CD's vs. Vinyl for Audiophiles

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • moonlightdrive21
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2005
    • 164

    CD's vs. Vinyl for Audiophiles

    Check out ther great article below from a great web site (http://stevehoffman.tv/)

    Based on articles like this and personal experiences, I find that a CD that was recorded/produced properly will almost always sound better than any vinyl version of that same recording.

    Many of the guys that swear vinyl sounds better than CD's are often (not always) comparing LP's with the type of crappy CD's that are described in the attached article or with MP3's. But if you compare a recording from a properly done CD with vinyl on a great audio system (referring to a great vinyl and CD play back system), CD's are almost always the winner for me.

    What do you fellow B&W owners think?

    *****************
    Article:
    What’s Wrong With Oldies CD’s And What Is Being Done
    By: Doug Hess, Jr.
    When CD's first hit the market around 1982, there was talk of the crystal clear sound that was as close to having the original master recording right in your own listening room. Unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to some CD's released of older recordings. Most studios are all digital now, so this is how it USED to work.
    A group would go in the studio with their producer and record their songs. In order to make sure they could control the volume of each individual instrument and voice, they would use tape machines that have 16, 24 or more tracks. After the songs are recorded, they are copied from the multi-track tape down to the two track stereo format we have in our homes. This is the first generation mix-down tape. That tape is the actual true original master recording of the songs on the album.
    Next, since LP's and 45's don't have quite the dynamic range as the original master tape (as much space between the quietest and loudest parts of the songs) a compressor or fancy automatic level control is used so things don't get quite as loud or soft as they did originally. In addition, corrections were made with a device called an equalizer. This device can very accurately increase or decrease the highs and lows much more selectively than the standard Bass and Treble on your home stereo. After this "tweaking" is finished, that copy is called the official "studio production master" which is what will be copied onto LPs and 45s, etc. If this special mastering wasn't done, the needle would fly off of the record as soon as it got to a part to loud and the noise would be such on the soft parts that you couldn't hear the music.
    Remember we are using all standard analog tapes and machines with noise reduction like Dolby®, DBX®, etc. to keep things quiet. So no matter how good our equipment is, we are now using a copy of the original "Studio Master" (sometimes called Lacquer Master for cutting lacquers used in vinyl production) or second generation master. Most studios have more than one pressing plant where they made the LP's and 45's. So, 2 or 3 copies of the second generation "studio master" are made and sent to the pressing plants. And of course each record bought in the store is then yet another copy. So, now our LP is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original multi-track recording of the band. I don't care how good your analog equipment is, something gets lost in all of those copies.
    Now with that in mind, here comes the Compact Disc. Regardless of the subjective views of the ambiance, etc. the CD is touted as having no noise and super dynamic range so it can reproduce all of the loudest and softest moments just like the original multi-track tape so no compressor is needed. In addition, all of the highs and lows will come through just like the original tape so no equalization is needed. The main culprit was time. The CD players hit the market in the early 80s and there was a demand for the discs to play. So, the record companies called their studios who pulled what was labeled the "Master Tape" of several of their best artist's albums and put them out on CD. Unfortunately, what they got was the LP master. So now we have a Compact Disc version of an album that sounds about like the actual vinyl LP except for the clicks and pops. Granted, this was far superior to what we had for the most part, so the crowds cheered. It wasn't until years later, however, (and at a premium price I might add) that CD's began to sound like they should. Sure, many groups started recording in all digital studios so all of the studio copies, etc. were exactly like the true master tape, but the engineers were still used to the old way, and those early CD's didn't sound that great. In addition, since a lot of people listen to jam boxes or inexpensive stereo systems, the CD's sounded so much better than LP's or Cassettes that nobody seemed to notice.
    Now, however, this is being corrected. Many of the record companies have gone back to the actual original stereo mix-down tapes or even the actual multi-track recordings and are starting over and reissuing titles. These new CD's of old albums sound superb like I believe CD's should have sounded like to begin with. So, how do you know which copies of which songs sound the best? That's where the fun is. Until recently, there have been no markings to tell what tapes were used for making a CD unless it is a special edition. Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs® has for years been putting out their Original Master Recordings® line of records, cassettes and CD's until they went bankrupt in November of 1999. In addition, some other companies like SONY®, MCA®, Rhino®, Capital® and DCC® have been issuing special edition CD's, but you have to be careful. So far, only DCC Compact Classics certifies that if they can't get the original first generation tapes, then they won't issue the CD. The rest just make some claim of "digital remastering" or mention the original tapes, but they aren't too specific about exactly which tapes they used.
    Since my first player in December of 1984, I have amassed several hundred CD's--especially oldies. During my quest to get certain favorite songs, I ended up having some duplicates across the different discs (like 4 copies of "Radar Love" by Golden Earring). My first copy came on a collection of rock and roll classics from MCA. It has the most noise. I also have copies on Rhino and Time-Life collection CD’s. They sound a little better, but that is probably due to the person remastering the tape using an equalizer or an APHEX® Aural Exciter which can make the tape sound clearer. The best sounding copy is from a series called "REELING IN THE YEARS" and later called "ROCK OF THE 70s". This 5 volume set was mastered by Steve Hoffman from the first generation two track mixdown tape, which we learned earlier in this article is the best place to get a song for CD. Steve used to work for MCA and before leaving for DCC Compact Classics, he remastered some super discs.
    I would also like to mention that ALL CD’s are DIGITAL because the process of transferring songs to CD is called DIGITAL MASTERING whether its live, analog tape or a scratchy 45. In other words, having a label on a CD that says DIGITALLY MASTERED is like you saying you’re a human being...so. It has nothing to do with the quality as some companies like K-TEL and their DIGITAL MASTER label implies. It is in the remastering of the audio that goes on the CD that is the key. Also watch out for K-TEL, DOMINION and some other labels that like to round up what’s left of the original group that recorded a song from the 60s or 70s and have them re-record their hit songs. Most of them are labeled something like: "New Stereo Recordings by one or more of the original members of the group", but some of them have no such labeling. I’ve yet to hear one of those that sound anything close to the original hit song that your buying the CD for. I don’t understand why they even go to the trouble to re-do the songs anyway except to deceive the public. I'll admit the version of "The Twist" and some others are actually re-recorded versions, rather than the original, but it's not the same thing as those companies I mentioned are doing.
    Finally, some master tapes may have been lost over the years or don’t sound too good. Below are several links to companies that have helped over the years. Sonic Solutions has some computer software called NO NOISE ® that can filter out unwanted tape noise or even clicks and pops from records if that’s the only way to get a song for a CD. Another company doing that was the Waring FDS system which also used computers to filter out noise. Also used along with equalizers and other enhancers is a device called the Aural Exciter® that I mentioned earlier that has been used over the years to make songs sound better. One of the major complaints over these systems is that if noise was part of the original master tape due to how long ago the recordings were made-- filtering it out is tampering with what was there. This has been compared to taking a famous painting and not only restoring it to look as it actually did...but trying to "improve" it for today's listeners who are used to the perfect quiet of digital recording.
  • Alaric
    Ultra Senior Member
    • Jan 2006
    • 4143

    #2
    Based on articles like this and personal experiences, I find that a CD that was recorded/produced properly will almost always sound better than any vinyl version of that same recording.

    Yeah , cause I always listen to music based on an "article". We all know "articles" can hear better than humans.

    always
    That's a word you almost "never" want to use when discussing audio. My TT cost about half what my CD player cost , and in most cases the vinyl sounds better.
    Perhaps there is a generation or two of concert goers that know what live music really sounds like , and arguing with the MP3 fans is pointless.
    Lee

    Marantz PM7200-RIP
    Marantz PM-KI Pearl
    Schiit Modi 3
    Marantz CD5005
    Paradigm Studio 60 v.3

    Comment

    • btf1980
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2007
      • 704

      #3
      As someone who uses both CD and a TT, I think it all depends on the source material. The source material is everything. Too many times "audiophiles" take it as a foregone conclusion that vinyl is better by default. Just like i've heard some pretty terrible CD's, i've also heard some abysmal vinyl. Regardless of the medium, a quality record will always sound good. Mapleshade, RUF and Telarc make some pretty darn good CD's. Honestly, everything is just left to the preference of the end user as to whether they prefer digital or analog. I enjoy both.
      A camera, passport, good music, good food and good company is all I need.

      Comment

      • moonlightdrive21
        Senior Member
        • Dec 2005
        • 164

        #4
        Oh for crying out loud are you going to pick on the "wording" I used to completely derail the jist of what I'm saying just because you're angry that my opinion is different from yours?

        O.K., I will play along and "clarify" for you. I said "almost always" not always you idiot. I said my opinion was based on "personal experiences" you idiot (meaning my ears idiot). I was referring to the information in the article supporting my opinion in the sense that many people think vinyl is a better format, when in fact it's the way CD's are produced and the sources used that were often the issue, not the format.

        And don't try and lump me in with the MP3 fans, that's an even bigger insult than me calling you an idiot, you idiot.

        You're an idiot!! Period.

        Originally posted by Alaric
        Yeah , cause I always listen to music based on an "article". We all know "articles" can hear better than humans.

        That's a word you almost "never" want to use when discussing audio. My TT cost about half what my CD player cost , and in most cases the vinyl sounds better.
        Perhaps there is a generation or two of concert goers that know what live music really sounds like , and arguing with the MP3 fans is pointless.

        Comment

        • moonlightdrive21
          Senior Member
          • Dec 2005
          • 164

          #5
          Originally posted by btf1980
          As someone who uses both CD and a TT, I think it all depends on the source material. The source material is everything. Too many times "audiophiles" take it as a foregone conclusion that vinyl is better by default. Just like i've heard some pretty terrible CD's, i've also heard some abysmal vinyl. Regardless of the medium, a quality record will always sound good. Mapleshade, RUF and Telarc make some pretty darn good CD's. Honestly, everything is just left to the preference of the end user as to whether they prefer digital or analog. I enjoy both.
          Good points!

          Comment

          • jjahshik32
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2007
            • 309

            #6
            Of course cd's will sound better, isnt vinyl aged OLD technology??

            I think alot of older people prefer vinyl because they are accustomed to that sound and more familiar and at home with it.

            CD's are way different than the mp3's that are converted. Anything that is always compressed or to a different format will always sound inferior and tainted.. but hey mp3's are free and with some good tools you can get pretty good quality so that's why I use mp3 listening.

            But I'll buy my favorite CD's and listen to them that way to get all the details.

            And please dont question me or accuse me of stealing for d/ling free music.. I'm pretty sure 99.99999% of everyone does it.

            Comment

            • littlesaint
              Senior Member
              • Jul 2007
              • 823

              #7
              Originally posted by jjahshik32
              Of course cd's will sound better, isnt vinyl aged OLD technology??

              I think alot of older people prefer vinyl because they are accustomed to that sound and more familiar and at home with it.

              CD's are way different than the mp3's that are converted. Anything that is always compressed or to a different format will always sound inferior and tainted.. but hey mp3's are free and with some good tools you can get pretty good quality so that's why I use mp3 listening.

              But I'll buy my favorite CD's and listen to them that way to get all the details.

              And please dont question me or accuse me of stealing for d/ling free music.. I'm pretty sure 99.99999% of everyone does it.
              Theoretically CDs should sound superior to vinyl. The problem is in the engineering. For one, music today is being compressed (sonic, not data) to a point that the added dynamic range doesn't mean a whole lot anymore. Also, if the original is recorded digitally or transferred to digital media without good engineering, the resulting playback will suffer.

              There are a number of otherwise very good recordings out there that are ruined because the engineer used a CRT monitor at some point during the process and the flyback frequency found its way into the recording.
              Santino

              The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

              Comment

              • mjb
                Super Senior Member
                • Mar 2005
                • 1483

                #8
                Summary: however expensive/exclusive your TT/CD/system is, you can't improve a poor master - and unfortunately there's a lot of them about.
                - Mike

                Main System:
                B&W 802D, HTM2D, SCMS
                Classé SSP-800, CA-2200, CA-5100

                Comment

                • Alaric
                  Ultra Senior Member
                  • Jan 2006
                  • 4143

                  #9
                  Originally posted by moonlightdrive21
                  Oh for crying out loud are you going to pick on the "wording" I used to completely derail the jist of what I'm saying just because you're angry that my opinion is different from yours?

                  O.K., I will play along and "clarify" for you. I said "almost always" not always you idiot. I said my opinion was based on "personal experiences" you idiot (meaning my ears idiot). I was referring to the information in the article supporting my opinion in the sense that many people think vinyl is a better format, when in fact it's the way CD's are produced and the sources used that were often the issue, not the format.

                  And don't try and lump me in with the MP3 fans, that's an even bigger insult than me calling you an idiot, you idiot.

                  You're an idiot!! Period.
                  Angry? Not at all. Idiot? Quite possibly.. Genetics , however , makes me an idiot-not your "support" from an article.

                  As someone who uses both CD and a TT, I think it all depends on the source material. The source material is everything. Too many times "audiophiles" take it as a foregone conclusion that vinyl is better by default. Just like i've heard some pretty terrible CD's, i've also heard some abysmal vinyl.
                  BINGO!

                  Seriously , I apologize if I came across as disparaging of your experiences.

                  it's the way CD's are produced and the sources used that were often the issue, not the format.
                  I agree 100%.
                  Lee

                  Marantz PM7200-RIP
                  Marantz PM-KI Pearl
                  Schiit Modi 3
                  Marantz CD5005
                  Paradigm Studio 60 v.3

                  Comment

                  • hifiguymi
                    Super Senior Member
                    • Mar 2007
                    • 1532

                    #10
                    You guys know what the first four letters in ANALog spell, right?

                    Eric

                    Comment

                    • Alaric
                      Ultra Senior Member
                      • Jan 2006
                      • 4143

                      #11
                      Originally posted by hifiguymi
                      You guys know what the first four letter in ANALog spell, right?

                      Eric

                      Now that's funny!
                      Lee

                      Marantz PM7200-RIP
                      Marantz PM-KI Pearl
                      Schiit Modi 3
                      Marantz CD5005
                      Paradigm Studio 60 v.3

                      Comment

                      • wkhanna
                        Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                        • Jan 2006
                        • 5673

                        #12
                        I have only recently added a TT to my system. I have about 100 LP’s currently. Of those 100 LP’s, I also have five CD’s with the same titles. One of them, Digital Duke, the CD and LP were produced off of the exact same digital master. In all cases, the LP sounds better, with more realism, no unnatural shrillness in the HF on top-hat, snare, cymbal and brush-work, and extended dynamics that are blatantly obvious.

                        This is not meant to be a scientific study, just my limited experience to date. As a point of reference, my digital source is a Cambridge Audio 640C v1, analog source is a Music Hall MMF-7 with a relatively cheap Grado cart, both run through the same tube hybrid pre and Rotel amp.

                        I agree wholeheartedly, the quality of the engineering still accounts for the majority of the sound quality for either format. My two Sheffield Labs LP’s are a clear and unarguable example of this fact.
                        _


                        Bill

                        Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                        ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                        FinleyAudio

                        Comment

                        • Ronel S
                          Junior Member
                          • Dec 2005
                          • 17

                          #13
                          I'm a newbie to vinyl and I'm really fascinated by the resolution of the analog compared to CDs.

                          Putting all components in the whole audio chain equal (both in the recording and playback) for both vinyl and CDs, except of course, the source materials--there is no doubt, the vinyl will sound superior that CDs. Why? Because, technically, CD is just an "APPROXIMATION" in reading the data by "REPRESENTING" them with zeros and ones. Whereas, in vinyl playback, as the stylus passes through the grooves, it reads the exact data.

                          I can compare digital format to mathematics--specifically calculus--is not an exact science, it is just an approximate calculation of physical aspect of areas, volumes, acceleration, change-in, etc., whose data difficult to solve by x, /, + and -.

                          just my 2 cents.

                          Comment

                          • littlesaint
                            Senior Member
                            • Jul 2007
                            • 823

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Ronel S
                            I'm a newbie to vinyl and I'm really fascinated by the resolution of the analog compared to CDs.

                            Putting all components in the whole audio chain equal (both in the recording and playback) for both vinyl and CDs, except of course, the source materials--there is no doubt, the vinyl will sound superior that CDs. Why? Because, technically, CD is just an "APPROXIMATION" in reading the data by "REPRESENTING" them with zeros and ones. Whereas, in vinyl playback, as the stylus passes through the grooves, it reads the exact data.

                            I can compare digital format to mathematics--specifically calculus--is not an exact science, it is just an approximate calculation of physical aspect of areas, volumes, acceleration, change-in, etc., whose data difficult to solve by x, /, + and -.

                            just my 2 cents.
                            A good theory until you dig down a little.

                            The Nyquist-Shannon theorem suggests that a sample size 2x the highest frequency is indistinguishable from the original. CDs are 44KHz -- 2x the highest frequency humans can generally hear, and almost 3x if you're over 30.

                            LPs at best have a dynamic range of around 60dB . That number and SNR start to go down the more you listen (friction). Even that 60db can be considered on the high side. LPs are a compromise of level and playability, often requiring compression of the master to get a playable cutting.

                            CDs have more than 90dB of dynamic range and much higher SNR, no compression necessary, no degradation from playing.

                            Now, in reality CD recordings today are being compressed to make them "louder" for marketing purposes, and the aforementioned engineering issues apply as well. I'll take my Led Zeppelin LP collection over the CDs any day, but theoretically, as a medium, CDs are much better than LPs.
                            Santino

                            The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

                            Comment

                            • PewterTA
                              Moderator
                              • Nov 2004
                              • 2901

                              #15
                              The problem with CDs is partial dynamic range and partial bit-depth. If CDs were (at the start of the medium) able to do 192kHz, the quality of the audio would be a lot better. This is due to the fact that the "digital" representation would closer match the actual sine wave. Now along with that, you also need a higher bit-depth than 16-bit, more towards 24 or 32 to help accurately re-create the sine wave.

                              Now do you NEED this, no. Our brains are capable of "filling in the blanks" so we don't notice the missing pieces. It's just a shame that at the time, the technology was not there to be able to easily store the larger amounts of data.

                              It is a shame too that we moved away from DVD-A/SACD/higher resolution formats as I really did enjoy the differences they made.

                              I have listened to wkhanna's system and agree to his finding completely. There's just another level of detail to the analog recordings that I think has very much to do with the engineering. I'm now personally looking into recording the analog sources off his TT to put to a high-res digital copy, just to see if we are able to keep the engineering of the sound.

                              I'm one of the people today that hate the way the recording industry went and think that the reason they aren't selling like they used to is the fact that music isn't as enjoyable as it was. I think we (as humans) can tell the compression of music and we miss the ability to have the soft and loud passages in music. And it can be done, even with MP3s to allow this... it's jus the recording companies need to stop trying to compress the music (dynamically) to the max in order to get that little bit more "loudness" and "initial noticeability" to their next "big hit."

                              Just my $.02
                              Digital Audio makes me Happy.
                              -Dan

                              Comment

                              • H.T.C
                                Senior Member
                                • Nov 2003
                                • 368

                                #16
                                Originally posted by btf1980
                                As someone who uses both CD and a TT, I think it all depends on the source material. The source material is everything. Too many times "audiophiles" take it as a foregone conclusion that vinyl is better by default. Just like i've heard some pretty terrible CD's, i've also heard some abysmal vinyl. Regardless of the medium, a quality record will always sound good. Mapleshade, RUF and Telarc make some pretty darn good CD's. Honestly, everything is just left to the preference of the end user as to whether they prefer digital or analog. I enjoy both.
                                Mapleshade has a great catalog with many titles chose from its library.
                                Robert

                                Comment

                                • wkhanna
                                  Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                                  • Jan 2006
                                  • 5673

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by H.T.C
                                  Mapleshade has a great catalog with many titles chose from its library.
                                  I agree. Mapleshade CD's are some of the best engineered CD's I own.
                                  _


                                  Bill

                                  Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                                  ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                                  FinleyAudio

                                  Comment

                                  • littlesaint
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Jul 2007
                                    • 823

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by PewterTA
                                    The problem with CDs is partial dynamic range and partial bit-depth. If CDs were (at the start of the medium) able to do 192kHz, the quality of the audio would be a lot better. This is due to the fact that the "digital" representation would closer match the actual sine wave. Now along with that, you also need a higher bit-depth than 16-bit, more towards 24 or 32 to help accurately re-create the sine wave.

                                    ...
                                    Again though you're talking about information that human hearing is incapable of distinguishing. There might be some benefit to expanding the dynamic range to 24 bits. Electrically though you're going to max out at 120dB or 20 bits anyway. Increasing sample size is always better in theory, but in reality the audible spectrum is covered with 44.1KHz. Much of the perceived improvement of SACD over CD is due to better engineering, not increased sample size. Plus, if the master is a digital recording, there's no analog wave to start with, only samples.
                                    Santino

                                    The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

                                    Comment

                                    • dknightd
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Mar 2006
                                      • 621

                                      #19
                                      I'm not an expert on sampling theory, but have a vague understanding about how it works. Go look at that Nyquist theorem again.
                                      It assumes that the function is continuous (or periodic) - music starts and stops so violates that condition.
                                      It assumes that the signal has no energy above half the sampling frequency - but music does have some energy about 22khz, not much, and you can't hear it, but it is there. It has to be filtered out before the AtoD step. Sometimes that filtering can introduce other problems.
                                      It assumes you can get the coefficients exactly, but in practice they are only stored to 16 or 24 bits.
                                      Even if the assumptions were satisfied, you would need to process all (an infinite number) of the samples to regenerate the original signal, I do not know of any DtoA converter that uses all the samples when it attempts to regenerate the original.

                                      In practice a 44.1 khz 16 bit approximation to music is pretty good, but it is not exact (or course, neither is an LP, or a tape).

                                      In the early to mid 80's most cd's were not well mastered or produced. The engineers were just learning. These days they are much better. If a good master still exists you can make a very good sounding CD. It is ironic that some CD's might use the LP as the master . . .

                                      When I want to listen to the Beatles, I don't use the cd's (what a waste of money they were) I either spin the vinyl, or more often, listen to a digital recording of that vinyl.

                                      Comment

                                      • littlesaint
                                        Senior Member
                                        • Jul 2007
                                        • 823

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by dknightd
                                        I'm not an expert on sampling theory, but have a vague understanding about how it works. Go look at that Nyquist theorem again.
                                        It assumes that the function is continuous (or periodic) - music starts and stops so violates that condition.
                                        It assumes that the signal has no energy above half the sampling frequency - but music does have some energy about 22khz, not much, and you can't hear it, but it is there. It has to be filtered out before the AtoD step. Sometimes that filtering can introduce other problems.
                                        It assumes you can get the coefficients exactly, but in practice they are only stored to 16 or 24 bits.
                                        Even if the assumptions were satisfied, you would need to process all (an infinite number) of the samples to regenerate the original signal, I do not know of any DtoA converter that uses all the samples when it attempts to regenerate the original.

                                        In practice a 44.1 khz 16 bit approximation to music is pretty good, but it is not exact (or course, neither is an LP, or a tape).

                                        In the early to mid 80's most cd's were not well mastered or produced. The engineers were just learning. These days they are much better. If a good master still exists you can make a very good sounding CD. It is ironic that some CD's might use the LP as the master . . .

                                        When I want to listen to the Beatles, I don't use the cd's (what a waste of money they were) I either spin the vinyl, or more often, listen to a digital recording of that vinyl.
                                        I agree completely. I meant to infer that the difference between a reconstructed sampling at 44.1KHz and original, should be indistinguishable to human hearing resolution, not total resolution. Obviously, that is an argument approaching the very subjective nature of the human senses, so I don't wish to expand on it anymore.
                                        Santino

                                        The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

                                        Comment

                                        • Briz vegas
                                          Super Senior Member
                                          • Mar 2005
                                          • 1199

                                          #21
                                          Horses for courses

                                          A bunch of musicians take on the subject. Not that musicians are audiophiles or techs.

                                          Mac 8gb SSD Audirvana ->Weiss INT202 firewire interface ->Naim DAC & XPS2 DR->Conrad Johnson CT5 & LP70S-> Vivid B1s. Nordost Valhalla cables & resonance management. (Still waiting for Paul Hynes PS:M)
                                          Siamese :evil: :twisted:

                                          Comment

                                          • wkhanna
                                            Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                                            • Jan 2006
                                            • 5673

                                            #22
                                            I could argue that I may have spent more time in small, dark, scotch and herbal aromatic laden jazz clubs from Atalanta to D.C. than I have listening to a decent quality stereo. Not necessarily a fact I am proud of or mean to brag about, but I do have a sense for what ‘real’, live, acoustic music sounds like. The comment from the article that Biz vegas referenced that hit home with me was “It sounded too clean on CD”.
                                            _


                                            Bill

                                            Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                                            ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                                            FinleyAudio

                                            Comment

                                            • WI Rotel
                                              Senior Member
                                              • Jul 2006
                                              • 657

                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by littlesaint
                                              Again though you're talking about information that human hearing is incapable of distinguishing. There might be some benefit to expanding the dynamic range to 24 bits. Electrically though you're going to max out at 120dB or 20 bits anyway. Increasing sample size is always better in theory, but in reality the audible spectrum is covered with 44.1KHz. Much of the perceived improvement of SACD over CD is due to better engineering, not increased sample size. Plus, if the master is a digital recording, there's no analog wave to start with, only samples.
                                              Precisely, the reason a lot of CD's sound bad is that the CD mastering process has been poor, if they took as much care in the process as they do for the "audiophile" formats the difference would slight if any. Of course, thats for stereo. There is no way that stereo can compete sonically with the surround formats since live music is surround. Stereo is a poor representation how music really is.

                                              Comment

                                              • btf1980
                                                Senior Member
                                                • Aug 2007
                                                • 704

                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by WI Rotel
                                                There is no way that stereo can compete sonically with the surround formats since live music is surround. Stereo is a poor representation how music really is.
                                                Hmmmm, i've been to many blues clubs and I work in an industry that is very music dependent, and I would say this just isn't true. How many local, live acts have you seen that have speakers and performers behind you?
                                                A camera, passport, good music, good food and good company is all I need.

                                                Comment

                                                • hifiguymi
                                                  Super Senior Member
                                                  • Mar 2007
                                                  • 1532

                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by btf1980
                                                  Hmmmm, i've been to many blues clubs and I work in an industry that is very music dependent, and I would say this just isn't true. How many local, live acts have you seen that have speakers and performers behind you?
                                                  It's not having speakers behind you during a live perfromance (although some rock concerts do). The reflection of the sound around the room and the sound of the room itself cannot be conveyed properly with only two channels. You can get pretty close, but a multi-channel system has the capacity to do it much better.

                                                  Eric

                                                  Comment

                                                  • littlesaint
                                                    Senior Member
                                                    • Jul 2007
                                                    • 823

                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by hifiguymi
                                                    It's not having speakers behind you during a live perfromance (although some rock concerts do). The reflection of the sound around the room and the sound of the room itself cannot be conveyed properly with only two channels. You can get pretty close, but a multi-channel system has the capacity to do it much better.

                                                    Eric
                                                    Actually, 2 channels can be very accurate in reproducing spatial sound if produced properly (there's that caveat again) and the proper listening position achieved. Your ears are stereo. Spatial information is achieved from the shape and speed of the sound waves interacting with your ears, and all that requires is 2 channels. If your speakers aren't properly aligned for recording, or your listening position is off, it won't work well, but properly done, the information is all there.

                                                    Multichannel makes it easier to produce and has less restrictions on speaker and listener positioning, but has it's own caveats as far as the original recording positions, and not overdoing it leading to an unnatural "live" sound like being up on the stage with the band.
                                                    Santino

                                                    The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

                                                    Comment

                                                    • WI Rotel
                                                      Senior Member
                                                      • Jul 2006
                                                      • 657

                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by hifiguymi
                                                      It's not having speakers behind you during a live perfromance (although some rock concerts do). The reflection of the sound around the room and the sound of the room itself cannot be conveyed properly with only two channels. You can get pretty close, but a multi-channel system has the capacity to do it much better.

                                                      Eric
                                                      Thank you for making the self evident point :T . The only place where stereo would be an acurate representation would be an open air venue.

                                                      Comment

                                                      • WI Rotel
                                                        Senior Member
                                                        • Jul 2006
                                                        • 657

                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by littlesaint
                                                        Actually, 2 channels can be very accurate in reproducing spatial sound if produced properly (there's that caveat again) and the proper listening position achieved. Your ears are stereo. Spatial information is achieved from the shape and speed of the sound waves interacting with your ears, and all that requires is 2 channels. If your speakers aren't properly aligned for recording, or your listening position is off, it won't work well, but properly done, the information is all there.

                                                        Multichannel makes it easier to produce and has less restrictions on speaker and listener positioning, but has it's own caveats as far as the original recording positions, and not overdoing it leading to an unnatural "live" sound like being up on the stage with the band.
                                                        All true.
                                                        Surprisingly, Dolby II manipulations of stereo sound to simulate surround are surprisingly good for most material. For those with more modern AV equipment the panorama function of DSII is extremely good, it can vary the sound from feeling like being part of the musical ensemble (which I like) to being farther as in the front to middle rows. Since setting up my 7.1, I essentially never listen to stereo, ever. For sitting in one place and listening I use Dolby, if I'm moving around the room or there's a lot of people I use 7 channel stereo.

                                                        Comment

                                                        • David Meek
                                                          Moderator Emeritus
                                                          • Aug 2000
                                                          • 8938

                                                          #29
                                                          Okay, it appears you've stepped back from the brink and I applaud you for that. However I'll remind everyone that disparaging/confrontational remarks aren't going to be tolerated, so play nice.

                                                          HTG Administrator
                                                          .

                                                          David - Trigger-happy HTGuide Admin

                                                          Comment

                                                          • gianni
                                                            Senior Member
                                                            • Nov 2002
                                                            • 524

                                                            #30
                                                            A very interesting experiment on the subject...

                                                            Comment

                                                            • wkhanna
                                                              Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                                                              • Jan 2006
                                                              • 5673

                                                              #31
                                                              V Interesting read, thanks gianni!
                                                              _


                                                              Bill

                                                              Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                                                              ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                                                              FinleyAudio

                                                              Comment

                                                              • draganm
                                                                Senior Member
                                                                • Jul 2005
                                                                • 299

                                                                #32
                                                                one thing that's interesting above all else in this thread is that everyone who prefers vinyl over CD owns both and has actually listened to them side by side as opposed to just Hypothesizing about which one should sound better based on some theory or formula.
                                                                I went to the rocky Mountain Audio Festival last year and between hundreds of room and systems costing more than my house I could literally walk into aroom a room with my eyes closed and tell right away if it was a turntable or a CD playing. Niether is perfect but I definitely prefer one over the other.

                                                                Comment

                                                                • impala454
                                                                  Ultra Senior Member
                                                                  • Oct 2007
                                                                  • 3814

                                                                  #33
                                                                  Would you rather have a very fine tuned, mechanical needle do your eye surgery, or a computer controlled laser?

                                                                  I'm just kidding by the way :P
                                                                  -Chuck

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • draganm
                                                                    Senior Member
                                                                    • Jul 2005
                                                                    • 299

                                                                    #34
                                                                    well for eye surgery i would go with the computer i think? not sure really as I would really hate for windows vista lock up as the beam was sweeping my Cornea.
                                                                    AFA these arguments on vinyl vs. CD's they're really kinda pointless and a lot of the information out there doesn't even mesh. One article above by George Graham, who mastered LP's back in the 60's, claims
                                                                    But once the music got onto an LP for distribution to consumers, only the very finest vinyl formulations, and a virtually virgin pressing could give a signal to noise ratio approaching 60 db. Most commercial pressings, especially those played a few times, averaged in the low 50s, and intermittent pops and scratches could actually could be louder than the music itself (a negative signal-to-noise ratio). So even with the best quality manufacturing, the recording that music lovers bought in the store never sounded as good as the master tape.
                                                                    then in the second , and probably more up to date, article by John Johnson he says
                                                                    The frequency response of an LP is about 10 Hz to 25 kHz, and it has a dynamic range of 75 dB. All the information is contained within a groove about 0.002" in width.
                                                                    so who do yuo believe. Well the answer for me is my own ears. I do find all the stats and technical aspects interesting but that's not the driving force behind where I spend my money.

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • dtb300
                                                                      Member
                                                                      • Apr 2007
                                                                      • 97

                                                                      #35
                                                                      Originally posted by draganm
                                                                      one thing that's interesting above all else in this thread is that everyone who prefers vinyl over CD owns both and has actually listened to them side by side as opposed to just Hypothesizing about which one should sound better based on some theory or formula.
                                                                      But one has to also consider when the masters were made and for what format for proper comparison's. CD's just pressed from masters made for vinyl sounded awful (early days) and could never be used as a comparison.

                                                                      Also when the comparisons are made does each format setup in the rig have all the tweaks and vodoo done to them to get the best from both?

                                                                      Those preferring one format over another will ALWAYS find a way for their preferred format to win.

                                                                      People just need to sit back, enjoy the format they like best, and listen to the music and quit worrying about what others think.

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • littlesaint
                                                                        Senior Member
                                                                        • Jul 2007
                                                                        • 823

                                                                        #36
                                                                        Originally posted by draganm
                                                                        ...could give a signal to noise ratio approaching 60 db...
                                                                        Originally posted by draganm
                                                                        ...has a dynamic range of 75 dB...
                                                                        SNR and dynamic range are not the same. Dynamic range is the from 0 dB to the loudest dB. SNR is from the noise floor to the loudest dB, so in theory both could be correct.
                                                                        Santino

                                                                        The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • David Meek
                                                                          Moderator Emeritus
                                                                          • Aug 2000
                                                                          • 8938

                                                                          #37
                                                                          Originally posted by draganm
                                                                          one thing that's interesting above all else in this thread is that everyone who prefers vinyl over CD owns both and has actually listened to them side by side...
                                                                          That's me, too. Having both and listening to both, there is just "something" about the sound of vinyl that (pun intended) strikes a chord with me. I enjoy my CDs but there is something seductive about the sound of vinyl. :huh:
                                                                          .

                                                                          David - Trigger-happy HTGuide Admin

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • George Bellefontaine
                                                                            Moderator Emeritus
                                                                            • Jan 2001
                                                                            • 7637

                                                                            #38
                                                                            Originally posted by David Meek
                                                                            That's me, too. Having both and listening to both, there is just "something" about the sound of vinyl that (pun intended) strikes a chord with me. I enjoy my CDs but there is something seductive about the sound of vinyl. :huh:
                                                                            I pretty much echo this statement. I'm also thrilled to see it coming back, even if it falls in the niche category.
                                                                            My Homepage!

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            • draganm
                                                                              Senior Member
                                                                              • Jul 2005
                                                                              • 299

                                                                              #39
                                                                              Originally posted by littlesaint
                                                                              SNR and dynamic range are not the same. Dynamic range is the from 0 dB to the loudest dB. SNR is from the noise floor to the loudest dB, so in theory both could be correct.
                                                                              good catch, I actually missed that. however, it doesn't appear to disprove the point I was trying to make. If both are correct, then that would mean LP's have a noise floor of 15 decibels, which I find very hard to swallow. Even on an old worn out record I would put that number down to 5dB or less. Basically I thnik the first article referenced was based on some very old technology and may have been true 50 years ago but todays vinyl playback medium is a totally different animal IMO.
                                                                              AFA why we prefer it, it is certainly due to that special liquid sound which is so pleasing to listen to but there's also one very important aspect. IT's very tweakable and you can "tune" a vinyl system to sound any way you like. Of course this can be a blessing and a curse but a simple cartridge swap or even the interconnects between phono pre amp and amplifier can completely change the way it sounds.
                                                                              With a CD player, AFAIK it's out of the box performace is what it will always be. Short of putting Shatki stones on top I don't think you can do much with it's perfromance.

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • twitch54
                                                                                Senior Member
                                                                                • Apr 2006
                                                                                • 340

                                                                                #40
                                                                                Originally posted by David Meek
                                                                                That's me, too. Having both and listening to both, there is just "something" about the sound of vinyl that (pun intended) strikes a chord with me. I enjoy my CDs but there is something seductive about the sound of vinyl. :huh:

                                                                                Yep...."ditto" for me as well, but then too those of us over the age of fifty were reared on vinyl and "listened through" the early days of digital so I guess one could say .....we're a bit 'jaded' !!
                                                                                Dave

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                • Johnloudb
                                                                                  Super Senior Member
                                                                                  • May 2007
                                                                                  • 1877

                                                                                  #41
                                                                                  Originally posted by littlesaint
                                                                                  SNR and dynamic range are not the same. Dynamic range is the from 0 dB to the loudest dB. SNR is from the noise floor to the loudest dB, so in theory both could be correct.
                                                                                  Almost right.

                                                                                  Actually, dynamic range is the range form the noise floor to the highest output signal.

                                                                                  Signal to Noise Ratio is the ratio of an arbitrary signal output (1volt RMS for dBV) to the noise floor.

                                                                                  My take on LP - LP is the better format. Not to say that there aren't bad recordings on both LP and CD. While LP has an overall lower dynamic range, LP has a higher dynamic range than CD at high frequencies.
                                                                                  John unk:

                                                                                  "Why can't we all just, get along?" ~ Jack Nicholson (Mars Attacks)

                                                                                  My Website (hyperacusis, tinnitus, my story)

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • PewterTA
                                                                                    Moderator
                                                                                    • Nov 2004
                                                                                    • 2901

                                                                                    #42
                                                                                    One thing I'm finding out is that with Vinyl, there was better mastering of the Discs...which is why we enjoy the sound of them over CDs. That's even with both CD and LP coming from the same master.

                                                                                    One thing I am "hearing" or "noticing" is that all the sub-sonic noise from the LP seems to definitely have a difference or "add" something to the sound coming from it. It's almost like the CDs are "too clean" when listening, like all the life was taken out of the instruments/vocals.

                                                                                    One thing I believe, however, is that a digital format (maybe not necessary a CD 16bit/44.1Hz) should and can duplicate the "sound" of an LP. However, it definitely takes breaking many of the bad habbits that the recording industry does with CDs to get this all corrected.
                                                                                    Digital Audio makes me Happy.
                                                                                    -Dan

                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                    • Johnloudb
                                                                                      Super Senior Member
                                                                                      • May 2007
                                                                                      • 1877

                                                                                      #43
                                                                                      Originally posted by PewterTA
                                                                                      One thing I am "hearing" or "noticing" is that all the sub-sonic noise from the LP seems to definitely have a difference or "add" something to the sound coming from it. It's almost like the CDs are "too clean" when listening, like all the life was taken out of the instruments/vocals.
                                                                                      Good point. I think the noise spectrum of the LP definitely contributes to it's more "pleasant" sound than CD. The ear is much more sensitive to high freq noise. And the overall noise spectrum (i.e. decreasing noise with higher frequency) helps the LP format.

                                                                                      Maybe, some Bluray music format will arrive and better LP?
                                                                                      John unk:

                                                                                      "Why can't we all just, get along?" ~ Jack Nicholson (Mars Attacks)

                                                                                      My Website (hyperacusis, tinnitus, my story)

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • dknightd
                                                                                        Senior Member
                                                                                        • Mar 2006
                                                                                        • 621

                                                                                        #44
                                                                                        When CD's first came out, and I was younger, I was not impressed. But now that the CD format has matured, and my ears are older, I do not find them as objectionable as I once did. I attribute this to several things - AtoD and DtoA converters are much better than they used to be, recording engineers have more experience working with this format, my ears are older and I've no doubt lost some high frequency hearing, and probably others I haven't thought about.
                                                                                        I can probably produce examples of CD that sound better than vinyl, and vinyl that sounds better than CD, and ones where the difference might be a matter of preference.
                                                                                        I'm was never a big fan of having to clean an LP everytime I played it. Now I'm not a fan of having to change CD's when my mood changes. Most of my music is now on a computer, once you go through the work, and get used to the interface, it is hard to use any other source - I never spin CD's anymore (unless they are visiting), I do occasionally spin LPs

                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                        • dtb300
                                                                                          Member
                                                                                          • Apr 2007
                                                                                          • 97

                                                                                          #45
                                                                                          Originally posted by dknightd
                                                                                          I can probably produce examples of CD that sound better than vinyl, and vinyl that sounds better than CD, and ones where the difference might be a matter of preference.
                                                                                          This is the way it is with all formats. Some better than others, some worse, but mostly it is a personal preference more than anything.

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          Working...
                                                                                          Searching...Please wait.
                                                                                          An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                                                                                          Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                                                                          An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                                                                                          Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                                                                          An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                                                                                          There are no results that meet this criteria.
                                                                                          Search Result for "|||"