Vinyl vs CD - what's your experience?

**WmAx** · **10-04-09, 03:42 PM**

There is no rational debate possible to claim vinyl is technically superior. However, I do find that usually, the vinyl master/version sounds better than the version released on CD. But this is just a difference of masters used. CDs seem to be mastered for $99 boom boxes and car stereos, not for high end sound reproduction systems.

I did invest in a very high quality turn table system, and I have more fun playing vinyl. CD's potential is usually wasted, which is unfortunate, as it certainly has more potential than vinyl for accurate playback.

-Chris

**number 5** · **10-04-09, 07:49 PM**

Chris (WmAx) I have been reading many reviews of mid and high quality CD decks lately because I'm looking to step up from what I have today. The reviewers seem generally to describe the higher quality (and usually higher priced) decks as "more revealing" and "more detailed" with "better separation" and "improved imaging and dimensionality" as compared to the budget or bargain decks. If the limitations in CD sound were due to being mastered for $99 boom boxes and car stereos, then one would think they would sound pretty much the same on any deck. Yet that doesn't seem to be the case. Perhaps the perception that CD always sounds the same is because the listener lacks a sufficiently revealing system for playback, including the deck, speakers, the room setup, cables, and so forth.

I can hear a difference in CD quality between my car player and my low-end Sony 5-CD changer in my living room. Part of that difference is doubtless due to factors other than the player, such as amps and speakers and the listening environment. I'm going to be listening to some CD decks over the next week or so ranging in price from $1k to $2.5k. I am going to try to be as objective as possible about my perceptions of the experience, but I will be very surprised if everything I listen to sounds pretty much the same. If that turns out to be true, then I won't upgrade my player.

I experience more pleasure listening to vinyl than to CD. Admittedly, my TT is better quality than my current CD player, and that surely has something to do with it. But beyond that, there is a palpable difference in the quality of the sound produced by the fully analogue vinyl reproduction and the sound from the CD. While CD has the technical capability for greater dynamic range than vinyl, I'm by no means convinced that rational debate over the superiority of vinyl to CD isn't possible.

I can't prove it, but it just seems logical to me that analogue should have an edge over CD despite hypothetical technical advantages of the digital medium. CD is sampled sound, and the sound waves are reconstructed in discrete steps to approximate a smooth analogue wave. The sampling is so frequent that one might think it would not make a difference to the listener. But maybe it does on some barely perceptible level. After all, our ears and our brains are analogue devices too.

**JoeESP9** · **10-05-09, 09:12 PM**

I have to agree with WmAx. Cd is a technically superior medium. The problem is that most popular music is mastered to sound good on boomboxes, i-pods and car stereos. Dynamic range is usually squashed down to 8 to 10db. The exceptions being most classical recordings. They are usually mastered to take advantage of the lower noise floor and greater dynamic range of the CD medium. Look at the waveform of almost any popular music selection in a wave editor like Audacity and you will see exactly what I'm saying.

A good DAC will improve the sound of most inexpensive (mid-fi) CD players. The DAC is the main difference between the inexpensive and the high end.

**tonyvdb** · **10-05-09, 09:22 PM**

Quote:

JoeESP9 wrote:

The problem is that most popular music is mastered to sound good on boomboxes, i-pods and car stereos. Dynamic range is usually squashed down to 8 to 10db. The exceptions being most classical recordings. They are usually mastered to take advantage of the lower noise floor and greater dynamic range of the CD medium.

I still dont totally agree however that may be more a style of music. Jazz certainly also falls in the same category as classical.

**number 5** · **10-06-09, 01:28 AM**

Quote:

JoeESP9 wrote:

I have to agree with WmAx. Cd is a technically superior medium. The problem is that most popular music is mastered to sound good on boomboxes, i-pods and car stereos. Dynamic range is usually squashed down to 8 to 10db. The exceptions being most classical recordings. They are usually mastered to take advantage of the lower noise floor and greater dynamic range of the CD medium. Look at the waveform of almost any popular music selection in a wave editor like Audacity and you will see exactly what I'm saying.

A good DAC will improve the sound of most inexpensive (mid-fi) CD players. The DAC is the main difference between the inexpensive and the high end.

I've been looking for some evidence that music for CD is purposely mixed to a lower dynamic range than LP, but I can't find it. To me it doesn't seem reasonable that most CDs are mixed to sound good on a boombox or a car stereo system. Certain genres, perhaps. What a waste of the medium, if so. Do you know of any industry evidence that supports that?

**JoeESP9** · **10-08-09, 03:40 PM**

Several studio engineers have said so. Steve Hoffman and Phil Brown to name two. Check the Steve Hoffman forums to confirm this. Another studio engineer said the same thing on the Stereophile forum. You can easily see this for yourself. Use any waveform editor and look at the waveform from a newer popular CD. It's very easy to see the lack of dynamic range.

**number 5** · **10-08-09, 11:11 PM**

I guess it's no surprise then that vinyl yields the better listening experience between the two.

**JoeESP9** · **10-11-09, 11:11 AM**

Not always. Unfortunately the potential of CD is usually not used. Classical and Jazz releases are usually not dynamically squashed and generally sound quite good. I suspect the target audience is the primary reason.

**DougMac** · **10-13-09, 03:06 PM**

What's it worth to you? As others have pointed out, vinyl can sound really good, but at a price. That price is not only monetary but also convenience and ease of use. To truly enjoy vinyl, there's more than slipping the record out of its jacket and putting it on the turntable. It needs to be properly cleaned, and that requires at least one cleaning with a vacuum record cleaning machine.

I don't think you can compare a record played on a >$2k analog system with a CD played on any old $98 CD player using its built in DAC. I have heard the difference between cheap and good DAC's, that's why I either use a player with good DAC's or feed the raw signal through optical to my receiver that has them.

There's just too many variables to make general statements about one medium over the other. That's why I regularly listen to and enjoy both. From personal experience, for every instance where I can say I prefer the LP version to the CD version, I can site five where I prefer the CD version. This is especially true of classical and jazz.

I had yesterday off as a holiday and it rained solid the whole day. I spent the afternoon cleaning up my office, filing papers, etc. and generally dusting and neating up. I spent the entire time listening to records, either some albums some friends recently gave me or some Goodwill finds. It was a thoroughly enjoyable day. One of the records was a pristine copy of an old Pete Fountain album that my dad also owned and I inherited. Sadly, my dad's copy was in poor shape. My new 50 cent copy showed just how good vinyl can sound, even on my rather modest setup.

BTW, my filing away helped answer a question that I've wondered about recently. I found an old photo taken in the living room of my first home. Looking through the door into the next room, you can see the old Silvertone console that belonged to my parents. On top of it was my first record player, an RCA 45 RPM changer. The photo is dated March 1957. I'm pretty sure I got my record player Christmas 1956 when I had just turned 6, although I might have actually gotten it for Christmas 1955. I still have some of my first 45's, they have a red dot of fingernail polish on the side I liked because I had yet to learn to read! Somehow I could tell one RCA record from another, but couldn't tell one side from the other.

Looking at that photo brought a smile to my face. I looked from it to the top of a bookshelf, where that very same little record player holds a position of honor.

**paulspencer** · **10-13-09, 10:22 PM**

The thing that I keep coming back to is that CDs rarely show what they are capable of. There are some that are so good that the differences don't seem worth arguing. Most are so bad the medium hardly matters. When I think about it, it's as you say - quite a lot of work and extra expense with vinyl! I don't think I'll go there any time soon, but down the track I just might.

**Jason_Nolan** · **10-13-09, 10:49 PM**

Wouldn't it matter with what the original recording was recorded onto in the first place. If the original recording was made digitally and then transfered to vinyl the sampling rate of the master recording would still be the same, correct?

This may be untrue, but I heard that analog's advantage is the sound is continuous as where CD recorded masters are recorded at a sampling rate, so some (and I'm not sure that I'm one of them) feel the transiets are smoother on Vinyl if the master is recorded directly to Vinyl or analog.

Just what I read, I, like many, have no proof.

**JoeESP9** · **10-14-09, 12:19 PM**

Whether the master tape is analog or digital is not really an issue. What happens is that the potential of the CD medium is rarely utilized. There are some CD's that sound absolutely fantastic. Unfortunately most don't. The problem is, as said more than once, most CD's are mastered to sound good on boomboxes, ipods and car stereo's. Most of the LP's that are issued currently are mastered for a niche market. "We" are that market. Consequently they are mastered to sound as good as possible.

**terry j** · **10-14-09, 07:55 PM**

I know I said I would stay out of this thread..well I lied!!

Gonna throw a controversial cat amongst the pigeons...

There is a lot of talk often about poor recordings. Well, let's not be in denial, there are.

So ignoring the truly atrocious, here is the cat.

I firmly believe that the vast majority of recordings we have far outstrip the ability of the system to play them!

Most unfortunately I happened to blow a tweeter last weekend at the infamous annual bathurst gtg, which put a premature end to proceedings (on my system at least), but at least there was an opportunity for a bit of a listen before that event.

I have never stopped being amazed at the continual rise of the system as I have done each succeeding step, the latest (and arguably the greatest) being room treatment.

For sure, the system itself is pretty good, so any improvements in the treatment only help an already stellar system.

The point? I (and the few 'lucky' enough to get a listen before the long interval of silence) am amazed at how much information actually exists on good old redbook!!

Hear redbook properly, and (to me at least) it really does make any of these type of arguments (sacd, hi res, vinyl etc etc) very much redundant, I am NOT saying those 'better' formats are not 'better' at all, what I am saying is that basically, no-one has really heard what the much maligned redbook format is actually capable of.

And that is down to the speakers etc, AND THE ROOM. We all pay 'lip service' to the influence of the room, and some may even throw up a panel at the first reflection point (and call the job done!), but truly to hear what a full comprehensive suite of room treatment can do will blow your mind.

(not all have the luxury to do it mind... me? well I am lucky that I have my own room, and better still, the wife says 'it's your room, you can do what you want')

When I first started getting this level of reproduction, it was basically overwhelming. I am more used to it now through exposure of course, but I was immersed in this sea of sound so much so that it was..distracting (right word?). There was (is) so much going on that in the old way of listening you simply do not know where to focus your attention.

Old way??? Well, we are so determined to find differences, find 'focal' points when auditioning that we pay close attention to any little thing anywhere. And so with this level of information our attention gets scattered all over the shop and we *can* and *do* lose sight of the big picture, so relax and just let it wash all over you is the *new* way of listening.

very quickly I had to learn to listen differently, just acknowledge those sounds around and behind me rather than fixate on them.

To those 'committed' or who believe in vinyl over cd, well of course they did say 'wow, I wonder what my vinyl rig would sound like on this system' and that's completely fine of course (including LD, who did take that package back Paul...and I mention LD because he was the impetus that started this thread so it's completely on topic hah hah), but I cannot help but wonder if they would have chased any improvements (ie vinyl over cd) IF they had this level of redbook in the first place?? Well, audiophiles being audiophiles they probably would have!

Me, I am NOT an 'audiophile' (using my perjorative definition that is) so I personally say 'hooray for good old redbook' hah hah.

And as some have pointed out, to get the best out of vinyl is a very expensive enterprise, yet would not yield a fraction of the improvement the (much cheaper) room treatment will give.

that is the audiophile way tho innit? Audio salvation is bought thru the component upgrade path...sigh.

I even remembered to give this little demo to a few (very few now I think of it..you can guess that at a gtg things take on a life of their own heh heh)..and that is to sit them down in front of this computer screen and just have a listen to these $19.90 ''''monitors''' hah hah from Big W.

(and all audiophiles can do this experiment very easily, tho a vanishingly small percentage will) Just plonk 'em on the desk, listen only a foot or two from them, and be amazed.

By listening in the very near field, we have basically taken the room 'out of the equation' (I may get a better result because my room is so large and already treated, but the point remains). The focus and clarity (even on these absolutely rubbish 'speakers' - I almost hesitate to call them speakers haha) will astonish you...and the soundstage!!

The soundstage. You will hear sounds from all around you, far to the left, and far to the right, floating in space.

Try it, and report back. And that is streaming MP3 off the net thru the computer and played thru these little babies!

So, fix the speakers, fix the room THEN if you wish chase these other little upgrades (in the scheme of things) like vinyl over cd.

**JoeESP9** · **10-16-09, 01:05 PM**

What you have said doesn't address the fact that the majority of popular music releases are mastered to sound good on boomboxes and car stereo's. As I have said before, you can easily see this for yourself with any wave editor. The lack of dynamic range is very evident and can't be denied. Thankfully Jazz and classical recordings don't usually suffer from the compressing and processing routinely applied to popular music. As a result the majority sound quite good.Yeah, there are the exceptions. Just as there are some popular releases that sound good.

I too am one of the "lucky" one's. My system has been in a treated dedicated room for ten plus years. I routinely experience a large expansive sounstage with great imaging. It brings a smile to my face to hear of someones latest epiphany about making a change and suddenly they understand what the term "soundstage" means because they finally have one. Switching to Magnaplanar speakers in 1976 was when "I saw the light". From that time on I have been acutely aware of the importance of speaker positioning and room treatment. Consequently my room is treated with various trimmings and furnishings designed to help me get the best from the available space.

Yes, in order to get the best out of vinyl you need to spend some cash. When you have 3.5K+ recordings on vinyl it makes sense to get the best from it. When CD's were introduced my vinyl collection was already approaching 2K. If you had started buying vinyl in 1967 as I did almost anyone would have a collection of legacy LP's. Many thanks to those who sold their LP's and switched exclusively to CD's. That enabled me to pick up lots of vinyl at fire sale prices. Of course I buy mainly CD's now. However, given a choice I'll get it on vinyl if available.

Lest you think I'm some kind of "Luddite" allow me to explain. The audio from television has been connected to my system since BM (before Magnaplanars). I bought a first generation CD player, VCR and surround processor. Of course I've kept up since then. Four full range ESL's and three subs along with a Lexicon processor are used for sourround sound sources. For two channel sound I use the two front ESL's, two subs and an ARC preamp. I recently built a music server PC and this like all my gear is tied into my one system.

Having always used separates, it's quite easy for me to accomodate virtually any new technology. I just add whatever device or devices necessary and keep on movin'. One habit I developed is that of buying the "good" stuff from the beginning. I don't like changing gear every other year. As an example, I recently sold my VPI HW-19 TT. It's 22 years old has every upgrade except for the TNT platter and SAMA. It works perfectly. I just want something new. I expect its replacement to last just as long.

You do realize blowing tweeters is usually an indication of amplifier clipping? As for MP3 files, they are audibly inferior on my system even at a BR of 320Kbps. I listen to streamed audio from the web only to help in selecting new music to buy. Even though I prefer vinyl, I try to stay current. That's why I ve had an email address since 1990 or so. I've had my current one for about ten years.

**tonyvdb** · **10-16-09, 02:06 PM**

Quote:

JoeESP9 wrote:

What you have said doesn't address the fact that the majority of popular music releases are mastered to sound good on boomboxes and car stereo's. As I have said before, you can easily see this for yourself with any wave editor. The lack of dynamic range is very evident and can't be denied. Thankfully Jazz and classical recordings don't usually suffer from the compressing and processing routinely applied to popular music. As a result the majority sound quite good.Yeah, there are the exceptions. Just as there are some popular releases that sound good.

Joe, You keep mentioning this however that has no barring on whether Vinyl or CD is better. If you were to take the same master that was put to a CD it would still have more dynamics/channel separation than an LP . The recording of a pop album that you state to be compressed to "sound better" on car stereo or boom boxes would still sound the same or less if if it was to be pressed to Vinyl because its the limitation of the master and has very little to do with the media.

**terry j** · **10-17-09, 11:34 PM**

Quote:

JoeESP9 wrote:

What you have said doesn't address the fact that the majority of popular music releases are mastered to sound good on boomboxes and car stereo's. As I have said before, you can easily see this for yourself with any wave editor. The lack of dynamic range is very evident and can't be denied. Thankfully Jazz and classical recordings don't usually suffer from the compressing and processing routinely applied to popular music. As a result the majority sound quite good.Yeah, there are the exceptions. Just as there are some popular releases that sound good.

Yep, that is what I hear *all* the time from audiophiles.

Am I saying that there are no bad recordings? Nope, not in the slightest.

But I am now of the very strong opinion that *most* are far better than most systems ability to play them. Yep, for sure we can quibble about the definition of 'most', but the point remains.

I just love to play people some Muse tracks (not all, they can be horribly saccharine at times, but when they rock then they can rock). Muse will often come up on those infamous audiophile blacklists.

Done properly, it will blow your mind.

Boy, I could go on for hours about this!! so be warned hah hah.

Even before I type this I can see how it would be elitist or snobby, but really it's not.

As an example made up out of thin air, illustration purposes only, well audiophiles are a pretty snobby bunch really, and they *KNOW* (often) that their system is the bees knees right? After all, it has the (industry approved) cables lifts, expensive interconnects and cables, yada yada yada.

So, if a recording sounds bloody horrible on their system it MUST be the recording right? Almost a definitional thing if you follow.

So here is the example...this bird has an 'audiophile' system that just happens to ring horribly at certain frequencies. (think I am making stuff like this up??)

Well, I wonder how many bad recordings that guy has!! (do you follow where I am going?)

Or his system compresses so badly that unless it is 'pure, single micc'd audiophile' recordings the thing just falls to pieces.

Not saying it is always like that, but I do think (examples) like that are far more common than is recognised.

Yet, they are audiophiles with 'great' systems, so of course the recording (and those stupid incompetent engineers) that get the blame. No, it is their system that is the limiting factor. Far more common that anyone will give credit I think.

And, this is where it starts to spread out in it's ramifications, he then auditions (briefly I might add) a 'clean, uncompressed system' and (with a snobbish sniff of rejection!) 'hmmph, where is all the detail'!!!

hahaha, his has NOT got detail it has distortion and ringing!

That leads into so many other areas that it is fascinating! It leads to things like 'we all have our personal tastes' etc. Well, yes ultimately it can mean that, but you would be making a very grave mistake to equate 'what someone is used to' with 'what someones personal taste is'!!!

Of course it CAN be that way, but it would take a while, listening to many tracks over a period of time for the guy to finally realise that 'hey, this new system is just clean, no artifacts or repetitive colouring of every song with the same sound', it CAN take time you know?

But the reverse can be super quick. the guy with a clean system, tons of headroom, no boomy bass, he will pick up a dirty system, a compressed system, a boomy system, within the space of a few minutes.

As I said, this can explain a lot of things, but as I am feeling generous today, I will spare you all my wacky theories hahaha!

Quote:

I too am one of the "lucky" one's. My system has been in a treated dedicated room for ten plus years. I routinely experience a large expansive sounstage with great imaging. It brings a smile to my face to hear of someones latest epiphany about making a change and suddenly they understand what the term "soundstage" means because they finally have one. Switching to Magnaplanar speakers in 1976 was when "I saw the light". From that time on I have been acutely aware of the importance of speaker positioning and room treatment. Consequently my room is treated with various trimmings and furnishings designed to help me get the best from the available space.

Well done. And further to what we have been saying, they simply have NO idea what the system is actually capable of w/out room treatment.

Quote:

You do realize blowing tweeters is usually an indication of amplifier clipping?

For sure. Have had these amps (and I DO play loud) for years. We thought they must have somehow had a dc surge, but then I remembered that I have caps on the tweeter lines for that reason, so dc cannot be the answer either.

Prob just one of those things, a la 'sods law'.

**JoeESP9** · **10-23-09, 03:30 PM**

Why the dig at audiophiles?

To reitterate, most popular recordings are highly compressed to sound good on boomboxes and car stereos. That was my only point. Use a waveform editor and look at the music yourself. I made no comment about other poor aspects of many recordings.

Just about every metal dome tweeter I've ever heard rings. I find most of them unlistenable. But then, I also find most horns to be in the same catagory. In my experience many enthusiasts shoot themselves in the foot with improper set up. Bookshelf speakers on the floor or in the corner are two of the most popular bad placements. Poor rooms are a very close second. More times than I care to remember I've been invited over to hear a "great" sounding system that is muffled with bloated bass and highs that make me want to cut my ears off. In most cases the system has been EQ'd and "gadgeted" to the max. I usually make as few comments as possible. It's rude to tell someone their pride and joy sounds like shite even if it does.

In the 43 years I've been involved with this hobby I've met quit a few serious audiophiles. They have almost always had good sounding systems that were matched synergistically and placed properly in a decent room.

Your other digs at cable lifters, expensive cables and other esoteric tweaks are completely uncalled for. In my experience those who can't hear small differences generally don't have a system good enough to hear the differences in the first place. Add to that the fact that they "dis" things without ever trying them. I should mention before you go into a DBT measuring stance that I have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering. I am familiar with various testing methods and the theory behind them. I designed and built some of my gear. Most of the rest has been highly modified by me. For example my Hafler DH-200's have fully regulated power supplies that I designed and built.

Please no diatribes about hearing versus measurements. Been there, done that and am tired of hearing about measurements and DBT's. I know what sounds good. The Philadelphia Orchestra in the Kimmel center is my reference. In my case its not about personal taste. It's about accuracy. My system holds up fairly well in that comparison.

**DougMac** · **10-30-09, 11:02 AM**

Quote:

JoeESP9 wrote:

Your other digs at cable lifters, expensive cables and other esoteric tweaks are completely uncalled for. In my experience those who can't hear small differences generally don't have a system good enough to hear the differences in the first place. Add to that the fact that they "dis" things without ever trying them.

In regard to your last statement, I hear this a lot. Well, I don't have to send all my bank information to Nigeria to be pretty sure that I'm not going to get that 2 million they promised me in the email I received. Forgive me for being hesitant about shelling out $300 for a "clever little clock" or spending $130 on a jar of pebbles.

While I think my five senses are in pretty good shape for an old fart, I know there are things I can't perceive that are easily measurable. For instance, my modest Radio Trash SPL meter is able to detect changes in sound pressure level that are imperceptable to my (or any homo sapien's) ears. That leads me to believe that in general, anything I can perceive can be measured.

Audio isn't the science of black holes, it's based on some pretty general principles, some of which were discovered hundreds of years ago and have yet to be disproved. We have built machines to display electrical principles and some of them are quite sensitive. I become highly suspicious of differences folks claim they can hear, but elude measurement. This is illustrated by an admittedly unscientific experiment a well regarded speaker manufacturer carried out some years ago. They invited some nationally known audio experts and critics to the unveiling of a new speaker line. While they had these renowned "golden ears" as a captive audience, they asked them to audition some new speaker interconnects. An engineer brought out some interconnects in succession, starting with ordinary lamp cord. He explained the principles behind each, then took them to technicians behind each speaker. These tecnicians got busy for a few minutes, then music was played. Sure enough, the more esoteric the explanation and expensive the interconnect, the more the reviewers raved. All of this, of course, after thoroughly dismissing the sound transmitted by the zip cord. The problem was the technicians never actually did anything. All music was transmitted by the lowly lamp cord. While this is anectdotal, it points out some of the difficulties trying to prove what can't be measured.

Lastly, I've grown weary of having my inability to see the Emperor's new clothes being explained away with the effete dismissal of my system. I have a slightly different view. I think if I've spent 50 or 100k on a system and buy a $1,000 power cord, I'm going to hear a difference whether it's there or not.

**number 5** · **11-01-09, 12:17 AM**

Quote:

paulspencer wrote:

The thing that I keep coming back to is that CDs rarely show what they are capable of.

Bottom line, that is what we have to deal with in the real world.

The makers of CD do not care about sound, only about $. May they lose acolytes, sycophants, toadies, and die.

The quality of the sound experience is what makes any expenditure of nominally valuable FRN for music worthwhile.

Except to the MP3-oids, who lack the ability to discern full sound from a veil, the sound is all there is.

So says Yggdrasil:

An ash I know there stands,
Yggdrasill is its name,
a tall tree, showered
with shining loam.
From there come the dews
that drop in the valleys.
It stands forever green over
Urðr's well.[3]

**Machismo** · **11-03-09, 04:19 AM**

Can't really favor either of those, they are both good in their own way. Mainly I listen to the cd though.

**lcaillo** · **11-03-09, 08:00 AM**

Quote:

number 5 wrote:

Bottom line, that is what we have to deal with in the real world.

The makers of CD do not care about sound, only about $. May they lose acolytes, sycophants, toadies, and die.

The quality of the sound experience is what makes any expenditure of nominally valuable FRN for music worthwhile.

Except to the MP3-oids, who lack the ability to discern full sound from a veil, the sound is all there is.

So says Yggdrasil:

An ash I know there stands,
Yggdrasill is its name,
a tall tree, showered
with shining loam.
From there come the dews
that drop in the valleys.
It stands forever green over
Urðr's well.[3]

I take offense at your statements. Many people use MP3 who are fully capable of discerning differences in sound quality. There are competing priorities that lead people to choose convenience over something closer to perfection. Remember that for years we had much poorer options than even highly compressed formats today. I also dissagree that CD makers do not care about sound. Some certainly could give quality more attention, but most recording engineers and producers are very concerned with the sound. They may make decisions that YOU may not agree with, based on priorities that are different from your own, but there is no reason to make such sweeping, insulting, statements. Your opinion can be made clear without these kinds of condescending and derisive remarks. We don't need that here at Home Theater Shack.

I use MP3, and having the music portable significantly enhances my life and my enjoyment of the music.

You said yourself that we have to live in the real world. The world includes people with priorities that differ from your own. One of the rules here is that we respect them.

**DougMac** · **11-03-09, 09:45 AM**

Quote:

lcaillo wrote:

I use MP3, and having the music portable significantly enhances my life and my enjoyment of the music.

You said yourself that we have to live in the real world. The world includes people with priorities that differ from your own. One of the rules here is that we respect them.

I'm listening to Herbie Mann on my Zen as I read this.

It's a high bit rate MP3. If I could teleport my Zen back to the 1960's I think folks, including many audio enthusiasts, would be astounded.

I have loved music since I was a little boy back in the early '50's. I started buying records before I could read. Never before have I had as many choices of music delivery Never has the quality been as good. I just bought three of the Beatles Remastered albums. I bought the LP's when they were released and they are in pristine condition. I also have the '87 CD's. Never before have these albums sounded this good.

I continue to buy LP's from thrifts and garage sales. I also buy CD's but not as often as I used to. I have some SACD's, DVD audio and am just bowled over buy the quality of lossless audio on blu ray. I subscribe to Rhapsody, which allows me to try music I'd never go out and buy and I've even bought some MP3's from Amazon. I enjoy it all. It's all good.

**JoeESP9** · **11-07-09, 02:40 PM**

Quote:

DougMac wrote:

In regard to your last statement, I hear this a lot. Well, I don't have to send all my bank information to Nigeria to be pretty sure that I'm not going to get that 2 million they promised me in the email I received. Forgive me for being hesitant about shelling out $300 for a "clever little clock" or spending $130 on a jar of pebbles.

While I think my five senses are in pretty good shape for an old fart, I know there are things I can't perceive that are easily measurable. For instance, my modest Radio Trash SOL meter is able to detect changes in sound pressure level that are imperceptable to my (or any homo sapien's) ears. That leads me to believe that in general, anything I can perceive can be measured.

Audio isn't the science of black holes, it's based on some pretty general principles, some of which were discovered hundreds of years ago and have yet to be disproved. We have built machines to display electrical principles and some of them are quite sensitive. I become highly suspicious of differences folks claim they can hear, but elude measurement. This is illustrated by an admittedly unscientific experiment a well regarded speaker manufacturer carried out some years ago. They invited some nationally known audio experts and critics to the unveiling of a new speaker line. While they had these renowned "golden ears" as a captive audience, they asked them to audition some new speaker interconnects. An engineer brought out some interconnects in succession, starting with ordinary lamp cord. He explained the principles behind each, then took them to technicians behind each speaker. These tecnicians got busy for a few minutes, then music was played. Sure enough, the more esoteric the explanation and expensive the interconnect, the more the reviewers raved. All of this, of course, after thoroughly dismissing the sound transmitted by the zip cord. The problem was the technicians never actually did anything. All music was transmitted by the lowly lamp cord. While this is anectdotal, it points out some of the difficulties trying to prove what can't be measured.

Lastly, I've grown weary of having my inability to see the Emperor's new clothes being explained away with the effete dismissal of my system. I have a slightly different view. I think if I've spent 50 or 100k on a system and buy a $1,000 power cord, I'm going to hear a difference whether it's there or not.

Please tell me what measurements you take when "measuring" soundstage depth, and imaging? In my experience most if not all differences between wires and cables are not overtly audible. Many of these small differences are easier to discern under relaxed long term listening. My first wife had extraordinarily good hearing and she taught me how to hear the things she described to me. After a couple of months of her tutelage I learned how to listen to and for differences in interconnects and speaker cables. The differences are subtle, but they are there. If more women were involved in this "obsession" perhaps there wouldn't be so much controversy about audible differences in wires and cables. All the women I've ever known that were/are interested in this hobby would be classified as true "Golden ears".
As for a preamp, the differences between an HT receiver and a good preamp are easily heard under just about any conditions. Most power amplifier differences fall somewhere between preamp and wire differences. Nevertheless they are there and audible. If your significant other is female and you can get her interested, ask her to listen for the small differences I am talking about. If you can get her interested you will most likely have to decode her criticisms. She probably has little knowledge of "Hi-Fi" speak so her comments may initially sound a bit weird. However, those comments are most likely spot on.

**Drizt** · **11-07-09, 08:27 PM**

I've heard vinyl in a number of high end systems now and although I can definitely hear a difference my preference is for the digital front end in that same system.

I can hear all of the imperfections (snap, crackle and pop, timing etc.) when listening to vinyl and it just drives me to distraction.

The inconvenience rules it out for me.

I was almost convinced recently that I could get used to it, but the desire has left me know. Ill stick with digital.

What I have noticed is that on high end systems I relate more easily to the digital sound, if that makes sense. I find digital to have a more 'focused' sound with realistic sound stage and imaging. Whereas I have found vinyl rigs to sound like they have larger than life sound stages and images. I wouldn't call it 'diffuse' sound but just less focused. That is just my subjective feeling on it. I have found that the vinyl sound can be very relaxing and enjoyable, but ultimately I preferred the digital front ends on these high end systems.

It could all just come down to the fact that I am use to the digital sound, and any departure from that sounds 'wrong' to my ears. I could over time go the other way, who knows.

Ultimately I think the sound quality differences can come down to the recording quality. Lots of CD's are just a mess. Zero dynamics, and plenty of clipping and distortion. If you were to use one of these as your reference for digital then you would definitely think that digital is inferior. But given equally good recordings on vinyl and digital I feel it would come down to personal preference rather than an absolute one is better than the other.

just my 2c.

**notwifefriendly** · **11-08-09, 03:34 PM**

Hello everyone.
I am a brand newbie to this site and would like to offer some comments.
A great direct to disc LP, even one with some processing such as the Aphex enhanced "Rosie O'Grady's Good Time Jazz Band" album, can sound AT LEAST as good as almost all of the CDs made; however, you must have a turntable system that will allow the sound of these special recordings to show what they have to offer. Additionally, the recording will show the most correct spaciousness if only two microphones are used, with allowances for soloists' extra mics fed into the two channels. That way, the recording is captured from space just like our two ears do it, with each "ear" responsible for picking up info from various sources, including walls and ceilings. Additionally, I have never heard cymbals and tubas sound better than from this recording. I also think that early jazz recordings, now on CD or the original LP can sound excellent. It's about the music, not the equipment.
No matter how great your DAC works, it can only present what comes into it from the recording. If there are 8, 16 or even more tracks recorded from as many mics, the spatial information is lost forever. Great sound engineers can over compensate and make the recording more dynamic, accentuate soloists, move the sound around and around, but if accuracy is what we desire in recordings, if we wish to recreate the live experience, then we need as little processing as possible.
For those of you who are sold on extreme dynamics and other such excitement, don't forget that this is the two channel blog.
Of course, the bad side of LPs is that the recording and reproduction is very expensive. By definition, direct disc LPs are very limited in the numbers that can be made from each recording session. Sure, we can add cutting heads ad infinitum, but one can only hook up so many cables without hum or distortion. The playback side is even worse: A minimum of a great cartridge, many times costing much more than an excellent CD/DAC, a well designed RIAA section of preamp, and in my opinion a great pre-preamp for a moving coil cartridge are all necessary to sound better than a good quality CD/DVD player.
SO! Which sounds better? If you attend live acoustic concerts, such as symphonies, small jazz venues, or featured soloists and want to recreate the natural, live experience, there is no choice. If you like the added dynamics of heavily amplified music, CDs are awesome.
Here is a test: Go to ebay and buy at least three D/D LPs; I suggest the Rosie O'Grady's LP as well as Thelma Houston with Pressure Cooker, and Harry James' "Coming From A Good Place". Also buy the Thelma Houston CD of the same session. If your CD sounds better than the the LP version, decide how much you really want to spend to hear LPs sound their best. If, on the other hand, you get cold chills from the DD LPs, buy more, upgrade your cartridge, etc.
Nice to meet all of you. Now, I'm going to go play a CD, Audioslave's "Like a Rock" or maybe Buddy Guy, with all the sub wooferage I own, and the amplified guitar's showing it's stuff at max volume, before I settle down to dinner with my D/D recording of Harry James followed by a 40 year old Freddie Hubbard CTI recording (LP).
The reason I own all of this LP stuff is because I own hundreds (at Least) of LP albums. If you don't already own the LPs, you more than likely cannot justify the expense of even my modest assortment of vinyl reproduction equipment: Heavily damped Ariston RD40 TT, Signet arm, Supex 900E+ Mark IV, and Audire (battery powered) head amp, preamps (one for subs), and amps powering my B&Ws and NHT sub boxes with Peerless drivers.

"Our taste in recordings dictates our preference in electronics and vice versa."

Cheers,

DanV

Advertisement