I have a question for all of you out there

[VOE]

To answer the rather harsh and blanket accusation that all vinyl fans are tribal and somehow deluded, I'd say that from my own personal experience, I consider vinyl to be vastly superior to any digital format and that is why I prefer it to listen to. Granted, if I was phorensically analysing the sound reproduction of a recording in a lab to attempt to recover some crucial information, I might be tempted to try the digital replay system first. However, for everyday listening to music and to experience something musical and not mechanical sounding, I'd play the analogue system without a thought. If CD's are better than LP's then can someone throw some light on the raging debates elsewhere (Steve Hoffman's forum for just one example) about digitally sourced vinyl. Surely "digital vinyl" ought to be far superior to all-analogue vinyl, especially when 24 bit/192 kHZ files are used? This however has not been proven to be the case. Even with two identical sources ie. the same master tape, when one is converted to hi-resolution digital and then used to perfectly cut a 180/200 gm vinyl LP by an expert engineer whilst another is cut entirely in the analogue chain, the analogue sounds vastly superior. Even the digital when left at Hi-resolution for SACD and the like, doesn't sound anywhere near as convincing as the vinyl. There are simply many people who will attest to this simple fact. Indeed the average Hoffman-nite regularly champions all-analogue cut LP's as the ultimate palacia of modern record issues.

I am someone who has spent over £15,000 trying to make "digital" sound realistic and accurate. My conclusion is that I can't achieve what I am listening for. I do not buy vinyl records simply to look at analogue printed covers or to sniff the records either. Whilst I agree that the vinyl experience as some refer to it, is definitely a more pleasant and fun experience that the digital equivalent, my own pure reason for owning and playing vinyl is down to sound reproduction quality - something called "Hi-Fi".

I also would question the dynamic range of most modern CD's. High levels of compression used during the mastering phase to obtain an extra quota of loudness simply adds to the problem of the lack of musicality. Loud squashed music does not make for pleasant or realistic sound.

 

[BigH]

According to some vinyl forum UK were generally much better quality than the USA vinyl but Japan vinyl are the ones to get.

Probably those forums are based in UK becouse I TOTALLY DISAGREE and will disagree every serious vinyl collector. There is simply no comparison in pressing and material between UK, Europe vinyls and USA golden era vinyls. USA are definitely da best not only for the sound, as I said it is better the paper, they are carefully protected by cellophane (UK vinyls incredible to say never ever coming out protected by cellophane) and I can go ahead for hours. The groove of the vinyl, becouse of the high quality of the mastering and pressing, i much more tolerant to turntables imperfections, think about beloved and mythologic Columbia records and the years ahead of the time Dynaflex vinyls from RCA.

Now, a question: did you had, long long ago, a copy of an american vinyl? I know, becouse I've been in UK often especially when I was a rocking kid boy that in UK it wasn't easy back in the seventies to get USA import (it was very easy both in Italy and France, thankx god), then I can remember some spare record store got import in London too, it wasn't cheap, so probably you didn't buy a brand new USA vinyl at times, this is probably the reason becouse you base your judge on some "vinyl forum" (which?) around the web..

no it was a USA based forum although a few were outside USA it seems

 

[BigH]

Max from frying speakers to sniffing vinyl I really do wonder about you.

 

[lindsayt]

For me, for CD's to be technically better than vinyl when it comes to dynamic range, the dynamic range has to be a fully useable high fidelity area.

It's no good if something has a greater dynamic range but sounds unrealistic when the extreme limits of the dynamic range are used.

Let's think about the technical nature of vinyl vs CD.

As the recording level is reduced in vinyl to make it quieter and quieter the stylus finds it easier to track. It will reproduce the signal with at least as much fidelity as with the highest / loudest recording level. What will happen is that eventually the signal will become drowned out by the sound floor of vinyl. This varies a lot from one record player to the next. The noise floor in vinyl also depends on the frequency. Above 500 hz and vinyl has an ultra low noise floor. It's the region from 20 hz to 100 hz that causes concern for the vinyl noise floor.

The signal to noise ratio of vinyl depends upon what particular record player you're looking at how you average the noise over all frequencies. A good record player can achieve DIN B signal to noise ratios of 78dbs.

Technically I think that it's fair to say that at its best, vinyl has a useable signal to noise ratio of 70 dbs - as we want our music signal to be at least 8 dbs louder than the background noise.

What about CD's? I don't know what the useable dynamic range of the A/D converters used by recording studios is. I don't know the useable dynamic range of the D/A converters are in my system. But looking at quantisation. For every 6dbs that reduce our recording level from highest possible, we discard one of the quantisation bits. So that when we get to a signal that 72 dbs queiter than maximum possible we have discarded 12 of our bits and are left with 4 bits left to quantise our signal. That means that our analogue music signal is converted to a digital file where the signal has been sampled 44100 times per second with a possible 16 different volume levels per sample. The big question is: what does that sound like? Is that enough bits - enough different sample volumes - to maintain high fidelity?

I strongly suspect that it won't be. I strongly suspect that it will sound unrealistic when compared to the original - even with dithering techniques. This would make the useable dynamic range of CD's less than that of vinyl through a first class record player. This would make CD's technically inferior when it comes to useable dynamic range.

And so for me, anyone can claim that CD's are technically superior. Whether they are or not in all important respects is an entirely different matter altogether. Something that is entirely open to debate and investigation.

 

[Neptune_Twilight]

If you've got it in your head that CD's are technically better than vinyl, then there's nothing that I say that will change your mindset on this.

There is nothing technical in my preference to CD or now almost exclusively streamed .flac it's because like you I have chosen by what I hear coming out of my loudspeakers.

Most but not all vinyl lovers seem to think that digital users don't use a turntable because they either have never heard a decent TT setup properly or have it in their heads that digital is technically superior.

There are some (me for one) that have tried both sides more than once & actually prefer digital on sound & the emotional experience music produces.

 

[lindsayt]

If you've got it in your head that CD's are technically better than vinyl, then there's nothing that I say that will change your mindset on this.

There is nothing technical in my preference to CD or now almost exclusively streamed .flac it's because like you I have chosen by what I hear coming out of my loudspeakers.

Most but not all vinyl lovers seem to think that digital users don't use a turntable because they either have never heard a decent TT setup properly or have it in their heads that digital is technically superior -There are some that have tried both sides more than once & actually prefer digital on sound & the emotional experience music produces.

That's fine Neptune. It's possible that if I got the same digital source as you that I would prefer CD's, or find them equally as good overall as vinyl in my system. That would be interesting as it would fly in the face of people that believe that most competent CD sources sound similar to each other.

It would help me if you can tell me what's the best sounding vinyl source you've had in your system. And what's the best sounding CD source?

 

[BigH]

Can't even edit my post now blocked by spam filter this forum is useless.

 

[Neptune_Twilight]

And so for me, anyone can claim that CD's are technically superior. Whether they are or not in all important respects is an entirely different matter altogether. Something that is entirely open to debate and investigation.

Can you take on-board that I prefer digital on sound alone? Is that possible for a analogue user to actually accept that simple reason? - Frankly if I did prefer analogue it's very likely there would be a Xerxes in my lounge, there isn't & it's not based on cost of vinyl or the cost of a turntable or setting it up. If by my ears a turntable gave me a better emotional experience than I get with digital I would use one regardless of anything, absolute.

 

[MaxD]

If you've got it in your head that CD's are technically better than vinyl, then there's nothing that I say that will change your mindset on this.

There is nothing technical in my preference to CD or now almost exclusively streamed .flac it's because like you I have chosen by what I hear coming out of my loudspeakers.

Most but not all vinyl lovers seem to think that digital users don't use a turntable because they either have never heard a decent TT setup properly or have it in their heads that digital is technically superior -There are some that have tried both sides more than once & actually prefer digital on sound & the emotional experience music produces.

And for someone I think the problem is also they can afford more psycologically than monetary, to buy vinyl: this is not the vinyl era and it is not easy for someone to think to start to change them mind and buy vinyl. start a collection. In some country it is even not easy to find vinyl anymore, and many people is still unable to buy over the Internet.

IMHO it is different for old geezers like many I read here that selling them vinyl collection long time ago, and that try to feel themself "young" becouse they are digital. Then this doesn't make them "young", as we can read in another thread many of them don't even know how it is technically made a copy from a cd to another cd using a banal burning software, they think it as to be converted in WAV before. This is the level.

And last but not least: the value of a digital collection is ridicolous. My CD collection is now turning 10.000 pieces, then this collection pretty much have no value, becouse rarely you can resell a cd for more than few spare euros.

 

[MaxD]

If you've got it in your head that CD's are technically better than vinyl, then there's nothing that I say that will change your mindset on this.

There is nothing technical in my preference to CD or now almost exclusively streamed .flac it's because like you I have chosen by what I hear coming out of my loudspeakers.

Most but not all vinyl lovers seem to think that digital users don't use a turntable because they either have never heard a decent TT setup properly or have it in their heads that digital is technically superior -There are some that have tried both sides more than once & actually prefer digital on sound & the emotional experience music produces.

And for someone I think the problem is also they can't afford more psycologically than monetary, to buy vinyl: this is not the vinyl era and it is not easy for someone to think to start to change them mind and buy vinyl. start a collection. In some country it is even not easy to find vinyl anymore, and many people is still unable to buy over the Internet.

IMHO it is different for old geezers like many I read here that selling them vinyl collection long time ago, and that try to feel themself "young" becouse they are digital. Then this doesn't make them "young", as we can read in another thread many of them don't even know how it is technically made a copy from a cd to another cd using a banal burning software, they think it as to be converted in WAV before. This is the level.

And last but not least: the value of a digital collection is ridicolous. My CD collection is now turning 10.000 pieces, then this collection pretty much have no value, becouse rarely you can resell a cd for more than few spare euros.

 

[cheeseboy]

This however has not been proven to be the case. Even with two identical sources ie. the same master tape, when one is converted to hi-resolution digital and then used to perfectly cut a 180/200 gm vinyl LP by an expert engineer whilst another is cut entirely in the analogue chain, the analogue sounds vastly superior. Even the digital when left at Hi-resolution for SACD and the like, doesn't sound anywhere near as convincing as the vinyl. There are simply many people who will attest to this simple fact. Indeed the average Hoffman-nite regularly champions all-analogue cut LP's as the ultimate palacia of modern record issues.

Just to address this - When people are saying that the analogue sounds superior, what is the frame of reference? Is it just a personal preference or is there something that it is being compared to? And when you say it doesn't sound as convincing as vinyl, again, convincing of what?

(Am not trying to argue or anything, am geniuinly curious)

 

[rdburman]

I have absolutely no problem if you love your Ford-T for everyday rides. Infact, I will sit and watch you. If it breaks down, I will give you a hand. I will appreciate everything and anything about it. I will also proudly tell my friends about you and that you drive a Ford-T to work. I love vintage.

But that does not entitle you to establish everywhere as a fact - a Ford-T is better than a Lamborghini Gallardo. Even if you own both. That is your perception, your choice. Good. But it is not a fact.

So why make mockery of CD and digital music lovers as if they are half eared or their equipements are seriously wrong?

I love vinyls, cassettes and spools. My father used to play vinyls and always said "Wish there was something that would have played my choice of tracks from 20 vinys automatically while I work", that was in 1981 when I was 4 years of age. Probably there existed such players but here in India - No. Now he is almost 70 and he loads 50 tracks on foobar and relaxes and listens to them reading a book without having to get up after every four tracks. I often ask him to come join me for a vinyl session and everytime he replies - "No, you enjoy it. I am fine with this computer thing you have setup for me. "

I know he loves the convenience and that what is obvious for us - "a playlist" is not so obvious for him as he is old school. Thus he enjoys his favourite tracks played through a playlist immensely. Sometime goes through any vinyl I buy and says "ah Neil Diamond looks young in this picture isnt it?" but never listens to vinyls anymore.

The point is, every thing has it's pros and cons. It heavily depends on your priority. If I can enjoy music with a less fidelity or warmth or whatever voodoo sound difference exists between Vinyls and CD, then let it be. I find the convenience, maintenance, upkeep of CDs and digital media far better than vinyls anyday. And I have learnt it from my father.

 

[cheeseboy]

And last but not least: the value of a digital collection is ridicolous. My CD collection is now turning 10.000 pieces, then this collection pretty much have no value, becouse rarely you can resell a cd for more than few spare euros.

for those that get the reference....

 

[VOE]

A good frame of reference might be better bass, better timing, more relaistic timbre of instruments and vocals - female especially. It could simply be more "presence" in the room. It's hard to pinpoint what particularly gives the latter impression - could it be more transparent but fluid mid-range? The music sounds more refined, smoother and is rendered in a manner that your ears can accept as like-life. Too much digital music can sound thin and harsh in comparison with poor bass and intruments that have no real sense of natural timbre or scale. I hope this makes sense?

Don't get me wrong. I also use digital and need it due to the lack of availability of much of my music in an analogue format. However, I always have a huge sigh of relief when I go back to vinyl as it just sounds right and much better.

 

[rdburman]

A good frame of reference might be better bass, better timing, more relaistic timbre of instruments and vocals - female especially. It could simply be more "presence" in the room. It's hard to pinpoint what particularly gives the latter impression - could it be more transparent but fluid mid-range? The music sounds more refined, smoother and is rendered in a manner that your ears can accept as like-life. Too much digital music can sound thin and harsh in comparison with poor bass and intruments that have no real sense of natural timbre or scale. I hope this makes sense?

Sorry, it doesn't. I have no idea what is "too much digital music". It is either digital or analog. Too much of digital with a pinch of analog does not exist.

 

[VOE]

OK point taken. I meant "A lot of digital music" as in most digital (IMHO)......

 

[lindsayt]

And so for me, anyone can claim that CD's are technically superior. Whether they are or not in all important respects is an entirely different matter altogether. Something that is entirely open to debate and investigation.

Can you take on-board that I prefer digital on sound alone? Is that possible for a analogue user to actually accept that simple reason? - Frankly if I did prefer analogue it's very likely there would be a Xerxes in my lounge, there isn't & it's not based on cost of vinyl or the cost of a turntable or setting it up. If by my ears a turntable gave me a better emotional experience than I get with digital I would use one regardless of anything, absolute.

Yes, of course I can. That's why I was interested in finding out what the best sounding vinyl and CD sources were that you've ever had in your system. Your CD source would then go on my "must audition" list if I haven't heard it already. It's also possible that your best vinyl source is one that I've heard already or similar to one that I've heard already and is on my "wouldn't have that in my house" list. Or it could be on my "that's a great vinyl source" list.

 

[chebby]

It's great to see the forum settling down to it's normal business of this vs that and 'mine is bigger than yours' within such a short time after a major website shake-up.

Cheeseboy best summed up the thread with his apt Harry Enfield 'Stan & Pam' reference.

 

[cheeseboy]

A good frame of reference might be better bass, better timing, more relaistic timbre of instruments and vocals - female especially. It could simply be more "presence" in the room. It's hard to pinpoint what particularly gives the latter impression - could it be more transparent but fluid mid-range? The music sounds more refined, smoother and is rendered in a manner that your ears can accept as like-life. Too much digital music can sound thin and harsh in comparison with poor bass and intruments that have no real sense of natural timbre or scale. I hope this makes sense?

it does make sense thank you.

However, to me, that sounds more like a prefernce than an actual (for want of a better word) statement of fact that one is better than the other. IMHO of course

I've often found that sometimes when people complain about the digital sound, it's actually the opposite of what people think - ie, the sound is too accurate and too precise - and to be honest, I don't have problem with that, but it can be confusing when what people prefer is acutally the technically inferior sound, when they think that they are actually preferring the opposite. Again, that's not meant as a dig. It's also why it's confusing when some hifi buffs think that the nirvana of recording is a plain dry mix, which if they ever heard one would probably make their ears bleed, when in fact, they prefer it when the guitar has a wedge of reverb, and the vocals have a slight delay etc. For example, there are some films that I've re-watched in high def that I got less enjoyment out of watching, because I could suddenly see bad makeup, or dodgy sets etc, when I watched it in none high def, it wasn't a problem, and it didn't bother me.

I think it's difficult sometimes for people like myself who have spent a lot of time in the studio to get my head around what people say and think being not what they actually prefer - ie, people who say they love untouched recordings, when in fact, the recordings are laced with a lot of effects, but they don't realise that. Not sure that makes any sense, but there we go, I tried

edit - not the best example, but found in a hurry to give people a very rough idea of what I'm on about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZoyAt4Ln8Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUnR7cCJSlU

 

[lindsayt]

Thanks for that Neptune. Small question. What did you place your turntables on, and how close was this to your speakers? What phono amplification were you using?

The Xerxes I would rate as good if you can get it for a couple of hundred quid. I went to a turntable bake-off where I thought my EMT 930 with Denon DL103 was a couple of notches above the Xerxes with AT OC9 cartridge. It's likely that a top end cartidge would have lifted that Xerxes up by a couple of notches. My EMT 930 with DL103 is a couple of notches below my EMT 930 with EMT TSD 15 cartridge. And I slightly prefer my EMT 950 to my EMT 930 with the same EMT cartridge fitted to both. There are plenty of other vinyl sources that I would rate on a par with my EMT 950. Modded Lenco with top arm and cartridge being one of them. Plus stuff like the Pioneer Exclusives.

The point being, you could really go to town and get a vinyl source that would sound significantly better than your Xerxes. Whether there would be enough improvement for you to prefer the sound of vinyl to CD's would remain to be seen...

 

[Neptune_Twilight]

It's great to see the forum settling down to it's normal business of this vs that and 'mine is bigger than yours' within such a short time after a major website shake-up.

Probably giving the site a good shake-down though, maybe the best way to sort things as Harry Hill would say: 'FIGHT' *biggrin**biggrin*

 

[Neptune_Twilight]

It would help me if you can tell me what's the best sounding vinyl source you've had in your system. And what's the best sounding CD source?

Crossposted BTW:

Best turntable I've used was probably Roksan Xerxes, but I owned a Thorens TD150 (circa early 1970’s with a Rega arm fitted later) a TD160 , PL12, Connoisseur BD-1 (remember those?) a late 1990's Sondeck that I had on extended loan from my brother-in-law (Akito arm)

I recently tried a low cost Project deck a year or so back that I gave away. I’ve had many CD players, latest was a Roksan K2 which I sold & then used a Pioneer N50 streamer now sold. I then had on loan a Cyrus streamer (forgot the model off hand) but found no difference in either streamer & disliked the apps on both (which is why they were flogged) - Now using a WD TV-Live (believe it or not) while I consider which if any other streamer I will buy as happy as things are at the moment - I personally believe streamers do nothing other than provide an interface to see what's playing & pass the digital signal on to a DAC either in amp, (DAC enabled streamer) or separate.

Music now comes from PC (3 TB drives) in dining room from ripped .flac & arrives at hi-fi via home-plug through WD TV-Live then goes to speakers (RX2) via Arcam DAC & K2 Amp, I have a Cyrus CD transport that don't get used, next purchase will probably be a better pair of speakers if anything. (cheapest source I've ever used & sounds best it ever has)

 

[MaxD]

For example, there are some films that I've re-watched in high def that I got less enjoyment out of watching, because I could suddenly see bad makeup, or dodgy sets etc, when I watched it in none high def, it wasn't a problem, and it didn't bother me.

It is exactly the opposite, ears perceive LESS details from digital recordings compared to ANALOG vinyl pretty much everywhere. This is the reason becouse to a musical ear ANALOG so vinyl sound totally superior. Then, yes, you need to know how a guitar sound for real and how a drums bang for real. And I'm not sure many listeners knows about it, if they can play an instrument, if they even been at a live concert.

 

[lindsayt]

Rdburman is vinyl vs CD like a Model T Ford compared to a Lamborghini Gallardo?

Or is it like a Linhof Technika compared to a Canon EOS 5D?

 

[BigH]

Rdburman is vinyl vs CD like a Model T Ford compared to a Lamborghini Gallardo?

Or is it like a Linhof Technika compared to a Canon EOS 5D?

which 5d?