Vinyl vs cd in the lab -take 2

[the record spot]

In the 80s vinyl quality was very patchy - I think the price of oil had an eventual bearing on the end product.

The biggest issue for classical music was it became a major pain to listen to a long piece of music - perhaps over several sides - and have to change every 25 minutes. That and the increased distortion as you progressed to the inner part of the record meant pitch was often less than sustained.

I had several hundred records in the end. Rock, classical, a smattering of others. CD eclipsed it for me a few years ago. All the adjectives I've heard about vinyl can be just as easily ascribed to digital. Air, space, musical...it's all there.

What amazes me still however is the notion that vinyl has one type of doing and CD or digital has nother. Couldn't be further from the truth. In the end, all of my LPs went to charity and I stick with cd now.

If nothing else, it's nice to reclaim the space.

 

[manicm]

What's happening in my country is that, yes, there is some vinyl revival - actually strike that, I'll say emergence, but not for the reasons David thinks. Stores like Look And Listen (a popular nationwide chain store) until the early 90s used to stock LPs and CDs equally, with a smattering of VHS music videos. Then around 1992, local LP production was stopped completely - everyone was buying CDs.

Then in the last 8 years Look And Listen reduced their CD stock to make way for video games and consoles and DVD movies, and now along with Blu-rays.

Now stores like them are beginning to stock some vinyl, along with some really cheap and nasty turntables (with half-size platters which an LP won't cover) as a fashion/retro item - blurb 'warm rich sound' - they're catering to your fashionable youngsters who probably will cross their eyes if you utter word like 'lossless', or 'uncompressed' or perhaps even 'cartridge'. And I know this firsthand - my friend's teenage son is a blistering guitar player (my friend is a proficient musician as well), but he knows zip about hifi.

Now I would concur that there are perhaps is a genuine audiophile vinyl revival in the West, but I'll bet a significant proportion of that is also borne out of fashion.

 

[manicm]

Another interesting piece of trivia in my country: up until at least a few years ago cassettes were still extremely popular in rural areas, even with new releases in indigenous music.

 

[NHL]

Listened to Depeche Mode 'Just can't get enough' on vinyl, have yet to hear a DAC which sounds better!

(Audio Technica low output MC, Leema Elements phono, Rega RP-3, Rega RS-1 and an amplifier which does not have the status of the others so I'll just omit to mention it ;-: )

 

[Native_bon]

Reading the opinions of others can sometimes be interesting, illuminating and informative.

True. But it seems that some opinions (and holder's of those opinions) are treated with contempt and treated like they're stupid for having such an opinion. I'm all for free speech on forums, but not when it is to denegrate and belittle those that hold a valid opinion. There will never be a winner regarding debates like this (much like cables etc), and neither should there be. There should be respect, and none of this "you ARE wrong" business.

There is nothing personal going on here. People are entitled to their opinions but when those opinions are used in an attempt to argue against reality I see no problem in calling them on that.

If people hold strong views then argue your point, put forward your views and explain how you arrive at them, that is the whole point of a debate.

I am extremely fond of vinyl reproduction and have said so on a number of occasions, I have even explained how the best, most enjoyable reproduction I have heard in a domestic setup came from a small number of vinyl based systems. But I am totally aware that such systems are not accurate and therefore not high fidelity in the true sense of the world.

Now I like the sound of what you saying :dance:

 

[lindsayt]

With thanks to DSCOTT from pfm for this quote:

Quote from Steve Hoffman (A Mastering Engineer) about what sounds closest to the master tape. Makes interesting reading.

12-01-2007
Steve Hoffman

What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy?
First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.

Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.

SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).

So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.

Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.

THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:

We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.

So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.

Regarding the lowly phonograph record:

Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what Kevin Gray wrote in this essay:

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm

Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money.

Your comments are welcome.

Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.

 

[Native_bon]

With thanks to DSCOTT from pfm for this quote:

Quote from Steve Hoffman (A Mastering Engineer) about what sounds closest to the master tape. Makes interesting reading.

12-01-2007
Steve Hoffman

What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy?
First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.

Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.

SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).

So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.

Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.

THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:

We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.

So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.

Regarding the lowly phonograph record:

Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what Kevin Gray wrote in this essay:

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm

Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money.

Your comments are welcome.

Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.

Nice try :rofl:

 

[Jim-W]

With thanks to DSCOTT from pfm for this quote:

Quote from Steve Hoffman (A Mastering Engineer) about what sounds closest to the master tape. Makes interesting reading.

12-01-2007
Steve Hoffman

What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy?
First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.

Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.

SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).

So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.

Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.

THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:

We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.

So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.

Regarding the lowly phonograph record:

Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what Kevin Gray wrote in this essay:

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm

Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money.

Your comments are welcome.

Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.

'Waltz for Debby' , along with the other Riverside Bill Evans Trio records and especially, 'Explorations' sound wonderful on record; I haven't got them on cd so I can't make a comparison; then again, it's just been done. I'd like to say, 'So stuff your oscilloscope where the sun don't shine' but I hate controversy.

 

[TrevC]

It seemed pretty plain to me that the vinyl tones were riding on a large amount of infrasonic noise, or rumble if you prefer. Adding an appropriate filter would have made things look far better. Having said that, well of course CD is vastly superior as a recording medium.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

 

[Jim-W]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

It varies tbh. One set up with a deck with suspension and suspended wooden floor and, yep, it's inevitable that if you jump and down then it makes the stylus jump.You have to walk carefully too. Not ideal. Another room with carpets and turntable without suspension and you can do what you like and nothing bothers it. If you keep records clean as possible, using carbon brush and cleaning the stylus, then you can get through lp's without any problem.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

It varies tbh. One set up with a deck with suspension and suspended wooden floor and, yep, it's inevitable that if you jump and down then it makes the stylus jump.You have to walk carefully too. Not ideal. Another room with carpets and turntable without suspension and you can do what you like and nothing bothers it. If you keep records clean as possible, using carbon brush and cleaning the stylus, then you can get through lp's without any problem.

I have to be honest jim-w I struggled with Turntables - mine were never one of those exotic brands. the best I ever had was my Technics direct drive table and the needle was sensitive even on what was not a great amp you could hear footsteps if someone walked across the room, I recall using and old settee seat foam, squash balls and other materials to isolate the thing or just sit perfectly still ....lol.

and I could just about get a 12" single to play all the way through without getting enuff fuzz under the stylus to make a jumper, and boy did i clean them records.... CD's saved me.

 

[matthewpiano]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

My turntable sits on cork mats on top of a Blok 300 hi-fi stand on a carpeted concrete floor. The stylus doesn't pick up any foot taps, footsteps or similar and I more often than not get through a whole side of an album without having to clean the stylus because I keep my LPs clean. The Pro-ject isn't remotely exotic either.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

My turntable sits on cork mats on top of a Blok 300 hi-fi stand on a carpeted concrete floor. The stylus doesn't pick up any foot taps, footsteps or similar and I more often than not get through a whole side of an album without having to clean the stylus because I keep my LPs clean. The Pro-ject isn't remotely exotic either.

Its the Zensor 3's...... get a pair of floorstanders that can go low...lol.

do you 'dry' clean your records or use a cleaning fluid on them?

I myself no longer use vinyl but I struggled to keep vinyl 'clean' regardless off method used.

 

[matthewpiano]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

My turntable sits on cork mats on top of a Blok 300 hi-fi stand on a carpeted concrete floor. The stylus doesn't pick up any foot taps, footsteps or similar and I more often than not get through a whole side of an album without having to clean the stylus because I keep my LPs clean. The Pro-ject isn't remotely exotic either.

Its the Zensor 3's...... get a pair of floorstanders that can go low...lol.

do you 'dry' clean your records or use a cleaning fluid on them?

I myself no longer use vinyl but I struggled to keep vinyl 'clean' regardless off method used.

LOL - The Zensor 3s go low and do it far more cleanly than most affordable floorstanders.

I use a combination of wet cleaning with a Disco Antistat (usually only once when I first get the record), with dry cleaning before each play. I'm certainly not a fan of Roy Gandy's suggestion that you should just let the stylus move the dirt!

 

[lindsayt]

Nice try :rofl:

I don't understand your post?

 

[lindsayt]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

My favourite record player is not sensitive to foot taps nor footsteps. It weighs 75kgs, is suspended and isn't in the same room as my favourite speakers. For cleaning the stylus it depends how clean the record is. If it's clean then the whole side will play fine. If it's dirty or dusty it won't. My record player comes with a lamp that's very good for showing dirt and dust on the record.

Vinyl isn't perfect. Nor are CD's. They each have different types of imperfections.

 

[ifor]

Ahhh the old vinyl v cd debate......

Tell me, the vinyl lovers on the board how sensitive is the stylus on your players, by that I mean how still do you have to be to enjoy your music, can your needle pick up foot taps or even footsteps? - and can you get a whole album in without having to get up and clean the stylus?

We don't like housework and so the dust is pretty extreme, but it's not a problem. Simple cleaning methods before and after each side suffice. I struggle to understand what people mean by surface noise, on most records. Suspended turntable, wall mounted and no problems with uncarpeted suspended wooden floor.

 

[andyjm]

Vinyl isn't perfect. Nor are CD's. They each have different types of imperfections.

..and the imperfections CDs have are?

 

[drummerman]

Vinyl isn't perfect. Nor are CD's. They each have different types of imperfections.

..and the imperfections CDs have are?

The hole in the middle is to big. They won't stay put on my turntable.

regards

 

[chebby]

Vinyl isn't perfect. Nor are CD's. They each have different types of imperfections.

..and the imperfections CDs have are?

It moves and needs motors and servos and loading mechanisms that are all prone to wear and (fairly) inevitable failure. The disks are still too bulky. The CD cases are still rubbish. It is high time the industry started using SD or micro SD cards (or similar) for purchased, 'physical' media. Then all we would need is an SD card reader with a USB lead.

 

[lindsayt]

Vinyl isn't perfect. Nor are CD's. They each have different types of imperfections.

..and the imperfections CDs have are?

Sound quality wise: the loss of resolution that Steve Hoffman found. IE the loss of low level detail that I've found when comparing vinyl directly to CD.

The glassy brittleness that the midrange and treble are prone too - especially the upper midrange and treble. The lack of dynamics, or when you maintain dynamics on CD you lose even more low level detail during the quieter parts. The tendency with acoustic instruments on CD to sound like clumsy ogre sized musicians playing toylike ogre sized instruments.

Practicality wise: scratched or pitted or dirty CD's can either skip or stop playing part way through or won't play at all.

Brittle plastic CD cases. The hinges don't last well.

Tiny print size on CD sleeves.

 

[stevebrock]

I dont care much for the science & tech info behind the CD v Vinyl debate!

I am a recent convert to Vinyl - purely because of the loudness wars and how awful some modern CDs sounded - good example being Florence & the Machine. Not all CDs sound bad though - one being Kate Bush - 50 Words for snow. But on the whole my system was revealing these quite frankly poorly mastered CDs with all the dynamics compressed out of them. I got frustrated so gave vinyl a go

Vinyl should not sound as good as it does - I don't know why but it is so much more enjoyable than CD.

 

[andyjm]

Vinyl isn't perfect. Nor are CD's. They each have different types of imperfections.

..and the imperfections CDs have are?

Sound quality wise: the loss of resolution that Steve Hoffman found. IE the loss of low level detail that I've found when comparing vinyl directly to CD.

The glassy brittleness that the midrange and treble are prone too - especially the upper midrange and treble. The lack of dynamics, or when you maintain dynamics on CD you lose even more low level detail during the quieter parts. The tendency with acoustic instruments on CD to sound like clumsy ogre sized musicians playing toylike ogre sized instruments.

Practicality wise: scratched or pitted or dirty CD's can either skip or stop playing part way through or won't play at all.

Brittle plastic CD cases. The hinges don't last well.

Tiny print size on CD sleeves.

It is important to separate the format from the content. I will be the first to agree many CDs sound appalling, but many sound great. Blame the mastering, not the format. CDs have more dynamic range, better frequency response, lower noise and better channel separation that vinyl - but only if you use it. Unfortunately most CDs these days are mastered to only use a portion of the format's capability.

For Christmas, I got a Shelby Lynne CD that is extremely good, and bought a Michael Buble CD for my wife that is compressed to hell, and frankly unlistenable to. Not the format - the content.

 

[BigH]

For Christmas, I got a Shelby Lynne CD that is extremely good, and bought a Michael Buble CD for my wife that is compressed to hell, and frankly unlistenable to. Not the format - the content.

Just A Little Lovin' by any chance? They had lots of problems with the LP of that album, had to recut it, even then they had problems: http://www.analogplanet.com/content/just-little-lovin-finally-gets-some-0