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...
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...
apples and oranges
).
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
Actually that has nothing to do with the CD but with the mastering engineer. You could put the same master on vinyl (nowadays
).So you're saying the Kaiser Chiefs record you listened to on CD will be mastered differently espescially for Vinyl?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Back to the OP's question...
First off...
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...
-=|=-
First off...
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:
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:
rg12,
Maybe you should listen first, here you can find a short sample coming from my TD160 with SME 3009 and Shure V15.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/35621-diy-adcs-4.html#post2015941
Regards,
Frans.
P.s.
The pre amp is here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/165603-balanced-input-all-dc-coupled-riaa-preamp.html
Maybe you should listen first, here you can find a short sample coming from my TD160 with SME 3009 and Shure V15.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-line-level/35621-diy-adcs-4.html#post2015941
Regards,
Frans.
P.s.
The pre amp is here
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/165603-balanced-input-all-dc-coupled-riaa-preamp.html
RG12,
i've had a pre-production Phily CD100 for a tryout period in the early 80s, no match for a TD125+SME+pretty expensive cartridge.
CD200,CD300 series, no match.
End 80s : Marantz CD80 + early shelf retirement plan for the TT.
End 90s : nothing but sheety CDs in the shops + sheetload of LP's in the closet, half never came out on CD.
End 00s : i own 3 TT's, 1 CD player, and i'm the Gunga Din of RIAA parts.
Pick your poison.
i've had a pre-production Phily CD100 for a tryout period in the early 80s, no match for a TD125+SME+pretty expensive cartridge.
CD200,CD300 series, no match.
End 80s : Marantz CD80 + early shelf retirement plan for the TT.
End 90s : nothing but sheety CDs in the shops + sheetload of LP's in the closet, half never came out on CD.
End 00s : i own 3 TT's, 1 CD player, and i'm the Gunga Din of RIAA parts.
Pick your poison.
That's very much like my journey in the Audio Source Jungle and I currently have 6 TT's (some aren't used much) and just one cd player. I am looking at building a Music Server and DAC, but it depends on funds left over after I get a tonearm and cart for my newly aquired SOTA Star TT.
My problem is that much of my favorite music hasn't been released, and may never be released, on a digital format that exceeds the Vinyl version.
Best Regards,
TerryO
It s not enough...
A 10KHZ sine has no more than 4.4 measurement points.
It more or less works because recording sessions are made
using 20 to 24 bit 96/192KHZ sample rate, thus having high precision.
This format is then compressed digitally to 16 bit/44.1K crappy format
that is considered by the big corporates as enough for the average joe...
Of course, in boats, nothing beats a complete Creston Adagio system.
I like this! Nice pics btw.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Sigh, tell me about it.
There's a couple of them on the way overhere, if 1 shtty bstrd asks for an i-pugh, the other trds are already breathing heavily down your neck.
Means 3 i-dock surgeries to perform on Glen K's A10 amps.
Of course, in some very special cases i can see some practical use of an ipod.
There's a couple of them on the way overhere, if 1 shtty bstrd asks for an i-pugh, the other trds are already breathing heavily down your neck.
Means 3 i-dock surgeries to perform on Glen K's A10 amps.
Of course, in some very special cases i can see some practical use of an ipod.
Attachments
When CD's were first introduced we had poor CD players and uncompressed CD recordings.
Now we have high performance CD players and compressed / distorted / clipped CDs.
Digital recording has corrupted audio, and we have had a decade where musical performances have been deliberately distorted in a way that can never be recovered.
This all comes down to trying to get the loudest sound out of a CD player in a way that sounds impressive on the radio for a few minutes, but is intensely annoying and fatiguing when listening to music in the home.
Can this situation ever be recovered without completely changing the digital format? Maybe, but I would think that it would take a new digital standard, one where the average audio level was strictly specified as say -20dB allowing plenty of room for peaks.
A digital flag would reset the gain on the player. Any compression required for headphone usage would be done in the player.
PS I like the Seashepherd Logo
Ex Seashepherd Crew member
Now we have high performance CD players and compressed / distorted / clipped CDs.
Digital recording has corrupted audio, and we have had a decade where musical performances have been deliberately distorted in a way that can never be recovered.
This all comes down to trying to get the loudest sound out of a CD player in a way that sounds impressive on the radio for a few minutes, but is intensely annoying and fatiguing when listening to music in the home.
Can this situation ever be recovered without completely changing the digital format? Maybe, but I would think that it would take a new digital standard, one where the average audio level was strictly specified as say -20dB allowing plenty of room for peaks.
A digital flag would reset the gain on the player. Any compression required for headphone usage would be done in the player.
PS I like the Seashepherd Logo
Ex Seashepherd Crew member
- Status
- Not open for further replies.