# Will the "New Vinyl" records really sound like the "Old Vinyl"?



## haydnguy

I didn't know where to post this so I picked the place I thought most fit.

I don't know anything about sound equipment or sonics. I listened to vinyl records as a youngster. When CD's came out in the early '80's I quickly jumped on those and have been loving them ever since. Frankly, why anyone would want to go back to vinyl is beyond me. But here is a question I have:

I read where Bruce Springsteen recently released a new recording ONLY on vinyl. I used to have some early Springsteen years ago on vinyl. My question is, won't they have to use the same type of recording equipment they did back then to reporduce the vinyl like it was back then? I seem to remember people referencing "master tapes". But I don't think you can reproduce the orchestra that the Beatles used on "A Day In The Life" simply on electronic machines. It simply won't sound the same.

The church where I am a member has a pipe organ. I visited another church one time and they tried to use an electronic keyboard to mimic a pipe organ. The difference was laughable. 

Will the "new" really sound like the "old"?


----------



## gardibolt

How old is old? 1970s and 80s vinyl was often laughably bad quality since the record companies were trying to save pennies by cutting corners. Current releases are intended for audiophile vinyl lovers, and frequently tend to be high quality heavy vinyl, so potentially current vinyl LPs could well sound better than old ones. This observation is purely theoretical, though; I haven't done any kind of comparisons to see if it's actually the case---I'm talking about potentials here.


----------



## bigshot

But new vinyl is short run and doesn't have the same quality of mastering and pressing that LPs had back when they were the only game in town. It really doesn't matter because LPs are a compromise on a million other aspects of sound fidelity anyway. It's more of a fetish item at this point than a sound reproduction format. Used LPs are great though because there's lots of wonderful music that never got re-released to CD. THAT'S the reason to have a turntable.


----------



## Larkenfield

New vinyl is not a fetish item, though for some older listeners there may still be some feeling of nostalgia about it because they like the ritual around playing records. The interest in vintage and new vinyl has been growing tremendously, and people actually have to buy the albums rather than downloading bootleg CDs for nothing, and it's good for the economy, however modest the market might seem now.

And some listeners are simply fed up with the lack of warmth of straight digital sound and all S-S equipment. The interest in vinyl records is one of the most exciting developments in the commercial side of the industry for those who like analogue sound, though not all new vinyl records are taken from analogue masters, and I think that's very much a downside. Los Angeles is a particular hotbed of growth with no end in sight; it continues to grow with even the resurgence of actual walk-in shops. Who would have thought? So actual brick-and-mortar shops are on the comeback.

One would think that such a development would be celebrated when CD sales are dying, but evidently that's not always the case and continual misinformation is spread by those who really have no interest in it and may think that digital and S-S sound is the end-all and be-all of music. Well, it's not. The interest in vinyl has gone way beyond being a fetish item, and it's the growing interest in vinyl that's driving the availability and profitability of these walk-in stores. I'm glad to see it.

http://www.laweekly.com/music/the-10-best-record-stores-in-la-4167447


----------



## Larkenfield

...............


----------



## SixFootScowl

Someday, after CDs are a relic of the past, people will be collecting old CDs and new CDs will start being produced to satisfy the growing nostalgic demand for CDs.


----------



## wkasimer

Aren't the "new vinyl" records recorded digitally?


----------



## SixFootScowl

wkasimer said:


> Aren't the "new vinyl" records recorded digitally?


Yes, I read that they are. What a sham! :lol:


----------



## Guest

Well, not really. A properly done digital recording is practically identical to the source signal. So a vinyl record is effectively an analog recording of a digital playback, which is pretty much the same as an analog recording of the original source.

Then again, a CD of an analog recording is nothing but a digital recording of an analog playback. 

Both are effectively analog, although there is more distortion in an LP playback than in an analog master tape, so the digitally recorded LP is probably more "analog," i.e. has more analog artifacts, than a CD issue of an analog master tape.


----------



## bigshot

LPs are inferior to CDs in every aspect of fidelity that you can name... frequency response, noise floor, dynamic range, distortion, timing... CD is audibly better. LPs have two advantages... nice big covers that you can read without glasses, and lots of music that never made the transition to CD. I have tens of thousands of records and some of them sound very nice. But if you offered me an LP or a CD and the engineering was the same on both, I would pick the CD every time. It's a better format. It's more convenient, more compact, and it has better sound quality.

Everyone points to articles saying the LP sales are booming. They aren't. They're just selling more than they did in 1995 when no one was manufacturing or marketing LPs any more. If you compare current LP sales to sales of music in general, or to sales of LPs in the 1970s, you can clearly see that LP sales today are just one drop in an ocean.


----------



## wkasimer

bigshot said:


> LPs are inferior to CDs in every aspect of fidelity that you can name... frequency response, noise floor, dynamic range, distortion, timing... CD is audibly better. LPs have two advantages... nice big covers that you can read without glasses, and lots of music that never made the transition to CD. I have tens of thousands of records and some of them sound very nice. But if you offered me an LP or a CD and the engineering was the same on both, I would pick the CD every time. It's a better format. It's more convenient, more compact, and it has better sound quality.


Even if one believes that LP's sound better than CD's (and in some cases, this is no doubt true, particularly when the transfer to CD was botched), in order to appreciate it, you really need to spend serious $$$ on analog gear - turntable, cartridge, phono amplifier. But I suspect that the vast majority of vinyl is currently being sold to twenty-somethings who are playing these records on equipment that is far from state of the art. So unless you're playing vinyl on good equipment, it IS a fetish.


----------



## Biffo

wkasimer said:


> Aren't the "new vinyl" records recorded digitally?


Some 'old' vinyl records were recorded digitally, Karajan's recording of The Magic Flute for example. I still have the LPs of the latter and the booklet extolling the virtues of digital recording. For a time digital recordings were released on both LP and CD. See also Baron Scarpia's posting above.


----------



## Merl

In answer to the OP, yes new vinyl will sound like old vinyl......play it a few times and suddenly it's full of pops, crackles and scratches that just suddenly appear as if by magic, even when you look after your vinyl. You can keep her scratchy old, inconvenient format. The demise of it didn't happen quickly enough for me.


----------



## rspader

From the Telegraph (22 April 2017): " . . . according to a BBC/ICM poll from last year, 41 per cent of people who buy vinyl have a turntable but do not use it, with 7 per cent of vinyl buyers not even owning a turntable." Sure sounds like a fetish to me.


----------



## SixFootScowl

rspader said:


> From the Telegraph (22 April 2017): " . . . according to a BBC/ICM poll from last year, 41 per cent of people who buy vinyl have a turntable but do not use it, with 7 per cent of vinyl buyers not even owning a turntable." Sure sounds like a fetish to me.


I bought a few vinyl disks at garage sales because they were of albums I used to have on vinyl and I wanted them just to have. Not spinning them as I have them on CD.


----------



## Adamus

And all recorded music is inferior to live music, especially when you`re the musician yourself. The highest is singing, the rest is diminishing return :tiphat:


----------



## Adamus

You’re a singer?


----------



## Larkenfield

The vinyl record boom for a new generation: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/13/vinyl-is-vintage-and-the-future-as-new-generation-warms-to-an-old-music-form.html

Record sales have hit a 25 year high: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/music/2017/jan/03/record-sales-vinyl-hits-25-year-high-and-outstrips-streaming

12th year in a row of increase in vinyl sales: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.billboard.com/amp/articles/columns/chart-beat/8085951/us-vinyl-album-sales-nielsen-music-record-high-2017

Why listeners are turning to vinyl and dropping digital: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/3663568/vinyl-sales-increase

"According to music industry experts in vinyl and digital, the answer is two-fold. Vinyl remains popular because the high-quality sound it delivers. While everyone from DJs to your grandfather has been saying for years that the sound on vinyl is richer, warmer and clearer than what's being released online, it might not just be music snobbery talking. Most industry experts agree with them to an extent."

Bingo!


----------



## Adamus

Tell me more about your equipment.


----------



## Adamus

Fritz Kobus said:


> I bought a few vinyl disks at garage sales because they were of albums I used to have on vinyl and I wanted them just to have. Not spinning them as I have them on CD.


What's your message?


----------



## Adamus

rspader said:


> From the Telegraph (22 April 2017): " . . . according to a BBC/ICM poll from last year, 41 per cent of people who buy vinyl have a turntable but do not use it, with 7 per cent of vinyl buyers not even owning a turntable." Sure sounds like a fetish to me.


They buy "Bowie" for 200USD. See the price now on Amazon  1000 copies for the management; just a bonus.


----------



## Adamus

rspader said:


> From the Telegraph (22 April 2017): " . . . according to a BBC/ICM poll from last year, 41 per cent of people who buy vinyl have a turntable but do not use it, with 7 per cent of vinyl buyers not even owning a turntable." Sure sounds like a fetish to me.


You don't get it.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Adamus said:


> What's your message?


Just giving an example of buying vinyl and not spinning it as the person I quoted said many do. With me it was not a fetish, but I liked those albums and was fun to grab them cheap for the artwork and memories.


----------



## wkasimer

Larkenfield said:


> "According to music industry experts in vinyl and digital, the answer is two-fold. Vinyl remains popular because the high-quality sound it delivers. While everyone from DJs to your grandfather has been saying for years that the sound on vinyl is richer, warmer and clearer than what's being released online, it might not just be music snobbery talking. Most industry experts agree with them to an extent."


LP's sound better than streaming audio or MP3 files? Wow, what a shock....


----------



## wkasimer

Fritz Kobus said:


> Just giving an example of buying vinyl and not spinning it as the person I quoted said many do. With me it was not a fetish, but I liked those albums and was fun to grab them cheap for the artwork and memories.


Sure - I still buy the occasional LP for the cover (and booklet, particularly for some opera recordings). But it has nothing to do with sonics - it's called "collecting".


----------



## Larkenfield

Vinyl is here to stay. Vinyl and tapes are the only way to get delivery of analog sound for those who are fed up with the delivery and limitations of digital sound only. Analog sound cannot be delivered through digital means with its conversion of digits. So for analog sound, there is no choice but to go in the direction of vinyl and turntables. No one is going to spend $200 or $300 on a decent turntable, buy LPs, and not listen to them unless perhaps they have a $50 Crosley record player and one copy of Sgt. Pepper’s Band. So vinyl has already proven to be far more than just a fad despite the occasional pops and clicks that can sometimes be heard on records.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Do yourselves a favour and get a decent record player, there are many out there- and see what your missing out on.

The whole CD thing was a big con job.


----------



## JohnD

People who collect 78s say that LPs were a big con job.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Well the right ones can be worth quite a bit..............

The zenth of Hi Fi occurred during the late 1970's to the mid 1980's when Hi Fi reached it peaks in quality and availability of high quality equipment, since then the high end has become a small niche and unaffordable to most.


----------



## Merl

Eddie, get yerself a few wax cylinder recordings. You'll be amazed at the warmth and richness of that sound before the LP came along and spoiled it. I believe wax cylinder sales increased last year, too.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Merl said:


> Eddie, get yerself a few wax cylinder recordings. You'll be amazed at the warmth and richness of that sound before the LP came along and spoiled it. I believe wax cylinder sales increased last year, too.


Don't worry I've been eyeing of a few machines and cylinders in collectable stores


----------



## Guest

I still have my record collection from back in the day. It cost me an arm and a leg so I could never afford to buy a decent turntable.

In modern times I have bought a few hundred more LPs, all old and used, and a decent second hand turntable to go with it, a Technics SL1200. So for £300 all in I've got a sizable collection which sounds very good, when the records have been looked after.

Sometimes CDs sound better to me, sometimes LPs do. I have to check to see if the surround sound system is on for the latter at times, such is the 3D impression of the sound. Whilst I'm sure that Bigshot is right about CDs being more accurate, at the same time speakers are not the same shape as the various instruments and the way rooms react to the sound varies from place to place, so I am unconvinced that it is just about perfection of recording quality. Sometimes vinyl hits the sweet spot which CDs never can.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Forget vinyl, you all should go back to the reel-to-reel tape. That is the definitive sound media.
Portable too. See the grab hole in the side.


----------



## Merl

I'm going with the drawing-pin-in-the-bottom-of-a-yoghurt-pot sound system. I believe hipsters all over London are doing it.


----------



## rspader

Adamus said:


> You don't get it.


Probably not. For me, that is typical.


----------



## bigshot

For older recordings, the masters may have been damaged or have degraded, requiring CDs to be made from old protection dubs. If this is the case, the LP may sound better than the CD. But CDs as a format are higher fidelity than LPs are. When they get together, record collectors usually spend most of their time discussing differences between various releases. You have to ask someone who knows to make sure you get the best. It gets even more complicated when you get back to the 78 era because in addition to dubs, there are actually multiple takes released under the same label number and title.


----------



## Guest

A few days ago when I was in a hifi shop, I was surprised that the staff member point blank said that, given the right equipment, vinyl has a better sound quality than CD. Even if that's true, it's not the whole story. I grew up in the pre-digital age and I used to get thoroughly sick of all the extraneous noises that typically accompanied vinyl albums, even on new ones I bought. When CDs came out I couldn't ditch vinyl quick enough. I still have quite a few cassettes of vinyl albums that I recorded. When I listen to them I'm reminded of all the clicks, pops, scratches etc that used to impinge on and spoil my listening pleasure (especially in quiet parts of the music). Good riddance.


----------



## KenOC

dogen said:


> A few days ago when I was in a hifi shop, I was surprised that the staff member point blank said that, given the right equipment, vinyl has a better sound quality than CD.


For a commissioned salesperson, the wish is often father to the thought. For opinions of similar value, try a used car lot. :lol:


----------



## Guest

bigshot said:


> For older recordings, the masters may have been damaged or have degraded, requiring CDs to be made from old protection dubs. If this is the case, the LP may sound better than the CD. But CDs as a format are higher fidelity than LPs are. When they get together, record collectors usually spend most of their time discussing differences between various releases. You have to ask someone who knows to make sure you get the best. It gets even more complicated when you get back to the 78 era because in addition to dubs, there are actually multiple takes released under the same label number and title.


I can think of quite a few recordings that sounded better on LP than CD. The reason is always that the remastering was not artfully done. One example, the Grumiax recordings of the Bach Violin Concerti on Philips (the stereo recording). Grumiaux's wonderful fluid tone sounds a bit scratchy on the CD, not as pleasant. I think partly an issue of equalization, and partly that recordings in those days were recorded in such a way that they would come across even when slightly degraded by the LP, and they are a bit overwhelming when not toned down by LP process. Another possibility is that my memory has embellished the wonderful sound of that LP. 

That said, a properly done all-digital recording on CD always sounds better to me. Not all of them are properly done. Telarc could always be depended on for an honest recording, and Teldec. (both gone).


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> For a commissioned salesperson, the wish is often father to the thought. For opinions of similar value, try a used car lot. :lol:


It was weird, given all the digital stuff they sold.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Fritz Kobus said:


> Forget vinyl, you all should go back to the reel-to-reel tape. That is the definitive sound media.
> Portable too. See the grab hole in the side.


I want one now, portable sound wow. In fact it would make a great Eddie Bot at work


----------



## Triplets

Many new vinyl recordings, or reissues of old recordings, use digital masters. Why bother?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Because they are still vinyl and better. A master is a master and will have much higher res whether digital or analog no matter what it is being transferred to for sale/ publication, simple...............


----------



## SixFootScowl

Wouldn't a stainless steel disk sound better? Get rid of pops and clicks, more durable grooves so the music does not flatten with too much playing?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Fritz Kobus said:


> Wouldn't a stainless steel disk sound better? Get rid of pops and clicks, more durable grooves so the music does not flatten with too much playing?


I think a diamond disc would be better:lol:.

Stainless Steel, in fact corrodes and if you kept scratching the oxide of it, it would disappear very quickly............. plus I think it would give off a cold timbre


----------



## SixFootScowl

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I think a diamond disc would be better:lol:.
> 
> Stainless Steel, in fact corrodes and if you kept scratching the oxide of it, it would disappear very quickly............. *plus I think it would give off a cold timbre*


Yeah! Johnny Winter liked his National Steel Guitar. Of the one he played on Third Degree he said "It was an old National that sounded really *raw and nasty, like a garbage can with strings on it*." (p265 Raisin Cain, The Wild and Raucous Story of Johnny Winter, Mary Lou Sullivan) I suspect steel records could have a similar "garbage can" effect.


----------



## wkasimer

dogen said:


> It was weird, given all the digital stuff they sold.


True. But if you buy a turntable, you also probably need to buy a phono amplifier. And when he talks about the "right equipment", that includes a cartridge that costs serious $$$ and has to be replaced frequently. When you buy a piece of digital equipment, that's the only sale he's going to make.


----------



## bigshot

dogen said:


> A few days ago when I was in a hifi shop, I was surprised that the staff member point blank said that, given the right equipment, vinyl has a better sound quality than CD.


Even with the right equipment it isn't better fidelity than CD because LP records themselves have a limited frequency response, higher distortion, more noise, narrower dynamics and more speed fluctuations than CDs. People look at the specs of a phono cartridge and see that it might go beyond 20kHz. But that doesn't matter because the only sound in that range in the grooves of an LP is noise.


----------



## Simon Moon

wkasimer said:


> Aren't the "new vinyl" records recorded digitally?


No.

There are an ever increasing number of analog recording studios being built.

As far as digital formats being better than vinyl in 'all' aspects, I agree with all but one aspect. Vinyl still has the ability to create a bigger, deeper soundstage and more precise imaging, than almost all digital formats.

This has to do with our evolved ability of our auditory systems to discern time differences as low as 7 micro seconds. Too long to go into here.

The only digital format that comes close in this aspect, is DSD. But DSD has other drawbacks which drastically limit its usefulness.


----------



## bigshot

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> I think a diamond disc would be better










Edison made those


----------



## bigshot

Simon Moon said:


> There are an ever increasing number of analog recording studios being built.


I live in Los Angeles and work in the business. I have only heard of one studio that can still record to 24 track tape. All of the other ones keep one 24 track player in the machine room and they transfer any pre-digital master that comes in to digital and mix and deliver a final master in digital format.

Analogue recording is dead as a doornail. Most LP records being made now derive from digital masters.

The best soundstage and imaging is with Dolby Atmos. Sound location is a matter of channel separation and the number of channels. Digital beats LPs by a hundred miles in those areas.

The threshold of audibility for time (group delay) is 1 to 3 ms between 500Hz to 8kHz.

Just about all the major digital audio formats are capable of reaching audible transparency, including lossy. There is no audible difference between a master and a CD. There is an audible difference between a master and an LP though, because an LP has additional distortion and noise, particularly at the inner grooves. The difference in sound quality between the outer groove and inner groove of an LP is huge.


----------



## SixFootScowl

bigshot said:


> Even with the right equipment it isn't better fidelity than CD because LP records themselves have a limited frequency response, higher distortion, more noise, narrower dynamics and more speed fluctuations than CDs. People look at the specs of a phono cartridge and see that it might go beyond 20kHz. But that doesn't matter because *the only sound in that range in the grooves of an LP is noise*.


:lol: I love it! But it wont matter to those seriously addicted to vinyl. People will screen out truth that upsets their preferred understanding


----------



## haydnguy

Thanks for answering everyone. I have a stepson who is in his mid-'30's but knows more about the old music '60's, '70's than I do.

He said that the new vinyl would be recorded the same (on thick vinyl) but there was a controversy whether the same equipment should be used to listen to them like Marantz receivers and Kush speakers. I had a Marantz receiver and a pretty good turntable but my speakers were not up to par. They didn't take advantage of what the receiver had to offer.


----------



## bigshot

Speakers are always the limiting factor. Most modern amps and receivers are audibly transparent, so what you put into them is what you get out. For digital audio most players and DACs are audibly transparent too. The wild card is the speakers and the room. That is the place to focus if you want to improve your sound fidelity.


----------



## SixFootScowl

bigshot said:


> Speakers are always the limiting factor. Most modern amps and receivers are audibly transparent, so what you put into them is what you get out. For digital audio most players and DACs are audibly transparent too. The wild card is the speakers and the room. That is the place to focus if you want to improve your sound fidelity.


Of course the amp needs enough power to drive the speakers at low distortion levels.


----------



## JohnD

haydnguy said:


> Thanks for answering everyone. I have a stepson who is in his mid-'30's but knows more about the old music '60's, '70's than I do.
> 
> *He said that the new vinyl would be recorded the same (on thick vinyl)* but there was a controversy whether the same equipment should be used to listen to them like Marantz receivers and Kush speakers. I had a Marantz receiver and a pretty good turntable but my speakers were not up to par. They didn't take advantage of what the receiver had to offer.


Please allow me to nitpick: music isn't "recorded" on vinyl. It's recorded on tape or digitally and then an analog or digital master is created and that master is transferred to a vinyl or CD format.


----------



## rumleymusic

No one records classical music to tape anymore. The popular recording machines today are network based converter systems like Merging Horus or DAD AX32. The transfer to vinyl is a novelty stage and sometimes requires remastering to work with the format. 

I'm sure it is fun to listen to records, and what else is music other than entertainment, though for me, at least since the switch to becoming an engineer, the love of high quality sound is almost as important as the music itself. 

Bigshot already accurately explained the drawbacks of vinyl. In any measurable way, the audio fidelity is inferior. The dynamic range is around 30-40dB compared to 96dB for CD. The frequency response it ragged, depends on reconstruction filters, and tops out at about 15kHz. And the music needs to be mixed mono in the bass frequencies so the needle doesn't jump out of the groove. Digital is a pure, unobstructed SIN wave calculation whose only limitations are the analog circuitry it has to pass through to reach your ears. Without the burden of a physical storage format, there is no added noise or point of failure. 

I suppose though, that the extra distortion and compressed sound is very pleasant in a way. We still use tube microphones for their wonderful, resonant qualities, which is a direct result of harmonic distortion. Analog tape also adds a nice warmth that cannot be denied. But who the heck wants to lug a 600 lb tape recorder 1000 miles to record an orchestra in their hall? I can barely handle the equipment I have.


----------



## JohnD

Furthermore, cutting lathes for vinyl albums used to be tube-driven. That added a bit more of that pleasant harmonic distortion AKA "warmth". From the late 1960s on, transistor-driven cutting lathes took over. That's another reason why newly pressed vinyl is going to sound different from older vinyl.


----------



## Simon Moon

bigshot said:


> I live in Los Angeles and work in the business. I have only heard of one studio that can still record to 24 track tape. All of the other ones keep one 24 track player in the machine room and they transfer any pre-digital master that comes in to digital and mix and deliver a final master in digital format.
> 
> Analogue recording is dead as a doornail. Most LP records being made now derive from digital masters.


Lair, York, 64 Sound, Old Boots, Stagg Street, have analog capabilities.



> The threshold of audibility for time (group delay) is 1 to 3 ms between 500Hz to 8kHz.


http://www.yamahaproaudio.com/global/en/training_support/selftraining/audio_quality/chapter4/02_audio_universe/

" The outcome of the experiment indicated that the threshold of the perception of *timing difference between the two signals was 6 microseconds*. A later experiment in 2008 confirmed this value to be even a little lower. In this white paper we propose 6 microseconds to be the timing limitation of the human auditory system. "

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170601124055.htm

"The ear that is closer to the source receives the signal before the contralateral ear. But since this interval -- referred to as the interaural timing difference (ITD) -- *is on the order of a few microseconds*, its neuronal processing requires exceptional temporal precision."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization

"Localization accuracy is 1 degree for sources in front of the listener and 15 degrees for sources to the sides. *Humans can discern interaural time differences of 10 microseconds or less"*


----------



## bigshot

Simon Moon said:


> Lair, York, 64 Sound, Old Boots, Stagg Street, have analog capabilities.


They actually have the ability to record to 24 track tape? I know houses have a single 24 track in the machine room to transfer masters to digital for mixing digitally, but I only know one place in Santa Monica that actually has a whole studio built around 24 track recording. No project I've ever heard of has worked on 24 track for a couple of decades.

My spec on group delay was for music, not for test tones. I should have specified that. When it comes to sound localization, that is more a matter for room acoustics than recording.


----------

