[djbnh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot As for sound quality, the only way to know how records sound, is to ask someone who collects them. I have LPs that would make you think you were listening to a CD for their clarity, quiet surfaces and dynamic punch...See ya Steve

Ditto.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells I agree completely with you. Cds are more neutral and accurate - free of distortion. However, many do prefer the "musical" distortion of vinyl. Same with tubes - distortion that sounds musical, but due to tube-induced-coloration. Give me Class A, zero global feedback amplification over tubes every time.

A well executed design is a well executed design. Tube amps can be made to sound very very linear, powerful but the best part is that if/when they do distort it is even order harmonics not odd order.

This even order distortion from cliping is within the domain the ear doesn't pick up directly since they are an even multiple of the fundamental frequency - the second, the fourth and the sixth and so on. This is in juxtiposition to ss clipping which distorts unevenly, as in the third, the fifth, the seventh etc. We can readily hear this distortion and this is not a nice sound fo most folks. This is one of the major reasons tube amps sound more natural than ss amps even if both have a perfectly flat frequency response.

 

[tennisets]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drarthurwells Same with tubes - distortion that sounds musical, but due to tube-induced-coloration. Give me Class A, zero global feedback amplification over tubes every time.

What about Class A, zero global feedback AND tubes? Don't tell me it doesn't exist; I'm building just such an amp right now. Granted, the particular design I'm building is only 7 W/Ch, but that's due to my tube choice (2A3), not the Class A, no-negative-feedback design.

 

[memepool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by auris The market has spoken on the respective virtues of analog vs digital a long time ago and digital won handily. Most initial purchasers were audiophile types who, like me, had a lot invested in lps' and who were quite happy with the new format, in spite of some fairly obvious flaws. When the mass-market came on board about 5 years later, vinyl dissappeared from the record stores very quickly. ************************************************** ********

Bit of an oversimplification. Vinyl has never disapeared from the record stores unless you do all your record shopping in Walmart (or equivalent). CDs completely dominate the album market which is the biggest and most lucrative for record companies. However the singles market which is arguably the most important and high profile has all but disappeared on CD and is now completely dominated by vinyl, bizarely enough with huge growth in 7inch sales in the past few years. Vinyl sales in singles stayed pretty stready and actually grew over the 1990's. Vinyl has also consistently outsold all the new "high resolution" formats like SACD / DVD-A, so much so that in the last few years Japanese hi-fi manufacturers like Denon and Marantz have actually launched new turntables.
Of course all this will change now that mp3s have been included in the figures with downloads from the apple store equaling singles in their first week....

*Based on BPI (British Phongraphic Industry) figures.

 

[Zanth]

Interesting post memepool. I didn't realize that Denon and Marantz (really the same company right?) are making new TT's. Singles are definitely dominated by vinyl sales (of which the cost is rather ridiculous for 2 tracks) but some stuff one just can't find anywhere else (even on mp3).

Listening to a single is interesting, particularly if one is sitting down for a listening session. A session composed of mainly singles means a strong interaction with the music, not just listening for 70+ minutes as for Redbook or streamed from an HD, but a true, get up and go interaction given the short playing time of most tracks. Much better than a cd of mixed music or a playlist on a DAP, at least it can be.

 

[memepool]

I think the new Marantz TT is a reskinned Clearaudio deck, a high-end belt-drive. But the Denon is a highly specified direct drive aimed at the audiophile rather than the DJ market. It may only be available in Japan though.
So despite the fact Denon and Marantz are now D&M holdings these are two completely different products.
This is all the more noteworthy since aside from stalwarts like the Technics SL1200/1210, it's imitators, and a few perfunctory low-end models, no Japanese manufacturer has offered any kind of audiophile turntable for 20 years.

Vinyl sales have remained constant and even grown since the 80's specifically in the 12" singles market which caters to the dance scene. This solid niche market has also given rise to many specialist companies who repress older material as well as continued releases from established independents and some majors.

The recent 7 inch phenomena is more curious and widely attributed to fashion. However lots of fledgeling bands who have no connection with the dance scene are pressing 7inches in order to be perceived as more serious about their music than their peers who merely send out promo CD's.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter braun I grew up with cds but now believe that a decent vinyl will smoke even the best recorded cds.

Agreed. It's an easily set up comparison here as I have both the well pressed vinyl and well mastered CDs of the same releases. One example being Wilco whether Being There, Yankee, or Ghost, not so much of an A-B as an A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B via remote. The difference reveals itself becoming clearer and clearer. The CDs, superb as they are, sound hollow and flatter. There is a clearly understood ceiling on their resolution. The vinyl's ceiling is elevated, there is more information, it has higher resolution. If there is sibilance in the recording it's actually a little more irritating via vinyl due to the extra detail where on the CD there is a summation or dumbing down and less detail in the sibilance. That's the only positive of the CD, a strength in it's weakness.

"Warmth" seems to be mentioned much by many as a characteristic of vinyl but I don't hear warmth at all or at least not my definition of warmth which is of a covering over of detail. Vinyl has higher resolution and is more detailed than CD. I hear lack of digital hardness which I assume we've all become acclimatized to and think of as normal. Vinyl is more natural and closer to lifelike than CD to my ears.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeteeth Agreed. It's an easily set up comparison here as I have both the well pressed vinyl and well mastered CDs of the same releases. One example being Wilco whether Being There, Yankee, or Ghost, not so much of an A-B as an A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B via remote. The difference reveals itself becoming clearer and clearer. The CDs, superb as they are, sound hollow and flatter. There is a clearly understood ceiling on their resolution. The vinyl's ceiling is elevated, there is more information, it has higher resolution. If there is sibilance in the recording it's actually a little more irritating via vinyl due to the extra detail where on the CD there is a summation or dumbing down and less detail in the sibilance. That's the only positive of the CD, a strength in it's weakness. "Warmth" seems to be mentioned much by many as a characteristic of vinyl but I don't hear warmth at all or at least not my definition of warmth which is of a covering over of detail. Vinyl has higher resolution and is more detailed than CD. I hear lack of digital hardness which I assume we've all become acclimatized to and think of as normal. Vinyl is more natural and closer to lifelike than CD to my ears.

This is how I feel as well. Vinyl can sound nearly identical to redbook (I have a cart on right now that approximates it VERY well) but it resists that unnaturalness that cd inevitably imparts on the music. That said, vinyl can be sibilant as well, it has to do with the quality of the record and then the adjustment of the cart. If the cart's VTA or VTF is way off, the music can sound thin, hollow and strident.

 

[Kieran Comito]

Wouldn't the source play and important role with sounds better between cd or vinyl? As I understand it, the better tables/cartridges will sound "better" than cd players in their price point. If you have a 2500.00 cd player, chances are, cds are going to sound better than vinyl on a lower end table setup.
I'm a newbie at this vinyl thing. I have only been playing records since Saturday on my new VPI Scout table and so far I really like what I'm hearing. I like the music a lot better from this source than I do from any of the cd players I own.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kieran Comito Wouldn't the source play and important role with sounds better between cd or vinyl? As I understand it, the better tables/cartridges will sound "better" than cd players in their price point. If you have a 2500.00 cd player, chances are, cds are going to sound better than vinyl on a lower end table setup. I'm a newbie at this vinyl thing. I have only been playing records since Saturday on my new VPI Scout table and so far I really like what I'm hearing. I like the music a lot better from this source than I do from any of the cd players I own.

Well yes and no. I think there is a lot of hyperbole that runs rampant. I have an approximately 5k redbook player and my tt is about 9k. My cd player sounds as good as my record player, what it comes down to is the recording. I have used a few carts now and I think there are certainly excellent traits inherent with vinyl, and they do provide a more enjoyable experience as in, not presenting that unnatural sound cd players typicall reproduce, but either my analogue system is not setup right (and it is) or my cd player is that good. Regardless, I enjoy both immensely and am still very pleased I got into vinyl.

 

[bigshot]

LPs have more manufacturing and care issues than CDs do, but in optimal situations, both CDs and LPs are capable of reproducing sound as good as the human ear can hear. However a very cheap CD player will sound a lot better than a very cheap turntable. Anything mechanical (ie: speakers, headphones, cartridges, turntables, etc.) requires better quality manufacture than purely electrical components.

It's difficult to predict which will sound better between LPs and CDs on an album to album basis because the mastering situation is so different between the two formats. Often the only way to know is to listen and compare. However, in music before 1970, when virgin vinyl was used routinely, the LP often sounds very good. Some of that is due to the special mastering done for LPs... There was a different EQ curve to correct for the peculiar response of the cutting head of the lathe, which accounts for the warmth people hear in good vinyl pressings... and they often compressed the sound to pull up the quiet passages a little to raise it above the noise floor and make it clearer. (Not the same sort of compression as the peak squashing hot mastering they do now...) Sometimes this sort of low level detail compression makes the music sound much better.

You'll also find that some albums, like a couple of Frank Zappa's early records and the first three Led Zeppelin LPs, sound completely different on CD. These have been totally remixed, and the remixes are clearly inferior to the originals. I believe that remixing is what creates that weird "digital" sound, not the format itself. I've transferred LPs to CDR and they sound exactly like the LPs.

See ya
Steve

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I've transferred LPs to CDR and they sound exactly like the LPs.

You must have the best ADC in the world. All people with recording experience I know talk of distinct sonic characteristics with the different ADCs, even the most expensive ones. Not to speak of your playback devices... So your turntable and your CDP sound exactly the same?

More important: CD reissues of early LP recordings usually (with rare exceptions) are done from the master tape, not the vinyl record. So if you think a different mastering is responsible for a different sonic characteristic from the CD, it may very well be the opposite: The people in the recording studio have forgotten to re-equalize the master tapes which have been pre-equalized to offer the best sound after the cutting process and LP playback, which means that they will sound too bright when heard directly from a tape recorder or the CD.


Quote:

...both CDs and LPs are capable of reproducing sound as good as the human ear can hear.

That's a bold statement which I wouldn't subscribe.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ You must have the best ADC in the world.

I have a business doing transfers and restoring vintage recordings. It's what I'm good at... The reason my CDs sound good has more to do with my judgements and my ears than it does the equipment I use.

I don't listen to other people's opinions of the sonic differences between different formats or pieces of equipment, and I don't depend on equipment to do the right thing automatically. I rack up the two sources side by side, balance the input level and let my ear tell me how much of a difference there is between them. If there is an inbalance on one side or the other, I correct it. It may be an old fashioned way of doing things, but it seems to work well.

Getting a good transfer off of an LP is MUCH easier than with 78s. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to rack up a record, digitize it and burn it to CD... just about anyone with reasonably good equipment can get excellent results with a simple straight transfer.

As for the ability of vinyl to reproduce sound well, get ahold of a copy of the Living Presence LP of Fiedler's Gaiete Parisienne. If you can't find a clean original pressing, the Franklin Mint red vinyl one released in the 100 greatest records of all time series will do. Balance the levels and EQ and compare that to the recent SACD release. It is very, very close.

I know there were problems with using the LP equalized masters on very early CD releases, but I thought that wasn't a problem any more. Are there recent examples of that?

See ya
Steve

 

[viator122]

I don't own a vinyl setup but one thing that always turns me off about it is, as far as I understand, vinyl records degrade each time they are played. They wear out. They don't sound the same on the 1000th play as they do on the 1st play, right? My question is: assuming a properly setup turntable, how many plays will it take for a record's sound quality to audibly degrade?

 

[bigshot]

Record wear is directly related to the alignment of your stylus and how well your turntable tracks. If a stylus is maintained in correct alignment and your turntable tracks solidly with a relatively low tracking force, you can get thousands of plays with no degradation. It helps a lot to keep your records clean too. I have records that are thirty years old that sound like new. The bottom line is that with a good setup, you are going to get sick of the music on the record long before you wear it out.

Records were designed to be played. Here's an extreme example...

An acoustic phonograph uses a steel needle that looks like a small nail to play the record. This needle connects by means of a bar to the center of a mica diaphragm. The vibrations transmitted from the grooves make the diaphragm vibrate, and these vibrations are channeled through an airtight tube to a horn, which amplifies them. The soundbox that contains the diaphragm and needle weighs about a half a pound I would guess. Imagine the force exerted by that weight narrowed down to a needle with a three mil point. That's hundreds of pounds per square inch bearing down in a V shaped groove made of lacquer. That should be a real record chewer, right?

Well, I took a mint condition 78 and transferred it to my computer. Then I played it on my acoustic Victrola 100 times, and transferred it again. There was absolutely no difference between the two transfers. I bet I would have to play it at least 500 to 1000 times to even hear a slight difference.

If they had the ability in 1917, when my Victrola was made, to minimize record wear using that primitive technology, you can bet they had it licked by the time LPs came around in 1950.

The flip side to this is, an elliptical stylus that is out of alignment, or a diamond with a chip in it will chew into a record, creating permanent damage and distortion in as little as a single play. That's why I always recommend that anyone who gets a second hand turntable on ebay should replace either the whole cartridge or at the very least, the stylus itself. Figure that cost into your bid, because you can't assume that the stylus you are getting with it is in as good shape as the turntable itself. By the time you realize what's happening, you might have thrashed a dozen or more of your favorite records.

See ya
Steve