Nick, Comparing vinyl to streaming is not the issue-- compare vinyl to CD quality. I assure you, CD is better.
While high-end audio is not really on-topic here, some comment is required.
CD certainly has a much lower noise floor level than vinyl. It is better in a number of obvious ways.
However, sound reproduction has many subtle aspects. In the very early days of the CD format, the very sharp frequency filtering required by a system running so close to the Nyquist limit was accomplished through methods which caused phase distortion. (Oversampling was how they fixed that.)
The human ear can't hear the phase of audio signals directly, only their loudness and pitch. But because the human ear is a nonlinear device, transients are distorted. Changes in phase can turn a transient into something smeared out that won't reach the high levels that experience the distortion.
Basically, with audio reproduction, as with many other things, it is not enough to simply look at the obvious and stop there.
Vinyl is not lossless. Recording engineers had to boost certain frequencies just to get an LP to sound reasonably close to the original tape recording.
Neither vinyl nor CDs are an absolutely perfect reproduction of the incoming audio waveform, they both have limitations.
However, neither of them involves lossy compression in the sense that we find it in JPEG image files or MP3 audio files. Nothing is making a choice, based on the kind of audio is coming in, to selectively preserve the most important features.
I'm not sure if one could compare, say, Dolby, to a lossy digital compression scheme or not.
But the RIAA equalization curve used in making vinyl records was reversed when the records were played back; what it changed, therefore, was how the noise inherent in the vinyl records was heard, it didn't change the music itself.
Hard core vinyl junkies will argue ad infinitum about the superiority of analog vinyl over digital CDs,
but their argument is based on part in the early days of CD technology, circa 1988.
As this was a new medium almost thirty years ago, many who did mastering for CD were not fully versed in the new technology, so many of those first releases had too much "top" (highs) and sounded tinny.
Consider that the original master session tape is the purest form of the analog recording. From this, a safety master is produced, then a lacquer (master disc) is prepared from which the stampers are made.
Next comes the vinyl. Other than 180 gram pure virgin vinly, any other material reatins imperfections that will accentuate a loss of sound quality. Then comes the user...
Other than audiophiles, most people handled their 45's and lp's. Scuffs, scratches, mars, dirt, and other foreign substances can and often did make their way onto the record surface.
During playback, clicks, pops and skips would result. If the record was played to the max, there was then the chance of groove wear, which would add a surface hiss to the playback [depending on the
surface material of the disc].
Finally, there's the playback system. The better the system, the better the frequency and tonal range of the playback - but also the amplification of the existing imperfections.
A portable record player cannot reveal what a state-of-the-art audio component system can, but...
Digital has enhanced this multiple times over. With the improvement in mastering techniques,
bit rate sampling and remastering from the original source material you are often treated to sounds you
never previously heard in the playback of vinyl on analog equipment.
While this debate will pretty much go on as long as there are audio and music buffs, the best
reply may very well be "If YOU enjoy it, then it's right for you".
Having been a former record collector and having worked in the industry filling orders to
wholesalers, I'd rather carry a box of hundred CDs in paper sleeves than even attempt to carry 100 lp's. That many albums weighs 25 pounds - and if you have an extensive album collection, then you have some serious backaches awaiting you should you ever need to move them to a new location.
It's all good. Those who find comfort in the "analog warmth" of vinyl will remain vinyl junkies. Those who prefer the digital domain will prefer the CD over viny. As Sly and the Family Stone once sang "different strokes for different folks"...
Vinyl is a more durable medium than CDs, in the sense that surface noise is tolerable, but when CDs fail, they fail big time.
In that sense, there is a comparison with letterpress printing on rag paper, with anything prior to chemical pulping of wood fibres being good (notwithstanding foxing and mould). But even a lot of stuff printed in the 1960s is apt to have really discoloured paper.
***
On the topic of sound media, this is quite interesting: recorded in 1976 (and released in quadraphonic), it makes use of a “digitally edited” piano roll of the composer playing the piece, replayed on a vintage reproducing piano, accompanied by live musicians. A jazz band, for which Gershwin’s performance was intended, and not the subsequent symphony orchestra score that’s so familiar. Highly recommended!
And I do like the cover, with its Hirschfeld illustration and Kabel caps, spot on—you couldn’t do that on a jewel case.
You can get a VST plugin for your digital audio workstation (like a font editor, but for music) that replicates the sound of vinyl (painstakingly modeled on the vinyl cutting equipment at Abbey Road Studios). The second video on this page for the product features an experienced recording engineer going into great detail about what makes vinyl sound like it does and why people like it.
Comments
CD certainly has a much lower noise floor level than vinyl. It is better in a number of obvious ways.
However, sound reproduction has many subtle aspects. In the very early days of the CD format, the very sharp frequency filtering required by a system running so close to the Nyquist limit was accomplished through methods which caused phase distortion. (Oversampling was how they fixed that.)
The human ear can't hear the phase of audio signals directly, only their loudness and pitch. But because the human ear is a nonlinear device, transients are distorted. Changes in phase can turn a transient into something smeared out that won't reach the high levels that experience the distortion.
Basically, with audio reproduction, as with many other things, it is not enough to simply look at the obvious and stop there.
However, neither of them involves lossy compression in the sense that we find it in JPEG image files or MP3 audio files. Nothing is making a choice, based on the kind of audio is coming in, to selectively preserve the most important features.
I'm not sure if one could compare, say, Dolby, to a lossy digital compression scheme or not.
But the RIAA equalization curve used in making vinyl records was reversed when the records were played back; what it changed, therefore, was how the noise inherent in the vinyl records was heard, it didn't change the music itself.
It's all good. Those who find comfort in the "analog warmth" of vinyl will remain vinyl junkies. Those who prefer the digital domain will prefer the CD over viny. As Sly and the Family Stone once sang "different strokes for different folks"...
In that sense, there is a comparison with letterpress printing on rag paper, with anything prior to chemical pulping of wood fibres being good (notwithstanding foxing and mould). But even a lot of stuff printed in the 1960s is apt to have really discoloured paper.
***
On the topic of sound media, this is quite interesting: recorded in 1976 (and released in quadraphonic), it makes use of a “digitally edited” piano roll of the composer playing the piece, replayed on a vintage reproducing piano, accompanied by live musicians. A jazz band, for which Gershwin’s performance was intended, and not the subsequent symphony orchestra score that’s so familiar. Highly recommended!
And I do like the cover, with its Hirschfeld illustration and Kabel caps, spot on—you couldn’t do that on a jewel case.