# turntable vs CD



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

...so how does a turntable compare to a sound from a CD... As i have never heard a record before....

ya, that's right I have never heard vinyl. what are the differences ? it seems like some people are raving about vinyl and I see a lot of new albums released on vinyl... why ? is it nostalgic or does it sound better in some regard? i know sound is subjective ... im just looking for a basic high level thoughts.

...maybe id like to get a turntable and find out....


----------



## 86eldel68-deactivated (Nov 30, 2010)

Vinyl was fun while I was growing up. And then CDs came along, superior in both sound and convenience. I haven't had an interest in vinyl ever since.

And I don't miss having to clean my records, flip them over every 20 minutes or so, adjust the tonearm, align / replace the cartridge, clean / replace the needle, et cetera. 

IMO, and YM(and that of many vinyl-philes)MV. 

-- Edit --
The only way you'll really know is to get yourself a turntable and try it out.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Vinyl generally sounds warmer but can sound dramatically different from one turntable to another depending on the quality of the vinyl and the turntable its self. A big problem with vinyl is dust that gets into the grooves and causes distortion or that snap crackle and pop during playback. Also if the tracking and weight of the tone arm and needle is not set right it can cause issues.
Some purest's will say its the better format however CD is capable of much better dynamic range (not all recordings are the same) the stereo imaging will usually be far better and dust is not as much a problem as there is no physical contact of the media.
Thats the short of it, Im sure someone will give other thoughts on this.


----------



## Twooper (May 24, 2011)

Simply put. Music is an analogue system operating in an analogue environment (air). Turntables are analogue hence the "distance" between a records creation and its performance is shorter. If you look into the favourite vinyl albums out there you'll see that many of them are older recordings often produced with the minimalist of studio effects. Many of the vinyl produced today is either because the musical group has an acoustic feel or for the convenience of those DJ's that still like to get hands on with there mixing and scratching. I have a turntable that I listen to on occasion. Is it better? Its just different. Tube amps are the same way. They are essentially analogue systems. The distortion of a tube amp is along even harmonics. That is why guitarists like tube amps. Even when you crank them to eleven and they are distorting like crazy - they rock out and sound cool. It is important to not lump CD's into one category. Digital recordings can rival or even surpass the sound of vinyl with the proper recording techniques and playback methods. The issue is that most CDs and even blue-rays don't contain enough digital information for pure reproduction and there are even fewer commercial devices out there that can play such intense a digital format. Unless your ready to drop 15 000$ on a cd player or turntable for the opportunity to play a limited selection of music. You, like most of us, are in the middle somewhere. Where the cost benefit analyses meets our ears.


----------



## Tonto (Jun 30, 2007)

It all depends on the equipment, the record itself & the mastering. With average equipment, you could hear the "friction" between the needle & the record. Referred to as "hiss." We went to great lengths to get rid of the hiss. Better cartriges, constant cleaning, better arms, etc. And then the record itself will get old and degrade, or worse get scratched (never manually lower the tone arm!).

But when done well, vinyl sounds very good. The best I have heard was a Grover Washington Live concert that was a master recording...dead quiet, superb mastering, it just sounded awesome.

With our new technology, is all the trouble worth it? Not for me, but hey, it's a hobby that many enjoy.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

eljay said:


> Vinyl was fun while I was growing up. And then CDs came along, superior in both sound and convenience. I haven't had an interest in vinyl ever since.
> And I don't miss having to clean my records, flip them over every 20 minutes or so, adjust the tonearm, align / replace the cartridge, clean / replace the needle, et cetera.
> IMO, and YM(and that of many vinyl-philes)MV.
> -- Edit --
> The only way you'll really know is to get yourself a turntable and try it out.


:TT

For the people that want to enjoy their music on a turntable, go for it.
Back in the day I (along with my friends) spent 100's (or more) of hours listening to 'real' albums and it was absolutely great. I am very glad I had that experience and there are many great memories I cherish.
Now, I am in the same place as eljay.

Long before CDs came out the fun factor of albums and the gear was gone and it had become a hassle, FM radio had replaced my turntable.

While the sound quality issue continues to be debated it is a subjective debate, while it may be possible to achieve higher quality sound from a turntable and album (on a one off basis) the money you have to spend on a turntable just to have that potential is incredible.
Then you have to have media that is pristine along with superior mastering and pressing.
If you take a CD of the same material with equal mastering and throw it into a $30 CD player (connected to the same system the turntable is connected to) my money is on the CD player to sound better.

As was said above... The only way you'll really know is to get yourself a turntable and try it out.... 
It's all good fun and entertainment and each individual gets to decide for themselves what they like best. :wave:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Just dont think those USB turntables available today are going to get you that wonderful warm sound that even a $200 turntable got you back in the day.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

I agree with most of what has been said.


I favor CDs for convenience and dynamic range.
Vinyl can be a fun alternative. The noise and distortion inherent to the medium gives a different sound, sometimes covering up flaws in the performance or recording, sometimes just sounding good that way.
Vinyl is a "hands on" medium, handling, cleaning, storage... you get more physically involved with the medium, like a hardcover book vs. a digital book. Again, to many it is fun.


----------



## Twooper (May 24, 2011)

All the above.


----------



## Dotball (Apr 4, 2012)

Before I moved over to CD's I never had to worry about blowing a tweeter. I much prefer vinyl but have to admit to the convenience of CD's.

My turntable is a Rega Planar 3 (original) and I forget which arm it came with. I have over 300 records including a good selection of original master recordings and it all sounds good. Even my 17yo son says it sounds better then anything he's heard.

My money would be on vinyl.
Cheers,


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

I've played a LOT of vinyl back in the day. Yes, it has inherent flaws and distortion. But in can be a fun medium. I have to agree with a lot of the above statements though - they are costly, harder to maintain/clean, and a good turntable is pretty expensive.

I have a Rega turntable also with a decent cartrige. We do play it once in a while just for fun - but become very reminded of the routine of keeping everything pristine and clean - and we use an anti-static gun from Zerostat to decrease surfce static.

The bottom line it, you have to listen to it for yourself to see if you want to invest that much time, money, energy, and effort into the medium. I really only have it because, well, I already have a lot of albums. Just like I still have a reel-to-reel (which is great for recording because you can record at distorted levels which you can't do with digital equipment).

But, if it were me starting from scratch, I wouldn't go that route. I also have a LOT of CD's (over 1000). If you want a true current 'holy grail' medium, I'd put my bet on SACD and DVDA. Once you hear it, they are incredible (the smoothness of pure analog with the dynamic range and low noise floor of digital) - the best of both worlds. I think it's too bad that lately (last decade) more of the population will pay more for conveinence than quality (portable MP3, etc). In the past, folks paid more for better quality and the search was to perfect it. Don't get me wrong, many are still doing this. I just hing the majority of the population does not really care as much for quality playback as much as convience these days. Do I use the newer compressed mediums and streaming - of course. But I still like to sit back and listing to the best there is to offer and for me, that is SACE and DVDA (of course - within affordability means). All IMO...


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

^^^ Forgot to mention, you can purchase an OPPO universal player for $500. That is not much of an investment in something that can play just about any format, including DVDA and SACD.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

cavchameleon said:


> I just hing the majority of the population does not really care as much for quality playback as much as convience these days. Do I use the newer compressed mediums and streaming - of course. But I still like to sit back and listing to the best there is to offer and for me, that is SACE and DVDA (of course - within affordability means). All IMO...


That statement really hits home for me... It seems a lot of people really dont care about the quality. I see it in all the 'streaming' music available. Why are Hollywood and musicians going to produce brilliant recording and incredible movies if it will just end up delivered over netflix streaming in some kind of quasi 5.1 and 64k ? !!



Is anyone excited about PONO?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/shortcuts/2012/oct/02/neil-youngs-pono-change-music


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

Very interesting suff here about vinyl ....thanks for all the information. This is what I was looking for. I am going to look into SACD as well now.


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

Let us know how your quest goes.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

I have many recordings in both formats. Sometimes vinyl wins, sometimes CD wins. It really boils down to the recording engineer behind the scenes. One thing for sure..despite its flaws, vinyl will never fall victim to the loudness war that is going on with CDs and streaming music. As a result of the loudness war, vinyl now has better dynamic range than a lot of the commercial music on the digital formats.


----------



## informel (Jun 21, 2011)

3dbinCanada said:


> I have many recordings in both formats. Sometimes vinyl wins, sometimes CD wins. It really boils down to the recording engineer behind the scenes. One thing for sure..despite its flaws, vinyl will never fall victim to the loudness war that is going on with CDs and streaming music. As a result of the loudness war, vinyl now has better dynamic range than a lot of the commercial music on the digital formats.


First I must say that I am pleasantly surprise at how civilize this tread is, when I saw the title, I tought `here we go again, it will be hugly`.

Now back to the subject, the first time I heard a CD, it thought it was `dry`, it sounded lifeless. 
Maybe the recording was not very good or maybe I was missing the noise from the background.

I think the best description has been given already `it sound different`


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

3dbinCanada said:


> As a result of the loudness war, vinyl now has better dynamic range than a lot of the commercial music on the digital formats.


How do you figure that? Vinyl is still pressed from the same master as the CD now a days if a vinyl press is even made. The Loudness wars has nothing to do with the format. Its how much compression is used during recording to keep the levels as close to the max db as possible without any rise and fall of the true dynamics.


----------



## informel (Jun 21, 2011)

Has for SACD, here is a quote from Wikipedia

In September 2007 the Audio Engineering Society published the results of a year-long trial in which a range of subjects including professional recording engineers were asked to discern the difference between SACD and compact disc audio (44.1 kHz/16 bit) under double blind test conditions. Out of 554 trials, there were 276 correct answers, a 49.8% success rate corresponding almost exactly to the 50% that would have been expected by chance guessing alone


----------



## NBPk402 (Feb 21, 2012)

I used to have a Mitchell Gyrodec turntable with a Sumiko (SME v) tonearm and a Sumiko Bluepoint Special cartridge... I used to cue up the table and my Denon 1600 and let my guests tell me which is better.

I never had a guest tell me the CD player was better. The guests would pick the best sound and it was always the turntable... As a matter of fact they insisted it was the CD that was what they were listening to as the best source, until I lifted the arm on the turntable and the sound went away! All my records were cleaned with a record vac and a lot of them were purchased used in record stores. Once the records were cleaned I very seldom heard any static at all. I believe that part of it was due to the Sumiko cutting into the groove and making a nice new clean groove.

On previous setups the CD def sounded better.

I wish I still had the setup but when I moved to my new house I had no dedicated listening room and sold it. I have since moved on to multiroom audio/video. I have to admit that when I had the turntable I listened to much more music than I do now.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> How do you figure that? Vinyl is still pressed from the same master as the CD now a days if a vinyl press is even made. The Loudness wars has nothing to do with the format. Its how much compression is used during recording to keep the levels as close to the max db as possible without any rise and fall of the true dynamics.


Dynamics describes the ability for signal to vary from soft to loud or visa versa. If the signal is recorded always loud, then the quiet will also be loud. Vinyl is not pressed from the same master or the tone arm would be jumping out of the groove due to bass. The recording techiques for the two are way different.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

informel said:


> First I must say that I am pleasantly surprise at how civilize this tread is, when I saw the title, I tought `here we go again, it will be hugly`.


Yes, this is definitely a cool bunch to hang out with, even when viewpoints differ.



tonyvdb said:


> How do you figure that? Vinyl is still pressed from the same master as the CD now a days if a vinyl press is even made. The Loudness wars has nothing to do with the format. Its how much compression is used during recording to keep the levels as close to the max db as possible without any rise and fall of the true dynamics.





3dbinCanada said:


> Dynamics describes the ability for signal to vary from soft to loud or visa versa. If the signal is recorded always loud, then the quiet will also be loud. Vinyl is not pressed from the same master or the tone arm would be jumping out of the groove due to bass. The recording techniques for the two are way different.


Having looked (in the digital realm) at waveforms on "high-loudness" CDs, I have to agree that it is hard to see that a tone arm/needle could follow the massively clipped wave shapes you often see, even taking D-A filtering into account. The clipped dynamics are often introduced in mixing and sometimes that is done in the mastering stage - or both. There would, in a reputable mastering setting done for a sizable label, be some consideration taken for the final medium. The setup of the vinyl master cutting lathe itself will have signal amplitudes and HF content from clipping taken into account and some can be done with filtering at that point to ensure a playable record - although at that point dynamic range is already set.



ellisr63 said:


> I used to have a Mitchell Gyrodec turntable with a Sumiko (SME v) tonearm and a Sumiko Bluepoint Special cartridge... I used to cue up the table and my Denon 1600 and let my guests tell me which is better.
> 
> I never had a guest tell me the CD player was better. The guests would pick the best sound and it was always the turntable... As a matter of fact they insisted it was the CD that was what they were listening to as the best source, until I lifted the arm on the turntable and the sound went away! All my records were cleaned with a record vac and a lot of them were purchased used in record stores. Once the records were cleaned I very seldom heard any static at all. I believe that part of it was due to the Sumiko cutting into the groove and making a nice new clean groove.
> 
> On previous setups the CD def sounded better.


That is the coolest CD/vinyl AB test experience I have heard of, wish I could have been a part of it. No doubt that vinyl can sound mighty fine, and under best conditions - as you testify - can sound stellar.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

3dbinCanada said:


> Dynamics describes the ability for signal to vary from soft to loud or visa versa. If the signal is recorded always loud, then the quiet will also be loud. Vinyl is not pressed from the same master or the tone arm would be jumping out of the groove due to bass. The recording techiques for the two are way different.


This is correct, the technique is the basis behind the various EQ curves used, with the industry finally settling on the RIAA curve. 

_________________

I've owned copies of CD's and the same recording on LP, more often than not I preferred the LP. Maybe I just like distortion, maybe the recording techniques used were sometimes superior to early digital recording efforts. :dontknow:

I stream music through my Blu-Ray player via Slacker and Pandora, both less satisfying than LP or hard copy digital media. I am a HUGE fan of SACD & DVD-A, and part of that love for this media is the feeling that it sounds like good 'ole analog.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

I am surprised that SACD never really caught on as mainstream.

After my love affair with LP's faded I went many years without having any interest in listening to music unless it was on the radio.
Then about three years ago my interest became rekindled (coincided with getting all new audio gear aimed primarily at HT) and I have been steadily building my music collection ever since.

I rip everything with the format dependant on where it will be listened to and it ranges from wav to 128k mp3.
In my head the wav files sound the best but it is so difficult to do a real comparison with mp3 I would not bet money on being able to tell them apart when played on the same system (320k mp3).

I am currently in the process of duplicating the library in Apple lossless and my stance that LP's are more work may be up for reconsideration.

While I like a good shuffle play as well as anyone, I still love to listen to an 'album' from start to finish.
I know many young people that absolutely have no interest in doing that.
The one thing that turntables and LP's did right was promote playing at least one full side before switching it out. So many great songs that never made the charts are left undiscovered by so many now.

HaHa what a rambling post, probably ought to go on to bed.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

chashint said:


> I rip everything with the format dependant on where it will be listened to and it ranges from wav to 128k mp3.
> In my head the wav files sound the best but it is so difficult to do a real comparison with mp3 I would not bet money on being able to tell them apart when played on the same system (320k mp3).


They are pretty close, and it takes good speakers or headphones to reveal the difference. The easiest place to hear it is with well-recorded complex HF sounds like cymbals, triangle, high bells, some high synth tones. The difference is subtle, but not hard to catch.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

There is no question in my mind that CD is the superior format but that doesn't mean that CDs will sound better than their vinyl brethren. I still maintain that its the recording engineer's talent that determines which sounds better, vinyl or CD. I have many recordings in both formats. Sometimes vinyl sounds better, other times CD is better and there are some that are equal...such as Tom Petty's album entitled "MOJO".


----------



## Paverne (Jul 8, 2013)

chashint said:


> I am surprised that SACD never really caught on as mainstream.
> 
> After my love affair with LP's faded I went many years without having any interest in listening to music unless it was on the radio.
> Then about three years ago my interest became rekindled (coincided with getting all new audio gear aimed primarily at HT) and I have been steadily building my music collection ever since.
> ...


Not so long back I could tell the difference between 192 kbps MP3 and FLAC (similar to Apple lossless), but not sure if I could now... 

Looking at the spectrum in Audacity it's clear the MP3 cuts off anything past 15 kHz.

I did purchase an online album not so long back (from the artist), I had the option of 320 kbps MP3 or FLAC; interesting that the distributors website described FLAC as "for those audiofiles who think they can tell the difference". I took the FLAC version, converted it to 320 kbps MP3, and could not pick the difference even in headphones (not really an A-B switching comparison, just playing one passage on one, then the other). Once again, Audacity shows nothing over 15 kHz, and unfortunately I can no longer hear anything over 15 kHz!

As for this thread - Vinyl v.s CD - I did grow up with vinyl, and like others here, was glad to see the other side  of them (still kept the collection though). I recently had a re-visit though - my brother asked me to pick up a turntable he purchased, and I had it for a couple of days, so gave it a good workout with my old collection. And did an A/B/C switching comparison between vinyl (a half speed master), CD, and an MP3 of dubious origin - all of the same album. A massive sample of listeners (2) compared notes, and agreed CD was the best, vinyl second and dubious MP3 (192 kbps) was last. But sometimes, in some passages, the vinyl sounded... more musical??? Like others have said, I'm sure this depends very much on the mix, what monitors the mixed to, etc. And of course the cartridge (etc...), and even the CD player.

But what was also clear was the mystic romanticism of vinyl... or was it the memories it brought back... sitting on the floor sifting through record collections with a good friend (or soon to be good friend) and playing this and that... the routine of playing a record ... the need to stop what you were up to and get up and change sides... ahh, memories of vinyl (or was it youth...)


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Made my eyes a little misty, too, remembering those days, record stores, cleaning the stylus, that vinyl feel & smell...


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

That brings back many memories!!! That was back in the day when one would go get a new album and listen to every song on it - over and over again at times. I don't think music is appreciated in the same way anymore. Hollywood kinda took over that. I still spin vinyl every now an then. My 6yo son love to play music from the 70's and 80's.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

cavchameleon said:


> That brings back many memories!!! That was back in the day when one would go get a new album and listen to every song on it - over and over again at times. I don't think music is appreciated in the same way anymore. Hollywood kinda took over that. I still spin vinyl every now an then. My 6yo son love to play music from the 70's and 80's.


I have mixed impressions about music listening habits of our kids generation who grew up with ipods and mp3 players. That generation seems to load their players up with the hits of their favorite artists like you say. However, even in my youth, I had many friends that were just interested in the hits of groups and not the whole albums. At that time, I could not understand that very limited scope of liking music and it partially eludes me today. I say partially because many of the artists have only a few good songs and the rest is what I deem "filler" material an IHO not worthy of play. Perhaps the lack of good material from artists is what's driving the listening habits of our kids to hit tunes only. 

I have run across a few of my daughter's friends who enjoy whole albums but these are with artists that pack a solid album rather than hits and filler.


----------



## Glen B (Jun 11, 2013)

fschris said:


> ...so how does a turntable compare to a sound from a CD... As i have never heard a record before....
> 
> ya, that's right I have never heard vinyl. what are the differences ? it seems like some people are raving about vinyl and I see a lot of new albums released on vinyl... why ? is it nostalgic or does it sound better in some regard? i know sound is subjective ... im just looking for a basic high level thoughts.
> 
> ...maybe id like to get a turntable and find out....


I listen to and enjoy both CD/SACD and vinyl. There are good and bad examples of both. Many vinyl recordings that were resissued on CD are just not as good as the original, and many recordings will never be reissued on digital. My vinyl playback setup right now rivals a good percentage of my CDs.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

As far as whats better, in simple terms CD or uncompressed audio is the only way you will get the full dynamics of todays recordings. Vinyl is still very popular among 2 channel old school enthusiasts and has its place given many recordings will simply never be found on CD but some will say that a modern recording will sound better on vinyl is inaccurate. It is true that some early transfers to CD that were originally on vinyl were poorly done but thats not so much the case now.


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

3dbinCanada said:


> I have mixed impressions about music listening habits of our kids generation who grew up with ipods and mp3 players. That generation seems to load their players up with the hits of their favorite artists like you say. However, even in my youth, I had many friends that were just interested in the hits of groups and not the whole albums. At that time, I could not understand that very limited scope of liking music and it partially eludes me today. I say partially because many of the artists have only a few good songs and the rest is what I deem "filler" material an IHO not worthy of play. Perhaps the lack of good material from artists is what's driving the listening habits of our kids to hit tunes only.
> 
> I have run across a few of my daughter's friends who enjoy whole albums but these are with artists that pack a solid album rather than hits and filler.


I agree with that so much!!! I remember a lot of friends that played one song over and over again, even though the album was full of great songs. And yes, a lot of the new artist do have one or two songs on an album that are 'hits' and the rest fillers. I've bought some because of one particular song and was dissapointed in the album. 

I'm trying to teach my son to appreciate whole albums and different genres. So far it's been good. He'll actually listen to whole albums (and yes some LP's) the whole way through.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> As far as whats better, in simple terms CD or uncompressed audio is the only way you will get the full dynamics of todays recordings.


It depends on the genre of music. The commerical pop dynamics is far less than vinyl because of the loudness war that's going on. I also own Tom Petty's MOJO recording and teh dynamics for both the vinyl and CD version are far closer than you might think. 



tonyvdb said:


> Vinyl is still very popular among 2 channel old school enthusiasts and has its place given many recordings will simply never be found on CD but some will say that a modern recording will sound better on vinyl is inaccurate. It is true that some early transfers to CD that were originally on vinyl were poorly done but thats not so much the case now.


Its recording dependent, not media dependent. I've heard a lot of on both media


----------



## tba (Jun 10, 2013)

Lets talk about audiophile stuff. I do not include the vinyl or CD from the supermarket, at 10-20 USD we are out of the subject. If we are considering the right records (> 50 USD) I can tell my feeling: the vinyl is a long time audition pleasure but it will never achieve the dynamics of a digital.
tba


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tba said:


> Lets talk about audiophile stuff. I do not include the vinyl or CD from the supermarket, at 10-20 USD we are out of the subject. If we are considering the right records (> 50 USD) I can tell my feeling: the vinyl is a long time audition pleasure but it will never achieve the dynamics of a digital.
> tba


Maybe so but Tom Petty's MOJO is audiophile grade stuff at $32.00 . Liek I said, its recording dependent, not media dependent.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

LPs wont ever go down below 20Hz and dont go above 18kHz so its not recording dependent at all. CD is digital so the only limitation is the recording source. I agree that the "loudness wars" is a travesty but not all recording studios compress the blank out of the music. I have many Jaz recordings that are amazing to say the least on CD with a wide dynamic range.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> LPs wont ever go down below 20Hz and dont go above 18kHz so its not recording dependent at all. CD is digital so the only limitation is the recording source. I agree that the "loudness wars" is a travesty but not all recording studios compress the blank out of the music. I have many Jaz recordings that are amazing to say the least on CD with a wide dynamic range.


Take a look at this and it give you an idea what vinyl is capable off.

http://www.channld.com/vinylanalysis1.html

From http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1170021910&openfrom&3&4
01-29-07: Rauliruegas
Dear Gnugear: If we take in count what is already done on Lp recording we can say that the frequency range could be this: 8Hz to 50kHz, the 1812 recording on Telarc goes to 8Hz and the cutting machine on the recording goes to 50kHz: so this is the theorethical frequency range.

Now, which is the frequency range response that we normally heard at home systems?, the answer is a complex one because there are several factors that define that frequency response range: the recording it self, the cartridge, the phonolinepreamp, amplifier, speakers and room interaction.

The whole frequency range response never was/is a problem with the analog reproduction recordings: we have all the " music " frequency range like in a live event.



I too believe the CD is the better media but just because it is the better media doesn't mean it will give you better dynamic than vinyl. Its recording dependent based on the recording engineer (more so their management)


----------



## Paverne (Jul 8, 2013)

3dB (heh, are you half in and half out of Canada?), when you talk of dynamics, can vinyl match the 90 dB range of a CD? I think SACD is over 100 dB? Sure, most recordings don't use all the capability of either medium, but CD "must" have better potential??

And sticking up for vinyl a bit, I have a couple of great direct cuts - one of a local jazz-fusion band - very uncompressed and lively.

And for LF limit on vinyl - heh, it must be very very low, as I recall looking at my LF driver cone oozing in and out while playing records with a bit of a warp.....


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

Paverne said:


> 3dB (heh, are you half in and half out of Canada?), when you talk of dynamics, can vinyl match the 90 dB range of a CD? I think SACD is over 100 dB? Sure, most recordings don't use all the capability of either medium, but CD "must" have better potential??


If you have been reading my posts, you will see that I admit that CD is the better media. I also stated that just because its the better media doesn't guarantee that the recording will use the media's full potential. I always said it was recording dependent.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Paverne said:


> And for LF limit on vinyl - heh, it must be very very low, as I recall looking at my LF driver cone oozing in and out while playing records with a bit of a warp.....


I remember seeing that, too. But is that real usable bandwidth, or is it some kind of inter-modulation byproduct from the warping? Seems like the same could occur with a poor pressing that was not exactly concentric.


----------



## Glen B (Jun 11, 2013)

That woofer cone movement created by record warp is unusable, power-robbing infrasonic (subsonic) rumble.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

Don't mistake record warp for vinyl's inability to go down to 20Hz. It will and cleanly too.


----------



## Paverne (Jul 8, 2013)

AudiocRaver said:


> I remember seeing that, too. But is that real usable bandwidth, or is it some kind of inter-modulation byproduct from the warping? Seems like the same could occur with a poor pressing that was not exactly concentric.


I took it as an indication that the playing equipment was capable of less than 18 Hz - even if the cone movement I was observing was unwanted due to warps or non-concentric pressings. Not suggesting a flat response or anything, just that it seemed that if there was a limit to the frequency response of vinyl I thought it's more likely to be at the top end? I guess these (unwanted LF) effects are somewhat exaggerated because the cutting has something like a -20 dB de-emphasis at 20 Hz (restored by the 20 dB boost of the amplifier's RIAA equalisation).

I'm sure I have a record hidden upstairs in a cupboard of a classical piece with pipe organ, with 16 Hz notes on it. They were all the rage back when people wanted to show off their systems. Perhaps that 16 Hz was many dB down, as I've since "heard" (or rather "felt") the real thing a couple of times and it was more impressive!!


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

Paverne said:


> I took it as an indication that the playing equipment was capable of less than 18 Hz - even if the cone movement I was observing was unwanted due to warps or non-concentric pressings. Not suggesting a flat response or anything, just that it seemed that if there was a limit to the frequency response of vinyl I thought it's more likely to be at the top end? I guess these (unwanted LF) effects are somewhat exaggerated because the cutting has something like a -20 dB de-emphasis at 20 Hz (restored by the 20 dB boost of the amplifier's RIAA equalisation).
> 
> I'm sure I have a record hidden upstairs in a cupboard of a classical piece with pipe organ, with 16 Hz notes on it. They were all the rage back when people wanted to show off their systems. Perhaps that 16 Hz was many dB down, as I've since "heard" (or rather "felt") the real thing a couple of times and it was more impressive!!


Back then (whenever "then" was) pipe organ _would_ be the way to show off bass capability, now synths can go as low as we want. There must be some good syth content on more recent vinyl that could demonstrate lower frequencies, one would think.

I do love good pipe organ, though, would like to hear some of that.


----------



## dbald1 (Oct 18, 2013)

I remember back in the 70s blowing out a 12 inch woofer cone with Michael Jacksons Beat It using a good quality Marantz amp. Tore them up good. Records were always capable of a good solid bottom end with the right equipment. $$


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

Frequency response is not a limitation of vinyl records. They can deliver the audible spectrum with no problem. The weaknesses are noise and compressed dynamic range. CD's will always outperform them but vinyl records are a hi fidelity medium without question.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

fmw said:


> ...CD's will always outperform them but vinyl records are a hi fidelity medium without question.


Depends on the mastering... I agree that the format itself will outperform vinyl but depending on how the mastering is done that this isn't always the case.


----------



## fmw (Aug 11, 2013)

Mastering is not a factor in media performance. It is a factor in the overall quality of a recording.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

fmw said:


> Mastering is not a factor in media performance. It is a factor in the overall quality of a recording.


Please reread my previous post where I did acknowledge that the CD media is better performing than the vinyl medium. However, a poor recording on a CD makes the end product inferior to a great recording on vinyl no exceptions. I don't want to end up arguing on semantics as this is a useless rat-hole to venture in.


----------



## Audiofool (Dec 20, 2012)

Personally I think really good sound can be achieved on either medium. If you held a gun to my head and said I absolutely had to pick one medium to listen to for the rest of my life, I'd probably pick CD (probably, still somewhat undecided). That being said, I don't need to pick one or the other, and can enjoy music from either medium.

With CDs you have a good, clean, digital source. With LP, you have a fun, sometimes colored, physical (analog) copy of the music. Many producers also produce masters for vinyl differently.

I also have a great time digging through bins at my local record shop finding the bargain priced classic, or picking up an album that may or may not be good simply because it has great album art. I like aligning my cartridge and getting it to the perfect downforce, knowing I'm getting the best possible sound from my turntable. These are all things that you don't really experience with CDs. You don't buy a better laser like you would with a cartridge to get better sound.

To me, LPs are an experience, and a good one at that. The physical collection that you cherish and that your friends look through when they come over to hang out. The fact that an album is generally played all the way through because it's kind of a pain to switch tracks manually, all these are good things in a way.

It is old fashioned. Vinyl does have little pops and clicks and imperfections. But when you drop the needle on the edge of one of your favorite albums, and you have that few seconds that you listen for the needle to catch the groove and the music to start. Nothing can really compare to that. Certainly not CDs.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

great post audio fool... its all about the experience and the process. its not just listening to the music. its so much more. one day I want a room that has a really nice 2 CH set up and 2 Chairs. I imagine myself listening to something smooth and drinking a nice red wine.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

Being old and biased, I still love vinyl sound, but also love hard drive based sound as well. As I age I get lazy and have found that the smart phone with the jriver app is an awesome way to play back music. But if I want to get down and get funky, vinyl seems to please.
I remember hearing or reading that most folks who listen to vinyl do not multitask while doing so, as opposed to those that listen to cd. Interesting thought.


----------



## jon96789 (Mar 21, 2013)

It can also be dependent on the CD itself... I have a CD and a record of the same album... Listening to the vinyl gives a smoother more spacious sound. The CD itself sounds very hollow and sterile. After the CD was re-mastered, the sound on the new CD was markedly improved. If the studios spend some time mastering the audio, CDs can sound very good, but a lot of early recordings were butchered in the analog to digital process...


----------



## cavchameleon (Jan 7, 2008)

jon96789 said:


> It can also be dependent on the CD itself... I have a CD and a record of the same album... Listening to the vinyl gives a smoother more spacious sound. The CD itself sounds very hollow and sterile. After the CD was re-mastered, the sound on the new CD was markedly improved. If the studios spend some time mastering the audio, CDs can sound very good, but a lot of early recordings were butchered in the analog to digital process...


Very good post and so true!!! I've purchased re-mastered CD's that just blew away the original version. I wish they all were mastered to the best of their ability in the first place!


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

jon96789 said:


> It can also be dependent on the CD itself... I have a CD and a record of the same album... Listening to the vinyl gives a smoother more spacious sound. The CD itself sounds very hollow and sterile. After the CD was re-mastered, the sound on the new CD was markedly improved. If the studios spend some time mastering the audio, CDs can sound very good, but a lot of early recordings were butchered in the analog to digital process...


The masters used to press analog are to different to use to master a CD, hence the butchering. Today's mastering of CDs beats is done correctly which gives them a far cleaner sound than the early years.


----------



## antoninus9 (Nov 25, 2013)

Getting good sound out of vinyl requires good equipment (expensive) and far more effort than digital. Unless you really love tinkering with electro/mechanical devices stick with digital.

I've been around long enough to have lived through the time when vinyl and reel-to-reel were the best mediums, and still have a grand old turntable, but 99% of my listening is via FLAC to DAC. 

Vinyl can be fun, in a nostalgic sort of way, if you enjoy working hard for your music.


----------



## tesseract (Aug 9, 2010)

antoninus9 said:


> Getting good sound out of vinyl requires good equipment (expensive) and far more effort than digital. Unless you really love tinkering with electro/mechanical devices stick with digital.
> 
> I've been around long enough to have lived through the time when vinyl and reel-to-reel were the best mediums, and still have a grand old turntable, but 99% of my listening is via FLAC to DAC.
> 
> Vinyl can be fun, in a nostalgic sort of way, if you enjoy working hard for your music.


Boy, ain't that the truth!

I just got my rig going, took a couple of weeks to research compatible gear and more than a few hours to put it all together.

Worth the effort for me, a lot of music never made it to digital and we have a lot of record stores in my hometown to explore. I'll put the sound right up there with the best, but it is work to get decent sound out of LP. The jury is still out on which is superior, so I must have set it up sufficiently. I will be buying more records.


----------



## billwallace6 (Jan 22, 2014)

I've rediscovered some (150+) LP record albums. Most of the albums contain paper liners/envelopes covering the records. Are the liners safe to use or do they cause warping of the vinyl records - should the record just be placed into the albums without the liners? Thanks for your help.


----------



## RushGuy2112 (Jan 27, 2014)

I am one who sees that cd and vinyl are two mediums that should be had together. I say this because some recordings sound better played back through vinyl and some through cd. You will find the recordings that you like on both mediums and enjoy them both very much (maybe one more than the other). The others are right, it is subjective and you will have to try it for yourself. Well that's my two cents anyway.:TT


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

antoninus9 said:


> Getting good sound out of vinyl requires good equipment (expensive) and far more effort than digital. Unless you really love tinkering with electro/mechanical devices stick with digital.
> 
> I've been around long enough to have lived through the time when vinyl and reel-to-reel were the best mediums, and still have a grand old turntable, but 99% of my listening is via FLAC to DAC.
> 
> Vinyl can be fun, in a nostalgic sort of way, if you enjoy working hard for your music.


I disagree that good equipment has to be expensive. Even the lower midtier stuff from the likes of ProJect, Rega, etc gives one very decent sound. My friends jaws always drop at the sound of my modest setup; a ProJect XPression III played through teh phono stage of my RX-V1800 and throu my PSB Image T45s. It's more expensive than my digital set up. Maybe expensive is a relative comparison to the cost of digital.


----------



## fschris (Oct 31, 2009)

3dbinCanada said:


> I disagree that good equipment has to be expensive. Even the lower midtier stuff from the likes of ProJect, Rega, etc gives one very decent sound. My friends jaws always drop at the sound of my modest setup; a ProJect XPression III played through teh phono stage of my RX-V1800 and throu my PSB Image T45s. It's more expensive than my digital set up. Maybe expensive is a relative comparison to the cost of digital.


I agree... it does not take tons of cash to find some good quality sound. yes it relative. I always wince when I see those 20K audio cables and I am just like wow.... I wonder if I would buy that if I just had stupid amounts of money... I doubt it....


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

When you start talking about what each format is capable of and which sounds better and how it doesn't cost all that much to have a great sounding turntable setup let's start by locking down the system so the only variable is the price of the turntable/accessories verses the price of the CD player.
Brand new equipment only, what turntable/accessories (accessories would need to include any phono amps, cartridges, alignment tools...) will match any base model Bluray player that can be bought for $60 bucks every day at Walmart or Best Buy? Or if you choose a dedicated CD player lets go with the $150 Sony 5 disc changer.
I would really like to know what it takes in 2014 to have a turntable setup that could potentially match an entry level CD/ Bluray player.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/smart-blu-ray-player/7829257.p?id=1218861012727&skuId=7829257&st=categoryid$abcat0102003&cp=1&lp=2 
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemp...=n&seeAll=&browsedCategory=pcmcat309300050003

Links to the gear would be appreciated.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I dont think we can always go head to head price wise if one looks for good sound. That Sony CD player is not at the top of the heap when it comes to good sound. So I am not sure if you mean can we have a $150 table vs a $150 cd player then who knows, maybe, ease of use is in the cd player court but neither will really sound special. Now get to say $400 and the field could go either way.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

First off what evidence is out there to make you think the Sony CD player is lacking in any way when it comes to sound quality?
BD players are even less expensive but they will play CDs so lets go that route if you want.

The question is not complicated.
How much would it cost to get a turntable and any necessary accessories to get the equivalent sound quality that any run of the mill CD player or any low cost BD player can produce.

Several people are touting the SQ of turntables / vinyl over CD. 
I want to know what it costs to achieve comparable SQ.

Which equipment is recommended and where is it available for purchase.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

I would also second what your saying, even a $70 CD player will outperform a $500 turntable if the source of the master being played are equal. Meaning that the CD and the LP were made from the same master.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> I would also second what your saying, even a $70 CD player will outperform a $500 turntable if the source of the master being played are equal. Meaning that the CD and the LP were made from the same master.


I disagree with you. First of CD and LPs cannot be made from the same master. There needs to be post processing done to fit the signal into the physical limits of the vinyl medium. Early CDs sounded extremely bad because they used masters from vinyl instead of mastering for CD. Also, the reverse is now true and some new vinyl sounds horrendous ...ie The Von Bondies.. "Love Hate and Ther's You" . The vinyl version sounds like the levels were set to high and the sound is terribly distorted. On the other hand, I own both the vinyl copy and the CD copy of Tom Petty' MOJO album. My turntable is a ProJect XPression III and is connected to a Yamaha RX-V1800 AVR through teh recevier's phono input. I use a Sony BDP-S360 Blu Ray player. Playing the vinyl version easily holds it own against the CD version.

The sound quality is highly dependent on the mastering as I demonstrated above. Simply debating which medium is better without addressing the mastering is totally pointless IMO.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Oh, I dont disagree with you there. There are some great vinyl recordings that sound bad on CD and Vice versa but if the CD is mastered correctly with little compression the CD will sound better on a $70 CD player than the same LP on a turntable costing hundreds. 
I have a friend who has a mid level JVC turntable and bought a cartage for it that cost $1000. I have a Telarc 1812 overture on LP and CD and the CD sounds WAY better than the LP using his turntable on my system.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Oh, I dont disagree with you there. There are some great vinyl recordings that sound bad on CD and Vice versa but if the CD is mastered correctly with little compression the CD will sound better on a $70 CD player than the same LP on a turntable costing hundreds.
> I have a friend who has a mid level JVC turntable and bought a cartage for it that cost $1000. I have a Telarc 1812 overture on LP and CD and the CD sounds WAY better than the LP using his turntable on my system.


I don't think we'll come to an agreement.  My CD copy of MOJO does not sound in anyway better than my vinyl version.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

For purposes of better format conversations it would be reasonable to just throw mastering off the table and start the conversation where the mastering of each media type is equal.

Then we come to the theoretical limits of the media istself. Which is all well and good but if the manufacturing process of the media or the equipment used to playback the media on average never approaches what is theoretically possible then that becomes a mute point in itself.

3dB thanks for mentioning the turntable you think achieves equal SQ to the BD player.
Is the turntable tricked up with special cartridge or tonearm? Any mods added?


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

chashint said:


> For purposes of better format conversations it would be reasonable to just throw mastering off the table and start the conversation where the mastering of each media type is equal.
> 
> Then we come to the theoretical limits of the media istself. Which is all well and good but if the manufacturing process of the media or the equipment used to playback the media on average never approaches what is theoretically possible then that becomes a mute point in itself.
> 
> ...


It achieves it..not what I think it achieves. My friends used to kid me about turntables and vinyls and the days of the dinosaur so I blind fold them and switch between the CD and vinyl of the same recording and they can't tell from a SQ the difference between the two. My table is strictly stock. Not every album gives me this result so you really can't take mastering off the table.


----------



## elzefas (Dec 30, 2014)

Vynil is both phisical and Analog media, by concept there is no way to beat an analog signal with a digital (0 and 1s) because there is no way to fill in the gap between the 0 and the 1. It's true depends mostly on equipment, $10 needle will sound worst than a diamond one. CDs are Digital and are 0s and 1s, although they are great, a flac imported from vynil have bettwe quality than the CDs.

Zef


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

elzefas said:


> Vynil is both phisical and Analog media, by concept there is no way to beat an analog signal with a digital (0 and 1s) because there is no way to fill in the gap between the 0 and the 1. It's true depends mostly on equipment, $10 needle will sound worst than a diamond one. CDs are Digital and are 0s and 1s, although they are great, a flac imported from vynil have bettwe quality than the CDs.
> 
> Zef


Again, it depends on many factors including the master and how well the vynal is pressed. I've listened to so some lousy vynal and so really good ones. Also a CD also can be poor or well done.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

elzefas said:


> Vynil is both phisical and Analog media, by concept there is no way to beat an analog signal with a digital (0 and 1s) because there is no way to fill in the gap between the 0 and the 1. It's true depends mostly on equipment, $10 needle will sound worst than a diamond one. CDs are Digital and are 0s and 1s, although they are great, a flac imported from vynil have bettwe quality than the CDs.
> 
> Zef


All due respect, this is not quite correct. A standard 16-bit digital signal has 65,536 possible levels, and once the digital signal has been converted to analog, the tiny gaps between those levels end up becoming noise that is so far below the signal level (96 dB) that only in the rarest of conditions can the ear hear it, if ever. The noise level of vinyl, at best, is far higher.

However, as tonyvdb has stated, the ultimate sound quality level of music delivered on either media is dependent on many factors.


----------



## 283569 (Oct 27, 2014)

A good vinyl rig is hard to beat by any cd media


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

sappa said:


> A good vinyl rig is hard to beat by any cd media


Considering most music is mastered digitally now that comment is rather one sided and untrue. It is fully dependent on how well it is mastered to CD. A well mastered CD will out preform vinyl if its done correctly.


----------



## AudiocRaver (Jun 6, 2012)

sappa said:


> A good vinyl rig is hard to beat by any cd media


_In my opinion...._

I will agree (my high-end vinyl experience is admittedly limited) that when all conditions are right - a good recording/mastering/pressing on a good rig - if you don't hear the "needle drop" you can not tell the source is vinyl vs. digital.

When someone says that a worn or less-than-optimum vinyl recording is still better than digital, well, you lose me there.:bigsmile:

As has been said already, there are many, many conditions, including mixing & mastering for vinyl vs for digital, etc.


----------



## chashint (Jan 12, 2011)

sappa said:


> A good vinyl rig is hard to beat by any cd media


Assuming equal mastering on each recording IMO this http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-dvd-player/4790684.p?id=1218532316628&skuId=4790684 will equal any vinyl rig you want to put up against it.


----------



## bigsausagepizza (Feb 11, 2015)

I run mostly vinyl these days. I listen to a lot of doom, psychedelic, and stoner metal; and most of the bands use vinyl as the primary release format. Usually it's 12" LP plus a bandcamp download.

I personally prefer vinyl for the experience that it provides. First of all the art is so much better, sometimes even screenprinted. Some people knock on the whole colored vinyl thing but I love it! I've got everything from translucent neon pink to clear blacklight reactive to cool multicolor splatter designs. It's just another cool addition to the art of the album.

I think the main reason I prefer vinyl in the inconvenience. You read that right, I prefer the inconvenience. Digital and even CD is so convenient that it doesn't make listening to an album an event, you can skip tracks and shuffle all willy-nilly. With vinyl I find myself sitting down and focusing on listening to whole albums straight through. It makes music the main event like it should be, not just something in the background.


----------



## TheGimp (Jan 27, 2015)

I listen to a mix of vinyl, CDs, and digitized vinyl (24 bit uncompressed wav).

Most of my records (about 300) are pre-1984 when family took over my time.

I have both records and CDs that I believe are superior. 

From a technical standpoint, CDs have the edge on background noise and dynamic range, but vinyl has the edge of frequency response due to the brick-wall filter with CDs. Neither is sufficient to cause me to abandon the other media.

Neither technical advantage surmounts the all of the requirements _before_ the media is manufactured.

In the past few years I've started collecting more albums from thrift stores. Most albums are poorly taken care of but occasionally I'll have a find like a couple weeks ago when I got Freddie Hubbard Skydive in pristine condition for $1.00 and it all is worth the effort.

I find that mostly I listen to CDs or music off the NAS when I'm cooking or working around the house.

When I play records, I'm setting down just listening.

Vinyl has become an experience. It wasn't always like that, back in college we played records at party's and they were background music. No one just sat and listened to the music at a party. 

On the other hand, I would play a cassette tape while studying because I didn't have to get up and flip the album over when it reached the inner groove.


----------



## bigsausagepizza (Feb 11, 2015)

TheGimp said:


> When I play records, I'm setting down just listening.
> 
> Vinyl has become an experience.


This is how it is for me too. The effort required to listen to vinyl makes me pay more attention to the music, and makes listening to music an activity, instead of just background noise.


----------



## osi (Mar 27, 2015)

vinyl sounds in the deep and high frequencen more powerful and dynamic


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

I think I'm remembering correctly that technically CD allows for noticeably greater dynamics with lower distortion (with all frequencies). Maybe one of the tech gurus here can post actual numbers.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

gdstupak said:


> I think I'm remembering correctly that technically CD allows for noticeably greater dynamics with lower distortion (with all frequencies). Maybe one of the tech gurus here can post actual numbers.


Yes, your correct. "if" mastered correctly a CD has the ability to be higher quality with far less noise.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

tonyvdb said:


> Yes, your correct. "if" mastered correctly a CD has the ability to be higher quality with far less noise.


Exactly what I was going to say.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

I dont find myself in agreement here, a properly mastered LP, properly pressed played back on a well set up turntable can be quite silent and have every bit of dynamic range one could ask for.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

_*Jack,*_
It's OK for you to have the opinion that LP "_can be quite silent and have every bit of dynamic range one could ask for_," but that is just a general comment and contains no technical facts.

The fact is that every recording medium has a maximum dynamic range that it can handle before there is noticeable distortion. This has nothing to do with how good or bad the playback system is.


The fact is that the CD medium has 26dB better dynamic range capability than the vinyl medium.
The fact is that the CD medium has over 40dB better stereo separation.
The fact is that the CD medium has a much lower noise floor.
The fact is that the CD medium accepts lower frequencies. (Digital will accept lower and higher frequencies)


----------



## TheGimp (Jan 27, 2015)

1 - 3 are correct, 4 is not.

Vinyl is capable of near DC output as is CD, however CD is limited to 22.5KHz on the high end. Vinyl has been shown to have significant content beyond 30KHz. SACD is another matter.

Phono-preamps some times incorporate low-passed filters to keep record eccentricity effects from driving the speaker, along with eliminating rumble which should not be an issue in any quality turntable.

Both media are heavily dependent on the quality of the master and care taken in producing it.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Human hearing is not capable of hearing past 20kHz so anything above that is lost anyhow and mute


----------



## bigsausagepizza (Feb 11, 2015)

tonyvdb said:


> Human hearing is not capable of hearing past 20kHz so anything above that is lost anyhow and mute


That's a very cool chart! I had no idea that most animals can't hear in the sub-bass region, but there's quite a few animals that can hear way higher that us. And I'm pretty sure most of us here know that humans can hear lower than 31hz, but that number is still lower than everything but cows, ferrets, and elephants.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

bigsausagepizza said:


> And I'm pretty sure most of us here know that humans can hear lower than 31hz, but that number is still lower than everything but cows, ferrets, and elephants.


Actually its true, we feel not hear below 30Hz


----------



## TheGimp (Jan 27, 2015)

Yes, and we can hear above 19KHz as well.

When I was in high school, I was tested and could hear up to 23KHz. Regrettably, high noise exposure destroyed much of that by the time I was 29.

Studies have shown that even though humans can not hear much beyond 20KHz, they can hear the difference between original recordings with content up beyond the 30KHz, and the same music brick wall low passed at 20KHz.


----------



## bigsausagepizza (Feb 11, 2015)

tonyvdb said:


> Actually its true, we feel not hear below 30Hz


Most sources I've seen say 20hz to 20khz. How would you differentiate between hearing and feeling? If I'm using in-ear monitors I can definitely "hear" something below 30hz, are you saying I'm just feeling the pressure variations? I'm not sure how that is feeling and not hearing. Doing my own testing I have some sensation down to ~12hz with in-ear monitors (nothing fancy, vsonic VSD1).


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

TheGimp said:


> 1 - 3 are correct, 4 is not.
> Vinyl is capable of near DC output as is CD, however CD is limited to 22.5KHz on the high end. Vinyl has been shown to have significant content beyond 30KHz.


Just because something can be done, doesn't mean that it should be done. Yes, vinyl will accept very high and very low frequency, but distorts worse than compared to CD.
Anyway, that's my understanding. Maybe all of the vinyl cutters and engineers I have read concerning this subject have it wrong.
Not to mention that bass on vinyl needs to be mixed as mono, even bass above 70hz.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

You are feeling the air movement/displacement. You are also likely hearing other noise/distortion caused by driving those lower frequencies into in ear monitors that surly wont handle 12hz


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

gdstupak said:


> _*Jack,*_
> It's OK for you to have the opinion that LP "_can be quite silent and have every bit of dynamic range one could ask for_," but that is just a general comment and contains no technical facts.


I'm going to have to go with Jack on this one. Please explain why his comment needs to contain technical facts. The OP is interested in how the sound of a turntable (read "vinyl") compares to CD, which is a subjective question. Valiant attempts have been made on both sides to refute the claims of the other. This is an age-old debate which will never be resolved. But it sure is fun to discuss, isn't it!

Here are some technical facts that show LP can be as quiet as CD. Here are some more facts, but these dispel vinyl myths.



gdstupak said:


> The fact is that every recording medium has a maximum dynamic range that it can handle before there is noticeable distortion. This has nothing to do with how good or bad the playback system is.


Agreed, but it has everything to do with how the two mediums sound. If the vinyl medium runs out of dynamic headroom then soft clipping occurs and the listening session can continue. With digital, word saturation occurs and the result is not listenable. It also has everything to do with recording practice. Just because the CD's DNR capability is there doesn't mean recording engineers take advantage of it, or would even want to--listener's would have to ride levels for comfortable listening. Aside from the loudness wars, digital recordings are compressed and/or limited on purpose.



gdstupak said:


> The fact is that the CD medium has 26dB better dynamic range capability than the vinyl medium.
> The fact is that the CD medium has over 40dB better stereo separation.
> The fact is that the CD medium has a much lower noise floor.
> The fact is that the CD medium accepts lower frequencies. (Digital will accept lower and higher frequencies)


Are you saying that because CD specs are better than vinyl, that it must somehow be inherently better? Both formats can flaunt their technical prowess in one area or another. But that only makes them superior or inferior _on paper_. We don't listen to specs. We listen to music. Listening involves the ear-brain mechanism, which has yet to be quantified. It all boils down to preference, which can't be challenged:
subjectivist - I like listening to vinyl.
objectivist - Why? It's inferior to CD because CD specs are much better
subjectivist - You're welcome to feel that way. Vinyl sounds better to me.
objectivist - But vinyl has distortions we can measure. CD's don't.
subjectivist - I think CDs sound harsh.
objectivist - Show me the data. 
subjectivist - I don't have any and don't care, because I'm enjoying an album.
objectivist - You can't enjoy what you can't measure.
subjectivist - Then you're measuring the wrong thing.
objectivist - aaaarrrrgggghhhh!
Both formats have pros/cons, good/bad recordings, good/better playback gear. Vinyl lovers know a good recording on a clean album spun on a capable, properly set up analog rig communicates artistic intent differently from its digital counterpart. Maybe not better through math, but more pleasurable through feelings. And that's the whole point--to let the music move you! I personally find myself more relaxed and willing to continue a listening session with vinyl rather than CD. But I listen to both, and find myself choosing between them depending on the particular music and/or medium quality. To each his own. Enjoy! 
lddude: :wave:


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

_BlueRockinLou,_

Go back to post #82, that is what I am responding to. 
And if you missed what I posted in #83, here it is for you again.."._.*technically* CD allows for noticeably greater dynamics with lower distortion (with all frequencies).._."
I am not debating whether album "A" sounds better than CD "A" or vice versa, I am stating facts about the two different mediums. 
In audio when I refer to something being "better," I am referring to it's ability to recreate the original content. Technically, CD can do this better if mastered properly.
You are talking about the listening experience which is subjective. 

You show that there are technical facts to show vinyl can be as quiet as CD.. actually the correct way to state that is "CD noise floor can be as loud as LP."


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Sorry, Glenn. I got all emotional with my technical self. :R


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

BlueRockinLou said:


> I'm going to have to go with Jack on this one. Please explain why his comment needs to contain technical facts.


Maybe I misunderstood him, but I believe Jack was refuting my comment that technically CD has greater dynamic range with lower distortion. Instead of giving technical data to back up his claim he made a general comment about it and also made a general comment saying vinyl "_can be quite silent_." Quite silent compared to what?
It's like if someone asked the difference between a Chevy Chevette & a Chevy Corvette and someone replied "the Chevy Chevette handles just fine and is fast enough." Not very useful info there.

Same with a statement like..."_vinyl sounds in the deep and high frequencen more powerful and dynamic._" 
Not much useful info there. If you are referring to the technical abilities of the media compared to CD, it is wrong. If you are giving an opinion based on certain LP's & CD's you've listened to, then great, but which LP's & CD's were compared.

You mention.."_Valiant attempts have been made on both sides to refute the claims of the other. This is an age-old debate which will never be resolved._" 
The technical aspects were resolved years ago. The debate will rage on forever because instead of comparing technical data between the formats, people say "I listened to vinyl 'A' and it sounded so much better than CD 'X'," where you are not comparing the attributes of vinyl/CD, you are comparing the audio engineering/mastering of specific LP to a specific CD.

The OP asked for the difference between listening to turntable & CD, I believe posting correct technical data should be just as acceptable as people posting "CD sucks."

You asked if I believe better technical specs means something is inherently better, my answer is "inherently not."


----------



## Rubus (Dec 30, 2013)

For me vinyl has a fuller sound that is worth the ceremony required to play it. Not all the time but enough to make it a nice option.

I'm looking to buy a turntable. Am considering the Denon DP300F with Ortofon 2M Red or Ortofon Quintet Red moving coil. Any thoughts on the moving magnet v moving coil option?


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

Rubus said:


> For me vinyl has a fuller sound that is worth the ceremony required to play it. Not all the time but enough to make it a nice option.
> 
> I'm looking to buy a turntable. Am considering the Denon DP300F with Ortofon 2M Red or Ortofon Quintet Red moving coil. Any thoughts on the moving magnet v moving coil option?


Moving magnets are ideal for the beginner and audiophile alike. Most have replaceable stylii, and they're compatible with almost any phono preamp. They generally produce a more mellow sound than moving coils. Moving coils require a little more investment and attention. Instead of being replaced, the stylus must be rebuilt, and usually costs almost as much as a new cartridge. Moving coils can be finicky about the phono preamp they're paired with. Some even require step-up transformers. MC cartridges tend to sound leaner in the bass than moving magnets, with better tonality, transparency, imaging. _(Paraphrased from this source)._

But.. favoritism leads to debate, as the following excerpt reveals:

*Moving Magnet vs. Moving Coil Debate*

Moving magnet cartridges are more commonly found at the 'lower-end' of the market, while the 'higher-end' tends to be dominated by moving coil designs. The debate as to whether MM or MC designs can ultimately produce the better sound is often heated and subjective. The distinction between the two is often blurred by cost and design considerations - e.g. can an MC cartridge requiring another step-up amplification outperform well made MM cartridges that need simpler front-end stages?
MC cartridges offer very low inductance and impedance, which means that the effects of capacitance (in the cable that goes from the cartridge to the preamp) are negligible, unlike MM cartridges, which comparatively sport very high inductance and impedance. In the latter, cable capacitance can negatively affect the flatness of frequency response and linearity of phase response. This would account for a sonic advantage to MC types.
It is generally believed that MC cartridges sport lower moving masses. However, quality MM cartridges are able to offer as low or lower moving mass than some MC cartridges. For example, the state-of-the-art Technics EPC-100CMK4 with 0.055 mg of effective tip mass, of moving magnet design. Comparatively, the popular Denon DL-301 moving coil cartridge has an effective tip mass of 0.270 mg.
MC cartridges offer very low inductance and impedance, which means that the effects of capacitance (in the cable that goes from the cartridge to the preamp) are negligible, unlike MM cartridges, which comparatively sport very high inductance and impedance. In the latter, cable capacitance can negatively affect the flatness of frequency response and linearity of phase response. This would account for a sonic advantage to MC types.
It is generally believed that MC cartridges sport lower moving masses. However, quality MM cartridges are able to offer as low or lower moving mass than some MC cartridges. For example, the state-of-the-art Technics EPC-100CMK4 with 0.055 mg of effective tip mass, of moving magnet design. Comparatively, the popular Denon DL-301 moving coil cartridge has an effective tip mass of 0.270 mg.
To discriminate cartridges by engine (MC vs MM) overlooks the fact that the stylus tip shape and cantilever have a significant influence in the sound, and this may account for more variation of sound quality than the engine type used


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

The other factor that is significant is that the extra pre-amplification needed can represent a large variable. You have to have a decent head amp for a MC cartridge. This may be exaggerated by the fact that many devices do not even have a phono stage these days, and many MM users are using very cheap phono preamps. Ironically, it is MORE important to have a good, and well matched, phono stage with a MM cartridge because of the higher impedance, but no one ever really discusses nor specs it out. 

Back in the day when phono cartridges were prolific, and everything had a phono stage, there were some really good MM cartridges. These days, most of the market has shriveled and there has not been the level of development in MM that there has been in MC.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

gdstupak said:


> Maybe I misunderstood him, but I believe Jack was refuting my comment that technically CD has greater dynamic range with lower distortion. Instead of giving technical data to back up his claim he made a general comment about it and also made a general comment saying vinyl "_can be quite silent_." Quite silent compared to what?
> It's like if someone asked the difference between a Chevy Chevette & a Chevy Corvette and someone replied "the Chevy Chevette handles just fine and is fast enough." Not very useful info there.


I like your analogy! Taken alone, Savjac's statement is self-explanatory. He is merely expressing his subjective perception of the vinyl medium. I agree it was a general, sweeping statement and he could have elaborated with a comparison or two. But when you say "Not very useful info there" I have to ask, useful to whom? His description may be perfectly adequate to the OP, who is interested in how vinyl sounds, not how it measures.



gdstupak said:


> Same with a statement like..."_vinyl sounds in the deep and high frequencen more powerful and dynamic._" Not much useful info there. If you are referring to the technical abilities of the media compared to CD, it is wrong. If you are giving an opinion based on certain LP's & CD's you've listened to, then great, but which LP's & CD's were compared.


Agreed. The subjective claim walks a thin technical line, and definitely should follow-up with supporting detail.



gdstupak said:


> You mention.."_Valiant attempts have been made on both sides to refute the claims of the other. This is an age-old debate which will never be resolved._"
> The technical aspects were resolved years ago. The debate will rage on forever because instead of comparing technical data between the formats...


Comparing technical formats is one side of the debate. Why would the other side convert to that mind-set? That's why there's a debate.



gdstupak said:


> ...people say "I listened to vinyl 'A' and it sounded so much better than CD 'X'," where you are not comparing the attributes of vinyl/CD, you are comparing the audio engineering/mastering of specific LP to a specific CD.


I agree such comparisons are unfair and unscientific, but not all people conduct flawed listening tests. 



gdstupak said:


> The OP asked for the difference between listening to turntable & CD, I believe posting correct technical data should be just as acceptable as people posting "CD sucks." You asked if I believe better technical specs means something is inherently better, my answer is "inherently not."


I like your style! You're absolutely right, and nobody questions your right to present the other side of the coin. I'm just trying to say that technically oriented people (objectivists) hardly ever agree with subjectivists, and vice versa. Neither will convince the other to give up their philosophy. It doesn't matter why or why not.


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

I remember buying the CD of Dire Straits - Love over Gold and was unimpressed with it, I preferred the Vinyl better. 
This was when I owned a Sony CDP101 and interestingly, when I played a CD my two cats would run out of the room. 
I upgraded to a Sony 200 CD stacker some years later and it didn't have the same effect on them and to me it sounded better.
My last two receivers have had optical in, and again, I feel the sound was improved by using their internal dac's over the CD's inbuilt one.

When I get my turntable setup again I will revisit Love over Gold and let you know my impressions.

So I guess you need to consider not just the CD/Vinyl but the players used as well.


----------



## gdstupak (Jul 13, 2010)

_bigbadbill_,

Prior to 1985, A/D converters did a poor job. The first CD's that came out had a sound that many describe as 'brittle.' Bruce Springsteen's CD _Born in the USA_ suffered greatly from this. This CD (vs LP) was superior in terms of lower noise floor and cleanliness, but the music had a sound that was 'not up to the hype of CD.'
Dire Straits _Love Over Gold_ album was recorded prior to 1985, not sure when your CD was transferred from analog to digital, but it would not surprise me to find the LP sounding superior.


----------



## Lumen (May 17, 2014)

lcaillo said:


> ....Back in the day when phono cartridges were prolific, and everything had a phono stage, there were some really good MM cartridges. These days, most of the market has shriveled and there has not been the level of development in MM that there has been in MC.


The venerable Shure V15 Mkxx comes to mind. It's still around after all these decades for more than just its good value.


----------



## robbo266317 (Sep 22, 2008)

BlueRockinLou said:


> The venerable Shure V15 Mkxx comes to mind. It's still around after all these decades for more than just its good value.


Yes, I love my V15 type 4 and it is still going strong. 
I originally updated my turntable/arm/cartridge so that it could track the cannon shots on my Telarc 1812 Overture.  That is one scary piece of vinyl.



gdstupak said:


> _bigbadbill_,
> Prior to 1985, A/D converters did a poor job. The first CD's that came out had a sound that many describe as 'brittle.' Bruce Springsteen's CD _Born in the USA_ suffered greatly from this. This CD (vs LP) was superior in terms of lower noise floor and cleanliness, but the music had a sound that was 'not up to the hype of CD.'
> Dire Straits _Love Over Gold_ album was recorded prior to 1985, not sure when your CD was transferred from analog to digital, but it would not surprise me to find the LP sounding superior.


Thanks Glenn, it's amazing the advances that have been made over the years.


----------



## hifiharry (Jan 4, 2013)

As I have very accurate & well matched equipment & in past have had the time to conduct extensive listening tests, this is what I have found & also researched. As one poster mentioned, there is a great variation over the years in AD/DA converters & have found best sound from cd is via optic to external high quality DA converter. Have also noted quite a difference in the quality of sound in work system that has had several home hi fi cd players over the years but high end English 80watt amp & $20,000 ProAc studio monitors have remained constant. Swapped the laser reader from one that demised but sounded really great into replacement that was a bit flat sounding & it was a major improvement (was a Sony laser in the demised Kenwood CD player). As the quality (& expense) of my system evolved I noticed MAJOR short comings in a very large number of my Vinyl collection, some really poor recordings & some very lack luster performances, e.g. had a direct cut Dark Side of the Moon that was really flat & swapped it for a standard pressing that sounded awesome (should have kept it $$$ in hindsight). The very nature of a CD means it has an order of magnitude more information & dynamic range than is remotely possible with vinyl...... however, analogue source produces predominantly 2nd order harmonics which are euphonic, we adore them & digital produces predominantly 3rd order harmonics which we really hate.These are unassailable facts regards CD & vinyl. Add to that the fact that in an effort to get high volume from Walkmans & then iPods, the recording industry cranked the recording gain up & went from 18dB head room to practically none or sometimes less, with the result that pretty well all popular & a lot of other music effectively became distortion to a beat & this affected both CD & vinyl but probably more so CD. So I have some remastered vinyl on CD & the original vinyl & it's a toss up which one sounds better, so much so that am copying my record collection into DVD quality files, repairing major pops etc & saving them as 44.1 cd sound file files straight to HD. there is no discernible difference sound wise but fig. that dealing with them in the higher Hz/dynamic format & then downsizing will introduce less grief. Conclusion have arrived at is a great CD sounds great as does a well recorded record, they just sound a bit different & both have pluses & both have short comings but on a state of the art system they are both awesome. At the end of the day you are listening to a recording engineer's interpretation of what the performance should sound like & where the players should image & everything is processed to death & then you go deaf. If you want perfect, learn to play something & get good & then have jam sessions with your mates in the garage.


----------



## 3dbinCanada (Sep 13, 2012)

It all comes down to the recording engineer and the mastering of the medium. Neither format holds the lead and I have many recordings in both formats. That being said, CD has far more potential to deliver a more accurate reproduction but unfortunately, its not being used to its greatest potential.


----------

