Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Vinyl or CD ? headache !!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vinyl or CD ? headache !!! - Page 2

post #16 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoftown1 View Post

I'm simply suggesting that many cd masters (especially some current albums) are more dynamically compressed than their vinyl releases.  The first example that comes to mind is M83s "Hurry Up, We're Dreaming."   The CD version always sounded more congested to me...and this is coming from someone who isn't a vinyl fan or analog freak.  Of course this isn't always the case, but it does happen (and no, I'm not making any rookie EQ mistakes:tongue_smile: ).
Sorry, when you said "mastered hot" that typically means mastered loud, not compressed.

You can master loud (bringing your peaks to -0.1dB) without needing any dynamic range compression.

And adding compression still shouldn't add clipping, which is the problem that SunJ was describing. If he's hearing clipping when listening to CDs, it suggests that there is something wrong with his setup - unless he just happens to be listening to albums that actually are clipped on the disc. (which is rarer than you might think)

It does seem that your example came from a different master than the CD version though: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/index.php?search_artist=&search_album=hurry+up%2C+we%27re+dreaming

But I do wonder how much of that is a difference in the master, and how much of it is the capture process. Not necessarily that album, as I am not familiar with it, but with vinyl rips in general.
It's not inconceivable that the process of creating a vinyl rip could simply expand the dynamic range from what is actually on there, and that you could achieve similar results by processing the CD audio, without the additional distortion that you get from Vinyl.
post #17 of 72
Thread Starter 
But vinyl rips contain gating, because of a higher floor noise right ? So in theory vinyl can't sound better.
post #18 of 72
Thread Starter 
--Double post--
post #19 of 72
They said due to thr rear engine of a 911 the car was going to be very bad handling wise......
But its one the most preferred car by drivers.......
The stats are not always correct......
post #20 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by akash neagi View Post

They said due to thr rear engine of a 911 the car was going to be very bad handling wise......
But its one the most preferred car by drivers.......
The stats are not always correct......

 

If you prefer vinyl because you like vinyls, its a different thing and perfectly reasonable.

 

The 911 example you give is unsuitable for this scenario. Porsche has had to work relentlessly on the suspension to make 911 the car it is today, to improve the 'stats'.

 

Hence, I don't think its wise to use 'stats' as an argument, because there's no doubt CDs are better when it comes to stats. A good CD will sound good, a bad vinyl will sound bad. On equally well mastered mediums, the CD has clear advantages.


Edited by proton007 - 4/28/13 at 10:56pm
post #21 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by akash neagi View Post

They said due to thr rear engine of a 911 the car was going to be very bad handling wise......
But its one the most preferred car by drivers.......
The stats are not always correct......


Try to get a drive in one of the 911 variants that was described as a bad handling car. It's a killer on a wet road. Not until the late 80's did we start to see a 911 that was a bit more user friendly. It is one of the most preferred cars because of its ability to land a date. I live in London and just 15 minutes away from a Porsche and Ferrari dealer. Most drivers that I see are older men in their late 40's and above. The young guys are more interested in other cars.

post #22 of 72
Lol
Bad example.....
post #23 of 72
Hey Guys,

Nice discussion, in the end a few facts are important:

Orginal master tape (anologe or digital) contains a very high level of information.

Put on cd or vinyl the master is mixed to 2 channels, so the different mixer settings can be the cause of different sound.
There is one exception:

Sheffield lab direct disc recordings.
During these sessions the music was recorded live and without interruption as a " master lacquer disc".
The Sheffield lab compact disc of these sessions were manufactured from the two-track Digital reference tape, recorded simultaneously with the orgininal direct disc performance.

Played with the right equiptment the cd come's not even near the soundstage and dynamics produced by vinyl.

At this moment the Digital album has to be at least 24bit 88khz, SA-cd to come near the soundstage of good vinyl.

Problem is my cd-player cost the same as my cartrigde. Low budget cd sounds beter, turntable combinations above approximatly 1.000,-- Euro sounds always better then cd.
The vinyl has to be heavy, clean, taken care of well, flat and you have to get out of Your chair every 18 minutes to turn it around.

So halleluja to Hi-res audio files; a 24 bit-192kHz file playing a bitrate of 9216 kbps really sounds great, these are playing great, without the problems of vinyl.

Don't try to digitalise your vinyl, vinyl belongs on your turntable, take digital music with you when your "on the road", there is always an alternitive already on your musicserver, of the vinyl you would like to hear on your bike.
Play your records in the time you save with this advise (I got it from the people of Linn).

Grtz mdp
post #24 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdpu View Post

Hey Guys,

Nice discussion, in the end a few facts are important:

Orginal master tape (anologe or digital) contains a very high level of information.

Put on cd or vinyl the master is mixed to 2 channels, so the different mixer settings can be the cause of different sound.
There is one exception:

Sheffield lab direct disc recordings.
During these sessions the music was recorded live and without interruption as a " master lacquer disc".
The Sheffield lab compact disc of these sessions were manufactured from the two-track Digital reference tape, recorded simultaneously with the orgininal direct disc performance.

Played with the right equiptment the cd come's not even near the soundstage and dynamics produced by vinyl.

At this moment the Digital album has to be at least 24bit 88khz, SA-cd to come near the soundstage of good vinyl.

Problem is my cd-player cost the same as my cartrigde. Low budget cd sounds beter, turntable combinations above approximatly 1.000,-- Euro sounds always better then cd.
The vinyl has to be heavy, clean, taken care of well, flat and you have to get out of Your chair every 18 minutes to turn it around.

So halleluja to Hi-res audio files; a 24 bit-192kHz file playing a bitrate of 9216 kbps really sounds great, these are playing great, without the problems of vinyl.

Don't try to digitalise your vinyl, vinyl belongs on your turntable, take digital music with you when your "on the road", there is always an alternitive already on your musicserver, of the vinyl you would like to hear on your bike.
Play your records in the time you save with this advise (I got it from the people of Linn).

Grtz mdp

 

 

There is a big difference between fact and opinion. Most of your opinions are verifiably incorrect especially those related to Information and dynamic range of the formats - LP potential dynamic range tops out at maybe 75db on a good day, CD does verifiably far better. In the audible bandwidth 20Hz - 20Khz LP information carrying capacity is measurably inferior to CD, as is its channel separation, noise, performance, distortion levels and  timing variation. 

post #25 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdpu View Post

Orginal master tape (anologe or digital) contains a very high level of information.
And CD can store everything up to 22kHz, with more dynamic range than analog capture mediums. The limit of our hearing is about 20kHz and most adults are well below that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdpu View Post

At this moment the Digital album has to be at least 24bit 88khz, SA-cd to come near the soundstage of good vinyl.
I'm not sure how ultrasonic sound has any impact on soundstage.
Vinyl has a dynamic range of about 11-12 bits under ideal conditions. (66-72dB) So 16-bit (96dB) is hardly a limiting factor, and you can use noise shaping (dither) to increase that beyond 100dB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdpu View Post

So halleluja to Hi-res audio files; a 24 bit-192kHz file playing a bitrate of 9216 kbps really sounds great, these are playing great, without the problems of vinyl.
High resolution only matters for capture where the audio is going to be processed for mastering - I would never record directly to 16/44.
As a distribution format, there's no real reason to go beyond 16/44 however.
Edited by StudioSound - 4/29/13 at 6:04am
post #26 of 72
Sound has to be compressed to put on vinyl. This disadvantidge could be the reason they sound so great in a livingroom.
You forgot to mention the difference in pulse-performance.
The way good vinyl is able to reproduce a recorded voice with hissing s-sounds, placed in the sounds space.
These specs are difficult to measure.

Grtz mdp
post #27 of 72
Truly it does not matter. Get em both. I didn't have a CD player until 98? Back then everyone was dumping their vinyl for CDs. Great rock records were 10 cents to a buck. Still though records can warp and scratch, they get expensive too nowadays. Best to just learn to enjoy both as if you do start to start getting vinyl and CDs of the same releases you'll find some sound better on CD.

Really if you hear a great set up vinyl rig they may seem little more natural. Vinyl has better bass and Redbook is more compressed.We are really so lucky to have the choices we have. The trick is to train your mind to enjoy all music.


Much of the time we fail to realize just how great recorded music sound in any format. Who cares about the small differences.


Most members here could realize a more significant improvement in sound just by changing their headphones or amp to a better one. This Cd vinyl thing has been run into the ground and is really meaningless.
post #28 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick_charles View Post

 

 

There is a big difference between fact and opinion. Most of your opinions are verifiably incorrect especially those related to Information and dynamic range of the formats - LP potential dynamic range tops out at maybe 75db on a good day, CD does verifiably far better. In the audible bandwidth 20Hz - 20Khz LP information carrying capacity is measurably inferior to CD, as is its channel separation, noise, performance, distortion levels and  timing variation. 

Yes, most often we believe something to be a fact because we were "impressed" with something. You have most often (I follow your thread) come up with verified facts with subjects and I would look forward to your take (if you have the time and the materials) on this. In the 70s I listened to DBX encoded LP vinyls. I was amazed with the lack of surface noise and the "Dynamics" and "frequency range". As per the technical literature, the DR was -85dB to +15db ie 100 dB (I do not have the right to scan & post the chart). I have gone back to listening (not many vinyls available) and a colleague from another Forum listened and thought DR was exceptional. How much is my romance with DBX and what is the fact about DR and frequency range on these vinyls?. of course you will need a DBX encoded vinyl and a DBX Type II decoder to carry out any investigation.

Regards

An enquiring Brit William

post #29 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtaylorbasil View Post

Yes, most often we believe something to be a fact because we were "impressed" with something. You have most often (I follow your thread) come up with verified facts with subjects and I would look forward to your take (if you have the time and the materials) on this. In the 70s I listened to DBX encoded LP vinyls. I was amazed with the lack of surface noise and the "Dynamics" and "frequency range". As per the technical literature, the DR was -85dB to +15db ie 100 dB (I do not have the right to scan & post the chart). I have gone back to listening (not many vinyls available) and a colleague from another Forum listened and thought DR was exceptional. How much is my romance with DBX and what is the fact about DR and frequency range on these vinyls?. of course you will need a DBX encoded vinyl and a DBX Type II decoder to carry out any investigation.

Regards

An enquiring Brit William

 

 

Wow that is going back a bit. DBX despite its technical promise never really caught on with many mainstream listeners. I've never seen any actual measurements of the system in use just the Popular Mechanics article from 79 and variations . Nobody I knew ever had one of those and as it coincided with the growth of digital recording and soon after CD it arrived too late really and Dolby was everywhere for cassettes already. If it had been around and cheap in 1984 I might have stuck with vinyl longer.The literature talks about potential 90 - 100db dynamic range but what was actually put down on vinyl - who knows ? But the idea of noiseless vinyl is intriguing...I'm not sure if analog reel to reel tape back then really had 100db dynamic range to start with ? I thought it was about 80db with Dolby. From what I can gather recording above +3db on analog tape tended to lead to distortion so while you might theoretically get 100db some caution would be involved in the recording and most likely your theoretical max would be nearer 90 which is still a lot for vinyl ! In practical terms outside of some classical recordings even that is more than you would really expect.on a recording. I've never had a CD with more than about 65db (Mahler 1, Solti/CSO) 

 

 

Here is an interesting site

 

http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/

post #30 of 72
Thread Starter 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Vinyl or CD ? headache !!!