CD vs. Vinyl

[Sonnie]

So what's your take... which one sounds better, CD or Vinyl?

Don't just vote... tell us why?

[MakeFlat]

CD's made from older recordings are not much better than vinyl.
CD's are better because they don't suffer from static noise.
CD's can be worse due to electronic/computer manipulation of the digital data.
Vinyls don't last as long as CD's, and vinyls warp easily.
The best of CD's are better than the best of vinyls.
You can never drop a tone arm during a CD playback.
Vinyl player is susceptible to vibration and feedback.
Vinyl player has lower signal to noise ratio, and lower dynamic range than CDs.
Vinyl tracks can become elliptical.

[moodly]

On the other hand CD's skip when they are scratched and are expensive to clean.
The sound on CD's is too clean whereas Vinyl is more of a warm sound

[drf]

If the cd has been mastered properly, then cd without any hesitation. Unfortunately the art of mastering was lost when the peak volume wars started. back in the days when mastering a record was a fine balance between dynamic range/volume and usable time avaliable, it was a fine craft just like impecable woodwork or fine china.

If anyone has listen to a string quartet live and then listened to a studio recorded version you'd hear just how plastic some recording techniques are.

I believe a lot of people mistakenly think Vinyl is better than cd when in fact what they are hearing is a far superior recording/mastering process, not a better recording media.



my 2c anywho.

[Bob_99]

Well, in addition to what has already been mentioned, my thoughts would be: depends on what you're using to play the CD or vinyl. Folks with high end turntables and high end speakers (and usually tube amps) assure us that vinyl is the way to go because of the analog signal. CDs also rely on their quality of manufacture and equipment that it's played on. Although for CD, I'm not sure what that range of difference would be but since I grew up with vinyl, I have a much better idea of that and that range is pretty large.

Bob

[Mike P.]

CD's overall sound better to me. No back ground noise and "pops" and "crackles". But both mediums use compression during recording. I use a "Dynamic Range Expander" to decompress the sound and give back the dynamic range that is lost during the recording process.

[jvc]

I said vinyl.
Don't get me wrong. I love cds. But, I've always felt that nothing sounds as good as a new vinyl album, being played for the very first time. The more it's played, the more the diamond stylus eats away at the vinyl grooves, which creates noise. That's why I always recorded my albums to cassette, when I played them the first time. That was the best recording I was going to get.

[Bob_99]

That's why I always recorded my albums to cassette, when I played them the first time. That was the best recording I was going to get.

I did exactly the same thing but was highly motivated to do so. While I would set the tone arm as light as possible to minimize wear and tear, my wife would stack coins on it to keep it from skipping.

Bob

[tonyvdb]

I said CD only because of the noise factor. Vinyl has its charm and as said already sounds much warmer than CD. I have taken all my vinyl and recorded them to CDr to preserve the vinyl but sadly vinyl does deteriorate even when in storage CDs if taken care of last far longer. I have CDs that are 25 years old and are still in perfect condition, I cant say that for my vinyl albums that are just as old.
I will give vinyl one big plus 45s were very common and gave the buyer the opportunity to get just the one song they wanted rather than the entire album.

I'm surprised that cassette tapes were not an option as even though the life of cassette is not as long as CD the quality was very good particularly with the high end decks out there like the Nakamitchi Dragon.

[Sonnie]

Reel to reel might would have been a viable option as well if we were asking what is the best recording medium of all time. Isn't that what vinyl was cut from? I don't know... I'm only assuming. As of today, the best recording medium would probably be a hard drive, no?

[Bob_99]

I have CDs that are 25 years old

I can't believe that CDs have been around for 25 years. Time does fly. In any case, I do remember that some of the early CDs had their share of problems with the coating. Fortunately, those problems got fixed pretty quickly.

the best recording medium would probably be a hard drive,

The problem with hard drives is that they are mechanical and they are so big now, that they're difficult to backup to a medium that can be stored (i.e. tape) Optimally, a good storage would be semi-permanent memory that keeps it content even when there is no power and can be changed when there is need. I don't know if anyone remembers bubble memory but that was a technology that never quite got off the ground.


Bob

[tonyvdb]

Sonnie wrote:

Reel to reel might would have been a viable option as well if we were asking what is the best recording medium of all time. Isn't that what vinyl was cut from? I don't know... I'm only assuming.

In most cases, Yes Vinyl recordings were mastered from Reel to reel but these reel to reel decks were way to pricey for any average consumer to own. I had a Fostex B16 reel to reel 16 track recorder for several years and can say it did an amazing job.

As of today, the best recording medium would probably be a hard drive, no?

Thats more a digital vrs anolouge debate I would think. Flash media may be the way of the future (no moving parts)

[bob1029]

A properly mastered CD will have more dynamic range and a lower noise floor than good vinyl. As far as the future goes, I think its in digital distribution. Ive already grabbed some lossless 24-bit music from sites like music giants and magnatune, and its alot cheaper & easier to play than dvd-audio/sacd.

[Tonto]

CD's are limited on what they can accomplish due their size. They attempt to duplicate analog quality & are unable. DVD addresses the size, but thats a different thread.

[tonyvdb]

Tonto wrote:

CD's are limited on what they can accomplish due their size.

True but can handle allot more music than an LP and Music was ultamatly what hey were designed for. CDr's are not in my opinion "true" CDs as they and not made in the same way or last near as long.

[drf]

Tonto wrote:

CD's are limited on what they can accomplish due their size. They attempt to duplicate analog quality & are unable. DVD addresses the size, but thats a different thread.

So is vinyl, the amount of music that can be recorded on vinyl is a compromise between record level and dynamic range. I.E the size of the groove required for a larger dynamic range would reduce the overall space availiable for more music.

with cd the noise floor is a result of the electronics not the media, and is usually very low (sometimes inaudiable) but with Vinyl the noisefloor is majority cause by the degradation of the media and usually very audiable.

[nitrox1]

For anyone who grew up with LP's they are the way to go. I've had cd's since they started but the sound from both medias are very different. I think the bottom end is better on certain LP's than cd's but each has it's benefits. It's what your used too, I for one don't mind the pops and crackles each has it's place. I used to have an old Victrola that played 78's and whatever sound it produced was ok because it was like time travel, and I was hearing it the way it was listened too many years before lp's, 8 track, cd's and dvd's. We needed all of them to get to where we are today.

[rcarlton]

Vinyl has a much more natural, almost liquid sound to me. Notes hang in the air longer. Course I'm using a 1960's receiver (McIntosh MAC-1700) with my turntable and Klipsch Cornwall's!

I have since upgraded my vinyl playback system with a new cartridge and added a McIntosh C2200 and MC275 to the mix. Sounds even better! I still find CD's to be too fatiguing to listen to for a long time ~45 minutes or so.

[bob1029]

I dont like to use phrases that come from the "audiophile" magazines. A-B listening tests and quantitative measuring methodologies is where its at

[JCD]

All things being equal, a CD is going to be better -- it just has a much broader dynamic range, the sound won't degrade over time (a vinyl record deterioates everytime you use it) and won't have the hiss and pop you're going to get with most vinyl applications.

I can understand the appeal of Vinyl, but CD's are just better IMO.

JCD

---Edit---
I just saw somewhere that the dynamic range of a vinyl record is 50dB and is 96dB for a CD.
I've also seen it posted that a CD is way more closely matched to the original recording than any Vinyl album.

[drf]

JCD wrote:

---Edit---
I just saw somewhere that the dynamic range of a vinyl record is 50dB and is 96dB for a CD.

yes, although these figures will vary depending on the vinyl engineer and in the case of cd the production engineer.

I've also seen it posted that a CD is way more closely matched to the original recording than any Vinyl album.

I would say of late it is the other way around, although the actual record quality is closer on cd, unfortunately the mixdown and dynamics on cd's are being squeezed to nothing in order to get volume.

[Danny]

I agree with DRF. Whilst the CD has a much larger dynamic range it seems that today most CD's are mastered to have the highest average volume. To accomplish this many of the dynamics of the music is removed

[JCD]

Danny wrote:

I agree with DRF. Whilst the CD has a much larger dynamic range it seems that today most CD's are mastered to have the highest average volume. To accomplish this many of the dynamics of the music is removed

However, if vinyl were the current medium of choice, they would be going through the same issues..

also, I will agree that there are a LOT of CD's that are being mixed high.. but not all of them.