Phono vs CD

[Nathan]

So having bought a turntable mainly because I didn't have one, I thought I'd do a side by side test with a CD player - yes I know, bit late but hey! There are a lot of posts about as to why to spend money on a turntable, especially if you have no LPs. When my turntable arrived on Friday my LP collection consisted of the new Queen studio pressings and that's it. I added a couple of others yesterday but that's all I have.

So to test it I used a Roksan Kandy KC-1 mk3 and a Project 2Xperience which both connected to a Roksan Blak amp. The turntable and the CD player are more or less the same price at new so it seemed a good test for a £ for £ comparison and I used the same make and length of cables to connect each unit to the amp.

I chose two albums (Queen II) and Brothers In Arms to test and loaded the CD and the LP on and set them going at the same time. Testing it was me (sucker for the latest shiny thing), my wife (doesn't care about the system so was only interested in the sound) and my neighbour who's a CD fan. Taking it in turns one of us flicked the inputs between the CD and the phono stage over a couple of songs without the other two seeing which was selected.

The results were conclusive. Six songs were played on each album with each person rating four as to which input was producing the best sound. For all 12 songs everyone scored the turntable higher than the CD - much to the disgust of my neighbour who now feels dirty for voting for the LP!

We all agreed that the LP just lifted the sound more making it brighter and the instruments that little more distinct.

Now I know that we used a high-end amp but it was used for both so that should not be a factor so it was £900 turntable vs £800 CD player (as was when new). As a quick test afterwards we did the same test on Brothers In Arms using my neighbours Cambridge Audio CD10 and Project Essentials - both around £200. The sound wasn't as good as the first test - as expected - but once more the turntable came out on top - albeit with five out of six songs getting the blind vote.

So from my limited test I'm pretty happy that the turntable gives noticably the better sound on either budget with the the higher end being more noticeable. For me this satisfies the question of why get a turntable if you have no LPs (or if you do). Sure, vinyls cost more than CD and they are a bit of a pain turning over every 15-20mins but who cares? The test was about the best sound, not the best convenience. So to any naysayers who can't see the point of getting a turntable (and I have a few friends who are!) I'd say do the same test in a shop with a CD and phono at your budget and see. While I'm not junking the CD player as the convenience is a factor and the Kandy still sounds awesome, if I were sitting down to listen to some tunes, for me it's vinyl all the way. While I'm sure a high-end CD player like the Blak or Naim CD2 would beat the 2Xperience, if I put them against a £2,500 deck like a Rega 8 or Roksan Radius 5.2 they'd win and we'd start again. I don't know anyone who has them though so I can't test them!

So there we go. From a vinyl sceptic, to virgin to tested convert in one easy test. What I'd say to anyone thinking of getting a turntable don't worry if you don't have any vinyl. The quality difference £ for £ for me justifies it at the £200 level or the £1000 one. So thanks for all of you who have assisted me on what to buy here.

 

[abacus]

Couple of problems with the test

1. you didn’t level match the 2 recordings, which means the louder one will usually win.

2. They were most likely cut from different master recordings, which also makes the test null & void.

3. You say vinyl is brighter, but without checking the frequency response, or access to the original master, there is no way to determine which is the most accurate.

Nice try, but apart from personal preference, there is no evidence (Proof) that vinyl is better than CD, but it does emphasize the point that you should always listen before you buy, rather than using reviews.

Happy Vinyl Playing

Bill

 

[luckylion100]

like Abacus states it's just the sound best suited to a particular individuals liking.

I think the sound presentation betweem vinyl and digital is so easily recognisable that a so called blind test is all but rendered redundant because the source format is so obvious. Then a natural bias kicks in whether it's intentional or not.

Just enjoy the ownership of your kit, the benefits of each medium and above all, the music.

 

[Nathan]

Both good points. Luckily the volume levels were pretty much the same - certainly not by design. Not sure if the amp did it or I was just lucky

Both versions of the two albums were the best versions available - the vinyls from the masters and the CDs the latest digital remasters. Not exactly like for like but as they were the best available they were the best options - original releases would not have been a fair test.

What the test showed for us though was that the vinyl just sounded better - whatever adjective we used. As the three of us had no vinyl experience (my wife), a committed CD fan (my neighbour) and someone who was on the fence (me) we kind of covered all bases and none of us were used to vinyl so we didn't know what to expect or have a bias to a familiar format. We deliberately didn't invite my brother who is a right vinyl-head for that reason - although he is now doing a massive 'I told you so'! All our default views were that the CD would win and actually we all thought it had as we all thought we'd voted for the CD version.

Not a perfect test but it was the best we could do and we were certainly pleased and surprised with the results.

 

[Al ears]

Both good points. Luckily the volume levels were pretty much the same - certainly not by design. Not sure if the amp did it or I was just lucky

Both versions of the two albums were the best versions available - the vinyls from the masters and the CDs the latest digital remasters. Not exactly like for like but as they were the best available they were the best options - original releases would not have been a fair test.

What the test showed for us though was that the vinyl just sounded better - whatever adjective we used. As the three of us had no vinyl experience (my wife), a committed CD fan (my neighbour) and someone who was on the fence (me) we kind of covered all bases and none of us were used to vinyl so we didn't know what to expect or have a bias to a familiar format. We deliberately didn't invite my brother who is a right vinyl-head for that reason - although he is now doing a massive 'I told you so'! All our default views were that the CD would win and actually we all thought it had as we all thought we'd voted for the CD version.

Not a perfect test but it was the best we could do and we were certainly pleased and surprised with the results.

Good to hear. No tests are perfect. The best I have heard is my own pair of ears and, as I am them one who's going to be listening to the system, anyone else's opinion is just that, an opinion. So stuff the nay-sayers and slap on another slab of vinyl. ;-)

 

[MajorFubar]

Self-admittedly you're new to records and what you're hearing is an example of the best the format can can sound on your equipment, using brand new records known to be top-rated pressings. Sady as your experience and collection grows, you will realse that the average performance (impacted by wear and tear and the chasmic gap between good and bad pressings even when new) is somewhat lower. But I'm sure you will still enjoy them just the same. I do.

Like someone said above, I've never understood 'blind tests' between records and CDs. It's impossible you can't know which is playing.

 

[luckylion100]

there shouldn't be any vinyl vs cd debate anyway... not meaning to de-value your thread, I'm posting so here so of course it's very relevant and I'm interested in your findings but MajorFubar is bang on. There's some wise old heads in this part of the forum, I'm not one of them! ;-)

The fact is the two mediums are so completely different, they can't be confused or attempt to mrror one another.

The reasons for the vinyl resurgence is outlined by different forum members in your other thread.

I've just changed (ungraded, although some will contest this) my system and my big fear was that my new active system will expose vinyl, all I'll now hear is nothing but the pops and crackles. Yes they are more noticable, my system is very transparent and can be unforgiving whereas I think my previous amplification perhaps muddied over this to a degree... the long and short of it is, I know what vinyl is, what it's limitations and downfalls are, but more importantly I know what the benefits are too. I don't compare, well I try not to. I love it, spend a bomb on it that I can't really afford to, interact with it and most importantly I enjoy it.

 

[Nathan]

To a degree I agree on the blind test. However my I had only ever listened to a couple of vinyl tracks in the demo rooms and my wife had not listened to one in 20 years. That said, the idea of he test wasn't to ID the source - it was to ID the best sounding one whatever that was. Given that all of us thought we'd picked the CD player out and thought was the better one shows that the test was worthwhile. Of course now I'm pretty sure that as time goes on I will pick out the vinyl most times as I get a feel for the differences, but that's ok if the idea of a test is not to ID he source, but to determine which sounds best.

You do however make a very good point about the pressing quality in that vinyl will not always be the best. Easy solution I guess is if there is not a good vinyl pressing out there or it ends up sounding sub-par then compare it to the CD and if that sounds better, play the CD! Best tool for the best available source.

 

[avole]

Theoretically and practically digital is way superior to vinyl. However, there are nearly always differences in the mastering, so comparisons are mostly meaningless. I have a big vinyl collection, but that's more to to with what isn't available on digital and some really poor digital mastering and remastering.

I'd have to add the best vinyl I have, have normally been recorded and mastered on digital equipment.

 

[Nathan]

Slightly harsh to dismiss a personal perception as nonsense. If digital was way superior to vinyl anyone buying vinyl that existed on CD would need their heads testing. It is a personal thing and the point I was making was that to me that of the test sources the vinyl sounded better. In fact I tried an original pressing of Queen II today that I had lying about and the CD sounds way better. As has been pointed out, the source recording plays a big factor. That result doesn't mean digital is superior - only that that pressing didn't sound as good as the CD. There will be plenty of recordings where the vinyl sounds better and plenty where the CD does. As I said above - best source for the best result.

It was also to make some points against some vinyl users who dismiss anyone wanting to by vinyl without a collection as misguided.

Digital is a superior (read more advanced) base technology to vinyl but that doesn't mean that the sound will be better - not that there is intrinsically a "better" assuming that the sources are of comparable quality. If I think that in a side by side setup using quality source recordings a vinyl source sounds better then no one can describe it as nonsense - it is my perception.

The fact that something may have been laid down as a digital source and not an analogue one does really matter. You don't listen to the master - you listen to your copy be it on CD, wav file, MP3 or vinyl. It's then down to how well your copy is made and how good your kit is - oh and which one you prefer the sound of.

 

[avole]

on wikipedia.

 

[paulkebab]

you could try is original CD's vs remastered CD's. Every remastered I bought sounds worse than the original one way or another, especially at medium+ volumes.

 

[Nathan]

Just goes to show - no given source is a guarantee of quality. Perhaps we should add 8-tracks into the mix

 

[bigfish786]

I have loads of albums on both cd and record,

some sound identical, some sound markedly better on vinyl.

Both can sound fantastic with the right kit in the right surrounding.

enjoy building your record collection. It's your music, enjoy it how you please.

 

[Nathan]

Thanks Bigfish - summed it up well.

Outrageous looking speakers in your pic by the way!

 

[chebby]

CD, Internet Radio, streaming, downloads,.

Only a small (tiny to non-existant) fraction of the content I mostly enjoy is actually available on vinyl. (New or second-hand.)

The music I can get anywhere, so why hang onto a format who's only charm (to me at least) is looking cool?

I wanted an afternoon of French music the other day. What should I do? Pop over to Paris and scour some record shops? The next day I wanted some Argentinian Tango. Where is vinyl at when it comes to satisfying my audio whims and caprice?

With my BBC CDs ripped, BBC iPlayer Radio, premium music streaming service and internet radio from all over the world (via AirPlay from apps on my iPhone or iPad Mini) then I have access to almost all the drama, comedy, history, audiobooks, music that I want. (And what I want - that I haven't got yet - will never, ever happen on vinyl anyway.)

A nice turntable is a lovely thing to watch (some are downright gorgeous) but that's a luxury (and space and clutter and faff and expense) that doesn't afford me any real choice and simply isn't practical either. Why should I restrict myself when the whole world is at my fingertips?

 

[plastic penguin]

I think we all agree (to some extent) that vinyl and CD is different, therefore can only be judged on a personal level.

Nearly all my playback these days is either vinyl or radio of some description. It's been ages since I last played a CD on the house stereo. Not because it's technically inferior to vinyl but it doesn't put a smile on my face like the black spinny stuff. In old money, I've become bored with CDs.

I believe the OP should be applauded for investing in a turntable... and enjoying it.

 

[abacus]

To get the best use out of your vinyl and stylus, (I.E. Longevity) get a decent USB DAC and connect to your computer, record the disc and burn it to a CD-R, (Choose 16/44 for processing) put your vinyl disc aside and just play the CD-R, which will now sound identical to your vinyl. (If you have a NAS you can rip to FLAC and play direct from there) NOTE: You will need to manually put in all the disc content details.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[Nathan]

Now that's a thought. So my amp has a USB DAC input. What would be he best way to take a recording from the vinyl?

 

[bigfish786]

Tbh, it's completely pointless. Once you record analogue to digital, it's then digital. Which will require digital to analogue conversion, to replay. So it will be no different to cd playback , most likely worse, as it will have all the bad things that vinyl add to the mix.

If this was a viable option, don't you think it would gave been done by the record industry already?

 

[MajorFubar]

If this was a viable option, don't you think it would gave been done by the record industry already?

No because with analogue, every generation copy sounds worse than the previous generation it was copied from, so you're hardly going to make a master CD from a record for commercial duplication if the master tape is available and is still in useable condition. Though it won't be the first time I've heard commercial CDs that have been cut from records when a decent pressing of the record is best source available. Also if you think you could tell the difference between your original record and a digital recording made from it with all else being equal, you'd be wrong.