[Alonski]

Pray-tell, Jeff, if it does not compromise your publishing position -- what magic CD player are you using?

[cryoparts]

I agree with Jeff... it completely depends on the recording and mastering. However, in my experience, if the recording is superb and your system is revealing, it always sounds far better and more musical on vinyl.

Alón

My system is incredibly revealing.  I just managed to buy a really good cd player.  I'm pretty much of the mind that exceptionally well recorded vinyl sounds a click or two better, but most times the CD is just as good.  Certainly good enough that I don't want to bother with vinyl anymore unless it's really amazing.

Hey, you're back!  Sweet! 

Peace,

Lee

[Disbeliever]

Vinyl & tubes/valves are in my opinion Antiques. Hi-Rez SACD is the way forward and I am a retired tonearm & cartridge manufacturer. Even at 79 yrs of age I can detect and hear the diferences immediately. Obviously it is the quality of the recording of the disc that counts.

[DTB300]

I try to listen to as many vinyl setups as I can to see if I can ever get that "I want it" results.  Many times when I hear these setups, it just does not do it for me.  I have heard a couple that were very nice, but most of the time, they do not - even with highly touted "audiophile" source.

Would the vinyl people here attribute this to poor setup of the TT?

There have also been times when the people trying to convince me which is better (one way or the other) and compare two recordings from the same group, one of the recordings is pure crap trying to make the solution obvious.  Again I have heard this both ways from both camps.

So do I prefer sonically to answer the original post?  I prefer the CD/SACD format with its ease of use but I recognize that each can sound very good.  One thing that really has me in the digital end is MCH Classical music, when MCH is done right (Ambiance and hall recreation, not instruments behind me)

[Alonski]

OK, I'll say it (and I can take the flak):

The question whether people prefer one format's sound or the other will always divide us into camps -- as it should -- because we're talking about people's preferences, something that cannot be argued, period.

Personally, while I find that digital has come a long way and sounds damn good these days, a correctly set up analog front end will always blow away digital in terms of musicality, soundstage and what I can only call "aliveness." Technically, there is a very good reason for this to be true: Analog recording and reproduction is based on a continuous modulation of sound, so that one second of music is recorded and played back (although imperfectly) in its entirety... whereas in the digital process, a computer slices and dices that second of music into 44,100 pieces (or higher for high rez formats) and assigns them a number... The problem lies in that there is missing information (music!) between these numbered points of sound that the computer has to bridge by approximating what it "thinks" should have been there!

DACs running in series were introduced years ago to tighten up these dead spaces between samples of sound and make CDs sound less harsh, and that succeeded nicely. CDs today sound great! But no amount of oversampling is going to put the missing music back in the recording. Yes, even on high rez formats like SACD, there is still music missing that makes it more difficult for digital set ups to resolve ambient cues, spatial dynamics and air. I believe this is why analog sounds more Alive to me.

OK, open season, bring it on.
Alón

[woodsyi]

Yes,

Digital music is reconstituted music.  However close the approximation get to the original waveform, there will always be an asymptotic gulf...

You take a dried Shiitake mushroom and soak it in water for a day or two.  It comes back pretty good and tastes good too, albeit with a different, chewy texture from a fresh one.  But it doesn't have the fresh succulence of a live mushroom just sauted in a hot wok.  The living component, the elan vital, is missing...

[konut]

Vinyl & tubes/valves are in my opinion Antiques. Hi-Rez SACD is the way forward and I am a retired tonearm & cartridge manufacturer. Even at 79 yrs of age I can detect and hear the differences immediately. Obviously it is the quality of the recording of the disc that counts.

Welcome to AC Disbeliever! I largely agree with everything in your post, save the hi-rez SACD comment. You really need  to hear a computer based network system, with a great DAC, to hear the potential of standard redbook.  Tubes and vinyl ARE antiques and the lure of the nostalgia factor cannot be underestimated. The inherent flaws of each require the expenditure of large sums of cash to mitigate their downsides. The inherent flaws of digital. OTOH, require less cash to realise pleasing behavior. I grew up with vinyl. I NEVER liked the rituals required to get reasonably clean, well adjusted, rumble and feedback free playback. When my vinyl collection was lost in a move, circa 1981, I was a ripe candidate for the CD revolution.  It didn't hurt that at the time I had a system that minimized, to a degree, the harshness of the medium at that time, and maximized the positive attributes. I never looked back. While there are downsides to CD/digital playback, the positives far outweigh the weaknesses. I realize others feel different. I've gotten over it. I wish that those whose opinions differ from mine would get over it.  

[satfrat]

OK, I'll say it (and I can take the flak):

The question whether people prefer one format's sound or the other will always divide us into camps -- as it should -- because we're talking about people's preferences, something that cannot be argued, period.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Personally, while I find that digital has come a long way and sounds damn good these days, a correctly set up analog front end will always blow away digital in terms of musicality, soundstage and what I can only call "aliveness." Technically, there is a very good reason for this to be true: Analog recording and reproduction is based on a continuous modulation of sound, so that one second of music is recorded and played back (although imperfectly) in its entirety... whereas in the digital process, a computer slices and dices that second of music into 44,100 pieces (or higher for high rez formats) and assigns them a number... The problem lies in that there is missing information (music!) between these numbered points of sound that the computer has to bridge by approximating what it "thinks" should have been there!

DACs running in series were introduced years ago to tighten up these dead spaces between samples of sound and make CDs sound less harsh, and that succeeded nicely. CDs today sound great! But no amount of oversampling is going to put the missing music back in the recording. Yes, even on high rez formats like SACD, there is still music missing that makes it more difficult for digital set ups to resolve ambient cues, spatial dynamics and air. I believe this is why analog sounds more Alive to me.

OK, open season, bring it on.
Alón

Hi Alón, thanks for the laugh.

First you explain quite accurately that musical preference is just that, a personal preference that can't be agrued,,,period!

So what do you do next? Argue you're personal preference point and then state it's open season, bring it on?

This is got to be the ultimate post in contradictions that I've seen in quite some time and I really have to thank you for starting my day with an ear to ear grin. aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa

Cheers,
Robin

[ted_b]

Konut,
Your post is very much my feeling as well.  Thank you.  With a great, musical DAC (Modwright TP, Weiss Minerva, Berkeley AlphaDAC, etc.) the potential of redbook is realized, and it is good...very very good.  I will, however, also take the position that, like Disbeliever, I too think that hi-rez is the future.  if you've ever heard 24/192 done right (on that same musical DAC), or hi-rez SACD done right, then even vinylphiles will be forced to be impressed by the 192,000+ points that this format draws in a single second.  Those points can draw a sine wave pretty damn nicely, and the tradeoffs of black backgrounds, deep soundstages and ridiculously convenient access will trump widely the theoretical analog advantages of vinyl playback in a less-than-$100k system.  My $.02, YMMV.   

[Alonski]

Hey Robin, (satfrat)

It's nice when someone gets my wry sense of humor... Thanks! BTW, I expected much more flak.

[TheChairGuy]

Vinyl & tubes/valves are in my opinion Antiques. Hi-Rez SACD is the way forward and I am a retired tonearm & cartridge manufacturer. Even at 79 yrs of age I can detect and hear the diferences immediately. Obviously it is the quality of the recording of the disc that counts.

Hey, welcome to AC!  The quality of the recording counts for much, to be sure.

You don't find SACD to sound absolutely freaky at all?  I've heard it time and time again, and I have but normal hearing of a 46 year old male in general good health, but it sounds totally freaky to me.  I've read (way beyond my technical reach as a marketing fella') that Sony's PC M technology is plagued by phasing errors.  I cannot speak to that...I can only say SACD sounds damn weird.

DVD-A (even DVD) is a step in the right direction for digital technologies....but in comparison to my vinyl setup still falls short.

I'd LOVE for it to be otherwise...I don't relish the labor-intensive work and critical care that vinyl requires...but I play what gives me goosebumps, what sounds like live music that I have heard.  ONLY vinyl does that (most notably on piano, for me...which is often painful to hear on CD and scads better on DVD-A) 

....and a hello to my Marin Co.-mate, Alon, too

John

[TheChairGuy]

I try to listen to as many vinyl setups as I can to see if I can ever get that "I want it" results.  Many times when I hear these setups, it just does not do it for me.  I have heard a couple that were very nice, but most of the time, they do not - even with highly touted "audiophile" source.

Would the vinyl people here attribute this to poor setup of the TT?

I ditched vinyl in 2003.....like so many vinylphools I was served the belt drive myth of superiority. I loved the Townshend (belt drive) Rock back in 1987 I had...but never liked my Thorens TD-316 I had from 1988 to 2003. 

While CD's never lit my fire...they exhibited uniformly good speed control, less or no wow or flutter, and were 'firm' sounding, etc.  So, I ditched vinyl for almost 4 years.

Having not enjoyed music for those 4 years, I tiptoed my way back into vinyl: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=47865.0

Direct Drive and Grado's brought me back with a vengeance....everything else thus far heard has either (generally, and only that there have been some exceptions) sounded off pitch/indistinct (belt drives) or tonally irritating/etched/thin (cartridges).

It eventually took me >$3000 in (new) gear including a VPI SDS unit to best that cheap direct drive unit...so belt drive can beat direct drive, but at considerably higher costs than the Japanese sold them mass-produced a couple decades ago.

So, before you bail from vinyl...go buy a cheap direct drive deck from the early-80's, one with damped arm best, tie a Grado on it (with Longhorn mod, preferably) and get a record cleaning machine (and 2 hours of your time and 10lbs of plast-i-clay).  This will set you back maybe $600 on the used market

Then patch that thru a full-functioned preamp (not phono stage where additional parasitic losses are created along the way) to your amp(s). Preferably a dual mono full function preamp for the best results

That's my prescription for vinyl success...other may feel otherwise (don't take it as iconoclast fact, okay? aa).  But, as you have already been disappointed with the vinyl you've heard, you may have it those systems in the more familiar vinylphool setups of belt drive / moving coil cartridge / separate phono stage (often limp-sounding tube ones at that)

John

[woodsyi]

But, as you have already been disappointed with the vinyl you've heard, you may have it those systems in the more familiar vinylphool setups of belt drive / moving coil cartridge / separate phono stage (often limp-sounding tube ones at that)

John

My phoolish gig with limp-sounding tube is giving me just the right tones to get me hard.  aa

Thank you. 

[Bob in St. Louis]

 

[doug s.]

But, as you have already been disappointed with the vinyl you've heard, you may have it those systems in the more familiar vinylphool setups of belt drive / moving coil cartridge / separate phono stage (often limp-sounding tube ones at that)

John

My phoolish gig with limp-sounding tube is giving me just the right tones to get me hard.  aa

Thank you. 

rim,

i remember the last listening session i took part in,over at your house - excellent sound coming out of the warious digital combo's we were trying, for several hours...  then...  you put on a record!!!  thank you!!!   

doug s.

[Alonski]

Hey John,

I agree that perfect speed is really important to show off vinyl's capacity to reproduce goose bump creating music. Your SDS is the audiophile equivalent of the Quartz Locked Loop (or something like that) technology that kept those Technics SL 1200s right on the money at 33 1/3.  Of course, transferring motor noise to the platter was an inherent problem.

Let me add one more thing that in my mind is irreplaceable in an analog set up: a heavy, isolated, preferably suspended turntable. Nothing muddies up the sound of vinyl like external and internal vibrations that reach and confuse the cartridge.

 PS. So surprised there aren't more audiofools in Marin County.

[DTB300]

Digital music is reconstituted music. 

But aren't some of the new vinyl releases actually recorded digitally (DSD)????  If known, do these vinyl release sound reconstituted??    Has anyone ever done a comparison of known new vinyl releases to see if versions can be identified by sound as DSD???

[Alonski]

DTB300, et al.

Last night I was listening to a beautiful LP by Ella Fitzgerald recorded on one my favorite labels, Verve. It was the first time I'd ever heard it, and it had already gone through my usual cleaning process. Ellis voice was deep and rich, yet something didn't sound right... there is some sort of veil over the music which made it less involving, less emotional. This wasn't the Verve sound I was accustomed to, so I put on the reading glasses and read the liner notes to find that indeed it was a digital recording. Whether it's a gift or a burden, somehow I can always tell. That's why I focus on older recordings from used record stores and clean them up. It has been very satisfying!

[TheChairGuy]

PS. So surprised there aren't more audiofools in Marin County.

According to this very unofficial sign-in, we're the only ones among 247,000 (mostly happy) souls  The others are on the Dipsea Trail, hiking Mount Tam or on their boats in the Bay.

You need to sign-in there to make it official that there is at least two of us

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=42653.0

John

[satfrat]

Hey Robin, (satfrat)

It's nice when someone gets my wry sense of humor... Thanks! BTW, I expected much more flak.

Yeh, there's a lot of flac going around nowadays.