6 ms·

It always makes me cringe when people say that records "sound better". Here's my unsolicited theory on why vinyl was preferred (by some) to CDs in the 90s and

by gjem97 9y ago

It always makes me cringe when people say that records "sound better". Here's my unsolicited theory on why vinyl was preferred (by some) to CDs in the 90s and 00s. It wasn't the form factor, it was the dynamic range of the masters. I don't know if it was caused by the advent of digital recording, but the loudness war [1] certainly got going around the time that CDs were becoming popular. So comparing a classic vinyl record did sound better than a newly mastered CD, but not because of the digital recording, simply because the dynamic range of the music was better. Now that doesn't explain the recent renaissance of vinyl, which appears to have more to do with the ease of spinning, and the presentation of a coherent larger work of art (as opposed to singles on Spotify). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

torrent-of-ions 9y ago
They actually did sound better during the very early days of CDs. Consumer DACs were terrible in the 80s. But these days that isn't a problem. CDs can sound great, but they will also happily carry all kinds of non-harmonic distortion which many people find disagreeable. The loudness war is an issue, but it isn't widely understood.
- gjem97 9y ago
  Ah, the DACs! Yeah, I probably didn't start listening carefully to CDs until the early 90s, so maybe I missed a lot of the bad ones. When you say non-harmonic distortion, are you talking about clipping? Isn't that directly related to the loudness war?
- gmarx 9y ago
  I agree. Until about 2005 listening to a CD on my audiophile rig was often painful. Most discs just had an irritating noise that made me want to stop listening. I couldn't tell you what it was but the word people used "fatiguing" was correct. I don't know if I finally lost hearing in the frequency range that contained the fatigue or if they fixed it but for the past 5-10 I find digital music to be pretty enjoyable. Also, many of the super old records that collectors claim were the ultimate (like Mercury Living Presence or RCA Living Stereo) aren't really that great. Records from the late 70s and early 80s were probably the peak. There is a lot of placebo effect in what people like
- mark-r 9y ago
  I remember the first time a CD player came to our area, the stereo store had a big showing. I was wondering why they had picked such a harsh system for the demo, but I found out later it was the CD player itself that didn't sound good.
intopieces 9y ago
If this topic interests you, I highly recommend the book "MP3: The Meaning of a Format" by Jonathan Sterne [0]. He tracks, among other things, the rise of the MP3, loudness, and studies in sound preference that point to how music got to be mastered the way it is. One interesting bit is that compression to 128kbps MP3 had a large influence in an entire generation's perception of quality. He cites a study that found typical listeners, when given an ABX test of 128 vs CD, the listeners overwhelmingly preferred 120 kbps MP3. [0]https://www.dukeupress.edu/MP3/ https://www.dukeupress.edu/MP3/ To your comment, though: the perception of sound quality is highly influenced by things like ritual, genre, equipment, environment, age... as well as technical limitations that impose a particular sound on an entire generation of listeners.
- gjem97 9y ago
  > tthe perception of sound quality is highly influenced by things like ritual, genre, equipment, environment, age... as well as technical limitations that impose a particular sound on an entire generation of listeners. Yeah, I guess my comments are driven by a desire for an objective concept of "better". Perceived quality is clearly also an important consideration. Book ordered, thanks! (Real books are clearly better than eBooks).
mitchellshow 9y ago
Also, since most everything is recorded digitally these days, there are almost no "true analog" mixdowns, which means you're pressing a stair-stepped digital frequency onto vinyl. With the exception of wealthy purists (read: just Radiohead), that vinyl you're listening to is actually the digital recording pressed onto vinyl, not an analog recording pressed to vinyl.
- jccc 9y ago
  [absolutely sincere question] If you did two simultaneous recordings of a performance -- one a modern digital and the other a modern analog -- what would be the appreciable difference between the two once pressed to vinyl? I just reflexively assume that there wouldn't be much difference at that point. Unless you're thinking of the loudness-war compression that's done to digital, but that doesn't happen to the recording until you're making the CD or something else for digital distribution.
  - protonfish 9y ago
    There is not much difference, though digital can represent a wider range of frequencies than vinyl (higher highs and lower lows) so it can be said that it is generally higher quality. For more information, I think this is a fairly good objective comparison: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4303 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4303
- protonfish 9y ago
  Digital waveforms are not stair-steps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
- teilo 9y ago
  There is no "stair-stepping" in digital recordings. The sample-rate of a CD exceeds the effective resolution of even the best vinyl pressing. Furthermore, the Nyquist limit guarantees that it is impossible to perceive the sample rate of a CD, and even with a bit-depth of 16, you have 50% more dynamic range than vinyl is capable of. Add to that the fact that a master is generally 96Khz, 24-bit.
marcosdumay 9y ago
It's not only the masters. The RIAA had a set of standards on how to do sound post-processing that you have to follow to get anything remotely good from vinyl. But digital is much more robust, and won't be horrible with almost anything. That allowed some companies to cut costs, and others to distort their sound so it gets better numbers on benchmarks. Almost no one is out there trying to get some actually good sound.
joshschreuder 9y ago
There are notable examples of vinyl editions being objectively better, for example, Icky Thump by the White Stripes, where it was mastered by a different person (Steve Hoffman), and contained slightly different recordings on some tracks. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Icky_Thump#/section_Promotion_and_release https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Icky_Thump#/section_Promotion_an...

by gjem97 9y ago

torrent-of-ions 9y ago

They actually did sound better during the very early days of CDs. Consumer DACs were terrible in the 80s. But these days that isn't a problem. CDs can sound great, but they will also happily carry all kinds of non-harmonic distortion which many people find disagreeable. The loudness war is an issue, but it isn't widely understood.

gjem97 9y ago
Ah, the DACs! Yeah, I probably didn't start listening carefully to CDs until the early 90s, so maybe I missed a lot of the bad ones. When you say non-harmonic distortion, are you talking about clipping? Isn't that directly related to the loudness war?
gmarx 9y ago
I agree. Until about 2005 listening to a CD on my audiophile rig was often painful. Most discs just had an irritating noise that made me want to stop listening. I couldn't tell you what it was but the word people used "fatiguing" was correct. I don't know if I finally lost hearing in the frequency range that contained the fatigue or if they fixed it but for the past 5-10 I find digital music to be pretty enjoyable. Also, many of the super old records that collectors claim were the ultimate (like Mercury Living Presence or RCA Living Stereo) aren't really that great. Records from the late 70s and early 80s were probably the peak. There is a lot of placebo effect in what people like
mark-r 9y ago
I remember the first time a CD player came to our area, the stereo store had a big showing. I was wondering why they had picked such a harsh system for the demo, but I found out later it was the CD player itself that didn't sound good.

intopieces 9y ago

If this topic interests you, I highly recommend the book "MP3: The Meaning of a Format" by Jonathan Sterne [0]. He tracks, among other things, the rise of the MP3, loudness, and studies in sound preference that point to how music got to be mastered the way it is. One interesting bit is that compression to 128kbps MP3 had a large influence in an entire generation's perception of quality. He cites a study that found typical listeners, when given an ABX test of 128 vs CD, the listeners overwhelmingly preferred 120 kbps MP3. [0]https://www.dukeupress.edu/MP3/ https://www.dukeupress.edu/MP3/ To your comment, though: the perception of sound quality is highly influenced by things like ritual, genre, equipment, environment, age... as well as technical limitations that impose a particular sound on an entire generation of listeners.

gjem97 9y ago
> tthe perception of sound quality is highly influenced by things like ritual, genre, equipment, environment, age... as well as technical limitations that impose a particular sound on an entire generation of listeners. Yeah, I guess my comments are driven by a desire for an objective concept of "better". Perceived quality is clearly also an important consideration. Book ordered, thanks! (Real books are clearly better than eBooks).

mitchellshow 9y ago

Also, since most everything is recorded digitally these days, there are almost no "true analog" mixdowns, which means you're pressing a stair-stepped digital frequency onto vinyl. With the exception of wealthy purists (read: just Radiohead), that vinyl you're listening to is actually the digital recording pressed onto vinyl, not an analog recording pressed to vinyl.

jccc 9y ago
[absolutely sincere question] If you did two simultaneous recordings of a performance -- one a modern digital and the other a modern analog -- what would be the appreciable difference between the two once pressed to vinyl? I just reflexively assume that there wouldn't be much difference at that point. Unless you're thinking of the loudness-war compression that's done to digital, but that doesn't happen to the recording until you're making the CD or something else for digital distribution.
- protonfish 9y ago
  There is not much difference, though digital can represent a wider range of frequencies than vinyl (higher highs and lower lows) so it can be said that it is generally higher quality. For more information, I think this is a fairly good objective comparison: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4303 https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4303
protonfish 9y ago
Digital waveforms are not stair-steps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
teilo 9y ago
There is no "stair-stepping" in digital recordings. The sample-rate of a CD exceeds the effective resolution of even the best vinyl pressing. Furthermore, the Nyquist limit guarantees that it is impossible to perceive the sample rate of a CD, and even with a bit-depth of 16, you have 50% more dynamic range than vinyl is capable of. Add to that the fact that a master is generally 96Khz, 24-bit.

marcosdumay 9y ago

It's not only the masters. The RIAA had a set of standards on how to do sound post-processing that you have to follow to get anything remotely good from vinyl. But digital is much more robust, and won't be horrible with almost anything. That allowed some companies to cut costs, and others to distort their sound so it gets better numbers on benchmarks. Almost no one is out there trying to get some actually good sound.

joshschreuder 9y ago

There are notable examples of vinyl editions being objectively better, for example, Icky Thump by the White Stripes, where it was mastered by a different person (Steve Hoffman), and contained slightly different recordings on some tracks. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Icky_Thump#/section_Promotion_and_release https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Icky_Thump#/section_Promotion_an...