View Full Version : Digital or vinyl?
AJSki2fly
25-01-2012, 22:03
Hi all,
At risk of opening up a hornets nest, I would like some honest open opinions. I have a good cd front end and like my sound repro. Which to me is musical. If I had more vinyls still I would invest in a good turntable and arm and would experiment ld style, I am considering this but is it worth the cost and effort. I have read up on RIAA and the issue with digital conversion and compression, both had good and bad. So the question is which is the one to live with, for sound or practicality?
Looking forward to a barrage,
Adrian :)
Wakefield Turntables
25-01-2012, 22:07
Have both, simples! Invest as you can afford to upgrade your system like most of us.
I like both formats equally..cd's have good points as does vinyl. If I was to choose one it would be CD.
WOStantonCS100
25-01-2012, 22:44
...is it worth the cost and effort...
It's only worth it, if it's worth it to you.
Despite preferring vinyl (@ 33 & 45 rpm), I've made sure I have the ability to playback 78 rpm's, open reel, cassette, vhs hifi and hi to lo resolution digital sources. Cylinders and 8-tracks are a no go. ;)
A similar discussion took place recently on quality of recordings, and I think the general consensus was "horses for courses" - most of us embrace both digital and analogue, and accept there are pros and cons for each. I don't think many will take a side on this - life isn't that black and white. ;)
At the budget end it's all swings and roundabouts; however, as ones budget increases vinyl pulls away.
The Grand Wazoo
26-01-2012, 00:23
As others have said, take 'em both. Why restrict yourself?
That way you can be far more opportunistic when buying music (especially secondhand).
sq225917
26-01-2012, 00:28
I'm happy with both for different reasons.
At the budget end it's all swings and roundabouts; however, as ones budget increases vinyl pulls away.
How can you possibly say that, Mark, when you don't run a digital source in your main system, and so have no instant point of reference? Judging such matters, based on what you've heard before in other people's systems, is fraught with difficulty, as too many different variables exist, not to mention the unreliability of one's musical memory...
IMO, the only people truly qualified to judge on this matter are those who run digital and vinyl sources of equal quality (and expense) in their systems, and listen to both on a daily basis, and therefore are able to make meaningful comparisons.
However, I will say that the best vinyl recordings I own sound better than the best digital ones, but that's largely due to the quality of the respective recordings (as discussed elsewhere, as Alex has alluded to), i.e. what happens in the studio, rather than the playback equipment or media used.
Marco.
serendipitydawg
26-01-2012, 00:42
IMHO it's all about the music!
There's music that is only available on vinyl, and vice versa.
Money also has a major role here as well. If you have unlimited funds I'm sure you could gt a vinyl set-up to rival your Meridian which was well reviewed in it's day.
If you search on-line you'll find tales of folk who've traded upmarket Naim CD players for one of Mr Beresford's ubiquitous DAC's fed by a PC.
If I was in your shoes and with money to burn I'd be thinking of buying vast numbers of inexpensive second-hand CD's.
If I were starting from scratch, ie no Hi-Fi at all it would be DIGITAL. Far better value for money
This is going to come as surprise to those who don't actually read what i write....
It depends on how much you want to spend.
No limit, and Vinyl still takes some beating imo. The problem will always be everything has to be perfect, records, kit environment.
Less money, and file based audio will cane any CD player set up imo.
Bottom end has to be file as well.
Somewhere in the middle and I'll go with the rest. If you afford it have both digital and analogue. :)
If I was in your shoes and with money to burn I'd be thinking of buying vast numbers of inexpensive second-hand CD's.
This has got to be a massive factor - often one people ignore.
CDs are cheap cheap cheap now and you can buy multiple times the amount of music on CD rather than vinyl for the same money. CDs can be polished to as good as new too whereas a scratched vinyl is scratched forever.
CD sound is (according to many) improving still and many are finding that many CDs sound as good as anything they have on vinyl - again down to what happened in the studio and differs from recording to recording.
If I had to choose, I think I would go down the digital route for sensible reasons.
I'd also go down the digital route because I hate being part of something trendy, full of me-too-ness and people jumping on bandwagons as is the case with vinyl. I watched a YouTube clip today of 'Why vinyl is cool' or something and it made me feel sick. People interviewed in a store saying things like
"like, when you hear that crackle at the begining of a record it feels, like, special"
:spew:
Digital is the new [sic] frontier and where the cool people are, just doing their thing without any fuss. IMHO
Thankfully I don't have to choose and I enjoy both! I couldn't give up the enjoyment I get from just the replay gear let alone the vinyl itself. :lol:
Needn't be expensive either - if you're prepared to bide your time for bargains and buy whole deck/arm/cart combos just to get the arm and sell the rest on etc etc you can assemble a great system for not too much.
Hi John,
Generally, I agree. However:
Less money, and file based audio will cane any CD player set up imo.
Don't you mean an equivalent CD player set-up, rather than ANY one?
I agree that, say, a new £500 CDP vs. a £500 file-based system would likely result in the CDP losing royally, but that's largely because modern CDPs at that price (and below) are shite.
However, if one were to pitch a modern hi-end CDP costing, say, £3000, against a similarly priced file-based system, the results would be rather different...! ;)
CD can sound phenomenal when you throw enough money at it in the right way. The problem is that most people who've gotten into file-based audio have never owned a top-notch CDP and heard what it can do.
They've based their comparisons merely on what they've heard from the mediocre machines they've owned in the past, and have incorrectly concluded that that was as good as it could get.
Marco.
Hmmm, I cant agree with you Marco; a pity but there you go.;)
I have heard some very decent CD setups, I'm talking about single box affairs here, not transport and separate Dac which are another matter.
At the three to four grand mark for a CD player I still fancy the equivalent file and Dac combo.
For me at least the problem is always going to be that any single box CD player has two limitations, the Dac and the fact that it has a mechanical transport.
Doubtless you'll disagree. :)
One other obvious advantage of a file server over a single box CD player is the ability to play higher resolution files; something a CD player just cant do.
Doubtless you'll disagree.
No, because I don't own a single-box CDP! ;)
One of the most important things, IME, in order to obtain genuinely top-notch digital replay, is making sure that lots of money is spent on the best quality, over-specified linear power supplies.
Noisy, poor quality switch-mode PSUs, which UTTERLY RUIN the music, is mainly what lets most file-based/streaming music systems down. And when it comes to CDPs, the biggest culprit these days are the truly horried, plastic, DVD-ROM mechs.
That's why I own a CDP (with a CD-only solid die-cast metal transport) and DAC with a combined weight of 40kg!! Where do you think the weight is coming from? I can promise you that it's not from bricks put inside the boxes!! It's from bloody great big 'fuck off' transformers, powering multiple linear PSUs!!! :eyebrows:
Marco.
No self respecting file server has a SMPS :)
Perhaps we ought to contain this discussion to the majority of commercially available options and then I'll let you win the argument because unfortunately the few commercially available offerings I've heard still have a fair way to go.
However, the serious file audio enthusiasts don't buy; they build and perhaps having heard a few self built servers now my view reflects this.
However, that's pretty much the truth for any Hi Fi in the price range we are talking about; most of the good kit has been modded in some way or other.
(thats why I'm still up at stupid O'clock messing about with mine)
Indeed, when you're comparing one thing against another, in order to ascertain which is 'best', you must cite the finest examples of both in order to make any comparisons valid.
Otherwise, it would be akin to someone promoting the merits of the best beer and wine, having only ever sampled Stella and Blue Nun!! :eyebrows:
The problem is that few people have the necessary required benchmarks, in order to make proper comparisons between digital and vinyl, so discussions like this usually achieve very little of real worth, other than using the opportunity to showcase our ingrained prejudices... ;)
Ok, off to bo-bos now! :goodnight:
Laters,
Marco.
How can you possibly say that, Mark, when you don't run a digital source in your main system, and so have no instant point of reference? Judging such matters, based on what you've heard before in other people's systems, is fraught with difficulty, as too many different variables exist, not to mention the unreliability of one's musical memory...
IMO, the only people truly qualified to judge on this matter are those who run digital and vinyl sources of equal quality (and expense) in their systems, and listen to both on a daily basis, and therefore are able to make meaningful comparisons.
Well, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition Marco but, as I have no fear of the comfy chair, here is my response. Firstly, I appreciate that may be your opinion but, unsurprisingly, it is not mine and I am happy that my view on the matter is as valid as your own. Secondly, your facts are wrong; I do own a CD player - it's just that it lives in a cupboard most of the time. I don't have to plug it into the system on a daily basis to know confirm that it is a second-rate source compared to the turntable. Thirdly, I have had other CD players in my system and I am not deaf to their qualities (or faults). And finally, I think people are not qualified to judge other 'peoples' opinion based on a few lines of Internet posting and a handful of presumptions (or a brief meeting).
Whoa... Keep your frilly panties on, dahling!! :lol:
I was only commenting on what you had written.
Let's cut to the chase though, Mark, and honestly, mate, I say this with the best of intentions, but just admit that you're a diehard, dyed-in-the-wool vinyl fanboy and would no sooner entertain the notion that digital, done well, can compete with vinyl (done well), than you would entertain wearing a medallion and blinging-up your turntable with gold bits!! :ner:
;)
Marco.
bobbasrah
26-01-2012, 11:59
Hornet's nest is an understatement when a question like that is posed, bringing out the pragmatists, elitists, and golden-ears in their droves preaching their particluar gospel of St. Pursuit of Audio Nirvana.....:ner:
In your case, if there is interest in LP, borrow or buy a deck so you hear for yourself. There are many good 2nd hand systems on the market if you can get past the hype and entrepreneurs. No need to go crazy, a “mediocre” :rolleyes: system is brilliant to most folks, and if you want thereafter to test the Law of Diminishing returns, you have a benchmark to go from.To complicate the issue the mastering of CD and LP is variously better so having the ability to play both can be rewarding.;)
In terms of absolute quality of sound, vinyl remains unbeatable IMHO, but the costs to accomplish high quality are huge and requires greater care by comparison to CD.. ;)
In terms of VFM, digital is unbeatable IMO, until you start talking silly about 3 grand CDP v 3 grand file systems, which is frankly bizarre. A 1 grand file system and DAC together with 200-400 CD's would give me eminently greater satisfaction, thank you very much. :cool:
Computer file storage/play is growing impetus, and with it the problems (same as CDP :mental:) are being identified and resolved.
CD etc will join LP as collectible items in the not too distant future, as downloading becomes the next step in digital, so get them cheap while you can.....:D
Hi Bob,
In terms of absolute quality of sound, vinyl remains unbeatable IMHO, but the costs to accomplish high quality are huge and requires greater care by comparison to CD.. ;)
I would fully agree with that statement.
However, digital (done really well) can get remarkably close, and in areas where a file-based system is of the requisite quality to showcase the full sonic potential of this way of music making, and when the best hi-res downloads are in the equation, the results can supersede what is possible from even the best T/T playing mint, superbly recorded vinyl.
And I say that as a very well established and recognised fan of vinyl. However, I'm not sufficiently blinkered to acknowledge reality.
Marco.
Elephantears
26-01-2012, 12:46
This question is going to depend very much on the kind of music you listen to.
If you listen to jazz, you can spend £10k or more on a digital source and it will always loose out to a good but modest turntable set-up, since the TT has access to lots of fantastic pressings. Not just 60's originals, but Impulse reissues will always beat the cd masterings. If my 'always' seems exaggerated then I'll just restrict the claim to Impulse recordings and we'll see if anyone can find an exception.
This question is going to depend very much on the kind of music you listen to.
If you listen to jazz, you can spend £10k or more on a digital source and it will always loose out to a good but modest turntable set-up, since the TT has access to lots of fantastic pressings. Not just 60's originals, but Impulse reissues will always beat the cd masterings. If my 'always' seems exaggerated then I'll just restrict the claim to Impulse recordings and we'll see if anyone can find an exception.
But you'd have to spend £10k or more on those fantastic pressings - every man and his dog wants and will fight over them, many of them very rich men and dogs.
Or you can spend hours and hours looking for the bargains almost fruitlessly - time is money and you'll spend £10k or more of your time in order to save £1k not buying the over-priced mint examples on eBay or at the record collectors shop.
If you're starting out and want to listen to music quite freely without the chains of having to find mint examples etc and being quite anal about it (you kind of do have to be anal if you want the very best quality), without the chains of obsession then digital is the way to go.
Get into the DIY side of things especially regarding ditigal and you don't have to spend vast amounts of money.
By all means, get a basic vinyl setup and have the odd few records that you want to try out, like the sleeves of etc
Thing Fish
26-01-2012, 13:14
I love the way the op lights the blue touch paper then retires...:lol:
Interesting that for years it was CD vs Vinyl now it is CD vs File Audio vs vinyl. It's all horses for courses as other have already observed. If I was just starting out I would go for the file audio option I suppose, I couldn't face spending all that cash building a library of LP and CD all over again.
bobbasrah
26-01-2012, 13:21
This only confirms that different masterings abound, which has been discussed at length elsewhere....
Have a sneaky suspicion that if the OP were in the market for this pricey collector's stuff, don't think the question would have been posed....
bobbasrah
26-01-2012, 14:21
Hi Bob,
I would fully agree with that statement.
However, digital (done really well) can get remarkably close, and in areas where a file-based system is of the requisite quality to showcase the full sonic potential of this way of music making, and when the best hi-res downloads are in the equation, the results can supersede what is possible from even the best T/T playing mint, superbly recorded vinyl.
And I say that as a very well established and recognised fan of vinyl. However, I'm not sufficiently blinkered to acknowledge reality.
Marco.
Sorry Marco, had meant to get back to you on that.....
Hirez can make a huge difference yes, but is it the same mastering? Have heard stunning red book through a DAC from HTPC, and CDP.:eek:
Many households now have at least one computer, which is the basis of a file based system and is already purchased. BUT, since many such machines are laptops (trend) which the manufacturer's accountants compromise without thought for audio use, the results can be quite variable.:scratch:
Carefully selected parts can be easily and cheaply built into a desktop without such compromise. Then you have a massively unfair advantage over CDP in that DAC cost and performance is unbeatable unless you do something pretty dumb.:cool:
Audioman
26-01-2012, 15:27
Having read through this thread I will try to give a distillation of my thoughts on digital v vinyl. Unfortunately I do not have hi-res streaming to my hi-fi so will not comment on it's quality apart from it's removing most tactile pleasure from this hobby.
I think whether CD or vinyl is superior may be irrelevant. I think this is governed by the availability of music you want to listen to and the quality of mastering. In my opinion irrespective of price vinyl will allways sound better in absolute terms. Buying a more expensive vinyl rig will allways result in larger gains than upgrading a CD player. If you are looking at currently available digital products that provide a narrow gap with high end vinyl replay you need serious money. Think DCS or Esoteric ! If you want a decent transport at modest cost you need to buy a fairly old CD player/transport and run it through a high end DAC.
I remember listening to the Sony DAC Marco now uses with it's matching transport (22 years ago?). I had the much cheaper 337ESD at the time and though there was much greater resolution I couldn't say it was more musicaly satisfying given the context of the demo. I would expect the best modern DACs to improve on it greatly but sound different. So it probably comes down to the sound one prefers and the other equipment used.
In vinyl's favour SQ which will beat at least 95% of CD spinners out there can be had for 1K to 2k. I think you would need to spend at least £4K on a new CD player to get truly close to the same SQ levels. If you were starting now the majority of CD's would suffer from inadequate mastering standards to take advantage of an expensive machine. So to get value and the potential of CD playback it is probably necessary to combine vintage with new and rely on old Cd masterings from the used market.
High res disks are a different matter. Even on a modest Universal player with a crappy DVD transport they can be close to vinyl in terms of listener satisfaction. Unfortunately SACD and DVDA never were marketed effectively so the formats are at least scarce and dying in the later case. The upside is with DVD enthusiasts jumping for Blue Ray good used machines can be had for a song.
For me vinyl has to be the winner both for SQ and satisfaction in use. The downside is that if you didn't stick with vinyl against the digital trend software in mint playing condition is getting harder and more expensive to source. Collectable records that a hi-fi enthusiast may want for the best SQ are getting way above affordable prices.
Anyone new to vinyl is reliant on the reissues coming out. Aside from the fact a very limited number of titles are ever reissued on vinyl the quality varies greatly. There are some great reissues out there but with different pressings of the same titles it often is difficult to identify ones from an all analogue source. I have noticed quite a few of the collectable Jazz titles are becoming available on 45rpm discs. The £50 asking price must be cheaper than a 1st pressing from the 50's.
Hi Paul,
Good post, and thanks for sharing your thoughts, many of which I agree with :)
Just a point of clarity, however:
I remember listening to the Sony DAC Marco now uses with it's matching transport (22 years ago?). I had the much cheaper 337ESD at the time and though there was much greater resolution I couldn't say it was more musicaly satisfying given the context of the demo. I would expect the best modern DACs to improve on it greatly but sound different.
Remember that my DAS-R1 is far from stock (same goes for my X-777ES CDP). The DAC, like the CDP, has been extensively modified (at some expense) by Audiocom, and as such has had serious attention paid to the power supply arrangements, being full of Black Gate capacitors at critical points in the circuit, and completely re-clocked with Audiocom's superb (and renowned Superclock 4), and also fitted with Bybee purifiers. I think some other stuff has also been done, but at the moment I can't recall exactly what.
As such, its sonic performance is FAR in excess of what it was in stock form, and thus can compete with many of today's high-end DACs; indeed I have conducted many such comparisons and never found the DAS-R1 wanting in any way that I could discern. It also contains that most musical (and 'analogue sounding') of chips: the famous TDA1541 S1, the performance of which in its optimised state, is probably largely responsible for why my digital front end sounds so 'un-digital' (in the bad sense) and much more like a very good turntable....
I guess it's no wonder then that in my system there is little to separate the quality of vinyl and digital playback, when both sources are given top-notch recordings to chew on! ;)
Marco.
I enjoy both formts and I no longer think there is a big difference between high end vinyl and a good file based system I slightly perfer the attack I get from vinyl but thats about it these days for me.
Audioman
26-01-2012, 18:09
Hi Paul,
Good post, and thanks for sharing your thoughts, many of which I agree with :)
Just a point of clarity, however:
Remember that my DAS-R1 is far from stock (same goes for my X-777ES CDP). The DAC, like the CDP, has been extensively modified (at some expense) by Audiocom, and as such has had serious attention paid to the power supply arrangements, is full of Black Gate capacitors at critical points in the circuit, has been completely re-clocked with Audiocom's superb (and renowned Superclock 4), and fitted with Bybee purifiers. I think some other stuff has also been done, but at the moment I can't recall exactly what.
As such, it's sonic performance is FAR in excess of what it was in stock form, and thus can compete with many of today's high-end DACs; indeed I have conducted many such comparisons and never found the DAS-R1 wanting in any way that I could discern. It also contains that most musical (and 'analogue sounding') of chips: the famous TDA1541 S1, the performance of which in its optimised state, is probably largely responsible for why my digital front end sounds so 'un-digital' (in the bad sense) and much more like a very good turntable....
I guess it's no wonder then that in my system there is little to separate the quality of vinyl and digital playback, when both sources are given top-notch recordings to chew on! ;)
Marco.
Marco.
I didn't realise how extensive your mods were. Obviously it's going to sound rather better than the one I heard and it was through an all Sony system (don't ask me what).
Paul.
ninedecks
26-01-2012, 18:13
I've heard some good reports regarding these new fangled cd things.
Must give them a try at some point.:)
chris@panteg
26-01-2012, 18:21
I've heard some good reports regarding these new fangled cd things.
Must give them a try at some point.:)
Yeah you must , amazing things you can spread jam over them and they still play lol .
bobbasrah
26-01-2012, 18:31
Yeah you must , amazing things you can spread jam over them and they still play lol .
Is that not called giving CD's the raspberry ? :scratch:
jazzpiano
26-01-2012, 19:00
GREAT post Adrian. The same old question but it brings out so many considered answers because we all have one thing in common - we're passionate about this hobby. I'd like to hi-light Nat and Andrew's responses (and I enjoy both formats.) What I love about cds, besides the price, is that they remind me more of what I would call "my era" for music and hi-fi. I'm thinking of the late 70s/early 80s, when record shops, even a "specialist classical only" record shop, were readily at hand. I could walk in and for $10-$15 per buy great sounding record labels like Argo, Lyrita, DG, L'Oiseau Lyre, Erato...They were cheap because there weren't highly-prized 50s/60s pressings, but they sounded great! In turn, this allowed you to explore different composers and musicians and this became a rich, aesthetically rewarding time AND in balance, because you weren't breaking the bank, going 'crazy' for that $$$ original pressing. And this is what I take from Nat's point. CDs allow you to get right into the music more easily. I don't seem to fuss over them as much, and don't have to weigh the pros and cons of expenditure as much. In this respect it is much more like my favorite era for record buying and music exploration. I have also been told, though I have no way of verifying this, that CDs go out-of-print much faster than LPs ever did. Makes sense since data on sales is now at your fingertips.
All of this being said, I also can attest to what Andrew says regarding jazz vinyl. Those Impulse records sound stunning - clarity, recording space, everything. I also like some of the old RCA Victor monos. Overall, vinyl is still my most rewarding experience, and I don't think you need a mega-buck deck to partake. There are many who love their Dual 505s or Thorens TD
160s and get great pleasure from records.
See if you can live within your means and have the best of both worlds. I can find something to agree with in just about all the posts. Fun + exploration, that's what it's about.
Best,
Barry :goodthread:
chris@panteg
26-01-2012, 19:03
Is that not called giving CD's the raspberry ? :scratch:
Lol , I remember a salesman in Laskys Brum actually doing this ! During a dem back in 1984.
ninedecks
29-01-2012, 16:13
Did he say how it tasted:).
I remember seeing the demo on Tomorrows World (in good old black & white).
Dave
chris@panteg
29-01-2012, 18:37
Did he say how it tasted:).
I remember seeing the demo on Tomorrows World (in good old black & white).
Dave
Hi Dave
He seemed to think it was important to its abilities ?
I remember thinking why ? What a waste of good ye olde English marmalade lol
I'd love to see that "jam on a CD" Tomorrow's World again! Despite much You Tube but it's not in the Archive yet...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/tomorrowsworld/index.shtml (The Michael Rodd Mobile Phone episode is a masterpiece!)
Back to CD - check this out, especially if you are an Alan Parsons Project fan... (Corporate Video from Phillips:)
1jrk0QV5P7U
dave2010
30-01-2012, 14:14
Check out this recording - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Glazunov-The-Complete-Symphonies/dp/B0023MXS0C/ref=sr_1_66?ie=UTF8&qid=1327930905&sr=8-66
This MP3 download is currently only available from a few sources in the UK (Amazon, iTunes, eMusic), and is of somewhat dubious quality. There are a couple of CD box sets available in Japan - one from Venezia and one from Relief - see http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/search/index.asp?keyword=glazunov+fedoseyev&site=&target=SEARCH&type=sr Allegedly the Relief pressing is not good, but I can assure you that the Venezia is not great either. It might be better in places than the MP3 version, but it still has distortion problems, and problems with (probably) tape drop outs. This is noted on the cover which comes with the box, as the transfers appear to have been done in 2010 from tapes which have now deteriorated.
The recordings were made in the 1960s/70s, like quite a number of others from Melodiya, and were sold in the UK by EMI. Some of the EMI/Melodiya recordings (e.g recordings by Svetlanov of Rachmaninov and Shostakovich) were very good, and given very good modern cartridges and turntables should be capable of giving very good sound. I speak of course from memory - and it would be important to have copies of these which are in good condition and not chewed to blazes by being played by barbed wire or a pick axe.
I recently purchased ASD 3363 - Symphony 5 -details from http://www.vinylconnections.co.uk/asd.htm
There are also several other versions of these Symphonies, such as:
ASD 3993 - Symphony 3 - evidence from ebay - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GLAZUNOV-S...#ht_667wt_1091
ASD 3504 - Symphony 7 - text evidence from ebay
ASD 3386 - Symphony 6 - evidence from ebay - http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ASD-3383-G...2#ht_616wt_858
Further, there are also some Melodiya LPs available on eBay currently:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/A-Glazunov-Symphony-No-5-Vladimir-Fedoseyev-Melodiya-/290464433735?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item43a1078647#ht_500wt_873
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NMINT-GLAZUNOV-SYMPHONY-6-C-MIN-OP-58-FEDOSEYEV-BORODIN-STEPPES-SVETLANOV-/160724779323?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item256bf1813b#ht_500wt_1106
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/FEDOSEYEV-GLAZUNOV-Symphony-No-5-From-Middle-Ages-MELODIYA-Stereo-NM-/220939926485?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item33710bbbd5#ht_550wt_858
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GLAZUNOV-Symphony-7-FEDOSEYEV-Melodiya-C10-9193-Stereo-LP-EX-NM-Free-Shipping-/220930922615?pt=Music_on_Vinyl&hash=item3370825877#ht_727wt_858
and see http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p5197.m570.l1313&_nkw=Fedoseyev+Glazunov&_sacat=See-All-Categories for a list of all available today on ebay.com.
It is my intention to try to digitise this LP of Symphony 5 - and I'd hope the SQ would be very much better than any of the currently available digital versions. I'd hate to be disappointed though. If it works I may try to buy some other copies of similar LPs. I'm going to wait until I have my kit set up for this though, which might be some while.
There are a few points to note. There are the Venezia CDs, which are advertised as being direct from master tape, as if this is a plus point. This is probably correct, but remember that the master tapes are now rather shot, so all you are buying is a fairly accurate rendition of a poor set of tapes. It's not even like some Decca re-issues, where Decca did recondition their tapes, and generally sort out problems leading to improvements in CD re-issues. It may be that the Venezia CDs are the best that can be done now, but they are really not good.
My guess is that if you can get the EMI versions of these, on LPs, then they may well give the best sound quality.
Some of the Melodiya discs are also available, though whether the pressings are as good may be questionable. They may also (in some cases) be fakes - not wishing to suggest anything much here, but quite possible.
The point of this story is that in some cases analogue may give far better results than digital. In general this is not the case, but in cases like this one, with rare recordings which were originally analogue, and later digitised, then going back to an analogue copy (i.e an LP) may give much better results. We know that on occasion a good LP can give comparable sound to a very good CD - and some around here think they can do better.
Also, there are other examples. Some of the recordings of Andrew Lloyd Webber shows by the Really Useful Group were done in analogue and put onto CD. They were recorded in analogue (deliberately) in the digital era. They sound excellent - if you like that sort of thing. Clearly recordings like that can be as good as digital.
In the end it's possible to make good recordings using analogue and digital systems, and equally possible to make bad ones in either system. Modern production processes will generally mean that it's simpler for a company to do digital though, and also cheaper. However it's quite possible, as the Glazunov/Fedoseyev example shows, that LPs may provide better long term storage for music which was recorded long before the digital era.
Thought I was a digital fan until a recent t/t upgrade. Now I can't get enough of the black disc. Funny ol' world.
Gmanuk101
31-01-2012, 12:18
depends on which you prefer the smell of :)
also Jazz tastes funny on CD, better on Vinyl.
All silly answers aside, it's a matter of taste. to me analogue produces a warmer sound that zeros and ones. but that's just me.
get both in the answer :)
the daily mail ran an article that might be of interest
Steve Jobs listened to vinyl at home... because it sounded better than his iPod (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094590/Steve-Jobs-listened-vinyl-home-iPod.html)
bobbasrah
01-02-2012, 05:42
the daily mail ran an article that might be of interest
Steve Jobs listened to vinyl at home... because it sounded better than his iPod (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094590/Steve-Jobs-listened-vinyl-home-iPod.html)
A nice insight apart from the inference that Young and Jobs were creating a medium rather than expanding the success of the iTunes business to incude hirez downloads.
I presume the piece will be seen by some as a contradiction between business and private preferences, simply because both centre on music.
I particularly liked the excerpt "Interviewer Walt Mossberg said Jobs had expressed surprise that 'people traded quality, to the extent they had, for convenience or price'. " No question that it was a hugely successfull venture.... The iPod is set to become another Hoover in the modern dictionary....
Gmanuk101
01-02-2012, 13:01
"5% of actual recorded sound" - I never knew that!
Haselsh1
01-02-2012, 22:17
Vinyl unless you want a completely error free sound at the end of each recorded side in which case it has to be CD.
I have CD and vinyl of various Chemical Brothers albums the best of which is 'Dig Your Own Hole'. There is far more information on the vinyl than there is on the CD. In fact, there is so much more to listen to on the vinyl full stop than there is on the CD.
Both can sound excellent and both can sound rubbish.
Nearly all of it is down to the recording.
Slightly late to this thread but when reading about the law of diminishing returns in hifi I think back to the episode of top gear in which James may drove the new Bugatti veyron plus. Now I may have that name wrong and the exact details which follow (and i cant be bothered to look it up now so forgive me any inaccuracies) but the gist of it is this: the original car's top speed was 245mph, then another car was made that did 246mph, so Bugatti made a veyron plus (?) which did 247mph.
Now, this new version cost hundreds of thousands more and produced significantly more horse power to achieve this tiny amount of extra top speed. James went on to explain how air becomes thicker and thicker the faster you go (relative to the object passing through it) and at speeds such as those mentioned air becomes like treacle, hence the huge extra expense and power required to gain those extra 2 mph.
Is it worth it? Does that extra top end make it a better car? If you had the money, you'd buy it, but if you didn't you'd be quite happy with the slightly slower car. Trouble is, if you had the slower car and they'd never made the faster one you'd be very happy, but knowing there's an extra 2 mph to be had is irresistible to some.
Edit: here's the top gear clip
LSFX9vrwJf8
Mr Kipling
21-05-2012, 19:53
Hi. Years ago I heard a discussion on Radio 4 about digital audio. Neil Young and John Cale were guest interviewees. Neil Young absolutely SEATHING, SPITTING BOOD in his contempt for for cd and digital audio. Think he called it a 'bastard medium' saying what came off a cd bore little resemblance to what went onto the master. Honest. He was really angry. It was the best 10 minutes of radio I'd heard in years. He refused to allow his material to be put out on cd for some time. I did read later he was more happy wrth SACD.
I remember buying the first cd issue of Jeff Wayne's "War of the Worlds". I couldn't get over how much detail seemed to be missing. On the back all the equipment used down to cables was listed, and I wondered why when the sound was so poor. I played it twice and gave it away. The later SACD remaster sounds much better.
There's an awful lot that can be done to get better cd sound. You only have to compare the original Beatles'cds with the remasters. I bought the first two titles of the originals and gave up at that apart from the "Discogrophy" doubles and "Yellow Submarine" and the "EP Boxset". Why? Because all the enegy and drive cleary there on the lps was missing. The remasters on the other hand sound excellent. I dont feel disappointment when I hear them, even if they don't sound exactly the same as the lps, which is really madness to expect.
For the ordinary bloke in the street though the debate simpley doesn't exist. You buy your two cds for £10 and bung them in your whatever. I mean, how much does a cartridge cost these days? I remember buying Ortofon VMS 20Es for £25 and was somewhat taken aback the last time I searched Ebay to find it now costs £120. If I find something that I really like I will try to get it on cd and lp and I'm not rich! Years ago I had Paul Brady's "Full Moon" on cd. I let someone borrow it and never got it back. At some point I tried to get a replacement, but it was deleted. Eventually last year I managed to get the lp and then sometime later the cd and was happy to do so as it's a great live album.
Kind Regards,
Stephen
Reid Malenfant
21-05-2012, 20:10
Now, this new version cost hundreds of thousands more and produced significantly more horse power to achieve this tiny amount of extra top speed. James went on to explain how air becomes thicker and thicker the faster you go (relative to the object passing through it) and at speeds such as those mentioned air becomes like treacle, hence the huge extra expense and power required to gain those extra 2 mph.
All wrong thinking...
You don't need more power to go faster, you need better streamlining :eyebrows: Why is it people can't think out of the box? :scratch:
650BHP & 350MPH+ & well over 70MPG as long as you are not going nuts :eek: Yes, nearly half the speed of sound & you'd have change for a top notch hifi...
http://i939.photobucket.com/albums/ad240/speakermark/Heatsink/acabion-acabion-2006-2.jpg
walpurgis
21-05-2012, 21:27
I know most fast machines, but I haven't got a clue what that is. Put me out of my misery. It look pretty spectacular.
WOStantonCS100
22-05-2012, 00:02
"5% of actual recorded sound" - I never knew that!
This is usually the part of the argument that is trivialized or completely ignored when comparing analog and digital, or in this case, vinyl and cd. We ought to create an acronym for it: ARS. My recent involvement with 24/192 recordings have proved to me that, yes, digital can sound very good and very close to the original analog event; but, it takes that very healthy dose of resolution to do that convincingly, when compared alongside the original. If one has no other reference point, than just about anything can sound good, including CD or upsampled CD. It doesn't mean it's a faithful rendering. It just means it "sounds good". However, when using an original analog signal as a reference point, things change rather dramatically.
Rare Bird
22-05-2012, 05:18
I hate both CD & Vinyl, tbh i'm not shure which i hate the most!
This is usually the part of the argument that is trivialized or completely ignored when comparing analog and digital, or in this case, vinyl and cd. We ought to create an acronym for it: ARS. My recent involvement with 24/192 recordings have proved to me that, yes, digital can sound very good and very close to the original analog event; but, it takes that very healthy dose of resolution to do that convincingly, when compared alongside the original. If one has no other reference point, than just about anything can sound good, including CD or upsampled CD. It doesn't mean it's a faithful rendering. It just means it "sounds good". However, when using an original analog signal as a reference point, things change rather dramatically.
My apologies if I've read what you've said wrongly but the above doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The output from a DAC re-creates the analogue sinewave perfectly providing that none of the data redundancy has been used up (ie the DAC receives all of the "0's" and "1's" from the recording). The input signal (recording) is often taken from an identical digital master recording which is ALSO used to cut the vinyl, so in theory, a well mastered recording on CD is MORE faithful in terms of dynamic range to the analogue original. That original isn't the recording but the live event, or rather a series of live events which are added together and edited to make the recording. In theory, the CD is MORE faithful to the original than the vinyl.
That's in a perfect world. In an the imperfect real world, sound engineers led by marketing bosses normally manage to muck things up by using loads of dynamic compression to "sell" records and because louder singles sound better over the airwaves (the so called "loudness wars"). This means that far too many CD's are compressed to typically between 10 and 20dB range from their theoretical maximum of 96dB. Not all, but a good many, especially pop CDs.
Compare that to LP: Theoretical maximum dynamic range is around 58 or 59dB. If engineers try and compress the hell out of a recording and cut it to LP all that happens is that it becomes unplayable as the energy in the grooves makes tracking very difficult. LP's have to be more carefully treated so than minimum dynamic range with maximum loudness applied is more like 20dB. A good pressing will make 40 or 50dB.
That's why often if you buy a new release on CD and vinyl, the vinyl will sound better. It has nothing to do with vinyl being a superior format, as it isn't. It contains loads more distortion, has a far higher noise floor and is limited in dynamic range but for all that it endures because for all of those faults, the recordings are often better than CD recordings. Its one reason that I still buy the black stuff in preference to CD.
Regarding the earlier comment about Neil Young's rant against CD, well truth be told that he didn't feel that strongly about things as he sold out and produces many of his recordings on CD. His arguments against CD are utterly flawed. The message has to get through that CD isn't a inferior format, its a superior one, its just that by the time he recordings are burnt onto CD they've been butchered by people who need stringing up and whipped with a "CD of Nine Tails". The early problems with CD quality were largely to do with some issues of mic'ing at the recording stage and with poor mastering leading to "glassy" sounding recordings. That was quickly overcome and many early CD recordings done properly to Red Book standards are better than many of today's recordings.
There's plenty of room for both formats in a system. Its the music that matters.
For me, it's simple: music rules. In order to access the widest possible range of music, you really need both digital and analogue sources. Can either format take me to emotional extremes, bring tears to my eyes? Yes.
Ultimately, I'd have to say that vinyl is capable of greater heights of playback fidelity; however, a good CD on a good player can and does create a fantastic sound picture. Some hi-res recordings (but only some) can rival vinyl for jaw-dropping reproduction.
Go for both, be format agnostic and buy lots of good music to create a collection that satisfies all your needs.
StanleyB
22-05-2012, 06:49
Ultimately, I'd have to say that vinyl is capable of greater heights of playback fidelity; however, a good CD on a good player can and does create a fantastic sound picture. Some hi-res recordings (but only some) can rival vinyl for jaw-dropping reproduction.
I used to believe the same thing for many decades. But I have come to question that notion quite a bit in the last year or two.
As a repair engineer and product designer I have had the opportunity to pour over circuit diagrams and tamper with the innards of both analogue and digital equipment. And I have come to the conclusion that analogue designs put together with discrete components have a distinct advantage over digital equipment that consist of integrated circuits.
To test that theory of mine, just look at analogue equipment made from integrated circuits and the analogue stage from digital equipment made mainly from discrete components. The digital equipment is in general far more analogue sounding in the latter case, and the analogue equipment tend to sound far less analogue.
WOStantonCS100
22-05-2012, 07:47
My apologies if I've read what you've said wrongly but the above doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The output from a DAC re-creates the analogue sinewave perfectly providing that none of the data redundancy has been used up (ie the DAC receives all of the "0's" and "1's" from the recording).
No apology necessary. We're just chatting....
It creates an analogue sinewave perfectly, perhaps, by way of an algorithm. But, how good a DAC is at filling in information that was not originally retained (recorded) misses the point of actual recorded sound.
The input signal (recording) is often taken from an identical digital master recording which is ALSO used to cut the vinyl, so in theory, a well mastered recording on CD is MORE faithful in terms of dynamic range to the analogue original. That original isn't the recording but the live event, or rather a series of live events which are added together and edited to make the recording. In theory, the CD is MORE faithful to the original than the vinyl.
If something is often the case, that obviously means that many times, it is not the case. I don't see your point here. There are too many variables as far as the finished consumer product is concerned. So, these points are moot. What is not a moot point is what format was used to record the original live event. "ARS" In which case, my point still stands and makes perfect sense. GI/GO. Detail In/Detail Out. The only way that changes is if down conversion is applied (high res down to lower res).
Music does not equal dynamic range. That is only one facet of the diamond. Extolling one particular virtue while ignoring the others (ie. spatial cues, inner detail, timbre, etc.) does not make a very convincing argument for CD being more faithful; because, it isn't. Perfect Sound Forever was purely "marketing speak" and hype. The very folks who invented the format 1) knew it was a compromise to begin with 2) were at the mercy of the affordable computer technology of the time and 3) have already moved on and (regardless of how it played out in the marketplace) created SACD and DVD-A, which is another way of saying that with advancements in technology, they knew they could achieve better results with higher resolution formats.
That's in a perfect world. In an the imperfect real world, sound engineers led by marketing bosses normally manage to muck things up by using loads of dynamic compression to "sell" records and because louder singles sound better over the airwaves (the so called "loudness wars"). This means that far too many CD's are compressed to typically between 10 and 20dB range from their theoretical maximum of 96dB. Not all, but a good many, especially pop CDs.
Compare that to LP: Theoretical maximum dynamic range is around 58 or 59dB. If engineers try and compress the hell out of a recording and cut it to LP all that happens is that it becomes unplayable as the energy in the grooves makes tracking very difficult. LP's have to be more carefully treated so than minimum dynamic range with maximum loudness applied is more like 20dB. A good pressing will make 40 or 50dB.
Again here, I have to respectfully say I don't get it. What does any of that have to do with "ARS"? We all know about the loudness wars and lousy engineering; but, no amount of good or bad engineering and compression can squeeze any more resolution onto a Red Book CD. Even if a CD is mastered by a competent engineer who doesn't peg the meters, it will still be low resolution compared to 24/88.2, 24/192, DSD, double-rate DSD, etc. That's just a fact and an audible one when compared to a mic feed and/or other analogue source. I've done the comparisons... ...a lot. Keep in mind, I didn't say CD sound was crap. But, it simply isn't the best you can get in a digital format.
That's why often if you buy a new release on CD and vinyl, the vinyl will sound better. It has nothing to do with vinyl being a superior format, as it isn't. It contains loads more distortion, has a far higher noise floor and is limited in dynamic range but for all that it endures because for all of those faults, the recordings are often better than CD recordings. Its one reason that I still buy the black stuff in preference to CD.
As it goes with many of these "debates" the detracting qualities of vinyl are listed while the detracting qualities of CD are conspicuous by absence. Like Martin, I'm finding I'm becoming rather ambivalent about the format. If I can only find a release on CD, so be it. It's all good, especially, since I don't have any other reference point with which to judge. It is when I'm transferring tape or vinyl to digital or making a live acoustic recording that I do have that reference point. And, this is where 16/44.1 gets shown up every time.
Regarding the earlier comment about Neil Young's rant against CD, well truth be told that he didn't feel that strongly about things as he sold out and produces many of his recordings on CD. His arguments against CD are utterly flawed. The message has to get through that CD isn't a inferior format, its a superior one, its just that by the time he recordings are burnt onto CD they've been butchered by people who need stringing up and whipped with a "CD of Nine Tails". The early problems with CD quality were largely to do with some issues of mic'ing at the recording stage and with poor mastering leading to "glassy" sounding recordings. That was quickly overcome and many early CD recordings done properly to Red Book standards are better than many of today's recordings.
Umm, yeah, I would not say Mr. Young sold out. The music biz is foobar, for sure. There's a lot more to why his music came out on CD than just saying, "He sold out".
CD is an inferior format. CD is nothing more than nicely packaged 16/44.1 PCM. We have better than that now. We have much better than that now. That's like saying 4 megapixel photography is the best thing going. No, it's not. They have mega-megapixel photography now! :lol: It would be crazy to say that 4 megapixel photography is superior. There is no crime in enjoying lower resolution; so, don't take it that way. There is no crime in preferring to drive a stock Beetle at max speed; but, driving an Enzo at max speed, it ain't.
Poor mic'ing is altogether a different issue; but, again it won't change the resolution issue or the ARS issue and has very little to do with why a CD will or won't sound good. It has everything to do with how in focus what is being mic'd will be. A good example of this is acoustic bass. Room mic'ing an acoustic bass (double bass) will sound far different than close mic'ing it. A higher resolution recording will emphasize the difference between the two mic'ing techniques. A lower resolution recording will mute the difference.
There's plenty of room for both formats in a system. Its the music that matters.
This I agree with completely. I have and enjoy almost 1,000 CD's because of the music on them. I have and enjoy almost 5,000 LP's because of the music on them. Then there are the tapes.............. ;) Given the choice; though, I always go for analogue first and hope for the best.
bobbasrah
22-05-2012, 07:54
All wrong thinking...
You don't need more power to go faster, you need better streamlining :eyebrows: Why is it people can't think out of the box? :scratch:
650BHP & 350MPH+ & well over 70MPG as long as you are not going nuts :eek: Yes, nearly half the speed of sound & you'd have change for a top notch hifi...
As Geoffrey said Mark, WTF is it?
As to the aeordynamics issue, nobody could accuse the Veyron of having the aerodynamics of a brick... It is far from pretty or practical as a motor car IMO, but few superkarts are.... You could make a fleet of Hayabusa Lotus 7's and still have change for the speeding fines from the price of one of these things...
Financial restrictions aside, either source can attain stunning reproduction, and there is no distinction for all but a very few.
What can not be resolved is the variables that bedevil the media production of the source material.
No apology necessary. We're just chatting....
It creates an analogue sinewave perfectly, perhaps, by way of an algorithm. But, how good a DAC is at filling in information that was not originally retained (recorded) misses the point of actual recorded sound.
If something is often the case, that obviously means that many times, it is not the case. I don't see your point here. There are too many variables as far as the finished consumer product is concerned. So, these points are moot. What is not a moot point is what format was used to record the original live event. "ARS" In which case, my point still stands and makes perfect sense. GI/GO. Detail In/Detail Out. The only way that changes is if down conversion is applied (high res down to lower res).
Music does not equal dynamic range. That is only one facet of the diamond. Extolling one particular virtue while ignoring the others (ie. spatial cues, inner detail, timbre, etc.) does not make a very convincing argument for CD being more faithful; because, it isn't. Perfect Sound Forever was purely "marketing speak" and hype. The very folks who invented the format 1) knew it was a compromise to begin with 2) were at the mercy of the affordable computer technology of the time and 3) have already moved on and (regardless of how it played out in the marketplace) created SACD and DVD-A, which is another way of saying that with advancements in technology, they knew they could achieve better results with higher resolution formats.
Again here, I have to respectfully say I don't get it. What does any of that have to do with "ARS"? We all know about the loudness wars and lousy engineering; but, no amount of good or bad engineering and compression can squeeze any more resolution onto a Red Book CD. Even if a CD is mastered by a competent engineer who doesn't peg the meters, it will still be low resolution compared to 24/88.2, 24/192, DSD, double-rate DSD, etc. That's just a fact and an audible one when compared to a mic feed and/or other analogue source. I've done the comparisons... ...a lot. Keep in mind, I didn't say CD sound was crap. But, it simply isn't the best you can get in a digital format.
As it goes with many of these "debates" the detracting qualities of vinyl are listed while the detracting qualities of CD are conspicuous by absence. Like Martin, I'm finding I'm becoming rather ambivalent about the format. If I can only find a release on CD, so be it. It's all good, especially, since I don't have any other reference point with which to judge. It is when I'm transferring tape or vinyl to digital or making a live acoustic recording that I do have that reference point. And, this is where 16/44.1 gets shown up every time.
Umm, yeah, I would not say Mr. Young sold out. The music biz is foobar, for sure. There's a lot more to why his music came out on CD than just saying, "He sold out".
CD is an inferior format. CD is nothing more than nicely packaged 16/44.1 PCM. We have better than that now. We have much better than that now. That's like saying 4 megapixel photography is the best thing going. No, it's not. They have mega-megapixel photography now! :lol: It would be crazy to say that 4 megapixel photography is superior. There is no crime in enjoying lower resolution; so, don't take it that way. There is no crime in preferring to drive a stock Beetle at max speed; but, driving an Enzo at max speed, it ain't.
Poor mic'ing is altogether a different issue; but, again it won't change the resolution issue or the ARS issue and has very little to do with why a CD will or won't sound good. It has everything to do with how in focus what is being mic'd will be. A good example of this is acoustic bass. Room mic'ing an acoustic bass (double bass) will sound far different than close mic'ing it. A higher resolution recording will emphasize the difference between the two mic'ing techniques. A lower resolution recording will mute the difference.
This I agree with completely. I have and enjoy almost 1,000 CD's because of the music on them. I have and enjoy almost 5,000 LP's because of the music on them. Then there are the tapes.............. ;) Given the choice; though, I always go for analogue first and hope for the best.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your response was peppered with some old chestnuts like the one about CD DAC's algorithms NOT being complete in respect of the original. The evidence points to that simply not being the case. The sine wave is an exact copy of the analogue sine wave and nothing is missing. The resolution we listen on is fine. Don't people realise that vinyl is cut from DIGITAL tape? there's diddly squat difference between digital and vinyl sine waves providing that both have been implemented correctly.
As for expounding all the virtues of CD and all the failings of analogue, isn't the way that you were presenting your arguments exactly the opposite way around but with well meaning opinion touted as fact? I'd say so! Don't misunderstand me, I am a huge vinyl fan and always have been, but as an engineer when I read things like superiority of the vinyl format over CD being touted, it simply raises my engineering hackles because I know as a matter of fact and not opinion that that simply is not the case and to date in this thread not a shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest otherwise.
Having said all of that, I prefer the sound of many of my vinyl LPs over CD, but in the main, that's simply because more of my CD's are poorly mastered recordings.
The arguments on either side will rage on, despite the bare facts but the message has to be that there's room for both formats. The format is irrelevant. The music isn't. I have some early mono pressings of Django Reinhardt which are pretty sonically rubbish and contain loads of pops and clicks. Does that somehow ruin my enjoyment of the music? No, not at all because I have a slice of history and I'd far rather have that tangible and historical pressing than some cleaned up re-mastered nightmare brought out on CDs (I've yet to hear a remastered album on CD that convinces).
For me its musical appreciation that matters more than the format wars, and I'm happy that both have a major place in my system.
I know as a matter of fact and not opinion that that simply is not the case and to date in this thread not a shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest otherwise.
Just on that point: listen to the fine shimmer and decay of cymbals reproduced on vinyl and CD. Good vinyl playback can fully resolve the shimmer and decay and make it sound like a gently struck piece of metal; CD plays a facsimile (a good one), but it ultimately runs out of resolving power. The sampling rate doesn't have enough data points to fully reconstruct what's going on (and yes, I've heard all the 'hearing doesn't go above 22.05kHz' cobblers).
Another good test is massed choral music. Try the Mozart Requiem in full flow: the difference between vinyl and CD is that in the former you can distinguish individual voices while in the latter you generally hear a homogeneous mass. It's recording dependent but I hope I've illustrated my point.
StanleyB
22-05-2012, 10:25
Just on that point: listen to the fine shimmer and decay of cymbals reproduced on vinyl and CD. Good vinyl playback can fully resolve the shimmer and decay and make it sound like a gently struck piece of metal; CD plays a facsimile (a good one), but it ultimately runs out of resolving power.
[]
Another good test is massed choral music. Try the Mozart Requiem in full flow: the difference between vinyl and CD is that in the former you can distinguish individual voices while in the latter you generally hear a homogeneous mass. It's recording dependent but I hope I've illustrated my point.
Remember what you wrote here. I might be coming back in the not too distant future to remind you of it ;).
Just on that point: listen to the fine shimmer and decay of cymbals reproduced on vinyl and CD. Good vinyl playback can fully resolve the shimmer and decay and make it sound like a gently struck piece of metal; CD plays a facsimile (a good one), but it ultimately runs out of resolving power. The sampling rate doesn't have enough data points to fully reconstruct what's going on (and yes, I've heard all the 'hearing doesn't go above 22.05kHz' cobblers).
Another good test is massed choral music. Try the Mozart Requiem in full flow: the difference between vinyl and CD is that in the former you can distinguish individual voices while in the latter you generally hear a homogeneous mass. It's recording dependent but I hope I've illustrated my point.
Hi Martin
you have illustrated why you prefer your LPs to your CD's and that's fine. I don't think anyone least of all me has an issue over that, but you still haven't provided any evidence to back up that opinion about imperfect sine wave construction and I won't press the point any further. I suspect many people still believe that nonsense that digital sine waves are like pixels, hence the photography comparisons. It really demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding about how DACs reconstruct sine waves and what the final signal "looks" like. It really is reconstructed without any pixel-like gaps.
I suspect that what you and many others (including myself) most often hear is a poorly mastered recording. I would love to invite you over and demonstrate once and for all that there's so little difference in it between a well implemented CD recording and a well implemented vinyl recording except for the huge dynamic range CD offers if done properly. I have some very fine recordings that demonstrate this well and that includes choral works. The muddle you describe is quite often the results of the recording venue acoustics, how it was mic'd and how it was engineered and again, has little to do with the format. I also have cymbals on the Sheffield Labs drum band 7 minute solo CD track with more decay than you could shake a wobbly stick at.
I'm not having a pop Martin but your descriptions sound more like a problem with the quality of your CD recordings rather than faults with the format. It would be very sad to discount CD as there's a world of music and superb recordings out there which you could be denying yourself.
StanleyB
22-05-2012, 10:44
I suspect many people still believe that nonsense that digital sine waves are like pixels, hence the photography comparisons. It really demonstrates a lack of knowledge and understanding about how DACs reconstruct sine waves and what the final signal "looks" like. It really is reconstructed without any pixel-like gaps.
There are gaps within the vertical plain, but not in the horizontal plain. Voltage and frequency based oversampling is designed to reduce that vertical gap to an almost seamless wave. Higher bit rates also have less of a gap.
bobbasrah
22-05-2012, 10:52
As you stated earlier Paul, "Don't people realise that vinyl is cut from DIGITAL tape? ". BUT - The quality of the studio master is NOT 16/44 and this introduces yet more potential issues in the production of a CD.
StanleyB
22-05-2012, 10:57
When was digital mastering introduced exactly? I haven't bought any new vinyl release since 1987, and I can't find any mention on any of them that they were digitally mastered. So I assume that anything before a certain date was an analogue master, and should in theory at least have more information in the audio signal than a digital mastered version?
Indeed, Paul, you have a point, however, I also get where Martin's coming from.
I'm not having a pop Martin but your descriptions sound more like a problem with the quality of your CD recordings rather than faults with the format.
What if (and it's only an 'if'), so please don't take this the wrong way, the quality of the vinyl replay Martin enjoys now, on his turntable, with some of the best recordings ever made on the format (and here I'm talking about the finest examples from its heyday in the 50s and early 60s, WAY before anything digital got near the recording process, and where the most amazingly detailed, wide-bandwidth, valve microphones were used), supersedes, by a notable margin, what you've experienced so far from vinyl?
After all, we are all simply slaves to our existing benchmarks in audio, and thus there will always be someone somewhere who enjoys a listening experience, where the bar, for whatever reason, has been raised to a higher level, sonically, than that of our own current benchmark.
If that were the case, then it would put a whole different meaning on the comparisons between vinyl and CD you've carried out to date, leaving aside of course the 'technical facts', and simply judging by what our ears tell us.
When I was round at Martin's place on Saturday, doing some tonearm cable comparisons, the sound being produced by either of our turntables in his system, with examples of the finest vinyl recordings I've mentioned above, in terms of musical realism and believability, was far in excess of anything I've heard before from CD, at its best, or even SACD or file-based audio.
It's difficult to write this without appearing more than a little immodest, so please forgive me, but the performance level Martin and I have now managed to take vinyl replay to, with our highly-modified Technics T/Ts, has to be heard to be believed, and in my opinion, based on the years of experience I've had of listening to vinyl on countless top T/Ts and systems, we've now reached a new benchmark.
A bold statement, perhaps, but I feel sure that if others had heard what we did on Saturday, they too would agree - and I'd be willing to demonstrate this (what I believe to be) new benchmark to anyone who's interested. There are valid reasons too, for arriving at it, as I can't think of any other turntable in existence, of inherent fundamental quality, which has been so extensively (and successfully) 'race-tuned', or so much lateral thinking lavished on it, by so many talented engineers and inventors, with very clever minds.
Normally, the design of a turntable represents the culmination of the work of one man or one company. The turntables Martin and I have, however, represent the combined design skills not only of Matsushita Electric, who made the original motor unit, but those of Mike New, Paul Hynes and Arthur Khoubesserian, who produced the improved bearings, external PSUs and platters, respectively, and implemented them successfully into the framework of the original Matsushita/Panasonic design, thus transforming our SL-1210s into world-class T/Ts. It is precisely that collective design prowess and lateral thinking, which sets them (and other modded Technics T/Ts like them) apart from any other turntable produced today.
Therefore, for me, only when you have enjoyed vinyl replay at the sort of level I'm referring to, can you begin to make REAL comparisons, sonically, between it and CD or digital, at its best.
Marco.
Indeed Marco.
I'm on your side and Martin's side ;), just playing devil's advocate. I conducted a comparison recently bewtween a lossless file download played through £1000's of DAC unit brought over for a listen by fellow enthusiasts and the wind was completely blown out of the digital sails when I played the exact same track on the Gyro using a pretty good recording of same. I know which I prefer, its just we need to be careful about what's at fault when our ears tell us something sounds better.
I have an Earl Hines album from the 1960's which is not only spotless and quiet, it is still my benchmark for one of the most realistic in-room performances ever.
However, I have also some superb recordings on the Opus 3 CD label which are also wonderfully true to life and analogue like in presentation.
Its true though and here I doff my cap to Martin and yourself that there were seemingly more superlative recordings done in the 1960s than at any other time. Most of my cherished albums come from this period. On that point you and Martin have a point and I'm firmly with you both on that one.
It seems from my perspective that the 1960's may have been the heyday for superlative quality and skill applied to playback standards via some outstanding recording and mastering. The skill is there today but alas market forces, accountants and PR gurus within companies rule the roost.
The exception oddly enough seems to be amongst some of the younger bands, particularly American Indy bands, where playback quality is everything.
My apologies to both if any feathers have been ruffled, that was not my intention.
I'm not having a pop Martin but your descriptions sound more like a problem with the quality of your CD recordings rather than faults with the format. It would be very sad to discount CD as there's a world of music and superb recordings out there which you could be denying yourself.
Good debate, Paul, and I'm not taking offence. However, do note that I have a Stereophile A+ rated SACD/CD player, so unless I'm expected to reach even higher echelons of CD replay capability (and I haven't heard better), then I think I'm probably extracting 99% of all that is on a disc already.
Also, I have a pretty large collection of CDs, some of which are truly superb recordings, and I don't deny myself any music by worrying over the format :)
Remember what you wrote here. I might be coming back in the not too distant future to remind you of it ;).
Stan, if the Bushmaster is that good that it proves me wrong, then I'll be a happy chappy as I will undoubtedly buy one.
Remember that you're up against my player with its minimum phase apodising filter designed by Charlie Hansen, who is no slouch (he's up there with Nelson Pass in my opinion).
There are moments when I realise just how blessed I am with normal hearing and a small bank balance; albeit on the piss on the plus side unusually at present. ;)
Personally I find digital just fine for what I listen to. I have no doubt that some people, albeit often not those who make the claim, can hear differences between the best of the two mediums. The guy that got me into digital audio for example can notice (note I don’t say hear because often I can hear it after a few hours of having it pointed out to me) things in music that frankly completely pass me by in what I describe as listening for pleasure.
The thing is, most of us either cant, or don’t.
In the past few weeks I’ve done a lot of what could be described as critical listening and while I appreciate it may be vital for those involved in the production of music or even the playing of instruments, I can’t say being able to detect various harmonics in a mix or state the decay delay from a Hi Hat has even remotely enhanced my enjoyment of listening to the music; the opposite in fact.
It’s a bit like sitting down to a good meal and a bottle of wine with some friends. The gourmet/wine enthusiast may well be able to tell us all what year and vineyard the wine came from and note that it wasn’t fresh basil in the pasta sauce; kinda looks a bit of a twat if he ups and complains about it during the dinner when everyone else is enjoying the conversation and atmosphere, plus commented favorably on the cooking.
The guy that introduced me to digital audio doesn’t listen to music anymore. According to him, years of professional involvement in the industry have pretty much ruined his ability to just sit down and listen to music reproduced on a stereo although he does still go to live events. It doesn’t matter what kit you’ve got, you’re still listening to a copy.
If dissecting the copy and comparing it to the original is what does it for you, cool, but if you want to get snobby then you need the real thing.
Hi Paul,
I'm just about to go out now, but will get to your post later. However, very quickly...
The exception oddly enough seems to be amongst some of the younger bands, particularly American Indy bands, where playback quality is everything.
How true is that, and not just American indie bands either! Did you know, for example, that brand new 7" singles are still being produced today for the indie and (some) of the rock music market? Or, furthermore, that the recording quality, on such a supposedly 'lowly' format, is phenomenal!
Martin, what did that 7" (45 R.P.M) EP of KT Tunstall sound like, which I played you on Saturday? ;)
Marco.
Martin, what did that 7" (45 R.P.M) EP of KT Tunstall sound like, which I played you on Saturday? ;)
Pretty damned amazing. Can't think of another 7" with that kind of sound quality. Good 10" and 12" EPs/singles are another matter, plenty of those that are good.
Reid Malenfant
22-05-2012, 16:22
I know most fast machines, but I haven't got a clue what that is. Put me out of my misery. It look pretty spectacular.
Google Acabion :)
Mr Kipling
22-05-2012, 18:39
My apologies if I've read what you've said wrongly but the above doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The output from a DAC re-creates the analogue sinewave perfectly providing that none of the data redundancy has been used up (ie the DAC receives all of the "0's" and "1's" from the recording). The input signal (recording) is often taken from an identical digital master recording which is ALSO used to cut the vinyl, so in theory, a well mastered recording on CD is MORE faithful in terms of dynamic range to the analogue original. That original isn't the recording but the live event, or rather a series of live events which are added together and edited to make the recording. In theory, the CD is MORE faithful to the original than the vinyl.
That's in a perfect world. In an the imperfect real world, sound engineers led by marketing bosses normally manage to muck things up by using loads of dynamic compression to "sell" records and because louder singles sound better over the airwaves (the so called "loudness wars"). This means that far too many CD's are compressed to typically between 10 and 20dB range from their theoretical maximum of 96dB. Not all, but a good many, especially pop CDs.
Compare that to LP: Theoretical maximum dynamic range is around 58 or 59dB. If engineers try and compress the hell out of a recording and cut it to LP all that happens is that it becomes unplayable as the energy in the grooves makes tracking very difficult. LP's have to be more carefully treated so than minimum dynamic range with maximum loudness applied is more like 20dB. A good pressing will make 40 or 50dB.
That's why often if you buy a new release on CD and vinyl, the vinyl will sound better. It has nothing to do with vinyl being a superior format, as it isn't. It contains loads more distortion, has a far higher noise floor and is limited in dynamic range but for all that it endures because for all of those faults, the recordings are often better than CD recordings. Its one reason that I still buy the black stuff in preference to CD.
Regarding the earlier comment about Neil Young's rant against CD, well truth be told that he didn't feel that strongly about things as he sold out and produces many of his recordings on CD. His arguments against CD are utterly flawed. The message has to get through that CD isn't a inferior format, its a superior one, its just that by the time he recordings are burnt onto CD they've been butchered by people who need stringing up and whipped with a "CD of Nine Tails". The early problems with CD quality were largely to do with some issues of mic'ing at the recording stage and with poor mastering leading to "glassy" sounding recordings. That was quickly overcome and many early CD recordings done properly to Red Book standards are better than many of today's recordings.
There's plenty of room for both formats in a system. Its the music that matters.
It wasn't a "rant". It was out and out hostility. At the end of the day what real choice was there for him? Take an elitist standpoint and issue only vinyl to a small percentage of the music-buying public ?
What about those that record vinyl to cdr and say the sound is better than the commercial product? What about third and fourth generation masters being used on less than calibrated equipment? Surely a lot of backcatalogue stuff in the early days was simply slapped onto cd with little thought as to it had been handled for vinyl replay. What about the problem of overloading on modern pop? Isn't there a tendency for the audio community to look at the recording industry through rose-tinted-glasses? At times you have to ask yourself does anyone really care?
Kind Regards,
Stephen
Yes, you have a point Stephen. I think that no one is arguing differently. Most of the negatives with digital formats tend to be aimed at the recording and mastering, and plenty of people care. There have been numerous petitions circulating aimed at venting the despair and anger of music lovers against the recording industry for their lack of care. I think you are right FWIW; the major labels couldn't give a hoot as long as they sell loads. There are labels like Opus3 though that do provide superb recordings as a matter of course, so its just a matter of choosing carefully. My point of view is that just because many mastering engineers either willingly or unwillingly ruin the potential, that shouldn't be reason to damn the format. Its a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
One thing I will say for digital is that its allowed more music than ever to be brought to the masses in a budget. If we forget the elitist standpoint just for a moment, and consider what you'd need to spend to get a reasonable front end (talking new prices, not used) then you would have to spend between £250 to £400 for the TT, cartridge and a reasonable starter phonostage. Youngsters would be hard pushed to come up with that dosh on just a source component. However, Dacs which allow laptop streamed music can be had for a half of that budget, and a playstation or similar transport makes a perfect companion for CD replay.
The cost of good vinyl replay can be quite modest but you have to know your decks, cartridges, be able to set them up and (in the case of older decks) service them.
I will always favour my vinyl over my CD replay as the care taken to ensure a decent recording shows, the artwork and literature that accompanies the LPs just isn't available in other formats, and I like the fussy tactile nature of LP replay. I am fortunate enough to have what might be considered a higher end TT set ups and CDP and there's little to choose between them when a decent recording is spun up. Live and let live. There should be encouragement for people to get into music, not KIT. Many don't have a large LP collection which makes CD all the more practical.
There should be encouragement for people to get into music, not KIT.
One of the more illuminating comments to be made amongst the usual pissing contest about formats and equipment - its the music that matters, which if you didn't have, would make everything else superfluous. ;)
I often laugh thinking at what most musician's would make of many of the comments posted on 'music' forums. Of the musicians I know, most would scratch their heads and say WTF :scratch:
And I have just opened my second bottle of wine, so just ignore me :eek:
Get what you can afford, if you can afford both (or 3, file based audio) then do so as you can cover all the bases...... then sit back, smile and buy more music.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/greatgig/hide.gif
walpurgis
22-05-2012, 19:54
Google Acabion :)
Oooh....... Where's my cheque book!
(did you check out the YK2 bike? 200mph in 8 seconds ain't to be sniffed at)
Thing Fish
22-05-2012, 19:58
.
WOStantonCS100
22-05-2012, 20:03
I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your response was peppered with some old chestnuts like the one about CD DAC's algorithms NOT being complete in respect of the original. The evidence points to that simply not being the case. The sine wave is an exact copy of the analogue sine wave and nothing is missing. The resolution we listen on is fine. Don't people realise that vinyl is cut from DIGITAL tape? there's diddly squat difference between digital and vinyl sine waves providing that both have been implemented correctly.
Again here you're mixing two completely different issues as if they are one. I'm afraid the oldest chestnut of them all is that CD when played back is an exact replica of the original analog input. If any thing, measurements and more importantly, listening, has proven that not to be so. So yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.
And, no, not ALL vinyl was cut from digital tape. The lions share of vinyl for decades had no digital conversion in the path, right down to the cutter head. This was added in later, in the 80's I believe. That still leaves an utterly HUGE amount of vinyl that is "AAA". To be honest, I'd rather listen to an LP cut from a high resolution digital master than a 16/44.1 version from the same.
As for expounding all the virtues of CD and all the failings of analogue, isn't the way that you were presenting your arguments exactly the opposite way around but with well meaning opinion touted as fact? I'd say so! Don't misunderstand me, I am a huge vinyl fan and always have been, but as an engineer when I read things like superiority of the vinyl format over CD being touted, it simply raises my engineering hackles because I know as a matter of fact and not opinion that that simply is not the case and to date in this thread not a shred of evidence has been put forward to suggest otherwise.
Well, no, I never said vinyl was without it's flaws. You listed them. However, CD has it's flaws also. Your facts only pertain to the matters of dynamic range and noise floor not resolution. There's an over-abundance of evidence to support that; yet, I have a feeling you've already seen/read about it and dismissed it. Nevertheless, my original statement was regarding actual recorded sound. You haven't addressed that. Are you saying right here and now on this forum that CD actually retains as much or more of the actual recorded sound than vinyl, tape and/or high resolution digital? If your answer is yes... well, I'll just slip out the back door. ;)
Having said all of that, I prefer the sound of many of my vinyl LPs over CD, but in the main, that's simply because more of my CD's are poorly mastered recordings.
Again, here, I'm rather ambivalent. I have more than a handful of CD's (mostly jazz) that were mastered... masterfully. Without having the master tape to compare it to... I don't know I'm missing anything. However, if I heard the master tape the chance of me then preferring the CD is going to be slim to none.
The arguments on either side will rage on, despite the bare facts but the message has to be that there's room for both formats. The format is irrelevant. The music isn't. I have some early mono pressings of Django Reinhardt which are pretty sonically rubbish and contain loads of pops and clicks. Does that somehow ruin my enjoyment of the music? No, not at all because I have a slice of history and I'd far rather have that tangible and historical pressing than some cleaned up re-mastered nightmare brought out on CDs (I've yet to hear a remastered album on CD that convinces).
Unless I missed it, I don't think anyone here said there wasn't room for both formats (or indeed the plethora of available formats). Still the format is most certainly relevant for those who want a consumer format that is as close to the master recording sound as possible. And, therein lies "the art of sound". I agree with you, to a degree, about re-mastered CD's and having a tangible and historical pressing. However, considering how good digital is getting, I have many 78's that I would be more than happy to playback on a ELP laser turntable and then convert to 24/192, cleaning up the pops and clicks and squelching hiss. Why? Because, I would be able to hear more of the music. Such extreme measures are unnecessary on the lion's share of my vinyl. So, though it sounds like I'm having a bit of a piss on 16/44.1 (I am actually :lol: ), I really am not afraid of, and indeed am, embracing digital technologies where appropriate... for the sake of the music.
For me its musical appreciation that matters more than the format wars, and I'm happy that both have a major place in my system.
No problem, there. :)
Mr Kipling
22-05-2012, 20:40
All of what you say is true, Paul. Iv'e had good and bad experiences with both mediums. When cd first arrived I was hoping for great things - blasted out of my chair with awesome dynamics, damage to internal organs from seismic bass, transients pinning me to the wall. Did I get any of that? No. No. No. I was bitterly disappointed after all the hype I'd read. And then "Remastered" started to appear. I'd see it and the adrenelin would start to pump and I'd be thinking: "It might sound great!" I'd get it home, play it, and get disappointed. Buying music was a disappointing proccess. But then I remembered buying vinyl and hearing great music let down by poor sound. That too was disappointing, but some how easier to live with. Perhaps I should say I didn't have an expensive turntable. Strangely enough, I was an instant convert to mini disc after coming late to the medium, thinking it couldn't be up to much. I got a Sharp personal in an Argos half price sale. I thought it quite amazing a digital recorder could be put together in such a small package. And it was night and day compared to a Sony Walkman I had. What was fed in was what came out. Now I tend to listen to mp3s for personal audio. Some say the format is rubbish - and sometimes the results can be. Other times however, the results can be quite good.
I don't know if being less critical of cd these days is down to old age or perhaps cd quality has inproved. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.
Kind Regards,
Stephen
It’s a bit like sitting down to a good meal and a bottle of wine with some friends. The gourmet/wine enthusiast may well be able to tell us all what year and vineyard the wine came from and note that it wasn’t fresh basil in the pasta sauce...
You're attending the wrong dinner parties then, dahling... Dried basil in the pasta sauce? Perish the thought!! :wowzer: :wowzer: :nono: :nono:
Next you'll be telling me that the wine bottles had screw tops! ;)
Marco.
I'll not get into the arguments save to say that there's a fair bit of assumption going on in your post above Biff, for example where did I say that ALL vinyl was cut from a digital master? That's nonsense. Its also nonsense to assume that digital is a perfect recreation of the actual music being played, JUST as it is utter nonsense to suggest that vinyl is.
Fact is, most of the musical information is lost at the recording stage as a mic array is made up of one or more POINTs where sound is recorded, and its up to the engineer to sort the studio acoustics out and process the mix in order to get the best sound to his or her trained ear. Thats long before the final digital master is made or the vinyl is cut. Decca tried to improve things in the late 1950's and early 1960's when it invented the Decca Tree mic array to try and improve on stereo recording and information capture, and fine as it undoubtedly was (and still is) it can NEVER hope to recreate the live event, period.
That's what makes such a mockery of a lot of this debate as home hifi is a pale facsimile of the real thing and can NEVER be any more than that. That's the laws of physics for you.
Whatever your viewpoint, there's room for both, and as a trained engineer I simply don't buy that digital in principle is somehow inferior as all the hard evidence points towards the exact opposite. I happen to prefer vinyl and really am playing devil's advocate here as someone needs to address the facts rather than mis-represent them. Its great that the black stuff is still around long after "they" said it would be dead and buried, and I couldn't care a fig what I listen on as the music takes priority. I don't personally care if the facsimile of the real thing is a pale one, and for most part a vast majority of albums made today (vinyl or digital) are made up of layers of descrete musical performances which are mixed and edited so there never was a "live" event in the first place.
Accurate high fidelity playback and accurate recordings are two completely separate things. There's really no such thing as an all encompassing accurate recording which captures everything present at the recording event, so I for one don't care about the OCD prevelant amonst audiophiles about which format is best. The "best" is different for each one of us and usually is the one that engages with our emotions, and can be represented by either format.
I can't say that I enjoy Hifi, as I don't. It takes up valuable space, its expensive and the arguments and elitism in hifi land are enough to put off a whole new generation and kill the hifi industry completely. Music is what matters to me and I'm just grateful that I have assembled a great variety of LPs and CDs. What's on them ultimately is what matters, not what you chose to play them on. The format argument is a non-argument from that perspective. All IMHO of course ;)
Happy listening :)
StanleyB
22-05-2012, 21:03
When cd first arrived I was hoping for great things - blasted out of my chair with awesome dynamics, damage to internal organs from seismic bass, transients pinning me to the wall. Did I get any of that? No. No. No. I was bitterly disappointed after all the hype I'd read.
When CD first came out, very few players existed that were 16 bit players. The Sony CDP-101 is the only one that I can remember with a 16 bit chipset.
There were also next to no digital recordings. The majority of early releases were analogue masters converted to digital. The few digitally mastered discs were all classical recordings.
To top it all off, amps and speaker manufacturers had to start from scratch in developing new audio equipment that could give a better performance with digital. Previous to that, it was either tape or vinyl that were used for music playback during audio R&D. Their lower SNR and dynamic range had caused many audio designers to stop pushing the design criteria any higher. The development of the newly required audio reproduction chain did take some time. Many were over engineered and far from cheap. But their design method filtered down the chain.
It was not till the late 80's before it was possible to buy a CDP, amp, and a pair of speakers for a reasonably affordable amount that could do justice to the new medium.
Reid Malenfant
22-05-2012, 21:07
I can't say that I enjoy Hifi, as I don't. It takes up valuable space, its expensive and the arguments and elitism in hifi land are enough to put off a whole new generation and kill the hifi industry completely. Music is what matters to me and I'm just grateful that I have assembled a great variety of LPs and CDs. What's on them ultimately is what matters, not what you chose to play them on. The format argument is a non-argument from that perspective. All IMHO of course ;)
Well said that man :) Strangely I find myself in a lot of agreement with what you said above, unfortunately this bloody great rack full of stuff is a means to an end, which is to get the most enjoyment out of the music (& in my case films as well).
If I didn't have to have it to get the same performance which gives the emotional impact then I most certainly would do without it :D
Unfortunately I haven't found another way round it as of yet :doh:
I listen & watch on just about every format there is out there, just as long as at the end of the day it takes me on a journey where I want to be taken :cool:
WOStantonCS100
22-05-2012, 21:29
I'll not get into the arguments save to say that there's a fair bit of assumption going on in your post above Biff, for example where did I say that ALL vinyl was cut from a digital master? That's nonsense. Its also nonsense to assume that digital is a perfect recreation of the actual music being played, JUST as it is utter nonsense to suggest that vinyl is.
Fact is, most of the musical information is lost at the recording stage as a mic array is made up of one or more POINTs where sound is recorded, and its up to the engineer to sort the studio acoustics out and process the mix in order to get the best sound to his or her trained ear. Thats long before the final digital master is made or the vinyl is cut. Decca tried to improve things in the late 1950's and early 1960's when it invented the Decca Tree mic array to try and improve on stereo recording and information capture, and fine as it undoubtedly was (and still is) it can NEVER hope to recreate the live event, period.
That's what makes such a mockery of a lot of this debate as home hifi is a pale facsimile of the real thing and can NEVER be any more than that. That's the laws of physics for you.
Whatever your viewpoint, there's room for both, and as a trained engineer I simply don't buy that digital in principle is somehow inferior as all the hard evidence points towards the exact opposite. I happen to prefer vinyl and really am playing devil's advocate here as someone needs to address the facts rather than mis-represent them. Its great that the black stuff is still around long after "they" said it would be dead and buried, and I couldn't care a fig what I listen on as the music takes priority. I don't personally care if the facsimile of the real thing is a pale one, and for most part a vast majority of albums made today (vinyl or digital) are made up of layers of descrete musical performances which are mixed and edited so there never was a "live" event in the first place.
Accurate high fidelity playback and accurate recordings are two completely separate things. There's really no such thing as an all encompassing accurate recording which captures everything present at the recording event, so I for one don't care about the OCD prevelant amonst audiophiles about which format is best. The "best" is different for each one of us and usually is the one that engages with our emotions, and can be represented by either format.
I can't say that I enjoy Hifi, as I don't. It takes up valuable space, its expensive and the arguments and elitism in hifi land are enough to put off a whole new generation and kill the hifi industry completely. Music is what matters to me and I'm just grateful that I have assembled a great variety of LPs and CDs. What's on them ultimately is what matters, not what you chose to play them on. The format argument is a non-argument from that perspective. All IMHO of course ;)
Happy listening :)
Nope. Sorry. Not assumption. Since we both seem to have the requisite experience, allow me to return us to the post that you initially took issue with and the question you still haven't answered:
"Nevertheless, my original statement was regarding actual recorded sound. You haven't addressed that. Are you saying right here and now on this forum that CD actually retains as much or more of the actual recorded sound than vinyl, tape and/or high resolution digital?"
Mr Kipling
22-05-2012, 21:33
Wonder if there was such heated debates when the cylinder was displaced by the disc? I imagine some argued the cylinder would have had superior tracking!
Kind Regards,
Stephenm
Wonder if there was such heated debates when the cylinder was displaced by the disc?
There was! You should read Perfecting Sound Forever, it's fascinating and the competitive rivalry was akin to the Linn/Naim versus others axis in the 1980s.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=319572&postcount=11
WOStantonCS100
23-05-2012, 07:29
digitally recording a 10 kHz sine wave
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-10-khz-sine-wave-16-44---16-96---16-192---24-44---24-96---24-192-large.gif
bobbasrah
23-05-2012, 07:52
Well said that man :) Strangely I find myself in a lot of agreement with what you said above, unfortunately this bloody great rack full of stuff is a means to an end, which is to get the most enjoyment out of the music (& in my case films as well).
If I didn't have to have it to get the same performance which gives the emotional impact then I most certainly would do without it :D
Unfortunately I haven't found another way round it as of yet :doh:
I listen & watch on just about every format there is out there, just as long as at the end of the day it takes me on a journey where I want to be taken :cool:
+1
walpurgis
23-05-2012, 10:43
All of what you say is true, Paul. Iv'e had good and bad experiences with both mediums. When cd first arrived I was hoping for great things - blasted out of my chair with awesome dynamics, damage to internal organs from seismic bass, transients pinning me to the wall. Did I get any of that? No. No. No. I was bitterly disappointed after all the hype I'd read. And then "Remastered" started to appear. I'd see it and the adrenelin would start to pump and I'd be thinking: "It might sound great!" I'd get it home, play it, and get disappointed. Buying music was a disappointing proccess. But then I remembered buying vinyl and hearing great music let down by poor sound. That too was disappointing, but some how easier to live with. Perhaps I should say I didn't have an expensive turntable. Strangely enough, I was an instant convert to mini disc after coming late to the medium, thinking it couldn't be up to much. I got a Sharp personal in an Argos half price sale. I thought it quite amazing a digital recorder could be put together in such a small package. And it was night and day compared to a Sony Walkman I had. What was fed in was what came out. Now I tend to listen to mp3s for personal audio. Some say the format is rubbish - and sometimes the results can be. Other times however, the results can be quite good.
I don't know if being less critical of cd these days is down to old age or perhaps cd quality has inproved. Perhaps it's a combination of the two.
Kind Regards,
Stephen
I agree with your observations regarding MiniDisc. If the recordings are made to a good standard, then MiniDisc can sound very good. I was always surprised that none of the personal CD players I tried seemed able to match the quality of similarly priced MiniDisc players. I have a Pioneer MJ-D707 MiniDisc deck which admittedly does not get much use, but if I record to it from my Meridian 507 CD player, the play back results are very close indeed in quality, i.e. pretty good. Geoff.
digitally recording a 10 kHz sine wave
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-10-khz-sine-wave-16-44---16-96---16-192---24-44---24-96---24-192-large.gif
If you play any of those back through an anti-aliasing filter, as is required by any ADC/DAC process, the result will be a sine wave without steps or kinks.
The only way a digital system could produce waves like the ones you have plotted is to use a non- filtered DAC (which many people seem to like the sound of amazingly enough FWIW)
You only need higher sampling rates to record higher frequencies. A properly bandwidth limited signal, going through a correct ADC/DAC process and anti aliasing filter will correctly reproduce a sinewave up to 22.05 kHz, not these stepwise monstrosities.
You are perpetuating one of the commonest myths about digital.
No wonder so many non-technically minded enthusiasts get the wrong end of the stick with garbage like this being presented as evidence.
Grrrr.
I agree with your observations regarding MiniDisc. If the recordings are made to a good standard, then MiniDisc can sound very good. I was always surprised that none of the personal CD players I tried seemed able to match the quality of similarly priced MiniDisc players. I have a Pioneer MJ-D707 MiniDisc deck which admittedly does not get much use, but if I record to it from my Meridian 507 CD player, the play back results are very close indeed in quality, i.e. pretty good. Geoff.
I too thought minidisc was pretty good, for a lossy format, since it was designed as a portable format it probably had fewer read errors than a portable CD, though the biggest benefit IME was the space it took up in my bag compared to CD portable solutions. (I travelled for my work for 35 years so mobile music was very important to me)
WOStantonCS100
23-05-2012, 18:33
If you play any of those back through an anti-aliasing filter, as is required by any ADC/DAC process, the result will be a sine wave without steps or kinks.
The only way a digital system could produce waves like the ones you have plotted is to use a non- filtered DAC (which many people seem to like the sound of amazingly enough FWIW)
You only need higher sampling rates to record higher frequencies. A properly bandwidth limited signal, going through a correct ADC/DAC process and anti aliasing filter will correctly reproduce a sinewave up to 22.05 kHz, not these stepwise monstrosities.
You are perpetuating one of the commonest myths about digital.
No wonder so many non-technically minded enthusiasts get the wrong end of the stick with garbage like this being presented as evidence.
Grrrr.
There's no myth about what I'm saying and there is no perpetuating anything but the truth, if one can recognize it.
Where exactly did you read me stating that this is what you hear when you play these samples back??? :scratch: Point to it. You can't.
Do me a favor, though. Tell me that this is not what is stored when recorded in the given format. Point it out. You can't.
All we've gotten from I guess what you consider to be the technically minded enthusiasts are diversions and a multiplicity of talking points. Grrrr.
This is what actual recorded sound means. How pleasing (to you) what you get when it's run through whatever digital filters and interpolated is for each individual to decide. What is NOT arguable is what is actually stored. This is digital audio recording 101. It's not hard to understand. There is no agenda. It is what it is. Why is that so angering to some folks? The same folks who rail against .mp3 on the basis that it is low resolution and tout CD because of the higher resolution then throw out that very same logic when considering high resolution PCM or DSD (whose aim is to be more like analog) in comparison to CD. That is completely illogical.
You do what you want. As for me, I will take as close to the real event as possible over a reconstruction of a percentage of the real event every time, given the option.
And for the umpteenth time, for those hard of understanding, my first post in this thread was a response to Post #45. My subsequent posts, seemingly, are all responses to those deriding that response, without proving what I said erroneous and peppered with a veiled attack on my character as a "non-technical". Bravo and Thank you.
Cheers.
Let's keep this one friendly, chaps. I can detect some niggling, and I'm not liking it, so let's wipe it out, pronto.
Remember the golden rule in debates like this: always play the ball, and not the man! ;)
Marco.
There's no myth about what I'm saying and there is no perpetuating anything but the truth, if one can recognize it.
Where exactly did you read me stating that this is what you hear when you play these samples back??? :scratch: Point to it. You can't.
Do me a favor, though. Tell me that this is not what is stored when recorded in the given format. Point it out. You can't.
All we've gotten from I guess what you consider to be the technically minded enthusiasts are diversions and a multiplicity of talking points. Grrrr.
This is what actual recorded sound means. How pleasing (to you) what you get when it's run through whatever digital filters and interpolated is for each individual to decide. What is NOT arguable is what is actually stored. This is digital audio recording 101. It's not hard to understand. There is no agenda. It is what it is. Why is that so angering to some folks? The same folks who rail against .mp3 on the basis that it is low resolution and tout CD because of the higher resolution then throw out that very same logic when considering high resolution PCM or DSD (whose aim is to be more like analog) in comparison to CD. That is completely illogical.
You do what you want. As for me, I will take as close to the real event as possible over a reconstruction of a percentage of the real event every time, given the option.
And for the umpteenth time, for those hard of understanding, my first post in this thread was a response to Post #45. My subsequent posts, seemingly, are all responses to those deriding that response, without proving what I said erroneous and peppered with a veiled attack on my character as a "non-technical". Bravo and Thank you.
Cheers.
All of what you write here is completely and absolutely wrong. Since you clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the digital recording and playback process there is no point in further trying to explain it to you.
Let's keep this one friendly, chaps. I can detect some niggling, and I'm not liking it, so let's wipe it out, pronto.
Remember the golden rule in debates like this: always play the ball, and not the man! ;)
Marco.
Apologies,
I am out of this from now.
I have heard this sort of misunderstanding of digital audio so often it pisses me off.
Doing an analogue plot and claiming it in some way represents what is recorded is so far from having any understanding at all it is laughable.
If there were as many amateur doctors about as there are amateur engineers there would be corpses everywhere!
All recording methods have shortcomings and strengths whether analogue or digital. None of them are relared to the sort of plots posted in this thread recently.
Hey, Frank, robust debates are fine. Only when the language used gets continually more aggressive (as your 'opponent' fails to grasp what you'd like him to grasp), and things start getting personal, does it become a problem.
I, for one, value your professional opinion, but if you think that someone is wrong, then there are ways of demonstrating your point without upsetting your 'opponent' - and of course, the same principles apply to your 'opponent', hence my football analogy earlier of playing the ball, and not the man.
I think it's important to protect against genuine misinformation, and so we welcome the actual facts of the argument being presented, but the discussion or debate must be carried out in a friendly and non-confrontational way, otherwise the facts simply get lost amongst pointless and unconstructive diatribe :)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.