Why do my LP's sound better than CDs?

[BRANDONH]

Your looking at the chart with "analog eyes"

I am also listening with analog ears sound is analog in nature.

Nearly all of your assumptions are false.

They are not my assumptions that is why I provide a link

The graph is very misleading. What you see as a truncated waveform is not what the D/A converter in the CD Player sees.

That graph is listed in other places as well as the link I provided.
See this link on how stuff works http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

The D/A converter doesn't "think" like you. When it sees a code for a 10khz waveform, it produces an ANALOG 10khz waveform. This squared & truncated waveform that you show in the graph would produce a perfect ANALOG 10khz tone from my CD player. Not only that, but the waveform would be without any harmonics that a record needle/cartriage assembly would produce. The 10khz note would be cleaner than any phonograph could possibly produce.

I have no coment.

Your claim that transients are not handled well by CD is also false. With a 44,100 sample rate, the transient would have to be faster than 1/20,000 of a second for it to move "faster" than the CD is able to capture. A 33 rpm record moves less than 1/1000 of an inch in that span of time, do you think it could respond faster?

Not my claim I just provided the info.

A vinyl record has grooves cut in it. These grooves DO NOT mirror the waveform of the recorded sound, anymore than the pulse-code of Redbook CD does. The grooves on a record are coded too. The coding is ANALOG in nature, but if you were to hear the uncoded signal, it would be tinny and unnatural. Only after RIAA Eq is applied to the signal is the record a "usable" medium for music reproduction.

Not true. The Victrola requires no EQ or electrical amplification to play back whats in the grove.
The same goes with todays albums if you could get the Victrola to spin at 33 1/2 rpm then it would still play, although it would ruin todays records. In fact electrical amplification is not needed to record. The Dictaphone comes to mind: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recordi...PDRM1571c.JPEG

There's only one digital lossless codec in use right now, and that is the MLP coding for DVD-Audio. Your graph shows that as a "less truncated" signal, but in reality, when it's decoded the ANALOG output from the D/A converter can EXACTLY conform to the original. .

I do not deny this.
Here is a link to backup your claims: http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm

Vinyl records are NOT a lossless technology. If you could compare the waveform output of the master tape to the output of a phono cartridge you would see it quite clearly.

I do not disagree, digital is perfect and Vinyl is not.

All of this has NOTHING to do with the apparent "quality" of either LP, CD, or any of the other recording mediums. Many people prefer the sound of vinyl to CD. I am happy for them, and I also like good records too.

True there is no reference to the quality of either.
My preference is vinyl. I just wanted to provide information to the original question why one feels that vinyl sounds better.
Is it the age old question that has been going on for since the introduction of the CD.
Many people went away from vinyl when the CD came out.
Then we vinyl lovers were forced to into some dark corner of the vinyl underworld and had the CD shoved down our throat because THEY said it was better! (how about more profitable) Some people have recently gone back to vinyl asking themselves; why did I leave in the first place? Or some are experiencing it for the first time, ultimately discovering the sound of vinyl and too are saying wow what a better sound.
Does Vinyl sound better? IMO Yes.
Is digital superior? Yes
Is it safe to yell MOVIE in a crowded firehouse? Now that is the question. lolo
Here are some links of interest for both Digital and Analog:
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm
happy reading

[markw]

The Victrola requires no EQ or electrical amplification to play back whats in the grove.
The same goes with todays albums if you could get the Victrola to spin at 33 1/2 rpm then it would still play, although it would ruin todays records. In fact electrical amplification is not needed to record. The Dictaphone comes to mind: http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recordi...PDRM1571c.JPEGI

Seriously, when is the last time you listened to one of these recordings? You're saying that a 78 rpm recording made in the 20's and 30's sounds better than a modern recording done in the digital domain?

And, since when is a dictaphone considered a "hi fi" medium?

Didja ever look at early pramps, say a Marantz model 7C, and notice all the different eq's they have on there? Wanna know why? Those early records (before 33 1/3, not 33 1/2, BTW) were recorded with a multitude of different eqs. RIAA was one of the later and became a standard, thankfully.

Granted, you prefer analog and all it's related idiosynchrisities and that's all well and good but you're going from the sublime to the ridiclous here trying to defend it. ...and in some cases, you're simply wrong. Now, where can I get some of those great sounding dictaphone recordings? Did they release DSOTM in that format yet?

Let's keep this discussion real, shall we?

[BRANDONH]

All I did was to look up and provide information for others to read.
State an opinion.
I humbly apologize if any of the false information that I provided swayed some of the CD lovers over to the dark side of the vinyl underworld.
Please feel free to go to thes links
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm

[SlumpBuster]

So after lurking in these boards for the last year I'm finally putting in my 2 cents.

Certain arguments will always rage, including: Digital vs. Analog; signal compression vs. Hi Def; exotic cables vs. home depot cable, the location of the line between high end and hi fi. Hell, I remember years ago when the now defunct Stereo Review ran a cover story of Dolby S vs. Mini Disc, which I think is a good example of how fruitless these sort of arguments are seeing as how both of those mediums are museum pieces.

These arguments always seem to revolve around the technical aspects of sound reproduction. I, however, enjoy vinyl for entirely non-technical reasons. I just wanted to see if anyone else agreed, or for that matter disagreed and thinks I should blow it out my bagpipe.

1. The music industry sucks right now. Good Charlotte?!? What the hell is that? Linday Lohan?!? Really, Lindsay Lohan? She can get a record deal but bands like third eye blind and Better than Ezra (or other innumerable good solid pop rock bands with proven sales) can't even get arrested let alone signed. Label consolidation simply killed artist developement. I'd rather by kick butt old records than new garbage on CD. Back in the seventies bands released records every year, sometimes even two per year. Now the Beastie Boys go five years between records.

2. I dig the vinyl ritual. Vinyl just looks cool, whether black virgin, colored (blue, red, white, clear, ect), or picture disks. I dig full sized sleaves and album inserts. ELO's "Out of the Blue" came with a card board UFO you could assemble, try fitting that in a CD. I dig putting the record on platter, hitting it with the dry brush, putting on the record clamp and letting the arm down. I dig the sound of the groove the right before the first cut, first loud crackle, then quiet, then music. I dig that I can't take it in my car with me. I dig it that if I want to listen, I have to sit down and listen - and that I only get to listen to one at a time. Cameron Crowe got it perfect in "Almost Famous," listening to Quadrophenia with a candle burning is just not the same on CD

3. I am not alone. Within a three mile radius of my house, there is only one dedicated all genre CD store. There is one hip/r&b only shop, too. Most went bankrupt and are gone. If you want to buy CD's its Borders or Wal-Mart, and good luck with that nonsense. Although I do enjoy amazon for the hard to find stuff. On the other hand there are six used record stores all within three miles. That number jumps to dozens if your willing to drive all over town. Factor in monthly record shows and you can't help but trip over some LPs. That fact is, record stores are more numerous than CD stores now.

4. Collecting. Lots of records are out of print and often rare. So... collect away.

I still do buy alot of CDs, but I buy way more records. And, I'm even more likely to buy a concert DVD over a CD, but that is a whole other post. :P But, to answer the original question of this post "Why do my records sound better?" Well, I think my sound better because I have a lot more fun playing them, collecting them, and shopping for them, and certainly not because of someone dropping some science on me.
Anyway enough of my rant.

[RobotCzar]

So after lurking in these boards for the last year I'm finally putting in my 2 cents.

These arguments always seem to revolve around the technical aspects of sound reproduction. I, however, enjoy vinyl for entirely non-technical reasons. I just wanted to see if anyone else agreed, or for that matter disagreed and thinks I should blow it out my bagpipe.

1. The music industry sucks right now.
2. I dig the vinyl ritual. Vinyl just looks cool, whether black virgin, colored (blue, red, white, clear, ect), or picture disks. I dig full sized sleaves and album inserts.
3. I am not alone.
4. Collecting. Lots of records are out of print and often rare. So... collect away.
.

It is always nice to hear (or read, actually) a new opinion. It should be made clear that there is room in high fidelity audio for LP fans. The joy of collecting is a valid reason for sticking with LPs. You certainly are NOT alone. And, there is a ritual with vinyl that simply isn't there with CDs (which is one reason why CDs are popular--many don't want the ritual).

The problem I have is when LPs are offtered up as some kind of superior medium based, it seems, only on snob appleal and a bunch of subjective opinions. If some people like the sound of vinyl, fine. They simply should not pretend is it somehow "superior". If someone wants to say "All I know is that vinyl sounds better..." then that is ok by me, that probably IS all they know. It doesn't sound better to me, but it can sound pretty good.

Whether or not you like vinyl, the music industry sucks and is not going to get better unless the Internet can somehow force some positive changes.

Thanks for you comments.

[markw]

All I did was to look up and provide information for others to read.
State an opinion.
I humbly apologize if any of the false information that I provided swayed some of the CD lovers over to the dark side of the vinyl underworld.
Please feel free to go to thes links
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/notes.html
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/analog-digital.htm

When you start spouting off about victrolas and dictaphones and using them in reference to a discussion about hi fi and how bad CD's sound, you make vinyl afficianiados appear to be totally, unqualified, Planters Peanuts style nutz.

...and this is from one who spins vinyl himself.

Oh, if you are as into old recordings as your posts would lead one to believe, how did you ever survive without one of these?

http://www.smartdev.com/LT/remaster.html

So much for no eq, eh?

[JoeE SP9]

As a batchelor it comes down to self interest. My female friends prefer analog. They are around more often and stay longer (sometimes too long) when I'm using tubes and playing vinyl. Many of them specifically ask me to play LP's. My brother and I have provided our mother with a "reasonable" rig. Although it includes a CD/DVD player she prefers playing vinyl on her TT. As for all the "heated discussion", after 30+ years of being an audiophile I've stopped worrying and just enjoy.