Cd - Sacd - Vinyl

[Kate-br]

Dear forum users,

A couple of days ago (2 weeks ago to be more precise), I went to a store that sells Thorens Turntables.

I asked the vendor to let me listen to their TD-2010...

After 30 minutes of listening, the vendor explained me the differences between the CD and the Vynil, he came with that old explanation of squared waves produced by the CD vs. the linear wave produced by the vynil. I am not THAT stupid to belive in that explanion, but I remained quiet, and just nodded.

I came home to think about the budget I could dispose to buy a turntable, I want to buy it just to compare it with my CD and SACD.

However, there is a question that remains, please do not take my questioning as an offense, its just my personal opinion that I would like to have people with more knowledge to answer me.

To begin with, I noticed that the turntable have a more "warm" sound, which is ok for certain type of music, but also the turntable add a noise, statics, pops, hisses and friction noise and most (if not all) of this noises can be heard fairly easily, so how come the vendor can clain that the sound is purer?

Addionally, while I was hearing to the turntable, I could not avoid to think about the CD "brightness", the way I see the frequency extention of the CD seems to be wider, actually much wider than the LP/Vynil.

It is impossible not to compare all the formats, and for my ears the CD sound, not only is better, but it is a lot cleaner.

The SACD is warmer than the CD, and it produces a sound that is much much better than the Vynil in my opinion.

What I dont understand is, what makes the vynil so special?

Maybe I am just too "used" to the digital formats, like CD and SACDs that I believe that the turntable sound is bad?

If I invest my money in that Thorens turntable, will I get used to the sound, to a point where I will think it is good or better than CD / SACD?

And lastly, I saw in the internet, a certain "ELP" turntable, its a turntable that uses laser to read the vynil pitch ( http://www.elpj.com/main.html )

It costs a fortune!

Now my last questioning, is the vynil REALLY better than the CD? Or is it more like a niche product like SACDs and DVD-a?

Thank you!

[bigburner]

Kate-br, next you will be demanding to learn the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

The answer to that question is 42.

The answer to your question is far more difficult!

Nigel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the _Galaxy

[ShadowZA]

I think that your answer lies somewhere between these two thoughts:

1. Both vinyl and redbook CD can be very very good.
2. What appeals to you is a matter of personal preference.

Taking into account the following:

1. One can get bad recordings on both vinyl and CD.
2. The quality of the sound that you hear is only as good as the system + surrounding's weakest link. This weakest link could be anything from a poor recording to your own room acoustics.

The best advice that I can offer is to try to listen to as much as you can on both formats and from this, try to determine the sound that moves you the most. It is difficult to do in practice but I guess this is what makes our hobby so profound.

It may be of some help if I mention my path which I decided to take. I made it a goal to try to get the very best sound that I could from CD. I decided not to go the way of vinyl simply due to the inconvenience factor. My favourite music genre is smooth jazz and so I spent (and still do) a lot of time researching and listening to find out which artists are out there as well as the quality of their CD recordings. Now, as you probably know, digital technology is more complicated than analog due to things such as jitter (which, if high, kinda adds a type of veil to the sound), etc. I saved the pennies and eventually decided to buy one of the best CD players out there. This was after listening and falling head-over-heels in love with the music quality of good recordings that I was hearing. What I find adds to the listening enjoyment is that the smooth jazz CD recordings now seem to be much better than those of the 1990's. Could be that the recording studios are a lot more qualitatively sorted. Whatever the reason, to me this has been really good news.

I would suggest that you try to fit in as many varied listening sessions as you can utilizing CD sources as well as vinyl sources (of the same music piece if possible) and then compare. If you are as wild about this hobby as most of us are ... then the next step is to set a goal for yourself based upon that which moves you the most (and of course, your financial budget). Bear in mind that goals set are moving targets in this world of so much change and improvement happening all the time.

Good luck and most of all, enjoy.

[Blindamood]

Don't know if this will be helpful to you, but you invoked some memories...

Honestly, to me it's a case of practicality more than anything. I used to have a decent collection of albums, but the lack of available space finally convinced me to give them up. I was never a vinyl 'purist' by any means, but did prefer to purchase albums back in the day, and usually copied to cassette for archival and transportation purposes. (Remember those days...?)

With the advances in digital technology came the purchase of my first 'real' CD player...a Carver DTL-200 (~$600, I think). This was a big deal to me at the time (during college), and really got me moving toward digital recordings. The idea of being able to listen to an entire album without having to get up and turn it over half-way through really changed the way I listened to music.

Now that I've got everything stored online (using FLAC lossless, of course) and am feeding it digitally to my processor, I'm enjoying my collection even more! I don't even think about how the music is played, I just know what I enjoy what I'm listening to. The ease of transitioning from artist to artist and album to album, and really focusing on the music has really become my obsession, rather than worrying about how the music is being played.

[Kate-br]

Kate-br, next you will be demanding to learn the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

The answer to that question is 42.

The answer to your question is far more difficult!

Nigel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the _Galaxy

I am not demanding anything.

[Kate-br]

ShadowZA,

That is what I really want I want to spend more time listening to both formats, however I am a bit skeptical that the vinyl sounds better.

Yes the LP is cumbersome, takes a lot of space, my quest is to find the best media that can reproduce best sound, most accurate...

I will really try to learn more about LPs and listen to it...

Blindamood,

I grew up in the 80s, and my first recollection of music was in the CD format, of course I do remember the vinyl but I do not remember the sound!

With computers music got a lot easier to store, however we tend to believe that there will always be a better format for music, and after reading that some companies are investing in vinyl again, i wanted to try.

From what I could hear, I can easily say that the sound is warmer, not better, and there are annoying pops, hisses and statics that is pretty annoying, when you are trying to concentrate to listen a certain passage of a music.

For me fidelity is important, I love violin sound, and the sound for me, has to be as perfect as the live performance.

[Johnloudb]

Just to confuse you some more, I really like vinyl. I just don't care for the brightness of CD. Even some of the best recorded CDs have some brightness/edge to my ears. Vinyl does have some technical advantages to CD playback as well. The guy at the store was correct .... the output of most CD players looks like a square wave at very low levels (-90dB). It's quantization error, see below:



So CD is non-continuous (digital) whereas Vinyl is continuous (analog). Vinyl also has a wider dynamic range than CD at high frequencies, do to the equalization used when cutting a LP.

Yes, LP does have pops and clicks and records do wear out. I don't mind the record noise myself ... I prefer it to CD brightness. Records can last a long time if taken care of. LP takes a LOT more work. IMO, LP is capable of better sound if you don't mind the trouble associated with replacing needles, setting up cartridges, cleaning records, etc.

Just my 2 cents.

[Bob]

Digital mediums and analog mediums both have differing strengths and weaknesses. Digital, of course, is far more portable and doesn't suffer from the same type of surface noise that vinyl often does. Most digital mediums are cheaper than analog mediums. Digital is more convenient and contains more music per playback medium than vinyl.

Vinyl has longevity as a storage medium, digital doesn't. For enthusiasts, vinyl playback is more fun and interesting in that the playback can be "tweaked" through cartridge adjustments and cartridge changes. TT's are interesting pieces of engineering and art, cd players and other types of digital playback equipment are functional but, boring as a piece of equipment. The vinyl medium is more fun to handle and the album covers are interesting and fun to read. CD jewell boxes are functional but, far from fascinating.

I could keep on listing various differences but, the bottom line is it really not about which sounds better. It is which one satisfies your listening and/or fiddling around with equipment mood at the moment. Personally, I like my ipod for my car. I also use it through my main music system when headphone listening late at night or when I'm tired and just want to listen to music without effort. But, I enjoy my records more than digital playback when I really want to "seriously" listen to music.

[JonMarsh]

Interesting discussion here, the thing to be careful about is that the situation can be a bit like Rudyard Kipling's tale of the blind men and the elephant- each man was reporting honestly what he pictured, but they were each only getting part of the story.

There are two facets to this discussion- the actual media, and how well different components work with the media- i.e., the digital player or the turntable/tone arm/cartridge combo.

On the digital side, SACD has more information and wider bandwidth than a redbook CD signal, and even with so-so electronics, can produce a more faithful rendition of the original performance than CD- in general. With CD players, because of the limit in the sampling rate and bit depth, there's not as much raw information to work with.

Now, using a single LSB sine wave as an example of the low level reproduction limitations of digital, or rather, of CD, is valid, except that perhaps you should compare it to the output of a vinyl/phono stage setup that similar peak signal output level as the CD player. In that case, you'll usually be looking at a LOT of noise from the output of the phono preamplifier, and the ability of a phonograph to reproduce any kind of signal at the -90 dB level is certainly a point open to debate, even with low impedance relatively high output moving coil cartridges and SOTA preamps.

On the digital size, making generalizations about the tonality and reproduction quality of the media is subject to caveats- in most cases, what you're reporting about is the issues with the specific source playback components.

I've always liked the convenience and consistency of digital disk playback, compared with my best past phono system (which I still have), but I have to say that with the available recordings and playback equipment, the experience often hasn't matched the sonic attributes of the vinyl playback, particularly in regards to imaging and sound stage depth. Is that the fault of the media? The fault of the player? The fault of the source materials and mastering processes used for CD production? In a word, yes to all, but I personally believe the media bears the least culpability.

A typical example might be a favorite fusion jazz recording of mine from the 70's, Stanley Clarke's "School Days". A good clean example of that in vinyl used to be part of my reference demonstration disks, because of the wide frequency range and stunning dynamics the original record release had. OTOH, the CD release was abysmal sounding and lifeless and flat in comparison- an easy shot for condemning redbook CD. However, the reality is more complex than that- as many know, a lot of CD's have been produced using saftey masters and 2nd and 3rd generation tapes- it wasn't the original product release, and no one sweat the details. But it isn't the media to blame, specifically, but I think, the media production process. And the reason I say it isn't the media, is because most of the cuts on that album are available on a much newer CD called "The Bassi-ic Collection", and it's obvious on both the domestic version and the Japanese import version (yeah, I have both- sick!) that someone DID sweat the details, and the dynamics, tonality, and impact of the original recording are displayed for the first time on a digital media.

Another aspect of this whole mastering quality issue, is that many of the best sounding redbook CD material I have is the CD layer from Hybrid SACD's, which is down converted from the original DSD recording, usually using Sony's super bit mapping process. So while I can't rip the DSD layer of an SACD to my music server, I can extract the CD layer, and with my current playback setup, that's remarkably closer or better than what used to be fairly special in SACD- for example, I currently have a $1K DAC that bests the original 5K Sony SACD player subjectively and measurably for CD playback- my sony is relegated to occasional use in the bedroom.

Another conclusion I'm slowly coming around to that an old friend of mine had years ago, the chief designer for Ayre Acoustics, is that CD can approach the playback quality of SACD, but you really have to have a DAC that does everything right- timing, jitter, I/V conversion, and output buffer. And it's my own experience that some of the newer DAC products can more than give a $3K to $5K SACE player from a few years ago a run or the money or a drubbing, as the case may be.

So I'd be careful of generalizations, except for specific observations on specific piecers of equipment and specific recordings.

I've digitized most of my CD collection, and with my current DAC (a PS Audio DL III), it's as if I have a whole collection of remastered recordings. (of course, in some few cases I do have recently remastered CD's of somewhat non-mainstream items, like Gentle Giant, for example, or all the old RCA Living Stere releases), and that certainly helps the situation. But with even further significant improvements arriving at lower price points (like apodizing digital filters in the latest Wolfson DACs, and high accuracy low jitter data transfer on USB), the opportunity for further improvements at realistic price points can't be ruled out.

Now, that doesn't mean vinyl can't be a lot of fun- and there are efforts to deliver good vinyl performance at something less than stratospheric prices - but ultimately it's up to everyone to decide what level of involvement and access suits them. I've been working on getting a convenient and good sounding music server configuration together for years, and now that I have something that is really convenient, not so expensive, and sounds very good, you'd be hard pressed to get me to go back to single disk playback of any kind for my daily music.

I still have my Marantz SA-11 in the system, and I haven't ruled out an SA-7 in the future, but for now, the next upgrade will be a higher performance DAC geared to handling any input source, including SPIDF, USB, and NAS- network attached storage.

This is the 21st century, you know.... :W

[audioqueso]

Dear forum users,
If I invest my money in that Thorens turntable, will I get used to the sound, to a point where I will think it is good or better than CD / SACD?

Same like getting use to tubes. It's a matter of taste. I have tons of LPs. I have maybe a few LPs that I also own on CD. For lower levels, I like LPs. For blasting music loud, CDs just have a clear clean advantage. It's a matter of taste.

And lastly, I saw in the internet, a certain "ELP" turntable, its a turntable that uses laser to read the vynil pitch ( http://www.elpj.com/main.html )

Just think regular computer mouse vs optical computer mouse. Same thing, different manner. Of course, optical mouse is more accurate... but that's to a digital source... a monitor. Vinyl is analog. To be honest it seems almost a bit pointless to me.

Now my last questioning, is the vynil REALLY better than the CD? Or is it more like a niche product like SACDs and DVD-a?

I'll bring back the statement the dealer said about square waves linear. He's retarded. Of course CDs are going to have square waves. It's always going to be square waves because digital signals are 1s and 0s before the DAC. Analog is not. It's apple to oranges.

I'll say it like this...
35mm cameras vs digital cameras?
Tube televisions vs HDTV?

If a camera is digital, does that automatically mean it is better than a 35mm camera? You can take the best of 35mm cameras that will beat most digital cameras in the market. In the same way, I'm sure there are several guys here that have an analog tv calibrated to the point where it looks better than a couple HDTVs. My last Sony RPTV looked better than a lot of HDTVs. Things have gone digital because there is a clear advantave. Cost, space, and more importantly.. management. Yes, CDs will sound different because recording straight to a digital format has the advantage of separate management for all sources. With vinyl, it's all analog from the mic to production. There's only so much that can be done in production because it reaches it's limits.

When I listen to LPs, there's a certain sense of purity. Like, it feels like 'this is way it really should be'. But is it? It's just a matter of taste.

[Johnloudb]

Another aspect of this whole mastering quality issue, is that many of the best sounding redbook CD material I have is the CD layer from Hybrid SACD's, which is down converted from the original DSD recording, usually using Sony's super bit mapping process. So while I can't rip the DSD layer of an SACD to my music server, I can extract the CD layer, and with my current playback setup, that's remarkably closer or better than what used to be fairly special in SACD- for example, I currently have a $1K DAC that bests the original 5K Sony SACD player subjectively and measurably for CD playback- my sony is relegated to occasional use in the bedroom.

Hi John,

It's always good to hear you're perspective on things. We've owned some of the same digital sources. My Dad and I still use our original Sony SCD-1 SACD player for listening to SACDs. And, yes it has lost ground in CD playback compared to the new DACs available now. Though, I haven't found that CD playback through a modern DAC sounds better than SACD, to my ears. We also owned the PS Audio Digital Link III DAC, a very good DAC. I did do some comparisons of the CD and SACD layers of some discs and prefer the SACD layer myself.

We now use a Benchmark DAC which sounded a tad better in our system. Still I prefer the SCD-1 playing SACD, though I haven't done any SACD/CD comparisons with the Benchmark. My dad recently listened to this Mahler's 4th by the San Fransisco Symphony (SACD Hybrid). He said it sounded as good as SACD without doing an actual comparison. I will have to try some more comparisons for myself.

I guess that's what makes audio so complicated. Personal preference, not to mention that people's ears process sound differently. Here is a study posted on DIY Audio showing that musicians differently than non musicians.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1837456#post1837456

And some people are also more sensitive to some sounds than others. I know that quality of noise is much more important that quantity, within reason of course. LP is noisier in the low frequencies than in the high frequencies, whereas CD has a fairly flat noise spectrum. Maybe that is what give LP it's warmth?, and makes CD sound brighter? Flat noise tends to sound hissy.

My cousin sent a high quality Jazz LP record to a place that burns LPs to CDs. It's one the best CDs I've heard. Has the LP warmth and imaging to the sound.

I definitely agree that the processing makes the biggest difference is in recording quality. Processing of CD is often geared to those listening to boom boxes and car radios. Where LPs and SACDs are more geared toward high end systems. So, you typically find a higher quality recording on those formats. Not always, as I have some CDs that whip the same LP in sound quality. Probably good to have a player for every available format so you can get the best out of your music.

[Kate-br]

Bob,

You are correct and I believe you. But when you say LP is for enthusiasts, and/or audiophiles, it makes me confused. Does that mean that LP sound is superior? Does that mean the LP reproduction is more faithful? How you would describe the sound of the LP for a beginner in audio, like me? How would you compare the CD, SACD and LP sound?

While I understand your point of view about iPods, I do not share the same opinion, for me, I can only listen to headphones for a limited ammount of time, the sound gets tiredsome...

JonMarsh,

That is very interesting. You say that the LP, in your case "School Days" on LP was a lot better, and you justify it that the CD used non original masters. Yes you also say that its not the media and the mastering.

And I agree with you I have a Philips Classics CD of the Concierto de Aranjuez and the SACD version even the CD layer sounds better!

You mention that vinyl is fun, but what I still do not understand is what makes the LP better sounding than the CD? Is it ONLY the mastering? If it is true, the SACD has more potential to have a better sound than the LP... The Blueray should have even more potential to be many times better.

I will also ask you the same question I asked BOB, how would you explain to a beginner in audio the sound of a LP, is it better than CD, what about SACD? Why? Why is the hisses, pop, statics are irrelevant in LP? and why people say LP is better, even with all the unwanted noise?

-----

[Johnloudb]

Kate, I'm not Bob or John Marsh but I would like to add a few words. I think Nigel said it best:

Kate-br, next you will be demanding to learn the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

The answer to that question is 42.

The answer to your question is far more difficult!

Nigel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the _Galaxy

These types of discussions have raged for decades, and there is nothing wrong with the LP format. Many prefer LP to CD and SACD. My LP setup is far from state of the art, pretty much average. Yet, I still prefer it to my CD and even SACD playback sometimes. To me, LP can sound more real and involving musically.

Why? That's the million dollar question. And everyone's going to have a different opinion as to which format is best. I suggest you listen and trust your ears, as to which format sounds most accurate. Go to some live concerts and then try listening to LP and CD, and make your own judgements.

As for people spending hundreds or thousands of dollars just to play with LPs for fun? I also don't think most people buy a turntable just to play with. Not if it didn't have some sonic virtues to them.

Another thing to note, not all SACDs are really SACD resolution recordings. Some have standard resolution same as CD because of the way they were mastered. I just did a comparison listening to both layers of a Dual layer SACD (Mahler Sympony No.2) and I much preferred the SACD layer. Strings especially sound more natural, less bright. I do have some SACDs where there is no audible difference between the CD and SACD layer. Probably the processing, I can only guess.

Well, it really comes down to what YOU like and gives you musical enjoyment. And if you're curious about LP, keep and open mind and do some listening a to some turntable setups and compare with CD. Coming to a conclusion may take awhile.

There is really no right answer.

[Kate-br]

I have found a very interesting article:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4

-----

Johnloudb,

See for everything it has be a reason, for a reason it has to be a proof.

I do agree that audio perception is different for each individual, and we all have different tastes.

I am not trying to cause any sort of fights, I just would like to hear both sides on why people thinkk digital format is better and why people think that pure analog format is better.

The way I think, which might be very irrelevant for this topic, is that sound is (and will always) be analog, the CD/SACD/DVD-A after being "processed" by the DAC becomes an analog sine wave, which, atleast to my knowledge, should be as faithful as possible, of course limited by today's technolgy.

In the CD/SACD/DVD-A/BD world the usage of bits is only a way to archive data, ready to be "decoded" by the dac, in the LP the recording is already in the analog format.

I believe the "format" in which this "data" is recorded is important, if you transfer analog format to the computer, and record it as WAV there should have no loss of quality, and of course the sound was transformed and stored as bits.

Another factor that makes me think, regarding the audio quality between LP and CD, is that the LP should deteriorate one tiny little bit after every play, in the cd it doesnt... You can even take 100 copies of the CD to CD and the quality will remain the same, but if you copy and analog medium to another analog medium, que copy deteriorates after every copy...

So... I am curious enough to ask, I am curious enough to research and to to learn, in the end, I will have my own choice, and my own preference, but it is always nice to listen to people with a lot more knowledge in the audio area.

And Im pretty sure that the newbie in the audio world might have the same doubts as I do, and hopefully in the future I will be able to assist people in their decision.

Thanks! :T

PS: The text in BLUE is my opinion, and shold be totally disregarded if wrong.

[Johnloudb]

I've seen that link before and it is really interesting. Okay, so you want to understand the how's and why's, not just decide on a piece of audio equipment. That's certainly a worth while goal. Many audio electronics designers design for what sounds good despite poor measured performance. Sometimes, good measured performance just doesn't correspond to what we hear.

This is taken from the article in the you posted:

Many vinylphiles have long claimed that they can hear "below" the noise floor of their LPs. My observations would seem to partially support this claim: surface noise is fairly "structured" (it has a distinct "sound" as opposed to random noise) allowing our brain/ears to "filter" it away and listen to the "music" all the way down to the "real" underlying noise floor which is comparable to CD.

The ear filters out some sounds easier than others. And some types of distortion are more offensive than others, and perceived as being much louder. I find that even some records that have very audible surface noise are very pleasing to listen to and after a while I become unaware of the noise. Especially when I really like the recording.

Personally I find the brightness of CD more distracting. You may find surface noise and pops and clicks more distracting.

My personal view is that certain types noise and distortion are very distracting and take away from the musical performance. So the type of noise and distortion is more important than the actual level, within reason. They can even hurt your ears. And, I've had some experiences with that too and you're certainly welcome to read about that here:

http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php4?t=32954&page=1&pp=35

I've had some experiences with my ears that people just shouldn't have.

I have found a very interesting article:

http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4

-----

Johnloudb,

See for everything it has be a reason, for a reason it has to be a proof.

I do agree that audio perception is different for each individual, and we all have different tastes.

I am not trying to cause any sort of fights, I just would like to hear both sides on why people thinkk digital format is better and why people think that pure analog format is better.

The way I think, which might be very irrelevant for this topic, is that sound is (and will always) be analog, the CD/SACD/DVD-A after being "processed" by the DAC becomes an analog sine wave, which, atleast to my knowledge, should be as faithful as possible, of course limited by today's technolgy.

The output of CD players is analog but non-continuous. Some players oversample and interpolate between data points to get closer to a continuous analog like output.

You can actually get many plays on a record without much wear, when it's well taken care of.

I do really enjoy SACD, just too bad there are not that many titles available in that format. Quite a lot of classical music is available in that format though. I do listen and enjoy CDs as well, I just prefer LP and SACD.

Well, that's my take on all this subjective audio stuff. Lots of other opinions out there. Keep on searching. :T

[littlesaint]

I don't think you're going to get a "proof" here as everyone here knows the arguments, and knows neither is ultimately better. It's what you prefer. The are too many variables to make a blanket statement. From the source material to mastering, to playback equipment, to your ears, there's just too many possible differences, and in the end all that matters is what you like.

From a technical standpoint, CDs should have much more dynamic range than vinyl, and should be perfectly capable of reproducing the original analog waveform, but poor engineering is more the rule than the exception these days and CDs are no where close to living up to their sonic potential.

I prefer SACDs because they tend to have much better engineering, but the largest part of my music library is CDs ripped with Apple Lossless compression. So you might think I prefer digital music, but I also have never heard a digital copy of anything by Led Zeppelin that can compare to their vinyl LPs.

[dknightd]

I do not think I'd recommend anybody new to "hifi" buy a turntable.
If you already have vinyl records, that is a different story.
There are some records that sound better than any available digital format (now I have to drag out that school days album to compare to my cd) but that is slowly changing (over the last few years many things that used to be available only on vinyl are getting rereleased in digital - often with sound equal or better than the vinyl)

As somebody new to the hobby I'd suggest buying digital media instead of buying a turntable (again, this does not apply if you already have vinyl, or there is something you want to really listen to).

You are lucky you have a dealer that actually has turntables you can listen to. It might be fun to find out what they have on vinyl, then buy the same thing in digital format, and compare them side to side. If somebody came to my house I could probably convince them that LP or CD sounded better, but the reality is it is mostly comes down to how well the vinyl or CD was mastered (some CD's just are not very good - mostly some of the early ones when digital was still new and the people making them really did not know what they were doing yet, and some that were quickly produced using inferior masters) I still run across a CD that is not as good as what I remember the LP sounding like - when I do I'll rip the LP to my computer if it is something I'm likely to listen more than a few times (an LP ripped to computer sounds just the same as the LP to my old ears - better since I can manually remove the occasional click and pops.)

my $.02

Edit - If you grew up listening to vinyl your ears and brain are likely trained to ignore the noise
Edit2 - your ears/brain are different than mine - you are apparently younger, and female - so you might well hear things differently. If you really care, go and listen, then you will find out. If there is "hifi" club in your area seek it out, it can be a great way to listen to many things with no money cost involved.
Edit3 (sorry, I can't resist) - There might be some cases where an LP in good condition is the best source available. Tapes tend to age, used or not, depending on how they are stored - a properly stored LP will not degrade much if at all. It is possible, just possible, that the best digital version possible of some old material might be made from vinyl! Scary.

[Bob]

johnloudb,
I submit that every piece of audiophile gear is about how much fun we have with it. It is not only about listening to music.

[Kate-br]

Hi Johnloudb,

Interesting point of view, so actually you are saying that those who are used to LP tend to ignore better the hisses and pops of the vinyl better than the ones used to the "digital world"?

I do not have the BEST cd/sacd player available in the market but I am pretty happy with it, I have an old Denon 2910, and I am considereing buying a Rotel CD Player or a turntable.

I added the link you provided as favourite and I will read it later on, and post a reply as soon as I am done!


littlesaint,

Very true, I have a couple of CDs that I ended up throwing away because the sound was very bad.

I have also seem CD player that sound awful, even with good materials.

And almost all my SACDs have much better sound, even if you listen to the cd layer of it!



dknightd,

Well I grew up on the 80s, the 1st recollection of music I had was in the digital/cd format, however I remember that not a long ago, the CDs where divided into AAD, ADD and DDD.

I have two diferent compilations of Concierto de Aranjuez, one from Philips Classics, relesead in 1987 which is "add" catalog number 442 392-2, and the other from Mercury Living Presence in a 3 channel DSD/SACD catalog 475 6184 from 2004.

When I compare both "sound" its ver hard to tell you which one is better the older philips sounds warmer, the SACD has a different sound, and well, it is a different recording after all, with different arrangement.

However because of my lack of "audiophile" vocabulary its very hard for me to describe what I hear, but there are differences other than being a different arrangements!

What I can say is that for me, the SACD version sounds a bit more "crisp" and a little bit better.

I am "this close" to buy an used Joaquim Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez LP just to take to the dealer and listen to it...

Also, you are correct I do not own ANY vinyl, its just that I noticed that the vinyl is again widely available in some stores and it could be the chance for me to learn something that I didnt learn when I had the chance!

Now to your edits...

1- I grew up in the 80s, my 1st recollection of music, is pretty much as CD , and the first time that I really enjoyed music was in CD format.

2- There are no hifi clubs near me, unfortunatelly, it would be great to have such club.

3- Probably you are correct, the "old" CDs I have, including the Joaquim Rodrigo I mentioned, the Frank Sinatra ones, and almost all "old" titles should have had an analog recoding and probably mastering too...

thank you!

[KahunaCanuck]

I have a decent CD/SACD player (Marantz SA11S2), Ipod with Apple lossless through a Wadia/PS Audio DL III DAC, and a Marantz SATT15s1 Turntable. I love them all, they all have a different sound, and a different use. The Ipod can't be beat for ease of use, and easy playlists for partys etc. The CD player is great for listening to Classical or Jazz, but the most fun is listening to LPs for me. My brother said it is like using your Bbq to cook a steak...it might be quicker and easier in your oven, but the BBQ is about the experience! You take out a record, clean it and put it on, then sit down and listen to the whole side. So often with Ipods and CDs we skip over stuff because it is so easy to do so...I find I enjoy slowing down and enjoying the Vinyl. Notice I never even disucssed the different sounds? :lol:

[Johnloudb]

johnloudb,
I submit that every piece of audiophile gear is about how much fun we have with it. It is not only about listening to music.

Okay, good point. I always really enjoyed my car stereo, with 3" full range Infinity drivers. Not the best but, I really enjoyed listening to the radio on it.

Hi Johnloudb,

Interesting point of view, so actually you are saying that those who are used to LP tend to ignore better the hisses and pops of the vinyl better than the ones used to the "digital world"?

Yeah, basically. Our ears habituate to sounds we hear on a regular basis. The ears work on feedback, like the rest of the body, and past experience with sound matters. We use our whole brain in processing sound.

Notice I never even disucssed the different sounds?

No, but your actions speak very loudly!

LP = relaxation, calm, "let the music wash over me."

CD = stress, anxiety, "Give me my music NOW!"
:B
I always thought BBQ'd steak tasted better. I guess it was just the atmosphere. I get your point though, really. Maybe this all has to do with the brain being globally linked.

[Lex]

In the end, isn't it all just about A to D to A vs. straight A? The music is analog to begin with, keeping it that way is just more natural. No matter the quality of the conversion, conversion it is, unless it's a straight analog source.

[littlesaint]

In the end, isn't it all just about A to D to A vs. straight A? The music is analog to begin with, keeping it that way is just more natural. No matter the quality of the conversion, conversion it is, unless it's a straight analog source.

Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon would disagree.

[Johnloudb]

Harry Nyquist and Claude Shannon would disagree.

Do they listen to music?

I agree with Lex ... I think keeping it analog is more natural. Engineers could come up with a better analog format than LP for music. But it's a digital world now except for the LP.

[littlesaint]

Do they listen to music?

I agree with Lex ... I think keeping it analog is more natural. Engineers could come up with a better analog format than LP for music. But it's a digital world now except for the LP.

No they've been dead for awhile now, but I'm sure they roll in their graves anytime someone claims a digitally sampled signal cannot be equivalent to the original analog signal. Funny how there a far more serious areas of signal analysis with much higher resolution requirements than what our simple ears can resolve, and yet it's in the music forum that people refuse to believe sampling and information theory.

[Johnloudb]

No offense to Harry and Claude intended. And the Nyquist Criterion works from an engineering standpoint. But, our ears aren't simple! There's this software that lets you add various types of distortion to a signal and, in a blind test, people couldn't detect the distortion until it reached relatively high levels (around -50dB). Yet people could distinguish between 2 low distortion Op Amps, in a blind test.

Even Jan Didden said he could here the difference an ceramic cap made when put in the signal path, in a blind test. And he's an objective engineering guy.

There's much more to audio engineering than just measurements and number crunching. You really do need to listen too.

[jbreezy5]

Cd-SACD-Vinyl

Hi Kate,

As far as what format sounds better and why. The only thing that both vinyl and SACD have that should be clearly better than CD is that they aren't compressed like a CD. Compression reduces the amount of recorded information on the audio track. The goal is to keep as much of the musical information intact as possible, while creating more space to fit an entire album on one disc. However, as you can compare albums with your universal player, the information removed from CD translates as a more refined sound with uncompressed SACD which is subjectively warmer, creating a better soundstage and imaging, and give a better sense of depth, width, and air. It also seems to be more liquid sounding than CD. As others have said, not all SACD's are produced as good as they could be, so that can vary per recording. But that's true of all formats.

It would be like comparing a severely compressed mp3 to a CD. I had a friend come over once, thinking I was crazy claiming CD sounds better than mp3s; we played the exact same track on both formats in my system; he conceded that the CD sounded better. It is much the same when comparing CDs to SACD/vinyl.


USER CONCERNS:

Something to consider with vinyl is something called turntable rumble. It is something that results from subsonic bass frequencies and causes the bass drivers of speakers to pump violently in-and-out. Basically what happens is bass vibrations in the room feedback into the cartridge of the turntable and plays through the speakers. This can damage the speaker driver.

Receivers of old used to have a built-in, sub-sonic filter button to attenuate the low frequency rumble and protect the speaker. Purists, of course, would not use them b/c they want to hear everything on the recording (including the parts the human ear can't detect). I would recommend, if you get into vinyl, to partner the turntable with bookshelf type speakers rather than full-range floorstanders. Otherwise you may have to go to great lengths in buying what are often expensive isolation devices for your turntable, and speakers. As far as "clicks" and "pops" are concerned, if you buy a record with 180g weight, this is often greatly reduced, or even, unnoticed. You can also reduce these unwanted noises by cleaning the record regularly.

I bring this up not to discourage from vinyl. I actually prefer the sound of vinyl to CD b/c it has a warmth and liquidity to the sound. I typically find CD to sound harsh and less fluid than vinyl. I would recommend if you want to try out vinyl to buy a more affordable turntable than a Thorens. You can find excellent turntables from Technics at very reasonable prices new and used. They have excellent build quality and features. Pro audio shops often sell them.

Like you I have the Denon 2910; while the Rotel gear is very nice looking in comparison, don't underestimate the sound quality of what you have. IMO, as far as CD sound the Rotel would be a lateral move sonically, vertical move aesthetically. The Denon universal players punch well above their price-point, although not particularly pretty.

I agree with you also that SACD has that warm sound like vinyl, but avoids the muss-and-fuss of vinyl. I wish only there hadn't been a format war so SACD would still flourish today.


Hope this was of some benefit.

Jbreezy

[littlesaint]

No offense to Harry and Claude intended. And the Nyquist Criterion works from an engineering standpoint. But, our ears aren't simple! There's this software that lets you add various types of distortion to a signal and, in a blind test, people couldn't detect the distortion until it reached relatively high levels (around -50dB). Yet people could distinguish between 2 low distortion Op Amps, in a blind test.

Even Jan Didden said he could here the difference an ceramic cap made when put in the signal path, in a blind test. And he's an objective engineering guy.

There's much more to audio engineering than just measurements and number crunching. You really do need to listen too.

Those examples have nothing to do with sampling theory. They're variables introduced in the analog domain that would indeed have a direct effect on the signal. The ability to accurately sample it has nothing to do with what you can and cannot hear. It is either an accurate sample or it is not, and if the sampling meets the requirements of Nyquist-Shannon, it is accepted to be an accurate sample. I just find it humorous that scientific disciplines far more important than music production accept this, but "audiophiles" cannot.

[Alaric]

Not trying to be a smart-ass , but how does Nyquist measure imaging and soundstage width and depth ? Vinyl has always provided me with a listening experience that was closer to the live performance than CD. It works for me. Besides , I've never been able to hear a graph or oscilloscope.

[Johnloudb]

Those examples have nothing to do with sampling theory. They're variables introduced in the analog domain that would indeed have a direct effect on the signal. The ability to accurately sample it has nothing to do with what you can and cannot hear. It is either an accurate sample or it is not, and if the sampling meets the requirements of Nyquist-Shannon, it is accepted to be an accurate sample. I just find it humorous that scientific disciplines far more important than music production accept this, but "audiophiles" cannot.

You mean perfect sampling, with perfectly linear Analog to Digital converts, and clocks that have no jitter, and perfect DACs and so on. The quality of noise and distortion is everything, not the quantity. That's my point. Some sounds are just more natural than others. I just think it's harder to get digital right. As Alaric pointed out, ears aren't meters. And the only way to make a judgement on audio quality is by listening.

From day one the engineers claimed that the CD is perfect. But, they were wrong.

[Alaric]

I'm really glad to see this thread focus on the differences , rather than "my format is better than your format". Personal preference is what it comes down to and this is one of the most civilzed discourses I've read on the subject. :T

[chrispy35]

Not trying to be a smart-ass , but how does Nyquist measure imaging and soundstage width and depth ? Vinyl has always provided me with a listening experience that was closer to the live performance than CD. It works for me. Besides , I've never been able to hear a graph or oscilloscope.

Similarly not trying to be a smart ass, but how does vinyl measure imaging, soundstage width or depth??

[jbreezy5]

Chrispy35,

In fairness, Alaric never claimed that vinyl measured anything; he was simply stating that measuring techniques don't tell the whole audible story. I think most can agree that measurements can contribute to an understanding of how a component in the chain may sound. But it is irrational to conclude all that needs to be known, sonically speaking, can be derived strictly from measurements alone; as their are elements to sound for which no measuring tool exists, except simply our ears.

It is written, "A righteous man holds to one, without forsaking the other."
May I suggest that both measurements and listening are effective "tools" for discerning sound? Balance will keep us all well-tempered.

Not chewing anybody out; just trying to encourage everyone to agree to drop the debate, since it is leading away from the topic of discussion. Otherwise, maybe start a new thread for those who wish to continue.

:T

[Alaric]

Similarly not trying to be a smart ass, but how does vinyl measure imaging, soundstage width or depth??

Now that's a damn fine question! Don't know-but it presents it well enough for me. Digital tries very hard to duplicate music , and in many cases it's a very good imitation of music. I can hardly tell it from the real thing!
Just kidding! I enjoy my CD player , my tuner , and my TT. I like different music from different sources. My CD player is probably bettter than my TT , but I can't listen to some stuff on anything but vinyl (Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath for starters). I'm also very fond of Natalie Merchant on CD.
Anyway , I prefer vinyl most of the time , I listen to CDs most of the time for convenience. My point was , I'm not looking for graphs and O-scopes to tell me what's "good" , I'm listening to music and deciding what I like .
I don't think any format is better , I have enjoyed them all. Music brings me great joy , and I don't care how it's delivered , as long as it sounds good . That's probably why we spend so much time and effort on equipment and sharing our results. I think we're still good on civilized discourse.

[Johnloudb]

I'm also very fond of Natalie Merchant on CD.

Get Natalie Merchant's "Tigerlily" on 45 RMP LP if you can, It's really outstanding. The CD is really good too, but this is probably one of my favorite LP's, sound quality wise, and music wise too.

[chrispy35]

Chrispy35,

In fairness, Alaric never claimed that vinyl measured anything; he was simply stating that measuring techniques don't tell the whole audible story. I think most can agree that measurements can contribute to an understanding of how a component in the chain may sound. But it is irrational to conclude all that needs to be known, sonically speaking, can be derived strictly from measurements alone; as their are elements to sound for which no measuring tool exists, except simply our ears.

It is written, "A righteous man holds to one, without forsaking the other."
May I suggest that both measurements and listening are effective "tools" for discerning sound? Balance will keep us all well-tempered.

Not chewing anybody out; just trying to encourage everyone to agree to drop the debate, since it is leading away from the topic of discussion. Otherwise, maybe start a new thread for those who wish to continue.

:T

Agreed that Alaric never implied vinyl was measuring anything. My initial impression that from his post that Nyquist had shortcomings because it doesn't specifically account for the those sound qualities listed and must, therefore, logically be inferior. Just wanted to make sure we're not giving credit where none is due...

[indiebands]

I think that your answer lies somewhere between these two thoughts:

1. Both vinyl and redbook CD can be very very good.
2. What appeals to you is a matter of personal preference.

Taking into account the following:

1. One can get bad recordings on both vinyl and CD.
2. The quality of the sound that you hear is only as good as the system + surrounding's weakest link. This weakest link could be anything from a poor recording to your own room acoustics.

The best advice that I can offer is to try to listen to as much as you can on both formats and from this, try to determine the sound that moves you the most. It is difficult to do in practice but I guess this is what makes our hobby so profound.

It may be of some help if I mention my path which I decided to take. I made it a goal to try to get the very best sound that I could from CD. I decided not to go the way of vinyl simply due to the inconvenience factor. My favourite music genre is smooth jazz and so I spent (and still do) a lot of time researching and listening to find out which artists are out there as well as the quality of their CD recordings. Now, as you probably know, digital technology is more complicated than analog due to things such as jitter (which, if high, kinda adds a type of veil to the sound), etc. I saved the pennies and eventually decided to buy one of the best CD players out there. This was after listening and falling head-over-heels in love with the music quality of good recordings that I was hearing. What I find adds to the listening enjoyment is that the smooth jazz CD recordings now seem to be much better than those of the 1990's. Could be that the recording studios are a lot more qualitatively sorted. Whatever the reason, to me this has been really good news.

I would suggest that you try to fit in as many varied listening sessions as you can utilizing CD sources as well as vinyl sources (of the same music piece if possible) and then compare. If you are as wild about this hobby as most of us are ... then the next step is to set a goal for yourself based upon that which moves you the most (and of course, your financial budget). Bear in mind that goals set are moving targets in this world of so much change and improvement happening all the time.

Good luck and most of all, enjoy.

Hi Shadow,

Good perspective/advice. Thanks for the post. Since you seem to have spent a lot of time identifying the best jazz recordings, I was wondering if you could post or PM a top 10 list of the best jazz recordings you have found on CD. Personally, I was blown away by the remastered Kind of Blue release (Columbia/Legacy 01-064935-10) -- I could hardly believe that the original recordings were from 1959. Thanks in advance for any tips.

[littlesaint]

You mean perfect sampling, with perfectly linear Analog to Digital converts, and clocks that have no jitter, and perfect DACs and so on. The quality of noise and distortion is everything, not the quantity. That's my point. Some sounds are just more natural than others. I just think it's harder to get digital right. As Alaric pointed out, ears aren't meters. And the only way to make a judgement on audio quality is by listening.

From day one the engineers claimed that the CD is perfect. But, they were wrong.

My argument is not about sound quality, but the statement made that an analog wave is better than its digital sample.

Quality is not a criteria in digital sampling. It either satisfies Nyquist-Shannon, or does not. If it does, the reproduced analog wave will be indistinguishable from the original and quality is moot.

Obviously this is a theoretical argument, and I can agree that in practice the implementation of sampling can be limiting depending on how well it is done and the components involved. However, it is perfectly within todays means of creating (and playing back) a digital sample that is true to the original -- within the range of human perception.

[ShadowZA]

Hi Shadow,

Good perspective/advice. Thanks for the post. Since you seem to have spent a lot of time identifying the best jazz recordings, I was wondering if you could post or PM a top 10 list of the best jazz recordings you have found on CD. Personally, I was blown away by the remastered Kind of Blue release (Columbia/Legacy 01-064935-10) -- I could hardly believe that the original recordings were from 1959. Thanks in advance for any tips.

Thank you, Indiebands.

There are two things that I should mention before getting to the list:

Firstly, my CD player is an upsampling player. It is the Meridian 808 (not the latest version 2 but the 2004 built version 1). A well-recorded CD played using this player (analog out) sounds very very good imho. To quote the spec sheet: "This player uses a DVD-ROM drive which allows multiple passes to be made, ensuring that the correct data are recovered from the disc and improving Compact Disc’s error-correction a hundredfold. It also allows complete buffering of the recovered data. To ensure the lowest possible jitter, the 808 incorporates three buffers, two of which are used as FIFOs. By the time the data is passed to the DACs or the digital output, the jitter is incredibly low – in fact 808 has the lowest jitter we have ever measured on a CD player: around 90 picoseconds, with the jitter spectrum held below 0.1Hz. The signal path includes proprietary error correction and concealment, and Meridian’s acclaimed ‘Resolution Enhancement’ DSP, in which the original 44.1kHz, 16-bit audio is upsampled to 176.4kHz, 24-bit in one of three 150MIPs processors operating with 48-bit internal precision."

Secondly, I tend to "fall in love" with the sound of the "artist" before falling in love with the "recording" itself. My favourite smooth jazz artist at this time is Stacey Kent. That being said, I have found her later recordings to sound better than her earlier ones (on her previous label which was "Candid"). Of course, she is now affiliated to the Blue Note label and her future recordings are awaited with eager anticipation.

Here is a list of 15 of my smooth jazz CD's which are being played and being enjoyed the most at this time (in alphabetical order). Thank you for your "Kind of Blue" recommendation. Please feel free to share any further suggestions which you may have. It will be very much appreciated.

Marc Antoine - Mediterraneo - Rendezvous Music - 2003 - 766927510120

Patricia Barber - Live, A fortnight in Paris - Blue Note - 2004 - 724357821421

David Benoit - Full Circle - Peak Records - 2005 - 0888072300156

Paul Brown & Friends - White sand - Peak Records - 2007 - 0888072301472

Eva Cassidy - Live at Blues Alley - Blix Street Records - 1996 - 0739341004629

Brian Culbertson - It's on tonight - Verve - 2005 - 0602498813607

Gregg Karukas - GK - Trippin Rhythm Records - 2009 - 020286131823

Stacey Kent - Collection II - Candid - 2007 - 708857999729

Stacey Kent - Breakfast on the morning tram - Blue Note - 2007 - 5099950161126

Diana Krall - Quiet nights - Verve - 2009 - 602517931107

Jeff Lorber - Heard that - Peak Records - 2008 - 0888072307247

Lee Ritenour - Overtime (Live) - Peak Records - 2005 - 013431853121

Kelly Sweet - We are one - Razor & Tie - 2007 - 793018296328

Tierney Sutton - Dancing in the dark - Telarc - 2004 - 089408359224

Jim Tomlinson - The lyric - Token - 2005 - 5060051442193

[Johnloudb]

My argument is not about sound quality, but the statement made that an analog wave is better than its digital sample.

Quality is not a criteria in digital sampling. It either satisfies Nyquist-Shannon, or does not. If it does, the reproduced analog wave will be indistinguishable from the original and quality is moot.

Obviously this is a theoretical argument, and I can agree that in practice the implementation of sampling can be limiting depending on how well it is done and the components involved. However, it is perfectly within todays means of creating (and playing back) a digital sample that is true to the original -- within the range of human perception.

Then Nyquist Criterion states that the number of samples must be more than twice frequency of the signal in order to avoid aliasing. To get "perfectly" smooth output requires interpolation between data points.

Anyway, we're getting nowhere fast here, and yes CD and SACD can sound very good. And LP's have got there own problems. Shall we call it a draw? As to what is and isn't audible is a road I don't want to head down either. Like audibility of cables and so on. Audio is subjective a sport and fortunately we can all enjoy a variety of audio formats! :T

[twitch54]

Audio is subjective a sport and fortunately we can all enjoy a variety of audio formats! :T

might just be the single most meaningfull sentence of this entire thread ! :T

[Victor]

It seems that we are missing one point here. This wonderful hobby of ours is all about sound reproduction and not about sound generation. It seems that we must look at this debate considering the above statement.

With this in mind one can quite successfully argue that as long as our electronic gear can faithfully reproduce exactly what has been recorded on that CD or LP then we are in audio haven.

Assume for the moment that we can in fact do exactly that. Let’s assume that our CD player or LP player or what-have-you is perfect and our amplifiers and speakers are perfect also. These days, after all, such assumption is fine.

This leaves us with the merits of CD recording verses LP recording. From a purely engineering point of view anything that is recorded on a LP is significantly inferior to what can be recorded on a CD. Note, I am not saying that all CDs are perfectly recorded and some are crap, but in principle, one can argue that a CD recording media is superior in every respect to an LP recording media.

So, - where all that logic leaves us? After all there are many who would go to the barricades arguing that an LP s are by far better then anything else. Naturally our ears are used as evidence here.

Putting our ears on ice for a moment, here is an interesting fact, - the LP recording originates from digital media. Indeed, a recording is first made by digitizing the signal usually at 20 bits and then it is transferred to either an LP or a CD.

So, - there you have it… the rest of the debate can be logically inferred.

[Alaric]

Hi , Victor ! :later: I'm curious about 'digitizing' in the LP recording process. Is this the process of transferring the sound to tape or the cutting machine? I realize many (most?) modern LPs are digitally mastered , but I thought the old master tape method was analog. Not trying to dispute , just trying to learn!

[Victor]

Lee,

I seem to recall that a digital tape is being used for recording. What was used before the digital recording, I do not know, but I would think it was analog, which by the way made it far worst, but suitable for LP manufacturing.

In any event, 20-bit recording is way better then any of the available electronics components today (amps, pre-amps, CD or DVD players, etc. ) are capable of reproducing. I do not think that 20-bit resolution is actually preserved, perhaps 18-bits is a better and more realistic bench-mark.

Still, my point being is that the LP data does originate as a digital master, so any perception that the resulting LP is somehow superior in any respect is, well...a perception only.

I do not know how can anyone verify this supposed superiority other then by ear alone, making such 'test' purely subjective. The moment we are into subjectivity all debates stop cold, because now we are discussing things like 'likes' and 'dislikes' without any control groups, - we are, in essence, flipping dice. On objective grounds LP has nothing to offer.

So, when I hear, that someone prefers an LP, I do not any longer debate this. I say, - great, how can I help you to make that LP experience as good as it possibly can be.

Victor

[Johnloudb]

might just be the single most meaningfull sentence of this entire thread ! :T

Thanks, yeah, that was good cop out. ops: I agree with my own comments, but, I don't consider it the most meaningfull words in the thread. I enjoy everyone's contribution.