2. analog
  3. 1340176293

Is a vinyl rig only worth it for oldies?

I have always been curious about vinyl and its touted superiority over digital, so I decided to try it for myself. Over the course of the past several years I bought a few turntables, phono stages, and a bunch of new albums. They sounded fine I thought, but didn't stomp all over digital like some would tend to believe.

It wasn't until I popped on some old disk that I picked up used from a garage sale somewhere that I heard what vinyl was really about: it was the smoothest, most organic, and 3d sound that ever came out of my speakers. I had never heard anything quite like it. All of the digital I had, no matter how high the resolution, did not really come close to approaching that type of sound.

Out of the handful of albums I have from the 70s-80s, most of them have this type of sound. Problem is, most of my music and preferences are new releases (not necessarily in an audiophile genre) or stuff from the past decade and these albums sounded like music from a CD player but with the added noise, pops, clicks, higher price, and inconveniences inherent with vinyl. Of all the new albums I bought recently, only two sounded like they were mastered in the analog domain.

It seems that almost anything released after the 2000's (except audiophile reissues) sounded like music from a CD player of some sort, only worse due to the added noise making the CD version superior. I have experienced this on a variety of turntables, and this was even true in a friend's setup with a high end TT/cart.

So my question is, is vinyl only good for older pre-80s music when mastering was still analog and not all digital?
solman989
Ag insider logo xs@2x
tdaudio
201 posts
 
One reason new releases dont sound as good is the compression that is put in during the mastering process.

Here is a Rolling Stone article on it.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080724194200/http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity

Here is Wikipedia page on loudness wars. There is a bunch of interesting links at the bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

It should be noted that not all new releases employ drastic compression. On a good TT rig you can tell. I bought the Foo Fighters "Wasting Light" and it sounds like crap. Sorry to say that but compared many other recent releases it is bad. It sounds like it has the compression issue.

TD
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,393 posts
 
It would not surprise me if vinyl is affected by "loudness wars" pretty much the same as digital. The record companies do what they do for a reason....to try to sell more records (or CDs). I doubt that most have the tiny purist audiophile community on their radar screen, although I do not doubt they will use the trendy buzz about the superiority of vinyl to help make a sales pitch no doubt.

I have not heard good things in general about recent vinyl record quality and have not bought a single "new" recording on vinyl. I have thousands of vintage albums though and growing rapidly whenever I encounter good used vinyl for reasonable cost.
chadeffect
586 posts
 
This is a tricky subject. Tricky because there are so many variables.

But all things being equal we are still screwed! This is because there is usually a different master for vinyl and another for the digital master. This is because of the recording level and EQ that can be squeezed on to digital formats.

We are suffering a limiting or compression war to get the most level out at the mastering process. This usually cuts the peaks in the waveform so you can get more on. Many pop records if you look at the wave form is almost ruler flat at 0db to use every last bit.

I wouldn't want to start the old analogue vs digital war, but they both have their pluses and minuses. Vinyl has a nice sound. But it is a coloration. Digital apart from brick wall filters has less colouration & massive signal to noise ratio compared to vinyl. The uber samples rates available today are capable of much better quality if only due to less signal path and processes in the production.

But to drive eveyone mad at the end of the day it's down to the recording and your gear.

The great things I have heard on vinyl (layering, depth, naturalness) I have heard on digital too. So therefore the prize goes to...
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,393 posts
 
Chad,

My background is more digital image processing than digital audio but I recall even back in the 80's implementing image enhancement algorithms that increased information content in digital imagery without peaking out or saturating teh brightness levels. When I see spectral visualizations of many modern digital recordings that sound pretty good to me, I believe I see a similar kind of approach. The few that are truly earbleed material (mostly newer core pop stuff + an occasional remaster) appear to clip loudness levels/waveforms but I am not sure this is as prevalent in modern recordings overall as some seem to think.

Just my observations. I enjoy many newer digital recordings and remasters, but not all. Not much different than back in the golden age of vinyl even....
chadeffect
586 posts
 
Hi mapman,

I think as ever some recordings are worse than others and some genres are worse than others. But the software used to master and record with is much more sophisticated, clever and transparent now.

The name escapes me but there is a fairly new limiting software that was designed to limit in away the ear couldn't detect! Yes you read correctly. I think it was made by izotope. But it was amazing the levels you could get out of it without any pumping effects or nasty side effects.

If you wanted a hardware limiter of that standard it would cost thousands. But it could never compete with the software for the transparency or speed for several hundred.
More to discover