Digital vs Vinyl

[abdo123]

https://productionadvice.co.uk/tt-meter-not-for-vinyl/

This was a very interesting video, I still don't think I agree with the conclusion.

The differences may not be due to the mastering in the digital domain, but there is a difference, and that difference can be measured with the TT meter. it's just that the difference is not always due to the mastering.

 

[Chrispy]

I'm wondering if you have evidence of this claim. I think the majority of limited vinyl releases originate from the same mastering as the CD (but obviously adjusted for the physical medium). You can't measure DR reliably of vinyl tracks either, as far as I know - they inherently measure much higher DR than they actually have. Which might explain this as a myth.

How do you define "adjusted for the physical medium" vs mastering?

 

[JSmith]

How do you define "adjusted for the physical medium" vs mastering?

It's part of the same process... vinyl has limitations that need to be accounted for which is why there needs to be a separate master if releasing vinyl and digital;

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-how-does-mastering-differ-vinyl-and-digital-releases



JSmith

 

[Chrispy]

It's part of the same process... vinyl has limitations that need to be accounted for which is why there needs to be a separate master if releasing vinyl and digital;

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-how-does-mastering-differ-vinyl-and-digital-releases



JSmith

I knew that, just wondered if you did from your statement. That's basically what mastering is....

 

[JSmith]

from your statement

No that wasn't me, that was @svenz … anyway glad we agree on the facts.



JSmith

 

[tecnogadget]

For anyone interested in corroborate this in a practical way, because all I’m seeing through theory is discrepancy between members:

Listen to RHCP album Stadium Arcadium CD (Redbook Standar) vs the same album digitalized from vinyl. They are practically two different albums. There is harsh clipping in lots of effect on the CD release that are more atenuated or non existing in the Vinyl release. The Dynamic Range difference is night and day, Vinyl release sounds so less harsh, more natural, like if they removed some digital processing from the mixing/mastering stage, Anthony Kiedis voice sounds very different in both mediums.
Since its a dual CD conceptual album I recommend just testing with the first tracks, that will do the trick...Danni California, Charlie, Stadium Arcadium, works for the comparison.

Another album where the Dynamic Range difference is also very palpable is Daft Punk “Random Access Memories”.
Compare the CD release or even the FLAC 24bit 88kHz release vs the digitalized Vinyl, the latter wins hands down in Dynamic Range-clarity-smoothness-balance.

Both examples are contemporary music, not from the 90’ 80’ 70’ 60’, meaning things are happening inside the Studio-Mastering-Pressing-Distribution, and the end result is customers getting two very diferent releases depending on the Medium.

 

[MusicNBeer]

@tecnogadget, I don't doubt it. This whole situation makes me ill. The fact that we're going to vinyl for more dynamics is a sad irony. I think some of this is purposeful as a money making method for the record companies.

 

[danadam]

Another album where the Dynamic Range difference is also very palpable is Daft Punk “Random Access Memories”.
Compare the CD release or even the FLAC 24bit 88kHz release vs the digitalized Vinyl, the latter wins hands down in Dynamic Range-clarity-smoothness-balance.

Um... big words.
I have the CD, I also have some vinyl rip. For the first track, "Give Life Back To Music", dr meter reports:

DR      Peak    RMS     Duration        Title [codec]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 DR9     -0.00 dB        -10.39 dB      4:34    01 - Give Life Back to Music (CD)        [flac]
 DR15    -0.73 dB        -16.88 dB      4:34    01 - Give Life Back to Music (Vinyl)     [flac]

After reducing the volume of CD version by 6.39 dB, I created ~30 sec excerpt with CD and vinyl versions switching every 5 sec (more or less). I don't hear much difference, certainly nothing "hands down" better.

link in base64:
aHR0cHM6Ly9tZWdhLm56L2ZpbGUvRTl4SGpBS2IjQkwyTUhNU2Zpekh5cjBza0FRTU40T09qS0VsSzBXUUc0SXBwZlhDWkl3Yw==

 

[mansr]

link in base64:

Why? Obfuscating the link doesn't make distributing the clip any more or less legal.

 

[Thunder22]

To me the best part of vinyl is I tend to listen to the entire record in the order the artist intended. These days purchasing vinyl directly from artists is a great way to support them.

 

[paulraphael]

Um... big words.
I have the CD, I also have some vinyl rip. For the first track, "Give Life Back To Music", dr meter reports:

DR      Peak    RMS     Duration        Title [codec]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR9     -0.00 dB        -10.39 dB      4:34    01 - Give Life Back to Music (CD)        [flac]
DR15    -0.73 dB        -16.88 dB      4:34    01 - Give Life Back to Music (Vinyl)     [flac]

After reducing the volume of CD version by 6.39 dB, I created ~30 sec excerpt with CD and vinyl versions switching every 5 sec (more or less). I don't hear much difference, certainly nothing "hands down" better.

This video on the Production Advice YouTube channel addresses some of the confusion of vinyl/cd DR measurements.

He compares a CD and LP made from the same master (he knows because he mastered them). Conclusion is that the standard DR measuring tools have problems.

 

[Chrispy]

No that wasn't me, that was @svenz … anyway glad we agree on the facts.



JSmith

JSmith[/QUOTE]

Sorry about that, chief. (with my best Max Smart imitation ). I thought for some reason you were he...

 

[Paianis]

There's a few niche cases to keep a vinyl copy of something. Case in point - all of the side A tracks from ABBA's The Album gained unwanted distortion when the album's production master was recorded. So all of the first edition presses of The Album on vinyl, plus the 1984 and 2005 CDs are defective for the first four tracks. One of those tracks was The Name Of The Game, which has an unfortunate tale of its own, supposedly the stereo master of this track had the second verse removed in 1978 to form the US promo edit, so for all CD releases largely engineered from the master tapes from 1982 to 1994, this version was mistakenly used. Finally in 1997, the second verse was rediscovered, supposedly stuck on the end of the reel, but the CD masterings issued in 1997 and 2001 have a poor reputation for various other reasons.

Fortunately, there is a way of getting the full version of The Name Of The Game without distortion but with original dynamics and EQ, and that is the 7" single from 1977. So that's what I've got.

 

[svenz]

How do you define "adjusted for the physical medium" vs mastering?

Sorry my wording is probably really poor. I meant that the same studio produces both the digital and analog masters from the same mix, just making adjustments for the medium that are required. Technically it's a different master but if you look at the mix path it is basically identical. And when you measure them with DR, vinyl will measure ~3 more despite when looking at the waveforms everything looks essentially the same. From what I've read, this seems like the case most of the time for vinyl releases. I think in this case it's always preferable to get the CD / digital release unless you like the coloring that vinyl adds.

That is in comparison to using a completely different mix or master on the vinyl, and possibly different arrangement, so it's almost like a different recording. I have a limited edition vinyl lie this that was made by a studio specializing in vinyl/analogue mastering. They sound a lot different to the CD/digital release, so I can see the case for preferring it.

 

[Chrispy]

Sorry my wording is probably really poor. I meant that the same studio produces both the digital and analog masters from the same mix, just making adjustments for the medium that are required. Technically it's a different master but if you look at the mix path it is basically identical. And when you measure them with DR, vinyl will measure ~3 more despite when looking at the waveforms everything looks essentially the same. From what I've read, this seems like the case most of the time for vinyl releases. I think in this case it's always preferable to get the CD / digital release unless you like the coloring that vinyl adds.

That is in comparison to using a completely different mix or master on the vinyl, and possibly different arrangement, so it's almost like a different recording. I have a limited edition vinyl lie this that was made by a studio specializing in vinyl/analogue mastering. They sound a lot different to the CD/digital release, so I can see the case for preferring it.

That the same people produce something is one thing, but is often hard to get any solid provenance on the specifics. It can be a very different master, and some remastering could also involve re-mixing. What particular measurement do you refer to by approx "3"? The drloudness database/methodology? A good performance well recorded initially simply surpasses medium in many cases, too.

 

[paulraphael]

That the same people produce something is one thing, but is often hard to get any solid provenance on the specifics. It can be a very different master, and some remastering could also involve re-mixing. What particular measurement do you refer to by approx "3"? The drloudness database/methodology? A good performance well recorded initially simply surpasses medium in many cases, too.

I'm guessing Svenz is talking about the phenomenon described in this video (posted upthread). A mastering engineer uses TT Meter to compare a CD version and ripped vinyl version of the same song. The meter shows what looks like radically squashed peaks on the CD version, and more natural peaks and valleys on the vinyl version. But they sound the same, at least in terms of dynamics. And he says he knows they're from the same master, because he did the mastering.

 

[svenz]

Yeah that video really goes into the details. I guess I shouldn't throw out numbers like 3, that is based on some other things I've read from people who have ripped their vinyls comparing to their CD rips. But there is probably enough variance in the analogue replay chain itself even that the values could differ from record player to record player.

I guess the summary for me is that we can't trust DR when comparing vinyl to CD, in fact I don't think you can even trust DR measurements at all for vinyl (unless the analogue replay chain is identical). This is unlike CD where you can objectively compare DR between CD recordings even ripped with different devices. So a DR database for vinyl seems pretty useless to me, and any DR measurements are sort of pointless.

That means we really don't have an objective way to determine whether a vinyl pressing is more dynamic than the digital version. We really have no idea and can only speculate, unless we are the engineer.

As I said before though, I largely suspect the majority of vinyl is simply a replication of the digital but with the loss of information that happens when you go to a much more limited medium. I'm sure there are exceptions, like if the engineer purposely raises the volume of the digital master and brickwalls it (but I don't think this happens much anymore). Otherwise CD will remain superior for accurate playback - it inherently can support a much larger dynamic range of course.

So I will keep buying CD/digital for most things, and vinyl for limited release stuff that you can't get in digital format. Or if someone has clear evidence the vinyl recording is superior due to brickwalling of the CD/digital release or other shenanigans.

 

[Frank Dernie]

if you dynamically compress LPs too much you risk the stylus jumping out of the groves and ruining the LP.

That is the opposite of the facts. In order to have a reasonable average listening level you have to compress the peaks on LPs to prevent the stylus jumping out the groove on peaks.

It may be the process from digital master to vinyl cutting that's making the waveform more dynamic, but if the digitized vinyl version measures more dynamic, it's more dynamic.

It can be that scratches throw the DR measurement but the most likely explanation these days is the absence of a high pass filter in so many phono stages.
ALL the signal up to ~ 2x the natural frequency of the arm/cartridge mass on the cartridge compliance are inaccurate and exaggerated.

The fact is an LP is incapable of as much dynamic range as CD. So with a wide dynamic range recording the loud bits which will cause cartridge skipping have to be compressed and the quiet bits which may drop into the background noise are raised in level.

This sounds nice since tha ambient info has been amplified so is easier to hear.

On rock music the dynamic range isn't enough to tax the capability of LP dynamic range though.

Ironically digital files are listened to by so many people on low fi kit in noisy environments they are often compressed even more than the LP mix so that they sound OK in that situation, not because they need to be for the format

 

[dasdoing]

you might wanna look into upward compression. this will make quiet parts louder without compromising transients like a regular compressor

 

[mmi]

Not sure if any of this has been mentioned specifically, but...

There is A LOT of incredible music out there that is only available second hand in LP form. Most of it will never be re-issued, and what recordings are available online are usually rips of varying quality that pop up on youtube. I would also suggest a large percentage of re-issues or digital sources of rare, pre mid 80s music have been ripped from vinyl since the master tapes no longer exist, generally these rips will not sound as good as the vinyl source due to noise removal filtering clipping actual music data, and sometimes the noise removal is so over the top as to make the re-issue unlistenable. So in terms of sound quality, sometimes vinyl will be far and above the best quality version of an album or song you could ever possess.

Personally, if I can find a good quality digital version of a song I love I don't feel any need to buy the record. I have bought songs on iTunes and then hear a rip on youtube that is noticeably higher fidelty, youtube-dl it and delete the crappily mastered digital version I bought. This is often the case with, for example, old African labels that have their entire catalogue online digitally but every album sounds like it is being played underwater due to extremely aggressive noise removal.