what's so good about vinyls?

[theaudiohobby]

I said

the reasons why analog may sound better than CD has absolutely zero to do with the dynamic range of each format, but every thing to do the with the perculiar distortion artefacts that are unique to the digital format, distortion artefacts such as post/pre filter ringing, poor impulse response and jitter being some of the more common issues.

.

you said

The higher sampling rate alone extends the bandwidth to address the harmonics-starved sterility aspect and eliminate the funky artifacts caused by the need for the brickwall filter. For the most part, hIgh levels are handled fine. It is the lowest levels that are not.

The second part of that statement in not correct,The distortion will occur irrespective the dynamic range because the restriction is not in the dynamic range but in the sampling frequency. If the sampling frequency is inadequate the distortion artefacts will still occur and those distortion artefacts will affect even the lowest levels.

[E-Stat]

I hear a lot of discussion around here suggesting that the sound quality of vinyl is better. What's so special about it? Who knows, maybe i'll even give it a try some time

If you will permit, I think it is important to understand a bit of an historical perspective. First of all, music is inherently an analog process. The digital representation of sound itself is a fairly old concept pioneered by Ma Bell for efficient telephone transmission. What changed in the early 80s was the advent of the compact disc data storage medium. Unlike tapes which were balky and expensive, a CD could be manufactured at relatively low cost and store large amounts of data. The co-inventors of the standard knew that initially the technology would be expensive so marketing determined the format would have to offer an immediate benefit over LPs. That benefit was the decision to offer a 74 minute (later 80 minute) playing time.

So, rather than starting with the objective of equalling or bettering the analog standard, the CD format was arrived at backwards by committee decision. Two "fences" of capacity and playing time were already established limiting the results. Therefore, the sample size and rate were arrived at entirely by compromise. There are two primary limitations to what was called the "Redbook" standard for CDs: diminished low level dynamics and limited high frequency response rendering it "sterile" sounding. Digital music is like a connect-the-dots picture. With enough dots, you have a smooth line. The CD standard simply doesn't have enough dots to fully render rich high frequency content like the upper harmonics of many instruments, like cymbals. Likewise, the 16 bit sample is only available at high levels. When the sound level goes down, so does the number of dots. That is why it goes "deaf" with the quietest passages.

These limitations are not inherently limitations of the digital format, only of the arbitrary standard predicated by the 640 MB disc. Now with 4.6 GB DVDs and 40(?) GB Blue Ray DVDs and HD-DVDs on the horizon, there is the potential to fully realize the superiority of digital. Alas, it seems that the younger generation, however, is focused more on the quantity of low resolution MP3s they can store on their IPODs rather than improving the sonics. I think you would be pleasantly surprised at how good a system can sound.

rw

[musicoverall]

I just went through the clearance bins at Amoeba Music a couple of weeks ago, and found several CDs that I'd been trying to track down for years. With their buy 4, get the 5th one free pricing, the prices on those discs averaged $0.80. .

Wow! How cool is THAT??? It sure doesn't matter which format the music is on when you finally find it!

[Smokey]

Not so much [wear&tear] when you use a VPI record cleaner or equivalent. I've used one for over twenty years.

rw

If there are not so much wear and tear, then why it is recommended to change stylus every few hundred plays?

If the needle wear out which is made of Diamond (hardest substance on earth), then imagine how much wear delicate record been subject to

[risabet]

For me, the best way to demonstrate the superiority of vinyl is with recordings that are identical except for the final recording. Reference Recordings is an excellent example of this technique. The the recording chain is identical from the mikes to the mixer, the only difference is in the analog recorder or digital recorder at the end of the chain. No further EQ is done to the signal.

Using this technique and RR-22 "Appalachian Spring" and its equivalent CD and RR-25 "Nojima Palys Liszt" and its CD. Using these two combinations I hear vinyl's musicality, dynamic contrast and imaging superiority. CD has a more two-dimensional presentation, sonically flatter and less harmonically rich than the vinyl. IMO, piano is one of the most difficult instruments to reproduce and here vinyl trounces the digital recording, simply sounding more like a piano than the digital.

For these test the levels are matched within about .25dB, the resolution on my SPL meter, so that shouldn't affect the results. These are certainly not scientific test but do tend to convince the doubters I know.

[theaudiohobby]

There are two primary limitations to what was called the "Redbook" standard for CDs: diminished low level dynamics and limited high frequency response rendering it "sterile" sounding. Digital music is like a connect-the-dots picture. With enough dots, you have a smooth line. The CD standard simply doesn't have enough dots to fully render rich high frequency content like the upper harmonics of many instruments, like cymbals. Likewise, the 16 bit sample is only available at high levels. When the sound level goes down, so does the number of dots. That is why it goes "deaf" with the quietest passages.

rw

As previously stated, CD sound was poor in relation to LP due to poor filtering techniques and at times (as you have rightly noted) low sampling frequencies which many times in the early days led to sub-optimal filtering techniques. Increased dynamic range as a result of larger wordlength was not the issue. The wordlength (at least at 16bits) is not the issue but the higher sampling frequency, which translates into more words and superior filtering techniques. e.g. 16bits/192KHz will sound way superior to the 24bits/48KHz, even though the latter may have much greater dynamic range, the number of words is more important than the size of the words and more words can only be had at a higher sampling frequency means more samples.

[E-Stat]

If there are not so much wear and tear, then why it is recommended to change stylus every few hundred plays?

Wherever did you get that recommendation? I get years of useful life with my cartridges. Let's see. Since 1984, I have used an Accuphase AC-2, Two Shinon Reds and now have a one year old Dynavector DV-20XL.

If the needle wear out which is made of Diamond (hardest substance on earth), then imagine how much wear delicate record been subject to

Indeed much wear can be caused by playing dirty records. Dragging a bunch of grit along during play permanently damages the groove walls. Eliminating all the surface dirt with a record cleaning machine makes a huge difference.

As for styli, there are other wear factors such as stiffening of the rubber dampers at the cartridge end of the shank. That changes the compliance and its performance. My first Shinon befell an early death by a moment of stupidity while cleaning.

rw

[steve27]

How can "sampled" sound be accurate!
And if digital playback(cd)is perfect as we were told when 1st introduced(laughable)why do they keep improving it?
It relies to much on error correction and other electronic trickery to try and put back what is missing due to sampling and thus is inherently inaccurate,only thing in their favour is ease of use.
It is easier,however,to obtain an acceptable,depending on you definition of "acceptable", sound with a modest outlay with a cd based system than it is with a vinyl based one

[Feanor]

The first thing I noticed about vinyl was the non-sterility of it. The music sounded alive. On CD it sounds plastic and cold.

Vinyl is, of course, plastic.

[GMichael]

How can "sampled" sound be accurate!
And if digital playback(cd)is perfect as we were told when 1st introduced(laughable)why do they keep improving it?

Welcome to AR.

You kinda picked an older thread to reply to.

CD's are not perfect. LP's are not perfect. They both have there advantages as well as disadvantages.
CD's are easy and do last longer.
LP's have a smoother sound but degrade faster and are not as convenient.
You get to pick what means more to you.

Mike

[GMichael]

Vinyl is, of course, plastic.

You saw that too huh?

[Feanor]

I agree with you on all points, Wooch.

[nobody]

Just a little more feul on the fire for the dynamic range arguments...

Everything Louder!

[royphil345]

I think they are boosting recording levels and compression on CDs now because they believe compressed dynamic peaks sound better than recording at lower levels resulting in lower resolution on average or quieter passages. In digital recording, using less of the dynamic range results in lower resolution. I think newer CDs generally sound better than older ones. Think the recording industry has learned more about the limits of 16-bit digital recording and has changed their technique a bit.

I've seen articles like this before mentioning CDs with "clipping". I'd still like to know where they get that from because if there is clipping on a CD, the clipped information would be missing altogether (there's a number or there isn't). Clipping on a CD couldn't be proven by simply analyzing the CD in question. Clipping could only be detected while creating the digital recording. Makes these "experts" "credentials" look more than a little suspect to say the least. Think this "information" is released by amateurs using a consumer-grade digital audio editor who don't understand enough about digital recording to understand what they're looking at, or to criticize a professional recording. There seems to be a small group on the internet preaching this "CDs too loud" stuff. They'll name names of certain commercial recordings they "analyze" as being faulty using their faulty methods.Bad form IMHO.

The "proof" I've often seen offered of "poor dynamics" on CDs is a low resolution waveform that looks like a solid block. However, if they were to zoom in and view the waveform at a higher resolution... They'd see many large dynamic peaks that just appear as a block when "scrunched together" and viewed at a lower resolution. Only the largest spikes are compressed a bit. A recording with a less frequent occurrences of large dynamic peaks would actually appear less "blocky" at a lower resolution.

[Dusty Chalk]

CD's ... last longer.
LP's ... degrade faster ...

I'm not going to disagree with this, but on a well set up system, degradation of records really isn't a problem. The only records I wore out was because I had the weight set way too high.

[steve27]

Welcome to AR.

You kinda picked an older thread to reply to.

CD's are not perfect. LP's are not perfect. They both have there advantages as well as disadvantages.
CD's are easy and do last longer.
LP's have a smoother sound but degrade faster and are not as convenient.
You get to pick what means more to you.

Mike

Hi
thanks for the welcome
Been listening to music(live and reproduced)to know no medium is perfect(others would have us believe differently!)but it all depends which imperfections your willing to put up with,the only cd based system I have heard and could "happily" live with cost so much my wife would divorce me if bought all the same pices of equipment in it!Like one of the earier posters said:-it depends how many lps you have,I've got over 4000 so not going to scrap my "record player" anytime soon
Wish you all a merry christmas and lots of happy new years
Steve

[GMichael]

I'm not going to disagree with this, but on a well set up system, degradation of records really isn't a problem. The only records I wore out was because I had the weight set way too high.

Really? I never had a very high end TT. Just a direct drive Technics with a $300 cart.
Do you mean to say that I could spin an LP thousands of times and not get that scratchy sound that used to drive me crazy?
How much would a person have to spend to get such a TT?

[JoeE SP9]

The real secret is record care. Get a RCM and you will get rid of most of the "rice crispies".

[Dusty Chalk]

Do you mean to say that I could spin an LP thousands of times and not get that scratchy sound that used to drive me crazy?

I don't know about thousands of times -- I don't play the same LP thousands of times. Be realistic.

And in answer to your second question -- under a thou, easily.

[nobody]

Like said, record care is the key, not expensive gear.

I've never had expensive gear and I have 30 year old and older records that have very little noise at all. I may not have played them thousands of times, but I'd feel safe I've hit 3 figures in plays of some of them.

[nobody]

The "proof" I've often seen offered of "poor dynamics" on CDs is a low resolution waveform that looks like a solid block. However, if they were to zoom in and view the waveform at a higher resolution... They'd see many large dynamic peaks that just appear as a block when "scrunched together" and viewed at a lower resolution. Only the largest spikes are compressed a bit. A recording with a less frequent occurrences of large dynamic peaks would actually appear less "blocky" at a lower resolution.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Peaks and valleys on most music happen slowly enough that you wouldn't need to zoom in an enourmous amount to see them. I can very clearly see dynamic variations of vinyl I have burned to disc...and on some CDs. Others, no peaks and valleys. (ok...not no peaks, but very, very little) And, that's just zooming in with Goldwave.

Seems to me, if it was impossible to see, I wouldn't be able to see it on some but not others.

[JoeE SP9]

I would suggest that royphil compare the spectrum display of RHCP's newest CD with the vinyl issue of the same. The peak compression is extremely evident. The industry itself has admitted to overly compressing popular music so it will sound good in cars and on i-pod's. This kind of compression is very evident when using high quality gear to listen to music.