Are records really better than CD's?

[JohnMichael]

Wow this record is better than cd's.The vinyl is very quiet and the music is beautiful.

[3db]

Records verses CD.. the debate continues on

From a pure technical standpoint, the CD format is a better format clobbering vinyl in both dynamic range and lack of background noise. However, that does not mean that every CD will out perform vinyl. Matter of fact, many vinyl recordings will clobber its CD counterpart. It all depends on the recording engineer behind the scenes. I have examples in my collection where vinyl clobbers its CD counterpart of the same recording and visa versa. Its not a black and white win for either medium.

The one thing that vinyl has going for it over CD is a sense involvement with the music. The ritual cleaning of teh record before every play, the lowering/raising of the tone arm, flipping the vinyl over and being able to read the line notes without a magnifying glass all adds to the fun and involvemnt of playing vinyl. I hope both formats stay around as both have their strengths.

[frenchmon]

Wow this record is better than cd's.The vinyl is very quiet and the music is beautiful.

That recording is in the top 50 best vinyl recordings...its worth the money....but I have a lot of records that are better than CD's.

[Poultrygeist]

I've played around lately with a couple of ancient AR TT ( remember those? ). Not the most sophisticated but indestructible. Any table is repairable. Speed controls on vintage tables are often the first thing to need attention but are easily fixed with contact cleaner.

I visited a guy in Charlotte who collects Rek O Kut turntables. He must have a dozen or so. Some look like museum pieces and are evidently highly collectable.

[3db]

sounds like a plug for direct drive turntables. Yet, every high end table i ever saw, read about in reviews is belt drive. I wonder why that is.

I think the whole arguement of belt drive verses direct drive is moot and that the tone arm/cartridge is the most critical part. Some old school dinosaurs even poo poo the new tables from Rega, Music Hall, and ProJect without ever hearing them. I find it halarious becuase the carbon fibre tonearms on those newer turntables will blow the Technic stalk arm completely out of the water. Just sayin.

[StevenSurprenant]

I am probably putting my foot in my mouth, but I think 3dB is correct about belt versus direct drive.

Technically and theoretically, anything you do to isolate the platter from noise and vibration can only improve the TT. Most belt drives still have the motor connected to the plinth and the platter is connected to the plinth so, even in this case, the concept is not perfect. Besides, many direct drive turn tables have a noise level of greater than 80dB, so I don't think direct versus belt is an issue.

The tone arm is another matter and, not knowing better, I think which one is better is a matter of synergy with the cartridge compliance.

PHONO Cartridge Compliance, Tonearm Mass, System Resonance, Loading of MC and MM Capacitance, RIAA Characteristic

A heavy object needs a strong spring. Likewise heavy arms are only suitable for cartridges with a sturdy cantilever. In other words: a cartridge with a low compliance figure needs a heavy arm in order to obtain a fundamental resonance in the region of 8 to 12 Hz.
A lightweight arm needs to be matched with a supple spring, in other words a very compliant spring which is the cantilever of a high-compliance cartridge.


After that, it's a matter of matching the correct preamp with the cartridge. This is also covered in the link above.

As for manual versus automatic, I assume that an automatic has added mass to the tone arm assembly, so that is a compliance issue and can be adjusted for with the correct choice in cartridges.

As for which "improvement matters the most, I'm guessing that it's the cartridge followed by the tone arm, but the best cartridge may not be the best if the tone arm compliance is incorrect for it. After that, I think the preamp is the next step and the same thing applies, like the tome arm/cartridge, the preamp has to be correct for the cartridge in use. I'm guessing here!

All this sounds logical (to me), but as JohnMichael posted, changing his motor improved the sound of his belt driven table, which I wouldn't think would be that important. I have no reason to dispute him, so that leaves me wondering.

[nobody]

Interesting thread with a couple things popping up I don't always see when the whole CD vs. vinyl debate rears its head. First, as a fan of automatic turntables, glad to see I am not alone. Manual is fine if you sit in a chair and listen all the time. But if you;'re someone who plays records while doing 100 other things and when napping nearby or anything less focused sometimes, having something that at least shuts off at the end is really nice. Auto-start is also nice for other people to operate without being afraid they are going to drop the needle or whatever. Merits of sound quality aside, for me at least some automation is close to a must-have in a turntable.

Also glad to see people being pretty level headed that yes, CD and digital will always measure better and some will prefer the sound. But, that doesn't mean vinyl can't sound great as well or that an individual won't prefer both the sound and the experience of vinyl while others may prefer the digital experience.

And for me, that's key. I have tried a few different tables, even a couple manual belt-drive types and in the end I have come back to something that provides the experience I really want out of vinyl. I like the retro aesthetic of a vintage table, and I like the automation of some older tables, and I like the ability to play 78s, even stacking them from time to time. So for me, the choice was limited to vintage tables with Dual being the most common culprit as it was the only one that let me do all of the above. I've ended up with a 1009SK, completely refurbished and I'm quite happy and can't say I have any urge to try anything else right now.

For me, what is best is about more than sound quality and when people pretend their decisions are all about sound and nothing else, I find it a bit disingenuous. We all have a variety of preferences that play into how we ultimately most enjoy music. Some people weigh other things more heavily than others. I think my feeling on this is why I found this thread interesting because while sound quality was discussed, people seem willing to admit there are other reasons as well as to why they choose what they choose to listen with.

Are record better than CDs? For me yes, absolutely. But, it is because I enjoy the total experience and not because of any sort of absolutist position on the sound or one format over the other.

[StevenSurprenant]

nobody - I curious about the JICO SAS stylus you use on your Shure. Bottom line, does it improve the sound and is it worth the investment (in your estimation)?

Thanks.

[JohnMichael]

You can hear the difference from the old motor compared to the new. I recorded two records to cd to listen in the car and after the motor change I recorded some tracks from both to hear the difference.

The old motor was loosely mounted with an O ring to minimize vibration transfer. Of course since the motor was able to move speed variations happened. The new rigid mounted motor was tuned electronically to reduce the motor's vibration. Now that Rega has minimized vibrations and speed stability the sound has improved. I took it a step further and bought the Rega power supply upgrade. I am not sure of this but it looks to me that the PSU is powered by a walwart that first converts the AC to DC. Then the unit converts back to AC for the motor and the speed control. I think the regenerated AC is much cleaner than straight from an outlet. Better speed stability, less vibrations and cleaner power have improved the sound of my table.

Belt drive vs direct drive is an interesting debate. In a belt drive table the belt does not transfer vibrations to the platter. A direct drive has the platter sitting directly on the motor's shaft. I think it would be easier to design a low vibration belt ttable than a direct drive table.

An interesting comment I read once is that a turntable's performance is more limited by internal vibration than external vibrations. The writer moved his table to another room and found little improvement. After reducing the vibrations and upgrading subplatter and bearing I am a believer in lower internal vibrations.

[StevenSurprenant]

John -

Do you think that the new motor affects the tone arm or the platter more? I just wonder because they are all connected to the plinth and it seems to me that since the tone arm has less mass that it would be the one most affected.

[JohnMichael]

One of the audio mags used to publish a great graph where you could look up your tonearm's effective mass and the weight of your cartridge. Next you would look for the compliance rating of your cartridge and you could see the frequency of the combination. I would use that scale whenever I was shopping for a new cartridge.

The arms geometry is also important. As I have posted before my Grado tracks really well in the Rega RB 250 after I switched to a lowered counterweight. This was when I had a Grado Red and when I heard the improvements I realized I finally heard the Grado magic. Of course the Sonata Statement is tracking well but even more magic to the sound.

[StevenSurprenant]

I know this thread has been going for a while and for some it has exceeded the point of being interesting, but I think it's too soon to close the book on this.

I think the strongest argument is that vinyl and digital is sometimes mastered differently so one version might be preferable over another. The other argument is that vinyl has a bloated mid bass and perhaps even distortion that some people prefer. This is not what I hear. Tonally, they sound the same, there seems to be no emphasis at any frequency. Of course, records can sound different on different turntables. The difference I hear is the amount of micro detail is greater on vinyl, hence bringing the sound closer to live. This difference is not subtle. The best way to describe the difference is to ring a bell and then ring it again with your finger touching it.

Considering that myself and an ever increasing number of people are switching back to vinyl, the most important question is what are we hearing that we don't hear from digital, of perhaps it's what we hear on digital that is sending us back to analog. I don't support the idea that vinyl sounds warmer, otherwise all we would have to do is turn up the bass a little. Some people claim that they like vinyl because it lacks the digital harshness of CD's. I can agree with this too.

The other argument is that our digital playback equipment is subpar. Considering that some really good CD players sound much better than what many of us own, there is probably some truth to this.

Another thing that is very important which seems to be glossed over is that our own audio systems have varying degrees of resolution, which can account for how much change we hear from different sources. I would think that the difference between vinyl and analog would be less on a lower resolution system, assuming that the quality of the analog and digital front ends were the same.

At this point I would like to interject an observation which I have noticed. When I cut a CD to my hard drive on my computer, it sounds much better through headphones than it does from a stand alone CD player going to headphones. In fact, I might go so far as to say that it may sound better (or the same) than vinyl. BTW, I use Grado headphones.

The only thing to do at this point is to pursue this computer aspect.

Note: If running music from the computer makes all the difference than my displeasure with digital has always been the the myriad of digital equipment I've owned and heard.

I'll update my results for those interested...

Thanks again for all those who attributed to this thread.

[Poultrygeist]

AR and Rek O Kut were belt drive tables.

[Poultrygeist]

I thought my old SL-1300/Shure m97ex sounded pretty decent with the CJ PV but it improved by leaps and bounds when I replaced the CJ with a Jolida JD9, The JD9 tube phono preamp was such a giant upgrade it started me buying vinyl again. I'd rather have a great phono preamp with an average table than a great table with an average phono preamp.

My next upgrade will be to replace the Shure m97xe with a Denon DL103D MC which is said to be a good match for the Technics medium mass arm.

[nobody]

Bottom line is I think the stylus is worth it, especially if you already have a cart in good shape. That statement assumes that the cart is a good match in the first place for your table. I think for under $200 if you've already got a body, you're getting a really good mm cart.

I bought the Shure V15xMR with its original stylus when they were still readily available at or below list price and used it until I had my one and only stylus accident one night. I should say if anyone is looking to replicate that original sound, I don't think the Jico does that. It has a sound of it's own. It is bolder and brighter than the original. The bass of the original is what I liked about that sound and the Jico retains a solid foundation, but it is not of the same character exactly as what I recall with the original. I think the Jico has a more detailed midrange that is more spacious and the high end is not rolled off like on the original. Now, it has been many years since I directly listened to the original and memory is a funny thing. But I do still have CDs burned when I was using the original and I believe this assessment holds up, at least in my setup.

So the Jico stylus to me is a bit of a mixed bag, but I enjoy it in the end. It does not sound like the orioginal so if you want that sound you're out of luck. However, it does really pull out a lot of midrange detail while having a flatter response up top. Bass is still strong and good, just seems to loose a bit of the character the original had for me, but I don't see it as necessarily a weakness of the cart, it is just a difference. And this could really be as much a factor of the bass being more prominent with the original due to a rolled off top end. Hard to say. But I think the cart with the Jico stylus provides a great balance of being detailed up top while still having a good relatively smooth overall balance and strong bass.

Tracking wise, I am remembering back a way, and I was using it on another table (which really colors all these comments). But I'd say they were in the same ballpark. I'm having good luck tracking without a lot of stylus force. I would say the brushes are very different with the old sure brush affecting tracking force much more than the Jico brush.

I think that's about all I can think of on it.

[JohnMichael]

This is similar to what I am trying to find. Total mass is the tonearm's effective mass plus the weight of the cartridge.

The below diagram illustrates the relationship between cartridge compliance, tonearm mass and the resulting resonance frequency:

[StevenSurprenant]

This is similar to what I am trying to find. Total mass is the tonearm's effective mass plus the weight of the cartridge.

The below diagram illustrates the relationship between cartridge compliance, tonearm mass and the resulting resonance frequency:

Perhaps this?

Resonance Frequency

[JohnMichael]

Perhaps this?

Resonance Frequency

What I liked about the graph I am looking for is the visual range of the frequncies involved. You have a band of acceptable range which gives you some wiggle room in choosing a cartridge. Similar to the one I posted you can have good tracking if the tonearm/cartridge and compliance fall within the dotted space.

[StevenSurprenant]

Bottom line is I think the stylus is worth it, especially if you already have a cart in good shape. That statement assumes that the cart is a good match in the first place for your table. I think for under $200 if you've already got a body, you're getting a really good mm cart.

Thanks, I really appreciate the depth you went into describing the stylus.

[StevenSurprenant]

The VPI looks great and I've only heard good about machines like this, but it's a little too much for me.

However, the shop vac seems like a good idea. I've looked around and there are a number of clever ways of cleaning records from, using a waterpic, compressed air, wood glue, and washing them in the sink with a sponge (which is what I used to do).

Thanks

[3db]

The VPI looks great and I've only heard good about machines like this, but it's a little too much for me.

However, the shop vac seems like a good idea. I've looked around and there are a number of clever ways of cleaning records from, using a waterpic, compressed air, wood glue, and washing them in the sink with a sponge (which is what I used to do).

Thanks

A few people at Audioholics looked into this and quite liked the results;

Vinyl Record Cleaner and Washing System | Spin Clean Record Washing System

This my turntable which I'm totally enamoured with.

[StevenSurprenant]

This my turntable which I'm totally enamoured with.

I love the looks of turntables like this, simple but elegant. Your tone arm and platter are very cool!

[3db]

I love the looks of turntables like this, simple but elegant. Your tone arm and platter are very cool!

Thanks. The acrylic platter eliminates almost all static.

[02audionoob]

There is also a clever record cleaning machine at KAB ELECTRO ACOUSTICS . It works like a Nitty Gritty, but with your household vacuum cleaner.

[frenchmon]

nice table 3db....what cart and phono amp are you using?