[bhd812]

Well I just got into Vinyl and when I was young vinyl was mostly on its way out from mainstream so I never really got attached.

The cdp I have is a meridian g08 which in itself is one of the closest cdp's to vinyl some say, also one of the top cdp's out.

My super beginner vinyl rig is dead on with the g08 but has more presence and more relaxed then the cdp...infact comparing it to the g08 the cdp sounds digital to much.

 

[bifcake]

Kieran,

I don't know what else to say that hasn't been said. I have done a number of comparisons and it just seems to me that a CD is leaps and bounds better than an LP. I can only go by my ears and I'm sure that even if I were to whip out charts and data to prove my point, it would be meaningless to those who happen to love vinyl. I guess objectivity has no place in a purely subjective argument.

So, to sum up, I guess you'd have to go and listen for yourself. Obviously, opinions are like you know what and everyone's gone one.

 

[Dick Danger]

I’ve heard all about the technical superiority of the digital disc and how it can do this, this, and that, but Steve Hoffman once told me that vinyl doesn’t sound good in spite of its limitations, it sounds good because of them. I’m more than willing to believe him.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake With its decreased frequency response and dynamics, vinyl accentuates the midrange.

Doesnt Vinyl have a wider frequency response than Redbook? Not that it should make a difference anyways as it is outside the range of human hearing, but still...

That aside, I think that they both have their strengths. The fact is that with a budget conscious CD setup, you can get much more for your money than with Vinyl. That and the aforementioned Vinyl warmth has kept me away from it for now. Maybe in the future when I have more disposible income I will try to put together a decent Vinyl rig and start raiding the used record shops.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter braun Vinyl is overall a lot more natural to my ears. ... Vinyl just seems to have "soul", whereas the digital sources I have heard (even the best of them) seem to be sterile imitators just running through the motions.

I grew up with vinyl myself. When the CD format was launched, I was fascinated by the idea to have a medium with no crackles and pops, low distortion as well as much higher accuracy, so I was among the first who bought a CD player. I even had a CD before a player: King Crimson’s «In the Court of the Crimson King». Well, finally I was a bit disappointed by the relatively lifeless, glassy-cold presentation, although I absolutely appreciated dynamics, clarity and cleanness. Later generations improved in many sonic areas, and my CD collection grew constantly – I was a techie and liked the comfort of the CD, so despite my reservations I fully went the digital route.

Then one day I decided to upgrade my record player. A Thorens TD 321 with Linn Basik tonearm and Shure Ultra 500 pickup was my choice. I was perplexed. This record player seemed to best my then CD player, a Philips CD 960, which I really liked for its refined sonic characteristic. More natural, more organic, more believable than the CD.

The great eye-opener came in the shape of some digital recorded LPs. They all sounded better than their CD equivalent. Of course the CD versions always sounded clearer and more dynamic, but the LP version had that naturalness and seemed to carry more information than the CD. So I began to realize that the vinyl effect is actually fake.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello ...it is a well-known fact (outside the audiophile circles) that vinyl alters the sound. Those alterations are generally called "euphonic distortion". There are many who prefer those alterations to the purer and more authentic sound of cd.

Exactly!

Quote:

To sum it up: vinyl is great for listening to vinyl. For music listening, choose CD!

I wouldn’t go this far. Because I still think the CD has its own limitations, and in certain areas, such as overtones, vinyl might at least recreate (by adding a mild dose of artificial harmonics) some of the missing overtone accuracy lost in the digitalizing process -- considering the sharp low-pass filter with its time-smearing effect (-> the glassy component). Because I guess most of the contemporary vinyl editions are digital recordings anyway.


Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow Listening to good vinyl reproduction may also help to educate your ear about sonic virtues that you should be looking for in digital equipment.

I agree. Even better if you’d have the mastertape at your disposal. But at least vinyl can offer you a different perspective.


Quote:

Originally Posted by kuma ...actually, an anlogue delivers better dynamics particularly in low frequency area than most digital.

You’d probably have a hard time justifying this statement. Is it based on a subjective impression of «dynamics»?

Quote:

A humble 1k$ analogue rig can rival a CD player costing many times more.

I doubt this, although it’s hard to find an adequate basis for comparison. Also it depends very much on your interpretation of sound quality. If it’s mere accuracy, I’d give the (expensive!) CD player more credit.

Quote:

Are you listening to the sound? or music?

Good question after all! Because although IMO the CD format is superior overall, the deficits of vinyl are of a kind that sounds more natural, whereas the CD format’s weakness and the distortions introduced by it and the (necessarily imperfect) playback devices are more of the artificial, inorganic kind.


Quote:

Originally Posted by lini ...if you're susceptible to the magic of vinyl, a reasonably priced table (~ US$ 300 - 500) should already do the job. There's no superiority, though. It's more a different kind of presentation. And in some ways, vinyl is just more... hmmm... down to earth maybe... or maybe even romantic in a way. All that precision mechanics, the more tangible principle, the rituals involved... It's a bit like the fascination of nice mechanical watches in the age of the quartz watch.

Nicely put!


Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman Vinyl is completely analogue - there are no "zeroes and ones" in musical notes - sound waves are the things that come out of cellos, not computer data. It may not be as technically perfect, but in my opinion it's closer to the "audiophile goal" of reproducing music like how it's supposed to sound - not like how it's supposed to sound on the media itself.

Analog seen through rose-colored glasses while digital demonized...

If the digital grid is fine enough, you can’t hear a difference to the analog original -- theoretically. If a digital camera has enough pixels and high enough dynamic resolution, there’s no disadvantage compared to an analog film camera -- digital can even turn into an advantage. (I’m not exactly saying the CD has enough of both though...) In turn vinyl suffers from a more serious disadvantage: the mechanical recording and playback. Traditionally sound transducers (and the cutting machine and the record player are exactly that) are the weakest link in the audio chain, and this reputation is justified. In these electromechanical processes a lot of distortions and resonances are added to the original signal, a much higher degree of coloration than (decentlly designed) electronics are capable of. But still it’s true that all these distortions have an organic, natural characteristic and therefore are relatively easier to accept by the ears than some rather technical colorations added by digital techniques and electronics.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake I don't think that either CD, SACD or vinyl sound like a live concert. There are too many links in the chain such as recording equipment, recording technique, mastering equipment/technique, playback equipment and media. Each of these processes adds certain coloration and distortion to the recorded event, so I'm not sure that I would even approach the differences from this angle. What I do think is that CD sounds BETTER. By better, I mean that it sounds more dynamic, detailed, with greater soundstage and accuracy.

I agree. But don’t forget hi-rez! Although SACD and DVD-A still aren’t broadly accepted by die-hard vinyl lovers – there’s still some «digital» colorations as it seems, although massively reduced. Now I think these have more to do with the mentioned recording and playback equipment. Since you won’t find two different and nevertheless identical sounding SACD or DVD-A players -- hence their reproduction must still be inherently imperfect --, and I'm sure the same applies to ADCs. And I think that the recording equipment, primarily the microphones, are of even higher importance in this regard. While the same recording heard from vinyl will sound perfectly organic. Vinyl isn't transparent enough to convey the recording flaws in their full bandwidth. «Ignorance is bliss...»

 

[kuma]

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by kuma ...actually, an anlogue delivers better dynamics particularly in low frequency area than most digital. You’d probably have a hard time justifying this statement. Is it based on a subjective impression of «dynamics»?

jazz,

I am not going to justify anything for you or anyone else.

If you don't get it, so be it.
And stop listening to the sound. Start listening to the music which I reliase from your statement you have hard time understanding.
If someone needs to explain it, it's not worth explaining.

That said, majority probably agree that they prefer the digital formats over analogue and I can certainly empathise.

 

[tennisets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake I agree. I find vinyl to be overrated. I can see why people like it though. With its decreased frequency response and dynamics, vinyl accentuates the midrange. Some people like it. Than again, they spend a LOT of money and a lot of effort trying to get their records sound more like CDs, with increased frequency response, dynamic range and neutrality. Granted, I'm overgeneralizing by implying that all CD players are neutral, but the point that I'm trying to make is that it is MUCH more expensive and takes MUCH greater effort to make vinyl sound good. There is NO comparison between a $2000 turntable and a $2000 CD player. CDs will sound crisper, cleaner and will contain more information. It seems to me that this whole vinyl movement is a very niche movement consisting of people who try to be different.

Oh, oh OH, I beg to differ. $2000 will get you and OUTSTANDING vinyl setup that will outperform any CD player costing significantly more. Some people may argue, but as far as I'm concerned what I just said is not my opinion, it is FACT, as long as the 'table is properly set up and is used with good enough associated equipment.

You cite "decreased frequency response and dynamics." Those are characteristics of a poorly set up table. I would even go so far as to say that a $500 'table will outperform CD players costing upwards of $1000. Decreased frequency extremes and dynamics are not characteristics of a good vinyl setup.

 

[tennisets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazz The great eye-opener came in the shape of some digital recorded LPs. They all sounded better than their CD equivalent. Of course the CD versions always sounded clearer and more dynamic, but the LP version had that naturalness and seemed to carry more information than the CD. So I began to realize that the vinyl effect is actually fake.

The vinyl effect is not "fake." When the music on those digital LPs was originally recorded, it was digitally recorded in either 20 or 24 bits. When it comes time to put those bits on a CD, some of them are omitted because CDs can only do 16 bits. Vinyl, on the other hand, has an infinite number of bits. So when the engineers put those digital bits on the vinyl, all of them were present, none had to be omitted (they were, of course, changed back from bits into waves first, but those waves were formed from all 20 or 24 bits). The reason it seems like there is more information and a more natural sound on the LP is because there IS more information on the LP. It's more natural because more of the original musical event remains intact.

It's not the vinyl sound that is fake, it is the CD sound that is fake. A CD has less information on it than a vinyl disc, period. You can't argue with that.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick Danger I’ve heard all about the technical superiority of the digital disc and how it can do this, this, and that, but Steve Hoffman once told me that vinyl doesn’t sound good in spite of its limitations, it sounds good because of them. I’m more than willing to believe him.

Steve Hoffman has also spoken to me about these things. Essentially he said the same thing - to me. But also remember that there are characteristics of vinyl that make the mastering MUCH more noticable than with a CD. Personally, because I believe that the vinyl record is better at directly translating what was once on the master tape, good mastering is much more noticable and is also better-sounding on a vinyl record.

But what do I know?

Because CD has limitations and vinyl doesn't, it's easy to see how vinyl can be considered a more "high definition" format over CD - because a REALLY GOOD LP that is REALLY CLEAN will be better than a CD, but a REALLY BAD LP that is REALLY DIRTY will sound worse than an LP. Same goes with equipment.

 

[tyrion]

Isn't all of what we do a matter of taste and preference? Why does it always have to be mine is better than yours? I love vinyl. I also love cd's. I have more fun with my vinyl than with cd's. Vinyl takes some effort but once you got the right piece of vinyl, clean it and play it on your nicely set up tt, there is nothing like, imo. Do I have any idea of what a bunch of graphs or tables would say relative to what I am hearing? I have no idea and do not care. I know what I like and I know it when I hear it.

I had a friend over the house a couple of days ago and we were all sitting around talking. I moved the subject to music. We started to talk about vinyl vs. cd's. He insisted that digital is so much better than a piece of plastic. I put on a nice re-issue of Kind of Blue and played it for him. By the end of the first side he understood. There is no question in my mind that this recording sounds as good on my sub $500 tt through my speakers as the digital version sounds out of my over $2000 cdp and any of the other high end cdp's I've heard.

 

[Leporello]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisets Vinyl, on the other hand, has an infinite number of bits.

Vinyl has no bits at all. It has a bandwith and and a dynamic range that are equivalent to a certain amount of bits in the digital world.

40 kHz sampling rate and 13 bits wordlength on a good day? At any rate a far cry from infinity.



Regards,

L.

 

[Ferbose]

Wow, I am really impressed with JAZZZ's insightful comments on the subject.

I have little exposure to LP, so I can't say what the real deal is with LP.
But I think audio distortion is not additive, and there is a lot of masking and reinterpretation going on in our brain. CD seems to have better specs than LP but the artifacts due to A/D and D/A, such as jitter, phase distortion and alias, although very small, do seem to be quite detrimental to the integrity of music. LP may have a lot of measurable distortion, but the brain seems to cope with them easily. I was surprised at how much pops and clicks there are in LP playback when I first heard them, but 15 min later my brain kind of filter them out. Whenever I hear hi-end LP system, I don't get a sense of illustion that it is live music, due to the noise and distortion, but the overalll presentation is very pleasant. When I listen to hi-end CD systems, I don't get the illusion of live music either, because things are too analytical and the tonality is never quite right. SACD does seem to adress some of CD's issues. I can understand the charm of LP but it is probably too inconvenient for me to adopt it.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tennisets The vinyl effect is not "fake." When the music on those digital LPs was originally recorded, it was digitally recorded in either 20 or 24 bits. When it comes time to put those bits on a CD, some of them are omitted because CDs can only do 16 bits. Vinyl, on the other hand, has an infinite number of bits. So when the engineers put those digital bits on the vinyl, all of them were present, none had to be omitted (they were, of course, changed back from bits into waves first, but those waves were formed from all 20 or 24 bits).

Good argument!

Although I'm not sure if it really applies to the LPs in question, released between 1983 and 1986, on Philips (Berg: violin concerto...), Orfeo (Glasunov: orchestral works) and Erato (Schönberg: violin and piano concerti; Honegger: Symphonies No.2&4 and 3&5). Even if it's the case, I doubt that LPs can benefit from the higher bit depth at all. Their noise floor is much too high to allow the additional bits to take effect. More likely the effective dynamic range is somewhere between (the equivalent of) 13 and 15 bit.


Quote:

The reason it seems like there is more information and a more natural sound on the LP is because there IS more information on the LP. It's more natural because more of the original musical event remains intact.

Like I've tried to elaborate, due to the double electromechanical conversion process (during recording and playback) -- not to forget the pressing process -- it's impossible that the end product doesn't suffer from various audible corruptions of a (theoretically) clearly higher degree than the CD. The more so with a digital master, in which case the CD represents an 1:1 copy (bit depth aside). Nevertheless I agree in a sense that there's indeed more information on vinyl: The added distortion acting as a «restoration» of missing overtone accuracy (due to the CD format's bad high-cut filter) and of course the surface noise making for a certain additional «ambience» and airiness. Also the elastic compliance of the vinyl offers some sort of soft-focus, a smoothing of hard edges, amplifying the organic characteristic.


Quote:

Originally Posted by kuma I am not going to justify anything for you or anyone else. If you don't get it, so be it.

I see -- what you say needs no reasoning, because it's from you personally.

And of course there's no way I can get member of the club.


Quote:

And stop listening to the sound. Start listening to the music which I realise from your statement you have hard time understanding. If someone needs to explain it, it's not worth explaining.

Although this sounds like a statement of belief, I can imagine what you mean. Of course I'm a sound fetishist -- like probably most here --, but that has also to do with the music I listen to which really lives from the sound and fine nuances, which I'd like to have preserved (not to be mixed up with emphasized detail!). However, I intend to maintain my way of music listening independent of different (imperative) approaches. BTW, like mentioned in my previous post, I can absolutely hear the magic of vinyl. I'm just not so easily tricked by euphonic distortion or don't want it to be. It helps that I don't clearly prefer warm euphony to a colder and drier sound (not to be mixed up with analyticalness!).

 

[Aman]

Jazz: There are many points I agree with you on, but I have to argue the corruption theory.

While you are correct that during pressing, there is considerable distortion that is added to the vinyl record. While considerable may be in numbers, it isn't always very audible. It IS audible with a terrible mix or for, as an example, mono records that are re-processed for stereo. HOWEVER, the vinyl media itself has basically no limitations. Because it is a manual, analogue media, the limitations are only coming from the user (cleanliness of the vinyl, turntable configuration) and the recording itself. With this in mind, vinyl is really the ONLY media that can constantly, consistently, move ahead with the times. While it may always suffer slight distortion or varriation during the pressing, CDs also contain the inherent distortion of digitization. This, I assume, until very recently, should have been very effective against CD sound as well.

But I think that point should be taken...

 

[tennisets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leporello Vinyl has no bits at all. It has a bandwith and and a dynamic range that are equivalent to a certain amount of bits in the digital world. 40 kHz sampling rate and 13 bits wordlength on a good day? At any rate a far cry from infinity. Regards, L.

I was using "infinite number of bits" more as a figure of speech than something to be taken literally. All I meant was that on vinyl the music lies in a continuous waveform, as opposed to a group of 1s and 0s that are then converted into a waveform, with the "empty" parts (again more a figure of speech than anything else) "filled in" in the conversion process. I know I'm not being very technical here, but that is what I believe, and if you believe differently, no problem

. The ability to have civil discussions on disagreements is a great thing which I thoroughly enjoy.

Jazz: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, eh? Anyway, I'm glad you understood my points. I can understand where you're coming from, anyway. A good day to you!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion Isn't all of what we do a matter of taste and preference? Why does it always have to be mine is better than yours? I love vinyl. I also love cd's. I have more fun with my vinyl than with cd's. Vinyl takes some effort but once you got the right piece of vinyl, clean it and play it on your nicely set up tt, there is nothing like, imo. Do I have any idea of what a bunch of graphs or tables would say relative to what I am hearing? I have no idea and do not care. I know what I like and I know it when I hear it. I had a friend over the house a couple of days ago and we were all sitting around talking. I moved the subject to music. We started to talk about vinyl vs. cd's. He insisted that digital is so much better than a piece of plastic. I put on a nice re-issue of Kind of Blue and played it for him. By the end of the first side he understood. There is no question in my mind that this recording sounds as good on my sub $500 tt through my speakers as the digital version sounds out of my over $2000 cdp and any of the other high end cdp's I've heard.

Well put. I agree with you completely.