The various audio battles that arise out of entrenched positions lacks recognition of the different ways people listen. Some prefer a presentation that allows the components to 'gel'. Others prefer to listen to the separation of the components. Distortions of the 2nd and 3rd ilk can make an easier listen, while sacrficing detail. SET amps don't work for me because there is too much caramel which turns complex material to mush. However, I can see why opera lovers find the extra 'body' appealing, and end-of-side distortion can be masked.
Vinyl's artifacts are so numerous that it may be difficult to isolate a single component as resposible for the sound. We do know that a digital capture can reproduce the result. Theoretically a vinyl experience could be created in the digital domain.
Older vinyl pressings which have an analogue source will have embedded jitter of several micro-seconds purely from tape. Every tape pass will add jitter, ie. recording, mixing and mastering. Therefore it is somewhat amusing that people think jitter in the digital domain is important, since it is several orders of magnitude below that of an analogue chain. In addition, the cooling of a hot lump of plastic will not be uniform. Then there is the physical distortion of the walls of the grooves while traced by the stylus. The noise floor, crosstalk from adjacent grooves cannot be ignored and then the cartridge distortion is dumped on top.
Finally, maybe, there is the vibration of the pressing and turntable as the record is played. Analogue proponents who point to digital artifacts, really need to re-evaluate their position.
Vinyl's artifacts are so numerous that it may be difficult to isolate a single component as resposible for the sound. We do know that a digital capture can reproduce the result. Theoretically a vinyl experience could be created in the digital domain.
Older vinyl pressings which have an analogue source will have embedded jitter of several micro-seconds purely from tape. Every tape pass will add jitter, ie. recording, mixing and mastering. Therefore it is somewhat amusing that people think jitter in the digital domain is important, since it is several orders of magnitude below that of an analogue chain. In addition, the cooling of a hot lump of plastic will not be uniform. Then there is the physical distortion of the walls of the grooves while traced by the stylus. The noise floor, crosstalk from adjacent grooves cannot be ignored and then the cartridge distortion is dumped on top.
Finally, maybe, there is the vibration of the pressing and turntable as the record is played. Analogue proponents who point to digital artifacts, really need to re-evaluate their position.
Last edited:
this is a big topic- with a number of problems -not just one-ive got a couple-
just because the engineer can have every frequency out there-does not mean the recording needs it - in the past engineers had restrictions which they could not exceed- it help shape the soundscape
i cant help feeling that cds have a balance separation problem- vinyl comes out more stereo?
just because the engineer can have every frequency out there-does not mean the recording needs it - in the past engineers had restrictions which they could not exceed- it help shape the soundscape
i cant help feeling that cds have a balance separation problem- vinyl comes out more stereo?
I'd also like to add the following observation.. If you happen to get one of the first pressings off a set of masters, it'll probably sound quite good... If you're unlucky enough to get the 10,000th pressing, you'll be wishing you had the CD. I've personally bought LP's that were awful knowing they shouldn't be.. That variability is what can kill perceptions of LP's A good first pressing put in that context can be revelatory.
I read the first 5 pages of this thread, interesting. Going to reply now.
For me, I get much better drums , cymbols, separation, life from the phono compared to Lossless audio streamed from my PC to a decent DAC. It's like a veil is lifted. Digital sounds so compressed and smeared.
I have been A/Bing between vinyl and lossless on my stereo and vinyl always wins.. at least for pre 1985 albums. Rush Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures sound much better than the digital copies i have, so much so I can't stand listening to the digital.
Jim Croce albums are awesome on vinyl, if you don't have them they are cheap on ebay... great sound engineering and pressings.
Edie Brickell Shooting Rubberbands sounds much better on vinyl as well. Bob Marley Legend on vinyl is great too.
Maybe I'm imagining things? I don't think so though.. I keep going back to vinyl now. Get excited every time I flip the disc.
. Also brings back a lot of memories as I am 47 and was raised on record players before CD existed
For me, I get much better drums , cymbols, separation, life from the phono compared to Lossless audio streamed from my PC to a decent DAC. It's like a veil is lifted. Digital sounds so compressed and smeared.
I have been A/Bing between vinyl and lossless on my stereo and vinyl always wins.. at least for pre 1985 albums. Rush Permanent Waves and Moving Pictures sound much better than the digital copies i have, so much so I can't stand listening to the digital.
Jim Croce albums are awesome on vinyl, if you don't have them they are cheap on ebay... great sound engineering and pressings.
Edie Brickell Shooting Rubberbands sounds much better on vinyl as well. Bob Marley Legend on vinyl is great too.
Maybe I'm imagining things? I don't think so though.. I keep going back to vinyl now. Get excited every time I flip the disc.
. Also brings back a lot of memories as I am 47 and was raised on record players before CD existed
Last edited:
Entrenched? Quote: SET amps don't work for me... Distortions of the 2nd and 3rd ilk can make an easier listen, while sacrificing detail.
1. You cannot tell if it is vinyl or CD at loud volume with a super good setup, no static, clean vinyl, filters etc.
2. What is sure is that vinyl has distortion, less bass separation, congestion at end of records, tracking issues on loud passages, less pure sound.
3. However, this is apparent: bass is real, with plenty of timbre. Dynamics are better, instruments sound closer to reality, you can easily follow each instrument lines, it sound less homogenous, high frequencies have way more detail and realism is super good.
4. CD... less dynamic, sounds 'clean' no bass, loud sounds masks low sounds, everything is more fatiguing, more strain to identify instruments into the mix.
5. my conclusions can be heard on any decent setup, no matter speakers, no matter material or amplification types.
6. It also doesn't matter if it is oversampling/not, hi-res, SACD (best of all digital format) , tube output, discrete, or opamp I/V. To me the less fatiguing of the dacs by far is the tda1541 with discrete transistors. However is it limited compared to new dacs and sounds darker.
Last edited:
Yeah this is what experience too.. high frequencies sound realistic and separated. Edie Brickell album has a lot of symbols and chimes going at the same time in one song.. amazing detail, I can hear everything. When Niel Peart beats his drum fills on Permanent Waves vinyl I get all excited.. all the drums sound clean and tight .. separated.. dont' get that on the lossless digital copy I have.
Regarding 5, yeah you a right. I am using a $50 BBE MM Phono Pre, and a Technics SL-D2 deck.. AUdio Technica cart. Amazingly better with a cheap setup. (Using B1 Buffer and LM3886 -- built both of those.. Going to build Salas Folded SImplistic soon to compare to BBE.. if the Salas sounds a lot better than the BBE I am going to get SUPER excited about vinyl, becaue I already am with the BBE.) [EDIT: Oh, and I am using the stock Rubber mat with no stabilizer weight.. getting cork, stabilizer, vibrapods etc tomorrow.]
Last edited:
Exactly. If there is actually a difference in the music ( that's not due to the vinyls flaws) it's from the remastering of the CD. And the idea that digital ruins music means almost every vinyl album released in the last 30 years has been ruined. Anyone who thinks LPs are more accurate at reproducing the music lacks logic. Sounds better is a useless statement, and only means something to the person saying it.
Digital capture of vinyl for archival requires a care. Casual capture to reduce wear and tear is something else. I would recommend the following:
1. Do not use computer sound cards. The ground is too noisy. An outboard module is best.
2. Preservation of phase is best achieved with higher sampling rates e.g. 96KHz/192KHz.
2. Capture with the RIAA equalisation disabled. This allows resolution of HF to be maintained.
This creates options for RIAA equalisation.
a) Equalize in the digital domain and also correct for prescence droop that many cartridges have.
b) Pad the output of the DAC and feed the RIAA preamp.
c) Do away with active electronics and use a passive filter. The DAC output is usuallly gutsy enough that a lower impedance network can be used leading to lower noise.
1. Do not use computer sound cards. The ground is too noisy. An outboard module is best.
2. Preservation of phase is best achieved with higher sampling rates e.g. 96KHz/192KHz.
2. Capture with the RIAA equalisation disabled. This allows resolution of HF to be maintained.
This creates options for RIAA equalisation.
a) Equalize in the digital domain and also correct for prescence droop that many cartridges have.
b) Pad the output of the DAC and feed the RIAA preamp.
c) Do away with active electronics and use a passive filter. The DAC output is usuallly gutsy enough that a lower impedance network can be used leading to lower noise.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.