Hello,Ive tryed a few plugins over my time, but i was wondering your advice on vinyl mastering & dynamics
plugins & why its sounds so good on some vinyl, was it because of the studio hardware or can it be good using software??

 

First and foremost, it's always down to a trained, highly skilled and talented sound engineer, with years of professional experience. The eternal, never-ending argument about whether vinyl sounds better than digital. Digital files are far superior to vinyl.

Jim Anderson, Grammy award-winning recording engineer and professor at New York University’s Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music:

“I think some people interpret the lack of top end [on vinyl] and interpret an analog type of distortion as warmth. “It’s a misinterpretation of it. But if they like it, they like it. That’s fine.”

Spoiler: Digital Music Files Compared to Vinyl

Digital Music Files Compared to Vinyl

From the (pre-)amplifier of the playback chain, the signal path between records and digital playback is the same. The record is a round, disc-shaped sound carrier made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in which the sound information is stored in a spiral groove, the flanks of which (in the case of stereo records) depict the sound vibration of the signal (flank writing according to A. Blumlein).

In this respect, not only the elements for sound recording and production of the record influence the sound result, but also the elements of scanning and playback.

Scanning and playback:

The following are relevant for scanning the record information:
- the drive,
- the pickup and tonearm and
- the phono preamplifier

The end result is that the record is a medium that, as the end product of a long chain of production and playback steps with sometimes different technical parameters, does not significantly exceed the following parameters on average:

- Frequency range: 20 - 20,000 Hz (+/- 3 dB)
- Dynamic range: 50 - 60 dB (20 Hz - 20 kHz)
- Wow and flutter: 0.06%
- Distortion: 0.2% (at 1 kHz)
- Crosstalk attenuation: 35 dB (20 Hz - 20 kHz)

The magnitude of this data is more important than the exact values for individual devices. The data is also not always directly comparable. And of course there is a wide range of quality in every device category - both in terms of recording and playback. This is not about the limits of what is technically feasible, but about the data in a representative cross-section of the upper quality segment with which audiophile listeners have or could have experience.

Playback of the digital master:
The digital-analog converter is primarily relevant to the sound when playing back the digital master. The sound properties of the playback software or operating system, which many users like to discuss, are not among the elements that influence the sound - assuming the system settings are correct. The influences of power supply and cable quality, which are also passionately discussed, are undisputed, but are fundamentally not taken into account here (not even on the analog side).

The end result is that the digital master in 96kHz/24Bit format is a medium that, as the end product of a chain of production and playback steps with sometimes different technical parameters, does not significantly exceed the following parameters when listening:

- Frequency range: 5 – 45,000Hz (+0/-3dB)
- Dynamic range: 120 dB (5Hz-45kHz)
- Wow and flutter: 0.0%
- Distortion: 0.003% (at 1kHz)
- Crosstalk attenuation: 100dB (20Hz-20kHz)

Digital music reproduction (with at least 96kHz/24Bit) is therefore far superior to analogue in all the usual technical parameters. In general, it can be said that the far greater limitation of signal fidelity lies on the playback side. The recording side is and has always been of a much higher quality than even the best high-end playback systems have ever been able to reproduce.

Of course, one could argue that the technical parameters cited here for describing the sound quality (frequency range, dynamic range, distortion, etc.) are not sufficient to fully describe the sound quality of a recording and playback system. There is some truth in this argument. There are many examples of systems with the same measurement results but very different sounds. However, the proponents of this argument would then have to make suggestions as to which parameters are not recorded using the usual measurement methods and how they could be recorded.

On the other hand, the preference for record playback may be based to a large extent on a kind of "misunderstanding". Interestingly, it is precisely the technically necessary limitations in record production that are perceived by the human ear as "better" or at least "more pleasant". Although the audiophile tries to get as close as possible to the ideal of the original, in reality, with the preference for record playback he is moving away from the original sound and towards a subjective sound ideal that is perceived as particularly "pleasant" in terms of auditory psychology in the environment of his own listening room. The reasons for this are varied:

- System-related noise in analog technology has a moderate spatial effect and is pleasant

- Harmonic distortions in record playback (even multiples of the respective frequencies), in which artificial overtones are generated (e.g. more brilliance in the high frequencies), sound "livelier" and more lively. Even-numbered partials (especially the first octave) are very popular because they can make sounds appear warmer, but also clearer and more contoured - a main reason why certain tube devices are still popular today.

- Gentler clipping behavior of the record in overdriven recordings leads to a softer, more analogue sound,

- The lower crosstalk attenuation of the analogue sound recording leads to a less accurate, less precise stereo image, which can sound more pleasing (for this reason, for example, some microphone methods are preferred to others, more technically precise ones when recording)

- Dynamic compression makes listening at home much more pleasant. Otherwise, the listener would have to constantly turn the volume up for quiet passages and turn it down again for loud passages.

- The compression effects also give the music more pressure (not unlike mastering in the so-called 'loudness war').
In technical mastering (i.e. the preparation for cutting a record), the highs are often limited to a steep edge at 18 or 19 kHz for technical reasons. As a result, the music then “breathes” a little less, but it appears warmer and more pleasant “analog”.

- Non-linear frequency responses in the components of record playback often lead to (and are often deliberately used by the manufacturers of the corresponding equipment) a tuning of the sound that is pleasant for the listener but alien to the original sound.

This is also confirmed by Jim Anderson, Grammy award-winning recording engineer and professor at New York University’s Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music: “I think some people interpret the lack of top end [on vinyl] and interpret an analog type of distortion as warmth. “It’s a misinterpretation of it. But if they like it, they like it. That’s fine.”

The higher the quality of the components of the record playback system, the less these sound distortions will be. However, compared to digital playback, record playback requires an extremely large amount of effort in terms of the playback chain in order to keep the physical deficiencies of analog LP playback as small as possible.

Source: https://digital-audio-systems.com/digitale-musikdateien-im-vergleich-zu-vinyl-prox/?lang=en