Cd wees wees over vinyl ?

[Barry]

The turntable is beyond concern in my opinion which is good, but a £100 MM cartridge and integrated phonostage in a sugden Integrated amplifier is not the pinnacle of analogue reproduction for which to make an absolutist statement about digital weeing on vinyl.

That is all the point I am making.

So which of the two formats do you prefer? And what equipment do you use?

[Enossification]

The turntable is beyond concern in my opinion which is good, but a £100 MM cartridge and integrated phonostage in a sugden Integrated amplifier is not the pinnacle of analogue reproduction for which to make an absolutist statement about digital weeing on vinyl.

That is all the point I am making.

Good point.

[Pigmy Pony]

Perhaps the thread title should be "CD wee wees over vinyl on a sound per £ basis" Probably no disputing that. I play both records and CDs, and enjoy both formats, but the vinyl front end cost fifteen times more than the CD player. And then there's the cost of the music...

[Lawrence001]

Perhaps the thread title should be "CD wee wees over vinyl on a sound per £ basis" Probably no disputing that. I play both records and CDs, and enjoy both formats, but the vinyl front end cost fifteen times more than the CD player. And then there's the cost of the music...

So that's a £10 Eclipse Richer Sounds special vs a Project Debut?

Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk

[Pigmy Pony]

So that's a £10 Eclipse Richer Sounds special vs a Project Debut?

Sent from my PCT-L29 using Tapatalk

Ooh that sounds tempting, I was thinking of upgrading

[Pete The Cat]

If you look at this from the equipment end of the process, then in my opinion a budget CD player is better than a budget vinyl player.

BUT

The years have told me you need to look at it from the mastering end of the process also, since player v player isn't the full question.

Compression and loudness are indiscriminatory but have blighted CDs more than records in my experience. I know that dynamic range measurement isn't the be-all-and-end-all but it's a damn good indicator. This month I've bought three CDs: the new Judas Priest album (DR7, bearable but noticeably spoiled); last year's KK Priest album (an abominable DR5, like playing a worn cassette in a car on a motorway with the windows down - and the Tidal download is the same); and for those of you who think that's only to be expected with heavy metal, then The Smile's "Wall Of Eyes" was also DR7.

Of course, the record companies are still presenting digital music for the benefit of the person who listens on their Beats cans on the street and doesn't want to have to keep changing the volume; but I also suspect that they're content to impair the performance of CD to force people to buy the more expensive vinyl version. I submit that the vinyl versions of these three albums are DR14, DR12 and DR10 respectively!! It's pretty certain that the vinyl copies will be the better of the two formats.

Pete

[Jimbo]

Mastering of many digital copies from analogue originals leaves a lot to be desired. I have been so disappointed many times when trying to replace the original with a digital copy. However I find most of the digitally recorded and mastered material I have is very good indeed.....on vinyl. Again not sure why it's not always great on CD, maybe they master the digital recording different again for CD? Or is it that we have to use DACs to unscramble it and there in lies the issue? That last digital step can be the fatal one.

I know one record engineer/producer who records at high level DSD rate onto a Korg MR2000S which records at double the quality of SACD and they say the recording sounds stunning at DSD level but has to be mixed down to PCM and then the quality drops a little. If we could buy recordings and listen to them at this level before too much mastering then I think vinyl would struggle to compete.

But as I have found CD and in fact most digital music sounds inferior to the vinyl I listen too. I must admit I do cherry pick what I listen to on vinyl as I can't abide poorly mastered stuff on that too!

[Pigmy Pony]

If you look at this from the equipment end of the process, then in my opinion a budget CD player is better than a budget vinyl player.

BUT

The years have told me you need to look at it from the mastering end of the process also, since player v player isn't the full question.

Compression and loudness are indiscriminatory but have blighted CDs more than records in my experience. I know that dynamic range measurement isn't the be-all-and-end-all but it's a damn good indicator. This month I've bought three CDs: the new Judas Priest album (DR7, bearable but noticeably spoiled); last year's KK Priest album (an abominable DR5, like playing a worn cassette in a car on a motorway with the windows down - and the Tidal download is the same); and for those of you who think that's only to be expected with heavy metal, then The Smile's "Wall Of Eyes" was also DR7.

Of course, the record companies are still presenting digital music for the benefit of the person who listens on their Beats cans on the street and doesn't want to have to keep changing the volume; but I also suspect that they're content to impair the performance of CD to force people to buy the more expensive vinyl version. I submit that the vinyl versions of these three albums are DR14, DR12 and DR10 respectively!! It's pretty certain that the vinyl copies will be the better of the two formats.

Pete

That all makes sense to me, Pete - The idea that the record companies might "steer" us toward a particular format by making the alternative sound shit seems entirely plausible. Or maybe I'm being cynical, and perhaps it is just a case of horses for courses - people listening to vinyl at home expect a certain standard, while music 'on the move' favours a greater degree of compression for the reason you state.

Wouldn't you expect the manufacturers of high-end CD playing systems to be jumping up and down though

[Macca]

Said this before many times but the trick with old analogue recordings is to get the original CD release from the 1980s. These were often a 'flat transfer' straight from a master tape. Back when the master tapes hadn't deteriorated much too.

Most of these will be better than any vinyl version for dynamic range by some margin. Plus no snap, crackle and pop.

Not a solution for a lot of stuff recorded after about 1999 although ensuring you have your gain staging set up properly helps. If you can't find a spot on the volume between too quiet and too loud that needs looking at.

I don't buy the idea that record companies are doing it to push people to vinyl. All physical format sales put together are a small fraction of streaming these days.

[Pigmy Pony]

Said this before many times but the trick with old analogue recordings is to get the original CD release from the 1980s. These were often a 'flat transfer' straight from a master tape. Back when the master tapes hadn't deteriorated much too.

Most of these will be better than any vinyl version for dynamic range by some margin. Plus no snap, crackle and pop.

Not a solution for a lot of stuff recorded after about 1999 although ensuring you have your gain staging set up properly helps. If you can't find a spot on the volume between too quiet and too loud that needs looking at.

I don't buy the idea that record companies are doing it to push people to vinyl. All physical format sales put together are a small fraction of streaming these days.

I do remember you saying this, but not where you get the information from nor how you identify 'correct' issues/reissues. Here's an example of something I might buy. (not this particular one, I already have it on vinyl ) Looking at the 'used' copies for sale, how can I identify which one of these for sale might be best? This might be possible if you are at a record shop, charity shop or car boot, but when buying online, not so much.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gaucho-Stee...s%2C130&sr=8-1