Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
dasmodul
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Jim Gregory
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
dasmodul
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #10   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


It's the familiar and apparently deathless 'sampling means
missing information' canard about CD vs. LP. One of audiophile
culture's 'greatest hits' as it were.


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.



Here's the URL for emailing HowStuffWorks the correct information:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...&ct=correction



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee


  #11   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
michael
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #22   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #25   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ralph Heidecke
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Billy Shears
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Jenn
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are they Teaching Michael McKelvy Audio Opinions 199 October 15th 04 07:56 PM
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? alex Pro Audio 1 August 14th 04 07:29 PM
Simple science question Schizoid Man Audio Opinions 0 February 5th 04 11:45 PM
Newbie question: What software 2 use 4 recording 2 x AES/EBU (2xstereo) bERt General 0 January 26th 04 04:27 PM
simple crossover question Jive Dadson General 1 July 25th 03 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"