Vinyl vs cd in the lab -take 2

[andyjm]

Indeed, it was 'Just a little lovin'.

If anyone wants to see how good CD can really be, this is one I would recommend. I have a Squeeze Transporter / Krell / Martin Logan setup, which really shines with female vocals, and this CD is probably the best I have for that.

Interesting that they took so much care with the master and transfer - it comes back to my earlier point, rubbish in, rubbish out.

 

[jcbrum]

Compact Discs are just plastic holders for digital files, designed to move the files around geographically on road and air transport.

There are much better holders for digital files available nowadays, such as usb sticks, flashcards, and hard disks. Transport of such files is better done electronically via the internet.

JC

 

[Jim-W]

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.

Yes. I agree with this, especially 'all the dynamics compressed out of them.' '50 words for snow' is a good example of a cd sounding as it should imo. As I've said before, cds are far too loud: the so called 'loudness wars' that destroy dynamics but maybe, on a top-notch cd player, this doesn't happen.I will never know because I'm not shelling out for one. Well, maybe I would if I had loadsofmoney.

 

[JamesMellor]

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

Excellent album , you gotta love Shelby Lynne , apart from the song " why can't you be " why she chose that as the opening song on " I am .... " I will never know

James

 

[BigH]

Excellent album , you gotta love Shelby Lynne , apart from the song " why can't you be " why she chose that as the opening song on " I am .... " I will never know

James

Interesting just looked online at Spotify, Deezer, AllMusic and Amazon and they all have Your Lies as the first track?

I only like her later albums from Just A Little Lovin' onwards.

 

[JamesMellor]

I just checked itunes and you are right , I got the titles mixed up , always used to press play then skip on that CD to miss the first track

James

 

[TrevC]

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.

It would take an amazing player indeed to turn Flo's yells into music. :rockout:

 

[manicm]

The compression doesn't bother me much but I love Flo's Ceremonials. It's brilliant and I'll take her 'yelling' over Gaga anyday.

 

[TrevC]

The compression doesn't bother me much but I love Flo's Ceremonials. It's brilliant and I'll take her 'yelling' over Gaga anyday.

Both are mediocre in my opinion. Still, to each their own.

 

[stevebrock]

I have just done an A-B comparison to Ride Across the River on the Brothers in Arms Album

Vinyl - The drumming at the begining is so much fuller, more body - it seems to decay a lot smoother

CD - The drumming just does not sound as 'real' - lack lustre? it snaps - I dunno but this is exactly the reason why I prefer vinyl.

Vinyl has no bloody right sounding as good as it does - technically CD is the superior format

 

[stevebrock]

The compression doesn't bother me much but I love Flo's Ceremonials. It's brilliant and I'll take her 'yelling' over Gaga anyday.

Both are mediocre in my opinion. Still, to each their own.

I agree, but I like Spectrum off ceremonials - its the wifes CD.......honest!

 

[manicm]

The compression doesn't bother me much but I love Flo's Ceremonials. It's brilliant and I'll take her 'yelling' over Gaga anyday.

Both are mediocre in my opinion. Still, to each their own.

I agree, but I like Spectrum off ceremonials - its the wifes CD.......honest!

Actually, hand on heart., Spectrum is the worst song on the album, the rest is absolutely great. Hear the entire album, it requires a few spins, and then you'll get what the fuss is about. She's a great, distinctive singer.

 

[lindsayt]

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.

Have you compared your best sounding CD's against analogue versions of the same album, using a first class analogue source?

There are a lot of modern albums that simply aren't available in analogue format. So sometimes it may not be possible to do this sort of CD to analogue comparison.

Do CD's really have more dynamic range than vinyl? As in usable dynamic range? Properly usable dynamic range and not some theoretical text book marketing figure for dynamic range? For example, on a CD when you've got part of a recording 50dbs down on the highest peak, how much loss of resolution do you get? I challenge anyone to do this. To make or find a CD with 50dbs or more of dynamic range where the quietest bit still sounds like a realistic recreation of the actual instrument recorded.

And do you blame the mastering for Steve Hoffman's experiment? The one where he found a loss of resolution in transfering a master tape to CD? I don't see how the loss of resolution can be blamed on the mastering in that example?

You can blame the mastering when CD's sound worse than vinyl, if you want. I will blame a combination of the mastering and the technical limitations of the CD format.

 

[andyjm]

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.

Have you compared your best sounding CD's against analogue versions of the same album, using a first class analogue source?

There are a lot of modern albums that simply aren't available in analogue format. So sometimes it may not be possible to do this sort of CD to analogue comparison.

Do CD's really have more dynamic range than vinyl? As in usable dynamic range? Properly usable dynamic range and not some theoretical text book marketing figure for dynamic range? For example, on a CD when you've got part of a recording 50dbs down on the highest peak, how much loss of resolution do you get? I challenge anyone to do this. To make or find a CD with 50dbs or more of dynamic range where the quietest bit still sounds like a realistic recreation of the actual instrument recorded

Your premise that a signal significantly quieter than peak level has less bits to represent it, therefore has higher quantisation error is overcome by introducing a noise shaped dither signal into the digitisation process. Google 'dithered signal'.

 

[Sospri]

Geez, can't you guys just listen and enjoy the music without bellyaching over graphs and signal traces that you can't hear anyway.

I have both formats and enjoy them for the music that they produce....................

 

[the record spot]

Well said...

 

[stevebrock]

+1

right im off to play some vinyl

 

[TrevC]

I have a CD that sounds worse than the album, Gene Clark, No Other. I recorded the vinyl on a CD recorder and compared. My home recorded CD sounds exactly the same as the vinyl.

 

[Frank Harvey]

My home recorded CD sounds exactly the same as the vinyl.

Some might argue that that is impossible...

 

[stevebrock]

My home recorded CD sounds exactly the same as the vinyl.

Some might argue that that is impossible...

arrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhh

 

[Frank Harvey]

Vinyl has no bloody right sounding as good as it does - technically CD is the superior format

I would agree, it doesn't have the right to sound as good as it does. When you think about all that music coming from a wiggly groove, it is hard to comprehend how it can sound anywhere near like real music.

 

[matthewpiano]

Geez, can't you guys just listen and enjoy the music without bellyaching over graphs and signal traces that you can't hear anyway.

I have both formats and enjoy them for the music that they produce....................

:cheers:

 

[Frank Harvey]

Geez, can't you guys just listen and enjoy the music without bellyaching over graphs and signal traces that you can't hear anyway.

I have both formats and enjoy them for the music that they produce....................

:cheers:

I agree. I've just made the same point over on another forum - its much like photography. Some will try to accurately capture what they see through the viewfinder. Others will tinker with the photo to bring out small details, or to give the photo a more pleasing look. Whilst I love looking at accurate shots of architecture and landscapes, there's some stunning looking photos out there that bear little resemblance to the original (HDR etc).

 

[andyjm]

Geez, can't you guys just listen and enjoy the music without bellyaching over graphs and signal traces that you can't hear anyway.

I have both formats and enjoy them for the music that they produce....................

There are many ways to approach HiFi as a hobby.

One is to try to understand the technicalities underlying the equipment to make informed choices about what to buy and how to assemble a system. Digital audio is complex and much of the theory is counter intuitive. There is a lot posted on the web that is incorrect.

Another approach is to read reviews in magazines, rely on the subjective views of others, assume that their taste is similar to yours, and hope that they know what they are talking about in the first place.

I prefer to understand how stuff works, and make my own decisions about how best to achieve what I am after.

You may choose a different path.

 

[CnoEvil]

There are many ways to approach HiFi as a hobby.

One is to try to understand the technicalities underlying the equipment to make informed choices about what to buy and how to assemble a system. Digital audio is complex and much of the theory is counter intuitive. There is a lot posted on the web that is incorrect.

Another approach is to read reviews in magazines, rely on the subjective views of others, assume that their taste is similar to yours, and hope that they know what they are talking about in the first place.

I prefer to understand how stuff works, and make my own decisions about how best to achieve what I am after.

You may choose a different path.

.....or even do all of the above, and then go listen.