# CD vs. Vinyl



## Sonnie

So what's your take... which one sounds better, CD or Vinyl?

Don't just vote... tell us why?


----------



## MakeFlat

CD's made from older recordings are not much better than vinyl.
CD's are better because they don't suffer from static noise.
CD's can be worse due to electronic/computer manipulation of the digital data.
Vinyls don't last as long as CD's, and vinyls warp easily.
The best of CD's are better than the best of vinyls.
You can never drop a tone arm during a CD playback.
Vinyl player is susceptible to vibration and feedback.
Vinyl player has lower signal to noise ratio, and lower dynamic range than CDs.
Vinyl tracks can become elliptical.


----------



## Guest

On the other hand CD's skip when they are scratched and are expensive to clean.
The sound on CD's is too clean whereas Vinyl is more of a warm sound


----------



## drf

If the cd has been mastered properly, then cd without any hesitation. Unfortunately the art of mastering was lost when the peak volume wars started. back in the days when mastering a record was a fine balance between dynamic range/volume and usable time avaliable, it was a fine craft just like impecable woodwork or fine china. 

If anyone has listen to a string quartet live and then listened to a studio recorded version you'd hear just how plastic some recording techniques are. 

I believe a lot of people mistakenly think Vinyl is better than cd when in fact what they are hearing is a far superior recording/mastering process, not a better recording media.



my 2c anywho.


----------



## Bob_99

Well, in addition to what has already been mentioned, my thoughts would be: depends on what you're using to play the CD or vinyl. Folks with high end turntables and high end speakers (and usually tube amps) assure us that vinyl is the way to go because of the analog signal. CDs also rely on their quality of manufacture and equipment that it's played on. Although for CD, I'm not sure what that range of difference would be but since I grew up with vinyl, I have a much better idea of that and that range is pretty large.

Bob


----------



## Mike P.

CD's overall sound better to me. No back ground noise and "pops" and "crackles". But both mediums use compression during recording. I use a "Dynamic Range Expander" to decompress the sound and give back the dynamic range that is lost during the recording process.


----------



## jvc

I said vinyl.
Don't get me wrong. I love cds. But, I've always felt that nothing sounds as good as a new vinyl album, being played for the very first time. The more it's played, the more the diamond stylus eats away at the vinyl grooves, which creates noise. That's why I always recorded my albums to cassette, when I played them the first time. That was the best recording I was going to get.


----------



## Bob_99

> That's why I always recorded my albums to cassette, when I played them the first time. That was the best recording I was going to get.


I did exactly the same thing but was highly motivated to do so. While I would set the tone arm as light as possible to minimize wear and tear, my wife would stack coins on it to keep it from skipping.:thud:

Bob


----------



## tonyvdb

I said CD only because of the noise factor. Vinyl has its charm and as said already sounds much warmer than CD. I have taken all my vinyl and recorded them to CDr to preserve the vinyl but sadly vinyl does deteriorate even when in storage CDs if taken care of last far longer. I have CDs that are 25 years old and are still in perfect condition, I cant say that for my vinyl albums that are just as old.
I will give vinyl one big plus 45s were very common and gave the buyer the opportunity to get just the one song they wanted rather than the entire album.

I'm surprised that cassette tapes were not an option as even though the life of cassette is not as long as CD the quality was very good particularly with the high end decks out there like the Nakamitchi Dragon.


----------



## Sonnie

Reel to reel might would have been a viable option as well if we were asking what is the best recording medium of all time. Isn't that what vinyl was cut from? I don't know... I'm only assuming. As of today, the best recording medium would probably be a hard drive, no?


----------



## Bob_99

> I have CDs that are 25 years old


I can't believe that CDs have been around for 25 years. Time does fly. In any case, I do remember that some of the early CDs had their share of problems with the coating. Fortunately, those problems got fixed pretty quickly.



> the best recording medium would probably be a hard drive,


The problem with hard drives is that they are mechanical and they are so big now, that they're difficult to backup to a medium that can be stored (i.e. tape) Optimally, a good storage would be semi-permanent memory that keeps it content even when there is no power and can be changed when there is need. I don't know if anyone remembers bubble memory but that was a technology that never quite got off the ground.


Bob


----------



## tonyvdb

Sonnie said:


> Reel to reel might would have been a viable option as well if we were asking what is the best recording medium of all time. Isn't that what vinyl was cut from? I don't know... I'm only assuming.


In most cases, Yes Vinyl recordings were mastered from Reel to reel but these reel to reel decks were way to pricey for any average consumer to own. I had a Fostex B16 reel to reel 16 track recorder for several years and can say it did an amazing job.



> As of today, the best recording medium would probably be a hard drive, no?


Thats more a digital vrs anolouge debate I would think. Flash media may be the way of the future (no moving parts)


----------



## bob1029

A properly mastered CD will have more dynamic range and a lower noise floor than good vinyl. As far as the future goes, I think its in digital distribution. Ive already grabbed some lossless 24-bit music from sites like music giants and magnatune, and its alot cheaper & easier to play than dvd-audio/sacd.


----------



## Tonto

CD's are limited on what they can accomplish due their size. They attempt to duplicate analog quality & are unable. DVD addresses the size, but thats a different thread.


----------



## tonyvdb

Tonto said:


> CD's are limited on what they can accomplish due their size.


True but can handle allot more music than an LP and Music was ultamatly what hey were designed for. CDr's are not in my opinion "true" CDs as they and not made in the same way or last near as long.


----------



## drf

Tonto said:


> CD's are limited on what they can accomplish due their size. They attempt to duplicate analog quality & are unable. DVD addresses the size, but thats a different thread.


So is vinyl, the amount of music that can be recorded on vinyl is a compromise between record level and dynamic range. I.E the size of the groove required for a larger dynamic range would reduce the overall space availiable for more music.

with cd the noise floor is a result of the electronics not the media, and is usually very low (sometimes inaudiable) but with Vinyl the noisefloor is majority cause by the degradation of the media and usually very audiable.


----------



## nitrox1

For anyone who grew up with LP's they are the way to go. I've had cd's since they started but the sound from both medias are very different. I think the bottom end is better on certain LP's than cd's but each has it's benefits. It's what your used too, I for one don't mind the pops and crackles each has it's place. I used to have an old Victrola that played 78's and whatever sound it produced was ok because it was like time travel, and I was hearing it the way it was listened too many years before lp's, 8 track, cd's and dvd's. We needed all of them to get to where we are today.


----------



## rcarlton

Vinyl has a much more natural, almost liquid sound to me. Notes hang in the air longer. Course I'm using a 1960's receiver (McIntosh MAC-1700) with my turntable and Klipsch Cornwall's!

I have since upgraded my vinyl playback system with a new cartridge and added a McIntosh C2200 and MC275 to the mix. Sounds even better! I still find CD's to be too fatiguing to listen to for a long time ~45 minutes or so.


----------



## bob1029

I dont like to use phrases that come from the "audiophile" magazines. A-B listening tests and quantitative measuring methodologies is where its at :nerd:


----------



## JCD

All things being equal, a CD is going to be better -- it just has a much broader dynamic range, the sound won't degrade over time (a vinyl record deterioates everytime you use it) and won't have the hiss and pop you're going to get with most vinyl applications.

I can understand the appeal of Vinyl, but CD's are just better IMO.

JCD

---Edit---
I just saw somewhere that the dynamic range of a vinyl record is 50dB and is 96dB for a CD. 
I've also seen it posted that a CD is way more closely matched to the original recording than any Vinyl album.


----------



## drf

JCD said:


> ---Edit---
> I just saw somewhere that the dynamic range of a vinyl record is 50dB and is 96dB for a CD.


yes, although these figures will vary depending on the vinyl engineer and in the case of cd the production engineer.



> I've also seen it posted that a CD is way more closely matched to the original recording than any Vinyl album.


I would say of late it is the other way around, although the actual record quality is closer on cd, unfortunately the mixdown and dynamics on cd's are being squeezed to nothing in order to get volume.


----------



## Danny

I agree with DRF. Whilst the CD has a much larger dynamic range it seems that today most CD's are mastered to have the highest average volume. To accomplish this many of the dynamics of the music is removed


----------



## JCD

Danny said:


> I agree with DRF. Whilst the CD has a much larger dynamic range it seems that today most CD's are mastered to have the highest average volume. To accomplish this many of the dynamics of the music is removed


However, if vinyl were the current medium of choice, they would be going through the same issues..

also, I will agree that there are a LOT of CD's that are being mixed high.. but not all of them. 

Take a Telarc CD and compare it to any vinyl record of the same recording on any turntable you can find. My assumption (since I've not done this myself, and can only rely on someone who has) is that the CD will be MUCH closer to the original recording than the vinyl record. That doesn't mean that you won't like the vinyl record better, just that it won't be as accurate.

JCD


----------



## tweeksound

> So what's your take... which one sounds better, CD or Vinyl?


Define better... :scratchhead:

While the CD has the capacity to be a more accurate and natural sounding faximile of the original it lacks the often favorable "warmth" of vinyl that's due to the distortion brought on by the analogue and tube circuitry. But the warmth can be brought into a digital recording by using an analogue fron end, tube preamps and signal processors, or by feeding it back thru tape and then back to digital.
Even digital plug ins and DSPs can introduce a decent analogue warmth.

If by better you mean it fulfils it's purpose more effectivly then CDs are better as they faithfuly and accurately reproduce the original recording.

The lack of dynamic range due to the level wars among record companies asside, the CD is a more accurate faximile what the engineer hears when they're sitting in front of their console and listening to their trusted monitors.


----------



## Guest

I find the mastering of the album more important than the medium on which it is found.

Lots of examples of great vinyl and horrible CD's; the inverse holds true as well.


----------



## nitrox1

Well said.


----------



## drf

JCD said:


> However, if vinyl were the current medium of choice, they would be going through the same issues..
> 
> 
> JCD


not really, on vinyl, there is a tradeoff between runtime and dynamic range/level. Whereas on CD dynamic range and record level does not effect the runtime.


----------



## tweeksound

drf said:


> not really, on vinyl, there is a tradeoff between runtime and dynamic range/level. Whereas on CD dynamic range and record level does not effect the runtime.


Actually, the loudness or level wars started with vinyl. They were being pushed to the limit then and the new media are being pushed to the limit today. Vinyl just has more limits so it cannot be pushed as far.

If a record on the old Jukebox played louder than the one before it, it was perceived to be better.

Compression is what makes the vinyl and Cd louder and you can fit even more compressed audio on a vinyl than uncompressed, and it will seem louder psychoacoustically. If you have a .5 second long sound at 90 dB it will seem much quieter than the same sound at the same level for 3 seconds.

The more you compress it, the more you can fit. They just compress it then bring the overall level up to fill the space of the uncompressed audio.

That's where the dynamics go.


----------



## Otto

Hi guys,

I understand why audio signal compression would make things seem louder. But help me understand how it will contribute to a longer play time on an LP, and to what degree.


----------



## tweeksound

On a LP the waveform of the audio is scratched into the surface of the disk.
The continuation of the spiral represents time and the range from the inside of the disk to the outside represents amplitude or dynamic range.

A very loud signal, especially lower frequencies takes up more of the amplitude space.
Dynamic compression does just that. It brings the louder amplitudes down according to it's parameters.
If you have a compressor with the settings at:

Threshold = -18dB (the compressor will not effect the signal until it reaches -18dBfs)
Ratio = 4.0:1 (for every 4 dB past the threshold the compressor outputs only 1dB.)
Attack = 8.00ms (once the threshold is reached it takes 8 ms for the compressor to compress fully)
Release = 350.0 ms (once back below the threshold it takes 350 ms for the compressor to fully stop compressing)

...and your signal hits -10dBfs, the compressor will only allow a max level of -16dBfs.
That's an attenuation of 6dB.

Now you can either apply 6dB of makeup gain to get back to -10dBfs or use that extra 6dB to fit more time onto the same LP.


----------



## Otto

Thanks, Matt. I figured it was something to do with the groove witdth, and groove width affecting dynamic range. Now were engineers mixing with compression to get more play time, or to make things seem louder? Probably both to some degree, or perhaps it would depend on the recording.

Thanks again.


----------



## tweeksound

> perhaps it would depend on the recording.


Right, and the engineer and artist's wishes sometimes too.

But as you can see, loudness and play time are a balance and compression helps to tilt the balance.
But compression and quality are a balance as well.

Everyone wants their record to sound better. Louder volume causes the illusion of better. Compression causes the illusion of louder volumes. Dynamic range and naturalness suffer when compression is overused. An overly compressed CD or vinyl will cause fatigue to the ears over a shorter time and can really take away from the performance.
For pop and rock they will often crush it to death. For classical and jazz they use just enough compression to keep above the noise floor of the medium and to "limit" huge dynamic peaks from clipping or causing the needle to jump off of the disk.

Many engineers have thrown the dynamic range vs compression balance out the window (ex. Californication - Red Hot Chili Peppers) and just squash the album.

I happen to like Californication and think it was a murder well done. Kind of avant-garde.

Most Cds that are treated this way however are not very pleasing.
Especially with home studios trying to compete with big budget albums like Californication.
Instead of daisy chaining 3 or 4 $5,000 analogue tube compressors and setting them to compliment each other, they're using quick and easy presets on a plug in.:hush:


----------



## drf

tweeksound said:


> Actually, the loudness or level wars started with vinyl. They were being pushed to the limit then and the new media are being pushed to the limit today. Vinyl just has more limits so it cannot be pushed as far.
> 
> If a record on the old Jukebox played louder than the one before it, it was perceived to be better.
> 
> Compression is what makes the vinyl and Cd louder and you can fit even more compressed audio on a vinyl than uncompressed, and it will seem louder psychoacoustically. If you have a .5 second long sound at 90 dB it will seem much quieter than the same sound at the same level for 3 seconds.
> 
> The more you compress it, the more you can fit. They just compress it then bring the overall level up to fill the space of the uncompressed audio.
> 
> That's where the dynamics go.



I didn't realise that the level wars started on vinyl, I always assumed the reason some vinyl recordings sounded better was simply because serious thought had to go into what they were going to compromise in order to get the runtime they wanted. I still don't see how compression can make a cd louder? It may appear that way but a cd has rooftop that can't be breached.


----------



## Otto

drf said:


> I still don't see how compression can make a cd louder? It may appear that way but a cd has rooftop that can't be breached.


Well, it's relative to the CD's maximum level. Compression basically makes the quiet things louder, and the loud things quieter, such that dynamic range is limited. Once they get the quiet sounds and the loud sounds to be closer to one another, they can then crank up the overall level to approach the maximum allowed. 

Think of an instrument that's relatively quiet -- a triangle. And then think of a cannon blast; very loud! There's a lot of dynamic range between the two. Applying compression will cause those two instruments to be closer to each other in loudness as perceived by the listener. Since compression generally crushes dynamic range toward the "middle" of the sound level, they have to increase the overall level of the signal (which is easy to do). Once that's brought up (again, to a relative maximum), it's done.

They still haven't breached the maximum level allowed by the CD format. However, if you play a CD that's mastered with a lot of compression and then compare it to the same music that has a more natural dynamic range, the compressed one will sound louder. It sounds louder because all instruments appear to be loud all the time -- from the triangle to the cannon blast, and everything in between.


----------



## tweeksound

Is it just me or are my post showing up at inaccurate places in the series?
Either a glitch on my PC or something...

Anyway...

Compression does what it's name implies. It compresses the audio.
And it starts with the loudest peaks and works it's way down.

A snare drum that is uncompressed and hist 0dBfs might look like this:











Once you compress it, the loudest parts go down by the amount you set.
The rest stays the same.











Then you use make up gain to bring the whole thing back up to 0dBfs











Because you have lowered the amplitude of the loudest peak, you have created more room to bring the rest of the audio up. And since the compressed and boosted sound has more overall amplitude, it will be louder than just a quick attack and less overall amplitude.


----------



## tweeksound

And here's a very compressed stereo version.


----------



## drf

I get it, it doesn't make it louder, it makes it louder :T

I thought you were somehow infering something else.


----------



## Ohmen

Although I beleive CD sounds better in many cases. I love vinyl and would put on a record rather than the same release on CD. I get a 1000% more enjoyment from my LP collection than from my CD collection.


----------



## tweeksound

drf said:


> I get it, it doesn't make it louder, it makes it louder :T
> 
> I thought you were somehow infering something else.


Compression doesn't make audio louder. It actually makes it quieter.
Adding gain to the signal is what makes it louder.

Compression is just needed to add gain to the signal without distorting and clipping it.


----------



## Otto

Good distinction, Matt.

Thanks.


----------



## drf

tweeksound said:


> Compression is just needed to add gain to the signal without distorting and clipping it.


I know why I mis understood you now, I read it as you were using compression to increase the gain. Which doesn't work as you have pointed out. Compression is applied in order that the gain can be increased. 

A small clarification I know but it was enough to trip me up and I use compression when engineering live events for that exact reason (and so transients don't blow the speakers apart).


----------



## Bob_99

If anyone is interested, Wired Science will be doing an analysis of Digital versus Analog recording tonight on PBS. For a preview, click on the link:

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/story/67-audio_files.html

It looks like it could be very interesting.

Bob

I watched it last night and while it was interesting, it was nothing earth shattering. They compared analog to digital (MP3) and for their test they had two members of the Great Northern band and two people with apparently better than normal musical ears. Analog was selected as better but just barely. Now that the show has been broadcasted, you can watch it at the above link (It's about 15 minutes long at most). It was a bit surprising that MP3 faired as good as it did for admittingly a somewhat unscientific test. I would have liked to have seen a much larger test group.

Bob


----------



## daniel

Having compared vinyl and CD using the same recording ( one on cd, the other on vinyl) there was no contest. My turntable ( Oracle Delphi) beat the **** out of the cd ( it was supposed to be a high end player) by a wide margin. Now, I almost never listen to cd, just lp. I also buy lp, not cd.


----------



## drf

daniel said:


> Having compared vinyl and CD using the same recording ( one on cd, the other on vinyl) there was no contest. My turntable ( Oracle Delphi) beat the **** out of the cd ( it was supposed to be a high end player) by a wide margin. Now, I almost never listen to cd, just lp. I also buy lp, not cd.


What album was it? and were they mastered identical or is one a remaster for cd?


----------



## daniel

Dire straits, Brother's in arm. Not a remastered.

I could say the same about Dido's no angel.
I compared with one of my friend's her cd to my lp. We both agree that the LP was much better. Again it was not a remastered.


----------



## Bob_99

daniel said:


> Having compared vinyl and CD using the same recording ( one on cd, the other on vinyl) there was no contest. My turntable ( Oracle Delphi) beat the **** out of the cd ( it was supposed to be a high end player) by a wide margin. Now, I almost never listen to cd, just lp. I also buy lp, not cd.


Pardon my ignorance especially if this was already asked, but are LPs still being made or is the market strictly buying and selling of previously made records?

Thanks.

Bob


----------



## tweeksound

> Pardon my ignorance especially if this was already asked, but are LPs still being made or is the market strictly buying and selling of previously made records?


There are a few folks around that still work in vinyl. Because of the decreasing demand and large expense to maintain a lathe it has become scarce. Many artists still put out their new music as LPs and some release exclusively on LPs.


----------



## Bob_99

Thanks, Matt.

bob


----------



## daniel

Sometimes if you want a title it,s better to pre-order it. They make fewer and they sell like hot cakes. We also sometime have to wait longer for the titles, weeks or months after the cd.

Sometimes record companies lies when they say "cd only". It dis happen for one particular album where the lp was there few weeks before the cd.


----------



## john guest

I agree with Bob, I have a very good tag system and at least 30% of my CD collection has been poorly manufactured . I also have a vintage turntable which sounds far better than my Tag CD ,when playing the same vinyl as the reproduced CD.

Long live Vinyl


----------



## Ronm1

Since there is a redundant thread here's a redundant post...

I went through this a few years ago when it appeared a resurgence in vinyl was starting. I rebuilt my TT, their was still an LP Gear locally at the time and borrowed a colleagues Vpi.
Upfront you should know that I'm assine when it comes to blackness and low noise floor in my system when I listen seriously. Their was no comparison, cd's won hands down. Their was no pop or crackle but their was plenty of groove noise and rumble. TT and 2500 lps to storage. Ive never looked back. The only blackness was the color of the media.

Read more: Vinyl vs CD - what's your experience? - Page 3 - Home Theater Forum - Home Theater Systems - HomeTheaterShack http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...cd-whats-your-experience-3.html#ixzz0fiTA8WqQ


----------

