy running within inches of an electric motor running a fan, and noises from streams of bytes moving around at all kinds of high frequencies. Luckily that's not changing the bits, but the noise is getting into the analog part of the signal when it's turned into real analog voltages that are the proxy for the sound wave. Some would argue that a simple crack or hiss is easier to live with than "death by 1000 needle pricks". Because that's what happens with a cheap cheater DAC. Thousands of inaudible high frequency needle pricks are stabbing your ears. Digital noise. People report digital as being more "fatigue", "not as smooth", and "I just don't know why, but I can listen to vinyl for hours and feel refreshed, but I always feel tired and have to back off after hearing digital for too long." WINNER: subjective, based on which kind of noise you're more sensitive to. And once again, a high quality DAC doing HiRes is going to push the advantage ever more in favor of digital. As sample rates and R2R/multibit D/A get better, digital will one day be the clear winner. But for now in your practical real world living room, it's up to your subjective tastes. Unless you're the proud one-percenter who owns a multibit or R2R DAC. If that's you, you already know there's no turning back. You're free at last, thank God almighty! People who bought a good R2R or multibit DAC do strange things like sell off their whole vinyl collection and are often seen smiling for reasons other people can't figure out. COMPRESSION/DYNAMIC RANGE: -------------------------------------------------------- This is more of an issue with modern sound recording techniques. While digital has better dynamic range, both have more than enough dynamic range for 99% of all recordings. If mastered well. Even so, digital has the potential to be the winner here. As streaming takes over, loudness normalization is winning the loudness war for the "good guys". Hallelujah and amen, brothers and sisters. A new age of music that's less compressed and with more dynamic range, is dawning upon us! No matter what your favorite genre or medium, we're all winners. WINNER: No one. It's not the format's fault. As loudness normalization defeats the compression garbage that music consumers had to suffer for 25 years, and HiRes streaming starts taking over in the next 10 years, digital will eventually have the tools to be superior to vinyl. And in some recordings it already is. But for now it's mostly a toss-up. Depends on your recording and so on.

[@nyquist5190]

" But there's a lot more to learn and I'm literally giving the last word of scientific truth on every subject you brought up in the video. " Well, first of all your claims concerning sampling fly in the face of the Nyquist theorem itself. Indeed, there is lot to learn. ;) The rest of your assertions are based on your subjective preferences. Of course we all have them.

[@FlyingAce1016]

The reason some digital can sound worse is how compressed it is because digital creates stair stepping high enough quality and this goes away, plus most vinyl records these days are from a digital sound source telling the machine to imprint the grooves so like it or not your listening to the CD anyway on almost all modern records lol. Plus records have static and white noise. Also the comment on panning sound digitally you dont have to pan it completely over lol just pan a little bit if you want it on both.

[@priyonjoni]

FlyingAce1016 the video I referenced refers to a study where the human brain cannot distinguish the stair stepping or better described as aliasing in audio as low as 22khz. I would argue 44.1 is adequate. You won’t hear it until you slow it down. In fact, that’s when it matters in recording when you’re doing time stretching.

[@schefre35]

Actually there aren’t any „stair steps“ if you record a signal digitally it doesn’t alter the sound. That’s why digital reproduces sound more accurately than any analogue medium.

[@larryleguizamon2906]

Pri you really got to listen to vinyl with the classic Bozak mixer it really is amazing..😁

[@jnagarya519]

There is always noise introduced by stylus-to-groove. The "warm" is DISTORTION, which is NOT in the original source.

[@helthuismartin]

Digital music on vinyl sounds the best on very big PA sound systems,..I was a House Music DJ many years ago playing,,Dutch //Gabberhouse music///on vinyl on a Technics 1210MK2 with Ortofhone ,,Concorde,,styles on very big PA sound sytems en the results were MINDBLOWING.

[@remnantposter]

22:50 the problem with this argument is that the massive dynamic range offered by hi-res digital audio is far too loud for a human being to safely listen to. This is why 16-bit audio is the industry standard for the end user experience. The additional headroom offered by 24 and 32-bit audio is pointless from a pure listening perspective because it would be physically dangerous to listen to, rendering it totally pointless. The only use for that larger dynamic range is in the recording and production process, prior to doing your mixdown.

[@reason2463]

I have never heard a more authoritative discussion of analog vs digital. My first CD was Dark Side of the Moon. I have never worried about it since. 1984 I believe.

[@remnantposter]

I get the argument that technically, digital doesn't inherently have reduced dynamic range relative to vinyl. But the real issue is that the trend is present: when the physical limitations of vinyl are removed, the temptation to cut corners with over-use and abuse of compression will naturally emerge, and that's what we're seeing. So I will still continue listening to vinyl if only because that constraint is imposed on the medium.

[@priyonjoni]

That’s a very good point. Perhaps mix and mastering engineers should release a vinyl emulated digital version.

[@CaglarKanber0]

Thanks!

[@priyonjoni]

Thank you so much!

[@eternalmiasma5586]

Everyone knows that digital is better sound wise, but that’s not the point, the point is that the experience is so much better. Taking it out of the sleeve, placing it on the table, the little imperfections and static, it is an experience

[@jnagarya519]

As a young child we had 78s (except new-format 45s on cheap players for young children). Grew up with vinyl. Vinyl sucks.

[@tobydulanski9480]

Depends on what your used to hearing. Vinyl, 8 Tracks, Cassettes, WAV, or MP3. Some tracks I like on Vinyl others Cassette, but WAV I’ll take for everything. Digital Studio Recordings like WAV are clean. I will always have a passion for tracks pressed on Vinyl. We all have different tastes / preferences.

[@Datsun510zen]

To say analog vinyl sounds better that a wave or Mp3 compression files is not a stretch, but 24-bit 192kHz digital has a dynamic range of 144dB, where the average vinyl pressing has a range of 58dB. Modern THX and DSP technology can reproduce accurate fidelity down to adjusting minute faze linearity of three way speakers on as many as 12 separate audio channels. That kind of fidelity is unimaginable with analog stereo vinyl. In fact even the most ultra high end stereo analog preamps have audible signal distortion, but they disguise and gentrify it by using the pleasant term "coloration".

[@elkeospert9188]

"but 24-bit 192kHz digital has a dynamic range of 144dB," That is true but this 144 dB of dynamic range is far above the capabilities of the human ear. It is like trying to listen to the steps an ant makes while standing behing an 747 engine running at full power.

[@Datsun510zen]

@@elkeospert9188 LOL, Funny analogy Eike! Jets will always drown out the atns no matter what, but that's not the point of having a broader dynamic range. Think of the sound wave in a given audio format being contained between a floor (quietest ant) and ceiling (loudest jet). With greater dynamic range there's more space to reproduce accurate frequency detail from floor to ceiling, aka higher fidelity. With less dynamic range, one frequency bleeds into the next and detail is lost. My human ear can hear the difference between a brand new pressing of Pink Floyd's The Wall on vinyl, and the digitally remastered Blu-ray version played on the same sound system.

[@elkeospert9188]

@@Datsun510zen "With greater dynamic range there's more space to reproduce accurate frequency detail from floor to ceiling, aka higher fidelity." The human ear has its own floor and ceiling. You will never hear the steps an ant makes on normal ground and you should not try to listen to a 747 engine at full power in short distance without heavy ear protection. Greater dynamic make senses but not if it is greater than the dynamic of the human ear. "My human ear can hear the difference between a brand new pressing of Pink Floyd's The Wall on vinyl, and the digitally remastered Blu-ray version played on the same sound system." Of course you can hear that - the mastering for vinyl has to consider the many limitations vinyl has which play no role in a CD or Blu-ray version. I can also hear the difference between a song played on my AM-radio and the same song from CD. That does not mean that my AM radio has better quality. The real question is if you could hear the difference between vinyl and a digital recording of that vinyl....

[@yogi9631]

Tonal warmth and 3 dimensional space are what I find CD mediums lack.

[@priyonjoni]

This is a fact you can verify with any sound engineer. Stereo imagining and dynamic range are less on a vinyl record.

[@yogi9631]

@@priyonjoni All and every specs are in favour of Cd medium. For me I can't hear specifications. I just hear presence in vinyl that CD don't have. You can talk specs, noise, rumbles etc to the cows come home. Vinyl and analogue just trumps digital CD medium. Simply Comes down to this. Sound is infinite like a circle. You can't chop it up into 44.1K pieces, rejoin it and expect not to hear any differences. 22 divided by 7 continues on indefinitely.... Just bring a simple humble Revox B77 to record a live performance and nothing beats it (probably except a direct cutting vinyl lathe).

[@szeredaiakos]

Small details on noise floor. Digital also has a noise floor defined the scale of the first bit which is not zero. Dithering algorithms deal with this but thats a different story. CD quality audio flat dynamic range is 96db. Some very high quality vinyl can come close to that on the first play with a virgin needle.

[@inyobill]

I want to see the results of sound comparison by double blind test.

[@OrangeMicMusic]

The only way to tell if vinyl or CD sounds better someone needs this: 1) a copy of an album released on CD and vinyl prior 2000 (meaning, before mastering process added brickwall limiters to make it sound louder) 2) perform a double blind test between the two (meaning, someone else would switch between them)

[@OrangeMicMusic]

@MF Nickster 100 % right. And still, even if someone cannot test it your way, a CD mastered without brick-wall compression would sound better than vinyl in a blind test.

[@regiz1989]

Do you guys prefer to read a paper book or an e-book on a Kindle? Which is "better"? Yeah sure, the digital Kindle is like a library that takes the space of a 25 pages book. Yeah sure, it can reproduce more accurately and in a more efficient way the original information (letters/words). Yeah sure, we can zoom, adjust the font, etc. Yeah sure, the technology is better and newer but how does it really feel to buy and read the greatest book on a Kindle? Is it a different experience (from the intial buying process to the storage in your collection)? Maybe we just lack a bit of materiality in our way to enjoy art right now? Maybe enjoying the "Ultra HD live sessions" sitting at our computer during this 2020 pandemic was a bit shitty if we compare that to live performances (even with bad room acoustics, etc.)... This kind of debate is endless. We cannot separate the art from all the context/experience elements that surround it and for a lot of people those "vinyl elements" are better. Maybe it's more engaging, active, material, sentimental, etc. Maybe it's just a question of great mastering - more pleasant because less clean and cold... But for the majority of those persons, digital is very nice and useful in the daily life too (driving the car, working at the computer, etc.) and it's fine if they prefer vinyl (in an "irrational" way) when they really want to pay attention and enjoy music. Probably their turntable sound system is better than their "pods" or shitty computer speakers... Maybe they listen differently when it's a vinyl... Maybe a lot of things. And maybe people love to take shortcuts in their thinking process (i.e. vinyl has better "quality" instead of "I prefer the experience of listening to a vinyl"). Your video is very great but it's also a "cold" and rational approach. It's great because it can give informations for some important questions about the capabilities of the digital/analog medium, etc. Thanks for your great work on that. Really! As we know, culture and the human relation to art are complex thematics. In this "cloud era", it is not so strange that people are returning to those sexy old pieces of vinyl with great art covers and to their 50 years old turntables that are still capable of playing their favourite music with just a little of maintenance while their computers will be at the junk yard in 5 years and while they pay monthly to access their monumental digital music collection that is stored in a Spotify server and that they cannot enjoy having it sitting in their living room as a reminder that artists worked a lot for all those pieces of joy. Keep it up music lovers!