HIGH FIDELITY - Vinyl LPs vs. Digital CDs

[Anonymous]

David - the poster didn't say that. He said that he had read somewhere that if you record the output of a turntable onto CD and compare that with the original turntable sound you don't hear much if any difference. This is also what I asserted a few posts earlier.

This comparison does work and suggests that the colorations introduced in vinyl are reproduced when played through a (clean) digital record/replay system of reasonable resolution, showing that the CD system itself is not inherently flawed. Of course it does have limitations but I would assert that these are quite small when compared with those of vinyl.

None of this means that vinyl can't be hugely enjoyable, it just suggests that the unpleasant sounds we may hear via a 16-bit 44.1 or 48 ksamples/second digital record/replay system are not due to the system itself when it is properly implemented.

The last five words above are hugely important of course

John

 

[Craig M.]

But then you're imposing the restrictions of CD to vinyl replay. If people can't tell the difference between CD and vinyl recorded onto CD, then something in the digital process is robbing the analogue source of everything it's about. I've never understood why the comparison of two sources has to involve recording one of them to a different source. Pointless.

see the reply above...

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think things are getting a little mixed up here. I appreciate that CD sound like vinyl if it's been ripped from the vinyl, but when comparing pre-recorded CD's and vinyl directly you'll get different results. Both formats sound amazing when done properly, but the differences that exist before recording to different formats and messing about are easy to hear.

24/96 gets a lot closer to vinyl's positives from recent listening, and I'm looking forward to hearing more when I can.

 

[chebby]

I think things are getting a little mixed up here.

I think things are getting a little antiquated here.

CD technology qualifies as 'antiquated' (late 1970s digital standards at best) and LP replay dates from 1948. All the improvements to both media have been a case of polishing a ###d for the last 30 and 60 years respectively.

The LP vs CD debate is itself ridiculous after all this time. (Maybe it was entertaining/interesting in 1983 but - in view of the revolution happening around us - looks more like a "steam car vs horse" argument nowadays.)

 

[Craig M.]

yes, but the point is it's not down to the format if they sound different, it's down to the mastering or the player (tt or cdp). as has already been said, cd is superior to vinyl (greater dynamic range/channel seperation/speed stability/lower distortion), it's just a shame that cd is often hobbled by the mastering. different mastering also explains nearly all audible differences between cd and higher bit rates.

edit: the above is in response to the specialist. hmm, specialist, where have i seen that before?

 

[chebby]

edit: the above is in response to the specialist. hmm, specialist, where have i seen that before?

That would be John Dawson. (Founding Arcam must count.)