|Originally posted by qwerty870
This is what I was complaining about in my previous post. The concept that in terms of neurality "CD takes the prize bigtime..." I beleive this to be completely false. I beleive that CD is inherently farther from absolute neutrality that vinyl. If by neutrality we mean closer to the actual tonality of real music.
(there is no real measurement for neutrality)
Yes there is... a comparison against the original master tapes in terms of frequency response (flat), lack of distortion, etc. Neutrality can be defined to at least some extent through measurements, probably to a great extent. Naturalness cannot be defined by measurements at all, but only by the human ear.
Sorry to say it, but CD measures much better than vinyl when compared to the master recording. The noise floor is much lower, dynamic range is better, distortion is significantly lower, etc. In that respect, CD is more neutral. As far as "actual tonality of real music" -- I'm not sure what you mean. Don't you mean naturalness here?
BTW, I'm a big fan of vinyl (see my sig) and often prefer it to digital -- it just pleases my ears more. But if you try to approach the "vinyl vs. digital" thing via the numbers, vinyl loses every time. I think some people have been trying to suggest that digital is technically deficient compared to vinyl, and that's where their arguments just flop like fish out of water. If you say vinyl sounds more natural and truer to the music than digital, I wholeheartedly agree. If you say that digital measures poorly compared to vinyl and is less neutral... don't make me laugh.