CDs Over Vinyl Any Day

[eleiko]

Used Rega or as was pointed out in another thread, project. Those new are $600- $800, used for radically less. Goldring, Grado, Ortofon, Sumiko all make good $300 carts. You can have a new/nearly new deck, cart and arm (like a rega p2) hotrodded for under $1 grand.

No mass market cd player under $1200 comes close to a properly invested $1200 in vinyl. The detail just isn't there, nor the fluidity.

What "several sources?" I don't need others to tell me what I have actually experianced firsthand. Mass market cd players really don't do a whole lot under $1k for detail. You obviously have no idea what a good cd or Lp actually does sound like.

You are making judgements based upon total hearsay, and using mediocre gear to conclude "findings"

Most of my LP's are dead silent. That comes from proper care and periodic cleaning.

NAD started making a "decent" cdp in the C540. Before that, they were mediocre at best. Now they are a "good value" but fall obviously short when compared to a $1200 player.

I'll admit that I've never listened to "reference" sources. Then again, I don't seem to have the "golden ears" claimed by some audiophiles who perceive detail and nuance better than I ever could or imagine. Obviously, I do hear sound differences in speakers, for it's the speakers, as we all know, that produce the greatest disparity in sound. And I did, as noted, hear the difference between my Denon MC cartridge and the subsequently purchased Simiko Pearl. But the subtleties in tone and such described by some here don't, in my view, justify the costs for the associated equipment. Besides, at 54, my hearing isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago. You reach a certain age and there's definite roll-off, starting at the high end of the spectrum. And no $10,000 CD player or turntable is going to correct that.

[rb122]

Besides, at 54, my hearing isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago. You reach a certain age and there's definite roll-off, starting at the high end of the spectrum. And no $10,000 CD player or turntable is going to correct that.

You're right - they won't.

I have the opposite "problem" - my hearing has not seriously diminished since I was 19, 12 years ago. I have abnormally "good" hearing, if being able to hear high frequencies is a "good" thing. I will always wonder if it's my hearing that makes CD's sound so horribly unnatural to me. Very often, they sound grating. Live music never does that to me and neither does the LP.

I've got less than $10K invested in my system because I went with used equipment. I would recommend checking into that when it's time for your next replacement. And I wouldn't invest a nickel more than I felt I had to. If you're enjoying recorded music as much as it appears you are, you're in fine shape.

[Sondek]

I'll admit that I've never listened to "reference" sources. Then again, I don't seem to have the "golden ears" claimed by some audiophiles who perceive detail and nuance better than I ever could or imagine. Obviously, I do hear sound differences in speakers, for it's the speakers, as we all know, that produce the greatest disparity in sound. And I did, as noted, hear the difference between my Denon MC cartridge and the subsequently purchased Simiko Pearl. But the subtleties in tone and such described by some here don't, in my view, justify the costs for the associated equipment. Besides, at 54, my hearing isn't what it was 20 or 30 years ago. You reach a certain age and there's definite roll-off, starting at the high end of the spectrum. And no $10,000 CD player or turntable is going to correct that.

I don't believe in golden ears...just experienced ones. Folks that have spent time listening to live, unamplified music and really detailed gear.

Here is a good example of a nuance that takes no special ability (or rolled off in hearing) to actually hear:

On a $2800 Arcam cd-33T Allison Krauss + union station live sounds decent. It sounds a bit smoother, and more spacious than on an NAD C-540. That is easy to hear, because things like cymbals sound more life sized. the sound of the Arcam spreads the sound wider from the speakers than the NAD can. There is a gloss in the mids that the NAD does not quite deliver.

The same recording on a NAIM CDS3: suddenly the stringed instruments have a reverberation through the hollow body of the instrument. The sustain on the strings goes on and on much longer. Instead of just plucked banjo strings, you can hear the resonance of the drumhead. This information is sometimes between 2khz and 8khz.

Some of the writers for TAS and Stereophile are in thier 50's. The only difference is they have constant exposure to topline gear, and trained hearing. They don't have better hearing, because some do admit the same decline in upper treble hearing.

[eleiko]

I don't believe in golden ears...just experienced ones. Folks that have spent time listening to live, unamplified music and really detailed gear.

Here is a good example of a nuance that takes no special ability (or rolled off in hearing) to actually hear:

On a $2800 Arcam cd-33T Allison Krauss + union station live sounds decent. It sounds a bit smoother, and more spacious than on an NAD C-540. That is easy to hear, because things like cymbals sound more life sized. the sound of the Arcam spreads the sound wider from the speakers than the NAD can. There is a gloss in the mids that the NAD does not quite deliver.

The same recording on a NAIM CDS3: suddenly the stringed instruments have a reverberation through the hollow body of the instrument. The sustain on the strings goes on and on much longer. Instead of just plucked banjo strings, you can hear the resonance of the drumhead. This information is sometimes between 2khz and 8khz.

Some of the writers for TAS and Stereophile are in thier 50's. The only difference is they have constant exposure to topline gear, and trained hearing. They don't have better hearing, because some do admit the same decline in upper treble hearing.

Sounds like truth in what you say. Again, it comes down to priorities and what one is willing to spend for the sort of nuance that only the High End can seem to deliver. I'm very much involved in the shooting sports, which can also become a bottomless pit of guns (yes, we have our high end stuff, too. Ex: Rock River AR National Match rifle - $1200. .223 cal. ammo not included) and ammo. In fact, it's potentially more expensive because of the constant ammo replentishment. Vinyl and CD can be enjoyed over and over.

[Sondek]

Sounds like truth in what you say. Again, it comes down to priorities and what one is willing to spend for the sort of nuance that only the High End can seem to deliver. I'm very much involved in the shooting sports, which can also become a bottomless pit of guns (yes, we have our high end stuff, too. Ex: Rock River AR National Match rifle - $1200. .223 cal. ammo not included) and ammo. In fact, it's potentially more expensive because of the constant ammo replentishment. Vinyl and CD can be enjoyed over and over.

I have determined that about $350 in parts into a $400 cd player of decent origin (Rotel,NAD) will deliver what a $4k cd player will. Modifiers get little press, but it was obvious that a Daniels audio (modified sony) was a big improvement. If I were to reinvest in a cd player, I'd buy a used NAD or Rotel and modify it. A lot of times it is as simple as proper sheilding, good capacitors, and damping.

My relatives are all into guns. They get the stuff at wholesale, but they have priorities there. They cannot fathom spending more than $100 on a cd player, but they will brag they have a rare 10 guage or a highly modded thompson contender or Glock for many kilobucks.

Of course, shooting skeet, deer, and drop targets for 30 years without hearing protection---they have very little need for high fidelity...

[eleiko]

I have determined that about $350 in parts into a $400 cd player of decent origin (Rotel,NAD) will deliver what a $4k cd player will. Modifiers get little press, but it was obvious that a Daniels audio (modified sony) was a big improvement. If I were to reinvest in a cd player, I'd buy a used NAD or Rotel and modify it. A lot of times it is as simple as proper sheilding, good capacitors, and damping.

My relatives are all into guns. They get the stuff at wholesale, but they have priorities there. They cannot fathom spending more than $100 on a cd player, but they will brag they have a rare 10 guage or a highly modded thompson contender or Glock for many kilobucks.

Of course, shooting skeet, deer, and drop targets for 30 years without hearing protection---they have very little need for high fidelity...

Chuck Hawks has a gun website. He's a shooting pundit/enthusiast AND audiophile, though I've no idea what hifi gear he owns. But if his hifi budget is proportionate to his guns budget...Well, let's just say I couldn't afford to indulge in both passions on a high-end level. It's either the $2000 Swiss-made Hammerlie .22 target pistol or $1000 Thorens table with high-end Sumiko or Koetsu cartridge. Decisions, decisions...

[maxg]

There are so many factors that go into the chain that leads to your listening to music that it is quite possible CD will sound better than vinyl on your system in your room.

To me the main advantage of CD (and digital in general) is that it requires so little effort on your part to play the music at, say 90% of what it is capable of. this is not the case for vinyl. Setup is everything. Tracking weight, VTA, anti-skate, vinyl cleaning, speed checking, suitable phono stage adjusted properly, totally level surface the list goes on and on.

Of course if you are insane like me and you are amplifying all of that with tube amps there are another dozen factors to add in to that list.

Then there are envonmental issues. What are the sonic characteristics of your listening room. It is quiet possible, if your room is particularly adsorbant of high frequencies, that the added harshness (cant think of a better word - sorry) of CD works whilst vinyl will sound flat and lifeless - however good the setup!

Thereafter add in the supporting gear. What are the response characteristics of your speakers? Your amp, pre-amp etc?

To summarise all of the above into something more easily digestible one word - synergy. It is how all of your equipment, music preferences, listening room and most importantly your ears tie in together that will determine what sounds good to you and what doesnt. It might take a system that costs $100,000 and it might take a system that costs $1,000 or less. Neither is wrong.

[eleiko]

There are so many factors that go into the chain that leads to your listening to music that it is quite possible CD will sound better than vinyl on your system in your room.

To me the main advantage of CD (and digital in general) is that it requires so little effort on your part to play the music at, say 90% of what it is capable of. this is not the case for vinyl. Setup is everything. Tracking weight, VTA, anti-skate, vinyl cleaning, speed checking, suitable phono stage adjusted properly, totally level surface the list goes on and on.

Of course if you are insane like me and you are amplifying all of that with tube amps there are another dozen factors to add in to that list.

Then there are envonmental issues. What are the sonic characteristics of your listening room. It is quiet possible, if your room is particularly adsorbant of high frequencies, that the added harshness (cant think of a better word - sorry) of CD works whilst vinyl will sound flat and lifeless - however good the setup!

Thereafter add in the supporting gear. What are the response characteristics of your speakers? Your amp, pre-amp etc?

To summarise all of the above into something more easily digestible one word - synergy. It is how all of your equipment, music preferences, listening room and most importantly your ears tie in together that will determine what sounds good to you and what doesnt. It might take a system that costs $100,000 and it might take a system that costs $1,000 or less. Neither is wrong.

You've articulated one of my points much better than I. As you said, set-up is everything with vinyl, achieving the right meld of table, tone arm and cartridge. To some, who don't mind spending the money, this is a plearsurable challenge. Others prefer the no-brainer appeal of CD. Ergonomically, CD makes a lot more sense. They take up less space and are easier to handle. I don't think there's a profound difference in the sound quality between CD and vinyl, but CD has spoiled me with its quiet background. Clicks and pops invariably work their way into vinyl no matter how clean I keep my records. It's the "sound" of silence that I miss most when listening to vinyl.