How better is a Turntable compared to a CD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. 192kHz/24bit is part of the DVD-A spec.

And the relevance is?

Or did you want to point at that '24'?

24 is conventient. It is 16 plus 8. That is nice from a system architecture point of view.

But remains that room-temperature ADCs are limited to 18-19 bit performance. Perhaps 20-21 bit for the top-dog dCS or DAD.

One day true 24 bit performance may be feasible, if not necessarily economic.

32 bit is totally impossible.

Not that any of this really matters. For domestic replay without further DSP and given correct dithering 16 bit is - just- sufficient for a distribution medium. A bit more is desired when replay DSP is involved(*), and also, of course, at the recording side.

(* So actually always, as replay reconstruction filtering is done mostly in the digital domain.)

WRT 24 bit performance, it appears that we may already be there:

Platinum ADC

There are others but they use gain ranging, the MSB, AFAIK doesn't
 
See, you're even worse.

My view on CD (transport +DAC) and a TT, is as having a shower and a bath tub.
From a technical point of view, a shower is more efficient, more convenient.
A tub is oldfashioned, time consuming, but has it's merits, in particular if you make it do bubbles (and according to the kids, farting in a tub is much more pleasant).

See, this is the kind of post that makes sense to me.:drink:

My personal observations are that there is no clear winner between CD and vinyl, both can be excellent. The only systems that truly blew me away have been CD based, but I think once you've been blown away by sound quality once, the subsequent instances become less differentiating from the last. I think most of my exposure to high end audio came before I knew anybody who still used records. In other words, the experiences that stand out the most to me have all been CD sourced.

I have had a number of very nice turntables (Oracle Dephi MkIII with SME V and VDH MC Two Special cart), but I haven't had one yet that was capable of sounding definitely better than my Arcam CD73T or Roksan Kandy mKIII.
 
It just occured to me that we may never agree on which is better, CD or vinyl. Perhaps we should take a vote and settle it the democratic way.

Absolutely but do it outside of a analog forum where the regulars are not exactly bias on the topic.

The democratic way will be to do one at a best Buy store ;) General traffic and they will have the widest range of people, not just audiophiles online.

Unless you just want a poll from analog audiophiles, of course we could just tell you that answer ;)

I also always wonder why people need others to agree with them anyways. I built business specifically on the notion that I hate people doing what I do. The more we can do something different the more unique we are. Vinyl fans should love that they are a small minority.

Individual choice does not need support of any majority.
 
Last edited:
If (and it's a big if) it provides some level of closure to the issue, I have just minor qualms* about a vote. In the interest of fairness/balance, if it needs to be moved from Analog Sources to say, General Interest, that's fine too. But to me a question of audio quality is best dealt with by audiophiles. I personally wouldn't give a rat's rear to know the average Best Buy consumer's opinion on anything.
*should there be an age requirement? It occurs to me that some 30-ish voters' lives have always been CDs and music videos. Does that = bias? Me... I'm a little older than that. I didn't own a CD or player until 1992.
 
If (and it's a big if) it provides some level of closure to the issue, I have just minor qualms* about a vote. In the interest of fairness/balance, if it needs to be moved from Analog Sources to say, General Interest, that's fine too. But to me a question of audio quality is best dealt with by audiophiles. I personally wouldn't give a rat's rear to know the average Best Buy consumer's opinion on anything.
*should there be an age requirement? It occurs to me that some 30-ish voters' lives have always been CDs and music videos. Does that = bias? Me... I'm a little older than that. I didn't own a CD or player until 1992.

I think that the older people who progressed 'logically' from vinyl to CD in the 80s and symbolically dumped their turntable and gave their records to a charity shop, would be balanced by those younger people who see vinyl as an exotic novelty representing 'authenticity' that their iPods can't give them.
 
If (and it's a big if) it provides some level of closure to the issue, I have just minor qualms* about a vote. In the interest of fairness/balance, if it needs to be moved from Analog Sources to say, General Interest, that's fine too. But to me a question of audio quality is best dealt with by audiophiles. I personally wouldn't give a rat's rear to know the average Best Buy consumer's opinion on anything.
*should there be an age requirement? It occurs to me that some 30-ish voters' lives have always been CDs and music videos. Does that = bias? Me... I'm a little older than that. I didn't own a CD or player until 1992.

The Best Buy point was only made because he poted "democratic way".

Sound Quality is not the only question here, that is a priority to audiophiles but its just one of many factors for most people. If you just want audiophiles to vote on it then its pretty much the same as asking only Replubican's to vote on how Obama is doing. ;)

Seriously its all Bias stuff, its silly to think otherwise. A vote still means nothing to each individual and their choice. IF someone wants LP then they should just go buy a quality system, find quality LPs and enjoy. No vote percentage should change that type of decision making.

Im much older then 30 myself, I owned CDs and ripped CDs from the first day they existed.
 
Last edited:
Gee, Pano. You've given us a finger-wag downer. You'll keep us in suspense. too?
From my posts, I suppose there's a hypothesis that for those old enough to be familiar with vinyl, that was their standard for high-fidelity. And so when CDs came along,they recognized the fidelity but may also have been more keenly aware of the shortcomings/differences.
So the opposite for a younger generation accustomed to CDs. When they gave vinyl a try, it was different than their standard of hi-fi, and the shortcomings/differences were exaggerated in their minds.
Not necessarily a generation thing; I just use that for clarity.
To me there's no question about technology, convenience, etc. Those are side issues outside the OPs question.
(Though I fondly remember spinning 45s on a battery-powered turntable as a youngster.)
But I really have no guess to what you are thinking.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday I asked:

There were some interesting answers, but fairly predictable. Most answers were directly in line with the respondent's already stated beliefs. Nothing out of the box, no larger view, no new thinking, no questioning (save one). I had hoped better of some of you.

Tsk, tsk. :nownow:
How do the opposing camps line up?
  • Those who favor the CD mostly cite its technical superiority, with a smaller, but significant, number of subjective preferences for its sonic qualities. Also a good number of votes for its convenience.
  • Those who favor the LP overwhelming cite its superior sonic qualities, at least to their own ears. The technical arguments are present, but minor in comparison to the sonic arguments.

What does this tell us?

engineers prefer CD, hippies prefer LP.
Your preference is dictated by your state of mind (world view).

Nice thread gentleman - highly entertaining.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.