Bernard
Well-known member
Thanks Gordon. I'll try the Optrix as this does not happen with other CDs.
Exactly Why Vinyl Isn't The Future of Audiophilia
- Thread starter danvu
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
theWB
Well-known member
Batman and Robin can't seem to agree on this subject either!
Right! The finest sound I have ever heard is when Peter McGrath, who engineered some of the recordings that Mark Levinson brought out years ago, brought his custom 30 i.p.s. two-track Studer tape deck to a local Mark Levinson dealer and played us some of the master tapes. Wow. Talk about "organic" and realistic sound. Of course, very few of us have access to such material, but still...just wow. Today, some SACDs that are derived from pure DSD masters sound pretty darn good, too, but alas, the majority of SACDs come from PCM masters. Still, I think SACD audio is less sterile and cold than RBCD audio.
willyumm930
New member
I am new to this board and I enjoyed reading another digital vs. analog debate. I won't bore you long with my input.
I just love the music, whether it's coming from my DAC/Transport or my turntable. There are great recordings from both sides, giving you awesome music the way it was meant be heard. I prefer digital when I do not wish to clean and flip records (you know, after a hard day at work). I prefer records when I want to hear my old heroes from yesteryear. I agree with Mr. Gray, " Advocates of one medium, on either side, will provide inaccurate, indefensible information / generalizations and use it as a justification to support their own personal tastes."
I believe there is room for both formats for many years. Now, let's get back to the music!
-William
I just love the music, whether it's coming from my DAC/Transport or my turntable. There are great recordings from both sides, giving you awesome music the way it was meant be heard. I prefer digital when I do not wish to clean and flip records (you know, after a hard day at work). I prefer records when I want to hear my old heroes from yesteryear. I agree with Mr. Gray, " Advocates of one medium, on either side, will provide inaccurate, indefensible information / generalizations and use it as a justification to support their own personal tastes."
I believe there is room for both formats for many years. Now, let's get back to the music!
-William
Last edited:
Victor
Well-known member
The Future of the Audio Industry is…..Retrospective Compatibility….
==================================================
It has long been accepted, since the introduction of CD, that it was not cost-effective or aesthetically desirable to scrap a library of, say 1000 LPs, in favour of new media. In current values, with CDs being up to $20 a pop, it was cheaper and more sensible to spend a couple of grand refining the analogue playback system, while embracing any new digital releases, unobtainable in any other format.
In today’s audio/video market, however, it seems that manufacturers & media producers welcome the chance to RE-SELL THE ENTIRE MARKET to Users, whenever there is a format change, under a glittering banner of best ever capability. (A best ever capability which digital adherents cannot agree upon. Indeed some of the purportedly wisest among them maintain that humble 44.1/16-bit sounds every bit as good as the 96KHz/24-bit or higher….and who are we to question this?)
Is it any wonder, then, that some of us have used our common sense and stood back from the conflict, by adopting a measured approach to new technology?
Moving on to some of our writers specific criticisms of LPs, I would describe his diatribe as naïve, even clueless, and lacking in experience.
For example, he claims that 30 yr old LPs suffer from “shaded” performance compared with equivalently old CDs. Given his age it is unlikely that he has been able to evaluate an LP over a 30 yr lifecycle so has never been able to put this claim to the test in any practical sense. I own LPs in excess of 40 years old, heard from new, and which have been played innumerable times. I would challenge our “expert” to an unsighted listening test comprising a mix of old LPs and new, in which he attempts to identify old from new. I’ll wager real money that he’d get it wrong.
Stylii have an infinitesimally small contact area with the groove at correspondingly high pressures. Given that a simple change of stylus profile or setup may result in playing a virgin portion of the groove this throws the writers whole argument of long term record wear into disarray.
If you can’t hear wear, does it exist in any meaningful way?
“Vinyl is not as physically robust as CD” : I feel like Scotty after a Klingon has just slandered the Enterprise....
LPs are a great deal more robust than people give them credit for. Could you for example play a CD in the open air, playing side uppermost, regularly, without specks of dust and hair becoming offensive to the laser i.e to the extent that the CD might not play at all?
This is one reason why Laser Turntables could not ever be a success. They measure every piece of dirt instead of pushing it aside.
On one occasion I accidentally dropped a heavy metal hinge onto an LP while it was on the turntable. The same hinge managed to put 3 dents in a book cover after falling from a similar height!
I played the LP the next day, listening intently for the damage to show itself. By the time I realised, I found that I had already played the affected track/s, misjudging where the damage was. The LP played flawlessly throughout, despite my intense concentration…
Seriously, I don’t think the average punter knows how to look after optical media well enough.
(The average user is not the guy with the Simaudio Andromeda who puts his CDs through an ultrasonic bath prior to playing BTW – but more the careless variety, like my 21 yr old daughter)
Given the average lack of care relating to optical media I’d be surprised if CD was playable at all after 30 years never mind of merchantable quality!!!
Bevensee makes a good point : He cites a dynamic range of 4db on some digital recordings (I thought 6db was bad but 4?!?!?!?)
Indeed, a 120db dynamic range is practically unusable. What is the point of hearing a pin drop at 100m when the next loud transient is a weapon of mass destruction?
Classical recordings on LP seem to have a perfectly natural balance. I attend a lot of classical concerts so have a fair idea of what I’m looking for and vinyl is not inadequate to the extent that you wouldn’t be asking yourself if the dynamic range needs to be a enhanced!!!
Try the Telarc 1812 LP and you’ll know what I mean. How many exhibition demos have been aborted because the 1812 blew the drivers?!?!?
Not inadequate?
Scratches on LPs : a scratch may only be 1 mil wide. The pulse could have a duration of 1/30000th of a second. Any well optimised mechanical system allied to a well designed pre-amp, will deal with this so that it is completely non-interfering.
Also, scratches tend to be close to the upper part of the groove meaning that your average stylus will reach beyond them into the depth of the groove and similarly not register them. In this regard a spherical stylus may be a poor choice.
I own 2nd hand LPs which, when examined under a filament lamp, exhibit horrifying physical condition but which play perfectly.
What is genuinely astonishing about LP playback is that 2nd hand LPs which may have been “thrashed” for years on someone’s cheap rig, often play like “demonstration quality” material.
If heard YOU WOULD WANT TO OWN THEM at all costs…
“Vinyl offers no provision for surround sound” : Why would you want to? 2-channel listening is the only way to appreciate music. This is an inescapable fact.
Contrary to what people might think from my reply I’ve been a digital first adopter for years (not CD though – one demo was enough). I was one of the first in the UK to purchase a DVD player and also to own any software (had to be purchased from the US as no titles were yet released here) I also graduated through analogue surround to various digital surround setups and have a number of special editions that feature the stereo mix as well as the DTS or DD surround 5.1 mix.
These surround versions don’t get any air time. Like any good piece of art the only way to enjoy music is the original 2-channel mix in its non-remastered form.
Anything else is just a novelty with no lasting value.
(Although with bad CD I have been known to cheat and add a bit of DSP to soften the pain...)
In conclusion, don’t you wish you had $1 for every person who says, “ I once disliked CD but since buying Tube Amplifier X it’s now good”?
Analogue is happy to be piped through SS or valves. It’s not picky.
Perhaps the real question we should be asking is not, “What’s the next evolution of Digital”, but “What’s wrong with Digital that we feel we need to cure it??”
Happy listening (?)
==================================================
It has long been accepted, since the introduction of CD, that it was not cost-effective or aesthetically desirable to scrap a library of, say 1000 LPs, in favour of new media. In current values, with CDs being up to $20 a pop, it was cheaper and more sensible to spend a couple of grand refining the analogue playback system, while embracing any new digital releases, unobtainable in any other format.
In today’s audio/video market, however, it seems that manufacturers & media producers welcome the chance to RE-SELL THE ENTIRE MARKET to Users, whenever there is a format change, under a glittering banner of best ever capability. (A best ever capability which digital adherents cannot agree upon. Indeed some of the purportedly wisest among them maintain that humble 44.1/16-bit sounds every bit as good as the 96KHz/24-bit or higher….and who are we to question this?)
Is it any wonder, then, that some of us have used our common sense and stood back from the conflict, by adopting a measured approach to new technology?
Moving on to some of our writers specific criticisms of LPs, I would describe his diatribe as naïve, even clueless, and lacking in experience.
For example, he claims that 30 yr old LPs suffer from “shaded” performance compared with equivalently old CDs. Given his age it is unlikely that he has been able to evaluate an LP over a 30 yr lifecycle so has never been able to put this claim to the test in any practical sense. I own LPs in excess of 40 years old, heard from new, and which have been played innumerable times. I would challenge our “expert” to an unsighted listening test comprising a mix of old LPs and new, in which he attempts to identify old from new. I’ll wager real money that he’d get it wrong.
Stylii have an infinitesimally small contact area with the groove at correspondingly high pressures. Given that a simple change of stylus profile or setup may result in playing a virgin portion of the groove this throws the writers whole argument of long term record wear into disarray.
If you can’t hear wear, does it exist in any meaningful way?
“Vinyl is not as physically robust as CD” : I feel like Scotty after a Klingon has just slandered the Enterprise....
LPs are a great deal more robust than people give them credit for. Could you for example play a CD in the open air, playing side uppermost, regularly, without specks of dust and hair becoming offensive to the laser i.e to the extent that the CD might not play at all?
This is one reason why Laser Turntables could not ever be a success. They measure every piece of dirt instead of pushing it aside.
On one occasion I accidentally dropped a heavy metal hinge onto an LP while it was on the turntable. The same hinge managed to put 3 dents in a book cover after falling from a similar height!
I played the LP the next day, listening intently for the damage to show itself. By the time I realised, I found that I had already played the affected track/s, misjudging where the damage was. The LP played flawlessly throughout, despite my intense concentration…
Seriously, I don’t think the average punter knows how to look after optical media well enough.
(The average user is not the guy with the Simaudio Andromeda who puts his CDs through an ultrasonic bath prior to playing BTW – but more the careless variety, like my 21 yr old daughter)
Given the average lack of care relating to optical media I’d be surprised if CD was playable at all after 30 years never mind of merchantable quality!!!
Bevensee makes a good point : He cites a dynamic range of 4db on some digital recordings (I thought 6db was bad but 4?!?!?!?)
Indeed, a 120db dynamic range is practically unusable. What is the point of hearing a pin drop at 100m when the next loud transient is a weapon of mass destruction?
Classical recordings on LP seem to have a perfectly natural balance. I attend a lot of classical concerts so have a fair idea of what I’m looking for and vinyl is not inadequate to the extent that you wouldn’t be asking yourself if the dynamic range needs to be a enhanced!!!
Try the Telarc 1812 LP and you’ll know what I mean. How many exhibition demos have been aborted because the 1812 blew the drivers?!?!?
Not inadequate?
Scratches on LPs : a scratch may only be 1 mil wide. The pulse could have a duration of 1/30000th of a second. Any well optimised mechanical system allied to a well designed pre-amp, will deal with this so that it is completely non-interfering.
Also, scratches tend to be close to the upper part of the groove meaning that your average stylus will reach beyond them into the depth of the groove and similarly not register them. In this regard a spherical stylus may be a poor choice.
I own 2nd hand LPs which, when examined under a filament lamp, exhibit horrifying physical condition but which play perfectly.
What is genuinely astonishing about LP playback is that 2nd hand LPs which may have been “thrashed” for years on someone’s cheap rig, often play like “demonstration quality” material.
If heard YOU WOULD WANT TO OWN THEM at all costs…
“Vinyl offers no provision for surround sound” : Why would you want to? 2-channel listening is the only way to appreciate music. This is an inescapable fact.
Contrary to what people might think from my reply I’ve been a digital first adopter for years (not CD though – one demo was enough).
I was one of the first in the UK to purchase a DVD player and also to own any software (had to be purchased from the US as no titles were yet released here) I also graduated through analogue surround to various digital surround setups and have a number of special editions that feature the stereo mix as well as the DTS or DD surround 5.1 mix.These surround versions don’t get any air time. Like any good piece of art the only way to enjoy music is the original 2-channel mix in its non-remastered form.
Anything else is just a novelty with no lasting value.
(Although with bad CD I have been known to cheat and add a bit of DSP to soften the pain...)
In conclusion, don’t you wish you had $1 for every person who says, “ I once disliked CD but since buying Tube Amplifier X it’s now good”?
Analogue is happy to be piped through SS or valves. It’s not picky.
Perhaps the real question we should be asking is not, “What’s the next evolution of Digital”, but “What’s wrong with Digital that we feel we need to cure it??”
Happy listening (?)
Gordon, in reply to your comments to my previous posts (sorry that I did not reply before):
I do not think that my comment about dynamic range is misleading. Of cause 4dB is an extreme case, but try to Google 'loudness war'. My (admitted empiric) experience is that in the 60's and 70's, i.e. before digital took over, there was a real quest from the recording and playback industry for the highest possible audio quality in the recordings and in the playback equipmentt. CD was actually a part of that quest, and it really does have a theoretically superior dynamic range to vinyl. Why is it then that the average dynamic range of CDs have decreased the last 10 years? Why is it that every new remaster of whatever CD is more dynamically compressed than the previous? Why did people who bought Metallica's 'Death Magnetic' CD prefer the Guitar Hero version (no kidding!) My hypothesis is that the portability is to blame. CDs today are mastered to sound big in a noisy environment through a small pair of ipod earphones.
Vinyl, on the other hand, will never 'suffer' from a portable-friendly (i.e. dynamically comressed) mastering, simply because it is an impracical format that can only be used on a stationary system. Actually, in the first years after the CD came out, there was a tendency of vinyl LPs with more than 30 minutes of music on each side. They also sounded awful, and compared to the original CD releases of the same record, the CD is often a lot better. Then compared with a modern CD remaster...Different story (Sigh!).
This is why my claim is that as interesting as it may be to try to identify which format has the theoretically best sound, today, alas, it has litle to do with the quality of the CDs and LPs we actually listen to.
Regarding my comment on longevity of CDs vs LPs. I agree that with various back-up solutions, maybe there is after all a long term reliable solution for digital. But I am not sure. I know that if I take good care of my LPs (and they don't get stolen), they will outlive me. So I guess it comes down to the likelihood of my LPs getting stolen VS. the likelihood of some cloudservice loosing my data. Tough call...
Personally, I have gone through a series of system upgrades since my first system bought in 1988 when I was 14 years old. In each of the systems - until the one I have now - the price of the CD player and the price of the turntable was in the same range. I always found myself enjoying the LP sound more. A lot more. Also with CDs from before the loudness war killed the dynamic range of most CDs. From this, I could conclude that LP is fundamentally better than CD. But I would be wrong. The only thing I can conclude is that my brain apparently is better at filtering out surface noise from an LP than low-level distortion from a DAC.
So all things being equal, I guess that some people will prefer LP and some people CD, simply because our ear-brain process what we hear differently. But, alas, all else is not equal. The loudness war has killed the dynamic range of so many CDs that in my opinion, the actual sound from LP has left the actual sound of CD in the dust.
I do not think that my comment about dynamic range is misleading. Of cause 4dB is an extreme case, but try to Google 'loudness war'. My (admitted empiric) experience is that in the 60's and 70's, i.e. before digital took over, there was a real quest from the recording and playback industry for the highest possible audio quality in the recordings and in the playback equipmentt. CD was actually a part of that quest, and it really does have a theoretically superior dynamic range to vinyl. Why is it then that the average dynamic range of CDs have decreased the last 10 years? Why is it that every new remaster of whatever CD is more dynamically compressed than the previous? Why did people who bought Metallica's 'Death Magnetic' CD prefer the Guitar Hero version (no kidding!) My hypothesis is that the portability is to blame. CDs today are mastered to sound big in a noisy environment through a small pair of ipod earphones.
Vinyl, on the other hand, will never 'suffer' from a portable-friendly (i.e. dynamically comressed) mastering, simply because it is an impracical format that can only be used on a stationary system. Actually, in the first years after the CD came out, there was a tendency of vinyl LPs with more than 30 minutes of music on each side. They also sounded awful, and compared to the original CD releases of the same record, the CD is often a lot better. Then compared with a modern CD remaster...Different story (Sigh!).
This is why my claim is that as interesting as it may be to try to identify which format has the theoretically best sound, today, alas, it has litle to do with the quality of the CDs and LPs we actually listen to.
Regarding my comment on longevity of CDs vs LPs. I agree that with various back-up solutions, maybe there is after all a long term reliable solution for digital. But I am not sure. I know that if I take good care of my LPs (and they don't get stolen), they will outlive me. So I guess it comes down to the likelihood of my LPs getting stolen VS. the likelihood of some cloudservice loosing my data. Tough call...
Personally, I have gone through a series of system upgrades since my first system bought in 1988 when I was 14 years old. In each of the systems - until the one I have now - the price of the CD player and the price of the turntable was in the same range. I always found myself enjoying the LP sound more. A lot more. Also with CDs from before the loudness war killed the dynamic range of most CDs. From this, I could conclude that LP is fundamentally better than CD. But I would be wrong. The only thing I can conclude is that my brain apparently is better at filtering out surface noise from an LP than low-level distortion from a DAC.
So all things being equal, I guess that some people will prefer LP and some people CD, simply because our ear-brain process what we hear differently. But, alas, all else is not equal. The loudness war has killed the dynamic range of so many CDs that in my opinion, the actual sound from LP has left the actual sound of CD in the dust.
Victor
Well-known member
Please also remember that as signal level decreases (i.e. as dynamic range is increased) digital related distortion increases, while analogue is exactly the opposite. Since most signals reside at low level most of the time (unless you are constantly in the top 4db) this could be a significant influence on listener's preferences.
With regard to original 2-channel mixes, it may not have been clear that I was referring to the analogue variety? 2-channel CD versions may not even be the same recording as that much loved performance from the 70s/80s...
It doesn't mean that different session tapes aren't interesting just that potential buyers should be aware if they suddenly decide to start collecting digital copies of e.g. 70s Prog Rock.
An important detail
With regard to original 2-channel mixes, it may not have been clear that I was referring to the analogue variety? 2-channel CD versions may not even be the same recording as that much loved performance from the 70s/80s...
It doesn't mean that different session tapes aren't interesting just that potential buyers should be aware if they suddenly decide to start collecting digital copies of e.g. 70s Prog Rock.
An important detail
shakham
Well-known member
I have some questions...
How is music recorded today?
At what point does it move into the digital world? Does it ever stay 100% in the analogue world today?
Assuming they do move into digital at some point....
What resolution do they use? 24/192?
Is the flow for "new" vinyl recording different than digital? If it isn't...then I don't see the point of vinyl.
I was trying to google/read about it, and I did find someone mention that they put different EQ effects for vinyl output. Wouldn't you consider that cheating?
If I were to choose based on what I know today....
I feel digital has the ability to transfer information perfectly from one level to the next, while analogue introduces "effects" and "degrades".
I equate it to a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a DVD vs a VHS tape. You know what happens to VHS.
Digital can give you a "perfect copy", all the way from the digitized microphone signal of the singer/instrument, down to the pre-amp outputs of your processor (in pure/direct/untouched mode).
I don't see how vinyl could ever match that.
How is music recorded today?
At what point does it move into the digital world? Does it ever stay 100% in the analogue world today?
Assuming they do move into digital at some point....
What resolution do they use? 24/192?
Is the flow for "new" vinyl recording different than digital? If it isn't...then I don't see the point of vinyl.
I was trying to google/read about it, and I did find someone mention that they put different EQ effects for vinyl output. Wouldn't you consider that cheating?
If I were to choose based on what I know today....
I feel digital has the ability to transfer information perfectly from one level to the next, while analogue introduces "effects" and "degrades".
I equate it to a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a DVD vs a VHS tape. You know what happens to VHS.
Digital can give you a "perfect copy", all the way from the digitized microphone signal of the singer/instrument, down to the pre-amp outputs of your processor (in pure/direct/untouched mode).
I don't see how vinyl could ever match that.
User211
Well-known member
True Spike, lest your cloud provider goes bust or hardware/software setup fail (ref last point post #20).
Gordon sums this one up well this time.
Try not to worry about it too much. You WILL survive that way
Gordon sums this one up well this time.
Try not to worry about it too much. You WILL survive that way
Last edited:
amey01
Well-known member
You make a lot of sense, but it was this comment
that got me.
If I told you that CDs or digital formats missed musical information of that same length, you'd be up in arms about how it is not capturing the whole musical information. In fact, bog standard redbook samples faster than that at 1/44100 second. So the argument is a little obtuse.
In fact, it is more than that. LPs miss 1/30,000 second of information - no problem!! CDs only sample at 1/44100 intervals - not enough! How can it change like that?
Mechanical systems can not, do not and will never selectively choose to give you music, but not undesirable artefacts like scratches. Not possible. Doesn't happen. Surface noise is one of the main problems I have with LP, and surface noise of any description is NOT AUDIOPHILE in my opinion. It has no place in an audiophile system.
I've said before, and I'll say again - I am not against analogue in any way - it sounds wonderful. But it sounds wonderful from professional sources (like high-speed tape), not crappy mainstream consumer formats (LP).
LP was designed to give 1950s kids and mummys and daddys an easy-to-use format to play on their portable decks at parties. No more really. Case in point - how many masters do you see recorded direct to LP? If it is so good, why not?
And the above applies to analogue recordings ONLY. I have a quiet laugh at people that praise modern LPs compared to their digital equivalent, quietly ignoring the fact that the music has been originally recorded, mastered, spliced and EQed in the digital domain. "Butchered" in the digital domain would in many cases be a more accurate description. But transferring it to LP makes it all okay......haha, as if!
that got me.
If I told you that CDs or digital formats missed musical information of that same length, you'd be up in arms about how it is not capturing the whole musical information. In fact, bog standard redbook samples faster than that at 1/44100 second. So the argument is a little obtuse.
In fact, it is more than that. LPs miss 1/30,000 second of information - no problem!! CDs only sample at 1/44100 intervals - not enough! How can it change like that?
Mechanical systems can not, do not and will never selectively choose to give you music, but not undesirable artefacts like scratches. Not possible. Doesn't happen. Surface noise is one of the main problems I have with LP, and surface noise of any description is NOT AUDIOPHILE in my opinion. It has no place in an audiophile system.
I've said before, and I'll say again - I am not against analogue in any way - it sounds wonderful. But it sounds wonderful from professional sources (like high-speed tape), not crappy mainstream consumer formats (LP).
LP was designed to give 1950s kids and mummys and daddys an easy-to-use format to play on their portable decks at parties. No more really. Case in point - how many masters do you see recorded direct to LP? If it is so good, why not?
And the above applies to analogue recordings ONLY. I have a quiet laugh at people that praise modern LPs compared to their digital equivalent, quietly ignoring the fact that the music has been originally recorded, mastered, spliced and EQed in the digital domain. "Butchered" in the digital domain would in many cases be a more accurate description. But transferring it to LP makes it all okay......haha, as if!
Last edited:
Victor
Well-known member
Amey, please read the context of my response to the article. Scratches, few as they are, tend to be superficial. The stylus looks beyond them most of the time. This is why you'll listen to 6 lps on the trot without anyone being aware of any disruption whatsoever...
If you are being troubled by them you need to look to either the condition or type of your stylus or your turntable setup.
You did read the my tale about accidental damage to one LP? Noise immunity doesn't get any better than that - especially given that I was scrutinizing the sound intently to pick up any audible damage....
The duration itself was just a wild guess depending on the angle of the damage. It could easily have been 1/70000th but you might as well ask yourself if you'd notice if a Bit dropped out of a CDs data structure?
Here's another tale, a digital one this time. It's a little harrowing so you'd best remove the children from the room....
A friend of a colleague, who related the tale, was building his own mega valve amp. After lovingly crafting every detail he was ready, finally setting up his music server (1X Tb memory) and preparing to throw the switch to power up...
At switch on, the electromagnetic pulse from the valve amp immediately wiped his hard drive.
(Hope the backup wasn't standing next to it...)
That was a sore one and the Cloud suddenly looks attractive...
Yes, you make a good point about digitally recorded LPs. The ideal is an all analogue process but beggars can't be choosers. Digital recording was always audible and identifiable on LPs from the earliest days of manufacture but not all new LPs are made this way (the artist Kate Bush is an analogue enthusiast for example, and insists on analogue purity in production). Fortunately I have a good collection of non-Digital LPs - and there are plenty more good ones available for pennies at the Thrift Shops. Some of the best sounding LPs I own only cost me 99p...
The bottom line (if it wasn't clear to the writer of the article) is that analogue is already a highly refined High Definition process and will bear comparison to any other method in terms of listening satisfaction to the extent that many analogue enthusiasts will not tolerate anything else.
The OP asked my opinion of that article, and you now have it.
If you are being troubled by them you need to look to either the condition or type of your stylus or your turntable setup.
You did read the my tale about accidental damage to one LP? Noise immunity doesn't get any better than that - especially given that I was scrutinizing the sound intently to pick up any audible damage....
The duration itself was just a wild guess depending on the angle of the damage. It could easily have been 1/70000th but you might as well ask yourself if you'd notice if a Bit dropped out of a CDs data structure?
Here's another tale, a digital one this time. It's a little harrowing so you'd best remove the children from the room....
A friend of a colleague, who related the tale, was building his own mega valve amp. After lovingly crafting every detail he was ready, finally setting up his music server (1X Tb memory) and preparing to throw the switch to power up...
At switch on, the electromagnetic pulse from the valve amp immediately wiped his hard drive.
(Hope the backup wasn't standing next to it...)
That was a sore one and the Cloud suddenly looks attractive...
Yes, you make a good point about digitally recorded LPs. The ideal is an all analogue process but beggars can't be choosers. Digital recording was always audible and identifiable on LPs from the earliest days of manufacture but not all new LPs are made this way (the artist Kate Bush is an analogue enthusiast for example, and insists on analogue purity in production). Fortunately I have a good collection of non-Digital LPs - and there are plenty more good ones available for pennies at the Thrift Shops. Some of the best sounding LPs I own only cost me 99p...
The bottom line (if it wasn't clear to the writer of the article) is that analogue is already a highly refined High Definition process and will bear comparison to any other method in terms of listening satisfaction to the extent that many analogue enthusiasts will not tolerate anything else.
The OP asked my opinion of that article, and you now have it.
Hocky
Well-known member
There is nothing high definition about vinyl. Every single measureable performance metric in CD vs LP has the CD way, way out front. I think that enjoying vinyl is an act of nostalgia. It is about the process, enjoyment of the process, and then the placebo that is convincing that it sounds better. The only logic that can be applied to someone legitimately preferring vinyl in blind testing was mentioned prior in this thread - it is a different recording and/or mastering than the digital counterpart.
Measurable advantages for vinyl:
1) Lower distortion at low levels
2) Higher dynamic range in the records. This is documented many times
3) Broader frequency response
Please justify your claim that vinyl is not high definition. Have you ever seen any measurements that support such a claim?
Hocky
Well-known member
Those are just not true. Look at some measurements. Maybe a perfect vinyl pressing can play a bit higher than a redbook CD, but it is in the inaudible range. They cannot play lower even in the audible range. The dynamic range capability isn't even on the same planet. Distortion includes noise floor and again, vinyl isn't even on the same planet as CD with SNR.
Either they don't and it is placebo or it is a different mastering of the original music. I don't think that CD is perfect, but it is pretty good.
Last edited:
Hocky:
You write "look at some measurements". Where? All I see is a table of some data of various formats and their theoretically achievable performance. I can't listen to CDs without a DAC, can you? If not, how can you ignore that DACs distort more than vinyl at e.g. -60 dB? Try to find - there are several available online, Google is your friend - some of Noel Keywoods measurements of CD players. He is one of the few reviewers who measure low-level (-60dB and -80bd) distortion. It's usually not pretty.
I agree that CD can be pretty good, but then it gets very expensive. And I have yet to hear a CD that sounded better than a record player at the same price. Maybe they are out there, I just haven't heard them.
And you are still evading the simple fact that no CD can sound better than it's master which today very often has had every bit of live dynamically compressed out of it. I would like again to ask you to Google 'loudness war'. This is also why in my initial post, I started by stating that the sound of any format today very often has little to do with the theoretical capabilities of said format.
Another thing your table completely overlooks is jitter. The right bit at the wrong time is just as bad as the wrong bit at the right time. John Atkinson wrote an article on this a couple of years ago in Stereophile. He showed that because of jitter the effective resolution of a number of CD players (from low cost to super expensive) was not higher than 14 bits, simply because of jitter. I know that things most likely have gotten a bit (pun intended) better since that article, but the fact remains: CD is just as flawed as vinyl, only in a different way. Take your claimed SNR of vinyl, for example. It does not at all take into account the spectral and temporal distribution of vinyl noise. The fact that vinyl noise comes as pops actually makes it a lot easier for (at least my) ear-brain to filter it out, much like a car passing by outside your house. I am sure many vinyl fans will know what I mean when I say than I can music information below the noise level. Quantization noise on a CD on the other hand, is added white Gaussian, and there is no information retrievable below it.
So when you take the DAC distortion, the jitter-induced SNR degradation, the non-white nature of vinyl noise into account, can you still claim that CD is universally better than LP?
And you still haven't supported your claim that vinyl is low resolution. If indeed vinyl was low resolution (and by low, I mean the lowest resolution link in the playback chain) then how do you explain that vinyl is able to identify even very small differences in two loudspeakers ability to resolve musical detail? Surely, if vinyl was low resolution, changing speakers could change the dynamics, the distortion, the frequency response,but not the resolution.
You write "look at some measurements". Where? All I see is a table of some data of various formats and their theoretically achievable performance. I can't listen to CDs without a DAC, can you? If not, how can you ignore that DACs distort more than vinyl at e.g. -60 dB? Try to find - there are several available online, Google is your friend - some of Noel Keywoods measurements of CD players. He is one of the few reviewers who measure low-level (-60dB and -80bd) distortion. It's usually not pretty.
I agree that CD can be pretty good, but then it gets very expensive. And I have yet to hear a CD that sounded better than a record player at the same price. Maybe they are out there, I just haven't heard them.
And you are still evading the simple fact that no CD can sound better than it's master which today very often has had every bit of live dynamically compressed out of it. I would like again to ask you to Google 'loudness war'. This is also why in my initial post, I started by stating that the sound of any format today very often has little to do with the theoretical capabilities of said format.
Another thing your table completely overlooks is jitter. The right bit at the wrong time is just as bad as the wrong bit at the right time. John Atkinson wrote an article on this a couple of years ago in Stereophile. He showed that because of jitter the effective resolution of a number of CD players (from low cost to super expensive) was not higher than 14 bits, simply because of jitter. I know that things most likely have gotten a bit (pun intended) better since that article, but the fact remains: CD is just as flawed as vinyl, only in a different way. Take your claimed SNR of vinyl, for example. It does not at all take into account the spectral and temporal distribution of vinyl noise. The fact that vinyl noise comes as pops actually makes it a lot easier for (at least my) ear-brain to filter it out, much like a car passing by outside your house. I am sure many vinyl fans will know what I mean when I say than I can music information below the noise level. Quantization noise on a CD on the other hand, is added white Gaussian, and there is no information retrievable below it.
So when you take the DAC distortion, the jitter-induced SNR degradation, the non-white nature of vinyl noise into account, can you still claim that CD is universally better than LP?
And you still haven't supported your claim that vinyl is low resolution. If indeed vinyl was low resolution (and by low, I mean the lowest resolution link in the playback chain) then how do you explain that vinyl is able to identify even very small differences in two loudspeakers ability to resolve musical detail? Surely, if vinyl was low resolution, changing speakers could change the dynamics, the distortion, the frequency response,but not the resolution.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
One media is not better than another.
The only common denominator is that each has its own strengths and weakness.
That's why we have ears to determine personal preference.
PS: As an aside, I have several CD's and SACD's of the same title. In some cases, I prefer the "redbook" because it sounds better. Kenny Burnell / Midnight Blue comes to mind. Analogue Productions SACD versus the Rudy Van Gendrin remaster.
The only common denominator is that each has its own strengths and weakness.
That's why we have ears to determine personal preference.
PS: As an aside, I have several CD's and SACD's of the same title. In some cases, I prefer the "redbook" because it sounds better. Kenny Burnell / Midnight Blue comes to mind. Analogue Productions SACD versus the Rudy Van Gendrin remaster.
Last edited:
A good point, Gordon. 'Loudness War' aside, different media has each their set of strengths and weaknesses. People who prefer CD are not deaf and people why prefer vinyl is not in general in it for the nostalgia. It just so happens that our brain process these strengths and weaknesses differently. The CD issues that disconnect me from the music may be easy to filter out for another listener, and the surface noise that my brain easily disregards may ruin the experience completely for another listener.
Victor
Well-known member
Dear Hocky,
So you're convinced it's nostalgia.....and we're fooling ourselves into thinking it sounds more like a real musical experience?
That thought never occurred to me m8.
Why then do we read and hear so many cases where audio enthusiasts owning digital only systems (perhaps younger and less nostalgic individuals than yourself) after visiting a friend with a decent LP replay system switched to analogue overnight and have been happy ever since?
One of my favourite quotes, and I'm proud to repeat it because it is so profound, when asked why he was dedicated to LP playback, came from a 17 yr old American who said, "CD allows you to hear music, LP allows you to experience music".
If I were trying to "learn" several old but unfamiliar albums and I attempted such a thing with CD, within the first few minutes I'd be off, taking a leak, reading the paper, thinking about servicing the car etc. (Doesn't mean I don't have favourite recent CD albums - but for your benefit I'm quantifying a difference in capability here?)
By contrast if you tried it with LP, you'd find several hours had elapsed during which you'd found yourself so absorbed you'd forgotten to do all those things - despite the unfamiliarity and degree of difficulty of the programme material...
One of my "yardsticks" when modifying my system is Shostakovich string quartets - all 15 of them. If you can get the sensation that the music is so hypnotic that you could carry on listening to all 15 without stopping, and it does not become "a chore", then the system must doing something right.
Vinyl has been considered a superior format to CD for a way, way, long time. You've just arrived at the tail end of a 30 year discussion.
Regarding the original topic, the article was inappropriately titled not to mention needlessly inflammatory.
Vinyl was "officially discontinued" in the early 90s while CD was discontinued (certainly by quite a few manufacturers) in 2010.(?)
A title of "Why CD is not the future of Audiophilia" would have been equally misguided....and equally irrelevant.
I've not encountered anyone who desires a Vinyl renaissance by insisting the industry abandons digital recording.(!)
(Unless manufacturers are indirectly implying it by their dogged pursuit of analogue at exhibitions?)
(Actually, as for Martin Logans, exhibitions are a poor venue for analogue anyway as the rooms are not user optimisable - or you'd have to pay for the damage for putting a shelf on a wall )
(Having said that I've heard some dramatic demos where the T/T had no right to sound as good as it did!!)
Happy listening and peace, brother.
So you're convinced it's nostalgia.....and we're fooling ourselves into thinking it sounds more like a real musical experience?
That thought never occurred to me m8.
Why then do we read and hear so many cases where audio enthusiasts owning digital only systems (perhaps younger and less nostalgic individuals than yourself) after visiting a friend with a decent LP replay system switched to analogue overnight and have been happy ever since?
One of my favourite quotes, and I'm proud to repeat it because it is so profound, when asked why he was dedicated to LP playback, came from a 17 yr old American who said, "CD allows you to hear music, LP allows you to experience music".
If I were trying to "learn" several old but unfamiliar albums and I attempted such a thing with CD, within the first few minutes I'd be off, taking a leak, reading the paper, thinking about servicing the car etc. (Doesn't mean I don't have favourite recent CD albums - but for your benefit I'm quantifying a difference in capability here?)
By contrast if you tried it with LP, you'd find several hours had elapsed during which you'd found yourself so absorbed you'd forgotten to do all those things - despite the unfamiliarity and degree of difficulty of the programme material...
One of my "yardsticks" when modifying my system is Shostakovich string quartets - all 15 of them. If you can get the sensation that the music is so hypnotic that you could carry on listening to all 15 without stopping, and it does not become "a chore", then the system must doing something right.
Vinyl has been considered a superior format to CD for a way, way, long time. You've just arrived at the tail end of a 30 year discussion.
Regarding the original topic, the article was inappropriately titled not to mention needlessly inflammatory.
Vinyl was "officially discontinued" in the early 90s while CD was discontinued (certainly by quite a few manufacturers) in 2010.(?)
A title of "Why CD is not the future of Audiophilia" would have been equally misguided....and equally irrelevant.
I've not encountered anyone who desires a Vinyl renaissance by insisting the industry abandons digital recording.(!)
(Unless manufacturers are indirectly implying it by their dogged pursuit of analogue at exhibitions?)
(Actually, as for Martin Logans, exhibitions are a poor venue for analogue anyway as the rooms are not user optimisable - or you'd have to pay for the damage for putting a shelf on a wall
)(Having said that I've heard some dramatic demos where the T/T had no right to sound as good as it did!!)
Happy listening and peace, brother.
Last edited:
Similar threads
