I find that a few very select lps can sound better than digital. Most lps don’t sound as good as cd or sacd.
For me, the technical effort and the great work of making a vinyl record always puts a higher degree of love for the music in the back of my mind. That's why I think a lot of people prefer the analog long-playing record than a digital recording that is recorded relatively carelessly.
Sorry only in German. One of best of Europe Pallas in Osnabrück,Germany
When you tout yourself as an engineer and present scientific evidence you have gone beyond subjectiveSo what. You can simply choose to ignore one of numerous A v D utube videos on the internet, which are by nature subjective, and focus on other issues.
Great clip.For me, the technical effort and the great work of making a vinyl record always puts a higher degree of love for the music in the back of my mind. That's why I think a lot of people prefer the analog long-playing record than a digital recording that is recorded relatively carelessly.
Sorry only in German. One of best of Europe Pallas in Osnabrück,Germany
Even here on WBF with extremely experienced members we have 100% subjective analysis of sound with little to no technical understanding and as a result some conclusions are made that have no basis in reality.
It is much easier to get digital to sound great, you just buy the right gear, plug it in and press play. Analog on the other hand is more of an art. More difficult to get right (labels, pressings, condition, cleaning, proper tonearm/cartridge set up, etc), but much more rewarding when you do.I find that a few very select lps can sound better than digital. Most lps don’t sound as good as cd or sacd.
When you tout yourself as an engineer and present scientific evidence you have gone beyond subjective
I can't just ignore it because it appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead.
I always thought there was 6.345 times more resolution….I don't think it's an intentional attempt to mislead, just ignorance about great vinyl replay.
In the same vein, I do not automatically assume intentional attempt to mislead when vinyl fans spout obvious nonsense about digital, even though I have sensitivities regarding technical misinformation on the subject, and at times have tried to correct it. It's often just plain ignorance -- even from analog fans who are "technical experts".
When the "analog expert" in above video about the vinyl pressing plant claims that the LP has "six times more resolution" ("sechs mal höhere Auflösung") than the CD, this is a technical assertion that is based on misinformation on digital, or misunderstanding of how digital works, as well. Many technical experts knowledgeable about digital would flatly reject his assertion -- on technical grounds. Do I think this "analog expert" is intentionally misleading? No.
This phenomenon is so rampant, especially on the internet, that it’s no surprise it’s wormed it’s way into our hobby.When you tout yourself as an engineer and present scientific evidence you have gone beyond subjective
I can't just ignore it because it appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead.
Fascinating video, thank you!
Many engineers though would disagree on a technical level with the assertion of the analog expert ("der Analogexperte") at the end of the video that the LP has a "six times higher resolution" than the CD.
Regardless, while I am glad that this company takes care of vinyl pressings on such a dedicated, loving manner, this is not necessarily the rule. There are many mediocre LP pressings as well -- also from the age where analog still ruled.
As for "relatively carelessly recorded digital": there are good and mediocre recordings in both digital and analog. And whlie there are fantastic analog recordings, there are fantastic digital recordings as well. We should not be too quick to generalize.
Dave, this is an interesting statement. Could you please elaborate and share some examples of what you mean by "conclusions...made that have no basis in reality?" I am trying to understand to what you are referring.
It's actually measurements and technical hype that have no correlation to sound and ie reality!
High end sound reproduction is about sound quality which is both objective and subjective not measurements. It's actually measurements and technical hype that have no correlation to sound and ie reality!
Since you're science-ing it stating it as if they're facts expand on these "psychoacoustically preferred" distortions and artifacts? What are they, what specific frequencies and supporting data?
david
High end sound reproduction is about sound quality which is both objective and subjective not measurements. It's actually measurements and technical hype that have no correlation to sound and ie reality! [personal criticism post deleted above]
Imagine posing these same observations and questions to the guy who made that video. I would love to hear his response.
In my opinion, these are the kinds of things that need to be addressed and discussed to understand the debate between analog and digital and to move forward with improvements. We know measurements don’t tell us everything. Distortions are interesting things. We don’t all hear them the same way. Even if some people agree on what they are hearing, they don’t always agree on which sounds better or more realistic or more accurate.
Exactly.Why would anyone put any stock in a You Tube video based on a random person's opinion??
Rob![]()
"Inquiring about my mental status is a Hippa violation.'This phenomenon is so rampant, especially on the internet, that it’s no surprise it’s wormed it’s way into our hobby.
If you can’t ignore intentional attempts to mislead, the Internet is going to drive you insane…
WAFa few examples of these conclusions that have no basis in reality
![]() | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator | ![]() | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |