Question Poll, what do you think, is vinyl better or CD?

[Rui]

It's really outrageous how costs have gone up and Amazon in particular are really milking it. I guess, if somebody is going to upgrade their existing CD player, probably makes sense to buy one that has SACD compatibility.

The cheapest I've seen on Amazon is the SONY BDP-S6700 2K/4K Lecteur Multi Zone Region Code Free Blu Ray 2D/3D - WI-FI - DVD - SACD- CD Player £182..
It's weird, also on Amazon, you can get Panasonic DP-UB154EB-K 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray Player with HDR10 for only £159 In addition to the conventional WAV/FLAC/MP3/AAC/WMA/AIFF formats, it plays DSD (2.86 MHz/5.6MHz/11.2MHz) via the USB but no SACD, I suspect Panasonic did not want to pay the licence fees to Sony.

​

​

Sony is for the world as Stalin is for the USSR, where"...ukraine girls leave the west behind..." this guys who singed this song were saying the truth as hundreds of ukranian girls and women came to live in my region and i was in love three times a week ,one at weekends, in 15 years i was going crazy and all listened music in hi-fi , i would show all my equipment, at the time i had a new set of cerwin-vega´s speakers and all liked the red menbrane, at least they use to point there

 

[podknocker]

It's really outrageous how costs have gone up and Amazon in particular are really milking it. I guess, if somebody is going to upgrade their existing CD player, probably makes sense to buy one that has SACD compatibility.

The cheapest I've seen on Amazon is the SONY BDP-S6700 2K/4K Lecteur Multi Zone Region Code Free Blu Ray 2D/3D - WI-FI - DVD - SACD- CD Player £182..
It's weird, also on Amazon, you can get Panasonic DP-UB154EB-K 4K Ultra HD Blu-Ray Player with HDR10 for only £159 In addition to the conventional WAV/FLAC/MP3/AAC/WMA/AIFF formats, it plays DSD (2.86 MHz/5.6MHz/11.2MHz) via the USB but no SACD, I suspect Panasonic did not want to pay the licence fees to Sony.

​

​

I owned a Sony UBP-X800 until very recently. I wish I'd kept it now, just in case I'm mad enough to buy a new TV at some point. It was built like a tank, completely quiet and played EVERY CODEC on EVERY DISC you could feed it. It cost £249 and many on this site and others hate it, because it's cheap and unpretentious. The picture and sound quality were incredible and I don't think you need to consider any other optical disc player. Anything else is just snobbery and elitism. Sony still know a thing or two about lasers and digital audio. Every other company releasing this type of product will try to convince people that 41 year old technology only works and delivers the goods these days, if it costs thousands. Utter crap.

 

[Revolutions]

I haven’t voted so I don’t know the score.

Can only presume that it’s 100-0 for vinyl. As pod predicted we’d all rather throw away our can openers and chew the lid off our tuna just to make our lives worse.

 

[My2Cents]

I haven’t voted so I don’t know the score.

Can only presume that it’s 100-0 for vinyl. As pod predicted we’d all rather throw away our can openers and chew the lid off our tuna just to make our lives worse.

It's currently 21 votes for CD, 3 for vinyl and 8 for both equally good, just click on results!
I like the tin cans that have the pull tabs on them, but that wasn't an option.

 

[podknocker]

It's currently 21 votes for CD, 3 for vinyl and 8 for both equally good, just click on results!
I like the tin cans that have the pull tabs on them, but that wasn't an option.

I don't own a tin opener and will only buy food, including tuna, with a ringpull option. If these ringpull tins are available, why do tins that need tin openers still exist? Having a production line with ringpull only tins must be cheaper. The world is bizarre. Anyway, I'm right, many people prefer LPs to CDs, but are missing out on quality as CD is better, the clue being it's newerand was designed to be an improvement on the cumbersome spinning LP nonsense with surface noise and lower dynamic range and resolution etc. I find it incredible that many people think CD is a step back in quality and LPs are the last word in fidelity. No.

 

[plastic penguin]

I voted 'both equally good'.

However, that's a very simplistic as each format has it's pros and cons.

Vinyl takes a lot of TLC and storage, but in pure sound quality packs more emotion IME. And many famous rock stars prefer vinyl as it's closer to the original recording. I can't back that up as I've never been in a recording studio.

CDs, by contrast, needs very little TLC and easier to store. As mentioned by others, recordings vary so much, I have a number of remasters which sounds cold and clinical, lacking the natural presentation of a good quality vinyl.

 

[My2Cents]

I don't own a tin opener and will only buy food, including tuna, with a ringpull option. If these ringpull tins are available, why do tins that need tin openers still exist? Having a production line with ringpull only tins must be cheaper. The world is bizarre. Anyway, I'm right, many people prefer LPs to CDs, but are missing out on quality as CD is better, the clue being it's newerand was designed to be an improvement on the cumbersome spinning LP nonsense with surface noise and lower dynamic range and resolution etc. I find it incredible that many people think CD is a step back in quality and LPs are the last word in fidelity. No.

I tend to agree. But I prefer streaming over both.
I no longer own any LP's or CD's.
I have considered buying a turntable. I was using one (Dual CS505-3) whilst I was in the UK for a while, playing my brothers old LP's. But I don't want to spend money on building up a collection again.

Albums I purchased as a kid had sentimental value and buying them again now wouldn't be the same or mean the same as it did back then.
The CD's I purchased staring in 1988 had sentimental value too, just looking through them... it was like looking through old photos. It reminded me of places I'd been, bands I'd seen, girls I'd dated, nights out in pubs and clubs... but again, replacing them now would mean nothing.
If I need to reminisce I can just access all that old music on Qobuz, and I like it that way.... I still have those memories when I hear the albums streaming, but I don't need to spend 3 thousand + dollars to do it.

I'm currently listening to ABC 'the Lexicon of Love' on Qobuz and it sounds great (lots of memories)... I see that the LP is $139 at HMV! The LP won't sound any better and I don't need more physical clutter in my life.
I'd rather spend the money on musical gear and make my own music (and hang out with friends and play live music) or record my own music (mixing it to sound however I like it to sound).

I guess young folks are just starting out on that sentimental 'collecting of memories' journey and so that's great, let them buy what they want.

 

[podknocker]

I tend to agree. But I prefer streaming over both.
I no longer own any LP's or CD's.
I have considered buying a turntable. I was using one (Dual CS505-3) whilst I was in the UK for a while, playing my brothers old LP's. But I don't want to spend money on building up a collection again.

Albums I purchased as a kid had sentimental value and buying them again now wouldn't be the same or mean the same as it did back then.
The CD's I purchased staring in 1988 had sentimental value too, just looking through them... it was like looking through old photos. It reminded me of places I'd been, bands I'd seen, girls I'd dated, nights out in pubs and clubs... but again, replacing them now would mean nothing.
If I need to reminisce I can just access all that old music on Qobuz, and I like it that way.... I still have those memories when I hear the albums streaming, but I don't need to spend 3 thousand + dollars to do it.

I'm currently listening to ABC 'the Lexicon of Love' on Qobuz and it sounds great (lots of memories)... I see that the LP is $139 at HMV! The LP won't sound any better and I don't need more physical clutter in my life.
I'd rather spend the money on musical gear and make my own music (and hang out with friends and play live music) or record my own music (mixing it to sound however I like it to sound).

I guess young folks are just starting out on that sentimental 'collecting of memories' journey and so that's great, let them buy what they want.

I love CDs. The silvery shining disc is so attractive and they were designed to be just the right size for your hand. I still regard CD as a nearly magical milestone in audio technology, but I no longer play any of my 200 CDs. It may be a technological tour de force, but a bit for bit copy can be found online and the physical product is no longer necessary. Online music gives you a closer approximation to the original studio recording than any other format. Online data provides upto studio master quality, without the need for decimation down to 'only' CD quality at 1411kbps. Human hearing has its limits, but CD gives you a closer view of what was intended in the recording studio. Vinyl can't come close. When The Carpenters were recording their albums in the 1970s, they were obsessed with quality and recognised the level of accuracy provided by the studio speakers and equipment. Anyone listening to their music in the 70s would have been using poor quality record players, many in mono and the radio stations would have been AM only. With the release of CD, you can now listen to The Carpenters in studio quality. It's taken CD and newer formats, to realise the true quality of their recordings. Vinyl never came close to this and never will.. When you listen to Karen Carpenter on CD, you are able to access the full quality of that recording. Many old recordings were never revealed in their true quality, until CD arrived. It's a clear window on the recording, old or new. Vinyl is a sugar coated and flattering version of a recording. You don't get the ful picture with vinyl. Modern recordings, in state of the art studios, are incredibly revealing and it requires a modern format, such as CD, or a high res file, to appreciate the level of quality now available. Vinyl cannot capture and reproduce the quality of a modern recording. It's technically impossible. New recordings, on new formats, sound incredible. Vinyl can't give you this quality, because it's old and wasn't designed for modern recording methods. Vinyl is worse than CD and it's crazy how people can think it could be as good as a modern format. It can't. I guess some people will never understand the fundamentals of music recording and reprooduction and will always think older and familiar devices are the last word in music reproduction. New technology is better, regardless of how much you like the tactility of vinyl and the lifestyle it represents. New things sound better. Fact.

 

[Fandango Andy]

I don't own a tin opener and will only buy food, including tuna, with a ringpull option. If these ringpull tins are available, why do tins that need tin openers still exist? Having a production line with ringpull only tins must be cheaper. The world is bizarre. Anyway, I'm right, many people prefer LPs to CDs, but are missing out on quality as CD is better, the clue being it's newerand was designed to be an improvement on the cumbersome spinning LP nonsense with surface noise and lower dynamic range and resolution etc. I find it incredible that many people think CD is a step back in quality and LPs are the last word in fidelity. No.

They don't seem to have moved over to the ring pull cans in China, and nobody outside China seems to produce Red in Snow, a type of preserved cabbage essential for a recipe I like. I can replicate it, but it's not the same. It could be that it tastes better with the home made version, but I'm used to the original!

 

[Revolutions]

I love CDs. The silvery shining disc is so attractive and they were designed to be just the right size for your hand. I still regard CD as a nearly magical milestone in audio technology, but I no longer play any of my 200 CDs. It may be a technological tour de force, but a bit for bit copy can be found online and the physical product is no longer necessary. Online music gives you a closer approximation to the original studio recording than any other format. Online data provides upto studio master quality, without the need for decimation down to 'only' CD quality at 1411kbps. Human hearing has its limits, but CD gives you a closer view of what was intended in the recording studio. Vinyl can't come close. When The Carpenters were recording their albums in the 1970s, they were obsessed with quality and recognised the level of accuracy provided by the studio speakers and equipment. Anyone listening to their music in the 70s would have been using poor quality record players, many in mono and the radio stations would have been AM only. With the release of CD, you can now listen to The Carpenters in studio quality. It's taken CD and newer formats, to realise the true quality of their recordings. Vinyl never came close to this and never will.. When you listen to Karen Carpenter on CD, you are able to access the full quality of that recording. Many old recordings were never revealed in their true quality, until CD arrived. It's a clear window on the recording, old or new. Vinyl is a sugar coated and flattering version of a recording. You don't get the ful picture with vinyl. Modern recordings, in state of the art studios, are incredibly revealing and it requires a modern format, such as CD, or a high res file, to appreciate the level of quality now available. Vinyl cannot capture and reproduce the quality of a modern recording. It's technically impossible. New recordings, on new formats, sound incredible. Vinyl can't give you this quality, because it's old and wasn't designed for modern recording methods. Vinyl is worse than CD and it's crazy how people can think it could be as good as a modern format. It can't. I guess some people will never understand the fundamentals of music recording and reprooduction and will always think older and familiar devices are the last word in music reproduction. New technology is better, regardless of how much you like the tactility of vinyl and the lifestyle it represents. New things sound better. Fact.

CDs didn’t exist in the 70s. Albums were mixed & mastered in the knowledge of how they would be listened to. Conflating old recordings with modern formats makes no sense whatsoever.

Brian Wilson wasn’t recording Pet Sounds hoping that in the future lossless audio will finally let people experience his wall of sound how he heard it in the studio monitors. He was making art in one of the best studios in the world, using some of the greatest musicians of their generation, knowing full well it would be pressed to vinyl & played on crappy systems, or played over radio.

Quality recording equipment leads to better mixing, which enables better mastering for crappy formats. Everything isn’t just a race to highest fidelty. In fact popular music is literally the opposite.

 

[twinkletoes]

What gets me is many will proclaim they can’t hear the difference between 320kbps and 44.1, I won’t lie I struggle sometimes. Yet people seem to be able magically hear the difference between vinyl and cd when format wars erupt. Strange that.

If one was lucky enough to find an lp that sounded really clean (no tics and pops and discernible noise floor) and I have a few in my collection I might add, I’d challenge anybody to tell me the difference between the 2 formats (cd and vinyl). I know I couldn’t reliably tell you. Granted it's rare to find a record free of background noise but still they exist.

I couldn’t care less what the theoretical dynamic range a format has, the music I listen too and that most listen to is heavily compressed, so all that bandwidth is wasted in most cases, even hi res formats are not immune .

I say pick your poison and enjoy.

Heck I still enjoy mini disc

 

[abacus]

A lot of music on streaming platforms have been remastered for streaming and unfortunately when you compare them to the original (Vinyl or CD), they suck big time.
As I mentioned in my previous post, it all comes down to the mastering and no matter how good the format is, (e.g. 24/192) if the master is bad, then the sound is bad. (Which unfortunately sums up a lot of streaming remasters)

Bill

 

[Fandango Andy]

A lot of music on streaming platforms have been remastered for streaming and unfortunately when you compare them to the original (Vinyl or CD), they suck big time.
As I mentioned in my previous post, it all comes down to the mastering and no matter how good the format is, (e.g. 24/192) if the master is bad, then the sound is bad. (Which unfortunately sums up a lot of streaming remasters)

Bill

Totally agree. A lot of remastered music for streaming seem to have sacrificed dynamic range in favour of higher volume. Some also seem to have lost a lot of their soundstage.

 

[twinkletoes]

A lot of music on streaming platforms have been remastered for streaming and unfortunately when you compare them to the original (Vinyl or CD), they suck big time.
As I mentioned in my previous post, it all comes down to the mastering and no matter how good the format is, (e.g. 24/192) if the master is bad, then the sound is bad. (Which unfortunately sums up a lot of streaming remasters)

Bill

My biggest problem with streaming is normalisation, even if you have the setting off, there is clearly something going behind the curtains. Nearly all albums are the same volume, good in a way bad in others but you're right I have yet to come across a stream that sounds as good locally played media.

 

[podknocker]

My biggest problem with streaming is normalisation, even if you have the setting off, there is clearly something going behind the curtains. Nearly all albums are the same volume, good in a way bad in others but you're right I have yet to come across a stream that sounds as good locally played media.

I've found the opposite with Spotify. I regularly have to change my volume up or down when I play another album. Older albums seem to be quieter than newer ones and the new ones can be very loud and it often leads to me reaching for the volume. Playlists of various artists can also be loud, but thankfully all the tracks are the same loudness. I never use normalisation though, as this seems to ruin the sound quality.

 

[DCarmi]

What's that taking into account though? A single stream/listen? Or over a lifetime of streaming an album or playing a disc?

Shucks, you can slice these sort of figures any way you like!

Are we talking streams from YouTube music or one of the hi-res monsters? Is it a 120g vinyl or 180g? What about BPA in poly- carbonate production used for CDs.

I have a fair collection of secondhand CD and vinyl so I guess that counts as better for the environment.

In any case, how I consume audio is not top of my concerns. I suspect there are bigger worldly issues at play.

I'm off to watch Elementary on Prime Video whilst making chicken dinner on the gas stove. That'll give the environment a bit of a knock, I fear.

 

[Winter]

So oversimplified a question I cannot answer.
Better at what?
Depends entirely on what you have built your system around.

How simple for me cd !

 

[wescandela]

I have to say that I don’t find either to be adequate. To me, it’s super audio CD or Blu-ray audio.

Or streaming high resolution, audio, but I trust physical more than streaming… And that goes for Video also but if I had to choose, I would say CD

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

I hate to be the one to ask it, but have you done double blind between CD and SACD?

 

[R2D2]

CD.

 

[jjbomber]

CD.

At long last; someone who understands the question!

 

[Jasonovich]

I hate to be the one to ask it, but have you done double blind between CD and SACD?

The problem with blind tests.........

Scenario 1
My nephew and I done a blind test between SACD and CD. After the test, he preferred CD. I said are you deaf! Boom Boom

Scenario 2
My nephew and I done a blind test between SACD and CD. After the test, he preferred CD. I said you just played the CD twice! Boom Boom

Sorry Monkey, I promise to stick to my full time job

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

Sorry Monkey, I promise to stick to my full time job

Good job too!

I'm just skeptical about audible difference - certainly couldn't hear it myself.

 

[DougK1]

I hate to be the one to ask it, but have you done double blind between CD and SACD?

I haven't and I seriously doubt I would be able to detect a difference any better than a pure chance level of significance.

 

[Jasonovich]

I can't help thinking, if this poll was done in the 80s or 90s, it would have had a different outcome. Most of the HiFi press in those days were Vinyl-centric, not sure that's a real word, ah just invented it, another of my Jasonisms, anyway. The HiFi press in the 80-90s were pretty much on the analogue camp and I think many people were swayed in that direction.

Over the course of time, we see digital technologies advancing, we have parity in the noughties and now digital has kicked the sand in analogues face, step aside wimp!
I think today, most people don't care. People with top-end turntables remind me of the owners of the latest shiny fruity iPhone. I call it the Apple-Syndrome, having a nice turntable gives you exclusive rights to the 'I'm so Cool Club', ah just teasing or maybe not