I'm curious what serious audiophiles think about this issue. Assuming one has a top notch system including a great turntable, cartridge, etc., what is a "better" sound - a digital CD of your favorite band or a analog recording on an 180g disc?

To me it really is dependent on the disc. I like the sound of vinyl, especially when compared to early cd's where you can make a direct comparison between the two formats.

However I think that digital recording has much improved, as has playback CDP's so I think that most newer cd releases sound very good and very little is lost that would appear on vinyl.

I personally like a blend- I run my cd's through a tube amp which I think creates a very pleasing, warm feel.

I'm primarily CD, but vinyl is the way to go. Really no comparison between the two IMO.

-Dave

Grumpy may be the only active member that feels stronger than I on this subject.

Vinyl absolutely crushes CD playback. Both my vinyl rig and primary CDP are quality components and FWIW I have about the same amount of cash invested in both. I recently purchased a vinyl copy of what I considered one of my best sounding CDs. This is a digitally mastered piece of vinyl so you'd think it'd be close. NOPE The vinyl is so much more alive, inviting and open.

My experience suggests the only advantage of CDs is they are easier to play. But your results may vary.

Grumpy may be the only active member that feels stronger than I on this subject.
Hmmm, might be debatable...:)

Personally, I've always preferred vinyl set-ups to CD even when the price point was ridiculously skewed in favor of CD. I got so tired of hearing decent entry level TT's absolutely smoke mega dollar 'state of art' latest and greatest CD players that I just don't bother listening to these comparisons anymore.

I do find that some SACD releases in my system get a little closer to the magic of vinyl than any CD does and I find this kind of encouraging for the future but at the end of the day, nothing does music for me like the LP does.

I've been converted back to vinyl by my experience at AK. The only time I spin CD's now is when vinyl is not available. I have quite a few albums on both CD and vinyl and even with my fairly modest TT it's no comparison. The vinyl is just so much more alive than a CD could ever hope for. The only advantage to CD's are their ease of use. If music really matters to you though, the cleaning and care of vinyl, the time spent aligning cartridges, adjusting the VTA and tracking force are just part of the FUN. I recommend to everyone to at least pickup a decent TT, put a BRAND NEW cart on it, sit back and hear what you've been missing.


Mike

analogue of course... Vinyl and R2R all the way

This is completely "nonpartisan" to the subject, but i read somewhere that vynil can reproduce a waveform more accurately than a CD (howstuffworks.com i beleive)

However, Vinyl for me.

Personally, I generally cannot hear the difference. Overall I like CDs better, both for ease in handling and playing, and the lack of surface pop and crackle.

Before anyone accuses me of having a tin ear, I already know that I do. Due to a bad run of ear infections as a kid, both of my eardrums are scar tissue, and I have problems with middle ear conduction as well. Ever had a middle ear infection? With the damaged bones in my middle ear, I hear similar to that all the time. By the time the sound gets through my damaged "hardware" to my brain its all the same to me -- Foe

Digital format sure is convenient. But I can't listen to digital for long before my teeth are on edge. Something about it makes me want to grind my teeth after about two hours. Even a good SACD is still not without this 'edge' to my ears. Better than redbook CDs, but still not good enough for long-term listening.

For all my critical listening I choose vinyl. Simply sounds better and closer to live music IMHO. Especially with a good analog rig (which I believe I have).

A format you have not mentioned is FM radio. I have recently rediscovered how good FM can be with a good antenna (yagi) and a good tuner. Its not vinyl, but it does seem to remove the worst attributes of digital when you pick it up from the airwaves. Still some pretty decent non-compressed stations out there. Especially around the major metropolitan centers.

You almost have me conviced to pull one of my 3 TT out of the closet, NOT! Maybe you guys are on to something, I just need to get a good cartridge. Personally I abandoned LPs some 10 to 15 years ago. I like the convenience of cd's and no background noise.
I can easily produce an LP sound when I get a bad burn on my cd-r's. I would need to hear one of youse guys vinyl rig to hop on the vinyl wagon. And if I tranfer a vinyl album to cd am I not getting vinyl? :finger:

When I joined AK I was all Cd...I had abandoned my turntable years ago and it was quite litteraly up in the closet, top shelf, boxes piled on etc..I had quit buying albums about 10 years before. The last batch I got from the last remaining record club pushed me over the digital edge. Even brand new they sounded like pure crap. Thin brittle, noisy..everything I hate in music. I didn't really know there was a difference in "pressings" and quality among albums..to me a record was a record. But I was trying to hang on because I simply liked them. Before the internet though, there was just no longer a choice. Vinyl didn't exist where I lived..much anyway.

So I plunked down a good chunk on a very high end Cd player for the time..and it sounded good. Real good..still does, for a Cd player. ( Denon DCD 1520 if you gotta know )

Years pass and things change. Kept reading threads here about how vinyl just swallowed digital sound. Finally the bug bit me to get out the old table and hook it up, just for grins really, nothing else.

Put on my sole remaining album...Fleetwood Mac's Rumors..and it had played no more than a minute before I had a big wide grin on my face like I hadn't gotten from a stereo for a longgg time :D :D :D

That was with no setup whatsoever and a filthy and scratchy old album..after some heavy cleaning and an attempt to dial in the table..putting the same Cd and Album on at the same time and playing one after the other, it was very clear that even with the noise and the rough adjusted turntable..that it was making my Cd player fear for its life!!



And now the Cd player is in the bedroom with a headphone setup. My new old turntable is currently my only source in the main setup.

And I'm Lovin It :banana: :banana: :banana:

I like the convenience of cd's and no background noise.
I can easily produce an LP sound when I get a bad burn on my cd-r's. I would need to hear one of youse guys vinyl rig to hop on the vinyl wagon. And if I tranfer a vinyl album to cd am I not getting vinyl? :finger:

Wireworm if you get pops, clicks and background noise then something is WRONG. For fun I'll often put on both a CD player and the turntable and ask the listener which source is playing. 9 times out of 10 they can't tell the difference. When I ask them which they prefer it's almost universally the vinyl they like better.

Mike

One thing that has not been mentioned by us commited vinylphiles is that the better the cartridge the quieter the background on the same record. At least with MC cartridges. That is one big part of a more expensive MC cartridge's magic. It has the uncanny ability to reduce the effects of surface noise while at the same time bringing much more music out of the grooves.

I have been buying, listening to and collecting music since the 1950's. I have thousands of LP's, hundreds of RtoR tapes and a few CD's. When the CD first came out, I bought a player and was instantly dissapointed. I discovered that the all digital recordings (DDD) were the best, but were no competition to the what I already had. A few years ago, I purchased some video buy-out music for use on a video project. I was amazed, it sounded great on my old CDP 101 but sounded terrible on a newer player. I began to re-think the whole issue. I lucked into a Lynn CD player for almost no money and was again amazed how good some of my CD's sounded.

I think there are two issues here. First, the player, either CD or TT. No matter what recording you are playing, you need a good player. I seriously doubt that any CD player priced under $2,000. is any good. The same goes for a TT. I like my Thorens and my Grado cart. The second and possibly the most important, the recording itself. A good recording is just that, a good recording and a bad recording will sound bad even if it's played and very expensive gear.

To my ear, recordings made with tubes, or all digital recordings are the best. I also prefer recordings that use hall acoustics rather than lots of chanels which are mixed later. Modern recording tends to mic too close to the instrament and mechanical sounds get mixed in with the music. I want to hear the musical note, not the fingering sounds.

I think I should also tell you what I am using for a system, because that can also have a lot to do with how a particular recording sounds. I have a Mcintosh C24 preamp, into a Mcintosh MQ 102, into a Dynaco ST-70 driving AR 3a speakers. To my ear, old as it is, I demand accurate reproduction and think I get it. If a recording is accurate and so is the system, any format will sound good.

Clyde

The best analog will beat any CD system, but the best analog is *hideously expensive*. With moderately priced systems, its not really a sure bet. My TT and CDP are comperably priced, and voiced similarly, so there is not a huge difference. Digital has come a very long way, both in playback and recording.
OTOH, cheap analog if far less annoying than cheap digital(which still sucks).
Jack

I think there are two issues here. First, the player, either CD or TT. No matter what recording you are playing, you need a good player. I seriously doubt that any CD player priced under $2,000. is any good. The same goes for a TT. I like my Thorens and my Grado cart. The second and possibly the most important, the recording itself. A good recording is just that, a good recording and a bad recording will sound bad even if it's played and very expensive gear.
Clyde

Many folks have had VERY good luck with the original Rega Planet CD player. I heard a few weeks ago a Jolida Tube-Based player, also under $1000, and I was stunned at how great it sounded.

THe Philips 963 DVD/CD player has an upsampling option for CD play back. It does take alot of the digital "edge" off many CD's. I picked this player up for under $300.

I have somewhat expensive CD and vinyl systems. They are very competent to each other. I can't say which one is better though. I prefer CD's for its dynamic range and no dust noise. No matter how thoroughly I clean my records with a VPI 16.5 I always be able to hear occasionally dust noise during the play. Other than dust noise records sound is very warm and intimate. I now record both record's and CD's on 10" reel to reel tapes.

The best analog will beat any CD system, but the best analog is *hideously expensive*. With moderately priced systems, its not really a sure bet. My TT and CDP are comperably priced, and voiced similarly, so there is not a huge difference. Digital has come a very long way, both in playback and recording.
OTOH, cheap analog if far less annoying than cheap digital(which still sucks).
Jack

I humbly disagree. You can get an excellent TT w/arm for <$600. Especially if you are willing to purchase used (Rega 3, MMF 5 or 7, Micro Seiki, Sota, etc.). If you want the next rung up the ladder get something without an arm (VPI HW-19 Mk III or IV, Rega 25, better Sota or MS, etc.) and then buy a used SME 309 or Rega R-300/600 arm. Still in the $1500 range. Add a Kontrapunkt B or Sumiko Blackbird for $700 to either system and you are in business for $1200 to $2000. Certainly not "hideously expensive" by any stretch of the imagination.

If you want to stay below $1000 then opt for the Shure V15-VxMR or something comparable in price like the Sumiko Blue-point Special. Terrific sound for considerably under $1000. You'll never look at a CD/SACD/DVD-A in the same way again.

If you need a phono stage get a NAD PP-2 with the large PS. Under $200 and does a very good job for MC/MM. Obviously, spend more money and get a better preamp and better sound. But still not hideously expensive.

The vintage Sony ES and Yamaha series of separate preamps and Sony's ES series of integrated amps all have wonderful phono stages built-in and will handle both MM & MC. I have owned half-a-dozen of these and they are all comparable in sound quality to $1000+ stand-alone phono stages. And, their overall sound on all sources is truly excellent. I found the Sony TA-F808ES integrated amp with its MOSFET output stage and built-in phono stage to be one of the most sensational individual pieces of gear I have ever owned for the reproduction of sound from vinyl (or any other source, for that matter). Almost as good as my currently set-up.

After reading Howstuffworks website, I conclude that you vinyl heads may have a valid claim. If I understand correctly this would be due to analog to digital conversion. As good as a sampling rate may be, there is still a degree of inherant inaccuracies compared to the original analog wave. Not detectable to the average person on a Low-Fi system, but on a HI-Fi system this edgyness that you people are discribing may very well be evident.
However it is also my understanding that a cd is capable of higher dynamic ranges than vinyl. So in this respect a cd would be superior.
Anyone care to comment?

However it is also my understanding that a cd is capable of higher dynamic ranges than vinyl. So in this respect a cd would be superior.
Anyone care to comment?

Huh?? The dynamic range of CD's is artificially limited to 20hz-20Khz since the early days of CD's. If you listen to modern CD's you'll find that almost all are artificially "louder" all the way across the frequency range because most listeners couldn't care less about the louder of softer passages inherent in music. Vinyl has huge dynamic range, but as with any system, your gear must be able to extract and playback the frequencies or its all a moot point anyway.

Mike

Yes, CDs are artificially limited because it is less expensive to do so. One of the major reasons that SACD and DVD-A is having a slog in catching on as the "next format" is that the folks who provide the music are shooting it in the foot. They digitize the music for CD and then refuse to spend the additional $5-10K to redigitize for the much greater dynamic range of SACD/DVD-A. Simply feed the CD format signal into the SACD/DVD-A system and the end result is no better than CD (except for a quieter background). And then they want us to pay $5-10 per disc more. And buy another piece of gear to play it on. I don't think so.

This was discovered by one of the reviewers at Stereophile. Guy has good ears. He played the CD and then the SACD layer and could hear no difference. Did a couple more with the same result and then started investigating. That's why one must be very circumspect when buying their music. The jerks that put it out do anything to make it cheap. They are only selling a name and not the music. Definitely sucks.

Wasn't it Patrick Henry who said "give me vinyl or give death". He was right.

I am all for vinyl,,,BUT, if I choose the best SQ CD's I have, like the some MIke Oldfield HDCD's, JVC XRCD's, or modern Jazz recorded with proper common sense, like Allan Holdsworth's All Night Wrong, or David Bromberg's Wood, or him with japanese drummer Akira Jimbo, they sound amazing in the own right, partly because of the CD player.

Then I listen to a CD released in the 80's,,,,and yuck!!!!

Mark Levinson's record label has SACD done right. check it out:
http://www.redrosemusic.com/about.shtml

Mark Levinson: CD vs. SACD and LP

Most music lovers feel that there is something wrong with the CD. Many prefer the sound of their LP's, or have cut down or stopped listening to music without even realizing why. Classical CD's aren't selling, while LP's of the same repertoire fetch hundreds of dollars a copy. People used to have 20 or 30 LP's and enjoy them, while now, people have hundreds or thousands of CD's which they rarely listen to, and almost never hear all the way through. What's going on?

Research shows that the pulse code modulation (PCM), the operating system of the CD, has limitations that so far cannot be overcome. There is something about listening to sound that has been processed with PCM which is stressful - the opposite of what most people seek in listening to music.

Sony has introduced a new digital operating system called Direct Stream Digital (DSD) which doesn't seem to create this stress reaction. DSD sounds much better than PCM, but more importantly, it is like analogue in the sense that it is very relaxing and joyful to listen to. DSD is the operating system of the new Super Audio CD (SACD). With good SACD recordings, people find they want to listen to music again with excitement and satisfaction. Because of DSD, it is now possible to revitalize the music world. Combining SACD with RRM equipment brings out the full benefits of SACD.

For a number of reasons, it will take time to bring DSD to full development. This is a vast undertaking which requires new professional equipment, new residential equipment, SACD pressing lines, and software. It is a multi-billion dollar project which requires research and development, manufacturing, education and promotion, support from the hardware and software sectors, and many other factors to succeed.

At the RRM store in NY, we have played DSD recordings for thousands of people during the last four years. Virtually everyone is amazed and wants the technology in their home. RRM sells no conventional CD players, only SACD players (which also play CD's of course), because all our customers want to be able to listen to SACD's.

We have learned that no matter how much money is spent on CD players and CD-based systems, the results are never truly satisfying. But with SACD, even a modest system brings great musical enjoyment. Many people listen to CD's if there is something they really want to hear, but the trend is to go away from PCM to either SACD or LP.

LP's have the advantage because there is so much repertoire available. Old pressings and new releases offer unlimited choice of artists and repertoire, often for modest cost. As SACD's come out, there will be more attention given to the format, but it will take time for a substantial amount of software to appear. In 2001, Sony made 3,000 SACD players. In 2002, Sony is making 4,000,000. SACD players start at under $300, so there is no cost obstacle anymore. A number of companies are making SACD players now, with enthusiastic reception from the press and public, clearly indicating that SACD is without doubt the audio technlogy for the future of quality music reproduction.

I listen to about 90% LP, although since I bought a new car with a CD player only, I have been listening to a lot more. I have been disappointed in CD since about the 4th or 5th CD I bought. I really wanted to like it, but the proof was in the pudding. At the time, I thought that I just needed to upgrade my CD player though. A while back I had about $2800 worth of CD player and it did not do it for me. I have since downgraded to a $200 NAD. I'll stick to my LP12/Dynavector for the time being.

Mike

Dynamic range definition: An audio term which refers to the range between the softest and loudest levels a source can produce "without distortion."

With distorsion in the definition, in theory LP's dynamic range is only 80dB while CD's is up to 96dB. In reality with real music the range may be much less for both formats.

I also find this article interesting.

http://www.web-ee.com/Electronic-Projects/projects/dynamic/index.shtml

A rather common thread throughout this thread and others that have attempted to compare the two mediums have this in common.

CDs can sound nearly as good as vinyl as long as you can get them to sound like vinyl. This is really an indictment of the CD. You haven't seen anyone post about how accurate their system is at the reproduction of the media, only about how much better the correct setup adds to the the lp or disc. Many that love listening to lps or CDs have used tube amplification somewhere in their system to give it warmth and make the recordings bloom. This is a hardly accurate reproduction, but does truly add to the enjoyment of the critical listening process. It brings "life" back to the recordings, and we all know life is analog by nature.

I found that when I recently got back into vinyl after 20 years gone by, that I had been fooled into "casual listening" by the ease of the CD. No thought had to go into the setup, cleaning, or starting and stopping or the neat little disc. This slowly transformed me, along with raising 5 kids into a casual listener like most of the general public. This has been tantamount to stripping me of all the enjoyment that I got from music throughout my early years as a musician from the age of 5 through becoming an instrumental music major in college.

I actually thought that my love of music had changed since I gave up smoking a little weed and that the party surrounding music was what I loved most. My recent reintroduction back into the wonderful world of vinyl has proved that I not only don't have to get a buzz to enjoy good music, it is the music that puts me into the euphoric state that I recalled from my youth.

My next journey will involve the putting together a CD transport system that will approach the enjoyment level that I am getting from my vinyl setup. This may include tube preamps or amps to get the fullness and warmth that excites me about lps.

My vote would be that for critical listening, nothing can beat vinyl, but for packing your music in the noisy environ of a car, motel, airport or other transient conditions the CD is about a good as it gets.

Thanks to AK for the awakening,

DG

that is a perfect statement. nicely said, there is a difference between convenience and critical listening. i stream music thu airtunes on a regular basis because its pretty good, and its super easy. but, when i sit in my dark room and want to chill, nothing beats my tubes and vinyl. well said. thank you. lastly, some music sounds just fine thru a crappy system... setting plays a huge role in the experience. rememer that long drive across the country and you pulled in that far out am and heard some unusual but great music that somehow was just right for the moment....
tyler

if you have a decent vinyl source....stick a sony minidisc recorder that uses atrac version 4.5 type r..(or even type 4) where your tape deck and cd 'used' to be.. :D and after recording a few of your favorite lp's taking care not the let the meters go into overload :no: ..stick a pair of grado cans on your ears :) ..turn the lights out :smoke: ....and while you scrutinize the sound for its recently 'cloned' fidelity with the new found convenience of remote control to cue and navigate your vinyl collection :thmbsp: ...(thus prolonging the life of your probably outrageously expensive stylus not to mention records :yes: )...ask yourself this question... :naughty:
why did sony quickly :yikes: switch back to an older version of its atrac software so soon after practically every machine that used the 4.5 type r version got excellent reviews ? :naughty:

"I want to hear the musical note, not the fingering sounds. "

some would argue that if you can hear the musical notes AND the fingers or plectrum that created them then your actually closer to whats on the mastertape... :scratch2:

ask yourself this question... :naughty:
why did sony quickly :yikes: switch back to an older version of its atrac software so soon after practically every machine that used the 4.5 type r version got excellent reviews ? :naughty:

OK...you've got me. Why did they?

...it was TOO good :D

Both LP's and CD's can sound good and both can sound bad. I enjoy listening to both and still buy both formats. I like LP's for the variety of music that I can buy for less than a dollar. I like buying SACD and DVD-A for the multichannel recordings that can add greatly to the music listening experience.

tcdriver

One additional advantage for the LP is that the album cover graphics and liner notes are much easier to see and read. I was listening to the 1959 RCA Metropolitan Opera recording of AIDA yesterday. It sure was nice to be able to read the libretto from an LP sized booklet rather than a CD sized booklet. :thmbsp: By the way, this recording,purchased from one of my favorite record stores, only cost me 25 cents plus sales tax. :thmbsp:

The very last line of the booklet: “You can buy today, without fear of obsolescence in the future”

tcdriver

for me the single biggest advantage of vinyl reply is its tweakability...most modern formats are pretty 'hands off ' when it comes to tweaking the sound...if you don't like a component's sound or it doesn't gel with the rest of your system..often your only alternative is to try another model...( an expensive way to upgrade :thumbsdn: )...with a T/T you can buy a 2nd hand base unit for relatively little outlay...and with careful sourcing ( ebay ) try a combination of affordable arms, cartridges and tweaks till you get the sound your happiest with...also reliability is built into affordable decks like thorens regas systemdeks aristons and even some of the mid 80's rotels through good engineering and decent parts...in the case of rega T/Ts...what other digital source comes with a lifetime warranty ?...
in the case of recordings that were first mixed onto mastertape...well tape is subject to deterioration as the electric particles within in the the tape layer lose their magnetic charge over the years...its my guess that some of the cd remasters from master tape have higher levels of background noise simply because the master tapes themselves have deteriorated with age...perhaps the original vinyl pressings in good condition are actually the closest in terms of fidelity to the original performance..surface noise or not...
try comparing a good quality jazz recording from the 60's on viynl to its digitally remastered equivalent and you might be surprised just how much 'fidelity' was actually cut into those grooves in the 50's 60's and 70's...possibly far more than commercially available T/T's of the time were actually capable of retrieving :yes:

The debate will rage on no doubt - I'll take the Turntable. However I'm considering buying the Audio Note DAC 1.1x if i ever get some money.

I recently heard the CD 3.1 model from them and was stunned. Yes I'm an Audio Note fanboy. Not a big name company but have a belief system than seems to run counter to most of the industry. Damn fine turntables too. The affordable ones are based off of the SystemdekIIS and their second best table is a reworked Voyd Reference.

The DAC requires a few minutes of listening because they sound quite a bit different than the Rotel, Linns etc of the world. The dac 4.1 was reviewed not long ago by someone quite skeptical of tube amps and turntables - http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/audionote.htm - he's come around to the turntable apparently as well.

Sometimes it's simply a matter of listening to the gear in the same room properly set-up. my NAD was ever so slightly off and I barely used it preferring the CD player - a slight tweak a better cart(still no world beater though) and the cd player is used only for background noise while doing homework - or if I don't have the album on vinyl.

The cambridge is quite an excellent transport as the CD 6 was the same as the Disc Magic with several independant power supplies and balanced. But the AN DAC's are music reproducers while the CD players I've heard and own are tizz and boom pyrotechnics makers.

Grumpy may be the only active member that feels stronger than I on this subject.

Vinyl absolutely crushes CD playback. Both my vinyl rig and primary CDP are quality components and FWIW I have about the same amount of cash invested in both. I recently purchased a vinyl copy of what I considered one of my best sounding CDs. This is a digitally mastered piece of vinyl so you'd think it'd be close. NOPE The vinyl is so much more alive, inviting and open.

My experience suggests the only advantage of CDs is they are easier to play. But your results may vary.
B I N G O ! ! !
My collection started in the early '70s as vinyl, then when CD's came out I jumped into them (as we were told they were FAR superior).
Now, many years later, I favour my LP collection by far.
They're not as convenient as CD's, but no matter the naysayer, all I have to do is put on a CD then the duplicate LP and they're converted.
Many new releases are on LP as well..I bought Springsteen's 'The Rising' recently.

It was 15 years since I heard a record again and now I have to say I prefer cd's I tryed a new un opened lp on a player that has had less then 30mins of use (I just made sure it worked back in 1989) it sounded really bad I had humm and little bass :(

That sounds like more of a system problem than an LP issue.

It was 15 years since I heard a record again and now I have to say I prefer cd's I tryed a new un opened lp on a player that has had less then 30mins of use (I just made sure it worked back in 1989) it sounded really bad I had humm and little bass :(


Well if you had hum and little bass then something is amiss. On a proper setup you'll normally get much better bottom end from vinyl than CD. The fact you have hum tells me the table isn't grounded properly or the cartridge wires are fudged.

Mike

BINGO!
I almost have to turn my sub off when I play LPs, it's incredible.

it's a 1989 magnavox rack system it's in good shape well cared for but I guess time could have taken it's toll by now :( I'll still keep an eye out for me a good tt and I have one unopened record left for testing but the mag is the only tt I've got

I've done a bunch.
As a child of the LP age, I have many duplicates on CD.
It's always fun to compare them...and unles the LP is in really crappy shape, it's always a clear winner.

Even an average CD player crushes any 'table I've ever heard. I realize this site is largely "old school," and that's cool. But to my ears good digital smokes vinyl, badly. LP is just too mechanical sounding for me. Of course, it is mechanical, so that explains it! :lmao:

For my money, though, DVD-A is the way to go. Much better than CD or LP, especially with good MC recordings. It's sad to see neither of new hi rez digital formats is getting much love, but you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him buy music instead of downloading mp3s.

Okay I'm dying to hear just how many 'tables you've listened to?

Mike

Not anything decent to be sure.
Mine is no high grade, but as for sound quality...no comparison..Lp all the way.

See, the process involves 'cleaning up' a recording to put it on a CD, in the cleaning there is always some quality lost.
Its like saying you like the radio more than the band live.

Considerering I had hundreds and hundeds of tapes & LPs before anyone ever dreamed of optical playback, it's safe to say it's in the hundreds. Even as a relatively early adopter I suffered thru decades of vinyl.

Considerering I had hundreds and hundeds of tapes & LPs before anyone ever dreamed of optical playback
That should make you close to 100.
Myself, I was in my early 20's when I bought my first CD player. By that time, I had over 500 LP's and over 300 cassettes...45's not counted.
I thought it was the way to go.
LP's are proof I was wrong.
The only way to suffer through an LP is to have either one in terrible shape or a system of the same condition.

Some simply don't have the god given or the human trained ear to hear the differences.

Okay, I guess I don't know when the first guy "dreamed" of optical playback. But I myself didn't have a CD player til '86, and it was a while before any of my friend knew what one was. By then I had a load of LPs, and I embraced tape early on for the convenience (and of course for "pirating" friends LPs, although we didn't think of it as such back then). I didn't totally give up the LP ghost til sometime around the early 90's.

Not everyone can appreciate good sound. For those who can't there's always vinyl! :D Just kidding- I'm fine with whatever you like. Even good vinyl playback can't cut it for me, but that's just my opinion, not Holy Writ. It'd be boring if we all liked the same thing, and hopefully we can disagree about what's best without stooping to name calling and innuendo. Surely not every single person who disagrees must be deaf or ignorant, must they? :sigh:

i can understand those who prefer cd's to vinyl...after years of being used to hiss..clicks and pops...from even brand new vinyl..the clinically clean sound of cd's can seem light years away in terms of fidelity..especially for music recorded during the whole digital revolution...and yet...when i first auditioned a pair of grado sr60's on a high end linn cd player in a very audiophile orientated shop here in the uk...playing an album i was very familiar with on vinyl but not on cd.. i ended up not buying the headphones i was that disappointed with the sound...especially at £90 :yikes:
cue forward a few weeks and i've read every review on these grado can's i can find on the web...and i was confused as to how they could have sounded so lifeless to my ears...and yet have such glowing reviews all over the world...had i gone deaf ?..
about this time my borthday was looming near and i actually got a pair of grado cans as a birthday present... :sigh: ..oh dear..i just hoped the receipt was still in the bag...and yet...the first thing i did was plug them into my system and play the exact album i had listened to in the shop on my humble and trusty 17 year old ariston turntable with 'cheap as chips' practically bottom of the range audio technica at95e cartridge ( with new stylus i might add )...
the result ? :scratch2:
..i actually went out and bought another pair of grado sr60's in case they stop making them :D
if a high end linn cd player and supposedly audiophile grade cd can't sell me a pair of grados with their sound...then i guess i'm vinyl man till they stop making cartridges... :thmbsp:..
having said that i've heard some good cd players that without an a-b comparison sound great..but with the price of cd's nowadays, free mp3s available of practically all the music i like and a healthy collection of music already on black plastic...i doubt i'll need another format for the forseeable future

I can tell you for a fact that Vinyl does sound better then a "Redbook" CD, but there are alot of factors involved......
1. You need a fairly good analog section (TT, Cart., phono pre-amp) and
does not come cheap.
2. You "HAVE" to have a way to make sure the LP is very clean and
that is not easy or cheap.
3. The LP it self has to be of a good quality, alot of them are not up to
standards, cheap grade (noisy) vinyl, poor manufacturing process....
4. If all your ducks are in line still alot of care needs to be taken in the
handling of the LP so it does not get scratched......
5. Making sure no vibrations get through the tone arm while said LP is
being played (use of isolation products).

So as you can see it takes alot but it is well worth the effort if you do want the best in audio re-production......as for SACD and DVDA well I have not yet had the chance to compare a SACD and an LP of the same title but hopefully in the next month I will (just purchased a SACD player), and after I do I will post a note about the effort........

CD's do have thier place though, easy to use, very durable and they do sound very good and lots of them..every where.............

Everyone have a good holiday................. :D

I can tell you for a fact that Vinyl does sound better then a "Redbook" CD...
Thank you soundhd for taking this from the world of personal opinion to verifiable facts. I'm interested in this 'fact' of the better sound of vinyl. But, first of all, could you share with us your definition, or criteria, for 'better sound' of vinyl? Does it have ANYTHING to do with spectral flatness? Does it have ANYTHING to do with distortion? Speaking of distortion, does better sound have anything to do with other additions to the signal, like noise (either completely random or signal correlated) or the lack thereof?

1. You need a fairly good analog section (TT, Cart., phono pre-amp) and
does not come cheap.
5. Making sure no vibrations get through the tone arm while said LP is
being played (use of isolation products).
I noticed you didn't mention the cables between table and preamp. Doesn't this play into the equation because a huge amount of the capacitve load the cartridge sees comes from the cable? Or, are you assuming the cable is captive to the table, thus is not a user choice. If so, doesn't that imply that the "fairly good" preamp must have a variety of capacitance settings to get the load correct. Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself here, because I am assuming one of your definitions of good sound is a flat spectral balance. If flat spectral balance is not important, then who cares how the cartridge is loaded. That would then lead us to saying who cares about the RIAA equalization errors too.

Assuming I go to great lengths to isolate the table from floor/shelf vibrations, how to I keep out airborne vibrations since I like to listen to music as loud as THOR does? Not talking about out right feedback, but the general "muddying" of the sound when the volume goes up?

Since it is a fact that vinyl sounds better thAn CD, I'm curious as to what the facts say about the couple random points I bring up here.

In my experience, the only advantage a CD has over vinyl is that vinyl is far more labor intensive. It's simply more work to play a record than it is to play a CD.
Bill

I dunno, House de Kris- maybe none of these guys have heard a CD player or DAC that cost over $120. Doesn't sound like they're hearing what I hear from Redbook. I don't think you need a super steep rig to enjoy CD. But in my experience you need a really steep vinyl rig to make records worth listening to.

A patient soul with a lot of money and ambition can get pretty good sound out of those black plastic plates, but I haven't heard many I could listen to for long periods without the sound wearing on me. The songs on the beginning and middle of an LP can sound good, but it gets hairy towards the inside.

I'll admit I just can't bear the surface noise- everyone has his or her own audio fetish, and mine is noise. The pops, clicks and general noise drives me up the walls. No matter how clean you get the record you just can't kill all the surface noise and it shatters my suspension of disbelief.

I do think that CDs & CD players have gotten a lot better over the years. So many people heard early ones that really weren't well recorded or mastered and made their mind up they didn't like it. Old prejudices and wives tales die hard. Plus I imagine a lot of the superiority of CD is lost when played back on that vintage stuff.

digital music is sampled in tiny increments from source material. LPs have ALL the sound that was recorded. thats it in a nutshell. most any audio expert or engineer will verify the limitations of digital. it is also incorrect to assume that one needs to go over the deep end $$ to hear a significant difference. i recently did a blind test with my girlfriend switching from cd to lp on the same song, So Long Marrianne by Leonard Cohen. I was using a 1500 CDP and a Rega P3 with dynavector 10x5 cart (less than the price of the CDP). she could immediately tell the difference. she prefered the vinyl stating it was "smoother" and "mellower." all i was doing was switching source input on my preamp (which is unlighted) and the room was dark so she could not tell when i was dropping the tonearm and i made her close her eyes... certainly some recordings are better than others and this may have been a skewed example because i doubt much care was taken in the analogue to digital remaster, but there was an obvious audible difference. as to the time it takes... its kind of a fun ritual. i think vinyl is the best format but thatdoesnt mean that i listen to it most. i am currently streaming apple lossless encoded music to airtunes.... but for sheer sound quality LPs are SUPERIOR to cd. RTR is another question, and may too be better than the CD. but cds are easy in many ways and as long as you like what you're hearing it really doesn't matter. i love old am radio stations with crap sound quality too. but in the end, VINYL RULES!
:banana:

...theres something inexplicably satisfying about reaching for your miniature screwdrivers and spanners...fitting a brand new elliptical stylus to your cartridge...balancing the arm ever so carefully so it just hangs freely in mid air about a millimeter above the platter mat...then adjusting downforce till your within a 1/10 th of a gram of manufacturers optimum tracking force..then dialing in antiskate a rebellious 1/10 gram lower than your downforce just for kicks...a quick check on your alignment protractor for optimum lateral alignment of the stylus cantilever...then pulling your 'very infrequently' used..only played twice... copy of your favorite vinyl...then ceremoniously rolling up your sleeves to avoid any unnecessary contact :yikes: with that 'nude' elliptical diamond...cueing the stylus gingerly over the lead-in groove...set minidisk to [record]...slide grados earmuffs into place over aural canals...draw deep breath..and with extremely smug grin :D lower that cueing lever gently till your new elliptical diamond tip is home and dry...crack open a refridgerated beer complete with condensation dripping down the bottle...kicking back in your fave easy chair and after revelling in the glorious experience of analog musical versimilitude...mumble to oneself like a true luddite...
"who needs binary anyway ? "...
:lmao:

...to be continued no doubt :yes: ...heh heh

Love LP all you want, but it's flatly absurd to assert they contain "all the sound that was recorded." An LP cutting engineer could easily straighten you out on that score.

Be secure enough in what you like not to be defensive and critical of others opinions. This debate has raged for two decades with each side smugly certain they're right. I don't imagine we can argue each other into agreement, but we can at least behave with some respect.

where was the disrespect? awfully sensitive.

Love LP all you want, but it's flatly absurd to assert they contain "all the sound that was recorded."

The word, and sound, we seek here is interstitial, that being the point between two points.
Mathmatically speaking, there are in infinte number of points between any two points regardless of where they are. Digital has to draw a line and not sample past a given point. Analog allows two points or frames of sound to blur or overlap. This blurring or overlap would be the interstitial between say two notes. Vinyl (and tubes, and all analog devices including the original notes played on any non digital instrument) preserve as much of the interstitial sound as possible and add their own to it, thus creating warm and cold sounds.

That being said, I think digital sounds really good, especially modern recordings versus original analog converted to digital. And I'd say that the average cd played on the average stereo will sound better than the average lp played on the same. But a great piece of vinyl on a really good setup is far more humbling than a cd.

Not to mention interstitial is a great word to bring up when dealing with boring audiophile talk!

I don’t think I’m really old enough to appreciate vinyl. When I was really young, all I ever used were tapes. CD’s were certainly an improvement over tapes, and that was that.

I do use vinyl occasionally, but mainly on those special occasions where I want to listen to some oldies rock and pull out one of my parent’s old records.

Also, the idea of something degrading each time you play it just doesn’t sit well with me. I guess it’s not that big of a deal, but even if CD’s don’t sound as good, at least it will still sound like that 1,000 plays later.

...what matters to me is not the medium itself...whether it be cd vinyl sacd md dvd whatever..its whether the sound is 'convincing'....
a flute should sound as good as flute can sound for the money i pay to reproduce it when i press "play" or "start"
..a piano should sound like an instrument made of keys hammers and strings in a wooden enclosure..
cymbals like cymbals and not a sibilant rasp...
and perhaps most importantly stevie wonder should sound like the same man i heard live give or take a few years or so...and the bass on walk on the wild side by lou reed should sound 'rough' 'brash' ..the strings resonating clearly when plucked just like a real instrument should...
in terms of realistic sonically convincing bangs for bucks...
especially buying second hand... :scratch2:
...well set up vinyl still cuts it better than most mediums i've heard imho
quite how a minidisc recording of a vinyl record can sound better than a commericially released re-mastered cd was the first shock i had when assessing new formats...
but to my ears it did..and by a good enough margin for me to think of investing more in a record player when funds become avaialble before jumping on the newest format wagon...
even linn did the pepsi challenge with its own lp 12 and totl cd player at an audiophile convention once...the LP12 still ruled the roost according to the vote of the blind listening panel..
and the LP12 is by no means the best vinyl player out there...
some even argue that cheaper decks have its old design beat in terms of information retrieval..
my own system can in no way be considered expensive....
but then i always let my own 'un-audiophile' ears decide...
works out cheaper in the long run

I dunno, House de Kris- maybe none of these guys have heard a CD player or DAC that cost over $120. Doesn't sound like they're hearing what I hear from Redbook.

Geez I don't know about that!!:) My Museatex Melior I-DAT DAC cost over $1,200 and on many recordings my humble Thorens can out perform it. There are ,of course, many caveats when it comes to vinyl. As previously mentioned, it takes much more effort to spin vinyl than to drop a coaster ( Grumps term not mine) in the CDP. I am a perfectionist at heart. I will not play any vinyl that has surface noise or any other audible imperfection. You can count me amongst the converted. I'm only in my mid 30's so I was pretty much endoctrinated into the idea that digital MUST be better. It's taken me quite a while to learn differently. Just curious, how come almost all serious speaker reviewers spin vinyl on really nice rigs to evaluate loudspeakers? Maybe they've learned a thing or two as well.:yes:

Mike

I have a decent setup for both Vinyl and CD. The vinyl front end is £2k and the Digital stuff is Krell at £12k. I've been at this lark for some time so I know what i'm listening to.

More often than not I prefer listening to vinyl because it has a life and warmth that is sometimes lacking from CD. The main point for me with a vinyl system is that there are 1000's of LPs out there at knockdown prices just waiting to be for people to pickup. Add to that there are many LPs that have been and never will be released on CD. The major downside is that i'm not able to transport LPs as easy as CD's and I certainly can't play them whilst at work opr whilst travelling.

Although I really enjoy my LP's, there is much to be said for CD. It's ease of use for one. No messing with cleaning them and they travel much easier (able to listen on the bus, car, at work, out walking etc.). All new releases are available on CD but not always so on LP.

As with most things - It's horses for courses. The debate for LP's vx CD has raged for 20 years and will undoubtedly continue for another 20. They are two vastly differing formats that cannot really be compared and they can be likened to apples and oranges. Neither format need be discounted though, because if you have the time and put in the effort one is rewarded with remarkable sound from both with little outlay.

In the end, all that really matters is that you enjoy the music. Once that stops then the whole argument becomes pointless. Take any professional musician, they can enjoy music for what it is and not what it's being played on. Clapped out 60's Dansettes are just as enjoyable as $$$$$ systems to them because they listen to the music. Perhaps we should follow suit?

"In the end, all that really matters is that you enjoy the music. "
so true...although vinyl at heart..i've heard mp3's sampled at the worst bitrate possible of a song that never made it onto cd....never hit the charts so was never re-issued...but someone somewhere had the original bit of plastic and 'remastered' it for anyone who had the priviledge of hearing it first time round and never found it on any format since....
my analog allegiances fall flat in those minutes when the 'download complete' dialog box pops up and i race towards the volume control on my 'pc' input cheapo amp with circa 197(?) £2 at oxfam Ross re-272 studio monitor samarium cobalt (whatever that is) headphones complete with boom boom bass and tizz tizz treble.... playing that long deleted 'track' just like i remebered it in 1982 :D

Thank you soundhd for taking this from the world of personal opinion to verifiable facts. I'm interested in this 'fact' of the better sound of vinyl. But, first of all, could you share with us your definition, or criteria, for 'better sound' of vinyl? Does it have ANYTHING to do with spectral flatness? Does it have ANYTHING to do with distortion? Speaking of distortion, does better sound have anything to do with other additions to the signal, like noise (either completely random or signal correlated) or the lack thereof?


I noticed you didn't mention the cables between table and preamp. Doesn't this play into the equation because a huge amount of the capacitve load the cartridge sees comes from the cable? Or, are you assuming the cable is captive to the table, thus is not a user choice. If so, doesn't that imply that the "fairly good" preamp must have a variety of capacitance settings to get the load correct. Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself here, because I am assuming one of your definitions of good sound is a flat spectral balance. If flat spectral balance is not important, then who cares how the cartridge is loaded. That would then lead us to saying who cares about the RIAA equalization errors too.

Assuming I go to great lengths to isolate the table from floor/shelf vibrations, how to I keep out airborne vibrations since I like to listen to music as loud as THOR does? Not talking about out right feedback, but the general "muddying" of the sound when the volume goes up?

Since it is a fact that vinyl sounds better thAn CD, I'm curious as to what the facts say about the couple random points I bring up here.

All I did was reply to the main thread here. My comparison of the same title on CD vs vinyl was that the vinyl came out sounding better ( I used Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon"). Sound stage was deeper, a little wider. Overall it was a bit more warmer.........don't know what else I can tell ya.
As for my cables, I use Transparent Link 100's for the interconnects between my system pre-amp, crossover and amps. I use DIY cables using DH Lab's Pro-Studio cable and Ultimate RCA Connectrors between the TT, phono pre-amp and system pre-amp.......I just put my 4 1/2 cents in....

Bryston Pre-Amp, Crossover, amps.
Phillips SACD 1000 (Modified by Alex at API HiFi)
VPI Scoutmaster TT on A Ginko Cloud 10 Isolation Platform
Sumiko Blackbird Cart.
Quicksilver Tube Phono Pre-amp
VPI 16.5 Record Cleaning Machine
JBL 4350 Studio Monitors

:D

The folks who are listening to and enjoy recorded music at the "high-end" are getting older. By "high-end", I mean those of us who pursue the best sound we can afford, which is not Meg3 or compressed FM. Judging by what I read in the various rags and articles about recorded music either we are nostalgic for our youth (LPs) or we are returning to LPs because more and more of us are hearing a better sound from vinyl. At least that is the case for me. Redbook CDs have an 'edge' that I can only listen to for an hour or two before getting audio fatigue. Not so with vinyl. In fact, I may just keep the Dual 1219 I got for my brother because I can stack my multi-LP opera music on it and not have to get up and flip them over every 25 minutes. No question that there are many good arguements for CDs. The strongest being that of convenience. Especially with 192kHz upsampling or SACD. But if one is here for the best reproduction of music, vinyl is where it is if you have $700 or so for a decent rig.

Geez I don't know about that!!:) My Museatex Melior I-DAT DAC cost over $1,200 and on many recordings my humble Thorens can out perform it. There are ,of course, many caveats when it comes to vinyl. As previously mentioned, it takes much more effort to spin vinyl than to drop a coaster ( Grumps term not mine) in the CDP. I am a perfectionist at heart. I will not play any vinyl that has surface noise or any other audible imperfection. You can count me amongst the converted. I'm only in my mid 30's so I was pretty much endoctrinated into the idea that digital MUST be better. It's taken me quite a while to learn differently. Just curious, how come almost all serious speaker reviewers spin vinyl on really nice rigs to evaluate loudspeakers? Maybe they've learned a thing or two as well.:yes:

Mike

Yeah, I pretty much started at the other end, that LP must be better. My musical "gurus" pretty much brainwashed me early on, but I broke free of it. Free will and good ears are a wonderful thing. :yes:

I almost regret even posting in this thread, but it's comforting to see the best old wive's tales will never die. Most of the Luddites on this site will keep barking at their shadows; at AH, vinyl lovers will get the ridecule that round-earthers get here! :lmao: I guess it's what Disney calls the "Circle of Life." It's worms in a jar- it keeps the internet moving.

Have fun with the 150 LP's (15 of any value) released each year. They'll still sound stiff and mechanical (LPs are by definition mechanical...), but you can keep you bell-bottom, mullet lovin' cred! :thmbsp:

Yeah, I pretty much started at the other end, that LP must be better. My musical "gurus" pretty much brainwashed me early on, but I broke free of it. Free will and good ears are a wonderful thing. :yes:

I almost regret even posting in this thread, but it's comforting to see the best old wive's tales will never die. Most of the Luddites on this site will keep barking at their shadows; at AH, vinyl lovers will get the ridecule that round-earthers get here! :lmao: I guess it's what Disney calls the "Circle of Life." It's worms in a jar- it keeps the internet moving.

Have fun with the 150 LP's (15 of any value) released each year. They'll still sound stiff and mechanical (LPs are by definition mechanical...), but you can keep you bell-bottom, mullet lovin' cred! :thmbsp:


You related to the wigmeister ?

Its always wonderful to read the stupid shit that spews forth from an uniformed member !

the only way to settle the debate is a three way test
taken blindfolded.... :yes:
...
..
.
vinyl
vs
digital
vs
live..
three slightly different 'takes' of the same song using acoustic instruments and the same musicians...
one on black plastic
one on shiny plastic
one live in the same acoustic space the first two were recorded in..

add the most neutral amp available
the most neutral speakers
then square up the best turntable avaalable at any price against the best cd player available at any price..

play the band first...

then cd
then vinyl
then the band again...

and ask them which is the real thing...

a simple count of the amount of times vinyl or cd is mentioned should give an order of ranking...
assuming that either technology can actually claim to be close enough yet to simulate a live performace...

...if it ever happens please post the results... :thmbsp:





hats off to anyone brave enough to publish the results.. :yikes:

I dunno, House de Kris- maybe none of these guys have heard a CD player or DAC that cost over $120. Doesn't sound like they're hearing what I hear from Redbook. I don't think you need a super steep rig to enjoy CD. But in my experience you need a really steep vinyl rig to make records worth listening to.


Well, let's see...My CD player was $4000, my LP player was under $2000
So much for that argument.

Someone said that an LP has a "mechanical" sound because it is a "mechanical" device and you can't change that.

Damn right it's a "mechanical" device. Just like a real drum set..a real piano..a real clarinet..a really bitchin' Fender Strat screaming through a Twin Reverb amp..a Stradivarius, is I do believe a "mechanical" device.

Like all real instruments. Mechanical.


Unlike a computer generated facimille thereof.


Cd's reproduce data. Vinyl records play music.


Pretty much sums it up from someone who has been down both roads and come back again.

what an ass. is this guy still a member? well he is a "member," but can he still post after that rant?

thats what makes vinyl so convincing sometimes...hearing the mechanical noises that the instruments make in addition to the notes...not to everyones taste..but if it was recorded..i wanna hear it

One thing I noticed is that if I take an LP (if it sounds good already with decent vinyl) and dub it to a CD-R (Marantz CD-R 615 with A/D being done in my Sony DAT recorder) it keeps that same sonic character that I loved about the LP to begin with.
I can buy a copy of an album on CD and compare it to my LP counter point and often find the LP copy more appealing.

The same is true with open reel tape x-fers to CD-R too.
My turntable is junk (Yamaha belt drive with Audio Technica cart and Stanton pre-amp).

It floors me that I can take my consumer junk and make better sounding copies than when purchasing a stamped CD version of an album.

I guess when your "band" is a computer generated soundtrack,and your "singer" has to look better on video than sound in the studio...it not only doesn't matter if your playback is disgorged data, that's the only way to do it.

Be my guest. :puke:

"It floors me that I can take my consumer junk and make better sounding copies than when purchasing a stamped CD version of an album."
...
..
.
it floored me too... :yes:
especially when i read reviews of affordable minidisc recorders that could make even a *nak dragon* nervous in mid flight...hm.. :scratch2:
so i bought one...
4 years & 100 recorded discs later...

nak who ? :thumbsdn:
red book wot ? :thumbsdn:
...
..
perhaps my next upgrade is to insert an analog *gainometer* thingymagig :lmao: in between the recorder and the source input and set the minidisc recording input level to 0db. ..apparently it should record even better that way :naughty:
anyone know where i can source a *good quality* analog gainometer thingymagig ?... :scratch2: