Hi! I've always heard people say how vinyl records FAR surpass CD's, but I was wondering what it means... What is different in sound? Thanks, I've just been wondering.

Here is a excerpt on an article about the rebirth of vinyl covering the the most common reasons.

Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound.

Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.

"The digital world will never get there," said Chris Ashworth, owner of United Record Pressing, the country's largest record pressing plant.

Golden-eared audiophiles have long testified to vinyl's warmer, richer sound. And now demand for vinyl is on the rise. Pressing plants that were already at capacity are staying there, while others are cranking out more records than they did last year in order to keep pace with demand.

Although CDs have a wider dynamic range, mastering houses are often encouraged to compress the audio on CDs to make it as loud as possible: It's the so-called loudness war. Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound.

If your comparing the same tracks on CD/Vinyl and they come from the same master there should be no difference here.

this may be a stupid question, but I thought the music transferred to vinyl "was" compressed, that is why the phono input on receivers and pre-amps needed the RIAA decompression circuitry to expand the dynamic range of the compressed music format on the vinyl record ???

If your comparing the same tracks on CD/Vinyl and they come from the same master there should be no difference here.

just because the tracks come from the same master, doesn't mean the mastered tracks that get sent to the plant are the same for vinyl and cd

there are physical limitations re: compression when mastering to vinyl, but on CD they can push the dynamic limits.

hence, why many people buy the vinyl (for the vinyl mastering) - and rip/record the vinyl digitally to their PC (flac or wav) - and then burn that to a cd

vs buying the cd - as the compression is usually cranked

Since the audio on vinyl can't be compressed to such extremes, records generally offer a more nuanced sound.
Of course vinyl can be compressed just as much—and if vinyl were still the dominant medium today, it would be compressed that much, for the same reasons. And most vinyl has to be compressed somewhat, because it lacks the dynamic range of live performances.

Another reason for vinyl's sonic superiority is that no matter how high a sampling rate is, it can never contain all of the data present in an analog groove, Nyquist's theorem to the contrary.
IOW, I know what I believe, and science be damned.

Not a source to be trusted, I'm afraid.

Hi! I've always heard people say how vinyl records FAR surpass CD's, but I was wondering what it means... What is different in sound?
Compared to CD, vinyl suffers from high levels of various forms of distortion—but some of these distortions are actually rather pleasing to the ear. Hence the popularity of vinyl in some (but only some) quarters. There's more of a warm, resonant sound, which is typically attributed to a form of phase distortion.

The RIAA curve has nothing to do with compression. It is a frequency-response based manipulation of the signal. For example, a really loud bass section might either take up tons of space on the record, or be untrackable by normal cartridges or both. So the bass is rolled off when cutting the master, and the playback system applies the inverse EQ to get back to the right overall balance.

Vinyl is indeed compressed, usually, at the mastering stage, because it does not have near as much dynamic range as CDs. So where vinyl may be abloe to do 60 dB or so (I could be wrong on the number) from the quietest sound to the loudest, CD can do 90 db or so. You have to lower the peaks, then turn the whole thing up, so that the quiet parts can be heard. As a practical matter, especially for rock and pop, vinyl masters, even of old, don't take full use of the dynamic range available - - they're more compressed than they strictly have to be - - and only get really quiet during fade outs, and the like.

But today pop and rock CDs tend to be mastered with 3 - 6 dB of dynamic range (that's slightly inaccurage - - its 3 - 6 dB from average to peak levels, but it gives you an idea of how much compression there is).

You could not realistically make a vinyl album on which every single sound was at or near the physical limit of loudness for the medium Hard to track, I suppose, and takes up too much room. So vinyl will not be mastered nearly as compressed as CDs are, because it can't be. And you're never going to play your vinyl in your car, which is the one environment in which drastically reduced dynamic range makes sense. The background noise when your driving drowns out the quieter parts, but if you turn it up enough to hear the quiet parts (of non-hyper compressed CD) the loud parts will be uncomfortably loud, and on normal car stereos may be significantly distorted.

...And you're never going to play your vinyl in your car, which is the one environment in which drastically reduced dynamic range makes sense...Well, actually you can and it was done long before CD or magnetic tape.

Chrysler had it in 1956. http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Accessories/HiWay/invent.htm

This also triggered similar and competitive designs and implementations from RCA Victor, Sears, Phleps, Norelco and others.

They used the same RIAA EQ standard as today.

I largely agree with McNarus.
Vinyl playback adds distortions that some find pleasing (analogous to tubes).
CDs are just too accurate for some folks!
Some are more honest about this than others. Why the need to rationalize a taste by stretching the science is beyond me.
But there's a lot of psychology involved, too. There's something cool/nostalgic (pcik your generation) about records. I have found it can be a more involving listening experience, mainly because of all the effort required to minimize surface noise. And, you have the big album art, cover, and liner notes. I think this is a subconscious reason why the Ipod generation is getting into them so much. Most of these younger folks aren't audiophiles.
Finally, bits are bits. Although some still think a $1000 cd player must sound better than a discman, CDs have removed a lot of subjectivity from the audio chain. Die hard subjectivists, I believe, don't like this. With vinyl, you get LOTS of things to experiment with, and not just the cartridge and preamps--there's VTA adjustment, tracking force, and so forth. And, in vinyl, you don't have to worry much about having any double blind testers around.

Well, actually you can and it was done long before CD or magnetic tape.

Chrysler had it in 1956. http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Accessories/HiWay/invent.htm

This also triggered similar and competitive designs and implementations from RCA Victor, Sears, Phleps, Norelco and others.

They used the same RIAA EQ standard as today.

That's a cool link. Thanks for sharing. I never knew this technology existed. That 56 Dodge looks like a cream puff and Lawrence Welk looks like he's in his early 50's. Time flies.

http://www.imperialclub.com/Repair/Accessories/HiWay/LawerenceWelk.jpg

Gad, a Chrysler with a "Record Receptor" in it!

A lot of the dispute came from the early CD's mastered on the 14 bit Sony equipment and much of it from worn out tapes. Then we played it back without stable clocking and poorly implemented D to A's. Garbage in, garbage generation, garbage out.
Subjective comparisons:
Early Von Karion's version of the 9th on Telark vs Osawa's LP day was and night. Harsh vs smooth. Oh yea, it was the conductor stupid.
I compared a Mobile Fidelity LP to a CD to a US release LP. Quality was in that order. No question. US Beatles LP's were crap.
Sheffield King James Version LP to Sheffield CD. I would say the LP had some slight detail advantage, but was much nosier and of course degraded every time it was played. That is about the time I sold my Thorens and all my records to by CD's so I could play music, not play WITH music.
Fortunately, studios learned how to record for the new media, equipment got better and very good music can be played from CD's. Then along came desktop home PC based studios and the whole thing went down the tubes.