Are there really folks that prefer CD's sonically?

James Romeyn · « **Reply #180 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 04:23 pm »

Would we all agree that the closer to one's ideal is everything after the source (includnig the room), the easier & more clearly one would determine the answer to the thread question?

After getting over the real & perceived problems in switching to pure-analog Trinaural I can think of no reason I'd ever choose two-channel again.

The Red Book & vinyl sources are both top notch. The vinyl advantage seems staggering, overwhelming & incontrvertible. No specific Red Book software comes to mind that contradicts the outcome.

That's my story & I'm sticking to it!

If you preferred Red Book in this system I'd be um, kinda surprised. Vinyl is more work but seems worth it.

woodsyi · « **Reply #181 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 04:45 pm »

Quote from: konut on 21 Apr 2009, 03:52 pm

Only the live performance is complete.

May be, but I can assure you a live performance can completely suck too.

nathanm · « **Reply #182 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 05:12 pm »

The obvious answer is that vast majority of people prefer the sound of CDs. The tiny slice of the rest are audiophiles and collectors and not even all of them.

If you take out all the peripheral influences as to why people like vinyl, the medium itself is flawed. It adds noise and distortion. Preferring analog audio over digital makes sense, but preferring the vinyl medium not so much. Wouldn't we all vastly prefer the analog TAPE that is feeding the lathe? Vinyl just adds another stage of degradation. But then with analog tape you are also at the mercy of the tape deck. When my Nakamichi was working I preferred the sound of cassette over vinyl. Hiss yes, crackles no. It also had better mechanical performance than anything I owned before. But there's all the other negative issues to contend with. If everyone owned and could maintain a reel to reel tape deck, and commercial recordings were sold this way we would probably not have any use for vinyl.

What about laserdiscs? Didn't laserdiscs have analog audio? Can a more pristine analog signal be stored on laserdisc or are there other degrading factors at play?

Browntrout · « **Reply #183 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 05:46 pm »

Has anyone heard a digital setup that sounded as realistic as the best analogue rig?
Or a solid state amp that was as transparent as a SET valve amp?
You see I haven't and that's why I say digital cannot sound as good as analogue. I can hear the same artificiality on expensive players as on cheaper ones it's just less obvious or more well hidden it is there if you listen for it.
I admit to hearing the same problem with moving coil cartridges they actually sound similar to cd to me. Perhaps I have a certain type of hearing (defect?) or have noticed something others have not and it's stuck with me so whenever listening to recorded music I always look for it, I don't know.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #184 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 05:47 pm »

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #185 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 05:48 pm »

........But I'm not sure I want to throw his name to you bunch of sharks.

rajacat · « **Reply #186 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 05:56 pm »

Quote from: Browntrout on 21 Apr 2009, 05:46 pm

Has anyone heard a digital setup that sounded as realistic as the best analogue rig?

What's the best analogue rig? BTW what's the best digital front that you've heard? Was it computer based or just a CD player?

-Roy

Browntrout · « **Reply #187 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 06:01 pm »

Sorry I was editing my post while you replied.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #188 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 06:03 pm »

Quote from: Browntrout on 21 Apr 2009, 05:46 pm

Has anyone heard a digital setup that sounded as realistic as the best analogue rig?

Nope - and I think no Redbook/CD can ever be as natural as it has inadequate resolution at 16 bits and 44,100 samples per second. Another, future digital technology maybe

....but, none that I am aware of today.

...and to Konut earlier: zealous cleansing of a record is mandatory to fully hear the virtues and betterment over CD. If you hear a lot of noise between passages, you ain't heard a properly set-up vinyl format.

Frankly, I cannot listen intently to either classical...probably the most demanding/taxing music genres (in terms of naturalness as so much of it is un-amplified and ferrets out fake sounds easily) out there...on CD. Vinyl simply is reminiscent of the real event...CD can never approximate it.

Which brings another point to bear...the genre you listen to will have bearing on the format you like. For pop, CD seems more than sufficient. But for classical and piano works, only vinyl will do. Jazz is in between the extremes...vinyl or CD is sometimes a toss-up

John

Browntrout · « **Reply #189 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 06:55 pm »

For the best analogue rig (my thoughts) I would say a Simon Yorke recordplayer and the cartridge of your choice.
As for the best digital I've heard well I like some of Ken Ishiwatas' designs for Marantz, did not get on well with a Linn CD12, heard a nice Naim setup (fully active, loads of boxes, pro install) round a friends house and have heard a few fancy players at shows recently and though that is not enough time spent listening to comment I knew I was listening to digital.

ricmon · « **Reply #190 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 08:28 pm »

Maybe this will appeal to both groups here, digital and vinyl.

[img]
http://www.audiocircle.com/gallery/albums/userpics/48070/thumb_cd.GIF
[img]

konut · « **Reply #191 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 08:48 pm »

Quote from: TheChairGuy on 21 Apr 2009, 06:03 pm

...and to Konut earlier: zealous cleansing of a record is mandatory to fully hear the virtues and betterment over CD. If you hear a lot of noise between passages, you ain't heard a properly set-up vinyl format.

But for classical and piano works, only vinyl will do. Jazz is in between the extremes...vinyl or CD is sometimes a toss-up

John

The best vinyl rig cannot top, the easily attainable, 95db+ s/n ratio of digital. Crank the system up to realistic levels on full symphonic works and the lack of noise is readily apparent.

CSI · « **Reply #192 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 08:54 pm »

I've been following this string for awhile and am surprised that no one has turned the question on it's head (at least for the purpose of discussion). TheChairGuy has nudged everyone back to the original query - "do folks out there actually prefer CD in all instances over vinyl gear?" So let me ask this: "Do folks out there actually prefer vinyl in all instances over CD?" I'm not trying to hijack the subject. But when you ask the question it seems to have been clearly answered in the string: "Not so much". Good CD is better than lousy vinyl. The rest is just a matter of degree - how much turntable malfunctioning/cartridge mistracking/dirty grooves/peaky HF response/lousing pressing/poor mastering, etc. does it take to make vinyl unacceptable for you? And, conversely, how much jitter/harshness/thinness/2 dimensionality/etc. etc. does it take to make CD unlistenable for you?

There has been a nearly religious aspect to the analog vs. digital debate since digitization reared it's ugly head. In the beginning you had to be deaf or really indifferent to think digital was much good compared to analog. Now, after decades of steady improvement, you have to be indifferent or mighty stubborn to think that a good CD based system isn't at least the equivalent of vinyl and a computer based system even better than that (see Steve Nugent, et al in this forum). The fervor comes in, it seems to me, when the proposition becomes that analog is inherently (and obviously) a superior storage medium and that won't ever change. It gets touchy when the acolytes say (or imply) that anyone who doesn't hear/doesn't accept/doesn't believe this is, well, suspect to say the least.

It sort of reminds me of the recurring one-way conflict between we who live in Southern California and our cousins up north. Northern California types tend to think that they are superior in every way and that their culture is so obviously better, their cities so much more refined and even their (somewhat cooler) climate so much healthier that they don't know why anyone would live down here. What really infuriates them is when we refuse to debate any of this. San Francisco is obviously one of the world's great cities, everyone I know dearly loves the drive up Hwy 1 to Big Sur, the Monterey Aquarium is better than Long Beach, etc. etc. Now excuse me while I grab my board. Surf's up in Huntington Beach. As the gorgeous but hapless Miss USA runner up said recently, "No offense to anyone out there".

twitch54 · « **Reply #193 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 09:02 pm »

Interesting reply CSI, I fully understand your rationale and that's why I continue to be in the camp that says when done right BOTH are excellent !

Browntrout · « **Reply #194 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 09:03 pm »

Konut the noise floor on a good turntable is set by the recording. I have silence between passages if there was indeed silence. Silence very rarely exists, certainly in a hall with an audience it would be odd. If you mean they have cut the signal then this can be done on records as well but then you have the sound of the recording gear coming back in just before the music returns, I'd rather have continous recording between passages personally as it helps with continuity and ambience.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #195 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 09:22 pm »

Feel better now, CSI?

So-so vinyl sounds better than so-called excellent CD as no matter, 16 bits and 44,100 samples per second is simply not enough to approximate the event as vinyl does.

Period.

That's not to say some future hi-res digital format may exceed vinyl in the area of effortless naturalness...but, it ain't any of those available today. Spending large wads of cash on CD/Redbook is not sensible to me...it's a 2nd class format, fit primarily for convenience and developed when a basic calculator cost $100.00. The technology did not exist for better back then.

DVD-A is a nice peck up the chain...but, still not enough (in my opinion)

Spend your finite dollars any way you wish...whatever makes you happy. But, don't delude yourself that it sounds as good as a quality vinyl system with demanding music genre's like classical. It doesn't - and likely, cannot

For me and for an increasing amount of others...the pain of vinyl upkeep and conditioning is worth the bother to enjoy superior playback. However, I never thought that redbook playback would leap forward as far as it has the past 4-5 years...and at such amazingly low price points. So, I temper my absolutism just slightly as the advance the past 5 years has been excellent

btw, I live in Marin Co, 6 miles across I can see San Francisco. Ain't nothing like it in SOCAL....and I have traveled widely thru the state. My biz partner and rest of my company mates are in Redondo Beach...I choose to live here and happily do. I'm from NY, so it's not like family keeps me here (or, for god sake, cheap housing prices

)

John

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #196 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 09:30 pm »

Quote from: konut on 21 Apr 2009, 08:48 pm

The best vinyl rig cannot top, the easily attainable, 95db+ s/n ratio of digital. Crank the system up to realistic levels on full symphonic works and the lack of noise is readily apparent.

What good is 96db s/n if the violins or triangles or oboe's sound false?

50db from a good vinyl front end is sufficient (if the records are cleansed) for many...and the recording sounds like a real event as one would hear it live

Among formats today, naturalness is the exclusive domain of vinyl. Especially with classical....it's first and foremost among formats in my opinion and that of increasing amounts of others.

John

CSI · « **Reply #197 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 09:33 pm »

Thanks John. Yea, I do feel better. I really had no idea you lived in Marin when I wrote my reply. Whoops. Anyway, I appreciate your devotion, good ears, and good natured willingness to debate. And thanks for starting a fascinating thread.

See you in church.

Bill (CSI)
P.S. No offense to your partner but who in their right mind wouldn't prefer Marin to Redondo?

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #198 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 09:42 pm »

You are welcome...and anybody is welcome here at the Vinyl Circle. The only thing not tolerated is if one portrays another's passion as stupid/insane/dumb, etc. That's just not right (whoever it comes from and with whatever slant it has) and those posts are tossed.

The rest is just good-natured fun & debate between fellow audiophools

My biz partner grew up in Redondo...and has family still mostly there. I may have to move down there to run the 'shop' one day (as he is older than I), but it likely won't be entirely happily. I love traveling there about 4 months a year - mostly to get warm and out of the persistant winter rains here then

My little towns view of SF:

John

Quote from: CSI on 21 Apr 2009, 09:33 pm

Thanks John. Yea, I do feel better. I really had no idea you lived in Marin when I wrote my reply. Whoops. Anyway, I appreciate your devotion, good ears, and good natured willingness to debate. And thanks for starting a fascinating thread.

See you in church.

Bill (CSI)
P.S. No offense to your partner but who in their right mind wouldn't prefer Marin to Redondo?

CSI · « **Reply #199 on:** 21 Apr 2009, 10:01 pm »

Thanks for the great picture. Didn't mean to trash Redondo (it is entirely possible I got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning). I was born in Long Beach and only lived in two other places, Hawaii for two years (loved it) and Florida for four (didn't). So roots is roots. I'm up your way at least twice a year - to hang with old friends in San Jose, attend races at Infineon (nee Sears Point), kick around Napa and visit The City (no one ever calls LA The City). Don't really know what I would do without my periodic Bay Area fix.

Best regards,

Bill
PS. When I ask my wife where she would move to when we win that $20M lottery she always says Sausalito.