The myths and reality of vinyl records vs. CDs.
Vinyl always sounds better than CD
As described below, despite decades of arguments, there is no technical proof of the sonic superiority of the vinyl medium compared to CD. One vinyl record may sound better than its equivalent CD for extremely specific reasons. That does not mean the medium as a whole is superior.
Many people do prefer listening to music on vinyl rather than on CD or digital formats. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with actual sound quality and have more to do with the tactile characteristics of vinyl – its “feel” – like larger artwork and its required playback ritual. Others prefer listening to CDs for a different set of reasons. There is nothing wrong with preferring vinyl to CDs, as long as the preference is honestly stated on emotional terms, or is precisely quantified and tied to subjective experience, and not obscured with (fallacious) technical appeals.
Vinyl requires a better-sounding master because it is physically incapable of reproducing the hyper-compressed sound mastered to CD
Different masters can substantially improve or reduce sound quality. Some have less background noise. Some alter the dynamic range. There are other mastering techniques that can also affect the sound.
There are documented instances of different masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. One notable example is The White Stripes Icky Thump. However, there are also many documented instances of the same masters being used on vinyl releases compared to CD releases. In fact, if you purchase an album produced in the last two decades on vinyl, it is logical to assume that the master will be no better than on CD unless evidence is found to the contrary. Alternative masters for vinyl cost money, and mastering is a significant cost of producing a record. It is very likely that some producers – believing in the myth that vinyl is an inherently superior medium, as mentioned in other myths described here – will simply use the CD master for the vinyl release, believing that it will automatically yield a superior sound.
The technical details behind this myth are as follows. The cutting heads used for creating the vinyl lacquer (or metal mother) are speaker-like electromechanical devices driven by an extremely powerful amplifier (several hundred watts). At extremely large/fast cutting head excursions, the cutting head coils may physically burn up, much like how a speaker’s voice coils may be destroyed by an excessive current. Also, the diamond-cutting head stylus may prematurely wear or break. This places important constraints on the maximum levels that can be recorded to a record.
Very high power output is required to cut grooves with high acceleration. Acceleration at the same signal amplitude is higher for higher-frequency signals. Heavily clipped and limited CDs in the modern mastering style have more high-frequency content than earlier masters. In general, increasing the perceived volume of a record – whether by increasing the recording level or by limiting/clipping/compression – raises the cutting head’s average power.
Additionally, during playback, the turntable’s stylus has limits on what grooves it can successfully track. Cartridges can only track grooves of a finite modulation width (measured in microns) that decreases in frequency. For instance, a cartridge may only be able to track a 300mm-wide groove at 300 Hz, and yet only 50mm at 20 kHz. This also places limits on the acceleration and velocity limits the record master can take.
The most obvious way to work around these issues is simply to reduce the recording level of the vinyl master. Multiband limiters exist for recording purposes that dynamically reduce the treble content of the master, to limit the cutting head power usage.
The vinyl surface is heated to several hundred degrees on playback, and repeat play of the same track should wait at least several hours until the vinyl has cooled
Professional estimates for the stylus surface temperature during playback are 300-500F. Obviously, the temperature of the record is at or close to room temperature except at the stylus contact point – otherwise, the record would completely melt. Back-to-back playback will introduce slightly more distortion than a fresh play. This is believed to be a temporary effect and goes away after approx. 10 minutes.
Repeated playback (no matter what the timeframe) carries the risk of permanent damage. Obviously, records are observed to wear out with repeated play. No published evidence exists of back-to-back playback causing any more permanent damage than if repeated plays are separated by any longer period of time.
Proper vinyl playback is click-free
Pops and clicks are often not audible during a song on a well-maintained record and should not distract from the listening experience. No evidence exists of a record that is shown to be played back with absolutely no pops or clicks whatsoever. They are introduced at virtually every stage of production, from cutting the lacquer to the pressing to the playback itself. Some pops and ticks are pressed into the record itself.
Some pops and ticks result from static discharges during playback. However, this may be mitigated by the use of topical treatments on the record.
Because of the lack of evidence for a tick-free record and the engineering factors making such a record extremely rare, it is quite likely that no record exists that is truly free from all pops and ticks.
Vinyl is better than CD because it reproduces higher frequencies than CD and avoids anti-aliasing filter issues at the frequencies CDs can reproduce
The recording/tracking ability of vinyl is easily at least 50 kHz and perhaps as high as 100 kHz. The most notable proof of this is the CD4 quadraphonic system which relied on a 45 kHz bandwidth to be accurately reproduced. That said, the high-frequency response accuracy of vinyl varies tremendously. Frequency deviations of 5-10 dB or greater are not uncommon in the 20 kHz range for many records.
The playback of ultrasound frequencies is still not guaranteed. Many MM cartridges have resonant peaks defined by the preamp loading or stylus tip resonances defined by the cantilever, that attenuate high-frequency content.
When groove wear does occur, it occurs much faster at high frequencies than at low frequencies. For modern stylus, this is not as much of a concern, though.
There are rarely, if ever, any ultrasonic frequencies for vinyl to preserve. In audio recordings, such frequencies, when present, are normally low-energy noise imparted by electrical equipment and storage media used during recording, mixing, and mastering. Although some musical instruments can produce low-energy overtones in the ultrasonic range, they could only be on the vinyl if every piece of equipment and storage medium in the recording, mixing, and mastering stages were able to preserve them which is unlikely even in modern recordings since the average microphone or mixing console is designed only with audible frequencies in mind. Even if the overtones were preserved all the way to the mastering stage, mono and stereo lacquer cutting equipment typically includes a lowpass filter to avoid overheating the cutting head with ultrasonic frequencies.
Finally, on top of all of these issues, there is simply no scientific evidence that frequencies beyond the 22 kHz limit of CD audio are audible to any known group of people, or that such frequencies affect anyone’s perception of the audible range. There is no evidence that reconstruction and anti-aliasing issues are audible.
Vinyl is better than digital because the analog signal on the vinyl tracks the analog signal exactly, while digital is quantized into steps
PCM encoding (used on CDs and DVD-A) records audio data in a quantized format. Analog formats do not have a measurable time or signal resolution.
PCM is sometimes characterized as producing a jagged, “stair-step” waveform. This is only partially correct; analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) does indeed use a sample-and-hold circuit to measure an approximate, average amplitude across the duration of the sample, and digital-to-analog conversion (DAC) does the same kind of thing, generating a rectangular-ish waveform, but this output is always then subjected to additional filtering to smooth it out. Effectively, the ADC output sample values are interpreted as a series of points intersected by the waveform; the DAC output is a smooth curve, not a stair-step at all. Additionally, modern ADC and DAC chips are engineered to reduce below the threshold of audibility, if not completely eliminate, any other sources of noise in this conversion process, resulting in an extremely high correlation between the input and output signals.
PCM can encode time delays to any arbitrarily small length. Time delays of 1us or less – a tiny fraction of the sample rate – are easily achievable. The theoretical minimum delay is 1ns or less. (Proof here.)
With a correct implementation using dither, signal quantization (ie 16-bit or 24-bit) only adds wideband noise to the signal, not quantization distortion. If this dither noise is well below the already-present noise floor, it is inaudible.
Analog encoding still has many measurable and audible faults, potentially including harmonic distortion, noise, and intermodulation distortion. These distortions have invariably measured higher than for digital formats, including CD.
The term “analog”, by definition, means that the signal is not and cannot be a perfect reproduction of the original – it is merely an “analog” of the existing signal, corrupted in the process of encoding.
In short, by any numerical basis, vinyl is not as accurate as competing for digital formats.
Vinyl has greater resolution than CD because its dynamic range is higher than for CD at the most audible frequencies
The dynamic range of vinyl, when evaluated as the ratio of a peak sinusoidal amplitude to the peak noise density at that sine wave frequency, is somewhere around 80 dB. Under theoretically ideal conditions, this could perhaps improve to 120 dB. The dynamic range of CDs, when evaluated on a frequency-dependent basis and performed with proper dithering and oversampling, is somewhere around 150 dB. Under no legitimate circumstances will the dynamic range of vinyl ever exceed the dynamic range of CD, under any frequency, given the wide performance gap and the physical limitations of vinyl playback.
Adding a penny to the headshell improves tracking/sound
The trackability of a cartridge is related to the mechanical parameters of the tonearm and stylus assembly. Adding weight to the headshell (and adjusting the counterweight to compensate) increases the effective mass of the tonearm and reduces its resonant frequency. If the resonant frequency is excessively high – 15-20 Hz as measured by a test record – the weight may improve trackability by moving the resonance out of the audible range. Otherwise, it will generally only reduce trackability.
A cartridge is permanently damaged and should be replaced if the stylus appears even slightly bent
Bent stylus cause azimuth and alignment errors which may be audible. In extreme cases, they can cause record damage. Cartridges are hand-built and always have some finite tolerance in their construction. No stylus is perfectly straight. That said, if a brand-new cartridge arrives visibly bent, it is probably a good idea to return it.
Belt-driven turntables are better than direct-drive turntables
Belt drives are far easier to implement than direct drives, easier to improve, and arguably easier to repair. Well-built direct drives have speed and rumble tolerances as good or better than well-built belt drives.
Subjective claims about the improved musicality and audio quality of belt drives are disputed and not well agreed upon by all listeners.
Belt drives hold their value just as poorly in the used market as direct drives.
Direct drive motors tend to last a very long time (some original-model SL1200s may still run without any maintenance). Belt drives need new belts on a semi-regular basis and tend to have noisier motors at the same price ranges as direct drives.
There is a common myth that a direct drive will “hunt” for the correct speed and cause audible speed variations. This has no basis in reality.
It is believed that direct drives are better at handling dynamic stylus friction than belt drives, except in cases of very poor direct drives or very good belt drives.
Some examples do exist of direct drives of inferior quality.
Stock tonearms on direct drives tend to be much less expensive than the tonearms that come with belt drives at similar price points.
via: Hydrogenaudio
Creative Audio Works offers full-service audio transfer and restoration services. Find out more.
An issue that is not usually addressed is the weak link of digital; the DAC. Technically digital has the advantage but is inferior in practice because of the DAC.
Twenty-five years ago that may have been the case, but these days the quality for high-quality converters is so much superior. If you compare a cheap converter you can purchase on Amazon for $25 compared to an RME, Lavry Savitr, Burl Audio, Prism, Focusrite, etc. there is and audible difference in the higher quality converters.. The difference in sound these days has to do more with the quality of analog equipment you have, mic pre’s, mics, outboard processing etc., and the proficiency of the engineer operating. Don’t let nostalgia fog your perception.
Maybe I am reading it wrong, but this artical appears to be promoting all the myths and falacies regarding how ‘vinyl is better that CD’ as actually being the facts. Whereas most of the assertions are demonstrably false.
Maybe it is intended to be highlighting those falsities….
Geoff, you are most definitely reading it wrong, or not reading it at all.
I prefer listen cassette instead CD because of its limitation, CD are overpowered dynamic range, S/N ratio, etc that made my ear tired, especially in old system without subwoofer
You are tottally right!
nice article here on the topic
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds
It does sound that way, though. The “myths” should at least be in bold or somehow highlighted. This articles appears to present fact and fiction the same.
In my experience, playing hundreds if not thousands of LPs and CDs, an LP sometimes appears to sound better than the companion CD of the same music but the reason is invariably that I’ve been playing the CD at a level that is louder than is natural, so the highs tend not to sound as smooth. I suspect that most people play their CDs at unnaturally loud levels. And the reason for that is that the CD’s background noise is negligible, while the LP has clicks and pops, hiss, hum, etc. that automatically forces us to keep the volume down to a more natural level. Don’t take my word for it; check it out yourselves. Lower the volume of CD playback and suddenly the naturalness of the sound is restored.
I like listening to vinyl sometimes because it’s more engaging while sounding good enough. It’s purely an emotional thing, and I recognize that.
It’s a bit like making up a fire in the fireplace versus flicking on a space heater: the heater is way easier than dealing with a fire, but sometimes we just want to deal with fuss, pomp and circumstance. I’ll use the heater when I need heat right now, but the fireplace when I want to sit down and relax.
I’m old school and much prefer the vinyl. A scratch free vinyl, and a turn table with a properly balanced tone arm and quality stylus will produce better sound quality than a CD. I notice that mid-range in instrumental music sound better on CDs. Here’s a bummer!! A high end studio reel to reel at its highest speed can put out some serious music.
When you listen to a favorite artist of yours that recorded and/or mixed on tape, was there a conscious decision made during the mix to enhance the outcome so that it will be even better when transferred to vinyl?
Virtually everything in this article points out that this is a fallacy. It is an emotionally driven belief but not supported by evidence. I think its fair to say that records are fun to collect, hold, and play while CD’s are a great method for permanently storing music in a way that won’t degrade, so future listens sound as good as the first.
One of the origins of the “vinyl is better”argument relates to the early days of remastering catalogue albums onto CDs for the first time. Often not much was done to the original master when converting it to digital. Albums released before around 1980 were mastered in analogue studios, for playback on analogue equipment. They were designed in a paradigm where the limitations of vinyl were well known. They were in fact the norm. They would be leaning into the distortions and sibilance and so on.
So, when companies issued CDs based on these masters they could sound quite flat in comparison to the vinyl versions. Over time, once technology and mastering skills/awareness improved, though so too did the reissues. Often though, contemporaneous pressings of original albums played through good equipment will still be superior – or at least, more like what the original sound producer intended.
Having said that, nothing will get around the fact that recordings in the analogue world had a somewhat more limited sonic palette – with certain frequencies and clarity not becoming possible until the digital age. Albums recorded now will be leaning more into that sonic space, so a digital reproduction is going to be the best method.
For this reason, unless an album has been especially mastered with vinyl in mind now, anyone buying a newly released and pressed LP today is in effect just buying merch. LPs are more fun. I buy them. You could press it onto 10,000 gram platters if you wanted, but the CD version will likely sound superior.
Music is about pitch (tones) and harmonics (the resonances between different pitches and overlapping tones). That our ears hear frequencies of up to 12 to more than 20,000 Hz (when young) shows how sensitive they are to ever so tiny and very fast changes in air pressure. Why then do people imagine that sampling at an arbitrarily high frequency does not affect our perception of harmonics? Vinyl is not “warm”, music is warm. CD’s sound cold, tinny in the high frequencies and lack the full resonance in music. No one should care that analog reproduction is not perfect. I am lucky enough to have lived when stereo records came of age in the 1960’s and saddened that young people today don’t get to experience high fidelity much anymore.
Cds do NOT sound cold, clinical and tinny, all of the harmonics are there. Come forward to today and listen to how amazing this format sounds on a high quality modern cd player with good quality amplification and loudspeakers. Advancements in digital replay, timing clocks, (3rd party timing clocks) circuit design, power supplys and transport mechanisms have all but got rid of the earlier problems that did plague cd replay. Listen to an old analogue (well recorded) recording transfered or remastered (properly) on to compact disc and (today) it will sound as analog as the vinyl equivalent, all without the associated problems that can be a problem with vinyl.
I agree with Mark 100%.
CD is just a way to store and reproduce sound. It does not add any warmth or tinned sound to music just because it is a CD… CD sound is perfection without wear off.
First of all, CDs are superior in all traditional measurement of high fidelity such as distortion, noise, dynamic range, etc. The idea that somehow sampling limits CD frequency response is incorrect–for all frequencies below one half the sampling rate, which is 48K Hz (samples fer second). So CD’s basically limit the extreme high frequency to about 22k Hz, higher than probably anybody can hear and no music is designed for. It is not the case, as one sometimes hears, that analog recording has limitless high end, lots of factors involved in recording, cutting discs, and playback with a moving stylus that has inertia and momentum determine the high end. Vinyl LPs are limited in what can practically cut into them and the master, so their dynamic range is limited. Also frequencies are not recorded flat because the LP cannot handle cutting the extreme frequencies at the same level as the other frequencies which requires that a separate equalizing amplifier be used (which is why you can’t hook other devices into the “phono” input or the LP player into any other input. These phono amps add distortion and noise and can be misaligned with the standard. LPs also act as microphones picking up the sound that is being played and distorting what is heard–there is no way to avoid this other than playing the LPs in a box or in another room. LPs use are kludge to record 2-channel stereo introducing more distortion, but this may impart a false increase in depth that people may like. People can experiment by making a CD recording of the LP and then see if they can tell the difference. The recorded CD will duplicate that false depth. The worst thing about LPs is surface noise (pops and clicks) that are not a problem with CDs.
Great read .
At 63 years of age I have been through the dump vinyl era for CDs and now living the dump CDs period. I have bought 100s of cheap perfect condition LPs starting the late 80s throughout about the last 20 years. Not to mention the free collections from friends. Currently I buying used CDs for 5$ while the same “collector LP ” sells for 20$ or more. New vinyl is about double the price as a CD. Go figure, the market has reversed.
My personal experiences are that if an album was released during the CD period this is how it should be played. The sonic capabilities of the format is how the album was engineered and meant to be played. I would suggest that even if the masters were digitally remastered, as with the whole Led Zeppelin catalog, you’d waste money paying double to own it.
In regards to vinyl, which I own 3k , when they are made during this period and not remastered this is how I prefer to hear them. If it was practical to collect 78s I would want to hear them on a 1950s audio system. Music should be listened to as those who created it meant it to heard.
With this in mind we all have personal preferences for how we experience music and we choose to collect it. I am just happy to my children , and others , embrace the ownership of music again. Something I have done for over 50 years , the format is only a personal preference, neither is better if love what you’re doing.
Vinyl can never exceed the dynamic range of CD. That is a myth. It’s physically impossible. CDs have a dynamic range of up to 150dB which vinyl can never approach.
45RPM 12″ singles can get pretty close with one side devoted to just one track, but still it’ll never sound as good as CD in those terms.
I assume the reason behind many of these embittered comments from CD enthusiasts is that these people spent a lot of money on small discs (so did i) when everybody thought vinyls were dead and now CDs are worth basically nothing, like 1/10 of the price you paid for them. I was lucky enough to try both formats from young age and now i collect both, even though i only buy vinyls, dynamic range or not, you can’t compare those cheap brittle jewel cases and small booklets to an actual LP. Same difference as between watching movies in theatres and streaming on your phone, no matter if it’s ultra HD, 4K, whatever. Different experience overall. Music is art and art is more than just the content or cold parameters. Bottom line i don’t know why one can’t enjoy both, if it’s perfect clarity all you’re looking for then go ahead and buy CDs. “Superior” is a relative concept.
What makes you think pro CD commenters are embittered? People are free to think what they want, but making general claims requires both theoretical logic and empirical evidence. So, “I prefer the sound of LPs” is just fine, “LPs sound better than CDs” is not. Sure, an LP can sound good (it will deteriorate when played), so what? A properly recorded and mastered CD of the same performance will be better by objective measurements including S/N, dynamic range, flat frequency response, lower distortion, wow and flutter, and much less noise. What people “think” is really irrelevant, they think wrong things daily.