It's easy enough to do an A-B or ABX test and find out which one people LIKE better, but that's not the same as which one more accurately reproduces the original sound. You would need to compare each one with an actual live musical performance.
Again, until the proper experimenting is done this is strictly arbitrary speculation. Not science.
Like Pano said, now we are really getting to the crux of the matter.
Let's also remember that it's not just the medium (electro-mechanical versus optical-mechanical) but also the retrieval mechanism that is different between the two sources. Retrieving data from CD is more accurate, but what happens to that data before it gets to the preamp (or amp) may not be so insignificant.
Let's also remember that it's not just the medium (electro-mechanical versus optical-mechanical) but also the retrieval mechanism that is different between the two sources. Retrieving data from CD is more accurate, but what happens to that data before it gets to the preamp (or amp) may not be so insignificant.
CD-R's (though no one calls them that anymore - many people don't even know there's a difference between CD-R's and pressed aluminum CD's) are quite easy to "degrade." I'd suggest high humidity (maybe put the CD-R in an ultrasonic cleaner, as described for LP's in another DIYaudio thread), or sunlight. Anyone can guess that sunlight is bad for LP's, but a test of equal amounts of sunlight, at incremeints of one or two minutes each time would be interesting to see which one becomes "degraded" to the point of being unplayable first.
I am perplexed by some of the comments here. Everyone has to accept that the LP method of distributing music is not 'transparent' (we know what goes on at the LP mastering stage such as de-essing and blending bass to mono). Channel separation of vinyl playback is measurably poor. (Surely not controversial!) Tracks at the centre of an LP are audibly worse than those at the outside. This is commonly known. There's wow, there's flutter, there's rumble, there's dust.
However, it is possible that the distortions caused by the LP process are, in some way, 'magic' and improve the sound in a way that listeners prefer. The analogy with photographic film is a good one, I think. It may be less 'realistic' than a distortion-free electronic copy, but looks nicer, and the way it does this defies measurement and analysis.
But *if*, hypothetically, it was shown that a CD could capture the resulting magic-i-fied sound from an LP and be indistinguishable from the original, then it would be valid it seems to me, to declare CD superior as a format; it is cheap to distribute, convenient and doesn't degrade. The most expensive analogue system in the world can be 'captured' and reproduced for nothing. The rarest and most fragile records preserved forever. And if you want to use it for non-magic-i-fied audio, you can do that too. You can't with an LP.
Why is that controversial?
However, it is possible that the distortions caused by the LP process are, in some way, 'magic' and improve the sound in a way that listeners prefer. The analogy with photographic film is a good one, I think. It may be less 'realistic' than a distortion-free electronic copy, but looks nicer, and the way it does this defies measurement and analysis.
But *if*, hypothetically, it was shown that a CD could capture the resulting magic-i-fied sound from an LP and be indistinguishable from the original, then it would be valid it seems to me, to declare CD superior as a format; it is cheap to distribute, convenient and doesn't degrade. The most expensive analogue system in the world can be 'captured' and reproduced for nothing. The rarest and most fragile records preserved forever. And if you want to use it for non-magic-i-fied audio, you can do that too. You can't with an LP.
Why is that controversial?
A red herring I would suggest. The physical storage medium is surely irrelevant. It's just numbers. Store it on hard drives if you want, or print out a paper copy for later scanning (it's been done!), or store it on video tape or DAT or tape backups. You could probably burn a fresh CD-R in the time it takes the average audiophile to clean an LP.
Last edited:
Most absurd message so far in this thread. Where do you get off making those kinds of generalizations? The worst part of this thread is where posters make up stories of what their idea of an audiophile or a music-lover is.
A lot more douchebaggery than music there. Probably would sound just as bad on vinyl as cd.
John
Perhaps because you don't understand the process? 😉
I don't think it is. There is a forest, you are seeing trees.
Correct, but logic says that, even with AD-DA conversion, the resulting CD is indistinguisable from vinyl, that means CD is at least 'as good' as vinyl.
I do't see how you can conclude otherwise.
jan didden
Jan,
The problem is getting everything to the CD intact and the manufacturing process can be pretty sorry for CDs. The AD-DA processing can be immaculent, yet a poor pressing will make it...well, a poor recording. It's a physical/mechanical process with many the problems that can compromise any mass produced product.
Best Regards,
Terry
???
Surely you realise that a CD is just some numbers? It doesn't matter how expensive your 'transport' is, or your 'digital interconnect' (make sure the data goes in the direction of the marked arrows of course!).
Surely you realise that if you digitise an analogue waveform with an ADC (analogue to digital converter) you get a series of numbers. Those numbers can be manipulated in some way, or stored *directly* onto a CD. Or a DVD. Or a DAT tape. I could make a million copies and sell them without changing a single bit of information. That's how simple "the process" is.
And then it can be played back *directly* onto a DAC and converted back into an analogue waveform.
You do know that, of course...?
If so (just checking!), you may be about to start conflating the quality of the medium (CD or 16 bit 44.1kHz digital) with studio and/or mastering processes. They are a side issue.
I then get the feeling you are about to mention resolution reduction (e.g. 24 bit to 16 bit) and tell us that there is something controversial and/or magical about it . Or dithering. Or something else that is a secondary diversion.
It was in order to avoid those issues that I tried to introduce the idea of a straightforward 16 bit digitisation of an LP, and the idea that *if* it could be shown to be 'transparent' then it might prove something *without* confusing the quality of 16 bit 44.1kHz digital ( = 'CD') with anything else.
Correct, but that wasn't the issue. The issue is that if at the end of the process, you can't hear a difference with the vinyl source, that means that the CD technology is at least as good as vinyl.
That doesn't mean you can't have bad sounding CDs (and LPs) but that wasn't the discussion.
jan
I see this as a spurious issue. Computer CD ROMs work fine and manage to convey every single bit of information faultlessly - they have to. You may say that audio CDs are not quite as robust in regards to error checking etc. but as an argument against CD it's scraping the bottom of the barrel. In my opinion.
Mike,
You've pretty much summed it up. It's like trying to explain the mystery of life to an infant or small child.
Best Regards,
Terry
Let's do this thought experiment: we replace every instance of 'CD' with 'LP'.
What do you know, it's the same! (except the AD-DA, ok).
jan
It's not a spurious issue. It's pretty appearent to those in the industry that Redbook CDs, even with such innovations as JVC's HDK2 mastering technique (which, BTW, is quite good) will never rise to the level of displacing good Vinyl LPs. Higher bit rates (Hi-Rez) and probably some sort of SS hard drive in a music server, that are becoming increasingly available, will accomplish this.
Your opinion is just that: an opinion. Facts are quite different and can exist outside of a person's mind.
TerryO
- Status
- Not open for further replies.