All of you people who say that CDs last forever, have you never had a CD scratched? Once there is a scratch on there, it just doesn't play. Not so with vinyl. Scratches, fingerprints, dust... throw what you want at it and it will still play. May be with a little less fidelity, but it will play. You can rip your CDs to hard drives, but hard drives can crash too.
I've had a few records that I listen to regularly and I must have easily played them a 100times, but I don't notice a reduction in fidelity. So, even though it is supposed to degrade, it hasn't yet. I also haven't cleaned a single record. Sure, there are some clicks and pops, they just don't get in the way of the music. I have a copy of Led Zepp IV and Stairway clearly sounds worse than the other tracks. So, it must have degraded. But wasn't Stairway the most played song on radio stations across the US? It must have been played over a 1000 times on that record.
I had a similar experience to RCruz. I had a Marantz CD63 and a Dual turntable with an old cartridge. With a good phono preamp, the Dual beat the Marantz hollow. When I added an external DAC (with transformer outputs), the CD63 went ahead. Now, I have a Technics Sl1300 with the Pearl II phono stage and it matches the quality of 24/96 recordings quite easily. In some instances, it is more pleasurable to listen to.
I've had a few records that I listen to regularly and I must have easily played them a 100times, but I don't notice a reduction in fidelity. So, even though it is supposed to degrade, it hasn't yet. I also haven't cleaned a single record. Sure, there are some clicks and pops, they just don't get in the way of the music. I have a copy of Led Zepp IV and Stairway clearly sounds worse than the other tracks. So, it must have degraded. But wasn't Stairway the most played song on radio stations across the US? It must have been played over a 1000 times on that record.
I had a similar experience to RCruz. I had a Marantz CD63 and a Dual turntable with an old cartridge. With a good phono preamp, the Dual beat the Marantz hollow. When I added an external DAC (with transformer outputs), the CD63 went ahead. Now, I have a Technics Sl1300 with the Pearl II phono stage and it matches the quality of 24/96 recordings quite easily. In some instances, it is more pleasurable to listen to.
Last edited:
It did? It does? and obviously not.
I suppose the original question was a bit too broad, and this led to the ever-growing thread.
My music collection consists of vinyl, tape, and hard/soft -copy digital. They give me what I want. Personally I'm not comfortable being the insatiable audiophile. Others thrive on it. Sameness is boring.
As for the market judging the winner, I'm 100% for that. It used to be that if a person wanted to hear music, he commissioned composers and players (if well-to-do). Or it was played by the people themselves (folk music, in the broad sense). 78s, LPs, tapes, Walkmans, CDs, iPods... this is all a trail of increasing convenience. I don't think anyone is arguing this. I like vinyl, but I certainly don't see myself as a soldier is some battle of Luddites and technophiles.
Yes, easy to fix short of the same sort of gouges that render LPs unplayable, though nearly all scratches can be ignored by the error correction inherent in red book standards. A little toothpaste or car wax can work miracles on scratches deep enough to invoke interpolation.
The technology for digital data backup is well known, routine, and extremely inexpensive/convenient. That seems like a pretty lame knock.
In spite of your sarcastic remarks, I can tell you that I'm not immune to psychological bias any more than you, or anyone else is for that matter. That's what I learned years ago when I did the experimental design for government funded research projects. It is also why I have encouraged rigorous blind testing over uncontrolled comparisons in a number of the evaluations we've done. Many "Audiophiles" don't like blind tests, as it often will produce results that they're uncomfortable with, isn't much fun to participate in (one fellow said it's as much fun as sticking needles in your eyes) and is a general pain in the a$$ to set up.
As for why the results are such and such, I don't know. As we have a fair number of members that are excellent software engineers, many from a giant software company here in Redmond (Washington), I believe that they, and not I, are qualified to come up with the answers. I should add that, as a result of our tests, that they've become convinced there actually is a problem and have been looking into it.
TerryO
Oh yes, this is the same technology that has led to the proliferation of pirated music. Rip music to your hard drive and spread it like a virus.
If inexpensive/convinient is what I want, I'll just give up on my equipment and listen to boom boxes or maybe an ipod and headphones. They are much less expensive and much more convinient that any of our systems here - CD players or turntables.
And that's even more lame. Because people choose to use a technology illegally, is not the fault of the technology. Maybe because people choose to break the speed limits in their cars, you should only drive a Model T or walk every where.
What you want is irrelevant. The market has already chosen - both CDs and portable players. Remember the Walkman? Even back then people were transferring their LPs to cassette because they liked being able to have music with them irrespective of any fidelity issues.
Last edited:
Brett, your statement is the antithesis of DIY audio. Here, the market is irrelevant. So is convenience to a large degree. Are you so obstinate that you cannot concede that fact?
The market itself has conceded it.
Rubbish. People build gear for all sorts of reasons, as much for the pleasure of doing it than any potential performance.
Sure the market might be irrelevant here, but in terms of the market analogue DIYers are completely irrelevant. But simply making a strawman argument that less convenience is better makes as much sense as pushing your car everywhere because of lower CO2 emissions.
THAT was my point.
Your points for the most part are well taken. However, in regard to the most pertinent issue, this one is not relevant;
"But walk into a room where there is vinyl and CD playback - like at an audio show - a pick which is "better sounding". "
I go back to what I posted earlier. RBCD and vinyl phonograph records are two of many technologies for storing and retrieving electrical signals. When the signal is the electrical analog of musical sounds, the question is what are the capabilities and shortcomings of each vis a vis the ability to hear. The answer mathematicians and electrical engineers give based on their analysis is that RBCD is more than adequate to handle any such signal, vinyl phonograph recording comes up short on many accounts.
Whether the technology is put to good use or shows up shortcomings of other elements in the recording playback system is a separate issue. RBCD is the first technology offered to the public which makes affordable the same quality of signal that was available previously only on a master tape recording in a recording studio.
In any given situation, a vinyl record may sound better than a cd for a whole host of reasons. I've posted many of them elsewhere. That is not the point either. The point is which is the superior technology. CD wins over vinyl in every respect. This fact cost me a great deal of money in having to duplicate many recordings and to buy more equipment.
BTW, the first impact of the truth of this came to me the first time I heard a cd recording of Luciano Pavarotti. I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about listening to his recordings on vinyl. They simply couldn't capture the power and splendor of his voice. It exceeded vinyl's capabilities.
You just made my point, not yours.
(Aside - Is "rubbish" the new hip term? I'm getting that alot lately🙄)
Not sure who's making strawmen. I never claimed more or less convenient made for better. I do often ride my bike instead of my internal combustion engine vehicle. Is it better? Better defined by time used, no. Better defined by power used, yes.
I think you missed that point. The point is the market still allows, ie concedes, for LPs, hell maybe even wire recorders. But apparently some people do not. Vehemently.
OK, but I just don't hear it.
Sure, I think that CDs have some undeniable sonic merits, but to me, they just don't consistently sound better than vinyl. We can throw all the numbers and specs we want at it, I still hear vinyl playback that is as good or better than RDCD. Not in every way better, but overall, as a whole. I choose not to invest in vinyl simply out of practicality. It's not the sound quality that's lacking.
Sure, I think that CDs have some undeniable sonic merits, but to me, they just don't consistently sound better than vinyl. We can throw all the numbers and specs we want at it, I still hear vinyl playback that is as good or better than RDCD. Not in every way better, but overall, as a whole. I choose not to invest in vinyl simply out of practicality. It's not the sound quality that's lacking.
Signature spam alert!!!!!😀
The last vinyl album I bought was a used copy of "National Lampoon Test and Demonstration Record."
mebe the preference of one format over another comes down to the varying rate of human information uptake? As an older participant I find digital audio of any frequency/sample rate to be a bit uncomfortable. Similar to trying to adjust to a high performance car, too much information with to sharp an edge to the content.
I can hear the audio deformities in vinyl quite clearly, but they are also much more comfortable and I enjoy the emotional connection more. Having said that, I listen to a whole lot of red book audio.... the higher rate formats leave me feeling excluded and uncomfortable, even though they are obviously superior in the amount of information provided for internal gradient information, in note and transient structures, and in low level wide band coherent signals, like reflections from instruments and hall ambiance. To me the sound is hard,and unappealing, to my 30 years younger son, vinyl is unacceptable and red book just barely acceptable. He also drives around in a BMW Z4 M coupe or a third generation turbo RX 7 and thinks he wants even more performance. He is also quite wealthy, where I am not so much and kind of like my Buick Reatta...
Bud
I can hear the audio deformities in vinyl quite clearly, but they are also much more comfortable and I enjoy the emotional connection more. Having said that, I listen to a whole lot of red book audio.... the higher rate formats leave me feeling excluded and uncomfortable, even though they are obviously superior in the amount of information provided for internal gradient information, in note and transient structures, and in low level wide band coherent signals, like reflections from instruments and hall ambiance. To me the sound is hard,and unappealing, to my 30 years younger son, vinyl is unacceptable and red book just barely acceptable. He also drives around in a BMW Z4 M coupe or a third generation turbo RX 7 and thinks he wants even more performance. He is also quite wealthy, where I am not so much and kind of like my Buick Reatta...
Bud
Bud,
I said it already but it bears repeating - I don't believe this exaggerated detail that we associate with digital is "real detail" - instead, I believe that this is distortion & the sonic signature of jitter. So again I'll say that the obvious advantages of digital are not realised in most implementations & as a result digital is not as well liked as vinyl playback.
When this jitter distortion is reduced then digital begins to sound as smooth as vinyl & in fact overtakes it at higher resolutions!
I said it already but it bears repeating - I don't believe this exaggerated detail that we associate with digital is "real detail" - instead, I believe that this is distortion & the sonic signature of jitter. So again I'll say that the obvious advantages of digital are not realised in most implementations & as a result digital is not as well liked as vinyl playback.
When this jitter distortion is reduced then digital begins to sound as smooth as vinyl & in fact overtakes it at higher resolutions!
Bud,
The dissatisfaction you're experiencing may depend, in part, on the DAC you're using. May I suggest the Berkeley Audio Design Alpha DAC?
😀
Best Regards,
Terry
Answering your question would will only side track the thread into a contentious area & the message will be lost - the message being that yes, digital is superior on paper but mostly not in the real world because of the implementation issues that are needed to be addressed in order to realise these benefits.
I see it like this - it's easier to get an excellent sound from a vinyl implementation than it is from a digital implementation BUT digital is superior in theory & when the implementation issues are addressed, surpasses vinyl.
Mike,
Let's not kid ourselves, practicality has nothing to do with your decision, it's the weight. If you didn't always move to a different Country, or State, every 37 days, it wouldn't be any big deal!
Best Regards,
Terry
- Status
- Not open for further replies.