Am I an idiot? #2 Loudness wars!

[mushroomgod]

Hi All!

Well after my last "am I an idiot" thread Iv been reading up as to why some like vinyl over CD, and looking into maybe buying a nice turntable. Theres a few things I think Iv learnt (and please shoot me down if Im wrong)

It would seem that the general consensus would be that CDs (in pretty much every way) better than vinyl at producing sound - better range, better base, clean and crisp. Thats fine, I pretty much knew that anyway. But the main reason (from a sound point of view) that (some) people like vinyl over CD is the production thats placed on CDs, namely the "Loudness wars". This is pretty much a concept that I have never heard off (Iv been living under a rock clearly). So I think this pretty much sums up why I like my LedZep 3 on vinyl sounds better than my LedZep 3 on my 1990 remaster CD.

And this kinda leads me to a slightly worrying thought and a question... If CDs are better, but the mastering is killing the sound quality, whats the point is spending £1000s on great audio gear if in some cases (and maybe most cases) a reasonably cheap turntable can out class an expensive CD player?

And ontop of this...MP3s suffer the same problem. Its pretty sad

 

[Anonymous]

Wait for the vinyl lovers to see this... and prepare to be flamed!

There isn't consensus that CD sounds better than vinyl - quite the reverse in fact, as CDs are inherently poorer than vinyl due to the limitations of sampling (as I understand it, anyway).

Yes, the so-called "loudness wars" have had an extremely negative impact on sound quality, but this is related to the mastering, not the format it is released on. Vinyl pressings of new recordings which have been mastered poorly will likely sound just as bad as the CD release.

 

[sometimesuk]

CD sounds better than Vinyl, what planet are you on!

True, on a sound for pound basis, CD will sound better than Vinyl, but only upto a certain price point. Once you start looking at decent turntables £3k plus, they really start to **** all over CD.

You should hear a Mitchell Orbe setup! There is a common misconception that Vinyl will havw cracks and pops, but this simply isnt true.

Vinyl, will sound far more natural that what CD does. Although its bottom and it more fuller than CD.

 

[Andrew Everard]

 

[Mike_Schmidt]

I understand why your asking this, I have a modest system with my parasound pre-power combo. Sources I have a cyrus 8se with psx and a Rega P 5 with TTPS and I would listen to my Rega all day long before my cyrus. Yes there are ticks and pops and I personally have not heard a system that can get rid of that but once the music starts that all disappears. What I have always asked is they have had over 20 years to correct CD but in all actuality have gotten worse sound reproduction with mainstream.

 

[The_Lhc]

Because Johnny Public thinks that "louder" equals "better", see the recent surveys in which students (in the US I think) actually prefer the sound of compressed mp3 over CD.

 

[matthewpiano]

Even a fairly prosaic classic turntable, like a Pioneer PL12D for example, will beat most modern budget CD players if its set up properly and serviced.

Vinyl is, in my eyes (or should that be ears?) still the best and most enjoyable format, particularly through a lovely big 70s Japanese amplifier with a decent phono stage in it. I love CD, but it doesn't have the same presence as vinyl. Nothing does.

Forget the entry level decks of today. The Pro-ject Debut III is easily beaten by several classic Pioneers, JVCs, Duals, and Sansui decks which you can pick up for pretty cheap prices on the second hand market. Buy one of these and you'll get a much more capable deck for considerably less money.

 

[DIB]

sometimesuk:
Once you start looking at decent turntables £3k plus, they really start to **** all over CD.

Well my friend that is something that I will never ever be able to put to the test, unless my 6 numbers come up tonight!

.

 

[idc]

the_lhc:Because Johnny Public thinks that "louder" equals "better", see the recent surveys in which students (in the US I think) actually prefer the sound of compressed mp3 over CD.

Ah, CD vs vinyl, excellent. Meanwhile all of those American students are at least on the right track as PC music files, lossless in particular beat both CD and vinyl.........

 

[chebby]

the_lhc:Because Johnny Public thinks that "louder" equals "better", see the recent surveys in which students (in the US I think) actually prefer the sound of compressed mp3 over CD.

In a survey conducted by National Geographic (of 500 American graduates) it was revealed that two thirds of them thought Africa was a country and that the UK was a landlocked central European state. These were not random 'Joe Public' responses but University graduates.

So if US students are going to become the arbiter of recorded music quality then G@@ help us all!

Although if people don't appreciate quality then why did Apple upgrade everything in their catalogue to 256k (from 128k) AAC earlier in the year for no extra cost? And why did Amazon decide to launch their download service with everything at 256k when 128k 'would have done'? A similar question could be asked about Spotify at 320k for it's subscriber service. If people didn't care about quality then 128k - or less - would be acceptable to them surely?

Someone must have been pushing for it. They would not have upgraded out of the kindness of their corporate heart.

Between them they must represent a pretty sizeable chunk of the download market.

Hopefully any such pressure for increased quality/bitrates will continue and 320k will eventually become the norm or the minimum acceptable.

Back on topic (a bit) why do my experiments with 'Vinyl Studio' software - and downloading tracks from my vinyl - sound better than any of my rips from CD (or downloads) at equivalent bitrates? Especially given that I am currently only using a cheap RCA Phono - 3.5mm minijack lead connected to 'tape-out' from my amp and 'mic in' on the laptop? How much better still if I invested in a half decent ADC?

 

[mushroomgod]

I didnt really make the post to claim one was better than the other, or start some kind of war - although I did state that CDs are better I made that statment based apon the general consensus of most people.

With that in mind, I do think that CDs are better from a technical point of view (every things Iv read says they "should" be better), but whats the point in being better if they are mastered in such a way that the music contained within is flat and dull in comparason to vinyl - a format that (if we belive what we where told) should be long dead?

I have a fairly modest system - £300 amp/£300 cdp/£300 speakers. Im just kinda stumped that when I play CDs they sound great - crisp and clean. Yet!!!! when I play some a 20 year old peace of vinyl on a £50 turntable it sounds better, maybe not as clean but with more detail than my £300 cdp?

I dont really know what this all means - I just see it as a bit of a problem/and counterproductive if you spend many £1000s on kit only to have it sound quality scuppered by badly mastered music on CD!

 

[idc]

chebby:

In a survey conducted by National Geographic (of 500 American graduates) it was revealed that two thirds of them thought Africa was a country and that the UK was a landlocked central European state. These were not random 'Joe Public' responses but University graduates.

So if US students are going to become the arbiter of recorded music quality then G@@ help us all!

Although if people don't appreciate quality then why did Apple upgrade everything in their catalogue to 256k (from 128k) AAC earlier in the year for no extra cost? And why did Amazon decide to launch their download service with everything at 256k when 128k 'would have done'? A similar question could be asked about Spotify at 320k for it's subscriber service. If people didn't care about quality then 128k - or less - would be acceptable to them surely?

Someone must have been pushing for it. They would not have upgraded out of the kindness of their corporate heart.

Between them they must represent a pretty sizeable chunk of the download market.

Hopefully any such pressure for increased quality/bitrates will continue and 320k will eventually become the norm or the minimum acceptable.

I would hazzard a guess that the above has happened because at first the US student was the major part of the market for music files via MP3 players. Then as others started to adopt PC based music the demand for better quality rose. So, to compete with itunes Amazon saw a place for higher quality downloads. Meanwhile from the top end Linn and the likes have appeared with very high bit rate downloads.

chebby:

Back on topic (a bit) why do my experiments with 'Vinyl Studio' software - and downloading tracks from my vinyl - sound better than any of my rips from CD (or downloads) at equivalent bitrates? Especially given that I am currently only using a cheap RCA Phono - 3.5mm minijack lead connected to 'tape-out' from my amp and 'mic in' on the laptop? How much better still if I invested in a half decent ADC?

I cant answer that, but it is interesting you find it to be the case. I wonder if there will be a future for downloads 'remastered' by creating the initial download from vinyl as opposed to a CD or digital source. Afterall, music companies will need another format in a few years so we will have to buy it all over again!

 

[Anonymous]

'Am I an idiot?'

Err yes - vinyl pisses on CD - end of!

 

[matengawhat]

i find the clicks and pops annoying i also don't find vinyl uses friendly and a real pain to use/clean/look after having to get up to to turn the special editions over every 3 songs ect

personnaly find the whole experience tedious for the slightly wider dynamic range and personally found my mf v8cdp and dac a far nicer listen than my old £1000 deck that i recently sold

but each to their own

i also think audio snobbery plays a big part in this discussion - if you don't listen to vinyl your not a real audiophile - a bad mix sounds bad no matter what the medium

 

[chebby]

crimsondonkey: 'Am I an idiot?'

Err yes - vinyl pisses on CD - end of!

matengawhat:i also think audio snobbery plays a big part in this discussion - if you don't listen to vinyl your not a real audiophile - a bad mix sounds bad no matter what the medium

 

[matengawhat]

chebby:

crimsondonkey: 'Am I an idiot?'

Err yes - vinyl pisses on CD - end of!

matengawhat:i also think audio snobbery plays a big part in this discussion - if you don't listen to vinyl your not a real audiophile - a bad mix sounds bad no matter what the medium

if its a great album do you enjoy it less because its not on vinyl????

 

[chebby]

No, Look at my signature. I enjoy lots of different sources pretty equally.

The cartoon was just to make my point about polarised attitudes.

Some of the best quality reproduction of music I have heard lately was on BBC FM radio. Almost certainly 16 or 24 bit WAV in origin as they seldom - if ever - use CD or vinyl any more. Detailed requirements. (Microsoft Word document.)

 

[matengawhat]

cartoon made me laugh!!!

 

[Anonymous]

mmmm... just read this post , and made me smile somewhat...

having spent the last 30 odd years or so trying to improve the sound of my system to the point of spending shedloads of money since 1975 (and I mean shedloads of money)... eventually i got sick and tired of buying a peice of equipment that will improve the sound!!!

i have owned turntables costing a grand plus (Linn / Rock / Logic / Triangle)

I have owned cd players costing over a grand (Marantz , Arcam , Cyrus)

What do i listen to nowadays....... a complete system that costs no more than a grand... and guess what my source is....???

A ipod NANO (4th gen) with music/cd`s tranfered & downloaded legally at 128 kbs vbr aac etc blah blah blah and have to say that it sounds absolutally brilliant and hear things i only dreamt of 30 years ago

Beleive me ... i have got a cd collection that runs in to the thousands , had a vinyl collection that was bordering on taking over my house .. but one day i got that sick & tired of trying to hear the peice of equipment rather than enjoying the music , woke up and saw the light!!!!!!

my enjoyment today.... a one hundred quid NANO ipod driven by a hundred quid amp along with a pair of speakers costing no more than 300 pounds result.... MUSIC!!!

 

[Anonymous]

^^^^^ iPod Nano? *PUKE*

Nothing on a decent DAC, and you should know this...........

 

[proffski]

I have either taken back or given away CDs purchased on the strength of being "Improved" or "Remastered" to replace some originals. BAH!

Most were simply "Compressed" to the point of dynamic range being almost removed, then they insult you by including some extra bonus tracks. Yet good recordings as from for example OPUS3 can show as to what CD is capable of doing.

Unecessary compression is even creeping into classical recordings, talk about writing your own epitaph...

 

[idc]

jota:

having spent the last 30 odd years or so trying to improve the sound of my system to the point of spending shedloads of money since 1975 (and I mean shedloads of money)... eventually i got sick and tired of buying a peice of equipment that will improve the sound!!!

With you there jota, though not over as much time or with as much money!

jota:

A ipod NANO (4th gen) with music/cd`s tranfered & downloaded legally at 128 kbs vbr aac etc blah blah blah and have to say that it sounds absolutally brilliant and hear things i only dreamt of 30 years ago

Again, with you there. The whole system went to be replaced with an ipod as the source, a Bose Sounddock and headfi. See the ipod lying next to my amp in my signature.

jota:

my enjoyment today.... a one hundred quid NANO ipod driven by a hundred quid amp along with a pair of speakers costing no more than 300 pounds result.... MUSIC!!!

The bottom line, enjoying the music. For your further enjoyment may I suggest you go down the PC - DAC - amp - speakers route and get access to all the music there is online. My prefered source is Spotify, which I find sounds even better than itunes.

 

[mushroomgod]

proffski:
I have either taken back or given away CDs purchased on the strength of being "Improved" or "Remastered" to replace some originals. BAH!

Well thats my thinking, I think its kinda madness to spend £1000 on equipment of if the simple £10 silver disk is the weakest link. Thats really what Im getting at, not which is better and why.

Im not claiming to be an expert, but from what Iv read, the Loudness war is not getting any better - example now being the new Artic Monkeys album which is compressed to within an inch of its life. Now I like new music, and I buy alot of music (thats why we are all here right?). Its just seems so counter productive.

Oh...heres a bonkers crazy thought... Since I think we can
all agree that the Loudness wars are real, and since it can cause a
massive difference in sound (probably more so that upgreading your hifi
ever could) maybe WhatHifi should start reviewing the compression on
new CDs - not the music, just how fay they have been pushed?

Anyway, On the upside...Just bought some new vinyl, 1st lot of vinyl Iv bought in over 10 years - out of the 4 albums, 2 are better than the CDs, 1 is probably on a par, and the final one is probably worse. Ofcourse I am listening to them on a rubbish/old/cheap turntable, just thinking if buying a better turntable is really worth it.

 

[sometimesuk]

Correction:

 

[Anonymous]

If you're looking into a new TT it would be good to understand what you have at the moment and also what you're using to play CDs to compare with.

For example when I had a 'pimped' Rega P3 it was a more enjoyable listen than my Cyrus CD8X, and now I have the Gyrodec there's nothing I've heard at under £5k that get close. I bought the Chord QBD76 to bridge the gap, which it does very effectively but for out and out sonic quality the Gyrodec is the winner.

Where am I going here? Well, the problem with a good TT is that it can make your CD collection unlistenable if there's too big a gap between the players!