Cd - Sacd - Vinyl

[Johnloudb]

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.

Victor, I do agree with your statement. But, you seem to be assuming that all types of distortion are perceived equally. And that's just not true. Some sounds are perceived much louder and more unpleasant than others.

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.

That does explain why many of my dad's older classical records done in the 50's - 60's sound much better than many modern classical [digital] LP's. Many of my pop records (done in analog) often sound much better.

Also, digital masters now days are usually a much higher resolution such as Sony DSD or high resolution PCM.

I think most people can tell when a recording sounds bright or fatiguing. And I am a big proponent of blind testing in audio equipment reviews. Regardless of the format it is about enjoying the music.

My opinion is that you can't just read a meter and say "that's accurate." I've recently built a preamp that produced a noise at -90dBV that physically hurt my ears. It took me awhile to trace the problem down to a battery I was using as a voltage reference. Anyway, as to what's audible there's just many variables including ears that have to be taken into account. We aren't to the point yet where we can say the distortions of the digital format (even SACD) aren't audible, IMO.

Any modern format is going to be digital. It's just too bad that high quality digital formats have been stifled. So, we can enjoy 24bit/196kHz sound on Bluray movies, but more often than not have to settle for 16bit/44.1kHz music sound.

[Alaric]

Now that you mention it , I believe DAT has been around since the 80s. Hmmmm...
I've heard some truly awful CDs and LPs. I still prefer the best LPs to the best CDs (best I've heard. Not exactly definitive.) Subjectivity seems to be the standard!

[Kate-br]

Well,

yesterday I heard the Technics SL1210-M5g... Hmmmm.. DJ equipment, the only technics Tuner Table I could find nearby my place in an authorized dealer...

I went to a store and bought an used Joaquim Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez LP (Deutsche Grammophon, 1969) and I also took my Philips CD, the same Joaquim Rodrigo....

On the tuner table, things that irritated me:

- The pop, hisses and static sound;
- Its very hard to "select" the song you want;
- The strange bass sound it makes when the LP side ends...

On the CD:

- Even tho its Philips Classics, the mastering is not the way i wanted;

For me it was clear that the LP had a lot more "care" in the recording than the CD, but for my taste even tho the CD has a brighter sound, and sounded a bit more compressed.... but it was a lot better for my ears.

The SACD which has a different Joaquim Rodrigo's arrangement proved to have a far superior sound, IMO.

I didnt like the DJ equipment, it looks a bit "funky", my opinion is that the Thorens looks a lot better, not sure if it performs better tho, according to some posts I read.

The CD and SACD is far more practical to use!

Still, the quest continues, I will try to find better LP recordings, and if possible buy it new and compare with CDs and SACDs!!

[Victor]

… you seem to be assuming that all types of distortion are perceived equally. And that's just not true. Some sounds are perceived much louder and more unpleasant than others.

This would be so if we had some kind of anomaly going on. But in general, in a well-behaved system, this would not be the case. If we have a THD+N measurement and the numbers are good, then we are in good shape. In any event, it is not a challenge any longer to have all distortion components to be so low that they are not an issue.

Clearly my comment refers to a Solid State based components with digital sources. Once you enter vacuum tube electronics then it is a real challenge to keep distortion to the inaudible levels, although it is possible.

With LP-based system you can easily have a virtually distortion-free signal processing, but your source is barely 12-bits in resolution mostly due to inherent noise and mechanical limitations of the record media.

So, - when you talk about a particular distortion component that might be offensive, my question is this, - where would this distortion come from? Certainly the signal reproduction chain is not at fault here. Could it be the recording? Possibly, but then we have no control over this at all. Well, - I know that the truth is elsewhere.

…why many of my dad's older classical records done in the 50's - 60's sound much better than many modern classical [digital] LP's. Many of my pop records (done in analog) often sound much better.

I understand. In fact my favorite recoding of Bach works by Ormandy has only recently came out on CD and I have an LP so far. However, because the recording made in 50’s and 60’s sounds better to you that in itself does not mean that the LP is superior. What you do find superior is that particular rendition of musical piece.

Also, digital masters now days are usually a much higher resolution such as Sony DSD or high resolution PCM.

I think most people can tell when a recording sounds bright or fatiguing.

Sure people can say what they like or dislike about music, and yes we can characterize it as being bright or fatiguing. But what does it have to do with sound reproduction?

Those comments are directed to the rendition of the musical piece and not to electronics involved, unless the electronics is either broken or substandard.

My opinion is that you can't just read a meter and say, "that's accurate." … Anyway, as to what's audible there's just many variables including ears that have to be taken into account. We aren't to the point yet where we can say the distortions of the digital format (even SACD) aren't audible, IMO.

I disagree. Our ears can’t help us at all here. We have been at the point of completely characterizing audio electronics for many years now. Ever since the Pression1 system hit the market.

Our ears can help us decide if like the recording or not, but they can’t help us to asses the clarity of electronics involved. Naturally the tubes are an exception here and perhaps the LP’s also but to a lesser degree.

[sunshdw]

I, like you, have compared vinyl, sacd and cd. One of the things I realized is each one has it's own sound. My Denon SACD/CD player is somewhat bright so comparing the same record to my denon didn't make sense. I would compare apple to apples.
So for me it wasnt about which is better rather its exploring another avenue of something I enjoy. One of the things my wife and I like about vinyl is it seems easier to sit and listen for a couple hours. Like its more laid back. Yes it's less convient and can't be controled by remote but for me its all good.

[wkhanna]

C&P’s, Jalopies and the art of spinning reekords

When the discussion of LP’s comes up, invariably the issue of what is often termed ‘pops & clicks’ is mentioned. Vinyl is not the most fragile media. Edison even used wax cylinders as the storage media on some early phonographs. But neither is vinyl the toughest. However, if it is properly handled, cleaned, stored and played on correctly adjusted and maintained equipment, it has the ability to far outlast most any other media. Even the most pristine LP can, in one playing session, be significantly damged by a worn, miss-aligned or improperly balanced cartridge. So too, care must be taken when handling and storing an LP.

Often in conversations I will hear from others not intimately familiar with LP’s say to me, ‘How do you put up with all those ‘pops & clicks’? That would drive me crazy!’ My answer is a simple question back to them. Do you have a car? Is it in decent shape? I assume it is, and it is not stricken with rust holes, dents on all four sides, broken glass, and other such issues of disrepair and lack of care. Why would you assume that I would own and play nothing but ‘Jalopies’?

I would also suggest that most people who have ever even heard vinyl have had the experience of listening to it on a properly maintained and calibrated high fidelity system with well cared for LP’s.

Yes, I do have records that I bought used which have significant wear or damage. And yes, they do suffer from ‘pops & clicks’. But the music on these is special to me, in many cases not available on any other media. This I will gladly suffer through while I, as John has stated, subconsciously ‘tune out’ the noise as I thoroughly enjoy and am moved by the performance presented to me. But the majority of my collection is in excellent shape, with seldom nothing more than some occasional P&C’s or surface noise on used albums, while the best condition used and new vinyl could casually be mistaken as digital media for its lack of noise. And all are kept that way by proper maintenance and care of my system and LP’s.

If system and media convenience and portability are the main requirements for your music, then obviously vinyl is not the source material that will ever meet your needs.

For my personal requirements, the decision is obvious. For ambient music, we are blessed in Pittsburgh to have a V good Jazz station, and my Magnum Dynalab tuner foots the bill just fine. But I routinely dedicate about two to three hours a night for serious listening. My genre of musical taste is 70% Jazz, 20% classical and the last 10% is all over the place. Jazz and classical LP’s are readily, and in the case of many tittles, exclusively available on vinyl. Add the fact that Pittsburgh is home to Jerry’s Records, a brick & mortar shop that is purveyor to over one million used records, most at ~ $3 to $5 ea., and the conclusion becomes obvious. From the aspect of software costs alone, I save $5 to $25 per album. But don’t be fooled, the cost of a mid-level analog system is not trivial. And if you live in area where finding new and used LP’s is difficult if not impossible, then you are relegated to ordering new vinyl, sometimes V $$$, or buying used from FleaBay, Amazon and the like. Not always an economically frugal endeavor. Even having bought all my components used, TT, phono-pre, cartridge, record cleaning machine, along with new alignment gages & tools and cleaning supplies, I have invested nearly $2K. That $2K, my friend, will buy a pretty good CD/SACD player.

If one was truly interested in taking the plunge into vinyl, I do have a few recommendations, some learned the hard way. Get a Rega P1 for ~ $350 new. It has a factory pre- aligned and mounted cartridge, the I/C’s are integrated, and it is as close to ‘plug & play’ as a novice could get. If you find that you don’t get the ‘kick’ from vinyl that you had hoped for, you can sell it on Agon for $275 in about a day. You will also need some basic record cleaning supplies like Disc Dr record cleaning brushes, cleaning solution, stylus cleaning brush and fluid and a stylus force gage. These items should run ~ $50 or so. If you need a phono-pre, I recommend the Cambridge Audio solid state unit that runs ~ $160.

This is one of the lowest cost entry level packages I can recommend to someone who has no prior experience or knowledge of TT set-up and operation. To spend less would not be a fair test to compare the nuances of sound between the two formats, IMHO.

AFA comparisons are concerned; I have a Duke Ellington Band digitally mastered album on both vinyl and redbook CD. I have listened to both. The LP played on my Music Hall MMF-7 w/ Grado Green cartridge (I have since upgraded to an AT150MLX cart and would expect the perceived difference to now be greater) and the CD on my good friend’s (PewterTA) Cambridge Audio 840C CDp. Both were run through my system on the same pre-amp, amp, speakers and CatCables. During this admittedly non-scientific comparison, in all honestly, it was close, V close. V,V close. But to my ears and PewterTA’s, the LP had slightly better dynamics and slightly more realistic (less shrill and non-fatiguing) highs. Again, this is simply a personal opinion based on my experience with my ears and my system. I am making no claims one way or the other as to the better of the two source media.

One last item I would like to convey. That is the holistic experience of listening to vinyl. It’s a difficult thing to explain to someone who has never experienced it. It takes an investment of time, dedication and to some (my wife included) what may on the surface appear to be a clinical level obsessive compulsive disorder. However, even she at times will sit with me and bask in the ethereal pleasures that come only when spinning one of your cherished and pampered 12’ black vinyl masterwork treasures. Maybe having to make such an investment of time, dedication and detail of execution is what makes you more drawn into the music. And this is what makes you ‘think’ it sounds so good. May be, maybe not. But what I do know is that I appreciate my music more, enjoy it more, and am swept away and transported to a very special place were nothing else matters but the music. And isn’t this why we are all here in first place. Isn’t it the music itself that matters most?

[ShadowZA]

Very well put, wkhanna! :T

[Ken49r]

wkhanna,

Thank you for taking the time to write that. Nicely done, and you covered a lot of bases there.
A nice starter table properly aligned and setup with record and stylus cleaner will be the best way to judge if vinyl is for you. I took the plunge a few months back and love it.

[jbreezy5]

Well,

yesterday I heard the Technics SL1210-M5g... Hmmmm.. DJ equipment, the only technics Tuner Table I could find nearby my place in an authorized dealer...

I went to a store and bought an used Joaquim Rodrigo: Concierto de Aranjuez LP (Deutsche Grammophon, 1969) and I also took my Philips CD, the same Joaquim Rodrigo....

On the tuner table, things that irritated me:

- The pop, hisses and static sound;
- Its very hard to "select" the song you want;
- The strange bass sound it makes when the LP side ends...

On the CD:

- Even tho its Philips Classics, the mastering is not the way i wanted;

For me it was clear that the LP had a lot more "care" in the recording than the CD, but for my taste even tho the CD has a brighter sound, and sounded a bit more compressed.... but it was a lot better for my ears.

The SACD which has a different Joaquim Rodrigo's arrangement proved to have a far superior sound, IMO.

I didnt like the DJ equipment, it looks a bit "funky", my opinion is that the Thorens looks a lot better, not sure if it performs better tho, according to some posts I read.

The CD and SACD is far more practical to use!

Still, the quest continues, I will try to find better LP recordings, and if possible buy it new and compare with CDs and SACDs!!

-Kate-

Nice to see a true enthusiast who seeks new experiences in audio. You are already reaching alot of good conclusions about the vinyl experience. It is a lot of work to have a vinyl collection! That's why I'm still debating if I want to get a TT again.

I searched the Thorens table you were looking at. That's a beautiful TT!! Never heard the Thorens, though. Thorens is a classic name in the turntable world and has a great reputation. Alot of people are of the opinion having an outboard motor to spin the 'table is preferred to a direct-drive turntable like the Technics. This is debated among 'philes, but is yet another controversy that surrounds 'tables. The Linn LP12, is considered by many to be the best turntable ever made, but does not have an outboard motor. Most high-end 'tables today do have outboard motors; look at anything by VPI, Music Hall, Nottingham, Thorens, Pro-ject, etc.

I would say as far as the Technics being referred to as a DJ turntable can be a bit of a misnomer, however. It is one of the best built turntables available, especially at its extremely affordable price. It has almost all of the features necessary to have a fully configured audiophile set-up. If the M5G stylings weren't to your liking, the regular 1210 can be had for less $$ and has a more "orthodox" home-audio silver styling.

The following articles tell a little more about the Technics 1210's significance historically as well as practically. Also why I don't think of it strictly as a DJ 'table.

http://www.kabusa.com/frameset.htm?/

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/frr.pl?ranlg&1093010514&read&3&4&

If you do decide to by a TT consider starting off with an inexpensive one. Alot of times you can find a well-made used table at pawn shops; that would give you a taste of the turntable experience and leave the bigger bucks for other equipment/music upgrades you know you will be satisfied with. For the most part, you will experience most of the TT setbacks no matter what you spend on the 'table itself. Clicks and pops will happen; even on the $2500 Thorens.

JBreezy

[Johnloudb]

Kate-br,
Most of my records have no pops, clicks, or easily audible surface noise.

This would be so if we had some kind of anomaly going on. But in general, in a well-behaved system, this would not be the case. If we have a THD+N measurement and the numbers are good, then we are in good shape. In any event, it is not a challenge any longer to have all distortion components to be so low that they are not an issue.

Clearly my comment refers to a Solid State based components with digital sources. Once you enter vacuum tube electronics then it is a real challenge to keep distortion to the inaudible levels, although it is possible.

With LP-based system you can easily have a virtually distortion-free signal processing, but your source is barely 12-bits in resolution mostly due to inherent noise and mechanical limitations of the record media.

So, - when you talk about a particular distortion component that might be offensive, my question is this, - where would this distortion come from? Certainly the signal reproduction chain is not at fault here. Could it be the recording? Possibly, but then we have no control over this at all. Well, - I know that the truth is elsewhere.

The truth?! ... You can't handle the TRUTH!!! :B (sorry, I just had to say that ... I'm kidding of course!)

12 bits? I don't agree. You can hear well below the noise. I even did a noise test today. We live about a block from the interstate, and traffic noise is probably about 45 dB or more during rush hour. Anyway I went out in back yard 7:00 pm and rubbed my fingers together about 12 - 16 inches in front of my nose. I could make it out pretty easily, much quieter than traffic noise I suspect.

Pleasant noise can even act as sound enrichment. Now this might be a more acceptable reason the LP sounding better. The LP noise might help the recording by reducing the perceived strength of these noises and distortions on the recording. Just a idea I've been thought about.

Also, the ear filters out noise you hear on a regular basis, some sounds easier that others.

I understand. In fact my favorite recoding of Bach works by Ormandy has only recently came out on CD and I have an LP so far. However, because the recording made in 50’s and 60’s sounds better to you that in itself does not mean that the LP is superior. What you do find superior is that particular rendition of musical piece.

Yeah, I love those Columbia Masterworks, Ormandy conducting the Philadelphia Orchestra. Really like his Scheherazade, it's really worn, but I still love it.

Sure people can say what they like or dislike about music, and yes we can characterize it as being bright or fatiguing. But what does it have to do with sound reproduction?

Those comments are directed to the rendition of the musical piece and not to electronics involved, unless the electronics is either broken or substandard.

I listen to our Benchmark with no problems, on good recordings at least. It's very good, and I really do enjoy it. I have directly compared the Natalie Merchant 45 RMP LP to the CD counterpart. Both very good quality but the LP sounds significantly better to my ears.

I disagree. Our ears can’t help us at all here. We have been at the point of completely characterizing audio electronics for many years now. Ever since the Pression1 system hit the market.

Our ears can help us decide if like the recording or not, but they can’t help us to asses the clarity of electronics involved. Naturally the tubes are an exception here and perhaps the LP’s also but to a lesser degree.

I hate to keep using Charles Hansen's blind test, but he posted it, so ....

Extented Listening Blind Test

Read it and weep. Any who, I'd like to do a similar test in the future and see if I can really hear a difference in cables, blind. I have some cables in mind that I know.

[Johnloudb]

Very well put, wkhanna! :T

I second that! I was wondering where Bill was. :lol:

[Victor]

12 bits? I don't agree. You can hear well below the noise.

Wow! Are you saying that there is useful information below the noise? Or you are saying that your ear can pick up noise at low amplitude? Either way, - tell me, why would you want to listen to noise?

I even did a noise test today. We live about a block from the interstate, and traffic noise is probably about 45 dB or more during rush hour. Anyway I went out in back yard 7:00 pm and rubbed my fingers together about 12 - 16 inches in front of my nose. I could make it out pretty easily, much quieter than traffic noise I suspect.

Great experiment! What does it tell you? Well, - what it does NOT tell you is that you can hear below the noise. I’ll leave the rest to you.

Pleasant noise can even act as sound enrichment. Now this might be a more acceptable reason the LP sounding better. The LP noise might help the recording by reducing the perceived strength of these noises and distortions on the recording. Just a idea I've been thought about.

I see…I am not sure you want to explore this idea, because it seems to me, and it is only a supposition on my part, that at best you are confusing dithering process with noise that clearly masks the signal. It is hard for me to follow your logic here.

To say that noise can somehow ‘enrich’ the sound is fundamentally wrong. In a classic sense, noise stands in opposition to the signal, - hence we have a measurement we call Signal to Noise ratio. This measurement, as I am sure you know, gives us an idea how much signal is actually out there.

Also, how can the LP noise help reduce the “perceived strength of these noises and distortions on the recording”? There is no mathematical mechanism to show that in analog domain. It is like to say that let’s use one noise to attack the other noise and hope that it makes the signal to improve.

Also, the ear filters out noise you hear on a regular basis, some sounds easier than others.

Indeed our ears are filters. I tell you more, - our ears are not filters with constant and flat pass-band. Scientists are still trying to come up with a general hearing model and this task is not going well. We may never have this model because each person may have different pass-band hearing characteristics. This is precisely why you cannot use your ears for measurements, because such measurement can only be applicable to you and not to anyone else.

I hate to keep using Charles Hansen's blind test, but he posted it, so ....

Extented Listening Blind Test

Read it and weep. Any who, I'd like to do a similar test in the future and see if I can really hear a difference in cables, blind. I have some cables in mind that I know.

I read his posts on diyaudio site. Did you read the responses to Mr. Hansen post? There are more than 600 posts in that thread, but still if you look, you will notice that participants like Scott Wurcer (AD797) , Jan Didden (my favorite power amp) , Bob Cordell (functional, with near zero THD, feed-forward power amp topology) and there are others, expressed reservations and sarcasm. So, - there is no need to listen and weep here.

For my money, Mr. Hansen is looking at something that cannot be reliably characterized and ultimately falls into subjective. I am not arguing with Mr. Hansen, nobody can argue with him, because it is like arguing preferences in colors, - I like it ‘black’ and he likes it ‘red’. Tell me who is right?

As for cables, - I have been there a few times. Even to the point of absurd and in public, comparing megabuck Kimber with rusted hangers. In the end, the tests convinced me to go with a good zip cord or my current favorite Belden wire.

The truth?! ... You can't handle the TRUTH!!! :B (sorry, I just had to say that ... I'm kidding of course!)

I know you are kidding; - it is one of my all-time favorite on screen moments. However, as it applies to audio, the truth or the rule is this: in the sound reproduction electronics chain every component must be designed to have ‘no sound’ at all.

At this time the industry is pretty much there already with exception to the speakers. Although I tried to design and build very low distortion speakers, still my amps are better in this regard.

This notion does apply to LPs also, because, when you talk about the sound of LPs you are referring mostly to the source, - the record itself, and less so to the electronics and mechanics responsible for reproduction of the sound.
The magic of LP is in its inability to reproduce the nuances with amplitudes below 10-12 bits of resolution. When you increase the resolution to the CD level of 16 bits, suddenly you hear things that you might, and do, object to. It is somewhat counterintuitive, but it is nonetheless factual.

If phase linearity is preserved with a CD signal, then in my experience you might prefer the CD to LP. The best example of this that I know of is a new Sabre-based D/A with a single-pole anti-aliasing filter, clocking at 192 kHz with 32 bit theoretical resolution. No phase-related distortion here. The sound is fantastic.

With a more common CD or DVD designs it is somewhat problematic to ensure 16-18 bit phase linear output, although possible it is rarely done. Perhaps this is the reason why some may not like the CD sound. It is a hypothesis on my part, as I cannot prove it.

[ShadowZA]

... The best example of this that I know of is a new Sabre-based D/A with a single-pole anti-aliasing filter, clocking at 192 kHz with 32 bit theoretical resolution. No phase-related distortion here. The sound is fantastic...

This would not be the Sabre Reference Audio DAC # ES9018 by any chance? I read somewhere that the new Krell S-1200 processor (which afaik has begun to ship) uses the ES9008 (not the 32bit DAC).

http://www.esstech.com/index.php?p=products_DAC

Apologies for steering this thread ever so slightly off course.

[Victor]

This would not be the Sabre Reference Audio DAC # ES9018 by any chance? I read somewhere that the new Krell S-1200 processor (which afaik has begun to ship) uses the ES9008 (not the 32bit DAC).

http://www.esstech.com/index.php?p=products_DAC

Apologies for steering this thread ever so slightly off course.

Yes, this is the one. There is also an updated chip in the pipe line. Look here for a working board. http://www.twistedpearaudio.com/digital/buffalo.aspx
I am going to use it eventually in my 6-channel dac project.

[wolfgang]

Kate-br,
A few years back like you I was curious by the claims whether LP might be better then CD. Luckily it did not take me long to find out that at the end of the day all formats are only as good as what the engineers have done to the final recordings within each formats capabilities.

There is no magic in LPs and perhaps not even in the lastest SACD format. Red book CDs is as good as it need be. Just that not everyone know how or bother to use the inherent advantages to it fullness.

[jbreezy5]

Kate-br,
A few years back like you I was curious by the claims whether LP might be better then CD. Luckily it did not take me long to find out that at the end of the day all formats are only as good as what the engineers have done to the final recordings within each formats capabilities.

There is no magic in LPs and perhaps not even in the lastest SACD format. Red book CDs is as good as it need be. Just that not everyone know how or bother to use the inherent advantages to it fullness.

"Just that not everyone know how or bother to use the inherent advantages to it fullness." - This statement is true for all formats as far as sound reproduction is concerned.

True, there is no magic in LPs or SACD; but there is more recorded information in them, which has potential for better sound reproduction. ; )

First, do no harm; compression is harm.

[Johnloudb]

Wow! Are you saying that there is useful information below the noise? Or you are saying that your ear can pick up noise at low amplitude? Either way, - tell me, why would you want to listen to noise?

Okay, I guess it depends the limitations of the cutting head and LP format in general. My guess is the noise is due to these limitations and not caused from some other source. So, yeah there would be no usefull information below the noise?

However, Kenneth C. Pohlman states (Principles of Digital Audio, 3rd Edition) that an analog system can retain signals below it's noise floor. Does this apply to the LP? I don't know.

Great experiment! What does it tell you? Well, - what it does NOT tell you is that you can hear below the noise. I’ll leave the rest to you.

Below the noise of the LP, maybe not. But, you don't consider traffic noise, noise?

I see…I am not sure you want to explore this idea, because it seems to me, and it is only a supposition on my part, that at best you are confusing dithering process with noise that clearly masks the signal. It is hard for me to follow your logic here.

I know, dither is noise added to the signal to randomize quantization so it doesn't correlate with the signal, which reduces distortion.

To say that noise can somehow ‘enrich’ the sound is fundamentally wrong. In a classic sense, noise stands in opposition to the signal, - hence we have a measurement we call Signal to Noise ratio. This measurement, as I am sure you know, gives us an idea how much signal is actually out there.

Also, how can the LP noise help reduce the “perceived strength of these noises and distortions on the recording”? There is no mathematical mechanism to show that in analog domain. It is like to say that let’s use one noise to attack the other noise and hope that it makes the signal to improve.

We have different views on how our hearing works. So, this is likely the source of our disagreement here. Are you familiar with the Jastreboff model for hearing? His hearing model addresses a health condition I had to deal with. And I wrote about this experience, which I posted at my website here
( http://sites.google.com/site/johnsaudiopage/ ). The paper is kind of long but you're welcome to check it out.

If a sound sounds bright to you it is because you have an aversion to it, or increased gain for the sound. I think most people would agree that nails scratching a chalk board is irritating. The brain just turns up the gain on some sounds that are "unnatural." Adding a pleasant sound/noise to the signal could help reduce the strength of these sounds our ears don't like.

Indeed our ears are filters. I tell you more, - our ears are not filters with constant and flat pass-band. Scientists are still trying to come up with a general hearing model and this task is not going well. We may never have this model because each person may have different pass-band hearing characteristics. This is precisely why you cannot use your ears for measurements, because such measurement can only be applicable to you and not to anyone else.

The ear can filter out any sound (habituate to), but some sounds are more easy to filter out. It takes time to habituate to a new sound. A constant flat pass-band is like white noise? This has hissy sound. CD noise is flatter than LP noise which is more easily filtered out.

Kate-br found this link which was talked about this some:
Dynamic Comparisons of LPs vs CDs


Quote from page 2:
"We can see why statistics often "mislead". LP's noise floor is actually quite low over most of the spectrum, ranging from -84dB around 1kHz to -96dB for frequencies above 10kHz . In other words, the LP recording has a lower noise floor than the CD recording for the majority of the spectrum (frequencies above 2kHz ).

LP's surface noise, which is responsible for the poor dynamic range, is mainly concentrated below 500Hz where the noise level is around -50dB.

And this is for a mass-produced commercial LP, purchased second hand from a thrift store for around $1!"


I think adding a some pleasant noise to CD could be a nice tone control, especially for bad recordings.

I read his posts on diyaudio site. Did you read the responses to Mr. Hansen post? There are more than 600 posts in that thread, but still if you look, you will notice that participants like Scott Wurcer (AD797) , Jan Didden (my favorite power amp) , Bob Cordell (functional, with near zero THD, feed-forward power amp topology) and there are others, expressed reservations and sarcasm. So, - there is no need to listen and weep here.

For my money, Mr. Hansen is looking at something that cannot be reliably characterized and ultimately falls into subjective. I am not arguing with Mr. Hansen, nobody can argue with him, because it is like arguing preferences in colors, - I like it ‘black’ and he likes it ‘red’. Tell me who is right?

I agree with Charles Hansen's testing method, as it closely resembles a method I came up with and describe in the paper I wrote. My opinion, like his is that experience and familiarity matter. He doesn't seem to keen on the psychological aspects of our hearing, though he never directly commented on the Jastreboff model. I'd like to see more controlled testing, but I'm certainly open to his conclusions.

However, as it applies to audio, the truth or the rule is this: in the sound reproduction electronics chain every component must be designed to have ‘no sound’ at all.

At this time the industry is pretty much there already with exception to the speakers. Although I tried to design and build very low distortion speakers, still my amps are better in this regard.

"No sound" can't sound bright or irritating. Whether is all in the processing or maybe some fault of the format is a matter opinion. We respond to music at an emotional level and I find that I connect better to the music when listening to high quality LP or SACD. To me the brightness of CD takes away from this. I do notice some edge or brightness on even the best recorded CDs. My ears are pretty sensitive to the sound though. Probably more than most people, due to my condition.

This notion does apply to LPs also, because, when you talk about the sound of LPs you are referring mostly to the source, - the record itself, and less so to the electronics and mechanics responsible for reproduction of the sound.
The magic of LP is in its inability to reproduce the nuances with amplitudes below 10-12 bits of resolution. When you increase the resolution to the CD level of 16 bits, suddenly you hear things that you might, and do, object to. It is somewhat counterintuitive, but it is nonetheless factual.

I think the LP has more resolution than you give it credit for, especially in the high frequencies.

Being an audiophile, I just want the best music format for my music. And, I'm all for truth ... and often not something easy to get to. Getting progressively closer is what it's about?

If phase linearity is preserved with a CD signal, then in my experience you might prefer the CD to LP. The best example of this that I know of is a new Sabre-based D/A with a single-pole anti-aliasing filter, clocking at 192 kHz with 32 bit theoretical resolution. No phase-related distortion here. The sound is fantastic.

With a more common CD or DVD designs it is somewhat problematic to ensure 16-18 bit phase linear output, although possible it is rarely done. Perhaps this is the reason why some may not like the CD sound. It is a hypothesis on my part, as I cannot prove it.

Sounds like a very good DAC. I know CD playback is improving. Kal Rubinson gave that new Sony SACD player a really good review. Made CDs sound very close if not equal to SACD with many recordings. We might be considering getting that player.

Seems CD is very hard to get right. It's also slowly going away now, thanks to MP3. Maybe a Bluray music format will take it's place, I hope. :T

[Nolan B]

I dont remember where I read this (maybe ever this forum) but a professor at a university has been testing his students for a number of years about what they felt sound "good". What he has noticed is that recently recently first time comers to his class actually prefer the sound of MP3 vs Vinyl and full spec CD 8O


It seems like people prefer what they are used to or exposed to most. This is a scary thought because if that is the case we are moving backwards and not forwards.

Maybe totally off topic, but I believes it add to the argument that its a personal preference, and perhaps explain why we have personal preferences

[wolfgang]

Is it the study by Jonathan Berger?

You could listen to his thoughts in his findings in this interview which incidently you could download it in the wonderful MP3 format too. The insight he offered are deeper then many idiotic speculation of journalists with no idea that they are talking about.

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2009/03/full-interview-jonathan-berger-on-mp3s-and-sizzle/

[gianni]

Did not see this mentioned so far. Another look into this topic which may answer some questions and raise new ones.


Vinyl vs CD

[jbreezy5]

Is it the study by Jonathan Berger?

You could listen to his thoughts in his findings in this interview which incidently you could download it in the wonderful MP3 format too. The insight he offered are deeper then many idiotic speculation of journalists with no idea that they are talking about.

http://www.cbc.ca/spark/2009/03/full...3s-and-sizzle/

That was a good interview. Thanks for sharing. He seems very down-to-earth and reasonable. I personally still agree with his ultimate conclusion about what he listens to; uncompressed as possible.

[chrispy35]

Did not see this mentioned so far. Another look into this topic which may answer some questions and raise new ones.


Vinyl vs CD

Interesting article. The first thought that came to my mind was: why hasn't anyone made a CD player that had two EQ stages built in to perform the RIAA recording/playback curves to give it that vinyl sound?

With a bypass feature of course...

[Victor]

"Just that not everyone know how or bother to use the inherent advantages to it fullness." - This statement is true for all formats as far as sound reproduction is concerned.

True, there is no magic in LPs or SACD; but there is more recorded information in them, which has potential for better sound reproduction. ; )

First, do no harm; compression is harm.

Why do you say that LP or SACD have more information? Are you saying that an LP has more information than a CD? I think to say that would be an error.

Also, why do you imply that a CD data is compressed? You might have a compressed recording, which might also happen to an LP, but the CD mastering process does not have be compressed by definition.

[Chris D]

Well, the tech design specs of redbook CD's do not have the bandwith to carry full range audio signals. It's certainly not bad... I think we would all agree that there are a lot of CD's out there that sound pretty good! But the bandwith required for lossless (uncompressed) audio tracks is just much larger than CD.

[Victor]

Well, the tech design specs of redbook CD's do not have the bandwith to carry full range audio signals. It's certainly not bad... I think we would all agree that there are a lot of CD's out there that sound pretty good! But the bandwith required for lossless (uncompressed) audio tracks is just much larger than CD.

Hmm...Are you sure about that? What do you think the bandwidth must be for lossless audio?

I cannot see where does the CD comes short.

It seems to me that you are thinking that since the CD media represents sampled data system, there is an inherent loss of information due to sampling, - would that be what you are trying to say? I am guessing this because it is a popular notion.

[Victor]

I just read the much celebrated article - Vinyl Vs. CD.

And I must admit that the author did a pretty good job describing the gear used and the set-up of turntable and the pre-amps, etc. The RIAA curves were measured along with the THD+N of turntable output.

The article's THD+N test clearly indicates the excessive noise and distortion of the LP system. We are talking about at best 12-bits equivalent signal clarity here. In spite of this the author still maintains that the LP was great to his ears.

Here is what he says:
“…So, what can we say at this point? It seems to me - and this is with some of the very best hi-fi components in the world - that one of the most significant reasons vinyl aficionados love the LP sound is that the distortion is very, very much like that in Pure Class A triode single-ended tube amplifiers. There is a lot of distortion, but it is virtually all second order (even-ordered), which is euphonic, meaning that it is pleasing to the ears. Now, keep in mind that the distortion seen here for the CD is from a superb CD player. If you look at various lower cost CD player reviews out there, you will see more higher order distortion peaks, with odd-ordered peaks closer in level to the even-ordered peaks. Bottom line is that CD has much less distortion, but more of it is odd-ordered, while vinyl has more distortion, but it is euphonic second order.”

His assertion was that the LP sounds better because they reproduce a consistent 2-nd order distortion product much like a single-ended triode power amps. I hope that this self-admitted comment on supposed LP superiority sounds an alarm in many ears here.

Let me put it this way, - distortion is a bad thing regardless what order it is and regardless if we like it or not. The goal of our hobby is to achieve a distortion-free signal reproduction. The LP-system regardless of the price cannot give us that. However a CD comes close.

Let us not confuse bad recordings with bad electronics. A properly designed CD system will push the envelope of the state of the art in terms of signal clarity. Such CD system can be had today for under a $1000.

[btf1980]

I can't remember who said it, but it is very applicable here.

"If it measures well, but sounds bad, it is bad. If it measures poorly, but sounds good, then you're measuring the wrong thing. I don't listen to measurements and charts, I listen to music. Perhaps you should too."

Long live vinyl! :B

[jbreezy5]

Why do you say that LP or SACD have more information? Are you saying that an LP has more information than a CD? I think to say that would be an error.

Also, why do you imply that a CD data is compressed? You might have a compressed recording, which might also happen to an LP, but the CD mastering process does not have be compressed by definition.

Mr. Victor,

I will have to say, "Thank You!", for pointing out that I made an error in claiming that SACD has more information, sort of. You forced me to look into the matter further. The main sound quality differences between SACD and CD lie in the differences between DSD vs PCM.

SACD may have more information than a CD, if the CD has been created with less than 24-bits (PCM). Where less bits = less resolution. Most, not all, CD's are recorded at 16-bits (this is the compression of which I speak). What I don't know however, is if 24-bits in PCM (CD) is equal to DSD (SACD); that question, for now, remains unanswered. Even if you have a CD recorded at 24-bits, the sound may still not be as good as SACD b/c of quantization and time domain issues. So there are other factors besides the amount of recorded information that can affect sound quality, as well. It seems that DSD is much purer in how it attains analog output.

Please see the following link which is more detailed, yet succinct:

http://www.ps3sacd.com/sacdfaq.html

Particularly: Scroll down to "AUDIO", and read the first four links under that category. It discusses the differences between PCM and DSD and explains why DSD sounds better; it also presents a comparison graph between PCM and DSD.

In case you were wondering this is the sonic hierarchy for me: SACD-Vinyl-CD.

-JBreezy-

[jbreezy5]

I just read the much celebrated article - Vinyl Vs. CD.

Here is what he says:
“…So, what can we say at this point? It seems to me - and this is with some of the very best hi-fi components in the world - that one of the most significant reasons vinyl aficionados love the LP sound is that the distortion is very, very much like that in Pure Class A triode single-ended tube amplifiers. There is a lot of distortion, but it is virtually all second order (even-ordered), which is euphonic, meaning that it is pleasing to the ears. Now, keep in mind that the distortion seen here for the CD is from a superb CD player. If you look at various lower cost CD player reviews out there, you will see more higher order distortion peaks, with odd-ordered peaks closer in level to the even-ordered peaks. Bottom line is that CD has much less distortion, but more of it is odd-ordered, while vinyl has more distortion, but it is euphonic second order.”

His assertion was that the LP sounds better because they reproduce a consistent 2-nd order distortion product much like a single-ended triode power amps. I hope that this self-admitted comment on supposed LP superiority sounds an alarm in many ears here.

Let me put it this way, - distortion is a bad thing regardless what order it is and regardless if we like it or not. The goal of our hobby is to achieve a distortion-free signal reproduction. The LP-system regardless of the price cannot give us that. However a CD comes close.

Let us not confuse bad recordings with bad electronics. A properly designed CD system will push the envelope of the state of the art in terms of signal clarity. Such CD system can be had today for under a $1000.

The goal of the hobby shouldn't be to achieve a distortion free signal (I may be stoned for saying this). How many electric guitars would sound nothing like the real thing when played back through our systems if there were no distortion? A friend of mine plays guitar and purchased a Marshall half-stack with a bunch of tubes in it for nothing other than to attain much-craved distortion. If my system can't produce that, then my system will never come close to reproducing the sound of his electric guitar!

You are correct if you are referring to unamplified music, however. But I can't deny that tubes in a system, on acoustical recordings, still sound more real to me than on solid-state gear b/c of their distortion. They also capture vocals in a much more realistic way, IMO.

The goal of this hobby, I think, is to obtain a sound as close to the real thing as possible and find enjoyment in it. I believe it is possible attain this with distortion sometimes.

I am prepared to be sliced to pieces by all members of this site now. ;zx :sos:

[Johnloudb]

There was some talk at diyaudio about a blind test in which distortion was added to a signal, and people couldn't detect even relatively high levels (something like - 50dB and -60dB range) of added distortion. But when they compared two low distortion op amps, people could identify them a blind test.

Some types of distortion are more audible than others. When I listen to SACD and Vinyl on a regular basis, then go back and listen to CD I find it much less musical. I just think that the distortions associated with CD are unpleasant.

Like with classical music, massed strings sound strident, edgy, horns sound bright especially during complex musical pieces. Whereas on SACD and LP, classical more often than not sounds very musical. Well, that my subjective opinion on CD vs. LP and SACD.

[dknightd]

Zero distortion is the unobtainable goal.
Some distortion seems to be less objectionable than others.
Some distortion bothers some more than others.

[Alaric]

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

So long! And thanks for all the fish!

Ok , having let that out , I don't think measurements tell the whole story for any format. (Where have I heard that before...?) I really like my LPs. I also really like my CD/SACD player. I have examples of absolute crap in both formats-said crap containing music that really tickles my fancy. I have several steps ahead of me with my TT. Speed Box , better pre , different cartridge , and tube rolling with my current pre. I don't think the OP (are you still with us , Kate?) was necessarily looking for mathematical proof of superiority of one format over another , but trying to understand the "magic" some of us proselytise on behalf of vinyl. It's a preference , and a synergy of components , that appeals to some-and really good LP playback does have a magic CDs don't. Maybe it's partly age-related , partly hearing related , and partly that some of us enjoy snobbery. This hobby/passion/obsession has as many viewpoints as adherents. I , for one , will not choose a music style or reproduction format based on numbers. :T

[chrispy35]

The goal of the hobby shouldn't be to achieve a distortion free signal (I may be stoned for saying this). How many electric guitars would sound nothing like the real thing when played back through our systems if there were no distortion? A friend of mine plays guitar and purchased a Marshall half-stack with a bunch of tubes in it for nothing other than to attain much-craved distortion. If my system can't produce that, then my system will never come close to reproducing the sound of his electric guitar!

I find your logic illogical. :W

If your guitar playing friends records his intentionally-distorted sound and it is played back through a distortion-free system (if there was one that existed), it would sound exactly the same as the original intentionally-distorted sound that was recorded. That's good.

If the playback system adds it's own distortion on top of that, then you aren't reproducing his intended distortion anymore...you're hearing a distorted version of his intended distortion, which is definitely not the sound of his intentionally distorted guitar.

I think you're not properly separating distortion in the recording process and with the instruments themselves (intentional or not) with distortion in the playback system (which should always be unintentional IMHO).

Chris P.

[Alaric]

Lemme try this again-I don't listen to oscilloscopes. My comparisons are based on music I've heard live. This includes Heart , Black Sabbath , B.B. King , Ted Nugent , Foghat , Motorhead , Scorpions , Pink Floyd , ZZ Top , Eric Clapton , Billy "Crash" Craddock , Barbara Streisand , Joan Jett , Tom Petty , Molly Hatchet , Allman Brothers , and quite a few others. If a format or source can't deliver what I know to be accurate reproduction , all the calculators in the world won't convince me. I can not afford the level of analog reproduction I had when I started this journey , but that doesn't lessen it's quality.
Having vented , I have some great CDs and mostly listen to digital. It's good , easy , and can really exercise my modest stereo. For my days off from work with the neighbors gone , my TT and tube pre get warmed up for an hour and the "magic" starts. MFSL and Japanese pressings are the anchor of my passion. CDs are car radio stuff. Did I mention the snobbery angle.....?

[jbreezy5]

I find your logic illogical. :W

If your guitar playing friends records his intentionally-distorted sound and it is played back through a distortion-free system (if there was one that existed), it would sound exactly the same as the original intentionally-distorted sound that was recorded. That's good.

If the playback system adds it's own distortion on top of that, then you aren't reproducing his intended distortion anymore...you're hearing a distorted version of his intended distortion, which is definitely not the sound of his intentionally distorted guitar.

I think you're not properly separating distortion in the recording process and with the instruments themselves (intentional or not) with distortion in the playback system (which should always be unintentional IMHO).

Chris P.

I appreciate your response (which I wholeheartedly agree with, from a sonic reproduction theory standpoint). Please consider, I admitted the folly of my statements in that writing more than once.

In the most simplistic terms, all I was trying to say is that it takes tubes to reproduce tube sound. And this conclusion was only based on sonic comparison between tube and solid-state gear; not any kind of exacting measure. I was particularly addressing the notion that distortion should be avoided at all cost; that's a very conditional statement in my view (even in the playback system).

The further away, in the recording-to-playback process, we get from the actual event, valuable sonic things get lost; signal degradation (this, btw, I think is a type of distortion that may very well be immeasurable). But when we listen to our systems next to the real thing (said friend plays unamplified classical guitar), it is clear that this process is subtractive. Because of this maybe there needs to be some pseudo-restorative measures taken to subjectively reproduce what was removed. Of course, now I'm referring to tubes (after all they are additive in nature). So with this paradigm I am suggesting that one type of distortion (signal degradation) is being addressed by another type of distortion (tubes).

All I know is that when I listen to solid-state gear I always get this sense that something is missing; the breath in the vocals, the coarse texture of friction from horse-hair against string, or the spitty-blatty sound of a trumpet. Good solid-state hints at these things, but doesn't quite deliver them. Could it be that the accuracy of solid-state simply reveals how much realism was lost in the whole process that leads to playback?

It is my opinion that this is true. Far be it from me to suggest that tubes are ideal in any way. Most people know that tubes have as many faults as anything else. In spite of all of this, my system currently is entirely solid-state, and I enjoy it.

-JBreezy-

[Mike_Schmidt]

Some of you are older, some of you are younger than myself at 32. That being said there's a reason you still have those black disc's.

Get the TT
End of story.