All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
March 27, 2012 - Skeptoid
16:48
Skeptoid #303: Are Vinyl Recordings Better than Digital?

Many audio aficionados split into two camps, those supporting modern digital audio, and those supporting vinyl records. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Vinyl Versus Digital Debate 00:01:38
I'm always fascinated by the observation that as our technology constantly advances, there are some who believe it's going backwards.
As we learn more, they believe we get dumber.
And humans actually had better knowledge and better insight back in the days when we knew and understood less.
Today's example, the idea that digital music recordings are worse than vinyl records.
Vinyl versus digital is coming up right now on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
The Science of Sound Quality 00:13:30
Are vinyl recordings better than digital?
For as long as there have been competing standards, horses versus Steam, paper versus parchment, Android versus iPhone, Whigs versus Tories, fanatics have taken sides and promoted them as superior with nearly religious passion.
The comparison of sound quality between vinyl records and digital recordings stands tall among these platform debates.
Nearly all audio enthusiasts take one side or the other, some openly and with zeal, most with subtlety and qualifying their preference through acknowledgement of the pros and cons of each.
Either way, one basic question supersedes either preference.
Does it make any detectable difference?
Again, those full of zeal on both sides assert that the difference is detectable, implying that they would be able to tell.
In a few moments, we'll take a look at some of the testing that has been done to study this claim.
But first, a quick overview of the salient technical points.
The principal difference is the nature of the storage medium, which is either analog or digital, a smooth flowing waveform as cut into the grooves of a vinyl record, or digital representation of the recorded sound with numeric amplitudes sampled at a high frequency.
There's an exquisite elegance to the way that a stereo signal, two discrete simultaneous channels of music, can be encoded into a single groove that one needle follows.
As the groove moves side to side, a single channel is produced with its frequency determined by the speed at which the needle is pushed left and right and its amplitude determined by how far it's pushed.
To add a second channel, we bring in a second axis of movement, vertical in addition to horizontal.
Tip them both over at 45 degrees and we have a groove that varies in depth as well as in its horizontal axis.
How fast and how far the needle vibrates down to the left describes the signal in the left channel.
How fast and how far the needle vibrates down to the right describes the signal in the right channel.
Adding the two signals together produces the instructions for how the groove is to be cut.
At every instant, there is one smoothly flowing waveform describing the left channel and a second describing the right channel.
It's a beautiful system.
A digital audio recording is defined by two basic parameters, the sample rate, which is how many times per second the height of the waveform is sampled, and the resolution, which is the number of possible levels that can be measured at each sample.
For a compact disk, this resolution is 16-bit, which means that the height of the waveform is measured at each step on a scale of 0 to 65,536, which is very precise.
This measurement is performed at a sample rate of 44,100 times per second.
This number is chosen because it's just over twice the highest frequency that the best human ears can hear, which is around 20,000 Hz.
A formula called the Nyquist rate shows that this is the minimum sample rate needed to produce the full range of human hearing.
Lay each word of 16 zeros or ones end to end, double it because there's a separate measurement for each stereo channel, stream them past at 44,100 measurements per second, and the speed at which those bits go by is called the bit rate.
The higher your bit rate, the higher resolution and sample rate can be used.
If this stream is to be recorded on a compact disk, it goes through another conversion to change it into a completely different series of ones and zeros that can be more accurately read by the laser.
If it's stored on a computer, it can be algorithmically compressed via any of a number of different schemes, producing trade-offs between file size and preservation of data.
So there our battle lines are drawn.
There are myriad things one could say in addition to each.
Vinyl and digital both have good points and bad points.
But here's the reason why the entire debate is stupid.
Whether the music is stored on vinyl or a CD is just not that important a part of the overall system.
It's like deciding which of two different cars is best by comparing their spark plug wires.
There are many, many variables in the process of playing recorded music that noticeably affect the sound, from the microphones to the mixing to the mastering, to the quality of the playback hardware, the amplifier, and, far and away the most important, the quality of the speakers and characteristics of the listening room.
Whether the recording was vinyl or CD is simply not one of these important variables, with apologies to the zealots.
Both methods are easily far superior to any differences the human ear might hope to distinguish.
A lot of vinyl proponents say that the difference is subjective, for example that it sounds warmer or just better.
Digital proponents tend to point out objective difference, such as the fact that a digital signal can accommodate a higher dynamic range, which is a difference in loudness between the quietest and loudest parts of the recording.
But can they actually tell the difference under controlled conditions?
Well, unfortunately, this is a bit like asking which race car driver is most talented if you put them into identical cars.
That car would always suit one driver's style and preferred setup better than the other.
Finding an identical recording on vinyl and on CD to compare doesn't really exist.
In the early days of CDs, record companies sometimes didn't bother making new masters of the old recordings.
They used the same masters that had been used to press the vinyl.
The results were CDs that sounded tinny or thin.
The master suited vinyl, not digital.
Now, mastering engineers will almost always make a new master designed for the intended medium.
A master is a special mix designed by an engineer who knows who's going to be listening, how they're going to listen, what other music it needs to sound good against, and so on.
The separate instrument tracks might be individually equalized, spread across the stereo spectrum, or have a dozen other parameters applied.
Thus, a CD and a vinyl pressing of the exact same recorded performance are likely to be very different.
If they're not, that means an inappropriate master was used for one or the other, and the test will be biased.
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together, get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
Moreover, the vinyl playback method includes giveaways, clicks and pops, hissing, and other noise produced by the mechanical playback experience.
Indeed, much of what's often lauded about vinyl recordings, such as the richer, warmer sound, is not a result of accurate reproduction so much as it is an artifact of the playback mechanism itself.
It's a hard science fact that digital is capable of reproducing higher frequencies than vinyl, above the range of what most people can hear.
But can people distinguish whether a piece of music contains those frequencies or not?
According to research performed at Japan's NHK laboratories in 2004, the answer seems to be no.
They took 36 people and ran 20 tests with each.
Only a single 18-year-old girl was able to beat random chants, and so they retested her separately, but the effect disappeared.
Nevertheless, the researchers issued a somewhat qualified conclusion that they could neither confirm nor deny the possibility that some subjects could discriminate between musical sounds with and without very high frequency components.
Whether that recording is vinyl or digital, any frequencies it may or may not have above 20,000 Hz make no difference.
Controversy also exists between various digital formats, lending credibility to the whole format war concept.
Two high-end consumer digital formats, Super Audio CD and DVD audio, technically direct stream digital and pulse code modulation, have been bantered back and forth by industry experts.
But in 2004, a paper presented at the 116th Audio Engineering Society conference in Berlin found that no significant differences could be heard between DSD and high-resolution PCM, even with the best equipment, under optimal listening conditions, and with test subjects who had varied listening experience and various ways of focusing on what they hear.
Consequently, it could be proposed that neither of these systems has a scientific basis for claiming audible superiority over the other.
This reality should put a halt to the disputation being carried on by the various PR departments concerned.
In 2000, some excellent research was published in the Bulletin of the Council for Research and Music Education, where subjects listened to digital and analog recordings of the same concert performance, recorded unequalized and unmixed, especially for this test.
They were able to switch back and forth between the two at will, and everything was blinded and well controlled.
Overall, the digital version was preferred in all 10 scoring areas.
However, the recorded media for this test were compact disc and cassette tape, so it's not directly comparable to a vinyl record.
The researchers concluded, Results showed that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings higher in quality than corresponding analog versions.
Participants gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble, and overall quality, as well as separation of the instruments and voices.
Higher rating means for the digital versions were generally consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions and the four types of performance media.
To summarize the science, digital is the superior reproduction format, but analog, particularly vinyl, offers a particular type of sound that some people prefer.
I liken it to a Ferrari versus a Mustang.
They may have different metrics, but the people who like them for what they are don't care so much about that.
The best argument in favor of vinyl recordings need not be bolstered by unsupported claims about the technical quality of the recording, and that's the physical, tangible experience.
Lowering a needle onto a record engraved with an actual audio waveform is comparable to building your own hot rod with greasy hands and case-hardened tools.
Its performance compared to that of a factory-produced BMW is simply not relevant.
It's about an experience, not about metrics or tabulated results.
More senses are involved, the smell of the album cover, the touch of lowering the tone arm into the groove, the sight of the stroboscope indicating the precise turntable speed.
It's a full experience to which the listener must dedicate focused attention and time.
Vinyl records are a hands-on personal connection to the actual audio, and that's something no amount of digital perfection can replicate.
You can debate the validity of that connection all you want, and you'll find that it's a metaphysical, philosophical issue.
There is no logic or practical connection.
But some things, these types of connections, those for which no practical, quantitative explanation exists, are sometimes the most important.
Support Skeptoid and Critical Thinking 00:01:36
Skeptoid is made possible by financial support from listeners.
The recurring micropayments make it really easy for you to make it possible for the show to continue.
Come to skeptoid.com and click on Support Skeptoid and see the cool free gift you'll receive for joining.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Hello everyone, this is Adrienne Hill from Skookum Studios in Calgary, Canada, the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as $5 per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile non-profit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the teacher's toolkit, then sign up today.
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX
Export Selection