View Full Version : Pound for Pound which is better?
This has come out of another thread which originally asked the question "Stream player or Turntable (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7389)" - but ended up comparing CD to Vinyl...
So, the question for the poll - in your experience, which is better - a low to mid priced new CD player or similarly priced new turntable? - e.g brand new CD player at full retail of c.£500 vs. brand new Turntable with arm & cartridge at full retail of c. £500 - no second-hand kit, ex-demo, manager's specials or "white van man" allowed! This of course assumes that the turntable has been properly setup, and that in both cases properly partnered with other equipment...
There's only a straightforward two-way scrap with the poll - one or the other - but feel free to post any other observations (cue all the praises for a decent streaming solution beating them both... ;))
With the above condictions digital wins
Haselsh1
19-08-2010, 13:45
I guess these days vinyl is for purists rather than for mere convenience freaks like CD is. I guess also because it is such a niche thing, it costs more in the long run.
Yes vinyl will costs more but a good vinyl system is pretty hard to beat and an excellent vinyl system well I not yet heard better
I am open to my view being changed..but would have to hear the results for myself
Pound for pound, I'd say CD, but then even if it was the same, new, full price CD's are cheaper than vinyl, so vinyl is more expensive in the long run.
I think people's views would change dramatically if we raise the price-point - but we're really talking of something like the basic Techie vs a similar CD player, (or that's how it started) so I guess around £500 for both. (In my original analogy I was talking about £400 8 or 9 years ago which was for a Pro-Ject RPM4, a reasonable deck at the time, and that was all set up for me by the dealer, so quite comparable to the Marantz CD player I had then which was probably a bit more at £500.)
squeezethatbuffalo
19-08-2010, 14:27
Are we voting for the runner-up? ;)
IMO, nothing beats a decent streamer at a low to mid price range.
At the £500 price point I think generally some form of digital media either CD or streaming would for most people be the best option
Are we voting for the runner-up? ;)
IMO, nothing beats a decent streamer at a low to mid price range.
A streaming solution may be better (I've never really compared like for like through my Soundbridge as I don't rip to lossless) but to be fair, we would need to factor in the other costs for things like PC/Server, NAS, hard drives etc, wouldn't we? A bit like a turntable can't work without an arm or cartridge, a streaming solution needs to be fed, and £500 would be a fairly tight budget I would think? Not quite real-world comparison though, because a PC (if used) would probably be used for other stuff too, or you would already have one and Audio would just be part of its purpose?
Maybe after this one we can start another, but as I said in the introduction, this is just a straight fight (there's only one way to find out - FIGHT!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6gyUb0E7o)) between the two main physical formats. Perhaps I'll have to include tape in the next one too. And wax cylinders. ;)
squeezethatbuffalo
19-08-2010, 15:00
Some quick calculations: Squeezebox Touch £250 + Cheap Netbook £190 + Simple Router £30 = £470. Cabling should cost less than £30.
If there exists a sub-£500 commercial source/transport that outperforms the Touch, I'm unaware of it. Then again, my experience is limited, so please correct me if I'm wrong :)
Edit: LOL at the link
Then factor in how many CDs or LPs you have - you'll need more storage if you want more than say 4-500 albums lossless? (FLAC is 30-50% compression, a cheap netbook would have probably 160GB) Dunno, just guessing, but for me I'd need to add more storage space, say a 1TB USB hard drive, which isn't that much more, another £60 I guess. But I take your point, it could be achievable. Not as pretty as a turntable though! ;)
Much as I hate to admit this being a computer based audio fan boy (recent convert), pound for pound (no limit) a first class vinyl replay system is very hard to beat………..but it has a price.
However, I think it is very close and I suspect that it won’t be long before audio from file (lets dispense with the all the negative connotations computer audio has acquired) will not only sonically out perform any vinyl setup but also offer such ease of use, ease of maintenance and cost effectiveness that record decks and CD players will be very much a niche market struggling to compete at any level with file based audio.
Sad but True: Metallica
Much as I hate to admit this being a computer based audio fan boy (recent convert), pound for pound (no limit) a first class vinyl replay system is very hard to beat………..but it has a price.
However, I think it is very close and I suspect that it won’t be long before audio from file (lets dispense with the all the negative connotations computer audio has acquired) will not only sonically out perform any vinyl setup but also offer such ease of use, ease of maintenance and cost effectiveness that record decks and CD players will be very much a niche market struggling to compete at any level with file based audio.
Sad but True: Metallica
John, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to get at by "pound for pound" - (I hope I haven't confused everyone!) I don't disagree that at any price (and ignoring the practical issues and alchemy needed) a top-notch turntable will outperform most CD players, but what I was meaning was to compare a £500 CD player with a £500 turntable/arm/cart - I personally don't think it is a victory for vinyl in that scenario, though looking at the voting so far, we're heading for a hung parliament!
squeezethatbuffalo
19-08-2010, 15:34
Then factor in how many CDs or LPs you have - you'll need more storage if you want more than say 4-500 albums lossless? (FLAC is 30-50% compression, a cheap netbook would have probably 160GB) Dunno, just guessing, but for me I'd need to add more storage space, say a 1TB USB hard drive, which isn't that much more, another £60 I guess. But I take your point, it could be achievable. Not as pretty as a turntable though! ;)
In terms of sexiness, nothing beats a turntable! It's a shame that CDs were born before me, and computer-based audio has "corrupted" me to the point that even changing CDs has become a hardship for me.
That being said, thank you for the inspiration. I need to find a pretty turntable for my living room. It'll impress the girls! :lol:
dave2010
19-08-2010, 15:36
Alex
Then factor in how many CDs or LPs you have - you'll need more storage if you want more than say 4-500 albums lossless? (FLAC is 30-50% compression, a cheap netbook would have probably 160GB) Dunno, just guessing, but for me I'd need to add more storage space, say a 1TB USB hard drive, which isn't that much more, another £60 I guess. But I take your point, it could be achievable. Not as pretty as a turntable though! ;)You mention storage, but a hard drive doesn't take up much space. Around 180 CDs will fit in a Benno storage tower (IKEA) at a cost of somewhere round £20 each unit, so anyone with 2000 CDs is likely to need more than 10 of these, which will cost £200+, and additionally take up floor space. LPs are even worse, and perhaps need some form of Dexion frame, and considerably more floor space. Of course with CDs ripped to hard drive one in theory does have to buy them, then store them, but they can be boxed and put in a loft. With downloads some storage problems disappear - though arguably so does the quality in some cases.
I direct the honourable gentleman to this thread about physical storage (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6900) but I do take your point. I'm not against computer audio (sorry, audio from file) by the way, and this thread has definitely got me intrigued to try some more comparisons with lossless, but last time I tried, both from USB into Caiman from laptop and streaming wirelessly to the Soundbridge then coax SPDIF into the Caiman, I could honestly not hear any difference. (Also tried PS3 & XBox 360 via toslink, again, I didn't notice any difference.) Perhaps my amp/speakers aren't high end enough to resolve the differences. I also listen to Spotify premium (320kbps) from USB on the Caiman and again, struggle to tell the difference between that and CD, so I think I'm probably rubbish at listening, or at least that's what my wife keeps telling me! (pardon, dear? ;))
However, I think it is very close and I suspect that it won’t be long before audio from file (lets dispense with the all the negative connotations computer audio has acquired) will not only sonically out perform any vinyl setup but also offer such ease of use, ease of maintenance and cost effectiveness that record decks and CD players will be very much a niche market struggling to compete at any level with file based audio.
I really would be suprised if high resolution Audio is the equal of the very best Vinyl system eg Something like a Raven AC, Salvation or fully pimped 1210 with a very good arm, cart and phono stage If anyone has a computer based audio system this good can I hear it so I can re-evalute my views (sorry Alex do not wish to take over the thread)
Alex.
Ooops, sry, my bad.
Can we assume the cost of a PC isn’t factored in?
John
“I really would be suprised if high resolution Audio is the equal of the very best Vinyl system eg Something like a Raven AC, Salvation or fully pimped 1210 with a very good arm, cart and phono stage”
I think that’s pretty much what I said isn’t it?
Can we assume the cost of a PC isn’t factored in?
I guess so - assuming it is being used for other things (I have an old IBM laptop that is dedicated to audio with the hifi, but wasn't always the case.) I guess that is one reason that file based audio (© Welder ;)) is so competitive, if you can use something you already have...
I'm really thinking this should have been a 3-way fight now! :doh:
John I agree the ease of use of computer audio (but it does has it faults eg Hard drive failure amd the need for back up storage due to this) but I still think there is a Gap at the very top end, perhaps we saying the same thing
CD players only start to look interesting once the price gets expensive, turntables on the other
hand can look quite good at a modest price, most mid priced CD players all look the same.
Setting up a turntable is more important than CD, although I have noticed that people with
CD only systems seem to lavish as much attention to their CD player’s setup (which is probably
unnecessary but whatever keeps you happy )
The whole turntable /arm/cartridge/phonostage can be quite involving and has plenty of
opportunity to evolve in your system (i.e. you can play about with it, this is a major factor right there)
I like to buy used LPs and CDs but you really need a record cleaning machine for the LPs
and that’s going to blow your Pound for Pound out the water, CD are easy to clean.
Finally there is much more satisfaction in hunting down an old LP (or new ) than finding the same CD and there
is almost zero satisfaction in downloading the same.
(I have about a 50/50 mix of records/CDs)
Well, I prefered the sound I got from the HRT 11 (£140 the basic model) to my modified Exposure CD player (£600 to £800 including mods) in my system and it wasn’t even a close contest.
So, in my experience file audio easily beats CD.
I don’t know what you can get new with regard to record deck, arm and cartridge combination for around £500 but I have a sneaking suspicion audio from file is the best bet.
Reid Malenfant
19-08-2010, 16:40
I'm really thinking this should have been a 3-way fight now! :doh:
I think things are a little too ambiguous while you are about it :eyebrows:
I noticed earlier that someone mentioned possibly a Goldring turntable & different arm etc so it's quite obvious that we could be talking secondhand stuff here.
I really think that you should have said new Alex :) As it is all sorts of people are sitting there putting a record deck & arm/cartridge together in their heads based on secondhand prices. I guess you could do the same with a CD based system, but i ask you does everyone pick things up at the same price secondhand? No, they don't :doh:
So in reality you'll never get a proper answer to the question as there are too many variables, like i say, if you'd have stated the stuff had to be brand spanking new (& not at sale prices either) i think you'd get an entirely different vote :lolsign:
I voted the CD system as winner @ £500 new ;)
I think things are a little too ambiguous while you are about it :eyebrows:
I noticed earlier that someone mentioned possibly a Goldring turntable & different arm etc so it's quite obvious that we could be talking secondhand stuff here.
I really think that you should have said new Alex :) As it is all sorts of people are sitting there putting a record deck & arm/cartridge together in their heads based on secondhand prices. I guess you could do the same with a CD based system, but i ask you does everyone pick things up at the same price secondhand? No, they don't :doh:
So in reality you'll never get a proper answer to the question as there are too many variables, like i say, if you'd have stated the stuff had to be brand spanking new (& not at sale prices either) i think you'd get an entirely different vote :lolsign:
I voted the CD system as winner @ £500 new ;)
You're absolutely right, I didn't mention that the original question posed in the linked thread was comparing new apples with apples, not new apples with second-hand strawberries, so for anyone new to the voting (I'll edit the OP) - new kit is the question...
Reid Malenfant
19-08-2010, 16:47
You're absolutely right, I didn't mention that the original question posed in the linked thread was comparing new apples with apples, not new apples with second-hand strawberries, so for anyone new to the voting (I'll edit the OP) - new kit is the question...
Rats :lol: I was just about to pretend i had a pair of Meridian Active speakers which can be fed via a digital link ;)
In which case i think my DT10 would win :ner:
Having edited the op, I had stated "new" in both cases, but I've made it even clearer by underlining it and repeating it with an example... :brickwall: ;)
this makes my first post look pointless now.....shall I edit
Reid Malenfant
19-08-2010, 17:01
Having edited the op, I had stated "new" in both cases, but I've made it even clearer by underlining it and repeating it with an example... :brickwall: ;)
I'd suggest getting a moderator to zero the votes so we can possibly get a better idea, right now it might be rather biased :eyebrows:
Up to you though Alex (i know it can be done as i was a mod on a few forums) ;)
I'd suggest getting a moderator to zero the votes so we can possibly get a better idea, right now it might be rather biased :eyebrows:
Up to you though Alex (i know it can be done as i was a mod on a few forums) ;)
Shall I set up a poll asking if this poll should be reset? :D
Let's leave it as is - if anyone thinks they would change their vote then post to that effect and we can manually adjust it...
Reid Malenfant
19-08-2010, 17:08
Good enough :pat:
:)
This poll is head vs heart IMO.
For £500, you should find a CD player (in the decreasing numbers of these) that sounds very like the original mastering session. Measurement wise, the technical performance will cream ANY turntable out there. Sorry, but objectively there's no contest - Head wins!
On the other hand, vinyl just won't go away, with audible and measurable compression, softness, hums, hisses, cutter noise, warp/eccentricity wow, feedback and end-of-side distortion often in double figures, let alone pitiful channel separation barely more than 30db in the best pickups. Why do we bother with it? because it sounds "nice" and masks no end of system faults? or the fact that "audiophiles" like the sounds it makes and balance their systems around it (two wrongs trying to make a "right"). In the majority of cases, it sure doesn't sound anything much like the master source, but people love the altered picture vinyl presents - Heart wins!!!
£500 new will buy you a Techie, Rega, Pro-Ject or similar, and these will give you a controlled, tidy but small rendition of what may be there on the record. For CD, an Arcam, Cambridge or ESPECIALLY the Rega Apollo would be my choice (or the superior Saturn if I could borrow the difference).
Techno Commander
19-08-2010, 17:23
Although I think the a CD player will sound better. The operation of a turntable is a more pleasureable experience. :)
This poll is head vs heart IMO.
Before I even started the thread, I thought this is exactly the crux. (Though not in the detail or technicalities you have so eloquently posted Dave.)
If you're a "vinyl guy" you'll vote that way, whatever... Ditto if your a CD convert. :sofa:
Although I think the a CD player will sound better. The operation of a turntable is a more pleasureable experience. :)
I agree, and the operation of EITHER for me is preferable to a streaming solution right now, despite being politely deluged with opinions to the opposite elsewhere ;)
At the moment, the heart is winning for me as I'm having loads of fun tinkering with various vinyl sources, but I don't live in the real world anyway so I don't count...
Spectral Morn
19-08-2010, 22:31
Turntable and vinyl even though I was a CD adopter early on, collector of CD players....I still feel based on my ears not my heart that well looked after vinyl (vital)and a properly set up (extremely vital) TT at any price will be better than a similarly priced CD player and by a fairly big margin. That's been my experience to date.
Regards D S D L
I still feel based on my ears not my heart that well looked after vinyl (vital)and a properly set up (extremely vital) TT at any price will be better than a similarly priced CD player and by a fairly big margin.
Ditto, Neil - it's got bugger all to do with heart ruling head! The CD player would lose, and lose royally! :eyebrows:
Marco.
dave2010
20-08-2010, 02:17
I wonder where people get their vinyl discs from. I have many already, but where would a newbie to vinyl get them?
The Grand Wazoo
20-08-2010, 06:35
I'm still buying vinyl from independant record shops (both new & used), charity shops, boot sales and from Ebay. In the last month I've probably bought 4 new CD's & 30 used records.
The total cost of records was less than that of the CD's!
Haselsh1
20-08-2010, 07:53
I wonder where people get their vinyl discs from. I have many already, but where would a newbie to vinyl get them?
Simple, Diverse Vinyl or Amazon.
Regarding the argument going on here, vinyl sound is very analogue and organic in a way that CD simply hasn't managed to capture which leaves CD with a very artificial, contrived sound that is not good. Vinyl is chilled, laid back, delicate and highly detailed with a stunning stereo effect when compared to CD. The depth of image on vinyl is astonishing and I have yet to hear a CD player that comes anywhere near but CD is highly convenient. Is that what your passion is about...? Convenience...!
Good CD's have emotion, sound as organic as the ORIGINAL RECORDING ALLOWS and do remember that many "mixed" recordings sound "mutli-mono" which is then blended by the LP making process. Vinyl does seem to add reverb (ringing?) which isn't always there in the master. It's difficult to explain to you guys, but once you've heard what the master files sound like, it's a memory that stays with you for ever, and I was exposed to master grade material for many years at KJ W1 in the 70's and at Linn and ATC in later ones (KJ had some good master copies and we had BBC engineers and Air Studios staff bringing all sorts in to listen to) - heady days, looking back.
Shaun, the "depth of image" isn't presented that way on master grade material, which can sound dry and almost "nasal" by comparison with the record made from it.
The fun for me is to try to get the records to sound as least distorted and as clean as possible WITHOUT removing the music in the process. Since the actual amount of info there is limited, it's so easy to get either the deeeeetail presented too starkly on the one hand, or a rose-tinted musical sludge on the other. One reason why I HAVE to respect Linn, despite their cruel pricing policy, is that they alone (?), of all turntable manufacturers, actually have master grade material with which to compare the LP's and CD's made from these with and, until fairly recently, the LP12 was significantly wanting in that area.
Apologies, but you do need an absolute reference. When you do, you find that most or all of these expensive "upgrades" just end up fine-tuning a turd and when you go to a well mastered CD by comparison, the CD just shows up deficiencies in the playback equipment, especially low powered clipping ss amps (not so much valve ones which often behave better when pushed) and nasty "HiFi" speakers (active or passive, it don't matter).
Some of the best sounds I've EVER heard were the excellent Ella and Louis CD's recorded in the early 50's played through ATC 100A's with a Sony 555ES and AVI preamp driving them (Belden wires used for interconnection). The realism was palpable - not just "loud" but for a while I was able to suspend disbelief and enjoy the musicians and singers having a ball.
. . . once you've heard what the master files sound like, it's a memory that stays with you for ever . . .
How close do you think 24/96 downloads might be to the raw master, Dave?
I refer to products like the "Studio Master" downloads here:
http://www.gimell.com/
The vinyl system I enjoy are not chilled or laid back, For me they are alive they have energy but also somehow seduce you. It eaiser for me to imagine I am at the live event For instance I never heard any CD based system that made me convinced I was listening to Marshall stack through vinyl I have come pretty close and believe me this is not laid back. I agree some TT systems can be laid back but its not what I want
Marshall stacks sound as they do because of distortion. add a bit more in the replay system and it probably won't matter as long as the mixdown and cutting hasn't squashed it.
I'm having difficulty with David Bowie's "Aladdin Sane" at present. The vinyl (A4 and B4 on the matrix) has a meatiness which is good and the new valves in the phono stage have minimised the hum and bass distortion I was getting. The 1990 CD remaster is much clearer and sounds more "master-like," but the compression applied and the mixes themselves don't always sound "right." The track "Jean Genie" isn't mixed as well to me as the single mix was (!) and a couple of tracks like "Watch That Man" have the vocals pushed too far back, which was mentioned as a factor in the rushed mix done on the Stones' mobile.. Which is best - in this case, the vinyl I think as many of the faults are well disguised (I haven't heard the latest remasterings though).
Brian, many CD's made from simple material ARE as good as the original masters, especially if SBM is used and many of the Decca transfers sound all but identical on comparison, the old favoured SXL vinyls having oodles of eq on them quite often which isn't what the original producer wanted. I'm sure the high-res transfers are as close as the engineer wants you to get. I bought a couple of the 1970's Mandingo 2-on1 CD's and remember the copy-masters well, the CD's not being no-noised to death (as in the first album remastered on its own).
We're back to opinion again. I'm blessed with a successful CD player that's light-years better than its Philips/Marantz donor chassis (got to be the transformer-coupling taking all the RF muck out?) which was the first CD player I heard that could truly disappear. The later CD-M100 had an even bigger 3-D sound but could overload lesser systems and rooms as I discovered a few years back (it was amazing on the big ATC's)... I suppose I've been spoiled with my sources over the years, but for £500 on new gear, I'd still go for a CD or streaming solution I think, that Rega Apollo is really good.
Just my opinion, obviously.
Haselsh1
20-08-2010, 13:09
I am personally not interested in listening to master tapes and I certainly do not want my music to sound as an exact copy of the master would sound. I want my music to sound a certain way, a way that I like and that is why I choose vinyl over CD and that is why I like vinyl's superior stereo imaging and superior depth.
There is a simliarity here with digital imaging. I always produce black and white photographs as art and choose to do so in a darkroom using silver halide based material which is infinitely better than a digital black and white print. The digital equivalent is usually either pink, green or blue tinted but then we must not forget... it is only an equivalent.
That's your choice sir and I cannot argue with that, except to beg to differ on vinyl's "superior imaging and depth." Maybe I have an exceptional CD player still :scratch:
From the day I bought my Philips CD204 (14 bit 4 x oversampler) nearly 25 years ago I have not played an LP. I gave them all away within a few months.
I did take the CDP round to friend who had a Sondek. He agreed the CDP was better, and he was a retired BBC engineer.
A standard Audigy card on a PC beats my 15 year old Quad CDP by a significant margin, and the Caiman DAC trounces them all.
What anyone sees in vinyl I cannot imagine.
Lol - well, Brian all I can say is that you must never have heard a really good turntable playing mint superbly-produced vinyl!
I guarantee that if you came round for a visit to mine and heard my system playing both recordings on vinyl and CD, that before you left you wouldn't be uttering such a statement ;)
Hi Dave,
That's your choice sir and I cannot argue with that, except to beg to differ on vinyl's "superior imaging and depth". Maybe I have an exceptional CD player still...
Well, as you know, I too have "an exceptional CD player", but exceptional as it is, with the right recordings, my Techie still trounces it!! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Lol - well, Brian all I can say is that you must never have heard a really good turntable playing mint superbly-produced vinyl!
Sondek set up by a BBC engineer?
He did think his very best pressings from the 1960s could equal the first CDs I bought and played on that 14 bit player. But that was 25 years ago.
And Marco, you should listen to a 24/96 download from Gimmel though a Caiman :)
Sondek set up by a BBC engineer?
Lol - do I have to answer that? No offence, but aside from anything else, the "set up by a BBC engineer" bit holds little kudos with me. Unless I knew the chap concerned and his capabilities in terms of setting up a T/T and system then, as far as I'm concerned, the fact that he was a BBC engineer is irrelevant.
In my experience, good as these chaps may be at their job, some of them don't have a scooby-doo when it comes to home audio and setting up a system as meticulously well as I would demand, particularly in reference to such things as cables and specialist equipment supports.
He did think his very best pressings from the 1960s could equal the first CDs I bought and played on that 14 bit player. But that was 25 years ago.
So when you mentioned he said: "He agreed the CDP was better", then obviously you weren't referring to his very best pressings which "could equal" it......? ;)
And Marco, you should listen to a 24/96 download from Gimmel though a Caiman
I'm sure it would sound fantastic, but not necessarily any better than vinyl does at its best on my system.
Marco.
Well, as you know, I too have "an exceptional CD player", but exceptional as it is, with the right recordings, my Techie still trounces it!! :eyebrows:
Marco.
It can't - simples, unless you need all that extra distortion and tonal abberation to make your system sound any good at all :ner:
BULLSHIT!! :ner:
And you'll discover this fact if you ever visit.....
Also, what do you have to say about the fact that Dave Anderton's £12k Linn Klimax DS music server was similarly trounced by his Kenwood L-07D (and my Techie)?
He sold the Klimax about a week after that happened and has since resigned himself to the fact that vinyl is his No1 source!
Marco.
Just want to check I’ve got this right.
This current debate is about Marco’s Technics SL-1210 with mods sounding better than any CD player?
Or, is it about any turntable,arm,cartridge combo sounding better than any CD player?
dave2010
20-08-2010, 22:00
Dave
It's difficult to explain to you guys, but once you've heard what the master files sound like, it's a memory that stays with you for everlMaybe. I heard some tape masters in the 1970s - made for CBS, which was not considered a great record company at the time. What was interesting was that I have perhaps not heard anything better since. The recordings were of Barenboim playing Elgar, and they are available on CD. Neither the LPs nor the remastered CDs come close to what I recall from those tapes. So I think something is lost in the transfer to CD or LP. In my more cynical moments I even think this might be deliberate, in order to allow for future reissues of "improved" versions. I think a lot of recordings may be significantly better than they sound once they have been released to the consumer markets. If they could make really good recordings then, it should surely be possible to do as well or better today.
Shaun. Re vinyl sounding better - I hope you are taking into account that nowadays most recordings do start off as digital. There was a time when the argument was that the recordings were made in analogue, and converting to digital caused sonic loss, but nowadays the loss must be the other way round. The recordings I mentioned in my first paragraph were of course analogue.
I hope you are taking into account that nowadays most recordings do start off as digital. There was a time when the argument was that the recordings were made in analogue, and converting to digital caused sonic loss, but nowadays the loss must be the other way round.
Good point, Dave. Just to make it crystal clear... When I talk about vinyl trouncing CD with the 'right recordings', I'm talking about all analogue mastered ones, mainly from the days when quality/excellence of product was of primary importance, and (f*cking bollocks sonically compromising) convenience/cost-cutting/pandering to the lowest common denominator, not even a twinkle in a father's eye ;)
Marco.
Steve Toy
20-08-2010, 23:20
My own experience concurs with Marco's insofar as the very best recordings and pressings on vinyl are unbeatable, certainly the recordings Marco is referring to that I've heard on his Techie. I've heard other exemplary recordings on other decks showcase the vinyl medium very well indeed; the very best from vinyl on a well-sorted deck is a stunning listening experience and is probably superior to CD.
However, recordings compressed-to-fuck-to-impress on ghetto blasters, car stereos and iPod docks aside, digital recordings on CD still deliver more consistently IME, provided the CD player is top-notch including its DAC, power supplies and there is attention paid to isolation of noise from clock oscillations from the DAC output stages and the rest of your kit, the player is well isolated from vibration (as with turntables) and it's fed by decent clean mains via a well-sorted mains lead, the results from CD can be breathtaking and very 3D in terms of its soundstaging.
Timing and detail can also be superior to vinyl and vocal presence can be awe-inspiring compared to the sibilance in this regard you often encounter with vinyl.
Apart from hi-res, I've yet to hear standard FLAC or WAV downloaded music get close to what good ol' Red Book can really do.
I use a brilliant, well-sorted CD spinner (The Acoustic Precision Eikos) and if all my music continued to be available on CD I'd be very happy indeed.
The Grand Wazoo
20-08-2010, 23:55
This is all irrelevant to me - if either media appeals in the slightest bit, then get one of each & enjoy what each of them has to offer. I'd bet me boots you'll be exposed to more music that way.
Has anyone defined 'better' yet?
I'd definitely agree that in order to really appreciate a wide range of music, it's better to have more than just one source....
I can play records (via the Techie), CDs (via my Sony transport & DAC) and tapes (via my Nak CR-7), and listen to live music broadcasts on radio (via my vintage Sony tuner and Ron Smith) - all to a very high sonic standard! :)
I don't think I would manage to get by with having just the one source component in my main system.
Marco.
If someone who already has amp and speakers but no music collection came to me and said 'Mart, I've got £500 to spend shall I get a TT or a CDP?' I would say CDP because:
1) to build up a collection of vinyl would cost a lot more than the equivilant on CD -- unless you are buying used vinyl which will limit your choice and brings me to point 2 -
2) At some point you are going to need a record cleaning machine and they are not cheap
3) You are going to have to occasionally service the record deck and fit new stylus/cartridges which is a pain especially if you cannot do it yourself - and this is a continuing expense that must be factored in to vinyl replay.
Dave DSJR makes some good points re vinyl sound - For me Vinyl and CD both have strengths and weaknesses, what I would really like to see is a format that delivers the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither. A 12'' plastic disc carrying an analogue signal derived from analogue source read by a laser and fed straight out to the amp. Laserdisc, anyone...?:)
Cost no object and with sound quality the only criteria than I would say vinyl LP through a TT any day. But at the £500 price point it has to be CD ( -okay, or 'computer audio' ;))
chris@panteg
21-08-2010, 10:32
Martin ' remember the Finial laser turntable £10,000 , i heard it once not bad actually but mainly for record library's .
I am going for Vinyl , despite all the good points made against it at this price point , because for me ' once you have heard even a half decent vinyl rig ! there is no going back.
It plays music in a way ' digital just can't manage ! yes there is loads of detail and clarity , dynamics etc , superb in a hifi sense , but as Ricardo Franassovici once stated ,
' with digital you lose the envelope , asking your brain to cope with all those 1 's and 0 's well you just can't do it ' yes its a sweeping statement but i think i get what he means about the envelope thing , Vinyl still despite the distortions sounds whole , with digital i still feel like i am listening to fragments stuck together , if this sounds odd to you fair enough but its just a feeling i get ' thats all.
Feel free to rubbish my thoughts but i am sticking with it:)
Martin ' remember the Finial laser turntable £10,000 , i heard it once not bad actually but mainly for record library's .
I am going for Vinyl , despite all the good points made against it at this price point , because for me ' once you have heard even a half decent vinyl rig ! there is no going back.
Never heard the Finial but recall HFW did a huge review of it and concluded that you needed mint condition records and that it sounded a bit cold and hard compared to a conventional TT. So not the Holy Grail we all hoped it might be.
FWIW I agree with your comments about digital - like I said what is needed is a format with the strengths of both. Imagine a 12 inch disc (like a laserdisc) in a protective caddy (like a mini-disc) read by a laser.
This would give us the followign benefits:
No digital to analogue conversion required - it is all-analogue.
No surface noise, clicks, pops, skips etc.
Freq response 10 Hz to 20000 Hz
No end of side distortion
No physical contact with the disc so no deterioration
No need for expensive cartridges, phone pre-amps, step up trannies etc.
An outer 12'' sleeve to carry the full glory of the cover art, whilst inner sleeve art and text could be reproduced on the surface of the protective caddy.
In other words, the ultimate format. If I had the money I'd develop it myself - globally, the niche market would be large enough to make a profit and a basic player would not need to be expensive as no precision engineering involved.
Just get a CD player with valve outputs, the added ringing and 2nd harmonic distortion *should* do you perfectly (me too, if truth be told :))
Has anyone defined 'better' yet?
I really did wonder when posting this how long it would be before someone actually asked that question! :lol:
Great post too, Martin.
I think getting selective about the "best" recordings, the "best" pressings etc. is rather missing the point, though. This has to be a real-world everyday comparison. My general rule of thumb, which isn't perfect but is usually right, is if it was originally recorded in the analogue domain it sounds better on vinyl and likewise CD for digital. I've personally never "got" the "digital is harsh" type arguments, but my experience is limited. Sure, some CD players are harsh, as are some CDs, but then so are some Turntables/arms/carts.
I actually think there is no valid answer to the question, because as always in this game, "better" (even if we are talking sound quality) is such a subjectively personal thing that we can't be definitive about it, it will always only be individual personal opinions, and I believe that whether we like it or not, there will always be some emotional influence on our answer based on our own experiences and "belief system." It's actually no different (IMHO) to the valves vs. solid-state, passive vs. active (or any other argument of your choice) in that as always, it is down to implementation.
The Grand Wazoo
21-08-2010, 23:16
I really did wonder when posting this how long it would be before someone actually asked that question! :lol:
Waiting for that question & it's answer was pretty much my reason for staying out of the debate so far...........
I actually think there is no valid answer to the question, because as always in this game, "better" (even if we are talking sound quality) is such a subjectively personal thing that we can't be definitive about it, it will always only be individual personal opinions, and I believe that whether we like it or not, there will always be some emotional influence on our answer based on our own experiences and "belief system." It's actually no different (IMHO) to the valves vs. solid-state, passive vs. active (or any other argument of your choice) in that as always, it is down to implementation.
....& that's the most sage statement yet made on this thread.
So, now I can cast my vote!!!!!
Well, the UK voted for one in May, Australia is just about to get one, and so it seems is AoS - a hung parliament, split almost 50/50 between the two, (at the time of writing, CD Player 20, Turntable 21) which does I think conclusively prove absolutely bugger all! :lol:
I actually think there is no valid answer to the question, because as always in this game, "better" (even if we are talking sound quality) is such a subjectively personal thing that we can't be definitive about it, it will always only be individual personal opinions, and I believe that whether we like it or not, there will always be some emotional influence on our answer based on our own experiences and "belief system." It's actually no different (IMHO) to the valves vs. solid-state, passive vs. active (or any other argument of your choice) in that as always, it is down to implementation.
Spot on Alex, i have been scratching my head over the answer since you started this, each to thier own at the end of the day, both do different things
so the answer is yes to all, i like both for different reasons
Haselsh1
22-08-2010, 16:48
That's your choice sir and I cannot argue with that, except to beg to differ on vinyl's "superior imaging and depth." Maybe I have an exceptional CD player still :scratch:
You really must have an exceptional CD player as my vinyl obliterates my Beresford Caiman's imaging in just about every respect.
I'd say cd and buy quite a distance.
You really must have an exceptional CD player as my vinyl obliterates my Beresford Caiman's imaging in just about every respect.
I'll stick with my player then. I suspect Marco's too polite, but I suspect our twenty odd year old CD players just might obliterate a Caiman ;)
I'll stick with my player then. I suspect Marco's too polite, but I suspect our twenty odd year old CD players just might obliterate a Caiman ;)
When we finally sort out the AoS East Region faculty get together, a Caiman (and a KI Signature player that I don't believe will remove your fillings ;)) will be available for your delectation - will be very interesting to see what you think... ...and I'm a big boy, I can take it if I need to sell them both!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.