Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

[matt49]

it may well be entirely possible to have a poor sounding CD but a good sounding LP of the same album.

Arguably the best reason for buying vinyl.

But as I said earlier, large parts of the recording industry aren't affected by the Loudness Wars. You can buy classical and (most) jazz CDs with confidence, and for other stuff a quick look at the DR Database will show whether the vinyl version is markedly better than the CD.

And even if the vinyl version suffers from less compression than the CD, there can be other factors that make the CD version superior.

Matt

 

[The_Lhc]

it may well be entirely possible to have a poor sounding CD but a good sounding LP of the same album.

Arguably the best reason for buying vinyl.

But as I said earlier, large parts of the recording industry aren't affected by the Loudness Wars. You can buy classical and (most) jazz CDs with confidence,

Yeah, you said that already. I was simply explaining to Chebby why the master is not the be-all and end-all of why a CD and vinyl might not sound the same.

 

[davedotco]

it may well be entirely possible to have a poor sounding CD but a good sounding LP of the same album.

Arguably the best reason for buying vinyl.

But as I said earlier, large parts of the recording industry aren't affected by the Loudness Wars. You can buy classical and (most) jazz CDs with confidence,

Yeah, you said that already. I was simply explaining to Chebby why the master is not the be-all and end-all of why a CD and vinyl might not sound the same.

I'm begining to see an interesting pattern emerging here........ :?

Hi-res downloads are better than CD quality downloads because they are, sometimes, mastered differently.

Similarly, vinyl versions of some music are better than some CDs because they too are mastered differently.

Mmmmmmm....

At least most people have stopped trying to make the ridiculous arguement that vinyl sounds better because it is technically superior.

To me it is dead simple.

Inexpensive record players introduce distortions during playback that people like, some even believing that these distortions make vinyl playback sound more like 'real' music.

Top quality vinyl players reduce these distortions to a huge degree, which is why they sound very similar to CD playback, recording permitting.

Having become acustomed to top quality vinyl playback I do not enjoy the distortions of more modest players, so would not own one, and top end players are too expensive, so I stick to digital playback.

 

[The_Lhc]

it may well be entirely possible to have a poor sounding CD but a good sounding LP of the same album.

Arguably the best reason for buying vinyl.

But as I said earlier, large parts of the recording industry aren't affected by the Loudness Wars. You can buy classical and (most) jazz CDs with confidence,

Yeah, you said that already. I was simply explaining to Chebby why the master is not the be-all and end-all of why a CD and vinyl might not sound the same.

I'm begining to see an interesting pattern emerging here........ :?

Hi-res downloads are better than CD quality downloads because they are, sometimes, mastered differently.

Similarly, vinyl versions of some music are better than some CDs because they too are mastered differently.

Engineered differently.Vinyl can't physically support the level of dynamic compression that CD can, that's the point I was making.

 

[matt49]

To me it is dead simple.

Inexpensive record players introduce distortions during playback that people like, some even believing that these distortions make vinyl playback sound more like 'real' music.

Top quality vinyl players reduce these distortions to a huge degree, which is why they sound very similar to CD playback, recording permitting.

Having become acustomed to top quality vinyl playback I do not enjoy the distortions of more modest players, so would not own one, and top end players are too expensive, so I stick to digital playback.

If that's true (and I'm sure you'll agree it's a fairly big 'if' -- no, actually maybe you won't), it confirms my suspicion that my money would be better spent elsewhere. Still gonna listen though ...

These inexpensive TTs whereof you speak, Dave -- how does the distortion express itself soundwise?

Matt

 

[pauln]

I've been following a similar thread on the Harbeth forum - http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-reality-v-romance/page14 - dip in at post #272 where Alan Shaw postulates on one reason (there are probably others IMHO) why some people prefer to listen to vinyl.

 

[cheeseboy]

I've been following a similar thread on the Harbeth forum - http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-reality-v-romance/page14 - dip in at post #272 where Alan Shaw postulates on one reason (there are probably others IMHO) why some people prefer to listen to vinyl.

now that is an interesting read, and I was particularly impressed with the simple experiment as well

edit - finished reading the rest, and am impressed with peoples responses actually. Wonder if it would get the same response here?

 

[Tear Drop]

And even if the vinyl version suffers from less compression than the CD, there can be other factors that make the CD version superior.

Matt

Don't leave us hanging! In what way would a more compressed CD version still be superior? Can you give some examples? Just for the record I listen to and enjoy LPs and CDs (and downloads and live music), so I'm not swinging one way or the other.

 

[matt49]

And even if the vinyl version suffers from less compression than the CD, there can be other factors that make the CD version superior.

Matt

Don't leave us hanging! In what way would a more compressed CD version still be superior? Can you give some examples? Just for the record I listen to and enjoy LPs and CDs (and downloads and live music), so I'm not swinging one way or the other.

Damn! Thought I'd got away with that one!

Two issues affecting vinyl are monophonic bass and the circular shape of the disk.

When mastering for vinyl, bass frequencies tend to be mixed monophonically. This is because loud stereo bass causes serious problems with stylus tracking: the stylus can literally jump out of the groove.

As for the shape of the disk, vinyl playback requires the same piece of pick-up equipment (arm, cartridge, stylus) to function equally well in differing environments. The outer grooves of an LP have a much gentler curvature than the inner grooves. In an ideal (i.e. non-existent) world, each groove would have the same diameter, but in reality the inner grooves, being much tighter, tend to distort more.

Both of these issues are addressed in the link andyjm posted earlier.

Matt

 

[The_Lhc]

I've been following a similar thread on the Harbeth forum - http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-reality-v-romance/page14 - dip in at post #272 where Alan Shaw postulates on one reason (there are probably others IMHO) why some people prefer to listen to vinyl.

now that is an interesting read, and I was particularly impressed with the simple experiment as well

edit - finished reading the rest, and am impressed with peoples responses actually. Wonder if it would get the same response here?

No, at least not from me, I thought clip 3 was the best of the lot, didn't notice any sense of flatness or deadness at all (I listened to them BEFORE I read the following comments incidentally). Other than the hiss in fact I couldn't tell any difference between the three of them. I listen to vinyl incidentally.

 

[Covenanter]

it may well be entirely possible to have a poor sounding CD but a good sounding LP of the same album.

Arguably the best reason for buying vinyl.

But as I said earlier, large parts of the recording industry aren't affected by the Loudness Wars. You can buy classical and (most) jazz CDs with confidence, and for other stuff a quick look at the DR Database will show whether the vinyl version is markedly better than the CD.

And even if the vinyl version suffers from less compression than the CD, there can be other factors that make the CD version superior.

Matt

I think Matt is right here. Classical fans don't have these issues (albeit there are poor recordings here too although not because of compression). I don't buy many "pop" CDs but of those I do many are pretty grim in this regard. If I was into this genre I might well prefer vinyl.

Chris

 

[ifor]

No, at least not from me, I thought clip 3 was the best of the lot, didn't notice any sense of flatness or deadness at all (I listened to them BEFORE I read the following comments incidentally). Other than the hiss in fact I couldn't tell any difference between the three of them. I listen to vinyl incidentally.

Exactly the same experience for me.

 

[pauln]

In case clarification is needed, they are all the exact same clip other than the added "hiss".

FWIW I too preferred clip 3; I've not listened to vinyl since the late 80's.

 

[BigH]

Much of this has to do with age; if you grew up with records then there will always be an attachment to the format. For younger people, there's the romantic cache of vinyl and record players. I guess for those of you in the middle who grew up with cd's then you may prefer that format. I like records but I'm under no illusions about sound quality: I have plenty of warped, clicky and scratched records;on the other hand, I've got plenty of rare first pressings from the 60's in excellent condition. I don't hide them away to preserve them as somebody suggested collectors are want to do: I play stuff every day. I've got a few turntables so I don't ruin a stylus by putting knackered records on, but I'll agree that the condition of records causes worry and I can easily see why some people just can't tolerate the stress involved in maintaining a collection. Similarly, all the faffing about setting up a turntable is time-consuming.

Cd's sound great to me: the new Elbow cd is terrific, but I bought it on cd because I wanted to hear it and the band are not of interest to me as a collector. I can't collect everything even if I'd like to. Having said that, if I saw a copy on vinyl I'd no doubt buy it if the price was right.

Sound quality then is not of the greatest importance to a collector; we want the best copies we can find but we'll happily buy a VG copy until the right one comes along. There's just so much more to music than hi-fi equipment.

Actually I don't agree with that, I grew up in the 70s with albums, I don't have an attachment, I think there is more of an attachment for some younger people.

 

[drummerman]

When David was defending the 'directional' properties of some boutique audio cables (in another thread earlier this year) he thought that alternating current was an attempt to 'blind' him with science, so don't expect him to be persuaded by scientific or technical facts. That just leads to arguments like "scientists don't know everything".

Do they?

You can scientifically explain what makes a colour/scent/taste etc but can you scientifically explain why some like them and others don't?

regards

 

[hammill]

When David was defending the 'directional' properties of some boutique audio cables (in another thread earlier this year) he thought that alternating current was an attempt to 'blind' him with science, so don't expect him to be persuaded by scientific or technical facts. That just leads to arguments like "scientists don't know everything".

Do they?

You can scientifically explain what makes a colour/scent/taste etc but can you scientifically explain why some like them and others don't?

regards

I think you have missed the point. Nobody with any sense (and no scientist) would claim that scientists know everything. The problem is that the "scientists don't know everything" argument is usually deployed when something that scientists do know contradicts with someones groundless opinion (like a particular HDMI cable gives deeper blacks or the world was created 4000 years ago).

 

[The_Lhc]

In case clarification is needed, they are all the exact same clip other than the added "hiss".

Yes, I thought that much was obvious just from listening to them, that's why I can't understand why the original respondants think clip 3 is flat and lifeless.

 

[TrevC]

When David was defending the 'directional' properties of some boutique audio cables (in another thread earlier this year) he thought that alternating current was an attempt to 'blind' him with science, so don't expect him to be persuaded by scientific or technical facts. That just leads to arguments like "scientists don't know everything".

Do they?

You can scientifically explain what makes a colour/scent/taste etc but can you scientifically explain why some like them and others don't?

regards

I think you have missed the point. Nobody with any sense (and no scientist) would claim that scientists know everything. The problem is that the "scientists don't know everything" argument is usually deployed when something that scientists do know contradicts with someones groundless opinion (like a particular HDMI cable gives deeper blacks or the world was created 4000 years ago).

Ain't that the truth. Vinyl versus CD, CD wins by miles as a music carrier. Doesn't stop me playing records though.

 

[Covenanter]

When David was defending the 'directional' properties of some boutique audio cables (in another thread earlier this year) he thought that alternating current was an attempt to 'blind' him with science, so don't expect him to be persuaded by scientific or technical facts. That just leads to arguments like "scientists don't know everything".

Do they?

You can scientifically explain what makes a colour/scent/taste etc but can you scientifically explain why some like them and others don't?

regards

I think you have missed the point. Nobody with any sense (and no scientist) would claim that scientists know everything. The problem is that the "scientists don't know everything" argument is usually deployed when something that scientists do know contradicts with someones groundless opinion (like a particular HDMI cable gives deeper blacks or the world was created 4000 years ago).

Indeed. Scientists are actually those who claim to "know" almost nothing. For example the "Theory of Relativity" has been around for about 100 years now and there has been no evidence that brings it into question and yet it's still called a "theory".

Chris

 

[chebby]

When David was defending the 'directional' properties of some boutique audio cables (in another thread earlier this year) he thought that alternating current was an attempt to 'blind' him with science, so don't expect him to be persuaded by scientific or technical facts. That just leads to arguments like "scientists don't know everything".

Do they?

You can scientifically explain what makes a colour/scent/taste etc but can you scientifically explain why some like them and others don't?

regards

I think you have missed the point. Nobody with any sense (and no scientist) would claim that scientists know everything. The problem is that the "scientists don't know everything" argument is usually deployed when something that scientists do know contradicts with someones groundless opinion (like a particular HDMI cable gives deeper blacks or the world was created 4000 years ago).

Yep.

Some people lose sight of the fact that the technology we take for granted was all developed from scientific advances like quantum mechanics (transistors, lasers, diodes, LEDs, microchips) and assume that because "scientists don't know everything" they themselves are qualified to fill in the gaps.

In fact most scientific breakthroughs lead to even more (and bigger) gaps in knowledge. More questions to answer that couldn't even have been asked beforehand. That's how it is.

Even great scientists get it wrong. Sometimes they are right for a while, sometimes they are right for a very long time (you can still get a satellite in orbit around Mars with Newtonian calculations even though Einstein's theories supplanted the Newtonian 'model' over a century ago as a better 'fit').

Sometimes they got it right but decided they were wrong. Einstein calculated that not only should the Universe expand, but the rate of expansion of the Universe should accelerate. He dismissed his own calculations. (It seemed potty even to Einstein at the time.) He preferred a 'static' Universe but his calculations have since been found to be correct after all.

However, none of these people overturned accepted models with mysticism or guesswork or by seeking explanations from tea-leaves or just 'gut instinct' about what seems right to them. Countless experiments were done, and are still being done, to find better ways, better models, to explain the world and to keep testing existing theories to ensure they work with all new data collected. If they don't work no-one calls for a soothsayer or appeals to 'common sense' (that breaks down very quickly in science as in most areas of rigorous study). Neither do they take a vote or hold an opinion poll.

We get too used to scientific explanations only having the the status of an 'opinion' in things like interviews and chat shows, where any unqualified opinion has to be given equal air-time (no matter how 'woo woo') for various PC reasons. So if you think the Earth is really a giant radish and that gravity is a force made by vegetables then get yourself on TV and argue it against Brian Cox. They are so scared of being seen to be partisan that you'll get equal interview time (and probably a twitter following within seconds).

 

[shep1968]

Nobody has mentioned yet that with vinyl the temptation to listen to the whole album is greater than with either cd or other digital files where it is just to easy to skip tracks..

This may not matter in some cases but does in others.

On the other hand, digital downloads of albums or cd's more often than not have extra tracks which won't be on the vinyl version.

regards.

Interestingly enough when Sgt Pepper was made George Martin put Within you without you as the first track on side 2 as he knew people would turn the vinyl over and would be able to put the stylus on track two or more likely track 3 of the second side.

 

[TrevC]

Nobody has mentioned yet that with vinyl the temptation to listen to the whole album is greater than with either cd or other digital files where it is just to easy to skip tracks..

This may not matter in some cases but does in others.

On the other hand, digital downloads of albums or cd's more often than not have extra tracks which won't be on the vinyl version.

regards.

Interestingly enough when Sgt Pepper was made George Martin put Within you without you as the first track on side 2 as he knew people would turn the vinyl over and would be able to put the stylus on track two or more likely track 3 of the second side.

Not easily though , because there were no track spacings on it.

 

[Broner]

When David was defending the 'directional' properties of some boutique audio cables (in another thread earlier this year) he thought that alternating current was an attempt to 'blind' him with science, so don't expect him to be persuaded by scientific or technical facts. That just leads to arguments like "scientists don't know everything".

Do they?

You can scientifically explain what makes a colour/scent/taste etc but can you scientifically explain why some like them and others don't?

regards

I think you have missed the point. Nobody with any sense (and no scientist) would claim that scientists know everything. The problem is that the "scientists don't know everything" argument is usually deployed when something that scientists do know contradicts with someones groundless opinion (like a particular HDMI cable gives deeper blacks or the world was created 4000 years ago).

Indeed. Scientists are actually those who claim to "know" almost nothing. For example the "Theory of Relativity" has been around for about 100 years now and there has been no evidence that brings it into question and yet it's still called a "theory".

Chris

I think you're a victim of a language problem here that has been the cause of many heated debates. A scientific theory (a substantiated and tested explanation) is something completely different as just a possible explanation. The Theory of Relativity isn't just a theory, but it's a scientific theory, and that really does mean something. Also check: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

[andyjm]

I think you're a victim of a language problem here that has been the cause of many heated debates. A scientific theory (a substantiated and tested explanation) is something completely different as just a possible explanation. The Theory of Relativity isn't just a theory, but it's a scientific theory, and that really does mean something. Also check: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Indeed. In science, a 'Theory' is exactly as described, a substantiated and tested explanation. There are many things that are difficult or impossible to prove absolutely, but the 'Theory' is generally accepted as correct following extensive testing and peer review.

A 'Theorem' is different. A 'Theorem' has been proved mathematically. An example near to the heart of this thread is the 'Nyquist Shannon Sampling Theorem'. Absent a mistake in the proof, this has been verified 100% using mathematical derivation from first principals.

 

[davedotco]

I think you're a victim of a language problem here that has been the cause of many heated debates. A scientific theory (a substantiated and tested explanation) is something completely different as just a possible explanation. The Theory of Relativity isn't just a theory, but it's a scientific theory, and that really does mean something. Also check: http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Indeed. In science, a 'Theory' is exactly as described, a substantiated and tested explanation. There are many things that are difficult or impossible to prove absolutely, but the 'Theory' is generally accepted as correct following extensive testing and peer review.

A 'Theorem' is different. A 'Theorem' has been proved mathematically. An example near to the heart of this thread is the 'Nyquist Shannon Sampling Theorem'. Absent a mistake in the proof, this has been verified 100% using mathematical derivation from first principals.

Modern education fails quite spectacularly to give many people even the very basics of mathematics and science.

Such people will not have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.