dvd audio vs cd vs vinyl [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : dvd audio vs cd vs vinyl



denis
07-13-2005, 10:51 AM
What medium do you find that has the best sound in general, is it dvd audio, cd or vinyl records?

Woochifer
07-13-2005, 11:37 AM
Can't generalize about any sound quality properties specific to a format unless you have access to original studio masters and know for a fact that all of the playback media was prepared identically. IMO, "best" format is the one that sounds transparent to the source material, and without a master source available or knowledge of how an album got produced, that's not feasible for consumers.

All that we as consumers have to go off of is the actual discs that we buy in stores, and on that front, it varies a lot from disc to disc and without access to studio masters or production notees, you have no idea whether any sound quality differences between a DVD-A, LP, or CD is due to the format itself or due to differences in the mastering and mixing.

In my own collection, I got plenty of LPs that sound better than the CD versions, and vice versa. With DVD-A or any other high res digital format, I've typically found that it sounds noticeably better than the CD. However, with a lot of the high res discs that I own, I know for a fact that the original producers sat in on the mastering sessions and/or the mastering engineer selected for the transfer is one of the best in the biz. In those cases, the attention to detail during the mastering process was far and above typical industry practice, so that very well might be responsible for the vast majority of whatever sound quality improvements I detected.

Comparatively, the CD version might have been transferred off of a master tape originally purposed for LP mastering, and if the CD version was produced without any compensatory processing or equalizing, then it would likely sound inferior to any other version. This was very common with early CDs, which gave rise to the perception that the format itself was responsible for the many tinny and harsh sounding discs that came out when during the CD's early years.

Even with LPs, you got a lot of variation in the quality of the mastering from album to album, and even with the same album, the sound quality will vary from batch to batch (worn stampers will create groove distortion, master discs produced after the first production stampers are exhausted might sound different, remastered versions will sound different, etc.).

Anyone can draw a valid conclusion about which version of a particular album that they prefer. But, IMO it's disingenuous to parlay format preferences about individual albums into broader generalizations about the purported superiority of one format over another. It just doesn't work because just as easily as I can find an LP in my collection that I feel is sonically superior to the CD version, I can also pull out a CD that IMO sounds better than the LP version. Among the high res discs that I have in my collection, so far I have not found a case where I prefer the CD version. But, as I mentioned, I also know for a fact that these high res discs benefited from more time and effort taken at the mastering stage.

With all these variables in play, no one can make a generalization about the format itself, unless they can actually isolate the format as a variable.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-13-2005, 12:38 PM
Can't generalize about any sound quality properties specific to a format unless you have access to original studio masters and know for a fact that all of the playback media was prepared identically. IMO, "best" format is the one that sounds transparent to the source material, and without a master source available or knowledge of how an album got produced, that's not feasible for consumers.

All that we as consumers have to go off of is the actual discs that we buy in stores, and on that front, it varies a lot from disc to disc and without access to studio masters or production notees, you have no idea whether any sound quality differences between a DVD-A, LP, or CD is due to the format itself or due to differences in the mastering and mixing.

In my own collection, I got plenty of LPs that sound better than the CD versions, and vice versa. With DVD-A or any other high res digital format, I've typically found that it sounds noticeably better than the CD. However, with a lot of the high res discs that I own, I know for a fact that the original producers sat in on the mastering sessions and/or the mastering engineer selected for the transfer is one of the best in the biz. In those cases, the attention to detail during the mastering process was far and above typical industry practice, so that very well might be responsible for the vast majority of whatever sound quality improvements I detected.

Comparatively, the CD version might have been transferred off of a master tape originally purposed for LP mastering, and if the CD version was produced without any compensatory processing or equalizing, then it would likely sound inferior to any other version. This was very common with early CDs, which gave rise to the perception that the format itself was responsible for the many tinny and harsh sounding discs that came out when during the CD's early years.

Even with LPs, you got a lot of variation in the quality of the mastering from album to album, and even with the same album, the sound quality will vary from batch to batch (worn stampers will create groove distortion, master discs produced after the first production stampers are exhausted might sound different, remastered versions will sound different, etc.).

Anyone can draw a valid conclusion about which version of a particular album that they prefer. But, IMO it's disingenuous to parlay format preferences about individual albums into broader generalizations about the purported superiority of one format over another. It just doesn't work because just as easily as I can find an LP in my collection that I feel is sonically superior to the CD version, I can also pull out a CD that IMO sounds better than the LP version. Among the high res discs that I have in my collection, so far I have not found a case where I prefer the CD version. But, as I mentioned, I also know for a fact that these high res discs benefited from more time and effort taken at the mastering stage.

With all these variables in play, no one can make a generalization about the format itself, unless they can actually isolate the format as a variable.

Pure genius.....I wanna be like Wooch!!!

Arturo7
07-13-2005, 12:41 PM
Wooch,

I don't know if I see your point about having access to the original masters in order to form an opinion. The master is an intermediate step in the process, not the end result of the process. The master itself is a tool, not the finished product. It is not intended for listening but for copying. It is the copying and presentation of the material on that master, and which format does it best, is the essence of the OP's question. Although a lot has to do with what is on the master in the first place, isn't it what is done with this material that counts? Or maybe I'm splitting hairs.

With that said, I agree with your assessment that the "best" needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. IMHO, the intended release format makes a difference. i.e., a Nat King Cole release from 1964 was intended for vinyl and a Natalie Cole release from 2004 was intended for CD/DVD

66Satellite
07-13-2005, 12:45 PM
I like 8-track tapes.

http://www.kissfaq.com/8track/m8n9001.jpg

paul_pci
07-13-2005, 12:52 PM
Wooch,

I don't know if I see your point about having access to the original masters in order to form an opinion. The master is an intermediate step in the process, not the end result of the process. The master itself is a tool, not the finished product. It is not intended for listening but for copying. It is the copying and presentation of the material on that master, and which format does it best, is the essence of the OP's question. Although a lot has to do with what is on the master in the first place, isn't it what is done with this material that counts? Or maybe I'm splitting hairs.

With that said, I agree with your assessment that the "best" needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. IMHO, the intended release format makes a difference. i.e., a Nat King Cole release from 1964 was intended for vinyl and a Natalie Cole release from 2004 was intended for CD/DVD

Nevertheless, there needs to be some sort of stable reference point by which one could then point to which recorded format is superior to another (regardless of a case by case basis).

GMichael
07-13-2005, 01:07 PM
I like 8-track tapes.

http://www.kissfaq.com/8track/m8n9001.jpg

OH MY, I still have a player recorder for 8 tracks. I'll throw in the old matchbook cover for propping it up and re-aligning the heads if you like. No extra charge.

JohnMichael
07-13-2005, 02:01 PM
I agree with Woochifer about the variability of the medium. I would also like to add that the variability of the playback equipments quality will effect the quality of the sound.

Arturo7
07-13-2005, 02:12 PM
Good point JM, equipment is a big part of the equation. As is the condition of the LP, CD, or DVD. It is certainly much easier to maintain a digital source than an anolog source. The same goes for a digital vs an analog player.

thepogue
07-13-2005, 03:53 PM
Or are you trying to date his daughter? :p


Pogue


Pure genius.....I wanna be like Wooch!!!

thepogue
07-13-2005, 03:55 PM
and i think i got it on LP!!...if not...i WANT it on vinyl..."strutter!!!"!!!


Pogue


I like 8-track tapes.

http://www.kissfaq.com/8track/m8n9001.jpg

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-14-2005, 05:21 AM
Or are you trying to date his daughter? :p


Pogue

Now that's a thought!

SlumpBuster
07-14-2005, 11:26 AM
and i think i got it on LP!!...if not...i WANT it on vinyl..."strutter!!!"!!!


Pogue

My buddy in college had every Kiss album on every format, excepting 8 track. It was the coolest thing I ever saw. :D But I never understood why he needed even one copy of Dynasty, let alone, CD, LP and Tape.

RGA
07-14-2005, 04:13 PM
Does it matter - why not have all the formats? Some cds will be better some LP's will sound better or SACD's -- and better to you or me may not be to someone else.

The more important factor in my view is if you love music you may find certain music not available on a given meduiuma which forces you to buy it on another medium. I know one maker who only bothered to make a digital front end because new music he liked was not available on LP.

In the end if music is the goal you need at least LP and CD. If there is music on the new formats not available on the old then I suppose ti behooves me to get one of those players as well.

Vinyl done right is worth having -- but Vinyl is harder to do right.

Woochifer
07-15-2005, 02:53 PM
Nevertheless, there needs to be some sort of stable reference point by which one could then point to which recorded format is superior to another (regardless of a case by case basis).

Problem is that the stable reference point requires an original master source, and the knowledge that all of the production discs for the different formats used identical preparation for all formats. In the case of vinyl, that's just not possible due to the RIAA equalization curve and the limitations of how much dynamic range the medium can handle before it starts to cause mistracking on typical turntable rigs. For end users like us who lack access to master sources and don't have inside information about the production process, the only avenue available to us is the case by case comparison.


I don't know if I see your point about having access to the original masters in order to form an opinion. The master is an intermediate step in the process, not the end result of the process. The master itself is a tool, not the finished product. It is not intended for listening but for copying. It is the copying and presentation of the material on that master, and which format does it best, is the essence of the OP's question. Although a lot has to do with what is on the master in the first place, isn't it what is done with this material that counts? Or maybe I'm splitting hairs.

You're right about the master not necessarily serving as the finished product, because in practice the sound of the actual master tape is not always the intended outcome (although with high res digital, I don't think that the tweaking done to a master source is not nearly as much as what you might have seen in the heyday of vinyl).

But, I think that in terms of assessing the DVD-A, CD, or vinyl format, the standard has to be how well it reproduces the actual source, regardless of what other tweaking might be needed to achieve a specific type of sound.


Or are you trying to date his daughter?


Pogue

Now that's a thought!

And keep right on thinking T-Man! At the moment, any daughter I might have is not even a pea in the perverbial pod. Of course, if she gets more of her looks from my wife's side of the genetic ledger, then she very well might be worth the twentysomething+ years wait! :D