How better is a Turntable compared to a CD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#2,201
jan.didden said:
So you're not comparing the medium, you're comparing different masters. Of course they sound different - probably because one mastering engineer tried to outmaster (love that word) his predecessor. Happens all the time.

jan
Click to expand...

I had said this before , the medium means nothing if what one purchase is dodoo, for those defending digital by preaching about bits and distortion , blah , blah, yet there is not a CD under the sun to sound better than it's LP equivalent, so telling me how good the medium is , means diddly squat when it's not available.
 
#2,202
It happens only in a high end system !

😛


Just quoting what's written above, as it's basically the same I was writing when joining the thread, 2 days ago.


But violins ?


🙄

harpsicord is unbeatable. Did I say I favor LPs ?

Edit .
Nahhh you guys are too fast

Take it easy

😀
 
#2,204
bentoronto said:
It might be instructive to devise a blind test protocol. The last step is to see if people could consistently (or some people very consistently) choose one format as "better sounding."

But to do that, you'd have to make the test fair by setting up two systems with identical frequency responses and then showing nobody could tell apart LPs from CDs.... just as Stan Lipshitz showed you couldn't tell differences once the frequency responses of two systems are identical.

Is it a logical impossibility to ask partisans to "prove" they truly can't tell things apart and then asking them to demonstrate which they consistently prefer?

Ben
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't that different. Just record an LP to a CD and then listen to both. Blind of course. If you can't reliably distinguish the two, the CD is at least as good as the LP, certainly not worse. That would be an interesting result in itself.

Jan
 
#2,205
jan.didden said:
Actually it isn't that different. Just record an LP to a CD and then listen to both. Blind of course. If you can't reliably distinguish the two, the CD is at least as good as the LP, certainly not worse. That would be an interesting result in itself.

Jan
Click to expand...

Thats not what I'm disputing, again, buy any CD and it's LP sister, playback both, this is whats being sold to the public, digital fails and i have done what you have suggested, the digital copy is pretty close.
 
#2,206
a.wayne said:
yet there is not a CD under the sun to sound better than it's LP equivalent,
Click to expand...

Resally? I have a pair that does. Paul Simon Graceland, identical mastering, and the only difference I and, over the years, many people could hear is the absence of ticks and surface noise on the CD.

But it's rare to find both a CD and an LP that have the same master source; also because each medium has different capabilities so mastering engineers tend to tweak the source for the medium that it is going onto.

Jan
 
#2,209
jan.didden said:
Resally? I have a pair that does. Paul Simon Graceland, identical mastering, and the only difference I and, over the years, many people could hear is the absence of ticks and surface noise on the CD.

But it's rare to find both a CD and an LP that have the same master source; also because each medium has different capabilities so mastering engineers tend to tweak the source for the medium that it is going onto.

Jan
Click to expand...

I said better , you're saying equivalent .... 😀
 
#2,210
a.wayne said:
I said perceptible , not noise measurements .... 🙄
Click to expand...
I did hear a system the had a low noise level with JK-acoustics amplifier.

Lp sounds nice, but better maybe in some parts of the recording sometimes. I like the vinyl hobby and listen 70ties pop 60ties jazz gives an nice vintage feeling.

I never have heard a system where I hear better sound of a record player than of good digital audio. Digital is mature and vinyl is a nice hobby.

Maybe when I buy a 4000$ cartridge I want to hear better sound to from vinyl I don't know.😉
 
Last edited:
#2,212
Helmuth said:
I did hear a system the had a low noise level with JK-acoustics amplifier.

Lp sounds nice, but better maybe in some parts of the recording sometimes. I like the vinyl hobby and listen 70ties pop 60ties jazz gives an nice vintage feeling.

I never have heard a system where I hear better sound of a record player than of good digital audio. Digital is mature and vinyl is a nice hobby.

Maybe when I buy a 4000$ cartridge I want to hear better sound to from vinyl I don't know.😉
Click to expand...

Spending 4K is not necessary, you can start by getting away from the goldring .... 🙂

SY said:
If you use terms like "surface noiseperception (sic) is almost as quite (sic) as CD," you can't avoid it. CD is better in that respect by 20-35dB even with perfect vinyl surfaces, a perfect turntable, and a perfect preamp. Sorry, as Scotty would say, "You kinna change the laws of physics!"
Click to expand...

Most listening rooms are in the 45-52 db for a noise floor, so how much of that 20-35db (sic) will materialize in the real world and i did say perception, like you cant hear .0001 thd vs .001 thd , if you can't perceive something whats the difference. I stand by what i said, good vinyl on a good TT tracking properly is perceptibly quite.
 
Last edited:
#2,213
bentoronto said:
It might be instructive to devise a blind test protocol. The last step is to see if people could consistently (or some people very consistently) choose one format as "better sounding."

But to do that, you'd have to make the test fair by setting up two systems with identical frequency responses and then showing nobody could tell apart LPs from CDs.... just as Stan Lipshitz showed you couldn't tell differences once the frequency responses of two systems are identical.

Is it a logical impossibility to ask partisans to "prove" they truly can't tell things apart and then asking them to demonstrate which they consistently prefer?

Ben
Click to expand...


Ben,

Our Club has done these and other tests many times over the last 30 plus
years, as I've also mention many times on this and other forums. Why don't you so a search instead of just talking?
 
Last edited:
#2,215
a.wayne said:
Sound stage incoherent ,

you're having setup issues, analog is far from being incoherent. Again noisy vinyl is from poor tracking (unless bad LP) Buy good Vinyl and surface noise perception is almost as quite as CD. CD cant do stage show recordings as well, voices sound and size the same way for all , where analog does small voices and big voices , correctly sized. CD does excel on single instruments, Piano's for eg are better on digital ..
Click to expand...

Again....if you look at the set up of the guy, you understand why anybody with a good pair of ears would prefer digital. Again proves my point!
 
#2,216
a.wayne said:
I had said this before , the medium means nothing if what one purchase is dodoo, for those defending digital by preaching about bits and distortion , blah , blah, yet there is not a CD under the sun to sound better than it's LP equivalent, so telling me how good the medium is , means diddly squat when it's not available.
Click to expand...

ok...it is not medium...ahahaha....maybe a better term would be support…let’s try with this from now on 😀

Anyway, I got to agree with some good points you brought up. Digital is not obviously the paradise; if you look at how the conversion happens inside, you easily realize that signal is being elaborated heavily.
Said that, SACD (Sony) had a good idea of single bit single pole low pass filter, but then falls short at high frequency noise though way up above audible spectrum.
Also, dhiitering is another form of manipulation to minimize quantization noise on. Single bit, might not be sufficient for hi-resolution, so multiple bits with lower sample frequency calls for higher poles filter which results in more complexity.

So, in the end, both approaches have their disadvantages as you can see.
The good thing though, is that in the end, the advantage of the processing on digital are more evident that the low end elaboration that the analogue system performs thus resulting in a better, more coherent, overall sound.
 
#2,217
Stefanoo said:
Again....if you look at the set up of the guy, you understand why anybody with a good pair of ears would prefer digital. Again proves my point!
Click to expand...

No, this proves that your set is so poor sounding that you even start to think vinyl is better.

You have to visit people with better gear then yours. And forget the price tag because one listens with the things on the side of your head.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom