Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future? - Page 3

post #31 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Geek
Fewtch,

I'm pretty sure that the SACD version was remastered. I'm not sure about the CD layer though, although the straight redbook CD of DSOTM was markedly inferior to the hybrid, so I'm assuming it's a better remaster.

But yeah, that could be one reason why this contrast exists.
To me, it's really a big point in vinyl's favor. Who cares about the theoretical technical superiority of digital, if you can get what amounts to the freshest, unaltered copy of the original master recording?

With stuff that was recorded to digital in the first place, I'd probably lean toward getting the CD rather than the LP myself... but even then, you're skipping a digital to analog conversion step with the LP (the one that happens in the CD or SACD player) and are closer to the master recording which was probably done at 24/96 or 24/192.

Anyway... there are certainly a lot of bad vinyl pressings out there, but probably less than there are bad CD's. The vinyl mastering process is something of a black art, and really forces the engineer(s) to use a lot of care in the process. Vinyl can't be driven to the same insane loudness levels (compression) as CD, or the needle would jump clean out of the groove... so despite the fact that CD has a theoretical 96dB dynamic range and vinyl has about 72dB, I find that more dynamic range is actually used on most records than on most CD's. No more crappy compressed dynamics, for the most part.

Just a bit of food for thought... I suspect once you get a vinyl rig you'll find that it's worth having both a good digital and a good analog rig.
post #32 of 64
On a funny note, I have just listened Nelly's dilemma again to confirm, it seems that the engineers have engineered in some crackle into the CD presumely to give it some analog feel

Quote:
Originally posted by Geek

A "mega bucks" CDP (actually, two of them) were present, and the setup was DEFINITELY not rigged for vinyl (I brought my own associated equipment to demo on).
Out of interest, what CDPs were these, that said I did give my DSOTM to someone who had the redbook to hand and he preferred the SACD. The DSOTM is certainly not representative of the quality of the digital audio. David Gray's White Ladder is an example of a 'pop' CD that sounds much better than the DSOTM SACD.
post #33 of 64
Thread Starter 
Lots of recordings that I've heard sounded like they were originally on vinyl and were somehow ported to CD (avalanches, for example, and lots of my techno - the recordings were obviously overproduced).

The only one that we had hooked up was the meridian 507. We also listened on my NS500V. I already stated what I thought about them in my posts above.

There's just too much midrange/treble glare, and the sound isn't full enough to be analog. I like the sound of the 507 and was considering buying it, but I think I've changed my mind.

Cheers,
Geek
post #34 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Geek
An excellent point. However, Todd and I did listen to the exact same recording on vinyl, then on CD, then on SACD, and there wasn't really even a contest. The analog setup completely blew away SACD and CD in terms of tone and smoothness. Detail was just more natural with the vinyl setup. Dynamics were also significantly better. We were comparing the dark side of the moon, "Time," and the introduction of the album.

The rest of the setup was EXACTLY the same: I listened through HD600/cardas, the MOH(R), dimarzio m-paths. The source was the only difference. No contest.
when the new dark side of the moon hybrid release dropped, stereophile had an article talking about how the redbook layer was mastered much more poorly than the sacd layer. apparently, the majority of the album was dynamically compressed to sound louder.

so, you're comparing a random vinyl pressing of dark side of the moon from who knows when and an sacd layer that has been optimized to sound better over the opposing redbook layer. just something to keep in mind.

of course, i suggest trying to look at the broader spectrum when comparing vinyl to digital, rather than what master had over the next.
post #35 of 64
IMO, a major part of vinyl is getting your attention off the detail and onto the music. It's hard to be "detail oriented" with vinyl because... then you hear the surface noise. So you ignore it and focus on the music because you have no choice. Great format to wean detail freaks off detail and back into the music itself.
post #36 of 64
I'm a "Detail Freak" and I still like vinyl
post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by TimSchirmer
I'm a "Detail Freak" and I still like vinyl
How do you handle crackles and pops that occasionally crop up when listening for detail?
post #38 of 64
I don't find the occasional surface noise from a vinyl record to be any more of a problem then the sterile lifelessness of digital formats. I listen to both, and vinyl just sounds more realistic.
post #39 of 64
With a good record cleaner, hisses and pops are practically non-existant. The 2 second pause between tracks isn't perfectly black, but it's pretty good regardless.

As for geek, congrads, welcome to the format of the future

Even with my MMF 5, i'm yet to find any source for under 1000 bucks that's even come close to it. It's just so natural, it's hard to explain.
post #40 of 64
Thread Starter 
Grinch,

That's a good point. I did listen to a wide variety of records on the setup at Mr. Green's place. I overall was stunned by the degree of performance. I used my reference setup: M-Path cables, a Maxed out home reference w/attenuator, and the HD600/cardas. We A-B'd with exactly that setup between a vinyl, CD, and SACD source.

One minor thing, and that is that the CD layer sounded better than the SACD layer, but thats probably because we're comparing a 2 grand CD player vs a $120 SACD player. Take that with a grain of salt of course.

What audio companies need to do is bring back the analog format and try and figure out how to make it more convenient. I think that a new analog format like that would be more readily embraced than SACD.

Cheers,
Geek
post #41 of 64
Thread Starter 
Also,

It's true that fewer new recordings are pressed to vinyl and just exist on CD format.

But conversely, what older recordings can you find on CD? As you go back farther, the variety that were reissued to a digital format gets thinner.

Cheers,
Geek
post #42 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by Ebonyks
As for geek, congrads, welcome to the format of the future
Yes, the future backwaters of audio reproduction , in a world where solidstate is about to take over from the silver disc, vinyl is destined to a 'classic car' status, fiercely loved by a few, but largely relegated to the sidelines. Vinyl is way too out of touch with modern day realities that it will never become common place again. Of course, any person with a keen interest in pre 1980s music will require a turntable because of all the 'never made to it to CD' vinyl and poorly/damaged masters remastered CDs.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geek
it just didn't sound even close to as real. It's sort of worn off now, but the realization that there's massive digital hazing in the highs created by the binary nature of the format is still apparent.
After loudspeakers, the component that produces the next largest amount of distortion in the audio chain is the phono catridge , however it is safe to say that large doses of digital jitter will probably sound worse that large doses of tracking error distortion etc. Geek, good luck with your new found love for vinyl.
post #43 of 64
Quote:
Originally posted by theaudiohobby
Yes, the future backwaters of audio reproduction , in a world where solidstate is about to take over from the silver disc, vinyl is destined to a 'classic car' status, fiercely loved by a few, but largely relegated to the sidelines. Vinyl is way too out of touch with modern day realities that it will never become common place again. Of course, any person with a keen interest in pre 1980s music will require a turntable because of all the 'never made to it to CD' vinyl and poorly/damaged masters remastered CDs.
That's a fair and honest assessment, in my view... no need for the "veryevil" smiley. However, the vinyl market is alive and well among audiophiles anyway... plenty of new pressings coming out on a regular basis, and a growing turntable market (yep, it's expanding).

It still isn't the format of the future... that's a silly and unrealistic statement. But it will be around a long time, probably even after the CD goes the way of the dinosaur. Somehow I don't think there will be an audiophile CD marketplace, unless whatever new format replaces it is noticeably worse sounding.
post #44 of 64
Thread Starter 
Yeah, I was overstating it when I said that vinyl is the format of the future, but it follows my logic: It sounds better than anything else I've heard, so it should be the future.

Cheers,
Geek
post #45 of 64
i was thinking...
Quote:
An excellent point. However, Todd and I did listen to the exact same recording on vinyl, then on CD, then on SACD, and there wasn't really even a contest. The analog setup completely blew away SACD and CD in terms of tone and smoothness. Detail was just more natural with the vinyl setup. Dynamics were also significantly better. We were comparing the dark side of the moon, "Time," and the introduction of the album
you said detail is more "natural." yes... that is valid, as it is your opinion. and in fact... you are kinda right in a way. you see, when people mix music, they usually use some eq and compression, resulting in higher levels of "detail" than you would hear naturally with your ear. why?-cause to most people that sounds good. vinyl's high frequency roll-off combined with some distortion effectively smooths out these unaturally detailed sounds. but it's all a matter of taste. but when you say "dynamics are better," well, no, they are not. vinyl has very poor dynamic range. however, here's a point telling why you might have thought so:
Quote:
Vinyl can't be driven to the same insane loudness levels (compression) as CD, or the needle would jump clean out of the groove... so despite the fact that CD has a theoretical 96dB dynamic range and vinyl has about 72dB, I find that more dynamic range is actually used on most records than on most CD's.
i think that 72db is a very optomistic estimation. but anyway, yes, vinyl is at least 100x less dynamic than a CD. but as he said, many recordings nowadays are very compressed, but that doesn't necessarily mean all CDs have small dynamic range. classical music typically isn't compressed too much... so try comparing those two.

remember what dynamics really are: it's the difference in volume between the quietest sounds and the loudest sounds. go play a good classical recording you have in both vinyl and CD. so, you hear that hissing while playing the vinyl?--well, now, when you switch over to the CD, turn it up until you hear the same amount of hissing....... and get ready to have your eardrums melt. that's the difference in dynamic range while comparing vinyl to CD.

Quote:
I just couldn't even listen to CD after hearing vinyl, it just didn't sound even close to as real. It's sort of worn off now, but the realization that there's massive digital hazing in the highs created by the binary nature of the format is still apparent.
yes... same thing happened to me too after tim played some music off his mmf (i think) turntable. the cd sounded really harsh... and just hurt my ears really. but that doesn't necessarily mean the CD IS too harsh, could be vinyl is too soft. what it does point out is that there definitely is a difference in the high-range of the audio frequency between the cd and the vinyl. ...so, which is more accurate?--the cd or vinyl? well, measurement indicate cd is much more "accurate" but of course what you like to lsiten to more is subjective.

...so, what about analog tapes?
Quote:
why don't people like tapes if analog is so much better than digital? Besides the obvious problem of tape hiss and lack of dynamic range, what makes a tape worse than a record?
well, like previously said, cassette tapes suck. however, the reel-to-reels used in million dollar studios actually have better measurements than mid-range digital equipment!--we're talking larger dynamic range than CD, and almost as good frequency response! ....the down side... and ultimately why they will never be popular... such high-quality tapes cost more than $100-500 a pop. also weighs a ton. you'll need a whole living room to hold a couple hundred albums. not to mention, a good player/recorder will cost $1,000-20,000. they actually have some cheaper 1/4" reel-to-reels on ebay that are really cheap... but their sound quality still won't be as good as a CD's. a player for them is cheaper... but you'll have to maintain it well. never heard them though, so can't say for sure.

anyway....

doesn't really matter i guess. if you like vinyl, no reason not to go for it. sounds like fun anyway. i might even buy one eventually just so i have more reasons to tell all you vinyl people off.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Wow: Is vinyl the format of the future?