Sounds like you are on your way to becoming a vinyl junkie like a few of us...welcome to the good side.:14:Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Are records really better than CD's?
Printable View
-
09-21-2012, 12:47 AMfrenchmon
-
09-21-2012, 01:30 AMfrenchmonI've got a CDP that retailed for $1500, and it has a huge and very nice external power supply.... Its not about being the most detailed...has no digital edge to music and limited and very low digital noise, has a slight warmer tubed like tone. Its really a muiscal player and its very good. And I have a $1300 TT with a $700 Cart. The digital while very, very good, the sound from the TT will best it in my opinion. The TT play back has to do with the way vinyl sounds. I like it more. Its smoother, flows better, drums, horns guitars etc all sound more natural, low level detail and clarity is better and the cohesiveness of the overall sound , depth, and staging is greater in my opinion. Also, I think I have a greater ear for the vinyl because I grew up with records and a record player due to my dad playing records all the time, so I had a very early exposure to vinyl play back while I was still in diapers. I abandoned vinyl at the advent of CD's. Sold all my albums and TT's and got a CDP and used it for years until about 3 years ago. I then rediscovered vinyl again after my wife gifted me a mmf-2.1 and after the needle hit the record for the first time again after about 20 years, I could immediately hear the difference in vinyl playback which was unlike CD playback. It was like I had found something I had lost years ago. I often wonder would I feel the same way about vinyl if I was born in the CD generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
-
09-21-2012, 04:26 AMStevenSurprenantQuote:
Originally Posted by frenchmon
I agree with how vinyl sounds. The increase in low level detail that I'm hearing is amazing and really makes the instruments sound more real and depth and staging are as you said, better. It also sounds more dynamic. Someone here mentioned that already. Hands down, better all the way around. I realize that I sound overly zealous about this, but for the first time since the 70's, music is vibrant again.
I'm not saying that vinyl is perfect, but for me, with my digital equipment, digital sounds dull in comparison.
With the new cartridge, I hear even more detail than I remember from the past, so I'd say that my present analog system is better than what I had back in the day. The new cartridge is a little bright, but I understand that after about 50 hours it quiets down a little.
I think that I made all the wrong choices for my digital front end because I've heard digital sound very good too, but not at home. The best soundstaging and clarity I've heard was with digital, but that happened with only a few systems. However, there is one difference between the best I've heard and what my TT sounds like and that is vinyl sounds more vibrant with more micro details. Perhaps saying it sounds more natural is a good way of describing it.
I did try to convert the output of the TT into digital through a Behringer digital equalizer at 24/96, but it didn't sound very good .
No surprise there because many people have stated that analog input into that unit wasn't very good, and they were right.
To be fair, my excitement is in relation to my digital gear and not in comparison to the best digital I've heard, so what I say has to be taken with a grain of salt.
I've learned a lesson here because people support both sides of this discussion. While the improvements I've experienced is extreme, it might not have been so had I had a better digital front end, so I understand why some might think I've gone over the top with this.
As for the younger generation, I've heard some of them say that digital is far superior, but I question what they are comparing it to?
E-Stat mentioned that he questions my assessment and I fully understand. I love stats and I imagine that his system is to die for. I would be almost ashamed to let him listen to my system considering what he has.
The other thing is that I can only imagine that your analog is much better than mine as are many others, and that makes me want to get on the audio roller coaster again, but as for now, I'm enjoying my new found rediscovery.
Thanks for sharing your views with me.
BTW, you might want to try "Caverna Magica" on vinyl. It sounds very good. -
09-21-2012, 02:30 PME-StatCall me an optimist, but I continue to point out that what you object to is merely an arbitrary application of digital - the lame Redbook standard. Better exists, but the music industry keeps us from enjoying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Don't get me wrong. I merely observe that the villain is not digital per se, but the specific application and even with Redbook recordings, there are players that to these ears come pretty darn close to the best analog. HP listens to his EMM players as much or more than the $150,000 Clearaudio Statement. At least when I visit. With no apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
I will most certainly have to agree with you as that is one of my favorites. There is one thing, however, that one must do when listening to this music: turn out the lights!Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
-
09-21-2012, 08:54 PMStevenSurprenant
E-Stat, I'm sure you're right about all that, but if good digital costs that much than it is out of the reach of people with an average income and so is of no value. What I'd rather see is a digital front end that is relatively low cost, something most people could afford, and something that equals, if not surpasses what I hear on vinyl.
From my point of view, digital may be technically superior, but if what most people own (can afford) is not giving the best that digital has to offer and a low cost vinyl system outperforms it, then it is not better. In other words, what most people end up with is the equivalent of record players of the seventies compared to a good turntable.
What under $500 comes close to an EMM player? Or what is closer for under $1,000? There's many CD players out there, but what's the real deal priced affordably? You get the picture. -
09-22-2012, 05:46 AME-StatUsing a 25k EMM Labs XD-S1 player is no more required than using the $150k Clearaudio Statement along with the $15k Goldfinger cartridge. Although there will always be at any relative level, tradeoffs with either format. Aside: The Statement is an incredible piece of mechanical engineering. Have you ever seen one in the flesh? This 800 lb turntable is a combination of precision instrument and Nautilus weight machine. It uses magnetic drive and the positively MASSIVE lower platter is mounted in a gimballed structure supported by a series of weights. Consequently, the platter assembly can pivot in any direction. Just a nudge of your finger gently rocks the entire assembly. And it uses the ultimate development of Lou Souther's Tri-Quartz linear arm (I use the original from 1984 on my VPI Scout). Hearing some 45 RPM Classic Records releases with this gentle giant out to Scaena 1.4s using spectacular components in between provides quite the musical experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Click here for images
The same number that under $500 vinyl rigs come close to the Clearaudio.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
I think in today's market you can find reasonably priced digital gear that doesn't have to apologize. Given the ongoing transition to computer based server systems, it seems that most are not players, but DACs. I find that the modest Squeezebox Touch Network player sounds pretty darn good when supplemented with a linear power supply. I have two sets that run under $500 for the both. One is played through its internal DAC in the garage system, while the other feeds a better sounding Audio Research DAC7 in the upstairs system. Naturally, my arrangement also requires a computer as transport, but you could always use one of your existing players for that. While I cannot vouch for it, many folks have praised the Schiit Bifrost DAC which is also at the $400-$500 level. I'm now convinced that faster spinning rust works better than shiny plastic when it comes to transports. Not to mention convenience and far easier access to your library. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
I also have renewed appreciation for the quality of mobile audio having just purchased some Shure SE535 in ear monitors. You complain about lack of detail with digital systems. My iPhone 4S playing lossless content through the 535s provides all sorts of detail. I was listening to them late last night and marveling at some nuances in a couple of recordings that I had never been aware of before. Not to mention varying textures in the bass region. -
09-22-2012, 08:27 AMStevenSurprenant
Thank you!
-
09-26-2012, 03:09 PMSir Terrence the Terrible
Ralph, thanks for restoring some balance in this syrupy vinyl pat fest. I was getting diabetes just reading all of this.
Vinyl lovers choose the disc because of its euphoric qualities, and some sort of physical romance with it. That is it. There are no inherent performance advantages over digital, especially Hi resolution digital. Some have gotten quite accustom to the distortions that vinyl introduces, and find it quite pleasing. That is all there is to it. Performances advantage....Inherent performance advantages...I don't think so. -
09-26-2012, 04:58 PME-StatNo problemo. While I'm just an old boomer f*rt who grew up spinning records, I hope folks understand that I'm in no way attached to the required ceremony of cleaning the record and stylus before every play. It's just that such is necessary. to get the best results. I would love nothing more than to find ALL my music magically converted to high resolution (24/88 or better) digital. And not crippled by the old world limitation of having to spin a disc. I like to think that my assessments are entirely based upon objective qualitative observations of recorded music vs. the live unamplified reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
For the most part I agree, but the unfortunate reality is that the overwhelming majority of the music catalog is available in no better than the limited Redbook standard. Yes, Redbook has some advantages over vinyl and arguably, I spend far more time listening to it. On the other hand, there are a few areas where the best vinyl trumps the Redbook standard. Low level resolution. Top octave response. Choose your set of compromises.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
As for hi-rez, the challenge is that its availability is incredibly limited - when compared with the enormity of available music content. You won't find anyone more than I who truly wishes that the music industry would provide hi-rez capability to more than 2% of the catalog!
It's all about tradeoffs. I find it a crime that so much valuable musical content from the last three decades has been forever compromised by the Redbook standard - entirely dictated by computer storage technology standards of the 80s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Long live high resolution digital - when it actually gets here for the lion's share of the content that people buy! I may be old, but I as a computer guy, I am a technologist - this evening I was spending time in my neighbor's driveway while listening to the garage system and love nothing more than to control the content using my iPhone via Wi-Fi connectivity. He and his teenage daughter were washing her car so I selected a playlist of her music.
I get it. -
09-26-2012, 06:58 PMStevenSurprenant
E-Stat
I don't have the background of either of you folks and so I can't comment on hi-rez very much except to comment on my very brief experience with HDCD and SACD. I thought, depending on the quality of the recording, that it was an improvement over standard CD's. As I said, my exposure was very limited. However, neither sounded as good as vinyl (at it's best), colored or not. With that said...
Show me one system that isn't colored. I have never heard two speakers sound alike and since the whole purpose of owning a sound system is to reproduce what we hear in real life, how can any claim be made that vinyl is colored when everything we reproduce sound with is colored.
I would imagine that everyone on this board has a different system and that all these systems sound completely different. Sir T mixes on a system that is also different than any one of us has. I would imagine that his monitors don't sound like your stats, so it would be a complete surprise if what he hears in his studio would be what you hear in your home.
The point is that being colored is the name of the game. I have never heard anything in audio that compares to live in all it's fullness. There was one system that was very close, but then I only listened to one song on one CD on it that the store owner provided. That particular recording excelled at soundstaging and was very impressive.
I once listened to a group of musicians playing Canon in D and I was within 3 feet of them. It brought tears to my eyes and I couldn't speak without my voice breaking up. No stereo has ever effected me to that degree. I don't care if you're running stats, horns, line arrays, or the very best dynamic speakers that money can buy, nothing can replace live in that context.
Another time I was listening to Avalon speakers running with state of the art Spectral gear and sat there thinking how real it sounded. That was until my friend stood between the speakers and began mimicking the song and I immediately understood how lacking the system was. You should try that.
Don't get me wrong, I love audio... For what it is and don't fret over what it is not. We can be very pleased with how our systems sound, but, unless we delude ourselves, we cannot rightfully claim accuracy. What that leaves us with is a facsimile that we find pleasing. I can't tell you how many times I've thought, "that sounds real", as I'm sure you've also thought, but does it really?
Sir T's remark, "Vinyl lovers choose the disc because of its euphoric qualities, and some sort of physical romance with it. That is it.", implies that your friends 600 pound turntable is less accurate than his CD player. Do you agree with this?
I concur that higher word sizes and bit rates should sound better and at some point put vinyl to shame, but that's not living in the real world that most people have access to, nor is it supported by recording companies that mass produce what we find in the stores.
So, if I wanted to buy a system that is totally accurate, which speaker would I buy, which amp and preamp, and which digital front end would I look for? The problem is they all sound different, so tell me which ones are not colored.
The bottom line is this...
knowing that everything is colored, don't you think that it makes sense to get what sounds good and don't worry so much about accuracy?
I can understand Sir T's position in this because digital is his life and he has access to the very best, plus I also think there's a strong possibility that he has gotten used to digital and so it sounds more natural to him.
I don't think my vinyl sounds more real than digital, but the bass is better defined, the treble is better defined, soundstaging is better defined, well... everything is. I know you said that a good digital front end can sound as good, but after throwing thousands of dollars at it, I give up. Besides, I've heard better digital (in the stores) than I have ever heard at home, but I've never heard a digital system sound "over all" as good as vinyl does now.
One last thing...
As you know, I love stats, but I've heard many people say they don't like anything dipole. Why is that? This is more of a rhetorical question.
The only reason for this last question is because people have said that dipoles are less dynamic and they had some concern for the reflected waveform from the rear disrupting the signal from the front, causing peaks and dips. Thus they claim dipoles are less accurate. I don't see it that way, but the fact is I love the effect, accurate or not. But the real question is, are they correct? I think many box speakers sound like a box which many dipole owners can readily hear. I remember A-B ing a pair of Thiel speakers next to a pair of Magnepan's and the box sound of the Thiel was almost too much to bear.
Thanks! -
09-26-2012, 07:52 PME-StatIndeed, the music industry has failed us in not universally adopting better standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Absolutely. The problem is that apparently you have a poor digital source relative to analog.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
I really couldn't disagree more with respect to my system - except for the top end response where analog still reigns over Redbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
I use a $3500 turntable/arm/cartridge combination that sounds pretty good, but cannot duplicate the first octave response of my similarly priced digital playback. The Telarc 1812 sounds pretty impressive, but the analog gear simply cannot deliver the same impact of the digital. The opening two seconds of the Avatar soundtrack is beyond vinyl's low end capability. As is the ASO recording of The Firebird, a recording in which I played a minor role in the recording. Rihanna's Hard Feat, Jeezy contains some incredible first octave bass. You feel the weight of the bass hanging in the air as you hear its complex texture. Vinyl simply can't do that in my experience. Not on HP's $500k system, either.
Sorry to hear about your bad experience. I get phenomenal results with a Squeezebox Touch player using an Audio Research DAC7.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Who are they? How familiar are they with the sound of live, unamplified music? What exactly is their reason? I won't try to speculate as to what they think they're missing. The very best sounding systems in my experience are not *impressive* sounding from an audio cowboy perspective. If what they seek is boom, sizzle and punch they most certainly won't find it. The sound is simply natural and live.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
-
09-26-2012, 08:14 PMStevenSurprenantI've heard this many times over the years and I always take it with a grain of salt. People are always arguing over one thing or another. I've even had one fellow say that my Quads sounded almost as good as his Bose, so beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.Quote:
Who are they? How familiar are they with the sound of live, unamplified music? What exactly is their reason? I won't try to speculate as to what they think they're missing. The very best sounding systems in my experience are not *impressive* sounding from an audio cowboy perspective. If what they seek is boom, sizzle and punch they most certainly won't find it. They simply sound natural and live.
My system doesn't go to the lowest octave of bass but what's there is sweet. Some day I'll get around to adding a sub. The bass I'm getting from vinyl is better than what my digital can do... (with my system)
You can be sure that I'll be researching digital. Maybe someday?
Thanks again. -
09-27-2012, 03:02 PME-StatThat suggests to me that your digital source needs a stiffer power supply. Impactful bass requires joules. Which is one reason why I use an aftermarket linear supply with the Touch player. Not only does it clean up the top, but it provides more authority at the bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
The Emotiva DAC has only four small power supply caps:
Interior pic -
09-27-2012, 04:23 PMSir Terrence the TerribleOne can have a different presentation, but no less quality from that presentation. My Dunlavy system's presentation is very different than my ATC system. However sound quality wise, they are equal in every way. The system in my signature has all of its front speakers built into a Baffle wall(no rear reflections), and has a completely different presentation than my Thiel CS-3.7 multichannel system. Sound QUALITY wise, both are very good. Presentation difference does not necessarily mean less sound quality....just a different presentation.Quote:
would imagine that everyone on this board has a different system and that all these systems sound completely different. Sir T mixes on a system that is also different than any one of us has. I would imagine that his monitors don't sound like your stats, so it would be a complete surprise if what he hears in his studio would be what you hear in your home.
Those stores are disappearing faster than we can breath. Based on that, you need to look elsewhere to find the Easter egg. If you like Classical or Jazz, there are a dozen or so download sites that have quite a bit of 24/88.2 and 24/96khz downloads of those gene. This my friend is the new real world. Gone is most of the brick and motar stores you speak about, and hello to downloading of music. I have 10 terabytes of high resolution music on my music server. The distribution of music is rapidly changing, and during this transition, you have to look for the quality nuggets - they are not going to fall into your lap.Quote:
I concur that higher word sizes and bit rates should sound better and at some point put vinyl to shame, but that's not living in the real world that most people have access to, nor is it supported by recording companies that mass produce what we find in the stores.
The weight of the turntable is absolutely irrelevant in this case. How do you make this statement without even knowing what kind of CD player I own? Assumptions are not better than facts.Quote:
Sir T's remark, "Vinyl lovers choose the disc because of its euphoric qualities, and some sort of physical romance with it. That is it.", implies that your friends 600 pound turntable is less accurate than his CD player. Do you agree with this?
The very nature of a needle touching a vinyl record introduces distortion. It is the same with the cassette and any other media where something touches something else. When you compare the original analog tape with the first vinyl pressing and the QC CD, the CD wins because it does not add anything like the vinyl record does. With vinyl all of these wonderful sonic qualities come out that were not apart of the original master. More midrange bloom, exaggerated separation, the softening of transients are just some of the things you hear when you actually have something to compare vinyl to. Audiophiles do not like neutral sound, or they would not pick vinyl as their listening choice. They enjoy the "euphoric" coloration it imparts, and that is what vinyl folks are looking for - not boring neutral sound quality. -
09-27-2012, 07:41 PMStevenSurprenantComparing a live performance to a playback system, there is only one presentation that is closer to being there. I suppose that you could argue that one system gets closer one way and another system gets closer another way. However, I don't disagree with you that different presentations can be very good. I like dipoles and speakers with a tall vertical waveform such as line arrays. I suppose that how the music gets presented isn't important to me as long as the image is disassociated with the actual speakers.Quote:
One can have a different presentation, but no less quality from that presentation.....just a different presentation.
No doubt, and I've been to some of these sites selling Hi-Rez files, but for the most part, it's not the kind of music I prefer. Jazz and classical are low on my list of desirable recordings. Below that is RAP and much mainstream pop music of today, I do have an interest in New Age, but a little goes a long way. I do love vocals, but much of what is available on these better formats is not to my liking. For instance, Diana Krall, a real favorite of many, just doesn't do it for me. Truthfully I can't put my finger on what I like and what I do really like can come from many different genres. Usually it will be only one song from the mix.Quote:
Those stores are disappearing faster than we can breath....
I was implying that it was a state of the art turntable without equal. I don't know anything about your CD player and never alluded to it. I assume you have much better equipment than a simple CD player.Quote:
The weight of the turntable is absolutely irrelevant in this case. How do you make this statement without even knowing what kind of CD player I own? Assumptions are not better than facts.
Everything has distortion. Your microphones, your speakers, your electronics, you name it and it has it. You can even say that speaker presentation that we referred to above can be considered a form of distortion, although it is not normally referred to in such a way. The fact is that if you compare two different speakers with different presentations and they are both equal in sound quality, what would you call the effect that makes them sound different? For sure, I wouldn't call it accuracy.Quote:
The very nature of a needle touching a vinyl record introduces distortion. ...
It's an odd thing... When I listen to live music, it's not a boring neutral sound. It's vibrant and tactile. CD's, at least the ones, I've had do not convey that vibrancy of being live whereas vinyl does get closer. Keep in mind that I've not heard all the CD players so I cannot say that it's not capable of being vibrant or that Hi-Rez recordings are better or worse than vinyl. I assume that Hi-Rez will (or does) close the gap and exceed vinyl in every way.Quote:
Audiophiles do not like neutral sound, or they would not pick vinyl as their listening choice. They enjoy the "euphoric" coloration it imparts, and that is what vinyl folks are looking for - not boring neutral sound quality.
I have to be frank with you about my conclusions about CD players. Most mainstream CD players were meant to replace peoples record players and average stereos. It does this very well and the improvement has been tremendous. They are not a replacement for a higher end audio system with vinyl. This in no way implies that the higher end CD players aren't vinyls equal in one way or another. I am not making a blanket statement that vinyl is without equal, but average CD players do not surpass a decent turntable system.
I don't find any of this to be true. When I play my favorite CD and record of the same recording, they sound almost alike. Where they differ is that I hear more detail, less blurring, and sound closer to what I've heard live which, I believe, is a product of having more detail.. So far this has held true for all copies that I have in both formats. I assume that eventually, I will find, in some cases, the opposite to be true since others have had that experience.Quote:
...More midrange bloom, exaggerated separation, the softening of transients ...
It all boils down to this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect, electronics are not perfect, audio transducers are not perfect, the recording process is not perfect, and our hearing is not perfect (or the same). Throw in all the abnormalities of room reflections and what you have is a cornucopia of imperfections that distort, in one way or another, what we hear. Why argue which one is more imperfect? Perhaps in the future, audio systems will improve to a point as to make the best of today sound like a gramophone in comparison.
People used to argue the same way over video and standard definition and then HD came along and blew it away, but it isn't stopping there. Higher definition formats are in the making and 3D transcends it all. Still, technology marches on to improve the state of the art of today.
Hi-rez audio formats are a step in the right direction, but it is only a step, which brings us a little closer to live. It cannot be considered the final solution to bridge the gap between live versus recorded. -
09-28-2012, 03:44 PMSir Terrence the TerribleIf jazz and classical is not high on your list, then throw out your live performance comparison. These are the only two genres that do not require a P.A system in a acoustical environment. Also if you are using a live comparison, then where you sit in the venue determines your live perspective. In any auditorium, where you sit determines your acoustical perspective, and not all halls or performance spaces are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
If you don't know what you like, then how can you search for quality sources of anything? Jazz and Classical are the most supported genres of high resolution audio, so you are essential searching for a needle in a hay stack, with filter applied to that search even further.Quote:
No doubt, and I've been to some of these sites selling Hi-Rez files, but for the most part, it's not the kind of music I prefer. Jazz and classical are low on my list of desirable recordings. Below that is RAP and much mainstream pop music of today, I do have an interest in New Age, but a little goes a long way. I do love vocals, but much of what is available on these better formats is not to my liking. For instance, Diana Krall, a real favorite of many, just doesn't do it for me. Truthfully I can't put my finger on what I like and what I do really like can come from many different genres. Usually it will be only one song from the mix.
A state of the art turntable is not without equal when the medium itself is already compromised in terms of accuracy and transparency. That is a fact, and if you choose to ignore that, then your opinion is already compromised.Quote:
I was implying that it was a state of the art turntable without equal. I don't know anything about your CD player and never alluded to it. I assume you have much better equipment than a simple CD player.
If you would call it accuracy, then your comments on vinyl are official negated. The best mastering and pressing engineers I know have stated that vinyl is the least accurate playback system there is, even though it is probably the most euphoric and pleasing format.Quote:
Everything has distortion. Your microphones, your speakers, your electronics, you name it and it has it. You can even say that speaker presentation that we referred to above can be considered a form of distortion, although it is not normally referred to in such a way. The fact is that if you compare two different speakers with different presentations and they are both equal in sound quality, what would you call the effect that makes them sound different? For sure, I wouldn't call it accuracy.
Then all one can conclude is you don't have a very good digital playback system.Quote:
It's an odd thing... When I listen to live music, it's not a boring neutral sound. It's vibrant and tactile. CD's, at least the ones, I've had do not convey that vibrancy of being live whereas vinyl does get closer. Keep in mind that I've not heard all the CD players so I cannot say that it's not capable of being vibrant or that Hi-Rez recordings are better or worse than vinyl. I assume that Hi-Rez will (or does) close the gap and exceed vinyl in every way.
You continually mention CD over and over again, and that is hardly the best digital presentation you can compare against vinyl.Quote:
I have to be frank with you about my conclusions about CD players. Most mainstream CD players were meant to replace peoples record players and average stereos. It does this very well and the improvement has been tremendous. They are not a replacement for a higher end audio system with vinyl. This in no way implies that the higher end CD players aren't vinyls equal in one way or another. I am not making a blanket statement that vinyl is without equal, but average CD players do not surpass a decent turntable system.
If you don't have a high quality digital source, then your comparison is already flawed.Quote:
I don't find any of this to be true. When I play my favorite CD and record of the same recording, they sound almost alike. Where they differ is that I hear more detail, less blurring, and sound closer to what I've heard live which, I believe, is a product of having more detail.. So far this has held true for all copies that I have in both formats. I assume that eventually, I will find, in some cases, the opposite to be true since others have had that experience.
I can just see your skirming right now, you are now reaching for points that discredit everything, and that shows the weakness of your prevous points. Not one thing in the statement degates the fact that vinyl is a imperfect medium for accuracy and neutrality. The room could be perfect, and it would still expose the coloration of the vinyl format as a playback system.Quote:
It all boils down to this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect, electronics are not perfect, audio transducers are not perfect, the recording process is not perfect, and our hearing is not perfect (or the same). Throw in all the abnormalities of room reflections and what you have is a cornucopia of imperfections that distort, in one way or another, what we hear. Why argue which one is more imperfect? Perhaps in the future, audio systems will improve to a point as to make the best of today sound like a gramophone in comparison.
How could you even make the last statement without any experience with high resolution audio? 24/96khz and 24/192khz audio far more than bridges any gap, most believe that is an overkill for the human ears - and yet it is out there.Quote:
People used to argue the same way over video and standard definition and then HD came along and blew it away, but it isn't stopping there. Higher definition formats are in the making and 3D transcends it all. Still, technology marches on to improve the state of the art of today.
Hi-rez audio formats are a step in the right direction, but it is only a step, which brings us a little closer to live. It cannot be considered the final solution to bridge the gap between live versus recorded.
I would rather have formats that exceed the capabilites of my ear in terms of frequency, transparency, and resolution, than one that sugar and spices it to death. -
09-28-2012, 06:27 PMStevenSurprenant
"skirming" - what does that mean?
How many times must I say this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect.
Analog is a technology past it's prime and digital will supplant it entirely at some point in the future, but it's not going to be today, not with redbook as the standard for the average consumer.
Copied from another site...
That is the crux of the problem, CD's and MP3's are what is being fed to the public. - As E-Stat has mentioned more than once.Quote:
...a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate....
...A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost....
...This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound...
...CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling...
-
09-29-2012, 09:09 AMSir Terrence the TerribleIt is a slang word for a person who tries to equalize something that is not really equal. You do that a lot my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
This is skirming. You are trying to equalize something by pointing out something obvious. Sure neither is perfect, but vinyl is far LESS perfect than even the CD. Doug Sax, Bob Katz, Bernie Grundman, Bob Ludwig, Wilma Cozart Fine and Steve Hoffman have all gone on the record(no pun intended) as saying so. Bob Ludwig stated that if you wanted accuracy and trueness to the original master, don't listen to vinyl. I have heard it for myself when doing a concert project for my church that Doug Sax mastered and cut the vinyl on. I HAVE ACTUALLY MADE THE COMPARISON, so my opinion is not made in a vaccum like yours is. Wilma Fine stated it this way - "Yes my husbands says the CD sample rate is too low, but the CD's are closer to the masters than the LP is. She was speaking of the living presence collection.Quote:
How many times must I say this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect.
The Redbook standard is in decline, and has been for years. Even high end CD players no longer conform to the standard, as they are upconverting and upsamping the audio. CD sales have been dropping by 6-10% year over year every since 2003. Audiophiles have moved on to high resolution disc or downloads, and the general public towards MP3.Quote:
Analog is a technology past it's prime and digital will supplant it entirely at some point in the future, but it's not going to be today, not with redbook as the standard for the average consumer.
Copied from another site...
Whoever wrote this does not have a great understanding of PCM audio. The reconstruction filter combines the individual samples into a singular waveform so that it conforms to the orignal waveform. It is much like a interlaced video being processed into a progressive video format. Each interlaced field is combined to create a single field of video information. Both processes are invisible to the ears and eyes. CD does an excellent job of replicating the original until it gets to 10khz.Above that is where CD has its problems. How much above 10khz can you hear Steve?Quote:
.a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate....
...A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost....
...This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound...
...CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling...
At least the person who wrote this comment got the last sentence right, even if he failed on all the rest.
Let's bring a little context to Ralph's comments. He is referring to the kind of music HE LIKES. He does not like classical or jazz, and aside from that, there is not much to choose from in high resolution. If you like classical and jazz, there is a ton of high resolution music out there for the picking. I have a 10 terabyte raid drive full of high resolution music, and another one on the way into my system.Quote:
That is the crux of the problem, CD's and MP3's are what is being fed to the public. - As E-Stat has mentioned more than once.
Nobody is being fed anything, it is what you seek out. Seek and ye shall find. If you don't seek, you will find nothing. If you want high resolution music of your liking, you can probably find it these days. HDtracks has Jazz, rock, electronic classical, country and bluegrass, gospel, hip hop and rap, and quite a few subgenre's of the Blues. They have New age, R&B, pop, raggae, soundtracks, and world music. You have to look for them Steve, it is not going to drop in your lap. -
09-30-2012, 03:12 AMStevenSurprenant
I can't hear anything above 16k. That was true 30 years ago and it's true today. From what people say, I imagine that will change in my later years, for the worse. However, my hearing is quite good. For instance, I can hear a floor fan upstairs sitting on thick carpeting and padding from downstairs as long as the rest of the house is quiet. Another example is when I was listening to a live band, I could focus on the reflections coming from the walls of the room which were distinct from the source. I'm extremely sensitive to bass and cannot stand bass that is excessive, even a little.
Also, I am glaringly aware when the balance is off between fundamental frequencies and it's harmonics. For instance, my systems doesn't go down to 20Hz so when a note is played that goes below the threshold of my speakers, I can hear the harmonics, but not the fundamental. It stands out like a sore thumb. This is also true for the rest of the frequency range if there are humps or dips in the output. Of course there is a limit to my ability to detect these abnormalities. It becomes harder to detect when the change is gradual over an extended range, which in cases like this, it takes extended listening to finally say that it just doesn't sound right. I assume that all I said is normal for people interested in highend audio and I don't see this (ability?) as anything but normal..
I don't use tone controls or equalizers. I own some, but with quality speakers it's usually a DB up here or a DB down there, not worth dealing with in most cases.
When I was creating the crossover for my speakers I had one speaker set up about 16 feet away and about 5 foot from a side wall. I was amazed that the sound came distinctly from between the speaker and the wall. I realized that what was causing this was I was hearing the speaker and the reflection from the wall causing the image to come from between them. It occurred to me that this could be a good thing or a bad thing. Bad from the viewpoint that this strong reflection had to be tamed or good because, if set up correctly, could make the soundstage appear wider and outside the speakers. I suppose that you could call that presentation. BTW, I use Newform ribbons that seem to have a high dispersion pattern down to 1,000Hz. This also means that my SEAS woofer is nowhere near the point where it beams and perhaps it too has wide dispersion. I'm guessing on this last part.
The point of this monolog is to point out that I am not a passive listener. I imagine that very few people here are. I don't like smiley faces on EQ's and don't care much for lower quality speakers mostly because they have sloppy bass or the bass is accentuated to make people think they go lower than they do. I'm mostly a midrange guy who would rather have very little bass rather than have poor bass. The highs are second on my list in importance.
Back to CD's (redbook)...
One of my favorite recordings is “Starry Night” by Julio Iglesias which I have on CD and Vinyl. Tonally, they are identical on both mediums. Admittedly, they use a little too much reverb, but I can live with that. What's different between the CD and the vinyl is that the vinyl presents much more detail than the CD version plus the highs are extended on vinyl. When I say extended what I mean is that the highs are there on both formats, but on the vinyl I can hear the cymbals shimmering in the background, but on the CD all I can hear is the tink of the stick hitting it. This effect pretty much applies to the entire frequency range which is why I say CD's sound dull in comparison. The bass or midbass is not accentuated as you implied, it is the same on both formats. The only real difference is the amount of detail present and separation of instruments in the soundstage. I would assume that my choice in phono cartridges and preamp has something to do with that. Because of this detail, everything sounds more real.
Look, I don't always understand why things are as they are, I can only report what I hear. I use a Trends TA 10.1 modified amp putting out about 5 watts and that completely blows away my previously owned Mark Levinson class A amp costing $4,000 in terms of sound quality. It doesn't make any sense, nor would I imagine that the T-amp specs out nearly as well as the ML. Maybe it's a synergy thing? Here is one area where I think digital exceeds analog, but I'm sure that many people would disagree with me on this, at least with their system. Also I'm sure there is better than my T-amp, but at nowhere near the price range.
Skirming...
I don't equalize CD's and vinyl, they are not equal. With the digital equipment I have and have owned, vinyl wipes the floor with digital. With the right digital equipment I might change my mind and would love it if I could. Records are a pain in the butt, but well worth it for the increase in sound quality. Of course we're speaking about redbook versus vinyl.
As for these people you mentioned, I don't have a clue who they are. Also, there is a great difference between recordings whether on CD or vinyl. Perhaps Doug is not so adept at creating vinyl or the process he used wasn't up to the task. You keep comparing things to the masters, but you should be comparing it to live. I have also heard that analog tape masters are far superior to vinyl or digital at any resolution.
As I mentioned earlier, my experience is that CD and vinyl sound the same, the only difference is that redbook lacks the detail of vinyl and digital sounds very harsh when there is a lot of high frequency content.
As for running a music server and high rez files, that's not for me. I might listen to a record/song or two every day, or not, and it is much simpler for me to throw in a CD or record than turn on my computer and navigate through my files to find what I want. I can see the draw of a music server if I had a huge number of recordings or listened to a great deal more music.
Besides, my computer is an overclocked i7 system which pulls about 300 watts average, plus I use dual monitors that add to that. My stereo uses less than 25 watts total. Why would I want to use nearly 400 watts to do what I can do with 25 watts?
You can talk till your blue in the face, but if you came to my house, I wouldn't let you in. That's a joke. But if you did hear what I hear, you would be out of your mind to think that digital is better.
You say CD's are more truthful to the master, but why do CD's lack the detail I hear on vinyl? Why does digital sound harsh? I'm sure you will blame that on my equipment and you might be right, but in the end, if a modest priced turntable sounds much better than a modest priced CD player, where is the advantage of digital. I spent about $400 on my turntable/cartridge/preamp and why do I have to spend thousands on a digital front end just to equal that and more to exceed it?
Forget about Hi-Rez, we're comparing redbook with vinyl. -
09-30-2012, 01:01 PMSir Terrence the TerribleSo, in saying all of this, you are admitting that your digital playback gear is weaker than your vinyl playback gear, or your ears love the distortion of vinyl, and hate the lack thereof from digital. You are also dismissing Hi-rez because of your lack of experience and exposure to it. You cannot realize the advantage of digital without experience the best of it - so you perspective is pretty narrow in evaluating it even on a fundamental level.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Those of us who have actively pursued Hi-Rez digital whether through downloads or disc know your comments are naive, narrow-minded, and very short of objective fact. I say you need to further explore and expose yourself to Hi-Rez before you make proclamations about any vinyl to digital comparison - subjective or not.
As far as the mastering engineers I mention, the fact that you don't know them if very telling. Those guys represent the best of the best in terms of mastering for both digital(at all levels), and analog(most exclusively vinyl). They happen to be some of the best vinyl lathe cutting master makers in the business. All are Grammy award winners at that. -
09-30-2012, 05:37 PMStevenSurprenantI give up, you win (in your mind). I guess now I should inform the millions of people who migrated over to vinyl that they're wrong and should moth ball their systems because some guy on audioreview says so. Let's see how that goes...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
Since I've known you, you've bragged about your job and how you outperform all your peers, about what you own, and about who you know. All of this means nothing and the fact that you have to brag to people that you have done these things and know these people indicates that something is lacking in your life. When these people start mentioning that they know you then perhaps I'll be a little impressed. My experience with braggarts is that they are under achievers who think more of themselves than others think of them. Well that's what I think you are about and I'm not being mean. It's an honest evaluation.
You keep implying that digital is always better than analog and you know that isn't true. As for Hi-rez, when it hits the mainstream with music I enjoy, I'll jump on the bandwagon, but till then, there's a lot more vinyl in my future.
While I'm being honest and open, I'll tell you one more thing. Most of the CD's that I own are crap, in terms of sound quality, and many of the older records I have procured too. Movies have the background effects turned up so loud that you can't understand the dialog half the time. I couldn't count the number of people who have said the same thing. I've mentioned this to you before and your reply was that you know what you're doing and that I should be happy with what I get. Bull hockey!
If this is the best the industry has to offer than perhaps it's time to rethink this whole thing and maybe even get rid of some of the shakers and movers in the industry.
You've called my comments naive and narrow minded, but have you ever listened to yourself. You make a blanket statement that all vinyl systems have bloated bass and are distorted. How can you say that? Have you listened to all turntables? I have refrained for the sake of preventing arguments from commenting every time you screw up. I know that you're somewhat of a Prima Donna and can't stand people who disagree with you.
We've tried to converse before and it always ends up this way, so what's the point?. -
09-30-2012, 08:59 PMRGA
StenSuprenant
I don't think you've read SirT the right way. Engineers, no offense, tend to discuss things in technical terms as either black and white. Sir T is correct that as a technology Hi resolution digital is superior to both Vinyl and CD in terms of recordings. The source disc/download is superior - period.
The CD is arguably superior to vinyl as well as he notes the CD is closer to the master tape than the same recording on vinyl. CD was and is a technically superior format. CD failed with audiophiles out of the gate due to lousy machines and lousy recordings and early reports complained of horribly bright and just plain crappy sounding treble. Many of those early players were if I remember right 14 bit units.
Vinyl was generally quite superior in the treble. And let's face it - if something sounds a bit bright - no matter what else it may do - blacker blacks, lower noise, less distortion, better bass more dynamics whatever - if the treble is at all "off" then it becomes fatiguing dredge even if in EVERY other aspect of sound CD is better - treble is THE most important thing to be able to listen for long periods - if it is slightly off or bright then many audiophiles will turn it off. CD was not great in the treble. I am 38 and I still hear to 17khz.
Hi Resolution fixes what ailed the CD. Indeed very good CD players from Audio Note ails a lot of what ailed CD which is why they're so popular with vinyl philes - And having Guy Adams(Voyd References fame - now heads HP computer industrial design - so he knows math and computers) help design the CD players is perhaps why they sound better than every other CD player I've tried.
I think the thing most audiophiles with large music collections are guilty of is wanting to hold onto what we have. Nothing wrong with this of course. If you have 20,000 records you are going to invest in playing them back the best you possibly can. And you WILL get amazing sound quality out of them.
Hi Res is simply better technology and can result in better sound. As is the case when engineers record to DSD or CD and then to vinyl. This proves the technology.
Unfortunately when the engineer hat comes off and you leave the laboratory then one must enter the real world of practical results. And that world is that very often Album ABC sounds better on vinyl than CD and is not recorded and/or available on DSD. Yes album XYZ was recorded on DSD/SACD, CD, and vinyl and the DSD is deemed better. Now list all the albums available where this has been done. How long is the list? Did we get past one hand or two? Theory versus practical real world availability.
I take my albums I have at home and I say okay I have Madonna Immaculate collection on Vinyl, CD, and a few 45 singles from said album. The 45's trounce the other two, then LP then CD. I go through much of my collection where I have the CD and vinyl versions. And it's something like 95% in favour of LP and the 5% is made up of used vinyl albums that are problem discs (warped or someone ran a bad needle on it or they're newer digital made LPs where the CD is no worse sounding and therefore I give it a win because the CD is cheaper than the vinyl.
CD is technically superior but the results are simply difficult to ignore. Where CD seems to win is newer albums which can sound outstanding.
Hi Res is a different thing. I was less impressed with SACD because again CD played on Audio Note's CD players of the same album sounded considerably better - more dynamics more body more sound than the same albums on SACD - I tried about 7 albums from rock to jazz to classical. 5 channel Hotel California was frankly awful. However, this is playback not technology of the disc - the disc is substantially better - the playback of those early machines like early CD may have just sucked. I mainly used the Sony ES something or other which was about $5000 when it came out. It's CD player section was atrocious so perhaps it just wasn't very good.
Fast forward to today and the conversation over SACD is largely moot since Sony is rumbling to cease production of transports and recordings it means the death of SACD. The future is DSD downloaded music. Even if SACD survives I am in the camp of the download.
You buy a few 1tb hard drives (I have two) and you load them up with music. You run a laptop to your big screen TV - already do this to watch videos.
Get yourself some sort of 24/96 or 24/192 or 32/384 DAC and you have hi res music.
And here's the nifty thing - unlike most audiophile equipment Hi Res is "good" at low cost. You can spend $10,000 on a DCS debussy or $2,500 for an Ayre QB9 but you can also spend $500 on a Halide or less for an Arcam Rdac or even just $169 for an Audio Engine Audioengine D1 - Audioengineusa.com
To me $169 is a pretty decent gamble - people spend more on tendercups to lift CD players off the shelf than this device which, while likely not the best showing of the technology, can likely show enough to let you know what DSD is capable of. And hey it's a headphone amp to boot.
I am looking into these DACs myself but I am behind the curve and I suspect turntable audiophiles are somewhat afraid/leery of getting computers into the mix.
Plus computers tend to be out of date the moment you buy them so there is a fear that whatever you buy will be a P.O.S. in 3 months. Then what do you actually "need?" A server or a DAC.
What about the bits - 24/96 or 24/192 as minimum. Then there are some selling chips that are 32/384 which has no to very few actual music you can play and the machines that have the chip that can do it don't have connections that can send information to that level (as my limited understanding of my reading of one review indicates.)
Then some units are 24/192 via S/PDIF but only 24/96 via the USB. It's been advised on several sites that you should always use the S/PDIF input on the DAC which means you need a USB to S/PDIF connector.
Frankly for many people this becomes white noise of gobbldygook and I just want to stick the CD in the drawer and push play - simple.
Nevertheless - I am looking into them and I am not in the DCS Debussey price range - I want to start with something fairly inexpensive from a company that has a track record.
So I am currently looking at the Benchmark DAC1 HDR DAC1 HDR | Benchmark Media and Wyred4Sound W4S DAC-2 (DAC2) - DACs - DAC 2, ESS Sabre DAC, High Definition Amplifiers, Asynchronous, Sonos modificaitons, Stereo Pre Amp -
10-01-2012, 05:43 AMStevenSurprenant
RGA, Nicely put! Thanks.
I am not arguing whether Hi-Res is superior to vinyl. That has never been my contention. It's always been about redbook CD on average CD players versus vinyl. If I were to put this in a Venn diagram that would exclude Hi-Rez and higher end CD players.
The reason this argument goes awry is that we're not comparing apples to apples and it's impossible to keep him focused.
The "Starry Night" album by Julio Iglesias that I mentioned sounds tonally identical on CD and vinyl. Even the soundstage is the same, but the difference is the amount of micro detail and harmonics which goes a long way in making the music more vibrant and creates a secondary effect of separating things in the soundstage. BTW, this album and others where I have both the CD and the vinyl is one of the reasons I think Sir T is wrong about bloated Mid bass and distortion. Besides, I don't think that all phono cartridges sound the same or that they all have bloated mid bass. I would then assume that the record was recorded that way, in which case, it's the engineers fault and not the playback equipment. His comments on this show a strong bias against all vinyl which doesn't support his position.
I reserve the right to criticize bluebook CD's from the stand point of what I hear on average CD players. If he bought a CD player under, let's say under $200, I don't think Sir T could truthfully say that it sounds better than vinyl on a good system.
At some point in the future when Hi-Rez digital becomes the standard and average playback systems are very good, then I won't have a leg to stand on, in which case I will wholeheartedly support his position, but for now, that's exceeding the breadth of the argument.
With that said...
I already have a DAC and player that supports 24/192 (but not FLAC files), but no software. I've looked at what's available in Hi-Rez, but nothing has caught my interest. I figure that if I keep looking that someday I will find something I like.
One of the problems I have is that I don't want to use a computer to play back these files. I guess that I'm old school and want to hold the vinyl or disk in my hand. Besides, knowing computers like I do, you could loose your entire collection in a heartbeat due to disk failure. Considering the cost of some of these Hi-Rez files, I wouldn't go this route unless I were to invest in a substantial backup system which adds to the cost of going Hi-Rez. That's just me...
With that said...
I have no doubt that Hi-Rez digital is the best format available and when the day comes that it is readily available with music I enjoy, I'll pack away my vinyl and take Sir T out for a beer.
I had the same argument with my photography teacher who insisted that digital would never replace film. I was on the side of digital, but he was correct from the viewpoint of using large film formats, such as 4X5, and scalability. Digital hasn't stood still and resolution keeps climbing. At some point, film will be nothing more than footnote. The same applies to vinyl. In either case, it's just not going to happen today. -
10-01-2012, 02:03 PMSir Terrence the TerribleIf you are going to compare apples with apples, then your comparison of vinyl versus CD would be impossible.Both formats are mastered differently, both operate differently, and both have format based routines that if not implemented properly will result if poor performance. Apples to apples comparison would be two different carts on the same tonearm. Apples to apples would be the comparison between the same recording on CD and SACD, or DVD-A and CD.Quote:
The reason this argument goes awry is that we're not comparing apples to apples and it's impossible to keep him focused.
This tells me you don't know exactly what the focus is.
All this tells me is that your vinyl setup has more resolution than your digital gear. Secondly you don't know if identical masters were used for both, so you comparison is fraught with problems, which profoundly biases your opinion.Quote:
The "Starry Night" album by Julio Iglesias that I mentioned sounds tonally identical on CD and vinyl. Even the soundstage is the same, but the difference is the amount of micro detail and harmonics which goes a long way in making the music more vibrant and creates a secondary effect of separating things in the soundstage.
Steve, without a direct comparison(the original master) how do you know which format is presenting exactly what the engineer wanted you to hear? You don't, you are using your subjective opinion.Quote:
BTW, this album and others where I have both the CD and the vinyl is one of the reasons I think Sir T is wrong about bloated Mid bass and distortion. Besides, I don't think that all phono cartridges sound the same or that they all have bloated mid bass. I would then assume that the record was recorded that way, in which case, it's the engineers fault and not the playback equipment. His comments on this show a strong bias against all vinyl which doesn't support his position.
I want to put this another way. Have you ever compared a 35mm master tape with a QC CD master, and a master pressing of vinyl all at once? I have in Doug Sax's studio with his custom made turntable and one of the most neutral sounding carts I have ever heard. As good as the vinyl sounded, it did not sound like my my 35mm master. The CD was a lot closer to what I heard from my master. Unlike you, I happen to have very high quality digital gear(my pre-amp in my signature processor everything at 48/354.2 or 384khz sample rate) so my perspective on digital is not gimped or based on midfi digital gear.
I would like to point out to you some excerpts from this great NPR discussion I was pointed to on another website.
DANKOSKY: So, first of all, I'll ask you, Scott: vinyl or CD?
(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)
METCALFE: I enjoy both formats, but my preference is definitely CD.
DANKOSKY: Now, why CD?
METCALFE: Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm primarily a recording engineer, as far as working with music. And it's - the closer thing to what I'm sending into the recorder is very much what I'm getting back out. With analog formats, although the sound can be very pleasing in certain styles, it's definitely imparting its own sound on it. And I think, to an extent, it's that sound that some people are really drawn to. But it's nice as an engineer to have the confidence of knowing that what I'm putting into - in most cases these days, the computer - is pretty close to what I'm going to get out.
DANKOSKY: Sean Olive, I have to ask you. I think I know your answer, but vinyl or CD?
OLIVE: Definitely CD.
DANKOSKY: Yeah? So tell me why.
OLIVE: Well, I mean, I grew up listening to records up until about '85, when the CD was already out. And I was involved in testing loudspeakers up at the National Research Council in Canada. And we were testing cartridges at that time, and it was quite apparent that the amount of distortion coming out of these devices was very high compared to CD. So what we found was that vinyl was a limiting factor in our ability to do accurate and reliable listening tests on loudspeakers, and we had to find a more reliable and more accurate medium.
Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not : NPR
So reason why I made my statement about vinyl is based on my experience comparing the master to the CD or vinyl. It is the sound characteristic of the format that is so appealing to audiophiles. Audiophiles do not like neutrality or accuracy, or they would not have a preference towards vinyl OR tube amplifiers and preamplifiers(or at least quite a few of them). The very things that vinyl lovers like about vinyl, they dislike about CD. CD do not have a sound 'characteristic", what you record is what you get. CD does not enhance or highlight anything unless that is the intentions of the engineer. That is not the case with vinyl.
So, if you like salt and pepper on your audio, then by all means listen to vinyl through tube based equipment. If you want accuracy and neutrality, then the CD is your bag. I have seven grammy award winning mastering engineers that support this.
When you get a chance to listen to a master tape, and the formats the music was released on, come back and talk to me. We can then discuss this BS about keeping focus. -
10-01-2012, 02:42 PMSir Terrence the TerribleOh cut the bull$hit drama! There is no indication whatsoever that millions have migrated over to vinyl. Turntable sales do not support that notion PERIOD.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
And here is my assessment of you as well. When you fall down on a technical basis, you start immediately attacking the person personally - even when you don't know jack $hit about them. Deflection is a weakness that people with weak minds often fall back on. I don't brag about anything, I share my experience - much like you try to do. There is nothing lacking in my life(see the deflection) but there is something definitely lacking in your technical education on things audio.Quote:
Since I've known you, you've bragged about your job and how you outperform all your peers, about what you own, and about who you know. All of this means nothing and the fact that you have to brag to people that you have done these things and know these people indicates that something is lacking in your life. When these people start mentioning that they know you then perhaps I'll be a little impressed. My experience with braggarts is that they are under achievers who think more of themselves than others think of them. Well that's what I think you are about and I'm not being mean. It's an honest evaluation.
I said nothing about digital always being better than analog, I said digital is better than vinyl. I love the sound of a recording made on 35mm magnetic tape, and have a few of them transferred to high resolution digital in my collection.Quote:
You keep implying that digital is always better than analog and you know that isn't true. As for Hi-rez, when it hits the mainstream with music I enjoy, I'll jump on the bandwagon, but till then, there's a lot more vinyl in my future.
Obviously if there was a balance problem between the dialog and the effects, we would have notice this not only on the dubbing stage, and for Disney, the smaller mixing studio that we create our special made for hometheater mixes. As I have explained to you before, none of my system have this issue or ever have. So if you are having this trouble(and all those who agree with you) room resonances, improper alignment and calibration, or the use of non traditional speakers are probably the problem, not the software.Quote:
While I'm being honest and open, I'll tell you one more thing. Most of the CD's that I own are crap, in terms of sound quality, and many of the older records I have procured too. Movies have the background effects turned up so loud that you can't understand the dialog half the time. I couldn't count the number of people who have said the same thing. I've mentioned this to you before and your reply was that you know what you're doing and that I should be happy with what I get. Bull hockey!
Or maybe your ears and sound system. It is a weakness to always blame something else other than your equipment, room, or your ears. You have probably never really heard how good movie soundtracks can sound if there is a weakness in any or all of these areas.Quote:
If this is the best the industry has to offer than perhaps it's time to rethink this whole thing and maybe even get rid of some of the shakers and movers in the industry.
Reading comprehension apparently is not your strong suit. I made no mention of vinyl systems because there is no such thing. I never made any mention to anyone specific system. It is a known fact that vinyl has built in distortions, and when you compared it to the master tape(something you have not done) these distortions are very audible. Read Scott's comments above. The vinyl record does not have the accuracy or transparency of the original master tape PERIOD.Quote:
You've called my comments naive and narrow minded, but have you ever listened to yourself. You make a blanket statement that all vinyl systems have bloated bass and are distorted. How can you say that? Have you listened to all turntables? I have refrained for the sake of preventing arguments from commenting every time you screw up. I know that you're somewhat of a Prima Donna and can't stand people who disagree with you.
Steve, it ends up this way because you are technically challenged which makes you default to your subjective personal opinion - which is not fact. You blame the software for issues when the problem really lies in your system, your room acoustics, or your ears. 5 grammy award winning mastering engineers say vinyl is not accurate, and Steve dismisses this without any engineering(let alone mastering engineering) experience. You have never compared a master tape to any reproduction format, and yet you think you have enough information to make a comparison that folks here should pay attention to. By now you should know that I am not going to let misinformation, or a shorted sighted uneducated statement or opinion pass.Quote:
We've tried to converse before and it always ends up this way, so what's the point?.
My strong and profound suggestion to you is to better educate yourself techically before you post This way you don't have to get your panties in a knot when somebody swats your words down like fly's.
In the future, let's leave the personal comments of one character to those who actually know the person. They don't belong in a audio discussion. -
10-01-2012, 04:13 PMStevenSurprenant
Apples to apples are the 2 formats available to the average consumer within a respectable price range, so apples to apples applies.
I would like to add one more thing and then I'll let it drop. I never understood war and could never figure how the leaders of this planet who were intelligent people could ever allow it to happen. Nothing they ever fought about was worth the death of their own people and the people of other nations. After meeting Sir T, I now understand the mentality that can drive otherwise peaceful people into barbarism. It's really sad that is part of human nature. I never understood this about humanity...until now, so in that sense, I guess that I was naive. I don't expect you to have an inkling of what I speaking about.
FYI, I blocked all posts from you since our posts are unproductive and blemishes a decent audio site. I just thought you might want to know this. I get tired of your B.S. and your crying if you don't get your way. Also, I only looked at the first sentence of your last two posts and saw where this was going. There was no point to read any further.
When I look back at all the other people and their posts, I see a community of like minded people discussing their common interest in the best of spirits. Sometimes they clash, but never with malice. They support each other and help when they can. I've been the recipient of that help from time to time and it was greatly appreciated. You, on the other hand, are fine unless people disagree with you in which case you become psychotic.
Most of the time we have to listen to you rant about how great you are, how hard you work, how your peers are incompetent compared to yourself, how your equipment is the best that money can buy, and about all these people that you know. My guess is that if we asked your peers, they would tell a different story. If we asked these people you keep name dropping, they would probably not know who you are.
Let me tell you something about human nature and that is we all think we work hard, do a good job and many times a better job then our peers. The choices that we all make in life makes sense to ourselves even in the face of conflicting opinions. However, what most people don't do is degrade others to to benefit themselves, as you do. I don't think you have any idea what I'm speaking of, do you?
We've gone back and forth on this issue about vinyl and yet you have never heard my system. So when you finally decided that I was right (with my system), you called my digital equipment crap.
That's fine, I can't argue that point, but a decent person would have said that I wasn't getting everything that digital had to offer and a better player would even the score between vinyl. Do you see what I'm implying about your personality?
Indirectly you have also besmirched the names of all the manufacturers of all the gear I have owned, such as, Marantz, Genesis, California Audio Labs, Aragon, Emotiva, and a plethora of other players in the game. I wonder how they would feel about you saying that their gear is crap?
So, if it makes you feel better about yourself to besmirch me, please feel free to do so at my expense, it's expected from you. I won't be reading it. -
10-01-2012, 04:41 PMStevenSurprenant
RGA, I did download some Hi-Rez from 2L. They do sound clear and they were free. Interesting...
Most of the ones I downloaded were FLAC 24/192. I also downloaded one file that was WAV 24/352.
Thanks again for your input. I'm going to try and find some Hi-Rez files that I enjoy. -
10-02-2012, 08:57 AME-StatHaving recently switched my digital playback over completely to a server based solution, I shared your confusion over the myriad of tweaks required for dedicated computer music operation. I'd rather not have to hollow out the OS kernel and worry about arcane things like ASIO, DRC and Wasapi.Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Which is why I like the Squeezebox Touch server concept. There is no need for a dedicated stripped down computer. I use a two year old Dell desktop that is my daily work computer. My FLAC library is located there along with the Squeezebox server software. Even when both Touches are running independent streams, Resource Monitor reports that the sum of all SB related processes consumes about 0.4% of CPU power.
Connecting the Touch players is quite simple. I run one via CAT6 cabling to the router and the other, via the wi-fi network. While the players offer full UI capability, I usually use a separate app that runs on my iPhone that can control either - or link the two players together with the same stream.
Easy and convenient. I do recommend buying a linear supply for the Touch units though. They really do improve resolution and reduce noise. The internal DAC is pretty decent and that's what I use in the vintage garage system driving the Acoustats. Upstairs the player drives an Audio Research DAC7.
Oh, and each system still has a pretty nice turntable to play the rest of my library. :) -
10-02-2012, 09:55 AMSir Terrence the TerribleWell so is High Rez, so why not throw that in there as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenSurprenant
Thanks for making my point about you Steven . Whenever you fall short technically, you resort to disparaging a person character - something you don't know jack$hit about.Quote:
I would like to add one more thing and then I'll let it drop. I never understood war and could never figure how the leaders of this planet who were intelligent people could ever allow it to happen. Nothing they ever fought about was worth the death of their own people and the people of other nations. After meeting Sir T, I now understand the mentality that can drive otherwise peaceful people into barbarism. It's really sad that is part of human nature. I never understood this about humanity...until now, so in that sense, I guess that I was naive. I don't expect you to have an inkling of what I speaking about.
By the way idiot, you have never met me.
Good, block them all. Stay as ignorant as hell as you always have been. Nothing lost, and certainly nothing gained - you are still as stupid as the first post I read of yours.Quote:
FYI, I blocked all posts from you since our posts are unproductive and blemishes a decent audio site. I just thought you might want to know this. I get tired of your B.S. and your crying if you don't get your way. Also, I only looked at the first sentence of your last two posts and saw where this was going. There was no point to read any further.
Well, you should have said that you wanted a sheeple country club when you got here, and then I would have steered you elsewhere.Quote:
When I look back at all the other people and their posts, I see a community of like minded people discussing their common interest in the best of spirits. Sometimes they clash, but never with malice. They support each other and help when they can. I've been the recipient of that help from time to time and it was greatly appreciated. You, on the other hand, are fine unless people disagree with you in which case you become psychotic.
You keep solidifying my point about you. When you get to the end of your knowledge(which does not take very long) you start personal attacks. Next you will spit blood, your head will turn 360 degrees, and that little pea brain of your will spill out of your nose.Quote:
Most of the time we have to listen to you rant about how great you are, how hard you work, how your peers are incompetent compared to yourself, how your equipment is the best that money can buy, and about all these people that you know. My guess is that if we asked your peers, they would tell a different story. If we asked these people you keep name dropping, they would probably not know who you are.
I don't think you know what you are talking about, which would be par for the course for you.Quote:
Let me tell you something about human nature and that is we all think we work hard, do a good job and many times a better job then our peers. The choices that we all make in life makes sense to ourselves even in the face of conflicting opinions. However, what most people don't do is degrade others to to benefit themselves, as you do. I don't think you have any idea what I'm speaking of, do you?
Who cares what you think about my personality. You are just another stupid guy on audioreview who does not like his"long years of listening experience(which does not mean a lot)" challenged. I have been here since 1995. How many of your kind have I experience since then. Too many to count.Quote:
We've gone back and forth on this issue about vinyl and yet you have never heard my system. So when you finally decided that I was right (with my system), you called my digital equipment crap.
That's fine, I can't argue that point, but a decent person would have said that I wasn't getting everything that digital had to offer and a better player would even the score between vinyl. Do you see what I'm implying about your personality?
Good, go back to sticking your head up your own bum - it is the only thing you have been really good at on these boards.Quote:
Indirectly you have also besmirched the names of all the manufacturers of all the gear I have owned, such as, Marantz, Genesis, California Audio Labs, Aragon, Emotiva, and a plethora of other players in the game. I wonder how they would feel about you saying that their gear is crap?
So, if it makes you feel better about yourself to besmirch me, please feel free to do so at my expense, it's expected from you. I won't be reading it.
-
10-04-2012, 04:07 AMStevenSurprenant
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. -
10-04-2012, 06:53 AMHappy Camper
I suspect the quality of the DAC output design has a lot to do with digital sound. The better the output implementation, the more fine resolution is exposed. I'm also noticing amps have some bearing on the fullness of sound and directional ques. I have also experienced the ripped CD sounding better than the same CD played on the same computer's spinner.
I do think there is a bias on both sides and those bias are what keeps the war alive. I've heard vinyl rips and I do believe they are mid bass flush compared to the same CD. As to the accuracy between the two, technology says digital is the more proficient When CDs first hit the market, I was smiling with all the perceived detail. After living with it a bit, I became sensitive to the harshness of the format. So I bought an outboard DAC with a tube output which much improved to my tastes. The years have improved DAC's output circuitry and minimal filtering have put digital sound closer to real. IMO
I've also noticed headphones are a sonic microscope that's getting better. Synergy is important when trying to set up a balanced system. I've seen people put a K701 on a SS amp with a digital source. Talk about some serious solid state sound. Throw a tube in the mix and things start to sound more vinyl. So is vinyl or digital colored? Does digital brittleness come from the format or DAC quality? Synergy means mixing component strengths/weaknesses to minimize combined influences to the listener's satisfaction. The digital generation has no experience with vinyl or tubes and it intimidates them. Also, they have been taught that digital is a much superior technology. The syrupy vinyl sound has a place in attenuating the harsher solid state sound or solid state micro details improve the tube dullness. Either way, it's matching the strengths/weaknesses to meet the listener's pleasure.
The thing I suspect has some influence is what gear was used when recording and mixing the material. The pre-70s was mostly tube gear. Transistors became the industry practice well into the 90s and today it's mostly chip. Finding the best combination of components to let each era sound good is a daunting task. Unfortunately, we don't have access to all these toys to formulate a strength/weakness chart. We have to trust the professional gearslinger to do our job and put together some systems that present as much information as possible. The less experienced doesn't understand why a sound can be different with just one link change. Theoretically, they should all sound the same. -
10-04-2012, 03:07 PMSir Terrence the TerribleSo my question here is what is the reference one uses to define which has more detail, or which is highlighting detail in a different way(i.e just a different presentation of the same thing)? In any listening test there has to be a reference standard that the others have to be compared to. Without that reference, the listening test become nothing more than a equipment review, as the software becomes second hat to the hardware. When I read that vinyl sounds tonally identical to a CD, or somebody states they sound the same, it is readily apparent based on my experience the master was optimized for the vinyl, not the CD. When there is a master optimized for each format, they will not sound identical because the sonic characteristic of each format is quite different.Quote:
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. I think the strongest argument is that vinyl and digital is sometimes mastered differently so one version might be preferable over another.[/quote]
This comment is another indication that the master was created for vinyl, and transferred to CD as an afterthought. If the masters was optimized for both formats, differences in clarity would not exist even in the face of tonal differences based on the sonic characteristics(or lack of) of each format.
How does this listener know what kinds of distortions to listen for without a reference to a master. You have to have a master transparent and neutral source that comparisons can be made from to legitimize any listening test. Another question would be does the listener actually know what sonic distortion is, whether it is pleasing or not? The next observation is that the listeners comprehension skills are lacking here. It was my observation based on several comparisons of my own material that the first vinyl pressing when compared to the master tape had bloated or overly ripe bass. This was based on a master that was optimized specifically for vinyl. That observation would not cover any vinyl that I have heard without a reference comparison, that would be illogical - and the very thing I criticize this listener about. My observations where very specific, but just happens to line up with a long line of mastering engineers who are experts at cutting vinyl discs, and mastering CD's for replication.Quote:
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.
This observation points to two things. Either the digital playback side has insufficient resolution, or the master for the CD was really optimized for the vinyl format.Quote:
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.
How does one ascertain frequency differences without looking at each waveform. Our ears certainly are not very accurate in the frequency domain, that is for sure. If they were, everyone would have perfect pitch. Also how can both formats be tonally and frequency wise alike, and yet one delivers more detail than the other? Something is amiss here.
The problem that I have with these homegrown listening test that have absolutely no protocols aside from cueing a disc, or putting a needle on a disc. Was each source volume matched within .5db? No mention of that which means it was not done. The source that is played back the loudest will have the most perceived detail, and that is a fact. The listening test were sighted, which automatically introduces biases that a double blind test would not.
It is one thing to use a listening test to convince oneself. It is another to come to a public forum and try and convince people that their listening test confirm that one is better than the other.
And by the way, vinyl is an analog format, so they cannot be listed separately. -
10-04-2012, 05:03 PME-StatA *little* read indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
"There is currently no text in this page" -
10-05-2012, 09:31 AMSir Terrence the TerribleI found it again, but it won't allow me to link to it. Google Myths vinyl, and the link pops up.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't a little read, it was no read. LOLOLOL -
10-08-2012, 01:13 PME-StatSorry, but most all those explanations are sophomoric at best and many are simply incorrect. Which doesn't affect my perspective regarding the mixed bag of virtues when one compares CD vs. vinyl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
They would argue that you are simply imagining things when you conclude that you can hear the difference between Redbook and DXD. :) -
10-12-2012, 07:20 AMfrenchmonStevenSurprenant..
Here is an interesting little rant...and in the comments section MICHAEL FREMER even chimes in on the guy....
Why vinyl and cassettes should stay dead and hipster analog revivalism should join them | Digital Trends -
10-12-2012, 10:46 AMSir Terrence the TerribleDid you notice this comment from a mastering engineer?Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchmon
I'm a mastering engineer, so I likely have a bit more experience that most posters here. I just finished the masters for Cashing in on Christmas volume IV on Black Hole Records, which comes as a package on vinyl and CD. Because of the limitations of vinyl, two completely different masters are made. The CD is actually much closer to the files the bands send.
The underlined has been my experience, and the experience of many mastering engineers as well. -
10-13-2012, 06:45 PMfrenchmon
But is it more musical? and to my ears, records just sound more natural.
-
10-14-2012, 08:06 AME-StatThe files? Clearly, that was not an analog recording.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
-
10-14-2012, 01:50 PMSir Terrence the TerribleWhen you have specifically tweaked masters for each format, then the source is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat