# Vinyl vs CD - what's your experience?



## paulspencer

I'd like to hear from those who have compared vinyl vs CD. What differences did you notice and what was your preference?

Of course, this means comparing with everything the same, except the source - the same track on CD then vinyl. As soon as you compare with different speakers or tracks, or different sound systems on different occasions, it's not really a comparison.

I had a chance to compare in this way when invited for a demo by another enthusiast in a dedicated room with a high end setup. To my ears there was definitely a difference and I felt at the time it was in favour of vinyl. It was enough to get my attention and want to experience this more.

Of course, with vinyl there is extra expense and inconvenience, but I'm not considering this here. There are also issues like the little pop noises, but I'm not so concerned with them either. Sound quality. Which is more enjoyable to listen to? Which captures music better? Yes, I'm after subjective opinions!


----------



## dradius

I'm far from an expert, but in my opinion vinyl sounds better. I had a pair of Technics 1200s and Shure needles for years and loved them. I can't pinpoint exactly what _it_ is, but if I had the same album on vinyl and CD, I'd always prefer the vinyl. It took a while and sometimes I regret it, but I eventually tired of the hassle of vinyl and am now a 21st century digital boy.


----------



## Jon Liu

In general, vinyl is favored more and for the most part I agree. Although, digital media like CDs have come a long way in sound quality. Especially with some of the higher quality standards like SACD and now with all the lossless audio options, digital media has closed the gap dramatically on vinyl. Personally, I did enjoy the vinyls I listened to most recently, but I often find myself too easily distracted and bothered by pops and crackles from dirt, dust and whatnot that get on the vinyls. Personally that takes me more out of the listening experience than anything. Sure there are ways to limit it, but often times when I feel I want to listen to music, popping in a CD or listening on my Squeezebox.

Plus the disc authoring for CDs also has improved so while there is still a gap in quality with CDs versus Vinyl, a sacrifice must be made either way. Great quality recording with occasion pops and crackles, or a not quite as great, but still good quality recording without the hiccups.

Just my opinion and experience.


----------



## tonyvdb

The big difference between vinyl and CD is dynamics and quality. In order to get a vinyl album to sound as good or better than a CD you need to own a turntable and fang that is very high end costing in the neighborhood of $1000. A good quality CD player can be had for less than $200.
Vinyl tends to sound warmer than CD but wares down ever so slightly every time you play it. With most recordings done in the digital environment these days the dynamics of CD tend to be better and usually cleaner. 
Does vinyl have its place still in 2009? I think so (I still use mine from time to time) but to buy an album over a CD if available the answer is simple CD lasts a very long time and does not warp, degrade with playing it or collect dust causing the dreaded crackle.


----------



## terry j

paulspencer said:


> I had a chance to compare in this way when invited for a demo by another enthusiast in a dedicated room with a high end setup. To my ears there was definitely a difference and I felt at the time it was in favour of vinyl. It was enough to get my attention and want to experience this more.


Do I win any money if I guess which fellow enthusiast correctly? (am I sending something back with him for example?)

I had the exact same pleasure on that great system. (I can even make a stab at the track you were able to compare)

Couple of points, of course only applicable to me.

First off, that was the first time I could actually hear a difference! It could be that I did not take the time on previous occasions to find the differences, and it could have helped that he was able to give pointers to the difference he could hear (which of course I then could)

However, to me, neither was preferrable over the other.maybe in other words, the things that rock my boat were not the things changed (note not even using the word improved).

Ever seen the optical illusion of the two vases...or a face? the gestalt switch.

That was all the difference was for me, I could *click* preference to one, and just as easily *click* preference back to the other. Did that make any sense?

Secondly, I must emphasise that expense of that vinyl front end. Me, well let's just say that when/if I spend money on audio it must be a clear, decisive and noticeable improvement. Bang for buck.

there was no way that fulfilled any of those points.

Couple that with the availability of the music I listen to (hmm, ignore the optimist reports of vinyl making this huge resurgence...it doesn't apply to me) the decision was a no brainer.

Admittedly my set up could skew these comparisons (when I compared vinyl to cd at home). I use straight digital out into my deqx, which then does all the conversions etc.

However, that also means I have never spent more than $100 on a cdp!! the cheapest dvd player from Big W. And I compared $6000 vinyl set up, meh..why on earth would you bother? (haha, that leads to other arguments don't it...from the 'vinyl is superior' brigade...why is audio such a religion? I just don't get it)

This fellow you mention, he is the exception rather than the rule. He has treated his room.

My advice? Forget the (to me) minor improvements audiophiles (washing my mouth out as I type, horrible word) wax so loudly about, at least until you have sorted the major stuff, speakers and room.

That is where you will get your bang for the buck (I know you are working on the first part, for all I know you may have addressed the second too).

AND, any improvements it may bring for your ears will be more apparent after that anyway!

I just 'get annoyed' when audiophiles (oops, wash my mouth out again) rave about the little stuff..and you see pics of their setup...glass walls, bare floors, one speaker in the corner and one in the open...and we are to take their word for it?:wits-end:

Oooh, little rant popped out there didn't it! sorry 'bout that chief.

Back on topic then, so to re-cap my experience was that the important parts of the reproduction (for me) were not even affected, I am talking scale, soundstage width and depth, ambience. From memory there was a 'thicker' aspect to the upper bass/lower midrange, that was about it. As I said, easy to flick between vases and face, so why spend 10k+ for that?

And, it is all down to preference only, I mean how can you argue that the thicker (or leaner) lower mid is correct over the other, we have no way of knowing _that_.

, think of the music you could buy for that dough, isn't music what it's supposed to be about?

My opinion only and all that, (and the rant was all mine)


----------



## Jon Liu

Thanks for the impressions, Terry!

I think the term audiophile is a difficult word to throw around. On the other hand, I would consider myself an avid audio enthusiast, which I will venture to say is another way of saying "audiophile".

The point of these hobbies, home theater and music listening, is to enjoy it. People get different levels of enjoyment and what they consider to be "good" differs from the next person. That's what I love about these hobbies. It is also what I don't like so much because we often have things determined to be "good" and "not-so-good" by others who don't have the same hearing, equipment, room acoustics, personal preference, etc.

What sounds good to one, won't sound good to someone else. I love it that way. I like my audio to sound a certain way; accuracy isn't everything. If we wanted something to sound 100% transparent to the source, then there would not be a need for fifty-thousand different brands to put out components and speakers that are supposedly giving us just that. I like to think of it as "accurate to my perception" because really that's all it is. I think instruments, vocals, sounds, songs should sound a certain way and I am trying to find equipment and speakers that match my perception.


----------



## terry j

Jon Liu said:


> Thanks for the impressions, Terry!
> 
> I think the term audiophile is a difficult word to throw around. On the other hand, I would consider myself an avid audio enthusiast, which I will venture to say is another way of saying "audiophile".


Sorry about the rant, guess it was just pent up frustration.



> The point of these hobbies, home theater and *music listening*, is to enjoy it. People get different levels of enjoyment and what they consider to be "good" differs from the next person. That's what I love about these hobbies. It is also what I don't like so much because we often have things determined to be "good" and "not-so-good" by others who don't have the same hearing, equipment, room acoustics, personal preference, etc.


There in lies the rub. I would put a more strict definition on audiophile, and unfortunately it often does NOT include the phrase 'music lover'. Oh yeah, the protestation would be made that they do (must) love music, but audiophiles often get to a stage where the music is simply a vehicle for 'system adoration'. 

'Wow, that sounds good, listen to how it reproduces this and listen to how it reproduces that'.

Oh yeah, and how was the music_ itself_?

Which is why another part of my definition of audiophile is 'one that has ten well recorded pieces of music that, once they change another component, they listen to again before the next change'.

As you can see, I am on a major anti audiophile kick atm. Hopefully I will grow our of it!:dontknow:

It was, maybe only for me, one of the major reasons I have left most audio forums...the constant discussion of components could only lead to a constant focusing on components. Now I have my system sorted, and well on the way to having the room sorted, I can forget all that and slowly get back to listening to music, not listening to the system.

And, I can well imagine it is a bit like giving up cigarettes, if you've been smoking for twenty years it could take a while till you are no longer thinking about it!!!:hissyfit:



> What sounds good to one, won't sound good to someone else. I love it that way. I like my audio to sound a certain way; accuracy isn't everything. If we wanted something to sound 100% transparent to the source, then there would not be a need for fifty-thousand different brands to put out components and speakers that are supposedly giving us just that. I like to think of it as "accurate to my perception" because really that's all it is. I think instruments, vocals, sounds, songs should sound a certain way and I am trying to find equipment and speakers that match my perception.


A couple of great points here, well for those who are NOT religious in their approach to audio. (my way is the only right way)

As a result of being able to hear many great systems (inc the one alluded to in the first post) I very quickly realised there are _many_ equally valid paths to a fantastic result, there is no one true path. For me that was actually a liberating experience.

I would have been mortified if someone had not agreed that my system was 'the best'. Now I know there is no 'the best', there are many excellent systems and we all have individual tastes and preferences. I am secure in the knowledge that no-one would ever hear my system and say it was not very good indeed, but can fully and totally accept that it will not be to everyone's taste (that was the liberating part). And absolutely no offense would be taken.

BUT, can I dispute a small part of your statement? After many auditions of gear, I simply conclude that there is no real substantive difference between modern electrical components, once knowledge and level matching is taken into consideration.

I have done the experiments, tested others etc. I am not saying there is no difference, but I am saying that whatever difference there is, is minor. Completely opposite to the rave reviews in the mags and from audiophiles.

Sounds like it's getting a bit OT, but not really. To me, the difference between vinyl and cd is in this camp, not really worth it. Esp considering that to really start to get the difference you must consider the cost of the vinyl set up.

Put that money towards proper room treatment....boy then I can guarantee you that you will get improvements.

For me it is 'fix the big stuff' before you 'sweat the little stuff'.

And I guess that is what is at the bottom of my 'annoyance' with audiophile think. Some poor newbie comes on and asks 'how do I improve my system?' (I know newbie does not apply to the op or most here)

Sorry, I get annoyed when the audiophile recommendation is expensive speaker cables or power cords. The poor new guy does not know any better (else he would not need to ask for advice), and all the ads in the mags are for expensive cables, of course he is gonna believe it.:explode:

And as I said, take a look at the majority of audiophile systems in the galleries around, most would be like listening in the bathroom! And note the comments often left, 'wow expensive components' equals 'must sound fantastic' etc. I look and think 'oh yuck, it would be unlistenable!'

Bling, the name factor, the awe you get from other audiophiles about how much it cost, audiophilia is as much a fashion industry as the catwalk.

And about as shallow.

Anyway, rant over for good.


----------



## paulspencer

Thanks for the replies!

Yesterday I watched a few youtube videos showing how records are cut and made. I have to say when you consider everything that happens along the chain with vinyl, from making the actual disc to all the links in the chain in a turntable which introduce some form of change to the signal, it's amazing that vinyl could even compete, much less give a better experience. 



> Do I win any money if I guess which fellow enthusiast correctly? (am I sending something back with him for example?)


CONGRATULATIONS! You've guessed correctly. You are now the happy recipient of $5,000,000 in monopoly money! 



> I had the exact same pleasure on that great system. (I can even make a stab at the track you were able to compare)


It was a great system. The first serious vinyl system I heard. It was quite an adjustment though, as he had a heavily treated room and box speakers. My system then was open baffle in an untreated room, so it almost felt like listening to headphones to me. Still, the speakers had a relaxed presentation similar to mine, so it was a great system to compare. I'm not sure which track you're referring to, but there were quite a few. I didn't find it hard to notice a difference, but I found it hard to pinpoint exactly what it was. 

There was something more appealing about it, but I'm not about to go out and invest heavily in vinyl over it. 

It was actually a friend who isn't into audio at all who put me onto the idea of getting a turntable. She mentioned a place where you can pick up all kinds of vinyl ultra cheap, ie for the cost of a CD come out with a big pile. Then I thought of the idea of renovating and upgrading an old cheapie. Using it for the motor and harder to make bits, getting a new tone arm and creating a fancy curvy base. Somehow the idea still has some appeal. 



> My advice? Forget the (to me) minor improvements audiophiles (washing my mouth out as I type, horrible word) wax so loudly about, at least until you have sorted the major stuff, speakers and room.


I couldn't agree more. However, this is more of a sidetrack than a priority item. I'm one of the last people to worry too much about anything in the chain before the speakers. I don't use an external DAC, I use a DVD player for music, I run Ultracurve full range. I should almost be excommunicated for that last audio sin!

And cables? Well I make my own when I get around to it to keep them neat.



> There in lies the rub. I would put a more strict definition on audiophile, and unfortunately it often does NOT include the phrase 'music lover'. Oh yeah, the protestation would be made that they do (must) love music, but audiophiles often get to a stage where the music is simply a vehicle for 'system adoration'.


Perhaps the word gets tarnished by those who call themselves audiophiles. If I call myself an audiophile, a lot of people will get the wrong idea! Audiophile comes from the Latin "audio" and the Greek "Philos" which means "loving." In other words, an audiophile is someone who is passionate about high quality audio. Probably not quite the same thing as a pure music lover - many of them have the most basic sound systems, spend their money on CDs and going to live performances, rather than spending more than a lifetime of concert tickets trying to bring the concert home!

I'll agree wholeheartedly that it's crazy how so many audiophiles "major on minor issues." Someone will ask what they can upgrade in their system, and it's astounding that so many will emphatically insist that the best upgrades are the things that make typically inaudible differences!

Terry, have you seen this?
http://www.nousaine.com/

I read some interesting articles in there recently. I think you might find some of them particularly interesting. In particular "can you trust your ears?"


----------



## BrianAbington

As my dads ms sets in more its affecting his dexterity and hand strength alot he has a really hard time adjusting his belt drive turn table when he needs to so he's going to buy a direct drive unit with a button to change speeds.

And he said he will give me his current Ariston Audio turn table once it arrives! :yay2: woo hoo!!!
I love that turn table!


----------



## sparky77

I have quite a few old vinyls, that I copied onto the computer using Sound Forge, and digitally removed some of the cracks and pops, and some of the noise, then burnt them to cd's. When I play the cd's, it sounds like a perfectly clean vinyl, without wearing out the original. I've had friends come over while I was listening to the cd's, and were looking around for my turntable.


----------



## paulspencer

Very interesting! I don't suppose you had an original CD of any of those?


----------



## number 5

I have a number of albums in both LP and CD. The LPs are older, purchased in the 70's and 80s. I bought many of the same albums on CD later on for the sake of portability, especially for use in my car. I have to say that in every case, I much prefer the sound of the LP over that of the CD. 

The LP always sounds richer, warmer, fuller, more alive, and vibrant. I can locate every instrument and voice in a three dimensional space more easily on vinyl. By comparison, the CD version tends to sound somewhat flat to me, as though all the sound is mixed to near the same level. It lacks the same feeling of warmth that the LP has, and occasionally the CD version will sound tinny. There just seems to be more sound coming out of the vinyl. I hear things on the LP that I can't hear, or can't hear as well, on the CD. On the other hand, the CD always sounds cleaner than the vinyl; there is no low level hiss from the CD like there is from the vinyl, nor the snaps, crackles, and pops caused by dust and grime. You can really hear the difference in between tracks. 

But I am by no means satisfied that vinyl is always better sounding than CD. My testing has been neither scientific, nor comprehensive. All of my same-album comparisons are of recordings that were originally made for the vinyl medium. In many cases, the CD was obtained from one of those mail-order bulk-music clubs. You know the type; select 12 CDs for $1 and sign up to buy four more CDs over the next three months at full price. They probably weren't the best quality releases. Also, I haven't compared more recent recordings that were undoubtedly intended for distribution via the digital medium. Some of these have been subsequently pressed on vinyl, so comparisons are possible. 

Another disparity in my casual comparisons is in the relative quality of my playback equipment. My Rega P5 turntable is not audiophile gear, but it is a definite quality step or two above my Sony 5-CD changer. A more fair comparison would pit a $1k or so compact disc player against my P5. 

I'm in the market for a new and better CD player, possibly a tube type, so I may be able to do better comparisons soon. I'm inclined to think that the vinyl will still hold an edge over the CD, even with a better CD player. After all, my ears and my brain, just like the vinyl album, are an analog design.


----------



## robbo266317

To start with, I mainly listen to CD's simply because of the convenience (i.e. the 200 CD stacker)

There are so many factors with vinyl - the turntable, the arm, the cartridge, the needle shape, the pre-amp to name a few.

A (very) long time ago I upgraded my old turntable to a Rega Planar with SME series 3 arm and Shure V15 type 4 cartridge and the difference was simply amazing. But, to be honest, you could put a different cartridge in the same setup and it would sound different again. 

When I first bought a cd player, the Sony CDP1, I was amazed! No clicks no record hiss, then after a few months I bought a CD which I had listened to a lot on Vinyl - Dire Straits "Love over gold" and was disappointed with the CD. Then I bought DSOTM and again felt let down, they have now re-mastered DSOTM at least three times, the latest for the 25th anniversary on SACD.

Later on I bought a Sony 200 Disc changer and immediately noticed an improvement, I upgraded my receiver & I used a fibre optic cable to connect it to my Yamaha VSX 710 and it was better again. This time I could instantly switch between RCA & digital to hear the difference.

I still like my Vinyl setup but don't want to wear out the records so I keep it for special occasions when I want to "spoil" myself.

I think as media densities increase we will finally get some truly inspiring recordings.


----------



## paulspencer

It's always good to get a mix of opinions! Definitely food for thought. Thanks for all the replies guys. 

What I'm curious about is, what are the differences in the process? We know there is the digital vs analogue difference, as well as the noise, pops and so on. But what about the way they are recorded/mastered? Does one have a dynamic range advantage over the other?

My feeling is that what goes on inside the recdording studio has far more impact. I have CDs that sound very real on my system, but most have such obvious cues that you are listening to a CD. I also feel that DVDs (movies) are far better compared to mose CDs. Voices are much more lifelike.


----------



## robbo266317

CD's do not have enough dynamic range to record a wooden clapper! The DVD audio format is far superior to CD format and, as I said, it can only get better (hopefully).

The vagaries of analog playback are immense and very subjective whereas Cd's and dvd's only have what the mixer/producer intended.

I read an interesting article on Nakamichi moving coil cartridges and they were trying to find why some sounded bad, some sounded OK and some sounded excellent.

In the end they found the excellent ones had good phase AND linear frequency response.
the OK ones had either good phase OR linear frequency response.
And the bad ones had bad phase AND bad frequency response.

Hopefully we can eventually get our recordings in a format that is better than required so we cannot distinguish from a live or recorded event.

Next, Loudspeakers 101 - how can we make them equal to the task of reproducing what is on our (perfect) recording.........


----------



## JoeESP9

My music collection is reasonably large (3.5K+ LP's, 1.2K+ CD's). I have quite a few of the same recordings on vinyl and CD. On most of the duplicate recordings LP's sound better. There is more "there" there on the LP's. Some might call it a richer deeper midrange. The highs seem to be smoother most of the time also. 
It's necessary to spend $1000 or more to get this kind of vinyl replay quality. However for those like me who have a substantial investment in vinyl it's worth it. I currently use a VPI HW-19, Rega RB-300, Sumiko Blackbird for vinyl playback. I'm selling this rig and replacing it with an Oracle TT and arm to be determined soon.


----------



## tonyvdb

paulspencer said:


> What I'm curious about is, what are the differences in the process? We know there is the digital vs analogue difference, as well as the noise, pops and so on. But what about the way they are recorded/mastered? Does one have a dynamic range advantage over the other?


Keep in mind most LPs were recorded pre 90's using an all analog recording path including magnetic media. This in its self has limitations and dynamic range and channel separation will suffer due to this. Electronic instruments like keyboards have come a long ways with respect to quality compared to what was used in the 80's/90's and the samples have gotten so good now that its sometimes hard to tell if its is a sample or the real thing. 
All of this will effect the quality of a recording if your comparing CD to an LP as well.


----------



## JoeESP9

tonyvdb said:


> Keep in mind most LPs were recorded pre 90's using an all analog recording path including magnetic media. This in its self has limitations and dynamic range and channel separation will suffer due to this. Electronic instruments like keyboards have come a long ways with respect to quality compared to what was used in the 80's/90's and the samples have gotten so good now that its sometimes hard to tell if its is a sample or the real thing.
> All of this will effect the quality of a recording if your comparing CD to an LP as well.


The thing to remember is that most of those old analog recorded LP's have greater dynamic range than most of todays recent CD releases. Unfortunately, most of todays recordings are mastered to sound good in a car.


----------



## tonyvdb

JoeESP9 said:


> The thing to remember is that most of those old analog recorded LP's have greater dynamic range than most of todays recent CD releases. Unfortunately, most of todays recordings are mastered to sound good in a car.


Where do you have that information from? Recordings never went below 30Hz back before digital came about as analog devices could not record it accurately. Even the best quality magnetic recorders had limitations. Now we go well into the single digits for dynamic range.
Todays recordings are not by any means geared for playback in a car.


----------



## robbo266317

tonyvdb said:


> Where do you have that information from? Recordings never went below 30Hz back before digital came about as analog devices could not record it accurately. Even the best quality magnetic recorders had limitations. Now we go well into the single digits for dynamic range.
> Todays recordings are not by any means geared for playback in a car.


I think he means dynamic range in dB not Hz.


----------



## daniel

Dynamic: higest-lowest db
cd: compressed dynamics to play loud uin a car or a boombox.


----------



## tonyvdb

robbo266317 said:


> I think he means dynamic range in dB not Hz.





daniel said:


> Dynamic: higest-lowest db
> cd: compressed dynamics to play loud uin a car or a boombox.


Totally untrue, CD has much more dynamic range (db's) and alot more headroom. I'm by no means saying vinyl does not have its place however a recording made today will sound far better on CD than vinyl.
And again I will repeat what I said earlier, You need a very expensive turntable and needle in order to get audiophile sound that you speak of.


----------



## JoeESP9

tonyvdb said:


> Totally untrue, CD has much more dynamic range (db's) and alot more headroom. I'm by no means saying vinyl does not have its place however a recording made today will sound far better on CD than vinyl.
> And again I will repeat what I said earlier, You need a very expensive turntable and needle in order to get audiophile sound that you speak of.


Of course a CD can have more dynamic range than an LP. In practice almost none do. In fact most popular music is mastered to sound good in an automobile. Consequently dynamic range is usually limited to the point where 10db or less of dynamic range is the norm rather than the exception. This can be seen in any waveform editor. 

As for most popular music being mastered for automobiles and boomboxes, this is what mastering engineers such as Phil Brown and Steve Hoffman have said more than once.

Headroom is a function of dynamic range. It is not something separate.

Yes, you do need a good turntable and cartridge to get the best out of vinyl. However many enthusiasts have extensive vinyl collections most of which will never be released on CD. So it behooves those of us who have lots of vinyl to acquire a good TT and cartridge.


----------



## BrianAbington

JoeESP9 said:


> My music collection is reasonably large (3.5K+ LP's, 1.2K+ CD's).


you can feel free to leave those to me in your will if you'd like :whistling:


----------



## JoeESP9

SQCherokee said:


> you can feel free to leave those to me in your will if you'd like :whistling:


Only if you put me in your will. After all, I have no intention of dying any time soon. There is too much music to hear and too many movies to see.:neener:


----------



## WmAx

There is no rational debate possible to claim vinyl is technically superior. However, I do find that usually, the vinyl master/version sounds better than the version released on CD. But this is just a difference of masters used. CDs seem to be mastered for $99 boom boxes and car stereos, not for high end sound reproduction systems.

I did invest in a very high quality turn table system, and I have more fun playing vinyl. CD's potential is usually wasted, which is unfortunate, as it certainly has more potential than vinyl for accurate playback.

-Chris


----------



## number 5

Chris (WmAx) I have been reading many reviews of mid and high quality CD decks lately because I'm looking to step up from what I have today. The reviewers seem generally to describe the higher quality (and usually higher priced) decks as "more revealing" and "more detailed" with "better separation" and "improved imaging and dimensionality" as compared to the budget or bargain decks. If the limitations in CD sound were due to being mastered for $99 boom boxes and car stereos, then one would think they would sound pretty much the same on any deck. Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps the perception that CD always sounds the same is because the listener lacks a sufficiently revealing system for playback, including the deck, speakers, the room setup, cables, and so forth. 

I can hear a difference in CD quality between my car player and my low-end Sony 5-CD changer in my living room. Part of that difference is doubtless due to factors other than the player, such as amps and speakers and the listening environment. I'm going to be listening to some CD decks over the next week or so ranging in price from $1k to $2.5k. I am going to try to be as objective as possible about my perceptions of the experience, but I will be very surprised if everything I listen to sounds pretty much the same. If that turns out to be true, then I won't upgrade my player. 

I experience more pleasure listening to vinyl than to CD. Admittedly, my TT is better quality than my current CD player, and that surely has something to do with it. But beyond that, there is a palpable difference in the quality of the sound produced by the fully analogue vinyl reproduction and the sound from the CD. While CD has the technical capability for greater dynamic range than vinyl, I'm by no means convinced that rational debate over the superiority of vinyl to CD isn't possible. 

I can't prove it, but it just seems logical to me that analogue should have an edge over CD despite hypothetical technical advantages of the digital medium. CD is sampled sound, and the sound waves are reconstructed in discrete steps to approximate a smooth analogue wave. The sampling is so frequent that one might think it would not make a difference to the listener. But maybe it does on some barely perceptible level. After all, our ears and our brains are analogue devices too.


----------



## JoeESP9

I have to agree with WmAx. Cd is a technically superior medium. The problem is that most popular music is mastered to sound good on boomboxes, i-pods and car stereos. Dynamic range is usually squashed down to 8 to 10db. The exceptions being most classical recordings. They are usually mastered to take advantage of the lower noise floor and greater dynamic range of the CD medium. Look at the waveform of almost any popular music selection in a wave editor like Audacity and you will see exactly what I'm saying.

A good DAC will improve the sound of most inexpensive (mid-fi) CD players. The DAC is the main difference between the inexpensive and the high end.


----------



## tonyvdb

JoeESP9 said:


> The problem is that most popular music is mastered to sound good on boomboxes, i-pods and car stereos. Dynamic range is usually squashed down to 8 to 10db. The exceptions being most classical recordings. They are usually mastered to take advantage of the lower noise floor and greater dynamic range of the CD medium.


I still dont totally agree however that may be more a style of music. Jazz certainly also falls in the same category as classical.


----------



## number 5

JoeESP9 said:


> I have to agree with WmAx. Cd is a technically superior medium. The problem is that most popular music is mastered to sound good on boomboxes, i-pods and car stereos. Dynamic range is usually squashed down to 8 to 10db. The exceptions being most classical recordings. They are usually mastered to take advantage of the lower noise floor and greater dynamic range of the CD medium. Look at the waveform of almost any popular music selection in a wave editor like Audacity and you will see exactly what I'm saying.
> 
> A good DAC will improve the sound of most inexpensive (mid-fi) CD players. The DAC is the main difference between the inexpensive and the high end.


I've been looking for some evidence that music for CD is purposely mixed to a lower dynamic range than LP, but I can't find it. To me it doesn't seem reasonable that most CDs are mixed to sound good on a boombox or a car stereo system. Certain genres, perhaps. What a waste of the medium, if so. Do you know of any industry evidence that supports that?


----------



## JoeESP9

Several studio engineers have said so. Steve Hoffman and Phil Brown to name two. Check the Steve Hoffman forums to confirm this. Another studio engineer said the same thing on the Stereophile forum. You can easily see this for yourself. Use any waveform editor and look at the waveform from a newer popular CD. It's very easy to see the lack of dynamic range.


----------



## number 5

I guess it's no surprise then that vinyl yields the better listening experience between the two.


----------



## JoeESP9

Not always. Unfortunately the potential of CD is usually not used. Classical and Jazz releases are usually not dynamically squashed and generally sound quite good. I suspect the target audience is the primary reason.


----------



## DougMac

What's it worth to you? As others have pointed out, vinyl can sound really good, but at a price. That price is not only monetary but also convenience and ease of use. To truly enjoy vinyl, there's more than slipping the record out of its jacket and putting it on the turntable. It needs to be properly cleaned, and that requires at least one cleaning with a vacuum record cleaning machine.

I don't think you can compare a record played on a >$2k analog system with a CD played on any old $98 CD player using its built in DAC. I have heard the difference between cheap and good DAC's, that's why I either use a player with good DAC's or feed the raw signal through optical to my receiver that has them.

There's just too many variables to make general statements about one medium over the other. That's why I regularly listen to and enjoy both. From personal experience, for every instance where I can say I prefer the LP version to the CD version, I can site five where I prefer the CD version. This is especially true of classical and jazz. 

I had yesterday off as a holiday and it rained solid the whole day. I spent the afternoon cleaning up my office, filing papers, etc. and generally dusting and neating up. I spent the entire time listening to records, either some albums some friends recently gave me or some Goodwill finds. It was a thoroughly enjoyable day. One of the records was a pristine copy of an old Pete Fountain album that my dad also owned and I inherited. Sadly, my dad's copy was in poor shape. My new 50 cent copy showed just how good vinyl can sound, even on my rather modest setup.

BTW, my filing away helped answer a question that I've wondered about recently. I found an old photo taken in the living room of my first home. Looking through the door into the next room, you can see the old Silvertone console that belonged to my parents. On top of it was my first record player, an RCA 45 RPM changer. The photo is dated March 1957. I'm pretty sure I got my record player Christmas 1956 when I had just turned 6, although I might have actually gotten it for Christmas 1955. I still have some of my first 45's, they have a red dot of fingernail polish on the side I liked because I had yet to learn to read! Somehow I could tell one RCA record from another, but couldn't tell one side from the other. 

Looking at that photo brought a smile to my face. I looked from it to the top of a bookshelf, where that very same little record player holds a position of honor.


----------



## paulspencer

The thing that I keep coming back to is that CDs rarely show what they are capable of. There are some that are so good that the differences don't seem worth arguing. Most are so bad the medium hardly matters. When I think about it, it's as you say - quite a lot of work and extra expense with vinyl! I don't think I'll go there any time soon, but down the track I just might.


----------



## Jason_Nolan

Wouldn't it matter with what the original recording was recorded onto in the first place. If the original recording was made digitally and then transfered to vinyl the sampling rate of the master recording would still be the same, correct? 

This may be untrue, but I heard that analog's advantage is the sound is continuous as where CD recorded masters are recorded at a sampling rate, so some (and I'm not sure that I'm one of them) feel the transiets are smoother on Vinyl if the master is recorded directly to Vinyl or analog.

Just what I read, I, like many, have no proof.


----------



## JoeESP9

Whether the master tape is analog or digital is not really an issue. What happens is that the potential of the CD medium is rarely utilized. There are some CD's that sound absolutely fantastic. Unfortunately most don't. The problem is, as said more than once, most CD's are mastered to sound good on boomboxes, ipods and car stereo's. Most of the LP's that are issued currently are mastered for a niche market. "We" are that market. Consequently they are mastered to sound as good as possible.


----------



## terry j

I know I said I would stay out of this thread..well I lied!!

Gonna throw a controversial cat amongst the pigeons...

There is a lot of talk often about poor recordings. Well, let's not be in denial, there _are_.

So ignoring the truly atrocious, here is the cat.

I firmly believe that the _vast_ majority of recordings we have far outstrip the ability of the system to play them!

Most unfortunately I happened to blow a tweeter last weekend at the infamous annual bathurst gtg, which put a premature end to proceedings (on my system at least), but at least there was an opportunity for a bit of a listen before that event.

I have never stopped being amazed at the continual rise of the system as I have done each succeeding step, the latest (and arguably the greatest) being room treatment.

For sure, the system itself is pretty good, so any improvements in the treatment only help an already stellar system.

The point? I (and the few 'lucky' enough to get a listen before the long interval of silence) am amazed at _how much information actually exists on good old redbook!!_

Hear redbook properly, and (to me at least) it really does make any of these type of arguments (sacd, hi res, vinyl etc etc) very much redundant, I am NOT saying those 'better' formats are not 'better' at all, what I am saying is that basically, no-one has really heard what the much maligned redbook format _is actually capable of._

And that is down to the speakers etc, _AND THE ROOM._ We all pay 'lip service' to the influence of the room, and some may even throw up a panel at the first reflection point (and call the job done!), but truly to hear what a full comprehensive suite of room treatment can do will blow your mind.

(not all have the luxury to do it mind... me? well I am lucky that I have my own room, and better still, the wife says 'it's your room, you can do what you want')

When I first started getting this level of reproduction, it was basically overwhelming. I am more used to it now through exposure of course, but I was immersed in this sea of sound so much so that it was..distracting (right word?). There was (is) so much going on that in the _old way of listening _you simply do not know where to focus your attention.

Old way??? Well, we are so determined to find differences, find 'focal' points when auditioning that we pay close attention to any little thing anywhere. And so with _this_ level of information our attention gets scattered all over the shop and we *can* and *do* lose sight of the big picture, so relax and just let it wash all over you is the *new* way of listening.

very quickly I had to learn to listen differently, just acknowledge those sounds around and behind me rather than fixate on them.

To those 'committed' or who believe in vinyl over cd, well of course they did say 'wow, I wonder what my vinyl rig would sound like on this system' and that's completely fine of course (including LD, who did take that package back Paul...and I mention LD because he was the impetus that started this thread so it's completely on topic hah hah), but I cannot help but wonder if they would have chased any improvements (ie vinyl over cd) IF they had this level of redbook _in the first place?? _ Well, audiophiles being audiophiles they probably would have!

Me, I am NOT an 'audiophile' (using my perjorative definition that is) so I personally say 'hooray for good old redbook' hah hah.:clap:

And as some have pointed out, to get the best out of vinyl is a very expensive enterprise, yet would not yield a fraction of the improvement the (much cheaper) room treatment will give.

that is the audiophile way tho innit? Audio salvation is bought thru the component upgrade path...sigh.

I even remembered to give this little demo to a few (very few now I think of it..you can guess that at a gtg things take on a life of their own heh heh)..and that is to sit them down in front of this computer screen and just have a listen to these $19.90 ''''monitors''' hah hah from Big W.

(and all audiophiles can do this experiment very easily, tho a vanishingly small percentage _will_) Just plonk 'em on the desk, listen only a foot or two from them, and be amazed.

By listening in the very near field, we have basically taken the room 'out of the equation' (I may get a better result because my room is _so_ large and _already_ treated, but the point remains). The focus and clarity (even on these absolutely rubbish 'speakers' - I almost hesitate to call them speakers haha) will astonish you...and the soundstage!!

The soundstage. You will hear sounds from all around you, far to the left, and far to the right, floating in space. 

Try it, and report back. And that is streaming MP3 off the net thru the computer and played thru these little babies!

So, fix the speakers, fix the room THEN if you wish chase these other little upgrades (in the scheme of things) like vinyl over cd.


----------



## JoeESP9

What you have said doesn't address the fact that the majority of popular music releases are mastered to sound good on boomboxes and car stereo's. As I have said before, you can easily see this for yourself with any wave editor. The lack of dynamic range is very evident and can't be denied. Thankfully Jazz and classical recordings don't usually suffer from the compressing and processing routinely applied to popular music. As a result the majority sound quite good.Yeah, there are the exceptions. Just as there are some popular releases that sound good.

I too am one of the "lucky" one's. My system has been in a treated dedicated room for ten plus years. I routinely experience a large expansive sounstage with great imaging. It brings a smile to my face to hear of someones latest epiphany about making a change and suddenly they understand what the term "soundstage" means because they finally have one. Switching to Magnaplanar speakers in 1976 was when "I saw the light". From that time on I have been acutely aware of the importance of speaker positioning and room treatment. Consequently my room is treated with various trimmings and furnishings designed to help me get the best from the available space.

Yes, in order to get the best out of vinyl you need to spend some cash. When you have 3.5K+ recordings on vinyl it makes sense to get the best from it. When CD's were introduced my vinyl collection was already approaching 2K. If you had started buying vinyl in 1967 as I did almost anyone would have a collection of legacy LP's. Many thanks to those who sold their LP's and switched exclusively to CD's. That enabled me to pick up lots of vinyl at fire sale prices. Of course I buy mainly CD's now. However, given a choice I'll get it on vinyl if available.

Lest you think I'm some kind of "Luddite" allow me to explain. The audio from television has been connected to my system since BM (before Magnaplanars). I bought a first generation CD player, VCR and surround processor. Of course I've kept up since then. Four full range ESL's and three subs along with a Lexicon processor are used for sourround sound sources. For two channel sound I use the two front ESL's, two subs and an ARC preamp. I recently built a music server PC and this like all my gear is tied into my one system.

Having always used separates, it's quite easy for me to accomodate virtually any new technology. I just add whatever device or devices necessary and keep on movin'. One habit I developed is that of buying the "good" stuff from the beginning. I don't like changing gear every other year. As an example, I recently sold my VPI HW-19 TT. It's 22 years old has every upgrade except for the TNT platter and SAMA. It works perfectly. I just want something new. I expect its replacement to last just as long.

You do realize blowing tweeters is usually an indication of amplifier clipping? As for MP3 files, they are audibly inferior on my system even at a BR of 320Kbps. I listen to streamed audio from the web only to help in selecting new music to buy. Even though I prefer vinyl, I try to stay current. That's why I ve had an email address since 1990 or so. I've had my current one for about ten years.


----------



## tonyvdb

JoeESP9 said:


> What you have said doesn't address the fact that the majority of popular music releases are mastered to sound good on boomboxes and car stereo's. As I have said before, you can easily see this for yourself with any wave editor. The lack of dynamic range is very evident and can't be denied. Thankfully Jazz and classical recordings don't usually suffer from the compressing and processing routinely applied to popular music. As a result the majority sound quite good.Yeah, there are the exceptions. Just as there are some popular releases that sound good.


Joe, You keep mentioning this however that has no barring on whether Vinyl or CD is better. If you were to take the same master that was put to a CD it would still have more dynamics/channel separation than an LP . The recording of a pop album that you state to be compressed to "sound better" on car stereo or boom boxes would still sound the same or less if if it was to be pressed to Vinyl because its the limitation of the master and has very little to do with the media.


----------



## terry j

JoeESP9 said:


> What you have said doesn't address the fact that the majority of popular music releases are mastered to sound good on boomboxes and car stereo's. As I have said before, you can easily see this for yourself with any wave editor. The lack of dynamic range is very evident and can't be denied. Thankfully Jazz and classical recordings don't usually suffer from the compressing and processing routinely applied to popular music. As a result the majority sound quite good.Yeah, there are the exceptions. Just as there are some popular releases that sound good.


Yep, that is what I hear *all* the time from audiophiles.

Am I saying that there are no bad recordings? Nope, not in the slightest.

But I am now of the very strong opinion that *most* are far better than most systems ability to play them. Yep, for sure we can quibble about the definition of 'most', but the point remains.

I just love to play people some Muse tracks (not all, they can be horribly saccharine at times, but when they rock then they can rock). Muse will often come up on those infamous audiophile blacklists.

Done properly, it will blow your mind.

Boy, I could go on for hours about this!! so be warned hah hah.

Even before I type this I can see how it would be elitist or snobby, but really it's not.

As an example made up out of thin air, illustration purposes only, well audiophiles are a pretty snobby bunch really, and they *KNOW* (often) that their system is the bees knees right? After all, it has the (industry approved) cables lifts, expensive interconnects and cables, yada yada yada.

So, if a recording sounds bloody horrible on their system it MUST be the recording right? Almost a definitional thing if you follow.

So here is the example...this bird has an 'audiophile' system that just happens to ring horribly at certain frequencies. (think I am making stuff like this up??)

Well, I wonder how many bad recordings that guy has!! (do you follow where I am going?)

Or his system compresses so badly that unless it is 'pure, single micc'd audiophile' recordings the thing just falls to pieces.

Not saying it is always like that, but I do think (examples) like that are far more common than is recognised.

Yet, they are audiophiles with 'great' systems, so of course the recording (and those stupid incompetent engineers) that get the blame. No, it is their _system_ that is the limiting factor. Far more common that anyone will give credit I think.

And, this is where it starts to spread out in it's ramifications, he then auditions (briefly I might add) a 'clean, uncompressed system' and (with a snobbish sniff of rejection!) 'hmmph, where is all the detail'!!!

hahaha, his has NOT got detail it has distortion and ringing!

That leads into so many other areas that it is fascinating! It leads to things like 'we all have our personal tastes' etc. Well, yes ultimately it can mean that, but you would be making a very grave mistake to equate 'what someone is _used _to' with 'what someones personal taste is'!!!

Of course it CAN be that way, but it would take a while, listening to many tracks over a period of time for the guy to finally realise that 'hey, this new system is just clean, no artifacts or repetitive colouring of every song with the same sound', it CAN take time you know?

But the reverse can be super quick. the guy with a clean system, tons of headroom, no boomy bass, he will pick up a dirty system, a compressed system, a boomy system, within the space of a few minutes.


As I said, this can explain a lot of things, but as I am feeling generous today, I will spare you all my wacky theories hahaha!






> I too am one of the "lucky" one's. My system has been in a treated dedicated room for ten plus years. I routinely experience a large expansive sounstage with great imaging. It brings a smile to my face to hear of someones latest epiphany about making a change and suddenly they understand what the term "soundstage" means because they finally have one. Switching to Magnaplanar speakers in 1976 was when "I saw the light". From that time on I have been acutely aware of the importance of speaker positioning and room treatment. Consequently my room is treated with various trimmings and furnishings designed to help me get the best from the available space.


Well done. And further to what we have been saying, they simply have NO idea what the system is actually capable of w/out room treatment.





> You do realize blowing tweeters is usually an indication of amplifier clipping?


For sure. Have had these amps (and I DO play loud) for years. We thought they must have somehow had a dc surge, but then I remembered that I have caps on the tweeter lines for that reason, so dc cannot be the answer either.

Prob just one of those things, a la 'sods law'.


----------



## JoeESP9

Why the dig at audiophiles? 

To reitterate, most popular recordings are highly compressed to sound good on boomboxes and car stereos. That was my only point. Use a waveform editor and look at the music yourself. I made no comment about other poor aspects of many recordings. 

Just about every metal dome tweeter I've ever heard rings. I find most of them unlistenable. But then, I also find most horns to be in the same catagory. In my experience many enthusiasts shoot themselves in the foot with improper set up. Bookshelf speakers on the floor or in the corner are two of the most popular bad placements. Poor rooms are a very close second. More times than I care to remember I've been invited over to hear a "great" sounding system that is muffled with bloated bass and highs that make me want to cut my ears off. In most cases the system has been EQ'd and "gadgeted" to the max. I usually make as few comments as possible. It's rude to tell someone their pride and joy sounds terrible even if it does.

In the 43 years I've been involved with this hobby I've met quit a few serious audiophiles. They have almost always had good sounding systems that were matched synergistically and placed properly in a decent room.

Your other digs at cable lifters, expensive cables and other esoteric tweaks are completely uncalled for. In my experience those who can't hear small differences generally don't have a system good enough to hear the differences in the first place. Add to that the fact that they "dis" things without ever trying them. I should mention before you go into a DBT measuring stance that I have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. I am familiar with various testing methods and the theory behind them. I designed and built some of my gear. Most of the rest has been highly modified by me. For example my Hafler DH-200's have fully regulated power supplies that I designed and built.

Please no diatribes about hearing versus measurements. Been there, done that and am tired of hearing about measurements and DBT's. I know what sounds good. The Philadelphia Orchestra in the Kimmel center is my reference. In my case its not about personal taste. It's about accuracy. My system holds up fairly well in that comparison.


----------



## DougMac

JoeESP9 said:


> Your other digs at cable lifters, expensive cables and other esoteric tweaks are completely uncalled for. In my experience those who can't hear small differences generally don't have a system good enough to hear the differences in the first place. Add to that the fact that they "dis" things without ever trying them.


In regard to your last statement, I hear this a lot. Well, I don't have to send all my bank information to Nigeria to be pretty sure that I'm not going to get that 2 million they promised me in the email I received. Forgive me for being hesitant about shelling out $300 for a "clever little clock" or spending $130 on a jar of pebbles.

While I think my five senses are in pretty good shape for an old fart, I know there are things I can't perceive that are easily measurable. For instance, my modest Radio Trash SPL meter is able to detect changes in sound pressure level that are imperceptable to my (or any **** sapien's) ears. That leads me to believe that in general, *anything I can perceive can be measured*.

Audio isn't the science of black holes, it's based on some pretty general principles, some of which were discovered hundreds of years ago and have yet to be disproved. We have built machines to display electrical principles and some of them are quite sensitive. I become highly suspicious of differences folks claim they can hear, but elude measurement. This is illustrated by an admittedly unscientific experiment a well regarded speaker manufacturer carried out some years ago. They invited some nationally known audio experts and critics to the unveiling of a new speaker line. While they had these renowned "golden ears" as a captive audience, they asked them to audition some new speaker interconnects. An engineer brought out some interconnects in succession, starting with ordinary lamp cord. He explained the principles behind each, then took them to technicians behind each speaker. These tecnicians got busy for a few minutes, then music was played. Sure enough, the more esoteric the explanation and expensive the interconnect, the more the reviewers raved. All of this, of course, after thoroughly dismissing the sound transmitted by the zip cord. The problem was the technicians never actually did anything. All music was transmitted by the lowly lamp cord. While this is anectdotal, it points out some of the difficulties trying to prove what can't be measured.

Lastly, I've grown weary of having my inability to see the Emperor's new clothes being explained away with the effete dismissal of my system. I have a slightly different view. I think if I've spent 50 or 100k on a system and buy a $1,000 power cord, I'm going to hear a difference whether it's there or not.


----------



## number 5

paulspencer said:


> The thing that I keep coming back to is that CDs rarely show what they are capable of.


Bottom line, that is what we have to deal with in the real world.

The makers of CD do not care about sound, only about $. May they lose acolytes, sycophants, toadies, and die.

The quality of the sound experience is what makes any expenditure of nominally valuable FRN for music worthwhile.

Except to the MP3-oids, who lack the ability to discern full sound from a veil, the sound is all there is. 

So says Yggdrasil:

An ash I know there stands,
Yggdrasill is its name,
a tall tree, showered
with shining loam.
From there come the dews
that drop in the valleys.
It stands forever green over
Urðr's well.[3]


----------



## Machismo

Can't really favor either of those, they are both good in their own way. Mainly I listen to the cd though.


----------



## lcaillo

number 5 said:


> Bottom line, that is what we have to deal with in the real world.
> 
> The makers of CD do not care about sound, only about $. May they lose acolytes, sycophants, toadies, and die.
> 
> The quality of the sound experience is what makes any expenditure of nominally valuable FRN for music worthwhile.
> 
> Except to the MP3-oids, who lack the ability to discern full sound from a veil, the sound is all there is.
> 
> So says Yggdrasil:
> 
> An ash I know there stands,
> Yggdrasill is its name,
> a tall tree, showered
> with shining loam.
> From there come the dews
> that drop in the valleys.
> It stands forever green over
> Urðr's well.[3]


I take offense at your statements. Many people use MP3 who are fully capable of discerning differences in sound quality. There are competing priorities that lead people to choose convenience over something closer to perfection. Remember that for years we had much poorer options than even highly compressed formats today. I also dissagree that CD makers do not care about sound. Some certainly could give quality more attention, but most recording engineers and producers are very concerned with the sound. They may make decisions that YOU may not agree with, based on priorities that are different from your own, but there is no reason to make such sweeping, insulting, statements. Your opinion can be made clear without these kinds of condescending and derisive remarks. We don't need that here at Home Theater Shack.

I use MP3, and having the music portable significantly enhances my life and my enjoyment of the music.

You said yourself that we have to live in the real world. The world includes people with priorities that differ from your own. One of the rules here is that we respect them.


----------



## DougMac

lcaillo said:


> I use MP3, and having the music portable significantly enhances my life and my enjoyment of the music.
> 
> You said yourself that we have to live in the real world. The world includes people with priorities that differ from your own. One of the rules here is that we respect them.


I'm listening to Herbie Mann on my Zen as I read this. :T It's a high bit rate MP3. If I could teleport my Zen back to the 1960's I think folks, including many audio enthusiasts, would be astounded.

I have loved music since I was a little boy back in the early '50's. I started buying records before I could read. Never before have I had as many choices of music delivery Never has the quality been as good. I just bought three of the Beatles Remastered albums. I bought the LP's when they were released and they are in pristine condition. I also have the '87 CD's. Never before have these albums sounded this good.

I continue to buy LP's from thrifts and garage sales. I also buy CD's but not as often as I used to. I have some SACD's, DVD audio and am just bowled over buy the quality of lossless audio on blu ray. I subscribe to Rhapsody, which allows me to try music I'd never go out and buy and I've even bought some MP3's from Amazon. I enjoy it all. It's all good.


----------



## JoeESP9

DougMac said:


> In regard to your last statement, I hear this a lot. Well, I don't have to send all my bank information to Nigeria to be pretty sure that I'm not going to get that 2 million they promised me in the email I received. Forgive me for being hesitant about shelling out $300 for a "clever little clock" or spending $130 on a jar of pebbles.
> 
> While I think my five senses are in pretty good shape for an old fart, I know there are things I can't perceive that are easily measurable. For instance, my modest Radio Trash SOL meter is able to detect changes in sound pressure level that are imperceptable to my (or any **** sapien's) ears. That leads me to believe that in general, *anything I can perceive can be measured*.
> 
> Audio isn't the science of black holes, it's based on some pretty general principles, some of which were discovered hundreds of years ago and have yet to be disproved. We have built machines to display electrical principles and some of them are quite sensitive. I become highly suspicious of differences folks claim they can hear, but elude measurement. This is illustrated by an admittedly unscientific experiment a well regarded speaker manufacturer carried out some years ago. They invited some nationally known audio experts and critics to the unveiling of a new speaker line. While they had these renowned "golden ears" as a captive audience, they asked them to audition some new speaker interconnects. An engineer brought out some interconnects in succession, starting with ordinary lamp cord. He explained the principles behind each, then took them to technicians behind each speaker. These tecnicians got busy for a few minutes, then music was played. Sure enough, the more esoteric the explanation and expensive the interconnect, the more the reviewers raved. All of this, of course, after thoroughly dismissing the sound transmitted by the zip cord. The problem was the technicians never actually did anything. All music was transmitted by the lowly lamp cord. While this is anectdotal, it points out some of the difficulties trying to prove what can't be measured.
> 
> Lastly, I've grown weary of having my inability to see the Emperor's new clothes being explained away with the effete dismissal of my system. I have a slightly different view. I think if I've spent 50 or 100k on a system and buy a $1,000 power cord, I'm going to hear a difference whether it's there or not.


Please tell me what measurements you take when "measuring" soundstage depth, and imaging? In my experience most if not all differences between wires and cables are not overtly audible. Many of these small differences are easier to discern under relaxed long term listening. My first wife had extraordinarily good hearing and she taught me how to hear the things she described to me. After a couple of months of her tutelage I learned how to listen to and for differences in interconnects and speaker cables. The differences are subtle, but they are there. If more women were involved in this "obsession" perhaps there wouldn't be so much controversy about audible differences in wires and cables. All the women I've ever known that were/are interested in this hobby would be classified as true "Golden ears".
As for a preamp, the differences between an HT receiver and a good preamp are easily heard under just about any conditions. Most power amplifier differences fall somewhere between preamp and wire differences. Nevertheless they are there and audible. If your significant other is female and you can get her interested, ask her to listen for the small differences I am talking about. If you can get her interested you will most likely have to decode her criticisms. She probably has little knowledge of "Hi-Fi" speak so her comments may initially sound a bit weird. However, those comments are most likely spot on.


----------



## Drizt

I've heard vinyl in a number of high end systems now and although I can definitely hear a difference my preference is for the digital front end in that same system.

I can hear all of the imperfections (snap, crackle and pop, timing etc.) when listening to vinyl and it just drives me to distraction. 

The inconvenience rules it out for me.

I was almost convinced recently that I could get used to it, but the desire has left me know. Ill stick with digital.

What I have noticed is that on high end systems I relate more easily to the digital sound, if that makes sense. I find digital to have a more 'focused' sound with realistic sound stage and imaging. Whereas I have found vinyl rigs to sound like they have larger than life sound stages and images. I wouldn't call it 'diffuse' sound but just less focused. That is just my subjective feeling on it. I have found that the vinyl sound can be very relaxing and enjoyable, but ultimately I preferred the digital front ends on these high end systems.

It could all just come down to the fact that I am use to the digital sound, and any departure from that sounds 'wrong' to my ears. I could over time go the other way, who knows.

Ultimately I think the sound quality differences can come down to the recording quality. Lots of CD's are just a mess. Zero dynamics, and plenty of clipping and distortion. If you were to use one of these as your reference for digital then you would definitely think that digital is inferior. But given equally good recordings on vinyl and digital I feel it would come down to personal preference rather than an absolute one is better than the other.

just my 2c.


----------



## notwifefriendly

Hello everyone. 
I am a brand newbie to this site and would like to offer some comments. 
A great direct to disc LP, even one with some processing such as the Aphex enhanced "Rosie O'Grady's Good Time Jazz Band" album, can sound AT LEAST as good as almost all of the CDs made; however, you must have a turntable system that will allow the sound of these special recordings to show what they have to offer. Additionally, the recording will show the most correct spaciousness if only two microphones are used, with allowances for soloists' extra mics fed into the two channels. That way, the recording is captured from space just like our two ears do it, with each "ear" responsible for picking up info from various sources, including walls and ceilings. Additionally, I have never heard cymbals and tubas sound better than from this recording. I also think that early jazz recordings, now on CD or the original LP can sound excellent. It's about the music, not the equipment. 
No matter how great your DAC works, it can only present what comes into it from the recording. If there are 8, 16 or even more tracks recorded from as many mics, the spatial information is lost forever. Great sound engineers can over compensate and make the recording more dynamic, accentuate soloists, move the sound around and around, but if accuracy is what we desire in recordings, if we wish to recreate the live experience, then we need as little processing as possible.
For those of you who are sold on extreme dynamics and other such excitement, don't forget that this is the two channel blog.
Of course, the bad side of LPs is that the recording and reproduction is very expensive. By definition, direct disc LPs are very limited in the numbers that can be made from each recording session. Sure, we can add cutting heads ad infinitum, but one can only hook up so many cables without hum or distortion. The playback side is even worse: A minimum of a great cartridge, many times costing much more than an excellent CD/DAC, a well designed RIAA section of preamp, and in my opinion a great pre-preamp for a moving coil cartridge are all necessary to sound better than a good quality CD/DVD player.
SO! Which sounds better? If you attend live acoustic concerts, such as symphonies, small jazz venues, or featured soloists and want to recreate the natural, live experience, there is no choice. If you like the added dynamics of heavily amplified music, CDs are awesome. 
Here is a test: Go to ebay and buy at least three D/D LPs; I suggest the Rosie O'Grady's LP as well as Thelma Houston with Pressure Cooker, and Harry James' "Coming From A Good Place". Also buy the Thelma Houston CD of the same session. If your CD sounds better than the the LP version, decide how much you really want to spend to hear LPs sound their best. If, on the other hand, you get cold chills from the DD LPs, buy more, upgrade your cartridge, etc.
Nice to meet all of you. Now, I'm going to go play a CD, Audioslave's "Like a Rock" or maybe Buddy Guy, with all the sub wooferage I own, and the amplified guitar's showing it's stuff at max volume, before I settle down to dinner with my D/D recording of Harry James followed by a 40 year old Freddie Hubbard CTI recording (LP). 
The reason I own all of this LP stuff is because I own hundreds (at Least) of LP albums. If you don't already own the LPs, you more than likely cannot justify the expense of even my modest assortment of vinyl reproduction equipment: Heavily damped Ariston RD40 TT, Signet arm, Supex 900E+ Mark IV, and Audire (battery powered) head amp, preamps (one for subs), and amps powering my B&Ws and NHT sub boxes with Peerless drivers.

"Our taste in recordings dictates our preference in electronics and vice versa."

Cheers,

DanV


----------



## notwifefriendly

Although we learn to hear better, I agree that priorities are the most important. I really get a kick out of people who have expensive electronics powering what I consider to be quite inferior speakers. Speaking of speakers, back in the day (Grad School), I had a Phase Linear 400 powering stacked Advents. I bought four $125 wood Advents rather than the $100 vinyl ones. I swore I could hear a difference between them. This was a $100 enhancement vs. a $1000 power cord, but I could hear it. I really could.
Lo and behold, years later, speaker designers advocate rounded edges to the front of the cabinets to minimize reflections from the flat cabinet. 
OK, vinyl cabinet guys, I told you the wood ones sounded better. So there!

"Our choice of music determines our choice in electronics and vice versa."

Cheers, DanV


----------



## notwifefriendly

You make a really valid point about room treatment. I do disagree that it is more important than upgrading the turntable, for example. I guess it depends on your point of reference for the TT.

I am very lucky. I don't have a room; I have a one room house (practically). It was designed for my listening tastes, with a small, 12x10 open room for the speakers, opening into a large 24x30 room with a stepped, ceiling high divider between the left and right channels, but behind me when in the ideal listening position. The equipment is is another room with an open doorway, another opening further back, and similar asymetric openings on the opposite side. There are two bedrooms at the rear, which can be opened and the windows behind the speakers open up larger than the speakers. The ceilings are all graded from 9' on the outside to 14' the center, but baffled and only 9' at the bedroom doors 30' from the speakers. 

I think I just negated my early statement about the relative benefits of the turntable. 

"Out taste in music determines our taste in equipment and vice versa."

Cheers, DanV


----------



## DougMac

JoeESP9 said:


> Please tell me what measurements you take when "measuring" soundstage depth, and imaging?


Please scientifically define soundstage, depth and imaging. I'm not sure what those terms mean. My definition may be different from yours.


----------



## notwifefriendly

Your question is fascinating and says a lot about the difference between audiophiles and techs. Techs measure things and audiophiles listen. If you, a presumed tech, can't measure it, it does not exist. You may want to jump in and say that I am making assumptions, but you were the first to do this, not me. I never said I measured soundstage, depth or imaging. We should also add focus. 
It would be interesting to measure these phenomena and I propose that we do just that. We place speakers behind a large speaker cloth material that covers the entire end of the room. Various audiophiles and tekkies can sit in the listening sweet spot, at first, and then move around to get measurements off axis. We can use a laser pointer to show how wide and tall an image is when using different components, as well as when adjusting speaker placement (& room enhancements). 
After we have these measurements we can measure focus. Using the laser pointer we can circle the spot where an instrument's sound appears to be located. A smaller circle would mean more precise focus. 
Next is depth: We use multi-colored hanging threads arranged in a three dimensional grid. We then use the laser pointer to pick spots in the foreground and background to precisely measure depth. 
OK, now that I have outlined the experiment, who are the tekkies to carry this out? It can be done, but our ears are the measuring instrument, not electronics.
Here is an example of these phenomena: I used the exact same speaker setup (2 & 1/2 way B&W monitors with a measurable frequency response of +- 1/4 db from 100-19000 cps. Using the original 10" stand, these sit on top of 10" peerless woofers in 16" cube NHT ported boxes. A Thiel sub crossover is used between the preamps on the input to the preamp driving the sub amp. All electronics are in the next room with speaker wires coming through the wall. 
With a Classe 350 watt per channel stereo amp, a Classe 175 wpc A/V amp bridged to drive the woofers, and a Classe A/V preamp, the sound was incredibly huge, stretching way past the edges of the two speaker locations; however, the sound was also diffuse: Three trumpets sounded like a blend of ten trumpets, etc. It is a clean sound, very large, but not focused.
Next we used NAD preamps and amps. The soundstage was practically nonexistent, with the sound definately eminating from the speaker cabinets, and not from around them. The aforementioned three trumpets, were a blend of horns and indistinguishable from the woodwinds. It was a very loud and clean sound, but without focus: It sounded like one big horn was playing, not like separate instruments.
Now to the good stuff: My Audire preamp helped focus the sound of the Classe amps, but the sound was still an artificially wide mess. The NAD (2200PE) sounded about the same with any of the three preamps, clean, but unfocused with a very precise speaker placement obvious. This basically means that the amp was the weak link, since it did not show the differences between the preamps. 
With the Audire amps and preamps, each trumpet and sax was in a slightly different location in space, with no blurring of the sound between the instruments. You could have used the aforementioned laser pointer to show which trumpet was Maynard Ferguson (as if that were necessary), which was Don Ellis and which was Bill Chase (Three little foxes from early sixties LP or from CD re-release).
So! For the tekkies who don't believe something exists unless it can be measured, get out your grill cloth, thread, laser pointers and measure away. After the initial observations are noted, you can put a zillion microphones in space to capture the readings.
"Our taste in music determines our choice of equipment and vice versa."
DanV
PS The glossary of terms on this website has perfectly adequate definitions of the terms you asked about, although one (Depth) is only in another.


----------



## lcaillo

notwifefriendly said:


> Your question is fascinating and says a lot about the difference between audiophiles and techs. Techs measure things and audiophiles listen. If you, a presumed tech, can't measure it, it does not exist. You may want to jump in and say that I am making assumptions, but you were the first to do this, not me. I never said I measured soundstage, depth or imaging. We should also add focus.


LOL, IME, it is worse than that. Most techs these days don't measure much of anything and would be perfectly happy for something to have and image or make noise, regardless of how it sounds or looks. 

Some of us, however, understand both the complexity of the human perceptual systems as well as that of the systems that reproduce images and sound, and the difficulty in objectively defining all of the variables. 

I would jump in and say that making assumptions and generalizations about others is never justified, however, no matter how much they may seem to apply, beyond a passing mention. It is far better to simply ASK the other party what they think, what they mean, or what they intend than to try to assume what that person or any group might believe or intend. We also have to be willing to challenge the underlying assumptions of our own. And no matter how well thought out any position might be, it does have some underlying premise, assumptions, or axioms.


----------



## DougMac

notwifefriendly said:


> If you, a presumed tech, can't measure it, it does not exist. You may want to jump in and say that I am making assumptions, but you were the first to do this, not me. I never said I measured soundstage, depth or imaging. We should also add focus.


Interesting. I guess I'd define myself as a pragmatist and a skeptic. My original response was in regard to tweaks, especially the more outlandish and expensive ones. 

We can take $1,000 3 ft. power cables as an example. I've read manufacturer's claims and user's reviews that claim improved sound. Putting aside using measuring devices, it seems that if there was some true benefit, a simple ABX test could be constructed. You can use very expensive equipment if you like, since it has been asserted that tweaks are most noticeable when used with high end equipment. The subjects will know something has changed, but they won't know what.

If an independent testing facility can derive statistically significant results, and if the experiment's findings can be duplicated by another testing facility using entirely different equipment, with said power cable the only constant, then I'll be first in line to buy one. The problem is, I'm unaware of this happening. If you can provide documentation to this end, I'd love to see it.

I'm neither a techie or an audiophile, I'm just a music lover. My equipment is relatively modest, constrained by physical and financial considerations. As has been pointed out, there is a law of diminishing returns that applies to audio equipment. I think I could spend another 1k-5k and come up with a significantly better sounding system, but there are many other things in my life competing for those dollars. For instance, there's a lens I've been Jonesing for that's right at a grand. In the scheme of things, my subjective opinion is that right now I'd derive more pleasure spending the money on the lens than on an audio equipment improvement, and that most definately includes some silly power cord!

Edit:
BTW, I'm a classically trained amateur musician. I play violin/mandolin and sing in choral groups. I've also played in community orchestras and some paid gigs with the local symphony. Singing and playing, both solo and in groups requires some ability to listen to nuances and small details. I apply those critical listening skills to auditioning audio equipment. However, when listening to music on a regular basis I try to listen past the weaknesses (and strengths) of the equipment at hand and just enjoy the music.


----------



## notwifefriendly

Hi,
My system is quite modest by most modern standards, but I had the huge advantage of having a friend who was a sales rep for some very high end equipment. He helped me match everything in my new system, including changing a resistor in my preamp, to match my cartridge. Curiously, at least to me, the first piece I replaced (Phase Linear 400) was the one he later said should have been the last. 

I did once attend a demonstration and blind test of audio patch cords. Everyone heard pretty much the same differences, at least when there were differences. Often, we could hear the same differences but could not agree which was better sounding. Guess which set everyone agreed (in a blind test) sounded the worst: Radio Shack. This was a long time ago and almost everyone uses oxygen free copper and gold plated connectors now, so I would be surprised if the results would stand today.

Most people do not have a dedicated 120 volt circuit for their system. If the power supply in the equipment is stressed, usually from under engineering of the caps and transformers, then a big power cord could conceivably help. $1000 worth? I guess it depends on what $1000 means to you. A lens for you; shocks for my sports car; a vacation?

I use two dual mono amps. Each of the four amps periodically cycles to draw power. Sometimes my lights dim. Would a $1000 power cord help? I would rather spend the money, plus whatever my B&Ws might bring, on a pair of B&W 802-3s, etc. if I needed something better.

I assume The huge speaker cables people use are a joke, also. Did you ever see the size of the wire inside the cabinet? Do we really need 10 gauge cable on the outside of the cabinet when the internal wiring is 18 or 20?

Like you, I am a real skeptic concerning these items.

I am amazed when someone invites me over to hear their system and some of their stuff is incredibly expensive and one part is junk, usually the speakers or phono cartridge. One guy brought over what was billed as a truly great moving coil design. When we played Zappa's "Uncle Remus", the piano solo that is so prominent on a good system, was way back in the background. Another friend has AR 2ax speakers with many thousands of dollars in electronics. The speakers are OK, but they don't need a NASA budget to bring out their best. I keep my amps and speakers because they sound good enough, and then some, but I had electrostatics for 25 of the 30 years I've owned my various B&Ws and finally decided that, overall I like the B&Ws better. It took my son to point out the flaws in the huge electrostatic soundstage. I even had windows opened behind the stats to minimize the reflection from behind the speakers. 

Like you, I have musical experience: trumpet, keyboards, and vocals. I do think it helps. The designer of my electronics is a music nut. It shows.

Cheers, DanV


----------



## JoeESP9

DougMac said:


> Please scientifically define soundstage, depth and imaging. I'm not sure what those terms mean. My definition may be different from yours.


The definition of soundstage is and has been defined. You can look it up if you wish. I ask the question again. How do you measure soundstage? What parameters and methods do you use? You said if you can hear it you can measure it.


----------



## notwifefriendly

JoeESP9 said:


> The definition of soundstage is and has been defined. You can look it up if you wish. I ask the question again. How do you measure soundstage? What parameters and methods do you use? You said if you can hear it you can measure it.


By your tone and repeated question, I am assuming you are a techie who doesn't want to believe in something he can't measure with whatever equipment he has available. In my previous post, I gave an outline of a method or measuring soundstage and focus. I'm sorry you missed it. I would like to clarify that the grid made of threads is three dimensional and extends outside the boundries of the speakers in all directions.

I did not say I had measured sound stage, but I do visualize it whenever I hear anything, not just prerecorded music. 

My outline, which I am copying and pasting from my previous post, might prove to be difficult to implement, but with the right equipment it is very feasible. 

It would be interesting to measure these phenomena and I propose that we do just that. We place speakers behind a large speaker cloth material that covers the entire end of the room. Various audiophiles and tekkies can sit in the listening sweet spot, at first, and then move around to get measurements off axis. We can use a laser pointer to show how wide and tall an image is when using different components, as well as when adjusting speaker placement (& room enhancements).
After we have these measurements we can measure focus. Using the laser pointer we can circle the spot where an instrument's sound appears to be located. A smaller circle would mean more precise focus.
Next is depth: We use multi-colored hanging threads arranged in a three dimensional grid. We then use the laser pointer to pick spots in the foreground and background to precisely measure depth. 

Now, to measure and graph the sound we hear, we just place a huge number of microphones in the places we outlined with the laser pointer. If we don't have the right equipment or can't design it in a economical enough way to conduct the measurements, it is the fault of the techies' outdated equipment and techniques, and not the audiophiles who get to experience such heavenly reproductions of music.

OK, now that I have outlined the experiment, who are the tekkies to carry this out? It can be done. 

If we hear something we don't know how to measure, we stil hear it. We just need a better way to measure it.

DanV


----------



## JoeESP9

notwifefriendly:
Somewhere the wires got crossed. My repeatedly asking how to measure a soundstage was aimed at another poster. I have a technical background (Bachelor of Science Electrical Engineering and Master of Science Computer Science). However, I am the farthest thing from a "techie" there is. Although I have the knowledge and skills to use test gear and make all the "techie's" favorite measurements I also have the experience to know that most of those measurements mean "diddly squat". What something actually sounds like is the only thing that matters. 

In my system to my ears just about everything sounds different. I'm currently auditioning power cables trying to decide if I'm going to invest in more expensive cords. I have and use expensive (relatively) cables (Kimber Silver Streak). I would use their KCAG if I could afford it.


----------



## event horizon

Getting back to the Vinyl vs CD thing :whistling:

Back in the 1980s before CD players were available at a decent rather than astronomical price i happened to have quite a few records. I probably have more now,but lets not get away from the point 

Once i got my first CD player i started to buy a few CDs, though at the time they weren't exactly cheap either, so it took time to build up a collection of more than 20. I can distinctly remember listening to Heaven 17 - The Luxury Gap on both CD player & record deck. The record deck was a cheap pioneer with a non descript cartridge & tbh it wiped the floor compared to the CD, the CD sounded "dead" to put it mildly.

Assuming the room you are listening in is "treated" as some people call it & you have decent speakers correctly positioned then it's really a no brainer (depending on what you listen to music wise) as you'd need to spend approximately 5 - 10 times as much money on a vinyl front end to better a decent £500 ($900) redbook CD player (imo). Then you need to remember that vinyl wares out along with that expensive MC cartridge on the end of the pickup arm. Yes you can get it re-tipped but it won't be cheap! Each time you play the record the output will be slightly more distorted (due to ware) than it was previously.

I think if people spent as much cash on the CD system as they might well do on vinyl they'd be amazed.

As someone mentioned earlier, you can get a lot more out of a CD with the right equipment. I often wondered how come some CD players/transports were so expensive & if they happened to be worth the money. I guess it depends on how much you like your music at the end of the day. As i listen to music every day i'd say it was a pretty major part of my life, so when the means were there i decided to upgrade stuff. Being friendly with a rather good supplier of new & secondhand equipment i had the opportunity to borrow stuff & listen to it at home, this i took full advantage of.

To cut a long story a bit shorter i ended up purchasing a rather decent front end to play CDs, this consisted of a Theta Data Basic transport, Monarchy Audio DAC & interface processor (jitter reducer) & then i messed with cables to get what i regarded as something incredibly musical & detailed. Ok so i haven't got an SME 20 turntable with series 5 arm to compare CD to vinyl.

The Theta set me back about £850 ($1500) at the time & it was secondhand, yes everything in the UK appears to be double the price of stateside. This ran fine until i decided to mod the thing by placing some lead sheats on the inside of the case to damp the thing & i promptly forgot to connect one block when i put it back together  Exit the laser & drive. This got replaced with a new drive etc from Absolute Sounds who are the UK distributors for certain "high end" audio. That's not the end of the story though.. Whilst the UK was in the middle of this credit crunch i managed to buy a perfect condition secondhand Krell DT-10 transport off of ebay for £500 ($900) :rofl: So we now have a £10,000 new ($17,000) transport.

Well was there a difference? Like night & day - there was no comparison, i seriously doubted there could be much improvement if any simply because the transport just spins the disc. However cue the first CD & it immediately became apparent how come people are willing to spend so much on something like this. It was like comparing a cheap midi system to a half decent hifi. I'm sorry but it really was that glaringly obvious!

I'm not rich, hense my ebay purchase! However if i was better off it's (again) a bit of a no brainer from what i have heard. Maybe i'll find a top flight vinyl front end one day, it had better be dead cheap though as i have vastly more CDs :T IMO given the correct equipment CD can only be bettered by higher resolution digital media.

I don't listen to any modern "pop" albums which do seem to admittedly be near on full volume most of the time. It's been a good 10 years since i listend to the radio!

Get yourselves some well mastered stuff! Music like "FAX +49-69/450464" springs to mind.

Bests to all on here :T


----------



## WmAx

A top notch table is not nearly as expensive as some suggest. For $1600-$2500 range, you can get a table/arm set up that will be about as neutral as a table can be within practical circumstances; if you pick your gear wisely, based on actual important technical performance criteria. A great cartridge is also, no need to be very expensive. Take the Denon DL-110; a superbly measuring cartridge. Very low distortion, very flat response, no inner groove distortion issues and very low noise. True, it is an unusually well engineered cartridge for it's price, but it is providing a huge level of performance for not many $$. Audiophile excess can be found in ANY product of audio.

As for good CD players, most mid-fi units are going to be transparent. There is no measured factor to suggest otherwise, and level matched double blinded tests comparing exotic to common units have not demonstrated any mysterious 'X' factor either.

One must realize that psychology plays a huge role in subjective things like listening to music. The mind is one huge imagination playground.

I know first hand about this - as I used to be a traditional 'audiophile' a few years back.

-Chris


----------



## blahblahguy

I always find these debates about vinyl vs cd interesting. I'd like to add a few things to the topic here that are new to the debate. 

I recently started looking into this myself. 

Why do people say records sound warmer then CD's. " a physco accoustic argument for sure" 

I have a very high quality turn table and good AD and DA conversion. So I started encoding from analog both CD and vinyl. 

what I found was interesting once we move past overall loudness which I adjusted for. 

CD's have more high end treble. They have alot more content above 12khz when compared to vinyl. 

Also on vinyl there is more distortion and smearing going on up above 8 khz. In fact there is frankly alot of distorotion on vinyl in generall. 

2 immediate things come to mind. 

distortion almost always "in small amounts' soften the sound of a particular transient. Less high end content in the 14Khz range will sound less brassy or irritating to most listenrs. 

I did a blind test with some friends of a vinyl and cd comparison and one of the primary things I did was us a EQ and a mic to make the Cd player complement the Record in terms of FQ response. I could switch from source to source and no listner could tell the difference. I did start with a new record btw that was perfectly clean to. 

Try this. Put a LPF or roll off on you stereo the highs above 12khz. Watch those CD's warm right up.


----------



## lcaillo

blahblahguy said:


> Try this. Put a LPF or roll off on you stereo the highs above 12khz. Watch those CD's warm right up.


Interesting perspective.

A similar thing happens in displays. People longingly describe the "realism" of CRT based sets and the harshness and over emphasized color and edginess of digital displays. The reality is that CRTs don't really produce full resolution at peak brightness in many cases, and the higher resolution of larger digital displays shows all of the faults in the signal. Turning down the sharpness, reducing the contrast, and reducing the color intensity can make a digital display look surprisingly like a CRT.

But then again, we may be missing some subtle "inner detail" or "harmonic structure" or some other subjective factors.


----------



## paulspencer

Interesting response - thanks for sharing. In my setup (which has only DVD), I deliberately include top end roll off and bass boost which I have found to give a certain warmth and the result is more laid back.


----------



## blahblahguy

paulspencer said:


> Interesting response - thanks for sharing. In my setup (which has only DVD), I deliberately include top end roll off and bass boost which I have found to give a certain warmth and the result is more laid back.



surprisingly with proper EQ and dynamic considerations you can get a CD to sound like vinyl.


----------



## RIKKITIK

I hate vinyl because it makes my CDs sound so bad. Either way *digital* _*or*_ *analog*, you have to listen _*through*_ the medium. To me, it comes down to the convenience of CD but the "canned" sound of digital vs (as previously mentioned), the "there" of analog along with it's clicks and pops. Every time I spin up my TT, I just end up frustrated. There can be quite a difference between the LP "mix" vs CD also. I average about 2 hours an evening listening time, (a luxury I truly appreciate), and CD's dominate because of said convenience. People believe what they want to believe, and will often defend their position to no end. I believe analog "sounds" better than digital, but that *both* are just _*approximations*_ of an actual event. I'm smiling when I'm listening, (to either), but I *know* I'm listening to an illusion. Even if a perfect medium came along, would it be used, recorded, mixed, produced, packaged, and implemented correctly? Or would corners be cut to make a profit? Can digital be better than analog? Depends on your definition of *better*. Can it provide a more realistic _*illusion?*_, yes. Does it? Most of the time, sadly...no. 

Sorry for the ramble.....:rolleyesno:


----------



## goonstopher

How about has anyone compared Vinyl to Blu Ray concerts?

Digital sound should improve will uncompressed HD audio. Some concerts like the police and NIN have knocked my socks off.


----------



## paulspencer

blahblah, 

So how did you compare them? Did you rip to PC and then use software to compare the same album and track? I'm not very clear on what you actually did, but I'm curious. I'd like to know if this really is a trait that is typical of vinyl, or if it is something that just happened on certain examples.


----------



## JCD

Missed this thread until just now and have spent the last 15-20 minutes reading the thread -- I'm watching the Saints and Vikings too.

Anyway, my opinion is that CD's sound better. I will admit that I haven't had a chance to do a really good comparison, but the popping and whatnot always takes me away from the music.

This is not to say that I think a CD recording will always sound better than a vinyl recording. I will say that the potential for CD outstrips that of Vinyl. My suspicion is that those that like vinyl like the colorations that the vinyl recording impart

Here are a couple of links that I think clarify some of my beliefs..
Link 1
Link 2


----------



## tonyvdb

goonstopher said:


> How about has anyone compared Vinyl to Blu Ray concerts?


I dont think you really can, it is very unlikely that you would find a vinyl copy of those uncompressed concerts. That said the master starts with a digital uncompressed format and converting that to analog and stamping an LP would be like comparing a Lamborghini to a 1998 Honda Civic


----------



## RIKKITIK

You do understand that digital sound is constructed somewhat like the picture on the monitor you are looking at. Tiny little impulses that, if you look closely enough, are actually squares. A digital waveform is approximated the same way. Little tiny squares of a given value that when averaged and smoothed, create an approximation of the actual waveform. This is why Archimedes defined Pi as an infinite, rather than an absolute. Mathematically he could only divide a circle into a very large collection of very short straight lines. The same way DAC's *translate* an actual waveform. We basically hear in analog, actual waveforms with no square edges, and no phase shift. My personal preference for _*the sound*_ has nothing to do with the buzz words that seem to plague the discussion of digital vs analog. Not "warmth", nor a "tilted" FR, but a "natural openness" to the sound. Measurable? I don't know. Evident and repeatable? Yes, if approached without bias. Personally, I believe that the biggest problem in the digital chain, is in the *AD* to *DA* translation. And alot of the degradation, (in digital media), occurs in the production and reprocessing. Both media as delivered to us, the consumer, are pretty decrepit compared to their potential. As stated earlier, I wish both were better. :rolleyesno:


----------



## RIKKITIK

ie; www.clarisonus.com/blog/?cat=8


> What Happened To Dynamic Range?
> By John Atwood
> This is the title of an article by Bob Speer of CD Mastering Services on the degradation of dynamic range in contemporary pop music CDs. It’s provocative:
> 
> “The music available today isn’t musical at all. It’s best described as anti-music. It’s anti-music because the life is being squashed out of it through over compression during the tracking, mixing, and mastering stages. It’s simply, non musical. It’s no wonder that consumers don’t want to pay for the CDs being produced today. …. It’s time for all of us in the music industry to wake up! Our musical heritage is being threatened by this wave of anti-music.”





> I’m not a big fan of pop music, but I have been noticing the compression and actual hard clipping described in these articles when listening to the radio. I attributed this distortion to poor engineering at the radio station, but it appears the CDs are now being made “radio-ready” by being clipped and distorted already.


Posted: May 18, 2006 at 11:21 am in CD, SACD, DVD, Music Trends | 3 Comments


----------



## RIKKITIK

To add


> Digital Diversions
> By Lynn Olson
> By now you may have noticed the high-resolution digital movement has lost momentum, and older media - LP’s and standard Red Book CD’s - are making a comeback. And contrary to what we may have thought a few years ago, the playback of the older media continues to improve.
> 
> Not only are the requirements for CD and DVD/SACD transports different, but I’m beginning to suspect the requirements for the DAC are different as well. By now, we’ve had several years of upsampling 96/24 and 192/24 players, and I’m not convinced it’s an improvement. More spacious, yes, sometimes more open too, but something about the tonality has been lost.
> 
> The sound has lost some of its drama and vividness - and when you read about how upsampling and delta-sigma DACs work, there’s an awful lot of fast footwork going on behind the scenes. (This report is highly recommended for those who’d like to better understand the design principles of upsampling, noise shaping, and delta-sigma DACs.)
> 
> When a digital engineer at the Ph.D. level describes the underlying mathematics of upsampling, noise shaping, and delta-sigma converters as “non-trivial”, he’s using a term of art to describe mathematical problems that are not just difficult, but potentially insoluble.
> 
> Looking carefully at this report, there are some very odd things happening to the low-level spectra in these converters - in essence, the problems of the older ladder converters have been exchanged for newer, harder-to-measure, and subtler problems. It is more than a little surprising that high-resolution digital media - both DVD-A and SACD - have genuine problems that remain to be solved, even at the level of theory. As of the Summer of 2006, they are still a work in progress.


----------



## Guest

IMO, it takes a turn table, CD and SACD to get the best HOME recordings. Why? Things mastered in analog and had early digital transfers can very much have a better vinyl record copy then the available CD. Things that require more dynamics should be gotten on a CD, and some recordings were mastered in DSD. It really comes down to what the best sounding available format is. People can argue all day what is the best on paper, but if the CD copy is lousy and the vinyl copy is great, then I'm gonna side with the vinyl copy. Or if I want something that I know is loud with lots of dynamics, I wouldn't even consider the vinyl copy, even it if was available.

CDs can be great, but with todays loudness wars, it can be very bad. When I play a lot of new CDs with headphones on, they have to be played back at very low volumes, or the loud parts can actually hurt my ears. It can be ridiculous at times.

I have way more digital media then vinyl, but I will always keep vinyl. Over 90% of my collection had analog masters, and I got a few just for the neat factor. I generally like the vinyl records of older recordings and even some modern ones over the CD counterpart. I think the loudness wars and fast food industry of the digital production have a lot to do with that. I can listen to a vinyl record with headphones for a long time without my ears getting tired.


----------



## paulspencer

Some intersting discussion and articles. 

The hydrogen audio article has an underlying assumption that if CDs have "better specifications" that they will be superior. The problem I see with this is that it has to be determined how the numbers correlate to perception. One analogy is THD. It has been shown that higher THD can actually sound cleaner. THD has no correlation to what we preceive. More sophisticated metrics exist that correlate precisely with what we perceive, but most don't even know they exist. 

It could be that while vinyl may have inferior numbers, one has to look at their nature and how they are perceived. It may be that the shortcomings of vinyl may measure higher numerically while being more benign and less offensive in nature. 

Getting back to THD. One component may have higher THD compared to another, but the one with higher THD may have lower order harmonics which are more benign. The lower THD component may in fact have high tall order harmonics which turn out to be far more objectionable. The component with higher THD could sound much cleaner. 

I'm not one of the guys who discounts measurements, I just think they need to be understood correctly in terms of their real significance. 

Having said all this, if anything I'd prefer it if CDs were actually better than vinyl - vinyl is expensive and very inconvenient!

Does anyone have any information on the top end roll off of vinyl?


----------



## RIKKITIK

> Having said all this, if anything I'd prefer it if CDs were actually better than vinyl - vinyl is expensive and very inconvenient!


:thumb:
I agree, and I hope people don't write off _*any*_ source because of what somebody else wrote, (professional *or* casual observation).Try to seek out a good rig, experience it for yourself if you can. Most of all, listen without prejudice, there is alot of entertainment to be had.:banana: This is supposed to be a *fun* hobby!


----------



## tonyvdb

paulspencer said:


> Does anyone have any information on the top end roll off of vinyl?


I cant remember where I read it but if you have a good turntable and pickup you usually roll off at about 14kHz lower if your not keeping it in good shape.


----------



## JoeESP9

The old JVC discrete 4 channel system for LP's required phono cartridges to have a response beyond 40Khz. This would indicate that vinyl does not have to roll off at 16 or 17kHz. If it did there would be no reason for standard stereo cartridges to have the standard 20Hz to 20kHz response.
The Shure M44-7 is stated to be essentially flat to 17,000Hz. The V-15 is reported to be flat to 25kHz. The Denon DL110 is reported to have a 20 to ~ 45kHz response. 

The following quote and link is from an LP mastering service. 

The phonograph record is a marvelous medium for storing and reproducing sound. With frequency response from 7 Hz to 25kHz and over 75 dB dynamic range possible, it is capable of startling realism. Its ability to convey a sense of space, _that is_ width and depth of sound stage, with a degree of openness and airiness, is unrivaled by anything but the most esoteric digital systems. 

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm


----------



## RIKKITIK

As stated above, there should be no roll off, and the upper frequencies are not limited in the way CD's are, (by _*their*_ own standard). LP's are inconvenient *not* archaic. Each has something to offer, neither is perfect. I suspect that anyone that "hates" either medium has not heard it well reproduced. There's nothing wrong with walking on both sides of the street. Don't diss the other view just because *you* don't understand it. 
From soundfountain.com


> Why not have a turntable next to your CD Player in your set up?
> The sound of records can be enlightening, records are authentic, and records can be fun.
> Compared to the modern digital formats, the analogue Lp record, with its signal engraved in a vinyl disc, may look poor at first glance.
> However, do never forget that it is still the only medium (apart from the reel to reel tape recorder) that can contain the most complete and most structured signal providing great dynamics, having the widest frequency band attainable, and has the most refined detail over the entire audio spectrum and far beyond, which no other format can deliver.
> The analog Lp is *not* restricted to *16 bits *and a limited frequency band, but has _*700 bits *_- so to speak - and the minute upper harmonics which digital formats are missing. The simple reason is that the original Lp is analogous in nature.
> Or, to be more precise: analogous to nature.


----------



## paulspencer

You have to ask how many bits the ear itself can perceive. If it's no more than a CD then the extra bits are purely academic.


----------



## lcaillo

paulspencer said:


> You have to ask how many bits the ear itself can perceive. If it's no more than a CD then the extra bits are purely academic.


The ear does not perceive, the hearing system starts with the ear detecting sound. The brain and body as a system create perceptual representations of the physical world. The human hearing system interprets sond pressure, which is inherently analog. The number of bits it can perceive is a poorly posed question. I suspect what you mean is the degree of detail and degree of difference we can perceive. It seems clear that the human system is capable of detecting the advantages and dissadvantages of both CD and Vinyl systems. The degree to which each approaches the limits of perception depends on many variables.


----------



## RIKKITIK

> You have to ask how many bits the ear itself can perceive. If it's no more than a CD then the extra bits are purely academic.


 To an exent the entire discussion is academic. But the bits statement followed by the observation of a lack of spectral density at high frequencies, (cause and effect), seemed relevant. Digiophiles seem to get caught up in the numbers, so I thought I'd throw some into the mix. I think I agree with the premise you are trying to state though. There is a limit to the number of shades of gray the eye can perceive, I'm sure there is a human limit for bit perception also. CD's don't _*sound*_ as good as LP's, (to me), so I'll bet human perception is well north of 16 bits. But to restate my answer to the OP's question, LP's _*sound*_ better, but CD's, in my house, get 99% of the playing time.


----------



## lcaillo

Human perception is not easily quantifiable in bits. There are many interacting variables that have to be considered when talking about how many "bits" are perceivable. We can percieve in differing resolution with respect to frequency and level, as well as other factors. Many interact to determine the bit density that is needed in a particular area. This is true in visual perception as well. It is the basis for how variable bit rate schemes work and how many compression systems work.


----------



## RIKKITIK

> Human perception is not easily quantifiable


My basic point exactly.


----------



## lcaillo

Do not assume that because perception is not easily quantifiable, that it is not possible to do so in many ways. It is possible and much work has been done. The problem with discussing these matters is that it is difficult to isolate the variables that people would like to make arguments about and the many assumptions that go into these discussions cloud the matter in ways that most people do not understand. It is often the question that is more of a problem than what is understood about perception. If you can pose a reasonable question it can likely be answered either in existing research or in a new study.


----------



## Guest

RIKKITIK said:


> To an exent the entire discussion is academic. But the bits statement followed by the observation of a lack of spectral density at high frequencies, (cause and effect), seemed relevant. Digiophiles seem to get caught up in the numbers, so I thought I'd throw some into the mix. I think I agree with the premise you are trying to state though. There is a limit to the number of shades of gray the eye can perceive, I'm sure there is a human limit for bit perception also. CD's don't _*sound*_ as good as LP's, (to me), so I'll bet human perception is well north of 16 bits. But to restate my answer to the OP's question, LP's _*sound*_ better, but CD's, in my house, get 99% of the playing time.


Here is some interesting reading about the history of digital music. http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/cd25years.html It seems like a few folks were against the low resolution before it even started.

And another digital bashing read. http://musicangle.com/feat.php?id=106

Vinyl FTW, but CDs are cheaper, and as much digital butchery that goes on. Some record labels have really good quality CD recordings. If only they all did.


----------



## Ricci

I prefer cd.


----------



## RIKKITIK

> Some record labels have really good quality CD recordings. If only they all did.


:T:T
Rhino / DigiPrep have done some very good tranfers, Columbia / LEGACY also.


----------



## DougMac

JoeESP9 said:


> The old JVC discrete 4 channel system for LP's required phono cartridges to have a response beyond 40Khz. This would indicate that vinyl does not have to roll off at 16 or 17kHz. If it did there would be no reason for standard stereo cartridges to have the standard 20Hz to 20kHz response.
> The Shure M44-7 is stated to be essentially flat to 17,000Hz. The V-15 is reported to be flat to 25kHz. The Denon DL110 is reported to have a 20 to ~ 45kHz response.


Thanks for the article.
We have discrete 4 channel to thank for some great advances in turntable and cartridge technology. The Shibata stylus comes to mind. It even spurred advances in the materials used in records.

I never had a discrete 4 channel system. As I recall, they had a reputation of being notoriously fussy. You had to have TOTL playback equipment. Since high frequencies are the first victim of record wear, the word on the street was that it didn't take a large number of playings before the multiplexed rear channels would go.

I enjoy reading about the theoretical possibilities and limitations of records and LP's. I'm more interested in the practical, however. The truth is I have some great sounding LP's and some sounding CD's. I also have some great sounding CD's and some sounding LP's.


----------



## JoeESP9

The myth that LP's experience high frequency wear that causes the high end to disappear are just that "a myth". I have LP's that I purchased new in the late 60's and early 70's that exhibit no loss of high frequencies. They are not afflicted with "rice krispies" either. Proper care and storage of vinyl can result in a very long life span that includes multiple playings. 
Giving vinyl a recuperation period will help preserve its sound. In other words don't put vinyl on infinite repeat. Playing vinyl does not cause catastrophic wear that is immediately obvious. That's just a myth.


----------



## lcaillo

Sorry, outlaw, but your information is incorrect. You may have not perceived it, but vinyl and styli both wear. A better stylus and proper alignment, along with care of your albums will reduce the effects, but every time you play a vinyl record you wear it a bit more. It is just like a CRT in that respect. From the day they are put in use, each time they are used they deteriorate a bit, even if that change is not noted. The gradual change may not be noticed, but over time it is both visible (under a microscope for vinyl and styli) and measureable.


----------



## WmAx

I don't understand the reference to 'bits' as resolution here. The level change density per bit is not different between 16 and 24 bit systems. Instead, the higher bit file is used to simply EXTEND the available signal to noise ratio. 16 bit is plenty for playback purposes.

As for the argument of CD and vinyl, it comes down to formats and master versions and other variables, even to include placebo effects. In credible research studies(using many test subjects and many different reference systems), absolutely ZERO advantage can be found for increasing sample rate over 44.1kHz and 16 bit resolution for music program, when downsampling the 'hi rez' version with properly designed hardware. You can argue that is not the case all day, but it will contrary to what has actually been found through credible research (as opposed to sighted or poorly conducted research).

-Chris


----------



## JoeESP9

lcaillo said:


> Sorry, outlaw, but your information is incorrect. You may have not perceived it, but vinyl and styli both wear. A better stylus and proper alignment, along with care of your albums will reduce the effects, but every time you play a vinyl record you wear it a bit more. It is just like a CRT in that respect. From the day they are put in use, each time they are used they deteriorate a bit, even if that change is not noted. The gradual change may not be noticed, but over time it is both visible (under a microscope for vinyl and styli) and measurable.


After reading my post I can see where my writing was incorrect. I know that dragging a piece of carbon through a groove in a plastic disk well cause wear on both surfaces. I was trying to make a point about that wear being slow and gradual. Many vinyl detractors act like a single play of an LP causes catastrophic damage. Although damage does occur it is minor and slow to accumulate enough to be easily noticeable.
I have LP's that I purchased new in 1967. They are very listenable even now. Has there been some wear in all those years? Of course there has. Is it so much wear that the LP is audibly deteriorated? No, not at all. In fact the LP I'm currently playing (Aretha Franklin, Running Out Of Fools Columbia CL2281, Mono) sounds very good. It's the first LP I ever bought. That was the winter of 1967. Of course record care and storage is important. My LP's have only been played on my gear and cared for as if they were priceless relics. 
I use a JemDandy RCM for cleaning vinyl. I have and use a Diskwasher brush and various other devices including Carbon fiber brushes for daily dusting of vinyl. I owned a Disk Doctor RCM for many years and recently acquired a spin clean. Lest any one of you think I with only vinyl, I also own and use a Nitty Gritty Digital Disk Cleaner. It's a motorized CD/DVD/BR cleaner.
The real point I'm trying to make is that vinyl when cared for and stored properly can have a very long usable life.


----------



## lcaillo

The quality of the stylus and its wear are very mportant factors, as is alignment and tracking. A poorly aligned cartridge or one that is tracking poorly will wear vinyl and the stylus much faster. With care as you describe, you are correct, albums can stay in great shape for many years and many use cycles.


----------



## Guest

WmAx said:


> I don't understand the reference to 'bits' as resolution here. The level change density per bit is not different between 16 and 24 bit systems. Instead, the higher bit file is used to simply EXTEND the available signal to noise ratio. 16 bit is plenty for playback purposes.
> 
> As for the argument of CD and vinyl, it comes down to formats and master versions and other variables, even to include placebo effects. In credible research studies(using many test subjects and many different reference systems), absolutely ZERO advantage can be found for increasing sample rate over 44.1kHz and 16 bit resolution for music program, when downsampling the 'hi rez' version with properly designed hardware. You can argue that is not the case all day, but it will contrary to what has actually been found through credible research (as opposed to sighted or poorly conducted research).
> 
> -Chris


I'd like to start out with saying, I actually want to have a REAL discussion of this. This topic has gotten so ugly on so many other forums, I really want to keep it nice.

I don't don't understand why extra samples doesn't mean extra resolution. Their seems to be two camps, those who think that extra samples only allow for greater dynamics, and those who see extra samples as more samples per second (greater resolution). I have personally passed a blind test on CD vs SACD, so I'm of the more is better camp. Even with my best sounding CDs, my best sounding SACDs sound better. Even with records, I think it comes down to the master tapes. I've read that they actually change the distance on microphones for digital and analog recordings so I usually actually buy on what the master is and the intention of the release. Norah Jones is a good example. Not sure about her last album, but all the rest had analog masters and the CD can't touch the vinyl copy on her stuff.

I often try to put the audio CD in a visual format. Lets just assume for a moment, that you could have a display of 720P at 16.7 million colors. A resolution of 1080P at 20 million colors would look better, even if we couldn't see more then 16.7 colors.

So why can't we hear more samples, even if the available frequency range is more then we can even hear, or need to use. Just because a format allows for dynamics that aren't used and that we can't even hear, doesn't mean that more samples per second can't create a better sound. Are more samples not more snapshots per second of the original master tape?

Last but not least, please point to a medical paper that says that humans can't hear more then the sample rate of a CD. So many of the "test" leave out the human element. We hear in analog and we weren't designed for digital. Digital is a manipulation of sound, even at its best, its still not natural.

Also, why are all the recording artist who say that digital is missing something wrong? I follow the numbers for setting up equipment, sensitivity, measurements whatever, I agree with it all. For some reason, I'm just not able to grasp or agree with this one thing. I don't get it. It comes down to, are you going to believe what someone tells you, or what you hear for yourself. As for the placebo affect argument. The ears can be tricked short term, but not time after time after time. Not when comparing real instruments and live performances to recordings.


----------



## JCD

Generic said:


> I'd like to start out with saying, I actually want to have a REAL discussion of this. This topic has gotten so ugly on so many other forums, I really want to keep it nice.


This place really is different. Some people might not like the difference, but we make a real effort to keep people civil around here.



Generic said:


> I don't don't understand why extra samples doesn't mean extra resolution. Their seems to be two camps, those who think that extra samples only allow for greater dynamics, and those who see extra samples as more samples per second (greater resolution). I have personally passed a blind test on CD vs SACD, so I'm of the more is better camp. Even with my best sounding CDs, my best sounding SACDs sound better. Even with records, I think it comes down to the master tapes. I've read that they actually change the distance on microphones for digital and analog recordings so I usually actually buy on what the master is and the intention of the release. Norah Jones is a good example. Not sure about her last album, but all the rest had analog masters and the CD can't touch the vinyl copy on her stuff.


I actually don't think they have different recordings for analog vs. digital releases -- simply because of the cost. Recording an album is very expensive. I might buy that they engineer the two versions differently. CD's are for the mainstream public that they think wants compressed for loudness recordings whereas the vinyl crowd is more likely going to want a "properly" recorded album.



Generic said:


> I often try to put the audio CD in a visual format. Lets just assume for a moment, that you could have a display of 720P at 16.7 million colors. A resolution of 1080P at 20 million colors would look better, even if we couldn't see more then 16.7 colors.
> 
> So why can't we hear more samples, even if the available frequency range is more then we can even hear, or need to use. Just because a format allows for dynamics that aren't used and that we can't even hear, doesn't mean that more samples per second can't create a better sound. Are more samples not more snapshots per second of the original master tape?


Using your same analogy, I'd argue you're not going to be able to tell the difference between a 1080p and 720p tv with most viewing circumstances. Granted my analogy runs a little thin if you get close enough, but the point is still the same -- sometimes you get to the point where more doesn't really give you more.



Generic said:


> Last but not least, please point to a medical paper that says that humans can't hear more then the sample rate of a CD. So many of the "test" leave out the human element. We hear in analog and we weren't designed for digital. Digital is a manipulation of sound, even at its best, its still not natural.
> 
> Also, why are all the recording artist who say that digital is missing something wrong? I follow the numbers for setting up equipment, sensitivity, measurements whatever, I agree with it all. For some reason, I'm just not able to grasp or agree with this one thing. I don't get it. It comes down to, are you going to believe what someone tells you, or what you hear for yourself. As for the placebo affect argument. The ears can be tricked short term, but not time after time after time. Not when comparing real instruments and live performances to recordings.


I actually would argue that people can be fooled over and over again. For a lot people, once they invest in something that heavily, they can't be objective anymore. Plus, getting a truly objective test is really hard to do.

As for recording artists that say digital is missing something -- same reason some people prefer Vinyl over CD's. They think it sounds better. I think they're wrong, but they like it better. If anything, I'd argue they prefer the "sound" of vinyl which some will say has its own set of euphonics. To support that particular arguement, and this is hearsay, I've heard somewhere that far too many of the the younger genertion will prefer MP3 recordings to the full version of a song. It's not a very good arguement without someplace to point you to for that last "proof", but i'm sticking to it.


----------



## Guest

I think I might have confused the digital vs analog recording. I'm having trouble finding the article I read once and I'll try and find it again, but I basically read that the distance of a microphone or even way a studio is set up can change depending on if they are going to record in analog or digital. That is generally why I like to buy a vinyl copy of something that was intended on having a analog master with the goal of catering to high quality vinyl over CD. Norah Jones is a good example of that. If the whole recording process was catered to analog, then it isn't too crazy to actually imagine that vinyl copy is better then the CD copy.

Another problem with CDs is so many of the available sources from older analog masters were created with 1st gen DACs and they sucked. So many so called re-masted CDs were re-masted from the old digital recording, and not the original analog master. I really like buying older recordings that had a analog master in vinyl over CD. 

When I really wanted to find out more about digital vs analog, I wanted to read up more on what recording studios and artist had to say about it and not just audio forums. The sad part is, it just gets even more confusing because even they can't agree on it. I will try and find the article I read once, but I read for weeks on the subject so it might be hard to find, but it does seem like microphone setup and placement changes depending on if it is going to have a digital or analog master.

I think I said it before but just in case, I think it takes both formats along with SACD to actually get the best available home recording available to the consumer. So much of the data leaves out what actually happens in the studio or what recording or transfer is available for re-release or re-mastering. From what I've read, a lot of times, no one goes back and makes a newer modern CD copy of a older original analog master and they either don't have the license or can't get it, or as always it would cost too much. Now days, I think a lot of the quick releases of modern music is catered to MP3 release and it's overly loud and distorted because the bulk of the buyers are going to listen to it with ear buds.


----------



## Guest

This isn't exactly the link I was looking for, but I still find it interesting. http://www.pbs.org/kcet/wiredscience/video/212-audio_files.html

What I find interesting about this is the fact that people can hear the difference between a analog master and a digital master made at the same time, same studio. If the sample rate of a CD is enough and more is never needed, then how could people possible tell the difference between much higher quality master recordings? The test itself is pretty unfair, but the fact that they could tell a difference, even if they chose wrong, they could actually hear a difference most of the time.

I'll keep looking for what I read before, but if anyone is interested, do a Google search on vinyl vs digital recordings and read what the studio's have to say about it. Their is a lot of fair biased pros and cons on both sides because both CD and Vinyl have real issues. Get in to audio forums, it can get really ugly. I like that this place can keep it clean. I actually grew up in the digital is always better crowd, but have come to the conclusion that vinyl records shouldn't be ignored and they have some really nice recordings sometimes. In some cases, in early analog to digital transfers, the vinyl record is known to be better then the available CD. Todays digital has improved greatly, but now that they can get it right, it is being ruined with loudness wars. This is mainstream music, not all music. Mercury Living Presence , Telarc, and others have some AMAZING digital recordings. Even then, I'm still a fan of SACD over the CD and I'm looking forward to blu-ray audio releases.


----------



## RIKKITIK

Some interesting reads, if you haven't already seen them-
http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/so_whats_so_good_about_digital_anyway/P1/


> So about two years ago, some Japanese researchers decided to approach things differently. They didn’t use AB testing at first, and they didn’t ask the listeners to report back at first. Instead, they made a recording (of acoustical musical instruments) that they knew by physical measurement had frequencies up to 50 KHz. present, and they then made a copy of that recording that was low-pass filtered to 20 KHz. They played both versions for their test listeners through a monitor system that they knew by physical measurement could reproduce frequencies up to 50 KHz., while observing, via electro-encephalograph machines, their listeners’ brain activity.
> 
> Bingo! The recordings that were filtered produced much less brain activity than did the broad-band recordings. So they knew that the brain noticed a difference. Then they asked the subjects to comment on the quality of the recorded sounds, and found that the listeners reported the original broad-band sounds to be interesting, satisfying and beautiful much more than they reported those qualities for band-limited sounds.
> 
> The medium is comparatively unimportant - it’s the power and meaning of the music that matters, a power and meaning that transcends the quality and character of the medium.


 I particularly like the last sentence.

*AND*

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540/?tag=content;col1
ANALOG vs. DIGITAL: no clear victor - Technology Information

:note: :note:


----------



## Guest

This might only be subjective, but I'm currently listening to The Beatles Love 180g. http://www.musicdirect.com/product/78837

This copy kicks the snot out of the quality of the White Album recently remastered on CD. Granted, not all the songs are the same, for being from older recordings, the quality vinyl copy has a greater range. Not measured, but I can hear more bass and treble and it just sounds way better. If anyone here is a Beatles fan, I suggest picking this up. Its the highest quality Beatles media I've heard so far.


----------



## JoeESP9

I've got some vinyl that sounds absolutely fantastic. I've also got some CD's that sound absolutely fantastic. More of my vinyl sounds better than CD. I think a lot of that better is because of the compression rampant in CD recordings.
A well recorded CD, SACD's in particular, can rival and sometimes sound better than even the best of my Direct-To-Disk LP's. Unfortunately they are the exceptions rather than the rule.


----------



## phodee6

Vinyl all the way. its warmer and the bass is livelier. To me its like hearing a band play live compare to a CD which you can tell the band is in a studio. Vinyl is really expensive but nothing taste like it.

go to a club and you can hear the deference when the DJ is playing Vinyl or CD or using Serato. Vinly is the best thats way DJ's still use it


----------



## Guest

Okay, I'm pro vinyl and any quality media, but nothing at home can reproduce a live experience. All stereo's home or pro audio are a glimpse of music performed live. I've never heard any equipment of any kind that comes close to a live performance. It just can't be reproduced. A very enjoyable copy can be made, but it really isn't close to live.


----------



## phodee6

i totally hear ya on that but i think its the closest thing to it


----------



## Ronm1

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 collegues Vpi. 
Upfront you should know that I'm assine when it comes to blackness and low noise floor in my system and 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.


----------



## Guest

Send those LPs my way. :whistling: I have what I would consider a very modest setup and with headphones, the ground noise is not a problem and not even noticeable once the music starts.


----------



## Ronm1

Generic said:


> Send those LPs my way. :whistling: I have what I would consider a very modest setup and with headphones, the ground noise is not a problem and not even noticeable once the music starts.


This always cracks me up, I rank that line with _ I didn't know it was loaded_ or _We did nothing, just rebooted_

IMHO when your digital rig reaches a certain point the nasties of the physical vinyl paradigm raise their ugly head and usually require more money then I am willing to spend to overcome them. The perceived good stuff just gets neutralized, again IMHO. My sons couldn't pick it up at first, once I pointed it out they get it too. Wish that wasn't the case, but it is what it is. Course all may not be lost on the TT front for me. A colleague pointed out a TT that has traits that maybe up my alley. Reasonable cost and blackness.


----------



## Guest

Ronm1 said:


> This always cracks me up, I rank that line with _ I didn't know it was loaded_ or _We did nothing, just rebooted_
> 
> IMHO when your digital rig reaches a certain point the nasties of the physical vinyl paradigm raise their ugly head and usually require more money then I am willing to spend to overcome them. The perceived good stuff just gets neutralized, again IMHO. My sons couldn't pick it up at first, once I pointed it out they get it too. Wish that wasn't the case, but it is what it is. Course all may not be lost on the TT front for me. A colleague pointed out a TT that has traits that maybe up my alley. Reasonable cost and blackness.


I have no ideal what you mean by that line. It sounds like the blackness or quiet background is more important to you then the music. You haven't actually said one thing about the music. To each their own I guess. If a theoretical 0db background is the most important thing to you, then you're going to like digital the best.


----------



## chadnliz

I love both, both have key stengths and weakness, both have albums I cant find on other format. I dont like one better than other simply because sound is trumped by ease, ease is trumped by sound but I would ditch records in a second if I could get the sound the have an easier way. Between Vinyls expense, cleaning and care needed plus short play time it is a real pain in the butt.
I have about same amount in each format............$3500 on cdp and $3300 on vinyl set up so each compete very well with eachother.


----------



## WmAx

Ronm1 said:


> 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 collegues Vpi.
> Upfront you should know that I'm assine when it comes to blackness and low noise floor in my system and 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.


Why the audible groove noise and rumble? With pristine condition LPs of high quality, I get no audible groove noise, rarely a crackle or pop and no rumble. Perhaps your table and/or cartridge was limiting your SQ? I have a dedicated, highly acoustically treated listening room with extreme low noise floor; so it's not as if I am using my set up in a noisy environment that would mask the problem(s). What table, arm and cartridge were you using? Did you use pristine vinyl? Or was it mostly damaged/heavily worn vinyl?

-Chris


----------



## phodee6

Yes you are right that CD's will give you actuate sound and larger frequency range, as well if you have the proper Studio speaker you can hear compressors working and all that studio stuff attached to the tunes. As for me i listen/spin dance music (Dubstep and Drum and Bass music) where it all about the bass, if there is crackle in the vinyl so be it, it adds more favor. 

What do you guys mean by ground noise? is that hum you get in the needle when the bass is to heavy, if so its all in the table that your TT sits on.


----------



## john guest

Hi there ,

Cd's are sampled at 44.1 khz , which is nowhere near good enough to compete with even a moderately priced vinyl set up , even comparing with a CD player costing Twice as much. 
Vinyl with an MC cartridge will have a bandwidth of 12 to 50 khz , compared to Cd with 15 to 20Khz . 
But this is not just the reason Why Vinyl is far superior , 90 % of all CD's these days, are of a poor compressed recording . I have some fantastic CD's , but all but just a few of my vinyl collection is stunning.
The sound stage of vinyl is as near to the real thing , and yes there is nothing like the real performance, however vinyl is 95% there, no joking, with the correct cartridge deck combination .
I await the day when sample rates get closer to the analogue signal ie more than 98 Khz maybe 196 Khz , and then we will have a format which will make me put my vinyl equipment to rest .

Best Regards,
John Guest


----------



## JoeESP9

I think "ground noise" may refer to 60Hz hum. That hum has nothing to do with the table your TT sits on. It's noise from the AC line frequency. Reversing the orientation of the AC plug or lifting the ground (with 3 conductor plugs) usually cures it.


----------



## Ronm1

Generic said:


> I have no ideal what you mean by that line.


Noise is not a problem and not even noticeable once the music starts.



> It sounds like the blackness or quiet background is more important to you then the music. You haven't actually said one thing about the music. To each their own I guess. If a theoretical 0db background is the most important thing to you, then you're going to like digital the best.


Of course the music is important. I wouldn't have this much invested in media if it wasnt, but if TT noise gets in the way then resolution/imaging/dynamic range is lost, IMHO. Especially when compared to my digital rig


----------



## Ronm1

WmAx said:


> Why the audible groove noise and rumble? With pristine condition LPs of high quality, I get no audible groove noise, rarely a crackle or pop and no rumble.


I wish I knew. Course everything in my system had changed from the old 2ch setup to the integrated HT


> Perhaps your table and/or cartridge was limiting your SQ? What table, arm and cartridge were you using?


Certainly could be.
2 tables were used at the time. 
I had my B&O rebuilt/reworked, new topshelf stylus assem put in. 
Colleague brought over one of his Vpi's and set it up. Don't know the arm but if I remember right it had a Shure Cart. This was a few years ago so memory is a little fuzzy on some details. 2004 
We both agreed the B&O was a win, the VPI was disappointing in comparison


> I have a dedicated, highly acoustically treated listening room with extreme low noise floor; so it's not as if I am using my set up in a noisy environment that would mask the problem(s).


While its my LR, the room does have room treatments and sig has power info. Compared to my 2ch days it has much better resolution and lower noise floor. 


> Did you use pristine vinyl? Or was it mostly damaged/heavily worn vinyl?


A # were played but the comparisons were done using the first cd's I ever bought vs the lps. _Caverna Magica_ *Andreas Vollenweider* and _No Borders Here_ *Jane Siberry* I hunted down the lps at the time to compare VS the cds. Various comparisons were done then between cd players Nak OM5 was the one I eventually bought. Those lps were never used again.
An interesting sidenote - when all this TT work was going on my sons were old enough to look at all my lps and couldn't believe the condition they were in. Course when this suff went to storage, no one was happier then the wife, as she no longer had to go thru the lp playing ritual.


Need to add that a GSP phono amp was used as the 1065 has no phono input.
The B&O is a straight arm not radial.


----------



## aabottom

Soundoff: LP vinyl VS Redbook CD 
I started my sound check of LP vinyl VS Redbook CD on my current system. So far I’ve gathered the above list of titles for the check. The intent of this check is to assess the conditions of the turntable/ cartridge (Phillips GA312/ Stanton 681 EEE) which was recovered from its coffer in the attic after 13 years in storage. The Phillips GA312/ Stanton 681 EEE is about 32 years old. I was the original owner. The attic was not climate controlled, I suspect the temperature extremes ranged from about 0 to 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The RCA connectors show some discoloration on the outside of the ground return. The internals of the RCA connectors seemed to fair better. 

This is NOT a vinyl VS CD debate, although I expect to educate myself and formulate my own opinions in the process. Also, this only a qualitative check, NOT a double blind A/B psycho-acoustic controlled experiment. This is actually the first time my personal audio system has had vinyl and CD capabilities at the same time. So begins my quest. 

Audio Setup- 
Here’s the audio setup. 

Phillips GA312/ Stanton 681 EEE/ == OEM RCA analog cables ===>> |
Sharp DX-650 CD <<======= Monster M STANDARD THX i100 =======>> |
Yamaha RX-797 Receiver ---------------------------------------- +
Klipsch RF-7 <<L######### Monster M SERIES bi-wire #########L>> |
Klipsch RF-7 <<R######### Monster M SERIES bi-wire #########R>> |

The GA312 RCA analog cables plug into the PHONO input of the RX-797 and the ground wire is connected to the RX-797 phono ground. The Sharp DX-650 CD player is not ideal for comparing vinyl to CD, but right now, it’s the only CD player I have. I play the vinyl with “PURE DIRECT” activated (a feature of the RX-797) which bypasses most of the internal electronics of the RX-797. I call this vinyl mode. I switch to CD by pressing the “CD DIRECT AMP” (a feature of the RX-797) which overrides the PURE DIRECT. I call this CD mode. My nominal listening position is about 6 feet from each speaker. My listening room is far from optimal. (That’s a topic for another thread.)

Noise Checks- 
The volume control on the RX-797 adjusts from about 7 o’clock (0700, no sound) to 4 o’clock (0400, full volume). My nominal listening level is about 0830. With the sound level set to 0900, and no source playing, I hear no noise in either vinyl or CD mode at nominal listening position. With my ear to the speakers, I hear more noise in vinyl mode than in CD mode. In CD mode, the noise at the speaker is almost inaudible. At about 0930, I begin to hear noise in vinyl mode at nominal listening position. Even at full volume, 0400, I hear no noise in CD mode at nominal listening position. Beyond 1200 volume (12 o’clock), vinyl mode noise is quite audible at nominal listening position. In addition to “white noise” static, I hear ticking sound at a repetition frequency of about 10 to 20 Hertz. When I have a CD source playing, but the RX-797 is set to PHONO (e.g., vinyl mode), I can faintly hear the CD source at about 1200 volume and beyond. 

Source Playing Checks- 
As to be expected, fluids for my “discwasher” D4 and SC-2 have evaporated. Currently, I cleaned the stylus with my dry discwasher brush (model SC-2?) before playing each vinyl LP. I clean each side of the vinyl with my “dry” discwasher D4 brush. Then I hit the vinyl with my discwasher ZEROSAT antistatic gun. Acquisition of new cleaning fluids and/or system is now in the plans. 

The sound level output of the DX-650 (CD) is much higher than the GA312 (vinyl). This makes it hard to switch between vinyl and CD with the same sound level at the speakers. I try to adjust the volume between modes to compensate. 

100123 Sat: I played Elton John, Madman across the water on LP vinyl VS Redbook CD. I switched A/B by pushing the CD DIRECT AMP on the RX-797 and adjusting the volume. I started both sources at nominally the time and switched between select song passages. I liked the CD better. Perhaps the vinyl is a bit worn. On vinyl, there was significant snap crackle & pop. On CD, the high frequencies seemed louder and there no noticeable noise. 

100124 Sun: I played side 1 of Fleetwood Mac, Rumors. Before playing vinyl LP, I cleaned the stylus with a q-tip soaked in 91% isopropyl alcohol (CVS brand). The only other listed ingredient is water. On vinyl, I listened to all of side 1 of Rumors. It was very pleasant. Not as much snap crackle & pop as the Elton John vinyl. Then, I listened to same tracks on CD, all of side 1. Lastly, I started both sources at nominally the time and switched A/B between select song passages. Now I’m feeling better about vinyl. I can hear the difference between vinyl and CD, but I don’t really care. The vinyl sound very pleasing. If I were pressed to use an adjective, I’d say the bass is mellow. Yet, the vinyl did have the usual noise- an occasional pop and few snaps from record defects. The CD has higher output in the high frequencies with a very clean sound, that is no perceived noise during music passages. On CD the only noise I noticed was at the very end of “Songbird”, when the music stopped but the recording had not. I suspect that was tape hiss from the original master tapes. 

100130 Sat: I played side 2 of Fleetwood Mac, Rumors. Today I made DIY record cleaner. I call it D3wi, Disc cleaner with 3 parts distilled water, 1 part isopropyl alcohol (91% CVS brand). Some people add a few drops of Kodak Photo-Flo, but today, I tried it without Photo-Flo. At first I could barely tell the vinyl from the CD. But then, I perceived that the CD high frequencies were louder than that of the vinyl. Again, for bass and midrange on the vinyl, the adjective “mellow” comes to mind. On the CD, near the end of “Gold Dust Woman” both the bass drum and the cymbals were noticeably louder and were more distinct. On the vinyl, the bass drum and the cymbals seemed to blend in with the rest of the music and was not as noticeable as it was on the CD. 

Conclusions- 
The Phillips GA312/ Stanton 681 EEE turntable and cartridge seem to be working reasonably well. Further checks and tests are required to fully test the system. I will continue to listen to more of my vinyl collection. 

In a double blind A/B psycho-acoustic controlled experiment, I suspect I could tell the difference between my “vinyl mode” and “CD mode”. But I’m not sure I really care. If I want to play vinyl, I’ll play vinyl. If I want to play CD, I’ll play CD.


----------



## Guest

Ronm1 said:


> Noise is not a problem and not even noticeable once the music starts.
> 
> 
> Of course the music is important. I wouldn't have this much invested in media if it wasnt, but if TT noise gets in the way then resolution/imaging/dynamic range is lost, IMHO. Especially when compared to my digital rig


I'm still not sure what your getting at. If the turn table or vinyl background noise is not loud enough to take away from the music, then why does it really matter if the music is the most important thing? I have a SACD from a very old analog tape with hiss of Beethoven 9th. It's the best version I've heard to date, or at least my personal favorite. The tape hiss is way louder then my TT background noise. In comparison, the fan on a DLP TV or projector is louder, so I still don't see what the problem is.

It sounds like your TT setup might actually have some issues. I've read grove noise is due to a worn stylus or misaligned cartridge. Or maybe you could double check the tracking weight and anti-skate settings if you have them. If your hearing annoying sounds, something isn't right. Vinyl can actually be very quiet.

I mean really, would you not use a great 1080P projector because of fan noise? Would that take away from the movie? The Mitsu HC3800 has a impressively low 25dBA quietness in low mode operation.

Seems like music fans have two different kids of camps. Music by numbers, and just enjoying music period. The most important thing about music should be the quality of the available recording, not how quiet the background is.


----------



## Ronm1

Generic said:


> I have a SACD from a very old analog tape with hiss of Beethoven 9th. It's the best version I've heard to date, or at least my personal favorite. The tape hiss is way louder then my TT background noise.


I have a few of those too and I enjoy them for what they are cause nothing can be done or you hope another format can improve on it. In my case of tt vs cd I would rather listen to a version on the digital rig.
As an ex. I'm a fan of Sonny Rollins and have some of his recorded sessions in many formats...lp, cd, remastered, xrcd, sacd, dvda. The cds got better as they went up the foodchain but as with most cult disc not as much dreaded compression, but to get some volume there is tape hiss. As we go up that list we eventually get to the dvda which has the better StoNR. Now this has to be a good thing great sonics and low noise floor. Does this mean dvda is better than sacd, not really, in this case time was taken with the remastering process to make a better recording. So its my recording of choice. 



> In comparison, the fan on a DLP TV or projector is louder, so I still don't see what the problem is.


To the bit bucket like the early PS3. What a noisy rig that was.


> It sounds like your TT setup might actually have some issues. I've read grove noise is due to a worn stylus or misaligned cartridge. Or maybe you could double check the tracking weight and anti-skate settings if you have them. If your hearing annoying sounds, something isn't right. Vinyl can actually be very quiet.


I eluded to that in an earlier reply. Though I'm quite sure they were correct. Which is why I'm still on the hunt for a table I can enjoy. Hey there are quite a few lp's sitting idle. 


> I mean really, would you not use a great 1080P projector because of fan noise? Would that take away from the movie?


It would!! Remember from my initial post I'm sensitive when it comes to noise level. Popcorn munching is allowed though


----------



## john guest

your right Ronm1 , it is how good they are recorded. I love my Vinyl replay , but I have two dvd's which have been fantastically produced, and blow away my vinyl equivalents . 

Steely Dan's- Two Against Nature and Diana Krall- Live At The Paris Oly.
Played in Tag Maclaren surround 5, 48KHz on my AV PC is nothing short of brilliant . 

Best Regards,
John Guest.


----------



## JoeESP9

Ronm1 said:


> I have a few of those too and I enjoy them for what they are cause nothing can be done or you hope another format can improve on it. In my case of tt vs cd I would rather listen to a version on the digital rig.
> As an ex. I'm a fan of Sonny Rollins and have some of his recorded sessions in many formats...lp, cd, remastered, xrcd, sacd, dvda. The cds got better as they went up the foodchain but as with most cult disc not as much dreaded compression, but to get some volume there is tape hiss. As we go up that list we eventually get to the dvda which has the better StoNR. Now this has to be a good thing great sonics and low noise floor. Does this mean dvda is better than sacd, not really, in this case time was taken with the remastering process to make a better recording. So its my recording of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> To the bit bucket like the early PS3. What a noisy rig that was.
> 
> 
> I eluded to that in an earlier reply. Though I'm quite sure they were correct. Which is why I'm still on the hunt for a table I can enjoy. Hey there are quite a few lp's sitting idle.
> 
> 
> It would!! Remember from my initial post I'm an A$$ when it comes to noise level. Popcorn munching is allowed though


Which Sonny Rollins DVD-A are you talking about. I'm a fan of Mr. Rollins. I have most of his stuff on the original vinyl. I have an original Way Out West.


----------



## Ronm1

JoeESP9 said:


> Which Sonny Rollins DVD-A are you talking about. I'm a fan of Mr. Rollins. I have most of his stuff on the original vinyl. I have an original Way Out West.


_Way out West_ and _Saxophone Colossus_
These are 2ch only 192/24 dvda's. Import only from JP.
There were others available at the time, but these are the ones I got along with _Art Pepper meets the Rhythm Section_. They could be out of print now.


----------



## chadnliz

john guest said:


> Hi there ,
> 
> Cd's are sampled at 44.1 khz , which is nowhere near good enough to compete with even a moderately priced vinyl set up , even comparing with a CD player costing Twice as much.
> Vinyl with an MC cartridge will have a bandwidth of 12 to 50 khz , compared to Cd with 15 to 20Khz .
> But this is not just the reason Why Vinyl is far superior , 90 % of all CD's these days, are of a poor compressed recording . I have some fantastic CD's , but all but just a few of my vinyl collection is stunning.
> The sound stage of vinyl is as near to the real thing , and yes there is nothing like the real performance, however vinyl is 95% there, no joking, with the correct cartridge deck combination .
> I await the day when sample rates get closer to the analogue signal ie more than 98 Khz maybe 196 Khz , and then we will have a format which will make me put my vinyl equipment to rest .
> 
> Best Regards,
> John Guest


IN regards to todays cd's sounding like thats true but if they issue it on vinyl its pretty much aswell so its not the format thats the problem its just the times we live in that hurts as most folks doing recordings of popular music are in love with loudness.
And as far as 95% there I have only heard one table even come close to that and it didnt even come that far, it is my friends $40,000 Walker table with $5500 cart on it into a 1600 watt Krell amp. Even so Classical music live simply blows it away but I bet he captured 85%. Not to say Vinyl cant sound good, at $3500 my Vinyl equipment investment sounds great but not at all close to real music............nothing comes close. Classical is for the most part the only true bench marl for measurement IMO simply because its natural and not electric.


----------



## JoeESP9

Ronm1 said:


> _Way out West_ and _Saxophone Colossus_
> These are 2ch only 192/24 dvda's. Import only from JP.
> There were others available at the time, but these are the ones I got along with _Art Pepper meets the Rhythm Section_. They could be out of print now.


Lucky you! Those are two of my all time favorites. I have both on the original vinyl and CD.


----------



## yukonwill

I like these also!


----------



## Guest

RIKKITIK said:


> Some interesting reads, if you haven't already seen them-
> http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/so_whats_so_good_about_digital_anyway/P1/
> 
> I particularly like the last sentence.
> 
> *AND*
> 
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXG/is_12_12/ai_63973540/?tag=content;col1
> ANALOG vs. DIGITAL: no clear victor - Technology Information
> 
> :note: :note:


Does anyone know any more about the Japanese researchers? Name of the lab or company that did this testing?


----------



## Sir Terrence

I think Bernie Grundman summed it up pretty well. He said "if you are looking for accuracy, skip past the vinyl, you're not going to find it there". With him being one of the prominent mastering engineers with a long history of preparing and cutting vinyl, that says a lot. 

When I hear of comparisons between analog and digital, I have to continually remind myself that they are comparing the lowest resolution of digital to a high end tweaked out platter with extreme care paid to set up. Rarely has the comparison been made with the top of the line Meitner digital gear, or a down rezzed to 24/192khz DXD mixdown. My exposure to this level of digital equipment has changed my mind about digital, as I was never satisfied with it previously. I found handling vinyl is too labor intensive, but my Studer 4 track reel to reel always sounded better to me than vinyl anyway. 

Now that I have been introduced to high resolution music on the Blu ray format, I think I like digital just a bit more than analog. Yes analog has the wonderful euphoric sound that is pleasing to the ear, but I like the accuracy and clarity of high bit and sample rate digital audio. 

From my audio engineering perspective, I still like the sound of analog, and in some ways a little better than digital. I guess for me, each has its benefits and drawbacks.


----------



## gsmollin

I haven't read the previous posts, they aren't germaine to my experience anyway, but here are my opinions on this subject:

The major, salient difference between the original vinyl recording and its CD release is in the area of dynamic range. The vinyl recording has a greater dynamic range than the CD re-release. Now this is in direct opposition to what I expected. Analog vinyl pressings were plagued by tape hiss, surface pops, scratches, wow, flutter, rumble, eccentricity, mis-tracking and skating problems, need I go on? The CD was supposed to fix all those issues, and deliver a super-low distortion musical experience from a velvety silent background. So why do so many re-releases sound dynamically "flat", when the original pressings had what I can only call "liveliness". an audio "pop" that makes the CD sound uninteresting, by comparison.

The answer may lie in the nature of a digital system. It can't tolerate any overload, ever. An overflow error is fatal, as anybody who has ever programmed a computer will know. Analog recordings can be pushed until it sounds bad, then just back off till it sounds good. I think that gives a greater dynamic range to a pressing than a CD.


----------



## JoeESP9

The problem is that most popular music CD's are mastered and compressed to sound good on iPod's, FM radio and car stereos. Any half decent system will let you know how bad most popular music CD's sound. The over compression can easily be seen in any waveform editor. A well recorded and mastered CD can have greater dynamic range than any LP. Most classical and jazz CD's demonstrate this quite well.


----------



## Sir Terrence

JoeESP9 said:


> The problem is that most popular music CD's are mastered and compressed to sound good on iPod's, FM radio and car stereos. Any half decent system will let you know how bad most popular music CD's sound. The over compression can easily be seen in any waveform editor. A well recorded and mastered CD can have greater dynamic range than any LP. Most classical and jazz CD's demonstrate this quite well.


Bingo!


----------



## gsmollin

JoeESP9 said:


> The problem is that most popular music CD's are mastered and compressed to sound good on iPod's, FM radio and car stereos. Any half decent system will let you know how bad most popular music CD's sound. The over compression can easily be seen in any waveform editor. A well recorded and mastered CD can have greater dynamic range than any LP. Most classical and jazz CD's demonstrate this quite well.


I will say this- Some of the new 24-bit recordings are sounding pretty good. I have downloaded 24-bit FLAC recordings, mostly avant-garde stuff, but one Mendohlson trio recording stands out for its intimacy and dynamics. I can really hear the "rosin on the bows" in this recording, and only LPs gave me that experience before. So there is hope for the future, but I suspect CDs will not fulfill their promise. I remember when they came out in the 80's, and there was a lot of criticism about their shortcomings; 16-bits is not enough for audio. The consesus was that a new standard would replace the CD in 10 years, and it would be at least 20-bit. Well SACD was a flop so we are stuck.


----------



## Ronm1

I've been impressed with JVC's latest K2 pass *K2HD*
Course most are Jp imports, not quite as good as their *K2* 192/24 dvda's or well done remastered Sacd's, but you don't need a unique player to get the advantage. Course the better the playback h/w the better the results.


----------



## JCD

I was about to jump into the fray with the same kind of comment.. a link that is obviously biased, but at least seems to back up it's points. At least in this link, the _theoretical _max peak to peak range for vinyl is 120dB's, compared to 150dB's for a CD.

And it is sad that they produce CD's for the lowest common denominator. I'm surprised we haven't had big brother step in and make them quieter simply because of the hearing loss that these recordings can cause.


----------



## bobavanzi

Recently restored my Ariston turntable, loaded it with my 30 year old Grado 8MR cartiridge, and hooked it up my newly refurbished Apt Holman preamp. Good vinyl sounds incredible. What I most notice in comparison to the digital version of a recording, is the tactile nature of vinyl playback. There just seems to be more impact and solidity to the music. I listen mostly to classical music so what I'm always looking for is an audio experience that resembles real instruments inhabiting real space. I'm not ready yet to state without qualification that I prefer vinyl, but there's something about it I definitely like. The problem is so few recordings are truly well mastered for vinyl.


----------



## notwifefriendly

Although I do not disagree with most CD vs. vinyl comments, I would like to add a thought with a question:
How much money is tied up in your CD player vs. your cartridge, tonearm, cartridge, head amp, and RIAA preamp stage compared to your CD player? Do you think your hundred dollar CD player should be as good as a thousand dollar TT? Conversely, do you really think a relatively cheap Shure M95 or Grado should sound as good as a mega dollar CD player?

I have some great CD recordings as well as some great LPs. Before I got my current CD player, I was a total LP guy, at least for the best LPs, such as D to D. My first CD player was a then highly rated (Stereophile "B") Denon XX? (DVD?) 1500). It was replaced by CD/DVD surround Yamahas and a comparable Sony. The latter two were purchased used and were over $650 each retail. I bough each for $65 when Sound Advice folded and never tried the surround junk. I now have a highly touted Onkyo DX-755 player that I searched for for a couple of years for a deal on a used one. I have heard better, but for nowhere near the price. I would also trade my Supex for it's ensuing Koetsu. I am tweaky, but not a lunatic who thinks my stuff is the ultimate. In fact, I have a perfectly good Kenwood KD500 I bought new, and was at the time the only TT Kenwood made without an arm, but the Ariston is very cool looking and works just fine.

BTW, the Onkyo has to be set up properly with the remote. There is a bias for how bright your speakers are. My B&W 803s needed the less bright setting, while my DM 1400s needed the bright setting. Oddly, the Yamaha cartridge needs the bright setting for the 803s.

None of these sounded as good as great vinyl, until the currrent one. The retail price is still less than my Ariston/Signet/Supex/Audire (head amp). Even my Yamaha MC-9 sounds better except for the extreme high end such as the shimmering of cymbals. In actual dollar bills, I paid less than half what my cartridge cost 30 years ago, triple or more when the price of "retipping " is included..

My main comparison is the Thelma Houston "Pressure Cooker" Sheffield Direct to Disc recording versus the CD released years later. Luckily, Sheffield was smart enough to make tapes to convert later.
The CD is as good and has more dynamic range than this once of premier LP. I do like the high end of the Supex a little better than the Onkyo, on maybe a handful of recordings.

Today, I would only rate my Rosie O'Grady's Good Time Jazz Band LP (Direct to Disc, Aphex enhanced, of all things!) as superior to most of my CDs, but then there is the awesome CD of The All Jamaican All Star Jazz band which blows this LP away on dynamic range alone.

However, nothing sounds better on both the D to D Tuba solo on "When You're Smiling", juxtaposed with the shimmering cymbals, not to mention the triangle and drums on another track.

As Rod McCluen said, "The medium is the message", or in this case, the determining factor when all else is equal.

J DanV


----------



## kevin360

Generic said:


> We hear in analog and we weren't designed for digital. Digital is a manipulation of sound, even at its best, its still not natural.


I'd love to read supporting evidence that we 'hear in analog'. On the other hand, if what PCM does to an audio signal disturbs you, then you had better not delve into the neurological underpinnings of perception (with separate processing modules for the various aspects of sound) - BTW, sampling couldn't be more natural.

This (Vinyl vs CD) is a debate that will never abate, although it's becoming dated - music servers best represent current technology. Vinyl connects me to my youth. The Compact Disc revolutionized both audio and video, but the technology hasn't always been used ideally. 

Why pit one against the other? The inclusion of a CD player in one's system needn't displace a turntable, but if one chooses to commit to a single format, who am I to judge? My experience is that each format delivers musical enjoyment. In most ways, I prefer the CD to the record. On the other hand, I do have _some_ records that sound quite good, whereas the CDs of the same material don't. That isn't, however, the fault of the medium. I'm not kicking either vinyl or CDs out of the house, but most of my listening is via one of the music servers. 

It's a great time to be alive!


----------



## notwifefriendly

kevin360 said:


> I'd love to read supporting evidence that we 'hear in analog'. On the other hand, if what PCM does to an audio signal disturbs you, then you had better not delve into the neurological underpinnings of perception (with separate processing modules for the various aspects of sound) - BTW, sampling couldn't be more natural.
> 
> This (Vinyl vs CD) is a debate that will never abate, although it's becoming dated - music servers best represent current technology. Vinyl connects me to my youth. The Compact Disc revolutionized both audio and video, but the technology hasn't always been used ideally.
> 
> Why pit one against the other? The inclusion of a CD player in one's system needn't displace a turntable, but if one chooses to commit to a single format, who am I to judge? My experience is that each format delivers musical enjoyment. In most ways, I prefer the CD to the record. On the other hand, I do have _some_ records that sound quite good, whereas the CDs of the same material don't. That isn't, however, the fault of the medium. I'm not kicking either vinyl or CDs out of the house, but most of my listening is via one of the music servers.
> 
> It's a great time to be alive!


I don't think anyone would really argue that we hear in digital codes, despite the fact that we actually see in frames. I'm going to check, just in case, but I will bet analog is how we hear.


----------



## tonyvdb

Analog/digital matters not. The issue is that an analog signal degrades every time it goes through a switch or possessor and is susceptible to interference where digital hardly does and is not affected by most interference. In the end its an analog signal that gets output to the speakers and thats what we hear.


----------



## gazoink

JCD said:


> I was about to jump into the fray with the same kind of comment.. a link that is obviously biased, but at least seems to back up it's points. At least in this link, the _theoretical _max peak to peak range for vinyl is 120dB's, compared to 150dB's for a CD.


Hmmm...that link doesn't seem biased, it seems realistic.


JCD said:


> And it is sad that they produce CD's for the lowest common denominator.


They produce _music_ for the lowest common denominator, the distribution method isn't the determining factor.


JCD said:


> I'm surprised we haven't had big brother step in and make them quieter simply because of the hearing loss that these recordings can cause.


The loudness of a recording doesn't cause hearing loss because it doesn't determine playback level or the resulting SPL at the ear. That's a volume control function in the reproduction system, and the resulting SPL at the ear as a function of exposure time is what does the damage. You can listen to the loudest mastered CD all day long and never hurt yourself, or the most dynamic CD ever made and damage hearing in one listening.


----------



## lcaillo

kevin360 said:


> I'd love to read supporting evidence that we 'hear in analog'. On the other hand, if what PCM does to an audio signal disturbs you, then you had better not delve into the neurological underpinnings of perception (with separate processing modules for the various aspects of sound) - BTW, sampling couldn't be more natural.
> 
> This (Vinyl vs CD) is a debate that will never abate, although it's becoming dated - music servers best represent current technology. Vinyl connects me to my youth. The Compact Disc revolutionized both audio and video, but the technology hasn't always been used ideally.
> 
> Why pit one against the other? The inclusion of a CD player in one's system needn't displace a turntable, but if one chooses to commit to a single format, who am I to judge? My experience is that each format delivers musical enjoyment. In most ways, I prefer the CD to the record. On the other hand, I do have _some_ records that sound quite good, whereas the CDs of the same material don't. That isn't, however, the fault of the medium. I'm not kicking either vinyl or CDs out of the house, but most of my listening is via one of the music servers.
> 
> It's a great time to be alive!


 My view is that hearing is poorly modelled as either analog or digital. At some point sound is converted into innervation that is discrete at the neuron level, but it is not like sampling really, more like an asyncronous firing of many neurons in a set of pathways that is more like a pattern recognition system. If anything you could make an analogy to dithering. But hearing and perception are all wrapped up with many aspects of consciousness that make it impossible to map the process to any simplistic encode/decode system that we use to store and recover sound. I think your last two paragraphs pretty much put things in context for me. I can enjoy music in many forms, even lower resolution formats like MP3. And these are exciting times. We have the opportunity to experience music like never before, and to learn about sound, hearing, and perception with tools that were hardly a dream 50 years ago.


----------



## kevin360

Actually, it's _better_ modeled in the digital domain, but our models are still woefully incomplete. If we take the neuron as the basic building block, it is certainly binary – either there's an action potential, or there isn't. Of course, this is highly simplistic, but at the level of consciousness (focus/attention), it's all about sampling. The kicker about the 'pathways' is that they flow in parallel through _lots_ of neural modules which process (separately) a bewildering array of parameters for each sensory modality (talk about a timing nightmare). Brains are magnificent structures. Unfortunately, they are also subject to damage – we've learned much from damaged brains. Perception can twist in some very bizarre ways – fascinating reading, but I'd like to avoid firsthand experience.

Indeed, perception is far from simple, although it is rule based. That's why our perception is susceptible to illusions, and those illusions persist in spite of our knowledge that we are perceiving an illusion. I guess the simple truth is that _perception is an illusion, period_. Our conscious experience is a mental construct, running some tens of milliseconds behind physical reality (we all live in the past). That all the disparate information gets pieced back together and synchronized blows my mind! onder:

These _are_ exciting times. Today's technologies for music consumption were unthinkable in my youth. Today's technologies for music discovery were unthinkable in my youth. Today's technologies for peeling back the mysteries of the functioning brain were unthinkable in my youth. 

I apologize for diverting this thread and should let it return to topic, but I honestly find the debate unnecessary. Even worse, parochialism often introduces impassioned irrationality (and who isn't infected with myriad mind viruses?). Rather than 'vs', we should embrace Clemenceau's precept of patriotism over nationalism – a patriot loves his home (chosen format (if one _must_ choose)), while a nationalist hates the others. Love what you play, but don't hate on what others play. Everything is a compromise. Nothing is perfect.


----------



## lcaillo

I don't think it is that much of a departure, but I do think this is worthy of its own thread. The question about how digital and analog interact with perception is very significant to the topic. But the biggest factor in our opinion of CD vs vinyl is really the existing rules that form our beliefs and pre-dispose us to react to what we hear in a certain way. Like many of these kinds of debates it is more about what we believe that we hear than what actually constitutes the sound as it reaches our ears.


----------



## Savjac

kevin360 said:


> I'd love to read supporting evidence that we 'hear in analog'. On the other hand, if what PCM does to an audio signal disturbs you, then you had better not delve into the neurological underpinnings of perception (with separate processing modules for the various aspects of sound) - BTW, sampling couldn't be more natural.
> 
> This (Vinyl vs CD) is a debate that will never abate, although it's becoming dated - music servers best represent current technology. Vinyl connects me to my youth. The Compact Disc revolutionized both audio and video, but the technology hasn't always been used ideally.
> 
> Why pit one against the other? The inclusion of a CD player in one's system needn't displace a turntable, but if one chooses to commit to a single format, who am I to judge? My experience is that each format delivers musical enjoyment. In most ways, I prefer the CD to the record. On the other hand, I do have _some_ records that sound quite good, whereas the CDs of the same material don't. That isn't, however, the fault of the medium. I'm not kicking either vinyl or CDs out of the house, but most of my listening is via one of the music servers.
> 
> It's a great time to be alive!



Yup
This is one that seems to fall into "Preferences" and you are right, do them all. 
Most of my listening these days is via music server as well, although I do listen a bit less than I used to....oh no, there is another subject lurking there I see. :help:


----------



## kevin360

lcaillo said:


> Like many of these kinds of debates it is more about what we believe that we hear than what actually constitutes the sound as it reaches our ears.


Absolutely! Of course, beliefs influence how we perceive and how much pleasure we experience. We are all immersed in culture, which infects us with the memes that construct 'our' beliefs. Those ideas are on display each time this debate (along with countless others) runs its course - I always read the same irrational comments from both sides of the discourse. 

Most take a common sense view of perception, but that gets us no closer to understanding hearing (for instance) than it does to understanding quantum mechanics.




Savjac said:


> Most of my listening these days is via music server as well, although I do listen a bit less than I used to....oh no, there is another subject lurking there I see. :help:


Well, there's only so much time and _much_ competing for it. I think I listen less (as a focused, singular activity) than I used to, but actually listening to music is one of the few ways to shut off the media player in my head. :laugh:

I really love the music server concept - a huge selection of music from which to choose via a mouse click. The convenience is astounding and the performance leaves me desiring nothing.

-----

For a wonderful presentation on human irrationality, here's Dan Ariely.


----------



## kevin360

notwifefriendly said:


> I don't think anyone would really argue that we hear in digital codes, despite the fact that we actually see in frames. I'm going to check, just in case, but I will bet analog is how we hear.


Here's a nice little video that might help you let go of your commonsense view of perception.


----------



## Savjac

kevin360 said:


> Here's a nice little video that might help you let go of your commonsense view of perception. Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X1mry35ykQ


 Thank You, very good video. Our ears are not hearing our brain is doing that and it does adapt over time and can then re interpret the signals to make sense of what is being presented. Today I will be experiencing a new tube amplifier in my style and am prepared for some interpretive experiences.

Yes I am Mr. Potato Head.


----------



## kevin360

Savjac said:


> Thank You, very good video. Our ears are not hearing our brain is doing that and it does adapt over time and can then re interpret the signals to make sense of what is being presented. Today I will be experiencing a new tube amplifier in my style and am prepared for some interpretive experiences.
> 
> Yes I am Mr. Potato Head.


I'm glad you enjoyed it. YouTube is another thing that I love about _today_. There's so much information to be found there – about practically anything imaginable. One thing that delights me is finding the authors of the books I read giving presentations like that. YouTube has actually distracted me from reading. I don't get through as many books as I used to each year – same with listening to music. I sometimes find myself entranced by YouTube for hours on end, but paying a recurring membership fee also unlocked a vast library of the peer-reviewed literature of science. I find much about the world today to gripe, but problems have always been with us - and Nietzsche was right. In my opinion, _today is really cool!_

Indeed, our sense organs are nothing but input devices (elegantly kludged, though they may be); our (conscious) experience of the outside world is the product of our creative intelligence – to which we have zero access. Yes, the cochlea is tonotopically mapped by the primary auditory cortex, but there's much more to the story of hearing. Those three pound lumps of jelly inside our skulls are phenomenal devices (literally) and they are _full_ of zombies. I can't think of a more fascinating topic than how all of those circuits communicating (arguing, in many cases) with electrochemical signals produce _experience_. 

With which speakers are you planning to use the new tube amp? On what tubes is the amp based? I should imagine the Martin Logans would sing very sweetly with the right valve amp. What's your initial impression?

We're all Mr. Potato Heads, but I suspect most of us don't understand what that really means. It's a tough concept to accept because it flies in the face of our intuition. It's not the way experience 'feels' (which is as it should be).

-----

Back to topic: I embrace the advance of technology. Ergo, my primary sources have evolved over the years. I have a rather irrational feeling about the most recent transition – from CD to media player. As always, I had to purchase the hardware, but with the media player, the software 'feels' free. Since time is money, and it took a substantial investment of time, the transition was anything but free – but, it did cost less. Therein lies a barrier to immersing myself deeper in vinyl playback – I'd have to purchase most of the records yet again (some are already the 2nd or 3rd copies I've owned).


----------



## Savjac

kevin360 said:


> With which speakers are you planning to use the new tube amp? On what tubes is the amp based? I should imagine the Martin Logans would sing very sweetly with the right valve amp. What's your initial impression?
> 
> Back to topic: I embrace the advance of technology. Ergo, my primary sources have evolved over the years. I have a rather irrational feeling about the most recent transition – from CD to media player. As always, I had to purchase the hardware, but with the media player, the software 'feels' free. Since time is money, and it took a substantial investment of time, the transition was anything but free – but, it did cost less. Therein lies a barrier to immersing myself deeper in vinyl playback – I'd have to purchase most of the records yet again (some are already the 2nd or 3rd copies I've owned).


Good question Kevin, I tried the integrated tube amp with the big Klipsch speakers and was surprised at how much authority was pushed through to my brain pan, not to mention the very expansive sound stage. But today, I am thinking that it is time to go with the pair of Tang Band speakers I made a while ago, I think these are what these lower power tube amps are aimed at. The Logans did not fair too well, they need more that 30wpc to sing sweetly. 

I am indeed in love with my music server, I paid for the software in way of JRiver and all of the music stored therein on my computer was also paid for and for once, I can say I really do not have the desire to spin the table and black vinyl of late. The HD music I download is generally very good, a few kinkers to be sure, can anyone say Meatloaf, but the routing from computer to dac to pre amp is making me smile again after somewhat of a dry spell when it came to cd's. Now off to the man cave for some experiments. :wave:

Integrated Amp


----------



## kevin360

Savjac said:


> Good question Kevin, I tried the integrated tube amp with the big Klipsch speakers and was surprised at how much authority was pushed through to my brain pan, not to mention the very expansive sound stage. But today, I am thinking that it is time to go with the pair of Tang Band speakers I made a while ago, I think these are what these lower power tube amps are aimed at. The Logans did not fair too well, they need more that 30wpc to sing sweetly.
> 
> I am indeed in love with my music server, I paid for the software in way of JRiver and all of the music stored therein on my computer was also paid for and for once, I can say I really do not have the desire to spin the table and black vinyl of late. The HD music I download is generally very good, a few kinkers to be sure, can anyone say Meatloaf, but the routing from computer to dac to pre amp is making me smile again after somewhat of a dry spell when it came to cd's. Now off to the man cave for some experiments. :wave:


Hey, that Dared I30 is a neat component – even neater when the price is considered! With a pair of efficient speakers like Klipsch, 30wpc is plenty. (I gave a pair of Heresy IIs to my son, but I sold a pair of Belles ages ago – still regret that). Of course, the MLs definitely need more. A tubed integrated amp with a USB DAC is a brilliant concept. They knocked it out of the park in the aesthetics department – I confess to being a sucker for a pretty face, but my components are in full view.

The only downside to the music servers is that I have no way to transfer my non-hybrid SACDs to files on disk. Even if I could, I'd have to forfeit multichannel playback, which makes some of them very special – 'Wish You Were Here' immediately jumps to mind.

I wasn't very clear in my previous post. When I copied records to tape (which I did to numerous formats – open reel, cassette, video tape (Sony PCM-F1 & SL-2710) and DAT), I had to purchase the blank tapes as well as the hardware. The same was true for... Hang on a minute! I guess the disk drives are the analogs of the blank tapes. Gee, my feeling is/was even more irrational than I thought. Of course, for a while now, I buy CDs which I rip and then place on a shelf where they just collect dust.


----------



## Savjac

I like the Dared now that i have had a chance to listen for some time, i do like it alot. It is not one of the latest conrad johnson MV50's i heard awhile ago as they just control the speakers with an iron grasp, but it is very good. The little dude has plenty of power for the Klipsch speakers and can force them into some magnificent soundstaging, dynamics, velvety vocals and can hang on to reverb and sustain like no bodies business. Very nice. 

I am not sure if i like the slam and forcefulness of the 200 wpc Emo or the Dared and in reality I guess I can have both and just plug and unplug some speaker wires. Easy peasy, so I think i answered my own question.


----------



## rgordonpf

I grew up listening to vinyl. That was all there was. When CDs came out I was not impressed. The brick wall filters that they used caused ringing just out of audio band. The ringing gave me a headache even though I could not hear it. So, no CDs for me.

I remained faithful to vinyl over the years while hoping the Red Book format would improve. In the late '90s I started buying Hi End CD players because the new music was only available on CDs. However, not even the expensive Sony SCD-1 with $2,500 of mods came close to what I heard from my vinyl rig.

A few years ago I heard a recording made with a Korg 3000 digital recorder. The output from a Hi End cartridge/turntable/phono stage was recorded with the Korg in double DSD and played back at 24/192. The music that was recorded was a Louis Armstrong rendition of St. James Infirmary. This was a vinyl recording that I had played dozens of times on my own system. The only differences that I heard from the music played on my own vinyl rig versus the digital version played back via the Korg was the differences caused by using a different cartridge/turntable/phono stage combination. Digital playback had arrived in my estimation.

Rather than continuing to buy expensive CD players I bought a MacBook Air, Pure Music software, and a pro ADC/DAC and used iTunes as the database software. Problems with the inflexibility of iTunes caused me to switch to JRiver MC 18 on a PC. I am now using JRiver MC 19 with a headless music server that I assembled. The sound from the music server is different from the sound that I hear from my vinyl rig. However, both systems produce music that is satisfying to my ears (brain).

The music server is very convenient. 2,500 CDs are at my finger tips, easily accessible. Accessing my 9,000 LPs is not the same even though the LPs are cataloged and filed by manufacturer by album number. I continue to use both systems.

In comparing digital to analog sound I use as my reference the sound of unamplified acoustic instruments; i.e. what I hear in the concert hall. To my ears/preferences I find the analog sound to be closer to what I hear in the concert hall. However, digital reproductions usually are more detailed with better dynamics.

I am glad that we have the choice between analog or digital or both. I am also glad that the sound quality of both digital and analog technology continue to improve.


----------



## Lumen

This thread spans so many years and touches on even more topics that I don't have the time to read all replies; so please forgive any repeats...

I own and listen to about an equal number of vinyl and CD albums. The original post of this thread referred to comparing the same recording on both media. There are good and bad recordings on both, but good recordings would make for a better comparison, as would a "better" system. But now we need to define "better." Neutral? Pleasing? Regardless, how would the digital and analog front-ends be selected so as to be in the same league?

Such an apples-to-apples comparison between CD and vinyl is extremely difficult to perform, because a performance cut from the same master would need to be located. Why does that make a difference? In the case of analog, added tape noise and deterioration is the obvious answer. A multi-generational distribution copy of a master wouldn't do. In the case of a digital master--bits are not bits, by the way, but that's a topic for a different thread--the quality of the transfer in the studio and in the manufacture of the CD pits and lands
make a difference. 

Even if the same master is used, sound quality conclusions based on media alone are ambiguous. There are too many influential factors introduced throughout the listening chain. Is the phono stage as neutral as the DAC? Is the spindle hole on the LP centered as well as that of the CD?

I've run out of time, but welcome your thoughts and comments.


----------



## tesseract

I've recently resurrected a NOS h/k table I found on the cheap in a pawn shop over a decade ago. Got myself a decent cartridge, phono pre, learned how to line it all up and a friend built a wall mount for me.

I also have several universal players, enjoying most Redbook, and almost all of my hi rez DVD-A and SACD recordings.

Digital does tend to put me on edge just a bit, while well recorded analog (seems there is more well recorded analog than digital :huh makes me relax.

Analog does not have the impact (dynamic range/lower noise floor) of digital, nor the ultra deep bass. Digital does not have the natural highs nor the warm, natural midbass sound I've found analog to have.

I have come to appreciate each format's strengths and recognize their weaknesses.


----------

