[SteveFord]

I'm not sure if this is posted in the right place or has already been posted elsewhere.
Interesting listen if you have some time to kill.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/02/10/2012/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not.html

I'll take the vinyl, myself.

[watercourse]

Well, it's official. Analog is better, cuz the wife says so. 

The wife and I were listening to Giant Steps when you posted this, and so I threw on the CD version, matched volumes quickly, and without paying too much attention (actually, while she was playing a game on her phone) she picked out the LP after I switched it between inputs JUST ONCE.

She said she could hear more of the recording, and it was easier to listen to. I have an unknown generation of the LP, over 20 years old, and I got the CD when it was first released. I would say both my digital and analog front ends are good, clearly not top range, but resolving enough so that someone with only mild interest can hear differences.

[dlaloum]

The answer is 90% in the mastering...

LP's and CD's are mastered seperately and differently.

I can record an LP, and play back the digital version - level matched with the original... neither I nor my other half can tell which one is which in a blind switch test.
(Mind you with my previous recording hardware, the difference was clear, so it also depends on the quality of the recording chain!)

In any case that indicates that the problem is unrelated to the actual medium and rather is to do with the mastering of the recording.

And yes I usually prefer the vinyl version.

Another thing - cartridges are an inherently flawed reproduction system (as are speakers) - and they impose a range of distortions and non-linearities.... some people have their system set up to where they particularly enjoy those euphonic flaws. - In which case they will prefer the LP to the CD in almost all cases - effectively the Turntable is also being used as an equaliser!
Others have the system set up for total neutrality - in which case it will almost always come down to the mastering quality on the two recordings.

I have yet to listen to that link (looking forward to it... I have great respect for Sean Olive)

bye for now
David

[BaMorin]

I'm not sure if this is posted in the right place or has already been posted elsewhere.
Interesting listen if you have some time to kill.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/02/10/2012/why-vinyl-sounds-better-than-cd-or-not.html

I'll take the vinyl, myself.

How do you get the link to work?

[SteveFord]

I just clicked on it a second ago and it opened. 
I'm not sure why your computer is giving you a problem.

[jimdgoulding]

if you gotta have some flaws, euphonic ain't a bad one.

[BaMorin]

I just clicked on it a second ago and it opened. 
I'm not sure why your computer is giving you a problem.

Does one need a facebook account to open it?

[TONEPUB]

The answer is 90% in the mastering...

LP's and CD's are mastered seperately and differently.

I can record an LP, and play back the digital version - level matched with the original... neither I nor my other half can tell which one is which in a blind switch test.
(Mind you with my previous recording hardware, the difference was clear, so it also depends on the quality of the recording chain!)

In any case that indicates that the problem is unrelated to the actual medium and rather is to do with the mastering of the recording.

And yes I usually prefer the vinyl version.

Another thing - cartridges are an inherently flawed reproduction system (as are speakers) - and they impose a range of distortions and non-linearities.... some people have their system set up to where they particularly enjoy those euphonic flaws. - In which case they will prefer the LP to the CD in almost all cases - effectively the Turntable is also being used as an equaliser!
Others have the system set up for total neutrality - in which case it will almost always come down to the mastering quality on the two recordings.

I have yet to listen to that link (looking forward to it... I have great respect for Sean Olive)

bye for now
David

You are absolutely right.  I've heard fantastic and terrible masterings on each format.  There is no guarantee....

[JLM]

Thanks to the OP for the thread/link.   

Not surprising that esteemed professionals would both prefer the "bit perfect" CD over vinyl. 

I was a bit surprised that they hadn't found studios mixing towards earbud/MP3 (maybe there isn't a sound quality conspiracy). 

Encouraging too that when tested the earbud/MP3 generation picked CD over MP3 and accurate loudspeakers over in-accurate ones.  Maybe there's hope.

[dB Cooper]

You are absolutely right.  I've heard fantastic and terrible masterings on each format.  There is no guarantee....

Indeed. I have heard some analog-sourced CD reissues (Chick Corea's The Leprechaun" comes to mind) where they evidently just "rolled the tape"... the result was unlistenably bright. Others, I hear "deeper" into the recording. Still others, I preferred the LP for whatever reason.

[dlaloum]

The interesting thing about "bare tape" re-issues on CD (or other digital media)  - is that you have the opportunity to remaster to taste yourself.

Yes - mastering engineers use equalisation, and compression, and expansion (compression/expansion often within specific frequency bands... so one band might be compressed where another is expanded).

For an audio geek - this is wonderful.

But if you want to hear what the artist intended as a final product, you need to hear the final mastered tape, as approved by the performers.... and not the bare product before that final step.

In any case there was no new material in that interview....

Yes well recorded digital is superior, and yes double blind tests confirm it, and yes LP's frequently sound better than re-mastered digital versions... sigh.

bye for now

David

[neobop]

Yes well recorded digital is superior, and yes double blind tests confirm it, and yes LP's frequently sound better than re-mastered digital versions... sigh.
David

This is supposed to be vinyl vs CD, not digital.  It was also a horrible comparison. Was there more than one demonstration (at the beginning)?  Maybe I missed it, even though I suffered through the whole thing.  The demo was ridiculous.  I recognised the record player - Fisher Price, and the playback levels were different    Sigh indeed.

Maybe you think well recorded digital is superior, even though it goes way beyond CD (subject).  It doesn't matter.  We don't have a choice about modern mastering.  I've conducted double blind tests and you can pretty much make them come out any way you want.  Even if you mention the equipment used *, it doesn't mean the test is fair.  It's easy to select equipment that favors one thing over the other.  The two panelists were obviously biased.  They should have called this Science Friday Why Digital is Superior to Analog.  At the end I tried to click the button that said More.  Now I'm glad it didn't work. 
neo

* I mean in a test report, not in the actual test.