It’s vinyl’s distinct artifacts, coloring, and harmonic distortion characteristics, which make it sound so pleasant, I reckon.

I find recording digital audio from my DAC to an RTR, often makes the recording sound more pleasant, but it’s certainly not higher fidelity than it’s source. It’s the characteristic of the media. Not terribly unlike taking a an image that was rendered and printed digitally, and using photo emulation to produce a silk screen print in layers. The end reproduction is certainly not higher fidelity than it’s origin. The inherent characteristics of the media rendered, make it more desirable and pleasant to look at.

The likely reason why vinyl sounds better is because there is different front-end equipment being used for vinyl vs. digital. When listening at home, what DAC are you using to convert DSD to analog? How does your DAC differ from what the studio used to convert the DSD to analog? At home, what transport are you using to send the bits to your DAC? How does your transport differ from what the studio used to transfer the bits to the DAC? What kind of power conditioning are you using at home? DACs send noise back into the power line, and that noise spreads into your other stereo equipment. (use a quality power cord for your DAC / CD player, and you will not know how you lived without it) Your turntable will not create that noise. Your phono-amp will not create that noise. It is all well and good to have the perfect capture of a performance. But the playback of that captured sound will vary wildly, depending on the equipment being used for the playback. @3:39 "You got, you know, a needle wiggling back and forth..." Stereos have no needles Needles are for sewing and flu shot.

Great topic, Paul! There are some mastering engineers around town here in LA who know all about the differences you describe. One experiment that was tried a while back was to carefully cut an acetate lacquer from a very high sample rate PCM or DSD master, using all the engineer's skill, judgement, custom cutter head amplifiers, and eq/dyanamics-control gear for the cutting process. The acetate was then quickly re-recorded using a high end ADC and phono cart, tonearm and preamp. Result: Digital files with all of the finesse of the lacquer mastering process, and lacquer playback embedded in the new digital file. Some mastering engineers now offer this process as an extra service to those ordering CD (or digital file) mastering, since the response has been very positive. Upon hearing the results, some old gaffers sometimes exclaim "That's a CD we're listening to...?!?" Cost varies depending on the run time of the recording, and choice of cutting at 33 or 45 RPM. And, you end up with lacquer recordings as a souveneir!

These type of informational videos is what makes you a priceless audiophile resource. Thank you for what you do.

I'm an audio engineer. Records always sound more compressed than an original tape master(or high quality digital copy). I'm into open sounds not compressed sounds, but that's just me. 🙃

Live In Paris is the one album of hers I really like. I have the CD and vinyl double-LP. The hype sticker on the vinyl LP says it was "Mastered by Bernie Grundman from the original analogue master tapes" so I will assume it was recorded to analog(ue) tape. My impression is that the CD and vinyl sound about the same. For the record, my system consists of: SME 20/3 turntable, SME V arm, Dynavector XV-1s, van den Hull "The Grail" phono pre, dCS Rossini DAC + dCS Rossini Master Clock, Audio Note Kondo Ongaku amp, Avantgarde Duo Mezzo speakers. I don't find, in this case, with my system, to my ears, that vinyl sounds better. Different but not better. What I do find is that generally the best sounding medium tends to be the one of the original recording. Two examples: Nina Simone's "Little Girl Blue" sounds better in its LP version than its SACD version (both mastered at the same time by Ryan Smith from the original analog tapes in the 2015 AP release). Similarly, Todd Garfinkle's recording of "Sera Una Noche", captured in digital beautifully, sounds better in digital than vinyl. There's some magic lost in translation. BTW, I just learned from you guys that Live In Paris is available in SACD, and I just bought it. Thank you! I might report back here how it compares to the CD version.

this points out something important. If the goal of our equipment is fidelity to the source, accuracy, transparency, then clearly the digital source wins hands down. But obviously many people prefer the sound of vinyl. Whether it's the dynamic compression, the low frequency resonances, the comforting noise profile, the blurred channel separation...something about it makes it more pleasing to many ears. I just feel like it's important to note that if we prefer the vinyl playback of a digital source, we are specifically preferring LOWER fidelity to higher fidelity.

For me, a lover of loud and dynamic Classical music, the digital playback of a recording can’t be beat. I’ve listened to albums and CDs. The superior S/N ratio, frequency response and dynamic range of CDs won me over decades ago. But… I understand that many types of music may sound “better” to people when listening to vinyl.

Thanks for the explanation and perseptions...

Perfection isn't always the best

Some listeners just enjoy the euphonic coloration that the vinyl playback system (physical sound wave groove +stylus+cantilever+cartridge+phono preamp) imparts to the sound, adding some harmonics and distortion, removing some frequencies and other sound characteristics. No different than guys who prefer the "tube sound" or "tape sound." A transfer function could probably easily be made digitally to replicate what the vinyl system adds/subtracts from the sound as recorded from the mics to the recording medium, ie analog tape or pcm, dsd digital during the session. Make foobar or other Media player plugins to replicate any vinyl stylus, cart, table, phono preamp combo, pending the DAC quality of course.

Great to here Paul!

Ripped the vinyl to FLAC.. played through stand alone DAC from USB output...as warm as Vinyl with no digital Brightness or harshness...I don't know the reason but I love it.

I have yet to hear any vinyl record that sounded as good as, let alone better than, a CD of the same title.

Rule of thumb for me is, Vinyl for analog recordings and CD or Hi-res for Digitally recorded music. I have a competent rig for both cases. I noticed that the final mix (sound engineering) in digital recordings is mostly done to sound good on a digital medium. #2 Recent presses or reissues are a hit and miss in most cases. I got tired of spending money (30-40$)on a new vinyl or doing research on a fresh pressed vinyl to see if the quality holds. Try a newly pressed Amy Winehouse or Oasis vinyl and you will find out that there only good to put on a table to be use as a coaster for the giant glass of Scotch needed to console me after spending 40$ on them.

Can’t wait for the in-house vinyl. Hopefully the price will come down a bit. I’ve got Temporary Circumstances on vinyl, and I really love the bonus track. One question, was the album recorded live to two channel, or were the vocals and piano recorded separately. Thanks in advance.

Listening to Diana Krall’s “Girl in the Other Room” on SACD just blows my mind off. I find it as satisfying as the vinyl recording

It's A Trap! Lol. Great answer, Paul. Truly a question for which the line "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy" is a perfect answer. Sometimes there's just a bit of magic in the air. I remember an audio cassette that sounded better than both the vinyl and the CD versions of the same album. It just happens.

Suggest that we'd have to look at the psychoacoustics of overwhelming stimuli, to really get to the bottom of why a lower resolution component like vinyl is preferred by some people over the higher resolution PDM or PCM encodings. It's pretty easy to demonstrate that we humans don't like too much information simultaneously incoming (this is true in taste, and smell, and definitely vision.) Remember, "hearing" is a process in the brain, something we construct and experience _as a result_ of stimulation via ears. The actual sound waves are *not* the act of hearing. The act of hearing is a brain process.

The home playback equipment comparison is the most important variable that will directly effect perceived differences however there's something even more basic to consider. Since vinyl playback lies in the analog domain, despite all of it's technical limitations it theoretically can provide "infinite frequency response." You can make the argument that vinyl under ideal conditions can reproduce harmonic series overtones produced above the fundamental notes of an acoustic instrument in a more realistic way for human hearing even if everything started out as digital in the recording process. IMHO - Digital is great for increased dynamics, a lower noise floor, lower measured distortions, etc., but when it comes to reproducing pure harmonics of natural acoustic instruments, I believe vinyl may win out for some listeners for this reason. It's all about that little vibrating stylus in the groove. Picture drawing a bow across a string, striking a drum, hammers striking the strings on a grand piano, etc. There are physical similarities here. This is my "hypothetical" explanation. P.S. I love both platforms for different reasons. They do live together side by side in my home system.

Don't forget that most SACD players have 'cheap' Sony DACs in them. If you are comparing that to a multi thousand dollar vinyl setup, we are not comparing apples with apples. Also, we tend to acclimatise to the sounds were are or were used to, e.g. vinyl.

Great news, waiting impatiently for the end result!

Maybe the physical cutting of grooves "smooths" out the digital signal as it gets its final conversion to analog??? Digital Hf has always sounded a bit harsh to me. I watch and learn from this channel all of the time. Love it.

Modern digital audio is superior to vinyl in convenience and audio fidelity and that’s why it is near 100% of what the world is using.

Hey Paul - Could the dynamic range be compressed, the same way its on viynl, on to an SACD to test your therory?

🤗👍THANKS PAUL …for a great objective explanation 👏👏👏 But sadly this is not in most people’s budget 😞 SO we need a friend who has this available 🤗 And is willing to share with us with Champaign tastes …😁😍😍😍

How it was recorded and what format it was recorded onto is of course an important factor but only part of the scenario. Analog tape vs digital just simply sounds different. There is no denying that. But I think the biggest factor of which version sound better at the consumer level is how it was mastered, and how well it was mastered onto each format. I have some analog recorded versions that were mastered both onto vinyl and digital and the digital version sounds better. and vice versa. I think the one that surprises me the most is when a digital recording sound better on vinyl than a digital version. It really comes down to how it was mastered and then mastered onto each format.

My humble opinion is that, due to reduced dynamic range of the record, the mix for the record need to be compressed, with the side effect that it sounds louder. And often louder seems better but is not. With the compression you add noise, loose clarity, soundstage and so on.. Let's face it, vinyl is a lossy format.

Dsd transfer to vinyl sounds different. Some folks just like the distortion. Same way is the valve sound

Here is the real question, why do you need DSD? You have at hand a format (vinyl) that came out in the 50s/60s and can still be played on a turntable that also hasn’t really changed since then. And it STILL sounds better than any other format currently available. Name me one other format that has had that staying power. Add to that their collectibility, the large format artwork, the tactile feeling of being able to hold the album and read the liner notes, etc. and it’s a slam-dunk for me over digital. And yes I still listen to digital for convenience, but there’s nothing sweeter than pulling out a vinyl album, placing it on the TT, pouring yourself a bourbon, and placing the needle in the groove.

Go on, tell us more about those valve reverbs please!

The converter you guys use to in the process of transferring the master to the vinyl is probably better than what most of us have at home - and then - - - the magic of coils and magnets come into the equation during the playback of a record - - which imho, has always been a key factor in that vinyl magic we all love - for me, especially with better pressings, there even seems to be more in the way of dynamics which if actually measured is likely not true, certainly there's less in dynamics in the vinyl itself which would seem to lead to considering what the cartridge is actually doing to provide that dynamic sense - like how the cartridge is designed and performs must play a key role - - and yes, of course, we all know everything else matters too - - personally, I'd hate to live without both sources, I truly enjoy both, but I'd still take vinyl if I could only have one or the other.

So the old vinyl technology the old sound enginieers have the answer of this mystery which is like an old black magic ...I love the magic around the vinyl sound ,great video ,cheers from Argentina 🎊🥳🥂

I have noticed the same but I can't explain it, I just spin with it!

it is the quality of the mix that sets the quality of the sound. the media is irrelevant: all the media does is get the signal into the amp.

Yeah I've got "out of thin air" and "say somethin" on vinyl. Not only is the music great, the sound quality is amazing too... among the best in my collection. Octave Records did a great job on those. Keep up the good work! 👍

Digital Master: A prime grade rib eye steak. Vinyl: That same steak, only grilled on a charcoal grill seasoned with salt and pepper. Then slow simmered in butter, garlic, thyme, rosemary, and served with a nice cold beverage of your choice.

Whatever source is used, as long as the vinyl cut is cut specefic for vinyl. Mastered to laquer, it often says on a sticker or on the back cover? So how Diana was recorded that night, comes down to what next step is taking and which format used? That is my thoughts ✌️❤️🇩🇰

A lot of listeners are attracted to the distorted effects that are created by the creation of vinyl record plus the enhancements to the midrange frequencies which is where we hear the most of, its not worse they are just not the same

One importan question from me? A DSD CD, does it only "works" through a SACD or another kind of player? Would i benefit using DSD recorded CD's om my older Linn Ikemi HDCD ??

I love DSd, did not realize just how much better it was than pcm before I got my SACD player. Analog sounding, really. My two favorites are my sacd player and my turntable

Can you apply the "limitations" that can be heard on vinyl to playing DSD file as it plays to see if it gain the vinyl properties. I refer to limited bandwidh, more noice, and compression, then back to DSD again with the added bits removed, all this on the fly. Would it be possible?

Well what if you use a Luxman D-10x or some other exotic SACD Player? Many factors play in. You can also play the album on Michael Fremer's Caliburn and have a magical experience 🪄

Hi Paul, I am a bit confused by DSD, what is the rise time of a set sample rate like the base dsd64 at 3.4 MHz. How could a single bit limited pwm even compete against a set value high bit resolution unless the smoothing of the signal is what you are after? Best regards Marcus, Lund, Sweden.

I agree with pauls explanation almost sounds similar to dan dagostino explaining how one of his best sounding amps was far from his best measuring amp seems like some distortion can add something good to the sound

It depends on how much you can afford to spend even your ears are not Good enough, just pretend you hear it and say wow I like the sound its airy, its bright, great dynamics , the bass is forward and build a good story to make a good review. Making sound gears sounds a paranormal Horror movie.

I love the sound of clicks, pops, and scratches in the morning. Idk. It sounds like...Victory.

I'd bet that the compression to put music on an LP allows the internal dynamics of the music to be more easily hear. The experiment PD Audio could do is take the digital file after its been prepared for the cutting layth minus the RIAA compensation and make that PCM file available with the record. I bet they sound equally "superior" I prefer digital so that's my bias.

Just switching between a crap or excellent turntable like an SL1200MKII is a trip. I prefer digital these days, I feel vinyl adds stuff that isn't there. Play that stuff through a large PA sustem and you know what vinyl pressing is good or not. Coming back to digital-> no hassle, and I can choose my sound accordingly pre or post from the source.

PS: I am amased (and unpleasantly suprised) to here Paul saying that he loves vinyl since I saw an earlier (from a few years ago) video of his (which is now gone from the channel) in which he quiet clearly (and funny) explained why he loves CDs and why he is happy not have to listen to vinyl anymore (with all the husle using records supposed). And now he loves vinyl again...Strange change of opinion... 🤔 Frankly, I love better the older videos when it was more about ways to improve how music sounds and less about gear and hidden pro domo marketing. 🙄

A lot depends on the equipment. The home digital transport is not going to be as good and robust as the commercial version used in the mastering. Also there wouldn't be such a wide disparity in prices of phono cartridges and turntables if the equipment didn't matter.

The end user is not using the same digital to analogue converters as the studio uses so they will be many variable in reproduction Same as there will be different cartridges , tone arms, turntables and preamps which also dont have the same sound I t would be interesting to do a direct cut to vinyl recording with the same time on DSD and compare in the studio and with audiophile home set ups

It's on Verve, which is owned by Universal Music. The early 2000s Universal SACDs are heavily Brick Walled to DEATH. That is why it sounds bad. My cat could master it better.

Yes !

If you take LSD and listen to DSD you will actually be at the concert and might even get Diana Krall's autograph😂😂

I tend to agree with you about the compression making it sound "better". My hypothesis in why, is the fact that live shows are magnitudes higher in sound output level. When you scale the volume down so much in your system, you are not going to easily hear the soft sounds. And for that reason it doesn't sound as good.

I prefer SACD's \ DSD to vinyl. I understand the ritual side of vinyl, the tactile side, the artwork associated with vinyl but it sound "better" than DSD... not to me!

I'm curious....If the original studio digital masters are then compressed and reworked for vinyl pressings/production ...then surely those digital (vinyl) remasters could also be sold in digital format in limited additions for hifi people too? I appreciate that the physical mechanical cartridge, tonearm, turntable and vinyl also add or subtract some sonic influence too! But perhaps the digital (vinyl) master might get some of us half way there 😆?

Great digital recordings have a wider dynamic range and amazing detail which is more of a strain on the equipment the playback room acoustics - and our brains The amazing detail maybe is a bit too much for us ? Vinyl compromises smooths all that out and sound engineer compromised choices done well makes the listening process easier Listening to a vintage Decca classical recording engineered by Kenneth Wilkinson doesn’t actually sound like a live orchestra laid out in front of you - but is a beautiful version/ illusion of such a thing

I’ve compared high quality digital files to my vinyl rig. Upon first listen, digital does appear to sound better. But with extended listening I start to notice that the sum of the parts of digital just don’t add up. Something is missing. Sure, the deepest of bass notes are mostly better with digital files, but everything above that is where vinyl wins every time and over time. I can listen to vinyl for hours on end without fatigue, but with digital, I’m ready to shut it down after an hour at most. I don’t know why this is, but this is what I personally find every time I make direct comparisons. Harmonics, even order distortion, synergy? I don’t know, but I like it.

I remember that when I was a little boy we had lots of vinyls at home… I am into audiophile listening and after seeing your videos I discovered DSD which I love. I wanted to get a good turntable and vinyl but then I did a bit of research and found out how toxic it is to the environment and to ourselves (I’m not buying my turntable 😢). Will your vinyl record production take this point into consideration and use different process or materials?

I've always hypothesized that one of the reasons people prefer vinyl and analog in general is the sloppy phase relationship between the left and right channels. As the medium plays along through the track the phase changes ever so slightly as the stylus continually tries to find it's center and as slightly stretched portions of the tape go by the heads. Our senses do not prefer things that are in perfect order. This is why there are plugins for synth drums that deliberately mess up the timing (and therefore phase) ever so slightly.

I like the thumbnail of this video, it kind of looks like you've got your fingers in years ears saying 'I cant hear you'

WOW! Mystery!

Vinyl and DSD records are played by different machines, therefore some sound differences could appear due to this reason, even if the rest of audio chain is the same. What means "better" and what is "more life" in sound? Are these objective or subjective sound attributes?

And about the Direct Cut LPs Paul...

Because hi-fi is one of those delicious areas which cross the mysterious objective-subjective divide, what matters is less all the objective measurements and more just what it sounds like. I suspect that Paul has a point in suggesting that it is largely the squeezed dynamic range (objective fact) that is responsible for this pleasant effect (subjective fact). I further suggest that this 'squeezing' becomes more appreciated with ageing, as one's ability to cope with larger dynamic range becomes restricted. I am constantly having to turn up the quite stretches, then rapidly turn down the louder parts. I regret having dispensed with my vinyl and turntable years ago when it made less difference. Can anyone out there tell me if there is domestically available equipment that can 're-squeeze' digital sources, without making a pig's ear of things? And Paul, I love your videos.

What if you squeeze the DR as you do for LP, but save and listen it as DSD? Will it have "more life" in the same way as LP does?

Maybe it could be the brain's perception of the organic nature of vinyl sound compared to that "you can hear everything" sound of "digital" Like there is less to work with so there is some relaxation to the overall processing of that sound by the brain and as such, there is a perception of focus, like it becomes easier to focus on the main highlight sound during playback of the song/audio. its the same in photography, those ancient/classic films with their grains, sort of mellow, monotonic colours feel better than a similar digital photo in like HDR mode or something. the emotional connection to these 'analogue' systems just communicate with our sensory inputs much better

Greetings Paul, been watching your videos for a while, and love the content And hear we go again with the emperor’s new cloths Way back when there were only records I bought all the SME pick up arms and turntables But I always dreamed of cd’s with their pure sound Lp’s do not sound better When I go to a live concert and listen to a string quartet I do not hear crackles and pops like you get on a record These crazy people are not listening to the music they just love watching the turntable going round, I am a photographer who used film for decades and now use digital its the same as the records move on they are just tools typical because we believe this ridiculous degree of audiophile you assume we are hateful jealous people, No its because we believe in spending our time listing to music not equipment

Often times, we just like harmonic distortion. It's as simple as that. A lot of times in mixing and mastering, the engineer may intentionally use something like a channel strip on a given console, a certain mic pre or they might track to tape just to get a little extra character out of the source. In fact, there's a unit called the black box that is only used as a tube buffer (usually in the context of mastering). It's not a mic pre, or a console where the harmonics are a happy accident, it is specifically designed for adding harmonic distortion

"Distortion": People like the sound vinyl playback distortion adds. Humans originally hung shells & bones on drums to add distortion.

My old petrol powered vehicle is noisy. I have to work at gear changes. It stalls if I don’t get clutch, handbrake and accelerator balance just right. Maintenance is expensive, and the pollution that it creates nags my environmental conscience. Recently I drove a friend’s new electric car. Straight off, It’s acceleration was way better, it was almost silent and suffers none of the other problems of my own vehicle, and has several other pluses. But I still prefer the actual driving experience of my old banger. Same for vinyl.

Depends if you like the crackle dust scratch clipping distortions. They call it a vinyl character. Yeah you ll have payout 5k plus to get rid of some of that.

♥️

It doesn't matter to me what sounds best. I like vinyl and that can't be debated.

It doesn't matter what it's recorded in, that is the master, all you have. but to then have a derivative that sounds better - well that is interesting. 'Vinyl distortion' for want of a better word, as an audio 'improver' Although I think Paul is onto something when he discusses the compression user to make it fit into vinyl's limitations.

I think in this matter the words are not used properly. Digital recordings on digital suport will always sound better than on vinyl suport. This is a fact. Yet, some recordings (even digital) on vinyl suport may sometimes sound nicer for us (NOT better, but nicer, more pleasant) than on digital suport. So the proper word to use when making this comparison is nicer. Not better. And that is because "nicer" expresses more accurately the combination of technical and psychological aspects that determine how we actually appreciate the way music sounds for us.

Perhaps, it is these analog imperfections, distortions resulting from the reproduction technology that are the magical living element that makes them more natural and closer to our ears, and Digital sound ... Well, probably it's just unnatural perfection.

People who prefer vinyl should just admit that they enjoy the coloration that vinyl adds to the music.

Of course the simplest exercise to settle the matter is record the output of your preferred vinyl system to 24/96 or higher (probably not needed, 20/48 probably more than enough) then compare your digital recording to the vinyl playing in realtime, switching between the two in a blind abx If you can reliably distinguish the two, then you might need to test a couple of Dacs in the quality, cost range of your vinyl and amp, speaker chain. I'm confident there are Dacs that would make such an abx indistinguishable

Well the answer is simple... Take the DSD file.. apply the RIAA curve of bass cut, treble boost and compression to it.. save it in DSD, play it back with the phono equalization reverse RIAA curve, and voila... the DSD recording will sound identical to the LP minus the groove noise and ticks and pops!!!!

Hello, first I would like to congratulate you for this channel since the technical content is interesting. I see that you have a lot of patience and you are an educated person when responding patiently to those who think they know about audio quality but are ignorant in the technical aspect, for many of them who have joined the fashion and myths of vinyl and who we know It is nothing more than a convenient commercial strategy since nobody has a vinyl recorder in their home and it is a physical format that wears out and over time it will sound worse, therefore they will not have the problem of piracy and that is why they have popularized it both, inventing myths as it has a great sound, etc. We must tell consumers that it is a low-fidelity format with 60 db of dynamic range and a lot of noise, that the master to create it has been digital for many years and it is necessary to lower the quality of the original to master it to vinyl, reducing the dynamic range, the frequency response and not to mention the noise, the efforts of engineers to create new formats and develop the CD, SACD, Bluray Audio, DVD Audio; they have been a gift to our ears bringing us closer to high fidelity, unfortunately those who do not have technical knowledge are carried away by myths.

I have recently discovered 8D music on KZfaq. You have to have a good center speaker. You don't need Dolby Atmos but at least a 3.1 system. The music is better than all the other recordings. Try The Doors Riders on the Storm in 8D. Steve Guttenberg has a recent video on the subject.

Perhaps vinyl sounds better because the output is less cluttered with information, and we can process it better. Just a guess.

While listening to recorded audio we are dealing with "brain games of reception" which constantly varies it's standards with actual brain "program" Im my opinion that is avoided in case when brain gets parallel constant 'delivery" of background. At best at whole usable range of harmonics. Like digital clock keeping our hearing at best timing . Or frame around the painting which sets boundaries to neighbouring wall patterns which by comparison sets white balance to vision. That may explain why we feel unpleasant listening to pure instruments in environment far from natural , like complete silence. I am always relaxed to hear any natural sounds acompanying performance and it is normal to hear natural background ex people in concert hall or probably unwilling sound of guitar moved aside afer singer has already fiished track. Or sounds of compressor during chruch organ performance while people moving walking in church . It sets right programming of hearing . With studio digital recordings it is all considered waste. Or (may be) below digital resolution I found even one certain recording like cut instantly to null before ended naturally . In recording to tape or vinyl we are additionaly supplied with low level noise ranging 20-20kHz, like "cover up' of natural environment which is often below that noise and it fills the gap raised by lack of natural environment . By natural I mean low level sounds not processed by sound effects which are willingly used for mastering . Just my idea based on still comfortable for me listening after tape/vinyl (with considerable natural noise layer included) was transferred to digital

People are so delusional! Modern music is recorded digitally with wide stereo projection, lots of dynamics and clarity on the instruments that you couldn't achieve with gear from the 60's-70's. This music is recorded DIGITALLY. Vinyl isn't better than DSD or vice versa. It all depends on the quality of the gear that you're playing your music with.

I wonder if some artists don't care about all the digital and engineering and mastering tricks that go on. They just want to sound good. And if that involves a lot of electronics or if it is far removed from what they actually laid down in studio that wasn't so great to begin with that's why that stuff exists.

So, really the defects of the vinyl tickles the nostalgia gland? Could we make a vinyl effect to apply on digital music to make them sound worst so it sounds better?

It just does, 👍

Could it be that the LP is less perfect then original DSD capture/recording which makes it sound better. What i I mean is that maybe its because the original DSD capture/recording is so perfect it makes it kinda feel sterile while the lesser perfect LP media adds character to the recording? Does that make sense to anyone?

I compared The Zuell Baileys Bach cell solo sonatas on SACD and Vinyl. My conclusion is that the Vinyl comes astonishing (so old...) close to the SACD (DSD). The hart says Vinyl, the Brain says SACD!

Paul, I'm pretty sure I can give you an answer as to why vinyl sounds better than digital. It may not explain 100% , but at least part of it. I have 2 reasons. First, is the playback gear. I remember when SACD first came out and I wanted to try it. I bought a fairly run of the mill player. If I remember correctly, it was a Sony 9000ES. I started playing some disks, and was disappointed. When I played the redbook layer on my Wadia 861SE, it was no contest. The Wadia easily beat it. But that wasn't the SACD's fault, it was mine. I assumed the format itself would be enough to overcome the difference, and it just wasn't true. In order to compete with the Wadia fairly, I needed to get an SACD player in the same league. My second reason is not so obvious. When you want an SACD or CD player, you go out and buy one. Not so with vinyl. You go out and buy a turntable, tone arm, cartridge, phono preamp and sometimes an SUT. Its a partial build. While you don't actually make the pieces yourself, you select them all given your taste in sound. You end up with a solution based heavily on your personal bias. And there is nothing wrong with that. No one would ever expect you buy something you don't like. I figured this out a long time ago when a friend of mine said he didn't understand why a store bought CD didn't sound as good as when he recorded the same album on vinyl using his CD burner. He's not just recording the record. He's also recording the sound of a bunch of components that he hand selected. I told him to try recording the record on someone's turntable setup you don't like. You'll get different results.

DOES A RECORD READ WITH A LASER SOUND BETTER THAN A NEEDLE------------------------------------------------I KNOW A LASER READS PARTS OF A TRACK NEEDLES DONT TOUCH AND IS THE SOUND BETTER OR DIFFERENT WITH LASER OVER NEEDLE

Is is Psycho Acustics

I think when looking at sound reproduction technology, digital is superior when you look at all the measurements (like he said in the video). I think it really does boil down to what interacts with our psychology in a more pleasing way. He is definitely on to something when he mentions the squeezing of information (less dynamic range). Digital outperforms our ears!! What's the point?? Make it pleasing to the human ear, not a computer measuring things.

In audio "better" is subjective and even arbitrary from person to person... Thats why this debate will NEVER be settled

Only Paul can masterfully keep two sides happy like in this video. Us who understand that original can never be better than original and the cult who’ve started playing vinyl again or always played vinyl and found it superior over digital. I agree old analogue recordings might not be better converted to digital (although I don’t quite understand why with today’s technology) but new digital recordings converted to vinyl sounding better than the original digital copy? Nah, but at least musicians are making some money again thanks to the vinyl cult.

Whoa