Agreed, ra7. What's going on here is another of the endless subjectivist vs objectivist debates i.e those who listen Vs those who look at plots & measurements. Nobody here is saying that CD is not technically superior on paper, it's just that this technical superiority isn't realised in reality. You & a lot of others wonder why also but some are happy to just live by measurements. That's fine if they didn't try to tell everyone else that they like colourations. I & others are plainly saying that the measurements aren't addressing the preferred listening of many here. It reminds me of the old specmanship debate of heavy feedback amplifiers & the exemplary THD figures but terrible sound.
Last edited:
Read the whole thread and you will see how my post relates to other comments in the thread.
As for cd being inherently superior to lp, that is what is up for debate. I say you are wrong.
John
Last edited:
Actually Mike, they never let me come close to a cutting lathe, so you can rest easy on that account.
😀
Best Regards,
Terry
Technically? If the proof is in the pudding, I'd have to say no they aren't.
There's a lot of reasons, which I've covered before, but it never seems to change anyones mind.
It's a matter of taste, then. That's fine by me.
The music I listen to did not originate in a digital format - most of it. It came from people playing instruments and singing. Analog. And so are the microphones. Most of it was delivered to me in a digital format, I don't mind. But I also know from long experience how good LPs can sound.
I can sure understand not liking one medium or another. I have a hard time liking any recorded music, analog, digital, vinyl, CD, tape or wax cylinder. 🙂 I gave up on it for 15 year altogether. Didn't own anything more than a clock radio. Live music is so much better.
Wow 😱 the Vinyl outperforms CD and SACD formats purely technically and scientifically. Not a fact that should be surprising someone. More bandwidth, more usable dynamic range, more detail. And this is when comparing ordinary proper turntable with ordinary and proper record, cartridge and tonearm - a sub 1000$ for all of the above including a phono preamp - again an ordinary and proper one. And this is compared to virtually any CD or SACD player playing virtually any record.
All of that is due to a simple fact: 16bit and 44.1 khz and 20 bit and 44.1 or 48 khz gives less resolution than the tyny scratches on the vinyl surface. - No hidden science here and no personal tastes or what so ever. Just technical parameters and science.
Maybe, just maybe, 96 or 192 khz sampling rate and 24 bit depth record can give better resolution than vinyl. I have only read a comparison between a vinyl and a CD and I must say a very trustable and comprehensive one it is: Dynamic Comparison of LPs vs CDs - Part 4 — Reviews and News from Audioholics
And it is not a matter of high end equipment at all. Not to mention that "the High End Excuse" is not an excuse at all. (you know, when you fight someone with reasons, logics, facts and science and in the end he says: "oh, well, you might be right, but that only applies to this and that eception found only on the high end mountain you know...") And not to mention that High End does not even exist - it is the touch and attention to detail that brings joy into the lives of some wealthy people and that they pay for.
It is a difference defined by definition, measurable and veryfiable. It even is a difference that lies in the initial parameters of both formats.
CD's have different purpose and have gained popularity over vinyl for different reasons, other than affordability and etc. In some of the old brouchures that I have seen, there was one and the same explanation. This is around late 70's and roughly sounds like that: "With the CD we were able to ckranck the volume to the limit of the speakers and still enjoy perfectly clear sound, free of amplified cklicks, surface noise from worn vinyl....... ...... we were able to demonstrate the systems at the store at any moment without the need to clean or search for new vinyl...... ...... the CD enabled us to have the music at full power at any time" and so on.
Today everyone of us has a DAC, several PC's, several cd players, a DVD, a SACD player and etc. And some of us have a turntable as well. Due to that fact I or anybody else does not face the same problems as the problems seen by the music lover of the seventies and before that.
For instance, I love Eric Clapton, I have "Sunshine of Your Love" on three different CD's and on two vinyls, whenever I want to listen to it I can do it at the moment. In 1970 it was not the same! The meloman had it on a single vinyl record that for three years since the release has already worn out... the meloman coud probably have the single release from 1968 as well... for two years it also should have already been worn out... He could have bought it second time and that's it.
And have in mind one more thing, that between 1950 and 1992 the music was so exciting and the bands were so much and productive, that no one had time to think about extensive DIY, there just were too much new things to listen to at the moment.
And bang! Comes 1980 and the red book CD, no cleaning, no worn tips, no worn records, no loose belts, no need to oil the bearings, just put it in and ckranck the volume! And the CD contains up to almost 80 minutes of sound, so a house party no longer requires the host to be a dedicated DJ as well.
There is no risk to loose a record and 200$ in the form of broken cartridge if someone hits your CD-player.
Nowadays I listen to vinyl once a weak. It is very pleasant to hear a better than the ordinary sound, to enjoy a better record with better dynamics and to know that there is nothing better. (nothing better except an inch or more wide 8 track tape or 4 or 8 channel HD 24/192 broadcast record both made from inobtainium... and new releases of vinyl records are on sale everywhere)
So today the music universe does not end with your vinyls and you are not bond to them. And this is the beauty of it all 😉 Vinyl is reserved only for pleasure and to satisfy expectations for better sound, not a work mule anymore.
Best Regards to All!
Last edited:
Actually i am quite amazed at how far CD has gotten for a "computer" technology contemperaneous with the Allpe !!
dave
I'd be willing to advance the idea that LP is technically superior to CD.
Unfortunately "technically superior" in an imprecise term, so both sides can make a reasonable argument. I can say, however, that the more I understand about CD, and digital-to-analog conversion, and digital signals generally, the more it amazes me that 16bit 44.1kHz sounds as good as it does.
I am not "anti-digital". I'm happy to listen to 16/44, and happier still to listen to 24/96. Analog recordings, however, are where the buck stops as far as I am concerned.
/R
Unfortunately "technically superior" in an imprecise term, so both sides can make a reasonable argument. I can say, however, that the more I understand about CD, and digital-to-analog conversion, and digital signals generally, the more it amazes me that 16bit 44.1kHz sounds as good as it does.
I am not "anti-digital". I'm happy to listen to 16/44, and happier still to listen to 24/96. Analog recordings, however, are where the buck stops as far as I am concerned.
/R
"In many cases a good sounding master created for CD will also make a good vinyl master. However there are a few elements unique to the physical nature of vinyl as a playback medium, as well as the vinyl manufacturing process which require special consideration."
"...Excessive high frequency material is the Achilles' heel of record cutting. In a (very small and incomplete) nutshell, when an especially intense burst of high frequency information is encountered by a playback stylus, it can actually end up making the needle begin to just bump up over the grooves, which is heard as distortion. Bursts of high-frequency material often have this problem. For this reason, one of the more common corrective processes in vinyl mastering is the use of the de-esser (also called a high-frequency limiter)."
"...When low-frequency material contains a good deal of out of phase content (panned bass synthesizers or bass guitars perhaps), the groove must begin to make each wall of the groove do different things, which it can only do by cutting up and down rather than side to side. Excessive vertical motion makes for a groove that can be difficult for many turntables to track during playback and is usually compensated for for in a couple of different ways. One is the use of an elliptical equalizer, which uses an adjustable frequency, below which all frequencies (the bass material) are summed together into mono. This takes care of vertical groove cutting problems, but may do things to the program material that were not intended or desired. The other method is to split the signal into its mono and stereo components and then to use a limiter on the stereo portion to reduce movement in the out-of-phase portion of the signal. Both of these processes can be made to work, but ultimately, the best solution is to avoid the problem during mixing by keeping bass instruments more or less in mono when vinyl is a possible release format. "
Chicago Mastering Service--CD and Vinyl Mastering Facility in Chicago, IL
So LP is much superior to CD, except that the recording itself has to be 'modified' by some bloke who wasn't involved in the recording, to prevent the needle skipping... Either that, or don't try anything too radical like ambiphonics or stereo delay when you're making your record.
Why? It exceeds the ability of the human ear to discriminate in terms of frequency and the dynamic range encountered in music. Not many of you guys can hear to 15k if that. Add to that the impermanence of vinyl versus the permanence of digital if properly backed up and I just don't get it. I'm forced to the conclusion that it's not about the appreciation of music.
w
Sorry if i'm barging in, but i would like to add my vinyl experience here.
I own a self made DAC built around Texas Instruments' SRC and DACs.
Recently i've built the HPS5.1 phono preamp. I only have old records at hand, like Dire Straits and Pink Floyd but the listening experience with the HPS5.1 is simply spine tingling. There is no way that a CD can sound this good.
However, a SACD or other high sample rate music played trough my DAC sounds way better than vinyl, but unfortunately most record releases these days are standard CDs; and most high sampling rate music i own consists of FLAC files ripped from vinyl. Most of these are digitally declicked and 'cleaned'. This is not appealing to me. I prefer an old vinyl with pops to these. But if i wouldn't have a small collection of old vinyl records that represent a vivid memory from my childhood, i do not think that i would have bothered with building this phono amp. Sure, nowadays no one likes the pops and it is very expensive to buy new vinyl, but somehow, even though i am 26 years old, and my friends laugh at me because i do not own an ipod or smartphone music player, when i want to listen to an old record, i listen to it on my turntable, and when i want to buy a new record, i always search for a vinyl release first.
Vinyl is going to go away for sure, even DJs have abandoned the format and Technics stopped building the SL-1210.
I own a self made DAC built around Texas Instruments' SRC and DACs.
Recently i've built the HPS5.1 phono preamp. I only have old records at hand, like Dire Straits and Pink Floyd but the listening experience with the HPS5.1 is simply spine tingling. There is no way that a CD can sound this good.
However, a SACD or other high sample rate music played trough my DAC sounds way better than vinyl, but unfortunately most record releases these days are standard CDs; and most high sampling rate music i own consists of FLAC files ripped from vinyl. Most of these are digitally declicked and 'cleaned'. This is not appealing to me. I prefer an old vinyl with pops to these. But if i wouldn't have a small collection of old vinyl records that represent a vivid memory from my childhood, i do not think that i would have bothered with building this phono amp. Sure, nowadays no one likes the pops and it is very expensive to buy new vinyl, but somehow, even though i am 26 years old, and my friends laugh at me because i do not own an ipod or smartphone music player, when i want to listen to an old record, i listen to it on my turntable, and when i want to buy a new record, i always search for a vinyl release first.
Vinyl is going to go away for sure, even DJs have abandoned the format and Technics stopped building the SL-1210.
way wrong implication - group delay resolution within the CD bandwidth is not limited to the sample time interval - you also need to consider those 65536 levels and correlation over many sample periods
" Dynamic Comparison of LPs vs CDs - Part 4 — Reviews and News from Audioholics"
Interesting test due to his system, but he`s far from the top. My system is a bit closer to the thruth and with good recordings both CD & vinyl performs good enough to give an absolute chillmaking feeling of beeing there.
Allmost no "factory" CD-player performs that good, primarely because they`re doing too much unneccesary filtering after DAC`s. And of course, not too many recordings have survived after the mixing-boards was introduced.
Interesting test due to his system, but he`s far from the top. My system is a bit closer to the thruth and with good recordings both CD & vinyl performs good enough to give an absolute chillmaking feeling of beeing there.
Allmost no "factory" CD-player performs that good, primarely because they`re doing too much unneccesary filtering after DAC`s. And of course, not too many recordings have survived after the mixing-boards was introduced.
Interesting Papers re temporal resolution - Hydrogenaudio Forums
has deeper analysis/criticism of Kurchur's paper's methods, assumptions, conclusions
at a very quick read of his papers I find his Signal Theory, instrumentation and measurement knowledge appalling if his comments on the difficulty of synthesizing and measuring his test signals is taken seriously
his analysis of 1st order filtering audibility uses just the 7 and 21 KHz tones, I can create that pair with my $130 ESI Juli@, greatly reducing DAC and op amp errors by creating just one tone in each channel and mixing in a external op amp summer with sub ns relative phase control resolution – and I can calculate the .wav files in minutes in free sw tools
and 16 bit MHz sample rate ADC cards have been available from National Instruments and competitors for some time now – as any experimental Physics researcher must know
likewise analysis at any required resolution is supported in widely used math software – it doesn’t take weeks
when you see claims of how special equipment had to be purpose designed when such commonly available commercial alternatives greatly exceed his needed resolution it casts considerable doubt in my mind as to the validity of all of his claims
has deeper analysis/criticism of Kurchur's paper's methods, assumptions, conclusions
at a very quick read of his papers I find his Signal Theory, instrumentation and measurement knowledge appalling if his comments on the difficulty of synthesizing and measuring his test signals is taken seriously
his analysis of 1st order filtering audibility uses just the 7 and 21 KHz tones, I can create that pair with my $130 ESI Juli@, greatly reducing DAC and op amp errors by creating just one tone in each channel and mixing in a external op amp summer with sub ns relative phase control resolution – and I can calculate the .wav files in minutes in free sw tools
and 16 bit MHz sample rate ADC cards have been available from National Instruments and competitors for some time now – as any experimental Physics researcher must know
likewise analysis at any required resolution is supported in widely used math software – it doesn’t take weeks
when you see claims of how special equipment had to be purpose designed when such commonly available commercial alternatives greatly exceed his needed resolution it casts considerable doubt in my mind as to the validity of all of his claims
Last edited:
Amazing that it works at all, isn't it? 😀 And yet it does, very well. So well in fact that it can sound better than pure digital. Maybe some of those awful faults don't really matter.
The recording engineers themselves used to be very cautious about what got recorded. You don't want a million Elvis records going out that skip 'cause they have some mic POP! on them. These days, you can fix all that on the computer.
Its beyond me how some people can ignore the obvious differences.
CD is purely digital, it has better SNR, it has error correction, it has all the modern technologies behind it. You can process the signal from it up until you power it with an amp. There is simply nothing better technically superior then that situation. How we store it is not even discussed....try lugging around LPs when travelling....we are not in the 70s anymore but some people I guess still like to be 😱
LPs are analog and come with many flaws (surface noise, low durability, bad pressings, warping, wear, and is much less convenient.), including the fact that you can not correct room issues in the analog domain. Over time more flaws exist because of wear and tear. To think that groves and needles is a superior technology vs lasers and processors makes me cringe.
Using the argument that the content is a better quality for LPs has nothing to do with the two technologies. I agree that LP content is generally better engineered ONLY because of the .0001% of the population its focusing on. Of course we should use the BEST engineered CD recording vs the BEST engineered LP recording and show the measured differences, only then will it be an apples to apples comparison.
Do that comparison now and 2 years later with the same LP/equipment vs same CD/equipment 😉 Then you will know why one is superior over the other.
For those that think this is a never ending debate. The debate ended a long time ago when CDs destroy Vinyl. Just because a few Vinyl lovers are still alive does not make it a real debate.
BtW, CDs will die off soon enough and then its purely a digital download world (Like it should be).
CD is purely digital, it has better SNR, it has error correction, it has all the modern technologies behind it. You can process the signal from it up until you power it with an amp. There is simply nothing better technically superior then that situation. How we store it is not even discussed....try lugging around LPs when travelling....we are not in the 70s anymore but some people I guess still like to be 😱
LPs are analog and come with many flaws (surface noise, low durability, bad pressings, warping, wear, and is much less convenient.), including the fact that you can not correct room issues in the analog domain. Over time more flaws exist because of wear and tear. To think that groves and needles is a superior technology vs lasers and processors makes me cringe.
Using the argument that the content is a better quality for LPs has nothing to do with the two technologies. I agree that LP content is generally better engineered ONLY because of the .0001% of the population its focusing on. Of course we should use the BEST engineered CD recording vs the BEST engineered LP recording and show the measured differences, only then will it be an apples to apples comparison.
Do that comparison now and 2 years later with the same LP/equipment vs same CD/equipment 😉 Then you will know why one is superior over the other.
For those that think this is a never ending debate. The debate ended a long time ago when CDs destroy Vinyl. Just because a few Vinyl lovers are still alive does not make it a real debate.
BtW, CDs will die off soon enough and then its purely a digital download world (Like it should be).
Last edited:
You act like no one's ever heard that argument before. The fact is, in a really good system vinyl sonically out performs cd most of the time, the shibboleths of the measurement queers notwithstanding.
John
John
- Status
- Not open for further replies.