Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

vinyl rip vs cd - Page 2

post #16 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
I've got thousands invested in both digital and vinyl and think that vinyl usually beats CDs, hands down. However, SACD, DSD and DVD-A certainly give vinyl a run for its money. Ultimately, when a truly hi rez, hard drive server becomes available I'll move every thing to hard drive, including my beloved D2D vinyl collected over the years.

I'm one of the "old folks" so I can speak with authority that it's not about nostalgia for the people that I know, it's about quality of sound. I love the convenience of digital and I'll convert everything to digital (retaining my originals) as soon as a hi rez solution is available at a reasonable cost (no, I'm not paying 20K for that mid-rez Linn that just got reviewed in Stereophile).

Vinyl DEMANDS a good front end to show its potential, while CD can be pretty good with something like a $200 Oppo. Still, I modded my Pioneer Elite DV-58AV with a Superclock 4, extra shielding and upgraded input and output stages to maximize my digital enjoyment. Still, even with the digital mods my vinyl front-end cost twice as much as the digital front end. $1500 seems to be a price point where you can get exceptional digital results, while a vinyl front end that exceeds "CD quality" (an oxymoron) is double that, typically.

So, when I hear someone say that CD is better than vinyl I think that they must not have heard vinyl done well. With most recordings I don't find it even close. However, if I could by everything as SACD, DVD-A or hi-rez download, I'd do that in a heartbeat.

I suspect that when CDs finally die, the most accepted replacement will be hi rez downloads.

Dave
I disagree. Your post is peppered with too many generalities in my opinion. I disagree with your hard line stance on price points as well, sounds like you pulled them out of the ass end of your turntable. lol

Just because you are old (whatever old is) does not give you any authority. Your opinion is your opinion, as mine is mine. Unless someone has enlisted you in this thread to do their thinking for them (which I have not seen) then once again; posturing yourself on a soap box as some kind of self appointed e-overlord is as pointless as it is silly. I can tell you did not want to look silly by the serious tone in you reply but..........

On a more positive note; I'm glad you are enjoying the music you like as you hear it through your rig!
post #17 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post
Who are you calling old? Alright, I'm 35 and remember a time before the CD, but I'm not nostalgic about it. If anything, the terrible sound I remember was a barrier to getting into vinyl.



Oh, come on. That stuff is fun! Some of us enjoy the little rituals, and records are easily cleaned by hand in the sink. You only need to do it once if you keep them clean afterwards.



The sound is even across the record once you get the cartridge aligned correctly.

While records do wear, they hold up and sound good for years and years if you care for them.

The biggest reason I'll listen to and rip vinyl is because I've found something not available on the silver discs. There's a massive amount of music that isn't. I scrounge around junk stores, used record shops and flea markets. Vinyl is a lot cheaper than CD for the most part, and it gives me access to a mess of interesting recordings not available otherwise.

Even if it isn't the most technically perfect medium, vinyl still sounds amazingly good.
Now this was refreshing to read! Nice to see someone here with a good sense of humor!

Glad you're enjoying the music you love on the medium you like!
post #18 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Love View Post
I disagree. Your post is peppered with too many generalities in my opinion. I disagree with your hard line stance on price points as well, sounds like you pulled them out of the ass end of your turntable. lol

Just because you are old (whatever old is) does not give you any authority. Your opinion is your opinion, as mine is mine. Unless someone has enlisted you in this thread to do their thinking for them (which I have not seen) then once again; posturing yourself on a soap box as some kind of self appointed e-overlord is as pointless as it is silly. I can tell you did not want to look silly by the serious tone in you reply but..........
I was writing to the other readers mostly, not you. I'll let them judge my post. I don't need you're "authority" to post my observations.

I never claimed any "authority" over you, I merely offered a differing point of view for the other readers. I'm sorry if I unintentional made you feel threatened.

My point was that using a very good digital setup and a very good vinyl set up, vinyl usually sounds better than CDs to me; however, other digital formats have closed the gap and vinyl is more expensive to "do right."

Dave
post #19 of 297
I'd like to again stress that unless the vinyl, CD and SACD versions are mastered identically, there is no way to compare the three formats. It's unfortunate that CDs are more regularly mastered like crap compared to the other two formats.

Hopefully soon, A to D converters will handle cut off frequencies without any discernible high frequency roll off. When that happens, there will be no point in having recordings above a 44.1 khz sample rate.
post #20 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcstep View Post
I was writing to the other readers mostly, not you. I'll let them judge my post. I don't need you're "authority" to post my observations.

I never claimed any "authority" over you, I merely offered a differing point of view for the other readers. I'm sorry if I unintentional made you feel threatened.

My point was that using a very good digital setup and a very good vinyl set up, vinyl usually sounds better than CDs to me; however, other digital formats have closed the gap and vinyl is more expensive to "do right."

Dave
Ha!

If but your intended barbs had any logic or landed near a mark then I could have replied to them. I'm sure you probably thought you really told me though.

"I'm one of the "old folks" so I can speak with authority that" <----Your words directly quoted for posterity.

Now if vinyl were so good you'd spend more time picking the fleas out of the grooves of your records to listen to and less time failing to insult me. lol
post #21 of 297

The compression (dynamic range compression -- open up your favorite music in an editor like Sound Forge or Audacity and look at the shape of the waveform) on most CDs makes things sound harsh.

 

But one factor that hasn't been mentioned of CD versus Vinyl is sampling rate and sample size.  In the digital domain, we have DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray, etc. to lean on -- and they give us 24-bit sampling instead of 16-bit, and sampling rates as high as 192kHz instead of 44.1.  As well as discrete surround.  Obviously vinyl is analog.

 

With Vinyl, find yourself a sweet 96/24 rip and it destroys the CD for both reasons. 

 

Even when downsampled to 44.1-16 you get the better, more natural dynamic range. 

 

My audiophile obsession started with DVD-A and SACD.  I had grown up hating vinyl because I could never get past the hiss and clicking/popping.  But there are people releasing FLAC rips of vinyl at 96/24 who have some serious high-end equipment and they sound really, really good.  The other change is that click removal software has gotten quite good.  Some rippers do light click repair, others do none.  If it bothers you, run it through Audacity's click repair tool and the result is astounding.

 

I've got quite a lot of vinyl rips in my hi-res collection that is otherwise digital, and they are very good quality indeed.  And obviously once ripped, the vinyl will not degrade when it is played ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesymphony View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Tuttle View Post
Is it because vinyls are usually better mastered than cds that people listen to vinyl rips?
Often, but not always. For example, most pop/rock groups releasing on vinyl have recorded entirely in the digital domain, and used the digital master as the source for the vinyl master. In this case, the CD would unquestionably be more accurate, since it contained the original master.

 

Does anybody master at 44.1/16?  Studio masters are usually 48/24 at minimum, AFAIK.  If the master is recorded at high fidelity (e.g. 192/24) and dithered down to 44/16 for CD, which one is "better"?  The CD stays in the digital domain, but the vinyl reflects the high quality of the master.


Edited by janstett - 7/28/10 at 6:54am
post #22 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by janstett View Post

The compression (dynamic range compression -- open up your favorite music in an editor like Sound Forge or Audacity and look at the shape of the waveform) on most CDs makes things sound harsh.

 

But one factor that hasn't been mentioned of CD versus Vinyl is sampling rate and sample size.  In the digital domain, we have DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray, etc. to lean on -- and they give us 24-bit sampling instead of 16-bit, and sampling rates as high as 192kHz instead of 44.1.  As well as discrete surround.  Obviously vinyl is analog.

 

With Vinyl, find yourself a sweet 96/24 rip and it destroys the CD for both reasons. 

 

Even when downsampled to 44.1-16 you get the better, more natural dynamic range. 

 

My audiophile obsession started with DVD-A and SACD.  I had grown up hating vinyl because I could never get past the hiss and clicking/popping.  But there are people releasing FLAC rips of vinyl at 96/24 who have some serious high-end equipment and they sound really, really good.  The other change is that click removal software has gotten quite good.  Some rippers do light click repair, others do none.  If it bothers you, run it through Audacity's click repair tool and the result is astounding.

 

I've got quite a lot of vinyl rips in my hi-res collection that is otherwise digital, and they are very good quality indeed.  And obviously once ripped, the vinyl will not degrade when it is played ;)

 

 

Does anybody master at 44.1/16?  Studio masters are usually 48/24 at minimum, AFAIK.  If the master is recorded at high fidelity (e.g. 192/24) and dithered down to 44/16 for CD, which one is "better"?  The CD stays in the digital domain, but the vinyl reflects the high quality of the master.


Yes. People still master at 44.1/16 although higher resolution is always preferred. Vinyl will only reflect a hi-rez master if it is indeed mastered with the hi-rez file. However, most use the CD master. Sad...I know.

post #23 of 297

xx


Edited by sonci - 7/30/10 at 10:30am
post #24 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by janstett View Post


 

With Vinyl, find yourself a sweet 96/24 rip and it destroys the CD for both reasons. 

 

Even when downsampled to 44.1-16 you get the better, more natural dynamic range. 

 

My audiophile obsession started with DVD-A and SACD.  I had grown up hating vinyl because I could never get past the hiss and clicking/popping.  But there are people releasing FLAC rips of vinyl at 96/24 who have some serious high-end equipment and they sound really, really good.  The other change is that click removal software has gotten quite good.  Some rippers do light click repair, others do none.  If it bothers you, run it through Audacity's click repair tool and the result is astounding.

 

 

 

 

 

This.

 

 

I have found at least 4 rippers , which their rips put EVERY cd version to shame.

 

repeat

 

put EVERY CD VERSION TO SHAME.

 


 

to make a phones joke , it's like going from a 10$ bud to 150$ IEM

 

 

I am now officially  a vinylrip-oholic

 

In fact , as we speak i am sending money to awell-known ripper so that he can buy from ebay 2 Miles Davis albums and rip them in 24/96 and post them in his blog.

 

 

CD ? bah......Great Vinyl rips are the new ear candy.

post #25 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by proedros View Post

CD ? bah......Great Vinyl rips are the new ear candy.


Certainly better than most CD remasters.

post #26 of 297

Vinyl sound will always rock!!! Even Vinyl Rips are better than CD Rips... for more natural listening experience!

post #27 of 297

never buy remastered versions in CD, all compressed!! but louder as you know.

keep those late eighties- early nineties "the Nice Price sticker CDs", they are the best to my ear.

and I love those songs dubbed from LPs to  Chromium cassette tapes as well.

 

The CDs released from late nineties till Today sucks in mastering/ production, not the artists.


Edited by Pachikara - 9/1/10 at 7:44am
post #28 of 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pachikara View Post

never buy remastered versions in CD, all compressed!! but louder as you know.

keep those late eighties- early nineties "the Nice Price sticker CDs", they are the best to my ear.

and I love those songs dubbed from LPs to  Chromium cassette tapes as well.

 

The CDs released from late nineties till Today sucks in mastering/ production, not the artists.

98% of the time, this is true. However, there are some modern remasters being put out by certain labels that are better than than previous versions. I find it best to do your research before you decide to buy your next album.
 

post #29 of 297

I think Dr. Love has a Kenner close and play.....give the guy a break...lol

post #30 of 297

wow, your rude, and you clearly never heard a vinyl rip. How can you question the FACT (not the opinion) that a vinyl rip will sound better then the cd conterpart, if the vinyl is rightly record and ripped? I mean, have you ever listened to a vinyl rip? Which one was it, it was coming from who? Pm me, I'm really curious.

 

Some things in life can't be argued, and the vinyl quality is one of them IMNSHO


Edited by murphythecat - 3/6/11 at 2:38pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd