7 ms·

Is this the same reason some people prefer phonographs to digital recordings?

djkoolaide 4y ago
I'd say the reasoning is adjacent but not the same. There will always inherently be some harmonic distortion when playing a record, and that sounds pleasing to the ears in a lot of cases. But the main reason records usually sound better is simply dynamic range. I'm a huge fan of 80s club music (Paradise Garage type stuff). I've spent a lot of time and money over the years ripping those original records, because unfortunately the digital releases of a lot of those songs were brickwall limited, which ruins the dynamics and punchiness of the drums and other elements of the music. I'm sure the same applies to other genres.
- musicale 4y ago
  CDs can support 90+dB of dynamic range, which is pretty great, with much less distortion and noise. A good classical recording can show this off pretty well. On the other hand, 80s club music was presumably mixed and mastered with vinyl-style distortion (and other features such as rumble, crackle, hiss, etc.) in mind. (Modern producers often try to replicate the pleasant saturation of analog equipment – and sometimes add vinyl-sounding artifacts, for better or for worse.) A well-mastered digital recording should (and does!) sound great, but I think the problem is that many CDs aren't well mastered and many were overly compressed, sometimes with terrible clipping, in service of the dreadful "loudness wars." In 2022 most dance music is produced digitally to begin with, and DJed digitally as well; presumably mastering engineers and DJs have figured out how to make it sound good when it's played in a club.
  - i_am_proteus 4y ago
    Old albums were also recorded, mixed, and mastered on tape, which naturally saturates and compresses a bit in a way many listeners find pleasing to the ear.
- adql 4y ago
  Loudness war had many, many victims and the sound murders still happen to this day. I wish replay gain was standarized to a level where every player could just add few DBs in analog way for those songs that use more of the dynamic range, instead of mastering engineers having to choose between "loud" and "correct"
FoomFries 4y ago
I think for this and for photos it’s more the idea of imperfection. That patina, wabi-sabi or other entropic term gives an emotional response I don’t find in digital. I’m not looking for lossless digital I can’t really discern, which DAC basket to put my eggs in, or if the latest digital remaster just demolishes the loudness delta. I have, but these days I want a more tactile experience. I’m looking for the experience which surrounds the music or photo. And when I didn’t take that picture or record that music, it feels more ‘real’ when I can vicariously feel the experience involved. Anecdotally, I went on a trip with some friends recently and everyone took their phones while one person took a manual camera. Everyone uploaded to a shared album at the end, and the pictures which paint the picture of the weekend to me are the ones shot by the amateur which are often a bit out of focus compared to the hyper accurate self-stabilizing self-focusing technology. Perhaps it’s the romantic in all of us.
- Baeocystin 4y ago
  Film makes you think about your shots in a way that you just don't have to to with digital. This is not to disparage digital cameras at all; they are amazing, and I love mine. But they are also different, and despite digital's many advantages, film offers something unique to the medium.
- IvanAnishchuk 4y ago
  Tactile experience. Yeah, that's how I got into analog stuff.
- causi 4y ago
  it feels more ‘real’ when I can vicariously feel the experience involved. That implies the opposite of what you enjoy. The original experience had no grain, had no hiss. It was pure and clear.
  - nimbleal 4y ago
    Perhaps we’re looking for the feeling of memory or dream. I believe that’s why 24 fps persists in film, for example — because it’s less real in the immediate, analytical sense, but more real in that it feels closer in some undefinable way to the way we imagine or remember — or even perhaps in our non-analytical moments directly perceive — things to be
eyelidlessness 4y ago
Among many reasons people might prefer vinyl, one that really stands out to me as a plausibly objective factor: mixing for the media limits overall/constant “loudness” and imposes some higher degree of dynamic range than you’ll generally find in digital releases over recent decades. My understanding (which I’m sure will be corrected or have nuance added if I get this wrong) is that the “loudness”, often called “brick wall”, found in digital releases doesn't work well on the physical surface of a record because it can cause the stylus to skip more easily, so mixes tend to have more dynamic range to accommodate that… and people who prefer the media may generally prefer the dynamic range it forces.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > and people who prefer the media may generally prefer the dynamic range it forces. I mean a recording with a larger dynamic range is an objectively better recording. You can always crank up the volume if you want the loudest part to actually be loud. That’s the paradoxical situation. You have an inferior medium with a better mastering.
globular-toast 4y ago
Perhaps. But for me it's more that the LP is a great format for popular music. I don't really care how the recording was acquired as long as it sounds good.

I'd say the reasoning is adjacent but not the same. There will always inherently be some harmonic distortion when playing a record, and that sounds pleasing to the ears in a lot of cases. But the main reason records usually sound better is simply dynamic range. I'm a huge fan of 80s club music (Paradise Garage type stuff). I've spent a lot of time and money over the years ripping those original records, because unfortunately the digital releases of a lot of those songs were brickwall limited, which ruins the dynamics and punchiness of the drums and other elements of the music. I'm sure the same applies to other genres.

musicale 4y ago
CDs can support 90+dB of dynamic range, which is pretty great, with much less distortion and noise. A good classical recording can show this off pretty well. On the other hand, 80s club music was presumably mixed and mastered with vinyl-style distortion (and other features such as rumble, crackle, hiss, etc.) in mind. (Modern producers often try to replicate the pleasant saturation of analog equipment – and sometimes add vinyl-sounding artifacts, for better or for worse.) A well-mastered digital recording should (and does!) sound great, but I think the problem is that many CDs aren't well mastered and many were overly compressed, sometimes with terrible clipping, in service of the dreadful "loudness wars." In 2022 most dance music is produced digitally to begin with, and DJed digitally as well; presumably mastering engineers and DJs have figured out how to make it sound good when it's played in a club.
- i_am_proteus 4y ago
  Old albums were also recorded, mixed, and mastered on tape, which naturally saturates and compresses a bit in a way many listeners find pleasing to the ear.
adql 4y ago
Loudness war had many, many victims and the sound murders still happen to this day. I wish replay gain was standarized to a level where every player could just add few DBs in analog way for those songs that use more of the dynamic range, instead of mastering engineers having to choose between "loud" and "correct"

FoomFries 4y ago

I think for this and for photos it’s more the idea of imperfection. That patina, wabi-sabi or other entropic term gives an emotional response I don’t find in digital. I’m not looking for lossless digital I can’t really discern, which DAC basket to put my eggs in, or if the latest digital remaster just demolishes the loudness delta. I have, but these days I want a more tactile experience. I’m looking for the experience which surrounds the music or photo. And when I didn’t take that picture or record that music, it feels more ‘real’ when I can vicariously feel the experience involved. Anecdotally, I went on a trip with some friends recently and everyone took their phones while one person took a manual camera. Everyone uploaded to a shared album at the end, and the pictures which paint the picture of the weekend to me are the ones shot by the amateur which are often a bit out of focus compared to the hyper accurate self-stabilizing self-focusing technology. Perhaps it’s the romantic in all of us.

Baeocystin 4y ago
Film makes you think about your shots in a way that you just don't have to to with digital. This is not to disparage digital cameras at all; they are amazing, and I love mine. But they are also different, and despite digital's many advantages, film offers something unique to the medium.
IvanAnishchuk 4y ago
Tactile experience. Yeah, that's how I got into analog stuff.
causi 4y ago
it feels more ‘real’ when I can vicariously feel the experience involved. That implies the opposite of what you enjoy. The original experience had no grain, had no hiss. It was pure and clear.
- nimbleal 4y ago
  Perhaps we’re looking for the feeling of memory or dream. I believe that’s why 24 fps persists in film, for example — because it’s less real in the immediate, analytical sense, but more real in that it feels closer in some undefinable way to the way we imagine or remember — or even perhaps in our non-analytical moments directly perceive — things to be

eyelidlessness 4y ago

Among many reasons people might prefer vinyl, one that really stands out to me as a plausibly objective factor: mixing for the media limits overall/constant “loudness” and imposes some higher degree of dynamic range than you’ll generally find in digital releases over recent decades. My understanding (which I’m sure will be corrected or have nuance added if I get this wrong) is that the “loudness”, often called “brick wall”, found in digital releases doesn't work well on the physical surface of a record because it can cause the stylus to skip more easily, so mixes tend to have more dynamic range to accommodate that… and people who prefer the media may generally prefer the dynamic range it forces.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> and people who prefer the media may generally prefer the dynamic range it forces. I mean a recording with a larger dynamic range is an objectively better recording. You can always crank up the volume if you want the loudest part to actually be loud. That’s the paradoxical situation. You have an inferior medium with a better mastering.

globular-toast 4y ago

Perhaps. But for me it's more that the LP is a great format for popular music. I don't really care how the recording was acquired as long as it sounds good.