Why do my LP's sound better than CDs?

[20to20K]

I've recently started playing my vinyl again after ignoring it for about 10 years. I was able to find a new stylus for my Signet OM40 cartridge to put on my Denon DP37L turntable.
I also upgraded the RCA jacks with Monster interconnects when I had a recent short.
Good analog equipment...but definitely not what an audiophile would consider high-end.

I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!

The music was tighter, sharper, and cleaner. Sure you had a little surface noise but that was usual only noticible between tracks and at the quietest of passages. The CD's on the other hand had a harshness to them. Particularly the higher frequencies had a shrillness to it. Female vocals had an echo and the bass seemed more muddy.

Mind you none of this was apparent to me when I only listened to CD's...it was only when I hooked up my turntable and compared the two did I hear these differences. Could there be something wrong with my CD player? I've gone through all the audio set menus on the 2200 and I believe everything to be set up correctly. Could there be something obvious I'm missing? Would it sound better if I connected it through a Tosc link to my AVR's CD input instead of the DVD input? Here's the rest of my equipment:

Denon 3805
ATI 1502 amp (front only)
Polk LSi 15
Polk LSi C
Polk FXi 3 (rears)
Velodyne DLS4000 sub
Monster M series biwire(front and center only)
Monster interconnects

[theaudiohobby]

There may be couple of reasons for this, but one that was suggested in the latest edition of Hi-Fi News, that I had not thought of before but once you think about it, it is fairly obvious, that is that the limited dynamic range of LPs gives them an upper hand much in the same way as subtle use of compression makes wide dynamic range music more listenable on dynamically challenged equipment. More to the point and on more subjective level and even objective level, there are a variety of reasons why an LP may sound better than the equivalent CD, however shrillness and harshness should not be included or least should be very minimal except on the most incompetent engineered CDs, so without mincing words, I will suggest that your CDP or DAC section of your receiver is very sub-standard vis -a vis your analog gear.

As for your question, I very much doubt that changing the digital input will alter the sound much since they pass through same DAC, changing from toslink to coaxial may have some effect but not so much as to totally banish the reported issues, though you may give a try. Since you are already using the DAC section of your receiver, audition better DACs. Also why not try out the analog outputs of your CDP, they may sound better than the receiver.

[risabet]

There may be couple of reasons for this, but one that was suggested in the latest edition of Hi-Fi News, that I had not thought of before but once you think about it, it is fairly obvious, that is that the limited dynamic range of LPs gives them an upper hand much in the same way as subtle use of compression makes wide dynamic range music more listenable on dynamically challenged equipment. More to the point and on more subjective level and even objective level, there are a variety of reasons why an LP may sound better than the equivalent CD, however shrillness and harshness should not be included or least should be very minimal except on the most incompetent engineered CDs, so without mincing words, I will suggest that your CDP or DAC section of your receiver is very sub-standard vis -a vis your analog gear.

As for your question, I very much doubt that changing the digital input will alter the sound much since they pass through same DAC, changing from toslink to coaxial may have some effect but not so much as to totally banish the reported issues, though you may give a try. Since you are already using the DAC section of your receiver, audition better DACs. Also why not try out the analog outputs of your CDP, they may sound better than the receiver.

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

Personally, I have yet to hear any pair of recordings, when presented on CD and vinyl, where the vinyl isn't preferable in almost every important aspect save, sometimes, bass clarity, not necessarily bass extension. Specifically Appalachian Spring (Reference Recordings, RR-22 and CREF-22), when compared side by side on vinyl and on CD, with matched levels, sounds significantly more realistic on vinyl then on CD.

[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.

[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.

[ericl]

I've been recently ramping up my home theater and computer audio - surround receiver/speakers, airport express, etc and have been listening to my vintage thorens/fisher/klipsch system much less. In fact I was just about to go buy a denon 2200 like you've got. I was toying with the idea of packing up the vintage system for a while because the speakers, turntable and records take up so much space. Digital is so much more convenient, I also felt like the digital end of my system was getting pretty good.

Then I threw on a record after not listening to vinyl for while. GEEZ! The sound is so much better it is just silly. All the experimenting and investment and time spent on the digital end just can't compete with my 25 yo turntable, worn out shure cartridge, 40 year old tube receiver, and 25 year old klipsch speakers. I guess I won't be able to pack up the records after all!

So we've established that the denon 2200 is inferior to vinyl, but how has it been for you in general as a player? I am considering buying this guy used for a decent price. How's the video, sacd, etc?

Thanks,
Eric

[20to20K]

I've been recently ramping up my home theater and computer audio - surround receiver/speakers, airport express, etc and have been listening to my vintage thorens/fisher/klipsch system much less. In fact I was just about to go buy a denon 2200 like you've got. I was toying with the idea of packing up the vintage system for a while because the speakers, turntable and records take up so much space. Digital is so much more convenient, I also felt like the digital end of my system was getting pretty good.

Then I threw on a record after not listening to vinyl for while. GEEZ! The sound is so much better it is just silly. All the experimenting and investment and time spent on the digital end just can't compete with my 25 yo turntable, worn out shure cartridge, 40 year old tube receiver, and 25 year old klipsch speakers. I guess I won't be able to pack up the records after all!

So we've established that the denon 2200 is inferior to vinyl, but how has it been for you in general as a player? I am considering buying this guy used for a decent price. How's the video, sacd, etc?

Thanks,
Eric

Keeping in mind that I've never owned anything other than conventional CD players before the higher resolution formats sound "good" to me...but still not as good as my analog. One source material I was fortunute to have in all three formats: LP, conventional CD, and SACD. That was the Police Synchronicity...a very well recorded album. While the SACD sound was noticibly better than conventional CD...my 20 year old LP blew them both away!

The dynamic range issue that the previous poster mentioned is possible...it does make sense, but if that's the case why don't they mix down the digital sources to compensate for this? I mean like you say...digital is easy right? I would certainly expect a SACD to sound as good as it possibly can. There no way a 20 year old over the counter LP should sound better.

There are a couple of quircks about the 2200 I don't like. You can't que up a track to play.
You must first start the disk playing from the begining, skip to the track you want, then quickly hit pause (or skip back again)...quite annoying. Also the fast scan feature is useless...it only has one speed...which I believe is only 2x...and it's completely audible.
The onscreen menu is far from intuitive and the instruction manual is only of minimal help...of course this is a patented and well documented Denon shortcoming.

On the other hand...the video is awesome. Reads every DVD I throw at it, great picture, great sound. No complaints on the video end...but keep in mind I'm probably 85% audio
and 15% video...and a good chunk of that video is music concerts.

I love my Denon turntable though! Would trade it for anything!

Does anyone think I would benefit from buy a higher end CD player (Linn, Meridian, etc) and using that for 2 channel listening exclusively?

[hermanv]

When I was first seduced by hearing a high end system I decided to junk my exsisting equipment. I had probably paid about $500 for the whole set-up. Clearly seperates were the way to go. I bought an expensive Denon 20 bit(!) CD and an expensive Denon integerated Amp about $1,400 and a pair of $800 speakers (used). This was 15 years ago, I thought that the amount I spent was real money and I was in the big time. I wasn't very happy with the end result.

Now I know that careful attention to each piece of gear, picking pieces from manufacturers that have good reputations for that particular kind of device is neccesary to avhieve optimum sound for a given price point. Over the years I have gone back and listened to Denon digital gear and to me it always has that harsness, glare or etch. I haven't heard every thing they make but what I have heard has a consistent signature in the mid to upper mid frequency range which to me at least is unpleasant.

[musicoverall]

...the LP's sound better to me!

Me, too! Possible reasons - not that I say "possible":

1) Redbook CD is simply not high enough resolution to accurately reproduce music. This would make some sense in that my SACD's level the playing field between analog and digital.
2) The recordings you have were done well on vinyl and the digitization to CD was done less well.
3) Your digital components are not up to snuff. Note that I own a Denon PMA-2000R CDP in my basement system and I do not find it harsh sounding. It's actually a tad bit on the dull side. However, after recently replacing my DAC in my main system, redbook CD sound is much improved. Still not as good as vinyl but much closer.
4) The reputedly narrower frequency response of the LP is shaving off some glare that the CD passes through.
5) The LP has some measurable built-in distortions that convey more of a sense of realism while being less accurate and you like the sound of these distortions.

There are probably more. I would lean more towards number 2 and then number 1 in which case you have few options for improvement. You might audition a few other CD players and see if that helps any and use the Denon for high rez audio and video. My personal feeling is that if vinyl sounds better to you than CD, you might simply start checking out flea markets and used shops and buying more vinyl!

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=musicoverall]Me, too! Possible reasons - not that I say "possible":QUOTE]

"Not" in the above sentence should be "Note"..

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think that LP sounds better to most of you because it was mastered with better care than their CD counterparts. Also early digital recording used digital recorders with brickwall filters in their D/A conversion. Very nasty on the high frequencies. I believe musicoverall pretty much summed it all up.

[RobotCzar]

I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!

Why tell us what your equipment is? Do you think hearing LPs as being superior has something to do with your specific equipment?

There are four reasons you might hear LPs as being better than your CDs, but I only know three:

1) You have bad judgement of what is "better" recorded sound.
2) The recordings on CD are not as good as those on vinyl.
3) Vinyl is adding some effect that you like.

Item 2) is often the problem as recordings have to be mixed differently for LP than CD and the CD mix is not done very well. This is true of many pop/rock CDs as often no care is taken in creating the CD. Even if the recording has been properly remixed for CD, you may not like the recording engineer's take on how the music should sound.

Item 3) either the noise level is acting as a audible biasing agent (don't ask) or perhaps the hyper demensionality displayed by the way LPs kludge stereo is to your liking.

This has come up before so I will simply make two points:

a) The CD medium is significantly superior in every measured variable including noise, distortion and frequency response (except for extension of recorded high frequencies into the ultrasonic).

b) You can check these factors by either listening to better recordings--such as non-multitracked jazz or classical on both LP and CD or you can take a more experimental approach (which I know you might like) and record your LP onto a recordable CD and then make the comparison (they should sound identical). If they do sound identical, then either factor 2) or 3) above is true.

[royphil345]

You said your DVD / CD player is hooked up with a toslink? Try a coax cable connection if possible. Always sounds better to me. If one of your components lacks a coax input / output, try a glass toslink if yours is not glass. You will hear a difference in detail, bass and smoothness.

I just bought this inexpensive one on eBay, a big improvement over the Monster toslink I was using. http://stores.ebay.com/24-7-MINIDISC...eNameZl2QQtZkm

[JoeE SP9]

I've really really tried, honest! Vinyl still sounds better to me. My lady friends prefer vinyl also. I can listen for longer periods of time when playing vinyl. I have quite a few recordings on vinyl and CD. In every instance I prefer the vinyl. The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl. No, that is not an editing mistake.

[markw]

I've recently started playing my vinyl again after ignoring it for about 10 years. I was able to find a new stylus for my Signet OM40 cartridge to put on my Denon DP37L turntable.
I
I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!

... is that phono cartridges, being transducers, are just as euphonic as speakers. You can radically change ths sound of your vinyl playback by simply replacing your cartridge. Some are warm and woody, some are bright and analytical, some have depressed midranges, fat ones, skinny ones, kids who play on rocks...

[theaudiohobby]

... is that phono cartridges, being transducers, are just as euphonic as speakers. You can radically change ths sound of your vinyl playback by simply replacing your cartridge. Some are warm and woody, some are bright and analytical, some have depressed midranges, fat ones, skinny ones, kids who play on rocks...

markw and Pat D

What turntables are price competitive below 1500USD? I know the Project turntables, are there any others?

[JoeE SP9]

markw and Pat D

What turntables are price competitive below 1500USD? I know the Project turntables, are there any others?

Here in the US we have access to Music Hall TT's. I don't know if they are available in the UK. Check www.needledoctor.com

[franklinpross]

I've recently started playing my vinyl again after ignoring it for about 10 years. I was able to find a new stylus for my Signet OM40 cartridge to put on my Denon DP37L turntable.
I also upgraded the RCA jacks with Monster interconnects when I had a recent short.
Good analog equipment...but definitely not what an audiophile would consider high-end.

I was floored by how good the sound quality was compared to my CD player. A Denon 2200 Universal player. I tried doing an A/B comparison on albums I had both in LP and CD form and I was horrified to hear that the LP's sound better to me!

The music was tighter, sharper, and cleaner. Sure you had a little surface noise but that was usual only noticible between tracks and at the quietest of passages. The CD's on the other hand had a harshness to them. Particularly the higher frequencies had a shrillness to it. Female vocals had an echo and the bass seemed more muddy.

Mind you none of this was apparent to me when I only listened to CD's...it was only when I hooked up my turntable and compared the two did I hear these differences. Could there be something wrong with my CD player? I've gone through all the audio set menus on the 2200 and I believe everything to be set up correctly. Could there be something obvious I'm missing? Would it sound better if I connected it through a Tosc link to my AVR's CD input instead of the DVD input? Here's the rest of my equipment:

Denon 3805
ATI 1502 amp (front only)
Polk LSi 15
Polk LSi C
Polk FXi 3 (rears)
Velodyne DLS4000 sub
Monster M series biwire(front and center only)
Monster interconnects

+
undefined


The Secret Is Out of the Bag. YES, old is better than new . . .24 bit resolution

on CD's merely tries to capture the openeness of the LP.

When I listen to vinyl- I use my equalizer. The two kind of go hand in hand,

like . . . . . .fontina and sausage..........egg salad and anchovies. . . . . .


mangia . . . . . .

[Arc45]

"The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl.The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl."

I gotta side with Joe E here. I just purchased a SOny SACD 9000 or something series player. It is an incremental imporvement over the Adcom (but not by a large margin IMO). Irregardless Vinyl (not all Vinyl) sounds better. I am using a mid priced Grado Gold and the difference is very noticeable.

Having said all that though there are some CD's which are incredible. (Telarc..)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl.The CD may have greater bass extension and no surface noise but somehow there is more there there with vinyl."

I gotta side with Joe E here. I just purchased a SOny SACD 9000 or something series player. It is an incremental imporvement over the Adcom (but not by a large margin IMO). Irregardless Vinyl (not all Vinyl) sounds better. I am using a mid priced Grado Gold and the difference is very noticeable.

Having said all that though there are some CD's which are incredible. (Telarc..)

Vinyl does not inherently sound better. The bottom line to all of this depends on the care and time put into the mastering process. Vinyl usually had 2-3 times more mastering time on them than CD. That is why most CD's of that period were inferior to their CD counterparts. Nowadays, I would put any DVD-A or SACD that I have worked on against any LP, and would worry one bit about the comparison. Well mastered vinyl is better than mediocre mastered CD. But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance

[Woochifer]

Vinyl does not inherently sound better. The bottom line to all of this depends on the care and time put into the mastering process. Vinyl usually had 2-3 times more mastering time on them than CD. That is why most CD's of that period were inferior to their CD counterparts. Nowadays, I would put any DVD-A or SACD that I have worked on against any LP, and would worry one bit about the comparison. Well mastered vinyl is better than mediocre mastered CD. But a well mastered DVD-A or SACD(I don't think redbook is qualified to be in any comparison with LP) will totally hold its own again the LP, and in many way exceed its performance

I think we got a winner.

Most of these format arguments consistently neglect the fact that nobody except a recording professional has access to the original master tapes. I think that people often confuse personal preference for their favorite type of sound with something that sounds most transparent to the source.

The issue with vinyl is that it has to be extensively tweaked during the mastering process. For example, if the original master has too much headroom, then compression has to be applied. I've heard too many good and bad LPs, and good and bad CDs to attribute everything that I hear to the format alone.

An LP in the hands of virtuoso mastering engineer can sound incredible. But, is this actually the most transparent playback to the original source, or just a well done job at tweaking the sound to play optimally with a particular medium? And with LPs, you also have the issue with how variable the pressings can sound from copy to copy. If you have the misfortune of buying an album that got pressed from a worn out stamper, then you'll hear distortion and sibilance galore (and this increases as the needle gets closer to the end of a side). All the wet vac cleaning and the best turntable rig on the planet cannot save an album in that condition. And back in my LP heyday, I'd estimate that I returned roughly 1 out of every 10 albums I bought because of defects of some kind.

Similarly, I've heard enough well done CDs to know that the gratingly harsh and "metallic" sound that was common with a lot of early CDs was not due to the format itself.

The new Neil Young Greatest Hits CD-96/24 DVD package is great example of how much a reissue can improve upon previous versions with just a little care taken during the mastering process. (The remastered CD already sounds at least as good as any vinyl playback I can recall, and the 96/24 DVD is yet another step above) And Classic Records' 96/24 high res discs benefit from not only higher resolution, but also involvement by the original recording engineers, research into the processing used during the original sessions, reference playback of first production library copies, and simple attention to detail. This typically results in the best available playback quality, including comparisons to LP versions. Is this format/resolution driven, or a byproduct of good mastering? Who the *uck cares, it sounds good!

[musicoverall]

Is this format/resolution driven, or a byproduct of good mastering? Who the *uck cares, it sounds good!

Totally agree! I also agree with Terrence regarding the sound of SACD (I don't own any DVD-A discs) in that they sound as good as anything I've heard that is easily available.

[Feanor]

[QUOTE=Woochifer]
...
The issue with vinyl is that it has to be extensively tweaked during the mastering process. For example, if the original master has too much headroom, then compression has to be applied. I've heard too many good and bad LPs, and good and bad CDs to attribute everything that I hear to the format alone.
...
Similarly, I've heard enough well done CDs to know that the gratingly harsh and "metallic" sound that was common with a lot of early CDs was not due to the format itself.
...
QUOTE]

Indeed I believe that the best examples of CD can deliver the music perfectly as I can hear.

That is, I don't actually agree that SACD is necessary just to improve on CD's stereo sound. Granted the typical SACD that I own sounds a lot better than my typical CD. But that is for the same reason the LPs so often sound better than CDs -- more care was taken in recording process.