in reality......

[lpv]

Sorry, a CD is a far superior music carrier in every way. It's ridiculous to suggest that a signal translated into mechanical movement and back again sounds better than the signal that bypasses that process.

That isn't to say that all CDs sound better than all LPs.

in the same spirit - downloads sounds better ( more precise, truer to the recording) as signal bypasses process of burning cd's... all the mechanical movements are reduced to zero ( especially if you use SSD to store music)

There are no losses with digital, regardless of the carrier the signal will be unchanged, so CD and streaming at the same bitrate will sound the same.

... so - from sound quality perspective - there's no point of using cd's anymore. great !!

 

[MajorFubar]

... so - from sound quality perspective - there's no point of using cd's anymore. great !!

That would be true if cd-quality downloads were commonplace, but we aren't there yet.

 

[luckylion100]

Sorry, a CD is a far superior music carrier in every way. It's ridiculous to suggest that a signal translated into mechanical movement and back again sounds better than the signal that bypasses that process.

That isn't to say that all CDs sound better than all LPs.

I think BigH sums it up perfectly, that's exactly what I hear. I don't care about the science, the figures, I simply enjoy the sound my vinyl projects into my room.The music sounds more alive.

But the mastering is not the same. For me the bass is different on vinyl, its warmer, softer, deeper, fuller, on digital it sounds harder and thinner, which is more accurate I'm not sure but I'm sure many prefer the vinyl. The mastering on many cds in the last 20 years is not for sound quality its more for loudness. Vinyl generally has a higher dynamic range than the equilovent cd.

You have it the wrong way round. Extremes of bass and treble have to be filtered out for vinyl to avoid groove jumping and sibilance, and also the dynamic range has to be reduced so the quietest sounds don't get lost in the vinyl noise. CD has no such problems and much wider dynamic range capabilites and far lower noise.

Yes but in reality cd is compressed to sound loud so the DR is low often around about 7 sometimes even down to 0, vinyl yes I agree is compressed to a certain extent but is often around 11, the better vinyl is at 45rpm and only about 10 mins per side so they can fit more bass and DR on. Listening to vinyl compared to cd, vinyl seems to have more bass. Yes cd has a much wider DR but the record companies don't use it on most cds. Classical and Jazz yes often have decent DR but most pop and rock in the last 15 years or so do not.

Edit, my text disappeared into the void...

I agree 100% with BigH, he sums up perfectly what my ears hear. I don't understand enough of the science, so don't overly concern myself with it. I absorb the music. My system sounds best when I have a good vinyl source playing, certain genres suit my current system, some less so. The music definitely feels more rounded, full and alive, almost organic. I focus on the musical experience..

 

[keeper of the quays]

 

I have Jethro Tull's Broadsword and the Beast on vinyl and CD. It's a digital era recording.

On my system the CD sounds as if you're listening to the vinyl, except that someone has been given a scouring pad, been zapped with an incredible shrinking ray and then jumped into the vinyl groove and scrubbed the whole lot with the scouring pad.

Gone is the occaisional bit of dirt noise and gone is the low level detail.

I prefer listening to the vinyl version on my system.

This is a pattern that's been repeated with every recording I have on both CD and vinyl - which admittedly is a small sample size.

I don't think Tull is a good example, I used to be  a Tull fan in my youth, great live band, I have heard Tull on cd and digital streamed and I don't think its been well done, someone at work gave a Tull album or 2, Minstrel in the Gallery and something else, I thought they sounded dreadful, the vinyl is much better. They are a lot of complaints from Tull fans as well but maybe the latest remasters are better, I don't know. I did play Yes Fragile the other day and I though the digital sounded better, had a lot more detail, the vinyl sounded muddled and a bit dull, so if you have that maybe you can compare?

 

Broadsword and the Beast is a relatively good recording - even though it's easy to tell it's an early digital effort. It has a dark green DR rating. Unlike any of the best selling CD's from each of the last 20 years.

Kate Bush's The Dreaming is the same.

I have She's Not There by Santana on 12" single and CD. That's the same too. Low level detail scrubbed out with the scouring pad on the CD version.

 

I do use world class turntbles. If I were listening on a crude sounding record player (especially a poorly placed one) such as a Rega RP1 I may well prefer the CD versions.

was it a economy scouring pad? I found a brillo pad gave more 'air' and better instrument separation! Lol..but when I used my sanding machine? It ruined it! 🙂

 

[plastic penguin]

I can tell the difference between vinyl and CDs. In fact when I purchased my turntable I listened to a CDP with my back turned, just to make sure the Pro-ject sounded good enough.

The issue here isn't if one format is better than another. What we are talking about is which one tugs your rug the most. From a personal point of view, I've gravitated more towards vinyl sound. That doesn't make CD format bad or the poor relation... just different. And I think we should, as hi-fi enthusiasts, embrace all formats.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I watched a video on YouTube, it explained that 16bits with dither has a 120db's s/n. A good cassette tape can get 6bits. It basicaly hiss, a CD at 44100hz can perfectly recreate the all the music.

A vinyl cannot sound better than a CD, Its not physically possible.

If a 16bit/44.1kHz CD can hold a musical event perfectly, then how come a digital master isnt 16bit/44.1kHz?

 

[davedotco]

I can tell the difference between vinyl and CDs. In fact when I purchased my turntable I listened to a CDP with my back turned, just to make sure the Pro-ject sounded good enough.

The issue here isn't if one format is better than another. What we are talking about is which one tugs your rug the most. From a personal point of view, I've gravitated more towards vinyl sound. That doesn't make CD format bad or the poor relation... just different. And I think we should, as hi-fi enthusiasts, embrace all formats.

Comparing vinyl and CD in the way you describe, even using a more rigorous method, tells us one thing, and one thing only.

For many people the colourations introduced by budget and mid-fi players make the music sound more involving and enjoyable. This is due to the microphonic and resonant nature of most players and the fact that the vinyl itself is resonant and usually undamped.

This is the primary effect that people hear, pretty mutch everything else is inconsequential. People talk about the extra compression used on cd as if it is really important, frankly it is not, most people will not hear the difference that a small increase in dynamic range brings, all other things being equal.

Those who are familiar with the capabilities of top vinyl players will know this already, as really top players sound closer to the equivilent CD than budget players and for quite obvious reasons

 

[luckylion100]

I can tell the difference between vinyl and CDs. In fact when I purchased my turntable I listened to a CDP with my back turned, just to make sure the Pro-ject sounded good enough.

The issue here isn't if one format is better than another. What we are talking about is which one tugs your rug the most. From a personal point of view, I've gravitated more towards vinyl sound. That doesn't make CD format bad or the poor relation... just different. And I think we should, as hi-fi enthusiasts, embrace all formats.

+1, exactly what I was trying to convey.

 

[davedotco]

I watched a video on YouTube, it explained that 16bits with dither has a 120db's s/n. A good cassette tape can get 6bits. It basicaly hiss, a CD at 44100hz can perfectly recreate the all the music.

A vinyl cannot sound better than a CD, Its not physically possible.

If a 16bit/44.1kHz CD can hold a musical event perfectly, then how come a digital master isnt 16bit/44.1kHz?

Do we really have to do this again?

FFS...*dash1*

 

[Frank Harvey]

Many artist deliberately add 'crackle and pop' to give that 'authentic' vinyl sound. They've been doing it for some time now.

No, they add a stereotypical sound associated with vinyl.

The differences you claim you heard at the Bristol show is surprising - that said alot depends on how good the demonstrators were at setting up the sets.

I know what The_Lhc is talking about (not crackles or pops). I once rang someone at another store, and I could tell whilst talking to him that he was playing a record - again, no crackles or pops, you could just tell it wasn't a CD playing.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Do we really have to do this again?

FFS...*dash1*

Sorry for offending you, just making a point. Do you feel it isn't a valid point then? I haven't read all of the thread yet by the way.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I do agree with one thing, there are quite a few cds now with vinyl crackling on the beginning, try Portishead and quite a few of more recent albums, can't remember the ones off hand, David Bowie - Black Tie white Noise. I don't like it, one thing I don't like with vinyl, why put on digital.

So if an artists purposely adds in vinyl crackle, you don't like it - does that mean you won't listen to that track? What if an artist adds in blatant distortion?

 

[MajorFubar]

If a 16bit/44.1kHz CD can hold a musical event perfectly, then how come a digital master isnt 16bit/44.1kHz?

I think you've lost me...the masters they burn to CDs are 16/44. Do you mean why do studios often mix at greater bit-depths and higher sampling rates before they create the 16/44 master? If so, then basically it's the same reason why you only reduce a mathematical equation to the required number of decimal places at the end of a sum.

 

[plastic penguin]

I can tell the difference between vinyl and CDs. In fact when I purchased my turntable I listened to a CDP with my back turned, just to make sure the Pro-ject sounded good enough.

The issue here isn't if one format is better than another. What we are talking about is which one tugs your rug the most. From a personal point of view, I've gravitated more towards vinyl sound. That doesn't make CD format bad or the poor relation... just different. And I think we should, as hi-fi enthusiasts, embrace all formats.

Comparing vinyl and CD in the way you describe, even using a more rigorous method, tells us one thing, and one thing only.

For many people the colourations introduced by budget and mid-fi players make the music sound more involving and enjoyable. This is due to the microphonic and resonant nature of most players and the fact that the vinyl itself is resonant and usually undamped.

This is the primary effect that people hear, pretty mutch everything else is inconsequential. People talk about the extra compression used on cd as if it is really important, frankly it is not, most people will not hear the difference that a small increase in dynamic range brings, all other things being equal.

Those who are familiar with the capabilities of top vinyl players will know this already, as really top players sound closer to the equivilent CD than budget players and for quite obvious reasons

That's just technical twaddle. For me, the music, regardless of format, is about enjoyment, regardless of whether it is tonally natural or coloured.

FYI, given my cheap, c***py TT is fitted with an upgraded cartridge, I get the best of both worlds: Lovely resonance and great neutrality of the cart. Bingo!

Keep on stewing!

 

[davedotco]

If a 16bit/44.1kHz CD can hold a musical event perfectly, then how come a digital master isnt 16bit/44.1kHz?

I think you've lost me...the masters they burn to CDs are 16/44. Do you mean why do studios often mix at greater bit-depths and higher sampling rates before they create the 16/44 master? If so, then basically it's the same reason why you only reduce a mathematical equation to the required number of decimal places at the end of a sum.

Nicely done...*good*

Strangely it appears that undestanding even the basics of scientific method and best practice is impossible for some folks.

Is modern education really that bad?

 

[luckylion100]

that have resulted in me only posting 200 odd posts in 5 years of membership to this forum. Some people have a damn right cheek, I wonder if they' say such patronising and insulting things to others in person?!

 

[MajorFubar]

...that have resulted in me only posting 200 odd posts in 5 years of membership to this forum.

You should come more often 🙂 Not all threads are argumentative.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think you've lost me...the masters they burn to CDs are 16/44. Do you mean why do studios often mix at greater bit-depths and higher sampling rates before they create the 16/44 master? If so, then basically it's the same reason why you only reduce a mathematical equation to the required number of decimal places at the end of a sum.

Ok, let's try and explain it another way. When a modern film is being made, it isn't recorded at 1080p. Before digital cameras came along, films weren't filmed at 480i or 576i. Old films are far better quality than Blurays (after being cleaned up, if they haven't been looked after). When remastering pre-digital films, they are digitally scanned to produce a 2k or 4k master. Once remastered, they are downscaled to 1080 for Bluray. This means that the resulting Blurays can look excellent, because the original capture was so good.

Music isn't captured at CD quality. CD is a format of specifications that were a good 'digital' compromise well over 30 years ago, just in the same way that a vinyl record is a format that is limited by its specifications. What is possible within its specifications though is open to interpretation and ability, and whether the two sound tonally different or not is neither here nor there.

 

[davedotco]

I can tell the difference between vinyl and CDs. In fact when I purchased my turntable I listened to a CDP with my back turned, just to make sure the Pro-ject sounded good enough.

The issue here isn't if one format is better than another. What we are talking about is which one tugs your rug the most. From a personal point of view, I've gravitated more towards vinyl sound. That doesn't make CD format bad or the poor relation... just different. And I think we should, as hi-fi enthusiasts, embrace all formats.

Comparing vinyl and CD in the way you describe, even using a more rigorous method, tells us one thing, and one thing only.

For many people the colourations introduced by budget and mid-fi players make the music sound more involving and enjoyable. This is due to the microphonic and resonant nature of most players and the fact that the vinyl itself is resonant and usually undamped.

This is the primary effect that people hear, pretty mutch everything else is inconsequential. People talk about the extra compression used on cd as if it is really important, frankly it is not, most people will not hear the difference that a small increase in dynamic range brings, all other things being equal.

Those who are familiar with the capabilities of top vinyl players will know this already, as really top players sound closer to the equivilent CD than budget players and for quite obvious reasons

That's just technical twaddle. For me, the music, regardless of format, is about enjoyment, regardless of whether it is tonally natural or coloured.

FYI, given my cheap, c***py TT is fitted with an upgraded cartridge, I get the best of both worlds: Lovely resonance and great neutrality of the cart. Bingo!

Keep on stewing!

Nothing to argue about here. Read my post again, I clearly state that vinyl playback is "more involving and enjoyable", is that 'twaddle' too...*dash1*

We know from empirical data that adding the right amount of distortion to music playback can make it sound more real, surely understanding that is helpfull in that it can help in optimising our playback system for our own musical enjoyment.

Interestingly, come serious vinyl enthusiast find the "top players" mentioned above, (think SME20/30, Goldmund or top of the line SOTA or VPI players) to be inferior, less musical is the usual term, precisely because they add less to the playback.

 

[davedotco]

...that have resulted in me only posting 200 odd posts in 5 years of membership to this forum.

You should come more often 🙂 Not all threads are argumentative.

Fight your corner, argue your views, point out where others have got it wrong, it is constructive and we all might learn something.

 

[Andrewjvt]

I think you've lost me...the masters they burn to CDs are 16/44. Do you mean why do studios often mix at greater bit-depths and higher sampling rates before they create the 16/44 master? If so, then basically it's the same reason why you only reduce a mathematical equation to the required number of decimal places at the end of a sum.

Ok, let's try and explain it another way. When a modern film is being made, it isn't recorded at 1080p. Before digital cameras came along, films weren't filmed at 480i or 576i. Old films are far better quality than Blurays (after being cleaned up, if they haven't been looked after). When remastering pre-digital films, they are digitally scanned to produce a 2k or 4k master. Once remastered, they are downscaled to 1080 for Bluray. This means that the resulting Blurays can look excellent, because the original capture was so good.

Music isn't captured at CD quality. CD is a format of specifications that were a good 'digital' compromise well over 30 years ago, just in the same way that a vinyl record is a format that is limited by its specifications. What is possible within its specifications though is open to interpretation and ability, and whether the two sound tonally different or not is neither here nor there.

I do now see what you're saying, but you misunderstand the processes. Same as capturing film at the highest possible resolution, analogue audio is digitised at higher bit depths and bit rates than are eventually needed for the same reason I gave in my mathematical analogy. At the most banal level, mixing or mastering digital audio (and video) is nothing about sound (and vision) but is everything about mathematics. Just like a complex mathematical equation, you work with numbers that are a greater definition than you need in your final answer to stop rounding errors from making your final rounded answer significantly wrong. In audio, these might manifest themselves as quantization noise. In video, they might manifest themselves as burn-out in bright colours or digital noise in the blacks.

As for the defintion of the final masters, with video we haven't yet reached a point where improving the definition of the final master isn't visible. Maybe one day when 16k video projectors become the norm and 32k video projectors will only be relevant if you have a screen 20ft across and you sit 18 inches from the screen. But with audio, we defined the mathematical theorem which dictates the maximum sample rate needed for human hearing 70 years ago, and we've been using it on CDs since 1982. There is no compromise, and nothing to be gained from increasing it on the final replay medium.

Hope that helps explain things.

On dsd?

 

[MajorFubar]

I think you've lost me...the masters they burn to CDs are 16/44. Do you mean why do studios often mix at greater bit-depths and higher sampling rates before they create the 16/44 master? If so, then basically it's the same reason why you only reduce a mathematical equation to the required number of decimal places at the end of a sum.

Ok, let's try and explain it another way. When a modern film is being made, it isn't recorded at 1080p. Before digital cameras came along, films weren't filmed at 480i or 576i. Old films are far better quality than Blurays (after being cleaned up, if they haven't been looked after). When remastering pre-digital films, they are digitally scanned to produce a 2k or 4k master. Once remastered, they are downscaled to 1080 for Bluray. This means that the resulting Blurays can look excellent, because the original capture was so good.

Music isn't captured at CD quality. CD is a format of specifications that were a good 'digital' compromise well over 30 years ago, just in the same way that a vinyl record is a format that is limited by its specifications. What is possible within its specifications though is open to interpretation and ability, and whether the two sound tonally different or not is neither here nor there.

I do now see what you're saying, but you misunderstand the processes. Same as capturing film at the highest possible resolution, analogue audio is digitised at higher bit depths and bit rates than are eventually needed for the same reason I gave in my mathematical analogy. At the most banal level, mixing or mastering digital audio (and video) is nothing about sound (and vision) but is everything about mathematics. Just like a complex mathematical equation, you work with numbers that are a greater definition than you need in your final answer to stop roundings early in the equation from making your final rounded answer significantly wrong. In audio, these might manifest themselves as quantization noise. In video, they might manifest themselves as burn-out in bright colours or digital noise in the blacks.

As for the defintion of the final masters, with video we haven't yet reached a point where improving the definition of the final master isn't visible. Maybe one day when 16k video projectors become the norm and 32k video projectors will only be relevant if you have a screen 20ft across and you sit 18 inches from the screen. But with audio, we defined the mathematical theorem which dictates the maximum sample rate needed for human hearing 70 years ago, and we've been using it on CDs since 1982. There is no compromise, and nothing to be gained from increasing it on the final replay medium.

Hope that helps explain things.

 

[Frank Harvey]

But with audio, we defined the mathematical theorem which dictates the maximum sample rate needed for human hearing 70 years ago, and we've been using it on CDs since 1982.

But we continued to capture music at a higher quality than our ears can deal with anyway? Sorry, I don't buy that. If CD is as good as our ears get, we would only need to capture music at 16/44.1.

and we've been using it on CDs since 1982.

And failing to use its full capabilities ever since 🙂

 

[MajorFubar]

On dsd?

I'm not knowledgeable enough about DSD to pass an informed comment. I strongly suspect I personally wouldn't hear a difference between a DSD audio file and the same thing converted to 16/44 PCM.

 

[MajorFubar]

And failing to use its full capabilities ever since 🙂

Oh absolutely and more's the pity! But this is what happens when you invent something which doesn't ever need to be technically bettered. They purposefully under-use its potential so they can make us buy into something new.