or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › The outstanding characteristics of vinyl vs digital
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The outstanding characteristics of vinyl vs digital - Page 2

post #31 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by glangford View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Some years ago I worked with drug addicted teens and young adults, and one of the things that struck me listening to them tell their stories was the care many of them used in preparing for a 'hit'. Implements laid out in very specific ways and places, .

And in many cases one of those implements was an album cover....

the only use for vinyl in today's world... tongue.gif
post #32 of 71
Thread Starter 
Well, I have been playing around with a tt. The sound is great and I have another way to access music. I see myself buying rare and beautiful collectors items but not a catalog of music. Plus, exploring the old records at my local shop should be fun.

I have to say I am surprised that vinyl doesn't blow me away, especially with the artistic tts available.

I love the ritual though.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
post #33 of 71
Quote:
Well, I have been playing around with a tt. The sound is great and I have another way to access music. I see myself buying rare and beautiful collectors items but not a catalog of music. Plus, exploring the old records at my local shop should be fun.
I'm sorta in the same boat. I'm old enough to have a legacy vinyl collection, much but not all of which has been replaced by digital versions. But I've also started a small collection of classic jazz LPs. I like the idea that I'm listening to the music the same way that people listened to it when it was new.
Quote:
I have to say I am surprised that vinyl doesn't blow me away, especially with the artistic tts available.
To each his own, right?
post #34 of 71
I have to ask but has anyone ever got a cartridge,tonearm and table assembly shy of a 10 grand rig to track correctly the 1812 Overture (Telarc). Mine never did but then I only had 2g's invested but in the 80's that was considered a substantial rig.
post #35 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

I have to ask but has anyone ever got a cartridge,tonearm and table assembly shy of a 10 grand rig to track correctly the 1812 Overture (Telarc). Mine never did but then I only had 2g's invested but in the 80's that was considered a substantial rig.
Easy. Shure V15 in an SMEIII (a friend's system) and a Denon DL160 in a Townshend Excaliber arm/trough and a Garrott P77 (really dredging the memory here) on a SAEC WE308. I'm sure I still have the copy I bought new here somewhere, but it's been 20 years since I listened to it.
post #36 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Easy. Shure V15 in an SMEIII (a friend's system) and a Denon DL160 in a Townshend Excaliber arm/trough and a Garrott P77 (really dredging the memory here) on a SAEC WE308. I'm sure I still have the copy I bought new here somewhere, but it's been 20 years since I listened to it.

The V15 and a merely competent arm is the key. My now-ancient SME II/TD125 system had no problems with the Telarc 1812 or much of anything else. Letsee the SME cost me $125 (new), the TD 125 cost me $125 (new) and I may have had close to $200 in the V15 II which later became a V15 III. Those were Europe HiFi Club prices. US street prices were maybe twice that. Still way under $1000.
post #37 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Still way under $1000.
In 1970.

I have a V15MxR with a new stylus and SME 3009 ready for the SP10 when I finish the new plinth.
The Shure M97 is excellent too and can be had for about $70 new today.
post #38 of 71
The way I look at it is Vinyl has it's own sound and digital (any form) has it's own sound if I listen to my heavyweight Dark Side of the Moon album I prefer the Vinyl over the 320 kbps version just because I like the way analog sounds. Now if we compare current records released on Vinyl vs the digital version I like digital better because it's being recorded into pro tools which means that your listening to a converted version. Vinyl is dead for today's music (any genre) simply because everything is now being recorded into pro tools where as back in the good ol' days recordings were all analog.

I don't think Vinyl is necessarily better I think it has it's sound and digital has it's own sound I like both digital has better s-n-r, is a hell of lot easier to mix with and sounds "clean" why can't audiophiles like both? Who says you can't like both? I think for songs of this generation can sound good on both formats if engineers actually put the time and effort to make it sound good take Chris Lord Algae and Dave Pensado for example, who worked in the days of Vinyl and Cassette, they made great albums back then and they make great albums today it's all about taking advantage of what a medium offers not just saying **** it digital sucks and not putting any effort into trying to make a great sounding song. You find pro engineers actually prefer the sound of digital over analog because they don't have to worry about noise issues compressing the songs towards the end of the vinyl etc. One thing that Dave Pensado says "you have to work with what you have" a vinyl should have that warm sound just like digital should sound well digital. I see why some people like digital over vinyl.

I hope you guys understood my little rant.
post #39 of 71
Modern digital recording has no sound of its own. Even early digital recording was mostly transparent. This short article includes files you can download to learn for yourself exactly how transparent modern digital recording can be:

Converter Loop-Back Tests

--Ethan
post #40 of 71
I have both of Chicken Foots vinyl and cd recordings.

The CD blows the record out of the water. As a Satch fan I sent a question regarding this to the member website and I was told that the vinyl was pressed using digital copy- go figure, no wonder it's crappy.

I prefer the sound of analog sometimes over digital, sometimes not, just depends upon how it was recorded. But I will say the I agree with the above, and that is something that I miss- the human touch that makes recorded music sound so good, most digital misses this. But transparent?

Edit: Listen to Peter Frampton Live, then listen to the CD, or E.J. Yellow Brick road- the vinyl is much better.
Edited by kodi41 - 3/9/13 at 1:34pm
post #41 of 71
Ethan group 2 file A seems to have a lot of noise- is this a tape?
post #42 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

I have to ask but has anyone ever got a cartridge,tonearm and table assembly shy of a 10 grand rig to track correctly the 1812 Overture (Telarc). Mine never did but then I only had 2g's invested but in the 80's that was considered a substantial rig.
I have no troubles with it, curious why did you?
post #43 of 71
I dont know much about vinayl, nor have i owned a record player or any records, Im currently just using an akai am 2800 hooked into my computer, headphone jack out to a frequency eq, and into the akai.
But I do know someone with an old record player, hooked into her technics av reciever, and some records she played like elvis etc, alot of sounds like guitar, and all the frequencys were crystal clear and very good midrange to them, with no eq or anything, just flat as far as i know but its been to long to remember.. Anyway point is, With my system, it takes good tuning with frequencys, and good mix of speakers, to get that sounds quality, without atleast 2% distortion, where on the record player it seemed to have the quality as is.. Only difference is, her system wasnt that loud, where mine can put a crack into ur ceiling.
Main thing I think it is is how it was originally recorded, this goes for the quality of mic they used to record it also, If it was recorded onto a vinyl, itl prolly sound great played on a vinyl, then if converted to tape or cd, its surely to have distortion and lose its clarity.. Where lets say it was recorded in 2012 with the highest quality stuff, its gunna sound good on cd, but might lose quality converting to a vinyl, But who knows, I Find alot of quality comes from good amps, and frequency compression and tuning, with good speakers.. reguardless of vinyl or not.
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Ethan group 2 file A seems to have a lot of noise- is this a tape?

If I have identified this recording correctly it was recorded in 1986 and was probably originally recorded digitally.

Note that some air conditioning noise sounds a lot like tape hiss. Technically speaking it is not the quietest recording in the world.
post #45 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by kodi41 View Post

Ethan group 2 file A seems to have a lot of noise- is this a tape?

I'm pretty sure the recording is digital. It's a recent performance by my cello teacher Kate Dillingham, with the Moscow Philharmonic recorded in Russia. The reason it's noisy is because I raised the overall volume a fair amount to bring up this very soft passage to a more reasonable level. (All of the other example files were left at their original volume levels.)

--Ethan
post #46 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelkingdom View Post

I've been on a digital diet for the past 20 years. That being said, I'm interested to know what makes vinyl so attractive to some.

Specifically, I'm asking about the sound. What is it about the sound of vinyl that could draw someone away from digital (even partially)?

Is vinyl mostly a collector's hobby or is it really about a superior (in what ways?) medium?

I spent most of my life with digital, I have some 200GB of digital music in FLAC.

I bought a used Dual turntable about 8 months ago for $25, an AT95E for $40 and have amassed about 100 records, some new, some old.

I will NEVER buy a digital file EVER AGAIN.

Some vinyl, especially new there isn't much in it between digital and vinyl, especially if it was recorded digitally, Mumford and Sons on vinyl... meh

But some vinyl is just outstanding... Got Pixies Doolittle the other day, I've owned that album on CD for 15 years, I'd never heard it until I listened to it on vinyl. There is no comparison... The drums sound like drums, the bass sounds like Kim Deal is there playing....

Digital just misses something, I don't know what and I don't care. It's not like I have a bad system, I have a Denon 3803 with Burr Brown DACs, in comparison the phono stage on that Denon is an afterthought and hardly great.

Once you go vinyl you won't go back.
post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Anyone who would choose their preferred genres based on the quality of the recordings isn't a music lover.

That's not true, if something is truly amazingly recorded there can be a lot of pleasure to be had listening to it, even if the music isn't your favourite.
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The above statement is opinion, not fact. It ignores a number of relevant facts.

While there is no doubt that there are a number of CDs that are mastered with compression, limiting, and outright clipping, nobody knows the exact or even approximate proportion. Quality recordings are still being routinely released on CDs.

Compression is not the least bit new. It was not invented for digital. It was routinely done on vinyl recordings going back into no later than the 1960s. Vinyl encourages limiting because of its inherent;y limited dynamic range. Additionally, an analog tape recorder can be used as a highly effective ad hoc compressor by simply turning the gain up so that peaks exceed 0 dB.


Take a look at this site

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

Search any album you want, I'll bet you the vinyl has more dynamic range than the digital. FACT.
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

FACT.
Hardly.
post #50 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Hardly.
Did you look at the website? Anything in the last two decades... if it was rolled out in vinyl and digital the vinyl has a better dynamic range, maybe there are a few exceptions to that rule of thumb but I have yet to see one.
post #51 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post



Once you go vinyl you won't go back.


You're being overly-dramatic to the extreme. I know many people who have dipped there toes into or back into vinyl but would never be without digital, enjoying both when done right. Or some who have been vinyl fans or tried if for a while but finally gave up on it, deciding it's not worth dealing with the negatives. If done correctly, either format can sound really good although the upside potential of digital is higher (but too seldom taken full advantage of).

I'm very familiar with that dynamic range website and use it fairly often as a point of reference.The problem is mostly found in the pop/rock/rap realm where digital is all too often dynamically compressed to extreme levels, which has been occurring over the course of the last decade plus. Which forces some to seek the vinyl as a possible alternative remedy, albeit, what should be an unnecessary one. However, if roots/classical/jazz/world music is more up your alley, you'll have much greater success with finding quality "non-squashed" digital releases.
post #52 of 71
I was at the Natural Sound boutique store the other day and they said vinyl is some what making a comeback and the guy there said it's actually some young people interested and buying vinly....which is great! Great to have the younger generation interested in it and understand how great it sounds compared to their compressed mp3 on their iphones. Most young people have no idea how vinyl and reel to reel sounds.

With regards to the SQ of SACD and bluray compared to analogue and vinyl and reel to reel..can a good HT with SACD and bluray setup produce a sound stage as good if not better than vinyl or reel to reel/analogue?
post #53 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by CruelInventions View Post

You're being overly-dramatic to the extreme. .

Not really. You think the prospect of rebuying your favourite 200 albums on vinyl when you own them on cd is a good one? especially when they're all at least $20 each.

Last night I stuck on my new vinyl copy of the moon and antarctica, I listened to it two times in a row, then I thought it would be fun to listen to the digital version, which I turned off 3 songs in and put the vinyl back on.

There's something missing with digital, it's harsh at the high end, it's missing bass and drums and it's just not engaging.

Each to their own, I'm only talking about myself. If you like digital then that's great, personally nothing about digital except the convenience is better to me. I will always keep digital, I like having music on my phone but when it comes to serious listening I'm not going to put something digital on if I can listen to vinyl now.

This is my opinion and this has been my experience. I really wish I'd never even bothered with digital, I grew up in an age where everything was on cassette... And cassette sucks. CD was better than that.
post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by oppopioneer View Post

Great to have the younger generation interested in it and understand how great it sounds compared to their compressed mp3 on their iphones.

The younger generation isn't interested in vinyl because of it's sound quality, but other factors...
post #55 of 71
Quote:
I'll bet you the vinyl has more dynamic range than the digital. FACT.

That is simply bull. I run among a few others a TD 125 with a SME 3 arm and Denon 103 cartridge, through a studio phono preamp (logitech) - into my soundcard.

With a test record that was produced by Floyd Toole et al. I get a max. of 40 dB - FOURTY dB - dynamic before the general noise drowns the lower signals.
And that on a well (I think one of the best) Test records - that is subjective listening, not some test instrument that audiophile usually shun so vehemently, "because your ears tell you better" bull.
I grew up with vinyl, listened to it for twenty years - and still do when I find a record that I have no CD version of, own over 2000 records - but most of my listening is done through PC server via a pro soundcard.
Only someone who is new to vinyl can tell inanities like the above. The record might have a theoretical dynamic range of maybe 60dB, but you will not achieve that with any LP that is currently on the market and with any player/arm/cartridge combination.

BTW - I am just listening to a CBS recording (LP) "Concierto de Aranjuez with John Williams".
Looks like never played - sounds nice alright, but even after a cursory cleaning...I have yet to encounter a fresh out of the envelope classical recording that was never played before that did not have some surface noise.
There goes your dynamic right down the drain...
Edited by kraut - 3/14/13 at 7:59pm
post #56 of 71
Not bull dude.again I will refer you to the website I linked to before. Mainstream music has more dynamic range with analog vs digital simply because analog as a format can't withstand the same loud mastering that digital can. In a way it's because analog is technically a worse format than digital.... Digital could be so good but it's not because it's abused... But whatever. I don't care what our how you listen to music... My experience is that vinyl is simply still king
post #57 of 71
And ok you dig out a forty year old record there's damage... But then midst of my cds that are a decade or more older don't even work they skip. CD is a buckshot format. Fair enough you have the files on your computer you don't run into these problems.. I have an original ordering of meat the Beatles... that's what 50 years old. It's scratched to hell and it shows. By its still listenable... Compare that to my 10 year old squarepusher album that won't track even one song now... Digital has the same exact limitations in wear. Fact
post #58 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

And ok you dig out a forty year old record there's damage... But then midst of my cds that are a decade or more older don't even work they skip. CD is a buckshot format. Fair enough you have the files on your computer you don't run into these problems.. I have an original ordering of meat the Beatles... that's what 50 years old. It's scratched to hell and it shows. By its still listenable... Compare that to my 10 year old squarepusher album that won't track even one song now... Digital has the same exact limitations in wear. Fact



apologies for the horrible spelling errors. Typing on my phone
post #59 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by matteos View Post

And ok you dig out a forty year old record there's damage... But then midst of my cds that are a decade or more older don't even work they skip. CD is a buckshot format.
Only when you are using a CD player - and in these days of relatively inexpensive computers, digital media players, and DACs/streaming devices, I no longer do.

If you use EAC or dBpoweramp to rip the disc - assuming it is not damaged beyond repair - you will have perfect playback every time, and it will never degrade. I think I have only ever had one disc that was damaged to the point that the audio could no longer be extracted. (and verified with AccurateRip) CDs are relatively cheap, and usually not that hard to find another copy of - and you don't even need to find a perfect disc. Buy a cheap disc off eBay and you will probably be able to extract the audio without any trouble.

Technically, you are probably degrading the sound of a record every single time you play it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

That is simply bull. I run among a few others a TD 125 with a SME 3 arm and Denon 103 cartridge, through a studio phono preamp (logitech) - into my soundcard.

With a test record that was produced by Floyd Toole et al. I get a max. of 40 dB - FOURTY dB - dynamic before the general noise drowns the lower signals.
And that on a well (I think one of the best) Test records - that is subjective listening, not some test instrument that audiophile usually shun so vehemently, "because your ears tell you better" bull.
I grew up with vinyl, listened to it for twenty years - and still do when I find a record that I have no CD version of, own over 2000 records - but most of my listening is done through PC server via a pro soundcard.
Only someone who is new to vinyl can tell inanities like the above. The record might have a theoretical dynamic range of maybe 60dB, but you will not achieve that with any LP that is currently on the market and with any player/arm/cartridge combination.
To put this into perspective for people, 40dB is equivalent to less than 7-bits. You have roughly 6dB dynamic range for every (undithered) bit of digital audio. If you are using dithering, you can get more dynamic range from the same bit-depth. So if the theoretical limit is 60dB, that's only 10-bits of digital information. This is why I think it's crazy to be demanding 24-bit audio files - 24-bit won't hurt, but 16-bit is more than enough.


Maybe it's because I am young enough to have grown up when cassette tapes were popular rather than vinyl (though my parents still had a reasonably large record collection) but I have no nostalgia for the format.
And maybe I just haven't heard a real top of the line system, but nothing about vinyl sounds better to me when compared to a good digital system. I honestly just think it's nostalgia more than anything else - it's the sound that you are used to.

I can understand that there are albums released prior to CD and the loudness wars that are mastered better than their "remastered" CDs, but that's a function of the mastering process, not the format. With the same master - which is common these days - CD (or other "hd" formats) sounds better.


I think if digital sounds bad to you, it's either the source material, or most likely to be your DAC that is the problem. (but these days even relatively cheap DACs should be fine)
I will say this though - I think compressed digital sounds awful. Perhaps the highest bitrates are ok, but I would rather just use lossless compression for everything.
post #60 of 71
CD is a double edged sword.

The Good
-It's great in the fact it's smaller for space reason and handling.
-And that it can't wear out if you care for it you had to treat it like a record grab by it edges and then after playing put it back in the case don't just throw it around and leave it laying around.
-It has more dynamic range possibility big reason classical never went back to vinyl.
-No surface noise

The Bad
-I can listen to it in a car or on the go. Ohh it's not loud enough because the car and portable device isn't a home stereo with any amp power.
Okay lets just brickwall the album so it's artificially louder and destroys the sound instead of using a volume knob. And lets do it with most CD releases.Bad mastering is what ruined the CD format.
-Bad Mastering dynamic range of CD not used to it's advantage.
-Small album covers. The big album art cover is still nice to have
-Since vinyl really had to be experienced at home on the stereo nobody is sitting down and really listening to music anymore.
Edited by nothingspecial - 3/15/13 at 10:52am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › The outstanding characteristics of vinyl vs digital