[tortugaranger]

The topic of vinyl vs. digital seems to never end with each side staking out its position claiming the other side is misinformed if not just plain wrong.

I personally have and listen to both formats and in some ways I do understand vinyl proponents' arguments. Vinyl does sound different than digital and at times I find this smooth sound satisfying. Other times I prefer the dynamic range, power and clarity that only digital seems to deliver.

So I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that while many folks can prefer the sound of vinyl for all the reasons they do, that in most cases digital does in fact render sound that is truer to the original recording.

That is the essential conclusion of the article below which in my view does the best job of anything I've read to date to clarify the vinyl vs. digital debate. It's written less from the point of view of an opinionated audiophile and more so from the perspective of people with roots in the recording process and technologies.

No matter where you stand on this subject, I found this to be a very interesting and informative read.

http://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162

[kingdeezie]

This thread is ripe for 

However, I have to completely disagree.

First off, the dynamic range argument is a non issue. Find me a system in a normal domestic environment that can adequately do 30DB swings continuously without some sort of acoustic, electronic, or mechanical compression/distortion at a normal listening volume of 80-85 DBS at normal listening distances. While I am sure there are some that exist in palatial estates with six figure audio systems, and seven figure room dimensions, for the average person its not the standard. 

Secondly, not to sound pompous, but if digital sounds clearer than your vinyl rig, something is wrong with your vinyl rig. As I have progressively moved up the analog chain (still no where near even a great analog system), I have come to understand that vinyl is even MORE transparent than digital.

For whatever reason, there is always this subtle digital "haze" (for lack of a better term) inherent in digital playback. As I have moved up the digital chain (still no where near even a great digital system), I have noticed the "haze" decrease, but never disappear. Its very hard to explain, but its this quality to the sound that revels itself to be digital; a very subtle digital veil over the music.

Thirdly, I can't take that article seriously, when a lot of the information is from the mouth of one of the guys who invented CDs. Seriously? No bias there right?

Like I said 

The bottom line is, people will listen to what they think is better.

I love digital. I listen to it more than analog, because its efficient, and I seldom have a lot of free time to listen to music right now. When I get a half hour to listen to music, I kick up the server and can get in some choice cuts in that time frame.

However, analog just sounds better to me, and I love it even more when I have the time to indulge in it.   

 

 

[glynnw]

Oh Morten, what have you done?  Let the games begin.  I simply do not find vinyl to sound superior, and I have listened to a lot of very good front ends.  I also do not find digital superior. They both can sound great.  But for me convenience has won.  20 years ago  I reached the point where I couldn't stand to play an album without cleaning it first and it was taking several minutes just to prepare to play one song, so I decided to dedicate my system to digital.  When I go to a friend's house and listen to vinyl I enjoy it as well, but it doesn't make me wish for a turntable.  I do lust after some turntables because of their beauty - most digital front ends are not eye candy.

[kernelbob]

We're fortunate to have both vinyl, or should I say analog sources in general, and digital.  They have different strengths and each helps to illuminate "opportunities" in the other's engineering environment.  Having analog references continues to contribute to the ongoing maturation of digital and I suggest vice versa as well.

Both types of sources benefit from the minimal signal manipulation inherent in the Tortuga approach.  It's refreshing that the little LDR controller in my system minds it's business getting out of the way of the music while besting heavyweight challengers.

[tortugaranger]

What I found most interesting about this article wasn't the tired old "which is better vinyl vs. digital". I've no interest reviving or beating that horse. I like them both for different reasons.

What I found interesting was the perspective of the recording engineers whose job it is to capture the music on to the media. Apparently getting that done with vinyl is a real challenge with often difficult compromises relative to digital. From their perspective there didn't seem to be much of a debate as to which media is better able to capture what happened in the recording studio/venue.

Which is not to be confused with which media someone prefers to listen to.

[Mag]

I re-master my own digital files. I was motivated due to the thin sounding nature of cd compared to dvd recordings and I could see practically every cd showed clipping on my pre-amp in multi-channel mode.

I smooth the recording so it doesn't clip and it no longer sounds thin with no loss in detail.

Having become custom to the new sound if I go back and play the original file I immediately hear the deficiencies of cd recordings.

IMO many prefer vinyl because of the smoother recording. Digital can be made to sound smoother just that its been exploited for its dynamic range.

[kingdeezie]

What I found interesting was the perspective of the recording engineers whose job it is to capture the music on to the media. Apparently getting that done with vinyl is a real challenge with often difficult compromises relative to digital. From their perspective there didn't seem to be much of a debate as to which media is better able to capture what happened in the recording studio/venue.

Your thread is "vinyl vs digital," which invites the same dead horse beating you are trying to avoid.

Incidentally, if what I quoted above is what you found "interesting," how come it has zero to do with your thread title?

With the exception of Sheffield labs and maybe a few other one off labels, as far as I know, who records direct to vinyl? NO ONE.

What that would be comparing is recording to master tapes, versus digital recording, which is a completely separate issue. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "recording to analog versus digital."

Of course recording and mastering to digital would be easier, doesn't mean it sounds better.

Kraft Mac and Cheese is easy to prepare too, doesn't make it the best meal to indulge in.

Also, IME, I have a couple Sheffield Labs direct to discs, and they are amazing. Compare the Tower of Power Direct Vinyl to the CD, and try and convince yourself that CD sounds better, and is more indicative of what happened "in the studio."   

 

[tortugaranger]

What that would be comparing is recording to master tapes, versus digital recording, which is a completely separate issue. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "recording to analog versus digital."

Point taken. I considered the title "Challenges and compromises in rendering master recordings on to vinyl vs. digital media regardless of how the master was recorded not to be confused with which media one thinks is inherently better or prefers to listen to after its all done and released and oh BTW I like and listen to both for different reasons." But I went with "Vinyl vs. Digital". My bad.