[chgolatin2]

Does vinyl REALLY sound better? The short answer is, “It depends.” That’s not a cop-out, because sound quality depends on how the music was originally recorded and mixed, not just on the medium (Compact disc, MP3 file, vinyl album, 8-track tape, cassette) on which it is played.

Analog recording stores a sound wave on a physical medium (tape or the vinyl record) with minimal loss of information. Original sounds is analog, and a vinyl record gets the listener as close to the hearing that original sound as physically as possible. But if the records gets scratched or dirty, it can distort and the diminish the sound. Most music is recorded using “digital Technology” which means that the source information isn’t necessarily going to sound better when it’s played on an analog medium. Digital recordings converts the sound wave into a sequence of numbers, an aggregation of discrete date points gathered on a disc that is ready by a laser beam. It’s the equivalent of taking a number of the snapshots of the sound (the higher the bit rate, the more snapshots are taken and hence a more a accurate replication of the original sound). Even at the highest bit rate, the original sound can only be approximated. Theoretically, however, CDs should NEVER wear out, and the sound should be relatively consistent over time.

In recent years, many commercial recordings have been compressed in the mixing stage to make them sound louder and presumably, more appealing to radio programmers. Compressors are specialized amplifiers used to reduce dynamic range and make the softest and loudest passages sound more alike. Lately, consumers have begun to complain that that too much compression is being used on a certain recordings-such as Metallica’s recent album “Death magnetic”-and wiped out the dynamic range, to the point where segments of the recording are plagued by unintentional distortion. Without compression, a recording will have a wider range in volume, and more closely resemble the original performance. No medium is better suited than vinyl record.

The conclusion: A recording will sound only as good as the way it was recorded, mixed and mastered. Many vinyl albums of older recordings sound excellent because they preserve the nuances of an analog recording session. But a compact disc can offer a sparkling representation of a well-engineered digital recording. All things being equal, vinyl will sound “less” artificial. But there are too many variables to say that will be true all the time.

[TerryO]

My short opinion is that really good vinyl is still top dog, but the gap is being narrowed considerably, with K2 mastering as well as other techniques. I've heard Glass masters compared to the actual cd and there is no comparison, just as master tapes put vinyl in the shade.
In the coming months and years?

Best Regards,
TerryO

[TheChairGuy]

I'm with TerryO...vinyl is still tops, but the gap between CD (and, even less so, DVD-A) is small now.

However, as the music becomes more dense, layered and massed-out (ie, classical) - I find no substitution for the higher resolution of vinyl.  CD just doesn't cut it.

If you listen to simpler music or grinding guitars of rock n' roll...CD does ya' just fine 

John

[Wayner]

Well, there is a mix of course. There are CDs that were recorded and mastered in the analog domain, and there are LPs with their masters made in the digital domain. So we really have 4 types of recoding derivatives, if you will. Actually there are even more as some CDs were AAD (analog recorded, analog mastered) and some LPs were DDA (digitally recorded, digitally mastered).

So the soup get a little bit more cloudy. However, we all know when something is recorded well and it has great soundstage, reverb, timbre' and stuff like that and it can happen on both mediums.

I prefer vinyl as it is more "earthy" to me. I like putting on the tonearm, cleaning the records, flipping the record and all that stuff. It gives me exercise. There are things that an LP can do that I find very attractive. That is the sound of the human voice and cymbal crashes. They sound (if recorded properly) very natural.

I do have a couple of CDs that are classical music (Aaron Copland, others) that can make you a convert to the other side. The real problem is, there are great examples of both mediums (and bad).

Wayner  aa

[WGH]

Vinyl gets my vote.

Late at night it's the album rack I automatically go to, there is something about vinyl that is just more pleasurable to listen to even with a the odd ticks and pops.

But when you want to demo your stereo for a friend, go with a CD - nuance be damned, blast them out with boom and sizzle. Most people have never heard good vinyl, their brain doesn't know how to process it so when you notice the soundstage, reverb and timbre they notice the background noise and will always mention it, for them a CD is always better.

[Bill Baker]

I'm with everyone else, there are good and bad of both formats but when time permits, I would still rather sit back and listen to vinyl even over a very good CD playback system.

 CDs are definitely more convenient and last longer with less care which is why they took over so quickly. LPs require maintenance and it takes much longer to set up a table than it does a CD player. Is vinyl worth it? It is to me.

Most people have never heard good vinyl, their brain doesn't know how to process it

 This is very true but then again, most 'average' people have never really heard good audio playback period. These people are not hard to impress.

[SET Man]

Hey!

    To me vinyl done right will always sound better than CD done right.

    As for other format? Sadly since SACD and DVD are not very popular... pretty much dead in mainstream... so I don't know. Never compared them to vinyl.

    Wandering off the topic a bit... I have to say that lately most new music/albums are all sound the same to me no matter what format,  CD or LP. They all sound the same to me because most have been compressed to shit anyway. Might as well just buy it on 128K MP3 off Apple's iTune 

    Anyway, back to the format thing. There is a little article that you might be interested in reading. Setereophile's "Industry Update" from Germany in the Dec. '08 issue. Talk about a new owner/engineer of a new classical record label choosing a format to release his recording from his hi-res 24/192K master.

Take care,
Buddy



   

[Bill Baker]

Sadly since SACD and DVD are not very popular... pretty much dead in mainstream... so I don't know. Never compared them to vinyl.

 I do have to admit that a properly done SACD system sounds exceptional. I still prefer 2-channel SACD over multichannel. Unfortunately, there are not many (at least not enough) SACDs available. My favorite (that I own) is Roger Waters - In the Flesh



Now back to our regular scheduled program.....

[Wayner]

I wish "In the flesh" was avalible on LP. I have Roger Waters "Pros and Cons of Hitchhiking" on LP and it is one of the top sounding recordings in my collection. Very top dog IMHO.

Wayner  aa

[SET Man]

Sadly since SACD and DVD are not very popular... pretty much dead in mainstream... so I don't know. Never compared them to vinyl.

 I do have to admit that a properly done SACD system sounds exceptional. I still prefer 2-channel SACD over multichannel. Unfortunately, there are not many (at least not enough) SACDs available. My favorite (that I own) is Roger Waters - In the Flesh



Now back to our regular scheduled program.....

Hey!

   I agreed. I have a SACD changer but only a few SACD discs. Definitely a step up from CD for sure.

Take care,
Buddy

[richidoo]

For a given cost, there is always a digital source that can beat vinyl in outright sound quality - detail and distortion.

In other areas - like listening convenience, equipment cost, programming choice and cost, maintenance and innovative technologies - it's not even close.

But I do enjoy listening to OTHER PEOPLES' VINYL.......  They don't call it "euphonic" distortion for nothin!

Most mastering engineers and recordists working on a computer are not as good as analog recording engineers of yore. But the good ones can easily demonstrate the true potential of redbook CD. There are so many variables to this question.

[lazydays]

My short opinion is that really good vinyl is still top dog, but the gap is being narrowed considerably, with K2 mastering as well as other techniques. I've heard Glass masters compared to the actual cd and there is no comparison, just as master tapes put vinyl in the shade.
In the coming months and years?

Best Regards,
TerryO

Not at my house. Vinyl has always ruled
gary

[YoungDave]

Most mastering engineers and recordists working on a computer are not as good as analog recording engineers of yore.

I think you're onto something there.  In the old days, when big companies owned big studios and paid good money to great recording engineers, we really got good records.  Those companies had lots of great mics, great facilities and personnel, and I think they paid close attention to the quality of the pressings from the various pressing plants.

The engineers knew an awful lot about mic selection and placement, gobo placement, taping, etc., and I think the average quality was very high.  I'm talking about what I consider the "golden era" of recording - the 1950's to the mid 1960's.

YoungDave

VPI HR-X
Manley Steelhead
Dynavector XV1-s

[Wayner]

YoungDave,

That era wasn't even close to the Holy Grail of analog recording. I would say it was about the early 1980's. I noticed a change in overall quality about then. many albums from the 50's and 60's were mono, and not the best from a stereo-gothic point of view.

Wayner

[JCC]

High quality vinyl replay is an expensive and touchy hobby. Once you have good setups both for CD's and vinyl, you will find outstanding recordings in both mediums. There is a lot of variability in all of the mediums. The low level detail of the best vinyl with outstanding playback equipment is outstanding, and arguably surpasses CD's. Unquestionably, CD's win hands down for convenience and durability.

One thing that I really enjoy with vinyl, is the ability to find high quality older recordings. For many of these old recordings, the transfer to CD has been poor.

[guest41324]

Does vinyl REALLY sound better? The short answer is, “It depends.” That’s not a cop-out, because sound quality depends on how the music was originally recorded and mixed, not just on the medium (Compact disc, MP3 file, vinyl album, 8-track tape, cassette) on which it is played.

Analog recording stores a sound wave on a physical medium (tape or the vinyl record) with minimal loss of information. Original sounds is analog, and a vinyl record gets the listener as close to the hearing that original sound as physically as possible. But if the records gets scratched or dirty, it can distort and the diminish the sound. Most music is recorded using “digital Technology” which means that the source information isn’t necessarily going to sound better when it’s played on an analog medium. Digital recordings converts the sound wave into a sequence of numbers, an aggregation of discrete date points gathered on a disc that is ready by a laser beam. It’s the equivalent of taking a number of the snapshots of the sound (the higher the bit rate, the more snapshots are taken and hence a more a accurate replication of the original sound). Even at the highest bit rate, the original sound can only be approximated. Theoretically, however, CDs should NEVER wear out, and the sound should be relatively consistent over time.

In recent years, many commercial recordings have been compressed in the mixing stage to make them sound louder and presumably, more appealing to radio programmers. Compressors are specialized amplifiers used to reduce dynamic range and make the softest and loudest passages sound more alike. Lately, consumers have begun to complain that that too much compression is being used on a certain recordings-such as Metallica’s recent album “Death magnetic”-and wiped out the dynamic range, to the point where segments of the recording are plagued by unintentional distortion. Without compression, a recording will have a wider range in volume, and more closely resemble the original performance. No medium is better suited than vinyl record.

The conclusion: A recording will sound only as good as the way it was recorded, mixed and mastered. Many vinyl albums of older recordings sound excellent because they preserve the nuances of an analog recording session. But a compact disc can offer a sparkling representation of a well-engineered digital recording. All things being equal, vinyl will sound “less” artificial. But there are too many variables to say that will be true all the time.

Don't do this to yourself. There is no answer. If you have any self-respect believe your ears and forget these bullshit forums.

[BobM]

I always said that the preference of CD vs vinyl depended on the mastering of the music. sometimes one one and sometimes the other. If the mastering was the same for both mediums though vinyl always pulled ahead.

However, i just got a couple of Paul Kaplan's (Occam) new power cords into my system. I'll not wax poetic about these here, but my whole system noticeably improved, both digital and vinyl. I've also done some recent mods on my DAC, moving it to a new level.

I was playing some vinyl this afternoon and decided to put on the same CD and see what the differences now were after the upgrades. I can say with some trepidation that, although both have improved, digital has now caught up to the vinyl rig. The differences (outside of the pops and clicks) were so subtle as to not be readily discernable to me or my wife (who has better ears than me).

So I can say that the mediums have gotten so close that it really does depend on the mastering, but all things being equal, and with both good vinyl and good digital, the differences are minimal these days IMO (as much as it pains me to say so).

Enjoy,
Bob

[TONEPUB]

I agree with Bob M and Serendipity.  Don't worry about it, just listen to music.
I've heard crappy, good and great vinyl and digital.

If you really want to make your life interesting, get a Manley Massive Passive
EQ....  It won't fix compression, but it will really fix crappy mastering as well as
tilt the tonal balance to your system perfectly once you get the hang of it.

And being all tube, it even gives a bit of tubey warmth to those over compressed
CD's.

[lazydays]

Most mastering engineers and recordists working on a computer are not as good as analog recording engineers of yore.

I think you're onto something there.  In the old days, when big companies owned big studios and paid good money to great recording engineers, we really got good records.  Those companies had lots of great mics, great facilities and personnel, and I think they paid close attention to the quality of the pressings from the various pressing plants.

The engineers knew an awful lot about mic selection and placement, gobo placement, taping, etc., and I think the average quality was very high.  I'm talking about what I consider the "golden era" of recording - the 1950's to the mid 1960's.

YoungDave

VPI HR-X
Manley Steelhead
Dynavector XV1-s

I think you need to take a long second look at that subject. I know for a fact that a lot of the very best jazz recordings were done with one mic. Miles Davis' Kinda Blue was done with one mic and the band setting in a circle. That's why a lot of folks think the mono version has the best sound. Many think this LP is the best jazz recording ever (not me). I for one have often thought that many recordings are ruined by the engineers.
gary

[Browntrout]

I don't see any point in having a highendish stereo and listening to cd's (other than if the piece is unavailable on vinyl). The better the cd player the more it shows cds' failings. The better the cart/arm/table the more it shows vinyls' strengths.
   The difference might be partially academic if you listen to music made by amplified instruments or digital synthesisers.