4 minute read
David Shapton on why vinyl is not the only game in town when it comes to vintage audio formats.
Nobody could have missed the revival of vinyl records. It’s way more than just a fad—it’s a movement. And it’s not alone: you can even buy brand new players for that nearly-worst-ever format, the cassette—although, to be fair, it was more than OK at the time, extremely portable, and could be fixed with a pencil.
In case you’re wondering, stereo VHS audio on long play was absolutely the worst format—worse even than 8-track cartridges. The track width (around 1mm), the glacial tape speed, and the physical location of the audio track—right on the very edge of the tape—conspired to deliver an execrable sound. If you were into low-Fi music, you could convincingly master your oeuvre in this format.
Still sounds appalling, but not the worst... Pic: Luisa P Oswalt / Shutterstock.com
I’m unconvinced about the merits of vinyl. As someone whose very first jobs involved professional digital audio, it’s overwhelmingly clear that there’s no technical reason why vinyl should sound better. In fact, it’s inferior in almost every way. “Oh, but you can hear the steps and the gaps between the samples”. No, you can’t. That’s not how digital audio works.
The first CDs and CD players could sound a bit rough - it was early days, and the digital to analogue converters were nowhere near the current state of the art - and engineers and producers with decades of experience in mastering vinyl took a while to get used to the new format.
Coming next: the CD revival?
I’m just seeing the first indications that CDs are on the verge of a revival—which would be a delicious irony. There’s a distinct mechanism to it: it’s positioned neatly between the visceral satisfaction (and frequently positive nuisance) of faffing around with vinyl records and the soulless but undeniably convenient medium of streaming from Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Prime, and sundry others like Tidal.
I recently saw a genuine question posted on a WiFi Facebook group: “Which are better, CDs or lossless formats like FLAC or (for streaming) Tidal?” Some of the answers talked about which uncompressed format sounded better. The point is that all uncompressed (IE CD quality) formats should sound the same. They’re literally one-to-one, mathematically perfect copies of either the master tape or of a CD. If one uncompressed streaming service sounds worse than another, then it’s not the format - it’s the delivery.
Some streaming services offer greater than CD quality. I realise this can be done, but I’m sceptical about whether you hear the difference (especially if you’re convinced that your vinyl collection sounds better).
The only reason you’d need more than the CD format’s 16 bits is if you’re recording. 16 bits is a lot of dynamic range -96dB, compared to vinyl’s typical 72dB - and 24 bits seems overkill. But when you’re recording, you never know how loud the next crescendo is likely to be - so it’s a good idea to have a few bits in hand to deal with the unexpected. But, in mastering, there’s no way you would need more than 16 bits.
As for a high sample rate - I’ve listened to lots, and, while I think sometimes that I do hear a difference, if you’re not sure about it, then it’s probably not worth it. If only my hearing still extended to 20kHz, which is well within the capability of a standard CD.
DAT's the way I like it
And still pencil-salvageable? Now *that's* backward compatibility. Pic: Shutterstock
This brings us to another format - one of the most advanced and definitely one of the best. It was Digital Audio Tape - DAT. The tapes were roughly the size of the familiar DV video tape but dedicated to audio. It was a rotating-head format, which made the players and recorders mechanically complicated. But when they worked, they worked beautifully. As for the sound - at the time, it was a revelation.
I got my first DAT machine, an Aiwa Exelia, in 1988, and it was so new that I had to import it from Japan - complete with a massive transformer to match the UK’s domestic voltage. It came with a demo tape, and one of the tracks was a jazz big band. It started quietly with a flute melody and gradually built up to a surprisingly loud climax - except that it got even louder. The lead trumpeter stood up and absolutely blasted out a solo. That’s when I realised that 16 bits is all the dynamic range you need for playback.
CDs are exactly the same quality as DAT. Play them through a good modern system, and you’ll be amazed at how good they are!
Media revivals
Meanwhile, I’m all in favour of media revivals. One of my favourites - and pretty much the best ever, is the Minidisc. I loved them. They were never universally popular, largely because they overlapped with the arrival of MP3. Sony’s ATRAC format sounded very good - better than MP3 - but it was proprietary. Writable CDs left Minidisc forgotten in their wake.
I recently bought a decent record deck. My partner has boxes of LPs that haven’t been played for 30 years—classics like Abbey Road and Pet Sounds, Earth, Wind and Fire, and more. It's an absolute treasure trove.
Actually, they sound pretty bad. I might buy the CDs instead.
They don't make them like that anymore. Pic: defotoberg / Shutterstock.com
By the way, I know you can’t expect a 30-year-old record to sound fantastic without cleaning, etc. I loved looking at the sleeve notes. I might keep the sleeves and just velcro the relevant CD to them.
I may have just invented a new consumer format!
tl;dr
- We've seen the revival of various audio formats such as vinyl, cassette, and now we're coming onto CDs.
- The superiority of vinyl is unconvincing
- Digital Audio Tape (DAT) and Minidisc formats were both excellent audio formats
- The author purchased a record deck but, finding the sound quality of old LPs disappointing, considered buying CDs instead
Tags: Audio
Comments