In general my digital is better than my vinyl. but my vinyl is better than my digital

[Al M.]

Modern jazz, a lot of it anyhow, seems limited to the CD format only. I don't know how this stuff sounds as I generally don't care for it. In the case of older jazz, it generally wasn't crushed to hell quite like rock/pop when it was remastered for CD, but I will say that it almost always sounds more dull to me than on vinyl. And then as a side note, there are many well-done remasters limited to vinyl only.

I have gotten heavily into jazz only the last 7 years or so, and perhaps the available CD remasters of older jazz (e.g., 50s and 60s hardbop) have gotten better over time. In any case, most of that stuff sounds dynamic and lively as hell on CD.

There are differences for sure. The Rudy van Gelder digital remasterings (Blue Note) of Lee Morgan albums sound great, but I have a cheap box set from another label where the same music sounds distant, thinner in timbre, lifeless and lacking energy. A 2012 remaster of 'Out of the Cool' by Gil Evans sounds far better than an earlier CD of the music. On the other hand, not all audiophile remasterings are great. Count Basie's 88 Basie Street album sounds much better and more lively on the regular cheap CD (from the mid Nineties I think) than on the XRCD. In general though XRCDs tend to have superior sound.

 

[Mikem53]

I think this is over played in importance. I really don't give a crap if I can drive my audio way out of comfortable listening levels. There is a sweet spot where the system comes alive. Its probably around mid 70 db. The loudest I probably listen to my system is around 85 to 87 db.

So, why then would I care if a CD was capable of ear damaging volume levels. What I look for in good music playback is speed, natural tone, natural bass, harmonic complexity and richness, without bloat or flab. Instruments should sound like the real thing, They should project into the room and the sound stage should be tactile. Who gives a crap about hearing the smallest of a whisper I cant even hear because my room itself is too loud (windows, planes, cars). Then have that whisper turn into a jump from my seat and lower the volume experience. All the Jazz and classical I have easily fits in a pleasant volume level with its lowest and highest passages pleasantly presented. I find too many people get all tied up on math when it comes to their stereo. Its about music. Lively engaging musical involvement. Your super loud CD may for all intents and purposes be so full of noise and jitter it sound like total crap. Fatiguing and forcing everyone from the room. But hey, it plays loud so its good???????

My point is that with vinyl and digital, both can be intoxicatingly involving. In my setup at this time, the vinyl still nudges out the digital with the best source material. But its all pretty close. And with a better DAC it may flip. And with a better Phono preamp it may flip again, and again and again.

Good Morning Kingrex ! Its Not about how loud digital can play, that wasn’t my point! I was responding to the post declaring that vinyl was more dynamic than Digital. Obviously digital music doesn’t make you turn down the volume with every song peak.. I was just pointing out that digital is technically Capable of MORE dynamic range.. that doesn’t mean every song plays louder than 70db peaks..

I stated in post #2 of this thread that I was listening to vinyl in my friends system and was trying To understand the differences between his awesome vinyl British pressing compared to my original version of that same on CD ! My friend is a vinyl purist and my digital rendition of the same song made my vinyl friend take notice and admit the digital copy delivered “almost” the same level of “Goodness” of his beloved British pressing.
This was about my modestly humble digital system being able to present the music similar to his prized vinyl recording. A hard core music lover who swore he would never have Digital in his system, finally realized and admitted that Digital wasn’t so evil anymore.. That he is actually thinking of adding digital to his system now.. I never claimed digital Was better than analog.. In fact it was me trying to prove that digital isn’t so Horrible like he and others once thought.. the end.
Mike.

 

[Kingrex]

No, I haven’t done that comparison only because I like to compare the same album but will find one of Qobuz or HDTracks, probably Qobuz that way it should be the same as the streaming version.

Rip the sacd to your drive and compare the two. I bet you won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Kingrex]

Good Morning Kingrex ! Its Not about how loud digital can play, that wasn’t my point!
Mike.

Mike, my quote does make it appear I am pointing a finger st you. I was only pulling a snip that meet the need to make my point. Please don't take it as personal. Especially since we see it pretty much the same. The technology are different, but the outcomes are becoming very similar. Wonderful to listen to in either format.

 

[bazelio]

I have gotten heavily into jazz only the last 7 years or so, and perhaps the available CD remasters of older jazz (e.g., 50s and 60s hardbop) have gotten better over time. In any case, most of that stuff sounds dynamic and lively as hell on CD.

There are differences for sure. The Rudy van Gelder digital remasterings (Blue Note) of Lee Morgan albums sound great, but I have a cheap box set from another label where the same music sounds distant, thinner in timbre, lifeless and lacking energy. A 2012 remaster of 'Out of the Cool' by Gil Evans sounds far better than an earlier CD of the music. On the other hand, not all audiophile remasterings are great. Count Basie's 88 Basie Street album sounds much better and more lively on the regular cheap CD (from the mid Nineties I think) than on the XRCD. In general though XRCDs tend to have superior sound.

Speaking of Basie, a lot of his old Pablo Records releases are phenomenal too.

 

[Ultrafast69]

Rip the sacd to your drive and compare the two. I bet you won't be able to tell the difference.

Possibly, I’m just not smart enough to rip SACD - CD no problem, SACD not sure and I bought a cheap Sony player and some software - no luck

 

[Alrainbow]

I have gotten heavily into jazz only the last 7 years or so, and perhaps the available CD remasters of older jazz (e.g., 50s and 60s hardbop) have gotten better over time. In any case, most of that stuff sounds dynamic and lively as hell on CD.

There are differences for sure. The Rudy van Gelder digital remasterings (Blue Note) of Lee Morgan albums sound great, but I have a cheap box set from another label where the same music sounds distant, thinner in timbre, lifeless and lacking energy. A 2012 remaster of 'Out of the Cool' by Gil Evans sounds far better than an earlier CD of the music. On the other hand, not all audiophile remasterings are great. Count Basie's 88 Basie Street album sounds much better and more lively on the regular cheap CD (from the mid Nineties I think) than on the XRCD. In general though XRCDs tend to have superior sound.

And all of those originals from Van gilder , Bassie , et al is best heard on LP playback

 

[Alrainbow]

Good Morning Kingrex ! Its Not about how loud digital can play, that wasn’t my point! I was responding to the post declaring that vinyl was more dynamic than Digital. Obviously digital music doesn’t make you turn down the volume with every song peak.. I was just pointing out that digital is technically Capable of MORE dynamic range.. that doesn’t mean every song plays louder than 70db peaks..

I stated in post #2 of this thread that I was listening to vinyl in my friends system and was trying To understand the differences between his awesome vinyl British pressing compared to my original version of that same on CD ! My friend is a vinyl purist and my digital rendition of the same song made my vinyl friend take notice and admit the digital copy delivered “almost” the same level of “Goodness” of his beloved British pressing.
This was about my modestly humble digital system being able to present the music similar to his prized vinyl recording. A hard core music lover who swore he would never have Digital in his system, finally realized and admitted that Digital wasn’t so evil anymore.. That he is actually thinking of adding digital to his system now.. I never claimed digital Was better than analog.. In fact it was me trying to prove that digital isn’t so Horrible like he and others once thought.. the end.
Mike.

Please remember to include room noise floor and system amplification and you will see why digital DR capability advantage means naught after mixing and compression ..

Then add in the wider bandwidth of analog , err , where were we again ..!

Yes capabilities ..!

 

[Alrainbow]

I do enjoy both because i can ...!

 

[Kingrex]

Speaking of Basie, a lot of his old Pablo Records releases are phenomenal too.

Verve records has a lot that is very good, and some that sucks. I was so impressed with a Verve Duke E, I went and bought some Verve Oscar Peterson. The Oscar peterson were total garbage on vinyl. The digital crushed it.
In general, old vinyl done right is very good. But new 45 rpm done right is excellent.

 

[Kingrex]

Please remember to include room noise floor and system amplification and you will see why digital DR capability advantage means naught after mixing and compression ..

Then add in the wider bandwidth of analog , err , where were we again ..!

Yes capabilities ..!

Exactly Al. That was part of what I was trying to say about those touting dynamic range as a way to measure quality. I think dynamic range has little to do with how good a format sounds. Especially when you take the whole room noise and compression to make it functional, even in a good environment.

And I still don't think dynamic range has anything to do with tone, speed, PRAT, imaging etc. Its a measure of volume. And I have sat in front of plenty of systems where I would be happy to have you turn the volume down.

 

[Al M.]

And all of those originals from Van gilder , Bassie , et al is best heard on LP playback

I've heard some of it on LP. All I can say: it depends.

***

Here is Rudy van Gelder himself, who does not agree with you.

Per Wikipedia:

From 1999, he remastered the analog Blue Note recordings he made several decades earlier into 24-bit digital recordings in its RVG Edition series.[16] He was positive about the switch from analog to digital technology. He told Audio magazine in 1995:

"The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good. And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible, and I'm not denying that they do, but don't blame the medium.[17]"
________________________

[17]Van Gelder, Rudy; Rozzi, James (1995). "Rudy Van Gelder Interview (Edited Version)".

 

[Kingrex]

[QUOTE="Al M., post:

And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible,
[/QUOTE]
A friend cut an album and had it put to.disc. Took that disc to the Memphis Blues fest where his band was competimg . Gave that disc to the labels. When he got back he gave me a disc. It SUCKED. I explained why. He took a listen and shared it with the band. They were all pissed it sucked so bad they complained to the studio. The studio sat with them and played the master which rocked. It turns out the ASS who made the CD duplicates decided to take it upon himself to alter the master. Even cutting parts of songs out to fit as he felt was right. So yea, there are a lot of places digital can fall apart.

 

[Daverich4]

Possibly, I’m just not smart enough to rip SACD - CD no problem, SACD not sure and I bought a cheap Sony player and some software - no luck

It sounds like you might have already tried this but I’ve used a Pioneer BP80 to rip over 100 SACD’s using this method. The software to do it is free.

SACD Ripping using an Oppo or Pioneer? Yes, it's true!

Note: I told the PS3 thread I would announce what I've found, so I am writing this first post, long before I am ready to (i.e I don't have the links ready yet, nor the instructions). I expect my second post to be ready in a few more days. Thanks to some very ingenious folks on other forums around...

audiophilestyle.com

 

[Kingrex]

It sounds like you might have already tried this but I’ve used a Pioneer BP80 to rip over 100 SACD’s using this method. The software to do it is free.

SACD Ripping using an Oppo or Pioneer? Yes, it's true!

Note: I told the PS3 thread I would announce what I've found, so I am writing this first post, long before I am ready to (i.e I don't have the links ready yet, nor the instructions). I expect my second post to be ready in a few more days. Thanks to some very ingenious folks on other forums around...

audiophilestyle.com

And your getting a 24/96 or some sort file. Not compressed to 16/44.
How do the files sound compared to the SACD?

 

[Alrainbow]

I've heard some of it on LP. All I can say: it depends.

***

Here is Rudy van Gelder himself, who does not agree with you.

Per Wikipedia:

From 1999, he remastered the analog Blue Note recordings he made several decades earlier into 24-bit digital recordings in its RVG Edition series.[16] He was positive about the switch from analog to digital technology. He told Audio magazine in 1995:

"The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good. And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible, and I'm not denying that they do, but don't blame the medium.[17]"
________________________

[17]Van Gelder, Rudy; Rozzi, James (1995). "Rudy Van Gelder Interview (Edited Version)".

What Rudy said there is common talk in the record bidniz during that era of first digital , mostly because of bad pressings, I have many on digital and the LP just blows them away and yes there are bad LP pressings, mostly their digital version if better is still not great so i don't even bother to play them ..

Guys , what im and others are saying here will not make any sense unless you commit to both formats , i felt the same way when i was only and all in on digital , i was conned into trying analog first a toe dip then a little more on the hog by the time i got to R2R master tapes i had already gotten it and wouldn't , well never again limit myself to just anyone format , im now open to a whole world of music and joy i couldnt imagine before .

BTW Analog TT can be so fantastic with the right recordings you just cant believe dragging a nail thru plastic could be this good ..

Its work and effort but so is good digital , just differently ..

Again i enjoy them all because i can

 

[Daverich4]

And your getting a 24/96 or some sort file. Not compressed to 16/44.
How do the files sound compared to the SACD?

I’m getting DSD 64 files but am unable to compare them to the SACD as I no longer have a quality player, just the Pioneer I bought to rip them.

 

[Al M.]

What Rudy said there is common talk in the record bidniz during that era of first digital , mostly because of bad pressings, I have many on digital and the LP just blows them away and yes there are bad LP pressings, mostly their digital version if better is still not great so i don't even bother to play them ..

Sure, you can always rationalize away things.

To re-quote Rudi van Gelder:

"The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good."

That doesn't sound like a man who didn't try to make good pressings and didn't have any experience with the process.

 

[PeterA]

The answer to the OP for me is made very evident when I visit friends with both formats and we spend the afternoon listening mostly to one instead of the other.

The guys I know with both formats all tend to agree on which one they think sounds better. This may not be the one they listen to the most, for a variety of reasons, but when it comes to the quality of the sonics they agree on which one they prefer.

 

[Gregm]

With vinyl I would have to get up every 15-20 minutes to change records. Each record has to be cleaned to be played, and each record deteriorates each time it is played. I got rid of my turntable and records in the 80s, and have no desire to return to 19th century technology.

The convenience is indeed unbeatable, especially with streaming giving us terrabites of music at the tip of our fingers (literally). No comparison

Unlike you, however, I kept my TT & many of my LPs; I love the artwork on the sleeves, the precision engineering and the looks of my record players -- heck even the wife likes the look of my TTs.

BUT, most of my listening is through the digital rig... (that means all of the listening bar the very rare exception!)...

Sound quality: to my surprise and astonishment, I recently discovered that a top-of-the-line digital front end, not mine unfortunately, bettered my beloved Simon Yorke...
But the sight of a cartridge at the end of a 12' arm tracking an LP is unbeatable!