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

vinyl rip vs cd - Page 3

post #31 of 297


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Love View Post

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!

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


 

 

post #32 of 297

oups double post

post #33 of 297

this is a good one, what sort of kit's do these people use to rip, it seems counter intuitive that a cd created from the master would not be better than a hi res file of a recording of the recording


Edited by sheridant - 6/7/12 at 7:32am
post #34 of 297
On legacy titles, the master may have deteriorated from excessive use or time. The vintage record album, made when the master was brand new, might sound better than the master in its current state.

But the most likely reason is mastering... Back in the day, vinyl albums were very carefully mastered. Today, recodings are often heavilly compressed.
post #35 of 297
For the record (irony intended); I have long since changed my mind. Vinyl is very enjoyable and sounds excellent! That being said, non-brick walled/ decently mastered CD's ripped to flac sound almost as good and are still very enjoyable as well! Also it's OK if anyone or all disagrees with me, no need to fight now children......lol
post #36 of 297

Hi my friends.

i like some rar vinyls

womanlibrarian@gmail.com
 

post #37 of 297

Oh, my goodness.  Why, oh why do I read this forum.

 

Now there's something else I'm getting curious about - this vinyl ripping thing.

 

I've got an old Kenwood turntable with a new stylus.  What else do I need to get into ripping my vinyl to my PC?

 

Why?  Why do I do this to myself?

post #38 of 297
All you need is something that converts from analogue to digital. They make USB dongles that do it for not too much money. Sound software too, but that isn't too difficult.
post #39 of 297

I prefer ripping a CD as FLAC.  It sounds great on all my equipment.  I do own a couple of albums as high-rez 24-bit recordings such as Let It Bleed and Dark Side of the Moon.  But I listen to these A LOT, so I went out of my way to get and spend the extra money for them. 

 

As others have said, CD sounds great if it is mastered right and not compressed a bunch.  Then there are some albums - cough, cough, Californication - that sound bad no matter what format you have it on.

 

Get what you like listening to.  Some people like vinyl.  I never saw the appeal of it myself.  But to each their own I guess.


Edited by hogger129 - 7/27/13 at 8:42am
post #40 of 297

I like both tbh, I grew up listening to my fathers Vinyl and my moms cd's

 

personally when I'm not utterly broke, I'd like to get into a little bit of vinyl, for the exact reason some have said, the little rituals the hunting for good Vinyl. It's like a life style, heck searching for OLD cd's is kinda fun... 

 

still I prefer ripping Cds and getting CD rips when I have a choice between the two, simply because there are a lot of ppl who just don't know how to rip Good Vinyl and I hate waisting hard drive space and well eletricity 

 

Non the less, I'd love to rip my own 

post #41 of 297

If we're talking strictly format here, digital wins by a mile. Here's why analog is inferior from a technological standpoint:

 

-> surface noise
-> reduced dynamic range
-> non-portable (unless using cassettes)
-> more expensive
-> wow and flutter
-> degrades with every playback
-> less tracking control
-> requires continual maintenance to work correctly
-> requires more equipment and more complexity
-> longer time for vinyl editions of albums to come out (sometimes)
-> requires more effort to acquire (shipping/drive to store)
-> takes up more space
-> more fragile
-> difficult to copy
 
etc.

 

Other than that, the soft, variable arguments about differing masters, differing editions, etc. are there as well, but those can go either way. IMO, the better master is wasted on the vinyl because only the CD can take full advantage of it.

post #42 of 297

I prefer CD and then dBpoweramp --> AIFF --> FLAC.  I seem to get better sound quality doing it that way vs ripping directly to FLAC from the CD. 

 

But I prefer it for the reasons given above.  No surface noise; no cracks, pops, ticks; easy to backup; priced reasonably; seems to last longer.  The problem with CD - and I guess even on other formats - is that the dynamic range compression and loudness kills it for me.  I remember buying Californication in 1999 and I couldn't stop thinking about how terrible it sounded.  I liked the music, but the clipping and distortion made me cringe.  For some reason I did not notice it on By The Way or Stadium Arcadium, and then it was there again on I'm With You.

 

But I also own a copy of the 1984 Harvest Japan Dark Side of the Moon blackface and this really goes to show just how much potential this format has.  This disc sounds better than my dad's excellent condition vinyl copy he bought new in 1973.

 

I also have a couple of DVD-Audio discs (Dark Side of the Moon Immersion, Wish You Were Here Immersion and Eagles Hotel California).  I mostly got these because I was interested in the surround sound mixes.  I really wish DVD would have become the standard medium for music since you can actually put 24/192 master-quality streams on it, plus it can support 5.1 streams at 24/96.  It's not that I can notice a huge difference between 16 and 24 bits or 44.1/48khz and 88.2, 96 or 192khz; but if I'm going to shell out money, I'd prefer to have the highest quality recording I can get.  I'd probably get that with vinyl, but I'd still prefer the longer-lasting medium.


Edited by hogger129 - 8/10/13 at 7:40am
post #43 of 297
Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post

 

I also have a couple of DVD-Audio discs (Dark Side of the Moon Immersion, Wish You Were Here Immersion and Eagles Hotel California).  I mostly got these because I was interested in the surround sound mixes.  I really wish DVD would have become the standard medium for music since you can actually put 24/192 master-quality streams on it, plus it can support 5.1 streams at 24/96.  It's not that I can notice a huge difference between 16 and 24 bits or 44.1/48khz and 88.2, 96 or 192khz; but if I'm going to shell out money, I'd prefer to have the highest quality recording I can get.  I'd probably get that with vinyl, but I'd still prefer the longer-lasting medium.

 

If you notice any difference between 16/44.1kHz and 32/192kHz at all, it is entirely in the master. The only thing that bit depth does is increase dynamic range potential (which 16 bits, at 96 decibels, has far more of than any reasonable recording would ever use), and the only thing a higher sampling rate does is increase the highest possible accurately reproducible frequency (which 44.1kHz, with 22.05kHz of frequency bandwidth, exceeds by a couple of kHz the frequency bandwidth of the human ear). Excessive sampling rates and bit depths have their uses in the studio, but not in playback.

My advice is to just stick with the standard sampling rates and bit depths; "hi-res" is a pain to acquire, store, transport, and playback, for no realistic benefits.

post #44 of 297

Recently I switched to listening only vinyl rips. CD sound is too harsh for my ears. But making good vinyl rip sounding better than counterpart CD isn't easy task and quiet expensive though. So not many people can afford it. I can admit that an interest to analog technique increased recent time. I read an article about Grado labs making cartridges, and they admitted that recent time demand on their product drastically increased. I think here is another problem, CD standard was introduced when computer performance , storage and transfer rates were not so good, so CD standard minimally covered main streamer listener requirements to a sound quality. I consider a new CD standard has to be introduced as 24/192. For some reason electronics manufacturers were focused mostly on improving video quality completely forgetting audio. Here is another problem, big media providers companies currently fight any audio standard better than 16/44.1. A reason of that they invested a lot money in cloud media storage and the storage and transfer rates can't fit 24/192. You can observe that smart phone companies eliminate micro SD slot in latest models as well, when such slot was widely available in phones of 1sr generation. Anyway I am glad that Samsung still provides micro SD slot so I can enjoy my vinyl rips not only on at home, but on a road as well. Thanks also Android music player vendors who provided vinyl quality images playback. I think consumer should fight to use the power of modern technologies to provide accurate music reproduction. Here isn't a discussion what is sounds better, here is discussion why CD standard was on hold for years without any improvements?

post #45 of 297

It's extremely obvious you don't know what you're talking about. Nothing you just posted is based on any fact at all, just unsubstantiated assumptions.

You've begged the question (created a conclusion based on assumed premises) so many times, it's made my head spin.


Edited by Tus-Chan - 8/18/13 at 10:17pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › vinyl rip vs cd