LPs revisited...

[JuicySwoos]

I'm all for vinyl because while cds are convenient, and mp3 and ipods are even more so, you're really not getting the whole sound as you should, that much we all know. However, analog went out almost 20 years ago, everything's been recorded digitally since, unless you see the sticker that says "remastered from the original analog masters". Even if you see that advertised that on a cd today, you're still not hearing the recording as you should, because the analog has been compressed onto a cd, some quality is lost. Remember this before they totally went digital, "We've used the original analog recordings and have tried to preserve as much of it as possible, but there are some limitations". This was printed on some of those earlier pressed cds that some of us may still own. Then they totally went digital, and it's been a proven fact the more recent years that digital recordings clip, they're mixed way too loud, and they don't sound near as well as analog did, hence the recent revival of vinyl....but here's my question, how are these new albums and even reissues of 20 year old albums coming out any different from a cd? Everything's digital right? No more analog right? So how does a digital recording sound any better on vinyl than a cd??

Because analog playback in itself also plays a factor in the sound.   An example I can give is cassette tapes....they are both analog in recording and analog in playback, but the analog playback method of cassette tapes is substandard in sound compared to vinyl. Just because something is analog/analog, does not automatically make it sound better. Vinyl that has a digital recording source is going to sound better than a cassette tape that has an analog recording source.

You still can achieve the vinyl warmth and nuance even from a recording that was originally digital.  For instance, I think Chinese Democracy sounds better on vinyl (sans the tracks that suffer from IGD) than compact disc.

But I do agree that true analog recordings on vinyl sound the best, a bit better than vinyl from a digital recording.  Although some other vinyl buffs would tell you anything from a digital recording source is crap.  I don't go that far. 

[russtcb]

Yeah, no problem. I was gonna do a blind test anyways. I'll post the outcome in a day or so. From what I've read, there's a SHM debate because of the CD coating supposedly, technically not being a factor in how a disc should sound. My Best Buy copy is pretty beat anyways, so I figured why not order it? Can't really hurt to have a back up. Listening to "Catcher" right now. 

Ok cool. Looking forward to your review.

[Rainfox]

Cool, Moonlight!

And some great input by everyone.

I've recently "re-started" my vinyl collection and I'm now positively getting all new albums on vinyl (if there's a free download; for my iPod and for burning a CD for the car), because it just DOES sound better. I didn't think it did - I knew that original old recordings did, but not necessarily THAT much. But they do. It's a world of difference on a good audio set-up.

I've gotten some of the old 60s and 70s (and 80s) classics on new, freshly pressed 180 or 200 gram vinyl too. Sabbath, Zeppelin, Springsteen, Doors, Hendrix, Appetite/UYI etc. and as of yesterday.. Cream! They sound absolutely fantastic. Got their first three albums. Funds are low now, but it was well worth it!

 

PS: Looking forward to hearing how the SHM compares.

[Skeba]

I don't want to pull rank here or anything, but I've been studying audio signal processing for about 5-7 years now at a university, and I can pretty much assure you that well over half of the LPs are better talk is simply bullshit. Especially the part that analog is far superior than digital as a storage form. Sure it sounds different, and some LPs might sound more "warm" or "natural", but to say that they are objectively better, is usually just plain wrong.

This is not to say that LPs suck... They don't. They're really nice, and I enjoy to have an actual good size record with nice covers, but I'm not going to go as far as saying that they're objectively better to the human ear.

And as for the SHM:s.. Well. Your cd-player either reads the bit or it doesn't. I have yet to hear a SHM that would actually sound better than a new well kept CD with no scratches.

[russtcb]

I don't want to pull rank here or anything, but I've been studying audio signal processing for about 5-7 years now at a university, and I can pretty much assure you that well over half of the LPs are better talk is simply bullshit. Especially the part that analog is far superior than digital as a storage form. Sure it sounds different, and some LPs might sound more "warm" or "natural", but to say that they are objectively better, is usually just plain wrong.

This is not to say that LPs suck... They don't. They're really nice, and I enjoy to have an actual good size record with nice covers, but I'm not going to go as far as saying that they're objectively better to the human ear.

And as for the SHM:s.. Well. Your cd-player either reads the bit or it doesn't. I have yet to hear a SHM that would actually sound better than a new well kept CD with no scratches.

They very much sound warmer and more natural to me.

[Rainfox]

Skeba -  I don't think the issue was "better" or "worse".

But warmer, richer and more intimate (yes, indeed). Pick up an album from before the digital age, and it's plain obvious. Even to the un-trained ear (like myself!).

Ofcourse, how the band recorded the album and so forth also plays a huge part. Check out The Black Crowes' Southern Harmony.. which sounds like they are literally playing in the room with you (it was recorded in one-takes).

CDs have more purity and "better" sound in terms of clarity. But for the most part (not all), CDs will sound a bit synthetic to analog.

[Skeba]

I understand you and will agree with you to the point that they sound different. But I do think that a lot of this "warmth" could , if wanted, be achieved with CDs as well. A lot of this has to do with noise that is always present with an analog source. Also the preamplifiers of an LP player and a CD player are different and do have their own role. There are other contributing factors as well. But the point is: The CDs sound what they sound like because the artist wanted it to sound like that on the setup that he heard them. These are all matters of opinion an I completely understand someone opting for an LP over a CD...

[Limulus]

Audio CDs are limited to 16bit/44.1khz........LPs aint, so there goes the advantage with LPs!
and thats why you can find fans re-capturing from 1st LP pressings (mostly pre-early 90s LPs) transfering them on (semi)high-end equipment to 24bit/192khz for having a digital transfer being much closer to the original LP sound + being higher quality than standard CD audio can be!

in the end it all depends on how the LPs / CDs are being produced! the best solution for Appetite would be: a new high end quality transfer from the original analog masters + new mixing and editing on 2009 equipment releasing it in 24/192 DVD Audio. off course the mixer must know his job and shouldnt ruin this process with crap like the loudness war we've been suffering from the last years!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

that loudness crap happened with the new Metallica album but fortunately didnt happen with Chinese Democracy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v6ML2DsBfA


the playback-trouble factor depends on your equipment not the music!

[Skeba]

192kHz... So you'd be able to produce frequencies almost 5 times higher than a human ear can even hear?? I'm not saying that with 24bit encoding some advantage couldn't be achieved on very high end systems but the frequency thing is just ridiculous..

[Limulus]

some fans do this because the main goal is getting it digital as close to the original analog source as technique allows to do for consumers.
from that point of view the higher frequencies are just logical, off course its some weird with those high frequencies for human ears. but theoretical you're getting more info out of the analog signal than doing it in 44.1khz/48khz, what your ears are making out of it is secondary in this case.
also there are some LP rips in 44.1khz sounding better than the original CD release!

[Skeba]

Well, yeah.. If a fan wants to spend over 4 times more space and computation time to save sounds by aliens from analog recordings I guess it's ok. For digital recordings it's even absolutely useless since all of the recording has been done with sampling rates of 44, 48 and at max 96khz... The digital LP rips sound 'better' because of the reasons stated in my previous posts.

[JuicySwoos]

I understand you and will agree with you to the point that they sound different. But I do think that a lot of this "warmth" could , if wanted, be achieved with CDs as well. A lot of this has to do with noise that is always present with an analog source. Also the preamplifiers of an LP player and a CD player are different and do have their own role. There are other contributing factors as well. But the point is: The CDs sound what they sound like because the artist wanted it to sound like that on the setup that he heard them. These are all matters of opinion an I completely understand someone opting for an LP over a CD...

This is well put.  I often get caught up in the "vinyl sounds better" thing, but when people ask me why I think vinyl sounds better I give them the correct answer...vinyl sounds different, and I prefer that sound to that of CD.  Vinyl can be easily customized to the listeners tastes, such as pre-amps as mentioned, cartridges, tonearms, stylus, etc, to create that "vinyl sound" the listener prefers, and even that "sound" is even different between vinyl listeners. For instance, some vinyl listeners actually think snap crack and pop adds something to the music, or they don't mind it. I for one cannot stand that, so I opted for a cartride which reduces, eliminates surface noise, but on the flipside is not a very warm/neutral cartridge.  So then I had to get a very warm souning phono stage to acheive the warmth many people enjoy.  I had to tweak my system with different phono-stages and cartridges for a decent amount of time, and after that trial and error, I finally became "wow'd".  That whole process for me makes the music much more engaging, because I had in hand in creating that sound.

I also never try to convince people to switch formats, because honestly most people can't tell the difference, or if they can tell the diference the difference is not worth the time and money that is vinyl.  Download FLAC for free or pay $30 for an LP?  Cheap CD players are going to sound pretty good....a cheap turntable is going to sound like ass.         

[jarmo]

192kHz... So you'd be able to produce frequencies almost 5 times higher than a human ear can even hear??

Isn't that the sampling frequency/sampling rate?

Not a reference to the actual frequency range the human ear can hear.



And how many people listen to their high quality rips on those cheap white iPod headphones?



/jarmo

[Rainfox]

Ha ha. Yeah.

I got some neat Harman Kardon plugs for my iPod. Had to get one with a wrangle around my ear as I use it (only) for jogging. The sound is much better than the std. ones in the pack.

[H76]

And how many people listen to their high quality rips on those cheap white iPod headphones?

/jarmo

Guilty as charged.  But then again all the others I have tried seem to break within couple of weeks. Tired of experimenting really..

[Skeba]

192kHz... So you'd be able to produce frequencies almost 5 times higher than a human ear can even hear??

Isn't that the sampling frequency/sampling rate?

Not a reference to the actual frequency range the human ear can hear.



And how many people listen to their high quality rips on those cheap white iPod headphones?



/jarmo

Yes, it is the sampling rate. And the sampling rate determins the frequencies that can be produced. The Nyqvist theorem states that in order to produce a frequency of x Hz, the sampling frequency has to be 2x Hz. So with 192kHz you can produce frequencies up to 96kHz. Now as the hearing range for humans is about 20Hz-20kHz, there is a lot of information on the area that is not relevant to the human ear. CDs have a sampling frequency of 44kHz for this very reason.

[jarmo]

I thought a a better sampling frequency would give a better representation of the actual signal.

Not just higher frequencies nobody can hear.




/jarmo

[Skeba]

not really... Adding bits though can give a better signal as there are more possible values to represent the original signal.

[jarmo]

If you sample the outside temperature once a day, you don't get a fair representation of the day's weather compared to say sampling it 24 times per day.... 

Same for audio. The more samples you take from a signal, the better representation of the actual analog signal you get instead of missing information "between" the samples.

That was my impression of what sampling rate means....

 


/jarmo

[Skeba]

If you sample the outside temperature once a day, you don't get a fair representation of the day's weather compared to say sampling it 24 times per day.... 

Same for audio. The more samples you take from a signal, the better representation of the actual analog signal you get instead of missing information "between" the samples.

That was my impression of what sampling rate means....

 


/jarmo

The weather example is valid, but it can not be applied to audio. Any sound at any point can be viewed as weighed sum of sine waves. To generate a sinewave, a sampling rate of two times higher than the highest frequency is required (Nyqvist frequency). If not, the frequencies over the Nyqvist frequency will overlap on the lower frequencies. For example 24kHz sound with a 44kHz sampling frequency would fold on to 44kHz/2-(24kHz-44kHz/2) = 20kHz. No extra gain from a larger sampling frequency than 44kHz is attained in listening applications.