How better is a Turntable compared to a CD?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#203
Charles Darwin said:
I was thinking current models, older cars are whole different thing.

Back OT: IMO vinyl sounds nicer(!) but 24/96 is more accurate.
Same with tape really.
Click to expand...

Taking your pick,from the motors,I'll try to transfer it to the fruit kingdom.
Think an orange as live music.Squeeze it and get the fresh juice,aka,master tape.Buy some bottled orange juice from your local store,hello vinyl records.Then,try some carbonated orange tin can thing.Sorry,but that is CD.


B.L
 
#204
a.wayne said:
I dunno , been exposed to the cream of the crop on rigs costing tens of thousands, both Digital and analog and the analog wins hands down..


I mean there are few comparisons in audio where there is consensus and every time we do these analog vs digital , analog comes out on top unanimously by all involved ( most listening are into digital ). The material necessary to top digital is limited , i must admit but getting better every year as more and more labels are being released on analog disc ..

I will also admit that only a few of my digital disc are unlistenable , while 50% of my analog ( old LP's) are barely listenable.... But the good ones .. 😱



:drink:
Click to expand...

Try changing the title of the thread to "how -better-CD-compared -turntable" and post it in the Digital area of the forum ! 😀😛
SandyK
 
#206
SY said:
Sure they have- it was on most test records, and cartridge reviews back in the day routinely showed the square wave response. Typically, the cartridge would overlay the square wave with ringing (with MCs, it was particularly severe). The very best cartridges would show the cutter head ringing from the test record mastering.
Click to expand...

I have an electron microscope photograph showing exactly that - a recorded square wave (which results in a "triangular" shape groove on the vinyl), with a "wiggle" in the groove just after the change in direction. There is also a scope trace showing a good cartridge reproducing the wiggle, and a not so good cartridge where the wiggle is obscured by the cartridge's electrical resonance (ringing).
 
#207
Globulator said:
A better question there would be 'how-better is 24/192kHz compared to CD'. 😉

TBH with DVD error free capacity at 4.5GB or so you'd think we would have had a decent digital standard years ago!
Shame we're all still waiting...
Click to expand...

Globulator

With decent playback equipment, well recorded 24/192 is markedly superior in all respects compared to 16/44.1
Readily available SACD/DVD-A players let the formats down big time.
Try ripping DVD-As such as "Carly Simon-No Secrets" 24/192 and "Fleetwood Mac-Rumours" 24/96 to a decent USB pen or SSD on a quiet PC , then play them back via a high quality DAC and better than average amplification and speakers or headphones..
I can still hear HUGE differences, and I am 71 !!!

SandyK
 
#209
tabarddn said:
Yes high sampling rate downloads are definitely better than the standard CD, try a Lynn music down load at studio quality. However even there sound though a 2000 player is not as good as a 2000 LP system. A regards to old LP' sounding crap, Mine do not, but then I looked after them, and yes you can still buy mint condition LP' s from second hand shop at bargain prices if you look.
Click to expand...


tabarrddn.

If you still have saved the original 24/96 DL .flac file, try converting it to a.wav file directly on to a good USB pen and play it directly from there,
preferably into a good DAC.. Another very good DL from Linn is 24/96 "Claire Martin-Too Darn Hot"
A couple of the better tracks are "Too Darn Hot" and "Black Coffee"
You can listen to excerpts on the website, but the audio is far below what you get when downloaded.
SandyK
 
#210
sandyK said:
Globulator

With decent playback equipment, well recorded 24/192 is markedly superior in all respects compared to 16/44.1
Readily available SACD/DVD-A players let the formats down big time.
Try ripping DVD-As such as "Carly Simon-No Secrets" 24/192 and "Fleetwood Mac-Rumours" 24/96 to a decent USB pen or SSD on a quiet PC , then play them back via a high quality DAC and better than average amplification and speakers or headphones..
I can still hear HUGE differences, and I am 71 !!!

SandyK
Click to expand...

Hmmm interesting .....

sandyK said:
Try changing the title of the thread to "how -better-CD-compared -turntable" and post it in the Digital area of the forum ! 😀😛
SandyK
Click to expand...

I'm right behind you .. less go .... :mischiev:
 
#211
the best way to listen (that is digital vs. analog)...

is user and system dependant. What one calls "good" may not be the same for all others. Perhaps we need "bionic ears"...that is, have firmware upgradeable DACs installed into our ears, and an I/O port too. Then it would all sound the same (digital).

I don't disagree that digital can sound good, but at relatively affordable levels, analog brings me closer to the music.
 
#215
I don't know, my mate built two highly recommended DIY dacs super duper style and expense. One modern chip with solid state I/V to trafo, the other non oversampling nos chip with valves I/V, HV & lowV super regs etc. He was like over the moon and he easily prefered the 2nd dac, but after he put a record on he listens to records only again. When he A/B it to me with same issue record and cd it was like the TT had double the body and connected better with the listener for tone.
 
#217
And no wonder 😉. This is an LP rip into 96/24. Porgy and Bess, Ella and Louis.
 

Attachments

  • summertime_time.PNG
    summertime_time.PNG
    69 KB · Views: 198
  • summertime_spectral2.PNG
    summertime_spectral2.PNG
    30.2 KB · Views: 196
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom