Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Simple Newbie CD vs Vinyl Question
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
dasmodul wrote:
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. What you read was drivel. My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, Not to repeat myself, but what you read was drivel. CD probably has a good 20 dB on vinyl. then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. Yeah, there's that, too. To explain: Vinyl has limited dynamic range and a whole host of distortions besides, but some of those distortions give it a wonderful, resonant sound. Some audiophiles mistake this resonance for "accuracy," which is a technical term referring to the relationship between the recording and the output. But many people who love vinyl don't want to admit that what they love about it is, technically speaking, distortion. So they invent all sorts of pseudoscientific theories about how vinyl must somehow be technically superior to CD. I'm surprised you found someone making the argument that vinyl offers higher dynamic range, because that is so obviously wrong, but it gives you some idea of the lengths to which some vinylphiles will go to avoid facing up to the fact that what appeals to them about vinyl is a technical weakness of the medium. bob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
dasmodul wrote:
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. All analog media are not alike. An LP is *extremely* unlikely to have higher resolution than a CD of the same recording, unless the CD mastering has been done very poorly indeed! My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. Well, CDs are capable of reproducing the audible frequency range -- 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, more or less -- with the same excellnet fidelity from lowest to highest. LPs simply can't do that. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Well, you'll be told you need an expensive turntable to reap the full benefits of vinyl...but you'll still be limited by the medium itself. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. Indeed. You'll be told that careful -- read: obsessive -- devotion to record cleaning rituals will 'all but' eliminate clicks and pops. But they always seem to creep in anyway, don't they? Btw, if you like the way a record sounds, you can always transfer it to CD, and eliminate the clicks and pops digitally. That way you' will completely preserve whatever good the LP has to offer, and none of the bad. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
dasmodul wrote:
I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. Perhaps you still have not read enough? Vinyl simply has less resolution, because of noise and distortion. Resolution is determined by the loudest and softest that the medium can reproduce. Vinyl has at best 70 dB or so of dynamic range (i.e. the difference between the loudest signal it can reproduce without significant distortion and the noise floor), and that is equivalent to only 12 bits or 13 bits of resolution. Most vinyl LP's have even less resolution because of excessive surface noise. Whether one likes analog or digital is a matter of preference, and there are factors like the quality of the mastering that can be most important in determining the resulting quality of a record, but there is really no argument that digital is the *measureably* more accurate medium than vinyl. My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Vinyl has inferior dynamic range compared to CD. Measurements clearly reveal that. Most of us also are able to observe that fact by listening. Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. The CD standard is flat up to 20 KHz, whereas it is rare to find an LP with significant signal power above 15 KHz. If you do not have optimal cartridge/phono preamp combinations, you may get significant droop (or ripples) below 15 KHz. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. That's one of the reasons why CD's have totally taken over. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Regarding content, if you compare a vinyl LP made with the *same source*
Master tape copied to HD or DAT (or direct) to make a Master CD, the eq at the disc-cutter i/p was often adjusted (and maybe the path's dynamic range too) as it progressed, whereas the CD transfer is deemed linear. "dasmodul" wrote in message ... I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Apr 2005 00:02:43 GMT, "dasmodul"
wrote: I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. I'm not sure where you read this, but it is incorrect. Vinyl has an absolute maximum possible dynamic range of around 70-75 dB, whereas any old CD, even the ones you burn in your PC, has a dynamic range of 93dB. Of course, no music *master tape* exists with a dynamic range of more than 80dB, so that's the range you'll really get on a CD, but the medium is not the limitation. My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, Why does it make sense to you? It's not true, and there are perfectly good technical reasons why this is the case. then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Vinyl apologists commonly trot out the argument that anyone who doesn't find vinyl superior to CD has 'never heard a high-end vinyl rig', but this is sheer obfuscation. I own a Michell GyroDec/RB300/A-T OC9 combination with a SOTA phono preamp, and vinyl still sounds exactly as you describe. I've also heard the legendary $80,000 Sirius Rockport III with Clearaudio Insider cartridge, set up by Andy Payor himself - and vinyl sounded exactly as you describe. Once you get above the most basic replay gear, the limitation is the vinyl itself, not the equipment. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. Quite so. Stick with CD and ignore the screaming from the vinyl fans. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"dasmodul" wrote in message
... It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. A $500 cartridge/tonearm combo should be more than is required. You forgot to tell us your age. Regardless, when your hearing goes, perhaps a little CD pre-emphasis :-) is not a bad thing. Additionally in your CD/vinyl comparison your pre-amp's phono section and its RIAA equalization comes into the picture. (I purposely avoided introducing your speakers into the matter.) In any event try to get yourself one of those old commercial Telarc (digital) LPs and its CD counterpart, and repeat your comparisons. I believe this will really tell you something about (your) vinyl playback. I only have modest vinyl and CD playback equipment and to my aged ears there is not a big difference in the two formats (of course, excepting surface noise, and tracking problems should those arise in your system.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I. I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. I am speechless. All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.) That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence. Others here can parse its flaws better than I, but you should have been skeptical from the start: First and foremost, no one's name is attached to the information. For a lay person such as yourself (or me), faced with some technical explanation far beyond one's own level of expertise, the first clue to whether the information can be trusted is the credentials of the person providing it. That's not perfect, obviously. People can lie about their background, and even "experts" can be wrong, so you should never rely on a single source of information. But at least it gives you some basis for believing that this is somewhat more authoritative than if you had made it up yourself. bob |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Apr 2005 01:57:32 GMT, "dasmodul"
wrote: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. That article is one of the most appalingly ignorant misrepresentations I have ever seen. To include it in a series called 'how stuff works' is an absolute travesty. It is obvious that the author has absoliutely *no* idea how digital audio works, and as a result, his statements regarding CD vs vinyl are just plain wrong. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
dasmodul wrote: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. I am speechless. All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.) That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence. "From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling." The above is taken from the site, along with a simplistic graph showing a "sampled stepped" waveform. There is nothing I found in the "article" explaining the niceties of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem, nor are there any explanations of why, when one looks at a waveform on a 'scope taken from a CD, one does not observe these irregular steps. All this nonsense was a common and prevalent misunderstanding in the early days of digital audio. Today, it is an embarrassment. The problem with understanding sampling is that it requires a degree of specialized knowledge not available to the average audiophile-someone who knows how to, maybe, align a cartridge using a protractor, but is uninitiated in higher mathematics and engineering. Thus, people get away with offering simplistic and naive explanations, like those found on the site mentioned above. To understand sampling theory one must understand higher math. But anyone can look at a simple diagram on a simple Web site and then wonder how a stepped and truncated waveform can ever be representative of music? Without a technical background they will never be able to understand, and are, therefore, open to all kinds of obfuscation from people who don't know what they are talking about. While the following may be a bit technical, the original poster may want to dig up: Clock Jitter, D/A Converters, and Sample-Rate Conversion by Robert Adams of Analog Devices, in The Audio Critic Issue 21. For more technical discussions there is plenty of free material out there. Some examples: http://www.datasheetarchive.com/data...f/23/2326.html http://www.datasheetarchive.com/data...70/709988.html Also, googling "Nyquist" will turn up many sites that explain, in varying degrees of sophistication, the principles behind digital sampling. michael |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. For a good explanation about how a DAC really works, see this paper: http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/ ..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
CD is a convenience thing. They can both sound very good, but yes you
do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly easier. Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in music savings. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "dasmodul" wrote in message ... I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc. My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
dasmodul wrote:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I. I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes. Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why speculate when you can go by an actual comparison? Scott Wheeler |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears:
In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends. Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Apr 2005 22:48:00 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:
CD is a convenience thing. It's also a sound quality thing. They can both sound very good, but yes you do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly easier. It is also much closer to the master tape than vinyl can ever be. Hence, it's just fine for the really serious audiophile, not only 'the average Joe'. Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in music savings. This is certainly true, although the quality of most of this vinyl is somewhat less than pristine.......... And of course, if vinyl quality is adequate for you, there's always MP3 and the Internet, where even greater savings can be made with no 'wear' concerns. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears: In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends. Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound more like the real thing. Which may have everything to do with the quality of that particular recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media. Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of nostalgia mixed in. bob |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Apr 2005 14:53:16 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:
Here's my $0.02 based on my experience and my ears: In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends. Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion. I own a pretty high-end vinyl system, and my CD player sounds as good as anything I've ever heard. You can see pictures of it here : http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/ Right now, I'm listening to an old DG recording of Emil Gilels playing Beethoven sonatas. The sound that I am listening to is more lifelike than *anything* I've ever heard on LP. The piano sounds much more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
dasmodul wrote: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I. I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes. Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why speculate when you can go by an actual comparison? Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: dasmodul wrote: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I. I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes. Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why speculate when you can go by an actual comparison? Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia. I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the "true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true" choice to make? Scott Wheeler |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , wrote: I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the "true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true" choice to make? Actually, if it is demonstrably true based on what is known at the time, it can never be untrue. At vaious times in the past, to claim that it was untrue could lead to imprisonment or even death. I leave it to the student to decide whether I am talking about CD or vinyl!! It seems to me you might not be following the thread. The "true" answer to the question which one do you like better CD or high end LP is purely a personal choice that can only be "demonstrated" by testimonial. So I find it ironic that someone would claim that the satisfying answer might not be the true answer. I suppose this is the case for those seeking dissatisfaction. Think about it. Scott Wheeler |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bob: Which may have everything to do with the quality of that
particular recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media. Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of nostalgia mixed in. bob Chung: Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I was in college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise. Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me. Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate, but the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to do with technical merits of the media or the gear. You are correct that nostalgia can play an important role in listening. I've had those same kind of experiences. All is know is that FOR ME, analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening experience, especially in the realm of instrument timbres. There are some CDs that I like, and the timbres are true enough that they don't distract too much from the experience. But on average, I'll take analogue because it best matches my daily listening to live acoustic instruments, including an excellent Steinway D that I hear daily. It's great that we have a variety of opinions, huh? Oh, and just for the record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical merits. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: dasmodul wrote: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD. Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I. I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes. Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why speculate when you can go by an actual comparison? Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia. I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the "true" answer. And where would religion be without that? Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. No, heaven allows that. My quibble is that you propose 'actual comparison' as meaning 'sighted comparison'. When such an 'actual comparison' can lead you to believe that A sounds better than B, even when A is the same as B, what real value except as emotional palliative, can that 'actual comparison' have? It can't have much value as truth-finding. And yes, there is 'truth' to be found here, beyond 'sincere preference'. Steve, do you think maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true" choice to make? Heaven forbid. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , wrote: I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the "true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true" choice to make? Actually, if it is demonstrably true based on what is known at the time, it can never be untrue. At vaious times in the past, to claim that it was untrue could lead to imprisonment or even death. I leave it to the student to decide whether I am talking about CD or vinyl!! It seems to me you might not be following the thread. The "true" answer to the question which one do you like better CD or high end LP is purely a personal choice that can only be "demonstrated" by testimonial. So I find it ironic that someone would claim that the satisfying answer might not be the true answer. I suppose this is the case for those seeking dissatisfaction. Think about it. Then again, if the vinyl rig and the CD rig were put behind screens, a listener could easily be led to 'prefer' on or the other, by applying simple psychological principles (e.g., small level differences, visual or verbal cues that one is 'better' than other) that have nothing to do with the intrinsic sound of either. So what does this say about the 'truth' of the preference you have gleaned from your 'actual comparison'? -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Bob: Which may have everything to do with the quality of that particular recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media. Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of nostalgia mixed in. bob Chung: Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I was in college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise. Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me. Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate, but the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to do with technical merits of the media or the gear. You are correct that nostalgia can play an important role in listening. I've had those same kind of experiences. All is know is that FOR ME, analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening experience, especially in the realm of instrument timbres. There are some CDs that I like, and the timbres are true enough that they don't distract too much from the experience. But on average, I'll take analogue because it best matches my daily listening to live acoustic instruments, including an excellent Steinway D that I hear daily. It's great that we have a variety of opinions, huh? Oh, and just for the record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical merits. Of course, we should care which has the greater technical merit, because the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability, repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us. If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn: Oh, and just for the
record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical merits. Chung: Of course, we should care which has the greater technical merit, because the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability, repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us. If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. But I don't listen to technical merit; I listen to music. If a given piece of equipment or recording sounds more like music, I like it better. It does me no good if one piece measures at ,0002 of some measurement and another measures .9996 of that thing, if the better measurement doesn't result in a more realistic piano, or orchestra, or wind band, or whatever. My first test is "Do I get a headache when I listen to this?" Some digital gives me a headache. No analogue gear playing an all analogue recording has ever done this. Do I care why? Not really, though I have some theories on this. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
the answer to your dilema is simple - just stick with CDs!
Vinyl is far better than some here give it credit for (if you read between the lines you can tell that some folks like it better than they let on) but it does comes with warts and even the mutli-thousand dollar analog front ends don't sound radically superior (if at all) to cd/dvd units costing less than I plan on spending on a new cartridge (about $200 US - my Pioneer d575 DVD unit was lower than that). |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn wrote:
Jenn: Oh, and just for the record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical merits. Chung: Of course, we should care which has the greater technical merit, because the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability, repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us. If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. But I don't listen to technical merit; I listen to music. If a given piece of equipment or recording sounds more like music, I like it better. It does me no good if one piece measures at ,0002 of some measurement and another measures .9996 of that thing, if the better measurement doesn't result in a more realistic piano, or orchestra, or wind band, or whatever. My first test is "Do I get a headache when I listen to this?" Some digital gives me a headache. No analogue gear playing an all analogue recording has ever done this. Do I care why? Not really, though I have some theories on this. Here's one: you have your listening gear and room set up so that analog tends to sound good, whereas a more accurate reproduction of the frequency spectrum and more lifelike dynamic range, does not. And too, we have no way of knowing of your idea of 'realistic' has any objective credibility. -- -S It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Jenn" wrote: All is know is that FOR ME, analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening experience, Well if the recording is done with a crackling fire in the background, I can see it. Otherwise the pops, cracks, and general vinly background noise tend to get in the way for me. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Jenn: Oh, and just for the
record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical merits. Chung: Of course, we should care which has the greater technical merit, because the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability, repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us. If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. But I don't listen to technical merit; I listen to music. If a given piece of equipment or recording sounds more like music, I like it better. It does me no good if one piece measures at ,0002 of some measurement and another measures .9996 of that thing, if the better measurement doesn't result in a more realistic piano, or orchestra, or wind band, or whatever. My first test is "Do I get a headache when I listen to this?" Some digital gives me a headache. No analogue gear playing an all analogue recording has ever done this. Do I care why? Not really, though I have some theories on this. Steven: Here's one: you have your listening gear and room set up so that analog tends to sound good, whereas a more accurate reproduction of the frequency spectrum and more lifelike dynamic range, does not. That could be, I guess, though my experience encompasses several systems and several rooms. Steven: And too, we have no way of knowing of your idea of 'realistic' has any objective credibility. All I have to go by is comparisons with the live music I hear virtually every day. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Ralph Heidecke wrote:
the answer to your dilema is simple - just stick with CDs! Vinyl is far better than some here give it credit for (if you read between the lines you can tell that some folks like it better than they let on) but it does comes with warts and even the mutli-thousand dollar analog front ends don't sound radically superior (if at all) to cd/dvd units costing less than I plan on spending on a new cartridge (about $200 US - my Pioneer d575 DVD unit was lower than that). Vinyl isn't bad, you're right. Here's a good analogy: Vinly is like a car. Drive it right and it works well, quite well. Drive it wrong and it crashes. The car gets totalled etc. Digital audio is like the space shuttle. Drive it right and it will do wonders; deploy space stations, take you to the moon etc. Drive it wrong, it crashes, HARD, and SPECTACULARLY. So, when people say that vinyl sounds better than CD, it is usually due to some bad process on the digital medium, be bad DA converters, in-correct mastering process etc. These mistakes show up and really make the digital audio sound a whole lot worse, compared to mistakes with vinyl. For example, because a CD is so quiet, you could proably hear the mastering engineer sneezing outside the sound booth Of cousre, that small exxageration is and example of how digital audio's capabilties show up small flaws more readily. But then, If I heard something like that, I'd be even more impressed with CD. Vinyl can sound worse, but we're already numbed by the surface noise, the wow and flutter, that any more imperfections don't degrade the overall sound experience that much more. CD |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"Billy Shears" wrote in message
... In article , "Jenn" wrote: All is know is that FOR ME, analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening experience, Well if the recording is done with a crackling fire in the background, I can see it. Otherwise the pops, cracks, and general vinly background noise tend to get in the way for me. Perhaps the listener and/or his equipment, listening area, etc. can't tolerate higher (or lower) frequencies or mixtures of those when present. One might prefer vinyl for all the wrong reasons, one being (regardless of what is written elsewhere) there is little if anything beyond 12 Khz present or which can be played back. I've yet to see any meters respond to bands containing frequencies higher than that when said to be present on test or demo LPs. One such LP in my possession for a very long time comes from the JBL 2 LP album "Sessions" containing both High and Low frequency demonstrations. However I have not used laboratory grade test equipment or tonearm cartridge combo in the mega buck range. Who here can testify to the fact that vinyl can or does contain such information? What is the (+)/---- dB readout assuming any is measurable? (BTW it is the announcer on the LP who talks about this deficiency and it does not represent my opinion.) However his statement is confirmed by what I have ever observed from the behavior of meters on an amplifier AND recording devices, and not my younger or now aged ears. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 23 Apr 2005 22:48:00 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote: CD is a convenience thing. It's also a sound quality thing. They can both sound very good, but yes you do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly easier. It is also much closer to the master tape than vinyl can ever be. Hence, it's just fine for the really serious audiophile, not only 'the average Joe'. Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in music savings. This is certainly true, although the quality of most of this vinyl is somewhat less than pristine.......... And of course, if vinyl quality is adequate for you, there's always MP3 and the Internet, where even greater savings can be made with no 'wear' concerns. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Uptown Audio wrote:
You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded at 320 Kbps? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I
only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "chung" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded at 320 Kbps? |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Uptown Audio wrote:
Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer! -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 But you were saying that mp3's sound terrible, and that vinyl is noticeably superior than mp3's to even the most novice of listeners. I would ask that you do this experiment. Take your favorite CD. Compress all the tracks into mp3's at 320Kbps using Lame or some similar high quality encoders. Then burn an audio CD by decompressing the mp3's. So now you have two CD's with the same tracks, one original, and one based on mp3's coded at 320 Kbps. Now play those CD's and see if you can reliably tell them apart. I would bet that you will not find the mp3s' sound "terrible". In fact I don't think you can reliably tell them apart, for the majority of music. I have tried, and I can tell you it is hard. You overlooked the convenience factor. To have hours or days of quality audio on a portable device is convenience. The work required to code is minimal; you can batch encode entire CD's with a few mouse clicks, and you only do it once per CD. Try Apple's iTunes to see how easy this process is. Now having to switch sides on an LP every 20 minutes or so, who wants to do that? And did you read what Mr. Lavo wrote on what you need to do to play vinyl well? "chung" wrote in message ... Uptown Audio wrote: You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded at 320 Kbps? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On 29 Apr 2005 18:35:34 GMT, Uptown Audio wrote:
You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what quality system it is played back on. This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl. OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs. To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of transparency. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
Simple science question | Audio Opinions | |||
Newbie question: What software 2 use 4 recording 2 x AES/EBU (2xstereo) | General | |||
simple crossover question | General |