Are records really better than CD's?

[StevenSurprenant]

"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...

...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...

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"skirming" - what does that mean?

It is a slang word for a person who tries to equalize something that is not really equal. You do that a lot my friend.

How many times must I say this... Vinyl is not perfect, digital is not perfect.

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.

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.

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.


Copied from another site...

.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...

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?

At least the person who wrote this comment got the last sentence right, even if he failed on all the rest.

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.

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.

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.

[StevenSurprenant]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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.

So, 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.

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.

[StevenSurprenant]

So, 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.

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.

I 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...

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?.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I 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...

Oh 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We've tried to converse before and it always ends up this way, so what's the point?.

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.

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.

[StevenSurprenant]

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.