I have been using PF's The Wall LPs (UK EMI) as a reference quality source since about 1980. I have on hand the 2011 CD remaster by James Guthrie and Joel Plante at das boot recording. I plan to give this a listen soon! And maybe I can find in my collection an original US Columbia pressing, for further comparison!
What albums, in your opinion, sound unquestionably better on Vinyl rather than Digital?
So this is not an effort to start a medium-war thread, rather in my view some records just seem to be mastered better on the vinyl record version than the digital version. Three that spring to mind from my record collection:
I know everyone’s system is different, everyone’s ears are different and everyone’s tastes are different, but for the purposes of this discussion let us assume that YOU are the final arbiter of objective reality!
- Henri Texier - Varech
- Tom Misch - Geography
- JLin - Black Origami (this very surprisingly to me)
I know everyone’s system is different, everyone’s ears are different and everyone’s tastes are different, but for the purposes of this discussion let us assume that YOU are the final arbiter of objective reality!
47 responses Add your response
@tooblue I'd agree as far as anything pre 90s goes. Just as the studios started getting the hang of transferring analogue to digital transfers some smart person realised they could employ digital compression to make CD sound 'louder'. Bang went dynamics and in came the 'loudness wars'. I have learned to live with digital but it is a shame to see a great technology abused by the demands of the market in this fashion. I still believe it could be great in the hands of an artistically free mastering engineer... As of 2018 I believe that no digital versions of the following albums match their original vinyl predecessors. Even the so-called prestige original Master tape remastering are regularly compromised. All of the Beatles albums All of Elvis Presley All of the Stones All Hendrix All Sex Pistols Most of the Kinks All of the Smiths The Pogues first two Astral Weeks Kind of Blue etc etc |
I"ve got half a dozen albums that are worse than the equivalent CD’s. The albums were terrible pressings done in the 80s and early 90s on paper thin vinyl with tracks crammed on, back when the promise of CD’s meant some only paid lip service to quality control of vinyl. I don’t have SACD or DVDA so can’t really comment on those. I have heard a few SACD at friends and I’d suggest to my ear and for the few things I’ve heard, it sounded different, not necessarily better or worse. I stream Spotify (don’t judge) to try and keep up with the vast amount of new stuff out there, give it a quick listen, and then work out what I’d like to buy on vinyl. |
All first pressings: The Band - Songs From Big Pink The Band - The Band Steely Dan (any) Beatles - Abbey Road (EMI import) Pink Floyd - Meddle (EMI import) Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here (EMI import) Genesis (any up to including And Then There Were Three) Michael Hedges - Aerial Boundaries Beach Boys - Pet Sounds The Who - Who's Next The Who - Quadrophenia |
I've always understood that the analog recordings on vinyl and tape are 100% of the signal, subject only to the limitiations in quality of the recording equipment, mastering, and pressing of the recordings. While digital recordings are only a sampling of the analog signal (some lesser % of the complete signal), and are subject not only to the same limitiations of the analog recording, but also the drop outs of the incomplete signal of the sample. So - it is not possible for any digitial recording to exceed the quality, or even equal the quality, of the analog signal of 100%. Now... the perceived sound of what you may hear on either format depends on many other factors, including the quality of your analog playback equipment. So, it is possible that you may prefer the sound of a digitial format of the same recording, because it may have little of the recording artifacts (e.g. pops and clicks, tape hiss, etc.), and the engineer may have compensated for some of loss of the sound quality of the analog format. But... all things equal... with truly high quality analog playback equipment, analog format recordings should sound noticeably superior to digital formats. |
bassdude....you are completely correct. So many factors come into play when comparing the quality of sound between digital and analog. When the digital explosion came about a few decades ago many were excited about the convenience and relatively low cost of playing the medium (CD's). I was also taken in by that innovation. Today with so many advancements in digital playback with high quality DAC's, streaming, and others there has never been a more plentiful basket of options. Equipment has evolved so far from the original CD format. Sure, it's very convenient to play music in the digital medium for long listening sessions than to walk over to the turntable or tape machine to change more often than one would like. The original post was to ask if the same recording would sound best with digital or analog. It would only be a fair comparison if the recording was played on the same system. But, this is where the comparison would be skewed on way or another. A lot of people have equipment that can play both digital and analog. But most of those have systems and setups that would be more supportive of one over the other. Sounds like an experiment for someone with high quality setups with both. Then there's the human ear factor. I have digital recordings that sound better than their analog counterparts. Mostly due to the age and use of vinyl. So......it's a comparison that can be only one to one. Plus the human factor. |
| Post removed |
Like others have posted, ALL OF THEM. When you use algorithms to remove every x bit from the stream to save time and space, you prevent the entire recording from being recoreded and played back, even if the codec is supposed to "replace" those bits. Listen to "electronic" drums or a "chip" Hammond B-3. Then listen to the real instruments. If you cannot tell the difference, then go with digital and be happy. This is not to say that electronic drums and fake B-3's don't have a specific sound and have a place in creating music for those who wish that sound. They simply do not SOUND like the actual instruments, period, so go with what you personally prefer. Just don't believe that "digital" instruments or recordings sound the same as the ones they are trying to copy. They don't. |
It’s a crap shoot as to which will be better. Back in the Vinyl only era [ cassettes are Lo-Fi ] quality varied drastically from plant to plant, sequence in the stamper run and most assuredly by country / region. Artists with clout could specify all their product was released from which plants and maximum discs per stamper. Plebe acts often shipped discs with barely any groove at all left at the end of the stamper run. A pal in Canada called and told me a store-bought LP had 1KHz @ about -70db all the way through one side. Either the bozo making the EQ copy or the cutter left their oscillator on. DOH! It passed QC all the way from the record company to the cutting lab to the stamping plant and back to Atlantic Canada QC! In the modern era, master tapes recorded decades ago have suffered the ravages of time - binder deterioration, print through, lubricant loss. Add in sub optimal storage and handling e.g. winding at full speed, storage head out rather than tail out to mask print through, etc and it’s amazing how good the quality can sometimes still be. As often as not, ReIssues leave much to be desired. The music may still be great, but the sound can be atrocious. Two CDs in particular: 20th Anniversary Dark Side of the Moon and Mobile Fidelity Yellow Brick Road. The only reason I haven’t thrown them out is to use as examples for the uninitiated. Record companies may care more about the money than the music, releasing ReMasters which are nothing but some B-flat 3rd rate tech adding EQ and compression to an existing bit-stream abomination. See http://ielogical.com/Audio/#ReIssues for an example on Donald Fagan’s NightFly I.G.Y. IMO, retail vendors do themselves a huge disservice by not allowing the customer to use their own reference material. Lord only knows how poor the source and transfers are to the likes of Tidal, iTunes, Amazon, etc. See http://ielogical.com/Lossy/ to see just how much they care! |
@ieales, great information there. To compound matters there was also the widespread switch to Ampex recording tape which had unforseen implications for the whole industry. "In the mid 1970s, Underwood says, most tape manufacturers adopted polyurethane as a tape binder. Unfortunately, the polyurethane absorbs water and releases an acid. ‘You then get gummy residues on the tape, which resemble heavy oils.’ ‘We live in a perishable world’, says Underwood. ‘The way to keep tapes Underwood is adamant that it is not just Ampex tapes that are affected, Barry Fox, New Scientist, 1990 The affected tapes can often still be played after 'baking' at low heat but it's a drastic solution. Thankfully tapes from the pre mid 1970s have better chances of surviving intact. All the evidence does seem to suggest that sound quality has never been a priority for the industry. People like Michael Fremer have championed better sound for years, so has Neal Young. There were also rumours knocking around that Steve Jobs was an audiophile, ironically a vinyl man no less. It would probably take someone of that stature to sell the concept of audiophile sound to the masses now. Perhaps we should all write to Tim Cook. |
I have this on Vinyl and as a DXD flac file. TETTERO Plays Eddie Harris & Les McCann Vinyl https://tettero.bandcamp.com/album/tettero-plays-eddie-harris-les-mccannhttp:// DXD https://www.soundliaison.com/index.php/studio-showcase-series/371-tettero-plays-eddie-harris-les-mccann Both sounds great. the Vinyl is warm but also a bit more dry. The DXD is more spacious. I bought the vinyl because I have a feeling it might be a collectors item in a few years....anyhow great album. Highly recommended. |
It is interesting that if a vinyl and a CD (or higher) are made from the original source, the analogue vinyl wins in sound. Vinyl, is mechanical, there is an underlying hiss and the pops as the needle tortures its way through the grooves. Digital is the same representation of the original source but is just the pure music. Unadulterated, non mechanical. Yet so many people like analogue vinyl. I have a Pioneer BDP-52 and a Nakamichi CD player and both sound mellow and warm. Could it be that todays CD (and up) players just don't have the electronics to made them sound good? (I also have 5 TT's inc a Nak, MS, Kuzma etc.) All sound beautiful with the right setup. But so do my CDs. |
Some more great things to check out! I confess I have always been slightly wary when people say ‘vinyl is always better’ because 1) I have not always found that to be the case and 2) there are restrictions to the medium that don’t apply in the digital sphere: for example back in the day the equivalent of mastering for apple earbuds was mastering for scratched-to-all-hades records played on a record player worth tuppence ha’penny. Generally (so I read) this meant not getting too excited about the bass so the needle did not have too hard a job tracking properly - with this becoming a greater concern towards the end of each side. However there are some well articulated views to the contrary put forward here by people obviously more knowledgeable than I, do perhaps I must change my view! |
From a practical point of view it can be useful to know which albums sound better on which format, especially if those are your favourites. But surely even the most diehard vinyl aficionado (Michael Fremer excepted) wouldn't argue that vinyl always sounds better, or vice versa, digital is superior technically so must always sound better. Perhaps it's more helpful to acknowledge that all formats have potential, yes all the way from the original wax cylinders, 78s, LPs, Cassettes, FM radio, CDs, Minidisc, DAT, DAB, SACD, HD, streaming etc. All we really need is a change in attitude trickling down all the way from the artists themselves to the suppliers. It would be nice to think that this is starting to increasingly happen. Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Dire Straits, Kate Bush amongst others have expressed a desire to have their work issued in as high quality as possible. Sure they all have to also pay the bills, but it is difficult, at least for me, to respect a recording artist that seems to pay little regard as to how their work is presented. But of course it's the performance that counts, and as that line from Pulp Fiction once said, "personality goes a long way". |
Obviously it depends on the relative quality of the analog and digital signal chains, but here's a few that sound better in my system. Dire Straits-Brothers in Arms(even though it is a digital master), Rob Wasserman-Duets, Jefferson Airplane-Surrealistic Pillow(mono version), Anita Baker-Rapture, Tanita tikaram-Ancient Heart. Have fun. |
Carly Simon's Anticipation sounds better on vinyl than MoFi SACD. I've got a supposedly audiophile Japanese import of Bobby Darin's "That's All". The "Mack The Knife" cut has a lot of over-modulation or some such gunk. The best version of the song I've found so far is on a CD collection, probably because the gunk is less obvious in lo-fi. Other than that, the only albums that I have both a CD and vinyl version of are because the vinyl has been abused. |
Some of the issues with digital releases have just recently been highlighted with the much anticipated release of the Kinks are the Village Green Preservation Society super deluxe box. Some fans were hoping to finally get a digital version that at least matched the original UK vinyl release for sound. Instead they got a 5CD box with frustratingly similar compressed sound to previous recent CD releases. Even last years Sgt Pepper remix, which sounded good otherwise, was afflicted in this manner. For whatever reason, the industry just cannot bring themselves to delivering top quality sound on prestige re-releases. Either they can’t or else they don’t want to. When you consider how often certain titles have been re-issued you might think they would eventually get it right, but no. A cynic might argue that if they did then that would end any potential for future exploitation of that particular title. But of course, there’s nothing cynical about the music industry, is there? |
What matters most? Here's Peter Aczel's take - 2.The principal determinants of sound quality in a recording produced in the last 60 years or so are the recording venue and the microphones, not the downstream technology. The size and acoustics of the hall, the number and placement of the microphones, the quality and level setting of the microphones will have a much greater influence on the perceived quality of the recording than how the signal was captured whether on analog tape, digital tape, hard drive, or even direct-to-disk cutter; whether through vacuum-tube or solid-state electronics; whether with 44.1-kHz/16-bit or much higher resolution. The proof of this can be found in some of the classic recordings from the 1950s and 1960s that sound better, more real, more musical, than todays average super-HD jobs. Lewis Layton, Richard Mohr, Wilma Cozart, Bob Fine, John Culshaw, where are you now that we need you? 3.The principal determinants of sound quality in your listening room, given the limitations of a particular recording, are the loudspeakers not the electronics, not the cables, not anything else. This is so fundamental that I still cant understand why it hasn't filtered down to the lowest levels of the audio community. The melancholy truth is that a new amplifier will not change your audio life. It may, or may not, effect a very small improvement (usually not unless your old amplifier was badly designed), but the basic sound of your system will remain the same. Only a better loudspeaker can change that. My best guess as to why the loudspeaker-comes-first principle has not prevailed in the audiophile world is that a new pair of loudspeakers tends to present a problem in interior decoration. Swapping amplifiers is so much simpler, not to mention spouse-friendlier, and the initial level of anticipation is just as high, before the eventual letdown (or denial thereof). https://www.hifivision.com/threads/legacy-of-peter-aczel-aka-the-audio-critic.59014/#js-post-658450 |
Just to get the conversation back on point, I don't think the OP's intention was to open another debate on the superiority on one medium over all others or methods of recording, engineering, and mastering. Although I have really learned a lot from reading all these posts and agree with Peter Aczel's comments shared by @cd318, I believe what we are asked to share are specific recordings that sound "unquestionably" better on vinyl so I can go out and buy them and not waste my money or time. I thank you all for your tireless research and for contributing to my future listening joy. Cheap Jim |
"Of course everyone’s perception will vary depending on what the album is playing through." True, dat. I guess that’s where things diverge from Peter’s points. It’s a lot easier and cheaper to get a decent CD playback system than a vinyl one. One component that needs little skill to set up vs a table, a tonearm, a cartridge, sometimes a phono preamp, a bunch of cables of differing properties, a well matched cartridge and a way to set it up, a cleaning system, static control....... |
