Hi, Eric. Welcome to the forum!
I don’t know if they’re streaming Spotify as much as they’re streaming memories. Last Monday I had dinner with my sister, and we were both singing along with “American Pie” streaming from a crummy little portable speaker. Long version. Great fun. We both knew all the words!
I have been listening to vinyl since the 60s when I had my first record player and still have most of those albums I bought at that time. When CDs came along I jumped onto the digital bandwagon looking at the CD cover to make sure it was DDD as I thought that was better.
Today I still by vinyl albums, I enjoy taking them out of the sleeve putting them on my turntable, watching the needle drop and listening to the music. I have a very nice system and I look after my vinyl carefully. As well. as buying records I usually obtain a digital copy of the album, either by ripping CDs or directly buying a digital copy.
At some point in the 90s audio compression took hold to make the albums sound more dramatic, more impactful, louder. This is not compression in terms of digitization (mp3 vs. hi-res), but the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of the music, often called dynamic range. The result of this is that albums that have been remastered often (perhaps even always) have a lower dynamic range. Is this a bad thing? For me, yes, you often loose the subtleness of the music when everything is played “loud”.
So what happens with modern formats where the music is clearly high resolution digital from the outset. Well for CDs I still believe that dynamic compression to make the album louder occurs, which can be demonstrated by using software to measure it, with some being as low as 3 and the better mastered albums getting as high as 12 or 13. For vinyl albums, however there isn’t the space on the record disk to produce one loud all the way through and still get 40-50 minutes out of 2 sides. Go back to some older Genesis, Pink Floyd or Yes albums which tried to cram as much music as they could onto each side and the are quieter than those that are 15-20 minutes on each side. So today when a vinyl album master is produced it is my belief (at least my ears think this is true), that dynamic range is preserved (narrow grooves for for quieter sections and wider deeper ones for louder sections) simply to fit the music onto two sides of vinyl without loosing the impact of the louder sections.
This ended up being longer than I thought it would be, but it is why I will always still listen to vinyl despite the care that you gave to take of those antiquated if I want to sit down and really listen to the music.
Absolute loudness and dynamic range are different things though. In theory, if you reduce the overall volume after dynamic range compression and before cutting the record, you can produce a record that is quiet and still has a low dynamic range. You just need to turn the volume up a bit more at playback.
I may be missing something here, but I don’t see a problem producing a low dynamic range record. Other things are not possible, e.g. brick-wall limiting (which is one way to reduce dynamic range), since that creates clipping and can cause the stylus to jump out of the groove.
I thought it was to make it sound better on a Sony Walkman with crummy headphones or iPod ear buds, not capable of reproducing much dynamic range. The digital versions were tailored to how consumers wanted to listen to them.
Given adequate cleaning, most (though certainly not all) of my vinyl is nearly as quiet as a CD, most people would not notice a difference. Admittedly, few would be willing to go to the lengths I do for clean, quiet vinyl, but it is easily obtained if you’re willing to make the investment. I also have a Sugarcube SC-2 Plus for those that are just beyond silence. But it sometimes goes weeks without being used.
So do I, have posted pics of them all in the system thread over the years.
Quite a few years ago a work colleague was saying that digital knocks spots off vinyl so I got him to come and listen to my system. He put a blindfold on before he came into listening room. I played him the C.D. and vinyl of Talk Talk, Colour of Spring. Played them both and asked which sounded best. He said the one that is playing now, took off blindfold and he saw it was the vinyl.
Did the same with a couple of other albums , now sighted and same result every time.
All that does is tell you that he liked the vinyl masterings better than the CD masterings. It tells us nothing about vinyl vs CD…
Well that will always be the case with every comparison of Every format regardless ,so what is your point.
So are you saying the CD mastering was not as well done as the vinyl on 3 different bands and albums with a spread of 20 years between releases. FYI. he picked the 2nd and 3rd albums to compare.
The topic of the thread is, of course, why the vinyl revival was so successful, not so much the technical merits. If some vinyl masters are liked better than CD masters, that may well be one part of it (maybe not the biggest part, others were mentioned, but one part). As discussed before, the fact that CD has better technical specs is not really relevant if they are not (or not always) practically realized
Bit late for that as the thread has a good chunk of it relating to the sound quality.
And the practical sound quality is a valid factor in the revival’s success, but we have gone over the master stuff and “but digital is theoretically better” just like 2 days ago and it doesn’t make more sense by repetition.
Maybe your friend just “liked the vinyl masterings better than the CD masterings”. It is true that this “tells us nothing about vinyl vs CD…”, but technical merits and theoretical specs of vinyl vs CD is not what this thread is about, and the fact remains that your friend liked the vinyl better for whatever reason. As more than one people have this experience, at least with some recordings, I guess that plays a role in the success of the revival. I am not convinced that it is the biggest one (I mentioned what I think are the main factors previously), but it’s one - it certainly is for me
Not if done the proper way. For example, you can digitize vinyl, then do a blind test between the vinyl and the rip. If you can’t tell the difference, then digital is perfectly capable of capturing vinyl. (It’s capable of a lot more BTW.)
Then you have an ADC followed by a DAC added to the path so you are now listening to digital compared to digital.
It probably can. But, once again (sigh) that doesn’t matter for the topic of this thread if (some of) what you can buy sounds better on vinyl or is more fun on vinyl for other reasons like artwork
No, you compare the vinyl and the digital rip with an analog switch.
If you are ripping the vinyl it has to be going through an ADC and then you play it through a DAC.
Going off original topic a bit now though.
Yes, digital has to go through a DAC. Vinyl on the other hand won’t go through anything during comparison.
What you said (digitise)above means it goes through an ADC and then plays back through a DAC,not sure why are not following.
He’s trying to prove that a digital rip of the vinyl can capture and reproduce faithfully what’s on the vinyl. I don’t think that needs further proof though, and it’s still not the issue here