CD/Record Comparison

[davedotco]

Vinyl v Compact Disc, what is this, the 1980s?

There have been several examples given where 'good' vinyl sounds better than CD but I have heard excellently produced CDs that outperform the vinyl versions. All to do with mastering methods and production values in my view.

In my experience, as the recordings and the playback equipment get better, the differences get smaller. I have taken part in carefully set up dems comparing state of the art record player (SME 30A/Koestsu Red Signature) and CD player (Wadia transport and dac) through a superb, high resolution system and being unable to tell the difference on some recordings.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm not going to disagree with you as you listen to what sounds best but, don't you think it kind of makes a mockery of Hi-Fi. Most people strive to get the 'cleanist' audio paths ie: no tone controls etc yet a lot of people agree that the coloured sound of vinyl is best; a signal which has been mechanically obtained, amplified 100 times (or 1000 times with MC pickups) to line level then passed through an RIAA filter network (during mastering) then back again (during playback). It kind of makes cable swapping, mains filtration, isolation platforms all look a bit silly don't you think.

Not really. Whilst vinyl has been around a long time (far outlasted most formats so far - I would assume, for a good reason), it has had time to be improved and perfected. I think if it was really as bad as some say, the format would've been dropped a long time ago.

There's three types of people in hi-fi.

A, those that try and reproduce the original as closely as possible

B, those that reproduce the original how they want it to sound

C, those that don't give a sh*t

It doesn't really matter which of those three you are as long as you're happy

 

[davedotco]

I'm not going to disagree with you as you listen to what sounds best but, don't you think it kind of makes a mockery of Hi-Fi. Most people strive to get the 'cleanist' audio paths ie: no tone controls etc yet a lot of people agree that the coloured sound of vinyl is best; a signal which has been mechanically obtained, amplified 100 times (or 1000 times with MC pickups) to line level then passed through an RIAA filter network (during mastering) then back again (during playback). It kind of makes cable swapping, mains filtration, isolation platforms all look a bit silly don't you think.

Not really. Whilst vinyl has been around a long time (far outlasted most formats so far - I would assume, for a good reason), it has had time to be improved and perfected. I think if it was really as bad as some say, the format would've been dropped a long time ago.

There's three types of people in hi-fi.

A, those that try and reproduce the original as closely as possible

B, those that reproduce the original how they want it to sound

C, those that don't give a sh*t

It doesn't really matter which of those three you are as long as you're happy

Another fine example of the modern inclusive society where everyone has an opinion that has to be respected even though it is clearly rubbish.

Hi-fi is high fidelity, at least some pretence of recreating real music as it is/was performed. There is some mileage in the debate as to whether the reproduction should be faithfull to the recording on the disc or faithful to the 'essence' of the performance but that is as far as it goes.

Selecting a system to play the music as you want to hear it may be fun and make you happy, but it is not hi-fi.

 

[fr0g]

Selecting a system to play the music as you want to hear it may be fun and make you happy, but it is not hi-fi.

Who cares?

Personally I don't get along with scratchy vinyl, and agree that CD can exactly reproduce anything an LP can play (It's a scientific fact), distortion n all. But in the end, if that's what you enjoy, why the hell not?

You can even get a vinyl plugin on the interweb.

 

[richardw42]

Selecting a system to play the music as you want to hear it may be fun and make you happy, but it is not hi-fi.

Who cares?

Personally I don't get along with scratchy vinyl, and agree that CD can exactly reproduce anything an LP can play (It's a scientific fact), distortion n all. But in the end, if that's what you enjoy, why the hell not?

You can even get a vinyl plugin on the interweb.

exactly. There really is a bit of snobbery around.

I've spent my fair share on hi Fi. I listen to most music (and get a lot of enjoyment) via the speaker on my iPhone in my back pocket walking the dogs. I love it, stick it on random and hear tunes I'd forgotten about, all in glorious 128.

 

[davedotco]

It is not about snobbery or anything like it.

It is simply about the reality of what hi-fi is really all about, as I said above it is about reproducing music as it was performed, simple as that.

I have on occasions discussed and recommended big sounding, high output active and passive systems for people who wants something of that type and I have done so quite as seriously as I would with any other components.

I have owned a fair number of systems whose 'boogie factor' (it was the 70s and 80s) far exceeded their hi-fi capability, I enjoyed them immensely but I would not suggest for a moment that these systems were 'good hi-fi', neither would I recommend them in a general sense.

I think we need to make a distinction between 'real hi-fi' and mass market audio and a/v equipment if the industry is to keep an identity.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Another fine example of the modern inclusive society where everyone has an opinion that has to be respected even though it is clearly rubbish.

Sorry for joining in!

Selecting a system to play the music as you want to hear it may be fun and make you happy, but it is not hi-fi.

Maybe not, but that seems to be what it is today. If you could do a head count of those that buy for faithful reproduction against those that buy something because they like it, I'll bet almost anything that the faithful reproduction clan are a massive minority. If someone comes in tomorrow and says, "I want a hi-fi", whether or not they understand the real meaning of "hi-fi", they could listen to something that is almost indistinguishable from the real thing, but if they then listen to something else and prefer the sound, what are you going to do? Tell them they're a muppet and don't know what they're doing? You can't dictate what people should be buying - it is a buyer's market, and they will buy what they want, no matter how much 'evidence' you shove in their face in order to prove them wrong!

You may get a bit up tight about the fact that people choose what they like the sound of, but it is a fact - they do. Ok, since the dawn of the phrase "hi-fi", how many systems or products do you think have been produced that actually sound so much like the real thing, that people can't tell the difference? None, because nothing is perfect enough from source to speaker to be able to do so.

 

[richardw42]

I think maybe all but one of my friends don't quite understand my hi Fi purchases.

And I'm sure most of them enjoy their music as much as I do, whatever the format, and whatever the equipment. They appreciate quality but not bothered about how they get it.

PI honestly don't think of a hi Fi industry identity as being something which should be seperate from other consumer electronics. . They need to move forward, and give the people what they want. Eg. Apple are doing it, and are they hi Fi ?

 

[davedotco]

Another fine example of the modern inclusive society where everyone has an opinion that has to be respected even though it is clearly rubbish.

Sorry for joining in!

Selecting a system to play the music as you want to hear it may be fun and make you happy, but it is not hi-fi.

Maybe not, but that seems to be what it is today. If you could do a head count of those that buy for faithful reproduction against those that buy something because they like it, I'll bet almost anything that the faithful reproduction clan are a massive minority. If someone comes in tomorrow and says, "I want a hi-fi", whether or not they understand the real meaning of "hi-fi", they could listen to something that is almost indistinguishable from the real thing, but if they then listen to something else and prefer the sound, what are you going to do? Tell them they're a muppet and don't know what they're doing? You can't dictate what people should be buying - it is a buyer's market, and they will buy what they want, no matter how much 'evidence' you shove in their face in order to prove them wrong!

You may get a bit up tight about the fact that people choose what they like the sound of, but it is a fact - they do. Ok, since the dawn of the phrase "hi-fi", how many systems or products do you think have been produced that actually sound so much like the real thing, that people can't tell the difference? None, because nothing is perfect enough from source to speaker to be able to do so.

Look, i am not getting at you but this post is nonsense, you are having a go at me for things I have simply not said, another depressingly modern trait.

You are a modern day hi-fi dealer and your views are taken seriously, by me anyway, I never said differently.

Neither did I suggest that systems 'actually sound so much like the real thing that people can't tell the difference', you're just making it up.

Neither did I suggest that you abuse customers in the way that you describe, advise and guide where possible but make sure you 'take their money and send them home happy' was always the way of a decent honest dealer.

I do not get uptight about what others choose, that is none of my business but when discussing these choices on a hi-fi forum I think we can be more critical and specific about what we are talking about.

It may, in the end, be simply about semantics. For me hi-fi systems make an honest attempt, within the obvious constraints, of some kind of fidelity to the original performance, if they don't, whatever else they may be, they are not hi-fi.

 

[Covenanter]

I made the choice in the late 1970s/early 1980s. I had a top notch vinyl system (TD160, Hadcock arm, AKG cartridge) and I thought it produced wonderful sound. Of course it had any number of issues with keeping records clean and with static and keeping the Hadcock aligned but all that came with the territory in those days. Then CDs came along and they sounded very different to vinyl. At first a lot of them were grim, terrible metallic recordings, but the engineers soom mastered that and then what became clear (to me at least) was that CDs reproduction was much more truthful to the original.

I think the situation has changed somewhat now! HiFi (which stands for High Fidelity, ie high truthfulness) has become something else and this is I think partly because music has changed. Where music is produced in a studio and is highly engineered "fidelity" has little meaning because the end-user rarely gets to hear the original. What these end-users want is something that sounds best to them, which is of course fine. But it isn't what I want which is something which sounds like the original and with the type of music I like I can still hear an original.

The world is big enough for both schools of thought to exist side to side.

Chris

 

[Al ears]

Well said Chris.

Fidelity is what it is about. I it's a bad recording made in somebodies garage then it should sound exactly like it was made in a garage.

Back to the original post I have over the many years that I have been collecting music, spread over a wide variety of formats, not yet found anything to drag me completely away from vinyl.

Having had a long thought about my collection I can honestly say I do not have one CD that sounds better than it's vinyl equivalent.

I have had a few SACD's that came very close and a few Blu-ray Pure Audio discs that are on a par.

 

[CnoEvil]

I think the situation has changed somewhat now! HiFi (which stands for High Fidelity, ie high truthfulness) has become something else and this is I think partly because music has changed. Where music is produced in a studio and is highly engineered "fidelity" has little meaning because the end-user rarely gets to hear the original. What these end-users want is something that sounds best to them, which is of course fine. But it isn't what I want which is something which sounds like the original and with the type of music I like I can still hear an original.

The world is big enough for both schools of thought to exist side to side.

Chris

On this important and fundamental point, we fully agree.

IMO. If one's hifi doesn't sound like real musicians, playing real instruments and conveying real emotion, then it's missing the point.

 

[chebby]

I made the choice in the late 1970s/early 1980s. I had a top notch vinyl system (TD160, Hadcock arm, AKG cartridge) and I thought it produced wonderful sound. Of course it had any number of issues with keeping records clean and with static and keeping the Hadcock aligned but all that came with the territory in those days. Then CDs came along and they sounded very different to vinyl. At first a lot of them were grim, terrible metallic recordings, but the engineers soom mastered that and then what became clear (to me at least) was that CDs reproduction was much more truthful to the original.

I think the situation has changed somewhat now! HiFi (which stands for High Fidelity, ie high truthfulness) has become something else and this is I think partly because music has changed. Where music is produced in a studio and is highly engineered "fidelity" has little meaning because the end-user rarely gets to hear the original. What these end-users want is something that sounds best to them, which is of course fine. But it isn't what I want which is something which sounds like the original and with the type of music I like I can still hear an original.

The world is big enough for both schools of thought to exist side to side.

Chris

I don't think things have changed too much. There was never a 'golden era' when everyone used top-notch hi-fi.

Are you forgetting 7" singles played on (mostly) dreadful Dansette type record players with out of kilter tracking (cured with Sellotape and coins) and chipped ceramic styli?

Pre-recorded (or recorded from the radio) cassettes played on cheap mono players then Walkmans.

Transistor radios.

Cheap music centers.

Plastic and hardboard so-called 'rack systems' (the ones that only looked like seperates from a long distance).

Amstrad, Alba, Fidelity and other lamentable cheap c##p.

Let's not pretend 'we' all used Quad systems with Thorens turntables.

And an iPhone or MP3 player playing decenly ripped files through a decent pair of earphones will sound way better than any of the dodgy gear I listed above.

 

[fr0g]

Well said Chris.

Fidelity is what it is about. I it's a bad recording made in somebodies garage then it should sound exactly like it was made in a garage.

Back to the original post I have over the many years that I have been collecting music, spread over a wide variety of formats, not yet found anything to drag me completely away from vinyl.

Having had a long thought about my collection I can honestly say I do not have one CD that sounds better than it's vinyl equivalent.

I have had a few SACD's that came very close and a few Blu-ray Pure Audio discs that are on a par.

This post totally contradicts itself.

While I agree, some vinyl can sound more listenable than the CD equivalent, you know that if you take a recording from that vinyl to CD it will sound exactly the same.

You cannot do that the other way around.

So 1st, you say that it's all about "fidelity" then you rave on about vinyl, which is certainly less "Hi-fi" than CD.

Which is it? You prefer the (for some people, pleasant) distortion of vinyl, or you prefer to hear what was mastered and produced (CD)?

 

[Al ears]

Well said Chris.

Fidelity is what it is about. I it's a bad recording made in somebodies garage then it should sound exactly like it was made in a garage.

Back to the original post I have over the many years that I have been collecting music, spread over a wide variety of formats, not yet found anything to drag me completely away from vinyl.

Having had a long thought about my collection I can honestly say I do not have one CD that sounds better than it's vinyl equivalent.

I have had a few SACD's that came very close and a few Blu-ray Pure Audio discs that are on a par.

This post totally contradicts itself.

While I agree, some vinyl can sound more listenable than the CD equivalent, you know that if you take a recording from that vinyl to CD it will sound exactly the same.

You cannot do that the other way around.

So 1st, you say that it's all about "fidelity" then you rave on about vinyl, which is certainly less "Hi-fi" than CD.

Which is it? You prefer the (for some people, pleasant) distortion of vinyl, or you prefer to hear what was mastered and produced (CD)?

I am sorry I don't understand your post at all.

 

[lindsayt]

Well said Chris.

Fidelity is what it is about. I it's a bad recording made in somebodies garage then it should sound exactly like it was made in a garage.

Back to the original post I have over the many years that I have been collecting music, spread over a wide variety of formats, not yet found anything to drag me completely away from vinyl.

Having had a long thought about my collection I can honestly say I do not have one CD that sounds better than it's vinyl equivalent.

I have had a few SACD's that came very close and a few Blu-ray Pure Audio discs that are on a par.

This post totally contradicts itself.

While I agree, some vinyl can sound more listenable than the CD equivalent, you know that if you take a recording from that vinyl to CD it will sound exactly the same.

You cannot do that the other way around.

So 1st, you say that it's all about "fidelity" then you rave on about vinyl, which is certainly less "Hi-fi" than CD.

Which is it? You prefer the (for some people, pleasant) distortion of vinyl, or you prefer to hear what was mastered and produced (CD)?

Can you please tell me what affordable equipment can take a recording from vinyl to CD and make it sound exactly the same?

My vinyl to CD recording equipment is a looooooooooooooong way short of that.

And if vinyl is less hi-fi than CD, how come every recording that I have on both formats sounds better on vinyl? The difference isn't subtle either.

It seems to me, frog, that you don't realise how good vinyl can sound. Maybe you've never compared a genuinely top notch record player against CD?

 

[Al ears]

Thanks for that lindsayt I thought I was going completely mad there for a moment, and only on second glass of wine!

I was rather lost with :-

'You cannot do that the other way around.' as well.

I spent a lot of time recording vinyl to CD just so I could play it in the car and the quality was notably lacking.

Never had, or wanted the ability to to copy CD to vinyl.

 

[chebby]

.

 

[letsavit2]

The background cough and sniff by Dave Gilmore before he plays his acoustic guitar on WYWH is clearer on an £230 rega rp1 than my £800 naim CD player. That cough and sniff I have used as a test on hi fi equipment for over 20years now and was used on the naim against other CD players at the time.

 

[Frank Harvey]

It seems to me, frog, that you don't realise how good vinyl can sound. Maybe you've never compared a genuinely top notch record player against CD?

This is a good point. Most of those that denigrate vinyl made their minds up a long time ago, and the last decent sounding deck they heard was probably something like a Dual CS505! (The point being it wasn't great in the grand scheme of things). Yes, a high quality turntable does cost a fair bit of money, but it is this type of deck that needs to be listened to before people state categorically that vinyl is inferior.

Another point is that many will automatically state that vinyl is inferior because they see it as an 'old format'. That may be so, but anything old has had decades of improvement and perfecting.

If vinyl sounds so bad, why are people paying £15-30 for new re-releases? Loads of people are coming back to it, so much so we started selling vinyl in store because of short sighted media retailers (although I believe HMV are dabbling in it again). I've said before - the biggest selling product for us in store over the past year has been turntables (next to streamers). Yes, the majority of them are budget turntables, but there's a fair few higher end ones and Michell can't make Gyro SE's fast enough to keep up with demand!

 

[abacus]

A couple of things to remember:

1. It is not possible for a vinyl to achieve the same accuracy as a CD due to the inherent limitations in the analogue process; however a good (Usually expensive) vinyl system can get close.

2. The studio equipment that was used when vinyl was in its heyday has moved on considerably since then, with younger engineers having their own ideas how to get the most accurate sound.

Producers and musicians regularly use older type equipment (Either real or virtual) not because they are more accurate, but because it allows them to get a particular characteristic sound. (And vinyl sounds nice)

Bill

 

[Covenanter]

It seems to me, frog, that you don't realise how good vinyl can sound. Maybe you've never compared a genuinely top notch record player against CD?

This is a good point. Most of those that denigrate vinyl made their minds up a long time ago, and the last decent sounding deck they heard was probably something like a Dual CS505! (The point being it wasn't great in the grand scheme of things). Yes, a high quality turntable does cost a fair bit of money, but it is this type of deck that needs to be listened to before people state categorically that vinyl is inferior.

Another point is that many will automatically state that vinyl is inferior because they see it as an 'old format'. That may be so, but anything old has had decades of improvement and perfecting.

If vinyl sounds so bad, why are people paying £15-30 for new re-releases? Loads of people are coming back to it, so much so we started selling vinyl in store because of short sighted media retailers (although I believe HMV are dabbling in it again). I've said before - the biggest selling product for us in store over the past year has been turntables (next to streamers). Yes, the majority of them are budget turntables, but there's a fair few higher end ones and Michell can't make Gyro SE's fast enough to keep up with demand!

It's a fashion thing David! I don't think vinyl is inferior because it is an old format. I know that it is technically inferior because it can't help but be. You have to distort the signal to get it to record (RIAA) and then you have to "undistort" it to get it back. I will put to one side the impossible geometry of decks and arms which a 15 year old schoolboy (or girl) can demonstrate doesn't work (but then you eschew science - I assume through ignorance). It's fact that the obscure is attractive simply because of its obscurity. This is part of modern hifi - anything that flies in the face of logic is attractive.

Chris

 

[drummerman]

It seems to me, frog, that you don't realise how good vinyl can sound. Maybe you've never compared a genuinely top notch record player against CD?

This is a good point. Most of those that denigrate vinyl made their minds up a long time ago, and the last decent sounding deck they heard was probably something like a Dual CS505! (The point being it wasn't great in the grand scheme of things). Yes, a high quality turntable does cost a fair bit of money, but it is this type of deck that needs to be listened to before people state categorically that vinyl is inferior.

Another point is that many will automatically state that vinyl is inferior because they see it as an 'old format'. That may be so, but anything old has had decades of improvement and perfecting.

If vinyl sounds so bad, why are people paying £15-30 for new re-releases? Loads of people are coming back to it, so much so we started selling vinyl in store because of short sighted media retailers (although I believe HMV are dabbling in it again). I've said before - the biggest selling product for us in store over the past year has been turntables (next to streamers). Yes, the majority of them are budget turntables, but there's a fair few higher end ones and Michell can't make Gyro SE's fast enough to keep up with demand!

It's a fashion thing David! I don't think vinyl is inferior because it is an old format. I know that it is technically inferior because it can't help but be. You have to distort the signal to get it to record (RIAA) and then you have to "undistort" it to get it back. I will put to one side the impossible geometry of decks and arms which a 15 year old schoolboy (or girl) can demonstrate doesn't work (but then you eschew science - I assume through ignorance). It's fact that the obscure is attractive simply because of its obscurity. This is part of modern hifi - anything that flies in the face of logic is attractive.

Chris

Its an emotional thing ...

Even Ashley James dabbles in vintage cars. They in no way can compete with modern equivelants but they obviously awake something in the man that modern ones dont. Go figure.

I am all for science and good engineering but you simply cannot leave emotion (and whatever that means to whoever) out of the equation.

regards

 

[matthewpiano]

You can point out all the flaws in vinyl over and over again, but if it communicates the music in an involving and convincing way then that is ultimately all that really matters. You can't keep bringing everything back to facts and figures, some things have to be about the experience and, as drummerman says, emotion.

 

[davedotco]

The single most important thing to realise hear is that you are comparing apples with oranges, with very, very few exceptions the final version of any recording mastered for vinyl or cd will be very different.

I have heard a few cds and lps that sound audibly identical when played on top class equipment (see above) but they are extremely rare, I recall a Fischer Diskau recording (Winterreiser I think) that was absolutely identical and if memory serves a recording of Tosca that was impossible to pick. As the equipment gets better, the differences get smaller.