Vinyl is more dynamic than Digital?

Hmmm very interesting . Can I call em flat top CDs now. Lol!!
 
I believe that most vinyl records offer up better dynamics than CDs judging from what I have heard. Not saying CDs aren't good too. Some are great, but most are sterile sounding and seem to lack some depth that good ol' vinyl supplies.
 
yes and thank god for the high resolution down loads like 24bit/96khz Studio Masters.
 
From what I have read elsewhere written by recording engineers, recording to tape lets you push things a bit and record a wee bit hot. Tape apparently will compress things in a very natural way, but soft still stays soft relative to loud.

For digital you have to limit your top end so that it never exceeds that 0 point, otherwise it will distort horribly. And modern day recordings will generally overcompress things so even the soft sounds have a higher dynamic than they should relative to the loud sounds, making everything loud and flattening the dynamic range.

From this I infer that in general digital sounds loud and can appear dynamic in something like a car, but generally everything is loud. But from a relative perspective vinyl has more dynamic range, going from loud to soft across the spectrum.
 
BobM said:
From what I have read elsewhere written by recording engineers, recording to tape lets you push things a bit and record a wee bit hot. Tape apparently will compress things in a very natural way, but soft still stays soft relative to loud.

For digital you have to limit your top end so that it never exceeds that 0 point, otherwise it will distort horribly. And modern day recordings will generally overcompress things so even the soft sounds have a higher dynamic than they should relative to the loud sounds, making everything loud and flattening the dynamic range.

From this I infer that in general digital sounds loud and can appear dynamic in something like a car, but generally everything is loud. But from a relative perspective vinyl has more dynamic range, going from loud to soft across the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Indeed! I personally found this to be the case having recorded in both mediums.
 
Mas said:
yes and thank god for the high resolution down loads like 24bit/96khz Studio Masters.
Click to expand...

Worse than CDs in my experience, but perhaps I don't have the correct gear to play them on. To me they sound way too flat and a bit more sterile than CDs. To me, they sound about the same as 320kps MP3s. It could be that I do not have a dac with the ability to do 24/96. It's been a while since I've heard a Hi-rez file though. I'd like to find one for free, that is a piece of music I am very familiar with and have on hand in CD format and compare taking into account the gear I have. That could tell me for sure if it's a 100% gear issue or the file itself.
 
NorthStar said:
I believe that both CDs and LPs can be equally adept at dynamics.

But digital does have the advantage. ...When digitally well done.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about digital having a native advantage,but as I mentioned, some CDs sound a bit better than their vinyl counterparts. I believe it has to do with the engineering itself. I've detected big differences between a regular CD and a remaster of the same on occasion with the remaster being superior. I've also heard some where the remaster sounded no different. That points to the engineering of the recording. Example: Tori Amos CDs are superior to their vinyl counterparts and many CDs of other artists as well. Her regular CDs have extremely good dynamics. They sound like well done remasters and yet they are not remasters. Also, I have noticed that there is no such thing as a remaster Tori Amos CD. I suspect it's because they were done so well to begin with that it's plain not needed.
 
NorthStar said:
Eric, I think digital has a dynamic range of 100dBs or so (+/-). ...CD (16/44) is 96dB.

Analog I don't think is that high. ...Few dBs below.

But it don't matter because analog R2R tapes and LPs sound so much better. ...Most generally.
Click to expand...

Isn't that interesting? It seems counter-intuitive. R2Rtapes and LPs with less dynamic range abilities sound better than formats with greater range abilities, but it is true in lots of cases. I now wonder how that is?
 
NorthStar said:
I think it has to do with "nostalgia".

We don't get that with digital.
Click to expand...

Wait until digital downloads are the norm, then the generation that grew up with CDs will be nostalgic about them like we are with vinyl.

Of course I don't think it's "just" nostalgia. I think vinyl sounds better than digital...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So in terms of the physical medium's capability, Bob is right. CD (and certainly hi-rez digital) is capable of delivering a wider dynamic range than LP or tape but the reality is most digital recordings are mastered "hot" as BobM mentioned where the mastering engineers boosts the dBs across the entire song because artists and music studios want their songs/albums to sound loud because most people listen to the material on car radios, iPods, etc...(i.e., crappy play-back gear) and when you boost everything it makes it sound louder/clearer on inferior playback gear. This is known as the "Loudness" wars and much has been written about it. Generally speaking, LPs are marketed to a more discerning consumer and are generally mastered less "hot," meaning the mastering engineers retain more of the dynamic swings (soft to loud to soft etc...) because LP buyers are generally (again not always) more likely to have mid-fi to audiophile gear that is able to clearly showcase those dynamic swings/changes in a song, which by the way is one of the key things that makes music so enjoyable - that emotional roller coaster that a shift in dynamic can take you as part of the song's message.

If you google "loudness wars" and "compression" you will get a ton of hits on this. And of course there are a ton of differing opinions about this, even among mastering engineers but in terms of the medium's pure ability to deliver a wider dynamic range, digital (CD resolution on up) beats vinyl and tape.
 
dlb2 said:
Wait until digital downloads are the norm, then the generation that grew up with CDs will be nostalgic about them like we are with vinyl.
Click to expand...


I disagree.

Downloads have no value at all. They are not physical media and many downloads are free.

It may help to think of it like this; CD's and Vinyl are physical. Physical = collectable. Collectable = potentially valuable.
 
cmalak said:
So in terms of the physical medium's capability, Bob is right. CD (and certainly hi-rez digital) is capable of delivering a wider dynamic range than LP or tape ...

... but in terms of the medium's pure ability to deliver a wider dynamic range, digital (CD resolution on up) beats vinyl and tape.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm right; analog vinyl and tape are restricted dynamically.
What I'm not sure though, but I believe, is that tape is more dynamically involving (measured & listened to) than vinyl.
 
kiwi_1282001 said:
I disagree.

Downloads have no value at all. They are not physical media and many downloads are free.

It may help to think of it like this; CD's and Vinyl are physical. Physical = collectable. Collectable = potentially valuable.
Click to expand...

I'm all with you on that; there is nothing like the smell of vinyl, the feel of it, the look at it.

CDs don't have the charm, the allegiance, the experience, the charisma of LPs.
And certainly not hi-res audio files on your hard drive.

R2R tapes aren't common, and the good ones (if you look for them) are expensive. ...And the music selection is very restricted.
And tapes, with their formulation, are sensitive to elements, and lose their 'transparency' (oxidation, and others) with time.
Tapes require extreme care, and you want the very best tape quality.
Plus, R2R tape decks also require constant maintenance and care. ...So many moving parts & motors; not so easy to make them all work in synchronized unison, perfect pitch, accurate tandem. ...For a long time.

CDs are sterile (most of them, not all of them); SACDs are better, in general.

Live music is best! Only if it is well reproduced in a nice hall that has been acoustically treated. ...Certainly not those Live Rock concerts in arenas, stadiums, football fields, ice skating rinks, discotheques, ...!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top