Why is vinyl so much better than digital?

[chebby]

JoelSim:It will be interesting to see how long the USB TT lasts. My bet is that it is your average DJ transferring his vinyl tunes to his laptop, so that he doesn't have to lug several crates of records around any more.

Just as likely to be the average middle aged couple transferring the contents of a box of records from the loft onto their PC and ripping them to a CD they can play in the car.

The proper DJ (as opposed to teenage wannabes) will be using something like the venerable Technics SL-1210 at £900 a pair.

 

[chebby]

FrankHarveyHiFi:chebby: The 'average' £386 CD player is going to slay the 'average' £122 turntable (using the figures in the report.)Hardly a fair comparison, but I always remember pitting a £40 (in the 70's) Pioneer PL12D against a very well regarded £1,000 CD player (this was in 1992/1993), and the turntable sounded better.

A comparison based entirely on the figures given by the trends report that show what people are spending - on average - per CD player or turntable respectively. Fair or not.

For the record, (Oof!) I have no axe to grind. I don't play CDs any more, and I sold my last turntable just under a year ago. So if a plague befalls both format's 'houses' it no longer bothers me.

 

[JoelSim]

Yes, I wasn't talking Carl Craig and James Lavelle when I said that. More the wedding brigade and spotty yoofs.

 

[the record spot]

chebby:The proper DJ (as opposed to teenage wannabes) will be using something like the venerable Technics SL-1210 at £900 a pair.

Indeed and a very salient point. I despair seeing the DJ rock up with a pair of monitors, and a laptop. Everything on a hard disk and off he goes. Not a 45 in sight.

The skill that Chebby refers to is turning up with a few boxes of records and building the night around what he or she knows of the music he's bringing along. Using thousands of tracks off a hard drive isn't the same, not by a light year or two. Anyone can pick a bunch of songs, stick them on a huge playlist, hit play and then just add in something that someone asks for (and presumably, if they don't have it, it's easy to download and play).

I don't want choice when the DJ's doing his thing, I want to hear what he can craft from thebox of LPs he's got to hand, otherwise, I might as well use my own laptop, hire the rest of the gear, choose the playlist and set it going.

For what it's worth, I used to DJ at college, had maybe a bunch of 300 college records and around 50 of my own in a box I'd take along whenever I played. Enjoyed it and filled the dancefloor quite a few times.

Absolute fallback tracks, the ones you can't go wrong with, the "so good, they'll make your tonsils shake their thing" are....IMHO of course....Eric Morris "Strongman Samson", Madness as The Dangermen "Taller Than You Are", The Velvelletes "Needle In A Haystack", Al Wilson "The Snake" (you might see the odd punter doing Jumpstyle dancing to this one!), ZZ Top "Sharp Dressed Man" and Tony Christie's "Is This The Way To Amarillo" where they probably all start marching round like Peter Kay these days...!

 

[Sabby]

JoelSim:
The key word is Cyrus. Nasty, tinny, uninvolving, digital-sounding rubbish.

+2 for JoelSim. Almost every review of Cyrus by WHF usually ends with these words: "Bright treble - match carefully" or words to that effect. Why must any piece of equipment add extra brightness into the equation. Why can't it just reproduce the music without adding anything to it. After all isn't this what we are striving for? Nothing added, nothing taken away. Besides this you are also very limited in your choice of speakers. I just cannot understand WHF's love affair with Cyrus.

 

[crusaderlord]

no i just cant understand WHF's overwhelming leaning towards Cyrus recommendations either - whether it be CD players or amplifiers they always seem to get the best buy nod

you dont see the same level of enthusiasm from other magazines or reviewers who like them for sure but not with the same 'if its a Cyrus then it must be the best' view

 

[crusaderlord]

on the main subject matter question - i have never quite found this vinyl is so much the better experience

i moved right away from vinyl in the 80's and eventually sold everything related to it before returning last year when buying a Rega P3-25 with external PSU.

The TT sounds great yes but doesnt beat my Arcam CD player. I actually find the Arcam has a fairly similar presentation style to the TT, more so than say Naim or Cyrus, so maybe this helps.

I do find it hard to get past the little clicks and surface noises that appear occasionally even on brand new vinyl.

 

[JoelSim]

Is this the way to Amarillo?

Are you sure?

 

[johnnyblue]

JoelSim:

Is this the way to Amarillo?

Are you sure?

Yeah,thank god I never went to one of his discos. Students.

 

[SteveR750]

Sabby:JoelSim:
The key word is Cyrus. Nasty, tinny, uninvolving, digital-sounding rubbish.

+2 for JoelSim. Almost every review of Cyrus by WHF usually ends with these words: "Bright treble - match carefully" or words to that effect. Why must any piece of equipment add extra brightness into the equation. Why can't it just reproduce the music without adding anything to it. After all isn't this what we are striving for? Nothing added, nothing taken away. Besides this you are also very limited in your choice of speakers. I just cannot understand WHF's love affair with Cyrus.

In which case the balance things out -4 for Joel. I had a NAD C541 prior to the Cyrus and I say the same thing, only the gulf was probably bigger. No CD based system comes close to a well set up vinyl system.

To my ears, the CD6 was a better source than the Naim Nait 5i and the Kandy. Plenty of detail, plenty of control. Personally though I think the differences between CD players is pretty marginal above budget price level, nowhere near as much VFM when upgrading compared to an amp or speakers.

As for the inconvenience of lugging LPs to mates houses, I don't do it with any music - they usually play their own which is half the enjoyment of going to someone else's house in the first place! I treat my CDs as equally preciously as I did my vinyl, so its stays at home!

 

[Anonymous]

I cannot understand this vinyl argument. If the reference is old analogue recorded, mastered and finally produced on vinyl (AAA) then ok. But surely most vinyl available now for reissues must be DDA, or at best DAA. Unless the use of a turntable significantly alters a digital recording this doesn't make sense does it. I can understand CDR's make have timing errors etc, but again so much hi-fi is higher spec than the studio mastering kit that I am failing to understand what is going on?

 

[Anonymous]

I have no problem if people prefer vinyl over digital - that there is a difference between listening to vinyl or cd can hardly be disputed, and I may even agree that sometimes vinyl can be more involving. However, I find it quite unlikely that this is due to the fact that is is 'digital' per se. Of course, it would have been nicer if a higher sample/bitrate would have become the redbook standard.

I would be interested if people have links to blind comparisons of direct vinyl versus a digitally rerouted version via a high quality ADC > DAC of the same record. My guess would be that the difference is minimal. Perhaps there would be a market for a vinyliser device that lowers the
SNR & channel separation, adds pops and cracks, rumble, wow &
flutter to a perfectly normal cd output..

 

[Anonymous]

igglepiggle:I cannot understand this vinyl argument. If the reference is old analogue recorded, mastered and finally produced on vinyl (AAA) then ok. But surely most vinyl available now for reissues must be DDA, or at best DAA. Unless the use of a turntable significantly alters a digital recording this doesn't make sense does it. I can understand CDR's make have timing errors etc, but again so much hi-fi is higher spec than the studio mastering kit that I am failing to understand what is going on? igglepiggle i agree with what you have said then again i like both cd and vinyl as both have good points and bad points,
also some turntables are a pain to keep on song

thats the part i dont like with vinyl and if you want good lps you now pay silly money for the things, cd can and does better vinyl
on certain cd vs lp demos imo but i will sit on the fence and say both are good when fed the right music.

 

[shooter]

FrankHarveyHiFi:shooter69:basshead:

cd's are waaaaaay more convenient.

Yes this is why they will be obsolete before the LP.

Agreed. In a few years time, there will be more demand for vinyl than there will for CD. Everyone will be downloading instead of buying CD's, it's the way it's going. You can't download something that sounds like vinyl. Hence, it's demand will pick up more so in the nexy few years. I'm sure it hasn't escaped everyone's notice about the article stating that turntables are outselling CD players.

In 5 years time, those that have gone totally digital will hear a high quality turntable. It will suddenly click with them that what they have at home has no soul, no life, and no value.

Yep this is the way it will go.

Its becoming rarer and rarer the CD player gets switched on and recently i was only thinking if i should get rid and go vinyl only but that would render 100's of CD's useless and not all of them available on vinyl because 'digital madness'. It seems more and more music is released on vinyl, and my last music spree ended up with vinyl only because it was available. There was no need to bye CD and with two of the LP's i bought came with a free album download for music on the go. Who will need CD? LP's for home download for on the move. Bring back Our Price!

Now thats a logo!

 

[Anonymous]

IMHO vinyl is not and will never have better audio quality than CD, but it is different and may sound better and more pleasing to the ears. It is however not better in terms of delivering to you what the master tape holds.

Sounding better and less distortion does not always go hand-in-hand.

Vinyl will often sound better and that is what it should all be about.

 

[shooter]

Pete10:
lowers the SNR & channel separation, adds pops and cracks, rumble, wow & flutter to a perfectly normal cd output..

SNR ;yep a poorly engineered deck will suffer but i think were out the dark ages.
Amp; channel separation. Hmm.
Pops and crackles; 99%dust and/or dirt. Easily cleaned with cleaning fluids something along the lines of isopropyl is good.
Rumble; yep same as SNR.
Wow and flutter; yep same as Rumble and SNR.

Come on, only the oldest or shabbiest of decks suffer considerably to warrant this is, after all its 2011.

 

[pete321]

Tarquinh: but once again I have an analogue source that leaves my CD and SACD player way behind. It's not just the detail, it's the fullness of sound that CDs somehow miss.

As I sit here listening to my Police SACD, I'm confident to my ears that the vinyl album couldn't get close, as with all SACD's.

 

[Clare Newsome]

pete321:
Tarquinh: but once again I have an analogue source that leaves my CD and SACD player way behind. It's not just the detail, it's the fullness of sound that CDs somehow miss.

As I sit here listening to my Police SACD, I'm confident to my ears that the vinyl album couldn't get close, as with all SACD's.

No denying the appeal of high-res music (when properly mastered, natch) - when you can find it.

Take Amazon as an example:

Vinyl albums - 300,000+

SACD - 7,190

And there's no way i'm letting the format dictate what music I do/don't listen to!

 

[pete321]

But even the poor old CD is usually way better these days, I just added the Omnibus Edition of Love by The Cult to my collection, I used to own the vinyl copy and there's no way it sounded that good. Not to mention the Legacy Edition CD of Ten by Pearl Jam, Alive is alive & rocking!

 

[the record spot]

JoelSim:
Is this the way to Amarillo?

Are you sure?

Chuh. Oh ye of little faith. Midnight, crowd half-canned. No brainer. Obviously, glad to see the other classics went by without comment...!

 

[the record spot]

pete321:
Tarquinh: but once again I have an analogue source that leaves my CD and SACD player way behind. It's not just the detail, it's the fullness of sound that CDs somehow miss.

As I sit here listening to my Police SACD, I'm confident to my ears that the vinyl album couldn't get close, as with all SACD's.

And of course, the other point is, that there are some terrific masterings out there and quite a few that take the LP and give it a good run for its money. And this from a confirmed vinyl nut!

By the bye, the number of albums out there that're put through any number of digital processes before going on wax must be over 99%. Just something to bear in mind that when we talk about analogue reproduction, we're really talking about the time the needle hits the record.

 

[unfocused]

crusaderlord:no i just cant understand WHF's overwhelming leaning towards Cyrus recommendations either - whether it be CD players or amplifiers they always seem to get the best buy nod you dont see the same level of enthusiasm from other magazines or reviewers who like them for sure but not with the same 'if its a Cyrus then it must be the best' view

Because it it all subjective. All the magazine can do is point you in a direction they feel confident in. I don't agree with the original poster that vinyl is better than digital. That's his opinion, he is more than welcome to it and if he is happy with his vinyl more power to him. It's when people dress up opinion as fact that I start to have trouble.

 

[the record spot]

Welcome to the forum! Couldn't agree more.

 

[Anonymous]

shooter69:Pete10:
lowers the SNR & channel separation, adds pops and cracks, rumble, wow & flutter to a perfectly normal cd output..

SNR ;yep a poorly engineered deck will suffer but i think were out the dark ages.Amp; channel separation. Hmm.Pops and crackles; 99%dust and/or dirt. Easily cleaned with cleaning fluids something along the lines of isopropyl is good.Rumble; yep same as SNR.Wow and flutter; yep same as Rumble and SNR.Come on, only the oldest or shabbiest of decks suffer considerably to warrant this is, after all its 2011.

So all your records are completely flat and have the hole exactly in the middle? I agree that there is a lot of good equipment and part of it is compensated by a dedicated phono amp, but nevertheless, as far as the ability to faithfully reproduce a master tape goes a groovy plastic (sorry :vinyl) disk and a turntable with a dancing arm and a single needle in a groove for stereo reproduction... , well let's call it a bit primitive by 2010 standards. No problem though if one enjoys it nevertheless.

Some additional reading if interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_%26_flutter_measurement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_&_flutter_measurementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_measurement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_measurement

 

[Anonymous]

the record spot: And of course, the other point is, that there are some terrific masterings out there and quite a few that take the LP and give it a good run for its money. And this from a confirmed vinyl nut!By the bye, the number of albums out there that're put through any number of digital processes before going on wax must be over 99%. Just something to bear in mind that when we talk about analogue reproduction, we're really talking about the time the needle hits the record.I take it you mean new pressings only? It wasn't until the early nineties that digital replaced analogue for mastering, which means the majority of records from the hey-day of the LP were analogue only, and production was way, way higher than it was in the nineties.