It is, from 20Hz to 20kHz, within a fraction of a dB, and to 96dB resolution/dynamic range.
Is it enough? Don't know, but it's MUCH better than than vinyl.
jan didden
Starting to see no end to this discussion and no winner.
CD or LP, scotch or brandy, football or hockey, sports cars or SUVs, action or comedy.
Taste, fashion and personal experience. Theres subjective and objective reasons on both sides of these choices. And I think most of (somewhere deep in side) know the question should not be which sounds better but which do we prefer.
CD or LP, scotch or brandy, football or hockey, sports cars or SUVs, action or comedy.
Taste, fashion and personal experience. Theres subjective and objective reasons on both sides of these choices. And I think most of (somewhere deep in side) know the question should not be which sounds better but which do we prefer.
And that is a very good and fair question. After all, what music do you prefer?
Taste in music, taste in playback. It's personal.
Taste in music, taste in playback. It's personal.
I've been trying to follow this thread, but it goes by in a blur... I'm jumping in, we'll see if I get run over.
And of course many or most specs are much like the widely bemoaned THD figure - better specs don't necessarily guarantee better sound.
But then there's that word "better" which may have objective meaning when comparing specs, but what we want to know is what SOUNDS better, and that's subjective and dependent on a personal definition of "better." I'm reminded of President Clinton and his weasel statement in answering questions related to the Monica Lewinski affair, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
Yes, the CD SPECS are much better than vinyl, and with modern processing in making the recording (using "noise-shaping," a filtered noise source as a dither signal) the perceived S/N ratio can even be 10 to 20dB better than the standard 96dB figure, though the actual measured S/N is lower above 10kHz where low-level noise is much less audible. But I think that was covered already earlier in the thread...
And of course many or most specs are much like the widely bemoaned THD figure - better specs don't necessarily guarantee better sound.
But then there's that word "better" which may have objective meaning when comparing specs, but what we want to know is what SOUNDS better, and that's subjective and dependent on a personal definition of "better." I'm reminded of President Clinton and his weasel statement in answering questions related to the Monica Lewinski affair, "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
One way to checking it would be the following:
* get a reasonably high quality external soundcard for the PC - connect to rec-out of a reasonably good pre-amp connected to a turntable
* record a vinyl you know well in the highest possible samplerate/bit depth, watching to avoid clipping, etc.
* use a slow, high quality resample algorithm to bring it to 44.1khz/16 bit, and normalize.
* play back the recording over the same system, equalizing volumes (steady part of music, SPL meter)
* if possible, set up ABX testing method with multiple listeners
* if not possible, let someone switch the inputs for you as you listen, with as synced sources as possible.
Quite a challenge I think... if the digital recording is not distinguishable, then you have already proven that the warmth/crack/pop/euphonics contained in the LP can be contained in the 44.1/16 stream - which in turn proves that CD at least equivalent and has resolution enough to fool you in listening to an LP.
* get a reasonably high quality external soundcard for the PC - connect to rec-out of a reasonably good pre-amp connected to a turntable
* record a vinyl you know well in the highest possible samplerate/bit depth, watching to avoid clipping, etc.
* use a slow, high quality resample algorithm to bring it to 44.1khz/16 bit, and normalize.
* play back the recording over the same system, equalizing volumes (steady part of music, SPL meter)
* if possible, set up ABX testing method with multiple listeners
* if not possible, let someone switch the inputs for you as you listen, with as synced sources as possible.
Quite a challenge I think... if the digital recording is not distinguishable, then you have already proven that the warmth/crack/pop/euphonics contained in the LP can be contained in the 44.1/16 stream - which in turn proves that CD at least equivalent and has resolution enough to fool you in listening to an LP.
Last edited:
If they are state of the fart, it's still a nice exercise to do. If you still can't distinguish, then CD is pretty damn good.
Of course, reading all this I more have the idea people don't want to know - and maybe it's better that way. If you like vinyl more, and you don't care to hear comparisons, and you're happy with it - why even bother making the comparison? Seems like most people don't want to know "what's better" - their mind is already made up. Last post on this thread for me here, it's crazy and useless 🙂
Of course, reading all this I more have the idea people don't want to know - and maybe it's better that way. If you like vinyl more, and you don't care to hear comparisons, and you're happy with it - why even bother making the comparison? Seems like most people don't want to know "what's better" - their mind is already made up. Last post on this thread for me here, it's crazy and useless 🙂
It wasn't intended,to introduce variability,and further arguments.
My opinion is,that the real question,always,was Analogue vs Digital.
As it was,MM vs MC.Tubes vs solid state.VHS vs Beta.Low power amp design vs high,Solid plinth vs suspended.
All of them meaningless debates in the audio fraternity. The capable to adapt ,hearing mechanism, ignores all those trickeries and fills the blanks in the perceived data.Opinions come and go,but at the end of a long tiring day,be it a turntable,a CD,a PC or a server,you are alone in your quest for some peace of mind._
B.L
Last edited:
My preference is CD, scotch, football, SUVs, and action actually.
But i'll settle for LP, if necessary.
"Reasonably" and "reasonably" makes it rather vague.
Good Point !!
I would add that here we are long away from marketing .."the cd is better then vinyl, go and buy the cd"!
the message for young dyiers is the vinyl play a lovely music ,as the tube as fullrange in openbaffle period ! old is not crap
sure need a lot more afford respect cd ss amp... is age relative ...young want faster car , 45 need class refinement....
Last edited:
Well, the question as I understood it was which, in technical terms, was better able to capture the event. That's can be answered unambiguously. It was not a question of which sounds better. That's personal preference so cannot be answered unambiguously. But people keep on trying, with predictable failure 😉 .
jan didden
Agreed.That's the reason why,recorded and replayed music,is in a different, lower, league,whenever compared,to live sounds.
Both technologies,are best and worst,in places,compared to each other.
As always,it's up to the individual.
B.L.
Only if its not mixed and amplified, in a good room and in a good seat. Most rock gigs are too loud, mono, in an arena and the sound sucks. Once in a while once the mixer tunes in the room (2 or 3 songs into the gig ) it can sound great ( the last Roger Waters tour).
Verification of the rule,by the odd exception.You won't get fooled,into believing,that a reproduced musical event,is live.Some elements are missing.
The thing is,that the missing info,is unmeasurable,because we don't know,what it is.Or do we?
B.L
No, he was pretty explicit: stereo. It's such a huge jump from a multidimensional sound field to two record/playback channels that all else is minor in comparison.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.