High resolution audio(not impressed)

[TomSawyer]

As for the technical superiority of CD over vinyl - there can't be any serious argument...

And that is where I beg to differ.

My previous 2 posts in this thread. Is there anything I've written in there with which you disagree?

If you agree with what I've said then you agree with me that there are some big question marks over whether CD really is technically better than vinyl.

Sorry lindsayt, the only point I can see you've made in favour of vinyl is that when CD was introduced vinyl sounded better - let me know if there are others.

I don't disagree with this point actually, but I think you contend that this demonstrates a fundamental inferiority of the CD format. I have to disagree with this. Rather it showed that vinyl reproduction hardware was at a century old level of technical maturity and CD players were new and crude. Indeed 44.1 kHz was chosen because some video equipment used that sampling rate already and it was sufficiently above the minimum 40kHz rate.

To be clear though, I agree that some records sound much better than some CDs but it's not because of an inherent superiority. And for the record (sorry about the pun) I prefer records to CDs but that's for purely emotional, non technical reasons.

 

[MajorFubar]

What happens if we have a particular dynamic pieces of music - say Ravels Bolero - where the recording level was set too low on CD? So that we are in excess of 70 dbs below maximum recordable voltage during the opening bars? How's that going to sound on CD?

Better than it does on record where it would be drowned out by vinyl-roar given the same scenario. It's unfortunate you think the whole digitisation process is essentially flawed, because probably a large proportion of the records you love have either come from digital masters or from analogue masters sent to the cutting head via a digital delay line, meaning they were converted to digital and back again before they even hit the lacquer. Some studios have routinely cut lacquers using a digital delay line for about 40 years.

 

[lindsayt]

With a world class record player, and a good quality piece of vinyl, a recording at 70 dbs below maximum possible would not be drowned out by vinyl roar.

For example, check-out the signal to noise ratio of a Pioneer Exclusive P3a.

Have you done the quiet CD quiet recording test I suggested?

It's possible that CD loses high fidelity when the sample is represented by a total of:

32 diiferent possible voltage levels - IE 66 db useable dynamic range

64 diiferent possible voltage levels - IE 60 db useable dynamic range

128 diiferent possible voltage levels - IE 54 db useable dynamic range

256 diiferent possible voltage levels - IE 48 db useable dynamic range

512 diiferent possible voltage levels - IE 42 db useable dynamic range

 

[lindsayt]

I have plenty of vinyl made from digital recordings that sound fine.

I have a few CD's made from analogue recordings that sound fine.

I have a few CD's made from digital recordings that sound fine.

I have plenty of vinyl made from analogue recordings that sound fine.

The most realistic sounding recordings that I have are master tapes and master tape copies made with analogue recording equipment.

 

[TomSawyer]

Lindsayt, if you haven't already looked at this, I'd encourage you to do so. It demonstrates that CD is inherently capable of reproducing the original wave. Once that's accepted, all of the failings of a given CD can be seen to be a function of what was recorded on it, not the format itself.

Digital show and tell

 

[davedotco]

The only thing positive to come out of this thread so far is the apparent agreement that there are a number of factors that are more important to the ultimate sound quality of a recording than the format it is recorded and played back in.

It is my experience that professional recording studios go to considerable lengths to produce the best master they can, in a technical sense, what happens next is mostly up to the record company.

What is rather less positive is the continued use of anecdotal or highly personal subjective evaluations used to try and prove a point or derail a discussion.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Proving that you really do not have a clue...

What does your preference have to do with the subject at hand? The discussion is about resolution and dynamic range and whether increasing either (or both) improves the quality of the playback. All the evidence suggests that CD standard has sufficient resolution and more than sufficient dynamic range to handle any known commercial recording.

I was responding to the post or two above it, which was a slightly different subject - sorry if me not quoting the post confused you.

 

[andyjm]

As is often the case in discussions on this subject, the arguments confuse the format with the recording.

CD 16/44.1 as a format is far superior to vinyl in almost all respects. To be picky, a new vinyl LP has a higher frequency response than CD, but that doesn't last more than a few plays - as those who remember quadrophonic LPs will confirm. In every other resepect, a CD wipes the floor with vinyl.

Whether recordings sound better on CDs is a different question, and that is all down to the mix and the mastering. For what seem to be commerical reasons, modern 'popular' music is mixed in a way that doesn't exploit the benefits of CD.

The most telling argument for CDs superiority is the support of the classical music fraternity. Classical music has far greater technical requirements than 'popular', and the improvement of CD over vinyl is most noticable.

 

[Frank Harvey]

CD has the ability to sound technically better than vinyl. It should do, it's a far more modern technology than analogue. Whether it does or not depends on how well its capabilities are exploited. Unfortunately, not particularly well except for a few good examples here and there.

Of course, looking at the comparisons from a technical point of view is one aspect - listening to how well each format reproduces a performance by purely listening is quite another. For this experience, there are no 'measurements'.

And that's part of the problem. Many discuss this subject based purely on numbers, rather than actually listening. "Vinyl roar" is a pretty excessive sounding phrase, but it is used in a negative way by those who are pro digital. I bet a month's wages that very few arguing for the digital side have very much experience with modern turntables. The last comparison I did found the two formats to be nigh on identical to listen to - but that was with a CD that rates fairly highly on the DR database.

 

[iMark]

I have inherited hundreds of classical records and CDs from my parents. I have even bought a new Pro-Ject record player (1Xpression III) to be able to play them since my mother's old record player (a Dual CS 1249) has developed a fault over the nearly 40 years it's been in the family. Many of the records from the 1960's and 1970's sound pretty good. Obviously there can be the occasional click and pop and obviously some recordings are better than others. They hold up well against CD remasters.

Very interesting are the records from the early 1980's when the recordings were digitally but the output was on vinyl. The digital recordings sound better than the analogue recordings. No tape hiss and much less pre-echo. An interesting series are the Mozart Piano Concertos by Murray Perahia and the English Chamber Orchestra on CBS Masterworks (now Sony Classical). About half way the recording cycle CBS switched from analogue recording to digital recording. I have most of the concertos on vinyl and have the latest remastered box set on CD. This series makes for a great comparison because I can compare AAA, DDA, ADD and DDD. DDD is the best on all counts. Wonderful sound and no noise. DDA isn't far behind and the digital recordings sound great on the very good pressings from the 1980s.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that I prefer a good digital recording over a good analogue recording., simply because there's no tape hiss or other noise. But there's no denying that good analalgue recordings from the releatively early days of stereo recording from the 1960s and pressed on good vinyl in limited numbers are still great to listen to on any decent system.

 

[andyjm]

CD has the ability to sound technically better than vinyl. It should do, it's a far more modern technology than analogue. Whether it does or not depends on how well its capabilities are exploited. Unfortunately, not particularly well except for a few good examples here and there.

Of course, looking at the comparisons from a technical point of view is one aspect - listening to how well each format reproduces a performance by purely listening is quite another. For this experience, there are no 'measurements'.

..... there you go again, mixing up the format with the recording.

Just because there are better sounding recordings of a given track available on LP rather than CD, doesn't mean LPs are a better format.

 

[MajorFubar]

I have plenty of vinyl made from digital recordings that sound fine.

Cool so we can agree that digital recording mustn't suck at low amplitudes in the way you think it must, because by your reasoning they'd still sound awful.

 

[davedotco]

CD has the ability to sound technically better than vinyl. It should do, it's a far more modern technology than analogue. Whether it does or not depends on how well its capabilities are exploited. Unfortunately, not particularly well except for a few good examples here and there.

Of course, looking at the comparisons from a technical point of view is one aspect - listening to how well each format reproduces a performance by purely listening is quite another. For this experience, there are no 'measurements'.

..... there you go again, mixing up the format with the recording.

Just because there are better sounding recordings of a given track available on LP rather than CD, doesn't mean LPs are a better format.

I find David's contribution to this thread to be really dissapointing, poor even.

Despite clearly identifying himself as a a dealer, a person who many might consider to be 'in the know' he quite clearly as no real grasp of the subject, not only being unable to distinquish between the 'format' and the 'recording' but also failing to understand the differences between 'peak levels', 'mean levels' and the effects of dynamic range on either.

David, speaking directly, I accept that I may be doing you a disservice here, perhaps you do understand the subject after all. But if that is the case then can I suggest that you put your views more carefully and clearly, it will help considerably with making your case.

Edit. Apologies David, that sound really patronising, it is not meant to. There is a lot of myth and missinformation perpetuated by this forum and I think it is reasonable to expect a self identified 'member of the trade' to do rather better.

 

[GustavAP]

As many times, there might be more sense in trying to establish our own what we think is 'good enough' than to argue against the technological facts, and say that vinyl is better than CD, or that Hi-Res is better than both CD and Vinyl, contrary to much research on our capabilities to grasp these differences (and for our systems to be able to reproduce them as pointed out by Dave in another thread just now http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/new-to-high-res-audio)

However, one dimension that has not really been discussed here is that with what means we are able to reach this 'good enough' and what role the format is playing here. I for one, feel completely lost when it comes to what would make my smallish collection of vinyl records sound better in my system (what is a good phono stage? what kind of cartridge, stylus etc do I need? etc), while I'm more confident to dabble around in the digital realm.

What format is more cost efficient if someone wants to start to build her or his system and listen to music that is well reproduced? (previously owning no music regardless of the format)

 

[MajorFubar]

As many times, there might be more sense in trying to establish our own what we think is 'good enough' than to argue against the technological facts, and say that vinyl is better than CD, or that Hi-Res is better than both CD and Vinyl, contrary to much research on our capabilities to grasp these differences (and for our systems to be able to reproduce them as pointed out by Dave in another thread just now http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/new-to-high-res-audio)

However, one dimension that has not really been discussed here is that with what means we are able to reach this 'good enough' and what role the format is playing here. I for one, feel completely lost when it comes to what would make my smallish collection of vinyl records sound better in my system (what is a good phono stage? what kind of cartridge, stylus etc do I need? etc), while I'm more confident to dabble around in the digital realm.

What format is more cost efficient if someone wants to start to build her or his system and listen to music that is well reproduced? (previously owning no music regardless of the format)

You raise some really good points. Building a great-sounding turntable-based front end is definitely about achieving a good synergy between the turntable/arm/cartridge. On top of that you have the issue that the phono stage you plug it into will play a huge part in the turntable's sonic signature. With digital, any streamer/transport mated to any DAC will achieve 99% of the potential of both, right out the box. Of course I'm pulling an unquantifiable percentage out of thin air, and others may argue the minutiae, but in essence it's true.

To answer the last part of your question, and if for a minute we put aside the issue that some people just simply prefer the sound of records to digital no matter what the budget, it's cheaper and much easier to build a great sounding system from a digital source than from a turntable.

 

[BigH]

Yes I agree, best value at the moment has to be cds, you can buy many for not very much. If you buy used they are only about £1 each. New vinyl will cost you about 10x the price of used cds. Used vinyl can be ok if you have it available near you but it's pretty expensive now. I would look into the best versions of cds and then buy those as long as not too expensive.

 

[BigH]

Yes I agree, best value at the moment has to be cds, you can buy many for not very much. If you buy used they are only about £1 each. New vinyl will cost you about 10x the price of used cds. Used vinyl can be ok if you have it available near you but it's pretty expensive now. I would look into the best versions of cds and then buy those as long as not too expensive.

 

[pauln]

Yes I agree, best value at the moment has to be cds, you can buy many for not very much. If you buy used they are only about £1 each. New vinyl will cost you about 10x the price of used cds. Used vinyl can be ok if you have it available near you but it's pretty expensive now. I would look into the best versions of cds and then buy those as long as not too expensive.

Agreed.

If you do a little research you can find older un-remastered CD pressings that have a decent DR, i.e. less compression, for very little money on ebay. That's how I buy all my music these days; I then rip it to flac and play from a laptop via a DAC. These do tend to be more expensive than more recent remasters but still very cheap unless OOP like some Van Morrison stuff that can go for £25 or more.

Steve Hoffman forums is the best source for information on what is considered the best pressing(s).

 

[lindsayt]

I have plenty of vinyl made from digital recordings that sound fine.

Cool so we can agree that digital recording mustn't suck at low amplitudes in the way you think it must, because by your reasoning they'd still sound awful.

No.

I haven't measured a wide range of my vinyl from digital recordings yet.

At a rough guess the dynamic range of these is somewhere between 20 and 40 dbs.

That's the sort of dynamic range that I'm confident both vinyl and digital can easily cope with.

I do not have any recordings with a dynamic range in excess of 70 dbs. Nor none that have been recorded at such low levels that they are at 70 dbs below maximum possible.

What I'm challenging is this assertion that CD is technically better than vinyl because vinyl has a dynamic range of 50 to 80 dbs (depending how extreme the engineering put into it is) whilst CD has a dynamic range of 96 dbs.

I'm challenging this because I doubt that CD has useable high fidelity dynamic range of 96 dbs.

The big test would be to make a music recording that is deliberately way below maximum possible levels. So that the quietest bits are 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible and to replay it to see what it sounds like. If the fidelity on replay was bad, it would be reasonable to state that the useable dynamic range of CD is not 96 dbs. You'd then need to repeat the experiment with gradually louder recordings to establish the actual useable dynamic range of CD.

My approach to all this is quite simple. If someone says "CD has a dynamic range of 96 dbs" my response is: "Prove it! Or demonstrate it!" So far I have not had a single demonstration of this supposed 96 db dynamic range. Have you?

 

[TomSawyer]

I'm challenging this because I doubt that CD has useable high fidelity dynamic range of 96 dbs.

My approach to all this is quite simple. If someone says "CD has a dynamic range of 96 dbs" my response is: "Prove it! Or demonstrate it!" So far I have not had a single demonstration of this supposed 96 db dynamic range. Have you?

You seem to be linking technically superior to only dynamic range. For the sake of trying to move the debate on lets pretend vinyl and CD had exactly the same dynamic range. CD would still be technically superior because of the lack of mechanical foibles such as surface noise and wear.

I prefer vinyl, so I'm not trying to make a biased argument. Merely I can see that CD is technically superior whilst being emotionally inferior. Who could get excited by a small plastic case made from the most brittle material known to man or sleeve notes that can only be read under a microscope?

 

[andyjm]

I have plenty of vinyl made from digital recordings that sound fine.

Cool so we can agree that digital recording mustn't suck at low amplitudes in the way you think it must, because by your reasoning they'd still sound awful.

No.

I haven't measured a wide range of my vinyl from digital recordings yet.

At a rough guess the dynamic range of these is somewhere between 20 and 40 dbs.

That's the sort of dynamic range that I'm confident both vinyl and digital can easily cope with.

I do not have any recordings with a dynamic range in excess of 70 dbs. Nor none that have been recorded at such low levels that they are at 70 dbs below maximum possible.

What I'm challenging is this assertion that CD is technically better than vinyl because vinyl has a dynamic range of 50 to 80 dbs (depending how extreme the engineering put into it is) whilst CD has a dynamic range of 96 dbs.

I'm challenging this because I doubt that CD has useable high fidelity dynamic range of 96 dbs.

The big test would be to make a music recording that is deliberately way below maximum possible levels. So that the quietest bits are 90 to 96 dbs below maximum possible and to replay it to see what it sounds like. If the fidelity on replay was bad, it would be reasonable to state that the useable dynamic range of CD is not 96 dbs. You'd then need to repeat the experiment with gradually louder recordings to establish the actual useable dynamic range of CD.

My approach to all this is quite simple. If someone says "CD has a dynamic range of 96 dbs" my response is: "Prove it! Or demonstrate it!" So far I have not had a single demonstration of this supposed 96 db dynamic range. Have you?

Lindsayt,

Difficult to know where to start, but I think you are misunderstanding how analogue systems work.

By definition, the dynamic range of the 16 bit coding system used on a CD results in a 96dB range - thats the ratio of the loudest to the quietest signal that the system can reproduce. It is all usable. You seem concerned that for quieter signals less bits get used, and therefore the quality of the signal is worse.

Thats all true - but thats exactly the same for analogue.

An analogue signal is the summation of the wanted signal and a noise component. In just the same way as quieter signals in a digital system don't use all the bits and sound worse, quieter signals in an analogue system have worse signal to noise ratios than a louder signal.

It is the responsibilty of the recording engineer to ensure that the master makes the best use of the dynamic range available. This is one of the valid uses of compression. No good having the cannon fire in the 1812 overture at 0dBfs and the rest of the piece down in the mush - whether it is analogue or digital. The engineers have to compress and adjust the gain accordingly to fit the signal into the sweetspot of the recording system.

 

[Blacksabbath25]

The problem lies at the record companies right from the start with CDs they had a really good opportunity to make CDs to be something special because that's how they were marketed at the start but also blame the artist too because they should want the best recording too but for most normal every day people at the start CDs were great they do not look at the floors in the recording they just listen people had a cd collection in the past now people do not want them cluttering up there space because MP3 / downloading / high r files are killing of people collecting or owning a collection these normal everyday people out way people like us on this site that's who the record companies look at not us who spend lots of money in trying to get the best possible recording we are a dying breed the company's make a recording to a standard and that's it it's about making money the quickest way possible and it's cheaper for the record companies as they only have to do the master tapes there are pro's & cons in every format there are no winners here . Hifi companies are changing there way of doing things it used to be cdplayer but now it's streamers just look at arcam they used to make 7 - 8 different cdplayers now they only make one model . Both CDs & vinyl will die out on day and it will just be downloads Hifi companies will change with the market there will not be so meany Hifi shops and a lot of the record shops that we used to have are nearly all gone thanks to the Internet and downloading that's the way I see things it's the future

 

[Frank Harvey]

CD has the ability to sound technically better than vinyl. It should do, it's a far more modern technology than analogue. Whether it does or not depends on how well its capabilities are exploited. Unfortunately, not particularly well except for a few good examples here and there.

Of course, looking at the comparisons from a technical point of view is one aspect - listening to how well each format reproduces a performance by purely listening is quite another. For this experience, there are no 'measurements'.

..... there you go again, mixing up the format with the recording.

Just because there are better sounding recordings of a given track available on LP rather than CD, doesn't mean LPs are a better format.

Did I say that?

 

[Frank Harvey]

Despite clearly identifying himself as a a dealer, a person who many might consider to be 'in the know' he quite clearly as no real grasp of the subject, not only being unable to distinquish between the 'format' and the 'recording' but also failing to understand the differences between 'peak levels', 'mean levels' and the effects of dynamic range on either.

I fully understand peak and mean levels, and I'm well aware of the differences between the format and the recording.

 

[andyjm]

For info purposes, I'm progressing with the research I mentioned earlier, I just have a few more questions before I post anything up.

David,

How's the research coming along?