Follow-up to my previous post. Herein are my impressions comparing three albums which I own in both vinyl and CD: 1) Berlioz'
Symphonie fantastique recorded by Dutoit and l'Orchestre symphonique de Montréal (Decca, 1985); 2)
Grease original motion picture soundtrack; and 3) U2
War.
About me
I'm not a vinyl freak, nor a digital one. I'm just a music lover who wants to be able to enjoy the music he has, on vinyl or digital support. I also see a lot of records in garage sales and used stores that can be had really, really cheap; I'd like to buy lots and lots of those and get as much listening pleasure from them as much as I do from CDs, for a little less money.
Facing off...
Technics SL-20 (bought at used record store, new stylus) vs. Onkyo DX-C220 (a 6-disc changer, bought new in the late 1990's). A bit of an unfair fight, it seems (entry-level turntable vs. mid-fi CD player). Then again, some would say the SL-20 was entry-level in price only. Anyhow, it's what I've got.
For direct comparison, I drop down the needle and immediately hit Play on the CD, so that both sources are playing at the same time. Then I can swich the receiver between CD and Phono. I need to adjust the volume to compensate for the weaker signal from the TT. Sometimes I also listen to an entire song/movement, and listen to the same from the other source.
The turntable is too fast!
This is the first thing I notice right out of the gate. I don't have any strobe marks or anything fancy to measure speed, but I do have my ears; I turn the speed adjustment screw until CD and record sound at the same pitch. That was easy!
Later on, I notice that the CD finishes the first movement ahead by a few seconds. A little extra tweak at the speed screw later, and it's the turntable that is faster by a second or two. I decide that I'm happy enough, as my ears can't tell a difference. The math agrees with me: 2 fewer seconds on a 25-minute record side = 0.13% faster speed (and therefore sound frequency), or A = 440.6 Hz. Peanuts.
Dynamic range
A strict comparison tells me that the CD wins this one easily. Wipes the floor with the record (do not literally do this at home). In soft passages, I only need to adjust the volume pot by about an hour (e.g. from 9 to 10 o'clock) to get the same volume from the turntable. But when things get loud, the difference is 2 to 3 hours. Or, to put it in another way: If I don't adjust the volume at all, soft passages sound almost the same level on vinyl as on CD, but loud ones sound "in your face" (CD) versus "not enough" (vinyl).
Then again...
If I let go of the direct comparison and listen for a long time, the vinyl's DR is perfectly satisfactory to me. Wheras the CD can sound exaggerated. Yes, it's spectacular, but would you ever hear this from a live orchestra? Moreover, I don't always
want a huge dynamic range because it demands a pristine listening environment. If someone in the house is flushing the toilet downstairs, I won't be able to hear most of the "Scène aux champs" (third movement of the
Fantastique) on the CD unless the volume is high enough to crack open the wall joints with the fortissimo passages.
Still...
Winner: CD
Detail retrieval
For the life of me I can't hear a difference. Whatever I hear on CD, I hear it on the record. For those of you who have done A/B comparisons, you know how you hear new things the second time you listen, only to find that those things were also there the first time, you were just paying attention to something else? This is happening to me whether I listen to CD or to vinyl first.
Winner: none
Sound signature
To me the vinyl sound is very slightly V-shaped compared to CD. Sometimes I wish the vinyl's midrange was a little more forward. However, this is more than compensated for by the melt-in-your-mouth bass. Maybe it's a synergy with the subwoofer thing. Can't get enough of that doo-wop rhythm section in
Grease. Seems like the SL-20 and the PSW-10 sub (both entry-level components, lest we forget!) are in love like Donny and Sandy...
Winner: Vinyl
Musicality
When I was a teenager, I knew a vinyl enthusiast who swore he would never ever go digital because the zeroes and ones chopped the music into tiny pieces and killed the soul out of the music. You know the kind I'm talking about. I'm now convinced that this is a load of BS. I find U2's
Drowning Man just as immersive (or should I say
submersive?) on CD as on record. And everything else, too. I get what really counts, the pleasure, the goosebumps, the smiles, the unconscious foot-tapping, from both sources.
This is where the unfair advantage I mentioned above might come into play: My CD setup (matching Onkyo receiver + changer) is a tad on the warm side and "sings" very well compared to other equipment I've heard.
Winner: none
Conclusion
My overall preference for each of the three albums:
For
Berlioz, the
CD wins thanks to its dynamic range. A tad exaggerated, but it really brings out the heat in the Montreal players' performance.
For
Grease,
vinyl is the winner for the flavour in the bass and the oomph in the kick drum. I'm thirsty for an ice cream & soda float just listening to it.
For
U2, we have a tie. This is the album where I noticed the least difference. Fun, effortless listening in either case.
Let me hasten to add that these "wins" are very narrow. I still like
Grease on CD (it brings out the midrange details a little more) and the Berlioz record (for the more natural dynamics) and will spin them once in a while.
I'm very happy with these results as they show me that this
Average Blue Collar Joe & Jane with Above Average Sensibilities for good music playback
... can get as much enjoyment from vinyl as he does from CDs, and therefore can rummage through garage sales/record shops without worrying about compromising on sound quality, and without the maintenance/setup headaches that I had as a kid. On the other hand, they tell me that my CD collection is very much worth keeping.
Thanks for reading!
Benoit
