Yeah, I never really had that happen. All the bad vinyl I have comes from thrift stores and yard sales. Never anything I bought myself. Maybe I'm not as picky about the flaws.
It's still not a scientific test though, is it? If you think this is worth doing, you should automate the process and leave the room so you cannot influence the audience by grimacing during the CD and raising your hands heavenwards with your eyes closed during the vinyl.
Superior technology does not equate to exclusive technology.
Analog domain can be converted to digital but obviously its simply better to start in the digital domain. Do we agree on that?
@T101
Hmmm. "Better", or "worse". Perhaps the test should be of the 'transparency' of the two media. If either medium is truly 'transparent' then it could accommodate the perceived advantages of the other by merely making a recording of it.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can run to a vinyl pressing system or have access to analogue master tapes of existing discs, but if you could set up a system whereby the sound from your LPs was 16 bit A/D-ed and D/A-ed in real time then it would be fascinating to see if anyone could tell the difference, and a lot easier to perform your tests. No one could confuse the issue by going on about the geniuses and artists who ride the controls in the vinyl mastering process, and the philistines who churn out CDs.
It would only be a test of the transparency of the CD medium. If no one could tell the difference in a <i>genuine</i> blind test, then it would be reasonable to declare CD the 'winner', would it not?
Of course this would be a specialised one-way test, in that it could only find CD to be transparent, but it couldn't declare LP to be transparent, or LP to be 'better'.
(I am sure this has been done before but it would be nice to repeat the experiment to your satisfaction!).
Hmmm. "Better", or "worse". Perhaps the test should be of the 'transparency' of the two media. If either medium is truly 'transparent' then it could accommodate the perceived advantages of the other by merely making a recording of it.
Unfortunately, I don't think we can run to a vinyl pressing system or have access to analogue master tapes of existing discs, but if you could set up a system whereby the sound from your LPs was 16 bit A/D-ed and D/A-ed in real time then it would be fascinating to see if anyone could tell the difference, and a lot easier to perform your tests. No one could confuse the issue by going on about the geniuses and artists who ride the controls in the vinyl mastering process, and the philistines who churn out CDs.
It would only be a test of the transparency of the CD medium. If no one could tell the difference in a <i>genuine</i> blind test, then it would be reasonable to declare CD the 'winner', would it not?
Of course this would be a specialised one-way test, in that it could only find CD to be transparent, but it couldn't declare LP to be transparent, or LP to be 'better'.
(I am sure this has been done before but it would be nice to repeat the experiment to your satisfaction!).
Is that not just a choice? If I want analog I will go to a live concert. Unplugged Train was awesome last year.
btw, Roll your eyes all you want NONE of you who are stuck in the old man's world of analog is deciding anything in the business of audio where profit counts (if you did they would go under!!). From the looks of it all what I have been posting is backed up by the 99% of the population buying all these digital sources.
Obvoiusly this is one of those fringe forums because its analog and obviously the majority here are very defensive about it. The truth is, the accumulation all your anger over this represents about as much as a pimple on a rats butt so you may have a strong presence here but your opinions are meaningless in the real world of audio.....nothing makes me smile more about the future considering how much contempt there is here.
In simple terms, your opinions only matter to you and no one else 😀
I am not a scientist, so I guess it is not scientific. Just for fun but with serious approach.
I would rather describe my behavior during the test as a constant smile on my face. I was skeptical too, but after the first vinyl 😱
i couldn't believe.Maybe Pano is right, Vinyl just sounds damn good.
And have in mind that in my test group were no vinyl lovers. I am not one too! believe me!
As I earlier said, digital has it's advantage explored only when scaled up enough. OK! Digital is lasers and processors... But give the processors the quantities they need in order to be useful. All DAC chips for 16/44.1 are a miserable sub 1$, 18 legged pieces of plastic with a tiny spot of silicone in them. If it is going to be digital, let it be something that loads a quad core 64 bit several GHZ processor! Not a sampling rate that is comparable to the wavelengths of the reproduced signal and a bit depth that gives a miserable number of possible levels.
When I was thinking of the best possible way to reproduce music I came to that or similar conclusion: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/178612-what-we-can-do-8x192-24-channel-source.html
I even made a research of professional 8 channel HD recorders/players with no less than 24 bits in the signal chain. I even searched for a source of records in that format. And guess what? - None available.
I did that in order to know what to want. Where are the borders of modern technology.
Realistically the ultimate reproduction would come from such a 8 channel source coming together with a director's file. Naturally there could be an option the user to mix the 8 channels as he wishes.
There can even be an additional channel for ambient sounds from the original environment...
- This should be digital!
In the meantime the turntable is the easiest way to get high end sound. And the cheapest too. From 500 to 1.000$ there are a number of excellent turntables that all sound better than a CD played through any player or DAC and transport combination.
Last edited:
you should make a CD from a hi res ADC capture of the RIAA preamp output of the record you are testing against
we all believe CD and Vinyl mastering can be audibly different with the commercial CD release of "the same" recording too often hit with "Loudness War" levels of dynamic range compression
you would still be comparing two different plays of the record and level matching to 0.1 dB is required for "fair" comparison but it is relatively easy to do with the hi res capture, normalization, dither, truncation, decimation stages done "off line"
we all believe CD and Vinyl mastering can be audibly different with the commercial CD release of "the same" recording too often hit with "Loudness War" levels of dynamic range compression
you would still be comparing two different plays of the record and level matching to 0.1 dB is required for "fair" comparison but it is relatively easy to do with the hi res capture, normalization, dither, truncation, decimation stages done "off line"
Last edited:
Superior in performing its function. It is not about what you like or don't like. The function of a vinyl phonograph record and a cd is the same, to store and retrieve electrical signals with as little distortion as possible by creating analogs. In the case of the phonograph record it's a mechanical analog, in the case of a compact disc it is an optical analog. The electro-optical system is superior to the electo-mechanical system for a large number of reasons. It is more durable, cheaper, more convenient, results are more repeatable, does not suffer from many of the limitations of the electro-mechanical system like wow, flutter, frequency response anomolies, acoustic feedback, rumble, dynamic range limitations, etc.
The only question is whether or not it has sufficient resolution, that is whether or not the smallest possible incremental changes are small enough and rapid enough not to be audible. The calculations say definitely yes. The only proof would be a direct A/B comparison but not by comparing a merchandised cd with its vinyl counterpart but by controlled comparison of a cd burned from a vinyl under laboratory conditions and tested double blind. If they cannot be told apart in case after case then the technology of cd is not in question, it is equal or superior to vinyl. How that technology is used or abused in commercial practice is an entirely different matter.
and
Folks, this is just plain bad science! In the first, the methodology is seriously (and humorously) flawed. In the second, a conclusion of "superior" is in no way demonstrated by that evidence. Equal yes, but superior... that's impossible under those conditions.
A nice example of why people 'hear' what they expect to hear. As I'm sure the rational side of your personality knows deep down, the fact the DAC is housed in plastic is irrelevant, and the tiny spot of silicon is a product of real engineering, not mumbo jumbo. I am perfectly happy listening to a $1 DAC chip (it probably cost $10 to me in a one-off quantity!).
For the '16 bit transparency test' I would be more than happy to use $1 chips for the ADC and DAC. I really don't believe you would get anything better (audibly) no matter how much you spent.
Maybe you should take a better look at the threads: digital is all around.
Sound is analog; if you want to apply digital processing you somewhere must convert from analog to digital.
There is not so much wrong with digital audio IMHO; I am listening (and enjoying music through it) to my internet radio every day.
I grew up with LP with a preference for classical music, and I am convinced that in the sixties and seventies much more time and dedication got into the recording process than is the case now. Back then for a large scale production the recording venue was hired for days, often even longer. Time was taken to optimize microphone set ups, and time was taken to get the performers in touch with the acoustics of the venue. In my opinion many of the best recordings are from those days, featuring the big well known names in classical music. Already this fact justifies the place that LP still has among many music lovers.
Nowadays time for recording is limited (because time is money); the assumption that the digital recording can be edited and processed afterwards to a final product has often resulted in poor quality.
I remember that especially in the early days of CD the quality of recording was often miserable, and it is very important that recording engineers realize that the process is analog (requiring knowledge of acoustics, microphone techniques and music itself), and mistakes cannot always be corrected afterwards with some digital techniques.
With a good modern recording, when digital processing is done well, the discussion of what is better, LP or CD, does not make sense IMO.
Sorry Sofaspud, but why is my statement invalid? Without going into the technical details of T101's listening tests, if vinyl vs. vinyl + CD-standard ADC/DAC, are indistinguishable, then CD must be capable of vinyl performance and better.
I am attempting to avoid the constant references to the way the original recording was engineered - which is a side issue. I am also not denying that 'analogue' *may* have some nice characteristics analogous to photographic film, where it is easier to digitise a photograph that has had its dynamic range 'pre-processed' by film (I'm being devil's advocate here!). But if the resulting prints from digital are indistinguishable from the photographic ones then it is possible to distribute the digital ones instead, with all the convenience and cost advantages, and no disadvantages.
Last edited:
Ahhh...... now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Redbook does have certain technical advantages, no doubt. But do they matter? Let's leave some of the digital flaws aside for the moment. Do its advantages really matter in listening to music?
Some do, yes. I will argue that many others do not. Sure, freedom from clicks, pops, dust, speed variations are nice and many people enjoy those. But the other stuff? How important is it?
One need only listen to a few good systems playing CD and vinyl to hear that the old vinyl format holds its own. Maybe it shouldn't "technically", but it does. Where ear meets music, it does. Many of its real flaws just don't get in the way.
CopperTop, if the experiment is slanted to one or the other, the results will be also. You can't test just one and say, "If this meets x standard it's declared the winner". Both must be scrutinized equally.
And an exact copy can only be as good as the original. It can't be better. By definition.
And an exact copy can only be as good as the original. It can't be better. By definition.
Not necessarily. You are not testing CD, you are testing A-D-A conversion with no digital manipulation. That's isn't a CD in practical terms. Just the same digital format that CD carries.
There is a lot more to a CD than that.
I don't even know where to start answering that one!
Suffice it to say, that I have made *CDs* myself directly from digitising vinyl records. I don't remember any bits going astray.
But the copy is one generation on from the original and still, apparently, 'as good' (by the criteria agreed). Plus it is digital so will never degrade. The LP degraded 1 nanosecond after the recording was made. Therefore the CD copy is now 'better'.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.