Why is vinyl so much better than digital?

[matthewpiano]

There really is room to enjoy both. I use vinyl, CD, analogue tape, digitally stored music, FM radio, and DAB - all have their place and there is no need to choose.

 

[the record spot]

Tarquinh:I take it you mean new pressings only?

Yes.

 

[JoelSim]

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...!

Not quite Fabric then...

 

[JoelSim]

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!

Cyrus, Naim, Roksan...peas in a pod. All very digital sounding.

 

[SteveR750]

matthewpiano:There really is room to enjoy both. I use vinyl, CD, analogue tape, digitally stored music, FM radio, and DAB - all have their place and there is no need to choose.

As it happens, so do I, only no longer do I play any vinyl as I lost my entire collection in a flood and sold the Sondek a while ago. I ahve to be honest, that the majority of procesed recordings sound better on CD because of the wide bandwidth wow factor. Irrespective of your view of their music, do and A/B comparison of any Dire Straits album and I defy anyone to prefer the CD version when played on equal cost equipment. It may at best be comparable i.e. neutral "result", to some people's ears the vinyl versions will sound better. My theory is that its because the soundstaging is more accurate with analogue equipment, and that this gives so many aural clues that give the sense of reality that far outweighs advantages in bandwidth in most cases.

 

[shooter]

Pete10:So all your records are completely flat and have the hole exactly in the middle?

No of course not but i do have a 180g centre weight and ring clamp which is of benefit but to be honest i don't use it, it just sits in the corner and collects dust plus from all the Lp's i have only one is unplayable due to the 'hole' being in the wrong place.

Pete10:I agree that there is a lot of good equipment and part of it is compensated by a dedicated phono amp

Yep.

Pete10:nevertheless, as far as the ability to 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...

Yes thats how you listen to a record and if your set up correctly the 'dancing needle and single needle' (thats the norm) don't come into it.

Pete10:let's call it a bit primitive by 2010 standards.;No problem though if one enjoys it nevertheless.

Defiantly not primitive just check out the engineering in any table/arm set up.

As MP said there is room for all and i'm not against the CD as i have plenty of them i just prefer Vinyl playback as you do CD.

 

[6th.replicant]

JoelSim:Get yourself a decent valve CDP ...
Ooops, methinks I've just found my next upgrade path...

 

[Thaiman]

Vinyl is not better, unless you spend "BIG"!

I have been swap and change turntables around £5K range, arm included, in the last few months and none that I can say "better" than my Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 . Take it up the notch or two though, say Simon Yorke S10 then the gap in class start to appear, add a good cart like Transfiguration Orpheus and I reckon no CD player in the world going to come even close in "musical" term.

 

[JoelSim]

6th.replicant:JoelSim:Get yourself a decent valve CDP ...Ooops, methinks I've just found my next upgrade path...

To my mind Arcam is some of the least digital sounding kit available. It is at its best after a few hours, not a brand for a short audition at all. My Unico CDE is really coming into its own with the Leema now. Wonderful.

 

[idc]

Pete10:

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..

The Boston Audio Society conducted a blind test with Ivor Teifenbrun, the founder of Linn pitting digital against vinyl and he failed.

Plenty of artists, such as Massive Attack add pops and crackles to their tracks to make them sound more 'vinyl'. But on a detailed digital system it can sound like you are getting breakups in the signal and I have checked connections to try and fix the 'fault'.

 

[6th.replicant]

JoelSim:
6th.replicant:JoelSim:Get yourself a decent valve CDP ...Ooops, methinks I've just found my next upgrade path...

To my mind Arcam is some of the least digital sounding kit available ...
Aye, agree 100%; precisely the reason I've been an Arcam-ite since 1988; budget restrictions aside, now't has made me want to stray, to date.

Delighted with recently acquired CD37/A38/P38 setup, especially when playing SACDs. (Note to self: must pre-order SHM-SACD re-master of Who's Next.)

 

[pete321]

JoelSim: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!

Cyrus, Naim, Roksan...peas in a pod. All very digital sounding.

I couldn't disagree more. As a previous Cyrus owner in my pure hifi days I loved 'em and can fully understand WHF's ratings for the company's amps and CD players. I'll admit, that a poor recording won't get given any sanctuary through Cyrus kit, but spin a good recording and it'll reward you with detail whcih makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Vinyl never managed that for me.

Admittedly, my Dual turntable didn't cost as much as most of the CD players I've owned in my time, and most of my music is now listened to lossless via my PC and external DAC, but whilst waiting patiently for the reviews on some of the new all-in-one players emerging, I'm making do listening to SACD's using a £100 Sony blu-ray player. It sounds great and I suspect I'd prefer that over a viynl source costing many times it's modest price.

 

[the record spot]

pete321:

Vinyl never managed that for me.

Fair comment Pete.

pete321:

Admittedly, my Dual turntable didn't cost as much as most of the CD players I've owned in my time...

Ah! So, we're not really talking like with like. I agree CD can be a bit special, but good for an entry level deck though the Dual ranges typically were, this isn't a "like for like" comparison here!

 

[DistortedVision]

I have to agree with you Joel. I've never really understand why Cyrus were so highly rated by WHF.

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

 

[AEJim]

I think people get a little carried away with the "Hi-Fi" aspects in this debate - we did some comparisons in the office recently with my old Pro-Ject Debut deck and our usual Naim system. Sure you can pick a million faults in the vinyl (especially a load of the old pressings I have!) and CD would "technically" blow it away, hell my old Pro-Ject wasn't even running properly with one channel frequently dropping out! Buuut, vinyl definitely did some things better - the timing, the flow of the music, the involvement was just "better" - you can't measure it, you can't quantify it but it's there. The analogue sound definitely has its benefits and different people listen for different things - I tend to think if you sit back and listen to the music rather than the system then vinyl will generally win out.

On the Cyrus mini-debate - I've never found Cyrus to work that well with our speakers (always a concern in the back of the mind when you send product for review where it's the reference system!) but we got some in recently to test and it was not as bad as I remembered from my time on the road (I think it was a CD6SE and an "8" amp of some kind, didn't check thoroughly). Sure I still prefered our Naim system, it just sounded far tighter - but it was far more expensive! The Cyrus was ok in a "big presentation" kind of way, I can see what people like or dislike about it and I remembered why our speakers don't compliment it (just certain emphasis at certain frequencies) so I think it's just a Marmite kind of thing - the killer for me was the fact it didn't read 3 of the CD's I tried out at home from what I had out on the side so I just lost interest!

 

[shooter]

Ah James, had a poster recently who was looking for a power amp to drive his AE5 reference's. Obviously he had a few suggestions but i was wondering what you would recommend with a 3k budget. He is using a Wadia with Pre.

 

[AEJim]

shooter69:Ah James, had a poster recently who was looking for a power amp to drive his AE5 reference's. Obviously he had a few suggestions but i was wondering what you would recommend with a 3k budget. He is using a Wadia with Pre.

Hmm, will need something serious - my 175watt AVI Lab Series doesn't quite do it!

When the AE5's were in designed we were using a Wadia 16 CD with Gryphon amp and they're still in existence but I'm not sure of current pricing - I checked some out at the Munich show and it's pretty substantial gear! I think a decent alternative option would be a Krell - after the Gryphon system went we used the Krell KAV300i and this seemed to match well with the Wadia while coping pretty well with the 5's. The current 300 gets an average review from WHF but might still be worth a listen, again they mention it has to be matched with care so it could be that the combo still works well. There are many alternatives about at that price though - I would say power has a large bearing on the 5's and a large current supply is crucial to control all those aluminium drivers - it would be worth seeking out a high end dealer and trying to get something on loan demo for the amount he'd be paying (most good places will be able to arrange something).

 

[shooter]

Krell didn't get a mention. Lyngdorf, Plinius and the MF 300 power got a shout so i think we got the 'serious' bit right! Cheers James and i'll pass it on.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:

The Boston Audio Society conducted a blind test with Ivor Teifenbrun, the founder of Linn pitting digital against vinyl and he failed.

Thanks for the link. Good to know this was already settled >25 years ago. So, people, the reason that you like vinyl so much more can have many reasons, but not that "digital' means incapable to accurately reproduce audio.

 

[chebby]

Pete10:idc:The Boston Audio Society conducted a blind test with Ivor Teifenbrun, the founder of Linn pitting digital against vinyl and he failed.Thanks for the link. Good to know this was already settled >25 years ago. So, people, the reason that you like vinyl so much more can have many reasons, but not that "digital' means incapable to accurately reproduce audio.

To be more accurate he listened to a Linn Sondek connected conventionally to a Naim pre-amp, and then the same Linn Sondek with the signal from the pre-amp converted to digital then back to analogue again. (Using a Sony PCM-F1 with the ADC looped straight back into it's DAC.)

So in both cases the source was vinyl.

It certainly wasn't a CD vs Vinyl comparison.

It could be argued this has parallels with an analogue mastered LP vs the same performance digitally mastered on LP.

I am not taking a 'side' here (I have enjoyed Vinyl and digital), just trying to clarify a bit.

 

[hifikrazy]

JoelSim:Cyrus, Naim, Roksan...peas in a pod. All very digital sounding.

Can't agree with that generalisation. I went from Cyrus CD6s to Rega Apollo (as you can see, I'm rather guided by WHF award winners) and now to Naim CD5XS. Moving from Cyrus to Rega was not much of an upgrade and the sound was different rather than clearly superior.

However, moving from the Rega to the Naim revealed how digital sounding the Rega was. The Naim sounds so much more natural and musical. Now I'm not sure if comparing the Naim to a dCS Puccini will show that my Naim is suffering from a bad bout of digititis, but from what I can hear, the Naim is certainly not "very digital sounding".

 

[chebby]

hifikrazy:JoelSim:Cyrus, Naim, Roksan...peas in a pod. All very digital sounding.

Can't agree with that generalisation. I went from Cyrus CD6s to Rega Apollo (as you can see, I'm rather guided by WHF award winners) and now to Naim CD5XS. Moving from Cyrus to Rega was not much of an upgrade and the sound was different rather than clearly superior.

However, moving from the Rega to the Naim revealed how digital sounding the Rega was. The Naim sounds so much more natural and musical. Now I'm not sure if comparing the Naim to a dCS Puccini will show that my Naim is suffering from a bad bout of digititis, but from what I can hear, the Naim is certainly not "very digital sounding".

Why did you do it?!

You shouldn't give in to Joel bait

 

[pete321]

the record spot:pete321:

Vinyl never managed that for me.
Fair comment Pete. pete321:

Admittedly, my Dual turntable didn't cost as much as most of the CD players I've owned in my time...

Ah! So, we're not really talking like with like. I agree CD can be a bit special, but good for an entry level deck though the Dual ranges typically were, this isn't a "like for like" comparison here!

You missed the bit about the Sony BDP-S370 (£100) which I'm using in the interim to play SACD's from, I suspect the DSD sound from that would embarrass a lot of more expensive turntables.

My cousin has a £1000+ turntable and I must admit I can't see the appeal, I'm sure that if I connected a £1000 CD player to his system and played the same album on CD I prefer the CD. All told I think we just have to accept that people have different sonic preferences, there are some that want a warm sound, others like me crave detail. Yes detail can lead to some recording sounding harsh and careful matching is needed, but when it's right it just gives so much more (IMO of course).

 

[Anonymous]

Why do you think turntables are warm sounding and less detailed than digital? That depends on the cartridge, arm, type of suspension etc. The most detailed source I've heard was an LP 12, and the most clinical a Clearaudio Performance.

I have a lot of SACDs and, while the sound can be better than CDs particularly on certain labels like Telarc, I still think vinyl can edge it.

Certainly agree, though, that 150? buys you a CD/SACD player that is way better than a similarly priced turntable. It's only above the 750? mark (talking new here, incidentally) that the balance shifts toward vinyl.

 

[5cats35]

This is a really interesting post. Clearly there are no winners here as it is all down to personal taste. I prefer vinyl but hey even my Cyrus CD8SE sounds great and even my iPod on my VitaR4 sounds good too.

I just think though if digital is so superior to analogue then why is it that more artists are returning to analogue recording?