[TJ Elite]

  I've always been interested in finding out the reasons vinyl sounds different than CDs. There's a lot of info out there, but no comprehensive summary I have found.
 
I checked out your 100 favorite albums. I have the ones by Agalloch, Burzum, Kraftwerk, Neurosis, and Pink Floyd.

There are a lot of interesting articles out there, but sadly I don't have any bookmarked so I can't unfortunately provide you links to any that are worth checking out. Do keep in mind however that when it comes to audio a lot of people tend to have incredibly deeply-rooted personal biases and even some of the most expertly-written articles full of well-researched information can draw entirely wrong conclusions simply because the author wants to interpret the facts in a way that will validate their own opinion. Often these people are even oblivious to that they are interpreting the facts wrong and it is not their intention to mislead others; they honestly think their logic is correct.

 

There are a lot of misconceptions regarding not only vinyl but digital audio as well. The knowledge level of audio engineers is in a decline and many of them have fallen victim to the same myths and misconceptions as countless audiophiles. People like Dave Pensado are trying to help spread the knowledge from engineering legends to the new generation, but even many of the experienced people in the industry are confused about the exact nature of digital audio, let alone vinyl which only a select few individuals know how to cut properly these days and most facilities aren't even equipped to cut in analogue anymore.

 

Getting into the specifics of why vinyl and CDs sound different is a bit too broad a subject to get into here, but to offer a couple of thoughts based on my personal experience, I find the typical description you hear regarding vinyl sounding warmer than CD interesting because in my own experience on a proper turntable fitted with a good MC cartridge there should most certainly be no coloration of that sort. In regards to where I personally stand on the vinyl vs. digital debate, none of the absolute best-sounding CDs I own come even close to the best-sounding LPs I've heard. I would not even try to compare the two. Many pure DSD SACDs come closer and compare more favorably but still don't quite possess the same qualities as properly-cut and -pressed vinyl. In the comparisons I've done between the same album cut all-analogue to vinyl and mastered for SACD by the same engineer or engineers, so far I've always preferred the vinyl even though in some instances I could sort of see why someone might prefer the SACD because of personal preferences. I highly recommend doing some reading on sigma-delta modulation provided you already understand the basics of digital signal theory. As someone who has studied electrical engineering I can say it is a truly fascinating subject and an instrumental part of ANY high-performance DAC today, DSD or not. I will also mention, however, that in the case of LPs where clearly no care went into preparing the LP master, the end result is going to sound like a downgraded, muddled version of the CD master without fail. In the same breath I will mention that sometimes the album is EQ'ed differently for LP, which you should also be aware of. Last year's Random Access Memories by Daft Punk is an example of this.

 

Also, to give some food for thought, if you don't know the answer to this already, I recommend giving some thought to why someone would choose to record an album specifically in analogue even if they have no intention of ever releasing the music in anything than digital format. There is a good reason for an engineer or artist to choose to do this, and even though it is not the most common way of doing things in the age of digital recording, it is also far from a rarity. To know the answer, one must know some things about recording and audio engineering. Not much, but some.

 

 

I should update the list at some point when I have the time and energy. I don't want to include any too recent discoveries without careful consideration, though, because they may still be benefitting from their freshness factor. I think anything smaller than a top 100 would have been too much of a compromise when taking into consideration how much music I listen to. That being said, I do think the list can still be made a bit tighter by substituting certain albums with ones that may be more deserving of the spot. I should also note that I completely left out any classical music that isn't modern classical for the sake of simplifying things and making more room for other entries.

 

[Music Alchemist]

 
Thanks for taking the effort to describe a few things about the topic. Is there any way to know beforehand whether the vinyl version of an album will be one of those "clearly superior" ones you talked about? I have about 50 records, but only got them because they were rare and I probably wouldn't have the chance to get them again. Any thoughts on ripping vinyl? I wonder how much of the sound can be transferred to digital, and how much of it can only be heard when listening on a turntable.
 
I listen to a ton of different music as well. I wouldn't even try making a list of my favorites.

 

[TJ Elite]

 
Thanks for taking the effort to describe a few things about the topic. Is there any way to know beforehand whether the vinyl version of an album will be one of those "clearly superior" ones you talked about? I have about 50 records, but only got them because they were rare and I probably wouldn't have the chance to get them again. Any thoughts on ripping vinyl? I wonder how much of the sound can be transferred to digital, and how much of it can only be heard when listening on a turntable.
 
I listen to a ton of different music as well. I wouldn't even try making a list of my favorites.

For tracking down great-sounding vinyl, two most important things I would recommend are to find out names of mastering engineer who excel at what they do as well as names of pressing plants that produce superior-quality pressings. Reading reviews and asking other people's opinions is also a valid method, but I've been wholeheartedly recommended numerous vinyl releases in the past that did not impress me, so I've stopped relying on others when it comes to hunting down great-sounding vinyl.

 

To give a few example of engineer that know how to cut a proper master, look out for names like Kevin Gray, Steve Hoffman, Doug Sax and Bernie Grundman. A couple examples of great pressing plants would be RTI, Quality Record Pressings, and Pallas. Never fall into the false belief that a record's weight or its speed is the most important factor in respect to its audio quality, even though those things do matter. Also please take note that sometimes you run into a situation where one person prepared the vinyl master but another (typically more qualified) person cut the actual lacquer master.

 

I've hardly heard any vinyl rips so I can't really compare how they sound compared to the vinyl itself. They certainly benefit from high-end gear and knowledge on how to do them properly in order to get the best result. Of course the vinyl itself should also preferably be unplayed or in pristine condition. They are certainly a way to preserve the content of a vinyl record for longer than its own lifespan, but I personally have no interest in them. I prefer CDs to file-based listening, because file-based listening makes it too convenient and easy to switch to another album before you are finished with the one you are currently listening to with the push of a button. CDs encourage you to listen to the album from start to finish in its entirety. Vinyl takes this one step further and makes you be aware of the fact that albums have sides or at least used to have sides, by forcing you to stand up occasionally to go flip the record. This slight gap gives your ears time to take a small break and be more receptive to what comes next. It also helps make the next side feel more like its own little entity or a chapter within the larger context of an album.

 

A great modern example where I at least personally thing the artist was still thinking in terms of having the album have two distinctive sides would be The King of Limbs by Radiohead. Even when I originally heard it as digital files before the physical release, I thought the structure of the album was very carefully thought out and clearly divided into two sides that complemented one another. My favorite example of a modern release where the division into sides on vinyl clearly elevates the experience above the CD, however, is Sunbather by Deafheaven. On vinyl each side feels like a perfect, carefully thought out whole which works on its own separate from the rest forming its own miniature arc, like a movement of a symphony or an act of a play. On CD the listener is completely oblivious to this, I feel. The CD format makes the tracks feel like just plain songs with what feels like almost interludes in between. In addition the vinyl slays the digital version in terms of aural pleasure. I've never been able to listen to the digital version on any system and enjoy it. The mastering is simply atrocious. The vinyl however is exemplary. Here the differences lie between different masters rather than differences between the two format, which I'm sure you're aware of.

 

So in short, vinyl rips don't really offer me anything that would appeal to me personally. I'd much rather listen to the vinyl itself since I have it, and I have so many records already and take such good care of them that I doubt I'll run into a situation where I've totally worn out a record that can no longer be acquired anywhere. Even if that did occur, I do feel that the limited lifespan of vinyl makes you value each listening session much more and therefore get much more out of the music. I feel that music should never be wasted. Background music is not something that I am a fan of. I feel it is disrespectful to great music to play it but not actually listen to it. In the same fashion I feel that performing music is like a prayer or a meditation to honor and celebrate the music itself.

 

[Music Alchemist]

 
Great post!
 
On average, I listen to select tracks from random releases (an on-the-fly playlist, if you will) in order to create my own unique experience. Listening through entire albums one after another can be nice, too. Both have their place.

 

[TJ Elite]

Great post!

On average, I listen to select tracks from random releases (an on-the-fly playlist, if you will) in order to create my own unique experience. Listening through entire albums one after another can be nice, too. Both have their place.

I am actually quite fond of shuffle when I go on walks and such. Sometimes when I get lucky I get a most eclectic set of songs that seems like they belong together and flows better from song to song than any custom playlist I could possibly make myself even if I spent weeks on it. However, albums are the experience I love most of all. Both have their place, as you said. Due to my eclectic tastes I like to switch things up when I pick the next album to listen to because I seldom can stand listening to one kind of music for too long; my mind craves variety. My favorite thing is following up black metal with modern classical or vice versa. Those two things contrast one another so deliciously yet at the same time complement each other in a weird way not many can probably appreciate.

 

[Music Alchemist]

I am actually quite fond of shuffle when I go on walks and such. Sometimes when I get lucky I get a most eclectic set of songs that seems like they belong together and flows better from song to song than any custom playlist I could possibly make myself even if I spent weeks on it. However, albums are the experience I love most of all. Both have their place, as you said. Due to my eclectic tastes I like to switch things up when I pick the next album to listen to because I seldom can stand listening to one kind of music for too long; my mind craves variety. My favorite thing is following up black metal with modern classical or vice versa. Those two things contrast one another so deliciously yet at the same time complement each other in a weird way not many can probably appreciate.

 
We're even more alike than I surmised, especially with the bold part.
 
I'm going to PM you soon with some modern orchestral and black metal I like. I may even create a playlist.

 
However, I never use shuffle; I like being in full control, and when I'm trying to induce a certain effect, this is crucial.

 

[hselburn]

One thing I remember from my Audio Mastering class for vinyl is the use of an elliptical EQ to convert all audio below a given frequency, say 100Hz to mono so the Bass would fit in the groove. Mono is placed in the center of the groove. This is done to prevent the needle from jumping out. Very useful for classical recordings. There are compromises made no matter how something is recorded or mastered.

 

[TJ Elite]

One thing I remember from my Audio Mastering class for vinyl is the use of an elliptical EQ to convert all audio below a given frequency, say 100Hz to mono so the Bass would fit in the groove. Mono is placed in the center of the groove. This is done to prevent the needle from jumping out. Very useful for classical recordings. There are compromises made no matter how something is recorded or mastered.

Elliptical filter for converting the bass to mono is indeed correct. I'm not an audio engineer, but I believe a more accurate way of describing the reason for why this is done is to make sure the mixing engineer hasn't made a mistake where the bass in the two channels is in different phase. If this were the case, this would cause the needle to jump out of the groove. Without giving it some thought I am unsure how mono'ing the bass will however affect the width of a groove. I am unsure if the width of a groove is really an issue, unless we are talking about very extreme cases. However, the LP cannot, and I mean cannot, contain so much bass that on a stereo record the depth of the groove will exceed the thickness of the record. Everyone understand you would end up with a hole in the record instead of a two-dimensional groove.

 

I'm confused about your statement about mono being placed in the centre of the groove. On a stereo record the sum of the two channels (L+R) is encoded into the lateral movement and their difference (L-R) into the vertical movement. When you sum these two you get: L+R + L-R = 2xL. And when you subtract the two, you get: L+R - (L-R) = L+R + R-L = 2xR. This is how the two channels can be encoded into the groove and extracted from it. (Of course the channel separation isn't perfect.) Therefore I fail to see what is "placed in the centre of the groove". Sound is movement; stillness equals silence.

 

No one has ever said vinyl is a perfect format. However, I feel it can be a perfectly adequate medium even for classical. I only own a couple classical LPs so far, but one of them – The Planets by Gustav Holst, performed by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra under the baton of Zubin Mehta – represents perhaps the greatest difference between in sonics I've heard between two issues of the same program, remasters, formats, audiophile issues, whatever. I have the same performance on XRCD24 mastered by Alan Yoshida (one of my favorite mastering engineers, he really knows what he's doing) as well as 45rpm 2LP released by ORG and mastered by Bernie Grundman. Now, after hearing the XRCD24 I could see why this is considered one of the holy grails for audiophiles. It does not represent the greatest audio quality I have ever heard, but it does possess qualities that I can't say I have ever heard on any other recording before. It can be a quite breathtaking experience just for the sonic characteristics on an excellent system. After hearing the vinyl, however, and switching between the two, I think the ORG vinyl issue decimates the XRCD24. The LP feels some much more present, musical and fluid, whereas the XRCD24 sounds distant, sterile and detached – frankly boring and soulless. It's like the XRCD24 was mic'ed from WAY back of the hall and the vinyl from quite close to the front. Unless I'm mistaken, the recording process itself was quite purist and might've even been recorded directly to two-track without any mixing done afterwards. If this is the case, no two different mixes should exist, yet the two discs sound NOTHING alike, apart from the performance, which is identical of course. I know the mastering engineer were different, but still I find it astounding how the CD – which on its own without a point of reference sounds excellent – can't even hold a candle to the LP. The only "downside" to the vinyl that I can think of is the noticeable surface noise because of the high dynamic content and therefore low recording level, but I was actually surprised to learn that I found that the slight constant crackle added to the listening experience as a whole in a positive way, at least for me. Now I would kind of wish to hear other classical recordings in this same fashion just to see how they sound…

 

[LFF]

 

 I only own a couple classical LPs so far, but one of them – The Planets by Gustav Holst, performed by the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra under the baton of Zubin Mehta – represents perhaps the greatest difference between in sonics I've heard between two issues of the same program, remasters, formats, audiophile issues, whatever. I have the same performance on XRCD24 mastered by Alan Yoshida (one of my favorite mastering engineers, he really knows what he's doing) as well as 45rpm 2LP released by ORG and mastered by Bernie Grundman. Now, after hearing the XRCD24 I could see why this is considered one of the holy grails for audiophiles. It does not represent the greatest audio quality I have ever heard, but it does possess qualities that I can't say I have ever heard on any other recording before. It can be a quite breathtaking experience just for the sonic characteristics on an excellent system. After hearing the vinyl, however, and switching between the two, I think the ORG vinyl issue decimates the XRCD24. The LP feels some much more present, musical and fluid, whereas the XRCD24 sounds distant, sterile and detached – frankly boring and soulless. It's like the XRCD24 was mic'ed from WAY back of the hall and the vinyl from quite close to the front. Unless I'm mistaken, the recording process itself was quite purist and might've even been recorded directly to two-track without any mixing done afterwards. If this is the case, no two different mixes should exist, yet the two discs sound NOTHING alike, apart from the performance, which is identical of course. I know the mastering engineer were different, but still I find it astounding how the CD – which on its own without a point of reference sounds excellent – can't even hold a candle to the LP. The only "downside" to the vinyl that I can think of is the noticeable surface noise because of the high dynamic content and therefore low recording level, but I was actually surprised to learn that I found that the slight constant crackle added to the listening experience as a whole in a positive way, at least for me. Now I would kind of wish to hear other classical recordings in this same fashion just to see how they sound…

 
This mainly has to do with mastering styles. This goes to show how much a mastering engineer can actually influence the final presentation of a recording. How can we really know what's on those master tapes? Are our formats really true to the source? I've often been surprised - and not in a good way. 

 

[hselburn]

Using an elliptical EQ to mono the bass places it I the center of the groove where the most energy can be stored without the needle jumping out of the groove.