[nick_charles]

I grew up with vinyl in the 60s/70s/80s my recollection of the early 80s is of trying to deal with the extraneous noises from vinyl when listening to classical music. For pop music it was fine and for the louder bits of classical also fine but during quieter passages all the stuff that is not there on CD (Rumble, Hum, Scratches, Clicks and Pops) used to drive me nuts and I did not even listen on headphones back then. Then I heard my first CD a Marantz CD63  (rebadged Philips CD101) which by modern standards was pretty poor (SNR of 90db  THD: 0.005%, Crosstalk -86db) but listening to the opening bars of Mahler 1 (which is pretty quiet) no audible noise whatsoever - bliss.
 
It really was just the noise that killed LP for me, I could have lived with the inconvenience, I was a novice flat-earther back then.
 
Then about 6 years ago after being a member on HF for a few years and hearing so many tales of how brill LP was I went out and bought a couple of quite well regarded 1980s Denon TTs with decent MM carts found a NAD 3020, went to the local record store and bought a few classical LPs - there was undeniably something pleasant about the experience of listening to LP but all the old noises were there again and this time I was listening on headphones and the noise was terribly pervasive so I gave the better one away to an old pal and sold the lesser online. At the time my CD player was a $230 Marantz bitstream multichanger and some vintage cheapo Yamaha/Onkyo multibit single disc machines so not exactly setting the bar that high.
 
A bit sad really as I had high expectations of the experience...and I put a fair amount of money into it 
 
Perhaps had I invested a couple of grand I might have got a setup with bearable noise , who knows but most of my ripped CDs sound decent, some sound crappy, some sound excellent. They mostly sound (with a few exceptions) like there is no extraneous noise that should not be there - that willl do for me...

 

[safulop]

 
 This is why I keep saying "if they're level matched" it would be extremely difficult to hear a difference. The volume changes are not "massively greater" in the vinyl version, and I think this is a very bad example to illustrate your point. 
 
 A better example would be to get an old 70's vinyl pressing of something, then get the latest CD remaster of it. 
 
Taylor Swift is modern engineering at its compression obsessed best, from recording to mastering. I think you're confusing overall volume with dynamic range.

I think that you can see there are number of high-amplitude peaks in the vinyl waveform which are at least twice the amplitude of the release following.  These correspond to percussive attack transients.  The corresponding peaks in the CD waveform are barely louder than the release following, rather than being more than twice the amplitude.  Those attack transients have, in effect, been digitally clipped.  I do not think, in disagreement with you, that I am confusing overall volume with dynamic range.
 
In general when old records are remastered, they do not introduce this amount of compression because it would alter the familiar sound too much.  They instead often do other things like boosting EQ in certain frequency bands.

 

[inthere]

 

 
 This is why I keep saying "if they're level matched" it would be extremely difficult to hear a difference. The volume changes are not "massively greater" in the vinyl version, and I think this is a very bad example to illustrate your point. 
 
 A better example would be to get an old 70's vinyl pressing of something, then get the latest CD remaster of it. 
 
Taylor Swift is modern engineering at its compression obsessed best, from recording to mastering. I think you're confusing overall volume with dynamic range.

I think that you can see there are number of high-amplitude peaks in the vinyl waveform which are at least twice the amplitude of the release following.  These correspond to percussive attack transients.  The corresponding peaks in the CD waveform are barely louder than the release following, rather than being more than twice the amplitude.  Those attack transients have, in effect, been digitally clipped.  I do not think, in disagreement with you, that I am confusing overall volume with dynamic range.
 
In general when old records are remastered, they do not introduce this amount of compression because it would alter the familiar sound too much.  They instead often do other things like boosting EQ in certain frequency bands.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it because you have both and I'm not going out and buying Taylor Swift
 
It would however be a big help if you could level match the two versions and post the files and maybe some of us can do an ABX to see if we can tell the difference.

 

[safulop]

 
Taylor Swift is modern engineering at its compression obsessed best, from recording to mastering. I think you're confusing overall volume with dynamic range.

Actually if you compare Taylor Swift with most other modern pop recordings, e.g. Katy Perry, Justin Bieber et al., her sound is comparatively delicate and detailed.  She generally eschews the full-contact "industrial" hypercompressed sound of modern pop.

 

[safulop]

 
I guess I'll have to take your word for it because you have both and I'm not going out and buying Taylor Swift
 
It would however be a big help if you could level match the two versions and post the files and maybe some of us can do an ABX to see if we can tell the difference.

I'd love to but I can't post them here (can I?), and my website repository is down for some unknown reason.  Stay tuned. . .

 

[safulop]

OK, here's a last try to convince you.  Now I've level-matched the two songs to have equivalent average intensity, using an intensity scaling algorithm in my processing software.  After doing that I snipped out a single snare drum whap in the midst of all the music, the snippet lasts about 72 ms. Once again the figure compares the same snippet in the CD vs. the vinyl.  Now if these won't sound different I don't know what will.  One is a *compressed* snare strike, the other is a much less compressed snare strike.  In spite of having equal average intensity, the normalized voltage peak on the CD example is 0.35, compared to 0.45 for the vinyl.
 

 

[safulop]

  In general when old records are remastered, they do not introduce this amount of compression because it would alter the familiar sound too much.  They instead often do other things like boosting EQ in certain frequency bands.

Or not!  It was requested that I provide an example of song "originally mastered for vinyl" that has since been remastered for CD.  And boy did I find a winner on my first try!  I did so by ear, of course, thinking of the one CD in my collection that I find so atrocious-sounding that it never gets played.  Here you may feast your eyes on a *level-matched* comparison between the CD remaster of the 1983 Yes hit "Owner of a Lonely Heart" that was reissued by Rhino about 10 or more years ago, and my lovingly preserved vinyl copy that I bought back in 1985 or so.  WOW!  Even I can't believe my eyes on this one. 
 
*These are level-matched waveforms shown on the same amplitude scale!  Max normalized voltage is +/- 0.75 for both!!  Look at the atrocious flat-topping of the CD reissue!  Why did they bother???
 
Incidentally, the huge peak at the very beginning of the vinyl recording is the needle drop.  I like to record that on my vinyl rips so they always sound authentic!
 

 

[safulop]

  I grew up with vinyl in the 60s/70s/80s my recollection of the early 80s is of trying to deal with the extraneous noises from vinyl when listening to classical music. For pop music it was fine and for the louder bits of classical also fine but during quieter passages all the stuff that is not there on CD (Rumble, Hum, Scratches, Clicks and Pops) used to drive me nuts and I did not even listen on headphones back then. Then I heard my first CD a Marantz CD63  (rebadged Philips CD101) which by modern standards was pretty poor (SNR of 90db  THD: 0.005%, Crosstalk -86db) but listening to the opening bars of Mahler 1 (which is pretty quiet) no audible noise whatsoever - bliss.
 
It really was just the noise that killed LP for me, I could have lived with the inconvenience, I was a novice flat-earther back then.
 
Then about 6 years ago after being a member on HF for a few years and hearing so many tales of how brill LP was I went out and bought a couple of quite well regarded 1980s Denon TTs with decent MM carts found a NAD 3020, went to the local record store and bought a few classical LPs - there was undeniably something pleasant about the experience of listening to LP but all the old noises were there again and this time I was listening on headphones and the noise was terribly pervasive so I gave the better one away to an old pal and sold the lesser online. At the time my CD player was a $230 Marantz bitstream multichanger and some vintage cheapo Yamaha/Onkyo multibit single disc machines so not exactly setting the bar that high.
 
A bit sad really as I had high expectations of the experience...and I put a fair amount of money into it 
 
Perhaps had I invested a couple of grand I might have got a setup with bearable noise , who knows but most of my ripped CDs sound decent, some sound crappy, some sound excellent. They mostly sound (with a few exceptions) like there is no extraneous noise that should not be there - that willl do for me...

It's interesting that most audiophiles I've heard from over the years who gave up on vinyl usually cited background noise as the main problem, and I certainly agree.  I have a recent piano performance by Lang Lang on vinyl, and sadly the records are not pressed virgin or something so they've picked up excessive ticks and pops after only a few plays.  Fortunately I already ripped them to CD when they sounded smooth!  But my point is, I've never heard a serious audiophile say "I gave up on vinyl because it sounds like crap.  Thank God CDs came along and saved my poor ears from that garbage."

 

[arnyk]

  OK, here's a last try to convince you.  Now I've level-matched the two songs to have equivalent average intensity, using an intensity scaling algorithm in my processing software.  After doing that I snipped out a single snare drum whap in the midst of all the music, the snippet lasts about 72 ms. Once again the figure compares the same snippet in the CD vs. the vinyl.  Now if these won't sound different I don't know what will.  One is a *compressed* snare strike, the other is a much less compressed snare strike.  In spite of having equal average intensity, the normalized voltage peak on the CD example is 0.35, compared to 0.45 for the vinyl.
 

 
OK. so there is one LP that is appreciably less compressed than the same music on CD. What does this prove in general about the relative merits of the two formats, given the 100,000s recordings on both formats?
 
Nothing.
 
The fact of the matter is that from 1983 to approximately 1993 the international record business minted millions if not billions of dollars by re-releasing "Digitally remastered" versions of LPs on CD, which people spent their good hard earned money for in order to obtain improved sound quality. Very few complaints. I personally purchased many of the recordings and enjoyed them for years. I was so pleased that after a decent amount of time listening to the CD, I sold my entire LP collection.
 
As I've said before, we now have in 2015 a single pathological Taylor Swift CD that appears to have been intentionally sabotaged. There is no technical justification for this sabotage, as it is beyond doubt that the CD could have been just as uncompressed or even more uncompressed as the LP.
 
What should be done about this? For one thing it is against my best interests to change my purchasing habits and financially reward this kind of counterproductive behavior.

 

[Redcarmoose]

All phono-stages have ground hum. Some more some less.
All records are warped. Speed issues.
All needles have groove (suface noise) hum. Again on how deep they go, some more some less.
All records have a pop or 300.

Yet the mind filters it all out and saves the day on a regular basis. Go figure?

 

[safulop]

   
OK. so there is one LP that is appreciably less compressed than the same music on CD. What does this prove in general about the relative merits of the two formats, given the 100,000s recordings on both formats?
 
Nothing.
 
The fact of the matter is that from 1983 to approximately 1993 the international record business minted millions if not billions of dollars by re-releasing "Digitally remastered" versions of LPs on CD, which people spent their good hard earned money for in order to obtain improved sound quality. Very few complaints. I personally purchased many of the recordings and enjoyed them for years. I was so pleased that after a decent amount of time listening to the CD, I sold my entire LP collection.
 
As I've said before, we now have in 2015 a single pathological Taylor Swift CD that appears to have been intentionally sabotaged. There is no technical justification for this sabotage, as it is beyond doubt that the CD could have been just as uncompressed or even more uncompressed as the LP.
 
What should be done about this? For one thing it is against my best interests to change my purchasing habits and financially reward this kind of counterproductive behavior.

Arny you're starting to sound like a raving lunatic, not sure why you have to do that.  I'm just demonstrating the facts behind my thread.  What in God's name are you doing?

 

[safulop]

  The fact of the matter is that from 1983 to approximately 1993 the international record business minted millions if not billions of dollars by re-releasing "Digitally remastered" versions of LPs on CD, which people spent their good hard earned money for in order to obtain improved sound quality. Very few complaints.

I, for one, complained about every God-damned one of them.

 

[arnyk]

  I, for one, complained about every God-damned one of them.

 
I'm sure that they sounded different then LPs, which for me was the good news. Got rid of all that audible noise and distortion.  Just about everybody in the world agreed with me, and LP sales fell by about 99%. 
 
Technology marches on!

 

[inthere]

I've cut my vinyl collection down to about 20,000 (from 80,000+) I've been a pro DJ since 1981 and sold almost all of my dance vinyl. They mostly had generic covers. The records I kept.................told stories. Like Elton John's Captain Fantastic album. That one made you feel like part of the family. 
 
I don't play any vinyl anymore, I mean every play degrades the quality technically right? On top of that the unavoidable clicks and pops are annoying. So I'll play the mp3 and look at the old vinyl covers. Look at the production and engineering credits. Stuff like that. You experience the album. 
 
To hell with trying to make vinyl sound good with everything from needles to tone arms to vibration proofing. When I listen to it digitally, it sounds better than vinyl right away, and if it doesn't, I remaster it myself. Soundstage not good enough? I run it through mid-side processing. Too much hiss? Waves noise reduction. Not enough bass? EQ. Not dynamic enough? Transient designer. 

 

[Toom]

So, to summarise:
 
Taylor Swift on vinyl vs cd -  one format makes your packaging larger and the other hardens your limits.