[TWIFOSP]

Ok, I'm pretty young (21) so pardon my ignorance.

But what makes Vinyl records the best possible source? I see endless debates about this. Why does a vinyl record sound better than even the highest quality of digital formats?

The only thing I can think of is that it is the true recording of the vibrations that original sound put out. Those vibrations are now imprinted and therefore directly virbrate another medium capable of producing the same sounds... So the fidelity is perfect right?

However, what I don't understand is how that can possible be better than a near mathmatically-intact representation of those vibrations (24 bit SACDs.) All the possible degredation that can occur from vibration interperation just seems like it would outweigh any benefits. How accurate can it really be?

I don't want to start a debate here, I'm just curious as the why. I haven't heard any high end Vinyl myself, just crappy ones, so I don't have any first hand experience here. But I would go out on a limb and say that most of the Vinyl zealots are in it for the cool factor and old school mentality.

I'm by no means new to audio, but someone feel free to educate my n00b ass.

 

[redshifter]

a digital format that uses streams of samples (like pcm and i believe dsd) essentially encodes the music (chops it up into samples), which are then decoded back into the analog realm.

with analog, the encoing/decoding process is skipped, except for application of the riaa eq for lp's--which is a much simpler process than en/decoding digital samples.

some argue that vinyl simply adds euphonic distortion, which makes the recoding sound more musical or warm.

also, when digital was new, the first redbooks cd's sounded pretty bad compared to lp's. engineers had not figured out how to master very well in the digital realm, so your vinyl copy of "led zep 4" sounded better than the cd version. i have heard that some engineers actually used the master intended for vinyl pressing for the cd master, which makes for a bright, thin sounding cd.

now that digital has been refined and sound engineering has caught up with the technology, the percieved gap between analog and digital is closing.

this is putting aside all arguments about cost, maintenance, convenience, etc.

 

[guzzler]

i feel far more attached to my vinyls than my CD's. Don't really know why, just something about them...

and the crackle you live with!

g

 

[TWIFOSP]

Well agreed. The sampling rate of a cd obviously isn't capturing everything... its only capturing what, 64k possible sounds?

But moving forward to the highest of digital sounds, that capture near everything. We are moving into a place where the human ear bone is no longer even capable of hearing all of it at the same time.

Theoretically speaking, it would be like having a ferrari on the autobahn, but a governer set to 100 mph. The fidelity might be there, but there comes a point when the ear can only interperut so many vibrations.

The rest is placebo effect.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally posted by TWIFOSP Well agreed. The sampling rate of a cd obviously isn't capturing everything... its only capturing what, 64k possible sounds? But moving forward to the highest of digital sounds, that capture near everything. We are moving into a place where the human ear bone is no longer even capable of hearing all of it at the same time. Theoretically speaking, it would be like having a ferrari on the autobahn, but a governer set to 100 mph. The fidelity might be there, but there comes a point when the ear can only interperut so many vibrations. The rest is placebo effect.

what does your analogy point to, digital or analog? i'm not sure i understand.

as for the "sampling rate of cd", well redbook standard is 16 bit wordlengths like this: 1100101100011011 pulsed at a speed of 44 khz. as to whether this capturing all the sound, that's up to interpretation, and the accuracy of the adc/dac. afaik, most sound engineers and producers still prefer to use an analog master tape (in most rock albums, etc.), and are using analog backup tapes for remasters of cd's that were released originally in "DDD".

in practice, i have found that the medium (analog, digital, kazoo, etc.) matters less than the skill of the recording & mastering engineers, and the quality of the playback equipment.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

Great info here .

 

[john_jcb]

Most recently at the Chicago meet I had an opportunity to listen to vinyl and compare it with a very good CD player (Meridian 508). I listened back and forth for 2 days. I have not listened to vinyl in probably 10 years since my last table gave up the ghost. There is a musical quality to vinyl that is missing with CD's. It isn't a night and day difference but more of an almost undefinable edge to the recordings. The notes seem to have an extra vibrancy. The graph on the page Sol_Zhen references gives a good albeit macro view of the differences. The difference to my ears is analogous to drinking a truly fine red wine and tasting the subtle nuances brought about by aging and then tasting a good wine. Both are excellent but there is a character there that is easily tasted. With vinyl all I can say is listen to a good setup and let your ears be the judge.

 

[redshifter]

in my main speaker setup, vinyl seems to fill the room with a denser sound. cd in comparison sounds thin but clearer. like john & i pointed out, vinyl can sound more musical than cd.

 

[Pepzhez]

The alleged superiority of vinyl over (competently mastered) digital media - be it redbook CD or hi-rez - is dependent on the following:

a) skillful mastering
b) competent cutting engineer
c) superior metal work
d) virgin vinyl
e) decent playback equipment

If ANY aspect from the list above is lacking, you can kiss the "vinyl is superior to digital" argument goodbye, as the generally atrocious US major label vinyl output of the 1970s will attest. (Dynaflex, anyone? Atlantic Records atrocities throughout much of the 70s, etc.) Vinyl - done carefully and correctly, and played back on top-tier equipment - can indeed be breathtaking (at least until inevitable groove wear takes its slow toll), but, again, all conditions must be met. And in the real world, they rarely are. (Let's face facts: the audiophile world is a small one!)

I would argue that redbook CD (done correctly!) sounds far superior to vinyl on the AVERAGE PERSON'S EQUIPMENT. Keep in mind that the average music listener in the pre-CD era owned BSR turntables and their equivalents, not Duals with expensive cartridges! Add to this that American vinyl pressings from the early 70's onwards were more often than not terrible, and you can easily see why the general public perceived CD as a quantum leap in improvement - because for their equipment and needs, it was! (And all this without even taking the convenience factor of CDs into account!) Even today, the lowliest and cheapest Sony CD player will sound better than a BSR turntable or a Technics/Denon direct drive deck with mid-line Shure cartridge attached.

The public at large (note that I did not say "the audiophile community"!) lost absolutely nothing when vinyl ceased to be the medium of choice.

 

[puppyslugg]

I've heard mentioned that digital is like taking a steak, grinding it up, reshaping it back into it's original form and telling you it's a steak. I dunno, I still call it hamburger.

 

[Pepzhez]

By that logic, you may as well state that a stupendous vinyl pressing is in reality a butchered facsimile of the studio master tape.

In other words, like most of the "vinyl vs. digital" platitudes, the hamburger analogy really doesn't make much sense.

Alleged meatgrinder notwithstanding, today's Discmen, MD portables and ipods are capable of pumping out far superior sound than anyone but a few obsessive and moneyed audiophiles had access to 20, 30 years ago.

 

[TWIFOSP]

All good info. Thanks for the input.

I must get my hands on some equipment to demo.

However the fact remains that the ear bone still can't vibrate to all the frequencies vinyl is capable of producing.

Its all conjecture and personal opinion anyway right? If the placebo effect works, it works

SACD's sound damn fine in my book. Perhaps I should stay away from vinyl so I can save money!

Slaves to audio.... sigh...

 

[TWIFOSP]

Quote:

Originally posted by puppyslugg I've heard mentioned that digital is like taking a steak, grinding it up, reshaping it back into it's original form and telling you it's a steak. I dunno, I still call it hamburger.

Pardon my saying so, but that is just dumb.

If the only downside to digital format is that it doesn't sample the entire range of frequencies at the expense of saving space, then all that is left is putting out digital mediums that can.

When you get down to it, it is entirely more accurate then vibrating bumps could ever be.

It is just ones and zeros after all.

Need a 64 bit audio stream I suppose.

But hey, if it sounds good, it sounds good

Must try this out.

 

[Sol_Zhen]

There is more software available for vinyl. That’s why I’m trying it. I’ll wait for SACD production to mature before buying a SACD player.

 

[tanfenton]

Quote:

Originally posted by TWIFOSP But what makes Vinyl records the best possible source?

What some peoples' ears tell them that measurements may or may not support. Compact Disc is superior in every respect I've seen figured technically.

Quote:

But I would go out on a limb and say that most of the Vinyl zealots are in it for the cool factor and old school mentality.

The limb just broke.

NGF