Why do my LP's sound better than CDs?

[theaudiohobby]

True the dynamic range of analog is limited compared to the theoretical limit of digital media; reality is that very few popular or classical recordings utilize all of the dynamic range of either format. Popular music is dreadfully compressed and most vinyl albums, save the few Classical Decca's, Living Stereos, Lyritas etc are not utilizing the full DR of that medium either. Some of the rock reissues are better but most current music is recorded horribly

I think you should take a look a the DR across the whole frequency spectrum for LPs, it is non linear, have a look, RIAA curve is a dB levels compensation curve, dB levels have to be lifted to compensate for its limited dynamic range in the bass regions.

[risabet]

I think you should take a look a the DR across the whole frequency spectrum for LPs, it is non linear, have a look, RIAA curve is a dB levels compensation curve, dB levels have to be lifted to compensate for its limited dynamic range in the bass regions.

The RIAA curve is set up to allow the cutting stylus to maximize the amount of music on a side. In doing so, the designers of the system boosted the trble and lowered the level of the bass. This minimized the power that the cutting head would need, limited the groove pitch cut into the record and maximized the time of each side.

To my knowledge, the RIAA curve was not meant to limit the dynamic range of the album, as the inverse curve in phono pre-amps is just that and if properly done should lead to "flat" frequency response and whatever DR the engineer put on the tape, in theory.

However, as a transducer system the cartridge will run into grooves that cannot be tracked i.e. Tealrc's "1812 Overture." A problem CD's don't have.

[RGA]

Is there really a reason you need to know why? You won't know why based off of the lack of good information you're getting in this thread...there is quite a difference of opinion on dynamic range and which is in fact superior as to the medium -- the definition was conveniantly changed around 1982 (gee when CD came out) to make it look a lot better than it really is -- this was discussed in UHF's first book.

This site which is pretty problematic still makes for interesting reading regarding the measured response of LP (but his viny rig is not particularly high grade but still) http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...DsDynamics.php

A large part of this comes down to the recording -- who really cares about nitpicking over the format -- no low says you only have to have on or the other -- why not have both? If the Jackson Browne "Running on Empty" album sounds better on vinyl than the same album on cd (which is the case) then if this is one of your favorite albums and you can point to 30 such albums you bought in a row like this then get a turntable --- or if there are plenty of singles and older lbums you like that are not on cd or SACD(and probably never will be) then vinyl is something to get.

So too is cd for the same reason -- I can;t get Loreena McKennitt or Acoustic Alchemy on vinyl -- I like them enough that it's worth getting a cd player JUST for those two artists...and luckily they are very well recorded cds.

i tend to agree that it's the recordings that people take issue with mostly and then blame the format -- but not all cds are bright so that indicates a recording issue not the format. CDs generally get played back on poor cd players and then we get question begging pseudo scientists on about non true to life tests.

[musicoverall]

i tend to agree that it's the recordings that people take issue with mostly and then blame the format -- but not all cds are bright so that indicates a recording issue not the format. CDs generally get played back on poor cd players and then we get question begging pseudo scientists on about non true to life tests.

I agree. I simply prefer the recording that sounds best to my ears - usually the LP or the SACD. I also believe, as your linked article pointed out, that there is a lot of theory in audio that doesn't stand up to empirical evidence.

[theaudiohobby]

To my knowledge, the RIAA curve was not meant to limit the dynamic range of the album, as the inverse curve in phono pre-amps is just that and if properly done should lead to "flat" frequency response and whatever DR the engineer put on the tape, in theory.

Hi risabet,

I did not say limit, I said compensation for limited DR in the lower regions, yes it also address longer play time issues, have a look at the RIAA equation.

[RobotCzar]

Hi risabet,

I did not say limit, I said compensation for limited DR in the lower regions, yes it also address longer play time issues, have a look at the RIAA equation.

I agree that RIAA is primarily designed to compensate for the inability of vinyl to store proper dynamic range at the frequency extremes. Note, however, that it doesn't help much as an LP as a rather poor dynamic range which led (in the past) to the use of dynamic range expanders. This is one of many areas in which a CD out performs the LP playback medium.

While we are on the subject of RIAA, let's be clear for all the "purists" out there that a signal intented for LP playback goes through at least two additional processing phases (i.e., amplification stages) because RIAA equalization must be applied and then compensated for. Hence, LP is at a disadvantage without even considering the limitations of the medium. If you believe less signal modification is better (or a goal) then LP is not for you.

In addition, LPs are made from masters that are recorded as either digital or analog tape and therefore must go through a dub to become LPs (you are listening to second generation copies at best). It is possible to record direct to disc, and such LPs sound great--the best the medium can do, but really quite inferior to CD (redbook digital).

[musicoverall]

...such LPs sound great--the best the medium can do, but really quite inferior to CD (redbook digital).

So if something sounds "great, but inferior", do you consider what you're comparing it to (redbook CD, in this case) to be perfect or nearly perfect?

Also, have you ever heard a 45 RPM LP which was recorded from an analog source? That is the best the medium can do and is completely superior to redbook digital from a sonic perspective ... er... both of those statements being totally subjective, of course. But my post is not to start a medium war but just to suggest you check one of these LP's out if you ever get the opportunity... just to see if you change your mind.

[shokhead]

Hard to play LP's in your car.
They're so big.
You can here some stuff really well,like nicks and scratches.
Walk softly around a turntable.
Making copies from LP's just dont sound as good{imo} as a cd copy.

[musicoverall]

Hard to play LP's in your car.
They're so big.
You can here some stuff really well,like nicks and scratches.
Walk softly around a turntable.
Making copies from LP's just dont sound as good{imo} as a cd copy.

Yes... unless you can get your car into your living room!
Bigger means easier to read the label for an old man like me!
Yes, care must be taken to keep those things off the vinyl.
Not necessary if one's turntable is properly suspended. You could bounce a hammer off my rack and you wouldn't get the thing to skip. My heart would, of course, be another matter!
I make CD-R copies for the car only and the system doesn't sound as good as my main stereo so in that case, I'd agree with you.

[BRANDONH]

Hard to play LP's in your car.
They're so big.
You can here some stuff really well,like nicks and scratches.
Walk softly around a turntable.
Making copies from LP's just dont sound as good{imo} as a cd copy.

Once upon a time they made a record player for the car.
http://ookworld.com/hiwayhifi.html

[ruadmaa]

So if something sounds "great, but inferior", do you consider what you're comparing it to (redbook CD, in this case) to be perfect or nearly perfect?

Also, have you ever heard a 45 RPM LP which was recorded from an analog source? That is the best the medium can do and is completely superior to redbook digital from a sonic perspective ... er... both of those statements being totally subjective, of course. But my post is not to start a medium war but just to suggest you check one of these LP's out if you ever get the opportunity... just to see if you change your mind.

You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

[risabet]

You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

You won't get the best sound from analog without a good TT, arm and cartridge, not meaning to offend, but a Pioneer is not a good TT. Direct drive, Goldmund excepted (maybe), is not an acceptable drive system for high-end TT's.

I will admit that analog that is better than redbook CD is usually more expensive, more finicky and you can't play them in your car, but IMO on a good sytem with a good TT analog is better than CD.

[musicoverall]

You people must come from a different world than I do. I have some 200 vinyl albums that I have purchased throughout the years ever since the 1960s. Most are in pristine shape without as much as a fingerprint on them. I play them with a Pioneer PL540 turntable using a Shure V15 type 4 cartridge. Quite frankly there isn't a one of them that will beat a decent CD. The disks, even though they look perfect, are loaded with surface noise. To say that vinyl is better boggles my mind. The only reason I keep the vinyl that I have is simply for sentimental reasons since many of them were bought when I was quite young.

Well, if you tell me what world you come from, we'll find out if I'm from a different one!

Long story I'll keep short - when CD's came out, I jumped onto the new format as soon as I could afford a player. The $100 units of today cost a grand back then! I could hardly wait! No more surface noise, no accidental scratches, no partyers sitting on them and breaking them, etc, etc. So I took the plunge eventually and I was happy... for awhile. Then my excitement faded as it just seemed like the music didn't sound as good as I remembered. I thought it was my system so I started upgrading. The problem didn't go away and often times it was made worse. At some point, I pulled out my old LP's that I had boxed up and they sounded much better, surface noise and all. More like real music.
That was a rather confounding realization... but I did get an improved stereo out of the deal!

CD sound has improved, particularly with the discs that were newly recorded directly to digital (rather than digital remasters of old analog tapes) and with the improvement in players. In fact, the new DAC I bought has narrowed the gap. No one can tell me that all CD players sound alike and make me believe it! I haven't complained about the sound of CD's since. I still don't think the best of them sounds as good as the average record but they're close enough that the differences aren't worth obsessing over. And if it helps any, it boggles MY mind, too! But I don't necessarily believe that the LP format is superior. I think it's more that the care in recording and mastering was better back in the old days - as a rule. But I think that's changing to a degree as well.

[RobotCzar]

So if something sounds "great, but inferior", do you consider what you're comparing it to (redbook CD, in this case) to be perfect or nearly perfect?

Also, have you ever heard a 45 RPM LP which was recorded from an analog source? That is the best the medium can do and is completely superior to redbook digital from a sonic perspective ... er... both of those statements being totally subjective, of course. But my post is not to start a medium war but just to suggest you check one of these LP's out if you ever get the opportunity... just to see if you change your mind.

No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

Redbook CD is nearly perfect because that is what it was designed to be. All parameters were chosen to exceed the ability of humans to distinguish. How can one get better than that? The major flaw of redbook CD is that it is two channel only.

I suggested a simple experiment that you could perform to demonstrate the superiority of CD (i..e., record an LP to CD and try to distiguish it from the LP).

The differences you are hearing are almost certainly due to differences in the recordings themselves. Many CD recordings are terrible--just compare samples of old rock CDs with newer remastered versions and you will begin to understand the problem. Instead of telling us what your equipment is, you should have told us what the recordings were. You must compare media only with high quality, non-multitracked/mixed recordings. Until you do this (and perhaps the experiment I suggested) your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

[20to20K]

And Digital Dominator Scores With A Sharp Kick To The Groin.

Don't Know If Rex Can Recover From That One Rusty...

Wait A Minute...he's Starting To Move On The Canvas...

Is He Getting Back Up...?????

[musicoverall]

your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

It doesn't matter if I'm comparing apples to bicycles, my subjective opinion is the only thing that IS useful... to me. If better measurements don't result in better sound (even if it's because the mastering was poorly done), it's the objective side of the argument that isn't useful to me. Unless I argue that "analog is better than digital" I'm taking a personal, subjective approach and simply telling of my personal experiences rather than presenting an argument.

[risabet]

No vinyl playback medium is superior to CD in any measured parameter except (in some cases) treble extension (which will decrease as an LP is played as the LP medium is self erasing). In most cases, say with S/N, distorton, or dynamic range, the CD is significantly superior. Actually, LPs' max specs are rather bad, spinning them at 45 rpm is required to improve performance--but it still doesn't compare with CDs.

True, CD measures better than LP, and if I listened to measurements CD would win hands down. Fortunately I listen to music and analog sounds more like it than CD.

Redbook CD is nearly perfect because that is what it was designed to be. All parameters were chosen to exceed the ability of humans to distinguish. How can one get better than that? The major flaw of redbook CD is that it is two channel only.

The major flaw of Redbook CD isn't its 2-channel format, it is its sound.

I suggested a simple experiment that you could perform to demonstrate the superiority of CD (i..e., record an LP to CD and try to distiguish it from the LP).

The differences you are hearing are almost certainly due to differences in the recordings themselves. Many CD recordings are terrible--just compare samples of old rock CDs with newer remastered versions and you will begin to understand the problem. Instead of telling us what your equipment is, you should have told us what the recordings were. You must compare media only with high quality, non-multitracked/mixed recordings. Until you do this (and perhaps the experiment I suggested) your subjective opinion is not useful because you may be comparing apples to organges.

I have a standard piece that I use for exactly this purpose. Reference Recordings "Copland: Appalachian Spring" (RR-22 on LP, RR-22CD on CD) The LP is from an analog master and the CD is from a digital master. Both were recorded from the identical feed from the console with no further processing.

On this disc the LP simply sounds more like real instruments playing in a real space. The clarinet on the LP has the sound of a real instrument, the woody tone with the same surrounding space heard in real life. The CD version's sound is thinner, less woody, a simulacrum of the real thing.

In the "Simple Gifts " section the entire ensemble plays a lyrical, mezzo-forte passage. The sound on the LP is open and quite detailed, the strings have the glow and rosin of the real thing, the 13 players are spread out in a realistic placement. The CD presentation is brighter, especially in the strings, and not as three dimensional.

CD isn't terrible, I own and buy many CD's, but it simply IMO is not as realistic sounding as analog. I find myself pulling out albums when I listen seriously and CD's when I'm cleaning or working on the computer. It is rare that I will listen to CD's, especially classical CD's, for Pleasure