Michael Fremer said :-

[Marco]

Nope, nothing to do with dither and everything to do with the measurement level. All of CD's vanishingly low distortion figures come from a test level of 0dB and they are not wrong. However, drop that level to -30dB, say, and the figures become more equal. Drop it to -40 or -50dB and you can measure 12% distortion from a CD player (I know - I've done it!) whereas a good cartridge will be more like 1-3%

Obviously, there is more to it than this, such as dynamic range, which is superior on CD, but it just means that the claims of virtually zero distortion for CD were a little misleading at best.

Interesting, Adam. If nothing else it shows how measurements can be used to portray whatever suits your agenda (or context of your argument), and also mislead potential buyers who may be 'impressed' by the figures [and rather sensationalistic statements such as 'zero distortion'], but not properly understand what they mean.

Marco.

[Macca]

Interesting, Adam. If nothing else it shows how measurements can be used to portray whatever suits your agenda (or context of your argument), and also mislead potential buyers who may be 'impressed' by the figures [and rather sensationalistic statements such as 'zero distortion'], but not properly understand what they mean.

Marco.

In fairness Sony/Philips never claimed zero distortion. We're unlikely to ever get a zero distortion format. In any case, if you can't hear it then it's irrelevant anyway.

[Marco]

Iif you can't hear it then it's irrelevant anyway.

Yes, much like all this 'fatally flawed' vinyl

Marco.

[struth]

I can get super rips of vinyl through my relatively modest system. In fact I'd say the rip is probably better much of the time.
That's not to say my vinyl is poor, as it's not. It's pretty good considering the funds. But even at a modest level and including a cleaner there is £1500 invested originally. Digital is lower by far but is probably as good, give or take.
Going up a level to expensive systems, then I guess vinyl might fare better and be slightly in front.
But, we do have to factor in the ritual and tactility of vinyl might be swinging it a bit.

[Barry]

I'm always amazed by how good both approaches can sound.

Analogue, as in vinyl replay, is beset by a myriad of problems: the performance of the TT required to rotate the LP at a constant, unwavering, speed without introducing any unwanted noise, either generated by the TT itself or allowing any external interference to be be added to what is 'read by the pickup; and the pickup/arm combination. Of the latter, the pickup being an electro-mechanical transducer will always have non-linear distortions and resonances present, as well as those caused by tracking and tracing distortion: the first a matter of deviation from true parallel tracking, the second due to the stylus profile being unable to replicate the action of the record cutter. All of these errors contribute to an overall distortion figure often much greater than the figure quoted above.

With digital, the mechanical problems are less of a problem, apart from clocking accuracy, with most of the heavy lifting being done by the DAC to reconstruct the original analogue signal. The choice of filter response is IMO very important. But the coding of an analogue signal to a stepped waveform and then decoding it back again, always amazes me that it can work as well as it does.

Both approaches are capable of producing a reasonably realistic facsimile of the original performance (whatever that may be), but there are other unquantifiable aspects to be considered. These are the convenience and software robustness of CD, vs. the tactile and user involvement with vinyl replay. I also believe that one has to spend quite a bit more on vinyl replay than on CD replay to achieve comparable results.

I'm quite happy to use both approaches - and both give me great listening pleasure.

[AJSki2fly]

I would agree to most of what you say both have there merits and both failings. I was a relatively early adopter of CD in 84/85 and by 86 that was all I was buying, but back then I felt something was missing in the sound quality, this lead me down the path of CDP holy grail search and in 88 I succumbed to a £1850 outlay on a Meridian 508, equivalent today would probably be about £8-10k outlay, so for most a huge commitment in the scheme things. Did this give me CD replay perfection, the simple answer is no. Good or well transcribed ones were good in some cases nearing vinyl sound, but bad or poorly transcribed, whatever the cause still sounded not very good.

So even though I had acquired over 600 CD’s and a pretty expensive system I stopped listening to it, yes the occasional CD went on maybe one a week, but always dissatisfaction returned, a feeling of hollowness and disappointment and that was a system the had cost me about £10k, probably today looking at similar equivalents new would be nearer £30-35k.

So for around 12 years it stay like that, I incorporated aspects of the hifi into a surround system to watch films, and that became my entertainment.

So what changed, about 5 years ago a friend sent me some new music on mp3, I was shocked it sounded awful, what was he on he was a music fan and audiophile with a very good vinyl based system. After discussion with him he did a direct copy and things improved and I could now listen to the new world music. So this led me into lots of ready and home trials listening to the same music digitally recorded at different sample rates and different compression, I even investigated the impacts of digital codecs discovering some are historically tied to equipment used in studios and radio stations. So my conclusion was that unfortunately the digital music medium is to be honest a mess, it has to some extent evolved like topsy, in other words there were/are too many variables across the industry. Yes there are industry standards for CDs, we all know that, but just look at all the codecs for converting to and from digital. So is it really surprising some CDs sound good and others not, or even digital files, to be honest no, not in my opinion now I think it’s pretty obvious.

So my music journey continued and having heard my friends vinyl system about 5 years ago, of around £8k when he purchased, I venture back into vinyl. Initially a 2nd hand Project TT from my friend , and then over the next 4 years I moved towards a more analogue focused system and yes I admit ended up spending a reasonable amount. I listen to the same music as I have for 40 years but now it just sounds right, more natural to the ear, more real is the only way I can put it into words. Yes I did keep the Meridian and I listened to good CDs back to back with the same on vinyl through my system but each time the vinyl one through. So why is this, well in my opinion and I’m sure there are many other reasons is that producing a record is more standardised than a digital file, with the advent of RIAA one compression/decompression circuit was agreed across the industry, unless I have misunderstood something. The other recording and mixing variables remain much that same as they have been, although with the advent of digital recording and mixing we may be introducing the same issue onto new vinyl as on CD, certainly and engineer can deliberately compress and alter the dynamics creating a modern wall of sound, yuk.

But IMHO for the music I listen to the vinyl experience give me the best experience to my ears, is it because it was that sound I grew up with and loved, maybe, maybe not, I didn’t listen to vinyl for 25 years so I would have thought my brain and ears would have lost any pre-programming in that time. So it’s mainly vinyl for me and occasional digital to find new stuff and if it’s good but on vinyl and hope it then doesn’t sound digitised because of the front end recording process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dave2010]

But IMHO for the music I listen to the vinyl experience give me the best experience to my ears, is it because it was that sound I grew up with and loved, maybe, maybe not, I didn’t listen to vinyl for 25 years so I would have thought my brain and ears would have lost any pre-programming in that time. So it’s mainly vinyl for me and occasional digital to find new stuff and if it’s good but on vinyl and hope it then doesn’t sound digitised because of the front end recording process.

An interesting story.

I'm interested in the vinyl you listen to. Is it new - which is mostly digitally mastered, or older, which may have been created using tape and other analogue methods?

I'm guessing that some of the discs you like were actually digital recordings at some point in the recording chain. In that case your preferences are not just for digital vs analogue, but for something in the consumer replay chain which you prefer using vinyl or something in the vinyl disc production chain.

Am I right - or are all your preferred vinyl discs made from analogue sources, and edited using non digital methods?

[Audio Al]

I have a Meridian 508 and rate it highly However as said lot's of times it's Vinyl all the way for me ,

Allways has been ( It was R2R but sadly don't currently have a propper high end R2R ±± )

[Jimbo]

I would agree to most of what you say both have there merits and both failings. I was a relatively early adopter of CD in 84/85 and by 86 that was all I was buying, but back then I felt something was missing in the sound quality, this lead me down the path of CDP holy grail search and in 88 I succumbed to a £1850 outlay on a Meridian 508, equivalent today would probably be about £8-10k outlay, so for most a huge commitment in the scheme things. Did this give me CD replay perfection, the simple answer is no. Good or well transcribed ones were good in some cases nearing vinyl sound, but bad or poorly transcribed, whatever the cause still sounded not very good.

So even though I had acquired over 600 CD’s and a pretty expensive system I stopped listening to it, yes the occasional CD went on maybe one a week, but always dissatisfaction returned, a feeling of hollowness and disappointment and that was a system the had cost me about £10k, probably today looking at similar equivalents new would be nearer £30-35k.

So for around 12 years it stay like that, I incorporated aspects of the hifi into a surround system to watch films, and that became my entertainment.

So what changed, about 5 years ago a friend sent me some new music on mp3, I was shocked it sounded awful, what was he on he was a music fan and audiophile with a very good vinyl based system. After discussion with him he did a direct copy and things improved and I could now listen to the new world music. So this led me into lots of ready and home trials listening to the same music digitally recorded at different sample rates and different compression, I even investigated the impacts of digital codecs discovering some are historically tied to equipment used in studios and radio stations. So my conclusion was that unfortunately the digital music medium is to be honest a mess, it has to some extent evolved like topsy, in other words there were/are too many variables across the industry. Yes there are industry standards for CDs, we all know that, but just look at all the codecs for converting to and from digital. So is it really surprising some CDs sound good and others not, or even digital files, to be honest no, not in my opinion now I think it’s pretty obvious.

So my music journey continued and having heard my friends vinyl system about 5 years ago, of around £8k when he purchased, I venture back into vinyl. Initially a 2nd hand Project TT from my friend , and then over the next 4 years I moved towards a more analogue focused system and yes I admit ended up spending a reasonable amount. I listen to the same music as I have for 40 years but now it just sounds right, more natural to the ear, more real is the only way I can put it into words. Yes I did keep the Meridian and I listened to good CDs back to back with the same on vinyl through my system but each time the vinyl one through. So why is this, well in my opinion and I’m sure there are many other reasons is that producing a record is more standardised than a digital file, with the advent of RIAA one compression/decompression circuit was agreed across the industry, unless I have misunderstood something. The other recording and mixing variables remain much that same as they have been, although with the advent of digital recording and mixing we may be introducing the same issue onto new vinyl as on CD, certainly and engineer can deliberately compress and alter the dynamics creating a modern wall of sound, yuk.

But IMHO for the music I listen to the vinyl experience give me the best experience to my ears, is it because it was that sound I grew up with and loved, maybe, maybe not, I didn’t listen to vinyl for 25 years so I would have thought my brain and ears would have lost any pre-programming in that time. So it’s mainly vinyl for me and occasional digital to find new stuff and if it’s good but on vinyl and hope it then doesn’t sound digitised because of the front end recording process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like our experiences with vinyl are similar Adrian?

[Pharos]

I think it is easy to underestimate the effects of our early environment, imprinting in a period when our brains are susceptible to internalising 'norms'.

I still catch myself behaving in a way both taught and occurring around me when very young, and which is archaically unrelated to new social norms. (init?)