I don't have the answer, I just have an answer - my own observation. I was hoping for some original observations that had not occurred to me. I do like canzld's remark:
SY asks:
But he already knows. In both camps, he listens to and enjoys both. But he likes live music even better.
My observations in a minute.
Actually, my suggestion to put it up for a vote was because CD and vinyl are both good enough, if well implemented.
Both could also be improved further. Higher RPM for vinyl, higher sample frequency and more bit depth for digital. I don't expect much future research money flowing into improving LP's, so that technology will mostly stay put. With digital, looking at the time line and comparing it to analog, we are still in the 78 RPM era. It will improve, if only because bits will continue to get cheaper.
For our present discussion on the present state of both technologies, "better" has many dimensions, and the weighing of all these factors involved can only be done subjectively. Like in politics, you can't vote wrong, you can only vote different from me. Just, please don't break your back carrying 8 gigabyte of data inscribed in PVC platters.
Both could also be improved further. Higher RPM for vinyl, higher sample frequency and more bit depth for digital. I don't expect much future research money flowing into improving LP's, so that technology will mostly stay put. With digital, looking at the time line and comparing it to analog, we are still in the 78 RPM era. It will improve, if only because bits will continue to get cheaper.
For our present discussion on the present state of both technologies, "better" has many dimensions, and the weighing of all these factors involved can only be done subjectively. Like in politics, you can't vote wrong, you can only vote different from me. Just, please don't break your back carrying 8 gigabyte of data inscribed in PVC platters.
I think it's interesting to point out that as this thread is growing, CD sales are dropping, while LP sales are growing. I'm pretty sure that is correct. Not that it means much in the grand scheme. Just interesting.
AFAIK, the first recorded music dates to late-1880s. Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" was the first digitally-recorded mainstream release, in 1979. I'm not sure we're even to the 78 RPM-era with digital.
AFAIK, the first recorded music dates to late-1880s. Ry Cooder's "Bop Till You Drop" was the first digitally-recorded mainstream release, in 1979. I'm not sure we're even to the 78 RPM-era with digital.
Yes, but that needs perspective. LPs have grown from 0.1% to 0.3% of CD sales. CD sales have decreased sharply, but the major part of the market uptake is downloads, not LPs.
LPs are an insignificant niche these days, like it or not.
True. That is the grand scheme. I suppose what is most interesting is how long those trends continue.
Concerning this great thread debate, I don't really have any emotional chips on this table. The marketplace necessitates some lifestyle changes. That's about all it means to me. I'd agree that live music is better. But if you're (like me) into Paganini, Satchmo, and Hendrix, you've got to find another way.
Concerning this great thread debate, I don't really have any emotional chips on this table. The marketplace necessitates some lifestyle changes. That's about all it means to me. I'd agree that live music is better. But if you're (like me) into Paganini, Satchmo, and Hendrix, you've got to find another way.
My take on this is based virtually purely on my observations over a large number of years now.
I used to work in a hi fi shop on weekends back in the early days of the first CD players; I had read much of the "perfect sound forever" marketing spiel from manufacturers and had read the mostly positive reviewer comments. My experience was directly contrary however. The first Phillips and especially Sony players sounded dire. They sounded simultaneously dead, yet created an unpleasant listening fatigue simultaneously. There was a distinct lack of lower level information such as ambience. This was a situation where the then current measurements indicated the devices measured essentially perfect but my ears (and not just mine) told me there was something wrong.
Yet, if one was to say that early redbook digital was more accurate than an early 80's era turntable then there were certainly arguments that it was. It was certainly flatter frequency response wise and THD specs at least at higher levels were superior. It was quiet.
So what was I hearing? Maybe the appalling jitter performance of early players combined with extermely average I/V and analogue stage performance of the early players? Anyway the faults were of a very different nature but every bit (pun intended) as obvious sonically to me as noisy, speed unstable and frequency response compromised vinyl playback. I just heard analogue as more like real music despite its limitations. I preferred analogue's problems to early CD's.
I was told of course in condescending tones that what I liked was really analogue distortion. I have no doubt that vinyl has its own colorations, however every time I heard reduced conventional distortion with vaccuum platters, parallel tracking tonearms, Air Bearing platters, better cartridges and the like the better I liked analogue. So lower distortion analogue sounded better to me than high distortion analogue.
The advances in more recent times of digital means I now enjoy listening to it. In some circumstances the best digital is just simply excellent. Don't, however think that you can listen to vinyl properly in a system which includes a digital player. To my ears the way to make your vinyl sound worse is to have it share the same mains supply as your CD player. Every time I have tried comparing the two the vinyl sound better with the CD player turned off! Just an observation but a consistent one. I guess you may not hear it if your home is filled with switching power supplies and they are all connected to the mains while you listen.
Finally, I love high resolution digital if it is done right, However analogue still has one advantage to my ears. That is, if you want a sense of physical presence of the players as in solid corporeal sound with real presence and power, good digital still doesn't quite get there, though it has other advantages. Given that attribute is one of the things I hear diluted with analogue when a digital device is hooked up to the system, I suspect a concentration on power supply, noise suppression, grounding,mains quality and the like may close the last remaining gap.
Rob.
I used to work in a hi fi shop on weekends back in the early days of the first CD players; I had read much of the "perfect sound forever" marketing spiel from manufacturers and had read the mostly positive reviewer comments. My experience was directly contrary however. The first Phillips and especially Sony players sounded dire. They sounded simultaneously dead, yet created an unpleasant listening fatigue simultaneously. There was a distinct lack of lower level information such as ambience. This was a situation where the then current measurements indicated the devices measured essentially perfect but my ears (and not just mine) told me there was something wrong.
Yet, if one was to say that early redbook digital was more accurate than an early 80's era turntable then there were certainly arguments that it was. It was certainly flatter frequency response wise and THD specs at least at higher levels were superior. It was quiet.
So what was I hearing? Maybe the appalling jitter performance of early players combined with extermely average I/V and analogue stage performance of the early players? Anyway the faults were of a very different nature but every bit (pun intended) as obvious sonically to me as noisy, speed unstable and frequency response compromised vinyl playback. I just heard analogue as more like real music despite its limitations. I preferred analogue's problems to early CD's.
I was told of course in condescending tones that what I liked was really analogue distortion. I have no doubt that vinyl has its own colorations, however every time I heard reduced conventional distortion with vaccuum platters, parallel tracking tonearms, Air Bearing platters, better cartridges and the like the better I liked analogue. So lower distortion analogue sounded better to me than high distortion analogue.
The advances in more recent times of digital means I now enjoy listening to it. In some circumstances the best digital is just simply excellent. Don't, however think that you can listen to vinyl properly in a system which includes a digital player. To my ears the way to make your vinyl sound worse is to have it share the same mains supply as your CD player. Every time I have tried comparing the two the vinyl sound better with the CD player turned off! Just an observation but a consistent one. I guess you may not hear it if your home is filled with switching power supplies and they are all connected to the mains while you listen.
Finally, I love high resolution digital if it is done right, However analogue still has one advantage to my ears. That is, if you want a sense of physical presence of the players as in solid corporeal sound with real presence and power, good digital still doesn't quite get there, though it has other advantages. Given that attribute is one of the things I hear diluted with analogue when a digital device is hooked up to the system, I suspect a concentration on power supply, noise suppression, grounding,mains quality and the like may close the last remaining gap.
Rob.
Excellent!
But that might lead us to conclude that -
- iPods and digital downloads are cheaper and more convenient than:
- Compact Discs and CD players which are cheaper and more convenient than:
- LPs, 78s and record players which are cheaper and more convenient than:
- Live Music.
Progress.
.
And yet, many artists are having their music put out on LP's along with CD's and mp3 downloads. The latest LP's on heavy vinyl are absolutely amazing in quality. Some are even recorded with all analogue gear. One of the best is in SY's back yard even.
I no longer use cassette's but I still listen to the other four formats, SACD, Red Book, 1/4 and 1/2 track open reel and LP. Of the music I have in all four formats, Red Book is often the most informative, with the other three slightly less informative, but more emotionally pleasing. Of course, I also hang little loops of Litz wire off the back of everything and paint spots on my speakers, so what can you expect?
If it is convinience you are after, why bother with this forum? People build subwoofers into their basements here; we're definitely not going to select our source just because it is more convinient.
The guys favoring the CD (or digital) seem to think that most of the turntable fellows here are old and just hanging on to their precious vinyl because they want to resist change. I'm not that old. Heck, I didn't even have a CD player or a turntable of my own until recently. I had my own ipod before that. But that doesn't stop me from stating that the sounds coming out of my turntable are better if not equal to CDs and digital in general. And I listen to digital also. Although, I've never been a 50,000 songs on a hard disk kinda guy. I'm collecting some digital recordings of music that I like and they do sound good. But I'm not going to say that they sound better than vinyl.
The guys favoring the CD (or digital) seem to think that most of the turntable fellows here are old and just hanging on to their precious vinyl because they want to resist change. I'm not that old. Heck, I didn't even have a CD player or a turntable of my own until recently. I had my own ipod before that. But that doesn't stop me from stating that the sounds coming out of my turntable are better if not equal to CDs and digital in general. And I listen to digital also. Although, I've never been a 50,000 songs on a hard disk kinda guy. I'm collecting some digital recordings of music that I like and they do sound good. But I'm not going to say that they sound better than vinyl.
What I have found with many new artists releasing their records on vinyl is that most are being subjected to the same loudness wars mentallity that has hurt CDs recently and hurt LPs in the late 70s.
I addressed this in post #1364. Until ~125 years ago, all the music was live. The market and technology have mainly targeted convenience. Like it or not, just as today's vinyl fans are a niche, so are audiophiles in general. But you know that if you're here.
The market and technology generally work to get the latest Justin Beiber recording to your ears as quickly and easily as possible. That's where the money's at. I'm not opposed to such a thing; just don't ask me to partake.
The market and technology generally work to get the latest Justin Beiber recording to your ears as quickly and easily as possible. That's where the money's at. I'm not opposed to such a thing; just don't ask me to partake.
Maybe I should also declare my listening habits, just for the record - I don't own an vinyl replay system - I play my music using a computer based storage & digital replay.
I'm not sure this is true anymore when well known recording and mastering engineers are saying Hi-Rez digital sounds like the mic feed or the same as the master tapes. Unless maybe you just happen to prefer analog the way some people prefer SET amps because of the way it changes the sound.
I might add that not all well known recording and mastering engineers necessarily agree with that. The fact remains however, that it's getting quite a bit better.
Best Regards,
TerryO
- Status
- Not open for further replies.