what's so good about vinyls?

[bjornb17]

Well, im 20 years old, and my dad has some old vinlys but no longer a turntable, and I've grown up originally with casettes as a child, and now CDs within the last 10 years or so. I like to keep my mind open to new things as well. 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 :)

[N. Abstentia]

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

[Woochifer]

The primary reason is that a lot of us have large vinyl collections that we don't feel like tossing out. And others simply prefer the sound of vinyl. It has a more relaxed quality to it and a more forgiving sound in general.

I have a turntable in my system, and I keep it there because I own a sizable collection of LPs and 12" singles. In addition, a lot of my listening includes electronica, dance music, nujazz, and remixed music. A lot of the music in those genres does not make it to CD. So, basically it comes down to having the turntable so that I can simply listen to all of the music that I like.

The sound quality argument IMO is usually overly dogmatic, and there's plenty of noise on both sides that ignores the empirical evience. I prefer to take a case-by-case approach and not get bogged down in absolutes, because there are plenty of exceptions to any generality about CD and vinyl playback. In my collection, there are plenty of albums that I prefer in the CD version, and plenty of others that I prefer in the LP version. Usually, what it boils down to is the quality of the transfer and how well the recording got optimized for a particular medium.

For albums recorded in the 70s and 80s in particular, the original recording very well could have been recorded with the vinyl medium in mind. Supertramp's albums are excellent examples of this. They were purposely recorded with a hot high end that translates very well onto vinyl because of the vinyl medium's more forgiving and gradual high end rolloff. But, transferring these types of recordings onto CD, and you get a harsh and tinny sound that's unbearable to listen to at high volumes. Plenty of other recordings from that era have similar problems with the early CD versions.

When you see all of the "remastered" CDs that have come out over the past decade, they typically get transferred with less emphasis in the highs. They talk a good game with the 20-bit and 24-bit and Super Bit Mapping remastering, but to a large degree, it's simply more care taken during the transfer and in a lot of cases, simply changing the equalization settings to better approximate the original intent of the recording (vinyl requires equalization at the mastering stage, and if this equalization is incorporated into the master tape, then it has to be compensated for in the CD transfer).

With newer albums, the original recordings are done with high resolution digital equipment, which presents a wider dynamic range than before. Vinyl record mastering typically includes some kind of dynamic range compression. The vinyl medium can handle a fairly wide dynamic range, but a record with unusually wide dynamic range requires very high precision in the turntable setup -- precision that most consumers lack. So, the real world approach is to create a compromise so that the majority of consumers can actually play the LP without mistracking.

LPs are a pain and they require a lot more maintenance and due diligence with the setup. If you're used to the convenience of dropping a disc into a changer and using a remote to skip songs or what not, the need to flip a record every 20 minutes or so, clean the record and stylus, and in some cases manually lift the tonearm at the end of each side, might be more work than you want to do with your music listening.

Basically, the argument in favor of vinyl boils down to 1) whether or not you already have a large LP collection; 2) if there's a lot of new music or catalog titles that you can only find on vinyl; 3) if you simply prefer the sound of vinyl; or 4) if you listen to or plan on getting into a lot of music originally recorded before the late-80s.

[risabet]

For me the preference for vinyl is simple, vinyl, when reproduced properly, sounds more like tha sound of acoustic instruments playing in a good acoustic space than does CD, IMO. This is admittedly an expensive proposition and it is possible to get fairly good CD sound for a lot less money, though SOTA digital sound is also expensive, see the McIntosh digital separates.

Vinyl is definitely more work. I vacuum clean new purchased LP's, the stylus does need cleaning, and TTs require careful setup to sound their best but once setup good TTs stay setup for a good long time, albums require vacuuming only once IMO and stylus cleaning takes less than one minute. A small price to pay for what many consider better sound.

[shokhead]

Dont forget the cereal, snap,crackle and pop.

[hifitommy]

vinyl can sound more real in terms of dynamic swings. the 'jump' factor. a sudden transient or crescendo is more startling on vinyl than cd.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

the relaxation/satisfaction factor doesnt exist on cd. its something you will realize after not consciously looking for it but you will feel more like listening to more music with vinyl than cd provided you dont have a thrashed piece of vinyl.

<o:p></o:p>

used vinyl is MUCH more affordable than even used cd; that is, you can buy about five times the used vinyl than used cd for the same money. for that, you can afford to take chances on unknown music, open your horizons.

<o:p></o:p>

new vinyl is continuously being released-the white stripes ferinstance.

<o:p></o:p>

contrary to popular belief, its not expensive to get a good sounding tt setup. it DOES take more work, cleaning the records, cleaning the stylus EVERY time, making adjustments. a competent record player can be gotten for about $300 new. the music hall and pro-ject tables at their low end can amaze you and come with a cartridge already set up.



you just have to learn how to clean records, and the stylus. this can be done by searching the archives here or at audioasylum.com in the vinyl asylum.



elusive disc, acoustic sounds, and red trumpet are sources for new vinyl that can be quite satisfying. some of it is pricey, some not.



i suggest you try vinyl for a while and then make up your mind.

[Curtis]

But....if you like a lot of classic rock, such as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin, their vinyls are often very expensive because they're considered collector's items. Not good if you're on a budget.

[Woochifer]

vinyl can sound more real in terms of dynamic swings. the 'jump' factor. a sudden transient or crescendo is more startling on vinyl than cd.

Not in all cases that I've heard. It varies from disc to disc. With newer recordings especially, the vinyl simply cannot capture the dynamic variation as effectively as the CD version.


the relaxation/satisfaction factor doesnt exist on cd. its something you will realize after not consciously looking for it but you will feel more like listening to more music with vinyl than cd provided you dont have a thrashed piece of vinyl.

Again, this is a sweeping generalization that I can find plenty of exceptions for. I will agree that vinyl is more relaxing because it's a more forgiving medium that more gently rolls off at the extremes. But, satisfying? I've gotten plenty from both mediums. Generally, satisfaction varies a lot more with the album itself than anything to do with which format I'm using.

And the quality of the vinyl experience is also far more variable -- not just from album to album, but from variations on the pressing quality for the same title. Not just in terms of how trashed the vinyl is, but also from pressing to pressing. First production pressings can vary in sound quality a lot compared to later versions. And then you have the quality control issues. Plenty of new albums that I bought back in the vinyl heyday, I had to bring back to the store due to some major defect. This included the dreaded distortion that increases as the groove gets closer to center (this is symptomatic of an LP pressed from an overused and worn stamper), and the usual pops and clicks.


used vinyl is MUCH more affordable than even used cd; that is, you can buy about five times the used vinyl than used cd for the same money. for that, you can afford to take chances on unknown music, open your horizons.

Again, not always. The stores that I visit have clearance bins where the CDs can go for a buck or less. There's a lot more selection in those bins than in the vinyl bins, and you don't have to scrutinize the condition of the disc as closely as with an LP.


new vinyl is continuously being released-the white stripes ferinstance.

New titles are available, but only for a limited time. They typically go out of print after the first production run, and cost more than the CD versions. In my listenings, the vinyl versions of newer recordings is more often inferior to the CD version. I would hypothesize that it's similar to why so many early CDs sounded worse than the LP version, the recording is simply optimized to sound best with the CD medium nowadays.


contrary to popular belief, its not expensive to get a good sounding tt setup. it DOES take more work, cleaning the records, cleaning the stylus EVERY time, making adjustments. a competent record player can be gotten for about $300 new. the music hall and pro-ject tables at their low end can amaze you and come with a cartridge already set up.

I haven't tried those low end turntables, but I have heard the low end cartridges that typically come with them. The Sumikos that come with the entry level Pro-Ject turntables sound dull and uninvolving, hardly sufficient to make a good argument for vinyl in a one-on-one comparison with a decent CD version. Upgrading to a sufficient cartridge is another price consideration, and you need to consider the stylus replacement charges that you have to cover every two years or so.


i suggest you try vinyl for a while and then make up your mind.

Agreed. But, as I've said, I think the argument for vinyl is more of a case-by-case situation, rather than one that can be generally applied across the entire medium.

[hifitommy]

>Not in all cases that I've heard. It varies from disc to disc. With newer recordings especially, the vinyl simply cannot capture the dynamic variation as effectively as the CD version. <

you are entirely wrong about the dynamics. disc to disc variations notwithstanding, in general, vinyl has more dynamic capability than rbcd.

>vinyl is more relaxing because it's a more forgiving medium <

nope, it isnt more forgiving.
the qc issues are real in both media. sloppiness shouldn't be tolerated.
inner groove distortion is minimized with proper setup of cartridge. the missing data between the samples in rbcd cannot be retrieved. the ictus of many transients is lost between them thereby reducing the attacks of those transients.

>clearance bins where the CDs can go for a buck or less. There's a lot more selection in those bins than in the vinyl bins, and you don't have to scrutinize the condition of the disc as closely as with an LP.<

hahaha, have you EVER seen the crap in those bins? not worth pawing through. i'd rather get myu hands dirty fingering through 5k pieces of vinyl or pay nearly list price for SACDs than to waste my time with the endless pile of reject CDs.
i will admit to finding some REEEELY good music for cheeeeep in the used cd bins for 4 or 5 bucks, sometimes as low as $2, but the dollar bins are insidious wastes of time.

>New titles are available, but only for a limited time<

http://entertainment.circuitcity.com/Music/Album.aspx?p_id=P+++371524&a_id=R+++630295&prodid=VTW27148.2 (http://entertainment.circuitcity.com/Music/Album.aspx?p_id=P+++371524&a_id=R+++630295&prodid=VTW27148.2) still available! nice price for a two record set on red and white vinyl! see the micro review in tas this month.

>The Sumikos that come with the entry level Pro-Ject turntables sound dull and uninvolving, hardly sufficient to make a good argument for vinyl in a one-on-one comparison with a decent CD version<

agreed, the oysters dont thrill me either, nor doest the $200 blue point. but a $40 grado black can solve that.

>you need to consider the stylus replacement charges that you have to cover every two years or so<

a CDP of the same price is likely to fail in the same amount of time requiring COMPLETE replacement. AND, cd players are NOT upgradeable at that level as turntables are when you buy a better cartridge.

all that being said, i still like my CDs and especially my SACDs. some music will NEVER be available on vinyl and some NEVER on cd. i have an impressive inventory of both analog and digital media because its really the MUSIC we want.

vinyl can really enhance your musical enjoyment UNLESS you just cant stand to hear ANY untoward noise from the vinyl playback. i know someone like this yet he still bought more than one tt.

isnt this haggling FUN?

[Smokey]

you are entirely wrong about the dynamics. disc to disc variations notwithstanding, in general, vinyl has more dynamic capability than rbcd.

That might be true if there were no surface noise on LPs. But due to surface noise, LP dynamic range is reduced (lower than Cds) to accommodate that medium :)

[E-Stat]

That might be true if there were no surface noise on LPs. But due to surface noise, LP dynamic range is reduced (lower than Cds) to accommodate that medium :)
It is easy to draw that conclusion by looking at the numbers alone. One of the two primary limitations of the Redbook standard has to do with low level resolution. At the lowest signal levels, it is unable to use all 16 bits for quantization. Below a certain level, it simply goes deaf. There is content that totally misses the boat, some of which relates to ambience cues.

While typical analog has a higher noise floor, one can nevertheless resolve musical detail through that noise down to lower levels. Redbook digital simply ignores such. Naturally, I am referring to well-cleaned, high performance analog recordings.

rw

[JohnMichael]

One of the early arguements for vinyls superiority had to do with phono cartridges vs the dacs of the day. A phono cartridge can respond faster to the dynamic shadings in music than the dacs of the past. People talk about dynamics as going from the softest sound to the loudest. There is also the dynamics between notes. I feel vinyl reproduction produces those dynamics better. I prefer the sound of my vinyl to the sound of my cds. I do not have a state of the art cd player and that might change my opinion but I doubt it. You can plug in a cd player and get good sound but a turntable is a labor of love and needs to be tweaked and adjusted to get it to sound its best.

[hifitommy]

i remember that mikey fremer covered this issue in a column in $phile and maintained that vinyl has a LARGER dynamic range than rbcd due to the low end of the scale as you mentioned and at the high end of the scale because there is headroom above the distortion limit as well. i wish i had bookmarked that because it made the point quite well and clearly.

and JM, the dynamic capabilities i mentioned are just what you just said, the dynamic contrasts between notes, not just softest to loudest. yes, phono is more capable there and part of the hobby is to be able to make the proper adjustments to maintain this superiority.

pardon my ignorance but doesnt hdcd deal with the lower levels in some way? i have never made it my business to research the workings of hdcd even though it is relatively available.

[Woochifer]

you are entirely wrong about the dynamics. disc to disc variations notwithstanding, in general, vinyl has more dynamic capability than rbcd.

My statement is entirely about the disc to disc variations. In several of my comparisons, the LP pressings of newer recordings simply lack the dynamic variation that the CD versions have. In some cases, I preferred the LP playback, but not because it had greater dynamic capability. Exceptions would be those recordings with a lot of very low level sounds, where the CD format audibly falters.



nope, it isnt more forgiving.

The sonic properties most definitely are more forgiving. Badly done CDs have a fatiguing quality to them, while poorly done LPs have other maladies that aren't fatiguing but might still have other traits that render them unlistenable.


the qc issues are real in both media. sloppiness shouldn't be tolerated.
inner groove distortion is minimized with proper setup of cartridge. the missing data between the samples in rbcd cannot be retrieved. the ictus of many transients is lost between them thereby reducing the attacks of those transients.

The QC issues are far more commonplace and detrimental to the playback with vinyl than with CDs. In all my years of purchasing CDs, I've only returned two or three of them due to some kind of notable defect. With vinyl, I probably returned about 10% of all the new LPs I ever bought due to excessive surface noise and pops/clicks, groove distortion, or some other kind of defect (like off-center holes or misapplied labels). Inner groove distortion can be minimized with a high end turntable rig, but it cannot be eliminated if it's present in the first place. And with my LP purchases, I'd say that about 3-5% of the ones I bought had that problem. With some albums, I had to return at least three copies before I found a pressing that did not have that inner groove distortion.


hahaha, have you EVER seen the crap in those bins? not worth pawing through. i'd rather get myu hands dirty fingering through 5k pieces of vinyl or pay nearly list price for SACDs than to waste my time with the endless pile of reject CDs.
i will admit to finding some REEEELY good music for cheeeeep in the used cd bins for 4 or 5 bucks, sometimes as low as $2, but the dollar bins are insidious wastes of time.

One man's crap is another man's treasure, is it not? 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. It would also depend on the stores that you visit. The stores in my area that specialize in used vinyl and don't sell used CDs, the used vinyl costs much more than a typical used CD. Whether or not I go with the vinyl versions depends on the quality of the LP, the vintage of the pressing (i.e. if the pressing is close to the original production, or if it's a version that I know has especially good sound quality), and if it's an album that I want in the LP format.

You were making a point that for the price of one used CD, you could buy "five times" the number of LPs. I simply offered a viable example that contradicts your generalization. I doubt that the artistic caliber of those used LPs that cost "five times" less than typical used CDs would be that much greater than equivalent priced clearance CDs.


http://entertainment.circuitcity.com/Music/Album.aspx?p_id=P+++371524&a_id=R+++630295&prodid=VTW27148.2 (http://entertainment.circuitcity.com/Music/Album.aspx?p_id=P+++371524&a_id=R+++630295&prodid=VTW27148.2) still available! nice price for a two record set on red and white vinyl! see the micro review in tas this month.

And once the stock runs out, it's gone for good, unless it becomes a classic down the line that warrants an audiophile reissue. My point is simply that new LP titles get one production run, and then go out of print. Whatever retailers have in stock is what remains. It might take years to deplete or it might only take a matter of months. For better or worse, the CD versions are much more likely to remain in print for a longer amount of time, and be readily available at local retail stores.


a CDP of the same price is likely to fail in the same amount of time requiring COMPLETE replacement. AND, cd players are NOT upgradeable at that level as turntables are when you buy a better cartridge.

I dunno about that either. CD player reliability will vary quite a bit (they might fail the first week or they might end up like my friend's Sony CDP-101 that remains operational after 22 years), and in my 20 years of owning a CD player, I've had exactly ONE player fail during that time and it was seven years old when I replaced it. In the time that I've owned my current Philips CD changer, I've replaced my turntable stylus FIVE times.


all that being said, i still like my CDs and especially my SACDs. some music will NEVER be available on vinyl and some NEVER on cd. i have an impressive inventory of both analog and digital media because its really the MUSIC we want.

Agreed, that's why I still own a turntable and will likely always have one in my rig. For some of the genres that I follow, a lot of music never makes it to a digital format because plenty of remixes and dance music are only available on 12" single and CD single. And with the rapidly disappearing CD single and my lack of interest in buying songs as online downloads, owning a turntable is necessary just to keep current.


vinyl can really enhance your musical enjoyment UNLESS you just cant stand to hear ANY untoward noise from the vinyl playback. i know someone like this yet he still bought more than one tt.

isnt this haggling FUN?

The surface noise AND the hassle and nonportability (keep in mind that prerecorded cassettes had already passed the LP in unit sales before the CD was introduced) of the format will forevermore relegate vinyl to niche status. Whether the benefits of vinyl are worthwhile depends on the priorities of the listener.

[Smokey]

While typical analog has a higher noise floor, one can nevertheless resolve musical detail through that noise down to lower levels. Redbook digital simply ignores such. Naturally, I am referring to well-cleaned, high performance analog recordings.

rw

As I really see it, both formats have advantages and disadvantages. Cds in one hand, suffer from lo resolution capability coupled with 'stiff' filtering. On the other hand, LP suffer from higher noise floor (spickle&spot on the record) and vulnerability of wear and tear.

So saying which format is better might be a mute point here considering also the fact that LP and CD of the same album probably will have different equalization. And direct sonic comparison might be a wrong approach in evaluating both formats.

And lets not forget the conveniences of CDs. Couch potatos know what I am talking about :D

[E-Stat]

As I really see it, both formats have advantages and disadvantages. Cds in one hand, suffer from lo resolution capability coupled with 'stiff' filtering.
Agreed.


On the other hand, LP suffer from higher noise floor (spickle&spot on the record) and vulnerability of wear and tear.
Not so much when you use a VPI record cleaner or equivalent. I've used one for over twenty years.


So saying which format is better might be a mute point here considering also the fact that LP and CD of the same album probably will have different equalization. And direct sonic comparison might be a wrong approach in evaluating both formats.
I don't find it a moot point at all. I guess it depends upon which recordings you compare. I have a number of Windham Hill and Telarc on both LP and CD that are non-equalized with both formats. I do, however, have some Madonna on 45 RPM vinyl that is significantly less compresssed than the CD counterpart. The LP simply kills the CD.

rw

[E-Stat]

pardon my ignorance but doesnt hdcd deal with the lower levels in some way? i have never made it my business to research the workings of hdcd even though it is relatively available.
Good question. I don't see how the format can be compatible with Redbook players and really address that limitation.

rw

[JohnMichael]

I have an interesting example of cd vs vinly. This should help muddy the water. Glenn Gould recorded Bach's Goldberg Variations a second time in 1981. It was recorded in digital but with an analog recording as a backup because of how new digital recording was in 1981. The digital version was released on vinyl which I have listened to for years. When Sony rereleased the 1955 and 1981 versions on cd they found the backup analog of the 1981 recording sounded better and that is what they used for the cd. I now have a choice between digital on vinyl or analog on cd. So not only can we discuss vinyl vs cd we could throw in the recording method used.

[theaudiohobby]

While typical analog has a higher noise floor, one can nevertheless resolve musical detail through that noise down to lower levels. Redbook digital simply ignores such. Naturally, I am referring to well-cleaned, high performance analog recordings.

rw

Though this view is purveyed around, it a'int so, if you can hear below the noise floor then it is not a noise floor at all, a noise floor is where the random noise simply overwhelms the signal, 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.

[E-Stat]

Though this view is purveyed around, it a'int so, if you can hear below the noise floor then it is not a noise floor at all, a noise floor is where the random noise simply overwhelms the signal
Even through mild levels of background hiss and rumble (Some folks call that noise - evidently you don't), one can resolve musical detail with analog recordings. Redbook resolves down to a point and then simply ignores the rest with the few bits available.


... 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.
Read above. More importantly, I think the engineers who work with hi rez formats would disagree that those are the only factors. If not, why increase the word size to 24 bits? 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.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Even through mild levels of background hiss and rumble (Some folks call that noise - evidently you don't), one can resolve musical detail with analog recordings. Redbook resolves down to a point and then simply ignores the rest with the few bits available.

if musical detail can still be resolved, then it is not a noise floor, but a distortion.


Read above. More importantly, I think the engineers who work with hi rez formats would disagree that those are the only factors. If not, why increase the word size to 24 bits? 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.

rw

I doubt that the engineers will disagree, increased dynamic range is not the issue, but benefits that accrue as a result, if it was about word length and dynamic range, 24bit/44.1kHz will give you all the dynamic range you desire, but you will be stuck with most of the distortions mentioned earlier. In PCM, the dynamic range is for the most part independent of the sampling rate. Of course, things are different with DSD, where the dynamic range is very much dependent on the sampling frequency, but that is another matter entirely.

[E-Stat]

if it was about word length and dynamic range, 24bit/44.1kHz will give you all the dynamic range you desire, but you will be stuck with most of the distortions mentioned earlier.
Isn't that what I just said? 16 bit Redbook lacks the low level dynamics of analog, 24 bit DVD-A and SACD bitstream.

rw

[BRANDONH]

Well, im 20 years old, and my dad has some old vinlys but no longer a turntable, and I've grown up originally with casettes as a child, and now CDs within the last 10 years or so. I like to keep my mind open to new things as well. 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 :)

I prefer Vinyl to CD.
However, when asked to compare the two formats it usually starts a war between the CD lovers and us Vinyl lovers and usually there are no clear winners.
Beauty is said to be in the eyes of the beholder.
I feel that is the same with both the Vinyl and CD formats.
They both have pros and cons.
Its my belief that if you were to go ahead and try out Vinyl you will be pleasantly surprised and most likely will have no regrets, once you cross over. There will be days you will want to just listen to Vinyl all day, one record after another, and some days you wont feel like messing with them and will just pop in a CD for a quick song or two.
Vinyl does take careful handling and up keep, quite more than the CD does, but that can be part of the fun with Vinyl. I bought brand new records back in the 70's when I was still in elementary school and because I took good care of them they still reproduce great music. I still enjoy pulling them out to show off their pristine condition and then play them back after all these years later with very few pops & clicks.

[theaudiohobby]

Isn't that what I just said? 16 bit Redbook lacks the low level dynamics of analog, 24 bit DVD-A and SACD bitstream.

rw

Nope and let me expand further by that 24bit/48KHz (perfectly valid 24bit DVD-A format) will have many of the 16/44.1KHz artefacts even though it has more dynamic range. Some distortion artefacts are ameliorated by higher sampling frequency rather not greater dynamic range, ringing and poor impulse response for example. Harmonic sterility is not a product of restricted dynamic range.

[E-Stat]

Nope and let me expand further, yada, yada, yada.
While I agree there are sins due to the bandwidth limitations and inherent need for brickwall filtering, I remain focused on your earlier statement regarding dynamics:

... the reasons why analog may sound better than CD has absolutely zero to do with the dynamic range of each format

Now you agree that 24 bit PCM has more dynamic range than 16 bit. It is primarily at the pppp end of the spectrum. End of story.

rw

[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. :thumbsup:

[nobody]

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

<a href="http://www.austin360.com/xl/content/music/stories/xl/2006/09/28cover.html">Everything Louder!</a>

[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".:ihih:

[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.:ihih: