digital vs. vinyl comparison

compact disc, dacs, mp3 players and streaming audio
Post Reply
Erin1
senior member
senior member
Posts: 826
Joined: 18 Jul 2004 09:57

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Erin1 » 08 Dec 2019 04:14

vinyl master wrote: ↑
07 Dec 2019 21:19


Just a reminder that 3 or 4 years ago, they also sold vinyl...10 years ago, they were still selling vinyl...Even 15 years ago, vinyl was beginning to get into full swing...I can find many of the releases I might have wanted from the 2000's still on vinyl...Heck, I have about 1,000-2,000 45's just from 1990-2000 alone! #-o And what are they STILL selling as of 2019??? VINYL!! Flared jeans??? Bell bottoms??? Peasant shirts??? That stuff will come and go, but I have no doubt that vinyl will continue to get bigger...
Be careful not to misunderstand me.
I play vinyl. CD occasionally. I prefer ripping my CDs and playing them on a network streamer. Spotify. Cassette occasionally. Reel to reel occasionally.
I like music!

It is my opinion that the current popularity of vinyl is fashion and marketing driven.

You're entitled to disagree. I'm a reasonable person. Both are only opinions. The world won't end from expressing an opinion. πŸ˜‰

vinyl master wrote: ↑
07 Dec 2019 21:19

Even "American Idol" winner Kelly Clarkson is a big proponent of vinyl, as
In any case, the growth surge is good for all of us who love music on whatever format we love it on, because it encourages better sound across the board!
Appealing to a "higher authority" doesn't work to convince me of the merits of vinyl. Kelly is no more an authority than me, or you or Michael Fremer, or anyone else, with functioning senses and a technical interest in this topic. Kelly is actually not a higher authority than me. LOL πŸ˜†

I have my own ears and eyes. I know what's good and bad about all formats.
I listen to all formats.
I've read scholarly technical articles too.
I feel my knowledge is fair and balanced, and I don't think I'm too biased.
I enjoy listening to music. I don't care too much about the format so long as the music sounds good.
Last edited by Erin1 on 08 Dec 2019 04:46, edited 1 time in total.

Erin1
senior member
senior member
Posts: 826
Joined: 18 Jul 2004 09:57

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Erin1 » 08 Dec 2019 04:23

vinyl master wrote: ↑
07 Dec 2019 21:19

In any case, the growth surge is good for all of us who love music on whatever format we love it on, because it encourages better sound across the board!
How do you explain the Adelle 21 album?
The sound quality was compressed like crazy on the CD and sounded pretty bad, but on Vinyl sounded even WORSE!

There are so many new vinyl reissues that sound dull, flat and boring.
Creedence Clearwater revival Cosmo's factory received a very dull reissue a few years ago too.

I don't feel your argument stacks up to closer scrutiny.

Quality has always been hit and miss on all formats. A vinyl release is no guarantee of quality.

Furthermore, most (not all) music is digitally recorded these days.
If the vinyl sounds (personally) better, it's the mastering that causes that difference in sound (or the particular distortions introduced by the various resonances, or frequency response changes caused by the replay equipment)

Digitally recording the vinyl captures the sound perfectly. And you'll get that same sound when playing back the digital recording.
It really isn't a digital vs analogue argument. It's an argument based on mastering choices. If someone has a bad sounding CD player or DAC, well that's not my fault. Go find a good sounding one. They are available.
Last edited by Erin1 on 08 Dec 2019 04:37, edited 1 time in total.

NOYB
member
member
United States of America
Posts: 249
Joined: 01 Jul 2019 01:12

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by NOYB » 08 Dec 2019 04:28

Erin1 wrote: ↑
08 Dec 2019 04:14
You're entitled to disagree. I'm a reasonable person. Both are only opinions. The world won't end from expressing an opinion. πŸ˜‰
Well technically it is not the world ending. But some peoples life has been end for expressing an opinion. So for them the world essentially did end. Prudent to be careful about expressing certain opinions in the presence of some rabid masses. But this is just a way off topic aside. ;)

Erin1
senior member
senior member
Posts: 826
Joined: 18 Jul 2004 09:57

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Erin1 » 08 Dec 2019 04:39

Some people need to chill out. πŸ€—

vinyl master
vinyl engineer
vinyl engineer
United States of America
Posts: 20896
Joined: 01 Nov 2013 05:27

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by vinyl master » 08 Dec 2019 10:02

Well, I'm not saying there aren't bad pressings of vinyl...or CD's, for that matter...But, it does pay to do your research on various labels and record companies...For example, I've never met a Rudy Van Gelder-mastered Blue Note that I didn't like...In regards to new vinyl, I've never had a problem with any release from Light In The Attic, Sundazed, Daptone, Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, or any other such label, although the indie labels tend to get it right much of the time, maybe more so than the majors, although there are exceptions in every case...Quality Record Pressing/Analogue Productions also tends to get it right quite often...Not all record companies are doing it wrong, but it pays to know which ones are doing it right and doing your research before buying any new pressing...Jack White also seems to care about the sound, which is why I've never really been disappointed by anything he's released on his Third Man label...

Erin1
senior member
senior member
Posts: 826
Joined: 18 Jul 2004 09:57

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Erin1 » 08 Dec 2019 12:18

I agree. Some labels do a great job and care very much. I expect their digital releases (if they do them) would be of the same high quality.

Vinylfreak86
long player
long player
Posts: 1330
Joined: 07 Jan 2016 16:02

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Vinylfreak86 » 08 Dec 2019 14:29

Erin1 wrote: ↑
07 Dec 2019 10:11

Another one - mini disc. This 1990's technology is now gone.
Why?
ATRAC sounds worse than 320 MP3
Has been superseded by CDR, MP3 320 and equivalent high quality lossy formats, and FLAC / WAV and streaming.
That is interesting, because CD is much older than Mini disc and it has survived it for a long period and is still here. Also japanese were thinking to get rid of CD and replace it with Mini disc, at the end they throw away MD as a format.
Erin1 wrote: ↑
07 Dec 2019 10:11
Do you think in 50 years anyone will listen to compact cassette?
This is also interesting. If in 2003 someone would say to me that in 2019 I will be available to buy a new Tascam hifi cassette deck... I would say that he is insane. :)

Vinylfreak86
long player
long player
Posts: 1330
Joined: 07 Jan 2016 16:02

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Vinylfreak86 » 08 Dec 2019 14:39

I agree as many mentioned, many new vinyl reissues sound badly, compressed, etc. But it is problem, because many people see a vinyl resurgence as an oportunity to make some good money out of it. And they are cheating in production. It happened to me, that in the same store I could find two versions of the same album from different labels, and more expensive version was good looking digital crap. Cheaper version made of thin disc and recycled paper, was the one which will sound decent on a turntable.

So in majority cases I go out of store with new records to second-hand vinyl shop. Or back home to order on web a new japanese reissue on a CD. Better spent money. :wink:

Erin1
senior member
senior member
Posts: 826
Joined: 18 Jul 2004 09:57

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Erin1 » 09 Dec 2019 02:03

Vinylfreak86 wrote: ↑
08 Dec 2019 14:29

That is interesting, because CD is much older than Mini disc and it has survived it for a long period and is still here. Also japanese were thinking to get rid of CD and replace it with Mini disc, at the end they throw away MD as a format.
But CD-R was lossless and became cheaper and available for installation in a desktop PC. Almost instantly minidisc was redundant. Why have lossy audio when you can have lossless?

Vinylfreak86 wrote: ↑
08 Dec 2019 14:29
This is also interesting. If in 2003 someone would say to me that in 2019 I will be available to buy a new Tascam hifi cassette deck... I would say that he is insane. :)
Notice the Tascam is not equipped with Dolby noise reduction because the chips are no longer manufactured! It uses custom noise reduction. Not Dolby.

Also reviews say it is designed for archiving tapes to digital. It has USB output (but not input)

It supposedly sounds good, but not as good as professional decks from the 1990's.


Yesterday I archived a tape to digital using a Sherwood cassette deck I purchased for $20.

I don't know why anyone would use cassette for recording when you can get a Behringer UMC202HD for $150 ( it makes excellent recordings)

Why buy a new cassette deck for $500 except to archive. But even then, there are enough good condition second hand cassette decks that are much cheaper

Sterling1
senior member
senior member
United States of America
Posts: 846
Joined: 01 Feb 2017 16:28
Contact:

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Sterling1 » 09 Dec 2019 10:13

Erin1 wrote: ↑
09 Dec 2019 02:03
Vinylfreak86 wrote: ↑
08 Dec 2019 14:29

That is interesting, because CD is much older than Mini disc and it has survived it for a long period and is still here. Also japanese were thinking to get rid of CD and replace it with Mini disc, at the end they throw away MD as a format.
But CD-R was lossless and became cheaper and available for installation in a desktop PC. Almost instantly minidisc was redundant. Why have lossy audio when you can have lossless?

Vinylfreak86 wrote: ↑
08 Dec 2019 14:29
This is also interesting. If in 2003 someone would say to me that in 2019 I will be available to buy a new Tascam hifi cassette deck... I would say that he is insane. :)
Notice the Tascam is not equipped with Dolby noise reduction because the chips are no longer manufactured! It uses custom noise reduction. Not Dolby.

Also reviews say it is designed for archiving tapes to digital. It has USB output (but not input)

It supposedly sounds good, but not as good as professional decks from the 1990's.


Yesterday I archived a tape to digital using a Sherwood cassette deck I purchased for $20.

I don't know why anyone would use cassette for recording when you can get a Behringer UMC202HD for $150 ( it makes excellent recordings)

Why buy a new cassette deck for $500 except to archive. But even then, there are enough good condition second hand cassette decks that are much cheaper
I don't have a reason today for owning a cassette deck, except for making playlists which I can enjoy in my 2000 Camaro Super Sport. My deck is a Sony TC-K950ES. I also had a TC-K909ES, TC-K970ES, and a TC-K7ll. Since the TC-K950ES sounded better than the others, I sold them; but, I later purchased a TC-WR87ES recognizing a need to copy cassettes for another vehicle. The TC-K950ES can record LPs with virtually no degradation in sound qualities while CDs recorded to cassette sound somewhat different in tone; yet, the TC-K950ES still impresses.

Vinylfreak86
long player
long player
Posts: 1330
Joined: 07 Jan 2016 16:02

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Vinylfreak86 » 09 Dec 2019 17:16

Of course, Compact disc made a cassette tape an obsolete format in terms of reproduction of music. And modern digital recording devices made it an obsolete format in terms of recording. Both digital counterparts are much much better than cassette tape ever was.

Issuesman666
senior member
senior member
Trinidad & Tobago
Posts: 676
Joined: 10 Mar 2014 20:05

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Issuesman666 » 09 Dec 2019 17:32

I'm in the process of Digitizing whatever cassettes I have that still sound acceptable.

Cassettes are too much of a hassle and too unpredictable for me. Many of them have missing brushes and most likely inoperable and useless.

NOYB
member
member
United States of America
Posts: 249
Joined: 01 Jul 2019 01:12

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by NOYB » 09 Dec 2019 23:02

Sterling1 wrote: ↑
09 Dec 2019 10:13
I don't have a reason today for owning a cassette deck, except for making playlists which I can enjoy in my 2000 Camaro Super Sport.
. . .
recognizing a need to copy cassettes for another vehicle.
Personally I think you ought Bluetooth those vehicles if you plan to keep them. Even BT will surpass a cassette tape. Plus the conveniences. Entire music library at finger tip in a device about the size of one cassette tape. Shuffle. If using a play device you always carry anyway like a Smartphone then only one copy needed. And each person can have their own library of stuff.

So glad I Bluetoothed my ride even though it had a CD player. So much better than dealing with all those CDs and subjecting them to the extreme weather camber. I especially like having entire music library at finger tip and shuffle mode.
Example: Car Audio System Bluetooth Addition
https://simonslick.com/2007%20Ford%20Ta ... 0Addition/

Erin1
senior member
senior member
Posts: 826
Joined: 18 Jul 2004 09:57

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Erin1 » 10 Dec 2019 08:45

I agree blutooth is acceptable for the car

Flasher1170
United States of America
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Dec 2019 21:28

Re: digital vs. vinyl comparison

Post by Flasher1170 » 12 Dec 2019 20:16

I recently bought two new albums during a recent sale at my local record store. Mumford and Sons, Sigh No More and The Revivalists, Take Good Care. I noticed that they sounded not that great, compressed, muted, and just boring. I then compared this to the streaming tracks on Napster (formerly Rhapsody, same quality as Spotify). Doing a volume-adjusted and EQ neutral A/B comparison as best as possible, the streaming service sounded better. Not mind-blowingly better, but a bit more rich and a bit less compressed sounding vs the vinyl copy.

I then did the same comparison using Blue Man Group, Three as well as a new pressing of Pink Floyd, The Wall. HUGE night and day difference. The vinyl sounded sublime, open spacious, etc. I was back to being in audio Nirvana.

What it tells me is that for some of the recently recorded stuff, they aren't trying to produce high quality vinyl records even when new albums are released on vinyl. I'm not sure if its the mastering process or the pressing, but some of the newer albums just don't seem to be very high quality.

I never expected Mumford and Sons to be a source of sonic Nirvana anyways, so I can't say I'm all that disappointed. I liked the album when it came out 10 years ago and listened to it a gazillion times, so I'm happy to have a physical copy of it. But I don't I can get something new out of listening to the vinyl copy over the digital one.

I don't think a fancier cartridge, turntable, pre-amp or speakers would really change much. It reminds me that some vinyl I will buy because it holds some nostalgic value, such as the Dirty Projectors, Bitte Orca because I listened to it thousands of times while studying in school. Others I will buy because it's sonically better sounding or hard to find.

I guess everyone has a different reason to be in this.

Current setup:
Totem Dream Catcher speakers
NAD amp
Dual 1219 with a Pickering V-15 w/ 605-DET stylus

Post Reply