50

Quasi-related

I've heard this here and there in various casual conversations (hopefully others will also qualify this in the "commonly heard" bucket of claims), but one can also find references online:

Portability is no longer any reason to stick with CDs, and neither is audio quality. Although vinyl purists are ripe for parody, they're right about one thing: Records can sound better than CDs.

Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound. (Wired Magazine - Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin).

Question: It is generally agreed among the serious listeners of classical music that the best of the now obsolete vinyl LP records had a superior tonal quality and better fidelity than any CD. Is this true, and why?

Answer: For a CD recording they take 44,100 snapshots in a minute. These snapshots are then converted to digital information with a certain precision... You can probably see where I am going: by definition a digital recording doesn't include all the sound information... A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform... Therefore vinyl recording sound richer than CD recordings... (Google Answers: Vinyl LP sound versus CD sound).

The last three years have each set successive records for vinyl sales in the CD era. In 2010, 2.8 million LPs were sold, up 14% from 2009...

Vinyl’s lasting appeal stems from a heady stew of nostalgia, tangibility and, perhaps most important of all, sound quality that musicians and fans often prefer to any other medium.

“Digital is zeroes and ones, man, anyway you look at it,” says Chuck Leavell, keyboardist for the Rolling Stones. “Whether it’s a CD or a download, there’s a certain jaggedness to it. Vinyl wins every time. It’s warmer, more soothing, easier on the ears” (Forbes Magazine - Vinyl vs. CDs: The Tables are Turning.

One reason I'm skeptical of the quality comparison has to do with how records are made. In that video, around 1:25 the interviewee states that a master is made from pre-recorded, mixed music. This implies that it is already digitized. Around 3:10, he states that the music signal is amplified and made to vibrate the stylus cutting the record master. Thus, I see two paths from media to one's ear:

  • Live music -> conversion from electrical signal to digital recording (file of some sort) -> conversion to amplified electrical signal to vibrate a cutting stylus -> engraved record -> turntable -> conversion back to electrical signal to vibrate speakers
  • Live music -> conversion of electrical signal to digital recording (file of some sort) -> conversion back to electrical signal to vibrate speakers

I could be wrong in this interpretation.

Ideally, this question might have been tackled in a manner similar to this question on bitrate and noticeable quality -- essentially, with a Pepsi challenge between vinyl and CDs.

Summarizing, Is there evidence that the sound produced by vinyl records is either a) of better quality (via some declared standard of measurement) or b) more pleasing to humans compared to the sound produced by CDs?

Community
  • 1
Hendy
  • 21,665
  • 17
  • 116
  • 179
  • 1
    It's certainly warmer -- I can tell you that authoritatively as audiophile/ex recording musician/ex music producer. But then again, it's all in the ears. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording – Sklivvz Oct 15 '11 at 21:51
  • 1
    @Sklivvz I think you are probably right, but do you know whether any blinded experiments have been done to compare master tapes to different types of recording to test which is a *more accurate* reproduction of the original? It would be a damn interesting experiment. – matt_black Oct 15 '11 at 22:24
  • 5
    It's worth noting that for modern vinyl releases, the mastering is done digitally anyways, so it's a moot point. **Both** formats are effectively "digital", one just has another analog stage in the middle. – Fake Name Oct 15 '11 at 22:58
  • 11
    The difficulty I have always had with these sorts of claims is the vague, often synaesthetic, language. What, in the language of frequencies and waveforms, does "warmer", "soothing", and "nuanced" mean? – Oddthinking Oct 15 '11 at 23:47
  • @oddthinking so a good experiment would compare the original source versus reproductions in several different media played through the same speaker/amplifier. And you could ask both *which do you prefer* and *which is closest to the original*? – matt_black Oct 16 '11 at 00:25
  • @FakeName It's not true that mastering is done digitally for records, at all. First of all, many of the best mastering studios have optionally an all-analog chain; secondly, when mastering for vinyl, the last step is the cutting of the master record which is a physical operation, whereas for CDs the last step is just the writing of bits. – Sklivvz Oct 16 '11 at 18:54
  • 3
    I don't think it's about technical superiority in accurately reproducing the original. For example many people like actually prefer 24 fps movies to 60 fps, even though later is far superior. Some prefer photos with visible grain (so much, that it's very popular to photoshoping that in, see eg. http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-effects/natural-film-grain.html). – vartec Oct 16 '11 at 22:41
  • 1
    Is everyone here so young that they never heard a vinyl recording? It's filled with pops and background white noise. Maybe if you spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on your system it is not an issue but for the everday system, vinyl absolutely sucked. – Dunk Oct 17 '11 at 22:23
  • 2
    I dunno -- I had a $300 Revolver turntable with the "default" Goldring 1040 cartridge and never had a pop/hiss problem (unless the album was physically damaged). And it certainly sounded better than most of the CDs of the era (which were played through a top-of-the-line Wadia player). It wasn't a digital-versus-analog "purity" thing (or my golden ears); it was the brick-wall filtering they used to do to record and master at 44.1KHz -- it completely mucked up the phase relationships of the harmonics. (Cont'd) – Stan Rogers Oct 18 '11 at 02:42
  • 2
    Now that the majority of the work is done at much higher sampling frequencies and bit levels, then mathematically reduced to 44.1/16, the results are very listenable (well, for jazz and baroque, at any rate). And CD players tend to add the sort of dithering that characterises the best of vinyl now, too (quantisation noise on playback in low-end decks was the reason I spent money on the Wadia in the Before Time). – Stan Rogers Oct 18 '11 at 02:46
  • 3
    Another thing to take in account when talking about CDs, is **the Loudness War**, which meant basically pumping everything to the max, at the same reducing the dynamic range. Which is not really related to the format. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war – vartec Oct 18 '11 at 12:30
  • @Dunk - you only get lots of pops and noise if your records are dirty. – Fake Name Oct 19 '11 at 05:42
  • Vinyl records are not mastered from the source (that is, the original sound field in the recording room) but from magnetic tapes or disks (as many others have pointed out). All recordings will be heavily processed before mastering the end-product. Perhaps CDs and vinyl use different settings. 78rpm records were often mastered directly from sound; should they therefore sound better? – matt_black Dec 24 '12 at 19:26
  • 1
    and there's the crux, while CURRENT records are mostly mastered from digital recordings, traditionally this was not done and CDs were made by digitising records, filtering out a lot of the low and high bands that early digital recording equipment could not capture (and in part in efforts to remove that crackling and popping), causing the CDs to sound flat, dead. – jwenting Apr 17 '13 at 06:47
  • 2
    *44.100 snapshots a minute*? No, per second! – Jens Apr 19 '13 at 09:38
  • 3
    It sounds warmer because the cracks and pops remind the listener of a coal fire. – slim Jun 07 '13 at 13:47
  • +1 for mentioning the Loudness War. CDs make possible the kind of monkeying around that would have been impossible with vinyl. However, -1 for 44100 samples per minute, it's per second! Also CDs include error detection and correction data (see Eight-Fourteen Modulation for one of the several schemes CDs support) whereas records have no such error detection. Finally how well can a stylus actually follow the encoded waveform in a record? – GordonM Mar 04 '15 at 13:18

2 Answers2

44

There is certainly a difference.

The difference should not be looked for in sampling rates or performance, etcetera. The difference is in the production process.

Example

Please compare these two examples to have a specific idea of what the difference is. To easily see the difference, do listen to the plosives and sibilants like the letters "p" and "s" in the singing.

Introduction

Humans are not capable of distinguishing "digital" from "analog". See for example the following conclusion:

In summary, then, no evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably:

(a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room,
(b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or
(c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit.

The tests were conducted in an amicable rather than confrontational atmosphere, and the parties departed feeling that the day's work had been worthwhile. Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary if these conclusions are felt to be in error.

—source

However the production process of vinyls and CDs changes.

Vinyl

Sounds are etched on the surface of an LP. There are therefore physical limitations to how much dynamic range can be stored. In practice, too much range would result in having the needle skip the groove.

Many of the engineers I spoke with noted that a wider frequency and dynamic range can be cut into a vinyl master than can be reproduced in playback. For example, extreme transients and high frequencies will distort because the stylus cannot properly track them in the disc's grooves.

[...]

At the other end of the spectrum, there are things to consider when working with bass and low-midrange content destined for vinyl. “Low frequencies use up the most space, especially if they're heavy and constant,” Golden remarks. “Care must be taken to control excessive low end. The lathe can cut it just fine, but if the volume exceeds a certain level, the record could skip when played back.”

—source

Also, there is a lot of difference in the frequency response in the external part of the disc from the inner part. In practice, inner songs will sound darker than outer songs.

As a result, the inner tracks will sound duller than the outer tracks. The high frequencies “simply can't be reproduced the same as if they were cut on the outside of the disc,” Golden adds. “And no, it can't be fixed by adding extra high end. That would add more distortion to the inside cuts.”

—source

Albums are therefore mastered in a particular way to make the wide-dynamic-range masters "fit" on the media. This modifies the overall sound - a lot.

Furthermore the media itself tends to saturate musically (in the way that a valve amp has a "musical" distortion). This is put to good use during mastering as well.

CD

Sounds are digitised on a CD. There are many advantages to this, like a much better dynamic range, higher frequency response and so on. However, this completely changes the mastering process, resulting in a different overall sound.

(I couldn't find a citable source, however the fact that CD mastering is very different from vinyl mastering is quite obvious from Sterling Sound's web page (wayback machine copy). Sterling Sound is widely regarded as one of the top 5 mastering studios in the world.)

Conclusion

Now--which one is better? It depends what you are looking for: vinyls have a characteristic sound which is probably a better fit for some kinds of music. Alternatively, other kinds of music, e.g. classical, do benefit a lot from the increased dynamic range of the CD.

One of the first and largest supporters of digital audio was the classical conductor Herbert von Karajan, who said that digital recording was "definitely superior to any other form of recording we know".

—source

Community
  • 1
Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
  • 15
    So CDs have higher fidelity, while the vinyl adds some distortions that suit some forms of music. My follow-up question is "If the vinyl distortions improve the sound (of some music), why don't digital mixing desks have a big 'vinylise' dial that can be cranked up to improve the CD sound?" – Oddthinking Oct 16 '11 at 00:51
  • 7
    @Oddthinking they [do](http://www.toneprojects.com/products/plug-ins/sonitex-stx-1260/). In any case that's not what I said: both formats need to be mastered for... – Sklivvz Oct 16 '11 at 08:13
  • 2
    Nice! So anyone saying that vinyl sounds better should have a chat to the person mastering the CD version to say (preferably with a Christopher Walken accent) "Needs more vinyl". – Oddthinking Oct 16 '11 at 12:37
  • 9
    @Oddthinking that's pretty much how it actually works. You go in a mastering studio and you say, "more vinyl", then they proceed to do their stuff ignoring you completely. :-) – Sklivvz Oct 16 '11 at 13:17
  • @Sklivvz - managed to find one useful link, but tbh your answer is much better than mine:-) – Rory Alsop Oct 16 '11 at 13:28
  • The second Iron Maiden link is not working for the US. – Hendy Oct 17 '11 at 00:16
  • @Hendy Really? Try [this one](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mHe6FMs46o), I suppose. – Mateen Ulhaq Jan 30 '12 at 02:33
  • I prefer listening to vinyl (and 8-tracks, and cassettes), simply for the nostalgic feel. They may not be a more accurate reproduction of the original, but they "sound better", which is a completely personal, subjective opinion. – Wayne Werner May 01 '12 at 16:53
  • Many people prefer the sound of valve amplifiers. One possible physical explanation is that their construction creates at least the possibility of microphonic effects (ie their electrical properties are subtly altered by the sound-field in the room adding small amounts of distortion, most likely pleasant-sounding harmonic distortion). Are similar effects possible with vinyl and have they been studied? – matt_black Dec 24 '12 at 19:21
  • @matt_black from the answer: Vinyl "tends to saturate musically (in the way that a valve amp has a "musical" distortion)." – Sklivvz Dec 25 '12 at 15:50
  • Sounds like same kind of effect, as with movies at 24fps being perceived as "real movies", even though 60fps is technically superior. – vartec Apr 18 '13 at 12:00
  • 1
    Oh my. The CD version sounded harsh, the vynil version sounded smooth. Over YouTube. – cmc May 17 '13 at 16:24
  • Your sources for the vinyl claims are all broken, 404. – NPN328 Mar 01 '15 at 16:01
5

"Better" is a vague term which could be "more accurate", "more often preferred", or a number of other things. For simplicity: I will assume the question is one of fidelity.

A CD has a lower minimum frequency at volume and a greater dynamic range (Fries, Bruce; Marty Fries (2005). Digital Audio Essentials. O'Reilly Media. p. 147. ISBN 0-596-00856-2) than exsiting "record" recording processes.

“It is true that the more low frequency you mix on the sides, the more vertical up-and-down movement will be required of the cutter to make that sound. And with more vertical movement, the groove will use more space on the disc. Significant amounts of low end panned hard left and/or right can also cause a record to skip during playback. For the record to have fewer problems, you should try to keep most of the low end near, or in, the center of the mix, especially percussive sounds like the kick drum and bass guitar.”

-source

An album does have the theroetic ability to output past 30khz wikipedia youtube diamondcut endino, but human hearing drops off below 20khz sources.

Sibilance, the high-frequency noise burst that you get when the letters s, f, and t are emphasized, is a major issue that mastering engineers encounter. “Problematic sibilants typically fall in the 6 to 12 kHz range,” Golden observes. “Because a CD can reproduce it without trouble, it isn't recognized as a problem area until you decide to make a vinyl record.”

-source

A CD reproduces sound with accuracy up to just over half the samplying rate and with a dynamic range determined by bit-depth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-code_modulation) youtube University of Illinois

CDs are also not vunerable to Rumble, Wow and Flutter, and degredation of sound quality from play. Records are.

JerryLove
  • 127
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
    Welcome to the site - please address the question with scientific or reputable references. To be specific, you say (wrongly) that "'Better' is a subjective term which cannot possibly be addressed.". This is evidently incorrect, and such questions are routinely addressed by scientific studies using [proxies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)). The rest of your answer does not address the question, nor is supported by references (Wikipedia is not reputable enough and some of your statements are incorrect). – Sklivvz Apr 23 '13 at 21:30
  • @JerryLove Wikipedia is fine if you're merely using it to define terms (as Sklivvz does in the top answer). However, it is not generally considered sufficient as the sole source for an answer, especially if the answer is primarily "read what wikipedia has to say". Your comment that wikipedia is the "primary cite of the #1 answer" is incorrect, incidentally. It uses wikipedia to define a couple of terms, and one semi-anecdotal quote, but meat of the answer is sourced from www.bostonaudiosociety.org, emusician.com, and sterling-sound.com. – Beofett Apr 24 '13 at 12:20
  • The #1 post cites are, in order, wiki, wiki, you-tube, you-tube, bostonaudiosociety, wiki, emusician, emusician, sterling-sound, wiki. With 4 references, it is the primarcy cite. Is "emusician" reputable? Is "Sterling-sound" reputable? Perhpas I am failing to understand how to tell reputable from non-reputable here. – JerryLove Apr 24 '13 at 12:32
  • @Sklivvz, so I should have said "It depends what you are looking for" like the #1 answer did? I consider the two statements similar. I've added a *lot* more citations, including videos of physical tests and cites from actual companies doing mastering; and rephrased the problem with "better". – JerryLove Apr 24 '13 at 13:09
  • "Primary" isn't defined quantitatively. It is defined *qualitatively*. If there are 20 citations from wikipedia and dictionary.com that provide background for terms used, and one single reference to a detailed study, then the study is the primary reference. The Boston Audio Society details a series of tests. "Reputable" is relative to what you are relying on them for. "emusician" and "sterling-sound", and even wikipedia, are perfectly fine if you are using them to *supplement* a better source. [This meta answer may help](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/1387/3451) – Beofett Apr 24 '13 at 13:13
  • 1
    BTW, thank you for adding in the references and improving your answer. I've changed my downvote to an upvote. – Beofett Apr 24 '13 at 13:23
  • I've modified my vote too. Please note that any comment you have on [my answer](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6597/96) should be under it and not here. That said, I do disagree that "better" can be defined in terms of fidelity. Musicians and sound engineers have used creatively the low fidelity of vinyl for a very long time - and for that matter, this also applies to any analouge equipment. Your argument is tantamount to saying "that guitar sound is distorted, therefore it's worse". It depends. – Sklivvz Apr 24 '13 at 13:50