The vinyl vs CD myth.........

KnowTalent · « **Reply #40 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 10:19 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 3 Oct 2010, 08:57 pm

Why the myth? Because, according to several articles, and especially one I read recently by Kevin Gray at RTI, music that is recorded in the digital domain will have to be "toned down" when it goes to the cutting lathe. I have heard many people think that the CD and it's vinyl versions are cut from the same master and while that may be true, the vinyl version has been tinkered with by the cutting engineer at the lathe. Why? Because the frequency response of the digital medium is too hot for the LP medium and they are filtered at the top end, to prevent the cutting head from overloading, and subsequently our styluses. I also thought the low end may have been adjusted too, because the lower the frequency response, the wider the "vinyl river" has to be and this would result in much shorter playing times.

As far as dynamic range goes, both of my players have specs that claim 100db of dynamic range, tho I suspect there haven't been any CDs that can produce this much range, Telarc was notorious for producing untouched CDs (no compression) that were actually dangerous to the playback equipment. One such CD is Holst, The Planets, which starts off fairly low in volume, coaxing the listener to turn up the volume, only moments later run to the remote or volume control, hoping the amp, speakers or both were not seriously wounded.

This is why when I hear someone compare a CD to an LP, they are not comparing apples to apples.

Wayner

I have a Telarc of the 1812 that has a warning about the cannon fire finale and the RR of Andrew Copeland's (Appalachin Suites?)Fanfare for the Common Man...the opening kettle drum hit can send the woofers flying across the living room if you're not careful.
One of the discs in the Miles 68' quintet box set (I think disk 2?) the tune starts out relatively mellow and uniform in volume until Wayne Shorter lets out this huge BLAT out of one speaker...my cat had just sauntered in after waking from a nap and I swear it hit at least 5' vertical, landed while remaining slightly hunched...looking around like cats do to make sure no one saw what just happened.

jsaliga · « **Reply #41 on:** 3 Oct 2010, 10:40 pm »

Quote from: *Scotty* on 3 Oct 2010, 09:34 pm

Unfortunately the audio community has lost a lot of knowledge about how vinyl technology is implemented as time has passed. People have forgotten or never have known how a vinyl record is created and the compromises that have to be made to make a playable record. The vinyl medium while enjoyable to listen to is far from perfect or even the same as listening to the master tape. A common practice when mastering a record was to make the bass below 50Hz mono as well as inducing a roll off below 50Hz to increase the available time on a side. My major gripe about the vinyl record is the frequent lack of bass extension that many records exhibit. If you have had to tinker with the bass of the recording you virtually have to roll off the highs as well to maintain the music's tonal balance Compression was also freely used both to increase time and raise the signal above the noise floor of the vinyl. It was also used to catch the ear DJs making up playlists to increase the chances that they would notice the single and give it airplay.
Scotty

While I find the technical discussions marginally interesting from time to time, the technical specifications tend to be pretty lousy predictors of how any given recording will sound. Too much is often made of the technical differences among the various formats and not enough attention is being paid to how the recordings were originally laid down, mixed, and mastered.

--Jerome

neobop · « **Reply #42 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 01:35 am »

We're talking regular CD here, not even 24/192?

When I was a kid I belonged to the Columbia record club. I didn't get records though, I got reel to reel tapes. Virtually all of them had stickers that said master tape dub. I have no doubt they sound better than any CD ever made. But more important, records have the potential to sound like master tapes. CDs made from those analogue tapes are consistently not as good as the records.

Compression is necessary to minify a musical event for a home stereo. At least a musical event that includes multiple artists. A real symphony orchestra in my living room? I think not. Mastering a record used to be an art form, and some records are quite good at giving a believable rendition or facsimile. I have a few records that were digital recordings. Why do the LPs sound much better than the CD? Somehow the record makes a chopped up recording more continuous? Even with my new 24/96 DAC, CDs don't sound as much like real music. IE; the way music sounds live.

Also, extended frequency response does seem to matter. There are receptors (hairs) in our ears that correspond to frequencies as high as 100KHz. Even if we don't consciously hear this information, there are studies that say we do have a measurable physiological response to these sounds.

Seems that digital is getting better, but this doesn't include a regular CD. Only the recordings have gone from unlistenable to somewhat listenable. All this dynamic range stuff is BS when a CD barely resembles real music compared to analogue.
neo

Wayner · « **Reply #43 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 12:04 pm »

I think that reel to reel were actually made from 5th generation masters, not 3rd or 4th as vinyl was. The need for another generation was purely math, as the tape duplication process was very slow, and many copies were needed to get the mass production done. While the tape version was cleaner (no pops, tics) it's reproduction, like the LP was limited to the machine being used, but also had the included element of "hiss" that it's vinyl version did not. That may have been the limitation of the tape itself, or the lack of Dolby noise reduction. Also, lots of reel to reels (cheaper models) had a poor signal to noise ratio.

Wayner

turkey · « **Reply #44 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 12:24 pm »

Quote from: Stu Pitt on 3 Oct 2010, 02:38 am

In the whole CD vs Vinyl debate, I always come back to this, no matter what...

Why debate when you can have both?

Makes sense to me.

fsimms · « **Reply #45 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 03:13 pm »

I listen to vinyl with a TacT digital preamp. I do hear a subjective increased quality from my vinyl and tube phono preamp. Whatever the magic tubes and vinyl have seems to survive the digitizing and reconstruction process at least at 24/96.

Bob

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #46 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 04:32 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 4 Oct 2010, 12:24 pm

Makes sense to me.

I enjoy both, too. The convenience of digital is addicting. Plus it doesn't get noisy and you can listen in your car

. Something about vinyl, tho. Got to be in the mediums and that is probably what this discussion should be about (by guys who know more than me).

Wayner · « **Reply #47 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 04:39 pm »

I also love vinyl. It's almost all I listen to. I think each format has it's plus and minus aspects to them, but truly, I love them both for what they are.

Some of my most cherished listening adventures come from both mediums. Some LP favorites here are Despeche Mode, The Cars, Thomas Dolby (in either format), Dire Straights and Genesis (early stuff to The Lamb). Some incredible standouts with the CD format are Camel, Tears for Fears and Aaron Copland.

I wonder if there will be a point soon that analog and digital will merge. We see improvements from both and I suspect the gap is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on. Improvements in recording technology, CD players themselves and DACs are all on the march.

Vinyl on the other hand is not standing still either. Wonderful decks from folks at VPI, Avid and so on, and the improvements made to RIAA equalization, have brought the two closer together.

Wayner

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #48 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 05:03 pm »

By mediums I was refering to the how the sound is captured in the first place and the difference in how it is read or extracted and delivered by the two methods. Tell you one thing, tho, I have yet to hear a CD that can do the dynamic swings or immediacy of direct to disk records.

simoon · « **Reply #49 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 05:43 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 3 Oct 2010, 08:57 pm

This is why when I hear someone compare a CD to an LP, they are not comparing apples to apples.

Wayner

I think it is a comparison between apples to apples. But I guess it depends on which end of the audio system you're talking about.

If you're comparing the technologies involved, then of course it is not apples to apples.

But if you're comparing the quality of what actually comes out of the speakers, then it is apples to apples.

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #50 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 07:29 pm »

I think rather this debate IS about what comes out of our speakers, and the how and the why.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #51 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 07:41 pm »

My preference is for vinyl nearly every time in a head-to-head contest...but 16/44.1 has gotten pretty good over the years

DVD-A is better still - I haven't heard SACD that didn't sound somewhat odd to me - folks have told me it's a phasing issue endemic to it; but, frankly, I didn't think my hearing was that keen to hear phase issues, frankly

I sometimes attribute the superiority of vinyl to CD playback in my system to a smallish room, smallish speakers (with limited dynamic range) and only 50 watts of tube power.

Whatever the real versus theoretical superior dynamic range of Redbook is...it IS more dynamic. This will have a tendency to require larger listening rooms and more power to enjoy it more fully.

Just to throw intrigue into the equation tho....I have heard mounds of fantastic digital-led systems in large rooms with gobs of power. In a few that had vinyl front ends set up, as well, it was an instant relief to hear the vinyl playing after the digital assault

John

turkey · « **Reply #52 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 07:42 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 4 Oct 2010, 04:39 pm

I also love vinyl. It's almost all I listen to.

Frank says you're obsolete.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=86416.msg843446#msg843446

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #53 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 07:47 pm »

Quote from: turkey on 4 Oct 2010, 07:42 pm

Frank says you're obsolete.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=86416.msg843446#msg843446

Ha - I think he said much the same thing a few years ago, too.

Frank's either genuinely still excited about music...or not beyond thrumming up additional business with a little bit of hyperbole

John

Wayner · « **Reply #54 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 08:08 pm »

I have not heard Frank's new DAC yet. Those going to RMAF will get to hear it with a set of Salk Sound speakers.

I think that would be a great day when the world could declare that there is no audible difference between analog and digital playback. While we keep splitting hairs, we keep coming up with more hairs to split, creeping closer and closer.

And as John has said, I too have yet to hear a CD and an LP of the same ilk, sound the same.

Wayner

KnowTalent · « **Reply #55 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 08:19 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 4 Oct 2010, 08:08 pm

I have not heard Frank's new DAC yet. Those going to RMAF will get to hear it with a set of Salk Sound speakers.

I think that would be a great day when the world could declare that there is no audible difference between analog and digital playback. While we keep splitting hairs, we keep coming up with more hairs to split, creeping closer and closer.

And as John has said, I too have yet to hear a CD and an LP of the same ilk, sound the same.

Wayner

I think we as a fringe market are very fortunate there is such dedication and manufacturer support of the vinyl format! Aside from the wingnuts who inhabit forums such as this (myself included) I just don't seem to run into many people who share the same commitment (obsession) to "quality" of recorded music nor playback of such....weirdos!

jimdgoulding · « **Reply #56 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 08:20 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 4 Oct 2010, 08:08 pm

I have not heard Frank's new DAC yet. Those going to RMAF will get to hear it with a set of Salk Sound speakers.

I think that would be a great day when the world could declare that there is no audible difference between analog and digital playback. While we keep splitting hairs, we keep coming up with more hairs to split, creeping closer and closer.

And as John has said, I too have yet to hear a CD and an LP of the same ilk, sound the same.

Wayner

Maybe it's in the splitting. Doesn't digital do something like that? Could that, or whatever, be perceptible somehow?

Wayner · « **Reply #57 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 08:31 pm »

As some of you may know, I have 2 dedicated listening rooms. One is strictly digital, the other room, my studio is the vinyl room. It's much smaller and I listen to vinyl in the near/mid field. Everyday my wife and I enjoy at least 1 hour of vinyl.

Every once in a while, I go into the big room with the MartinLogan reQuests and fire up the Sony XA20ES player (thru AVA Insight+ DAC) and then I realize the power I was missing. Brian Setzer Orchestra's CD at fairly loud levels (almost life like) will certainly clear any doubt that the CD format is extremely powerful with a vanishing noise floor, even at elevated levels.

I don't want this thread to turn into a battle of formats, I love them both, but they certainly (IMO) have their strenghts and weaknesses, and to me comparing the 2 is certainly not apples and apples.

Wayner

KnowTalent · « **Reply #58 on:** 4 Oct 2010, 10:08 pm »

Quote from: Wayner on 4 Oct 2010, 08:31 pm

As some of you may know, I have 2 dedicated listening rooms. One is strictly digital, the other room, my studio is the vinyl room. It's much smaller and I listen to vinyl in the near/mid field. Everyday my wife and I enjoy at least 1 hour of vinyl.

Every once in a while, I go into the big room with the MartinLogan reQuests and fire up the Sony XA20ES player (thru AVA Insight+ DAC) and then I realize the power I was missing. Brian Setzer Orchestra's CD at fairly loud levels (almost life like) will certainly clear any doubt that the CD format is extremely powerful with a vanishing noise floor, even at elevated levels.

I don't want this thread to turn into a battle of formats, I love them both, but they certainly (IMO) have their strenghts and weaknesses, and to me comparing the 2 is certainly not apples and apples.

Wayner

There's no doubt if I had Bill Gates money I would hire someone like Fremer to shop a vinyl setup and pay him to handle all the setup...then hire young asian women dressed in French Maid outfits to clean the records, fan me and feed me grapes

every evening would have Happy Ending

neobop · « **Reply #59 on:** 5 Oct 2010, 12:43 am »

Quote from: Wayner on 4 Oct 2010, 08:31 pm

I don't want this thread to turn into a battle of formats, I love them both, but they certainly (IMO) have their strenghts and weaknesses, and to me comparing the 2 is certainly not apples and apples.
Wayner

I suppose a turntable would be inappropriate in the larger room and likewise a CD player in the studio? Maybe a CD would be a little hard to take near-field.

I've heard some awesome large systems driven by a turntable. Hard to imagine getting the same quality performance from a regular CD. You think you're playing to the strengths of the respective formats? Apples in one room and kumquats in the other. I'm not throwing out my CD stuff, but I don't agree with your characterization of the quality of the respective formats. I really don't care what the theoretical dynamic range and S/N are.
neo