How better is a Turntable compared to a CD? - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analogue Source

Analogue Source Turntables, Tonearms, Cartridges, Phono Stages, Tuners, Tape Recorders, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16th September 2010, 10:15 AM   #21
Netlist is offline Netlist  Belgium
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
Netlist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Definitely try vinyl. Don't spend a fortune, find a good matching cartridge for your TD160 and discover little by little how you can improve your system. Its a fascinating world of music ones you found out how to get the best out of the tiny grooves.

/Hugo
 
Old 16th September 2010, 10:26 AM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Glyfada/Athens
To my ears there is no comparison especially when you move up to the food chain.
A 500 euro cd-player may be on par (on specific areas of music reproduction) with a
500 euro all in (turntable/tonearm/cartridge) turntable.
When the price starts to go uphill,cds are getting creamed,plain and simple.
Spend wisely 1000 euro on the used market and you'll never look back again...
__________________
soundofvoid
 
Old 16th September 2010, 10:33 AM   #23
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Default apples and oranges

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globulator View Post
In the CD world you will always be at the mercy of the Mastering Engineer and the CD loudness wars. You can do things with CD waveforms that you can't with Vinyl.
Actually that has nothing to do with the CD but with the mastering engineer. You could put the same master on vinyl (nowadays ).
Quote:
Some music simply sounds stupid on CD - Kaiser Chiefs etc - the guys get to the crescendo and you can hear the volume deflating as the compressor makes it the same volume as everything else.
So you're saying the Kaiser Chiefs record you listened to on CD will be mastered differently espescially for Vinyl?
Quote:
Digital should be so good, it should be error corrected 24bit 96kHz. Instead it's an error prone and coarse 16bit 44.1kHz designed for electronics of decades ago. In fact IMO CDs are so bad now people tend to stick with MP3s because they can't notice the difference: With a decent format that may have been different.
The 16bit resolution just sets the limit for the SNR.
Even if the material is hard quantized to 16bit - if you're not anywhere near the noise floor you will not notice any coarseness (quantization distortion) due to the resolution .

If the material is dithered properly this is completely off the table and the only thing you will percieve at some point (very low volume levels like below -60dBFS) is the noise of the noise floor.

Indeed the SNR possible with 16bit is limited to 96dB in theory and less in reality, while human hearing covers a dynamic range of about 120dB (from dead quiet to onset of pain). So I would agree that a 24bit CD format could be argued about.

Still 44.1kHz sample rate is completely sufficient for a finalized audio production (on the recording side of things there can be reasons to use higher sample rates though).

If we're doing comparisons like this, I think it's crucial to compare apples with apples, meaning the exact same master is put once on CD and once on vinyl and then you listen to it and compare.

Many recordings on vinyl are from another time and are thus engineered differently corresponding to the mixing and mastering philosophies and possibilities of their time.
When I listen to a recording from the early eighties on CD like Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms it has in fact less volume than a recent production but also has great dynamics that i don't get to hear on current pop productions.

In short - don't blame the CD for the audio-enginiering.

after all the CD itself is a channel in terms of information theory we use to transmit digitally encoded information.
the vinyl disc is also a channel. But it has different characteristics and we use it differently to transmit the (exact same) information.

If we want to compare turntable to CD maybe we should start out with the properties of the two different channels involved and continue with the consequences that have been rendered from their use.

I want to stress, that i think this comparison can only be usefully conducted under the premise, that the input to the two channels is one and the same. (otherwise the topic would be "analog vs. digital recording" or "change in audio engineering over the years")

Doing so, we're actually talking about topics like source coding and channel coding. Maybe we also need to talk about DAC quality to compare it with turntable pick up quality.

maybe there's more but these are the most prominent that came to my mind.

regards,
krachkiste
 
Old 16th September 2010, 11:49 AM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGregory View Post
The stylus will wear out over time. SOme can be replaced quite easily and other require cartridge replacement.

Yes there are many audio technica models.
Simple rule: You can easily change the needle on moving magnet cartridges while moving coil ones need a complete replacement.
Cartridge manufacturers usually give a generous discount when sending in the old mc cartridge so that the cost is nearly the same.
 
Old 16th September 2010, 03:20 PM   #25
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern Tier NY
Very True Charles

Stratus, Where did you come up with the 32Hz limitation on vinyl?
__________________
Living Life Doing the Waltz in 4/4 meter.

Last edited by SGregory; 16th September 2010 at 03:22 PM.
 
Old 16th September 2010, 03:37 PM   #26
pjp is offline pjp  India
diyAudio Member
 
pjp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: under the rainclouds
Can we have some hard numbers on each format ?

What is the dynamic range of a CD vs LP ?
What is the frequency response of a CD vs LP ?
any other parameters ... Noise floor, etc


A quick google threw up this: Dynamic Comparison of LPs vs CDs - Part 4 — Reviews and News from Audioholics
I'll read through it and get back in a little while.
 
Old 16th September 2010, 03:44 PM   #27
diyAudio Member
 
merlin el mago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Catalonia - Europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SGregory View Post
Stratus, Where did you come up with the 32Hz limitation on vinyl?
I'm very curious about the answer. What about people designing an selling sub-sonic filters for analog MM/MC preamps with no capacitor in the signal way?
 
Old 16th September 2010, 04:16 PM   #28
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Birmingham, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjp View Post
Can we have some hard numbers on each format ?

What is the dynamic range of a CD vs LP ?
If I remember correctly for vinyl it is up to 65dB.
For a cd it is theoretically 96dB but the modern day loudness wars have reduced that to 12-18db or less in practice.
The output signal of a cd can have anyone of 65 000 levels (24bit can have around 2.5mio). I suspect vinyl would be somewhere in between 16 and 24bit.
It is this limited number of discrete steps where detail is lost, going from 16 to 24 bit gives a greater improvement in SQ than going from 44.1kHz to 96kHz sample frequency.
 
Old 16th September 2010, 04:16 PM   #29
rongon is offline rongon  United States
diyAudio Member
 
rongon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Across the river from Rip's big old tree...
Back to the OP's question...

First off...

Quote:
Definitely try vinyl. Don't spend a fortune, find a good matching cartridge for your TD160 and discover little by little how you can improve your system. Its a fascinating world of music ones you found out how to get the best out of the tiny grooves.

/Hugo
What he said.

OK, maybe my CD vs. vinyl journey might help you make a decision...

Through the years, I've switched back and forth over whether CD is a better format than LP for budget-minded audiophiles.

As a teen in the 1970's, I remember getting lost in LPs. I had a cheap-to-decent setup, which really wasn't so bad. Standard stuff for the day. I sold it all to upgrade guitars and guitar amps...

Then in the mid-1980's, I got all excited about CD. My turntable setup was considered good -- harman kardon T60C w/ Grado cartridge. In hindsight I realize I wasn't happy with the setup. Later, I got a Thorens TD147, but it wasn't a big improvement over the hk T60. When I got my first Magnavox (Philips) CD player, I got as good or better sound from CD right away. Maybe "cold and sterile" in comparison to vinyl, but better bass, no surface noise, and so on. I discovered tube amps (to "warm up" the CDs, of course) which I don't regret. But like everybody else back then, I began to replace my LPs with the new CD versions. I regret that now.

In the early '90s, I was introduced to triode amplification and got back into vinyl. I got a beat up Thorens TD124 with an older model Jelco arm, and a Grado cartridge. I began to hear again what I was missing from CD playback. There's a "living, breathing" quality to good LP playback that is really *expensive* to get from CD. I was enthralled by LPs all over again, especially when played through the triode amps.

Now I have a budget setup that I kind of like. I've given up on the TD124 for now (it needs an overhaul and a new plinth). I got a Technics SL1200MK2 before the price increase and a Denon DL110 cartridge (high output moving coil, $100) to go with it. Even though that's not the last word in analog audiophilia, it makes really nice music, with verve and life to the sound.

The Denon DL110 tracks much better than any Grado I ever had. It doesn't seem to mind minor clicks and scratches, while all the Grado's I tried seemed to accentuate the noise from every little dust particle. The Audio Technica everybody says is great is the AT-440MLa, but I've never had one, so I don't know how it sounds playing used records.

The moral of my story is that in the end, LP playback can be absolutely great, even for not a lot of money. For "musicality" (whatever that means), vinyl's an absolute bargain. I hunt for cheap records in thrift shops or yard sales. If you like classical music, you can often find great records for cheap, played very little or even never played.

Nobody's mentioned this, but if you get a used turntable, expect to need to perform some minor maintenance like cleaning, lubrication of moving parts, maybe replace the drive belt, and so on. Make sure the speed is steady and not running too fast or too slow. Make sure the tonearm's bearings are undamaged. The tonearm should move completely freely, with no noticeable friction.

A Thorens TD160 with the stock tonearm is a nice 'table, well thought of. If it's in good, working condition, then I don't think you'll be sorry if you get it. But only if it's working correctly...

-=|=-

Last edited by rongon; 16th September 2010 at 04:19 PM.
 
Old 16th September 2010, 05:44 PM   #30
diyAudio Member
 
merlin el mago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Catalonia - Europe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darwin View Post
If I remember correctly for vinyl it is up to 65dB.
For a cd it is theoretically 96dB but the modern day loudness wars have reduced that to 12-18db or less in practice.
The output signal of a cd can have anyone of 65 000 levels (24bit can have around 2.5mio). I suspect vinyl would be somewhere in between 16 and 24bit.
It is this limited number of discrete steps where detail is lost, going from 16 to 24 bit gives a greater improvement in SQ than going from 44.1kHz to 96kHz sample frequency.
I totally agree, only remember CD Redbook only 16 bits 44.1kHz...

I listen at home 24 bits / 192 kHz via laptop Vaio + HiFace + DAC Buffalo II TP with Borbely Audio I/V & playing (HiFace+B II+Borbely with Salas super shunt low voltage regs) & good recordings 24/96 sounds better than TT, pay attention: music is not only dynamic range...

I prefer good recorded vinyls over good recorded (fews) CD redbook.

Last edited by merlin el mago; 16th September 2010 at 05:55 PM.
 

Closed Thread


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone compared Marantz CD-94 and CD-94MkII? oshifis Digital Source 3 6th February 2010 12:56 PM
Pass X 0.2 compared to X.1? output555 Pass Labs 7 7th December 2007 06:59 AM
12AX7 Compared! HiFiNutNut Tubes / Valves 48 29th April 2005 06:07 PM
jh6you compared with other X-eds ljozsef Pass Labs 7 16th December 2003 06:06 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:33 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2