YouTube videos are usually AAC files. So you aren't hearing vinyl or CD, you're hearing lossy. That said, high data rate lossy is perfectly capable of reproducing anything on an LP. So is a CD. Whether or not it's mastered well is a different question.

In this particular case, the answer is even simpler though. The CD video is presented at only 480p which on youtube would have an audio data rate of 128. The LP video is at 720p, which would have a data rate of 192. The difference between the youtube movies is probably what you're hearing, not the difference between vinyl and CD.

 

That said, high data rate lossy is perfectly capable of reproducing anything on an LP. So is a CD. Whether or not it's mastered well is a different question.

And that's what I consider somewhat astounding ... that is, my lossless CDs--of the same recording--sounds much weaker than Schlipperschopper's YouTube uploads.

For example, here is a 2011 EMI remaster CD release of:

And here is Schlipperschopper's YouTube upload of same 1961 recording (on vintage 60s vinyl, on vintage 60s/70s gear):

I have the 2011 CD remaster in my collection. It sounds similar to the example in the first video above. Frankly, from now on, I'll stream Schlipperschopper's YouTube upload every time I want to listen to this recording.

It's possible that Schlipperschopper is processing (EQ'ing, expanding, etc.) the audio somehow. Except, when he does so (on rare occasion), he'll state it in the video description.

 

There is a noticeable difference between vinyl and CDs, as in this comparison, though the differences can be somewhat affected by the quality or bit rate of the upload. The analog sound can still be heard through most digital files or uploads and there are all kinds of examples online. The quality of the stylus on vinyl can be heard, but probably not for those who didn't grow up during the vinyl/analog era. Those familiar with analogy sound can tell the difference between analogy vinyl and digital CDs even on a YT upload and love the sound of good vinyl because the sound is being physically reproduced and not divvied up into 1s and 0s and then reassemble again with a beam of light on those digital 1s and Os. Big difference! It's no wonder that vinyl is coming back and vintage analog recordings are being rediscovered and prized. Nevertheless, well-recorded CDs can still sound great. The Bruckner 9th sounds like a good digital transfer to a CD, but I find the string sounds warmer and more natural on vinyl even if there's some loss of detail and the lower strings are not as clearly defined. (Sometimes this can be the result of the stylus or it's not exactly aligned.) But regardless of the bit rate of the uploads, there is an easily noticeable difference between the two uploads. But then, I grew up in the vinyl era and am familiar with its sound. There's a big difference between a sampled sound wave and the continuous analog soundwave that's not being divided into pieces. It would be easy to tell the difference in any comparison if the uploads were decent, not just in the difference between the occasional pops on vinyl versus the quieter background of the CD, but in the naturalness of the quality of sound.

 

I think it could just be nostalgia?
I didn't grew up in the vinyl era. From the LP version I can only hear much higher noise floor, less fidelity, poor spatial reproduction and of course pops and clicks. It's totally the Edison cylinder to me.
You may prefer the vinyl sound and that make perfect sense because musical enjoyment is 100% subjective. But to say vinyl beats digital is a bit exaggerated in my opinion.

 

A lot of it has to do with the quality of speakers and amps that were available at the time. Those wood cabinets were really good at disguising the noise floor at least from my experience.

 

I did grow up in the vinyl era. I welcomed CD with open arms. Black background, expanded dynamic range, lack of surface noise and dust bunnies. Discs that actually played, instead of looking like a scalloped potato chip that defied cartridge tracking, and discs that didn’t deteriorate with each playing as a needle slashed through their grooves.
It’s been shown that most of the “organic” sound of vinyl is artifact, as even the self appointed experts like Fremer seem to think it’s there even when the lps are made from digital masters. The vinylistas don’t seem to care, and I don’t care enough to argue with them. It’s great to have all platforms available. It’s the music, not the playback medium

 

I did grow up in the vinyl era. I welcomed CD with open arms.

Same here. I still have LP's and a turntable (as well as a VPI record cleaner), but I mostly play the LP's in order to digitize them.

I do feel a pang of nostalgia every time I pull out an LP, mostly because of the readable notes and often beautiful cover art, but that pang usually disappears once I put the record on the turntable and hear all of the extraneous, distracting, extramusical noises.

 

Digital sound and reproduction is simply not enough for everyone. If it were enough, people wouldn't be buying vinyl and receivers with phono inputs. They sense that something is missing in digital sound reproduction and they're exploring the analog alternatives of vintage analog recordings despite whatever the shortcomings of turntables and dealing with its lack of convenience when compared to the convenience of dealing with digital content. I cannot take an all-digital, all-solid-state system anymore. It lacks humanity and warmth... and analog amps with tubes are pure magic. One could pay ten times the amount for the soundstage and sense of space that relatively inexpensive tubes can provide compared to S-S, starting with hybrid/tube headphone amps. I'd never go back.

Receivers with phono inputs for turntables: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stereo+receivers+with+phono+input&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Digital sound appeals to some people, and so does analog to others. No one is forcing anyone to listen to one format vs the other. If you want to troop into Barnes and Noble, plunk $40 for a 40 minute lp (that was probably mastered from a digital file), or skower
eBay for old lps that after hundreds of playing probably sat in some ones garage for 20 years, be my guest.
Your comments about tubes vs. transistor are irrelevant. Digital file can be listened to via tubed equipment. I currently have a tubed (that's valved for those of you in the U.K.) pre amp in my system. CD players and streamers use tubes in the output stage.
As for "humanity" in a recording technology...could you define thatfor me? I will never forget the first time that I listened to Mahler's Ninth on a CDafter listening to my particular lp dozens of times. In the last movement there are many Chamber like passages of great poignant import, where the Harp is gently underpinning soft playing by the Flute and oboe and cor Anglais
I was insufficently aware of how beautiful those parts were because I couldn't fully hear them underneath the sound of bacon frying. Even when I listened to the same passage on a quieter lp there was simply to much low level detail for my $3500 vinyl front end to pick up. $200 CD players did a much better job.

Or how about the Beethoven Moonlight Sonata? I had a Rega Turntable that distorted this opening triplets so much that I thought the flexatone from the Moody Blues Legend Of A Mind had wandered in. To me it is much more "humane" to hear what the Composer actually wrote, and what the musician actually played, that to hear decreased dynamic range buried in artifact . Ymmv

 

The mastering is what matters, not format. Some albums are better on LP, some on CD. There are even albums that are better on 8 track tape. There are always people who make a fetish of particular equipment, and that's certainly the case with the current niche market for vinyl. But the main advantage of LPs isn't sound quality, because the format is clearly inferior to CDs. The advantage is the ability to get access to recordings that never made it to a CD release. It's the same with 78s. You used to be able to say that buying a used LP for a dollar or two was cheaper than buying used CDs, but CDs have dropped in price too.

The music is ultimately what matters most.

 

I've said it a million times before. I grew up with vinyl and didn't ditch the format till the late 90s. Since then I've sold off over two thelirds of the 2000 LPs I had and I don't miss them one bit. The frustration of pops, clicks, warps, scratches, rumble, constantly swapping discs, etc did my head in. As others have said, the only thing I liked about my 'twirlies' wasn't the sound but the big sleeves and lovely cover art. The rest is history for me. CDs and digital for me only now. If people love their LPs then fine and I'm glad they do. It's nice that the format didn't die but I don't miss it.

 

The first CDs were released in 1982, and 2 minutes 19 seconds later the LP vs CD debate began. Personally, I’m hoping to surpass the Hundred Years War (even though I won’t be around).

The only value I see is to introduce listeners to the alternatives (now including streaming and downloads) and let them decide for themselves.

 

Reading the LP people saying how easy it is to maintain quiet surfaces on their precious discs…

Reminds me of buying a cast iron frying pan a year ago. My wife had read that they're so easy to clean if you season them properly and clean them using certain less-than-obvious methods…really nothing to it.

But real life struck. Within a month, the cast iron pan was in the garbage.

 

That's very interesting. I've used the same 10 inch cast-iron skillet for over 15 years. You don't let it soak in the sink or clean it with soap. You just rinse it out, dry it, and put oil on it again, and then it's ready to go for the next time. It's basic and simple. It's great for bacon and eggs, hash-browns and other vegetables because a cast-iron skillet will brown them. If you know how to take care of it, it'll last a life-time, especially for making a great breakfast.

 

It's not about vinyl versus CDs; it's about analog versus digital reproduction. Digital is not capable of the complete and natural sound wave of analog reproduction. No. It's not. But analog reproduction is capable on vinyl and on tape. It's up to listeners to make up their own minds and not be dictated to by anyone. Both can sound good but they don't sound the same. Those who love vinyl understand it quite well and they're not bothered by the inconvenience. If they haven't been bothered by the inconvenience of the way digital sounds in the first place, they wouldn't have invested in turntables capable of playing vinyl. Sales continue to grow and I consider this a positive trend in music. People enjoy it! They put up with the inconveniences because they prefer the difference in sound. But live is best of all.

 

Most highly priced lps that can be bought at Barnes and Noble are made from digital masters due to the sticky tape phenomenon. When this was revealed a few years ago, well into the vinyl revival, it was pretty embarrassing for the most militant of the vinylistas, but now they just sweep it under the rug. Clearly what attracts them to the sound of analog playback is the sound of artifact, be it from a needle riding in a groove or a reel to reel tape cracking and having speed instability. And for my money, DSD is the ultimate means of Fidelity; a single pulse sampled over two and a half million times is bound to sound better than whatever a sewing needle bobbing in a groove like boaters about to die in a Winslow Homer painting. If you haven't heard DSD faithfully reproduced, then you haven't really heard what digital is capable of. However, even bread and butter PCM, with a dynamic range 50 dB superior to analog, emerging from a dead quiet background, is preferable to analog.
Remastering is important as well. Those of us raised in the lp era had to experience some CDs that were poorly transferred to digital in the eighties and nineties. The opposite was also true. Two Mahler recordings are prime examples. Jascha Horenstein recording of the Fourth was trashed by some critics who later did a complete reversal when it was digitalized. I recently heard the lp and it was god awful-dim, noisy, no bass, no treble, just total crap. Bernstein Seventh from New York was also putrid on lp. Gottfried Lieberson, the head of CBS, was later quoted as saying they mastered Their recordings for the capacity of AM car radios.
Even on my first system, the lp sounded like it was recorded with the Orchestra in a phone booth, and as my equipment improved, it shot to be unlistenable.. Both of those Mahler recordings sounded so much better on CD. It would have be interesting to hear the remastering of both recordings on lp

 

Sorry, folks: I never meant this topic to be an ANALOG vs. DIGITAL issue. I should have titled this thread differently -- maybe:
"The amazing sound of THESE vinyl rips (or am I mishearing something?)"

With "THESE" being the rips by the aforementioned vlogger, Schlipperschlopper. Some his uploads are of vinyl records cut from DIGITAL recordings (e.g. the prev.-noted Kegel/LVB Symph. 9) .

Another point to keep in mind is that YouTube streaming is both LOSSY and DIGITAL. Yet, like compressed FM radio or pre-recorded cassette tape, one can easily discern different "styles" (or qualities) of MASTERING.

Yes, the MASTERING on whatever-format release is a HUGE factor.

I have heard a few commercial CD releases I would consider on par with Schlipperschlopper's vinyl rips. E.g.:

 

That Starker recording is great. I have a few other Mercs on SACD, and they’re pretty good too.

 

That Starker recording is great. I have a few other Mercs on SACD, and they're pretty good too.

Totally agree. I understand what the OP is getting at and there is a difference in sound and yes those vinyl rips did sound good but over the years I've acclimatised to all formats. However there are recordings that sound great on any format and that Starker disc is a case in point. I have it on CD and in FLAC on my computer and it sounds stunning on both and as naturally 'analogue' as any other disc I've ever heard. Apologies to anyone offended that my previous post was negative about vinyl. I was trying to be a bit more even-handed but I think I failed.

 

Hey, folks thx for all the feedback!

We should keep the conversation focused on mastering, or vinyl transcription (i.e., ripping vinyl to computer); and not digital vs. analog or tube vs. solid-state. Otherwise, we'll lose the original issue, which is why Schlipperschlopper's vinyl rips sound the way they do.
Maybe, this will help some of you transfer your vinyl to your computer (and then phone or even YT-- there are many LPs, which you may own, that are not on CD, so please share!!)

In conversation with Schlipperschlopper, he was posed with the following query:
Some audiophile friends (whom I play your videos for) were wondering: do you process the audio in any way? That is, expand or EQ or add reverb?

Schlipperschlopper replied:
Hi, I record the music signal separately on an old fully restored 1971 UHER ROYAL DELUXE portable reel to reel studio recorder @19cm/s using the best german Agfa professional tape material. Only a top quality analogue record can transport the sonical magic of these wonderfull old LP records and the excellent turntable performance. Finally for the you tube upload I synchronize the analogue audio signal of the reel to reel recorder and the camcorder video datafile on an older PC based Video workstation that has a good A/D converter. To keep the sound quality as high as possible I always generate a giant .wav audio datafile not an MP3 oder AAC...this is the key to the best possible sound when it comes to vinyl rip on youtube. (Only drawback the upload time takes hours... 

 

...there are many LPs, which you may own, that are not on CD, so please share!!


And on that note, from the same vlogger, here's another never-on-CD release on the East German ETERNA label:

 

...............

 

LP vs. CD is a false dichotomy. CD represents digital audio technology that is more than 30 years old. There are newer and superior ways to enjoy recordings of classical music.

For classical music, modern high-quality hi-res recordings are commonly available.

Many operas, ballet, and a growing number of classical concerts are available on Blu-ray, featuring DTS-HD MA 5.1 and 1080 video. (Blu-ray audio/video is my favorite way to enjoy classical music.) Here's a thread I started on Blu-ray classical recordings: https://www.talkclassical.com/54011-blu-ray-videos-classical.html?highlight=

A few classical recordings are available on Ultra HD Blu-ray. Some classical recordings are on Pure Audio Blu-ray (i.e., no video). SACD (featuring multi-channel) is common for classical music. Downloaded hi-res (24bit/96kHz or 24bit/192kHz) FLAC (e.g. HDTracks) is also common for classical music. Some classical recordings are available as a hi-res DSD download.

Provenance of the recording is critical - i.e., modern recordings that were captured and mastered as hi-res. (In a few cases high quality analog master tapes have been digitized at hi-res with fairly good results - e.g., some RCA Living Stereo. However, these pale in comparison to modern state-of-the-art recordings.)

I listened briefly to the youtube post of Beethoven 9. Candidly the modern Blu-ray recording of Beethoven 9 referenced in my link above sounds vastly superior. I also have a modern 2 channel 24bit/96kHz FLAC download of Beethoven 9 that sounds vastly superior to the youtube recording.

I prefer hi-res classical recordings played via vacuum tube amps carefully matched to Klipsch speakers, and the "naturalness of the quality of sound" is excellent. And the dynamic range of hi-res recordings played via a good-quality surround-sound system with powered subwoofers can result in an experience approaching a live performance in a symphony hall.

OP: If you think these youtube recordings of "vinyl rips" of early-1980s digital recordings sound good, then I say "to each their own". You challenged us to compare any recording, in any format, with the youtube video, and IMO modern hi-res recordings are capable of significantly better sound quality than the youtube video. Sorry … I don't mean to rain on your parade … but I'm trying to keep things real.

Music can be enjoyed via old recordings, and recordings can be enjoyed via modest playback equipment, but let's not confuse that with a state-of-the-art approach to playing recorded music in the home.

 

OP: If you think these youtube recordings of "vinyl rips" of early-1980s digital recordings sound good, then I say "to each their own". You challenged us to compare any recording, in any format, with the youtube video, and IMO modern hi-res recordings are capable of significantly better sound quality than the youtube video. Sorry … I don't mean to rain on your parade … but I'm trying to keep things real. .

Schlipperschlopper has ripped music in many genres with similar equipment as the examples in this thread. I posed the same query about his rips on a mostly rock/pop music forum. And most opinions in that forum are similar to yours.
That said , the below-video comments on YouTube (from general public = the unwashed mass!!) -- and the number of Likes vs Dislikes -- are quite favorable. So despite my audiophile sound system and over 40 years "experience", I'm back to square one. Very interesting!

 

I solved the digital-analog dichotomy by listening to digital content on analog equipment. I consider this the best of two worlds and I didn’t have to go out and buy a turntable or replaced my library with LPs. But I’ve experienced the high qualities of certain LPs because I used to play them on a very good system. It might sound strange to some listeners, but you know, some people like to drive around in a 1955 Corvette or MG, and they can afford to do it and it becomes a wonderful hobby. There can be a special thrill, so not everything has to be contemporary or cutting edge in technology, including the enjoyment of analog LPs. But since I bought a tube headphone amp and listen to everything through it, I’ve never enjoyed my library more and I’m just surprised that this blend of technology isn’t recommended more because one can experience the clarity and detail of CDs through the warmth of an analog amp and there’s more soundstage, spaciousness, air, warmth, richness, and a host of other benefits added to the sound that I would never want to be without. I’ve also enjoyed transferring a number of cassette tape, both classical and jazz, into digital files and they sound excellent because there’s no surface noise.

 

I solved the digital-analog dichotomy by listening to digital content on analog equipment.

Where does one find an analog CD player? And what is a digital amp?

 

FTR, I just listened to a recording of Dvorak's Symphony #8 performed by Zdeněk Košler and the Slovak Philharmonic. Its part of a 1985 double lp on ye olde Musical Heritage Society which usually gets high marks for their quality masterings and pressings at other web forums (including the foul Hoffman lair). The sound quality as delivered by my old Marantz speakers and Technics amp...was muted and muddy. I'm assuming it sounds just as bad on CD...if one exists at all.

 

To each their own. Yes, there can be a difference between contemporary and vintage vinyl and what type of the master was used, whether it was an analog tape or digital. People have to educate themselves! and this does not come as a earthshaking news. I'm referring to those who know that they're purchasing an analog recording, and there's still plenty to choose from.

My experience with vinyl during that era was different than yours. It was positive. It was even more positive after I heard some of the early CDs which turned loud percussive effects into something brittle and weren't entirely flattering to the sound of the piano either. Digital flattened out the sound of the music. But of course, improvements have been made and I have a great number of CDs that sound excellent. But I've never considered digital the perfect media because it's never been an untampered with soundwave. What do people think that a digitally "sampled" sound wave is? "Sampled" means it's not the entire soundwave! And let me tell you something: some of us can still tell the difference.

Vinyl on TC: https://www.talkclassical.com/32532-current-listening-vinyl-39.html#post671536
Classical vinyl audiophiles:

 

What do people think that a digitally "sampled" sound wave is? "Sampled" means it's not the entire sound-wave!

You really don't know what you're talking about. Please see "Nyquist Theory".

 

3 x Gewandhausorchester Leipzig, LvB#9

Not really an apples to apples comparison, but somewhat related fruits. In this case, LVB Symph. 9, Gewandhausorchester Leipzig. Only a few decades apart.

Kurt Masur--Gewandhausorchester Leipzig--Philips 1975 (recorded, 11-1974)

Kurt Masur--Gewandhausorchester Leipzig--1990.10.2 Live

R., Chailly--Gewandhausorchester Leipzig--Dec. 2013 Live

 

Not really an apples to apples comparison, but somewhat related fruits. In this case, LVB Symph. 9, Gewandhausorchester Leipzig. Only a few decades apart.

Kurt Masur--Gewandhausorchester Leipzig--Philips 1975 (recorded, 11-1974)

Kurt Masur--Gewandhausorchester Leipzig--1990.10.2 Live

R., Chailly--Gewandhausorchester Leipzig--Dec. 2013 Live

Are you comparing performances or sound quality? Or both? It's easy to hear the difference between analog and digital, starting with the greater naturalness of the strings and the overall ambience of the sound quality. It's not a "sampled" sound wave but you are getting the entire continuous analog sound wave. All sounds of life are analog! Vinyl is capable of a very vibrant sound quality, and even on a digital upload the difference between an analog and digital recording is noticeable. Vinyl is capable of outstanding sound. The point has already been made in these uploads. But it's disappointing the surface noise of the vinyl that sounds like the result of not cleaning them properly.

 

LPs generally roll off frequencies above 15kHz. If CDs sound harsh in the upper range and LPs sound correct, odds are you have a frequency response spike in your system in the top octave. Rolling off those frequencies entirely solves the problem, and most people wouldn't even notice that those frequencies are missing. That's what people refer to when they call LPs "warm sounding". An equalizer could make CDs sound exactly like that with the proper rolloff.

I had a friend who claimed that CDs had a strange high frequency whistling sound that he didn't hear on LPs. It turns out that he had hearing damage that was triggered by high frequencies. LPs had none of those high frequencies so they didn't case the harmonic distortion in his ears, but CDs did carry frequencies that would trigger his hearing damage. He was happier with a low pass filter that eliminated the high treble.

 

There are no benefits of an analog sound wave. A sound wave is a sound wave, whether it's recorded in magnetic impulses, groove modulations or digital zeros and ones. The only thing that matters is fidelity to the original signal. Analog recordings are capable of very good fidelity, but digital is capable of *perfect* fidelity within the range of human hearing.

If you want the highest possible sound quality, you won't get it by throwing money at the problem... there are too many snake oil salesmen selling audiophile magic beans. You achieve optimal sound by understanding the principles of sound reproduction... not the myths... and applying those principles in an intelligent way. Great sound can't be bought, and it doesn't just happen magically. It happens when you do your homework and understand what you're doing.

 

So... I recently pulled my old LPs out of storage and started listening to them - what to keep, what to toss, etc. Many are not in print in any format.

I was stunned by how good they sounded.

It got me thinking - these LPs are a minimum of 35 years old. I pretty much stopped buying LPs with the rise of CDs in the mid eighties. Yet they have survived storage under not so great conditions and multiple moves with ease. Not so fragile after all.

Yes, they are heavy and take up room ... but they sound great.

Now, I have an old stereo - Ohm speakers, Yamaha amplifier in a big room with high ceilings - the equipment was built to play back LPs. Is that why they sound so good?

 

LPs are a high fidelity format. They are capable of sounding very good. They do have surface noise and the specs aren't quite as good as CD, but they can do a good job of presenting music. There's nothing really wrong with LPs, they just don't have quite as good sound quality as CDs.

The best thing about LPs is that they can be bought second hand cheap, and there are many titles on LP that were never released to CD.

 

Folks, if you go back to my OP, you'll find some interesting listening.
It's a sonic conundrum that I'm still a bit in-the-dark about.