Does vinyl sound better? (2 Viewers)

[nlgbbbblth]

I like jewelcases but I love fatboxes.

Pity about DVDs fall from grace but if it makes 'em cheaper then I don't mind.

 

[MilanPan!c]

Are you not a rockstar yet?

Give me 6 more months... the record is fucking finally coming out this fall... Imagine that...

 

[therealjohnny]

Speaking of all things audio...is there any justification for 300dollar headphones?

 

[MilanPan!c]

Speaking of all things audio...is there any justification for 300dollar headphones?

Of course! Just don't spend that on Beats.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Ah, @MilanPan!c I was getting him confused with Somethingmanic, I was wondering why his personality had changed so much. Welcome back dude.

 

[MilanPan!c]

Ah, @MilanPan!c I was getting him confused with Somethingmanic, I was wondering why his personality had changed so much. Welcome back dude.

Thanks a lot!

And for the record (ahem) I'm just happy someone noticed I have a personality!

 

[Space]

Ah that guy is talking out his arse honestly... I master for a living, including for vinyl releases and most small labels won't spend on two masters so most of the time small bands are using the same master for everything... obviously many big bands do things differently, but...

sure, here's another link which goes into much greater detail:

Vinyl Mastering - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase

Note that not everything about what you have to do to get a record onto vinyl is inherently better (mono summing of bass, for example)... and

And by the by, lots of music we all love is hard limited, on all formats, so... claims about the magic awesomeness of transients (especially on a format with less possible dynamic range) is a bit hyperbolic IMO.

We're self releasing our album and getting masters for both cd/digital and vinyl.

 

[MilanPan!c]

We're self releasing our album and getting masters for both cd/digital and vinyl.

Smart move!

One COULD make the argument that the vinyl master should be good enough for the CD, unless the master for CD does things that vinyl can't handle

 

[dudley]

aye, we had ours mastered seperately for vinyl and cd too

 

[Kermit McDermott]

don't forget to get it mastered for itunes

 

[MilanPan!c]

don't forget to get it mastered for itunes

And for me! I like mine with a little bit more 2k!

 

[Frogdeath!]

A lot of modern vinyl is pressed from a digital source so any better quality comes from imperfections and distortion produced in the manufacturing process, although this can be pleasing in itself. I listen to a lot of 1960s music and the mastering/original pressings (especially UK) were, in the majority of cases, vastly superior to anything produced since. A company like Decca produced superb quality pressings mastered using value equipment which unfortunately we will never experience again (apart from playing the original pressings on good equipment). The rot set in around the late 60s/early 70s as record companies tried to cut costs, particularly after the oil crisis where many records felt like flexi discs. I bought a lot of new vinyl in the 1990s when companies were trying to phase it out and the quality was generally poor, often no test pressings were made, ugly pressing marks causing surface noise were very common. Vinyl is still relatively cheaper than it was decades ago but in recent years, I've noticed a marked increase in price for standard new pressings, probably because companies sense they can get away with charging more due to the rise in interest. I know of many labels who can produce a good quality LP which sells for £10/12, others charge £20/30+ for a basic looking product. I'm not a fan of "thick"/180g+ so called audiophile pressings either, another excuse to charge more, I'd be more impressed by a deep groove pressing. These modern audiophile pressings generally have a very smooth surface, the slightest mark on them affects sound, compare it to a 1960s UK Decca 45, the deep grooves can be covered in scuffs but still sound great.

 

[Lili Marlene]

classic frogdeath

Hilariously those 180g audiophile vinyl issues are too heavy for my crappy player and always mess up the speed.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

I remember the first time I watched a DVD I was horrified, there was this grey sheen over the screen. I thought - "this is shit, I'm sticking with VHS".

 

[MilanPan!c]

A lot of modern vinyl is pressed from a digital source so any better quality comes from imperfections and distortion produced in the manufacturing process, although this can be pleasing in itself.

This ^^

Though I'd personally put quotes around "better" as any process that improves by "imperfections and distortions" is not really something that could be seen - IMO - as always an improvement, as those issues might help some music and hurt other music. If I want to hear that sort of thing, I can always get a test pressing made then record that digitally, and release the distorted and imperfect version on CD.

A record, because it's a relatively organic medium, can't consistently provide the same experience over hundreds of plays either... a CD/digital file can. So, in that way as well you accept certain realities when you buy vinyl.

I own a lot of records, and prefer the experience, but just comparing them on a technical level, well... digital files bring a lot more to the table.

 

[MilanPan!c]

Another few paragraphs of perspective:

One of the often overlooked facts about LP reproduction is that some people prefer it because it introduces distortion. The "warmth" that many people associate with LPs can generally be described as a bass sound that is less accurate. Reproducing bass on vinyl is a serious engineering challenge, but the upshot is that there's a lot of filtering and signal processing happening to make the bass on vinyl work. You take some of this signal processing, add additional vibrations and distortions generated by a poorly manufactured turntable, and you end up with bass that sounds "warmer" than a CD, maybe-- but also very different than what the artists were hearing in the control room.

There is a strong suspicion in the audiophile community that LP reissues are commonly mastered from a CD source. What this means is that, instead of traveling to a record label's tape vault, finding the original master tapes and a machine that can play them, and going through the painstaking and expensive process of transferring that tape to a mastering disc in order to press LPs, the starting point is actually a CD. And the LP pressing is essentially an inferior copy of that CD. In these cases, the "warmth" you associate with the vinyl record is completely up to the distortions added by the playback process.

Does Vinyl Really Sound Better? | The Pitch | Pitchfork

So again, you may like these imperfections, but that's not because they are more accurate representations of the music, or because digital is inherently sterile, but because the distortion added by vinyl pleases you.

Which is of course totally cool...

 

[Unicron]

There was an interesting, I thought anyway, essay floating around about bit-depth and noise floors a couple of years ago. It put accross a lot of the concepts pretty well

Why (Almost) Everything You Thought You Knew About Bit Depth Is Probably Wrong : SonicScoop – Creative, Technical & Business Connections For NYC’s Music & Sound Community

But it doesn’t stop there: 24-bit consumer playback is such overkill, that if you were able to set your speakers or headphones loud enough so that you could hear the quietest sound possible above the noise floor of the room you were in (let’s say, 30db-50dB) then the 144 dB peak above that level would be enough to send you into a coma, perhaps even killing you instantly.

I wonder, the "preference" for vinyl rather than the always the same digital version, is there an element of cognitive psychology to it, an uncanny valley sort of deal. Like how if you have a drum loop, played perfectly on beat by midi, or having a bit of off beat swing when played by a drummer, most people prefer the human version.

 

[MilanPan!c]

There was an interesting, I thought anyway, essay floating around about bit-depth and noise floors a couple of years ago. It put accross a lot of the concepts pretty well

Why (Almost) Everything You Thought You Knew About Bit Depth Is Probably Wrong : SonicScoop – Creative, Technical & Business Connections For NYC’s Music & Sound Community


I wonder, the "preference" for vinyl rather than the always the same digital version, is there an element of cognitive psychology to it, an uncanny valley sort of deal. Like how if you have a drum loop, played perfectly on beat by midi, or having a bit of off beat swing when played by a drummer, most people prefer the human version.

I would totally agree.

As for bit depth, due to lots of realities around recording, such as people not doing a great job at setting input levels, 24 bit is great, as it gives you a lot more room to boost quiet signals w/o introducing a lot of extra noise - without really taking up a meaningful amount of extra storage space.

But.

Once something is mixed and mastered the value is basically unused.

High sample rates are even more useless to most people. Maybe not to dog or elephants though.

 

[Scientician 0.8]

I suppose what sticks in my craw a bit is the notion that people who listen only or mainly to digital music are savages, philistines. Apart from the issue of money and space and convenience I suppose I can see why people plump for vinyl.

 

[MilanPan!c]

I suppose what sticks in my craw a bit is the notion that people who listen only or mainly to digital music are savages, philistines.

Part of the appeal of fashion - to some - is being able to be a snob.

If I can't lord my mis-pressed copy of Motor Away, or my original copy of Crossing The Red Sea with... The Adverts on Bright, over your head, what kind of snob would I be??



Very few "audiophiles" have a playback system capable of hearing differences worth discussing. It's more about perception in many cases. And justifying the tripled cost.