Unfortunately for LP fans it is not "which do we prefer" at all. They wish it was, but it isn't.
If you take the output of the LP player through its phono amp and make a CD from that and compare LP vs CD, there will be no audible difference in properly controlled listening tests. Except perhaps if the LP has picked up a few more scratches or static pops since it was used to master the CD...!
The only way to prefer LP over CD (assuming same master) is to prefer errors of LP over no audible errors. That would be a matter of bad taste.
Accepting stereo, the main problem with CD is poor mastering, and especially that the convention for CD mastering is poor practice (i.e. "oh, you want me to master a CD? Let's use *these* settings then!"). In those instances it makes sense to prefer well-mastered LP over poorly-mastered CD.
Fortunately for lovers of serious music (classical, jazz) this is not the issue it is with popular music.
I presume mace1337 can, he made the original claim i.e. "for music reproduction in the home multichannel never really caught on". I was just pointing out that he was probably thinking SACD and DVDA and overlooking music DVD, which I see large racks of in local video stores and which suggests to me that this is because they are selling.
Hi,
the technical need of preequalizing and equalizing together with loads of gain in the playback process of LPs is a quite demanding process that doesn´t come without losses. If You build yourself a high-precision preequalizing network to feed the phono-stage from a CD as source and compare the outputs of CD and phono-stage You will find that even first class phono stages change sonics considerably and to my taste to the worse. In this comparison the flaws, losses and errors introduced by the ´vinyl-scraping´ process are not even included.
Sure, the CD-standard introduced other problems, but at least with the newer high-resultion digital sources LPs loose on any point apart from the ´joy of playing´ with an technical object everybody is capably of understanding the basic functions of. Its comparable to playing with a model railway. The old steam engine with its turning wheels, noises and hisses is far more interesting than the neat streamline elektro-locomotive.
jauu
Calvin
the technical need of preequalizing and equalizing together with loads of gain in the playback process of LPs is a quite demanding process that doesn´t come without losses. If You build yourself a high-precision preequalizing network to feed the phono-stage from a CD as source and compare the outputs of CD and phono-stage You will find that even first class phono stages change sonics considerably and to my taste to the worse. In this comparison the flaws, losses and errors introduced by the ´vinyl-scraping´ process are not even included.
Sure, the CD-standard introduced other problems, but at least with the newer high-resultion digital sources LPs loose on any point apart from the ´joy of playing´ with an technical object everybody is capably of understanding the basic functions of. Its comparable to playing with a model railway. The old steam engine with its turning wheels, noises and hisses is far more interesting than the neat streamline elektro-locomotive.
jauu
Calvin
😀😱🙂🙁😛😉🙄😱😎
I assume I don't need to repeat my post? Note my use of the word 'audible'. Technically there are heaps of errors above 22kHz and below -94dB. Then there is jitter. The challenge is to actually hear them (as opposed to imagine them) in actual music normalised to within -3dB.
Most CDs have heaps of audible sonic errors introduced by poor mastering and mixing. Not their fault.
Calvin,
Spent yesterday listening to recordings done using 24/192 format, using the new PS Perfect wave transport, very dynamic. Unfortunately there were no analog setup for comparison and as i have said before, Yes! dragging a nail thru vinyl has its major flaws, digital processing with tons of circuitry involved does too and whenever the opportunity has presented itself to compare the 2, analog wins subjectively by most present......
I do believe the 24/192 offers up a different beast we will see .........
PS Audio - PerfectWave Transport : More Info
Spent yesterday listening to recordings done using 24/192 format, using the new PS Perfect wave transport, very dynamic. Unfortunately there were no analog setup for comparison and as i have said before, Yes! dragging a nail thru vinyl has its major flaws, digital processing with tons of circuitry involved does too and whenever the opportunity has presented itself to compare the 2, analog wins subjectively by most present......
I do believe the 24/192 offers up a different beast we will see .........
PS Audio - PerfectWave Transport : More Info
I think 24/192 will outperform vinyl too. Companies like Metric Halo may be doing it already and engineers with good ears are confirming this. However, some people may prefer the euphonic coloration that vinyl offers and not accuracy.
JVC's Research Lab scientists evidently don't agree, although they've probably made more progress towards refining digital reproduction than any other that I'm aware of. As of today, they have made great strides and with some further developement it's clear that Vinyl may soon be surpassed, but that day hasn't arrived yet.
Perhaps you could give some details about what Metric Halo has done that allows them to suceed with 24/192, where JVC hasn't?
I believe that it's clear that the CD format will almost certainly never beat good Vinyl and at this point I might ask: "Why bother?"
It's time to move beyond CD.
Best Regards,
TerryO
I couldn't tell you specifically what Metric Halo has done inside their products However, from what I've read, BJ Buchalter, their chief designer, seems like one of the most talented guys in digital audio.
Recording engineer Barry Diament, among others, have raved about MH boxes. Claims what he hears at 24/192 no longer sounds like good digital but exactly like the mic feed. Something, he says, he has never experienced even with analog. To me this trumps not only vinyl but all of analog.
Well I can't comment on someone else's opinion, but I will point out that a great many people in the Music Industry that are involved in digital disagree about 24/192 being superior.
While digital may beat Vinyl in the future, and I believe it will, there still remains the rather daunting "Everest" of Reel to Reel Master Tapes that remains uncontested. This is, and should be, the ultimate goal of digital reproduction for home music.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Terry,
The Material presented to us yesterday was far more dynamic than 16/44 and quite possibly anything analog i have heard , but there was some unnaturalness to it....
The way drums , tympani etc jumped out of the recording was very unnatural to me , it reminds me of years gone by , listening to a hi-fi system with a DBX range expander, yes , a kind of artificial pumping to it's dynamics.
I would like to hear more from the format before passing a yah or nay, yesterday was a look in at the possibilities ..
The saga continues ...
regards,
The Material presented to us yesterday was far more dynamic than 16/44 and quite possibly anything analog i have heard , but there was some unnaturalness to it....
The way drums , tympani etc jumped out of the recording was very unnatural to me , it reminds me of years gone by , listening to a hi-fi system with a DBX range expander, yes , a kind of artificial pumping to it's dynamics.
I would like to hear more from the format before passing a yah or nay, yesterday was a look in at the possibilities ..
The saga continues ...
regards,
Hi a.wayne,
We've done a lot of comparisons using SOTA equipment of various formats and the general consensus is that Vinyl still has the edge over digital. The fact is, that some of the newer formats and techniques of digital reproduction have certainly narrowed the gap to a large extent, but I believe that the use of solid state HDs, better isolation, both physically and electrically along with higher resolution formats (24/384 or even 30/384!), and finally, just better mastering, will be necessary to actually place digital where the Pundits prematurely announced CDs to be in the early 80's.
I believe that SandyK has found, independently, many of these same factors that we have, regarding digital reproduction of music and it's a real shame that his opinions have been dismissed so lightly.
The ascendency of digital is long overdue, but my opinion is that we're not there yet!
Best Regards,
TerryO
Last edited:
Hi,
Wayne, I think we actually agree about that CD is not the cream of the crop.
But I woudn´t go so far as to generalize that vinyl always has the edge over CD. And I certainly disagree with terry claiming analog still to be better than digital. A claim that sounds a bit weird to me in times where there is hardly any pure analog mastering any more.
I disagree with Terry completely in that he claims "The fact is, that some of the newer formats and techniques of digital reproduction have certainly narrowed the gap to a large extent...". Instead I believe that it is a fact that CD was already on par -at times better at times worse sounding than vinyl- but with higher resolution formats from at least 24/96 up, digital outperforms vinyl. Its my experience that quite often effects stemming from the analog circuitry of a digital source are made responsible for ´digital effects´ or artefacts. If for example -and totally regardless of the attached price tag- the analog stages of a digital source are made up from OP-amps, You will probabely never experience a lifelike ´analog´ quality, but rather a uninvolved ´cold´ sonic character.
jauu
Calvin
Wayne, I think we actually agree about that CD is not the cream of the crop.
But I woudn´t go so far as to generalize that vinyl always has the edge over CD. And I certainly disagree with terry claiming analog still to be better than digital. A claim that sounds a bit weird to me in times where there is hardly any pure analog mastering any more.
I disagree with Terry completely in that he claims "The fact is, that some of the newer formats and techniques of digital reproduction have certainly narrowed the gap to a large extent...". Instead I believe that it is a fact that CD was already on par -at times better at times worse sounding than vinyl- but with higher resolution formats from at least 24/96 up, digital outperforms vinyl. Its my experience that quite often effects stemming from the analog circuitry of a digital source are made responsible for ´digital effects´ or artefacts. If for example -and totally regardless of the attached price tag- the analog stages of a digital source are made up from OP-amps, You will probabely never experience a lifelike ´analog´ quality, but rather a uninvolved ´cold´ sonic character.
jauu
Calvin
another debate where one side seems to be stuck in a time warp and refuses to acknowlege the major advances in the past decade in analog IC processes and internal circuit design driven by the huge money in the A/DSL , medical Ultrasound and other high speed, low distortion demanding markets
even Doug Self agrees that some recent op amps improve on the 5534
Last edited:
Hi,
as long as You don´t know my experience and expertise just go on blablablaing for somebodys amusement 😀
Meanwhile others simply use their ears and enjoy the sound of well designed equipment 🙄
jauu
Calvin
as long as You don´t know my experience and expertise just go on blablablaing for somebodys amusement 😀
Meanwhile others simply use their ears and enjoy the sound of well designed equipment 🙄
jauu
Calvin
How could solid state HD change anything in the sound that get out of a system ?? 😕 Regular HD are able to copy therabytes of data without a single bit of error ... And when the bits are correct, what could possibly affect the sound after digital analog conversion ?
Akira,
If you have read this entire thread, I believe that you'll see that there is quite a bit of controversy on a wide variety of issues in the CD vs LP debate. All I can say, without going over this entire thread, is that we've done a lot of work on this and have reached certain conclusions which I have attempted to present. If you disagree, well that's an opinion that you're entitled to, hopefully based on actual tests and listening sessions.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Pot <===> Kettle (note blackness) 😱
False and crooked thinking is always prevalent in hifi discussion. One trick is called 'appealing to authority'. Appealing to one's OWN authority is pretty low and a neat trick if you can get away with it, but you didn't get away with it. 😱
On the other hand you could impress us with your experience and expertise in actually listening to hifi equipment playing music. Please note that the phrase 'actually listening' excludes all casual listening. It is only possible in a controlled listening environment.
Many people have conducted and participated in properly controlled listening tests. Their conclusions make sober reading for hifi enthusiasts who are busy imagining (yes, literally imagining) distinctions between high end components, especially electronica. For most hifi enthusiasts it is an unwelcome reality check, and one they reject because it contradicts their informal personal experience. Flame wars are all too common between those who accept reality as exposed by controlled listening tests and those who attack it because it contradicts their 'personal reality'. Such wars are usually won by the 'personal realists' because they have missionary zeal and it is beyond their ken to understand how wrong they can be via personal casual listening. A certain humility is called for and an awful lot of hifi fans seem to lack it.
And so to the question of CD vs LP. It is actually impossible to conduct a double blind test between your average CD and LP because the testers can easily detect which they are listening to (because of the LP's noisiness) and then their biases come into play and corrupt the preference aspect of the test.
The only way I can see for a valid test would be to make a difference file of two pressings of the same LP, and add this difference file to the LP master to create a CD with the noisy characteristics of LP but not the distortion on the music. This might (might!) fool the blind listeners into not knowing which is which. (OTOH if it doesn't fool them, the test is still corrupted.)
Even then, the CD will be from an LP master and carry the EQ settings used for transfer to LP, so will not be as high quality reproduction as a well done CD master. This would also mean the EQ applied for transfer to LP is excluded from the test, whereas in an ideal world we would like to test the effect of that EQ on listeners.
The above files could only be prepared by an LP mastering studio, so I don't expect it will ever be done.
In the meantime we can avoid lapsing into I-like, you-like subjectivist delusionism by looking at the consistent finding that listeners to music via hifi in properly controlled tests prefer sound that has the flatter frequency response, lower distortion and lower noise, until errors drop below threshold limits as is common with electronic equipment. On that basis I can confidently predict which of CD and LP actually sounds better. And for that I apologise. 😉
Crooked thinking is often present in hifi discussion. One trick is called 'appealing to authority'. Appealing to one's OWN authority is pretty well worn and a futile trick even if you can get away with it. Here you didn't get away with it. Here's just one example (out of several here) where you've done precisely this :
This placebo effect is an artifact of perception. When patients respond to placebos, its not generally regarded in medical science to be an imagined response. When images give rise to perceptual visual artifacts (there are several examples here ) perceptual researchers do not term them 'imagined'.
This placebo effect is an artifact of perception. When patients respond to placebos, its not generally regarded in medical science to be an imagined response. When images give rise to perceptual visual artifacts (there are several examples here ) perceptual researchers do not term them 'imagined'.
I'm not sure if this will qualify, but a high quality LP was played on a SOTA turntable and 2 different cartridges are used on the same tracks for comparison purposes. The recording was recorded digitally and was released to a CD, so I "think" that it may be in line with what you mention above.
I was invited to attend the recording session, but unfortunately I had a prior commitment and couldn't make it.
Here's the CD:
Jun Fukamachi at Steinway (DXD format)
Best Regards,
TerryO
- Status
- Not open for further replies.