or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Vinyl Records vs Cd's
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vinyl Records vs Cd's - Page 2

post #31 of 156
I have a system built to the point where CD and Vinyl are extremely close in sound but it takes time and cash. Now I still get a tick or a pop here and there but its usually between tracks and never really in the actual song to a severe degree unless I am at the mercy of the previous owners care.
Vynil has some warmth and a more relaxed sound compared to CD, but its a pain to clean (even with VPI 16.5) and the material only lasts so long before you have to flip it over and thats a big negative IMO.
Digital has more sparkle and detail, never hear any ticks or pops and it lasts the entire album........very nice feature indeed!
But as noted some albums never made it to digital, hunting for used albums is to me a ton of fun, exporing the covers, a gamble here and there based on what the album looks like or even band name has prooven to be very beneficial. Sure it takes time to clean it all, keeping the table setup and maintained is another pain, belts, carts wear out but all in all I really enjoy the old school hands on nature of it.
It as noted wasnt cheap and say what you want but it takes IMO about $1000 to get a decent vinyl rig, maybe less if your lucky in used market but when you get something put together the sound it can make is like magic.
I have about $3500 into each of my vinyl and CD sides of system but its been steady with no need or want to upgrade for a few years now, once its right then its ready to simply enjoy.
I dont want to entertain those who want to scoff at my opinion or investment as those are my views and experience if you dont agree I dont care.
Like I said it does take some cash, you need to get a decent table with a good arm or buy a good arm, thats maybe $500 there or a few bucks more.
Then you need a good cart, $200 is the ballpark here. lastly you need a phono stage, sure you can use one built into a reciever but many are bettered for $100, if you want a moving coil cart your phono pre expense could jump to $300 so there is your $1000. It can be less if your lucky used but it only gets so cheap. Vinyl isnt as easy as CD, you simply cant expect to buy some $100 USB table at BestBuy and get the top notch quality many desire.
post #32 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLee View Post

... agree a higher sampling rate helps... SACD's and music DVD/BR's do sound better than CD, but still have that "suspect" digitized sound. But the convenience far outweighs the difference in sound.
.

May need to rethink that thought unless you are into multi channel music.
DBT testing of SACD and downrated to CD sampling showed no audible differences.
post #33 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloCDClub View Post

I'm not sure what I'm not understanding. I understand that CD has a potential for higher dynamic range. I know that it has an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. I know that very few ears can hear anything past 20kHz. I know vinyl suffers from surface noise, low durability, bad pressings, warping, wear, and is much less convenient. However, to my ears, it's superior, and that's my opinion.

Yes, just keep it as an opinion, not a fact
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloCDClub View Post

I never said anything that could be perceived as inaccurate or deceptive. Vinyl DOES have the capability to have sound information far above CD's range, and certainly operates at a theoretical bit depth (there really is no limit, it's analog we're talking about) above 16 bits.

First you mention CD has the potential of a higher dynamic range, right? Then here you mention vinyl has a theoretical bit depth above 16 bits.
I think you are confused about this issue, really.
post #34 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

May need to rethink that thought unless you are into multi channel music.

Somewhat, lately.

Quote:


DBT testing of SACD and downrated to CD sampling showed no audible differences.

You're probably right about that, but I'll stick with my "convenience" argument. I do have that $5,000 vinyl setup described by the previous poster, albeit an older version of it. But at my current stage in life, simplicity has become extremely important.
post #35 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloCDClub View Post

...
Of course, there's a resolution difference. Vinyl is virtually unlimited as far as bit depth and sample rate go, while Cd is stuck at a rather low 16/44.1.
.....

You may want to expand your knowledge base a lot about this misinformation you have.

You should read this discussion here but especially Richard Pierce in post 7:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...audio.high-end

He discusses your misunderstanding of vinyl and analog. You need to select technically knowledgeable folks to get your technical info from, not from uninformed folks. Yes, knowing who has the right info is not easy and takes hard work finding them.
post #36 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Easyaspie View Post

Off topic but since you brought it up.......

Accounts of his wealth vary greatly. From $250 million to over $900 million.

Also, most of his music sucks. IMHO.

Background; been several years since I hear that "factoid" that kind of shocked me. I mean, McCartney hit it, but...Bowie? It really doesn't surprise me given the fact that he keeps current and reinventing himself, as well as investing ("investing" being the key word here) in "the future of music", so to speak. But sure, I won't even try to "back the statement"....I just don't really care either way .
post #37 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post
My first Cd's were Michael Hedges Aerial Boudaries. Sounded pretty great to me on a second generation Sony CD player. I had around 700 or so LP's at the time and the sound of his guitar came out of totally black background. Awesome.
No surprise there, considering it's on Windham Hill (and their albums sounded even better).
post #38 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by HelloCDClub
I kind of want this debate to end, so here is my reason for vinyl (to quote a user from SteveHoffman.tv):
What about SACD and dvd and bd audio?
post #39 of 156
CD is clearly a better format than vinyl. But there are some better mastered stuff on vinyl and some that are not out on CD. But just soundquality, CD is WAY better.
post #40 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by NIN74 View Post

CD is clearly a better format than vinyl. But there are some better mastered stuff on vinyl and some that are not out on CD. But just soundquality, CD is WAY better.

Word.

The percieved difference in sound quality between CD and vinyl pretty much boils down to "mastering ideals". With vinyl mastering engineeres are still trying to save as much dynamic range as possible for the medium at hand, while mastering CDs are mostly a matter of dynamically compressing them way beyond inaudible artifacts to squeese as much percieved loudness as possible out of them.
post #41 of 156
You can transcribe a good vinyl recording to CD, and if you do it well it's sound exactly like the vinyl recording.

You can transcribe a good CD recording to vinyl, and even if you do it well it'll be constrained by the limitations of the vinyl medium.
post #42 of 156
+1

Even the average (i.e. modern) computer sound card can digitize and record the signals from an all analog sound system and play it back so well that differences become impossible to detect, unless you intentionally set them to be different. (Like overloading the recording, or setting the two comparison playback levels to different volumes)
It's really the easiest way to see just how transparent digital recording can be because the different "Mastering" processes aren't involved.

I don't know why vinyl lovers aren't trying out this experiment because the benefits would be HUGE for them.
Imagine digitally recording the first play off a brand new record to create a pristine copy that will never degrade with time, dust, or repeated plays. You get your "vinyl mastered" sound, plus all the convenience benefits that come along with going digital. It's the best of both worlds!
post #43 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereo2.0 View Post
+1

Even the average (i.e. modern) computer sound card can digitize and record the signals from an all analog sound system and play it back so well that differences become impossible to detect, unless you intentionally set them to be different. (Like overloading the recording, or setting the two comparison playback levels to different volumes)
It's really the easiest way to see just how transparent digital recording can be because the different "Mastering" processes aren't involved.

I don't know why vinyl lovers aren't trying out this experiment because the benefits would be HUGE for them.
Imagine digitally recording the first play off a brand new record to create a pristine copy that will never degrade with time, dust, or repeated plays. You get your "vinyl mastered" sound, plus all the convenience benefits that come along with going digital. It's the best of both worlds!
And how do you know we aren't?

I have done so with quite a few of my albums as have others. This way they become portable. But I still play the actual vinyl when I listen critically to music at home. I know that logically it may not be optimal, but there is just something emotional about vinyl that I can't ignore. As I have said, vinyl to me is an addition not a subtraction as I have all media types in my home.
post #44 of 156
Analog is to digital as film is to video. There's an infinite spectrum of colors you can store on film. W/video,there may be a few million colors. And it's the same w/digital music. You're only getting pieces of each wave.

I think CD's are fairly difficult to listen to. Because they are sampling, your ear has to fill in the blanks, so to speak. It's taxing, it's stressful actually. To me vinyl sounds the best.

Why?

First of all vocal chords vibrate back and forth. So does the diaphragm on a microphone, the strings on a guitar, the skins on a drum and the needle in the groove. Music stored on analog tape is all following the same wave. When you get into the world of digital it's all "on off, on off" it's a different language. Some thoughts from a T-Bone Burnett interview in Sound & Vision 2006. I apologize for not downloading it but being I'm an older guy my computer skills suck. But intresting thoughts from someone in the business.
post #45 of 156
Quote:
And it's the same w/digital music. You're only getting pieces of each wave.
Fail.
Quote:
First of all vocal chords vibrate back and forth. So does the diaphragm on a microphone, the strings on a guitar, the skins on a drum and the needle in the groove. Music stored on analog tape is all following the same wave. When you get into the world of digital it's all "on off, on off" it's a different language.
Fail.

Digital-to-analog conversion reconstructs a sound wave virtually identical to the analog input. And by "virtually," I mean that it is much closer to the original sound wave than any analog medium allows.
post #46 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post
Analog is to digital as film is to video. There's an infinite spectrum of colors you can store on film. W/video,there may be a few million colors. And it's the same w/digital music. You're only getting pieces of each wave.

I think CD's are fairly difficult to listen to. Because they are sampling, your ear has to fill in the blanks, so to speak. It's taxing, it's stressful actually. To me vinyl sounds the best.

Why?

First of all vocal chords vibrate back and forth. So does the diaphragm on a microphone, the strings on a guitar, the skins on a drum and the needle in the groove. Music stored on analog tape is all following the same wave. When you get into the world of digital it's all "on off, on off" it's a different language. Some thoughts from a T-Bone Burnett interview in Sound & Vision 2006. I apologize for not downloading it but being I'm an older guy my computer skills suck. But intresting thoughts from someone in the business.
http://youtu.be/eEhDZN0RFjw
post #47 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post

Music stored on analog tape is all following the same wave...Some thoughts from a T-Bone Burnett interview in Sound & Vision 2006.

I would have thought that Mr Burnett would have known about the ≈100kHz bias signal that's required by all analog magnetic tape systems to achieve low distortion. Isn't that an analog form of time sampling?
post #48 of 156
In a strictly technical sense CD's are vastly superior to Vinyl. There's really no doubt about that.

The issues are mastering, and the quality of the playback equipment. There are lots of awful CD's out there. Most are mastered with crappy car stereos or MP3 players in mind. As such they sound horrible on a good system. This isn't the CD's fault.

The way I play back CD's is first to rip them to my computer using Exact Audio Copy. Then compress them to FLAC files. I play them back through a PC with an external DAC, I use the Emu 0404. I play the files with MediaMonkey, which when properly tweaked is bit perfect from source to DAC. I have good speakers and the sound quality from this setup blows most people away. There are CD players that can rival it but they cost a LOT.

I also have a Garrard turntable. It's fun for nostalgia but that's it.

Quote:


I think CD's are fairly difficult to listen to. Because they are sampling, your ear has to fill in the blanks, so to speak.

This is a common myth. Digital information is 1's and 0's. You can't listen to that, it makes no noise. Speakers can't do anything with it. That information has to be converted to analog before it hits your speakers. The analog signal it creates does not have any "missing bits". None. It's the same analog signal output from a record player. Just minus all the inherent distortion that vinyl gives you.
post #49 of 156
Who resuscitated this 20 years old thread? ^)

My God man, it's all up to your ears (and brain too, and wallet), so others' experiences may not apply to you.

Why don't u buy a few favorite recordings and compare the 2 to see which u like best?

Good luck getting modern material on LP however, which makes the point moot. Slow news day?
post #50 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post


Analog is to digital as film is to video. There's an infinite spectrum of colors you can store on film.

I guess you don't know how film works. Film is based on silver granules. If the granules are large or magnified too much you can see them quite clearly. Film is thus quantized at the silver granule level.

You also have missed some facts about color. Let's say that film can store an infinte spectrum of colors even though film is actually quantized. Color has other properties. For example there can be an infinite number of shades of green, but if the film can only handle shades of red its infinite color ability is worthless because the range of shades while infinite is totally wrong.

This applies to analog and digital as follows. Film can be subject to color shifts due to aging, improper processing, many other things. Digital color remains the same as long as it stays in the digital domain. Color when transmitted as an analog signal is subject to color shifts due to signal losses, it can loose sharpness due to loss of high frequency video, and it can pick up noise. As long as the digital signal has integrity, its color content is unchanged.



Quote:


W/video,there may be a few million colors.

You are rather vastly understating the actual capability of modern digital video formats.


Quote:


And it's the same w/digital music. You're only getting pieces of each wave.

You don't understand how digital audio works. In fact digital audio takes in a smooth analog signal and puts out a smooth analog signal. There is no space between the samples that can be lost as you seem to be suggesting.


Quote:


I think CD's are fairly difficult to listen to. Because they are sampling, your ear has to fill in the blanks, so to speak.

You are wrong about there being any blanks. In fact there have been many scientific tests of the effect of 44/16 sampling on broadband audio signals. Skilled listeners with excellent systems are never able to hear the effects of digitization when its done as it is usually done to produce and play recordings.

Here's a fairly recent peer reviewed paper relating to this:

Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted
into High-Resolution Audio Playback*
E. BRAD MEYER, DAVID R. MORAN,
J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 55, No. 9, 2007 September

I have no problems with people whose preferences are different than mine. But when they justify their preferences with incorrect scientific-sounding explanations, they are demanding some correction.

Your preferences need no justification. They are yours to enjoy, so leave the bad science out of it.
post #51 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Fail.

Fail.

Digital-to-analog conversion reconstructs a sound wave virtually identical to the analog input. And by "virtually," I mean that it is much closer to the original sound wave than any analog medium allows.

I don't disagree with the comments, but T Bone is a producer and he's looking at the music recording chain more than the playback chain (as I recall). So vinyl's limits are not immediately relevant, while the limits of 15 IPS 24 2-inch tape are. There is not question that good analog recordings may sound different from good digital recordings. There's no question that plenty of people like the sound of analog tape better than the sound of digital (assuming they get to control whether, when and how much to saturate the tape, etc.)

Not suggesting that T Bone's ruminations on the reasons he likes analog better are technically correct. Nor that analog is more "accurate" than digital. But when you're trying t make a hit or hit-like record for Bonnie Raitt or somebody, you're looking for "the sound." If you listen to T Bone's productions (which I dig) they tend to be relatively sparse, full of space, and often use low-fi sounding insturments, unusual sound sources, etc. Analog recording fits that approach emotionally if not technically so no surprise T Bone is an analog fan. But all that lo-fi goodness is cleanly captured (if with expected analog colorations) when T Bone's at the helm, and comes across just dandy on a CD, IMO.
post #52 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereo2.0 View Post

I would have thought that Mr Burnett would have known about the ≈100kHz bias signal that's required by all analog magnetic tape systems to achieve low distortion. Isn't that an analog form of time sampling?

Porbably more to the point is the fact that magnetic recordings are based on microscopic magnetic domains that have one magnetic polarity or the other. Thus there is a sort of quantization. The effect of these domains is to create a lot of background noise and this noise is always far louder than the background noise due to 16 bit digital.
post #53 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post

Analog is to digital as film is to video. There's an infinite spectrum of colors you can store on film. W/video,there may be a few million colors. And it's the same w/digital music. You're only getting pieces of each wave.

I think CD's are fairly difficult to listen to. Because they are sampling, your ear has to fill in the blanks, so to speak. It's taxing, it's stressful actually. To me vinyl sounds the best.

.....

So, you think that the human eye or hearing is limitless? You can see that infinite color spectrum? Really?

You should catch up to the modern world and discover it, not guess about it.
post #54 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by WallyWest View Post

The way I play back CD's is first to rip them to my computer using Exact Audio Copy. Then compress them to FLAC files. I play them back through a PC with an external DAC, I use the Emu 0404. I play the files with MediaMonkey,...

And here all these years I've been trying to achieve a "wire with gain"
post #55 of 156
... ooookay, then. *backs away slowly*


Given the numerous responses to that post, it should be noted that Class A was summarizing his recollection of the comments once made by T-Bone Burnett and not necessarily stating his own opinion. Granted, Class A could have done a much better job making that distinction within his post.
post #56 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBobb View Post

Why don't u buy a few favorite recordings and compare the 2 to see which u like best?


Too lazy to re-read the thread, but I assume the point has already been made that, for any given title, mastering and the particular source tapes used to create the respective cd and vinyl releases can play a HUGE part in determining the quality of the outcome and any subsequent preference for either the vinyl or the cd version.

In other words, it's not simply a matter of grabbing any few favorite titles found on both vinyl and cd and making a comparison. You gotta have some reasonably similar production context for choosing those few favorites to compare.
post #57 of 156
+1 Is Blu Ray better than DVD? Not necessary if you got bad mastering or MP2 encode. It is just a medium.

If sampling increases we can virtually get an analogue signal if calculus is right. It may not be ideal 10 or 15 years back but it's a matter of DAC and DSP quality nowadays isn't it as technology improves with better processing power? Just as video is a matter of Video Processing and scaling nowadays though we still have CRT fans that believe otherwise.

I thought this debate is much easier to resolve than displays by using blind A/B test.
post #58 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

... ooookay, then. *backs away slowly*


Given the numerous responses to that post, it should be noted that Class A was summarizing his recollection of the comments once made by T-Bone Burnett and not necessarily stating his own opinion. Granted, Class A could have done a much better job making that distinction within his post.

Maybe I should have had a larger headline. All I was trying to do was add a new angle to the debate. But thats okay still some very intresting comments. I'm just glad I'm not T-Bone. By the way I have a little of everything in my system tube w/ht bypass,TT, solid state HT and I'm saving up for an Olive 4. Personal feeling I think all forms bring something positive to the table. Sit back and enjoy the tunes guys.
post #59 of 156
Btw, my forum user name here was chosen on the day I first decided to sign up for this website, as a relative newbie to the hobby. I went through the typically tedious "what name should I choose?" hand-wringing. As I just so happened to be listening to the Sam Phillips cd Cruel Inventions at the time, it dawned on me that this album title aptly fit the occasionally frustrating and complicated world of audio/video equipment. They can indeed be cruel inventions.

Where is this all leading, you say?

Sam Phillips was married to T-Bone(headed) Burnett at the time.
post #60 of 156
And as a Sam Phillips fan, I saw the connection in the Cruel Inventions name right away. I have at least 11 albums produced by T-Bone, and while I like his production style most of the time, his recordings are not the best sounding from a mastering standpoint in my opinion.

I've heard him go on about how CD is inferior and how we can't have really good sound on CD, but I always thought he was missing how good CD could actually sound. I don't understand how someone so experienced in the industry could lack understanding of what it takes to make a great sounding CD, but that's the way it is.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Vinyl Records vs Cd's