Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl
laweekly.com
laweekly.com
a) the high-frequency roll-off starts at 15 kHz; b) the needle vibrates which smooths out the sound and provides warmth; c) the needle melts the vinyl at the molecular level which also smooths out the sound and provides warmth; d) the needle picks up feedback from the room; e) not all vinyl is created equal, you get a lot more quality out of a 5-minute 12" 45 rpm than a 30-minute 12" 33 1/3 rpm; f) clicks and pops and burns are part of the charm; g) the runout groove nagging you to get up is part of what vinyl sounds like; h) vinyl is physical and cool and sometimes extremely rare and barring an ABX test your perception of how good something is will be affected by these supposedly irrelevant meta qualities; i) some things are only available on vinyl, so of course it sounds better; j) depending on the type of music, the mastering won't be targeting mp3 players with earbuds but instead big club systems, so if you have good speakers, it might be easier to find the mastering you want on vinyl.
I don't know how many of these I agree with. Honestly the worst thing about vinyl is that it's heavy.
But that's a bad thing. I learned to isolate the turntable from the speakers when playing disco. Also, had to walk softly else the needle would skip.
For me, the worst thing about vinyl was feedback. I love subsonics at concert levels, and it's virtually impossible to isolate turntables well enough. Back in the day, it was my practice to copy vinyl to tape, and then just play tapes. That also protected vinyl against wear and crud.
CDs aren't perfect either. Mixing can be tweaked with software, however. Also, for some genres it's possible to get multi-channel WAV that's readily mixable.
Also, back in the glorious disco era, record companies would release 12" single disks, where the grooves were spaced wide enough that the bass beat could be laid down. What more proof does anyone need that 33 records are inferior?
7" 45 rpm record, about 4.5 minutes max. Center label is 4". Label area = pi * 4^2 = 50.27 in^2. Total record area = pi * 7^2 = 153.94 in^2. Playable area (max, ignoring runout and edge) = 153.94 - 50.27 = 103.67 in^2. Call it 100 in^2.
12" 33 rpm single, about 12 minutes max. Center label is 4". Label area = 50.27 in^2. Total record area = pi * 12^2 = 452.39 in^2. Playable area = 452.39 - 50.27 = 402.12 in^2. Call it 400 in^2.
So, the 12" record has 400/100 = 4x as much space, but the playtime is 12 / 4.5 = 2.7x. For the remainder, you get quality. If the 7" record was 33rpm and you had about 7 minutes max, then 12/7 = 1.7x, which means even more room for quality improvements.
In general, you can trade play time for quality when cutting vinyl. If your grooves are at the maximum width, to the point that you'd leave substantial uncut vinyl between them to fill up the track width on your record, then you can get even more quality by moving from 33rpm to 45rpm because now a longer length of groove contains the same length of sound. All else considered, 12" 7-minute 45rpm sounds very good.
And also, I know the original reference was to disco, but new 12" singles are still being released, sometimes exclusively on vinyl. It slowed down, but it never stopped. Sorry, no ads, just personal experience.
Here's something written by an engineer:
http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/why-45-rpm-great-45-rp...
My 12" single of "I'm So Excited" by the Pointer Sisters is 3:47. The album version is 3:53.
I doubt that'll convince you, either. But I recommend that you actually obtain a 12" disco single from the late 70's and a 45 and compare with your own ears. It's also fun to look at the difference in the grooves with a magnifying glass.
The thing that's fun about vinyl is that it feels more like a physical artifact -- each one sounds different, the album art is bigger, it's been around for a few decades, etc... that's why I like it.
Why do you need an entire article for something that everyone already knows?
Even if you especially like the sound of vinyl, you can just play one and record it on a CD.
I watched a video of how they make vinyl. They take a ... wait for it .... CD! And play it into a machine that cuts the grooves.
Here are a few quoting from the article:
- "few people who would tell you that recording classical music to analog tape has any benefit at all," Metcalfe says. But for some artists, he says — particularly in rock — those layers of distortion are preferable.
- [...] recording to analog tape isn't any purer than recording music digitally. But the distortion and pitch variation that analog tape adds to the recording are preferred by some artists and audiences.
- "Because vinyl is a reflection and any digital is a reconstitution; it's not the same thing."
- [...]the distortion and pitch variation that analog tape adds to the recording are preferred by some artists and audiences.
- However, for a less skilled mixing engineer, mixing to analog tape can "'glue' the music together in the most wonderful way,"
Reflection and reconstitution? Those words have no meaning in this context.
And the thing about less skilled magically improving because of analog is just hocus.
Pono is also how he wants his legacy to be "archived". He does have quite the body of work.
Edit: /s. Sigh.
Depth = when the grooves are too close together and exceed a certain depth, you can simultaneously time travel both forwards and backwards in the music by about 2 seconds. This quantum "depth" effect is most prized.