[MrGreen]

Quote:

Highly dubious information here if I must say...CDs have dynamic range of 150db???
 

They're talking about a dithered and oversampled signal. I wouldn't bother with that particular piece of information. I agree that we should take 96.
 
Regardless, CD is a vastly superior format to vinyl, and both push the limits of what is audible. The quality of what is pressed is the main concern for both sets of media. Sometimes Vinyl will have a better mastering because of the physical limitations of CD. Other times it will be worse or the same.
 
Vinyl has an element of "olden" listening standards; the act of laying down a cumbersome disc and turning it frequently.
 
Anyone who thinks vinyl is superior from an audio perspective is sorely mistaken, regardless of individual examples where the vinyl has a superior pressing. If your vinyl, with an identical recording to a cd, sounds 'richer' than your cd, then there is something wrong with one of your pieces of equipment- most likely your turn table.

 

[jcx]

 
Quote:

Highly dubious information here if I must say...CDs have dynamic range of 150db???  Redbook is 96db theoretical, period.  Also no mention of oversampling artifacts, low-pass filtering distortions, etc.  Additionally, one of the first points is that the cutting head cannot handle the high frequencies and must reduce the level to make a good cut.  This is blatantly untrue, to my knowledge, a vinyl cutter will be fed a high resolution master (same 24 bit that the CD is produced from) and cuts the master at low speed with RIAA eq applied.  I agree that deflection of the cutting head introduces errors, but the idea that the master must be degraded or reduced to transition to the media is preposterous.
 
just my 2 cents, a wiki on a site devoted to digital audio clearly has an agenda, no?


 

where are you getting your misinformation?
 
phonograph recordings have summed low bass R,L channels to mono to prevent over cutting, even so the cutting engineers may have to "ride" the volume/bass EQ control
 
at the high end cartridges have a tracking limit - they simply can' t accelerate fast enough to track some higher frequency signals that can be cut (half speed mastering can cut hotter than any cart can track, but hasn't "won" as "audiophile approved" like "direct to disc")
 
a "good" phono cart channel separation number is "greater than 30 dB" - that's 3% crosstalk
 
cutting room engineers apply additional EQ to the "master tape"  to "compensate" for  the vinyl recording/play back chain expected faults - no one cuts a vinyl disc with the "same" master as CD, SACD, DVD or the rare, expensive "Tape Project" copies (not talking RIAA which is assumed, the cutting room engineer has his own monitors, mixing board with EQ, compressors)
 
vinyl playback is limited by tonearm, cantilever, stylus geometry and mechanical tolerances, playback speed stability, disc flatness, eccentricity - all causing a Zoo of time/frequency modulation errors, many orders of magnitude larger than even cheap consumer DAC digital playback
 
http://files.audiamorous.net/trackingerrorsimulator/poster.pdf  - you could look up the article as well - the refs show cartridge, stylus geometric distortion papers go back 50 years
 
at the inner groove the vinyl is moving past the needle 2-3x slower, high frequency distortion, noise, roll-off all get much worse
 
 
the 96 dB of RedBook isn't a limit compared to vinyl surface noise - and it isn't even the "final" number for CD - apparently you never heard of "noise shaped dither"? - used nearly universally today's CDs - the higher perceptually weighted S/N numbers are way beyond what any studio mic can capture
 
http://audio.rightmark.org/lukin/dither/dither.htm - Lukin is "dated" but good with pointers to example listening files, the extreme modern numbers come from dynamic perceptual noise shaping which "hides" the dither noise using music's masking - noise shaped dither's advantages are real, valuable and the -150 dB number is audibly meaningless - every tech has marketing
 
RedBook is a uncomfortably "tight" fit to human audio perceptual limits, clearly not including the "statistical tail" high frequency limit - but all published DBT tests to date seem to support the "good enough for music" proposition
 
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/coding2.pdf
 
having higher resolution digital consumer distribution formats seems a "no brainer" with bits so cheap today and it would seem to be a easy "selling point" but there's no unambiguous evidence it makes a audible difference
 
however there is no contest in the comparison of arguably "compromised" RedBook CD to the objective and audible faults of even very good vinyl playback
 

 

[Hi-Five]

jcx and MrGreen,
 
Good info for sure, thanks for the links.  My post wasn't intended to advocate that I think vinyl has more resolution or dynamic range than RedBook or other modern standards, I was just pointing out that to say "CD is clearly better than vinyl" based on the info in that particular article was suspect.  We all know that no format is perfect and whichever one chooses is clearly based on personal preference.
 
I probably should have continued by addressing the OP in that a blanket statement that "vinyl is better than CD because it can reproduce higher frequencies" is missing the details as well.  I do, in fact, agree that a CD is probably a closer representation of the original source material, but not for the arguments made on the Hydrogen wiki, I saw a mix of truth and fiction there.

 

[jojoarmani]

I am very happy for all the replies, although i am not very surprised! Vinyl against Cd has always been a heated debate!
 
I was going through these videos on Youtube and came across this one, which was the reason i started the thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48
 
I would agree that Cd is a better format only because it is more compact and better resists wear.
 
Anyways, check out the video... Maybe the difference is not audible to our human ears, but the Vinyl does seem to make it more rich. I mean, all the equipment we buy  (DAC and amps) is to get as close as possible to the vinyl sound. Thanks

 

[wind016]

Quote:

I am very happy for all the replies, although i am not very surprised! Vinyl against Cd has always been a heated debate!
 
I was going through these videos on Youtube and came across this one, which was the reason i started the thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eC6L3_k_48
 
I would agree that Cd is a better format only because it is more compact and better resists wear.
 
Anyways, check out the video... Maybe the difference is not audible to our human ears, but the Vinyl does seem to make it more rich. I mean, all the equipment we buy  (DAC and amps) is to get as close as possible to the vinyl sound. Thanks

That's very interesting. Someone did mention that the Anedio D1 DAC, which I own, sounds like vinyl but with the convenience of digital. I've never heard vinyl myself, but if there are so many people that swear by vinyl and that the Anedio sounds closer to vinyl, then vinyl must sound really good. =)
 
 

 

[Mossback]

/img/forum/go_quote.gif

 
Regardless, CD is a vastly superior format to vinyl, and both push the limits of what is audible. The quality of what is pressed is the main concern for both sets of media. Sometimes Vinyl will have a better mastering because of the physical limitations of CD. Other times it will be worse or the same.
 
Vinyl has an element of "olden" listening standards; the act of laying down a cumbersome disc and turning it frequently.
 
Anyone who thinks vinyl is superior from an audio perspective is sorely mistaken, regardless of individual examples where the vinyl has a superior pressing. If your vinyl, with an identical recording to a cd, sounds 'richer' than your cd, then there is something wrong with one of your pieces of equipment- most likely your turn table.

 
 

so maybe tell us about high level vinyl set-ups you've compared your CD/PCM gear to. strongly held opinions like that i would expect to be backed up by considerable comparitive listening experience.
 
 

 

[9pintube]

Quote:

so maybe tell us about high level vinyl set-ups you've compared your CD/PCM gear to. strongly held opinions like that i would expect to be backed up by considerable comparative listening experience.
 
 

Mossback, I'll go along with your comment for sure....This is turning into a joke..Cd's have never been a truthful musical medium when compared to the original recording....You believers that Cd's are far Superior to vinyl are just following someone Else's believes, no matter who or what has been written or where it has been written. You and those pro- "CD'ers" are stating facts that carry no merit. You've been reading and telling us to read "Stuff" that convinced you to believe, what so many reviewers and or pro-CD writers have been spewing since the early eighties when the CD was being marketed as the "best sound ever", remember??? Also like I've said and a few others it's the convenience and slight wearing of the ones and zeros on the disc that had people nodding their heads, you're right, this is the best recorded music ever! Nobody has mentioned the original intent of the Cd's was to make "it" the most durable and cheapest way to listen to recorded music....For those to young to remember or didn't know, Cd's were going to sell for around 4 bucks, new! The only place I've seen that happen are the used CD outlets or stores like "Buy Backs" that deal in USED DISC!  What happened there??? Can you say corporate greed and screw the artist!.....One other thing how can you CD lovers/ believers explain why they are selling less each year then ever before and damn near few and far between sold in music stores? I know high res. down loads are all the rage now, could it be the convenience reality biting at many heals in today's music market,again?  I'm not talking MP3 downloads, either.. Why is it that new vinyl, be it remastered Lps or the artist that are recording new music on vinyl plus giving you a free mp3 or disc of the same music that's on their LP's so you can have a copy for your car or portable players are out selling Your "perfect sound forever" disc???  PS. As some of us have said, they each have their faults, but get real, and listen with your ears!

 

[TheAttorney]

I suspect that MrGreen (and similar types) has never owned a high end vinyl set up and has not even ever heard one under sympathetic conditions.
 
So all his deductions are based on "scientific" reasoning and possibly some listening to a low end system. Which is OK to a point, but severely limiting in maintaining any kind of constructive debate.

 

[MrGreen]

 
Quote:

So all his deductions are based on "scientific" reasoning

 
Which is by definition superior to anecdotal evidence.
 
There is no discussion to have here, and in my post I have even outlined why some vinyl sounds better than some CDs. This is about as worthwhile as a debate as to whether evolution really occurred or not.
 
Quote:

I suspect that MrGreen (and similar types) has never owned a high end vinyl set up and has not even ever heard one under sympathetic conditions.
 
So all his deductions are based on "scientific" reasoning and possibly some listening to a low end system. Which is OK to a point, but severely limiting in maintaining any kind of constructive debate.

Which means i am free from monetary commitment on the matter, and can observe the data by which we should consider ALL source components and amplifiers. They are not "musical instruments"- they are ways we reproduce audio.
 
Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by Mossback /img/forum/go_quote.gif


so maybe tell us about high level vinyl set-ups you've compared your CD/PCM gear to. strongly held opinions like that i would expect to be backed up by considerable comparitive listening experience.
 
 

 
I haven't witnessed evolution from the dinosaurs and birth of life first hand, but I am able to simulate early earth in the lab, and able to connect data.
 
 
Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by 9pintube /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Quote:

Mossback, I'll go along with your comment for sure....This is turning into a joke..Cd's have never been a truthful musical medium when compared to the original recording....You believers that Cd's are far Superior to vinyl are just following someone Else's believes, no matter who or what has been written or where it has been written.

 

Oh please, you clearly have no idea what happens in the average studio, and why nothing is going to be 100% "truthful".
 
If you're so hell-bend on the "supreme analog" where's your studio tape rig? Even that is better than vinyl, and it degrades even faster. Vinyl can't even produce the entire audible spectrum reliably, and there are several pressings that are nigh-unplayable with out an extremely heavy tone arm that eats into the vinyl itself.

 

[TheAttorney]

True. And science is wonderful like that. However, with dinosaur theory, we have no choice - we can only rely on scientific evidence.
But with high end vinyl we can do better than that because high end vinyl is not yet extinct

.
 
To continue the analogy, if I went back in time and could see and touch the dinosaurs and witness their demise, then I'd trust my experience above whatever the scientific data had recorded. And no amount of you telling me I was suffering from time-travel-sickness delusion would get me to change my mind.
 
So my point still stands: If you haven't actually experienced the end result, then your opinions are limited IMO. Not completely worthless, just limited.
 
PS. A while back, I ditched my high end vinyl rig for all CD, but this was done for practical, not necessarily SQ, reasons.
 
Quote:

I haven't witnessed evolution from the dinosaurs and birth of life first hand, but I am able to simulate early earth in the lab, and able to connect data.

 

[Mossback]

Quote:

 
 
There is no discussion to have here, and in my post I have even outlined why some vinyl sounds better than some CDs. This is about as worthwhile as a debate as to whether evolution really occurred or not.
 
 
I haven't witnessed evolution from the dinosaurs and birth of life first hand, but I am able to simulate early earth in the lab, and able to connect data.

so you really have no idea what you are talking about. you write stuff like " Anyone who thinks vinyl is superior from an audio perspective is sorely mistaken" based on stuff you read and not any personal experience. which would be ok if you prefaced it with some sort of qualifier like "i've never taken the trouble to actually listen to high level vinyl but here is my take based on what i read".
 
we are talking here about whether an investment in high level analog is worth it from a pleasure/dollar perspective. it's a subjective question. and room for lots of opinions.
 
i'm not anti-digital. i have 4000 CD's, 1200 SACD's, and a high rez server with 2000+ hirez files and half my CD's. digital sounds great. but my 11,000 Lps sound quite a bit better. i have thousands of Lps and digital sourced from the same recording. sure, there are different masterings. but over thousands of examples the truth is quite clear.
 
i compare the formats every day.
 
sure; there are levels of vinyl playback gear which are neck and neck with good digital. but there are 4 or 5 levels of vinyl playback above that gear which are increasing levels better than even the best digital. to know about that takes effort.
 
it's debatable whether it is worth the dollars to invest in the whole vinyl thing. it's not for everyone. the very top level is spendy. but for some it's essential.
 

 

[MrGreen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mossback /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
so you really have no idea what you are talking about. you write stuff like " Anyone who thinks vinyl is superior from an audio perspective is sorely mistaken" based on stuff you read and not any personal experience. which would be ok if you prefaced it with some sort of qualifier like "i've never taken the trouble to actually listen to high level vinyl but here is my take based on what i read".
 

Except for the machines that measure everything much more accurately than your ears ever will. I'm not regurgitating anecdotal evidence, I'm taking scientific measurements, and interpreting them.
 
The best turntable I've heard is a Rega P3 - not great but good enough. It was fine, however the major benefit of using a turntable for me was access to jazz (particularly early swing) records that were never put on CD.
 
Confirmation bias is going to have far far too much effect on either party to make any objective statement about the two formats without the assistance of machines. In fact, both measure well enough that there should be virtually zero audible difference between them (unless your vinyl rig has noise, due to a dirty vinyl, bad pressing, wear etc), providing that the mastering is the same, and doesn't push any physical limitations of the vinyl format.
 

 

[9pintube]

Quote:

    Oh please, you clearly have no idea what happens in the average studio, and why nothing is going to be 100% "truthful".  
If you're so hell-bend on the "supreme analog" where's your studio tape rig? Even that is better than vinyl, and it degrades even faster. Vinyl can't even produce the entire audible spectrum reliably, and there are several pressings that are nigh-unplayable with out an extremely heavy tone arm that eats into the vinyl itself.

I guess you are directing this comment towards what I posted and I'm sure glad you can see into my past and know the exact road I've been down during my 58 yrs of listening and playing music.... Your comment "you clearly have no ideal what happens in the average studio". Well not to continue this childish banter, but many of us "don't know squat" about the recorded music industry, including YOU. I have been in many of the top studios in Nashville, and several Old School Studios here around Ohio.... I've traveled with my Tube Equipment builder (Chris Ivan) when he's been begged to come fix "our" board, or "our" mics, or Tube compressor etc.etc. We've got so-in so coming into record tomorrow!  So what gives you the right to blow your mouth off about what I know and what I have had as far as "My studio Rig", I sold, my Revox reel to reel, for the convenience reasons, as I said above. I have local access to a Scully Tape machine to hear master Tapes, hot of the presses "if you will".....So, sorry to disappoint you on that pt... You've used, or heard a Rega P-3, like you said, that's a very nice entry level table and can playback LP's if all other components compliment each other......But you haven't heard a Top Shelf Vinyl playback Rig when so many Items come into the picture for the best playback from LP's........................................................................................ AGAIN, You must not have payed attention when I mentioned
that all mediums have their faults!     So, I'm finished on this post when we have people like you who think they know everything, and really must not be able to hear anything different or take constructive criticism....PS. I never once said Vinyl was without fault, along with all the other mediums of recorded music...Peace to you MrGreen.

 

[MrGreen]

Your post has nothing to do with anything.
 
The fact of the matter is that the modern standard is largely digital capture and many vinyl pressings will be an output of that signal. Some studios still use tape or direct-to-vinyl - but many do not. Furthermore, the micing method has changed from ambient micing around the pre-thirdstream jazz days to a close-mic setup, which removes any sense of "realism" by design; which is artificially reconstructed druing the mastering process. When this was first done it was usually done with two mics, each hard-panned.
 

 

[Mossback]

Quote:

Except for the machines that measure everything much more accurately than your ears ever will. I'm not regurgitating anecdotal evidence, I'm taking scientific measurements, and interpreting them.
 
The best turntable I've heard is a Rega P3 - not great but good enough. It was fine, however the major benefit of using a turntable for me was access to jazz (particularly early swing) records that were never put on CD.
 
Confirmation bias is going to have far far too much effect on either party to make any objective statement about the two formats without the assistance of machines. In fact, both measure well enough that there should be virtually zero audible difference between them (unless your vinyl rig has noise, due to a dirty vinyl, bad pressing, wear etc), providing that the mastering is the same, and doesn't push any physical limitations of the vinyl format.
 

Rega 3 is a nice tt, level 1.5 to 2.5 out of 10.0 IMHO. depending on the arm, cartridge and phono stage, it will likely sound better than redbook digital of it's own price range; but it will depend on the specific Lp's listened to......so your perspective on 'listening opinions' is logical. which is why i asked about your reference.
 
level 5 or so (i'm simply trying to give some sort of relative scale) is where vinyl has the potential (depending on the synergy of the specific pieces of the vinyl set-up) to leave any digital clearly behind......and as you climb up the vinyl scale it gets other-worldly better than not only redbook, but any PCM of any level, SACD and even 2xdsd.
 
claiming any sort of knowledge about how digital actually performs in the real world compared to vinyl (at the highest level for both), without ever listening to the higher levels of vinyl is wrong and inviting challenge.
 
OTOH; if you stick to scientific arguements and measurement proof and don't venture into claims of listening; i will not take the time to dispute whatever you might write. claim that i am self-delusional, claim that machines know better, claim that you are king of the world......no problem. just make it clear you don't have experience listening to top level vinyl so readers can make their own judgements based on your logic and experience.