I've answered my own question on this subject. If you bore easily, good luck with this one.
I have been discovering so much lost or ignored information regarding the subject of vinyl vs digital that it's so painfully and embarrassingly clear why in many cases LP's are the superior format for true audiophiles. Before I get into it, I've been listening to records all wrong. I've been handling them all wrong and I've based my buying decisions on them all wrong. I feel I have a better handle on it now but they are a lot of work but the payoff is much nicer. There's a whole method to playing a record I have overlooked. Simply wiping a record with a
big fudge or whatever brush is not good enough. I have to first wash all records whether new or used in the
spin-clean with a mix of distilled water and
tergitol. Then wash them in a second spin-clean of just distilled water. Once dried, stored in brand new
anti static sleeves. When played back, I discovered my non slip mat was causing static on the records creating a ton of static. I have retired the mats and work strictly with the acrylic platter on my turntable. WIth that, I use an
anti static grounded brush. Which is a miracle that everyone should have. It took a record that I thought was defective and made it perfectly silent. It was static!
Yes, digital is "clearer" without any of the background noise and "can" provide far better resolution and dynamic range but in so many cases, digital simply doesn't pass the test and fails to deliver on that true high resolution experience thanks to the loudness wars b.s.. However, vinyl pressings can be total garbage too, like for example, the Black Rebel Motorcycle Club's vinyl pressing of "Beat the Devil's Tattoo". It was pressed exclusively on recycled vinyl from several sources and not a single release of that record on vinyl is listenable. It's plagued with background noise and non stop static. I always assumed that when a record sounds like trash, it's because some cheap bearded hipster douchebag decided to use recycled material claiming it's "environmentally friendly" as the excuse but in effect ruining that release forever to save money. I have a few other records than no matter what cleaning methods I deluge them with, they sound like a roaring campfires. Again, I have to assume recycled materials are to blame. If after a two stage washing and using the anti static brush shown above they are still a mess, then they are poorly pressed and hopeless. So yeah, in this situation the vinyl is a bad choice. Unfortunately, there is no HD Audio version of "Beat the Devil's Tattoo" for sale so the masses are stuck with the average and uninteresting horribly compressed audio CD or streaming. And for the record, I refuse to consider audio CD's to be "lossless". They are too often compressed all to hell with no dynamic range are should be considered simply as "lost". To contrast that, you have the more recent release of the excellent Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" 200gm clarity vinyl pressed at 45rpm from Analogue Productions. It is quite literally the best edition of this recording currently in existence and if played under the best circumstances, you will be there in the room with them. It's mastered directly from the original tapes with no digital detours in the pressing process. (Although, in the testing I did for my forthcoming review video, I did discover the left and right channels are reversed and the company Acoustic Sounds where I bought it from absolutely refuse to comment on that little discovery. An $150 audiophile LP release with the channels pressed backwards is a huge problem to deal with. I think they prefer to sell more old Jazz records and pretend it never happened.)
Another aspect of vinyl that I particularly find the most important is the sanctity of the original analog recording. Most modern releases are indeed digitally sourced but there are some exceptions when the original analog master tapes are used for pressing and the record label makes certain to advertise that on the hype stickers. I have been more interested in finding used LP's that were the original releases to get that purer original mix and recording. So many albums have been remastered and overly blown out losing their dynamic range and the subtleties over the years that the original productions are lost. I recently obtained some 40+ year old used Alice Cooper records for dirt cheap and after the two stage cleaning process I do on all my record buys, they sound absolutely fantastic. I believe there is a psychological need to know that what you are listening to on your expensive gear is the original recorded work. A oversaturated CD or stream is the exact opposite of that. I can deal with a few pops and clicks knowing that sound is actually what people first heard in the 1970's or early 80's and it's what the artist gave us. Their voices, their instruments, but to tape then to the vinyl record in my hands. That is how I feel closer to the artist. Not some remashed loudness war remix screaming for the attention of new listeners that think streaming is perfectly fine. Most albums are simply ruined thanks to streaming services and that's why so many records are seeing "remasters" these days. They're not real remasters, they're being funked up so they sound alive when streaming on the go. Over compression on the music makes it easier to encode and decode for streaming in low bandwidth situations. On the flip side, a digital recording mastered specifically for LP will retain much more dynamic range than the digital version. It has to, otherwise the stylus may start skipping or nasty simblence will occur. The vinyl recordings have to be tamed down to a more realistic listening experiences because the recording can actually damage the pressing and playback equipment. In addition, that record is likely to be sourced through a higher end DAC than most of us will ever have in our homes. I know many records in my collection have what appears to be a wider and more open soundfield than the 24/96 digital counterparts played through my $3000 DAC. It's always a joy when you have a guest over and they ask if those are the only two speakers they are hearing.
To determine why someone would argue the virtues of digital over vinyl we must consider the types of people out there. We have three ranges of audio listener as far as I can tell and absolutely yes, I am oversimplifying things:
First type, those that listen to music causally through a variety of ways such as CD's, basic streaming services, listen through headphones like Sony or Beats or any sub $500 type headphone that invests more in marketing than actual performance, car audio systems no matter how expensive still have road noise and imaging problems, potables etc... these listeners roam around and never stay stationary in a sweet spot to experience the production. They're not consuming the experience, they are simply listening to the music and with several interruptions and distractions along the way like their phones, kids, pets, whatever.
Second type, you believe you prefer a more refined listening experience and stream in HD thinking you are getting the superior version of the recording either through your home stereo receiver or dedicated music equipment that is what you consider "expensive" but is still only in the few thousands of dollar range combined. There's no doubt that things do still sound pretty good. These folks have compared HD Audio formats and regular CD's and MP3 files and are convinced there's no difference because they refuse to acknowledge they do not have the equipment or the DAC's or the listening range to fully give an educated opinion on it all and have concluded that MP3's are exceptional.
Lasty, the "audiophile", prefers to sit down in a specific sweet spot and get lost in the recording. Upon first glance of these individuals, they appear to just be listening to music, perhaps with their eyes closed but in fact, they are sitting in a massive throne in the center of an auditorium where you, the viewer of this, no longer exist. They listen to the ambient room noise on Jazz record, try to gauge how far away one musician is to another on the stage, waits to hear the squeak of a hinge on a foot pedal hitting a bass drum or that gross sound that someone's lips make when separating just as they are about to use the mic. My favorite is the creek a chair makes when listening to classical. What most people earn in a year, these audiophile types casually spend on seperate power amps and turntables that look like steampunk time machines without batting an eye, own speakers that cost more than an average SUV and have custom cables and power supplies to prevent any interference from the neighbors microwave. In other words, they take music listening to the extreme and are f^ck!ng serious about it with no debating it. I don't have any friends like this but I wish I did. I know they feel alone and I am here for you. This is not gear given to them by manufacturers for review, they are real buys with real money by real fanatics that have never posted a single youtube video and probably couldn't use TikTok if their life depended on it or have ever mounted a TV on a wall without paying someone else to do it for them. So maybe I just burned my bridges... but I know better than to tell them MP3's are perfectly fine.
These people, those people, you people, me, the always drunk on what use to be Bud Light but is now Black Label beer people, can also be categorized in "dynamic range" folks. People that are not affected by low dynamic range and could care less about it because louder is better.
The general types of audio content that's consumed these days is mostly in the dynamic range of less than 6 out of an ideal range of between 10-14. None of that makes any sense but several online do use the dynamic range meter as a way to determine the compression level of recordings. One such site called
dr.loudness-war has spent years cataloging recordings for the sake of noting which versions of what albums are actually good quality or not. If the data they gather is legit, it's depressing to see how bad the music industry is truly devolving.
In my testing, I've discovered that modern recordings released in HD audio formats and on lower resolution CD test to be crushed with extremely low dynamic range due to the ever present loudness war. Using an Acoustic Spectrum Analyzer I can see that the digital releases sold on sites like Qobuz and HD Tracks blow out the dynamic range in favor of producing the loudest possible presentation creating the illusion of an exciting and modern sound. In reality, you are losing the subtleties of the artists creation because it is mixed out. Naturally, the outlets selling and streaming digital content do not autor the material, it is provided to them by the record companies and they are the ones to truly blame.
For the sake of analysis, I have gathered three categories of a recording for testing below. I used a basic audio CD, the official 24Bit/96kHz HD Audio track from Qobuz and a higher resolution audio capture of the LP using top end equipement (not recorded by me but obtained online from torrent). For this example I am using the latest release by Metallica. The album is 72 Seasons and the track is Lux Eterna. I don't care if you're a fan or not, this is fact finding and data collecting of what the industry is selling us today.
To start, I have scanned a "lossless" version of the track directly from the CD using the Acoustic Spectrum Analyzer and you can see it's completely crushed with virtually no dynamic range. It's maxed out and of course, will playback loudly with the possibility of clipping and distortion on some systems. The real problem with recordings like this is the fatigue one can experience at louder volumes for longer periods of time as well as harshness on the ears. The report is showing this file with a Dynamic Range of 5. Categorized as some of the worse.
Next we have the same track again but scanning the 24/96 HD edition. It shows an incredible amount of improvement and it does sound absolutely remarkable. Never fatiguing or harsh with no distortion that I noticed. Not every HD release is as genuine as this and some I have scanned were literally just the 16bit 44.1 kHz edition upscaled into the 24bit/96kHz container or that original master was limited, its hard to know for sure. Again, even though it will be less harsh on the ears it's still limited because it maxes out the available format.
This is an 24bit/192kHz audio capture directly from the LP. You can see the dynamic range expands just slightly beyond that of the HD release. To play this back or any other well mastered record on the highest of end gear in a controlled environment must be a joy. Having a dynamic range of 10 after being analyzed shows that the vinyl master is superior mix for records and for higher end systems.
Just for sh!ts and giggles, here is the Spectrum of an MP3 created at 320kbps max settings from the same 24bit 96kHz file shown above. A notch below that of CD of course. However, I admit that I convert all my 24bit 96kHz files to MP3 for my car audio thumb drive. There is a purpose and a place for all sorts of formats. The dynamic range analysis on this one is a split hairs away from being identical to the CD audio version. Not worth showing.
As far as "lossless" audio goes, it's seems to me that there's no reason to archive straight CD flac files when the MP3 320kbps is nearly identical. If you are in that category of listener, there's no chance you will tell the two formats apart because you have already accepted 16bit/44.1kHz as your lord and saviour and may as well consider physical storage space as your determining factor. If you have a super high end system, you should be ashamed to be streaming or using CD audio so why haven't you upgraded to HD Audio yet? I get it you spend billions on high end DAC to make CD's sound better but... whatever. The CD audio format is low enough on the spectrum audio quality wise that, yes, MP3's are indeed just as good and that's only because CD's are just that bad. I have been searching for older CD pressings of some albums because they were mastered more maturely and sound better with real dynamic range before the loudness overlords took over and remastered everything. In fact, there is a stellar high resolution 7 1/2 ips (magnetic tape) capture of Ozzy's "Blizzard Of Ozz" from 1980 that blows away the modern HD remaster. If you are so inclined, search AudioPhil editions on your favorite site to find more of those.
The verdict here, for me anyways, is that I will continue to buy vinyl for my more desired releases based on the packaging, the nice 180G or 200G pressing and the hope of a quality pressing. All else will be HD Audio whenever possible. Nothing in this post is definitave or meant to convice anyone of anything. Your own ears are your guide. I just prefer to have the best of the best whether I can fully experience today or not because someday when I can truly appreciate it, I will be prepared.
The problem with CD's is that they were developed by Sony to store the longest recording they had and it was Wilhelm Furtwängler's glacial 1951 recording which ran to a length of 74 minutes. The specs all revolved around getting that one recording on a single disc, not because the CD was an audiophile format or it was the best they could come up with. It was supposed to be much more, and it was at first, but would store less and thus we are left with 16bits and 44.1kHz as our "standard". It's not lossless, it's what would work.
