[doctorjuggles]

Assuming you had:
a) The best audio equipment and
b) The best quality vinyl
then vinyl would sound better.

However, for the average listener, for the money they can afford to spend on equipment, CD holds a better value/sound ratio. For most people, CD is the best option. But if money is no object, IMHO, you can't beat a bit of vinyl

 

[JoshK]

Quote:

Originally Posted by doctorjuggles Assuming you had: a) The best audio equipment and b) The best quality vinyl then vinyl would sound better. However, for the average listener, for the money they can afford to spend on equipment, CD holds a better value/sound ratio. For most people, CD is the best option. But if money is no object, IMHO, you can't beat a bit of vinyl

Again, I don't agree with this blanket statement for the reasons stated above. I can assure you it is not due to lack of resolution in my system.

 

[doctorjuggles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoshK Again, I don't agree with this blanket statement for the reasons stated above. I can assure you it is not due to lack of resolution in my system.

Don't take it so personally.
Any format that eliminates entire sonic spectrums is, by default inferior to one that doesn't.
I specifically said that IF you have the best equiment and the best vinyl. It's a statement that is only theoretical.

I'm sure your system sounds great.

 

[arnett]

On my modest analogue rig, I have found that many LPs have noticeably more distortion than the same recording/mastering on CD. In essence, CDs generally sound ‘cleaner’ and LPs sound smoother and less fatiguing. I felt exactly the same way back in 1985 when I heard a CDP for the first time. Then again, I’m using exactly the same turntable – so it might be my equipment.

Many of my 80s pop LPs sound pretty bad: sibilant and bright. Yet I own several audiophile LPs that sound unbelievable: no distortion at all and much smoother and more organic than the CD version.

I also buy a lot of used LPs and the SQ can be really hit or miss. An LP can be ruined by frequent plays on an improperly set-up TT. And, or course, an LP can be worn out. Then again, used LPs are often in the $3 - $5 price range.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnett I also buy a lot of used LPs and the SQ can be really hit or miss. An LP can be ruined by frequent plays on an improperly set-up TT. And, or course, an LP can be worn out. Then again, used LPs are often in the $3 - $5 price range.

Or $0.50 to $1.00 VG+ or better (if you know where to look

).

 

[minya]

I'm considering acquiring a vinyl rig, but JoshK's advice is most definitely sage advice. For classical music and jazz lovers, listening without a vinyl rig is blasphemy. I, however, listen to very little music recorded prior to 1990 (and a lot of it wasn't even recorded with acoustic instruments), so vinyl offers much less of a sound quality advantage over CD. Of course, there's quite a few things in my fancied music genres that are vinyl-only so I don't have a whole lot of choice.

- Chris

 

[tom hankins]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoshK Ok, I will go against the grain a little... I am a vinyl aficionado, so what I am about to say will seem like heresy. I have a Teres TT and a Sony XA777 CD/SACD player for the record. Even regarding virgin vinyl and a properly setup vinyl rig the comparison of LP vs CD isn't always a sure thing I have found. Lot depends on the music you listen to and more importantly, I have found, the era of the recording. If you are listening to Classical, Jazz or Classic Rock albums originally recorded some 30-40 years ago, then I have never found CD remasters to equal good vinyl. Even many/most recordings from the 80's to early 90's typically sound better on LP. Where I start to question the absoluteness of the statement, that LPs rule over CD, is often in well recorded very modern albums, particularly in the rock genre. Here I have found it to be no better than a 50-50 shot. It varies from recording to recording. I think a lot has to do with how they originally mastered the album, but just so I am clear, I am speaking of only well recorded, good sounding modern releases. Albums that come to mind, for concreteness are Radiohead's Kid A, Ryan Adams' albs, Wilco, Flaming Lips, etc. Many of the ones I listed I have on both formats and it is a hit and miss whether one format better the other. Sometimes it is clearly the LP that is better, sometimes it is clearly the CD that is better. Of course, I have a few Jazz LPs that absolutely trounce the CD versions I have heard of the same recording. I would suggest if you are considering diving into LPs that you take inventory of the music you really listen to the most and weigh that against the incovenience and time consumption of the format. For me, I like music all over the board from metal, to classical, from Jazz to electronica. I think each format has their place.

This is the most realistic answer I've heard so far on this topic. Thank you.

 

[JoshK]

Thanks tom and others...

My dad was a DJ in LA during the 70s and I inherited all his LPs, which is what got me into this obsession. I myself am 28 and my musical tastes are all over the map. But for the record (no pun intended), I liked to explain to others not familiar, that there is more to consider. I don't really need everyone to think as I do to feel good about myself, so I am just telling it like I see it.

 

[3lusiv3]

Although I have have listened to vinyl and preferred it to CD's, I'd have to agree that's it's too simplistic to just state that one format is better than the other. There are too many variables that throws out such a quick assumption. New high end CD players are very good when used with well made CD's.

 

[sclemmons]

I think Joshk nailed it. I have a Naim CDSii CD and a Verdier turntable, a respectable set up, and listen to CD's when I am not listening to XM Radio as a lazy lo-fi guilty pleasure. I listen to vinyl when I am showing off my system or when I want to tune into an older record, or when I am focused on the sound. In most cases vinyl rules. But if everything you like has been recorded since, say 1986, or 1990 at the latest, CD is your best bet, on average. If everything you like has been recorded before 1986, and you have the patience to clean and take care of your records, vinyl is incredibly rewarding. I believe that there was a time around 1986 that almost everything became digitally mastered, and that this process was complete around 1990. At that point, the difference between good vinyl and good digital became subtle. Before that point, the difference is not subtle.

Famous Blue Raincoat by Jennifer Warnes is a major demo favorite. At my house it sounds about the same on CD and LP. The older Jennifer Warnes like Shot From the Heart, is much better on vinyl. Little Feat, Grateful Dead, Dire Straits, Eric Clapton, Bonnie Raitt, Ry Cooder, Tony Bennett, etc -- this scenario applies in spades. Older recordings are better on vinyl. Newer recordings though are subtly different at best. Radiohead is subtle. Buena Vista Social Club, Eric Clapton Unplugged, Keb Mo. Anything well recorded on digital since 1990. All subtle vs vinyl.

Caveats: This is a good rule of thumb but depends on your system to some extent. All bets are off on audiophile labels and the like.

I disagree on the comment about thriftshops. Some of the best sounding vinyl stuff I have came from thrift shops, but you have to clean it with a serious system like a VPI or nitty gritty and you have to choose carefully. If you do, you won't believe what is out there for $1 apiece.

That said, I listen more to CD, iPod, and XM these days. But all digital is compressed audio by comparison and vinyl is at least mildly superior in sound in almost every way.

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sclemmons I think Joshk nailed it. I have a Naim CDSii CD and a Verdier turntable, a respectable set up, and listen to CD's when I am not listening to XM Radio as a lazy lo-fi guilty pleasure. I listen to vinyl when I am showing off my system or when I want to tune into an older record, or when I am focused on the sound. In most cases vinyl rules. But if everything you like has been recorded since, say 1986, or 1990 at the latest, CD is your best bet, on average. If everything you like has been recorded before 1986, and you have the patience to clean and take care of your records, vinyl is incredibly rewarding. I believe that there was a time around 1986 that almost everything became digitally mastered, and that this process was complete around 1990. At that point, the difference between good vinyl and good digital became subtle. Before that point, the difference is not subtle. Famous Blue Raincoat by Jennifer Warnes is a major demo favorite. At my house it sounds about the same on CD and LP. The older Jennifer Warnes like Shot From the Heart, is much better on vinyl. Little Feat, Grateful Dead, Dire Straits, Eric Clapton, Bonnie Raitt, Ry Cooder, Tony Bennett, etc -- this scenario applies in spades. Older recordings are better on vinyl. Newer recordings though are subtly different at best. Radiohead is subtle. Buena Vista Social Club, Eric Clapton Unplugged, Keb Mo. Anything well recorded on digital since 1990. All subtle vs vinyl. Caveats: This is a good rule of thumb but depends on your system to some extent. All bets are off on audiophile labels and the like. I disagree on the comment about thriftshops. Some of the best sounding vinyl stuff I have came from thrift shops, but you have to clean it with a serious system like a VPI or nitty gritty and you have to choose carefully. If you do, you won't believe what is out there for $1 apiece. That said, I listen more to CD, iPod, and XM these days. But all digital is compressed audio by comparison and vinyl is at least mildly superior in sound in almost every way.

You and I have much in common. I'm a huge XM junkie and have thousands of records and CDs but really enjoy LPs best. I recently invested in a great digital source and decided to take a small step back from the SACD and DVD-A formats due to the very frustrating lack of software. I'll likely step up and buy a new universal source but my heart will always belong to vinyl.

 

[kartik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuberoller You and I have much in common. I'm a huge XM junkie and have thousands of records and CDs but really enjoy LPs best. I recently invested in a great digital source and decided to take a small step back from the SACD and DVD-A formats due to the very frustrating lack of software. I'll likely step up and buy a new universal source but my heart will always belong to vinyl.

Fred,
As in all good things, I seem to be following your moves. I too am sick of the lack of decent SACD software and have decided to move back to vinyl for now. I've ordered a VPI scout with the JMW-9 tonearm, a Grado Platinum and the PH-1 from Todd. What are your impressions of this combo?
Kartik

 

[Tuberoller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kartik Fred, As in all good things, I seem to be following your moves. I too am sick of the lack of decent SACD software and have decided to move back to vinyl for now. I've ordered a VPI scout with the JMW-9 tonearm, a Grado Platinum and the PH-1 from Todd. What are your impressions of this combo? Kartik

That's a great combo and the Scout will likely be the very last table you will ever need. It's that good. The Grado combo sounds very good and will give you great resolution. I'm very sure you will be very happy.

 

[kartik]

Someone else thinks like you:
".....But if you're just starting out in analog or upgrading an existing front-end, and if you can spend $1500 on a turntable and tonearm, here's some advice: Go hear VPI's new player right away. This is not a cautious, conditional, "for special tastes only" recommendation. (No offense to those things that are: Hey, I love my Lowthers, but God knows they're not for everyone.) Rather, this is a flat-out, unconditional, "Holy Mother of Crap, I can't believe how good this thing is" recommendation. It's hard to imagine another way of spending $1500 that will add this much to your system.
Art Dudley, Stereophile; February, 2003

BTW I read your review of the cartridges and you reccomended the Platinum (Which you then owned) but now your sig shows a Sonata. Not that I can afford it easily, but is the sonata really a huge leap over the platinum or can I afford to wait to upgrade the platinum to the Sonata at a later date?

 

[Tuberoller]

Stick with the Platinum.

Sorry for the edit: