[Leporello]

 
The CD mastering is definitely clipping. ABX around 25 s and was 10/10.
 

 At 25 s? There is no clipping there, actually not in the entire cd track.
 
Regards,
 
L.

 

[safulop]

Yeah, it's not *clipping* exactly, but it has some nasty harshness during loud string passages.  Not sure what they did to ruin it, but I was very surprised when I heard the vinyl and all the nasty edges had been removed.
 
As far as noise, the spectrum analysis shows that the vinyl has plenty of rumble (naturally), but noise above 75 Hz or so is actually very minimal.  I find that I can hear the tape hiss.
 
I've read that rumble, so long as it's not intrusively high (like, 100 Hz rumble is bad), can actually be "euphonic."  Supposedly, isolated sounds like the beginning of the movement seem more striking, as if coming impressively out of a black background, if there is some rumble going on.  If there is absolute silence as with a CD, then isolated sounds seem less impressive.  I don't know how this was established but I honestly did not make this up.

 

[XenHeadFi]

   At 25 s? There is no clipping there, actually not in the entire cd track.
 
Regards,
 
L.

I don't know how else to describe it. It sounds like instead of allowing a sound to naturally peak, the top part gets lopped off, flat.
 
What does it sound like to you?

 

[Leporello]

  I don't know how else to describe it. It sounds like instead of allowing a sound to naturally peak, the top part gets lopped off, flat.
 
What does it sound like to you?

Quite normal actually. At 25 seconds the orchestra is not playing particularly loudly. In safulop's opinion there is harshness in the loud string passages. I don't know, maybe. This could also be the sound of the original analog master.

 

[judgmentday]

  OK now, since I'm actually interested in knowing people's preferences and why they turn out that way, I've decided to turn from the theoretical arguments about why vinyl might sound superior to digital, and start up a little contest and see if it actually does sound better.  Some folks around here have posted that CDs were a gift from the Gods and they sold all their records shortly after.  I beg to differ. Eventually I'd like to publish a study on this, although audio listener preferences is not really my usual area of research.
 
To kick us off, I am posting links to two sound files of Beethoven's 5th Symphony, 1st movement.  I figure it's public domain music and I am not even posting the complete work so I probably won't get sued.  Luckily I happen to have both a CD and a vinyl record of the famed 1962(?) recording by Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic.   The CD was released in the 1990s as a digitally remastered reissue, part of a box set of Beethoven's symphonies.  The vinyl was released very recently, it is some kind of direct metal master cut from the original master tapes.  I won't tell you which is which, I assume people could figure out which is the vinyl.  I did my best to level match the files, but it was not that easy because the two masters are not equivalent so they have different dynamic ranges.
 
Anyway here are the links, happy listening and I am eager to hear everyone's opinion on this.  For the real study I plan to put a survey on QuestionPro but since this isn't my usual research I don't really know what ought to be asked.
 
 
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~sfulop/Vinyl_vs_digital/Beethoven5th_A.wav
 
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~sfulop/Vinyl_vs_digital/Beethoven5th_B.wav

B.Wav is the LP version, even thought I can hear the needle and some pops in the LP, (LP should be clean and quiet) still instruments sound bigger, more real, better separation and have some echo and extension.  A.Wav is the CD version, instruments sound thin, dry, edgy, no extension, no instruments separation, loud and convoluted. Both versions A & B are in digital format already Wav 44kHz/1411.2 so now, we are going to listen to a crappy digital recording anyway, not the LP in a live reproduction.  The TT is like an instrument that creates real music; when you record to digital, the magic simply is no longer there.
The real test has to be done in two different separate audio setups.
1-) Listen to the LP version in a complete dedicated tube gear with TT > Tube Preamp> Tube Amp> decent cables interconnects and speakers
2-) Listen to the CD version with a complete dedicated Solid State gear and you will hear that the LP beats the CD hands down.  Anyone can notice the superiority of the LP vs. CD.  No comparison really.  People are buying LPs and TT again for a good reason.  The master for an LP is a piece of art not everybody is able to do it right.  It takes great skill and is very expensive to produce.

 

[Leporello]

 
A.Wav is the LP version, even thought I can hear the needle and some pops in the LP, (LP should be clean and quiet) still instruments sound bigger, more real, better separation and have some echo and extension.  B.Wav is the CD version, instruments sound thin, dry, edgy, no extension, no instruments separation, loud and convoluted. Both versions A & B are in digital format already Wav 44kHz/1411.2 so now, we are going to listen to a crappy digital recording anyway, not the LP in a live reproduction.  The TT is like an instrument that creates real music; when you record to digital, the magic simply is no longer there.
The real test has to be done in two different separate audio setups.
1-) Listen to the LP version in a complete dedicated tube gear with TT > Tube Preamp> Tube Amp> decent cables interconnects and speakers
2-) Listen to the CD version with a complete dedicated Solid State gear and you will hear that the LP beats the CD hands down.  Anyone can notice the superiority of the LP vs. CD.  No comparison really.  People are buying LPs and TT again for a good reason.  The master for an LP is a piece of art not everybody is able to do it right.  It takes great skill and is very expensive to produce.

 
In my opinion the fact that "The TT is like an instrument that creates real music" is one of vinyl's serious shortcomings. A sound reproduction device should not do that, no matter how subjectively pleasing the end result may be. I do not think the test you're suggesting will give us any new information. It will only confirm that those who prefer vinyl sound prefer vinyl sound.
 
A better test has been done already in 1984. In that test Linn's Ivor S. Tiefenbrun failed to hear the effect of Sony's lowly PCM-F1 AD/DA converter when using Linn Sondek as source. This of course was entirely expected. Even in 1984 red book digital was completely transparent compared to the highest end of the vinyl sound reproduction.

 

[cjl]

 Anyone can notice the superiority of the LP vs. CD.  No comparison really.  People are buying LPs and TT again for a good reason.  The master for an LP is a piece of art not everybody is able to do it right.  It takes great skill and is very expensive to produce.

The really funny thing about this is that you're listening to both of these as CDs, effectively. You're proclaiming the superiority of an LP based on a CD quality digitization of an LP.

 

[judgmentday]

   
In my opinion the fact that "The TT is like an instrument that creates real music" is one of vinyl's serious shortcomings. A sound reproduction device should not do that, no matter how subjectively pleasing the end result may be. I do not think the test you're suggesting will give us any new information. It will only confirm that those who prefer vinyl sound prefer vinyl sound.
 
A better test has been done already in 1984. In that test Linn's Ivor S. Tiefenbrun failed to hear the effect of Sony's lowly PCM-F1 AD/DA converter when using Linn Sondek as source. This of course was entirely expected. Even in 1984 red book digital was completely transparent compared to the highest end of the vinyl sound reproduction.

You sound like a hard core iTuner. For serious listening, a TT rules the world of real music. Yes, I know about those tests where they put a listener to distinguishing between A&B where there is little difference or no difference at all.  Like I said, let's compare the two formats with their own suitable gear, same room, etc and we'll see.  Digital recordings are garbage period.  All DACs sound horrible bright, thin, harsh, liveless, loud, convoluted, brittle, etc. compared to a decent TT.

 

[judgmentday]

  The really funny thing about this is that you're listening to both of these as CDs, effectively. You're proclaiming the superiority of an LP based on a CD quality digitization of an LP.

What is funny about it though? The recordings are both digital @ 44kHz/1411.2 but are different recordings, the LP digitized gives the illusion as a  better sound to me, even though still is digital, which is hard to judge because I'm not listening to the actual LP playing on the TT.  You assume that because is digital it is identical to the live playing of the LP which is not.  When you digitized an LP it looses its magic, you will not get the exact LP sound again.  I have tried this before and does not work.  I'm a purist audiophile.

 

[Leporello]

  You sound like a hard core iTuner. For serious listening, a TT rules the world of real music. Yes, I know about those tests where they put a listener to distinguishing between A&B where there is little difference or no difference at all.  Like I said, let's compare the two formats with their own suitable gear, same room, etc and we'll see.  Digital recordings are garbage period.  All DACs sound horrible bright, thin, harsh, liveless, loud, convoluted, brittle, etc. compared to a decent TT.

Well, at least I do not sound like a broken record .
 
Again, the test you are suggesting cannot - not even in principle - tell us anything about digital sound. In only tells us about the listeners' personal preferences (nothing wrong with preferring vinyl, of course). You obviously believe that all dacs sound 'horrible bright, thin, harsh, liveless, loud, convoluted, brittle, etc'. But this conclusion cannot be reached by the kind of test you are suggesting. The Tiefenbrun test on the other hand goes a long way towards showing that your assertion simply does not hold water.
 
In an earlier post you stated: "B.Wav is the CD version, instruments sound thin, dry, edgy, no extension, no instruments separation, loud and convoluted".
 
Well, I don't know if snippet B really is that bad. But it most certainly is from vinyl.
 
Regards,
L.

 

[judgmentday]

  Well, at least I do not sound like a broken record .
 
Again, the test you are suggesting cannot - not even in principle - tell us anything about digital sound. In only tells us about the listeners' personal preferences (nothing wrong with preferring vinyl, of course). You obviously believe that all dacs sound 'horrible bright, thin, harsh, liveless, loud, convoluted, brittle, etc'. But this conclusion cannot be reached by the kind of test you are suggesting. The Tiefenbrun test on the other hand goes a long way towards showing that your assertion simply does not hold water.
 
In an earlier post you stated: "B.Wav is the CD version, instruments sound thin, dry, edgy, no extension, no instruments separation, loud and convoluted".
 
Well, I don't know if snippet B really is that bad. But it most certainly is from vinyl.
 
Regards,
L.

Corrected. I'm sorry, you are right, B is the LP version and A is the CD version.  I got them confused at the time of posting.  The CD version does not have the pops and needle noise and music is better.

 

[icebear]

  You sound like a hard core iTuner. For serious listening, a TT rules the world of real music. Yes, I know about those tests where they put a listener to distinguishing between A&B where there is little difference or no difference at all.  Like I said, let's compare the two formats with their own suitable gear, same room, etc and we'll see.  Digital recordings are garbage period.  All DACs sound horrible bright, thin, harsh, liveless, loud, convoluted, brittle, etc. compared to a decent TT.

How many new analog releases today are straight AAA during the entire production chain?
Good luck finding new music...
 

  Well, at least I do not sound like a broken record .
 
..... In an earlier post you stated: "B.Wav is the CD version, instruments sound thin, dry, edgy, no extension, no instruments separation, loud and convoluted".
Well, I don't know if snippet B really is that bad. But it most certainly is from vinyl.

LOL

 

  Sorry, you are right, B is the LP version and A is the CD version.  I got them confused at the time of posting.  The CD version does not have the pops and needle noise.

Ooops, such a tiny mix up can happen to a purist audiophile but don't worry, it does nothing to bolster your arguments.

It was a 50/50 chance though.

 

[safulop]

Well, for what it's worth, I agree that the CD track here sounds almost ludicrously bad.  I apologize about the "noisy" vinyl but I have a very modest setup consisting of a new Sota Moonbeam (entry-level solid table with a decent Rega tonearm mounted) using the cheapest MC cartridge money can buy (Denon) with an elliptical stylus.  But it's 10 dB quieter than my vintage Thorens was with the same cartridge so, I'm moving up in the world.  I also don't have a record-cleaning system.  But I do use Stylast, and I proved in another thread that these two products (cleaner+lubricant) decrease rumble by 5-10 dB.
 
I don't share the notion that digital per se is bad.  That's why, to my ear, the vinyl recorded onto CD is essentially indistinguishable from the live vinyl playback, when done correctly.  I have a professional-grade CD recording deck from Tascam, and it is adequate for this purpose.
 
My point has always been to prove that the differences arise almost entirely from differences in mastering, and that these differences are usually so great that the inherent mechanical inferiority of vinyl is swamped by the vastly better masters that are commonly available on this format.
 
So yes, I think the CD track of this sounds dreadful by comparison, but the reason is not because it is on a CD.  The reason is because it was poorly mastered, as usual.

 

[Leporello]

  Well, for what it's worth, I agree that the CD track here sounds almost ludicrously bad.  I apologize about the "noisy" vinyl but I have a very modest setup consisting of a new Sota Moonbeam (entry-level solid table with a decent Rega tonearm mounted) using the cheapest MC cartridge money can buy (Denon) with an elliptical stylus.  But it's 10 dB quieter than my vintage Thorens was with the same cartridge so, I'm moving up in the world.  I also don't have a record-cleaning system.  But I do use Stylast, and I proved in another thread that these two products (cleaner+lubricant) decrease rumble by 5-10 dB.
 
I don't share the notion that digital per se is bad.  That's why, to my ear, the vinyl recorded onto CD is essentially indistinguishable from the live vinyl playback, when done correctly.  I have a professional-grade CD recording deck from Tascam, and it is adequate for this purpose.
 
My point has always been to prove that the differences arise almost entirely from differences in mastering, and that these differences are usually so great that the inherent mechanical inferiority of vinyl is swamped by the vastly better masters that are commonly available on this format.
 
So yes, I think the CD track of this sounds dreadful by comparison, but the reason is not because it is on a CD.  The reason is because it was poorly mastered, as usual.

Surely the sound of cd version is a matter of taste. To my ears it does not sound particularly horrible compared with most other cd versions of 1950s - 1960s recordings. The qualities may result from the original recording, not just from mastering. Actually, without access to original master tape its is very difficult to say anything about mastering. We just do not know.
 
Does the vinyl version sound subjectively better then? Both versions are entirely listenable but to my ears the cd version is subjectively better in every way. YMMV. Fortunately classical music (so far at least) has not been much affected by 'loudness wars'.
 
Also, to my ears the vinyl version is not particularly noisy - for vinyl. Vinyl is an inherently noisy medium. Sure, storing, cleaning, and handling LP's properly may reduce noise. But contrary to what many vinylphiles claim, even the cleanest, most lovingly treated LPs played on most esoteric high-end tuntables, tonearms and cartridges will be noisy.

 

[judgmentday]

  How many new analog releases today are straight AAA during the entire production chain?
Good luck finding new music...

It has always been hard to find audiophile graded recordings of our liking.  Specially Jazz, Classic music and Contemporary Jazz.  Rock or pop rock and don't care, never sounded audiophile grade to me.  Very hard to find good new recorded music these days. But some new labels are doing a good job with new vinyl. Diana Krall Live in Paris vinyl is a very decent analog recording. I guess is a 2 LP set 45rpm 180 grams limited edition.  Way better than any digital crap.

 LOL

I know, LOL

The main thing here is to have fun!

 Ooops, such a tiny mix up can happen to a purist audiophile but don't worry, it does nothing to bolster your arguments.

It was a 50/50 chance though.

Come on! You know what I meant. You know what I'm talking about!
No matter what you say I'm still a purist audiophile.