Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality"

post #1 of 437
Thread Starter 

so here we go, I just saw Jean-Michel Jarre on national TV, he's selling some "breakthrough" loudspeakers that will allow you to hear your music like you've never heard it before: http://www.jarre.com/

 

I haven't studied what he's selling yet, and it might actually end up being very good...as we all know that most dynamic headphones/speakers are the legacy of a +80yo technology.

 

But he said in that TV report and repeats it on his front page that "the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality".

 

I believe this was actually true for the first CD players, for many reasons:

-no oversampling

-high ripple noisy SMPS PSU

-dull opamps, like 4580 or 5532

-crummy DAC chips, like that Philips TDA family

-stellar jitter

-and many more reasons I'm sure, like poor post-filtering to suppress aliasing.

 

But how can a music producer have the nerves to say in 2010 that Vinyl is better than CD as a know fact, as if only newbies wouldn't be aware of?!

 

The Vinyl drawbacks are IMHO:

-high crosstalk, you'll be lucky if you reach <-30dB

-low SNR, lucky if you go over >60dB

-expensive cartridges and needles

-high maintenance...clean the records, etc etc

-few new releases, except for high prices to the hardcore vinyl geeks

-and a few more I'm sure, like CLICK CRACK POP WIZZ

 

I'm just stunned that someone in 2010 selling "state of the art"(or so he says) loudspeakers can repeat this lame sales pitch whenever he gets the chance....and JMJ is well aware of noise shaping/dithering algorithms, as I read several interviews of him where he was saying that the Sony SuperBitMapping could actually provide stunning results(and I do agree on that). He's got a few MFSL remasters that really sound amazing.


Edited by leeperry - 8/8/11 at 4:50pm
post #2 of 437
Thread Starter 

http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/309979/could-crosstalk-be-what-s-responsible-for-vinyl-s-superior-sound

 

"The redbook standard is the flawed one and has been from the start. So no, I highly doubt that flaws are why vinyl sounds better. The cd is lacking bits = resolution, especially at high frequencies. Vinyl encodes the exact same analog signal as the original; not an incomplete copy. Despite the higher noise .... vinyl has the more accurate waveform"

 

[:miaoulemalin]

post #3 of 437

Given that he is selling a shiny, mono iPod dock for $1,000.00, I would not be shocked by anything he says.  I don't know (or care) much about his career as a musician, but he is yet another example that artistic integrity is a fungible commodity like any other.  C.R.E.A.M. baby C.R.E.A.M.!

post #4 of 437
Thread Starter 

but many ppl seem to honestly believe that Vinyl is more faithful to music than CD...I'm quite stunned. Maybe they only tried a $30 player and called it a day?

 

IME, the CD has all the data you need...but you need good gear to extract it all: high SNR, high-end opamps, elaborated oversampling & DAC post-filtering, low ripple PSU, low jitter...nothing comes for free in this world.

 

Does JMJ realize that this kind of sales bs will make most ppl laugh at him? He said it on national TV at 8:20PM


Edited by leeperry - 9/13/10 at 5:49pm
post #5 of 437

I've never understood why people liked vinyl so much.  No matter how good it may sound the first time you play it, it can't help but deteriorate.  I see rather few audiophiles who use laser turntables which actually fix that problem though.

post #6 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post

I've never understood why people liked vinyl so much.  No matter how good it may sound the first time you play it, it can't help but deteriorate.  I see rather few audiophiles who use laser turntables which actually fix that problem though.


The laser turntables are rather quite expensive.  Over $10,000+ IIRC.  Not that there aren't audiophiles who can afford things like that, but it's out of the range of mere mortal audiophiles so isn't going to be a widespread adoption of the technology.

post #7 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickronin View Post


I've never understood why people liked vinyl so much.  No matter how good it may sound the first time you play it, it can't help but deteriorate.  I see rather few audiophiles who use laser turntables which actually fix that problem though.



If you treat vinyl well, it generally holds up for years and many playings.

The reason I love vinyl is because of the huge amount of old material not on digital. I love poking around junk stores to find old discs and buy them cheap.

Access to cheap new music with reasonably good sound quality is well worth the expense and trouble of a turntable.

And, for the record (ha), I usually prefer SACD to everything else.
post #8 of 437

@Ham Sandwich

 

Wow, I didn't remember them being that expensive.  I could have sworn that I saw a company selling one for about 2-3k a few years ago, but I could be wrong.

 

@Uncle Erik

 

I guess it depends on how often you listen to the same thing.  It also has the effect of limiting how often you listen to a record just because its a pain to get it out and set it up.  If my tastes lay in an area where I could find old and interesting records I would like, than a turntable might actually be useful to me.  It would only ever play each record once though.  It would be recorded straight to digital on my PC and then tucked away in the closet or something.

 

To me, the convenience of digital audio via PC or DAP is everything.  It takes top priority over everything else, including SQ.  Luckily these days it doesn't have to, but even if vinyl did sound better, I still wouldn't use it.  Same with CDs.  Just too annoying.  Before napster, the only music I ever listened to were about half a dozen CDs I played with a discman on long car trips.  I didn't take long car trips often, so lack of variety wasn't a problem.

post #9 of 437

 

I guess it depends on what metric you're using to define "quality."

 

On purely technical grounds, CD wins hands down.

 

But subjectively, many people prefer the sound of vinyl over CD.

 

That's as valid a metric for "quality" as any. Though of course it can't be applied universally.

 

Having said that, I do find the verbiage on the website to be little more than cynical marketing.

 

He says "...today we listen to music on small plastic speakers connected to our computers." And with the AeroSystem One, you're still listening to small plastic speakers. With two 3 inch "tweeters" (their word) and a 5-1/4" "subwoofer" (also their word) it's just a repackaged set of computer speakers.

 

se

 

post #10 of 437


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Erik View Post

The reason I love vinyl is because of the huge amount of old material not on digital. I love poking around junk stores to find old discs and buy them cheap.
 


Yeah, it's nice if you can find ones that haven't been scratched up and played a bazillion times with a 5 pound tonearm.

 

By the way, still wanting some elaboration on your NFB/strangled signal comment.

 

se

 

 

post #11 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 

By the way, still wanting some elaboration on your NFB/strangled signal comment.

 


OT, but I'm actually interested in that as well.

post #12 of 437

I wish some of you non believers in vinyl could sit and listen to a great recording on LP  with (granted some high end equipment, including, table, arm, cartridge, and phono pre-amp) that gel together and be open minded enough to hear over the "Vinyl flaws", (IE) some surface noise, etc and hear the dynamic range and the truth of the music that was recorded in the studio or even at a live event.   You have to admit the compressed sound (Highs and Lows) is evident in most Cd's during playback........Also most vinyl lovers are OK with the music we hear on Cd's and just know it's the ease and convenience of  the medium that allows us/me to over look Cd's recording downfalls..... Maybe it's also an age thing, we grew up with the vinyl LP, we/I love the ritual of holding the LP jacket ( let alone the Info and art work on the covers). I also enjoy cleaning my Lps on a RCM, just knowing what's to come when I lower the cartridge into the groove!  FACT: Over this past weekend I paid a visit to my buddy in Cincy who has just about every "top shelf" piece of gear for Digital Playback including (the new PS Audio wave Transport and Dac) with the very BEST Cables going into a Big (I mean Big Buck) system....Did It sound good, It Blew my socks off, the best digital I've heard, BUT,  It could not match The same sound we all heard on the same recording as it did on his Vinyl Rig.......Granted he has about 25 or 30 + grand in his Vinyl rig........I guess My point is I play and invest in New and Used rare LPs  because I get the most enjoyment with my Vinyl playback system........But, I'm not saying/or preaching that LPs smoke all digital music that's been recorded, LPs  just  sound so much better to me then  MANY OF THEM.......


Edited by 9pintube - 9/13/10 at 7:32pm
post #13 of 437
Thread Starter 

 

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post

 I guess it depends on what metric you're using to define "quality."

 

On purely technical grounds, CD wins hands down.

 

But subjectively, many people prefer the sound of vinyl over CD.


OK, so it boils down to the fact that a vintage vinyl deck sounds better than a cheap CD player? 99% of the humanity cannot grasp the idea of spending more than $20 on a pair of headphones, so these ppl compare a $30 DVD player to a vintage vinyl deck and decide that they prefer the crackling warm vinyl sound to the shrill/thin sounding CD? I guess that's the root problem, the CD has always been put aside coz it costs a lot more to sound as enjoyable as vinyl.

post #14 of 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post

 


OK, so it boils down to the fact that a vintage vinyl deck sounds better than a cheap CD player? 99% of the humanity cannot grasp the idea of spending more than $20 on a pair of headphones, so these ppl compare a $30 DVD player to a vintage vinyl deck and decide that they prefer the crackling warm vinyl sound to the shrill/thin sounding CD? I guess that's the root problem, the CD has always been put aside coz it costs a lot more to sound as enjoyable as vinyl.

You Got Some Of those Facts Right, But IMO It takes more Dollars$$$$$ in LP playback gear, To get the BEST SOUND, PERIOD!    Not Digital Equip. as Uncle Erik said, Give him SACD and most of those decks are about a grand or two, now.......... I say to each their own! 

 


Edited by 9pintube - 9/13/10 at 7:51pm
post #15 of 437
Thread Starter 

 

Originally Posted by 9pintube View Post

 

hear the dynamic range and the truth of the music that was recorded in the studio or even at a live event.   You have to admit the compressed sound (Highs and Lows) is evident in most Cd's during playback


thanks for the testimonial! but can you please elaborate on what gear makes CD's sound compressed and less dynamic than vynil to your ears?

 

many ppl believe that it's the opamps that color the sound the most: http://forum.rightmark.org/topic.cgi?id=4:504-3

"Everybody -in different locations, at different times, without knowing from each other- told the same story, that they found the differences between opamps more important than the differences in dac chips."

 

and surely these days we have opamps that give you the feeling to be right in the middle of your music(AD797/LT1028/LT1363)...they sound warm, euphonic, enjoyable...feed them well and they will reward you greatly.

 

I might sound like a broken record but here's what Ray Samuels had to say about LT's top opamp: http://www.sgheadphones.net/index.php?showtopic=2480

"As Mr. Samuels once remarked, the LT1028 is like putting sugar all over your sound. It has a very liquid, sweet, and warm midrange that exhibits sharp bass and treble roll off. Unlike the Analog Devices op-amps, it is not dark. In fact, low level details flow through with greater clarity and definition."

 

and majkel loved it too: http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/audio-gd-discrete-op-amps-reviewed-OPA-earth-OPA-moon-OPA-sun-v-2-a-397691/

 

anything vinyl can do for you, LT1028 will do it 1000X better...and I guess that's also why the Audio-GD/Burson discrete gear is so famous.

 

Someone measured the Burson V2 THD rates and called them a completely malfunctioning opamp that was the biggest rip off in history: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fjipihorn.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F12%2F20%2Fmodules-burson-les-bonus%2F&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

 

the THD rates are up in the sky: http://jipihorn.free.fr/Documents/Divers%20Blog/AOP/IMD-THD-vs-Load-resized.gif

 

and the Audio-GD gear also measures rather poorly: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/435290/rmaa-test-results-for-audio-gd-dac-19mk3-and-reference-1

 

"DAC-19mk3

Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.11, -0.91 Average
Noise level, dB (A) -87.3 Good
Dynamic range, dB (A) 90.2 Very good
THD, % 0.0049 Very good
THD + Noise, dB (A) -81.4 Good
IMD + Noise, % 0.014 Very good
Stereo crosstalk, dB -81.5 Very good
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.013 Very good
General performance Good "

 

That's a $600 DAC ^

 

So ppl want digital to sound as distorted as analog? don't they realize that we can get "analog" sounding digital audio w/ all the pros and w/o any of the cons?

 

CD is not doomed to sound shrill and thin...IMHO its goal is to sound like a full speed 2" tape in Dolby SR.


Edited by leeperry - 9/13/10 at 8:05pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › "the vinyl has been replaced by the CD, largely inferior in quality"