[old tech]

  OK - you do get calories required at McDonald's. You do get even some vitamines, etc. In a strictly unified and standardized form - as much similarity as possible around the globe. The Big Mac become Le Big Mac in France - etc; but it should be the same.
 
There will be MUCH more variety in a "restaurant" - and the care with which the food is prepared can go to the max possible, chefs hors categorie, etc. It is redundant for survival, it is overkill - yet people will crave, at least once, to be served and fed like kings and queens.
 
Similar with CD redbook and vinyl/hirez. There is a similar difference - fine one, not that CD is totally useless, but it just does not provide for the variety that CAN and sometimes IS recorded on the master ; and vinyl and hirez will simply provide more of the original quality of the master.
 
I can not afford to eat at expensive restaurants every day; yet, for a special occasion, I will always chose "Le Restaurant chez XY" over McDonald's.
 
Luckily, analog vynil does not have (although it can...) to cost an arm and a leg - and access to music can even be less expensive than with CDs. Althoughof necessity a notch or two below "sky is the limit", it can still have the edge over CD redbook. With hirez, the price that has to be paid to stay in the ring with analog is getting prohibitive for all but the most well to do.

I think you are trolling here, remind me on what measure does vinyl match, let alone exceed CD.  16/44 exceeds the capability of any vinyl which at best is equivalent to a 12bit lossy file.  Agree though that you have to spend a lot of money to get the best out of that format but if wasting money on placebo is your thing, then go for it.

 

[upstateguy]

 

  OK - you do get calories required at McDonald's. You do get even some vitamines, etc. In a strictly unified and standardized form - as much similarity as possible around the globe. The Big Mac become Le Big Mac in France - etc; but it should be the same.
 
There will be MUCH more variety in a "restaurant" - and the care with which the food is prepared can go to the max possible, chefs hors categorie, etc. It is redundant for survival, it is overkill - yet people will crave, at least once, to be served and fed like kings and queens.
 
Similar with CD redbook and vinyl/hirez. There is a similar difference - fine one, not that CD is totally useless, but it just does not provide for the variety that CAN and sometimes IS recorded on the master ; and vinyl and hirez will simply provide more of the original quality of the master.
 
I can not afford to eat at expensive restaurants every day; yet, for a special occasion, I will always chose "Le Restaurant chez XY" over McDonald's.
 
Luckily, analog vynil does not have (although it can...) to cost an arm and a leg - and access to music can even be less expensive than with CDs. Althoughof necessity a notch or two below "sky is the limit", it can still have the edge over CD redbook. With hirez, the price that has to be paid to stay in the ring with analog is getting prohibitive for all but the most well to do.

I think you are trolling here, remind me on what measure does vinyl match, let alone exceed CD.  16/44 exceeds the capability of any vinyl which at best is equivalent to a 12bit lossy file.  Agree though that you have to spend a lot of money to get the best out of that format but if wasting money on placebo is your thing, then go for it.

what else is new?

 

[analogsurviver]

  I think you are trolling here, remind me on what measure does vinyl match, let alone exceed CD.  16/44 exceeds the capability of any vinyl which at best is equivalent to a 12bit lossy file.  Agree though that you have to spend a lot of money to get the best out of that format but if wasting money on placebo is your thing, then go for it.

No, I am not trolling - at all.
 
There is one aspect of performance vinyl has been, continues to be , and will always be superior to CD redbook : frequency response. It is "essentially flat" to approx 50 kHz ; with that, I mean high quality equipment available today.
 
But back in the late 70s, early 80s, things were available that extended that - beyond 100 kHz. 
 
You really should - at least once - experience vinyl at its best. Then you will realize how the CD redbook has been, all this time, trolling with all of us.
 
Recent adoption of ultrasonic cleaning for records on relatively large scale has done for the reproduction off vinyl more than probably everything that went on before - put together. The old truth that the better the phono equipment, the higher the signal to noise ratio, still holds true. Combined, they can make vinyl sound MUCH better than the public at large is aware of.
 
Like I said, competing with hirez is another game. Still, I have yet to hear a digital recording of well analog recorded vinyl that is indistinguishable from the vinyl played live. DSD128 comes close, but not quite the cigar.
Looking forward to DSD256, and even better, DSD512. That should, finally, put an audible end to this, admittedly slight, but audible difference in immediacy heard between vinyl and its digital clone when played side by side, AB level matched or not.
 
CD redbook recording of quality vinyl analog lags so far behind it is audible in the first second of the listening.

 

[jcx]

not even on the same planet as the truth for commercial LP, cutting lathes or cartridges under the required RIAA eq
 
Quote:

frequency response. It is "essentially flat" to approx 50 kHz

 
vinyl's extended frequency response hits a hard limit, trades declining maximum amplitude for increased frequency response - the needle simply can't track a flat full amplitude audio analog signal to 20 kHz and beyond
 
exceptional trackability cartridges barely break 10 kHz audio output before the acceleration limit is turned into a amplitude vs frequency limit, even 5 kHz full amplitude sine trackability is very good
 
http://cdn.shure.com/user_guide/upload/1817/us_pro_v15iv_ug.pdf

 

[old tech]

  No, I am not trolling - at all.
 
There is one aspect of performance vinyl has been, continues to be , and will always be superior to CD redbook : frequency response. It is "essentially flat" to approx 50 kHz ; with that, I mean high quality equipment available today.
 
But back in the late 70s, early 80s, things were available that extended that - beyond 100 kHz.
 
You really should - at least once - experience vinyl at its best. Then you will realize how the CD redbook has been, all this time, trolling with all of us.
 
Recent adoption of ultrasonic cleaning for records on relatively large scale has done for the reproduction off vinyl more than probably everything that went on before - put together. The old truth that the better the phono equipment, the higher the signal to noise ratio, still holds true. Combined, they can make vinyl sound MUCH better than the public at large is aware of.
 
Like I said, competing with hirez is another game. Still, I have yet to hear a digital recording of well analog recorded vinyl that is indistinguishable from the vinyl played live. DSD128 comes close, but not quite the cigar.
Looking forward to DSD256, and even better, DSD512. That should, finally, put an audible end to this, admittedly slight, but audible difference in immediacy heard between vinyl and its digital clone when played side by side, AB level matched or not.
 
CD redbook recording of quality vinyl analog lags so far behind it is audible in the first second of the listening.

Don't know how to start, or if I could be bothered frankly.  There is no cartridge/phono combination that can match even an Ipod for linear frequency response in the range of human hearing (at least that I know of).  Even if there is such an animal, what use is it when the record itself is not capable of storing a recording's frequency response as linear?  I grant you that records are capable of storing and reproducing upper frequencies beyond the human hearing range, but by definition what use is it?  There is no musical content at those frequencies which we cannot hear anyway.  In any event, the high frequency roll-off with vinyl from about 16khz means that a 19khz signal (if you could hear it) would be very faint compared to what would come out from a CD.
 
With low frequencies, particularly the accurate articulation of deep bass, I trust I don't need to get into the well knowm limitations of vinyl playback.  As far as SNR goes, again vinyl will never match a CD, the natural noise floor of even the best vinyl is much higher.  Resolution is another important attribute which vinyl falls short.  70db vs 98db is a significant difference, even though most recordings don't take advantage of this resolution.  Lastly, what about distortion etc.
 
Vinyl can sound good.  I still play records and have a very good analogue front end.  Some records do sound better than their CD versions (mastering differences), but the best CD and other higher res digital material easily surpasses the best vinyl. If you properly needle drop vinyl and playback on CD-R it sounds identical.  I know I have done it as have many others.  You could never acheive the same result doing it the other way round. To suggest vinyl is hi res is pure fantasy,

 

[analogsurviver]

   
vinyl's extended frequency response hits a hard limit, trades declining maximum amplitude for increased frequency response - the needle simply can't track a flat full amplitude audio analog signal to 20 kHz and beyond
 
exceptional trackability cartridges barely break 10 kHz audio output before the acceleration limit is turned into a amplitude vs frequency limit, even 5 kHz full amplitude sine trackability is very good

Oh - really ?
 
What you said regarding commercial recordings is probably true - they may well be even poorer than that.
 
Other is debatable. It is true that cartridges capable of full amplitude response to 20 kHz under RIAA are few - but they do - or better said - did - exist. When you combine the best recordings and play them back with this calibre of cartridges that do not go berserk even at full gas all the way to 20 kHz, this is entirely different game than CD.
 
It can not even be compared...
 
Most of these cartridges are also capable of "essentially flat" response to and beyond 50 kHz - test records that go to 50 kHz without the RIAA preemphasis ( all test records are made that way ). This "falling at 6 dB/octave/-20 dB by 20 kHz" mimics really well the maximum amplitude/frequency of the sound in music - when actually called upon to play > 20 kHz, such a great cartridge would have no trouble whatsoever.
 
Essentially, you and me differ in one thing regarding the vinyl; you represent the (lazy?) pro "bussiness as usual" approach ( citing each and every possibility why it can't be done ) - whereas I am trying to find each and every way how it could be done - IF and WHEN people are willing and able to go an extra mile.
 
Most definitely possible with vinyl - and proven many times over.
 
P.S: I think we two could, TOGETHER, bring vinyl much forward. 

 

[upstateguy]

 

  No, I am not trolling - at all.  <---- OK, if you say so
 
<snip>

Don't know how to start, or if I could be bothered frankly.  There is no cartridge/phono combination that can match even an Ipod for linear frequency response in the range of human hearing (at least that I know of).  Even if there is such an animal, what use is it when the record itself is not capable of storing a recording's frequency response as linear?  I grant you that records are capable of storing and reproducing upper frequencies beyond the human hearing range, but by definition what use is it?  There is no musical content at those frequencies which we cannot hear anyway.  In any event, the high frequency roll-off with vinyl from about 16khz means that a 19khz signal (if you could hear it) would be very faint compared to what would come out from a CD.
 
With low frequencies, particularly the accurate articulation of deep bass, I trust I don't need to get into the well knowm limitations of vinyl playback.  As far as SNR goes, again vinyl will never match a CD, the natural noise floor of even the best vinyl is much higher.  Resolution is another important attribute which vinyl falls short.  70db vs 98db is a significant difference, even though most recordings don't take advantage of this resolution.  Lastly, what about distortion etc.
 
Vinyl can sound good.  I still play records and have a very good analogue front end.  Some records do sound better than their CD versions (mastering differences), but the best CD and other higher res digital material easily surpasses the best vinyl. If you properly needle drop vinyl and playback on CD-R it sounds identical.  I know I have done it as have many others.  You could never acheive the same result doing it the other way round. To suggest vinyl is hi res is pure fantasy,

 
+1
 
You have to throw a few thousand dollars at vinyl to get it to sound as good as a  $35 Sansa Clip or the CD player in my laptop.

 

[analogsurviver]

  Don't know how to start, or if I could be bothered frankly.  There is no cartridge/phono combination that can match even an Ipod for linear frequency response in the range of human hearing (at least that I know of).  Even if there is such an animal, what use is it when the record itself is not capable of storing a recording's frequency response as linear?  I grant you that records are capable of storing and reproducing upper frequencies beyond the human hearing range, but by definition what use is it?  There is no musical content at those frequencies which we cannot hear anyway.  In any event, the high frequency roll-off with vinyl from about 16khz means that a 19khz signal (if you could hear it) would be very faint compared to what would come out from a CD.
 
With low frequencies, particularly the accurate articulation of deep bass, I trust I don't need to get into the well knowm limitations of vinyl playback.  As far as SNR goes, again vinyl will never match a CD, the natural noise floor of even the best vinyl is much higher.  Resolution is another important attribute which vinyl falls short.  70db vs 98db is a significant difference, even though most recordings don't take advantage of this resolution.  Lastly, what about distortion etc.
 
Vinyl can sound good.  I still play records and have a very good analogue front end.  Some records do sound better than their CD versions (mastering differences), but the best CD and other higher res digital material easily surpasses the best vinyl. If you properly needle drop vinyl and playback on CD-R it sounds identical.  I know I have done it as have many others.  You could never acheive the same result doing it the other way round. To suggest vinyl is hi res is pure fantasy,

Well, the practice to filter everything ( so that the average equipment will have an easier time...) is, unfortunately, real. But under no circumstances is analog vinyl required to roll off above 16 kHz. As a matter of fact, it can support up to at least 50 kHz - FLAT !  Since from about 40 years : http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml
You'll have to register with the vinyl engine in order to be able to download to see just how flat this thing from 1975 or so actually is.  It is STILL one of the best carts out there, today next to unobtainable - and if it does pop up for sale, it commands hefty amount.
 
I agree regarding low frequencies limitation of vinyl. The best obtainable SNR from the vinyl is 78, not 70 dB. Distortion is, of course, higher - but then again, with truly great carts, it is generally below truly objectionable/audible limit.
 
If you properly needle drop vinyl, it can never sound identical to CD-R. At least not on a really high quality rest of the system .
 
I agree it can not be done the other way around - because of mostly low frequency limitations of the vinyl.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
+1
 
You have to throw a few thousand dollars at vinyl to get it to sound as good as a  $35 Sansa Clip or the CD player in my laptop.

True.
 
And you can throw any amount into CD past the "few thousands for vinyl " - to no avail. Vinyl keeps improving with price - into ludicrous prices, if one is so inclined and has the means to do so. CD , unless we resort to upsampling etc, will remain mostly the same.
 
Yet, vinyl that is comparable/better than CD does not have to cost an arm and a leg, either. But for budget below say 1K, I suggest sticking with digital .

 

[upstateguy]

 

   
+1
 
You have to throw a few thousand dollars at vinyl to get it to sound as good as a  $35 Sansa Clip or the CD player in my laptop.

True.
 
And you can throw any amount into CD past the "few thousands for vinyl " - to no avail. Vinyl keeps improving with price - into ludicrous prices, if one is so inclined and has the means to do so. CD , unless we resort to upsampling etc, will remain mostly the same.
 
Yet, vinyl that is comparable/better than CD does not have to cost an arm and a leg, either. But for budget below say 1K, I suggest sticking with digital .

 
It's not that vinyl keeps improving with price, it's that it takes an enormous amount of money and effort to get vinyl half way decent.  Tone Arms, cartridges, needles, motors, platters, belts anti-skating, vibration control, record cleaning, de-static, phono pre-amp, DBX dynamic range expander...  but at the end of the day you're still trying to light a fire by rubbing 2 sticks together. 
 
It's a nice ritual.  Reminds me of the and 60's.  Some times I spin a platter just for the fun of taking out the record cleaning kit, squeezing the Zerostat and firing up the Sherwood.  But by the late 70's, I bought a Nakamichi tape deck and recorded most of the records I had onto cassettes and never looked back.  Vinyl became an archive and cassettes my method of playing music.  Back then there was a ton of stuff you could record from FM radio and that became another  thing to do. Vinyl was becoming passe.

 

[wnmnkh]

 

   
+1
 
You have to throw a few thousand dollars at vinyl to get it to sound as good as a  $35 Sansa Clip or the CD player in my laptop.

True.
 
And you can throw any amount into CD past the "few thousands for vinyl " - to no avail. Vinyl keeps improving with price - into ludicrous prices, if one is so inclined and has the means to do so. CD , unless we resort to upsampling etc, will remain mostly the same.
 
Yet, vinyl that is comparable/better than CD does not have to cost an arm and a leg, either. But for budget below say 1K, I suggest sticking with digital .

 
Yes, CD does not improve that much as compared to Vinyl, which indicates that the technology used in CD is much more solid and 'completed' compared to that of Vinyl.
 
The technology used in CD allows us to hear top quality sound without spending "ludicrous price"

 

[analogsurviver]

   
Yes, CD does not improve that much as compared to Vinyl, which indicates that the technology used in CD is much more solid and 'completed' compared to that of Vinyl.
 
The technology used in CD allows us to hear top quality sound without spending "ludicrous price"

True. The technology behind analog playback is FAR from completed - there is still much room for the improvement of the analog playback. In the similar vein, analog recording (cutting the record) can also be improved.
 
The technology for CD allows us to hear quality enough sound at reasonable price - but that is still far removed from the best obtainable.

 

[bracko]

This is my frist post in this thread.
 
I actually think there are a couple of rational reasons to love vinyl:
 
1. You can hear your favorite music whenever you want in your home. You don't need to go to a concert every time you want to hear music you like.
2. The sound quality is still great (not better than live music, CDs or hirez files, I agree, but still better than some crappy streaming services, Youtube or compressed files)
3. Artwork, which for many musicians was, and for many still is, a part of an album, is available as a part of the package. With streaming services and downloadable files this is simply missing. With CDs, the artwork is smaller.
 
I like vinyl and I own a turntable and a little collection of jazz and rock records. There is nothing strange to the fact that, for some people, the actual emotional relation to the physical act of listening is an important thing.

 

[RRod]

  This is my frist post in this thread.
 
I actually think there are a couple of rational reasons to love vinyl:
 
1. You can hear your favorite music whenever you want in your home. You don't need to go to a concert every time you want to hear music you like.
2. The sound quality is still great (not better than live music, CDs or hirez files, I agree, but still better than some crappy streaming services, Youtube or compressed files)
3. Artwork, which for many musicians was, and for many still is, a part of an album, is available as a part of the package. With streaming services and downloadable files this is simply missing. With CDs, the artwork is smaller.
 
I like vinyl and I own a turntable and a little collection of jazz and rock records. There is nothing strange to the fact that, for some people, the actual emotional relation to the physical act of listening is an important thing.

 
For 1., I assume you mean stuff on vinyl that you can't get on CD? For that, there's always the option of digitizing the vinyl.
 
On 2., I agree that vinyl can sound great (esp. if you're not listening to music with a lot of ppp), but I disagree that streaming services are crappy, esp. if their source is a good master and the format is higher-rate mp3 or AAC.
 
On 3., I can't argue with you. I hope the day will come soon when digital downloads come with large (printable-sized) album art that is actually art.

 

[bracko]

   
For 1., I assume you mean stuff on vinyl that you can't get on CD? For that, there's always the option of digitizing the vinyl.
 
On 2., I agree that vinyl can sound great (esp. if you're not listening to music with a lot of ppp), but I disagree that streaming services are crappy, esp. if their source is a good master and the format is higher-rate mp3 or AAC.
 
On 3., I can't argue with you. I hope the day will come soon when digital downloads come with large (printable-sized) album art that is actually art.

 
1. No need for digitizing everything. I buy some records on vinyl, other on CD/SACD. I also use Wimp lossless and Spotify. I even use hirez files. For me it is not "either digital or analog". For me it is both. There is no reason for me to avoid any available source, besides low-res digital (and maybe tapes/casettes).
2. I agree about ppp. I am not that fond of classical recordings on vinyl for example. I never said all streaming services are crappy.
3. +1