Exactly Why Vinyl Isn't The Future of Audiophilia

[Hocky]

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 don't listen to CD's, but either way, no, I can't find any real data to back up your case. Distortion on LP's is not 60 or 80db down, it is damn near at signal level. In that case, I'll take massive distortion 80db down. I very highly doubt that anyone can hear it, anyway.

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.

Seriously? It takes a big dollar, properly set up turn table to sound correct. A $5 cd drive can reproduce results of a $5000 cd drive in todays reality, even if your inner audiophile doesn't want to accept it.

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.

Of course no CD can sound better than its master, nor can a vinyl. That is the definition. I don't need to google the loudness war. Digital media has nothing to do with it. Current producers are compressing sound for radio play and not because the media is flawed. If this is the premise of your argument, then you're going about it all the wrong way. Your argument is against modern mastering styles and technology, not digital media.

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?

Jitter, at least in modern day electronics, is all smoke and mirrors to convince you to buy something that you don't need. I bet that you can't find any real studies with blind testing that show any audibility of jitter. In a digital format, the data can be transferred with 100% accuracy, every time, period with the only exception being damaged equipment. Nothing plays directly from a CD any more, everything is buffered first and then replayed.

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 could identify differences in speaker's ability to resolve musical detail with test tones that require very little resolution, so your stance is meaningless. That said, I am not arguing that it can't sound good. It can. It does. But it is no different from digital media formats that are properly utilized.

 

[Hocky]

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?

Because it is fun and trendy. It looks cool. It is mechanical. There are a lot of reasons, but I don't think SQ is a realistic one. Especially considering that nothing is produced in analog any more, negating your entire stance.

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".

And that speaks to my exact point. It is the experience, not necessarily the SQ presented. And I am OK with that.

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...

Sure, because it took you an hour and a half to do your ritual to get the music playing and now you're committed. ;-) If you enjoy that process, then that is what works for you and I am glad that it does.

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.

It was probably valid for the first few minutes of the CD's existence.



I am done trolling now. haha

 

[Victor]

Regarding general preferences, a little bit of audio history might help.
People are starting to believe that given the choice, the general public might either prefer digital or be 50/50 biased to one or the other....

Back in the early 1990s, CD was at the very peak of its powers. The average listener had changed over to the next format and anyone caught still listening to a turntable was condemned as an eccentric lover of vintage nostalgia.
Like Leon Trotsky...turntable lovers were only inches away from being dragged through the streets by the Bolsheviks.
Having set the scene, riding this wave of scepticism, a UK university Professor of Mechatronics did an in depth study of both media then presented his data in a series of lectures around the nation, including the venerable Royal Society. My recollection of these events is only through a local newspaper report.

The title of the lecture was along the lines of, "Is CD Better Than Vinyl LP?" (Not absolutely sure but it was something catchy to get the public interested)
Given the mindset of the population based on the historically strong advertising campaigns of Philips & Sony and general adoption of the medium, unsurprisingly, the room had a fair proportion of CD users who guffawed in expectancy at the likely results.
During the lecture, the Prof also performed active comparisons of both formats.
Newspaper reporters with little background in hifi were present too.

As was his custom, the Prof invited the audience to complete a survey before they departed at the end of the lecture, indicating which sound format ("SQ") they preferred...

The outcome of the various sessions was invariably 80% in favour of vinyl LP. :O

In the final analysis, no one can ever persuade you what you like or dislike, but these results are food for thought...

 

[Hocky]

As was his custom, the Prof invited the audience to complete a survey before they departed at the end of the lecture, indicating which sound format ("SQ") they preferred...

The outcome of the various sessions was invariably 80% in favour of vinyl LP. :O

In the final analysis, no one can ever persuade you what you like or dislike, but these results are food for thought...

They're not food for thought at all because you're not providing any details on what actually happened. There are a million ways that a study like that can be flawed. I would bet significant money that if you set up a $100 turn table and a $100 ipod behind a wall and then blind A/B'd them to average listeners with EXACTLY the same source content (read: an album that wasn't remastered or altered in anyway for digital or LP), nearly 100% would choose the ipod, even if only due to the lack of noise. You could probably conduct the same experiment the next day with a $15,000 turn table and a remaster that is more dynamic and open and get a completely opposite result.

 

[Bevensee]

For those interested, here is an article that compares actual measurements of the dynamic range of CD, LP and SACD. Guesss where CD ends

http://www.audioholics.com/educatio...ology/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4

 

[Bevensee]

And here is a link to the before mentioned article about jitter, if anyone would like to read it:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/case-jitters

 

[Gordon Gray]

Victor,

As I believe I predicted, those in favor of one media will find literature to support their own bias.

Your statement about 80% favoring vinyl is a very good example.

No details on systems, room, material used, etc. are provided to give anyone a basis for determining validity of those results.

Quite silly really.

Same applies to Bevens latest posts.

Why do you analogue types feel to need to preach / convert the low lifes that actually prefer digital over analogue?

Kinda reminds me of a religious sect / cult that admonishes those that don't believe in that particular religious doctrine because only those who know and believe in that specific doctrine know THE TRUTH.

Again, very silly and utterly indefensible.

GG

PS: Enjoy your black pizzas. I'll munch on my silver wafers.

 

[amey01]

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...

A terrible story alright - and a great lesson for anyone who considers RAID (or disk mirroring) to be an adequate form of "Backup".

 

[Bevensee]

Gordon: I don't think I am preaching. The one preaching is Hocky with his unsupported claims that CD is better than vinyl on all measurable factors, and that those who think otherwise are only in it for nostalgia.

I have simply found some articles with measurements that prove Hocky's statements wrong. If you read my posts, I think you will find that basically, I have 3 points:

1) Achievable CD quality today is seriously hampered by the dynamic compression used by the the record companies in their CD masterings

2) There are areas where vinyl measure better than CD. We all know that the opposite is also true.

3) How our ear-brain react to these differences is highly individual. But that does not make it nostalgia or smoke and mirrors. It simply means both CD and vinyl has areas where one is clear and measurably inferior to the other, and how our ear-brain filters out these shortcomings has a lot to do with which format we as individuals prefer.

I can not see why you would object to me supporting my points with actual published measurements.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Beven,

Appreciate your input and information provided.

I agree with your second and third points. Regarding the first, I find it to be generally inaccurate within the context of jazz and classical music.

Call me old school but its been proven time and time again that measurements may or may not be indicative of actual listening performance. High end audio has been struggling with this objective / subjective dilemma for decades.

Martin Logans, like other stats, do not measure well in a time / frequency domain but many on this forum and elsewhere find them to be very musical. Negative feedback, applied to amplifier circuitry, is generally considered bad from a purist perspective but is still used by some well respected manufacturers. Speaker cabinet vibration is not looked upon as a desirable trait but is still employed by some as part of the overall "voicing" process.

Best,

Gordon

 

[Bevensee]

Gordon,

I agree with you that jazz and classical on CD is not dynamically compressed.

I also agree that measurements does not tell the whole story, and that it can be very challenging to form a correlation between the measurements and the perceived sound quality. The reason why I posted the articles was twofold: First simply to disprove Hocky's claim that CD always measure better than LP.

Second, I found the two articles - especially the one from Audioholics - very interesting. I beleive that the better we can understand measurements, the chance do we have of actually forming the before mentioned correlation between measurements and sound. In this particular case, I feel that the published measurements actually helped me understanding some of the differences I hear between CD and vinyl.

I am very intrigued by the discrepancy between sound and measurements in out hobby. On one hand, all of our equipment is developed by engineers based on a combination of theoretical foundation, measured performance and perceived sound quality. On the other hand, two pickups (or DACs for that) can sound dramatically different even though their measured performance can be virtually identical. What is it that we are not measuring? I gained important information about the SNR of vinyl by reading the Audioholics article. To me, it is an example of how a more careful measurement (noise spectrum VS. SNR) can explain what on the surface looks like either psykoacoustic make-believe or black magic (listening below the noise level of an LP).

I believe that by always trusting our ears, and then continuous search for measurable explanations for what we hear, instead of just accepting dogma, better and better performance can be achieved.For us as costumers in the way we put together our systems, and by the engineers in way they design them. Take as an example the Rega Planar 3 used in the Audioholocs article - not a very expensive turntable, but a universally accepted benchmark of "good for the money". If I was to improve on that, the first place I would look was towards reduction of noise in the bass.

 

[shakham]

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.

Yes, better is in the eye of the beholder...

However one can state which one is more true to source..no?

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Shak,

I don't know what "true to source" means.

If you mean the original master tape, how can we practically audition the original master tape and then compare it to the "transfer media" we possess in our personal music collection be it CD, vinyl, or hi-res download?

GG

 

[muncter]

Digital, even plain old red book format, has more dynamic range and broader frequency coverage than any vinyl combo. That is my only comment on the subject.

I have got a vinyl rig which will put CD to shame as far as dynamic range is concerned.

 

[Gordon Gray]

So please provide us details on your system including your analogue and digital rigs.

 

[shakham]

Hi Shak,

I don't know what "true to source" means.

If you mean the original master tape, how can we practically audition the original master tape and then compare it to the "transfer media" we possess in our personal music collection be it CD, vinyl, or hi-res download?

GG

True to source means as close to what the artist intended as possible.

For the voice it would mean directly from the mike, or directly from the output of a voice-processor (could be digital or analog) adding whatever reverb or autotune effect they want.
For a guitar, it could be the output of an amp (could be digital or tube). There could be other stuff in the chain before that.

I think simply put, what is the artist themselves hearing...I think that is the source.

I could believe the original master tape could be considered the source. I'm sure, depending on the era, there could be effects the artist accepted but probably didn't really want due to technology of the time.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Fair enough Shak.

I still don't know how one can determine if any given media is more true and replicates what the artist is hearing when the artist is recording the music.

Am I missing something?

GG

 

[amey01]

True to source means as close to what the artist intended as possible.


I think simply put, what is the artist themselves hearing...I think that is the source.

No recording system can give that. None at all.

Live music is such an amazingly different thing, it is instantly recognisable.

Even when it is piped through junky speakers and amplifiers.

 

[Victor]

Ah....it's always enjoyable to participate in an analogue Forum....

It would appear I'm being criticised for reporting facts because those facts don't particularly suit CD enthusiasts.


"Contradiction isn't an argument, just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says...." (Monty Python)

 

[Victor]

Gordon Gray,
I entered this discussion to provide an opinion on the OP's original question....and I think I did so in an analytical, scientific & objective manner.

Since then I've been subjected to attacks - such as yours - categorising me as an "analogue extremist" or "religious fanatic" simply because the facts presented did not suit your way of life or lifestyle choices.
The surveys you mention were conducted after presentations in major cities around the country. If you can furnish me with something similar that has been conducted in the US or EU that provides us with more "balance" then I can assure you I will not be offended or feel threatened by it. (Nor would I be puerile enough to launch personal attacks on you or other digital enthusiasts). Quite the contrary, I will welcome it.
Until then those surveys stand as an indicator of the public's preference whether you would decry them as "silly" or not. (Even twice )

I currently use and enjoy : Vinyl LP, CD, HDCD, SACD, audio cassette, open reel, DVD and BD.
I consider my views of media to be balanced.
What formats do you use and enjoy, pray tell?