Recorded Music: Facts and Feelings—Part 2

So what are some facts about the quality of sound from vinyl versus digital? LP adherents claim that something is “lost” in digital recordings that degrades their sound quality. While technically a wee bit true, the fact is that the human ear cannot tell the difference. First, the sampling rates of most all digital recordings are sufficiently fast to provide sound to the ear that cannot be distinguished from a fully analog LP. There is, in fact, nothing lost that the human ear can detect. In other words, the actual frequency range that the ears deliver to the brain from each source of sound is indistinguishable. Now, how the brain perceives different forms of recorded music is another matter—especially if one allows one's biases to creep in. But that's a feeling issue—not a fact.

Second fact: the qualities and capabilities of different types of recording and playback equipment matters... and are crucial. There is often a significant difference in how well one recording is made, compared to another—regardless of what medium is used to listen. Modern recording equipment and procedures are very different from a few decades ago, in several ways. Older recordings will thus sound different from new ones. There is a factual quality issue here (new techniques are more sophisticated and realistic), but there's also a feeling issue. Some people simply like the retro sound of an analog LP—regardless of its relative quality.

Then there's the playback equipment. A good recording will never sound great on an inferior sound system, just as a high-priced system will never be able to make a poor recording sound good.

Third fact: the acoustics of the listening environment plays a central role. Is one listening through headphones or maybe earbuds? If so, the room acoustics are irrelevant. But the acoustic qualities of the listening space will strongly influence the quality of the sound from speakers, and thus the listening experience. Some people listen primarily through earbuds or headphones or from speakers in their car. Their experience will be very different from someone who has a superb sound system set up in a room with excellent acoustics. Finally, any interfering background noise will alter the experience. Listening to earbuds in traffic is not the same as sitting before good speakers in a quiet room.

Fourth fact: the quality of a recorded music session depends heavily on the skill and quality of the engineer who did the recording. The number, capability, and placement of microphones is also crucial. The number of recorded tracks and how they are later electronically altered and mixed is critical. The skills of these engineers can be even more important than the talent of the musicians or the quality of the playback equipment. An engineer/mixer today has dozens of options to play with and enhance the signal, that did not exist a decade or so ago.

The bottom line—what causes a listener to prefer one form of recorded music over another—is very much a personal matter. One's idiosyncrasies, biases, and past experiences play as much a role as the factual quality of the music. And our personal listening experience is what it all comes down to. I think it would help make controversies and disagreements less contentious if there wasn't so much misinformation floating around. 

It's tough enough to make a decision of what you feel is best (and the end feeling is what matters), even when you know the facts. We have access to many kinds of listening experiences. Most of us will make a choice and pick what we think is best for us. That choice can be negatively impacted when the advice we get is in error.