View Full Version : CDs help make my life a bore.
Rare Bird
14-12-2012, 20:24
Ive been buying CDee's for longer than i realised. Buying CDee's are easy, you can access some mega rare stuff cheap, never liked the sound of em but kinda blinkered to that. Since ive started re-building a vinyl collection, the excitement i used to have about buying a record comes flooding back, i get all excited again..Funny what you take for granted..
Can admin alter the title word Lie to Life :rolleyes:
Your wish is our command! ;)
You could always lose the ceedees and stream some nice wee files instead... :eek: :eyebrows:
Marco.
Rare Bird
14-12-2012, 20:30
No thanks to files..Vinyl forever with me now..Like i said the hobby i once loved has suddenly come flooding back now ive dumped Digital..
...and long may it continue, dude! :)
Marco.
Rare Bird
14-12-2012, 20:42
Funny thing is ive heard vinyl on some really top notch system, they sound just a shyte as CD to my ears hence playing vinyl on mi towd gear is like heaven.
Good for you RareBird!
I can honestly appreciate your point of view, and fully agree. I must add though, for me it equally fun to get a hold of new ceedee's as LP's. I never play them back though, only rip them correctly once and put them away.
Then i play them by the album digitally using only an old school remote for selections!
To me it comes down to a combination of the tactile experience and the resulting pleasure from music.
I get as much goosebumps from my budget system as i do from my friends £200.000 High End equipment. Yes, his stuff sounds a lot better and i can clearly hear the floorboards on the stage creak when Patricia Barber struts her stuff... I get more emotional bout the music in my own equipment though!
Regards
//Mik
Thing Fish
15-12-2012, 08:18
I agree with you about Cd's Andre. I have no emotional connection to them either.
Hmm... I have emotional connections with music via MP3, bad cassette, weak radio stations, scratched up vinyl, 64kbp mono DAB.
It's the music that has the emotional connection, for me anyway..
Well Andre...if you want you could sell all the unessential ones and buy more and more fuzzys. I for one would be interested in some of your collection mate. I love cd's if I'm honest but also have a soft spot for fuzzys.
walpurgis
16-12-2012, 21:45
I hate to disagree, but I like CD. I have vinyl too and enjoy it. They are just different.
Best CD I've heard was a friend's Mark Levinson player (model 39?) and processor driving a pair of active ATC SCM 100 speakers, it sounded quite amazing.
Well in theory CD should be the better source. And it is with some recordings I feel. With vinyl we have the curious situation where the measured weaknesses are actually strengths in practice. As a result it is 'easier' to listen to. I read once that the difference between digital and analogue is that digitasl is processed and analogue is mechanically recovered. Anyway - I resisited CD for a long time. Now I have a CD set up that, to me, sounds a lot like a good reel-to -reel, so I just pretend it is one when I have a CD on ;)
Hmm... I have emotional connections with music via MP3, bad cassette, weak radio stations, scratched up vinyl, 64kbp mono DAB.
It's the music that has the emotional connection, for me anyway..
Me too - I get an emotional kick from the music regardless of format, but with vinyl that emotional attachment extends to the physical object and its use too. From flipping through crates of dusty lps in a charity shop or old-fashioned record shop, cleaning the record on my Moth rcm, cataloging my vinyl collection on Discogs to the ritual of putting the record on the platter and lowering the arm, vinyl gives me a thrill that cd just can't. When listening to vinyl the lp sleeve usually stays on my knee whilst I study the sleeve notes and gaze at the cover picture.
When I get a cd it goes straight into my pc for ripping and then gets unceremoniously tossed into a cardboard box with hundreds of others never to see the light of day again.
When I get a cd it goes straight into my pc for ripping and then gets unceremoniously tossed into a cardboard box with hundreds of others never to see the light of day again.
Arr - 'tis a cruel life for a CD up in High Peak arrr :)
Mr Kipling
16-12-2012, 23:34
Well in theory CD should be the better source. And it is with some recordings I feel. With vinyl we have the curious situation where the measured weaknesses are actually strengths in practice. As a result it is 'easier' to listen to. I read once that the difference between digital and analogue is that digitasl is processed and analogue is mechanically recovered. Anyway - I resisited CD for a long time. Now I have a CD set up that, to me, sounds a lot like a good reel-to -reel, so I just pretend it is one when I have a CD on ;)
I like that, Martin. Bit of a novel approach. I'll have to try it.
Me too - I get an emotional kick from the music regardless of format, but with vinyl that emotional attachment extends to the physical object and its use too. From flipping through crates of dusty lps in a charity shop or old-fashioned record shop, cleaning the record on my Moth rcm, cataloging my vinyl collection on Discogs to the ritual of putting the record on the platter and lowering the arm, vinyl gives me a thrill that cd just can't. When listening to vinyl the lp sleeve usually stays on my knee whilst I study the sleeve notes and gaze at the cover picture.
When I get a cd it goes straight into my pc for ripping and then gets unceremoniously tossed into a cardboard box with hundreds of others never to see the light of day again.
Ah, somewhere down the line you decided to not treat CD as you did vinyl - that's something you now have to live with and hard to recover. Nothing you've described is about the 12" black plastic as opposed to 7" silver plastic - it's to do with association, your reminiscences, seeing yourself as part of a vinyl lover's club etc etc.
Kind of a good reason for not streaming - encourages you to treat CDs with disdain. Imagine if you just ripped your LPs and slung them in a box never to be seen again. In fact, why don't you?
Find yourself a good secondhand shop, flip through the rack of CDs, get excited about the MUSIC on the CD perhaps a a long deleted CD only release, take it home, give it a good clean on the CD polisher (whilst you make a cup of coffee) so that it's perfect, go through the ritual of turning on your exotic transport and DAC - maybe watch the DAC valves begin to warm up and glow - carefully place the CD on the spindle and place the puck precisely in place, close the top loader. Feel the excitement as you hear it read the unique, rare TOC and make your way to your listening seat where your coffee is waiting for you to press that play button on the one-piece, hewn from solid marble, remote control..
I forgot the part about reading the sleeve notes and having the long glossy fold-out strewn across your lap. And going online to list your CD collection somewhere.
Why don't people go through that with CD? It's psychological and is within everyone's control, kind of a vinyl group-think that encourages it with vinyl and not CD. Up to you though to try to enjoy everything in life as you wish. :cool:
walpurgis
17-12-2012, 00:14
I agree it's the content that matters, not the format.
I have to say I never read album sleeves or insert notes.
I'm much like that with books, I avoid reading the back cover summaries and introductory reviews and have a pile of unread books next to my bed which I pick up and start readng at random without looking at the cover or title. I enjoy a surprise. Like music albums (which I also often buy without knowing anything about), much is dross, but there's the occasional 'keeper'!
Thing Fish
17-12-2012, 00:20
It's a good thing we're all different or life would be such a bore.
A well produced/mastered cd can sound excellent with the right equipment, I have plenty of mediocre sounding vinyl.
It certainly wasn't boring nipping into HMV & getting 12x classic albums (Beck, Massive Attack, Bjork etc.) for £16 from their used section as everyone continues to sell off their CD collections. :)
Personally, I don't really care what format it's in as long as it's physical media.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-12-2012, 16:34
Didn't know HMV had a used section. I was bored today when I bought 16 CDs from That's Entertainment for £30. Less than £2 each and all of them very good albums. 16 CDs for the price of one lump of vinyl. I'm prepared for them to sound shite on my system for that
Can't say i ever get excited by a cd dropping through the letter box.
I just rip it and store in the loft.(must get them down to sell)
Much prefer the whole lp experience.
walpurgis
19-12-2012, 10:20
Stu, I take it those are your home built speakers in the Avatar photo. Tell me something about them, they look interesting.
Geoff.
Haselsh1
19-12-2012, 10:36
I adore the whole vinyl experience a helluva lot as it kind of makes the whole thing complete. All I need now to make it totally complete is a Michell Orbe with an SME V and a Koetsu Black. Any offers on that one...???
Stu, I take it those are your home built speakers in the Avatar photo. Tell me something about them, they look interesting.
Geoff.
Geoff the bass cab is home made but not by me.
It is a grf copy with cherry veneer and a 15" eminence speaker.
The mid is coral m100 with le cleach horn and the tweeters are both coral h104.
Tweeter pic
http://audio-heritage.jp/CORAL/unit/h-104.jpg
Mid pic.
http://img5.blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ybi/1/7c/4a/alpus_at/folder/1778330/img_1778330_44861835_0
The Black Adder
19-12-2012, 12:20
LP's seem to have a more organic sound, even when the vinyl is crackly there is something still more pleasing than a clinical cd. Although I love the way my cdp sounds it's still not as relaxing as vinyl.
It can sometimes depend on mood but if you ask me they got it right first time, everything since has been fun (and remains so) but the good ol' LP is still the nicest most true sound to listen to.
MikeMusic
19-12-2012, 12:46
Didn't know HMV had a used section. I was bored today when I bought 16 CDs from That's Entertainment for £30. Less than £2 each and all of them very good albums
What sort of music and artists ?
walpurgis
19-12-2012, 12:47
[QUOTE=chelsea;394271]Geoff the bass cab is home made but not by me.
It is a grf copy with cherry veneer and a 15" eminence speaker.
The mid is coral m100 with le cleach horn and the tweeters are both coral h104.
Wow! Sounds like a very potent design, I'd like to hear them.
I love Coral drivers, fabulous quality. Not many people remember them. I always wanted a pair of the 12L-60 bass drivers, but never found a pair.
Back in the eighties, I built a pair of huge folded horn speakers using Coral Beta 10 full range units and Russian super tweeters. These looked like 10" Lowthers, they sounded incredible, 102db efficiency! There's a (poor) picture below taken at the testing stage, they weren't wired up properly. Wish I had them now, the drive units sell for a small fortune nowadays.
http://i48.tinypic.com/belvo.jpg
I still have a pair or two of Coral titanium dome super-tweeters, but that's all. Still got the drive unit brochures and cabinet designs though.
southall-1998
19-12-2012, 13:06
They look nice Geoff. Never heard those drive units before...Are they made in the UK?
Be good if you still had that speaker! Maybe you should look out for some Coral full range drivers again?
isuckedmandelsonslemons
19-12-2012, 13:08
What sort of music and artists ?
Range of stuff. Bonnie Raitt, Fleetwood Mac, Police, Johnny Winter.
MikeMusic
19-12-2012, 13:27
Range of stuff. Bonnie Raitt, Fleetwood Mac, Police, Johnny Winter.
Thanks. Worth popping in then
isuckedmandelsonslemons
19-12-2012, 13:48
Mike, the stores vary enormously. Lancaster was excellent, Middlesbrough is dreadful and Durham is so so. But one man's meat.
They do three deals, 3 for £5, 2 for £5 and 6 for £5. You can't go wrong at those prices.
MikeMusic
19-12-2012, 13:54
Mike, the stores vary enormously. Lancaster was excellent, Middlesbrough is dreadful and Durham is so so. But one man's meat.
They do three deals, 3 for £5, 2 for £5 and 6 for £5. You can't go wrong at those prices.
Thanks.
To my amazement I have 10 stores in striking distance
isuckedmandelsonslemons
19-12-2012, 13:56
Mike, I bought a hundred in one month off their website. About £250. That's about five decent vinyls?
MikeMusic
19-12-2012, 14:11
I hunt around Ebay, Amazon, Disogs for CDs and LPs. Prices from 1p to £3 + post
What section for the HMV bargains ?
I'm in Music looking at 7" and CDs by bands I hardly know
Bands I do know have real prices
tannoyman
19-12-2012, 15:56
I hate to disagree, but I like CD. I have vinyl too and enjoy it. They are just different.
Best CD I've heard was a friend's Mark Levinson player (model 39?) and processor driving a pair of active ATC SCM 100 speakers, it sounded quite amazing.
Hi Geoff
I have to agree. Good CD's can sound stunning just as poor vinyl can be awful. I love both.
If you are ever in doubt as to how good red book CD can be try some of the Prof Johnson HDCD recordings on Reference Records. They are simply magical
David :):)
MikeMusic
19-12-2012, 15:58
I have to agree. Good CD's can sound stunning just as poor vinyl can be awful. I love both.
+2
Certainly at the moment
My Isis outperforms the LP12 combo. Technics yet to be fettled
I still have a pair or two of Coral titanium dome super-tweeters, but that's all. Still got the drive unit brochures and cabinet designs though.
Nice,will have to keep a look out for a pair of the super tweets if not to expensive.
hifinutt
29-12-2012, 20:20
and me , i adore cds . getting better and better transports to open up their sound makes me play all the old favs again and when i get new pre amps they all have different presentations so again the old favs come out
all nespa` treated and attended to with auric illuminator
dufferdan
03-02-2013, 02:53
Personally, it's about the music. And the times.
A story to illustrate. Several years ago, my brother came to visit for a golf weekend. One night, after dinner, I showed my brother my iPeng app, which controlled my music library via Squeezebox Touch, WHS server and stereo wired through the house. After a massive steak dinner, we started to get into duelling songs. I had ripped 1300 CD's and purchased another 100 or so albums from HD Tracks in 24/96 FLAC. My 16 yr old son emerged, and we started the " you gotta hear this" game. During a song, the iPad was passed to the next guy who had to find a song to illustrate a point to the other two. We did this from 9:30 until 1:30 AM, when my brother said, we need to turn this up even more. We didn't realize that my Cambridge amp was already at 9 on the dial, and we pushed it to 11, just as Pete Townsend was to rip into the first chords of "Who are You" . The amp collapsed and we decided it was bed time. The amp died. In the end it was OK, but the soft clipping feature had been running for too long.
With vinyl, we would have had too much delay to keep up the pace. Plus the cleaning of every record, drop the needle, etc. I love DJ'ing, having done it for many university house parties over the years, and recently taking up duties for a friends 50 th birthday and party, but in this instance, digital worked, and sounded great. Also, with the amount of wine and scotch my brother and I were drinking, we would have wrecked a lot of vinyl.
I used to tape every album I purchased and then put it away. I would pull them out to make mixed tapes. Then back into the sleeves. All 450 albums were sold for pennies on the pound 15 years ago. Pristine. What a waste. Should have enjoyed them more.
It's about the music and the memories it builds over time. Not the ego. JMHO, YMMV
Audioman
03-02-2013, 11:09
CD v Vinyl all depends on a lot of factors. Mastering and playback equipment capability among them. Vinyl requires more dedication in set up and care to reap the rewards. In my experience vinyl is the more satisfying medium both in terms of sound and the satisfaction of ownership. Of course CD can be satisfying to own. At least you have a physical product to handle and many have quite good mini artwork.
To answer why vinyl sound is better we need to consider the source. Certainly for albums recorded all analogue it has to be the ideal medium. These recordings were intended primarily for release as a vinyl LP and beg to be heard in the format with a break in the middle to change sides. Also music is not digital. Certainly not the human voice or traditional acoustic or electronic instruments. Only digitally synth'd sounds. AAA vinyl preserves the true analogue waveform of the music. Digital is a sample of the music played and is changed through various processes of analogue to digital and digital to analogue conversion to reach our ears. Plenty scope for losing the essence of the original performance. This is especially relevant to 60s/70s prog fans like Andre.
Most of my CDs are of newer recordings that were never available on vinyl or duplicates of vinyl lp versions that have worthwhile bonus material unavailable otherwise. So wherever possible I have a good (all analogue) vinyl reissue or as minty as possible early pressing. To get the best out of either format the source material is king.
Some people can't get past minor surface noise or the odd click or pop. Something experienced vinyl listeners can tolerate. However I can't listen to crackly clicky pressings so only well pressed and preserved vinyl records will do. CD is marginally more convenient in the home and is relatively portable if not to the degree of digital files. The later though have no tactile quality or intrinsic value. You merely are paying for a licence unless you rip a CD.
Back to vinyl v CD. I have heard the highest end CD systems but they appear to advance SQ just a little over affordable CD reproduction (low £1/2 K v 10/20 K). If you spend larger amounts on a deck/arm/cartridge the leap in SQ appears to be significant in terms of musical enjoyment. What is more it usually takes a rather expensive CD transport/player to surpass today's 'budget' hi-fi record decks.
I can enjoy CD more today probably than previously but for long term listening and musical involvement vinyl can't be beaten. Even digitally recorded music often sounds better on vinyl primarily because of the low bit rate of CD playback but also the poor standard of many modern CD masters.
I think you are pretty much spot on with that, Paul. The older recordings on vinyl that have nevr even seen a digital cutting lathe are the best sounding medium of all. Analogue all the way from the mic to the speakers.
I agree with much of the previous CD comment, although some reasonable sound is retrievable it has taken a bloody long time to achieve and has cost many people a lot in time and money! Even today we are still finding different ways of trying to get a better CD sound but the problem is with digital recording in general. Even with 24 bit hi Rez downloads which do offer a better digital sound it still does not approach the best vinyl analogue sound. The same battle is being waged in digital photography with the never ending increase in pixel count but whatever level they get too it will still not be as good as film photography. Digital processing in any form and with whatever equipment is always only giving you a sample of the audio spectrum and is always a compromise.
We listen in analogue and everything has to be turned back into analogue for us to hear and indeed for speakers to work. The key thing here is analogue, you cannot change the laws of physics.
Rare Bird
03-02-2013, 16:28
It's not about bright detailed/resolution anymore with me, it's about smooth flowing music that just makes me want to just relax & listern all day without a hint of fatigue, ive had hundreds of CD players none have let me do this.
The ironic thing is i'm back to 30 years ago :doh:
isuckedmandelsonslemons
03-02-2013, 17:43
Not keen on bright and detailed myself Andre. I like smooth and detailed with a rhythmic bass. It will surprise you to hear that I can get that from a CD player. It will probably surprise you even more that its made by Cyrus who are usually saddled with a bright and detailed label.
CD v Vinyl all depends on a lot of factors. Mastering and playback equipment capability among them. Vinyl requires more dedication in set up and care to reap the rewards. In my experience vinyl is the more satisfying medium both in terms of sound and the satisfaction of ownership. Of course CD can be satisfying to own. At least you have a physical product to handle and many have quite good mini artwork.
To answer why vinyl sound is better we need to consider the source. Certainly for albums recorded all analogue it has to be the ideal medium. These recordings were intended primarily for release as a vinyl LP and beg to be heard in the format with a break in the middle to change sides. Also music is not digital. Certainly not the human voice or traditional acoustic or electronic instruments. Only digitally synth'd sounds. AAA vinyl preserves the true analogue waveform of the music. Digital is a sample of the music played and is changed through various processes of analogue to digital and digital to analogue conversion to reach our ears. Plenty scope for losing the essence of the original performance. This is especially relevant to 60s/70s prog fans like Andre.
Most of my CDs are of newer recordings that were never available on vinyl or duplicates of vinyl lp versions that have worthwhile bonus material unavailable otherwise. So wherever possible I have a good (all analogue) vinyl reissue or as minty as possible early pressing. To get the best out of either format the source material is king.
Some people can't get past minor surface noise or the odd click or pop. Something experienced vinyl listeners can tolerate. However I can't listen to crackly clicky pressings so only well pressed and preserved vinyl records will do. CD is marginally more convenient in the home and is relatively portable if not to the degree of digital files. The later though have no tactile quality or intrinsic value. You merely are paying for a licence unless you rip a CD.
Back to vinyl v CD. I have heard the highest end CD systems but they appear to advance SQ just a little over affordable CD reproduction (low £1/2 K v 10/20 K). If you spend larger amounts on a deck/arm/cartridge the leap in SQ appears to be significant in terms of musical enjoyment. What is more it usually takes a rather expensive CD transport/player to surpass today's 'budget' hi-fi record decks.
I can enjoy CD more today probably than previously but for long term listening and musical involvement vinyl can't be beaten. Even digitally recorded music often sounds better on vinyl primarily because of the low bit rate of CD playback but also the poor standard of many modern CD masters.
I don't agree with any of this.
I have done lots of recordings myself, starting mono reel-to-reel in the 60s to digital now and there is absolutely no doubt that during that time each evolution of kit resulted in recordings which were closer to the mike feed than the previous generation of recording technology.
Solid state reel to reels were better than the valve ones (I used), Cassette was never any good, DAT was better (in terms of a transparent reproduction of the microphone feed) than any analogue method I had used. Current computer driven ADC systems may be better still, but DAT was already pretty well indistinguishable from the direct line feed.
Part of my career was working for Garrard in the 70s. There I learned how much extra sound is added to that in the groove wiggle by the turntable, arm and cartridge. It is a -lot- particularly if the record player is not well isolated from the environment.
There is almost nothing a CD can not hold that an LP can, apart from a theroetical ability to pick up ultra sonic frequencies, which there is no good evidence are audible and anyway could only be resolved by a tiny number of perfectly set-up cartridges, even if they were on the record for the first 5 plays or so.
OTOH the extra additions from the turntable arm and cartridge can be tuned to the taste of the various customers and, with the exception of rumble and speed instability are -all- euphonic, so LPs usually sound nice.
There is the most astonishing amount of misinformation being peddled on internet fora, the myth that there is some inherent superiority in analogue for recording anything being so prevalent that people who use the internet to research information on their hobby are totally misled.
Yes, LPs can sound lovely, with a good recording, played on a player with all the resonances and feedbacks to the listeners taste, and I have no problem with people enjoying and preferring this.
Almost all CD players OTOH will deliver the sound exactly as the recording engineer intended - though maybe withaout as much reverb as some listeners would have liked, hence the turntable preference.
There are lots of other features of the LP production and playback technology that are big compromises, most of which are euphonic, or make it easier for modest replay kit to sound good.
A fairly modest CD player will reproduce the recording pretty well the way the recording engineer cut it.
No record player will. That is not to say a listener who has chosen his kit to his taste will not prefer the record player, I know lots of people who do.
For me the most complete evidence of this little lot is that a digital recording of an LP, recorded with the music playing at the normal listening level (otherwise the added sound of the plinth/arm/cartridge being excited by air- and structure- borne sound aren't on the recording) is indistinguishable from playing the LP.
Yes turntables -look- much better, why else do enthusiasts lust after/show pictures.
Turntables are much more fun to play about with and tune to taste.
Turntables are much more suited to enthusiasts who enjoy experimentation.
CDs are dull to use but accurate, and allow you to spent much more time listening to music and less dicking around with kit, which is good or bad depending on ones taste...
isuckedmandelsonslemons
11-02-2013, 19:00
Frank, what a brilliant post. Pigeons, put, among, that's, the, cat, the is springing to mind but in a different order.
Covenant
12-02-2013, 20:40
Brilliant Frank, this is what I have thought for years despite retaining my vinyl collection because I love them. Now how about a few words concerning digital files!
WOStantonCS100
13-02-2013, 08:10
I don't agree with any of this.
I have done lots of recordings myself, starting mono reel-to-reel in the 60s to digital now and there is absolutely no doubt that during that time each evolution of kit resulted in recordings which were closer to the mike feed than the previous generation of recording technology.
Solid state reel to reels were better than the valve ones (I used), Cassette was never any good, DAT was better (in terms of a transparent reproduction of the microphone feed) than any analogue method I had used. Current computer driven ADC systems may be better still, but DAT was already pretty well indistinguishable from the direct line feed.
Part of my career was working for Garrard in the 70s. There I learned how much extra sound is added to that in the groove wiggle by the turntable, arm and cartridge. It is a -lot- particularly if the record player is not well isolated from the environment.
There is almost nothing a CD can not hold that an LP can, apart from a theroetical ability to pick up ultra sonic frequencies, which there is no good evidence are audible and anyway could only be resolved by a tiny number of perfectly set-up cartridges, even if they were on the record for the first 5 plays or so.
OTOH the extra additions from the turntable arm and cartridge can be tuned to the taste of the various customers and, with the exception of rumble and speed instability are -all- euphonic, so LPs usually sound nice.
There is the most astonishing amount of misinformation being peddled on internet fora, the myth that there is some inherent superiority in analogue for recording anything being so prevalent that people who use the internet to research information on their hobby are totally misled.
Yes, LPs can sound lovely, with a good recording, played on a player with all the resonances and feedbacks to the listeners taste, and I have no problem with people enjoying and preferring this.
Almost all CD players OTOH will deliver the sound exactly as the recording engineer intended - though maybe withaout as much reverb as some listeners would have liked, hence the turntable preference.
There are lots of other features of the LP production and playback technology that are big compromises, most of which are euphonic, or make it easier for modest replay kit to sound good.
A fairly modest CD player will reproduce the recording pretty well the way the recording engineer cut it.
No record player will. That is not to say a listener who has chosen his kit to his taste will not prefer the record player, I know lots of people who do.
For me the most complete evidence of this little lot is that a digital recording of an LP, recorded with the music playing at the normal listening level (otherwise the added sound of the plinth/arm/cartridge being excited by air- and structure- borne sound aren't on the recording) is indistinguishable from playing the LP.
Yes turntables -look- much better, why else do enthusiasts lust after/show pictures.
Turntables are much more fun to play about with and tune to taste.
Turntables are much more suited to enthusiasts who enjoy experimentation.
CDs are dull to use but accurate, and allow you to spent much more time listening to music and less dicking around with kit, which is good or bad depending on ones taste...
Not that it matters; but, I don't agree with much of what's been said here.
I've oft said it; but, using a professional 24/192 master recorder... daily... I can resolutely attest to the following:
1. CD (that is 16/44.1) is laughable when trying to retain all the information (detail and naturalness) fed to it from any analog source I have including a mic feed, reel to reel, cassette (yes, cassette) and lp. It is far, far from a mirror copy.
2. 24/192 is scarily close, much more detailed and fleshed out in the LF's without the midrange bloat and compression sometimes added by tape; but, still not quite there though it makes 16/44.1 sound like upscale mp3
3. 24/384 (or double rate DSD) would probably, finally become indistinguishable to my ears; but, the question becomes, "When are we ever going to actually be able to buy studio recordings that were recorded, mixed and mastered all at that high resolution?" Not bloody likely any time soon.
I'll take CD's if I can't get better (or if the master was digital at no better than 16/44.1 thru 24/48, anyway). I have loads of 'em. Enjoy the music on them. But accurate, they are not.
The above comments are from a playback standpoint. What format (analog or digital) and at what resolution (for digital) should be used for recording is another matter entirely. However, if 24/192 only gets very close to making a mirror copy of the analog input, then in my view, higher resolutions should always be used (for tracking, mixing and mastering) if available to capture as much of the true essence of a mic feed. Just my opinion. This isn't done due to logistics. In other words, the only reasons for not doing so can't possibly be for anything related to retaining the truest musical rendering; but, for convenience, ease of editing, profit potential, user placation, or to pacify those who insist higher resolution recorders don't actually... ummm... capture more levels of attenuation and more samples... but, that seems really silly to me. After all, that's why they're high resolution recorders. No matter how one spins it, analog is still more analogous than digital whether it be tape or LP. That's the difference people are hearing. That's what's more pleasing to the ear; because, that's what's natural. You can extol all the finer points of digital all day long (of which there are several); but, at the end of the day, it's still digital and folks can still tell it's digital. Thus, vinyl continues to draw people in. That's why digital pressed to vinyl, even then, will still drawer people in. Anything that helps to make digital sound... less digital... and more analogous.
:sofa:
Yes, I continue to record vinyl to 24/192 because that's the limit of the best possible digital technology I can get my hands on at the moment. But, that's only because when I get a record I really like, there's a good chance I'll run the stylus right through it for playing it so much. :lol: Not because it created a mirror, exact, archive copy. If I forgot and left a 24/192 DVD at a friends house it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much as leaving a 15 ips, 10 inch reel behind. I'd be hoppin' in the car at 3 A.M. to retrieve that one!!
You guys can get all tongue-tied with technicalities if you wish but I have CD's in my collection that put a lie to all this restricted dynamics crap and sound every bit as good as the best I have on vinyl. Just enjoy the music guys whatever the hell format it is on :ner:
Rare Bird
13-02-2013, 10:22
Just enjoy the music guys whatever the hell format it is on :ner:
Dave: You have to understand, & i'm sure you have that some folks are more intrested in the Hi-Fi than the who purpose of one, they just come up with excuses for their disease. :lol:
However i need music that flows, relaxing but yet gives me the whole picture, something that i find near in impossible with CD, i cannot relax for the sence of bordom setting in, it isnt the quality of the CD playback machine because ive had more machine than hot dinners.
jandl100
13-02-2013, 14:59
Mmmmm - I love my CDs. :yay:
I have no problem enjoying them at all. :)
Not that it matters; but, I don't agree with much of what's been said here.
I've oft said it; but, using a professional 24/192 master recorder... daily... I can resolutely attest to the following:
1. CD (that is 16/44.1) is laughable when trying to retain all the information (detail and naturalness) fed to it from any analog source I have including a mic feed, reel to reel, cassette (yes, cassette) and lp. It is far, far from a mirror copy.
2. 24/192 is scarily close, much more detailed and fleshed out in the LF's without the midrange bloat and compression sometimes added by tape; but, still not quite there though it makes 16/44.1 sound like upscale mp3
3. 24/384 (or double rate DSD) would probably, finally become indistinguishable to my ears; but, the question becomes, "When are we ever going to actually be able to buy studio recordings that were recorded, mixed and mastered all at that high resolution?" Not bloody likely any time soon.
I'll take CD's if I can't get better (or if the master was digital at no better than 16/44.1 thru 24/48, anyway). I have loads of 'em. Enjoy the music on them. But accurate, they are not.
The above comments are from a playback standpoint. What format (analog or digital) and at what resolution (for digital) should be used for recording is another matter entirely. However, if 24/192 only gets very close to making a mirror copy of the analog input, then in my view, higher resolutions should always be used (for tracking, mixing and mastering) if available to capture as much of the true essence of a mic feed. Just my opinion. This isn't done due to logistics. In other words, the only reasons for not doing so can't possibly be for anything related to retaining the truest musical rendering; but, for convenience, ease of editing, profit potential, user placation, or to pacify those who insist higher resolution recorders don't actually... ummm... capture more levels of attenuation and more samples... but, that seems really silly to me. After all, that's why they're high resolution recorders. No matter how one spins it, analog is still more analogous than digital whether it be tape or LP. That's the difference people are hearing. That's what's more pleasing to the ear; because, that's what's natural. You can extol all the finer points of digital all day long (of which there are several); but, at the end of the day, it's still digital and folks can still tell it's digital. Thus, vinyl continues to draw people in. That's why digital pressed to vinyl, even then, will still drawer people in. Anything that helps to make digital sound... less digital... and more analogous.
:sofa:
Yes, I continue to record vinyl to 24/192 because that's the limit of the best possible digital technology I can get my hands on at the moment. But, that's only because when I get a record I really like, there's a good chance I'll run the stylus right through it for playing it so much. :lol: Not because it created a mirror, exact, archive copy. If I forgot and left a 24/192 DVD at a friends house it wouldn't bother me anywhere near as much as leaving a 15 ips, 10 inch reel behind. I'd be hoppin' in the car at 3 A.M. to retrieve that one!!
I am truly astonished.
Reel-to-reel tape can be excellent, but the bass perturbations due to the head shape interaction has only been reduced in magnitude by one manufacturer AFAIK, and not at a price I could contemplate, I used and still have a Revox. Tape recorders need demagnetising and re-aligning daily to keep them anywhere near.
I would also hate to lose any of my 10" masters but only because of nostalgia and collector value, not accuracy of sound!
Cassette is truly shite at high level high frequency (greater than -20VU) and needs aligning daily
LP has to be, and is, mono at lower frequencies, compressed to a max of 11 bit (the best SNR available from the medium) and have any high levels of HF energy reduced so it can be cut.
There is no data on any of them that can not be completely replicated by CD, except, perhaps, some supersonic frequencies.
Gobsmacked!
Dave: You have to understand, & i'm sure you have that some folks are more intrested in the Hi-Fi than the who purpose of one, they just come up with excuses for their disease. :lol:
However i need music that flows, relaxing but yet gives me the whole picture, something that i find near in impossible with CD, i cannot relax for the sence of bordom setting in, it isnt the quality of the CD playback machine because ive had more machine than hot dinners.
Up until I got the Valhalla I would not have argued with you André but things are different now, CD's are sounding so very analogue through valves, and even more so when the BM is in situ by the way ;)
MikeMusic
13-02-2013, 15:27
Up until I got the Valhalla I would not have argued with you André but things are different now, CD's are sounding so very analogue just through it, and even more so when the BM is in situ by the way ;)
This is not the Linn Valhalla I assume .......
Nope...
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af316/Sgtgrash/Hifi%20Stuff/a1e172ff-deee-469b-b47a-ffbf0ea129c6.jpg
MikeMusic
13-02-2013, 15:34
Nope...
Yup. Looks a bit bigger
You might struggle to get that in an LP12
:)
MikeMusic
13-02-2013, 15:40
So.
Never heard of it. Good is it ?
isuckedmandelsonslemons
13-02-2013, 15:41
I am truly astonished.
Reel-to-reel tape can be excellent, but the bass perturbations due to the head shape interaction has only been reduced in magnitude by one manufacturer AFAIK, and not at a price I could contemplate, I used and still have a Revox. Tape recorders need demagnetising and re-aligning daily to keep them anywhere near.
I would also hate to lose any of my 10" masters but only because of nostalgia and collector value, not accuracy of sound!
Cassette is truly shite at high level high frequency (greater than -20VU) and needs aligning daily
LP has to be, and is, mono at lower frequencies, compressed to a max of 11 bit (the best SNR available from the medium) and have any high levels of HF energy reduced so it can be cut.
There is no data on any of them that can not be completely replicated by CD, except, perhaps, some supersonic frequencies.
Gobsmacked!
Brilliant. Please keep it coming.
So.
Never heard of it. Good is it ?
I like it very much. It is open, dynamic, breathy, expansive, all the things people mention on here when describing the valve sound. It has utterly transformed my system from very good to outstanding, to my ears anyway... hehe
They're 6l6-GT's at the back btw. I have so much to learn regarding valves and valve kit, I am a complete ignoramous on the subject.. :)
MikeMusic
13-02-2013, 16:03
I like it very much. It is open, dynamic, breathy, expansive, all the things people mention on here when describing the valve sound. It has utterly transformed my system from very good to outstanding, to my ears anyway... hehe
They're 6l6-GT's at the back btw. I have so much to learn regarding valves and valve kit, I am a complete ignoramous on the subject.. :)
Thanks. Pre amp is my next port of call in my system upgrade
Are 616-GTs valves ?
Indeed they are, I only learnt what they were myself quite recently :) I know the two small valves at the front are NOS Mullards and are supposed to be very good and very expensive, but what do I know? I am going to have to ask some really newbie questions of our experienced valve users soon and I am a bit nervous about making an ass of myself... :lol:
WOStantonCS100
13-02-2013, 20:44
I am truly astonished.
Reel-to-reel tape can be excellent, but the bass perturbations due to the head shape interaction has only been reduced in magnitude by one manufacturer AFAIK, and not at a price I could contemplate, I used and still have a Revox. Tape recorders need demagnetising and re-aligning daily to keep them anywhere near.
I would also hate to lose any of my 10" masters but only because of nostalgia and collector value, not accuracy of sound!
Cassette is truly shite at high level high frequency (greater than -20VU) and needs aligning daily
LP has to be, and is, mono at lower frequencies, compressed to a max of 11 bit (the best SNR available from the medium) and have any high levels of HF energy reduced so it can be cut.
There is no data on any of them that can not be completely replicated by CD, except, perhaps, some supersonic frequencies.
Gobsmacked!
Which part are you gobsmacked about? That higher digital resolutions resolve more detail than lower resolutions? Or, that obviously there is something rather important that digital is still not conveying to many, many listeners? :scratch: Let's be honest. If vinyl and tape replay were as dire as you infer, these formats would truly be dead and buried. But, they're not, are they.
And again, I enjoy music; so, CD's are just fine for me if I can't get better. And, if one has no reference point (ie. the original mic feed or input signal) there is no possible way to know that you're missing something. However, when you do have the reference point, it becomes blatantly obvious. As I stated, digital certainly has it's virtues; but, settling for CD (16/44.1) as a standard (something arrived at by the limitations of available computer processing power and hard disk storage of yesteryear) is what gobsmacks me. Does one really believe that if digital audio was birthed in today's world that the standard would be 16/44.1???? Me thinks not.
MikeMusic
14-02-2013, 08:26
I am a bit nervous about making an ass of myself... :lol:
Oh it's fine once you get used to it
:)
Which part are you gobsmacked about? That higher digital resolutions resolve more detail than lower resolutions? Or, that obviously there is something rather important that digital is still not conveying to many, many listeners? :scratch: Let's be honest. If vinyl and tape replay were as dire as you infer, these formats would truly be dead and buried. But, they're not, are they.
And again, I enjoy music; so, CD's are just fine for me if I can't get better. And, if one has no reference point (ie. the original mic feed or input signal) there is no possible way to know that you're missing something. However, when you do have the reference point, it becomes blatantly obvious. As I stated, digital certainly has it's virtues; but, settling for CD (16/44.1) as a standard (something arrived at by the limitations of available computer processing power and hard disk storage of yesteryear) is what gobsmacks me. Does one really believe that if digital audio was birthed in today's world that the standard would be 16/44.1???? Me thinks not.
I understand higher resolution resolve more detail than lower resolution. I was a pioneer in using digital recordings, since analogue had nowhere near the accuracy needed for what I was doing.
I did not say LP or tape was dire, simply that it is less accurate at transferring the recording to the speaker terminal, which is demonstrably true.
I did say that the shortcomings of analogue are almost all euphonic additions which people like the sound of, which has been known for >30 years.
I have no problem with this at all, I enjoy my record player a great deal, what I -do- take issue with is the predilection to imply this enjoyable sound of analogue is due to some mysterious as-yet-to-be-understood superiority as is being perpetuated on the internet, frequently by people who show every evidence that they should have tried to understand science a bit better when they were at school.
The question is at what point more resolution is actually detectable in the use in question. In the case of audio 16 bit resolution is already better than any other domestic system by a big margin, whether 44.1 kHz sampling allows enough margin for people who can hear >22.1kHz, if any exist, or margin for easy anti-aliasing filtering is -perhaps- worthy further debate.
For example if you have a printer capable of 300 dots per inch would having the technology to make one with 600 dots per inch make a detectable improvement?
The fact that we can now have higher sampling rates and bit depths is simple technical development, not evidence that 44/16 is inadequate, that would be absurd.
It does give a bigger margin to screw up the recording levels and recover the recording, so it is better for incompetent recording engineers.
It does,also, give record companies an opportunity to sell the same material again :)
My reference point has always been my own recordings, and how close the "off tape" sound is to the original feed. Over the last 40 years at each step they got closer, with the step to digital being the biggest step in accuracy of my experience.
A corollary of what you wrote in your first reply is that you could make a recording of a full-range recording from a CD onto cassette and it would be indistinguishable from the original. A cassette is nowhere-near capable of 16-bit equivalent dynamic range so this is quite an incredible implication.
An LP is capable of around the eqivalent of 11bit at mid range frequencies and bass, less at high frequencies.
FM radio is entirely contained in 32/14 bit digital (and sounds better than LP to me FWIW).
Reel-to-reel tape is by far the best analogue recording playback medium I have used and only the best -approaches- 16 bit resolution.
WOStantonCS100
15-02-2013, 08:44
I understand higher resolution resolve more detail than lower resolution. I was a pioneer in using digital recordings, since analogue had nowhere near the accuracy needed for what I was doing.
I did not say LP or tape was dire, simply that it is less accurate at transferring the recording to the speaker terminal, which is demonstrably true.
I did say that the shortcomings of analogue are almost all euphonic additions which people like the sound of, which has been known for >30 years.
I have no problem with this at all, I enjoy my record player a great deal, what I -do- take issue with is the predilection to imply this enjoyable sound of analogue is due to some mysterious as-yet-to-be-understood superiority as is being perpetuated on the internet, frequently by people who show every evidence that they should have tried to understand science a bit better when they were at school.
The question is at what point more resolution is actually detectable in the use in question. In the case of audio 16 bit resolution is already better than any other domestic system by a big margin, whether 44.1 kHz sampling allows enough margin for people who can hear >22.1kHz, if any exist, or margin for easy anti-aliasing filtering is -perhaps- worthy further debate.
For example if you have a printer capable of 300 dots per inch would having the technology to make one with 600 dots per inch make a detectable improvement?
The fact that we can now have higher sampling rates and bit depths is simple technical development, not evidence that 44/16 is inadequate, that would be absurd.
It does give a bigger margin to screw up the recording levels and recover the recording, so it is better for incompetent recording engineers.
It does,also, give record companies an opportunity to sell the same material again :)
My reference point has always been my own recordings, and how close the "off tape" sound is to the original feed. Over the last 40 years at each step they got closer, with the step to digital being the biggest step in accuracy of my experience.
A corollary of what you wrote in your first reply is that you could make a recording of a full-range recording from a CD onto cassette and it would be indistinguishable from the original. A cassette is nowhere-near capable of 16-bit equivalent dynamic range so this is quite an incredible implication.
An LP is capable of around the eqivalent of 11bit at mid range frequencies and bass, less at high frequencies.
FM radio is entirely contained in 32/14 bit digital (and sounds better than LP to me FWIW).
Reel-to-reel tape is by far the best analogue recording playback medium I have used and only the best -approaches- 16 bit resolution.
Science is forever plagued with the disease of "what we can measure or explain... now". The problem with that is years later we explain it all away when new scientific discoveries are made and new more accurate ways of measuring things comes along. What was "concrete" before, just becomes, at the least, incomplete, and at the most, erroneous. It happens constantly and it happens over and over again. The human experience, as a whole, is larger than science. Science has yet to concretely explain "life".
One consistent error of digital audio encoding is thinking that capturing a single test tone is the same thing as capturing... music. Music is far more complex than a test tone, with millions more variations. Another consistent error is thinking that the only reason for high resolution digital audio is to capture sounds above the range of human hearing. If that were the case, I wouldn't care at all about high resolution. The real and misunderstood purpose of higher bit rates and more samples is about more accurately capturing the minutia of a music. Chasm of difference there. 11 bit or not, analog captures that minutia and plays it back (on a good system be it vinyl, cassette or reel-to-reel). If one can't hear that a trumpet sounds more like a trumpet, cymbals sound more like cymbals, a snare hit sounds more like a snare hit, so on and so on... this is where I have to leave the conversation, agreeing to disagree. I love science; but, not to the point of letting it dictate to ears. I can tell myself all day long that vinyl is 11 bit and 16/44 theoretically captures "everything"; but, my ears say... "bunk". So, at the end of the day, wherever possible, it's whatever gets me closer to the music as I hear it in the natural world and 16/44 is not high on the list. YMMV. :)
. 11 bit or not, analog captures that minutia and plays it back (on a good system be it vinyl, cassette or reel-to-reel). If one can't hear that a trumpet sounds more like a trumpet, cymbals sound more like cymbals, a snare hit sounds more like a snare hit, so on and so on... this is where I have to leave the conversation, agreeing to disagree. . :)
Some recordings on 16/44.1 do achieve this imo, the best of them are possibly, arguably, better than the best vinyl recordings. Sloppy recording processes and poor analogue to digital transfers are what has given CD a bad name.
Some recordings on 16/44.1 do achieve this imo, the best of them are possibly, arguably, better than the best vinyl recordings. Sloppy recording processes and poor analogue to digital transfers are what has given CD a bad name.
I absolutely agree with that 100%. I own Moonfleet & Other Stories from Chris de Burgh on CD and the dynamics and ambience which has been imparted into this recording have to be heard to be believed, it is quite an astounding achievement :)
Audioman
15-02-2013, 10:04
I am truly astonished.
Reel-to-reel tape can be excellent, but the bass perturbations due to the head shape interaction has only been reduced in magnitude by one manufacturer AFAIK, and not at a price I could contemplate, I used and still have a Revox. Tape recorders need demagnetising and re-aligning daily to keep them anywhere near.
I would also hate to lose any of my 10" masters but only because of nostalgia and collector value, not accuracy of sound!
Cassette is truly shite at high level high frequency (greater than -20VU) and needs aligning daily
LP has to be, and is, mono at lower frequencies, compressed to a max of 11 bit (the best SNR available from the medium) and have any high levels of HF energy reduced so it can be cut.
There is no data on any of them that can not be completely replicated by CD, except, perhaps, some supersonic frequencies.
Gobsmacked!
Frank.
You appear to be hung up on technical measurements. CD can't be accurate as it's only a 16 bit sample. Why does DVDA (24 bit) sound far better then? That's ignoring the higher frequency resolutions that have to be filtered for LP cutting. Common sense dictates that a higher bit rate at least is closer to the analogue waveform. All digital is a sample and you are adding lots of variables in terms of A/D and D/A conversion before it reaches the listeners ears.
I think from the recording engineer's view you are putting too much emphasis on the ease or consistency of reproducing results with modern digital equipment, over the admittedly fussy nature of analogue recording. Great results require much skill in recording and mastering in analogue. All this is best enjoyed with quality vinyl LP reproduction in my experience.
Paul.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
15-02-2013, 11:26
I'm still 100% with Frank on this one.
Whether I can buy a Chris de Burgh CD is another matter
Audioman
15-02-2013, 13:40
I'm still 100% with Frank on this one.
Whether I can buy a Chris de Burgh CD is another matter
Just read the rest of this thread re vinyl resolution. Frankly Frank is now talking in the realms of pseudo scientific bunk. There is no basis for describing Analogue Lp as 11 bit sound. Frankly there is no scientific basis. Analogue is analogue and digital samples analogue. Frankly a 16bit sample does not approach the range of the analogue signal that can be captured on LP. Such an approximation to digital is obviously based on poorly cut vinyl played on low quality 'record players'. Listening to both formats on reasonably good equipment with well mastered vinyl and CD tells me otherwise. The CD fanboys obviously have not ever lived with a good vinyl playback system.
Paul.
Science is forever plagued with the disease of "what we can measure or explain... now". The problem with that is years later we explain it all away when new scientific discoveries are made and new more accurate ways of measuring things comes along. What was "concrete" before, just becomes, at the least, incomplete, and at the most, erroneous. It happens constantly and it happens over and over again. The human experience, as a whole, is larger than science. Science has yet to concretely explain "life".
One consistent error of digital audio encoding is thinking that capturing a single test tone is the same thing as capturing... music. Music is far more complex than a test tone, with millions more variations. Another consistent error is thinking that the only reason for high resolution digital audio is to capture sounds above the range of human hearing. If that were the case, I wouldn't care at all about high resolution. The real and misunderstood purpose of higher bit rates and more samples is about more accurately capturing the minutia of a music. Chasm of difference there. 11 bit or not, analog captures that minutia and plays it back (on a good system be it vinyl, cassette or reel-to-reel). If one can't hear that a trumpet sounds more like a trumpet, cymbals sound more like cymbals, a snare hit sounds more like a snare hit, so on and so on... this is where I have to leave the conversation, agreeing to disagree. I love science; but, not to the point of letting it dictate to ears. I can tell myself all day long that vinyl is 11 bit and 16/44 theoretically captures "everything"; but, my ears say... "bunk". So, at the end of the day, wherever possible, it's whatever gets me closer to the music as I hear it in the natural world and 16/44 is not high on the list. YMMV. :)
Well yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
You are clearly abongst those that prefer the euphonic colourations of analogue.
That is fine by me.
But I am still astonished that you seem to think that a cassette could produce a recording of a full range CD indistiguishable from the original.
Some recordings on 16/44.1 do achieve this imo, the best of them are possibly, arguably, better than the best vinyl recordings. Sloppy recording processes and poor analogue to digital transfers are what has given CD a bad name.
Spot on.
Frank.
You appear to be hung up on technical measurements. CD can't be accurate as it's only a 16 bit sample. Why does DVDA (24 bit) sound far better then? That's ignoring the higher frequency resolutions that have to be filtered for LP cutting. Common sense dictates that a higher bit rate at least is closer to the analogue waveform. All digital is a sample and you are adding lots of variables in terms of A/D and D/A conversion before it reaches the listeners ears.
Paul.
What you write would only be true of digital were it to be implemented the way so many people propagate on the internet.
As long as the anti-aliasing filtering is carried out -all- the "steps" are correctly blended back into the original waveform.
The idea that more samples will give a closer representation of the analogue wave form is a disappointingly common bit of misinformation perpetuated on the internet by people who do not or can not understand how digital recording works.
The thing the bit rate effects (on a properly implemented system) is the signal to noise ratio, not the waveform.
The laws of Physics have not been repealed.
There are CD players without anti-aliasing filters, and they -do- still have the step wave form after decoding, which results in lots of super-sonic spurious sound.
Some people like them, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't sell...
Just read the rest of this thread re vinyl resolution. Frankly Frank is now talking in the realms of pseudo scientific bunk. There is no basis for describing Analogue Lp as 11 bit sound. Frankly there is no scientific basis. Analogue is analogue and digital samples analogue. Frankly a 16bit sample does not approach the range of the analogue signal that can be captured on LP. Such an approximation to digital is obviously based on poorly cut vinyl played on low quality 'record players'. Listening to both formats on reasonably good equipment with well mastered vinyl and CD tells me otherwise. The CD fanboys obviously have not ever lived with a good vinyl playback system.
Paul.
I have used a Goldmund Reference turntable for years, and own 3 other turntables. I have had good to excellent LP playing equipment for 40 years.
11 bit resolution is about 60dB, which is spectacularly good for a record player, few can achieve it. No sensible engineer would attempt to cut a greater range than that on any LP he was making since the vast majority of record players would either mis-track on the loudest bits, disappear into hiss at the quietest bits, or both.
You don't seem to understand the physics either of analogue or digital sound reproduction.
I am not a CD "fanboy" OTOH I don't try to justify my enjoyment of the many LPs I own by trying to kid myself there is a technically unexplainable magic feature which makes it superior, rather than easily explained euphonic additions which do sound lovely and have been known about for decades.
I am an engineer with a fair bit of experience, you, I am afraid, are the one who has fallen for the pseudo scientific bunk.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
15-02-2013, 16:08
Frankly Mr Shankly, I'm still with Frank. He puts a compelling and well thought out argument.
I do take exception to the CD fanboy slur, whether it was directed at me or not.
I have had some terrible CD players. I've also had some poor turntables. By the same token I've had three very good Turntables (some would say superb) and two extremely good CD players.
I threw in my lot with records as I was pig sick of taking LPs back because of pops and clicks and warping. Used to drive me nuts although I accept some people find that part of the attraction.
Although I regret selling all of my records I won't be going back to a turntable although I'm drawn by the romance of it. My current CD transport and DAC will produce incredible music with the right CDs. That's the key. The right CDs.
As an aside, I recently listened to a frightingly expensive vinyl based system and it sounded horrible. The owner was in heaven and a very happy bunny. Guess that's all that matters.
Rothchild
15-02-2013, 16:17
I've not seen anything pseudo scientific in what Frank has said, he appears to have a very firm understanding of acoustic and psycho-acoustic sciences coupled with a nice clear writing style and an honest manner (he's been quite straight forward about the points where he's offering an opinion compared to when he's expressing a fact).
Please keep it coming Frank, I know enough to know that you're talking good sense and you're giving it at a level where I'm learning some useful stuff too.
Audioman
15-02-2013, 17:51
Frankly Mr Shankly, I'm still with Frank. He puts a compelling and well thought out argument.
I do take exception to the CD fanboy slur, whether it was directed at me or not.
I have had some terrible CD players. I've also had some poor turntables. By the same token I've had three very good Turntables (some would say superb) and two extremely good CD players.
I threw in my lot with records as I was pig sick of taking LPs back because of pops and clicks and warping. Used to drive me nuts although I accept some people find that part of the attraction.
Although I regret selling all of my records I won't be going back to a turntable although I'm drawn by the romance of it. My current CD transport and DAC will produce incredible music with the right CDs. That's the key. The right CDs.
As an aside, I recently listened to a frightingly expensive vinyl based system and it sounded horrible. The owner was in heaven and a very happy bunny. Guess that's all that matters.
The Fanboy comment wasn't aimed at anybody in particular. I am still hearing the usual invalid arguments against vinyl sound.
1. They crackle and Pop. 2. CD has better dynamic range. 3. CD has better resolution. 4. But I like it for it's distortions.
Vinyl doesn't have to be crackly and poppy but it takes more effort to find clean well pressed vinyl and look after it. CD does have more dynamic range in theory if not in practice no argument. This I will leave as it gets into the topic of loud mastering. But where does dynamic range and signal to noise ratio relate to detail retrieval and presentation?
CD produces quiet backgrounds and highlights details but generally is flat and uninvolving in relation to analogue sound. Depth air and space is missing or severely reduced in even high end CD systems. Vinyl is capable of preserving as much or more detail and presenting it in a more believable and lifelike form. That does not suggest it has less resolution than 16/44.1. If CD is so perfect why do 24 bit and DSD based media sound superior? Even these don't trump the listenability of the vinyl lp for many audiophiles. Of course there are still vinyl systems that sound bad due to poor set up and synergy.
I do understand the frustration of vinyl playback for many. I appreciate the convenience and lack of tweekiness CD has. If you want that don't defend CD as superior but sample hi-res digital sources. I can't imagine how superior a good SACD or DVDA mastering would sound with your Ushers. There have been as many advances in analogue playback as CD over the last 30 years keeping it ahead for SQ in the opinion of many audiophiles.
The fact is CD is so often uninvolving and can become boring to listen to. I can certainly listen to vinyl pretty much indefinitely while with CD it all becomes an effort after an hour or two.
Paul.
Depth air and space is missing or severely reduced in even high end CD systems. Vinyl is capable of preserving as much or more detail and presenting it in a more believable and lifelike form.
Paul.
The depth air and space you hear from your LPs is almost certainly being generated by your record player, and is not on the LP at all.
There is added ambience due to:
structure borne and airborne pickup. With a non-suspended turntable the structure borne pickup can be around 20dB below the music, maybe 40dB on a wall shelf.
Additions at under 500Hz from the arm, depending on the arm, how and where it is mounted on which turntable. The coupling is very complex and depends on all those things. If you have an old SME style detachable headshell that will contribute quite a lot. This is "earth" moving relative to the platter.
Anything causing the platter to move relative to "earth", metal subchassis for example with short sharp resonances adding "PRAT", Non suspended plinths picking up vibration from the support adding reverb. And so forth.
There is a theory about the loudness and frequency content of sounds that can be masked by louder sounds. MP3 works by discarding this theoretical information. Record players add information above this threshold but at a level subtle enough, and related to the music enough, to be pleasant.
Record players are incredibly sensitive vibration transducers and -anything- causing movement of the magnet relative to the coils will produce sound at the speakers, whether it is on the record or not. There is no way of avoiding it.
One thing you can try is to put your turntable in another room. I did this when I had witnessed all this extra pickup when I worked for Garrard. It sounded much more flat, and I didn't like it as much. I realise now that so much of the enjoyable sound was generated -by- the record player, and why so many people have different taste in record players. At the time I was shocked.
Cartridges all add a bit too, as do step up transformers.
Recording engineers add a bit of reverb to the recordings so they sound nicer. Record players add a bit more of their own, and can be tuned to taste, thats all.
Very interested in all this. The idea that airborne/structure borne vibration actually improves the sound of vinyl is new to me. And difficult to believe although I have no engineering background and am out of my depth and happy to be educated.
I am not a CD "fanboy" OTOH I don't try to justify my enjoyment of the many LPs I own by trying to kid myself there is a technically unexplainable magic feature which makes it superior, rather than easily explained euphonic additions which do sound lovely and have been known about for decades.
Hi Frank,
Interesting debate! I agree with much of what you're saying. However, with CD and vinyl, at the end of the day, aren't we simply choosing our own favoured brand of coloration (just like anything else in audio)?
My view is that neither format is intrinsically accurate, sonically, and that both digital and analogue music reproduction processes are imbued with the effect of their own natural distortions, created from said reproduction process, therefore which we prefer to listen to is largely down to how tolerant our ears are towards the worst excesses of either format's inherent distortion factor.
In my case, I find that the inherent distortions of vinyl reproduction are more benign to the human ear (and so sound more natural), especially when the best equipment is employed and the user knows exactly how to optimise the set-up of said equipment, so that distortions present are minimised as far as possible, and when all records are kept in absolutely mint condition (the latter is absolutely essential).
That's how I see it. I'm afraid that I don't buy the notion that CD or digital replay is fundamentally more accurate or 'real', and that those who prefer vinyl replay do so simply because they're seduced by its euphonic coloration. Both forms of recorded music-making are imperfect, therefore one simply chooses our favoured form of imperfection! :exactly:
Marco.
Very interested in all this. The idea that airborne/structure borne vibration actually improves the sound of vinyl is new to me. And difficult to believe although I have no engineering background and am out of my depth and happy to be educated.
My way of thinking about it would be this:
Imagine the sound of a trumpet being played and recorded in an acoustically dead studio. Whilst there might be some expression from the musician, giving variation in volume and tibre, ultimately it will begin to feel unnatural and get a bit boring over time.
Now add just a little real plate reverb and the whole sound becomes glorious and rich and oddly so much more expressive and involving. I certainly notice that I go wow to music when it has seemingly endless reverb tails and air and ambiance from such treatment.
What is reverb? It is a complex set of resonances. The best plate reverbs are tensioned sheets of metal.
So, if your replay equipment brings along some natural sounding resonances and reverberations it is going to make things sound so much more involving and beautiful. Obviously, anything obviously over resonant will stand out like a sore thumb and annoy but keep it to a level at which you can't conciously pick it out but you're still emotionally reacting to it, it will sound great.
Air and soundstage is always increased by your ear picking up differences in the channels. Noise is good for that. Noise is also a mark of something real, a real place. There's always noise around in real life - take that away like in a dead studio and it is unsettling, unnatural and upsets your brain. Hard to relax when something sounds unnatural, like your subconcious is on high alert, telling you something's wrong.
It only takes a little of the signal to be re-fed back into the replay with minute delay to get nice effect and a physical replay system will do that quite naturally.
That's not to say that CD hasn't been plagued by poor design that has kind of killed the sound a fair bit, especially cheap to midrange models over the years (what the majority will have listened to).
I love vinyl for its sound as well as its social context but good digital is excellent too if for different reasons - yes I'd say probably for being more accurate and real .... if done right.
My reference point has always been my own recordings, and how close the "off tape" sound is to the original feed. Over the last 40 years at each step they got closer, with the step to digital being the biggest step in accuracy of my experience.
Frank.
You appear to be hung up on technical measurements.
Frank's using his ears first and formost and there at the quarry face so to speak with his own recordings.
I love vinyl for its sound as well as its social context but good digital is excellent too if for different reasons - yes I'd say probably for being more accurate and real .... if done right.
I agree with the former, but not the latter. For reasons why, see my previous post.
"Done right" or not, I don't believe that either format is fundamentally more accurate, sonically, than the other. Both simply have different takes on the same musical picture, as a result of the effect of their inherent colorations, respectively.
Marco.
Audioman
16-02-2013, 02:10
The depth air and space you hear from your LPs is almost certainly being generated by your record player, and is not on the LP at all.
There is added ambience due to:
structure borne and airborne pickup. With a non-suspended turntable the structure borne pickup can be around 20dB below the music, maybe 40dB on a wall shelf.
Additions at under 500Hz from the arm, depending on the arm, how and where it is mounted on which turntable. The coupling is very complex and depends on all those things. If you have an old SME style detachable headshell that will contribute quite a lot. This is "earth" moving relative to the platter.
Anything causing the platter to move relative to "earth", metal subchassis for example with short sharp resonances adding "PRAT", Non suspended plinths picking up vibration from the support adding reverb. And so forth.
There is a theory about the loudness and frequency content of sounds that can be masked by louder sounds. MP3 works by discarding this theoretical information. Record players add information above this threshold but at a level subtle enough, and related to the music enough, to be pleasant.
Record players are incredibly sensitive vibration transducers and -anything- causing movement of the magnet relative to the coils will produce sound at the speakers, whether it is on the record or not. There is no way of avoiding it.
One thing you can try is to put your turntable in another room. I did this when I had witnessed all this extra pickup when I worked for Garrard. It sounded much more flat, and I didn't like it as much. I realise now that so much of the enjoyable sound was generated -by- the record player, and why so many people have different taste in record players. At the time I was shocked.
Cartridges all add a bit too, as do step up transformers.
Recording engineers add a bit of reverb to the recordings so they sound nicer. Record players add a bit more of their own, and can be tuned to taste, thats all.
These ideas are totally new to me :doh: Structural vibration interference is likely to mask the recorded space and ambience. Most vinyl users pay great attention to effectively isolating their decks. Also note CD players are at least equally prone to the effects of structural borne vibration.
Personally I don't favour decks that add some of their own character to the sound. Differences in arm mounting methods, fixed or removable headshells, type of platter material etc may alter the presentation of different decks but do not alter the fundamental differences between vinyl and CD replay. A more palpable solid soundstage and better presentation of the nuances of a recording in terms of space around voices and instruments are common to a wide range of different turntable design approaches.
I agree with Marco that CD can be no more accurate than vinyl at best. At least an analogue recording and mastering chain does not involve altering sound back and forth to a digital sample. The music produced and the sounds we can hear are analogue. Whatever inaccuracies vinyl replay has in general terms against those of CD the final result is more believable in terms of an approximation to live music.
Hi Paul,
I agree with Marco that CD can be no more accurate than vinyl at best.
No more accurate, sonically, yes, when CD matches vinyl at its best. It's the end result (sound) that the listener hears which to his or her ears best approximates that of real voices and instruments, that is the most important arbiter of 'accuracy', not necessarily technical measurements that only explain *some* of the results we hear when analysing the sound of recorded music, via CD or vinyl, through a hi-fi system.
I'm highlighting this important distinction, as some will no doubt cite digital's superficially more impressive measurements, technically, in some areas, as being evidence of its superior accuracy. It's not as simple as that, though, as those measurements only tell part of the story.
At least an analogue recording and mastering chain does not involve altering sound back and forth to a digital sample. The music produced and the sounds we can hear are analogue. Whatever inaccuracies vinyl replay has in general terms against those of CD the final result is more believable in terms of an approximation to live music.
Yup, that's it in a nutshell.
In my view, that happens because we, as human beings, hear in the analogue domain. Our brains and ears are not 'wired' digitally, and so the distortions intrinsic to digital music reproduction are not harmonious with how our ears and brain process sound, and therefore will always be perceived as unnatural...
That is ultimately why analogue music reproduction (vinyl or otherwise), when done well, despite its inherent distortions, to our ears, usually sounds more convincing and believable. Digital music will always sound more 'processed', to our ears, simply because it *is* more processed.
Marco.
If I were a talented sound engineer I would be crying into my Pea Soup right now :lol:
Because dude it should be about the music, not what form of plastic we choose to listen to that music on. I own CD's, records and indeed music files that just blow me away in regards to quality of reproduction and pure musical enjoyment, and not necessarily in that order. Currently listening to the soundtrack of the movie Species on CD, an incredible production and also a marvellous piece of music ;)
It *is* about the music, but we're entitled to debate the pros and cons of how that music is carried to our ears. That is what this part of the forum is for, dude :)
Marco.
My point is Marco that in general a lot of time and effort goes into recording, engineering and transferring music onto various mediums so that us, the great unwashed, can go buy it in whatever format suits and play it on our fantastical contraptions. Now, is there a right and a wrong way to do all these things? Probably, which I guess is why some people can listen to music in the background without ever becoming emotionally involved in it. When all the good points come together however, and that does include the emotional state of the person doing the listening as well, it is almost impossible not to get emotionally involved with what is being listened to. I am not embarrassed to admit that there are pieces of music in my collection which can reduce me to tears if I happen to be in the right frame of mind, and that speaks volumes for the entire music making process from beginning to end, regardless of format ;)
I agree, debate is good :cool:
WOStantonCS100
16-02-2013, 09:16
Well yes, we will have to agree to disagree.
You are clearly abongst those that prefer the euphonic colourations of analogue.
That is fine by me.
But I am still astonished that you seem to think that a cassette could produce a recording of a full range CD indistiguishable from the original.
"Euphonic"... did you just call me a name... :lol:. I've been a multi-instrumentalist (not just a listener of recorded music or performance attendee or engineer, though I've done all that too) almost all my life from French horn, to electric guitar to the conductors baton, so on and so on. I play these instruments regurlarly, professionally. 16/44.1 does not capture everything. It just doesn't matter how much math one crunches or what those so called "scientific proofs" one put forward.
It's seems I remember we've danced this waltz before. Apparently, nothing has changed. ;) But, still, I'm not sure where you heard me say that last bit. I certainly never typed it. Did you not read where I wrote that tape does indeed tend to color the sound (entirely different from not recording the details thereof). Nevertheless, if you've ever used a TOTL Nakamichi cassette deck you should well know what I'm getting at. And, despite these decks having pretty amazing specs, once again that too is not my point, never was. It still is about capturing details that 16/44.1 simply does not in the recording process. That's plainly audible... ...even to my wife who could really care less about the issue.
Like I said, I've spent the past year and then some making recordings from analog sources (both live (mic feed) and pre-recorded) to cassette, to reel-to-reel, to 16/44.1 all the way up to 24/192 and to (single rate) DSD. Out of all those formats, the one that was least adept at getting the nuances of the music correct was 16/44.1 I realize that troubles some folks, though, I'm not sure why it should. :scratch:
That's not to say that CD hasn't been plagued by poor design that has kind of killed the sound a fair bit, especially cheap to midrange models over the years (what the majority will have listened to).
].
I don't agree. Beyond basic build quality considerations CD players just sound different to one another, not better, although one may have a preference and consider that 'better'. It is akin to choosing between different makes of grand pianos, say. There is nothing a £5K CD player does or can do that is going to make it objectively better - that is better in everyone's opinion and in any system - than one costing £300. It cannot 'pull more information off the disc' as you sometiems see stated in reviews - it reads just the same data as the cheaper player. In some sytems and to some tastes the £300 player will be 'better'. Of course the £5K player will probably be built like a tank and have status badge. And the differences in presentation will mostly be very subtle anyway, as they will be with the grand pianos.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 11:12
Cheers Macca. Brilliant stuff.
The cheapest CD player I've ever owned was £600. My current set up is about £4,000.
If only I'd seen your post before I went on this wild goose chase I could have saved £3,700. Must tell the wife, it will make her day.
Anyway, I now see the way forward. I'll sell my overpriced CD shite that only sounds different and not better and I will invest £300 on a CD player that will sound no worse than what I'm using at the moment.
I can spend the money on a record deck. I presume I can get something for a couple of hundred quid that will be no worse than the £5k one I like.
The more I think about it the more I think you've really hit onto something here. Could your logic apply to amplifiers and loudspeakers? I mean why not? They'll only sound different and not better.
I'm off to swap round my Usher speakers now. I'll probably give myself a hernia lugging my massive BE10s up three flights of stairs but at least carrying the bookshelf ones down will be a piece of piss. I presume I'll be wasting my time biamping with expensive cable?
Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?
johnwhit
16-02-2013, 11:21
There is nothing a £5K CD player does or can do that is going to make it objectively better - that is better in everyone's opinion and in any system - than one costing £300. It cannot 'pull more information off the disc' as you sometiems see stated in reviews - it reads just the same data as the cheaper player.
I'd agree with that completely, you only have to listen to the likes of a Rotel RDC 865 or 965.
John
Covenant
16-02-2013, 11:22
:lol: Stop, I am going to wet myself.
johnwhit
16-02-2013, 11:24
I can spend the money on a record deck. I presume I can get something for a couple of hundred quid that will be no worse than the £5k one I like.
If only:lol: There's not a great deal of precision engineering involved in a CDP unlike a decent TT.
John
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 11:28
If only:lol: There's not a great deal of precision engineering involved in a CDP unlike a decent TT.
John
Ah right. So would I be correct in saying that if anything goes wrong with my CD you can easily fettle it as there is no precision engineering to worry about.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 11:37
I'd agree with that completely, you only have to listen to the likes of a Rotel RDC 865 or 965.
John
Bugger. I sold one of those a few years ago for £50 because I thought it sounded shite. Blimey if only I'd realised that it was different I could have saved a bomb
johnwhit
16-02-2013, 11:40
Who me:lol:.........never had much go wrong with one, I've fettled transports once or twice, a clean and re-lube. I've never known a DAC go bad, my current CDP will be 21 yrs old this summer, still sounds as fresh as ever.
John
johnwhit
16-02-2013, 11:43
Bugger. I sold one of those a few years ago for £50 because I thought it sounded shite. Blimey if only I'd realised that it was different I could have saved a bomb
Maybe it just sounded different:lol:
John
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 11:45
Maybe it just sounded different:lol:
John
It did. Although it was similar to finger nails scraping down glass. Possibly too different for my tastes?
johnwhit
16-02-2013, 11:49
It did. Although it was similar to finger nails scraping down glass. Possibly too different for my tastes?
Well I've never owned one myself but they were well liked by many, at the end of the day it's the synergy of the entire system that matters.
John
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 11:51
Wow this is getting better. If I sort the synergy out I can get rid off ALL the expensive stuff.
.
Anyway, I now see the way forward. I'll sell my overpriced CD shite that only sounds different and not better and I will invest £300 on a CD player that will sound no worse than what I'm using at the moment.
?
It may sound worse, it may sound better. It will depend on the rest of the system and your taste. It may be that the only CD player whose sound you can live with does cost £5K. Just because something is more expensive does not automatically mean it is better. But then you knew that. With a CD player it has to read a disc and output the waveform as an electrical signal. The reading the disc bit is exactly the same for all players does not matter if it is a Krell or a LG DVD player from Tesco's. After that it is just down to how the designer wants to treat the signal, many options are available, none are objectively better or worse than any others. One might prefer the presentation of the Krell in one system, and that of the LG in another system. Hope that clarifies :)
And no, the same reasoning cannot be applied to mechanical devices like a TT or a loudspeaker, which is a shame.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 11:58
That's great. It may sound worse it may sound better. I like that. I'm obviously not interested in the ones that sound worse but I like the idea of the £300 ones that sound better.
As I'll be flush with cash soon when all the expensive stuff goes, I'm willing to pay £500 for one of these CD players that sound better. As you can find one for £300, you can have £200 for your trouble.
When that's accomplished we can maybe audition £100 speakers?
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 12:00
I like the idea that its the high tech engineering that makes turntables sound so good. I had one that worked with what looked like an elastic band. Obviously it was some carefully engineered piece of rubber.
The Grand Wazoo
16-02-2013, 12:10
OK Harry, I think you've made your point now.
Now I am unsure as to whether you are properly pissed off or just in a devilish mood...
So you had a Rotel, didn't liek what it did (for your taste and in your system) sold it bought a Cyrus which you do like - that's fine, but to draw from that experience the conclusion 'The Cyrus is better than the Rotel' is a non-sequitor.
Guitars - I have a Telecaster copy and a Les Paul copy. I prefer the Les Paul. Does that mean a Telecaster is an inferior guitar to a Les Paul. No, it's just horses for courses.
I reckon I could turn up at your place with say 20 different CD players, all costing less than £500 and we would at least find one that would sound so close to what you have already that you would agree you could live with it. I may be wrong but the known facts do support my assertion. What I would ask is what is your £5K player doing to improve the sound that it emits that the £500 player is not doing? That's not a cross-examination question btw.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 12:14
Ah just spotted that Macca's logic doesn't apply to turntables or loudspeakers. Do I assume it does apply to DACs, amplifiers etc? I hardly dare mention cables.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 12:22
Macca, a few points.
There have been several CD players between the Rotel and the current one.
Your guitar analogy is ridiculous. As it happens my eldest son who is a professional musician has the two guitars you mention (not copies) and he also has a Telecaster. Of the three he actually likes playing the Telecaster for most things. Ask him which one is the best guitar and he'll go for the Les Paul Custom. There are many reasons for that but I'm assuming he has inherited his dad's genes and just likes wasting money.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 12:26
OK Harry, I think you've made your point now.
Interesting. I assume you're saying that I've made my point and my time is up whereas others haven't quite exhausted their ludicrous arguments and can carry on. Or have I misunderstood?
As far as I'm aware I haven't been abusive or rude and I've tried to be light hearted in my responses so perhaps you can tell me why I need to shut up. Unless that isn't what you meant?
I think it may be because you are beginning to come across as being just a tad facetious Harry, no offence meant btw...
Your son will change guitars depending on what sort of sound he wants for a particular recording. If Hendrix had played a Les Paul instead of a Strat then his records would sound different - not masively different but noticeably different. Some may prefer the Les paul version.
Play the same track throught the same system with a variety of CDPs - I used to own ten of them although I have since sold a couple. They will all present the music differently. In some cases the difference will be quite noticeable. You will prefer some over others. Change the loudspeakers and repeat the test, and it is possible your preference in CDP will have changed also.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 12:46
Dave, no offence taken.
I was being facetious. Is that against forum policy? I was also trying to be humorous. Did I fail? And what about gross stupidity? I'd that allowed on the forum.
My objection is a lack of even handed treatment. ie 'shut your cake holes you pair of silly bastards' or 'time gentlemen please'. That's it. Bit of fairness.
Obviously if I've done something wrong I'm more than happy to apologise.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 12:48
Your son will change guitars depending on what sort of sound he wants for a particular recording. If Hendrix had played a Les Paul instead of a Strat then his records would sound different - not masively different but noticeably different. Some may prefer the Les paul version.
Play the same track throught the same system with a variety of CDPs - I used to own ten of them although I have since sold a couple. They will all present the music differently. In some cases the difference will be quite noticeable. You will prefer some over others. Change the loudspeakers and repeat the test, and it is possible your preference in CDP will have changed also.
Macca, I'd love to carry on our discussion but I've been told to shut up. But feel free to carry on yourself as that is absolutely fine . . . apparently.
The Grand Wazoo
16-02-2013, 12:50
Harry,
I haven't told you to shut up. I totally agree with your argument, but you've made your point.....several times.
Dave, no offence taken.
I was being facetious. Is that against forum policy? I was also trying to be humorous. Did I fail? And what about gross stupidity? I'd that allowed on the forum.
My objection is a lack of even handed treatment. ie 'shut your cake holes you pair of silly bastards' or 'time gentlemen please'. That's it. Bit of fairness.
Obviously if I've done something wrong I'm more than happy to apologise.
You haven't done anything wrong IMO but if you are going to call people's arguments ludicrous then the least you can do is offer a reasoned counter-argument to support that assertion. You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that I am saying you wasted your money buying an expensive CD player but that is not what I have said, or even implied.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 12:54
Harry,
I haven't told you to shut up. I totally agree with your argument, but you've made your point.....several times.
My apologies.
Hi Frank,
Interesting debate! I agree with much of what you're saying. However, with CD and vinyl, at the end of the day, aren't we simply choosing our own favoured brand of coloration (just like anything else in audio)?
My view is that neither format is intrinsically accurate, sonically, and that both digital and analogue music reproduction processes are imbued with the effect of their own natural distortions, created from said reproduction process, therefore which we prefer to listen to is largely down to how tolerant our ears are towards the worst excesses of either format's inherent distortion factor.
In my case, I find that the inherent distortions of vinyl reproduction are more benign to the human ear (and so sound more natural), especially when the best equipment is employed and the user knows exactly how to optimise the set-up of said equipment, so that distortions present are minimised as far as possible, and when all records are kept in absolutely mint condition (the latter is absolutely essential).
That's how I see it. I'm afraid that I don't buy the notion that CD or digital replay is fundamentally more accurate or 'real', and that those who prefer vinyl replay do so simply because they're seduced by its euphonic coloration. Both forms of recorded music-making are imperfect, therefore one simply chooses our favoured form of imperfection! :exactly:
Marco.
Hi Marco,
I agree that the benign distortions of LP reproduction are benign to the human ear. Some are created in the manufacturing process, such as dynamic range limitation, mono bass and reduction in treble energy such the disc has a continuous groove and can be played. Others are generated within the record player, so the owner can tune these to taste in the setup of the turntable, interface between arm deck and cartridge, cartridge loading and phono stage.
I do not agree that digital recording is equally coloured, or not accurate. This is demonstrably not the case. If the input signal has a frequency content from DC to 22.1 kHz and a dynamic range of less than 16 bits it is demonstrable that the input and output analogue signals are the same. This is not a question of debate or opinion, like ones preference may be for a cartridge or SUT, it is absolutely demonstrably the case.
If it were not there would be an awful lot of modern engineering which we all benefit from which could never have been done.
I absolutely understand many audiophiles preference for vinyl. What I am trying to illustrate, though, is that this preference is easily explained. One of the benefits, for we hobbyists, is the large number of ways we can experiment to get the sound we want.
I can equally understand that some people who enjoy their LPs don't like CDs, which do not add any of this extra reverb and quite a few are not that good anyway.
Neither LP nor CD can be "real". The true dynamic range of live music is greater than can be reproduced domestically.
Whilst music does not -need- to be compressed as much before making a CD as it does before cutting the master for an LP, it might be. CD does not need the low bass to be mono (LP does so the groove is continuous). CD is capable of reproducing the treble at full dynamic range (the cutter can't cut that onto an LP master) so LPs always have less high levels of treble energy on them.
The fact is that on a good CD player you hear pretty well wht the mastering engineer heard.
With LP there is no known way that you can.
johnwhit
16-02-2013, 13:14
Interesting. I assume you're saying that I've made my point and my time is up whereas others haven't quite exhausted their ludicrous arguments and can carry on
What ludicrous arguments? Most of what is being said is quite rational, I was beginning to wonder whether your native language is English, no offense meant BTW.
Personally I think £300 for a CDP is a bit OTT, £200 is more like it........right I'm off to knock up another Belden mains cable:wave:
ATB,
John
Structural vibration interference is likely to mask the recorded space and ambience. Most vinyl users pay great attention to effectively isolating their decks. Also note CD players are at least equally prone to the effects of structural borne vibration.
You are quite correct that structure borne vibrations mask the recorded ambience -but- since they are just a time delayed music correlated addition at a higher level than the original reverberation it -seems- that the reverberation is being "brought out".
Unless a CD player has valve output using -very- microphonic valves no CD player is anywhere near as sensitive to vibration as even the best turntables.
It is astonishingly difficult to isolate a turntable well. No "solid" plinth turntable can be well isolated, for example, and they are very much in fashion at the moment.
Audioman
16-02-2013, 14:38
Hi Marco,
The fact is that on a good CD player you hear pretty well wht the mastering engineer heard.
With LP there is no known way that you can.
I wish. Then we could go out spend a few hundred quid on a Cd player (as it's good enough according to Martin) and relax knowing we have the equivalent of sitting in the studio listening to our favorite artists. Great, saves all that unnecessary tweaking and swapping out equipment to get a decent sound. I think not.
Though not my favorite format I know there are good reasons why a more expensive CD player sounds superior. Better converters and components cost more and generally there is a price to pay for more sturdy casework to isolate against electrical and mechanical interference. Also a decent dedicated CD transport costs vastly more these days than an off the shelf DVD spinner. Add to that the improvement in sound is likely more in the design of the analogue stage where more sophisticated design and components are required.
A competently designed CD player at £3000 or even £1000 is going to outperform a £300 one easily. Whether a £30,000 player is much of an improvement over the £3K model is less obvious. I know Harry's Cyrus transport is well rated and has been recommended for use with other dacs. I would think his 5k set up is about where the law of diminishing returns starts bite hard so probably is a sensible maximum outlay for digital audio. However at that price level I would want SACD capability as well. Now if you spend 5K on a turntable -but I won't go there.
Paul.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 14:39
What ludicrous arguments? Most of what is being said is quite rational, I was beginning to wonder whether your native language is English, no offense meant BTW.
Personally I think £300 for a CDP is a bit OTT, £200 is more like it........right I'm off to knock up another Belden mains cable:wave:
ATB,
John
Hi John. No need for personal insults. It's not that type of forum. I haven't insulted anyone so I would ask that you do the same. Suggesting that someone's native language isn't English is not only rude but some people might take it as being racist.
FWIW my native language is English and its actually how I earn my living.
No OFFENCE (not offense) taken.
Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 1000th post Harry, which hinges on you replying to this post of course :cool:
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 15:00
Done.
johnwhit
16-02-2013, 16:46
Hi John. No need for personal insults. It's not that type of forum. I haven't insulted anyone so I would ask that you do the same. Suggesting that someone's native language isn't English is not only rude but some people might take it as being racist.
FWIW my native language is English and its actually how I earn my living.
No OFFENCE (not offense) taken.
Sorry Harry, just having a little fun and certainly not meant as a racist comment or indeed an insult.
ATB,
John
Hi Frank,
Did you read my post #86, to Paul? If not, I suggest that you do, as you're missing the point, mate. Here it is: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showpost.php?p=413663&postcount=86
Please read the above post, so that you understand where I'm coming from, before commenting further.
I do not agree that digital recording is equally coloured, or not accurate. This is demonstrably not the case. If the input signal has a frequency content from DC to 22.1 kHz and a dynamic range of less than 16 bits it is demonstrable that the input and output analogue signals are the same. This is not a question of debate or opinion, like ones preference may be for a cartridge or SUT, it is absolutely demonstrably the case.
Technically, that may be the case, but sonically (hence why I highlighted that word earlier), when I listen and compare the best digital and analogue recordings I own, some featuring the same music, greater accuracy with the former is NOT what I hear... :nono:
This proves that the measurements you're referring to aren't telling the WHOLE story.
What I hear, in actuality (aside from wonderful sounding music), are the inherent colorations of both formats, and in terms of CD, this translates as 'digital glare' (my subjective description of the phenomenon): an artificially processed sonic signature, which to my ears is inherent in all digital music replay systems, regardless of cost.
It is, IMO, an artefact of the digital music reproduction process, and for me, not only easily identifiable, but completely absent in the best analogue recordings of the same music - and if necessary, I could easily demonstrate the effect.
Like I said, vinyl music reproduction isn't perfect either, and I can also hear what's wrong with that, some of which you've described, but when done well, it's inherent distortions, in comparison, are less annoying on the ear to most people than the 'artificially processed' sound of digital music, done well or otherwise.
For those very valid reasons, I do not consider digital music reproduction to be, sonically, automatically more accurate than its analogue counterpart. Quite simply, BOTH formats exhibit different sonic signatures, due to their individually inherent distortions/colorations, which some will 'tune into' more with recorded music than others... That is precisely why both formats have their dedicated fans! :)
Marco.
dufferdan
16-02-2013, 18:05
I find this discussion fascinating, and really appreciate the input of Frank, as a professional recording engineer with decades of experience in actually producing the forms of music that we as consumers purchase.
Two comments/observations. On was the post where the concept of science was discredited because research changes over time and may change conclusions. Without the discipline of scientific questioning and continuous testing of theories, progress would eventually stall. In all areas of scientific endeavour. You can't throw out science just because conclusions evolve. Conclusions evolve because new information comes to light which changes or forces the theory being examined to be altered. Then it is tested again.
Related to this is the concept of human perception bias. In the case of choosing musicians for orchestras, it was for decades, the opinion of many conductors and orchestra leaders that only men could produce good sound. When these biases were tested and blind auditions were conducted, the chances of women being chosen went up dramatically. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml
In a very recent Stereophile edition, the editorial writer set up a "test" of audio cables. The writer couldn't believe that the other members of the audience didn't automatically perceive the higher priced cables as being better. http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-or-sound . The comments were arrogant and frankly very disrespectful of the opinions of others in the room. The only way one could make an accurate judgement of whether on cable is better than the other was to subject the entire process to a double blind test. One, the observers would have to be able to identify the two different cables over repeated trials to a level that was statistically significant. Then secondly, rate the cables, again blind, for whatever sonic qualities they perceived. Anything else is purely subjective opinion, and nothing else. On such a basis, everyone's opinion is equally valid.
Frank makes the point that scientifically, digital is more accurate than analogue sources, and he quantifies in relative terms the levels of accuracy of each playback source. His explanations match with others that I have read and also conversations I have had with other recording engineers and audiologists.
What I would like to see is those who put themselves out as "experts" on the matter and subject themselves to double blind testing of their ability to make accurate judgements of source material: player, digital, analogue, etc. it would also probably make sense to have ones hearing tested for accuracy. What are the actual frequencies you can and cannot hear. There is a cool little app called Dogwhistle where you can specify a frequency and play it. Get a good set of in ear monitors and have someone else select frequencies and see at what levels you can actually hear. My kids go batty if I play a 16 kHz tone through the iPhone speaker. I can barely hear it, if at all. Know your limits. Then you will better know what is your own perception, and what is fact.
Frank makes the point that one is welcome to prefer analogue, and its inherent imperfection. But that is personal bias, not science based opinion.
And if one is going to throw science out because conclusions change with new information, then one might as well go back to the Stone Age, give back your automobiles and temperature controlled living environments. And if you get sick, forget the medical universe, just go about your business and there is nothing we know today that can help you.
I was also trying to be humorous. Did I fail?
Well, you've amused me.
I find this discussion fascinating, and really appreciate the input of Frank, as a professional recording engineer with decades of experience in actually producing the forms of music that we as consumers purchase.
Two comments/observations. On was the post where the concept of science was discredited because research changes over time and may change conclusions. Without the discipline of scientific questioning and continuous testing of theories, progress would eventually stall. In all areas of scientific endeavour. You can't throw out science just because conclusions evolve. Conclusions evolve because new information comes to light which changes or forces the theory being examined to be altered. Then it is tested again.
Related to this is the concept of human perception bias. In the case of choosing musicians for orchestras, it was for decades, the opinion of many conductors and orchestra leaders that only men could produce good sound. When these biases were tested and blind auditions were conducted, the chances of women being chosen went up dramatically. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/01/0212/7b.shtml
In a very recent Stereophile edition, the editorial writer set up a "test" of audio cables. The writer couldn't believe that the other members of the audience didn't automatically perceive the higher priced cables as being better. http://www.stereophile.com/content/music-or-sound . The comments were arrogant and frankly very disrespectful of the opinions of others in the room. The only way one could make an accurate judgement of whether on cable is better than the other was to subject the entire process to a double blind test. One, the observers would have to be able to identify the two different cables over repeated trials to a level that was statistically significant. Then secondly, rate the cables, again blind, for whatever sonic qualities they perceived. Anything else is purely subjective opinion, and nothing else. On such a basis, everyone's opinion is equally valid.
Frank makes the point that scientifically, digital is more accurate than analogue sources, and he quantifies in relative terms the levels of accuracy of each playback source. His explanations match with others that I have read and also conversations I have had with other recording engineers and audiologists.
What I would like to see is those who put themselves out as "experts" on the matter and subject themselves to double blind testing of their ability to make accurate judgements of source material: player, digital, analogue, etc. it would also probably make sense to have ones hearing tested for accuracy. What are the actual frequencies you can and cannot hear. There is a cool little app called Dogwhistle where you can specify a frequency and play it. Get a good set of in ear monitors and have someone else select frequencies and see at what levels you can actually hear. My kids go batty if I play a 16 kHz tone through the iPhone speaker. I can barely hear it, if at all. Know your limits. Then you will better know what is your own perception, and what is fact.
Frank makes the point that one is welcome to prefer analogue, and its inherent imperfection. But that is personal bias, not science based opinion.
And if one is going to throw science out because conclusions change with new information, then one might as well go back to the Stone Age, give back your automobiles and temperature controlled living environments. And if you get sick, forget the medical universe, just go about your business and there is nothing we know today that can help you.
Can't argue with any of that to be truthful, nicely put Dan :cool:
Hi Paul,
No more accurate, sonically, yes, when CD matches vinyl at its best. It's the end result (sound) that the listener hears which to his or her ears best approximates that of real voices and instruments, that is the most important arbiter of 'accuracy', not necessarily technical measurements that only explain *some* of the results we hear when analysing the sound of recorded music, via CD or vinyl, through a hi-fi system.
I'm highlighting this important distinction, as some will no doubt cite digital's superficially more impressive measurements, technically, in some areas, as being evidence of its superior accuracy. It's not as simple as that, though, as those measurements only tell part of the story.
Yup, that's it in a nutshell.
In my view, that happens because we, as human beings, hear in the analogue domain. Our brains and ears are not 'wired' digitally, and so the distortions intrinsic to digital music reproduction are not harmonious with how our ears and brain process sound, and therefore will always be perceived as unnatural...
That is ultimately why analogue music reproduction (vinyl or otherwise), when done well, despite its inherent distortions, to our ears, usually sounds more convincing and believable. Digital music will always sound more 'processed', to our ears, simply because it *is* more processed.
Marco.
Hi Marco,
When we get into the realms of psycho-acoustics I am not knowledgeable enough to comment.
OTOH you write that we hear in the analogue domain, and that is not completely true. In fact the cochlea contains a discrete number of hair cells (stereovilli) of different lengths which therefor vibrate at different frequencies. These stereovilli are excited to resonate by the sound transferred to the cochlea via our ear drums and our brain picks up which ones are vibrating to judge pitch, and by how much for loudness. This is more of a digital process than an analogue one, since there are a fixed number of hairs, with our brain either registering entirely "digitally" (most likley) or acting as the DAC.
There is still the fact that it is demonstrable that the analogue input signal and the analogue output signal from a ADC/DAC combination are the same within the constraints of the bandwidth/frequency limits. This is a closed system and data outside this area can not be recorded or reproduced.
Analogue systems are not so rigidly closed but have nevertheless well understood limitations both in frequency range and signal to noise ratio. Better engineering gives better results in both cases!
I would say that the measurements are capable of telling the entire story in the electrical domain. How good the CD player and amplifier are is defineable and the electrical signal going up the wire to the speaker can be known.
What happens at the speaker is another very complex set of interactions!
With a turntable the measurements are much more difficult. The following things will -all- alter the sound on the LP ending up at the amp, but by how much depends in every case.
1. Position and mounting of the turntable.
2. position and type of arm fixing between plinth and arm.
3. Resonant signature of the plinth.
4. Resonant signature of the arm itself.
5. resonant signature of the cartridge fixing.
6. frequency response of the cartridge.
7. linearity of the cartridge suspension (super critical)
8. Stylus profile.
9. Loading of the cartridge (can be critical depending on cartridge design.
10. Stepup device for MCs, transformers add more character to the sound but less noise, electronic stepups add more noise and add more or less character than a transformer depending on design.
11. RIAA curve accuracy.
I am sure there are others I have missed. All of the above can be euphonic additions, some can be detrimental too.
On top of this there are rumble and speed accuracy issues which are entirely negative sonically.
These are not, of course, analogue shortcomings per-se, but limitations of the LP playing process which have been known for decades. Tape recorders have far fewer "opportunities" for euphonic addition and their limitations are far less than the LP process.
I too have experienced what is easy to hear as "digital glare". I am not sure where it comes from but can make the following observations from my experience.
It is not always there in all CDs and all hifi systems, so can not be systemic.
I thought it could be down to early CDs having some shortcomings but in fact the brass recording I own with some of the most believeable brass sounds is one of the earliest CDs I bought (my second or third CD purchase) and whilst it had this digital glare in my system when I bought it, it doesn't in my current system. Go figure!
My theories are that a lot of loudspeakers are over-stretched by CD, and in the case of resolutely awful sounding CDs that maybe the anti-aliasing on the recorder was not set correctly, and my experience shows that if that is the case then the waveform out of the ADC/DAC is definitely -not- the same as the input. This is absolutely critical IME.
I find this discussion fascinating, and really appreciate the input of Frank, as a professional recording engineer with decades of experience in actually producing the forms of music that we as consumers purchase.
Sorry if I have misled you Dan, but I am an amateur sound recordist not a pro and whilst I have my own masters going back decades on reel-to-reel (several), cassette (Nakamichi CR7) and DAT (StellaDAT) they have been for me and my wife, a professional musician, not the public. This did OTOH give me the rare luxury of -knowing- what the original sounded like so no need to speculate as to whether analogue or digital was more accurate I -know- the digital was/is.
I have been a pioneer of digital recording in my own field having found the analogue methods hopelessly inadequate for my needs, and am acutely aware of where digital is accurate and where it is not, and the same for analogue.
Hi Frank,
Excellent post. I'll get to it later, after listening to some superb-sounding choons (on vinyl)... ;)
Marco.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
16-02-2013, 20:45
Frank, great stuff as always.
Dan, superb post.
Marco, eminently sensible approach.
Great thread.
Rare Bird
16-02-2013, 21:20
I sence this thread has turned into Digital is better than analogue & vise versa! It was'nt opened for that, the main reason for the post is more to begging the question why is CD, for me, uncomfortable to listern to aswell as changing my hobby into something very boring & empty!
where as vinyl, i could listern to all day without one ounce of fatigue, the hobby is back to something worth while & exciting if that's the right wurd!
dufferdan
16-02-2013, 22:27
I sence this thread has turned into Digital is better than analogue & vise versa! It was'nt opened for that, the main reason for the post is more to begging the question why is CD, for me, uncomfortable to listern to aswell as changing my hobby into something very boring & empty!
where as vinyl, i could listern to all day without one ounce of fatigue, the hobby is back to something worth while & exciting if that's the right wurd!
Maybe it is the preference for the imperfections of the analogue source. When we listen to live music, what we hear is partially the source, and it is influenced by environment. The shape and materials of the bar, lounge, concert hall, arena or farmers field. The materials used in the room construct. It all creates an ambience. And, for many, I am sure, musical interest. The imperfections create the variety which creates the interest.
I am eager to buy a tube based headphone amp. I have over 1300 CD's ripped to lossless format audio, and about sixty or seventy high resolution files from various sources (HD Tracks, Linn, B&W, etc) and the sound coming from those files through a Beresford Caiman DAC and AKG 702 headphones can be stellar. In some cases, i have been able to do A-B comparisons to CD sourced material, and in some cases the hi res file sounds better to my ear, sometimes not. Could be different mixes, source tapes, remastering, etc.
But then the question, does adding back the distorting of tube warm or alter the sound? It is something I want to try, so next on the hit list is to get an HRT Musicstreamer II and Little Dot tube headphone amp. Maybe a pair of Grado headphones.
I like the digital source because it is the same source every time I play it. The influence of everything beyond the dots and dashes is what to me, helps provide the interest.
Maybe a little tube action between CD source and speakers add some of that interest back?
I wish. Then we could go out spend a few hundred quid on a Cd player (as it's good enough according to Martin) and relax knowing we have the equivalent of sitting in the studio listening to our favorite artists. Great, saves all that unnecessary tweaking and swapping out equipment to get a decent sound. I think not.
.
Paul.
I was going to let that slide but changed my mind. In the first place that is nothing like the point I was trying to make. I have honours degrees in Philosophy and Eng Lit and I was sober when I wrote my posts yesterday so I really don't understand why some people are not getting what I am saying as re-reading my posts I really don't see how I could make it clearer.:doh:
In the second place we are talking CD players not amps and speakers so unless you get the whole shebang bob on you will not get 'studio' sound. Amp and speakers (and room) is the difficult part of the equation and if this is wrong you can buy the most expensive CD player ever made and it will still sound like a bag of spanners. There it is.
Do you really think 'better' compenents and casework add up to much more than a hill of beans? Personally I don't. The actual convertor chip set is the biggest influence on the sound, hence the popularity of certain discontinued chips, some of the old multibit chipsets are still revered and sought out 20 years on. Why would that be?
MikeMusic
17-02-2013, 08:35
I sence this thread has turned into Digital is better than analogue & vise versa! It was'nt opened for that, the main reason for the post is more to begging the question why is CD, for me, uncomfortable to listern to aswell as changing my hobby into something very boring & empty!
where as vinyl, i could listern to all day without one ounce of fatigue, the hobby is back to something worth while & exciting if that's the right wurd!
I listen to both and very happily
Will have to play a favourite album on CD then on LP to see how it affects me.
Could be the Rega Isis is closer than most as a CDP
Audioman
17-02-2013, 09:33
I was going to let that slide but changed my mind. In the first place that is nothing like the point I was trying to make. I have honours degrees in Philosophy and Eng Lit and I was sober when I wrote my posts yesterday so I really don't understand why some people are not getting what I am saying as re-reading my posts I really don't see how I could make it clearer.:doh:
In the second place we are talking CD players not amps and speakers so unless you get the whole shebang bob on you will not get 'studio' sound. Amp and speakers (and room) is the difficult part of the equation and if this is wrong you can buy the most expensive CD player ever made and it will still sound like a bag of spanners. There it is.
Do you really think 'better' compenents and casework add up to much more than a hill of beans? Personally I don't. The actual convertor chip set is the biggest influence on the sound, hence the popularity of certain discontinued chips, some of the old multibit chipsets are still revered and sought out 20 years on. Why would that be?
I'm not disagreeing with you the way you put it above but the original post (the way i read it) indicated you believed price above 2 or 3 hundred pounds made no difference. Many of those much liked 1541A designs were pretty pricey new when adjusted for inflation. You need good analogue stage and transport to exploit a better chip set. This costs money but of course spending thousands even in an otherwise high end system does not necessarily make a large improvement in SQ. I've just been jumped on in the SH forum by suggesting the new $110K DCS stack doesn't actually deliver anything much in relation to cost.
My main argument is that 16/44.1 does not produce a perfect representation of the original recording in any way. I certainly have no doubt a well designed CD player in the £1 - £2K price range can run a megabucks machine pretty close. I'm sure such products can be had for a few hundred second hand these days.
Paul.
johnwhit
17-02-2013, 09:34
The actual convertor chip set is the biggest influence on the sound, hence the popularity of certain discontinued chips, some of the old multibit chipsets are still revered and sought out 20 years on. Why would that be?
The Phillips TDA1541A and Matsushita MN6474 being good examples, my preference being the MN6474 with MN6626 digital filter with demodulator.
John
My main argument is that 16/44.1 does not produce a perfect representation of the original recording in any way.
Paul.
How do you square that with Frank F!'s findings with his own recordings - that the digital recording output is much closer/indistingushable to the input? Don't get me wrong I also prefer analogue replay to digital but if we are talking about accuracy to the source I think we have to accept that even 16/44.1 is closer by a fair margin.
Audioman
17-02-2013, 11:13
How do you square that with Frank F!'s findings with his own recordings - that the digital recording output is much closer/indistingushable to the input? Don't get me wrong I also prefer analogue replay to digital but if we are talking about accuracy to the source I think we have to accept that even 16/44.1 is closer by a fair margin.
Frank's conclusions appear to be based on comparing oranges and lemons. Analogue and Digital operate in totally different ways. My ears tell me 16 bit has less resolution in practice if not in theory. The figures that Frank continually quotes are the same thing that the 'perfect sound forever' marketing of CD was based on. There are other things going on obviously. I just don't have a preference for vinyl, I hear it doing things in terms of producing real music that has nothing to do with colorations introduced by different record deck/arm designs or degrees of isolation. Even the 100K DCS stack does not reproduce a believable interpretation of a musical performance in the way a very good vinyl based set up does. It sounds flawless but sort of matter of fact.
One wouldn't expect 16/44.1 to be entirely accurate as it samples with the steps being filled by a digital algorithm in effect guessing what should be there. That is clear by the improvement in sound when you move to 24 bit digital. Many recording studios work in 24/192 now and leading professional recording engineers have said that in the studio this is barely distinguishable from analogue sound. I don't see how CD in any way is giving you the original studio sound any more than you can say any vinyl record can.
Paul.
Even the 100K DCS stack does not reproduce a believable interpretation of a musical performance in the way a very good vinyl based set up does. It sounds flawless but sort of matter of fact.
.
'Flawless but matter of fact' - I think that pretty much sums up digital replay. But can you discount the idea that what makes good vinyl replay more beleivable is the colourations? My jury is out on that one. It may be another factor altogether.
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 11:45
I have CDee's that are very detailed compared to the Vinyl issues, but yet i cannot listern to the CDee's, cutting my nose off to spite my face maybe but i'm afraid that is how it goes with me. People get sucked in by this clarity/detail sound hence claim it better than Vinyl. These argument between the two type of people are totally counter productive.
I have CDee's that are very detailed compared to the Vinyl issues, but yet i cannot listern to the CDee's, cutting my nose off to spite my face maybe but i'm afraid that is how it goes with me. People get sucked in by this clarity/detail sound hence claim it better than Vinyl. These argument between the two type of people are totally counter productive.
It's discussion, not argument. I'm interested to know if there are verifiable reasons why I like what I like. I appreciate that other people don't care but I don't see anything counter-productive about it.
Audioman
17-02-2013, 12:16
'Flawless but matter of fact' - I think that pretty much sums up digital replay. But can you discount the idea that what makes good vinyl replay more beleivable is the colourations? My jury is out on that one. It may be another factor altogether.
I would be bold enough to say that I haven't yet heard a quality record deck that didn't outperform musically even the best CD players I've encountered. That is irrespective of the different designs. Many decks do sound coloured depending what your individual interpretation of neutral is. 15 to 20 years ago I would have described the LP12 as coloured in terms of a sort of artificial warmth and bloom while the Roksan was clear but had an edgy colouration. The Gyrodec and Spacedeck on the other hand sounded essentialy uncoloured to me though with slightly different interpretations.
One reason I bought a Gyro back then is that it had essentially the neutrality of CD but without the flatness and lack of musicality. You could describe it's wide soundstage a a sort of colouration that adds something to the tape sound I suppose. However whatever the foibles of all these decks they produce a more believable presentation of instruments and voices. There is a solidity of image there devoid of the dry flatness of 16 bit digital. I have heard lots of vinyl based systems over the years and the apparent gains over digital are there irrespective of any coloration that may be inherent in a particular design or through ineffective isolation from external vibration.
CD isn't unaffected by vibration/isolation methods either. The biggest improvement I made to the performance of my current CD player was putting an MDF sheet underneath mounted on Focalpods.
Paul.
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 12:20
Martin:
Of course it's counter productive. I personally don't give two hoots about clarity, detail & all that malarky, a lot thrive on that even let it make comparative decision for them.. i want something that i can listern to all day without being on the edge of my seat listerning. If it's the distortions that make Vinyl sound good great i like distortion then.Tone controls on amplifiers also add to the music, again i like what they do etc etc..
What i don't wanna hear is people saying Digital is better than Vinyl cos they aint no better.
I'll return later to the vinyl/CD debate, as we're just about to go out for Sunday lunch over at my parent's place, and so I don't have time to go into what I want to about the former.
However, Martin, you were talking earlier about what makes expensive CDPs better than 'average' ones, and were going on about chipsets and stuff, well I can tell you that the importance of such things pale into insignificance compared with power supply arrangements and clocking!
I spent around £2.5k with Mark, from Audiocom, modifying and upgrading my vintage Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1 DAC, and most of that went on serious attention to detail, in terms of individually regulating different parts of the transport and DAC circuitry, along with re-clocking, with one of his Superclocks.
Noise is the main enemy of digital audio equipment (noise generated, incidentally, through switching, which is totally absent in analogue equipment), especially when cheap SMPS units are employed, so one of the most significant reasons why high-end CDPs (particularly those with massive off-board PSUs) sound vastly superior to your £500 - £1000 'middle of the road' stuff, is because they use VERY SERIOUS power supply arrangements, and contain, large and very heavy linear PSU transformers.
That's the main reason my transport and DAC weigh 35kg each!! ;)
There is other stuff going on too (such as very crucial vibration control in the chassis and transport mechanism), but in-depth and expensive linear PSU arrangements are the main reason why the best CDPs sound they way that they do. Morevover, PSUs are *the* MOST important part of ANY piece of audio equipment, not just on CDPs. The rest is just 'window dressing'!!
Ok, I'm off out to get some munchies - laters! :cool:
Marco.
What i don't wanna hear is people saying Digital is better than Vinyl cos they aint no better.
No-one is saying that. Some are saying digital is more accurate to the recording than vinyl but that's not the same thing as saying it is better.
Audioman
17-02-2013, 13:35
No-one is saying that. Some are saying digital is more accurate to the recording than vinyl but that's not the same thing as saying it is better.
How can digital be more accurate to the recording if the recording is analogue. Only the latest hi-res dacs can capture all the information on an analogue tape. CD isn't regarded as high-res and most CD transfers date back to the days of more primitive digital converters.
Paul.
One wouldn't expect 16/44.1 to be entirely accurate as it samples with the steps being filled by a digital algorithm in effect guessing what should be there.
Paul.
Hi Paul,
this is the statement I take issue with. It has been propagated for years on the internet with what I can only call a religious conviction, since it is not true, and is based on a faith like conviction and an incomplete understanding of the science.
There is no guesswork there, and there doesn't need to be. The physics is straightforward for anybody who understands it, which seems to include very, very few of the people who post on audio fora, including yourself with all due respect.
Frank
I have CDee's that are very detailed compared to the Vinyl issues, but yet i cannot listern to the CDee's, cutting my nose off to spite my face maybe but i'm afraid that is how it goes with me. People get sucked in by this clarity/detail sound hence claim it better than Vinyl. These argument between the two type of people are totally counter productive.
That is tough for you.
I can listen to music I enjoy on -any- system or medium and soon forget whether it is CD, LP streaming or whatever because I am lost in the music.
How can digital be more accurate to the recording if the recording is analogue. Only the latest hi-res dacs can capture all the information on an analogue tape. CD isn't regarded as high-res and most CD transfers date back to the days of more primitive digital converters.
Paul.
I am not aware of an analogue tape recorder whose recordings could not be -entirely- recorded onto CD. CD has a higher dynamic range, 16 bit -is- more resolution than reel-to-reel tape. There may be a bit of supersonic info on a tape which an ADC running at 44.1/16 would have to remove for correct performance, and CD is capable of much deeper and even bass than the tape recorder could have on it but essentially 99% of the music on a reel to reel tape could be correctly converted to 44.1/16 and back again as long as the levels are set correctly and the system is functioning correctly.
This is not a matter of speculation but demonstrably the case.
So we take our all analogue recording, digitise it to red book CD then play it back, in the process converting back to analogue. I'm willing to accept nothing is lost (I once had a mathemetican friend of mine explain to me how the digital algorithm thing works, it took him a long time ;) ) but what if we are adding somthing in those processes that somehow impacts the sound in a negative way. Is that not a possibility?
Audioman
17-02-2013, 15:14
So we take our all analogue recording, digitise it to red book CD then play it back, in the process converting back to analogue. I'm willing to accept nothing is lost (I once had a mathemetican friend of mine explain to me how the digital algorithm thing works, it took him a long time ;) ) but what if we are adding somthing in those processes that somehow impacts the sound in a negative way. Is that not a possibility?
If you add 16bit A/D convertors and then have to convert back using a D/A converter you are going to loose something in resolution depending on the quality of electronics or even add distortion in the form of digital noise. It all adds extra stages into the recording chain. Why is it that the most real sounding recordings are analogue direct to disc?
Audioman
17-02-2013, 15:28
I am not aware of an analogue tape recorder whose recordings could not be -entirely- recorded onto CD. CD has a higher dynamic range, 16 bit -is- more resolution than reel-to-reel tape. There may be a bit of supersonic info on a tape which an ADC running at 44.1/16 would have to remove for correct performance, and CD is capable of much deeper and even bass than the tape recorder could have on it but essentially 99% of the music on a reel to reel tape could be correctly converted to 44.1/16 and back again as long as the levels are set correctly and the system is functioning correctly.
This is not a matter of speculation but demonstrably the case.
From Digital Domain Website in relation to 1/2" 30ips analogue tape v digital.
http://www.digido.com/articles-and-demos12/13-bob-katz/27-back-to-analog.html
Listening to a first generation 30 IPS 1/2" tape is like watching a fresh print of Star Trek at the Astor Plaza in New York. I believe that a finely-tuned 30 IPS 1/2" tape recorder is more accurate, better resolved, has better space, depth, purity of tone and transparency than many digital systems available today. Empirical observations have shown that you need a nominal "24-bit" A/D to capture the low-level resolution of 1/2" 30 IPS (if truth be told, the best converters only approach about 19-20 bit resolution in practice). It can also be argued that 1/2" tape has a greater bandwidth than 44.1 KHz or 48 KHz digital audio, requiring even higher sample rates to properly convert to digital. Listening tests corroborate this. 30 IPS analog tape has useable frequency response to beyond 30 KHz and a gentle (gradual) filter rolls off the frequency response. This translates to more open, transparent sound than any 44.1 kHz/16 bit digital recording I've heard. 1/2" 30 IPS analog tape has lots of information, like high resolution 35 mm film. 16-bit 44.1 KHz digital is like low-resolution video. As higher resolution (e.g. 96 Khz/24 bit) digital formats become the standard, maybe then we'll be able to say that digital recording is better than analog. But don't be fooled by the numbers; there's still some "magic" in the coloration of analog tape that we have not yet been able to reproduce in an all-digital recording, especially for popular music forms that often crave the sound of tape saturation. Analog tape has its own problems, but when operated within its linear range, unlike digital recording, it has never been accused of making sound "colder." However, digital recording has finally gotten good enough so that in acoustic music formats like classical and folk, some engineers are preferring digital recording's transparency over analog's warmth.
Frank. I don't understand why you keep banging on about transfering to CD as being superior. If you were talking about hi-res digital you would have a good argument.
Paul.
If you add 16bit A/D convertors and then have to convert back using a D/A converter you are going to loose something in resolution depending on the quality of electronics or even add distortion in the form of digital noise. It all adds extra stages into the recording chain. Why is it that the most real sounding recordings are analogue direct to disc?
As Frank says it can be practically demonstrated that you don't lose anything. Like I said though you may be adding something you don't want. It is not likely to be noise though. You can measure the signal to noise ratio down to infinitessimal levels these days so it would be easy to spot.
From Digital Domain Website in relation to 1/2" 30ips analogue tape v digital.
http://www.digido.com/articles-and-demos12/13-bob-katz/27-back-to-analog.html
Frank. I don't understand why you keep banging on about transfering to CD as being superior. If you were talking about hi-res digital you would have a good argument.
Paul.
Hi Paul,
"Empirical" is the key word in that. I have no problem with people prefering analogue what I have a problem with is the vaguely pseudo scientific "explanations" which are put forward which explain nothing.
I have not done this myself but have heard of people taking their digital recording, converting it back to analogue and back to digital several times in sequence so that the final version is a 10th generation copy. I don't know how this sounds, it would not surprise me to find a detectable difference but there may be none. What I -do- know is that if you take an analogue tape output and record it again to another tape there is clearly audible degredation. An LP is not only copied but has compression, mono bass and treble limitation applied before cutting and has no chance whatever of being the same as the master, however nice it sounds.
There is no point in having >16 bit resolution for domestic playback (there is a good argument for the extra headroom of 24 bit recording). 16 bit is 96dB. In my lounge, with the central heating off, the background level is 37dB, as best as I can measure it with the kit I have now I have retired. 37dB plus 96dB is 133dB so if I had a full range 16 bit recordingand set the volume so the quietest music could be -just- heard I would have peaks of a deafening 133dB, if I had speakers that could do it.
LPs have a potential dynamic range of nearer 60 dB (about 11-bit) which is plenty in my opinion.
I thought I would try a simple explanation of why the output from a properly engineered digital system is not made up of little steps.
The first thing to point out is that for a these digital systems to work it is crucial to have the correct filters in place, and it is certainly debateable what sort of filter is best and whether it is audible or not. If there is any signal above 22.05 kHz the recording can not be accurate.
Anyway as a simplification to make it easier to understand (I hope) let us just consider a 22.05 kHz signal. This is the highest frequency CD can possibly record and having done so the digital file will result in a 22.05 kHz square wave straight out of the DAC. Now a square wave is actually a sinewave at the fundamental frequency (22.05kHz in the example) plus 1/3 of the amplitude of the 3rd harmonic sinewave (66.15 kHz in the example) plus 1/5 the amplitude of the 5th harmonic sinewave (110.25 kHz in the example) and so forth. The digital recorder requirement specifies a filter at half the sampling frequency (22.05 kHz in the example). So when you put the square wave through the specified filter you get out a 22.05 kHz signal, which is what you recorded in the first place. All the little jaggies are gone.
I can't think of a simpler explanation, I'm afraid, and since all harmonic signals (amongst which music is included) can be completely described as a combination of sinewaves this applies to the whole bang shoot.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 16:37
Frank F1, loving your feckin work man.
Most of it is beyond me but I'm working hard to understand it. I'm a thick bastard and the only person in my house apart from my youngest who wont have a degree by the end of this year,so it's hard work. But I'm learning a lot so thanks for your patience and input.
I've just got back from a brutal 75 mile training session on the bike and I'm listening to Hourglass by James Taylor. I'm almost tempted to buy a record deck and the LP because I'm intrigued now to listen to the differences. This is one of the best CDs I have and I'm sure that even Andre could listen to quality like this for hours.
Anyway, great discussion, I'm just sorry I'm not technically equipped to contribute. Keep up the good work fellas
Rothchild
17-02-2013, 17:22
Interesting selection for the Bob Katz quote, skipped over this bit for some reason:
"A lot has changed since I first wrote this article in 1997. Coincident with the demise of the tape-based multitrack and 2-track have come better converters and higher sample rates. "Bad Digital" has largely gone away and been replaced with ranges from "just acceptable" to "very good". There was a time when I could attribute the edgy-sounding, dimensionless mixes that I received to the poor converters in the MTRs (multitrack recorders), but now we see losses in a matter of degree. "
We should also bear in mind that the article is about tracking media not consumer playback. Trying to draw a line between a top of the range 1/2inch multi-track and vinyl (because they are both analogue) is a bit of a stretch. The thought that 35kHz is useful is a bit of an aside imo, if you look at the frequency response of most microphones it's already significantly rolling off at the point you reach 20kHz. One of the tricks recordists play today to get a 'vintage' sound is actually to roll off the top end, or to narrowly boost and then broadly cut top end to simulate what folk would have done to get bright treble without too much hiss to tape.
You see a lot of this type of angst in production circles too. 'Will this mic / pre-amp / signal conditioning box / cable make me sound like X?' and I believe most the top pros who say 'not really, as long as you have gear that's not complete sh*t and you use it well no one will tell or care - greatness starts with a great performance of a great piece, preferably in s a great room. Pretty much everything after that basically a sales pitch for a manufacturer'
I've argued elsewhere that a lot of the issue with digital recordings isn't strictly inherent in the media but is a by-product of the learning curve that the production industry has gone through to adapt its techniques from analogue to digital, they work very differently when pushed to the margins of their limitations (indeed stuff that's stone classic analogue technique is almost certainly going to sound rubbish on a digital recorder) and I'd stick to this case. The reason the DapKings have a tape machine and a bunch of crap old mics is because they want to make retro recordings, it's easier to do this by just using the same gear than to work out how to 'fake' it in the digital domain. That's great for some people but not others.
Definitely an interesting debate though!
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 17:55
CDs are dull to use but accurate, and allow you to spent much more time listening to music and less dicking around with kit, which is good or bad depending on ones taste...
I don't agree with this part of your excellent post.
Most people don't listen to CDs, they put them in the player (a horrible process usually - fighting with the tacky plastic jewel case) and then skip around between tracks, pausing and re-starting or not even listening to 90% of the content.
With LPs, you have to put more effort into playing them, so you sit down and concentrate on the music, at least for one side.
There is a world of difference, at least for me, between playing a CD and playing a proper record.
Lawrence
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 17:59
I don't agree with this part of your excellent post.
Most people don't listen to CDs, they put them in the player (a horrible process usually - fighting with the tacky plastic jewel case) and then skip around between tracks, pausing and re-starting or not even listening to 90% of the content.
With LPs, you have to put more effort into playing them, so you sit down and concentrate on the music, at least for one side.
There is a world of difference, at least for me, between playing a CD and playing a proper record.
Lawrence
This has been a public service announcement by the Flat Earth Society (Sweeping Generalisation Department)
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 18:07
Just read the rest of this thread re vinyl resolution. Frankly Frank is now talking in the realms of pseudo scientific bunk. There is no basis for describing Analogue Lp as 11 bit sound. Frankly there is no scientific basis. Analogue is analogue and digital samples analogue. Frankly a 16bit sample does not approach the range of the analogue signal that can be captured on LP. Such an approximation to digital is obviously based on poorly cut vinyl played on low quality 'record players'. Listening to both formats on reasonably good equipment with well mastered vinyl and CD tells me otherwise. The CD fanboys obviously have not ever lived with a good vinyl playback system.
Paul.
I agree, I would like to see some scientific evidence that an LP is equivalent to 11 bit sound. I had always understood (OK I admit I don't have any scientific background) that well recorded analogue signals had a lot more data in them than CD digital.
Lawrence
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 18:11
This has been a public service announcement by the Flat Earth Society (Sweeping Generalisation Department)
I thought the point of this thread was to generalise and express opinions? Are you contesting my theory that most CD listeners never get through a whole CD at one sitting? OK, so it may not apply to you, but it certainly does to me.
Lawrence
Proud member of the vinyl is better than CD society
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 18:12
This is a great thread but I've noticed something very interesting.
There have been a number of disparaging remarks about CD players and CDs but IIRC correctly nobody has been particularly critical of record decks.
I've owned a few very good turntables and loved them. I love the look of record decks and there's nothing nicer than handling an LP.
But I prefer the convenience, ease of use and price of CDs. I've just ordered 20 and they cost me less than £65. How many LPs would that have got me.
CD isn't regarded as high-res.
Paul.
Maybe not by you, today, but it -was- high res! The first digital convertor I used for measurement was 4-bit and cost £50,000. Obviously useless for audio though!
Eventually 14-bit 36kHz was considered hifi by FM radio standards and used by the BBC for their highly regarded quality recordings, and for transferring the music from studio to transmitter at far higher quality that any available analogue method.
Edit: I think the BEEB used 14/32, sorry!
Back then a live broadcast on FM by the BBC was considered by many (myself included) to be the highest quality HiFi available, noticeably superior to LPs.
The convertors were the size of a sideboard and cost a fortune.
16 bit was very difficult to achieve, and still is, in reality. 44.1/16 -was- the new high resolution, and until relatively recently higher resolution was not considered necessary, and probably isn't except for making recording idiot proof.
Rothchild
17-02-2013, 18:16
I agree, I would like to see some scientific evidence that an LP is equivalent to 11 bit sound. I had always understood (OK I admit I don't have any scientific background) that well recorded analogue signals had a lot more data in them than CD digital.
Lawrence
It's been cited several times in this thread already. Bit depth relates to dynamic range, sampling frequency relates to spectral/frequency bandwidth.
16bit audio yeilds a maximum dynamic range of 96dB. The sampling frequency is set at 44.1kHz thanks to a man called Nyquist and means that the maximum frequency reproducable by a CD is 22.5kHz
The maximum dynamic range of a vinyl record is about 60dB which equates to the dynamic range that would be achievable with an 11bit digital system.
I thought the point of this thread was to generalise and express opinions? Are you contesting my theory that most CD listeners never get through a whole CD at one sitting? OK, so it may not apply to you, but it certainly does to me.
Lawrence
Proud member of the vinyl is better than CD society
Since I retired 2 years ago I listen to music at home around 4-5 hours a day. It is 95% CD and I -always- listen to an entire work (I listen to classical music 75% of the time) which may well be listening to 3 CDs one after the other. In fact I have started streaming these longer works so I don't have to get up to change CD part way throuhgh the work.
I really feel sorry for music lovers who can't listen to the music they presumably like unless it complies with some self imposed minimum sound requirements.
I could enjoy listemning to a piece of music I love over my phone!
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 18:26
Here's a good example of what i mean from earlier. "The CD fanboys have obviously not ever lived with a good vinyl playback system".
Another outrageous statement. I'd bet that about 99% of people on this forum have had at least one record deck. I've had lots. Now whether they would constitute a "good vinyl playback system" is another matter.
What I do know is that there's a lot more that goes into a "playback system" than whether the front end is digital or analogue.
We've been through the £300 CD players are fantastic (Ok I'm paraphrasing) debate and now we degenerate to CDs are hard to get out of the cases, nobody listens to them all the way through and people with CD players have never heard vinyl.
FFS for supposedly intelligent people these assertions are preposterous. Hell's teeth, most people on hear will remember radiograms and Dansette record players. I really do despair at some of the entrenched views of people who prefer vinyl.
Here's a statement for you: "I bet most analogue fans have never heard a decent CD player". I have no idea how true that is but I'm pretty sure it's more accurate than some of the earlier statements.
I don't agree with this part of your excellent post.
Most people don't listen to CDs, they put them in the player (a horrible process usually - fighting with the tacky plastic jewel case) and then skip around between tracks, pausing and re-starting or not even listening to 90% of the content.
With LPs, you have to put more effort into playing them, so you sit down and concentrate on the music, at least for one side.
There is a world of difference, at least for me, between playing a CD and playing a proper record.
Lawrence
Perhaps that is how you listen to CD's Lawrence but not I matey :ner:
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 18:30
It's been cited several times in this thread already. Bit depth relates to dynamic range, sampling frequency relates to spectral/frequency bandwidth.
16bit audio yeilds a maximum dynamic range of 96dB. The sampling frequency is set at 44.1kHz thanks to a man called Nyquist and means that the maximum frequency reproducable by a CD is 22.5kHz
The maximum dynamic range of a vinyl record is about 60dB which equates to the dynamic range that would be achievable with an 11bit digital system.
Wayhey, proper science. Move along folks. Nothing to see here.
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 18:31
It's been cited several times in this thread already. Bit depth relates to dynamic range, sampling frequency relates to spectral/frequency bandwidth.
16bit audio yeilds a maximum dynamic range of 96dB. The sampling frequency is set at 44.1kHz thanks to a man called Nyquist and means that the maximum frequency reproducable by a CD is 22.5kHz
The maximum dynamic range of a vinyl record is about 60dB which equates to the dynamic range that would be achievable with an 11bit digital system.
Sorry but this is a long (excellent) thread, can you let me have the link to where this is supported by scientific evidence please?
As to my question, which has more data (volume-wise), a CD or an LP?
Lawrence
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 18:35
Here's a good example of what i mean from earlier. "The CD fanboys have obviously not ever lived with a good vinyl playback system".
Another outrageous statement. I'd bet that about 99% of people on this forum have had at least one record deck. I've had lots. Now whether they would constitute a "good vinyl playback system" is another matter.
What I do know is that there's a lot more that goes into a "playback system" than whether the front end is digital or analogue.
We've been through the £300 CD players are fantastic (Ok I'm paraphrasing) debate and now we degenerate to CDs are hard to get out of the cases, nobody listens to them all the way through and people with CD players have never heard vinyl.
FFS for supposedly intelligent people these assertions are preposterous. Hell's teeth, most people on hear will remember radiograms and Dansette record players. I really do despair at some of the entrenched views of people who prefer vinyl.
Here's a statement for you: "I bet most analogue fans have never heard a decent CD player". I have no idea how true that is but I'm pretty sure it's more accurate than some of the earlier statements.
For the record (no pun intended), I didn't claim that nobody listens to CDs all the way through, I claimed that most people don't. I believe that is a true statement, on common sense grounds, but I admit I don't have any evidence.
I also think as objects, CDs are not as nice as vinyl records, particularly the cases. This is admittedly a subjective judgement, but for someone who has spent £5k of your hard-earned on a CD player you hopefully appreciate the value of an item as opposed to its price?
Lawrence
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 18:37
Perhaps that is how you listen to CD's Lawrence but not I matey :ner:
I don't listen to CDs any more, I find vinyl to be superior.
Lawrence
I don't care about the format, only the music ;)
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 18:42
I don't care about the format, only the music ;)
You clearly don't care about the music if you are happy listening to it in mono on a crystal set :ner:
Lawrence
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 18:42
Lawrence, as you have avoided answering any of the points I made above there's no point in continuing the debate but please feel free to continue with your sweeping generalisations?
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 18:44
I don't care about the format, only the music ;)
Spot on. Well said.
I'd love to hear a good streaming system because I have a completely open mind. I also haven't ruled out EVER getting a record deck because I do enjoy the sound of LPs.
Whoa, I think I just spotted a Dinosaur... :lol:
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 18:45
Lawrence, as you have avoided answering any of the points I made above there's no point in continuing the debate but please feel free to continue with your sweeping generalisations?
Harry,
Sorry, I missed the section where you asked for an answer to a question. Can you remind me please?
Lawrence
You clearly don't care about the music if you are happy listening to it in mono on a crystal set :ner:
Lawrence
I reckon an apology might be in order for that comment... :eyebrows:
"the tacky plastic jewel case"
There is a world of difference, at least for me, between playing a CD and playing a proper record.
Lawrence
I completely agree about the pityful design of the jewel case. I am infuriated by it all the time. Goodness knows which cretin came up with it, and why we -still- have to put up with them.
Certainly there is a big difference between playing the CD and an LP. My Goldmund Reference turntable benefits enormously from being warmed up for a couple of hours first, since the main bearing clearance is minute and it needs to be up to temperature. The clamp benefits from careful positioning and so forth. The down side is that to listen to one of my Mahler symphonies I have to change sides 4 times, a royal PITA and ruins the flow of the music.
My EMT turntable is quicker and easier to use but I prefer the Goldmund.
OTOH I don't play LPs often, only when I want to listen to a particular record.
CDs are a doodle, I can get down to actually listening to music straight away.
Rothchild
17-02-2013, 18:59
Sorry but this is a long (excellent) thread, can you let me have the link to where this is supported by scientific evidence please?
As to my question, which has more data (volume-wise), a CD or an LP?
Lawrence
Not science, wikipedia ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth
nevertheless further research of more august sources should verify this aspect.
Apologies for a previous inaccuracy it would appear vinyl could achieve 70dB of dynamic range (not my previously cited 60dB) nevertheless this is less than that of a 16bit digital recording.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-future-of-music/2
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 19:00
I reckon an apology might be in order for that comment... :eyebrows:
It's generally my habit only to apologise when I have done something wrong :scratch:
Lawrence
It's generally my habit only to apologise when I have done something wrong :scratch:
Lawrence
A man of class, obviously :rolleyes:
For the record (no pun intended), I didn't claim that nobody listens to CDs all the way through, I claimed that most people don't. I believe that is a true statement, on common sense grounds, but I admit I don't have any evidence.
I also think as objects, CDs are not as nice as vinyl records, particularly the cases. This is admittedly a subjective judgement, but for someone who has spent £5k of your hard-earned on a CD player you hopefully appreciate the value of an item as opposed to its price?
Lawrence
Wow Lawrence, I don't know anybody who doesn't listen to a CD all the way through! So your statement is wildly wrong from my perspective!
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 19:03
Not science, wikipedia ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth
nevertheless further research of more august sources should verify this aspect.
Apologies for a previous inaccuracy it would appear vinyl could achieve 70dB of dynamic range (not my previously cited 60dB) nevertheless this is less than that of a 16bit digital recording.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-future-of-music/2
The Wikipedia article which you link says bit depth is a measure of resolution not dynamic range.
Surely there is no point in having a wider dynamic range if you can't hear it?
Lawrence
Rothchild
17-02-2013, 19:04
Check para 4 'Performance'
The Wikipedia article which you link says bit depth is a measure of resolution not dynamic range.
Surely there is no point in having a wider dynamic range if you can't hear it?
Lawrence
Quite so, thats why 16 bit is plenty, higher than that is probably just separating a sucker from his cash and/or the latest audio fashion.
Lawrence, you are in danger of turning into a troll. Just thought I'd mention it.. :eyebrows:
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 19:12
It's generally my habit only to apologise when I have done something wrong :scratch:
Lawrence
Lawrence, please forgive me for being a bit direct but you're coming across as a bit of a dick. I have a very straightforward policy on forums that I use. If the man thinks he deserves an apology I offer an apology. No questions. Your choice of course.
And apologies in advance for my 'dick' opinion if you object to it.
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 19:13
Check para 4 'Performance'
Yes, done that thanks. It says that different bit rates are limited to different dynamic ranges for digital recordings. But is that the same as resolution? and is dynamic range directly proportional to the quantity of data?
The section on bit rate says "Bit rate refers to the amount of data, specifically bits, transmitted or received per second."
The second article which you linked also refers to dynamic range (70 dB), but as far as I can tell this is not the same as resolution. I may well be wrong, I have no scientific background beyond O levels in 1985.
Lawrence
losenotaminute
17-02-2013, 19:17
Lawrence, please forgive me for being a bit direct but you're coming across as a bit of a dick. I have a very straightforward policy on forums that I use. If the man thinks he deserves an apology I offer an apology. No questions. Your choice of course.
And apologies in advance for my 'dick' opinion if you object to it.
No need to apologise, I have a thick skin. You come across as a bit of a dick as well.
It's just that you said I haven't replied to your points and wouldn't continue the conversation. I looked back over your posts and couldn't find anything like a direct or indirect question looking for a reply.
To save you the time, I'll stop replying to your posts as well.
Lawrence
To put things into perspective, I am not hurt buy your comments Lawrence, my skin is thicker than that, it's just I thought the first was unnecessary and the second was pure spite. S'ok though mate, no damage done at this end but your reputation could do with a bit of a buff with some Brasso... :cool:
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 19:35
:rfl: Love it you couldnt make these threads up :D
:popcorn:
:D :popcorn:
This thread is great! Was just looking for something amusing to take away the mind numbing packing up of all my possessions due to then pending house move ;)
Better than telly, eh? :D
The Grand Wazoo
17-02-2013, 19:43
We're getting in danger of a little too much mud being slung around here folks. We obviously can't stick to the topic - we left that behind long ago. But let's all keep our heads shall we.
Less of the name calling - that goes for dick-ers and dick-ees, if you don't mind.
Sorry Chris, my feathers got a bit ruffled is all ;)
Rothchild
17-02-2013, 19:54
Yes, done that thanks. It says that different bit rates are limited to different dynamic ranges for digital recordings. But is that the same as resolution? and is dynamic range directly proportional to the quantity of data?
The section on bit rate says "Bit rate refers to the amount of data, specifically bits, transmitted or received per second."
The second article which you linked also refers to dynamic range (70 dB), but as far as I can tell this is not the same as resolution. I may well be wrong, I have no scientific background beyond O levels in 1985.
Lawrence
Bit 'rate' isn't really a concept that we're dealing with here.
In relation to dynamic range we should be talking in terms of bit 'depth'. In a digital system the amplitude of the signal is recorded in one of 16 'bits' of data every 44.1 thousandth of a second.
Yes bit depth has a direct relationship with dynamic range and that's why we can say that the very best vinyl recordings have a dynamic range roughly equivilant to a sample at 12bit depth (try to make a record any louder and it will throw the needle out of the groove)
If you think about a wave form the distance from the top to the bottom represents its amplitude and the distance between the the points where it crosses the zero line its frequency. The bit depth captures the amplitude (hence its relationship with dynamic range) and the bandwidth/frequency response is dictated by the sampling rate (because that's how often the system takes its amplitude reading).
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 20:09
Apologies Chris.
Beechwoods
17-02-2013, 20:54
Science can say what it likes about audio measurement, but in the end, I can say I have heard fantastic analogue systems that sound way better than CD, and likewise, I've heard fantastic digital systems too. On the otherhand I've heard awful examples of both, despite plenty of money being chucked at them.
In the end, the only one who loses by ignoring one format or the other, is the listener, 'cos as Dave points out, it it's the music that matters. And me, if I could only listen to music on a crystal set, I would. It so happens that for me, it's VU meters and tape that floats my boat, but file-audio, CD and vinyl all have a place in my home too, for convenience, cost and tangibility reasons... amongst others.
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 20:59
Nick
So let me get this right for the sake of Easyness i have to put up with the bordom & to me unlisternability of CDee!
Guys, both CD and LP formats are quite capable of imparting the full emotion in music and achieving a reasonably close approximation to the real sound. What we want is an appreciation of both; what we don't need is another format war, thanks.
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 21:19
Blame the ones that turned the OP into a totally different topic
I sence this thread has turned into Digital is better than analogue & vise versa! It was'nt opened for that, the main reason for the post is more to begging the question
a) why is CD, for me, uncomfortable to listern to
b) aswell as changing my hobby into something very boring & empty!
where as vinyl, i could listern to all day without one ounce of fatigue, the hobby is back to something worth while & exciting if that's the right wurd! (my 'a's and 'b's added..)
a) Get a better CD system (or wider digital system, to take it further..) or perhaps assess whether your whole system copes well with digital.
b) That's a matter of your own personal, psychological response to vinyl versus CD. There are a lot of wonderful CD packages out there that I love and plenty of plain plain dull dull vinyl covers with plain inners or old advertising inners. If it's only size that matters then I think you would be dismissing something unnecessarily and are missing out - think of exquisitly made and detailed Japanese bits and pieces. It's your choice to see it that way IMO..
The only difference for me is that CDs get scratched up and broken plastic cases etc just put me off. With trashed vinyl, there's less of that as you know you can get something out of it and ripped card is less repulsive to me than scratched up plastic.
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 21:32
Im sure i mentioned had owned more CD players than i change my undies, some really good un's, but na i would'nt waste another penny on CDee..But you lot are very welcome to carry on, don't mind me :eyebrows:
Nick
So let me get this right for the sake of Easyness i have to put up with the bordom & to me unlisternability of CDee!
Out of interest, how do you feel about cassette?
I also get excited about finding a good cassette..
It's the content that excites me.. as long as I've something to play it on.
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 21:37
Pre recorded Cassette no thanks. Cassette great but prefer open Reel.
Im sure i mentioned had owned more CD players than i change my undies, some really good un's, but na i would'nt waste another penny on CDee..But you lot are very welcome to carry on, don't mind me :eyebrows:
But you were asking why CD is unlistenable to you.. obviously your CD players are unlistenable to you.
Therefore you need to find a CD player that doesn't sound that way. In other words a "better" CD player or digital system.
I've had CD players that are boring boring boring that make me turn it off and move over to radio or vinyl. They have normally been cheap ones though. I don't have that problem at the moment.
I suspect it is either your system not coping well with CD (does your pre-amp handle 2V output ok? ) or just a psychological thing going on and if someone played a CD behind a curtain and you believed it was a Lenco, you'd be happy again.
The placebo effect is amazingly strong, to the effect that if you give someone a KNOWN stimulant and they believe its a relaxant, they will give all the physical signs of having taken a relaxant. You believe that CD is a stimulant that is putting you on edge..
Pre recorded Cassette no thanks. Cassette great but prefer open Reel.
"Cassette is great", yet a pre recorded cassette is a "no thanks" ?
You prefer blank cassette or second generation copy ?
So if you say "CD, no thanks" then maybe you also mean "CD is great"?
Hopefully you won't take offence at this, but maybe your mind is so deep into the hobby to an obsessive extent, thinking about it all the time etc that your reactions are overstated and on a very high contrast. You did afterall say in a thread a while ago that you were going to commit suicide if you couldn't find the right turntable (before you got your Lenco)...
I can relate to that to a certain level but I walk away and take a break from it and then see things in a much more objective light, the difference between a stuffy room and clear, fresh mountain air.
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 21:50
Nat your not taking any notice, every CDP ive had ive never liked regardless of what system i put it in.. I just don't like CDee simples.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
17-02-2013, 21:53
Nat your not taking any notice, every CDP ive had ive never liked regardless of what system i put it in.. I just don't like CDee simples.
Could it be that NONE of them have been any good? Could it be that if you heard a very good one (they do exist) you might like it?
Nat your not taking any notice, every CDP ive had ive never liked regardless of what system i put it in.. I just don't like CDee simples.
I am taking notice - you've not mentioned listening to any other systems until now for example, so any misunderstanding is probably from miscommunication.
You don't like CD. OK.
Can you explain it then, say why it is that you don't when most of us do, even if some prefer vinyl overall?
Seems like you made a statement via your OP then rather than being interested in any attempt to answer it. Therefore might as well have asked the thread to be closed there and then.
P.S. You're not taking any notice of much of what I've posted either, saying nothing about the hobby side, your excitment of finding music on vinyl and not CD.
Rothchild
17-02-2013, 22:03
22 pages later and it basically boils down to OP posting in the wrong board
Try this instead: http://theartofsound.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4
;-)
Rare Bird
17-02-2013, 22:12
Nat:
For years ive been stuck with CD because the albums i buy on vinyl would cost me anything from £100 to £1K each, apart from that the condition would more than likley be off putting. You can buy these albums on CD for peanuts, hence you basically can collect a quater of a million pounds worth of specialised albums on CD for a fraction. I put up with this for years knowing i hated CD, i had no option.. i bought literally hundreds of CD players inserting them into numerous systems, it just didnt work.
If it did work the seemingly emptiness of the hobby as in owning a silver disc with absolutly no appeal, just doesnt work for me.
However Vinyl is more to me than the Sound.
However (My fav wurd) i did notice heep of rare albums appearing on vinyl again, i'l have to admit this was my ticket back into vinyl. Never ever again will i bother with CD regardless of if i were handed a digital system i may possible like.
Id appreciate you take this in board as i'm not in the mood for the third degree.
Marc:
If it was in the wrong section i'm sure it would have been moved by now!
Audioman
17-02-2013, 22:15
The continuous quoting of superior dynamic range of CD as proof of superior resolution is misleading at best and an untruth at worst. This has always been pretty much undisputed but the theoretical differences are not that important in practice. I wonder if Frank and his fellow proponents of 16bit digital can name an extensive list of commercialy available CDs that take advantage of the dynamic range available. (lets exclude Audio Fidelty and MFSL releases).
Most CDs on the market (even classical) don't take advantage and most deliberately restrict dynamic range through loud mastering. The superior format is the one that is packed with most data. Trying to approximate an analogue waveform to bits based on dynamic range is an invalid way of doing this. The analogue waveform holds all of the information recorded. 16/44.1 takes samples of that information and uses an algorithim to replace what's missing.
Clearly the maths this is based on does not fully replicate everything we can hear in an analogue signal. Based on listening a higher 24 bit rate comes much closer to achieving this as there is less filling in of the sound by the computer. If I can hear better SQ from DVDA (24/96) then clearly 16 bit digital is not all that is required for satisfactory reproduction in the domestic situation.
With an analogue chain it is easier to preserve the original sound given acurate RIAA conversion to LP and a system capable of extracting that (Phono stage/cartridge/arm/turntable). Of course this means good analogue playback has to be costly. That is why CD took hold. Apart from convenience and portability a modest Cd player had apparently better SQ than the cheap record players most people listened to.
However when we get to quality sound reproduction CD looses ground and can only be improved incrementally by better transport and electronics. That includes super clocks and power supplies for Marco's benefit. Certainly technical improvements in CD players have dragged them up to extract better sound from 16/44.1 over time. In my experience all digital players are hampered to some extent by a rather cool and uninvolving sound. Much more apparent I imagine to those who's major listening source for music is LP.
Subjectively many find LP better than CD. In my view this is due to the superior resolution of LP. The increased dynamic range does not transfer to better resolution with CD. Most of what creates a good subjective sound to the human ear is in fact in the mid range. Analogue clearly contains more information in the mid range and it cannot in my view be described in terms of digital data bits. That information is what gives us better tonality and spacial information with quality vinyl playback. It's easier to determine such things as different guitars and a natural reverberation from drums. Also individual voices have a more distinct character. This all points to greater rather than lesser resolution. CD may have cleaner and more extended bottom notes but this does not greatly affect the way resolution is subjectively perceived by the listener. Often CD is perceived to falsely be highly resolving through a forward or brightly lit presentation. You can pick out individual sounds but they don't appear to integrate into a musical whole as they do with analog playback. This is ultimately tiring to listen to.
Unlike Frank I don't think many need to warm up their TT bearings to get good sound. In my experience like other electrical rather than mechanical items a CD player takes a longer power up to come on song. So in the home for me LP is no less convenient than CD to play. I only see CD as a music source to cover the unavailability of titles on vinyl (less problem these days) or to obtain bonus tracks of favorite artists. It is also an ideal source for background music.
Nat:
For years ive been stuck with CD because the albums i buy on vinyl would cost me anything from £100 to £1K each, apart from that the condition would more than likley be off putting. You can buy these albums on CD for peanuts, hence you basically can collect a quater of a million pounds worth of specialised albums on CD for a fraction. I put up with this for yeras knowing i hated CD, i had no option.. i bought literally hundreds of CD players inserting them into numerous systems, it just didnt work.
If it did work the seemingly emptiness of the hobby as in owning a silver disc with absolutly no appeal, just doesnt work for me.
However Vinyl is more to me than the Sound.
However i did notice heep of rare albums appearing on vinyl again, i'l have to admit this was my ticket back into vinyl. Never ever again will i bother with CD regardless of if i were handed a digital system i may possible like.
Id appreciate you take this in board as i'm not in the mood for the third degree.
Marc:
If it was in the wrong section i'm sure it would have been moved by now!
I've duly taken it on board ;)
Still, it's kind of what you said in the OP.. did you want to examine the situation or something by starting the thread?
You might feel the latter part simply because the vinyl is rare. It being eminently available (which is supposed to be a plus!) means the discovering rarities part isn't there - not so exciting. The re-issue bit is kind of still fullfilling that original desire for the rare thing.
Things becoming available to all should surely mean progress - I guess to the hobbiest, the collector, it just pisses on their niche world. Then time to change the hobby and just enjoy all that music availability.
Most CDs on the market (even classical) don't take advantage and most deliberately restrict dynamic range through loud mastering.
The same is done on the vinyl releases and has been since the 80s. There was an examination of dynamics on vinyl and CD in one of the mags back in the early 2000s found that the loudness wars was just as rife on the vinyl as the CD - essentially it depended on the individual release with some re-mastered CDs having full dynamics whereas previous vinyl releases of the same were compressed.
P.S. I accidentally came across a piece by Alan Shaw (is that the Harbeth man?) talking about this in a 89 or 90 hifi news.
I'll try to get around to scanning it and posting it up.
Basically was listing lots of ways of combatting the shortcomings of modern recording methods by some psycho-acoustic means and showing that vinyl's shortcommings were almost the perfect provider of these means.
Conclusion was that in the age of digital, studios need to up their game else have CD reveal all their flaws (but instead CD was getting the blame).
Audioman
17-02-2013, 22:37
The same is done on the vinyl releases and has been since the 80s. There was an examination of dynamics on vinyl and CD in one of the mags back in the early 2000s found that the loudness wars was just as rife on the vinyl as the CD - essentially it depended on the individual release with some re-mastered CDs having full dynamics whereas previous vinyl releases of the same were compressed.
I am not suggesting vinyl doesn't have restricted range with many releases, just that CD rarely takes advantage of the superior dynamic range available. In fact more people are buying vinyl in preference to CD due to restricted dynamics caused by the loudness wars. New vinyl is likely to have better dynamics than CD due to poor mastering fashions.
Rothchild
17-02-2013, 22:37
Nat:
Marc:
If it was in the wrong section i'm sure it would have been moved by now!
I know, but you see my point though? You can't get upset about folk on the digital board talking about digital 'ignoring your OP' when your OP basically said 'I like vinyl better' and subsequent posts have basically said 'and there's nothing you can say or do to change my mind'
Audioman, I do get where you're coming from but I feel that a lot of the misunderstanding here could be addressed by some clarity and agreement on terms. I'd like to get a proper handle on your concept of 'resolution' is this of volume or of frequency or some balance of the two?
Audioman
17-02-2013, 22:51
Audioman, I do get where you're coming from but I feel that a lot of the misunderstanding here could be addressed by some clarity and agreement on terms. I'd like to get a proper handle on your concept of 'resolution' is this of volume or of frequency or some balance of the two?
It's difficult to put measurements on these things. I don't think it's valid to use digital terms like volume when talking about analogue, and frequency extension does not tell the whole story. Most vinyl probably has a narrower frequency range than CD. However audiophile masterings especially half speed can be better. Have a look on the MFSL web site where they claim a surprising capture of upper frequencies with their Gain2 vinyl mastering system. I refer you to my previous post where I suggest the superior information is contained in the mid frequencies. Also analogue subjectively puts the musical information together in a more believable way. I think in this argument subjective comparisons are as valid as using measurement.
Paul.
The continuous quoting of superior dynamic range of CD as proof of superior resolution is misleading at best and an untruth at worst. This has always been pretty much undisputed but the theoretical differences are not that important in practice. I wonder if Frank and his fellow proponents of 16bit digital can name an extensive list of commercialy available CDs that take advantage of the dynamic range available. (lets exclude Audio Fidelty and MFSL releases).
Most CDs on the market (even classical) don't take advantage and most deliberately restrict dynamic range through loud mastering. The superior format is the one that is packed with most data. Trying to approximate an analogue waveform to bits based on dynamic range is an invalid way of doing this. The analogue waveform holds all of the information recorded. 16/44.1 takes samples of that information and uses an algorithim to replace what's missing.
Clearly the maths this is based on does not fully replicate everything we can hear in an analogue signal. Based on listening a higher 24 bit rate comes much closer to achieving this as there is less filling in of the sound by the computer. If I can hear better SQ from DVDA (24/96) then clearly 16 bit digital is not all that is required for satisfactory reproduction in the domestic situation.
With an analogue chain it is easier to preserve the original sound given acurate RIAA conversion to LP and a system capable of extracting that (Phono stage/cartridge/arm/turntable). Of course this means good analogue playback has to be costly. That is why CD took hold. Apart from convenience and portability a modest Cd player had apparently better SQ than the cheap record players most people listened to.
However when we get to quality sound reproduction CD looses ground and can only be improved incrementally by better transport and electronics. That includes super clocks and power supplies for Marco's benefit. Certainly technical improvements in CD players have dragged them up to extract better sound from 16/44.1 over time. In my experience all digital players are hampered to some extent by a rather cool and uninvolving sound. Much more apparent I imagine to those who's major listening source is LP as a music source.
Subjectively many find LP better than CD. In my view this is due to the superior resolution of LP. The increased dynamic range does not transfer to better resolution with CD. Most of what creates a good subjective sound to the human ear is in fact in the mid range. Analogue clearly contains more information in the mid range and it cannot in my view be described in terms of digital data bits. That information is what gives us better tonality and spacial information with quality vinyl playback. It's easier to determine such things as different guitars and a natural reverberation from drums. Also individual voices have a more distinct character. This all points to greater rather than lesser resolution. CD may have cleaner and more extended bottom notes but this does not greatly affect the way resolution is subjectively perceived by the listener. Often CD is perceived to falsely be highly resolving through a forward or brightly lit presentation. You can pick out individual sounds but they don't appear to integrate into a musical whole as they do with analog playback. This is ultimately tiring to listen to.
Unlike Frank I don't think many need to warm up their TT bearings to get good sound. In my experience like other electrical rather than mechanical items a CD player takes a longer power up to come on song. So in the home for me LP is no less convenient than CD to play. I only see CD as a music source to cover the unavailability of titles on vinyl (less problem these days) or to obtain bonus tracks of favorite artists. It is also an ideal source for background music.
Paul - excellent post, well thought out. You pretty much have me convinced there on rhetoric alone ;)
Just spent the last 6 hours listening to digital replay - thoroughly enjoyed it. Bit disapointed to come back to this thread and find it had degenerated a little. If you just want to call each other names other audio-related internet sites do exist.
Audioman
17-02-2013, 23:26
Paul - excellent post, well thought out. You pretty much have me convinced there on rhetoric alone ;)
Just spent the last 6 hours listening to digital replay - thoroughly enjoyed it. Bit disapointed to come back to this thread and find it had degenerated a little. If you just want to call each other names other audio-related internet sites do exist.
Martin. Don't let me put you off enjoying CD. It can sound perfectly all right. Just I'm getting sick of the objectivists who insist on applying digital measurements to analogue sound. Any thinking person would listen first and then seek to correlate that with technical specifications. We have two camps. 1. Digital measures better so it must sound better and 2. Can't listen to Cd at all it must be rubbish.
Martin. Don't let me put you off enjoying CD. It can sound perfectly all right. Just I'm getting sick of the objectivists who insist on applying digital measurements to analogue sound. Any thinking person would listen first and then seek to correlate that with technical specifications. We have two camps. 1. Digital measures better so it must sound better and 2. Can't listen to Cd at all it must be rubbish.
Paul you are not in any danger of putting me off CD don't worry. I am hoping that we can continue to have a wide ranging discussion including those of a technical background and others interested in learning more about a subject that is complex and relevant to people who enjoy the music for what it is but also like to muck about trying to get it to sound 'better'.
You can't throw out science just because conclusions evolve.
I would go further and say that 'science' can still be useful even if inaccurate eg the nature of light. Or more prosaically; the architect of a large building will design that building on the basis that the earth is flat! *
(If I may be permitted an off-topic rant: as a court lawyer I so often hear judges abuse the word 'science' eg "where's the scientific evidence?" It is one of the most popular buzzwords around. Worse, it seems set to stay. 99% of the time it is (1) irrelevant - "where's the evidence?" would be better; or (2) it is used as a buzzword/replacement for "truth", for example "Is that scientific?")
* The Golden Gate is a notable exception
Nick
So let me get this right for the sake of Easyness i have to put up with the bordom & to me unlisternability of CDee!
The beauty of it André is that you are free to choose to listen to music on what the hell you like, and as long as you are enjoying it, that is what is most important.
As an example, in my system you will find a lowly MD player/recorder from Sony. I have owned it for quite a few of years and I am under no illusions that MiniDisk as a format is somewhat flawed. But, I have literally hundreds of MD's containing various mix sessions from the 90's and on into the 'noughties' plus some recordings of friends, acquaintances and myself from various locations and parties having a bit of a jam. These recordings are irreplaceable and now and then these MD's bring me a great deal of pleasure. Is it 'hifi'? No, of course not. Is it music? Very much so, and finally, are these recordings FUN to listen to? That would be a huge YES!!! The format is unimportant but the memories are priceless... :cool:
Rare Bird
18-02-2013, 07:40
Sorry Dave but i cannot get emotionally attached listerning to CDee's, no emotion no noffink.
Last post from me on this thread as i don't take kindly to folk making my mind up for me, i refuse to listern to CDee's simple as that.Vinyl makes me feel good, i enjoy listerning to it & all thats associated with it, thats all that matters to me.
nat: It's not about collecting rare vinyl, i did that when prices were low many years ago, it's about just getting those albums again on vinyl regardless of em being Re-Isshews. It was exactly the same when i was buying CDee's it's just the easy access to such rare albums at low prices i just went thru the motions of putting up with the sound.
Can someone please sympathise with me instead of all the Negative posters that won't be on my Christmas card list any longer.
Sorry Dave but i cannot get emotionally attached listerning to CDee's, no emotion no noffink.
Hence: "The beauty of it André is that you are free to choose to listen to music on what the hell you like, and as long as you are enjoying it, that is what is most important." As long as you are happy mate then f*ck everything else... ;)
losenotaminute
18-02-2013, 08:11
(If I may be permitted an off-topic rant: as a court lawyer I so often hear judges abuse the word 'science' eg "where's the scientific evidence?" It is one of the most popular buzzwords around. Worse, it seems set to stay. 99% of the time it is (1) irrelevant - "where's the evidence?" would be better; or (2) it is used as a buzzword/replacement for "truth", for example "Is that scientific?")
I'm happy to get into a discussion on inductive v deductive v abductive reasoning if you would like, or even talk about Karl Popper and falsibiability theory :)
I asked for the evidence because the arguments which are often repeated about CD being higher quality than vinyl don't pass the smell test, at least to my ears. I have a decent CDP - a Cambridge Audio Azure 840c (purchased from this forum BTW) and I have a few albums that I can test side by side on both vinyl and cd through the same amplification and speakers. If I can tell a difference, which to be honest is quite difficult, I find the vinyl more involving. Even if the sounds were identical, I would prefer vinyl because the process of playing is, to me, nicer and albums are nicer physical objects to own and handle than CDs.
On the recent BBC show 'When albums ruled the world' someone described placing an LP on the turntable as like giving someone a gift. A bit hippy maybe, but it makes the point. Albums also have nostalgic value, reminding me of when I was a teenager, getting home with a new album from my favourite artist and getting the buzz and excitement of listening to it for the first time. In musical terms, my teenage years during the late 70s were the peak of popular music on albums, and ever since the CD took over things have gone down hill.
Lawrence
Could it be that NONE of them have been any good? Could it be that if you heard a very good one (they do exist) you might like it?
If no CD player sounds good it is far more likely the rest of the system has been tuned to suit LP and no CD player will ever sound good on it, which is fair enough, though not a fault in CD...
I wonder if Frank and his fellow proponents of 16bit digital can name an extensive list of commercialy available CDs that take advantage of the dynamic range available. (lets exclude Audio Fidelty and MFSL releases).
Most CDs on the market (even classical) don't take advantage and most deliberately restrict dynamic range through loud mastering.
I am not a particular proponent od 16 bit digital, just trying to rationally address some of the myths which are propagating around the internet. A lot of it just reiterated in your post...
There is nothing on an LP which can not be totally recorded onto a 44.1/16 digital system, except, perhaps on a few discs, some supersonic information. This is demonstrably true. A recording of an LP sounds just like the LP, whereas the released CD and LP never sound the same, for reasons that have been mentioned already.
I know people who use digital recordings to demonstrate to their friends differences in their turntable experiments. It is easy to hear the difference between 2 cartridges, for example, by making a digital recording of each playing.
All commercial releases are dynamic range limited (ie compressed), LP or CD.
LP -have- to have more compression than CD because of the limited dynamic range of the medium, CD only needs compression because 16 bit is more than any domestic amp/speaker can cope with, as I explained before.
That LP is more compressed than CD could even be one of the reasons to prefer LP over CD, the ambience is at a higher level relative to the mean sound level on LP than CD.
Most, probably all, classical CDs have less compression than the LP equivalent, where one exists.
Extreme compression is relatively new to the business and effects pop music. It is awful and has nothing to do with either CD or LP and everything to with what the majority of customers seem to demand, lets not kid ourselves that they would be this way if the majority of pop music listeners didn't prefer it!
We who like quality listening at home are a -tiny- minority of the music buying population.
It is 99% certain that if you find CD boring it is because you have a boring sounding system.
dufferdan
18-02-2013, 18:51
To your point about streaming, I have ripped all my CD's to lossless files and play them via a Squeezebox Touch, digital coax out to a Beresford Caiman DAC. I have done a/b comparisons to my Rotel 5 disc CD player/changer. Same songs/CDs. Not a technically double blind test as I was doing the switching, but eyes closed and focused on the music, and after enough switches, in my dotage, I forget which is which! Which might be almost the same...listening was through my AKG 702 headphones. The amp was my Cambridge 650 integrated.
Anyways, hard pressed to tell the difference between the two. Enough that when playing through ambient ceiling speakers or my little Royd Minstrels, the source wasn't the issue. In both cases, the silence between songs was absolutely black, like I was getting sucked into a void. No noise whatsoever in either case. Classical had punch and vigor, and dynamics were impressive on both.
I do know that when I had a turntable ( Techniques belt drive, IIRC), and did A/B comparisons to CD, (an early late 80's Phillips single disc player, reasonable quality for the money in the day but hardly audiophile grade), Luxman receiver and Boston A100 speakers, the CD in many cased was the more attractive medium, unless the LP was very new. Warps, pops and clicks, wow and flutter, the distortions in LP at times could well be distracting. My habits in the old days was to tape the first playing of every LP to cassette and then play the cassette for normal listening. Again, the cassette was nowhere close to the LP for sound quality, but for background while studying or socializing, it was fine. For mixed tapes, I went back to the LP source.
Not scientific, but my personal real world experience. My systems were always pretty modest, but have/had decent sound. Other than the experience of sliding the LP out of the sleeve, cleaning it, , dropping the needle, etc, all of which I enjoyed as part of the process, and I loved to DJ parties with a couple of turntables and a mixer, straight accuracy for me is in the digital domain.
The other great thing about the Touch is that when my brothers and I get together, we can choose from 16,000 songs I have ripped, in an instant, and say...you need to hear this....and this.....passing around the iPad with iPeng and choosing music on the server, without having to pull albums, clean and drop a needle. All with original artwork on the screen. Makes for fun evenings.
Not better or worse, but to me, a little more fun.
.
It is 99% certain that if you find CD boring it is because you have a boring sounding system.
Waiting for the Pigeons to notice the cat... :eyebrows:
The beauty of it André is that you are free to choose to listen to music on what the hell you like, and as long as you are enjoying it, that is what is most important.
As an example, in my system you will find a lowly MD player/recorder from Sony. I have owned it for quite a few of years and I am under no illusions that MiniDisk as a format is somewhat flawed. But, I have literally hundreds of MD's containing various mix sessions from the 90's and on into the 'noughties' plus some recordings of friends, acquaintances and myself from various locations and parties having a bit of a jam. These recordings are irreplaceable and now and then these MD's bring me a great deal of pleasure. Is it 'hifi'? No, of course not. Is it music? Very much so, and finally, are these recordings FUN to listen to? That would be a huge YES!!! The format is unimportant but the memories are priceless... :cool:
Good post. The music is more importamt than the medium, I wouldn't give up any of my old recordings, good and bad, the music is what we do it for.
The difference in quality between recordings is much greater than the difference between LP and CD, as I have written in many other threads.
I'm fortunate to own a very good CD player and turntable, so I can enjoy music on both CD and vinyl at its best.
I certainly don't find CD boring - far from it (although I don't think that's where Andre is coming from). I can, and do, listen to it for hours on end, as working from home, I can play music as much as I like. In short, the results I get from CD are stunning.
However, as good as CD replay is in my system, it's when spinning the finest recordings I own on vinyl where the real magic happens - and I also certainly know which between CD and vinyl replay, to my ears (feck measurements), sounds the most 'musically accurate'.... ;)
Marco.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
18-02-2013, 19:29
Waiting for the Pigeons to notice the cat... :eyebrows:
Brilliant. My wife has just asked why I'm laughing like a village idiot. I am forever in your debt.
Mmmm a classic episode of Tom and Jerry. Rearrange: Hits. Fan. The. Shit.
Although Lawrence, André and myself have crossed swords over this, I do get the whole ' vinyl ritual' thing which harks back to a bygone era. I think it is simply a case that some of us are better equipped to move on and embrace modern technology more easily than others. I too sometimes get a warm fuzzy feeling when putting a record on although more often than not it results in a sharp and vicious twinge in my back leading to a swift collapse. All jokes aside though, I can embrace both the old and the new with equal veracity.
There have been many fine and iconic album releases in years gone by but we shouldn't forget that musical styles continually evolve, and yet each era still manages to produce an immense amount of crud: Ladies and gentlemen I give you The Bay City Rollers, The Osmonds in their various toothy guises, Lieutenant Pigeon, Jonathon King's, Una Paloma Blanca, Viva Espana and they just keep on coming pop pickers.
Every decade has its hero's and villain's but regardless of what we might like personally, the entirety of that periods musical ingredients are what gives the dish as a whole its rich and diverse flavours. Whether we listen on a portable cassette deck or a top flight digital audio system, that flavour is still apparent :cool:
I'm fortunate to own a very good CD player and turntable, so I can enjoy music on both CD and vinyl at its best.
I certainly don't find CD boring - far from it (although I don't think that's where Andre is coming from). I can, and do, listen to it for hours on end, as working from home, I can play music as much as I like. In short, the results I get from CD are stunning.
However, as good as CD replay is in my system, it's when spinning the finest recordings I own on vinyl where the real magic happens - and I also certainly know which between CD and vinyl replay, to my ears (f*ck measurements), sounds the most 'musically accurate'.... ;)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
I don't dispute people's enjoyment of LPs, I like them myself.
It is true that a CD and LP of the same original recording -should- sound different for perfectly understandable manufacturing reasons, I have outlined some, if not all, earlier.
It is also true that a digital recording of an LP sounds the same as the LP and it is perfectly possible to make recordings of adjustments in the turntable and hear the the subtle effects for example VTA adjustments and so forth.
Recording a full range CD onto an analogue reel-to-reel tape recorder and having the recording sound just like the CD would be a -huge- challenge, even with a just-aligned deck. I am pretty sure I could't do it.
Reel-to-reel recordings are generally wider ranging than any LP one could cut.
There are a large range of colourations generated within the LP playing process, most of which have been well known for decades.
The only logical conclusion that follows from this information is that the "magic" or "musicallity" in LP playback -must- be being generated within the mechanism of that playback system itself, rather than being revealed by it.
I have not used any measurements in my discourse, just science, logical progression and listening tests.
A digital recording of an LP sounds like the LP.
LP manufactruring and playing methods inevitably modify the original sound quite a lot.
I guess if one finds the idea of added colourations sounding nicer offensive this may be a logical progression that is most unattractive, but I don't find the idea offensive, I find it obvious and logical and it doesn't prevent me from enjoying my music listening at all.
Frank
losenotaminute
18-02-2013, 20:15
I think I understand what you are saying, but what I find confusing is the difference between 'dynamic range' and quantity of data or 'resolution'.
LPs are compressed in terms of dynamic range, as are CDs. This relates to the vertical distance between the peaks and troughs of the sound waves.
But CDs sample the sound x many times per second, wheras LPs don't, being analogue, the sound is continuous.
Are you saying (and this is a genuine question not an accusation) that the sampling does not lose any data that we could hear as humans?
I'm not so worried about the compression, if the bits that are lost are generally outside the audible range, or even if the result is something which is nicer to listen to for some people, but the sampling would concern me if we could hear the difference between a sampled and a non-sampled track.
Lawrence
I am not a particular proponent od 16 bit digital, just trying to rationally address some of the myths which are propagating around the internet. A lot of it just reiterated in your post...
There is nothing on an LP which can not be totally recorded onto a 44.1/16 digital system, except, perhaps on a few discs, some supersonic information. This is demonstrably true. A recording of an LP sounds just like the LP, whereas the released CD and LP never sound the same, for reasons that have been mentioned already.
I know people who use digital recordings to demonstrate to their friends differences in their turntable experiments. It is easy to hear the difference between 2 cartridges, for example, by making a digital recording of each playing.
All commercial releases are dynamic range limited (ie compressed), LP or CD.
LP -have- to have more compression than CD because of the limited dynamic range of the medium, CD only needs compression because 16 bit is more than any domestic amp/speaker can cope with, as I explained before.
That LP is more compressed than CD could even be one of the reasons to prefer LP over CD, the ambience is at a higher level relative to the mean sound level on LP than CD.
Most, probably all, classical CDs have less compression than the LP equivalent, where one exists.
Extreme compression is relatively new to the business and effects pop music. It is awful and has nothing to do with either CD or LP and everything to with what the majority of customers seem to demand, lets not kid ourselves that they would be this way if the majority of pop music listeners didn't prefer it!
We who like quality listening at home are a -tiny- minority of the music buying population.
It is 99% certain that if you find CD boring it is because you have a boring sounding system.
I guess if one finds the idea of added colourations sounding nicer offensive this may be a logical progression that is most unattractive, but I don't find the idea offensive, I find it obvious and logical and it doesn't prevent me from enjoying my music listening at all.
But EVERYTHING used in a hi-fi system that is involved with reproducing recorded music, on vinyl or CD, adds its own sonic signature, and so by definition, is coloured. It simply depends to what degree.
When I listen to the best recordings I own on CD, they sound fantastic - truly breathtaking. However, when I listen to the best recordings I own on vinyl, they sound not only breathtaking, but closer to what my (significant) experience tells me is a true representation of real instruments and voices, and I don't give a monkey's best wankstain what science or "logical progression" says to the contrary!! ;)
We will simply go round in circles, Frank, and never agree on this matter, so this debate is largely pointless. Therefore, I suggest we move on and discuss something else :)
Marco.
Are you saying (and this is a genuine question not an accusation) that the sampling does not lose any data that we could hear as humans?
Lawrence
Yes. As long as the input signal contains nothing above half the sampling frequency, and when it is converted back it is properly filtered to the same frequency the output is equally continuous to the original.
We will simply go round in circles, Frank, and never agree on this matter, so this debate is largely pointless. Therefore, I suggest we move on and discuss something else :)
Marco.
Fair enough Marco we disagree. My whole career has been based on science and logic and I am still perfectly happy with my conclusion ;-)
BTW I also listen to lots of live un-amplified music, Sheenagh is a professional musician and 2 of my children are accomplished musicians too.
We have a Steinway Model B in our music room (on the other side of the house to my stereo room...) Which I am pretty familiar with the sound of since we've had it for over 20 years. I have been making my own recordings for well over 40 years.
This has been one of most interesting threads I have read for a long time. Apart from a brief lapse of calm discussion, the arguments from both sides have been well put, and understandable. Marco's balanced overview has also been well made.
From my perspective, as a retired engineer I tend to side with Frank views, yet I find the whole process of vinyl replay fascinating. It never fails to amaze me how good the, somewhat ludicrous, process of dragging a small lump of diamond through a wiggly groove cut into vinyl can sound. For nearly forty years I have been interested in this largely mechanical technique: from the design of turntable through to the design of cartridges and tonearms.
Until 1982 that was all there was for pre-recorded music, apart from open reel tape, or cassette. Yes, there was a 'ritual' of cleaning the record and cuing the tonearm. And yes the 12" square sleeve was (and still is) ideal for art work and sleeve notes. But apart from picking up used LPs in charity shops and record fairs, I wouldn't buy new vinyl.
I am more than content with the convenience and sound quality of CD. The early ones had indifferent SQ, but I believe that was due to having been manufactured using the tapes prepared to cut vinyl masters, with all the adjustments and 'tweeks' the cutting of vinyl requires. Remastered CDs are in my opinion superb for sound quality.
Again I understand the argument that if CDs don't engage you, don't involve you, then they will sound boring. Why that should be I can't answer, but I respect the opinion of those who find it so.
I'm happy to live with and enjoy both technologies.
Fair enough Marco we disagree. My whole career has been based on science and logic and I am still perfectly happy with my conclusion ;-)
BTW I also listen to lots of live un-amplified music, Sheenagh is a professional musician and 2 of my children are accomplished musicians too.
We have a Steinway Model B in our music room (on the other side of the house to my stereo room...) Which I am pretty familiar with the sound of since we've had it for over 20 years. I have been making my own recordings for well over 40 years.
That's fine, Frank. I respect your knowledge and experience. I truly do. However, I'm also perfectly happy with my conclusion, based on my relevant experience and what my ears tell me....
One of the things I've learned in audio is that science and logic don't always produce all the answers. A degree of lateral thinking, and trusting one's senses, rather than unswerving scientific absolutism, is sometimes needed ;)
Marco.
Audioman
18-02-2013, 22:08
But apart from picking up used LPs in charity shops and record fairs, I wouldn't buy new vinyl.
Why - please elaborate.
I am more than content with the convenience and sound quality of CD. The early ones had indifferent SQ, but I believe that was due to having been manufactured using the tapes prepared to cut vinyl masters, with all the adjustments and 'tweeks' the cutting of vinyl requires. Remastered CDs are in my opinion superb for sound quality.
There is a wide opinion that this is the opposite. I would advise paying a visit to the Steve Hoffman forum where music enthusiasts debate over 'remastered' Cd reissues. There is a wide consensus that recordings are being ruined by modern mastering. In fact many enthusiasts are actively seeking out the original CDs.
The problem as I'm sure you have noticed is an increased loudness so you cannot turn up the volume without the sound falling apart and becoming a strain. The tendency is to keep turning the volume down to a more comfortable level. This means the wide dynamic range Frank trumpets for CD is rarely realised on modern CD.
The more satisfying reissues are on vinyl. Many of these often use little or no compression in relation to the original vinyl mastering and thus can provide a superior sound to a first pressing and most certainly to any CD transfers of the recording.
Paul.
This CD certainly makes your system sound "live", because it is!
The Cure - Paris
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6e/Paris_cov.jpg/220px-Paris_cov.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.