Analog (Vinyl) vs Digital Audio (CD, FLAC) Listening Event Comparison

[3db]

Its been my experience that its up to the recording engineer on what sounds better, not the medium itself. I have many recordings on both formats and there is no clear winner on format depending on the recording.

 

[captainlate]

On Digital vs. Analog

One other thought. On recordings that perhaps never had much range, for example '50s rock songs on 45s, I have found that CDs sound just as good, but extended listening is exhausting vs. listening to vinyl LPs of the same material. Have no idea why this is true, but I have heard others say the same thing.

 

[board]

If you for instance like a bit of harmonic distortion, which vinyl by nature adds more of than CDs, then that is what you should go for. I've heard vinyl records that simply sound a bit more lively too. Especially piano can sound a bit shrill on CD. I believe the proof is ALWAYS in the pudding!

Nevertheless, there is something about CDs that most people don't seem to know: CDs from the 80s, and partly the early 90s, are poor. They are shrill, thin and cold. This period lasted until around 1992 or 1993 but with exceptions both ways both before and after 1993. When you see these audiophile comparisons between vinyl and CD, they almost always use CDs from the 80s, which makes the test flawed – and they usually also only use a few albums, if not only one.

Despite their reputation, Japanese CDs, no matter the year, sound very similar to the 80s ones. I have only heard a few that were better than the vinyl records.

I have done A/B testing with 410 albums on vinyl and CD so far, and of all the CDs I used from the 80s, only four were downright better than the vinyl records, or could be regarded as "better" tastewise. My estimate is that at least 80-90 % of the CDs from the 80s sound worse than their vinyl counterparts. When you get to 1991-1993 it's a lot less.
Why is this? My guess is that in the 80s there was one master for vinyl and one for CD, or that the digitizing process wasn't as advanced as it has since become.

Many remastered CDs are better than the original records, but far from all. Especially CD remasters of albums originally released in the 80s are rarely better. Some remasters of albums from the 60s and 70s are miles and miles beyond the original vinyl records, while others are a bit worse - this goes for both CDs released in the early 90s and last year. It all depends on the people in the studio and the mastering. One funny instance is the two albums "Songs from the big chair" and "The seeds of love" by Tears for Fears. The latter I prefer on vinyl compared to the remastered CD, the former I prefer on the remastered CD (and I think most people would choose the remaster). But the funny thing is: BOTH albums were remastered by the same people in the same studio!

So, as someone pointed out, we don't know exactly what CD editions you used. If they were the original editions from the 80s, I would with most likely also prefer the vinyl editions.

Of all the vinyl records originally released from 1994 onwards (meaning, no reissues of material recorded before 1994) I have compared to the CDs, only two albums very downright better on vinyl. There were several albums that were a matter of taste (and some I preferred on vinyl). This also goes for records from the last 5-7 years, although, admittedly, I haven't listened to many of those.

 

[haraldo]

Of all the vinyl records originally released from 1994 onwards (meaning, no reissues of material recorded before 1994) I have compared to the CDs, only two albums very downright better on vinyl. There were several albums that were a matter of taste (and some I preferred on vinyl). This also goes for records from the last 5-7 years, although, admittedly, I haven't listened to many of those.

What are the evaluation criterias to say that a vinyl release is better than the CD?

 

[board]

What are the evaluation criterias to say that a vinyl release is better than the CD?

Maybe it wasn't so clear from my post, but I have so far compared 410 albums on vinyl and CD, and the results look like this:

* 410 albums compared
* 59 albums were better on vinyl, which is equivalent to 14.39 %.
* 128 albums were a matter of taste; or each media had its strengths and weaknesses; or they were practically identical (and then it would be arbitrary which media you would choose). This is equivalent to 31.21 %.
* 223 albums were better on CD, which is equivalent to 54.39 %.

However, I haven't done any statistics on the important categories: CDs from 1982-1993, CDs from 1994 onwards, Japanese CDs, and reissues of albums originally released before 1994, but I will at some point.

It will, invariably, be a somewhat objective evaluation whether the CD or the record sounds better, but I tried to be as objective as possible: Did you win something on one media without losing something, or did you lose so little that it was all worth it because of what you gained?
To be more specific it meant: How much of the music could you hear - not in the sense of "Ha! There's more treble on the CD so it's better", but simply if there was another dimension to the music on one media. Other than this it was clarity, nuances in the music, how well proportioned bass and treble were, how well-controlled the music was, how big and wide the soundstage was (or stereo perspective if you like), and simply: How pleasant was it to listen to?

Although I often preferred the CD when it was a matter of taste, I still put it into the taste category to get a somewhat objective result and also because it would be a matter of taste if the record could offer something that the CD couldn't.

 

[Nestor]

Maybe it wasn't so clear from my post, but I have so far compared 410 albums on vinyl and CD, and the results look like this:

* 410 albums compared
* 59 albums were better on vinyl, which is equivalent to 14.39 %.
* 128 albums were a matter of taste; or each media had its strengths and weaknesses; or they were practically identical (and then it would be arbitrary which media you would choose). This is equivalent to 31.21 %.
* 223 albums were better on CD, which is equivalent to 54.39 %.

However, I haven't done any statistics on the important categories: CDs from 1982-1993, CDs from 1994 onwards, Japanese CDs, and reissues of albums originally released before 1994, but I will at some point.

It will, invariably, be a somewhat objective evaluation whether the CD or the record sounds better, but I tried to be as objective as possible: Did you win something on one media without losing something, or did you lose so little that it was all worth it because of what you gained?
To be more specific it meant: How much of the music could you hear - not in the sense of "Ha! There's more treble on the CD so it's better", but simply if there was another dimension to the music on one media. Other than this it was clarity, nuances in the music, how well proportioned bass and treble were, how well-controlled the music was, how big and wide the soundstage was (or stereo perspective if you like), and simply: How pleasant was it to listen to?

Although I often preferred the CD when it was a matter of taste, I still put it into the taste category to get a somewhat objective result and also because it would be a matter of taste if the record could offer something that the CD couldn't.

If by objectivity, you are referring to the statistics you compiled, they are still based on your subjectivity and biases, especially if sight bias came into play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Paudio]

The examples are all ''old recordings''. I am curious what would have happened if you would have used modern day digital recordings from i.e. 2L or Reference Recordings.
Reference Recordings have been known for their vinyl and tape recordings but even ''prof'' Johnson is recording digital now.
This one is available as a Studio Master24/176 download and as vinyl. Anybody compared the two?;

 

[gene]

The examples are all ''old recordings''. I am curious what would have happened if you would have used modern day digital recordings from i.e. 2L or Reference Recordings.
Reference Recordings have been known for their vinyl and tape recordings but even ''prof'' Johnson is recording digital now.
This one is available as a Studio Master24/176 download and as vinyl. Anybody compared the two?;

2L makes phenomenal recordings. Unfortunately I don't have vinyl counterparts to compare.

 

[3db]

I've not heard of that label. Do you have any info about them...perhaps their catalog? Many thanks.

 

[gardi]

Good objective assessment

Its funny how the mind seems to focus our attention on known flaws. When I first switched to CD's I was happy to give up the crackles and the pops and I was suitably impressed with the punchy base and clear treble offered by the CD's. I also liked the absence of background noise of the digitally recorded music.
After about 15 years of living with CD sound I decided to re-visit vinyl as an experiment. Bought a second hand turntable, a reasonably priced cartridge and purchased a few second hand records. I found out that I liked the more laid back sound of the vinyl. I even felt that the music sounded more real. The CD's seemed more sterile and colder some how. The vinyl seemed to produce a more natural sound stage and every now and then I would notice a passage that sounded like the performer was right in the room. I have upgraded to a new modern turntable (Clearaudio Concept) and bought some quality recorded albums and the sound is better still. On a quality record there is virtually no background noise.
Even though vinyl may not have the depth of base that the CD's project I find the base pleasant. As far as treble goes, with the right cartridge and a good set of speakers it sounds fantastic. I do not seem to have any problem with sibilance (this might be partly due to not using metal dome tweeters??). I truly believe analogue sound is more natural and pleasing to the ear. I think our ears are more discerning on a sub-conscious level than most people realize. I still listen to my CD's but when I want to relax and do some critical listening vinyl is my choice.

 

[JackA]

I feared where to post such topics, but since you're an administrator, I guess this is the appropriate forum

A few years ago, and independent test was performed - could people tell the difference between (current) analog recordings and digital recording counterparts. To make a long story short, 50% of the time people were correct, 50% of the time they were incorrect. In other words, man's hearing isn't that good to detect the differences.

After a divorce about the mid '80's, I began collecting past music, mainly vinyl LPs and 45 singles. I'd listen to the fade-out of many 45 hit singles, and wondered why the fidelity improved as the volume weakened. In other words, man used audio compression even with vinyl records. I don't recall anyone claiming how sad that audio abuse was. The hit singles caused the songs to excel to sometimes #1 (Billboard Magazine) chart position.

As I later discovered, I estimate 15% of people demand HQ sound, the other 85% don't really care that much. It fall right inline with stereo mixes, the same 15% figure. That seemed odd at first, but later, no it's perfect. While I once thought EVERYONE in the ENTIRE world wanted Stereo mixes, I found they really don't care. Stereo, to me, is how to appreciate sound, because much less sound masking occurs than with monophonic mixes. Some like 4-5.1 Surround Sound where there are multiple discrete audio tracks, like Quadraphonic mixes, 4 Channel. They should sound even better than Stereo mixes with only two channels.

I look on YouTube and find posts "This is why I don't buy Remastered CDs!" and it shows a waveform (brick-walled, you might call it). Would they have still complained if they couldn't see the waveform? Probably not.

I fear mentioning any names here, those who claim to be "Audiophiles" as in remastering, it may upset some and ban me from this site - it has happened in the past, elsewhere. I don't mind a heated discussion, but, please, no name calling. I'd like to shake any hands even if we don't agree on a single topic, if you follow me.

Topics like:
A.) Should past music be remixed and remastered for the ultimate sound experience?
B.) Are MP3 really ugly in sound, even at low bit rates?
C.) Just how much audio distortion can people detect?
D.) Should sound (past analog recordings) be digitally enhanced?
E.) Are there audio benefits to louder sound mastering?

I'd like to, on occasion, post snippets (links) of material (songs) I mixed, popular songs that many may know, to help others decide. Should administrators feel uncomfortable with what I post, please privately contact me. Most of the material, you can find entire albums on YouTube in respectable sound quality. I'm not here to set up any trading.

My name is Jack, by the way, I live in NJ! Nice to meet you all, in advance!

 

[gene]

I feared where to post such topics, but since you're an administrator, I guess this is the appropriate forum

A few years ago, and independent test was performed - could people tell the difference between (current) analog recordings and digital recording counterparts. To make a long story short, 50% of the time people were correct, 50% of the time they were incorrect. In other words, man's hearing isn't that good to detect the differences.

After a divorce about the mid '80's, I began collecting past music, mainly vinyl LPs and 45 singles. I'd listen to the fade-out of many 45 hit singles, and wondered why the fidelity improved as the volume weakened. In other words, man used audio compression even with vinyl records. I don't recall anyone claiming how sad that audio abuse was. The hit singles caused the songs to excel to sometimes #1 (Billboard Magazine) chart position.

As I later discovered, I estimate 15% of people demand HQ sound, the other 85% don't really care that much. It fall right inline with stereo mixes, the same 15% figure. That seemed odd at first, but later, no it's perfect. While I once thought EVERYONE in the ENTIRE world wanted Stereo mixes, I found they really don't care. Stereo, to me, is how to appreciate sound, because much less sound masking occurs than with monophonic mixes. Some like 4-5.1 Surround Sound where there are multiple discrete audio tracks, like Quadraphonic mixes, 4 Channel. They should sound even better than Stereo mixes with only two channels.

I look on YouTube and find posts "This is why I don't buy Remastered CDs!" and it shows a waveform (brick-walled, you might call it). Would they have still complained if they couldn't see the waveform? Probably not.

I fear mentioning any names here, those who claim to be "Audiophiles" as in remastering, it may upset some and ban me from this site - it has happened in the past, elsewhere. I don't mind a heated discussion, but, please, no name calling. I'd like to shake any hands even if we don't agree on a single topic, if you follow me.

Topics like:
A.) Should past music be remixed and remastered for the ultimate sound experience?
B.) Are MP3 really ugly in sound, even at low bit rates?
C.) Just how much audio distortion can people detect?
D.) Should sound (past analog recordings) be digitally enhanced?
E.) Are there audio benefits to louder sound mastering?

I'd like to, on occasion, post snippets (links) of material (songs) I mixed, popular songs that many may know, to help others decide. Should administrators feel uncomfortable with what I post, please privately contact me. Most of the material, you can find entire albums on YouTube in respectable sound quality. I'm not here to set up any trading.

My name is Jack, by the way, I live in NJ! Nice to meet you all, in advance!

Jack your post is very intriguing to me. Please PM me so we can exchange further. There may be some writing oops here for you. Thx.

 

[JackA]

Hi, Gene. I see you're the President! Nice meeting you! I know I'm late on this topic, but would enjoy a comparison. You find whatever you believe to be exceptional sound quality of Paul McCartney's "Band On The Run" song", if possible. Me, I'll remix it from multi-track to allow others to decide what they prefer. I'm not big on SACD or HQ digital formats. I do believe most HQ media is just digitally enhanced, while the CD may not be. Ultimately, the SACD may have been remixed from multi-tracks, but the CD remastered from an existing master tape. I do have waveforms (and "ripped" songs) from various issues of Bachman-Turner's, Not Fragile album, including Audio Fidelity's "Gold" CD, to the initial Polydor CD, to the latest and greatest Amazon Canada only 2014 CD issue. It is interesting to hear and see the differences.

 

[JackA]

Gene, thanks! Not sure how to PM (Private Message?) you here? Too many buttons! We can chat in e-mail, get to know one another, etc.. I'm at jjaj1998 at netscape dot net. What I'd LOVE to write about is too gray area for many, multi-tracks that were unofficially released to public domain, without going into a lot of detail. I feel they are invaluable to compare sound quality and show what wasn't released, what never may be.

I sent an e-mail to your "info" address. Not sure it'll get to you.

Please allow me to ramble:

What I like about music? The sound of real-time recordings, great musicians, great singers. While playing drums to radio and records about the '80's, I figured I needed more hands to duplicate what drumming I heard on certain songs. Many years later I discovered what "overdubbing" was. While some hit songs were recorded real-time, many hit songs were overdubbed. Man had to find a way to make recordings less expensive. Imagine if you had to pay an entire orchestra all day/week long, Take after Take until the recording was satisfactory.
Overdubbing harmed the audio sound of some songs, because they used an existing recordings and dubbed more 'live" sound with it onto another tape. About the early '70's, recording studios could now add track-by-track to multi-tracks, simplifying the overdubbing process while maintaining audio quality since only one tape was required, keeping tape "hiss" noise to a minimum. Audiophile editions of popular albums began to surface due to this newer recording technology. Some, like Al Kooper, didn't mind overdubbing, while Tom Dowd (engineer) and others preferred real-time recordings. One group I admire is/was The Knack, they wanted to sound as good live as in the studio and kept any overdubbing to a minimum.

Some may remember some past amplifiers/receivers had a loudness switch. Typically, the volume control (logarithmic taper potentiometer) was tapped, certain frequencies were enhanced at lower volume.
So, what is loudness? Why did many overdub? I tend to think of loudness, not as in amplitude, but as density of sound. Record a pin dropping; not very thrilling. But, without changing its amplitude, we duplicate the sound recording, many times, milliseconds apart, and soon the pin drop sounds like a clap of thunder.

I was never really impressed with the sound of audiophile albums, they just seemed lifeless compared to the white label promo copies I'd find
I really enjoyed stereo mixes, and thought record companies supplied radio with premium audio, because MY albums didn't sound the same. Long story short, I later discovered FM radio stations, even today, use sound processors to enhance sound. Why HD Radio once made the claim, "Better than CD audio sound". What really impressed me on vinyl record was 35mm film audio recordings, late '50's, early '60's. However, they didn't catch on, people didn't want to pay the added expense for higher sound quality. To me, man was unprepared to (re)master for audio CD. While notes were sometimes available how to (properly) master the analog recordings, what was lost to time was the electronic equipment, that was discarded or replaced, rendering any notes useless. About Y2k, most were equipped with digital software or hardware (HDCD). I'd remember being impressed hearing (first time) stereo renditions on vinyl records, but on CD they lost their luster. I'd experiment with Goldwave software, changing dynamics and soon the CD sounded close to what I remember hearing on vinyl LP. Years later, relating to Neil Young's "Pono" [HQ audio device], I was curious why I chose to enhance 3kHz sound, it made vocals and music clearer. Someone had posted a link to someone who knows way more about audio than I, but in his video, he mentioned human hearing is most sensitive 2-4kHz. That made real sense to me, I was right in the middle @ 3kHz.

Let's face it, it's not like everyone is honest in this small world, what source was used to remaster is seldom mentioned. Me, I don't mind others remixing and remastering, as long as they stick to the original overall mix, maybe adding to it. If you know Steve Hoffman, I feel his best work was created when he had access to multi-tracks at MCA. But, like many, he had no way to digitally enhance the remixed sound. I used to enjoy finding out of print Quadraphonic albums, decades later, appreciating the different (stereo) mixes, even w/o anything Quadraphonic, such as Aretha Franklin, Sly & The Family Stone, etc..


My friend Mike allowed me to borrow his CD editions. He has the vinyl LP, too.
These are the snapshots of the waveform.
One minute snippets of each to follow:

Anyway, while I would have enjoyed allowing you to hear and see comparisons of different CD editions, I can't. Sadly, this reminds me of Lite Records forum where you have to give to get or earn or pay for credits.

From Bachman-Turner Overdrive - Not Fragile CD album
PD=Polydor (initial release)
CR= Unknown (two albums on one CD, Not Fragile being one)
AF=Audio Fidelity (Kevin Gray mastering using HDCD)
MC=Most recent Mercury (sold only on Amazon Canada)
PDE=Initial Polydor CD, but digitally Enhanced.

[REMOVED ALL LINKS]

Unlike what others dislike on YouTube, "Why I Don't Buy Remastered CDs", I try not to brickwall the waveform for louder sound.

Sorry for so many different topics in one post, but I tried to keep them all related.

 

[jonstatt]

In response to your February update where you think one of your albums was not a lossless FLAC:-

FLAC by definition is lossless, hence FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. There is no lossy version of FLAC. The file sizes can be different because if you have the time and processing power you can compress it more....but it is still lossless compression (think of a ZIP file where you can also choose how much it compresses but it always decompresses to exactly the same original). If you were compressing a large catalogue of WAV files you may choose not to maximise the compression because of the days it might take your PC to do it. You can even have FLAC that isn't compressed at all, resulting in file size the same as the equivalent WAV.

Unless you meant that you think someone has taken an mp3 and turned it into a FLAC which would be a really weird thing to do!

 

[haraldo]

In response to your February update where you think one of your albums was not a lossless FLAC:-

FLAC by definition is lossless, hence FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. There is no lossy version of FLAC. The file sizes can be different because if you have the time and processing power you can compress it more....but it is still lossless compression (think of a ZIP file where you can also choose how much it compresses but it always decompresses to exactly the same original). If you were compressing a large catalogue of WAV files you may choose not to maximise the compression because of the days it might take your PC to do it. You can even have FLAC that isn't compressed at all, resulting in file size the same as the equivalent WAV.

Unless you meant that you think someone has taken an mp3 and turned it into a FLAC which would be a really weird thing to do!

I tried to make uncompressed FLAC, but it seems like none of the FLAC converters support this, it is clear that the format support uncompressed files, but implementation seem to be lagging.

Anyone out there that ever made uncompressed FLAC?
Any tips would be appreciated

 

[Ponzio]

I tried to make uncompressed FLAC, but it seems like none of the FLAC converters support this, it is clear that the format support uncompressed files, but implementation seem to be lagging.

Anyone out there that ever made uncompressed FLAC?
Any tips would be appreciated

dBPowerAmp gives you the ability to take any source file (WAV from cd) and convert it to varying degrees of FLAC compression level's, including Compression Level 8(Best). Side Note: per the interface, "All are Lossless". Then why call it "Compression Level(8)?

I just did a quick conversion on a cd track, one to FLAC level 8 and the other to WAV and there is about a 10K kbs file size differential, with the WAV file being larger. Can I tell the difference? No but then again I'm running out the door to an appointment. I will definitely re-run this test when I get back and do some more critical listening at a higher volume level, since at my age (60) some hearing loss is to be expected.

 

[Ponzio]

Impressions before (CD player) and after file conversions, using SCOTS Countrypolitan Favorites cd, track 7.

MP3 320kbs CBR [constant bit rate]) file size=6,681 kbs

FLAC Compression Level(8) file size=18,869 kbs

WAV file size=29,442 kbs

Equipment: ASUS E9192_Maximus_Vii_Hero Motherboard, using the on-board audio, fed to a Yamaha RX-V2700 AVR (Straight Mode [L+R+sub] set to volume level, -9dB), Salk Song Tower QWT speakers, EMP Tek 1010i subwoofer & Panasonic DMP-BD65 Blu-ray DVD/CD player.

Before I get started let me qualify that I am in no way claiming this is the last word in scientific testing; far from it. The test was not done with the volume levels matched … I don’t own a SPL meter [hangs head in audiophile shame] … and dBPowerAmp may not be the last word or the best software to do the conversions. It wasn’t done listening to my best equipment. I’ve done this previously numerous times over the years and I may be just reinforcing my current beliefs.

I’ll leave that to the trained professionals here, who do this for a living. I’m merely an enthusiast and wholly subjective. Now that we’ve got that out of the way …

Which sounded the best to me? I’d have to say the cd player & the WAV file had the best SQ … indistinguishable to my ears. Next best and I hate to use the word best here, was the FLAC file over the MP3. The differences were oh, oh so subtle … slightly more depth in the soundstage and clarity of the high’s at certain frequencies. If my ears were snobs, I would probably go back and convert all my cd’s to WAV format but the performance/cost ratio is not that mind blowing enough for me. I have a mix of WAV, FLAC & MP3’s in my collection, with MP3’s occupying about 65% of the total. I’m now in catch-up mode. Starting in 2010, and continues to date, I’ve made it a point to reconvert all my cd’s to 320 kbs CBR (constant bit rate) or in some instances to WAV/FLAC format … for the good stuff [evil laugh].

That’s it … Professor Puddin’ Head

 

[its phillip]

flac/wav/cd should all sound the same.

 

[3db]

All of my music files are 320 kbs CBR (constant bit rate) and I'm very happy with the results.