By Enti Bracamonte
Posted: May 17, 2022
Updated: August 1, 2022

Why vinyl records are making a comeback, in the digital era, and why this is entirely justified.

Due to the physical constraints of the medium itself, vinyl records cannot be as loud as their digital counterparts or carry as much bass.

Put too much bass on vinyl or make the record too loud, and you will, at best, run out of space too quickly or, at worst, have the stylus jumping out of its groove. Vinyl records are a medium that needs to be very carefully managed, let us see why…

The music needs to be transferred to the surface of the record for the duration of the source material. This is achieved by creating a spiraling groove that extends from the edge of the record to its center and is engraved—not at all metaphorically—with the vibrations produced by the source material. Think of how the needles of a seismograph or a lie-detector move, and then bring that down to a much smaller scale with much faster rates of motion.

Higher frequencies mean narrower grooves that contain shorter and tighter lateral movements because they are shorter wavelengths that occur within a shorter span of time. Each lateral movement is very closely followed by the next. Imagine that seismograph needle again frantically drawing very short lines in very quick succession.

Lower frequencies, on the other hand, mean wider grooves that contain more spaced out lateral movements because they are longer wavelengths that require more time to complete.

Putting those grooves onto a record is a very tricky thing and is usually done—hopefully—by very knowledgeable and very skilled engineers that know how to properly use the very ancient cutting machines that still exist today. 

The last cutting machine ever made, probably, dates back to not much longer after CDs were introduced. But, please, don’t misunderstand me, these machines of which I speak, though old, have to be very precise, and the people who use them have a thorough understanding of the medium they are working with and the very narrow tolerances it affords.

In the case of a stereo vinyl record, the grooves are cut at 45 degree angles so that one side of the stylus rides one wall of the groove while the other side of the stylus rides the other wall of the groove (the left and right channels). The width of the stereo field, in the case of vinyl, also has to be managed very carefully, because it also eats away at the space available to accommodate the full length of the source material.

An LP has a diameter of 12 inches and can store up to 20 minutes of content, per side, depending on the source material being recorded. Some types of source material really use up lots of space and, so, shorter playing times is the consequence.

Amplitude (volume) has to be very carefully managed, as well, not just to prevent the stylus from jumping out the grooves, but also because it too eats away the space the grooves require on both sides of the record. A safety margin of 5db of dynamic range is usually afforded to vinyl records, in order to keep the stylus from jumping out of the grooves. Five decibels of dynamic range, by the way, is a whole lot more than audio engineers are allowing for CDs or for digital music files these days. Compression, as it is applied in the digital domain, is completely out of the question with this old music format, it simply cannot be done.

Once a master copy of the recording has been created, with grooves that contain the engraved vibrations of the source material, a cast is made from it that has ridges, rather than grooves, that can then be used to press all other copies of the record.

Upon playback, the stylus rides the grooves of the record and vibrates in the manner in which the track was engraved/recorded. These vibrations are physically transmitted from the stylus to the cantilever and then to the cartridge, which has a tiny coil that basically functions in the same way a microphone does. The low level signal is then pre-amplified and, finally, sent to an amplifier.

A form of equalization called the RIAA curve gets applied, during the cutting/engraving of the master, in order to reduce the amount of bass present in the signal. Less bass in the signal means narrower grooves and, therefore, longer playing times.

The RIAA curve is a standard that is used, not only for bass management purposes, but, also, in order to tame higher frequencies that might be difficult for the stylus and tonearm to track, especially, when the stylus and tonearm are approaching the center of the record and the angle and speed make it difficult for them to keep up, which might cause undesired effects such as sibilance. This rolling-off of the higher frequencies is what gives records the characteristic “analog warmth” people often talk about.

At some point during the playback process, the RIAA equalization curve is once again used, only in exactly the opposite way in which it was first applied, during recording, so that the original waveforms can be restored to their original shape—or, at least, that is the noble aim.

It used to be the case that the RIAA curve was built into every record player so that, by the time the signal reached the amplifier, the eq curve would have already been reversed and the waveforms restored. Nowadays, however, this can also be done through software, especially in the case of USB turntables, for example.

The RIAA curve is truly a remarkably clever way to overcome some of the physical limitations of vinyl records, but it is also truly ancient—Paleolithic—and I just cannot believe I am talking about it in 2022.

It is true I have a bias against vinyl technology (a) because it is, at the very least, twice as old as I am now; (b) because I am all too aware of its shortcomings; (c) because I cannot just ignore that better media and technology exist today; and (d) because, despite all of that, we, the end consumers who care, now find ourselves driven to reverting to Jurassic media on our quest for some form of descent sound.

I know that this is now, all of a sudden, starting to feel like just an incongruous rant, but, believe me, I have been trying my best to convey, so far, despite my bias, how careful and involved the process is, for the production of vinyl records. And I, myself, would be willing to take a pass on the wonderful modern tech I know we presently possess, in favor of technology I know, and clearly understand, is old and inferior, just to have those 5dB of uncompressed dynamic range.

Too angry? Too indignant? I say not enough… I say not even close to enough…

First: In this modern day, I know we can, I know we have the means, the technology—without question—to reproduce the experience of a live concert in all of its grandeur, in all of its splendor, right at home, without having to invest a fortune. Why are we not able to, then?

And, second: In this modern day, I know we can, I know we have the means, the technology—without question—to reproduce the experience of the recording studio in all of its grandeur, in all of its splendor, right at home, without having to invest a fortune. Why are we not able to, then?

Where is the wall-size stereo field? Where is the life-like, enveloping, three-dimensional sound of the 70s and the 80s? I know that it was all there once, where is it all now?

And what is the point of spending a fortune on Hi-Fi audio equipment, if all we can have access to now are lifeless, brick-walled downloads, entirely devoid of subtlety and emotion, sold to us as rentals that nickel and dime us to death and offer only the same quality of a CD (or so they say, how can we be sure?).

I know that downloads of greater bit depths and greater sampling rates are being offered, but are they true? Who can assure us? There have been scandals, in recent years, about the same weak, compressed downloads inflated to CD specs or beyond—how can we tell? I don’t hear any clear improvements.

And even if those bloated “Hi Res” downloads actually contained more information from the original recordings and not just randomly added zeros and ones, the fact of the matter is that sampling rates and bit depths have never been the problem.

.

Although greater bit depths and sampling rates do offer technical advantages in the production process (greater metering resolution, shifting noise to inaudible region of sound spectrum, greater signal to noise ratios), delivering music at specifications beyond those of the Red Book Standard (Compact Disc) achieves nothing for the end consumer.

.

So what, then, is the problem?…

.

…Record companies saving the great-sounding masters for high-paying cinema productions only and leaving us with overly-compressed, loud, poorly-made, weak masters that lack the depth, the width, and the power to convey emotion and captivate our attention.

.

Rather than accepting the hype of needlessly bloated “Hi Res” audio files, like DSD or MQA, we should all just be pressing the music industry for access to those same great-sounding masters that are used in movies and that could be delivered to us on CD or as digital downloads—hell! I would even accept those great-sounding masters in the form of thinned down MP3s! I bet they would still sound lots better than the “Hi Res” files we are being offered today.

Do you like the sound of the newly produced Netflix movies? How about the sound of those Apple TV rentals? Quite impressive, ain’t it? Well, Dolby and DTS are not much different from MP3 or AAC, they are all data compression schemes, but, still, the sound quality of those newly made productions is all still there. What gives? again, the problem is not bit depth, sampling rate, or data compression (not to be confused with dynamic range compression) the problem is the mastering process. Want more proof? just pay attention to those adverts on youtube. Youtube prioritizes video over audio and audio does not get any more compressed than with Youtube, still, the sound of those adverts is a whole lot better than the sound of most “HI-Res” versions of the music you once bought on CD.

For no other reason than to just do a test for myself (I tend to do this kind of thing), a long time ago, I went ahead and bought two things: A copy of Pink Floyd’s The Wall, on CD, and a copy of Pink Floyd’s The Wall, on DVD (the movie). Save for the fact that the former is a music medium and the latter a movie medium, they should both sound the same, that is, if both came from the same master. Venture to guess which sounds better? The same can be said about the soundtrack of Guardians of the Galaxy, for example: the CD sounds like crap after you have watched the movie (whether at home or at the cinema).

On Bit Depth…

• Human hearing can comfortably handle—without pain—a dynamic range of about 90dB, meaning that our ears can recognize/tolerate a signal that is as quiet as a mosquito or as loud as blender and anything in between.

• The CD standard has a depth of 16 bits, which, in effect, signifies a dynamic range of a little over 90dB , a perfect match for our ears.

• The DVD standard has a depth of 24 bits, which, in effect, signifies a dynamic range of about 140dB!—well into our threshold of pain and far beyond what our ears can tolerate for very long without sustaining damage!

• Do we, the end consumers, really need 32 bits?

Now that we understand the problem, somewhat, what we really need to do is ask the relevant questions to the relevant people…

First of all, riddle me this…

Why are Audio engineers, who have a far better understanding of these things than any of us —the end consumers— still crushing the dynamics in music by leaving 0db of dynamic range or worse?

This is the case with the release of Metallica’s Death Magnetic, for example… When asked about it, Lars Ulrich replied, “There’s nothing wrong with that album, it sounds great!”

Lars, your long drumming days have ruined your ears. Further, I would argue that playing Death Magnetic through your speakers can be detrimental to them because the signal is almost always clipped. I know this for a fact, I have seen it with my very own eyes and heard it with my very own ears. I even signed a petition for the album to be re-released with better dynamics:

I have never joined another Internet campaign in my life, but I did join this one on November 29, 2011.

Video gamers were first to sort this particular one out early: they realized that the Guitar Hero version of Death Magnetic was less compressed and sounded cleaner and bigger. I have yet to hear that version.

Though, I will not go as far as to go out and buy a full set of Guitar Hero (and I admit I don’t even know what that would entail), I am happy to inform that I did, however, went ahead and bought two things, a long time ago, I did not even like, just to do yet another test: A Compact Disc of Metallica’s Death Magnetic and a Compact Disc of Guns & Roses’ Chinese Democracy.

“Compact Disc, you say?” “Isn’t that a little passé?” Fine, replace that with any other digital format, the net result will be the same: it is the awful mastering that is ruining music and not the medium, the bit depth, the sampling rate, or even the data compression scheme.

.

Forget bit depth (anything above 16 is indistinguishable), forget sampling rate (anything over 44,100 is indistinguishable), these things have, all, long been tested and settled with ample evidence, there is no longer a debate. Even the debate about CD and SACD was tested and settled, years ago, with ample evidence; you cannot tell them apart, provided that the mastering is the same for both formats.

.

There are technical reasons, of course, why you would choose one thing over another, but if the mastering is clean and intent on delivering quality, it should all be there for you to hear as long as the minimum standard is that of the Compact Disc.

Back to our test: Have a look a these two releases, both are from the same year, no more than two months apart, I believe. Please compare the two screenshots below.

When approached by their audio engineer about the topic of loudness and compression, Guns & Roses listened and agreed to maintain the dynamics of their album; you can clearly see the results:

And this, ladies and gents, is called brick-walling: constant loudness all the time; no dips and peaks, only peaks prematurely trimmed—all of them—at maximum amplitude (clipping).