Both analog and digital has the potential to sound incredible. It’s a matter of fun factor and personal preference, the way I see it. Just enjoy the music, the reason why all this stuff exists to begin with. :)

I choose vinyl because I love the experience. Finding my system, hunting down rare or albums I really want, having a huge gatefold for the album cover, some have gatefolds and even more artwork inside, taking pride in the cleaning and adjusting or the best sound, crave digging and finding gems, learning which type of press I like. You just can’t get that with other forms of music. I love it. Nothing wrong with streams, cassettes, or cds because I use all three.

At 72 , I knew all this . The difference is YOU explain it better than I typically can .Great job !!

Master quality recordings of sound are of importance.

I really appreciate you being able to let me know about audio quality in very smart and easy way , thank you 🙏🏻

I sold almost all of my vinyls collected over 35 yrs, been buying CDs now for 15 years, no regret as long as the mastering is good.

Full disclosure Iam a vinyl fan. However this is one of the best explanations on this topic that I have ever heard. I have equal money invested in my vinyl playback system as into my CD system. ( I have not gotten into streaming as yet). I often prefer the vinyl version when I have both format's of the same recording. Bottom line as stated "it depends" on many factors and a blanket statement of one is better than the other is not a scientific approach to this topic!

I was nervous about how close your forearm was getting to that no doubt very expensive cartridge!

I remember the introduction of the CD format, and how the world marveled on how much cleaner and clearer those early CDs sounded. Much wider frequency response, much wider dynamic range and near zero noise. Later, CD quality only improved as digital audio recording gear and computing power improved. Then came the 'loudness wars'. Then came the MP3 compression format. Then came streaming (a huge step back in quality) "Digital" went from being the best thing ever, to a dirty word. Public perception can be a funny thing.

Agree with you 100%. Especially on the mastering process. That’s what makes the most difference.

The focus should be more one how the music was recorded and mastered vs. what mass media format the mastered audio was put on.

Dear Paul thank you for this excellent video. May I add that since the 80s I started to experience descent HiFi with CDs. I couldn’t go back to vinyl unless I spend a fortune on équipent which I can’t afford.

Best explanation I’ve heard Paul! Thank you for making it very clear...

One of the biggest benefits records have had is that they were the dominant format during the golden age of audio when a large percentage of the music released was mostly produced by a relatively small group of trained producers and technicians. Vinyl has limitations, but they usually don't get in the way of the music when proper care is taken. The digital age made it possible for anyone to take over the entire process themselves with the CD simply being the final storage medium and we saw a huge drop in overall production quality. This might have been a problem if the average age of the music consumer hadn't also been dropping. Today we have a huge legacy of compromised recordings and poor mastering which really obfuscates the issue of what format is really best.

Paul's right about how the music was recorded and played. Some groups like ELP , Pink Floyd, Steely Dan seemed to aim for high quality studio sound. ELPs 1st lp is SO dynamic from quiet delicate piano passages to DEEP heavy rumbling low ends from synthesizer and drums.

I am very impressed by your factual down to earth views which I feel you are an authority in.

This is by far the most accurate and to-the-point simple analysis regarding Analogue vs. Digital audio. Many sound engineers agree that for sometime now, there is a different mastering technique for CDs (you can hear the brickwalled mastering, just for the purpose of car playback!) and a different one for Hi-Res files, just to promote the "superior" sound of Hi-Res audio! I do own some CDs from Telarc & Narada that could easily blow away many Hi-Res music files, so I do agree with you 100%. Thank you so much for these awesome videos, Paul! Keep on rocking! :)

Pops and clicks are not accurate, they're distortion - pure and simple. I used to search far and wide for expensive European pressings - and eventually, their surface noise became burdensome. I was at PolyGram when we introduced the CD and nonetheless got talked into buying a Linn LP-12 a few years later, with a K9 cartridge, as part of a high-resolution audio system build around Apogee Acoustics Calipers (still a wonderful smaller-scaled ribbon loudspeaker, especially if properly rebuilt by one of the tech authorized by Graham Keet). But I could never get past the surface noise of LP, even when compared to the same recording when played on a first-generation CD through a first-generation Philips CD player. Go figure. For me, the most important thing in audio is where they put the microphones and whether the engineer got it right; everything else is secondary. Analog, digital, it doesn't matter. If you put garbage in, you get garbage out. The other thing is that older analog recordings contain distortion at climaxes, in orchestral scores, for instance, that is simply not there in a digital recording. Digital recordings have their issues - but properly done they are much more capable of reproducing the sound of an orchestra playing double- or triple-forte (assuming that the engineers know what they're doing and are not playing around with levels or using too many microphones). IMHO, the most important component in an audio chain are the loudspeakers / headphones.

Excellent perspective. Something I'm adopting in my explanations. Thanks a lot .

Another technical point: many early analog-to-digital converters really only had about 13 or 14 usable bits of resolution, with the last two or three being overwhelmed with the converter’s internal noise and distortion - the result being that this affected the sound produced by early digital masters. Depending on the processes used and the style of music this can be either a tolerable quirk or disastrous - electronic-heavy 80’s pop and EDM, especially if it’s recorded as separate tracks and then mixed digitally, would have a very different outcome than a classical orchestra piece where it’s just two room mics going straight into a digital recorder.

Honest statements, there are so many variables in both analog and digital situations. The wildest thing you can do is to find what makes your ears happy with the sound that you are listening to. Kudos, BOULDER Colorado, my hometown....

Such a balanced way of looking at things. Great video.

Thanks, Paul. Both digital and analogue media can sound absolutely wonderful when sufficient care is taken during the recording process.Sadly, that is too often not done.

A beautifully rendered answer, one of your best, imho.

Very well put. I love vinyl and have 3 turntables, but also listen to CD, FLAC, SACD, DVD-Audio, Blu-ray Audio and, yes, cassettes. I enjoy them all equally. I do use Apple Music but only when working out or in the car. Unfortunately, my old car has BOSE speakers 🔊.

Love your reviews, well done and regards from Western Australia

Great presentation of your thoughts and ideas. Thx for sharing…

Technical point: the term “compression” is used to mean two very different things: level compression, which affects dynamic range (it’s a process of automatically turning the volume down when it gets too high, this is the sort of thing that the recording engineer chooses to use to sculpt the sound); and data compression, which comes in two varieties - lossy (where the system throws away data that it’s psychoacoustic model says you won’t miss, examples include MP3 and AAC) and lossless (where it’s just a more efficient way of representing the data; the output is exactly the same as the input, down to every last bit, examples include FLAC and ZIP’s ‘deflate’ algorithm). Lossy data compression can vary in how bad it is, depending on the settings used; even with the same algorithm - the data rate being the primary factor at play here.

Great to have both available!

Great explanation, you always have to take everything on a case by case basis. There are some things I will only ever listen to on LP, some things I will only ever reach for the CD, and then some things I will only ever refer to the hi-res download. It all depends! Ultimately I think vinyl has the greatest potential to sound most like an original analog master tape, short of a 1:1 30ips copy.

Analogue vinyl records when you contemplate and stare at one and holding it for a long time... it looks somewhat like a frisbee disc and frisbee discs are what kids play with back in the 1980s decade. The sight of a frisbee disc makes you feel very young again... But suddenly that frisbee morphs into a vinyl record. So cool, sir.

I still love vinyl records, love the touch and the sound.

Really great video/discussion of you.

Hi Paul, This video is the best video you have ever done. My understanding is that, from a technical standpoint, CD or digital is "more accurate" than a vinyl record. However, humans hear in a more analogue friendly manner. Therefore more often than not the human ear enjoys the sound of records (analogue) better than a digital recording. Now, I am grossly over simplifiying this concept and I am not a recording engineer, engineer or tech of any kind. What I am is a 61 year old music lover that enjoys listening to CD as well as records. In fact, I still enjoy tape as well. I will not get into a debate as to digital vs. analogue. However, if you ask which I enjoy better it would be records simply because I enjoy the practice of cleaning the record and playing it as well as reading the covers and enjoying the artwork. I also enjoy the convenience of CD and feel that recordings that started out as digital and ended up as CD sound amazing also plus I can take them in the car with me. Am I an audiophile, yes. Do I put formats and equipment ahead of the music itself, absolutely not. And Yes I have a modest stereo system valued at about $20,000. This is all I know and have to say on this subject...Thank you Paul for making this information available to us from an engineer's point of view.

Put very nicely. I spend alot of my time finding great recordings on sacd, cd, vinyl, high res digital etc, etc. Whatever sounds great. I work in high end wine and people say the same things a out organic wines, or natural wines or bio-dynamic wine. But in the end if the wine is made terribly it's made terribly. Makes no diff wether it conforms to one of the above categories. That twisting of facts is very frustrating and pervasive as I see it is in audio. Thanks Paul!

One of your more useful explanations. In a nutshell either digital or vinyl can be really good if great care is taken from beginning to end in the production process. If not your audio quality mileage may vary from format to format.

Hi Paul, I love your videos and have been watching them for some time. In fact you have helped me on my Audio system upgrade path enormously, I found a dealer here in England who is happy to let me sit and play music, swap equipment over - listen again. This video had my hackles up as soon as it was a Vinyl Vs Digital in the title but i need not have worried as you expertly explained everything in your inimitable even handed and invaluably experienced manner. I love vinyl but it is the whole process for me, a tactile and sonic adventure that I do not get with digital formats but I can hear the difference on my system and sometimes I have to admit digital does sound better, whether it is dynamics, spacial or just a better copy. Many Thanks and please keep up the excellent work you do.

I say we just have fun with music. Digital, Analog, I have means to do both in casual and active listening environments. Just turn it on, crank it up, enjoy the show is how I see it.

Very balanced response. My own experience illustrates this point exactly. I have 3 different recordings of Bernstein conducting Copeland’s ‘Billy the Kid’. Vinyl from Columbia, CD from Columbia, and Vinyl from a Smithsonian music sampler my dad got for a music appreciation college course. The recordings are all from the same master tape. The Columbia CD & vinyl are both strident, but I may prefer the CD version due to lack of surface noise. But by far the Smithsonian version is hands down superior to either Columbia version. Far greater sound stage openness and depth. Obviously better mastered. Only problem is the sampler only includes ‘Introduction: The Open Prairie’.

The best and most important video PS Audio and Paul has made

OMG you answered! I was like whaaaaaaaa! Thank's Paul, appreciate it (meanwhile listening to some good DSD music i have just bought). Have a great day!

The best way is to listen to the formats and choose what sound best to you. ez 😉👌 I listen to all depending on where I am. I think the question really being asked is, should I add vinyl? I did and I'm pleasantly happy with the choice.

I’ve played in bands had my own pro-audio/live sound business and a studio (I’m c70 years) I hear some terrible and great masters in all formats. Hi Res streaming (eg Tidal) is consistently good and reliable. Vinyl is inconsistent but at it’s best just as, if not more, enjoyable than digital. The format can get in the way. I just enjoy what I feel like playing in whatever format I’m in the mood to listen to it in. Excellent channel. Greetings from the U.K.

People sometimes forget that records were engineered to fit 22 minutes of music on a 12” platter ( if I remember correctly). So the lows were taken out and the highs were attenuated to fit more grooves. The turntable pre amp re-added the lows (RIAA equalization curve). You can test this by setting your turntable to line in to bypass the preamp. You’ll hear just highs and hiss. The LP plastic disk also has pink noise from just the stylus scraping along the grooves. You can get a blank LP and when you play it, you will hear noise. Music is then put on top. Maybe that low level distortion creates the illusion of breathing or warmth or whatever.

Hi, Based on what you've said in this video the actual recording is an important factor when it comes to how good a cd or vinyl record sounds. That is why audiophiles tend to try and obtain either analogue versions of vinyl recordings or hd recordings on vinyl, ie 90's recordings done by music on vinyl or from a cd perspective obtain 24 bit recordings (hd) or good japanese cd recordings. My biggest issue with cd has been the loudness wars where cds do sound compressed and sound harsh to my ears with poor dynamic range. I have some cds from the 80's taken from an analogue recording that sound better than recent cd recordings. Conversley there are a number of vinyl lps taken from digital sources, sometimes they sound great, hd, and others from an 18bit source, or poorly recorded sound awful. Could you do a video discussing the advantages and disadvantages of cd vs vinyl? Im starting to lean towards cd because of reduced cost extras like dvds and blu ray you can get, and not having to worry about warped records changing the cartridge on your turntable time cleaning records and cost of vinyl. Regards Andy H

I have a Peter Nero Direct to disc LP from the 1970’s. It still sounds just brilliant. The direct to disc records were produced directly from the master I believe .I agree with every word you are saying.

Paul, love your explanation in regards to different mediums qualities based on how the recording is done. My question to you is, how me as a consumer who own both analogue and digital system will know which format sound ( I hate to say better) than other format? If the 16 bit CD will sound better than a hi Rez for same album, What are the available resources out there that will allow me to choose the correct better sounding format ? Thanks again for a great informative videos.

Then there is the 500 Hz RIAA roll-off found on so many on yesterdays vinyl. Loudness contour has existed for a very long time in the "HiFi" industry. Fun stuff

I love it when someone like you with a modern engineering background has a long winded justification of why they know more about how one thing sounds better than another. I think the listener , hopefully a musician without hearing damage, can tell you that the dynamics on a clean analog lp is more satisfying to hear than a digital cd or mp3, etc. Of course, with computer aided recording techniques, an engineer is hindered by the limitations of the equipment which filters more than old equipment and can be construed as " Compression", such as limiters in the studio are called Compressors. Given the fact that old blues recordings were given dirt sound by red lining the meters, in digital recordings this is done by synthetic means. From a musicians standpoint, there are huge benefits from analog recording. You've spoke of dynamics before, as a musician, dynamics and rises in volume on an older lp are quite satisfying and more like the actual performance than a cd or much digital can offer.

Thank you, well explained. Sometimes it becomes so stressful to shut up when people with insufficient knowledge begin to wise on such topics - when you have the technical background to know that it is rubbish they pour off. For example, when a "skilled" seller tries to explain why you need to use special Audio specified network cables to stream music.

Bravo Paul, PERFECTLY explained!!!

Crap in = Crap out :) Also, vinyl is also compressed, the RIAA curve.

Dear Paul, I enjoy your videos, I may not agree with some of your views, but this one, you really nailed it. I fully agree that generalizations and sweeping statements are invalid by their definition.

Hello Paul just signed up for your channel and I am into a lot of audio sound Vinyl and digital also I have some records in storage cause with family I am staying in a hotel but gonna purchase a turntable in the near future after getting a place to play my records on but also wanna get into digital 180 vinyl. Are there any turntables that will play both kinds of vinyl or would I need t buy 2 separate turntables? Or if I buy one turntable is there an extra device that I need to purchase to play both analog and 180 digital on one turntable. Thanks, David San Diego California

Logical, concise and common sense-based answer! Thank you!

Excellent explanation

- Vinyl : “I sound better than you, I’m warm and emotionnal !" - Digital : "Yeah yeah grandpa, do you want to talk about dynamic range?" - Reel-to-Reel....having a seat and a popcorn bucket: "Don”t worry about me guys, keep going on, enjoying the show now ☺️"

I like both vinyl and CD. I agree with many other comments that the majority of people in this hobby tend to forget about recording, mixing, and mastering quality. These attributes make the big difference. I have a Little River Band album on both mediums and I like both for different reasons. But overall playing WAV and FLAC from my music PC is my main source.

Awesome video! ♥

I have loads of records from when I was young (about 30 feet). When CDs came out I started buying them, but they didn't sound as good as my records so I went back to records - until they stopped selling them in 1989. I don't listen to them now due to laziness. But this observation characterizes the issues in this video. I have an LP of Grover Washington Jr.'s Soul Box volume 1 that is absolutely stunning. I have a different LP of that album that is muffled and has poor sound. I also have it on CD and it is quite good - unless you are familiar with the quality LP version.

In a perfect world the vinyl mastered disk, the CD mastered disk, the cassette mastered tape, and even the R2R mastered tape (all of these being the commercially sold versions) should be mastered for the individual formats as there are differing requirenments for each. Even iTunes and MP3 versions should be mastered individually for the format. They all have different s/n ratios, different acceptable peak levels, and different frequency limitations. In theory a 24-192 recording is going to blow all of these away but that doesn't necessarily happen when you are listening back. Some may prefer the L to R (side to side) restrictions of a vinyl disk, the bass drum and bass guitar mixed to centre of the vinyl, or the increased side to side and depth of a CD, R2R, or even cassette. 24-192 doesn't suffer these restrictions. Your kick drum kit could be panned from centre to right with a second drummer and kit panned from centre to left. Imagine what the Allman Brothers would sound like if they remixed with that in mind. With digital it theoretically doesn't matter. Ther bass guitar and kick drum could be panned anywhere as could multiple instrumental or vocal tracks. Whatever is in the stereo spectrum can go from hard L to hard R just like in real life and you could even use a 360 degree microphone and have true surround sound and be unable to tell the difference between live and recorded with 24-192 recordings. The art of mastering plays a major role in the finished product. Just like a movie soundtrack doesn't necessarily use 100% accurate sound (the footsteps, doors, clothing swishes, and a million other sounds are usually dubbed in the foley stage after the film is edited by highly trained specialists. So also music is often treated with equalization, compression, limiting, pitch variation, level riding, and many other tricks of the audio trade which can either ruin or magically augment the finished audio production which you listen to in your home theatre, music room, computer, headphones, or automobile.

I agree. I have found that it is down to personal preference. Everyone is different. Thanks to Paul for explaining the debate perfectly.

Fully agree Paul!

Amen Amen Amen......thank you Paul. I’m a vinyl guy myself but agree with you 100%

It's just nice to accept that your experience is much more than mine I do trust your opinion thanks for that

Perfect said of you!! 👍👌👏

Is there some sort of database that lists which records are far better on vinyl than CD? I’d love to know if it’s treated on a case by case basis

What I know as my ears hear is best for me. I love vinyl, and that's the truth.

Analog is the way to listen for collectors and album lovers. It’s a very tangible medium, which adds to the “fun factor.” It certainly doesn’t sound better, but can be fun to listen to for some types of music.

Thanks I have always had a pretty similair view this subject as you it seems. often it feels like people in fact are asking ; what platform you personally prefer, without any specific reasoning backing it. Since most people have preferences and particulairy on this subject they forget to look at the bigger picture or to even concider that their own phono stage costs 4times as much as their digital setup. ( i am guilty of this but i always was aware of why that is,it is because i enjoy tinkering with turntables and or even making them from scratch its the whole proces and the time that goes by over long periods.And the fact that its just perfect for listening albums because skipping is inconvenient+physically seeing the process) Also not helping is that for a long time most people did not even bother to look for a solution for their digital files ( wich i did even back then not understood, as relatively a new enthousiast back then. Clearly a minijack sounded pretty horrible and a good cable of this type become pretty pointless to get as around 10-15 years ago affordable/ entry level dacs started surfacing ( hrt's music streamer f.e and there really where at least a couple of products that really should been on peoples radar. I think in general with hifi and music as a hobby part of the fun is the tinkering and experiencing differences even in recordings u know well. anyway i can go on giving reasons why people fail to properly digest your original question but i think this will do for now.

It's a personal thing. I tossed out all of my vinyl immediately after hearing my first CD and have never looked back. Some people love the tactile hands on of records and the clicks, pops seem endearing to others.

I'd like to see the impulse response of a record to a pro reel to reel tape.

I grew up in the 60's as a musician. Analog was the common mode. Digital was yet a dream. Analog had a way to smooth out the bumps and pits in what real live music sounds like. Being a musician, I was always frustrated as to getting certain instruments to sound like the real thing. Analog (to me) homogenized the sound. It was a smoother than real life sound. When I began listening to digital I was hearing real instrument sound for the first time. Having performed as a musician I knew that what I was hearing was much closer to the real thing.. warts and all.. Digital in its early days had its own worms to work out in its implementation. But, there is so much fine detail missing with analog. Some prefer the simpler sound of analog because its not realism they seek. I have heard some excellent analog. But people forget that lots of analog can sound like crap in its own way. I can achieve a sense of realism with digital that was impossible with analog. Yet? Taste and preferences is the name of the game.

1:30 - I think by "compression", the text did not refer to dynamic compression, but to *bandwidth* compression, most notably _lossy_ compression, like MP3 or WMA. Well then: 1) which technology has got the highest _potential_ quality and 2) how often do media for this format usually _reach_ that full potential? After all, we are discussing the overall everyday experience here, not some academic exceptions. Also, I _have_ done cross checks of 16/44.1 to 32/192 and I personally was _not_ able to tell the difference in a blind test. I *_was,_* on the other hand, able to tell a subtle, but noticeable difference between uncompressed WAV and highest resolution MP3. I *_also_* found out that the "enhancer" function on my Yamaha receiver reconstructs the lost high frequency material so faithfully to the original that I was unable to tell the difference between uncompressed WAV and enhanced MP3. These are the relevant results to me, and with all due respect, I have come to consider anything more hair splitting than this to be snake oil. I have yet to hear the difference that you talk about.

One of the best sounding pieces of music I have is a 24 bit 192 digital file of the eagles hotel California. I mean it's perfect. The base is strong and tight, lead and background vocals are right where they should be very prominent in the sound stage. All instruments clearly defined. Then I have other HD downloads that aren't that great at all.

Paul, after listening to "Paul's Picks" (via digital sources) I have a greater appreciation for how music is recorded and processed for listening use. The songs on your list make my meager setup sound like I have never heard it before. Mass produced music is so much more difficult to listen to on the same components I used to listen to selections from your list that it is almost not enjoyable. Thanks for your great videos!

I have always been predictably turned off by the statement "CD's sound better than records", since the year 1982 when I first enjoyed the sound of first generation CD's and the absolute convenience of the new format. Blanket statements are rarely based on Science, Technology and Sound. Blanket statements also break the rules of logic across any field, artistic, scientific, political or social. Paul has made, in this video one of the most important proclamations I have ever heard in my entire Engineering career: "Lets not confuse the Facts of Technology", holy mooolyyyyy, wow. The proof of this, is readily found across the dozens of Audio Forums.... where we can read from plenty of generally "well meaning enthusiasts" with absolutely "Zero Technological Basis", expressing 'opinions', and often, with a touch of Hate. Thank you Paul as this whole narrative of this vs. that has been finally and succinctly de-bunked. As Paul Klipsch had a small Lapel Pin that we can all google what it said. My pro-bono website is an oasis of truth and experience, not the angry audio thought police ready to slay Giants with Keyboards and and opinions. This wonderful hobby is all about "the love of Music", so just enjoy it from an Edson Cylinder, 78rpm Shellac Records, Cassettes, 44.1, 192, all the way up to the Master Streams available today. PS Audio is dedicated to the highest standards of Technology so I suggest that all Haters learn to Play an Instrument so they can experience what real sound does to the soul and mind. Thank you Paul another Home Run.

With vinyl you get all the bonus sounds...pops and clicks.

Well said, Paul.

Anything is good as long as you like it. There is always a danger of listening to your equipment rather than enjoying the sound. Vinyl CD or whatever, enjoy your listening experience is my motto.

So when deciding to purchase a recording how do you decide whether to purchase the CD or the Vinyl Record?

It seems in every field where consumers are involved there is a small percentage of folks who become more interested in the gear than in the actual activity - cars, model trains, guitars, music, etc. At some point they actually go from being focused on the enjoyment of the subject to being focused on the production of it. It is up to the individual to pursue what they find most enjoyable. Who am I to tell someone else what they should enjoy?

Vinyl is a more intentional experiance which typically results in a diffrent approach to music. Consider the care required to play and maintain a record. Press and play requires less care, therefore the music is more easily dismissed.

When people wonder if vinyl records are better, they are wondering if, for the SAME MIX, which they should buy: a CD or a Vinyl Record? I feel that there are problems with the explanation given, i.e.: - First, a thing to consider: each time you listen to your vinyl record, the quality decreases due to wear. Physics. - We have a limited hearing range (~20-20K), so how about the 192k files? - "Compression" can mean many things in this field: dynamic range compression? how about lossless compression? or lossy compression? - How do you think your 192k hi-fi music will do through 50-17K freq range speakers?! These points are not bonus material, but very important topics which needed to be addressed. Digital is a much superior format due to many advantages. And you say that "it depends how the music was mixed", but if you want to compare "apples to apples", the answer should suffice the question: "for the SAME MIX, which I should buy: a CD or a Vinyl Record?"

4:20 kudos Paul.

good presentation

Nicely explained Paul...... and I do agree. Now vinyl mastered from digital recordings? There's a headache.

Great explanation Paul. I really find your channel to be very informative. Keep doing what you do!👌

There are two main reasons folk like certain vinyl recordings over CD versions: 1. Analogue equipment, from pre-amps through mixing desks to the records themselves and the record players that play them all introduce compression and distortion to the sound. We like compression. We particularly like distortion. It sounds musical and "warm" to us. Today music recorded and mixed totally "in the box" often has additional distortion and compression added to it to emulate this "warmth" and there is a whole industry making digital plug-ins that emulate the distortion, compression and EQ effects of classic analogue studio equipment (which often costs the price of a small family car to buy second hand) for this purpose. But "warmth" and "accuracy" are diametric opposites technically speaking. 2. The classic records that sound so good on vinyl do so primarily because they were engineered specifically to sound good on vinyl. When you listen to a studio recording your are never, ever, listening to what the music would sound like if you were standing next to the band in question. You are listening to what the band and the sound engineers together considered the best way to make it sound as good as possible on the sound equipment most of their audience would be using to play it using a battery of recording and post-production techniques. Top producers and engineers (and many of the top bands themselves) were (and are) extremely good at doing this and it is one big reason why some records sound way better than others. But it is not "accurate", It just sounds good. So what Paul says here is exactly correct. Especially the bit about analogue being more "accurate" being total grade 1 BS. If you got a pristine first pressing of Kind of Blue or Exile on Main Street then yeah, go ahead and get a record deck to play them on, they'll sound divine. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Utterly good sense...

This is what i always say to people. You can have a dsd128 that sounds worse than a 16/44.1. BUT if all things are constant, only the recording is the variable, yes dsd will outperform any flac. Its just sonically better.

My sister in law and brother both worked for Capital Records in VA. for many years until Sony bought them and shut the plant down. both in the vinyl dept. He pressed the new vinyl and would tell me stories all the time and has a shit load of new vinyl that Capital made, some many copies. Oh what a lucky man he is. Probable many first run I would guess.

Hey Paul. I have a 1980 vinyl album by Santana on CBS, it is not an early 1980's CBS CX vinyl albums, however, it does have a rather good explanation on the cover which reads as follows:- "This album has been recorded "digitally". "In simple terms, the music itself is not recorded as with conventional magnetic tape recordings". "It is first converted into numerical (digital) code, and this code is stored on the tape". "The result is increased clarity, elimination of tape noise and hiss, wow and flutter, and other distortions". "In order properly to reproduce the digital recording on disc, we chose to make the album four shorter sides rather than squeezing all the music onto a 2 - sided lp". "This allows us to make the fullest use of the extended transient response and clarity of digital recording". "David Rubinson - Producer". Is this an early example of a kind of CX prototype, or is this something completely different altogether? I have videod the cover for your perusal which can be viewed via the link below. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n7ydftx-1uDedoU.html

Sure, record the groove is analog, but consider the inherent opportunities for distortion that exist in the analog processing - the RIAA equalization that's needed. The reduction of headroom for dynamic range that's necessary due to the compression of the wave forms as the stylus get's closer to the center of the record. The inherent tracking errors due to the difference in angle between the playback stylus and he angle of the stylus of the original cutting head). Or just the fact that you're vibrating a shaft of metal with a diamond tip through a magnetic field to get your music signal, not to mention the impurities often found in the vinyl (creating hiss, and pops and clicks)- all this adds up to cd's being a much better medium, despite not being perfect.

BRAVO !!!

Spot on 👍

I think the Pioneer 1250 sounded better than the 1980. I'm with you on the Sansui 9090. That's a great sounding receiver. What surprised me was the Realistic receiver. It was in the top five from what I could hear. KZfaq isn't going to reproduce the same quality level as what what you were hearing.

2:33 i learn so much from these videos. But today I learned that “horse batodie” is a word. Great video as always though, love your American politeness when wanting to swear

This question begs to be asked of you. All variables being equal which format is the most pleasurable listening experience? For me its vinyl.

It gets strange in listening when the digital audio played only occasionally will require your stereo to go from a size LARGE to wear a size MEDIUM for a period until a proper break in happens. I realized this in the 80's while playing with my few CD's.