Absolute PROOF than vinyl sounds better than CD

[Feanor]

"Tubes do diminish over time so does vinyl - both are overstated."

LPs-grossly overstated to say the least. kept properly clean and brushed just prior to play, vinyl wear is undetectable for a very long period.

tubes-again, grossly overstated. properly engineered tubed equipment maintains pristine sound for a very long period and when they begin to fail, the tubes can be changed. when transistors go bad, you MUST take them to a service tech (unless you have acquired those skills).

the balance of 1776's post shows much inattention to facts and very little experience. i know of nobody using 1.5 oz of tracking force.

Perhaps he meant grams?

I have 40 year old LPs and 50 year old tubes that are working just fine, (though I'm not using either at the moment).

[djpnutz]

great posting

[hifitommy]

"Perhaps he meant grams?"

of COURSE he meant grams but the bulk of the post was off track, even the ELP player is not embraced as a viable choice by nearly all of those that have been privy to the experience.

[Feanor]

"Perhaps he meant grams?"

of COURSE he meant grams but the bulk of the post was off track, even the ELP player is not embraced as a viable choice by nearly all of those that have been privy to the experience.

Hi, HFT,

No, I gather the laser LP player just isn't the real McCoy. For one thing it relies heavily and noise reduction to produce a listenable sound, and that can't do much for the result.

[hifitommy]

yup, it reproduces the artifacts on vinyl with great clarity. its a great concept with an incomplete execution. kind of like rbcd.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

" majority of "audiophiles" nowadays), seem to prefer vinyl and tubes"

its because we have attended live events and recognize the the sound of the real thing.

A violin through a tube, wow that got to sound natural even though it isn't. A trumpet through a tube? That seems to work.......wrong tubing. An Orchestra through a tube, naw that ain't right at all!

With really good tube amps sound more SS like in their abilities, and some very good SS amps sounding like good tube amps, there is no compelling argument that either has benefits over the other. In a concert hall, we never hear either accompanying the orchestra.

[hifitommy]

agreed TTT, tube and ss sound converge these days but only at the top end of the dollar spectrum.

although my arc sp3a1 is from '79-'79, its characteristics fly in the face of the stereotypical "tube sound".

[Chas Underhay]

Hi Gents

I haven't been on here for a while but the last couple of posts concur with my views.

Yep, I'm sure cheaper valve (tube) and solid state amps do sound different. Valve amps by nature (predominantly even harmonic distortion) tend to sound less objectionable, I think we all know that.

For instrument amplification such as guitar or Hammond organ, valves are normally preferred simply because "valves misbehave more gracefully than transistors".

However, Marshalls and Leslies aren't "HI-FI" and the intention should be that a good quality amplifer doesn't "misbehave" at all. So, as the quality increases the differences should become less and less.

Some of you will remember that I have always been a vinyl advocate but that's not in small part due to having about 2000 LPs.

I do own a good quality record player but the sound's not all rose tinted like the archetypal1970s players - tonally, it's pretty dammned close to my CD player.

The trouble is that vinyl vs. CD is a flawed and unequal contest because you can't get good results from vinyl on the cheap - it would cost about ten times as much to replace my record player (cartridge, arm, turntable, pre-amp and power supplies) as it would my CD player.

If I was starting out now without any music recordings ay all, I doubt very much if I would bother with vinyl.

[hifitommy]

well chris,

how much did your cd player cost? i can see the ten times as much for a vinyl player if its a $30 cdp. at the $300 level, you can get some decent LP sound these days. sure, if you spend a pile, a great sounding player can be had.

its at about the $200 level where cd and LP sound about equal in quality but the advantage goes to LP from there on up. at $1000 for cd and vinyl players, the vinyl will be head and shoulders above.

and its not as if i dont embrace cd. i have a couple of thousand of them and using a sacd player makes them sound excellent. an oppo is a good value and they are universal players.

even separate phono sections can be had for affordable money and sound better than they have any right to.

vinyl software is very affordable as used and lots of great copies of them are out there for cheap.

[Chas Underhay]

Hi Tommy

My CD player (out of production now) would cost about £500 for an equivalent replacement. IMO, a good CDP in that price range will be about 95% as good as CD replay can get.

You probably can get a cartridge, arm, turntable and phono pre-amp for £500 but the difference betwen that and a £5,000 rig is phenominal.

I never said that my record player didn't sound better than my CDP just that they were tonally similar i.e. the record player is not rose tinted and over-warm. I do feel that I can walk between the instruments in the soundstage when I'm listening to vinyl where the position of the instruments is far less defined with CD - but some of that could be my imagination.

I resisted CD for many years because I thought they sounded bl00dy vile. However, like the rest of us by about 1990, I was "forced" down this route.

In circa 2000, I bought a CD recorder and guess what, when I recorded CDs from vinyl, they sounded very close to the same and generally far better than the commercial CD issues of those particular albums.

Yep, I still like rummaging around in second hand record shops but as I said, if I didn't already have a good collection - I'm not too sure I'd be prepared to splash out on my record player now.

Cheers

Chas

[texlle]

It's like debating which is superior- surrealism or accuracy. Both are important qualities and factor heavily in the overall experience, but I choose to appreciate both formats for different reasons. I like my arcam cd player for its ability to reveal the most subtle nuances and striking detail that my B&O beogram could never achieve. However, my B&O paints a much more realistic stage. It has a certain airiness and presents a presence and broad soundstage far beyond the capabilities of the Arcam. Granted the B&O beogram 3000 isn't the highest acclaimed (especially with the stock tonearm/stylus like mine) or comparable of turntables to compare with the Arcam, especially in terms of MSRP. They're both equally capable (and appreciable) source formats in my opinion, but personal style preference will always win this argument. This is like when the Brits try to objectively debate using subjective reasoning. It just leads to more argumentation and shenanigans.

hifitommy makes a good point in his most recent post. I believe part of the need to spend way more for a quality cd player is related to the market demand for cd's over vinyl. If vinyl were as prevalent in all musical applications (professional, auto, commercial, comsumer), quality turntables would be just as expensive. It's like buying a project car....vinyl is a project hobby. Many enthusiasts will build their projects from the ground up rather than buying something pre-assembled and enjoy it out of the box because they are used to the maintenance involved, they are familiar with the layout of the turntable, parts are typically cheaper and easier to work with, problems usually easier to rectify, plus it's a fun hobby. If a cd player starts having issues, there are far fewer options available to cost effective repair, on the whole.

[Chas Underhay]

Hi texlle

I'm not debating whether surrealism or acuracy is better, there have been numerous CD vs. vinyl threads on this forum and I'm not prepared to go down that route again.

What I'm saying is that as quality improves, nuances and imperfections such as the typical "warm and cuddly" sound of vinyl and valves and the "harsh" sound of digital and solid state diminish and the end results become closer and closer. If a system was perfect, it would reproduce the recorded music exactly as recorded. We know that "perfection" is not acheivable but try to get as close as is practically and financially possible.

I also said that it costs a lot more to get good results from vinyl than CD - you can buy a very nice CD player for less than the cost of a decent MC cartridge alone so I don't know why you think it's cheaper.

Not too sure what you mean by your comment ---"This is like when the Brits try to objectively debate using subjective reasoning. It just leads to more argumentation and shenanigans."--- but that may have something to do with Yanks not bothering to read exactly what I've written!

Cheers

Chas

[texlle]

Ello Chas,

Well, forgive me if I offend any further, but I do not recall quoting your post. Just weighing in here as is everyone else. I did not mean to discredit your comment due to your nationality, which I overlooked despite various clues in your post that I now recognize. I just used the British in an example for the CD vs. vinyl SQ argument. Simple coincidence.

I understand where you're coming from a bit better now. You said it yourself, the more you spend/the higher the quality in either the case of vinyl or cd, the more centered on the scale of warm-to-harsh both formats become. You say you have to spend to a higher degree on the vinyl side. But, really you don't. The used market greatly emphasizes this. I can find lower quality (or older) 2nd hand hobbyist-owned turntables with a $300 MSRP stylus (which is about the most important turntable component) that they sell for cheap. For way less than I can get an comparable 2nd hand CD player. Taking it to the low end, you can do a lot in the vinyl market for even $200. But there's not much to be had with a $200 budget for a cd player. Maybe a used cambridge pre-azur model if it has exterior flaws, and if you're lucky.

I think the cost of vinyl ownership has a much wider deviation in price than that of CD player ownership. I hope I'm describing this correctly. It's easier to spend infinitely more on vinyl than CD to roll with the best of them, but if you're just starting out and have a small budget, vinyl is a much cheaper route than CD.

By the way, the last name is Tankersley and I'm from the south. No need to retort with a slang characterization so appalling and inaccurate as "Yank".

[Baniebs]

I love the sound of vinyl

[Chas Underhay]

Ello Chas,

Well, forgive me if I offend any further, but I do not recall quoting your post. Just weighing in here as is everyone else. I did not mean to discredit your comment due to your nationality, which I overlooked despite various clues in your post that I now recognize. I just used the British in an example for the CD vs. vinyl SQ argument. Simple coincidence.

I understand where you're coming from a bit better now. You said it yourself, the more you spend/the higher the quality in either the case of vinyl or cd, the more centered on the scale of warm-to-harsh both formats become. You say you have to spend to a higher degree on the vinyl side. But, really you don't. The used market greatly emphasizes this. I can find lower quality (or older) 2nd hand hobbyist-owned turntables with a $300 MSRP stylus (which is about the most important turntable component) that they sell for cheap. For way less than I can get an comparable 2nd hand CD player. Taking it to the low end, you can do a lot in the vinyl market for even $200. But there's not much to be had with a $200 budget for a cd player. Maybe a used cambridge pre-azur model if it has exterior flaws, and if you're lucky.

I think the cost of vinyl ownership has a much wider deviation in price than that of CD player ownership. I hope I'm describing this correctly. It's easier to spend infinitely more on vinyl than CD to roll with the best of them, but if you're just starting out and have a small budget, vinyl is a much cheaper route than CD.

By the way, the last name is Tankersley and I'm from the south. No need to retort with a slang characterization so appalling and inaccurate as "Yank".

Greetings Tankersley

Not offended in the least, just bemused by why you think us Brits are less able to debate objectively than you Yanks - and no offence meant!

Regarding the cost of vinyl vs. CD replay, I don't know about your side of the pond but in the UK, you can buy a DVD player brand new for less than £30.00. Such a machine would play CDs well enough for 90% of people's ears. You could probably but a second hand CD player on E bay for the same sort of money.

Over here, for less than £150 (approx $200) you can buy a very nice new CD player that is probably 90% as good as CD replay gets. Now, you can probably get turntable, arm, cartridge and phono pre-amp for £150 (new or used) but in vimyl replay terms, that really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

As I said before, for £500 you could buy a very good CD player indeed and it will be 95% as good as CD replay gets. However, you'd have to spend more like £5,000 on a turntable, arm, cartridge and phono pre-amp to get to 95% as good as vinyl replay gets.

Cheers

Chas

[hifitommy]

"As I said before, for £500 you could buy a very good CD player indeed and it will be 95% as good as CD replay gets. However, you'd have to spend more like £5,000 on a turntable, arm, cartridge and phono pre-amp to get to 95% as good as vinyl replay gets."

perhaps true but at the 500GBP level, the vinyl replay equipment sounds better than the equivalent money spent on a cd player.

[texlle]

Greetings Tankersley

Not offended in the least, just bemused by why you think us Brits are less able to debate objectively than you Yanks - and no offence meant!

Regarding the cost of vinyl vs. CD replay, I don't know about your side of the pond but in the UK, you can buy a DVD player brand new for less than £30.00. Such a machine would play CDs well enough for 90% of people's ears. You could probably but a second hand CD player on E bay for the same sort of money.

Over here, for less than £150 (approx $200) you can buy a very nice new CD player that is probably 90% as good as CD replay gets. Now, you can probably get turntable, arm, cartridge and phono pre-amp for £150 (new or used) but in vimyl replay terms, that really is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

As I said before, for £500 you could buy a very good CD player indeed and it will be 95% as good as CD replay gets. However, you'd have to spend more like £5,000 on a turntable, arm, cartridge and phono pre-amp to get to 95% as good as vinyl replay gets.

Cheers

Chas

No offense taken here. I understand your position and agree with you to a degree. I'd say $300-$400 in our market would net you a cd player that would be comparable in performance to a turntable in the same price range. However, I would say you'd have to spend around $1000-1500 to get 95% as good as replay gets for a cd player. My arcam was about £500 new. To say that settling for a low-end arcam diva or cambridge azur is about as good as you're going to get is just a gross overstatement, IMO. I can attest to noticing a dramatic improvement in SQ when moving up from this pricepoint to say a Shanling. And, to a lesser extent, from a Shanling to a Wadia. I think you're right in saying that it's easier to spend far more to get closer to the top for vinyl, but I'd say the estimation of your pricepoints where improvement starts to diminish is a bit skewed.

Oh yeah, call me Tyler.

[Chas Underhay]

Hi Tyler

---"I'd say $300-$400 in our market would net you a cd player that would be comparable in performance to a turntable in the same price range."--- I'm definately not convinced about that and does that include the cartrige and phono-preamp?

---"However, I would say you'd have to spend around $1000-1500 to get 95% as good as replay gets for a cd player."--- Well this may be where we cross over from objective to subjective - how exactly are we defining 95%? If it was how the equipment specd out in a test lab, you would probably find even the budget CD player was less than 1% off the mark in all respects.

---"To say that settling for a low-end arcam diva or cambridge azur is about as good as you're going to get is just a gross overstatement,"--- I didn't say that at all did I?

---"I can attest to noticing a dramatic improvement in SQ when moving up from this pricepoint to say a Shanling."--- Well there's bound to be improvements but "dramatic" could again be considered as a subjective conclusion. Aslo, did you hear your Arcam and the Shanling through the same amps and speakers and in the same room?

---"And, to a lesser extent, from a Shanling to a Wadia."--- There are also subtle differences in sound which you may or may not prefer. It's definately not unknown for someone to be initially impressed by the sound of a new piece of equipment only to find that once they get used to it, it no longer sounds as good as they thought.

---"but I'd say the estimation of your pricepoints where improvement starts to diminish is a bit skewed."--- Again, I don't think I made any claims for the pricepoint where improvement starts to diminish but if we spend anymore than is absolutely necessary to buy the most basic music system; we are already sliding down that curve of diminishing returns.

I'm not rrying to be funny but I don't know how much experience you have of good quality record players (I use the term record player for the whole assembly of cartridge, phono pre-amp, arm, turntable and associated power supplies). Once you get used to something that is capable of utilising good but not silly priced cartridges i.e. in the Ortofon Kontrapunkt b or Cadenza Blue sort of category, you will realise just how far off the mark cheap record players and especially cartridges really are.

That's what I think anyway!

Cheers

Chas