A Surprising Advantage of Vinyl (2011) | Hacker News Reader

A Surprising Advantage of Vinyl (2011)

blog.andymatuschak.org

135 pointssurprisetalk132 comments

One thing about vinyl that I've noticed is that you don't have a play list, you listen to the whole album. No one puts on a vinyl record to play one song.

I used to have a huge folder where I dumped all my music files and I would have them play at random. When I streamed online, I would have a play list or pick one song at a time.

Lately I've been going through some of my favorite arists and listening to each of their albums in chronological order.

Listening to the entire album as the artist intended is just a little different and it's how I play music for myself now. Perhaps people like vinyl because it encourages listening to the entire album in one sitting.

Excellent point! So how tough to program a playlist to play sets of three by artists...

Well that's the same mindset when listening to casettes, yes? Except choosing a specific track on vinyl is a bit tougher: you have to move the needle to certain position...

Skipping tracks on vinyl is super easy, especially compared to fast-forward or rewind on casette.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF5toXl3H3c

Choosing a specific track is easier on vinyl than cassette, not tougher; there are often visual cues, and you can seek in constant time rather than linear. It takes a steady hand to be sure, but I'll take it any day over fast forwarding / rewinding some arbitrary amount, hunting for the start by sound...

(There are cassette players that can stop winding when they detect silence, and that helps, but they fail on albums with gapless mixing. Admittedly such albums are also difficult to seek by sight on vinyl. On the other hand, there are vinyl players with motorized arms that obviate the need for a steady hand, at the cost of introducing a linear term in seek time, albeit still faster than cassettes.)

Cassette is more difficult, but I will say from experience that after enough time with a specific player (a walkman for example) and a tape you could get uncannily good at seeking to the start/end of a specific track.

Someone else posted video of a DJ, but to emphasize, home listeners select tracks on a vinyl record easily, it’s not a DJ trick. The songs are often marked, dropping the needle in the marked groove selects the start of the song. You’ve got a cue lever that lets you align the arm first then drop, but even without one you can hit the beginning of the track with your hand easily (I broke my cue lever 15 years ago and rarely think about fixing it)

So the premise of this whole thread that it is hard to select songs and this is a difference of vinyl records is kinda just made up. I select songs all the time.

You do have to stand up though, no remote or phone app to do it.

One nit. When I listened to vinyl in school it was actually very common for many people to prefer a specific side of an album. (And you're right, you almost always listened to at least that side from start to finish.) If you wanted to mix things up more, you made a mix tape.

ADDED: There were 45rpm singles (typically A and B side) too of course but those were pretty uncommon by the time I was an undergrad. When CDs came in people mostly listened to the whole album as was also the case with cassettes.

>No one puts on a vinyl record to play one song.

Uh, ever heard of a DJ?

That's clearly a specific case that they weren't talking about.

Separately, when people say "nobody does this" they aren't literally saying 0.0000% of people.

It's perfectly ok to say "nobody commutes by helicopter". It isn't a clever riposte to say "aha but Jeff Bezos...".

It's not that unusual at all though.

For a long period in the 90s and early 00s the main purchasers of vinyl records were DJs specifically just to mix one track at a time.

I even have some single sided pressings with exactly one track on one side.

Back then if you knew someone regularly buying new vinyl 9/10 times they were a DJ.

Right but it's very clear from the context that they were talking about normal listeners, not DJs.

No one puts on a vinyl record to play one song.

Pretty much every DJ out there begs to differ :) I get your point though, and do also like to listen to whole albums (be it on vinyl or cd or PC), sometimes. Other times I prefer to create the playlist on the spot in function of my mood, i.e. select one track after the other. 'DJ' if you will, except I don't usually do proper mixing as that can take away part of the 'just listening' experience.

Foobar2000 lists my music per album. So I double click and put on an album.

In Spotify I do the same, I favorite artists or albums, and I put on an album. Thanks to Adele[1] I get the album played in order.

That said, I agree there's something special about putting on a record, sitting down and just listening to an album. Especially albums where it's clear the artist/band has had some thought behind the album structure.

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59365019

Can foobar2000 play 1 album in cycle?

you can make a playlist with that album and out it on repeat?

This is not handy if I almost always want to listen music as albums but I have bunches of mp3 files.

it turns out that there is shuffle album mode (I vaguely remembered it but wasn't certain)

Playback -> Order -> Repeat (playlist). Then it will repeat the playlist.

I also have the Media Library -> Album List -> Double-click Action set to "Send to Current Playlist", so that double-clicking on an album replaces the playlist with the album.

Coupled it would play the album on repeat until I double-click on a new album.

Looking at waveforms can be misleading because of the frequency-dependent sensitivity of the human ear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

It's possible the vinyl version just has less bass, and doesn't sound noticeably more dynamic. The waveforms might look more similar after high-pass filtering at 100Hz or so.

True, this is how the CD track looks after applying 100Hz high-pass filter and volume normalization https://i.imgur.com/lxMMDxd.png

Good point, Vinyl can't have stereo bass - it makes the needle jump.

Yep. In fact the argument that the article makes, when applied generally across all vinyl records (I can't speak for the specific one they're talking about), is a common myth that the HydrogenAudio wiki debunks: https://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Myths_(Vinyl)#My...

Article: "It’s the data on the record that’s superior, and it’s a conscious choice made by today’s artists and producers."

HydrogenAudio:

> A related myth is that when vinyl has a higher dynamic range than CD, it means the audio was sourced from a different, more dynamic master, and that the difference in dynamics will be audible.

> It is true that recordings on vinyl sometimes have a spikier waveform and a measurably higher dynamic range than their counterparts on CD, at least when the dynamic range is reported by crude "DR meter" tools that compare peak and RMS levels. The higher "DR value" could indeed be a result of entirely different master recordings being provided to the mastering engineers for each format, or different choices made by the engineers, as happens every time old music is remastered for a new release.

> But even when the same source master is used, the audio is normally further processed when mastering for the target format (be it CD or vinyl), and this often results in vinyl having a spikier waveform and higher DR measurement.

Related, many SACDs contain a two channel SA layer that is completely different than the red book layer. The medium is normally mastered to appeal to the widest audience. In the 80’s, CD players were very expensive so the mastering were made for that type of consumer. As CD players in cars became the more popular listening mechanism, the DR shrunk and loudness increased. Some (most I think) modern vinyl is actually just the digital mastering and the newer stuff is written from a DSD source-not tape. Even Mobile Fidelity got in trouble for claiming tape when in fact it was from a digital source. I’m old so my ears can’t tell the difference at normal listening volumes to DR as the article agrees but I can absolutely tell original redbook vs modern mastering. Black Sabbath Sabotage is a good example of mastering techniques to “correct” for mic dropouts and what not.

For loudness comps check out: https://dr.loudness-war.info/

I have some SACDs but can't actually play them, even though my dac can do the audio. Is there some way to put the tracks on a computer?

You should be able to with a PS3 and linux installed. You need a PS3 from one of the first two hardware revisions (the fat body ones), they dropped the expensive SACD reader to cut costs after that.

There’s custom firmware for Oppo blu-ray players to dump the raw DSD over Ethernet to a listening PC.

> "I have some SACDs but can't actually play them, even though my dac can do the audio. Is there some way to put the tracks on a computer?"

As per the other comments, it is technically possible, but not exactly straightforward: if you have access to a compatible BluRay player, you can create a special bootable USB stick, boot the player from that, connect to the player over the network, and use an SACD client to extract the ISO and/or DSF files containing the DSD data. You probably won't be able to play these directly on your media server, but you can use ffmpeg to convert to e.g. 24-bit/88.2kHz FLAC files. If you're interested, I wrote up the process I followed (with links to original sources) at https://www.michael-lewis.com/posts/extracting-multichannel-... .

Amazing, informative, and I can see it will be a rite of passage for some die-hard audiophiles.

>>the never stuff is written from... Or PCM. Never forget that DSD is a trojan horse for DRM mechanics. It's neither in the producer or consumers interest.

Care to explain why? DSD is just another way to store a bitstream.

DSD does contain copy protection and forces digital (other than hdmi) output to PCM.

The "volume wars" predate CDs, but tended to be fought by the radio stations themselves. Virtually every radio station (I worked in college radio) had a dynamic processor that managed signal levels for maximum loudness. The conventional wisdom was that people would choose the loudest station when listening in their cars. Commercials were mixed as loud as possible too.

The use of compression in this way may have emanated from the fact that the station already needed to have a compressor limiter in the signal chain, to prevent overmodulation, which could earn you a fine from the FCC. I was told to dial the compressor to within a gnat's ass of 100% modulation.

How the two recordings sound in your phone or laptop might be clouded by those devices also processing your sound to make tiny speakers sound louder.

A popular processor was the Orban Optimod, so I checked to see if it's still in production, nearly 40 years later:

https://www.orban.com/optimodfm-8700i

Ironically, the new model claims that it "brings hyper-compressed music back to life."

Also the Aphex Compellor.

The conventional wisdom was that people would choose the loudest station when listening in their cars.

But also, the louder your station is the wider your FM broadcast, so you can really fill out the FCC-allowed +/- 0.15 MHz on either side of your allotted channel.

Fixed title: Vinyl Can't be Abused as Badly as Higher Quality Mediums Such as CDs.

Also, this only effects recent stuff, after the "loudness wars" started.

"recent stuff" is somewhat relative. the loudness war has been fought on other fronts than just CDs/mp3s. my cassette player from the 80s had a loudness button. the sales rep at Guitar Center bragged about the easiest one-button sale for a 1RU piece of gear to add to your rack that made your sound better. it was just a loudness on/off button. so it was playback device dependent at that time which allowed the listener to choose it. they just moved the battle field to format itself and took away the choice

The "loudness" button on old equipment is actually a combined bass and treble boost, designed to the make the music sound louder at low listening levels by compensating for the effects of the equal loudness contour. It's a great idea for anybody who cares about protecting their hearing. You can do even better using modern DSP by equalizing to a curve based on the difference between the equal loudness contour at your preferred listening level and the equal loudness contour several decibels louder.

Interesting. I found this blog post implementing your idea: https://artefact2.com/b/20220408-pipewire-loudness.xhtml

Here's another reference on this: https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/vinyl-vs-cd-in-the-loudness....

> As explained earlier, due to the physical limitations of vinyl, there are limits as to how loud you can press a record, and because vinyl is “for audiophiles” – there is less incentive for record companies to compromise the quality of vinyl releases. As a result, many vinyl records are mastered differently to the CD release with more dynamic range and at lower volumes.

But I read some place that Radiohead themselves preferred the more compressed sound, perhaps owing to listening in a car rather than a high fidelity setup.

I've seen this trotted around and I think its absolute bullshit. I've asked multiple people in the music business, and they've all told me they use the same masters for CDs and Vinyl.

Yeah, it's mostly wishful thinking. The primary audience for records is not audiophiles, it's collectors who often don't even own a record player putting them up on display. Unless an artist/mastering engineer has a particular fondness for the medium they're not going to put much effort into the "analog" master.

I would guess to agree: the "audiophile" is a microscopically small segment of the music market, and music companies, let alone manufacturers, are NOT going to spend extra time money on producing stuff for specialty segments (hence the MoFi fiasco). Marketing is enough! Most so-called audiophiles also are not really into DR or "dynamic sound" or anything but just their audio preferences, whether that's cool/expensive hardware or hanging out on head-fi.

> the "audiophile" is a microscopically small segment of the music market

A small portion of the market but the portion most willing to spend large amounts of money on music and music related products.

Guilty as charged, because the emotional return is exponentially high. But we're still microscopic.

I have two versions of the same album, one on CD, one on vinyl. They don't sound the same and I prefer the version on vinyl, I am not implying it objectively sounds better, maybe it sounds worse at the wave level, but it sounds better to me, it seems much more "present". Could you teach me what is the reason for this ?

Differences in the sound waves that reach the ear can come from the audio data being written to and retrieved from an imperfect recording medium (vinyl), as well as differenced in frequency responses between the amplifiers or speakers used after the audio is read.

"Presence" is usually associated with high frequency content. Turn up the high frequencies and the music seems more present. Therefore, differences in media/amplifier/speaker high frequency response will make the music seem more or less "present".

Vinyl's dynamic range is way inferior to CD's one, that makes it a natural compressor. Most like vinyl sound because it's compressed as well, albeit not awfully bad like modern digital productions. Many vinyl records made in the 90s were mastered digitally before printing, and audiophiles swear they hear the same magic sound although what they listen to comes from 100% digital material.

> it seems much more "present"

That could be due to some low frequencies that vinyl can't reproduce and are reduced to avoid distortion. Also vinyl's poor crosstalk figures could play a role here.

> and audiophiles swear they hear the same magic sound although what they listen to comes from 100% digital material

Not unlikely, as the signal did get converted back to analog, and the physical media's characteristics influence the mastering even when it's being done digitally.

Mastering engineer here. I supply less compressed versions for vinyl and would not sign under it if it was the same as CD/streaming. What labels do after the fact is another story...

That's great to hear (!) - any idea how common this is with other engineers?

I would like to think that it is quite common. Certainly for guys who provide lacquer/DMM cutting services.

There is an issue with vinyl brokers and certain unnamed plants that advertise "mastering" that consists of running any delivered audio through proprietary software that "fixes" all physically problematic issues that could affect cutting or playback (excessive sibilance, excessive negative stereo correlation etc.). There is minimal listening involved and they can cut almost any audio. All optimised for maximising the factory throughput, not sound quality.

Personally I have a hope that this will become less of an issue in future as vinyl is getting more popular and people little bit more educated.

Now they do but they didn’t used to.

Stadium Arcadium for example is definitely different on vinyl. The CD version and the ‘audiophile’ 24bit version are both horribly compressed.

Metallica's Death Magnetic is the worst example I know of an album that's been utterly butchered by the loudness war. It is absolutely unlistenable - the compression makes my ears bleed.

And it's a crying shame because in terms of raw songwriting it could have been the best thing they've put out since the Black Album. What a waste of some good riffs.

Famously Rush`s Vapor Trails was also a victim with the band and fans unhappy with the mixing. Luckily a remix was produced...

https://popdose.com/popdose-qa-david-bottrill-on-rushs-vapor...

There are multiple unofficial fan remasters based on tracks extracted from Guitar Hero, and now a Mastered for iTunes version too. Try these, they sound far better.

Mandatory New Yorker cartoon (2015): www.ratherrarerecords.com/wp-content/uploads/AlexGregory_cartoon_vinyl_1000.jpg

Linkified: https://www.ratherrarerecords.com/wp-content/uploads/AlexGre...

These nicer masters tend to also be used on other audiophile digital formats, such as "High resolution" downloads, Super Audio CDs, DVD-Audio, and other niche formats.

But unlike Vinyl those are designed to rot away over time. When you buy vinyl, you can rip & use it and store the vinyl somewhere save without having to worry about losing it,ever.

I can’t tell if this is serious or satire.

If serious, LOL. You most assuredly cannot use vinyl, a medium that physically wears out a little bit every time you listen to it, forever.

Source: owned hundreds of LPs over the years. Also, just look at it.

You can “rip” all these formats (downloads are of course “pre-ripped”) and the physical formats I mentioned are definitely not designed to rot. Unlike Vinyl, they also sound exactly the same each time you play them, since they are not worn by the playback head.

Vinyl actually has quite a limited bandwidth too, so what you gain by not having digital limiting, you often lose by only having a small amount of dynamic range.

The dynamic range also reduces as you get closer to the center of the record because the linear tracking speed reduces. Some albums had to have their tracks rearranged so that the louder tracks weren't near the end.

Whatever you may think is wrong with vinyl, limited bandwidth isn't the problem - it's totally possible to get 50Khz onto a record, and there were even quadraphonic recordings made by modulating an extra two channels into these otherwise unused higher frequency ranges.

Dynamic range may be what you mean? It's around 70-80db, which is good enough for most things, certainly when records are new and/or undamaged so surface noise is lower.

> certainly when records are new and/or undamaged so surface noise is lower.

Then you play them once and the record forever has surface noise. The best part, it only gets worse the more you listen! I've yet to have a CD ruined by the laser in a CD player.

There is a free plugin by Tokyo Dawn Labs that lets you play with vinyls limitations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqL3WjWYbY8

The Audacity waveform rendering is a bit misleading because each pixel is reflecting the peak of nearly 10,000 samples. Here's a higher-resolution look ("Open Image in New Tab" and click to zoom for detail) at one segment of the track:

https://imgur.com/a/7mncY77

From the waveform analysis, you can see that the LRA of the selected segment is fairly narrow at 2.1 LU, but the dynamic range is quite high at 38.59 dB. The effect is minimal variation in music intensity, but a substantial difference between the quietest and loudest sounds in that segment.

I'd guess that the degree to which this causes ear sparkles is probably not achievable when mastering to plastic.

Didn't LUFS and streaming services stop the loudness wars?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36880962

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/end-loudness-war

Sadly, loudness war mastering is still common. People still listen to music in cars and on phone speakers. Low dynamic range sounds better with noisy listening environments and bad playback equipment.

Perhaps maybe not a super recent example but I remember Bruno Mar's 24k magic sounding very "loud"/compressed.

Extremely anecdotal, but if I compare top 40 pop from the early 2000’s (Black Eyed Peas, Anastacia, Maroon 5) with stuff from today (Ariana Grande etc.) then the old music sounds like boomy maximalism while the new music usually has crisper drums, more subtle details etc.

A lot of present-day mastering can technically remain loud while sounding a lot less harsh. That's thanks to aesthetic mixing choices and at least in part due to audio processing and tools like plugins from Oeksound (Soothe) and others, which are used on nearly all top-selling music now https://oeksound.com

I find that the likes of Ariana Grande have a lot more air in their music those 00s acts you describe, while still being quite loud. So do my absolute favorite artists Tame Impala, Caroline Polachek and Dua Lipa.

Commercially this probably works out with better headphones and earbuds as a default listening mode, as opposed to things like the 00s earbuds delivered with digital music players and early smartphones.

That first Billy Eilish record would probably not have been a hit if the target audience was getting their first impression of new music in cars driving at highway speeds.

Very insightful, thanks!

Anecdotally, I can confirm. I remember listening to a vinyl rip of Opeth's Blackwater Park because the CD version's dynamic range has been butchered enough that it more than made up for vinyl's technical inferiority.

However, now that most people have moved to streaming services, I think that CDs may become the audiophile/hipster format of choice. They have the advantages of vinyl - being able to physically touch your collection and look at the cover art, generally no DRM, the nostalgia factor of using old technology - while also having near-perfect quality and not degrading with every listen.

This is an amazingly in depth resource that touches on this topic:

https://magicvinyldigital.net/blog/

Yeah, loudness war is a plague, but vinyl and CD differences have nothing to do with it; it's just incompetent producers and sound engineers aiming at making their work more loud to attract listeners.

I miss vinyl records for only one thing: big sleeves and their art.

> but vinyl and CD differences have nothing to do with it; it's just incompetent producers and sound engineers aiming at making their work more loud to attract listeners.

The physical limitations of vinyl don't allow it to be pushed as hard as a digital medium, or even tape, can be.

It's kind of like making a road that only allows air-cooled VWs and noting that speeding drops to almost zero.

Till someone makes a Porsche.

If everybody went for vinyl, they'd bring the loudness war over as far as it's possible (the medium is more limited).

Right now, sound engineers, not incompetent at all, optimize CDs for the CD audience (and for the most part, they preferentially buy "louder," even if they'd deny it if you ask) and vinyl for those freaks who maintain their diamond needle.

So vinyl sounds better _because_ it's a hipster medium.

> optimize CDs for the CD audience

CDs haven't been on anyone's radar for a long time.

> Yeah, loudness war is a plague, but vinyl and CD differences have nothing to do with it; it's just incompetent producers and sound engineers aiming at making their work more loud to attract listeners.

The claim (not directly made by the article, but generally made to support the difference) is that vinyl’s physical characteristics limit how “loud” a recording can be. Specifically, that a vinyl pressing of a “brick walled” recording becomes unplayable—or at least unreliably playable—because its physical tracks are insufficient to keep a stylus in place for playback.

I don’t know how true that claim is, but the analysis seems cromulent, and analysis of comparable media seems to support it well enough.

It isn’t a claim that pressing vinyl attracts or requires better production etc, but that the medium has inherent physical constraints that benefit, at least as a side effect, from greater dynamic range.

It's quite true. Vinyl mastering is very different from digital, or even mastering for tape or other analog formats. Sibilance is terrifying in vinyl mastering. The properties of different groove lengths influence track order on albums because tolerances are different on the outer end of the record than the inner end, and you can squeeze out more fidelity by sacrificing duration with wider grooves.

There are a few general tricks here: https://www.sageaudio.com/articles/how-to-master-for-vinyl but in practice there are so many variables that vinyl mastering engineers are worth their weight in gold, and there's some significant investment made in trying to automate most of all of it algorithmically or via ML/AI.

There are a lot of 'old school' edm records in online stores that were redigitized from vinyl, and you can tell just looking at the wave forms the difference in how they were mastered, and they sound noticeably _worse_ than modern EDM records, with much less powerful bass. It's actually sort of interesting how they worked around that with more dynamics in older records to make the bass pop more, but I'm not sure that it's better over all, it's just different.

Try to make a sine wave at E very loud and boomy on a Vinyl record. Techno is notorious for being difficult to print right, but entirely possible when one knows what they're doing. Mono, phase cancellation issues, yadda yada. When you get to 40 Hz apparently the needle will hop into lanes it shouldn't track on.

Vinyl records employ RIAA equalization [1] to attenuate the bass when mastering. As mentioned, this is to keep the needle from literally jumping out of the groove during playback of low frequencies. A phono-preamp is generally the way you reverse the RIAA equalization, recover the bass, when listening.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

Analog compression is how I explain it to kids today. Like an mp3 is compressed. Lossy analog compression for that matter.

A friend had a vinyl copy of The 1812 Overture. At the point where the cannons started firing, they increased the groove spacing to allow the full dynamic range. Unfortunately, you could see where my friend's needle had taken shortcuts across the biggest transients.

Idk if it’s true but supposedly in the the Telarc recording, the cannon fire went down to like 7Hz and would blow out your speakers if the signal wasn’t filtered.

With things like 1812 one of the problems was not always recognized back when vinyl was king.

The recording can be so realistic it captures the actual earth moving along with the heavier-than-normal sound waves hitting the microphones.

The bigger speakers and higher power amplifiers were always favored to reproduce the shock waves, and that's what happened.

It was the speakers' high volume not the smallness of the micro-groove that pushed the needle off the record and it emphasized the need for far better isolation of the turntable during the reproduction process than was needed for the microphone during the recording process.

A well calibrated turntable pickup/arm will not jump until you turn it up past a certain point, but that point is much lower when it's the 1812 Overture, and you don't really need an audiophile setup to shake things when the source material captures that to begin with.

OTOH with radio-friendly pop music a dancer or two in an upstairs room could make the needle jump to the next song on the disc :(

>but vinyl and CD differences have nothing to do with it

The kind of do. With vinyl if you master like this you're making the grooves (the paths where the needle runs in) more pronounced, meaning less space for music (which is a premium in CDs compared to streaming, and even more so to vinyl compared to CDs: many vinyl "double albums" could have beeen a single CD). And it can make the needle jump around or have issues too.

So vinyl kind of forces you to master with actual dynamics, as opposed to squashing everything.

Big sleeves and art, but for me it’s the ceremony. I just love taking that time to really appreciate what you’re about to listen to. Filtering along the spines and having something jump out that grabs you and you know it’s the album for now.

Yeah, there’s probably a compromise in quality, but for me the experience is just better.

I miss my vinyl collection a lot. Really wish it was easier to ship it to the other side of the world but I’ve struggled to find a way.

Some people actually like "Material objects". I personally do. A well made tool, nice suit, a nice pen and piece of paper a leather lounge, and of course a nicely printed record cover and the feeling of loading the thing in the player.

I think society has lost a bit of that with digital stuff.

Video games used to come in these big, thick cardboard boxes with elaborate art. Inside it was a thick manual, a quick fact sheet or two, and the game itself in a proper jewel case.

You bet I wouldn't mind paying full price for that.

RPGs would also often come with world maps, sometimes on cloth. Some games also came with amazing reference guides. Red Baron (1990) iirc had a spiral bound guide with information on ww1 fighter tactics and schematics of all the planes in the game.

I remember, it was an awesome time.

I remember getting the albums out of the sleeves, then the paper inner sleeve. Then spraying shooting my discwasher with an anti-static gun. I think there was a special deionized water you could drip on it too. Then you would clean around the disk and put it on the turntable. I had an automatic turntable, I wasn't into dropping the needle on the disk by hand.

plus: no logins, no algorithms, no endless random play until end of time, no ads, no tracking, no buggy pairings, no subscriptions, no DRM, no licensing issues.

Hah!

Recently a bar I frequent had some issues with their Internet connection for a few days: low speed, drops and a total black out. Usually they are playing music from some internet services, which wasn't an option at this time, of course. But they do have a vinyl setup and enough records to go by while waiting for the connection to be repaired.

I grew up in cassette tape era, but they shared a characteristic with vinyl: albums had 2 sides, providing a "break" or "intermission" between sides. Many artists would purposely arrange the songs on an album to account for the break in the middle, or group sets of similar songs on the same side (I receall several Duran Duran albums having the radio friendly singles on side 1, and the more ethereal, experimental-sounding songs on side 2).

It's been happening for a long time. Back when one had to rip CDs I was surprised by how many recordings clipped. It wasn't just pop, good classical studios like Deutshe Gramaphon also did it.

I miss when they designed the ordering of tracks to complement a side 1 and side 2.

> I miss vinyl records for only one thing: big sleeves and their art.

I had a copy of Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk". Double-album in a hinged sleeve, with each album having an inner sleeve. That gave eight big surfaces for art, and they certainly used it. Lovely.

If they do it, they are not "incompetent"; it's just that is what people want/expect. You cannot afford to be the quiet piece after an ultra-powwah one when on radio on streaming....

I listened to the two 15-seconds sample from cd and vinyl... I couldn't tell the difference. I tried playing back and forth with the controls... Still no difference.

I'm playing the music on an m1 macbook pro (so not a cheap-ass machine) and I tried with and without my headset (sennheiser, so not really a cheap-ass headset).

Not sure what to make of this.

It does add a bit to my "audiophiles are gullible people" suspect though.

I didn’t hear a difference either. I think the reason is explained in the comment by mrob above. Obviously the author believes he can hear a clear difference. I wonder if he blind tested himself.

To me, the vinyl sample sounded a bit 'louder', but as I understood the article, it should be the opposite way?

You are very unlikely to hear a difference like this on laptop speakers. Present-day Apple laptop speakers are great feats of engineering for what they are, but they use a bunch of trickery to create the illusion of bass and such. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental

Even with decent headphones, the difference between these samples isn't trivial to spot, unless you have moderately trained ears.

I'm not an audio professional but I have a great interest in this space. My first impression is that the the bass in the second sample stands out a bit more in the mix, perhaps thanks to higher dynamic range. The high range is muted and the mid range in the percussion and such may be more pronounced.

That's not to say you're wrong about audiophiles. A lot of claims made by this subculture are nonsense and especially not applicable to situations where an everyday person seeks some improvement to their audio reproduction.

For example, lossy audio codecs have a bad reputation among certain people, due to old technology. Mp3 is undoubtedly garbage, 90s tech. If I waste a bunch of time on blind tests, I can spot even a 320 kbps mp3 sample with my regular listening headphones. Lower bitrates are a lot more obvious to spot.

However, this problem is gone for almost all people in most listening environments, mine included. This is thanks to the more modern lossy delivery codecs at decent bitrates, as employed by the the premium tiers of the big streaming services, which are Vorbis (Spotify) and AAC (Apple and most others) and Opus (Youtube Music in some circumstances).

Archival and editing copies of audio should obviously be lossless. Generational loss over lossy media are as real with digital re-encodes as with analog tape.

A regular person who wants to improve their listening experience can easily get decent headphones now. However, anyone who wants to invest in a better shared listening experience than a decent portable mono Bluetooth speaker can offer, should probably start by thinking through the the acoustics of the room they want to listen in.

This doesn't have to be fancy, just having shelves with actual books on the walls in the direction looking towards a speaker system does a lot.

Spending more than 200 USD on speakers in a room with blank walls is ridiculous, unless it's a log cabin. Those actually sound great.

> Not sure what to make of this.

One possible conclusion here is that you are not as discriminating of a music listener as you assumed or thought you were.

> Maybe it’s time to hit up your local record store.

No, it’s time to end the loudness war or offer an option with the full dynamic range for those that care.

On the rare occasions I hear vinyl being played I'm surprised at how good it sounds. It shouldn't sound good, but it does.

Can you elaborate on why you think so?

I’ve always said that vinyl sounds “warmer” but that is a squishy term that I can’t really elaborate on.

A decent amplifier and speakers probably. People tend to spend money on their vinyl setup. CD played through the same setup would also sound good.

> I’ve always said that vinyl sounds “warmer” but that is a squishy term that I can’t really elaborate on.

I think it is at least partly due to a reduced top end/treble. Though googling something like "why does vinyl sound warmer" will give more information. Sites like ASR forums or diyaudio will help if you want to get more technical.

I'm not sure. Adjectives like warm (or maybe smoother and less brittle) usually mean less high end, but I don't think that's all there is to it. I think part of it may be good mastering without overcompression or clipping, and good instrument tone and arrangement (and probably equalization) - with discernible bass, midrange, and highs (though cymbals and high end can get sanded off with repeated plays I guess.) Better playback systems (vs. bluetooth speakers etc.) may also be helping. The number of tracks and stereo image might be helping. And maybe there's some kind of synergy between vinyl-era popular music and its recording media - bands that sounded good on vinyl probably sold more records, etc.

On the other hand, I am sometimes blown away by the dynamic range of good classical CDs.

Also: has FM radio gotten worse in sound quality?

Interesting, both 15 second segments sound like the same garbage to me.

Yes, the first re-compressed CD segment sounds so much worse than the iTunes version that I'm not sure what to think. Two possibilities: (1) The album was remastered for a subsequent CD reissue. (2) I'm hearing the benefits of the "Apple Digital Masters"¹ process.

¹ https://www.apple.com/apple-music/apple-digital-masters/

I occasionally play a used CD of Bob Marley's Legend album in the car and the clarity of the music is so much greater than any of the current songs playing on the radio. Not sure if it's a measure of the quality of the artist, the producer, or the technology.

The degree to which radio stations process the life out of music is unbelievable. https://web.archive.org/web/20210618142217/http://www.master...

Apple Digital Masters is the real deal. The quality difference is noticeable even on modern pop songs, especially when compared to Spotify.

I dunno. I just listened to it on Spotify and it sounded much better than either of the versions in the article. Maybe it's because it was in the context of the whole song.

The article compared vynil vs CD, from the author’s own extraction which is bound to be worse than the originals used by Apple/Spotify regardless of compression.

It also depends on the song, this one is quite dirty already from distortion and digital samples.

I love Radiohead, but I really couldn't tell the difference either.

I was going to say the same, but I listened on my phone so I thought (interestingly) that might be why - will try to remember to listen on good speakers later

"You don't want your CD to be the quietest one in the stack" - some writer on mastering in the 1990s.

What a silly article. Of course headroom and compression is manipulated and optimized by the recording engineer when mastering for vinyl, sometimes to good results and sometimes to bad. A skilled engineer will know how to make any recording medium sound optimized, a schmo will phone it it and either under or over use compression, to poor results in either case regardless of media.

For example, I own two different 1969 pressings of Led Zeppelin II, both from the same pressing plant, but made from different masters. One pressing was mastered by the mighty Robert Ludwig. It uses extensive compression and barely leaves any headroom. The sound is rich, full, and driving. It sounds great on medium to high-end turntables, but caused cheap ones to skip due to the bass excursions. After a week on the market Atlantic Records recalled it an replaced it with a version they remastered internally, which leaves plenty of headroom but sounds puny and pathetic in comparison. Guess which one collectors value today?

https://www.discogs.com/release/4699428-Led-Zeppelin-Led-Zep...

https://www.discogs.com/release/8753624-Led-Zeppelin-Led-Zep...

https://nowspinning.co.uk/led-zeppelin-robert-ludwig-the-str...

On the flip side, my original pressing of "Are You Experienced" is pretty terrible compared to the remastered pressing that was authorized by the Hendrix family in 2014, so choose modern over vintage on that one.

Similarly a lot of not as popular old music has never been remastered properly for new formats and this is one of the reasons collectors of old vinyl are often on to something. A lot of it was created from vinyl masters and sounds sub-optimal in digital form.

Interesting fact regarding Zep ][, thanks!

The 2nd audio clip sounded more pleasant to me.

Digital is only part of the audio waveform. CD especially is based on 1970s digital audio processing, not even professional quality. Vinyl is a full waveform. Much fuller, bass, drums, and voices.

what a load of crap. every sentence is bullshit.

Technically speaking, there is just no discussion to be had. CD from its very first release offered an orders of magnitude better, more faithful reproduction of a recording than vinyl.

- better signal/noise ratio. Cutting a groove inevitably has limited precision and the waveform will have imperfections. CD is a perfect reproduction each time. - wear and tear. Every time the needle moves through the groove, imperfections will get worse and more noise is added. CD has error correction built in and even scratching doesn't affect quality (up to a certain point) - playback speed deviation: CD doesn't suffer from wow/flutter effects - quality of vinyl decreases toward the inside of the record

Just because the storage medium is analog doesn't translate into a more faithful reproduction of the sound. It mostly leads to more opportunities for distortion and noise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com