Interesting Piece on the Dynamic Range of Vinyl vs. CD

Lagonda

VIP/Donor
Feb 3, 2014
3,422
4,673
1,255
Denmark
Unfortunately a bit inflammatory, IMHO, and it does not bring anything new 9 years after.

Meanwhile digital recording and playback improved a lot and we have plenty of facts that would ask for a fresh re-evaluation of the old arguments and new tests. We should not expect any different conclusions - this is an hobby of preferences and we can not expect that people will change. But in WBF sometimes we debate for the fun of arguing, not to become a sapient audiophile. ;)
And i was hoping the irony was apparent ! ;)
 

John Dyson

Member
Jul 2, 2018
41
1
13
One sometimes needs to be careful when comparing pre-recorded CD material (or any digital source) vs. vinyl. Here is one major problem with some of the older digital releases -- not 'digital' per se.
This matter is about recordings made between late 1960's and early 1990's. This does not address loudness wars issues or other mastering defects. I am discussing a mastering defect that has been overlooked until recently.
Back in the old days, the tape decks were noisy (unlike digital tape and other recording methods today), and there were means to mitigate some of the noise. The first common version of noise mitigation was the DolbyA NR (noise reduction) system. It compressed the levels somewhere around -20dB to -40dB in 4 different bands (approx LF:0-80,MF:80-3k, HF0:3k-9k and HF1:9k-20k). The issue of HF0/HF1 are a bit confusing because the HF1 band is actually the parallel action of two NR mechanisms. But basically, the gain control/NR bands are as I stated. (DO NOT CONFUSE WITH THE 3k-20k and 9k-20k compressors -- that is what I was speaking about the NR mechanisms.) To get the original signal back, the DolbyA HW could 'undo' the encoding process -- thereby restoring something similar to the original sound -- almost.

So, we have those old tapes recorded with DolbyA encoding. During the transition and afterwards the conversion from the analog tape to the digital media (per Library of Congress procedures) is to copy the base audio tape contents to the digital copy. There is no specification of using the decoding process before recording onto digital. (the process does seem to be that digital copies were created with the NR encoding -- but there WAS a method to the madness -- but it wasn't handled on the other side.)

Next, when producing the digital distribution, the digital copy is transferred from the digital media, mastered, then the distribution copy is ready. One my say "use the DolbyA decoding process", right? Well, it sometimes doesnt' get done... Why doesn't the decoding get done? Because it requires real-time to do the decoding -- first, the material is converted to analog, so XX minutes is required to convert to analog, the signal applied to the DolbyA HW decoder, and then the results encoded back onto digital. That XX minutes and the DolbyA HW setup is skipped from time to time. (I have found maybe 1/2 of the time or so, maybe more or less.)

So, us digital listeners sometimes have DolbyA compressed material (that is what DolbyA sounds like is mostly an HF compression, even though it actually compresses all four bands.) This 'compression' is sometimes stealthy on certain kinds of material, and other kinds it is obvious as day. One of the culprits adding to the stealth is the mastering person who does a -3dB @3kHz or -6dB @3kHz, which mostly hides the DolbyA frequency response perturbation, but still the 'harsh-like' DolbyA sound persists. Places like MFSL seem to do the proper decoding, but normal labels don't always do the full decoding.

What does DolbyA encoded material sound like (esp after the -6dB compensation?) Well, the biggest difference is that the highs sound unnatural, kind of compressed, kind of springy... (DolbyA is a damned fast compressor -- used on Karen Carpenters' vocals *as a compressor*.) Also, the spatial/stereo sound is flattened. This is where sometimes the digital copy gets the 'sound stage' complaint.

I know that there will be claims: "that man is crazy", well... Maybe I might be crazy, but not due to this matter... The best way to demonstrate is by existence proof, and not claiming authority, or this person said 'this', that person said 'that', or my big recording engineer friend said that it cannot happen. Sometimes even those who claim authority can be wrong... I truly am an expert in certain fields, and I have been wrong from time to time also.

I have uploaded some examples -- various recordings -- with matching 'decoded' and 'undecoded' versions. The 'undecoded' were 'leaked' DolbyA copies available on CD or download. I even have a recording from HDtracks that was not DolbyA decoded. The 'decoded' versions were processsed by a DolbyA compatible decoder -- it is a little different from a true DolbyA -- sans intermodulation distortion and a few other advantages afforded by LOTS of CPU.

The issue here isn't the software DolbyA compatible decoder, the issue is that a lot of the complaints about digital sound come from leaked undecoded DolbyA material. My copies were puchased openly and nothing under the table.

Listen carefully to the undecoded and decoded versions, and very likely the difference/improvements from decoding will be heard. Almost ALL vinyl is properly decoded because of previous procedures/processed. Many digital distributions are NOT processed completely.

So, we have the --undecoded, and --decoded versions.
Additionally, there are -Polar and --DHNRDSDA versions of a few recordings -- the Polar versions were done using a true DolbyA unit, and the DHNRDSDA were done by the SW DA decoder, with the anti-IMD (therefore producing more clear/less gritty results.)

EXAMPLES:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mduka8faqv1nva7/AAATBBBRIFDht8pVsDN5Dv7Aa?dl=0

John
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
The CD was never designed to be superior to vinyl. That is to say no one ever said vinyl sucks. We need something better. The primary purpose of CD was storage space and record wear.
Back when the war was raging I did the research.
 

John Dyson

Member
Jul 2, 2018
41
1
13
The CD was never designed to be superior to vinyl. That is to say no one ever said vinyl sucks. We need something better. The primary purpose of CD was storage space and record wear.
Back when the war was raging I did the research.

Whether or not it was designed to be superior -- 90+dB is much greater dynamic range than vinyl -- esp below 100Hz. Also, the distortion of properly dithered digital simply cannot be replicated by vinyl. Note that the stairstepping or whatever hoax is a hoax, because think about this -- cell systems get by with 12bit or 14bit A/D converters... How can they have a dynamic range of between sub microvolt to a bit part of a volt? Answer: signal detection/distortion problems are truly mitigated by dithering.

I am NOT interested in vinyl vs. CD, and that is why I will only compare on a point by point basis. Frankly, I have a vinyl rip (from a friend) that I thought was a true digital copy. It was only the ticks and pops on one selection and the below 100Hz rumble where I detected that it was vinyl. So -- I'll give vinyl that it can also sound very good. However, the vinyl related distortions rendered my technical measurements invalid, and I had to revert to the other, lower sample rate source (my test original material is 48k/16bits -- which IS good enough, but the vinyl rips were 96k/24bits, so I wanted to use them. Just because there is more digital resolution of the vinyl rip doesn't mean that the lossages of the vinyl format aren't persistent.)

John
 
Last edited:

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,683
4,473
963
Greater Boston
The CD was never designed to be superior to vinyl. That is to say no one ever said vinyl sucks. We need something better. The primary purpose of CD was storage space and record wear.

Back when the war was raging I did the research.

Tracing the history of early digital technology suggests that at the time of the launch of the CD a system with a bit depth of 16 and a sampling rate of 48 to 50 kHz would have been considered by most digital engineers as state of the art and yes, superior to vinyl (and analog tape). The 44.1 kHz sampling rate was the only compromise in the CD format, given the compatibility with the 44.1 kHz sampling rate of video recorders. Yet it still allowed for Nyquist-Shannon (which is why it was deemed an acceptable compromise), even though the technical side of filtering became harder. Much higher "audiophile" sampling rates such as 96 or 192 kHz were never considered in those days by digital engineers, except perhaps by some on the fringe (only later they gained more wide-spread traction).

The reason is the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which obviously still holds and more or less says: within a bandwidth limited signal the sampling rate necessary to fully capture the signal is double its highest frequency *). It is only now, several decades later, that the practical implementation of digital is starting to catch up to the theory, and it turns out the math had been right all along.

A few years ago I would have adamantly maintained that vinyl is audibly superior to the Redbook CD format. Now I find it harder and harder to make that case, so I will not.

_____________

*) for Shannon's definition and further explanations, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

https://www.theboohers.org/2014/05/20/sampling-exploration/
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Dyson

John Dyson

Member
Jul 2, 2018
41
1
13
Tracing the history of early digital technology suggests that at the time of the launch of the CD a system with a bit depth of 16 and a sampling rate of 48 to 50 kHz would have been considered by most digital engineers as state of the art and yes, superior to vinyl (and analog tape). The 44.1 kHz sampling rate was the only compromise in the CD format, given the compatibility with the 44.1 kHz sampling rate of video recorders. Yet it still allowed for Nyquist-Shannon (which is why it was deemed an acceptable compromise), even though the technical side of filtering became harder. Much higher "audiophile" sampling rates such as 96 or 192 kHz were never considered in those days by digital engineers, except perhaps by some on the fringe (only later they gained more wide-spread traction).

The reason is the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, which obviously still holds and more or less says: within a bandwidth limited signal the sampling rate necessary to fully capture the signal is double its highest frequency *). It is only now, several decades later, that the practical implementation of digital is starting to catch up to the theory, and it turns out the math had been right all along.

A few years ago I would have adamantly maintained that vinyl is audibly superior to the Redbook CD format. Now I find it harder and harder to make that case, so I will not.

_____________

*) for Shannon's definition and further explanations, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

https://www.theboohers.org/2014/05/20/sampling-exploration/


I am going to throw a monkey wrench into the whole works -- even though as an EE analog/DSP/Real-time & operating systems person (40+yrs experience), I agree with your statement above 99.999%, there is another problem with the quality reaching the listener... Variability in mastering.

Whether or not CD is basically much higher quality than vinyl (which it is -- except I would *really* prefer 48k or higher for reasons other than 'feels good' *), the mastering often sucks. The most evil thing for the mastering to apparently use audio processors that are surplus from competitive FM radio stations. When the crest factor gets much below 4-5, that is not a good thing. When the peak-rms is below 14dB, that is not a good thing. There is nonsense being sold with those kinds of numbers!!!

* My reason for not liking 44.1k is similar to the sentiments about it being 'right on the edge'. There is not a lot of fast gain control that can happen when you have a 20kHz signal and a 22.050kHz Nyquist frequency. (Fast gain control == modulation, and modulation == sidebands, and sidebands > 22.050kHz == bad things.) 48kHz gives just enough room for a carefully design RMS style (the THATcorp/DBX style RMS, not the EE style RMS) compressor/expander to safely work without aliasing. (Slow agc systems are okay, it is just that fast AGC starts getting artifacts with aliasing occuring.)

Of course, production is seldom done at 44.1kHz anyway -- but that is one reason why I do not like 44.1k. It has nothing to do with normal 20kHz vs. 22.050kHz issues at all. (The brickwall, pre-ringing thing is a hoot -- that rippling thing that happens with brickwall is NOT oscillation, but is a left-over/residual type thing.) The only bad thing about Gibbs effect is that the peak levels become higher -- can cause clipping. Best never to run a signal at 100% full scale anyway. (PS, the reason for minimum-phase versus linear phase sounding differently is also not ringing, mostly just tiiming of the signal compoennts.)

Sorry for my spouting off -- but myths bug me.

john
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
If the purpose of digital was to best analog how do you explain MP3?
Digital proponents continue to rewrite history. Even to the point pfadmitting analog is better because of superior recordings
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,683
4,473
963
Greater Boston
If the purpose of digital was to best analog how do you explain MP3?
Digital proponents continue to rewrite history.

Really? What does MP3 have to do with CD? The digital engineers who developed CD had at that time nothing to do with the technical thinking around MP3.

Funny that you accuse digital proponents of rewriting history. Vinyl proponents do that all the time. Like when they talk about sampling rate, which at the time of CD development never had been considered to be potentially much higher by most engineers, given the Shannon-Nyquist theorem.

But then, many vinyl lovers have never bothered to try to understand sampling theory either, erroneously talked about "stair steps" and right away blamed the sound of early digital on the theory, rather than the practical implementation. Which is understandable. Who could have predicted at the time how splendid and with extremely high resolution plain ole Redbook CD would be able to sound in 2019?

Now the sound is seriously starting to prove the math right, and it will continue to do so ever more.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: John Dyson

John Dyson

Member
Jul 2, 2018
41
1
13
For fun, I am adding a link of some vinyl vs. CD (both Polar music) ABBA recordings. Also I have the same recordings as decoded by my precise and better (wrt intermodulation distortion and transient respons) DolbyA decoder -- I also have a lot of other pop recordings (from between late '60s through the early '90s) that haven't been DolbyA decoded. We aren't discussing DolbyA here -- but this shows that even the 'ideal' CDs available in the middle '80s & today are also not perfect. (Most recent released versions are damaged because of the loudness wars.) For proper perspective, one should evaluate snapshots from differing time frames and differing distributors (I have European, Japanese and US versions of some disks.)

(I am not selling my DHNRDS DA decoder here, but the results of the closer-to-original-master tape might be illuminating also. These examples were not created for this discussion on this forum, but the examples do seem to be somewhat applicable to this discussion.)

The differences in clarity between the normal vinyl vs CD are astounding. I DO have a set of premium vinyl disk rips (not on the Dropbox site) which are defective because of a mistake in mastering, but not operative to discuss that here. The premium vinyl disks have a skipped mastering step, but otherwise are very good -- but the rumble and other vinyl quality defects are still on the disks.

(the source of the copy is encoded into the filenames)
(Using mp3 is certainly not ideal, and the Dropbox mp3 decoder has problems with some of the more intense material, but Dropbox doesn't provide the ability to listen to .flac online. The differences are still easily distinguishable -- I am not trying to show ABSOLUTE quality, but showing the RELATIVE quality of the material.) The Dropbox (or wherever it is) mp3 decoder sometimes has a 'phasing' type sound -- worse than good quality mp3 decoding. If someones' hearing is 'hurt' by mp3, I can provide .flac versions also, but the comparison results will not be different.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mduka8faqv1nva7/AAATBBBRIFDht8pVsDN5Dv7Aa?dl=0
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Like I said earlier I am not going to renew the debate over which is better, vinyl or C D. That is as fruitless a debate as Jordan v. LeBron. Besides it has been done to death with to avail. With the help of Google you can research it yourself.
To answer your question about MP3. It is relevant, because at the time memory was expensive. There was an effort to use as little space as necessary. Eventually, ways to use even less memory was sought. If the gal was sound quality the standard would have gone up not down. Those who pursued sound quality did go up. Predictably they have been the subject of ridicule.

I already know more about digital than I care to know. Digital has been forced on me and I have had to make the best of it.
Digital is only a sampling of the analog curve. A storage medium consisting of ones and zeroes. Nothing in that medium resembles anything we can listen to as music. In order to be heard as music it must be converted back to analog. The "stair step" was never intended to be taken literally! It was an illustration to conceptualize what might be happening. At least I never took it litterally.
I am a consumer. My role is to evaluate the result not to explain the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timztunz

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,683
4,473
963
Greater Boston
Like I said earlier I am not going to renew the debate over which is better, vinyl or C D. That is as fruitless a debate as Jordan v. LeBron. Besides it has been done to death with to avail. With the help of Google you can research it yourself.
To answer your question about MP3. It is relevant, because at the time memory was expensive. There was an effort to use as little space as necessary. Eventually, ways to use even less memory was sought. If the gal was sound quality the standard would have gone up not down. Those who pursued sound quality did go up. Predictably they have been the subject of ridicule.

Who said that MP3 was ever about sound quality? Was the compact cassette ever about sound quality? No, it was about (physical) storage space. Why conflate CD with the issue of MP3? Do I conflate a high-quality LP with a compact cassette?
 

John Dyson

Member
Jul 2, 2018
41
1
13
Who said that MP3 was ever about sound quality? Was the compact cassette ever about sound quality? No, it was about (physical) storage space. Why conflate CD with the issue of MP3? Do I conflate a high-quality LP with a compact cassette?

I agree -- arguments against mp3 as the epitome of digital is a strawman argument. mp3 is simply a convenience for storage space, with a quality tradeoff still mostly superior to vinyl. I only use mp3 myself for casual comparisons -- limiting ONLY for the casual situations because the temporal damage by mp3 is significant enough that it can be detected, and can be heard as a defect of my project's processing results.
However, I cannot even think about using vinyl as a standard other than for reference, but not as an absoulte quality standard.
No-one has ever claimed (unless they just don't know what they are talking about) that mp3 is as good as even 44.1k/16bits -- which is generally WAY better than vinyl.
As soon as the -40 to -50dB rumble, the HF distortion/tracking issues (often mitgated by some kind of limiting or level restriction), the LF groove size issues (which is apparent on my direct DolbyA decoding vs vinyl) -- vinyl just cannot cut it for my technical purposes (pun intended.)

On the other hand, if someone likes the characteristics of vinyl -- who can complain about their personal preferences? I do NOT want to take away someones enjoyment... Geesh, there are numerous kinds of cars that might have special characteristics, but as a functioning, comfortable, high performing car, they specialty cars are not as good. People still love their specialty cars, just as they love their vinyl.

John
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
Proponents of the cassette conceded it's faults. It made a valiant effort todeal with them. It was an option, not mandatory.

'I agree -- arguments against mp3 as the epitome of digital is a strawman argument."

Assigning this argument to me is the epitome of strawman arguments. I never said any such thing.
 
Last edited:

John Dyson

Member
Jul 2, 2018
41
1
13
Proponents of the cassette conceded it's faults. It made a valiant effort todeal with them. It was an option, not mandatory.

'I agree -- arguments against mp3 as the epitome of digital is a strawman argument."

Assigning this argument to me is the epitome of straw man arguments. I never said any such thing.
Well, blaming non-mp3 issues on mp3 -- even bringing up mp3 when comparing with 'digital' in general doesn't make any sense. The only reason would be a strawman.

I don't like mp3 either, but sometimes need to use it. Digital (that is, 44.1k/16bits) for audio presentation purposes is basically perfect. If one wants to do anything else, then a higher sampling rate/more bits can be helpful. (For examples, the reasons that I have given before.)

Vinyl can be 'nice', but speaking of precision -- it isn't very good when compared to what the consumer can have today.
I ;'use' vinyl, just like I 'use' mp3 -- mostly for comparison or communications purposes.

For SERIOUS work, I use at least 48k (usually 96k) at floating point -- signed-integer need not apply. For communicating 'perfection' to somewhere else, then I do use 24 bits signed integer -- even though it is less flexible than floating point, all of the associated useful information can be communciated. I do things other than 'presentation', so more bits and sample rate are helpful.

For simple presentation, using my HUMAN hearing, then like anyone else (except for very young people with being able to hear audio ess than 100dB at 20kHz), then 44.1k/16bits does as much as needed. I do NOT like 44.1kHz for the reasons why I wrote elsewhere, but my reasons are not for audio presentation.

On the other hand, vinyl can sound nice -- but I also feel the LF rumble most of the time, and knowing what material sounds like before being pressed into vinyl -- I know its defects and prefer the rather more accurate digital version. (It IS easy to misunderstand bad mastering as a characteristic of digital material -- refer to my examples -- the Polar versions aren't quite as good as my DHNRDS versions, but are mostly all better than the vinyl versions of the same exact material.) Bad mastering for digital has made digital sometimes seem bad, while vinyl mastering has been done for so many years and has been perfected. The problem IS NOT with 44.1k/16bits at all.

The vinyl defects don't disqualify vinyl for a lot of people when they listen to music -- and that is okay.

John
 

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
I’ll just throw this out..
There has been a chemical process to remove moisture to restore magnetic tape for about 10 years.
The large record companies have never shown any interest in the process.
Baking tapes is a poor option in comparison.

The recording industry has deemed digital archiving sufficient in audio transfer quality for thousands of masters that are degrading year by year.
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,471
11,366
4,410
as far dynamic range of vinyl, you have no idea.

my recent experience with active isolation with linear power supplies under the whole signal path added 30% in peak energy (based on the peak wattage readout of my amps) and much greater focus to my vinyl.

my point is that throwing out any sort of label on the dynamic range of vinyl as a format has to consider what sort of optimization is required to see what it can do. it's a mechanical feedback format. that feedback will always smear/blunt peak information and reduce dynamic range. eliminate or greatly reduce that factor and it's a new ballgame.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Resnick

RogerD

VIP/Donor
May 23, 2010
3,734
318
565
BiggestLittleCity
From experience I can say that electrical interference of all kinds has a large effect on the dynamic range of digital recordings...only there’s no or almost no mechanical problems associated with digital reproduction. A heck of a lot easier to mitigate and far less costly.
I personally could care less about which is better. I think it boils down to the amount invested in and bias. I think the difference between the two when optimized is that minimal.
 

Ron Resnick

Site Co-Owner, Administrator
Jan 24, 2015
16,017
13,347
2,665
Beverly Hills, CA
. . .
The recording industry has deemed digital archiving sufficient in audio transfer quality for thousands of masters that are degrading year by year.

But doesn’t this just beg the question “sufficient” for what?

I am sure commercial, for-profit, recording industry companies come to a different conclusion on the cost/benefit analysis of different levels of sound quality than many of us here would conclude. Sound quality sufficient for them to sell CDs and downloads profitably may be a very different sound quality than what us perfectionists here find “sufficient.”
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
I never said I did not like MP3. It is what it is.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
I’ll just throw this out..
There has been a chemical process to remove moisture to restore magnetic tape for about 10 years.
The large record companies have never shown any interest in the process.
Baking tapes is a poor option in comparison.

The recording industry has deemed digital archiving sufficient in audio transfer quality for thousands of masters that are degrading year by year.
Which is a valid use for digital. Needless to say "sufficient" is a relative term.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing