Vinyl vs cd in the lab -take 2

[domenn]

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-romance-v-reality/page9

scroll down to post 179 there is that video

 

[NHL]

Heard a Harman Kardon cd player from the 90's this weekend, it sounded so digital, it was HappyMeal toy sound. The measurements can show one thing with a sinus curve but the (h)ear has to decide.

 

[plastic penguin]

Given that vinyl is a contact and CD is non-contact, does it make any difference when played in ordinary or real time?

This is the main problem I have with these scientific studies.

 

[BigH]

More expensive turntables sound closer to digital.

Some of the early cdp did not sound very good.

 

[plastic penguin]

More expensive turntables sound closer to digital.

Or more expensive cds sound closer to vinyl.

 

[BigH]

Given that vinyl is a contact and CD is non-contact, does it make any difference when played in ordinary or real time?

This is the main problem I have with these scientific studies.

The problem I have with this is I don't understand what you mean.

 

[chebby]

Vinyl vs CD is such a 1980s debate. We all know why we use either (or both, or neither) and we have had up to 30 years to decide.

I started buying CDs around 1996 and didn't let go of vinyl completely until a few years ago. I always bought new LPs (or s/h in excellent condition). I always had them cleaned on my record dealer's Keith Monks machine before 1st use and always looked after them. (Anti-stat inner sleeves too.)

Stylii were regularly brushed and replaced long before necessity forced the issue. Records were regularly gone over with a carbon fibre brush before play. They were stored correctly and I never experienced the clicks / pops / scratches etc. that plagued many users. A warped record would never have been purchased (or returned for exchange / refund as soon as discovered). TT drive belts were replaced long before they needed new ones.

My cartridges were always carefully aligned and set for recommended tracking force and were always pretty decent examples of their kind. (Like the Goldring 1042 that I used - with two stylus replacements - for 11 years.)

I made pristine recordings of many albums (and made many and varied compilations) onto brand-new TDK tapes on decent cassette players like the Yamaha KX580 SE or the old Sony Walkman 'Pro'. Partly for convenience and partly to keep albums in good nick.

This carried on until about 2007 when I finally decided enough-was-enough and sold the TT then gave away the cassette player (and tapes) to my older brother.

I had used a CD player (on and off) since 1996 and had a reasonable collection of classical and jazz CDs and a big collection of BBC CDs (drama, comedies, history etc.) and other stuff that simply could not be obtained on LPs.

Despite all the above vinylations, BBC FM radio had always been my 'primary' source since my teens and a decent FM tuner + roof aerial was always at least as important as any turntable. My migration away from LPs didn't start with CDs but with a combination of changing taste and the emergence of DACs. I used my first DAC - a Firestone Audio USB one - with an Arcam Solo-Mini and there was no looking back. I was hooked on iPlayer Radio and ripping my CDs.

I had a slight 'stutter' with an impulse purchase Rega P2 a few years ago, but soon realised my error and sold it - virtually unused - to a fellow local forum member here.

The final remaining (and best) of my old vinyl was sold a few months ago to remove any lingering temptation.

So oscilloscopes, lab tests, stupid CD vs vinyl debates etc. had no bearing at all on my move from vinyl. It was the sheer relief of shedding the 'faffage' expended on vinyl care / vinyl use and my discovery of the DAC (and the world it opened up) and a change in my tastes (and lack of choice on LP) that drove it.

I still love a good turntable as a 'thing'. But - like the steam locomotive - they are a labour of love that I am happy to leave to the enthusiasts (along with debates about which is better).

 

[plastic penguin]

Given that vinyl is a contact and CD is non-contact, does it make any difference when played in ordinary or real time?

This is the main problem I have with these scientific studies.

The problem I have with this is I don't understand what you mean.

All these clever graphs makes no audible difference in a normal house with children running around. Does it really matter if the vinyl graph is wobbly while the cd is still?

 

[pauln]

Scientist trying to explain how things work to vinyl lovers.

 

[BigH]

Given that vinyl is a contact and CD is non-contact, does it make any difference when played in ordinary or real time?

This is the main problem I have with these scientific studies.

The problem I have with this is I don't understand what you mean.

All these clever graphs makes no audible difference in a normal house with children running around. Does it really matter if the vinyl graph is wobbly while the cd is still?

Well not everyone lives in a normal house, who wants kids running round when you are playing the hifi? In that case you may as well get a Sony mini system for £60.

 

[BigH]

Vinyl vs CD is such a 1980s debate. We all know why we use either (or both, or neither) and we have had up to 30 years to decide.

I started buying CDs around 1996 and didn't let go of vinyl completely until a few years ago. I always bought new LPs (or s/h in excellent condition). I always had them cleaned on my record dealer's Keith Monks machine before 1st use and always looked after them. (Anti-stat inner sleeves too.)

Stylii were regularly brushed and replaced long before necessity forced the issue. Records were regularly gone over with a carbon fibre brush before play. They were stored correctly and I never experienced the clicks / pops / scratches etc. that plagued many users. A warped record would never have been purchased (or returned for exchange / refund as soon as discovered). TT drive belts were replaced long before they needed new ones.

My cartridges were always carefully aligned and set for recommended tracking force and were always pretty decent examples of their kind. (Like the Goldring 1042 that I used - with two stylus replacements - for 11 years.)

I made pristine recordings of many albums (and made many and varied compilations) onto brand-new TDK tapes on decent cassette players like the Yamaha KX580 SE or the old Sony Walkman 'Pro'. Partly for convenience and partly to keep albums in good nick.

This carried on until about 2007 when I finally decided enough-was-enough and sold the TT then gave away the cassette player (and tapes) to my older brother.

I had used a CD player (on and off) since 1996 and had a reasonable collection of classical and jazz CDs and a big collection of BBC CDs (drama, comedies, history etc.) and other stuff that simply could not be obtained on LPs.

Despite all the above vinylations, BBC FM radio had always been my 'primary' source since my teens and a decent FM tuner + roof aerial was always at least as important as any turntable. My migration away from LPs didn't start with CDs but with a combination of changing taste and the emergence of DACs. I used my first DAC - a Firestone Audio USB one - with an Arcam Solo-Mini and there was no looking back. I was hooked on iPlayer Radio and ripping my CDs.

I had a slight 'stutter' with an impulse purchase Rega P2 a few years ago, but soon realised my error and sold it - virtually unused - to a fellow local forum member here.

The final remaining (and best) of my old vinyl was sold a few months ago to remove any lingering temptation.

So oscilloscopes, lab tests, stupid CD vs vinyl debates etc. had no bearing at all on my move from vinyl. It was the sheer relief of shedding the 'faffage' expended on vinyl care / vinyl use and my discovery of the DAC (and the world it opened up) and a change in my tastes (and lack of choice on LP) that drove it.

I still love a good turntable as a 'thing'. But - like the steam locomotive - they are a labour of love that I am happy to leave to the enthusiasts (along with debates about which is better).

I thinks it more for people new to hifi or vinyl.

 

[andyjm]

There is nothing new in Alan's video, vinyl LPs have worse performance than CDs in every measure (except maximum frequency, which is irrelevant to anyone old enough to post on this forum).

However, while not as faithful to the original recording as a CD, some listeners do prefer the 'vinyl sound'. Funny things humans, but there you go - ultimately it is the listener's preference that matters.

 

[matt49]

There is nothing new in Alan's video, vinyl LPs have worse performance than CDs in every measure (except maximum frequency, which is irrelevant to anyone old enough to post on this forum).

However, while not as faithful to the original recording as a CD, some listeners do prefer the 'vinyl sound'. Funny things humans, but there you go - ultimately it is the listener's preference that matters.

I agree that, taken in isolation, the video doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know. But the context is more important than the video itself. And the context is a debate about why and on what grounds people prefer vinyl to digital. Some vinyl enthusiasts do continue to argue that vinyl consistently presents a different sound from digital, and that their preference for the "analogue sound" isn't merely subjective.

What's the nature of the acoustic signature of vinyl, and why do people prefer it? It seems to me this is actually an interesting question, and simply saying that vinyl is worse doesn't answer it.

 

[Native_bon]

There is nothing new in Alan's video, vinyl LPs have worse performance than CDs in every measure (except maximum frequency, which is irrelevant to anyone old enough to post on this forum).

However, while not as faithful to the original recording as a CD, some listeners do prefer the 'vinyl sound'. Funny things humans, but there you go - ultimately it is the listener's preference that matters.

Even when the evidence is there, Audiophiles will still find a way to dismiss it.. Like you said funny humams..

 

[MajorFubar]

Well not everyone lives in a normal house, who wants kids running round when you are playing the hifi? In that case you may as well get a Sony mini system for £60.

Amazingly, many of us into HiFi have also exercised our right to multiply.

 

[stevebrock]

Well not everyone lives in a normal house, who wants kids running round when you are playing the hifi? In that case you may as well get a Sony mini system for £60.

Amazingly, many of us into HiFi have also exercised our right to multiply.

and suceeded without any tweeters pushed in

 

[Jim-W]

NB:This is a collector's perspective and will be of limited interest to hifi enthusiasts.

I couldn't care less if scientific tests prove that the signal from a CD is more faithful to the sound of musical instruments. I couldn't care less about pristine quality records;I often buy VG copies and I actually enjoy trying to restore them to some sort of listenable quality:it's hit and miss of course. Trying to find mint copies of rare 40/50 year old records is virtually impossible and I'll happily settle for VG examples.

What am I trying to say? It's not about sound quality or faithful reproduction for me, although it may well be for others. Well, fair play to you. It's more to do with the appropriate cultural context of the recorded music, the album art, the beautiful labels, lyric sheets and inners that I can actually read without a magnifying glass, the tactile experience of removing the record and placing it on the turntable and even, funnily enough, watching it spin.

Damn it, it's having an original copy of a record because I like the music and because a tiny silver disc that disappears into a tray, which may well sound better, doesn't excitte me like searching through endless crates of crap only to discover a battered mono copy of The Pretty Things 'SF Sorrow' or Archie Shepp's 'Four For Trane.' So there's a bit of crackle and a few clicks? The fact that it's an original copy far outweighs any flaws inherent in a medium that is heir to degradation though climate, warping, scuffs, scratches etc. This was how the music was released/presented at the time and this is how I chose to listen to it; I know the digitally remastered, remixed, lossless, flac ( I'm out of my depth here) version will sound cleaner, brighter and crisper and will be a damn sight cheaper than the knackered original that I lust after.

I guess this chop logic defies understanding unless you are similarly smitten. Collectors eh? Blimey.

 

[chebby]

I'm afraid I have a different view of collectors from another hobby (photography). They were the people who raised prices and put good, usable gear in glass cases to look at rather than take photos with.

When buying used vinyl, I always preferred a clean re-issue to a knackered original pressing (or nowadays a CD to rip) so my enjoyment of the content was not distracted by the audible effects of years of abuse or neglect. (Chipped and worn stylii, dust and dirt from not being placed back in covers, warps from bad storage, scratches from careless cueing.)

The physical object might not be 'original' in itself, but the experience of listening to a clean, crisp recording is more faithful to the experience of a brand new pressing - back in the day - than something that's been used as a 'rolling mat', baked in direct sunlight on windowsills, gouged using a cartridge with a 2p coin taped to the headshell (to prevent skipping) then stored in an old shed for 15 years!

If you find some kind of 'romance', or a deeper connection with history listening to all those scratches and pops then fine but I find that 'connection' easier to make without them.

 

[Johnno2]

From my recent experience, there are pros and cons of both, after listening to a lot of vinyl recently using the modest but lovely sounding AT95e going back to CD I was surprised how sterlie it sounded, Even with the 'warm' Marantz CD7003,

my ears must have become acoustomed to the thicker sound of vinyl, if this fuller sound is distortion, so it be , I like it , it just sounds more 'delicous'

Of course a poor scratcy recording wont, and can sound worse than a compressed CD, but like for like vinyl sounds better to my ears

 

[matt49]

If you like the sound of vinyl but dislike the (inevitable) degradation of the physical medium, why not use a vinyl simulator like iZotope Vinyl?

It'll work out much cheaper, it's highly tweakable (e.g. enabling you to simulate a high-end TT), and the original files will remain in pristine condition.

 

[Native_bon]

NB:This is a collector's perspective and will be of limited interest to hifi enthusiasts.

I couldn't care less if scientific tests prove that the signal from a CD is more faithful to the sound of musical instruments. I couldn't care less about pristine quality records;I often buy VG copies and I actually enjoy trying to restore them to some sort of listenable quality:it's hit and miss of course. Trying to find mint copies of rare 40/50 year old records is virtually impossible and I'll happily settle for VG examples.

What am I trying to say? It's not about sound quality or faithful reproduction for me, although it may well be for others. Well, fair play to you. It's more to do with the appropriate cultural context of the recorded music, the album art, the beautiful labels, lyric sheets and inners that I can actually read without a magnifying glass, the tactile experience of removing the record and placing it on the turntable and even, funnily enough, watching it spin.

Damn it, it's having an original copy of a record because I like the music and because a tiny silver disc that disappears into a tray, which may well sound better, doesn't excitte me like searching through endless crates of crap only to discover a battered mono copy of The Pretty Things 'SF Sorrow' or Archie Shepp's 'Four For Trane.' So there's a bit of crackle and a few clicks? The fact that it's an original copy far outweighs any flaws inherent in a medium that is heir to degradation though climate, warping, scuffs, scratches etc. This was how the music was released/presented at the time and this is how I chose to listen to it; I know the digitally remastered, remixed, lossless, flac ( I'm out of my depth here) version will sound cleaner, brighter and crisper and will be a damn sight cheaper than the knackered original that I lust after.

I guess this chop logic defies understanding unless you are similarly smitten. Collectors eh? Blimey.

You see what I mean?:rofl:

 

[matt49]

Duplicate

 

[Frank Harvey]

Adding some simulated scratches to a CD signal doesn't really make a digital format sound like vinyl - maybe only to those who despise vinyl, in which case, they wouldn't be using a program like that anyway.

 

[davedotco]

Adding some simulated scratches to a CD signal doesn't really make a digital format sound like vinyl - maybe only to those who despise vinyl, in which case, they wouldn't be using a program like that anyway.

iZotope does a lot more than just that.

But I understand it would be difficult to see that given all the sand in your eyes.......

 

[Native_bon]

We have been sold a concept of what sounds better.. If the sound of records can be emulated by software what stops anyway one from doing that.. or may be its just the thought of my expensive vintange Vinyl is giving me any expensive vintage sound. Would it sound less better than Vinyl its self if you use the software, I think not. Old habits never change..

For some, hifi is like a religion!!