Vinyl vs CD: Which One Sounds Better?
- Thread starter jbl64
- Start date
I used the digital out from the player to the receiver for a few weeks, it was not an improvement. I have not used a converter.
I'm having difficulty justifying such an expense. Although CD mastering has improved from 16 to 24 bit, the CD's themselves are only capable of transmitting 16 bits. That's the max.
When video DVD's, in their various configurations, including many 'improved' digital schemes for music came to market, many of those are capable of transmitting 20 bits, I've been told some may be capable of 24 bit. Sadly, although there are some available, they did not proliferate either.
As an apples to apples comparison, my DVD copy of Led Zeppelin's Celebration Day sounds consdierably better than the CD version, sold in the same package.
Bottom line, 16 bits is as good as CD's can transmit and the higher the mastering rate, the more compression they're going to exhibit.
Someone please explain to me what difference converting them would make? Unless it is the sort of difference I'm hearing from the 'high definition digital' in the new Satriani catalog, it's simply not worth the expense.
If the 'high definition digital' should proliferate, I'll be the first in line. Short of that, they're maxed.
Hmmm. What is the model of the receiver you used?
Regarding 16 bit max...that is not a CD limitation. You are referring to the Redbook standard, which is indeed 16 bit. Additional bits expand the dynamic range...but of course even at 16 bits, the dynamic range of a digital recording is significantly higher than that of vinyl.
As for "converting"...digital audio is not very useful unless/until converted to analog. Hard to listen to otherwise.
As regards the apples to apples comparison you mentioned....I may be mistaken, but I don't think they are from the same master.
As regards the digital recording engineering process....generally, recording and mixing is done at much greater bit depths (48 bits is quite common)...the additional dynamic range is very useful during these processes. Higher bit rates do not generate compression (neither file compression nor dynamic range compression).
Last edited:
gvalent
Well-Known Member
First someone needs to explain to you how digital audio actually works.
Oops! kcbluesman just did it..
Last edited:
I used the Denon Receiver that I bought at the same time, and the 'digital out' like provided with the purchase. It sounded awful, I went back to the RCA outputs and got back the nice, full, warm tone I bought the changer for.
I've used nothing but gold plated RCA cables to connect the two since purchase, outside of the couple weeks I used the 'digital out' cable. I'm at a loss as to what sort of DAC folks are referring to, as it's worked since day one, without any external 'converter'.
As regards Celebration Day, it's the same performance. I have difficulty believing that they would do multiple recordings for release, I maintain that the DVD sounds better as it can transmit at higher bit rates. Have you specific information that they were 'mastered' seperately?
The very first digital piece of music I have heard that had better dynamic range than I can get off of my turntable is the new 'high definition digital' Satriani works, on a digital card, that comes in a replica of his head. To date, each piece of music I have on both Vinyl and CD comes out sounding better on the turntable than on CD, including the dynamic range.
I'm not trying to change your opinion; as I pointed out earlier, my focus is on recording quality, not medium. But if you have never found a CD to sound as good as an LP, I really do think something is amiss with your digital playback gear. I have many CDs that sound as good or better than many of my vinyl LPs (and many LP's that sound as good or better than many of my CDs!)
Unless your Denon receiver has a built-in digital to analog converter (DAC), you would not be able to use the digital out signal from the CD player (which is transmitted via the coax connection). That's why I asked about your receiver. What model is it?
As for the Led Zeppelin CD and DVD package..the original tracks used for all versions are the same....there were not multiple recordings. At a very high level, the process is 1. recording, 2. mixing, and 3. mastering. The CD version is notorious for its poor sound quality, while the DVD is generally considered to be better. This suggests that they were mastered (and possibly mixed) differently...perhaps someone more knowledgeable as regards the recording engineering process can weigh in on this, but it seems likely to me that each different format would require its own mastering. By the way, both the DVD and CD are 16 bit. The DVD-Audio standard supports both 16 and 24 bit sample sizes.
Regarding the dynamic range of vinyl vs CD....while many pop music CD's do not utilize it effectively (loudness wars!), there can be no debate that the dynamic range implicit in the redbook standard (96db to 120dB, depending upon use of noise-shaped dithering) is significantly greater than that which can be delivered via vinyl (60-65dB). As context, the dynamic range of human hearing is generally accepted to be 140dB, and the range observed in a typical symphony concert would not exceed 80dB.
EDIT: One other thing that might be of interest is that if you are listening to vinyl from the late 80's/early 90's onward, much of it was recorded digitally. In other words, most modern vinyl started out as a digital recording.
Unless your Denon receiver has a built-in digital to analog converter (DAC), you would not be able to use the digital out signal from the CD player (which is transmitted via the coax connection). That's why I asked about your receiver. What model is it?
As for the Led Zeppelin CD and DVD package..the original tracks used for all versions are the same....there were not multiple recordings. At a very high level, the process is 1. recording, 2. mixing, and 3. mastering. The CD version is notorious for its poor sound quality, while the DVD is generally considered to be better. This suggests that they were mastered (and possibly mixed) differently...perhaps someone more knowledgeable as regards the recording engineering process can weigh in on this, but it seems likely to me that each different format would require its own mastering. By the way, both the DVD and CD are 16 bit. The DVD-Audio standard supports both 16 and 24 bit sample sizes.
Regarding the dynamic range of vinyl vs CD....while many pop music CD's do not utilize it effectively (loudness wars!), there can be no debate that the dynamic range implicit in the redbook standard (96db to 120dB, depending upon use of noise-shaped dithering) is significantly greater than that which can be delivered via vinyl (60-65dB). As context, the dynamic range of human hearing is generally accepted to be 140dB, and the range observed in a typical symphony concert would not exceed 80dB.
EDIT: One other thing that might be of interest is that if you are listening to vinyl from the late 80's/early 90's onward, much of it was recorded digitally. In other words, most modern vinyl started out as a digital recording.
Last edited:
Polyphonic
New Member
vinyl vs cd
this debate is moot. By that I do not mean to imply its not worthy, simply irrelevant. We hear what we hear. We like what we like. We appreciate our efforts (hopefully) in our hobby. The music that we enjoy is a product of synergy. Its an amalgam of factors whereas some are blatant and obvious to others that are sublime. We live in a world of resonances. The synergy that I reference play upon those resonances in ways that are incalculable. Think about the chain of events. From performance and the sound capturing devices used, mikes, amps, rooms, instruments, recording gear etc. To the mixing, mastering, tweaking, pressing and so on and so on and so on. Forward to the listening, players, amps, cabling, rooms, speakers. Forward to the perceptions, age of listener, angle of head, mood, expectations, room, furnishings, the humanity. Every tiny step along this path has its own evolutionary science built around it. Its not about vinyl or cd, its not about digital or analog. Its not about money or equipment or the size of a collection. Its about sound. A unique human magical trait that we all share as a hobby. At my age, even after all the abuses, im so grateful to be able to hear. I still hear pretty high and pretty low and I still would rather be dead than deaf. Theres a church nearby that has a real bell atop. Whenever that bell is ringing, I stop in my tracks and am absolutely transfixed at the sound. Its purity makes it totally magical, the world stops for me, I get choked up, Absolutely breathtaking. I am so grateful for that gift. My sound system has evolved and upgraded and is measurably in the highest percentiles (just as many of you have also) and many recordings give me great pleasures to listen to, but to hear a real bell, a real voice, real sibilance, real thunder. Music is majesty. All the developers of all this technology for all time do what they do to bring us ever closer, but none of it is REAL. Its all moot! A hundred million combinations, and a hundred million opinions of each. You all do the math. All the conversations about bitrate and Pink Floyd and bose 901s .. Audio Karma my eye!
this debate is moot. By that I do not mean to imply its not worthy, simply irrelevant. We hear what we hear. We like what we like. We appreciate our efforts (hopefully) in our hobby. The music that we enjoy is a product of synergy. Its an amalgam of factors whereas some are blatant and obvious to others that are sublime. We live in a world of resonances. The synergy that I reference play upon those resonances in ways that are incalculable. Think about the chain of events. From performance and the sound capturing devices used, mikes, amps, rooms, instruments, recording gear etc. To the mixing, mastering, tweaking, pressing and so on and so on and so on. Forward to the listening, players, amps, cabling, rooms, speakers. Forward to the perceptions, age of listener, angle of head, mood, expectations, room, furnishings, the humanity. Every tiny step along this path has its own evolutionary science built around it. Its not about vinyl or cd, its not about digital or analog. Its not about money or equipment or the size of a collection. Its about sound. A unique human magical trait that we all share as a hobby. At my age, even after all the abuses, im so grateful to be able to hear. I still hear pretty high and pretty low and I still would rather be dead than deaf. Theres a church nearby that has a real bell atop. Whenever that bell is ringing, I stop in my tracks and am absolutely transfixed at the sound. Its purity makes it totally magical, the world stops for me, I get choked up, Absolutely breathtaking. I am so grateful for that gift. My sound system has evolved and upgraded and is measurably in the highest percentiles (just as many of you have also) and many recordings give me great pleasures to listen to, but to hear a real bell, a real voice, real sibilance, real thunder. Music is majesty. All the developers of all this technology for all time do what they do to bring us ever closer, but none of it is REAL. Its all moot! A hundred million combinations, and a hundred million opinions of each. You all do the math. All the conversations about bitrate and Pink Floyd and bose 901s .. Audio Karma my eye!
Huh? Really deep stuff, dude. Audio Karma your ear. And please let us know what IS relevant for discussion on an audio forum.
Last edited:
Antiquated technique - this, botrytis, is for sure the crux of the bisquit. The SL-P1200 is a fine piece of gear anyway. It is okay when I listen to music on CD which I never heard before. All my CD Players are from 1982-1987. (So I cannot know how good meanwhile a CD may sound.)
Listening to vintage gear means sometimes to be ready to compromise a bit...
Listening to vintage gear means sometimes to be ready to compromise a bit...
Gibsonian
Super Member
Wouldn't know how to or want to convince you to spend your dough on anything but can tell you from experience that the DAC in your system can make a big impact on the SQ coming into your ears. I used to be in the same boat as you, insisting that digital Redbook was only that, how could you improve it? Easy enough for those who design these converters it seems as the improved handling on the digital side and mostly (I think) improvements on the analog side of it can have significant impact on the SQ. CD/Digital is damned satisfying for me again, when at one point I was ready to pitch it and go back to vinyl/tape only. Finding the right one in your price range that is actually better than what you have already is important if you aren't going to spend very much, as you could easily end up with similar or worse sound than you already have. In this case it would be good to be able to try different ones in your system prior to committing hard earned $$$'s.
There is no reason to compromise - there is vintage and there is old junk, sorry.
So the first CD Players are olld junk, right? :sigh:
Everyone has an opinion, of course....but there are certainly some upper-end CD players from the late 80's and 90's that sound pretty good (at least to me). But by and large, the technology has definitely improved. Personally, I think the way to go is to get an outboard DAC. This gives you the opportunity to take advantage of these technology improvements (the vast majority of which have been in the conversion and op amp functions, vs the transport/reading functions), and gives you the ability to use it for both CDs and data files (streaming, hard drive, media server, etc). Of course, you still need a CD player for the transport and read functions...one with digital out capabilities for connection to a DAC.
Last edited:
Thanks for clearing up, kcbluesman.
Digital out capability was primarily on upper-mid to high-end units in the earlier years, but became more and more common in down-market units over time.
Not all of them. Some from early 1990s were good. Those which used PCM63 DAC chips and discrete I/V converters are mostly competitive with today's best units in pure Redbook playback. But these were generally top of the line devices from few brands - which we now call high-end. Common mid-range players were much worse than today's mainstream equivalents.
Similar threads
