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

[tima]

The thing that I wonder about is why there seem to be so many vinyl-only systems, given that digital has come such a long way

Maybe 3 years ago I switched from doing both to doing vinyl only. (I have maybe a thousand CDs I no longer hear.) I switched for several reasons.

1. I cannot afford to do both really really well. That's my primary reason.

2. I came fairly late to digital. My first player was the original Sony Discman which I hooked up to my stereo. When was that - late 80's? I already had a lot of records ... which I did not sell.

3. Vinyl has a stable format. Digital formats keep changing. Streaming services keep changing.

4. Digital has moved through CD/SACDs to streaming. The last player I used (still have it) was an Ayre C5xe(?) though I have an unopened Oppo - whateve is the last top version they made - in case my eyes fail. I thought about buying an Origine player - they're quite nice but ... why?*

5. Once you get beyond CD, digital is a technical work in progress for both hardware and software. I did professional IT for two-thirds of my working career (my time with constant change) and have zero interest in creating and maintaining a streaming infrastructure. (I won't bring computers into my listening room except to fiddle with vinyl related programs such as AnalogMagik or Feickert. No surfing while listening.)

* - yes there is a lot of new music on various digital formats that is not on vinyl. Since I listen to 80% classical that's not a super-compelling argument for me. Yes there is more early music (renaissance and baroque) on digital.

The vinyl vs digital wars and arguments are stupid and oh so tiresome. Please don't get jesuitical on me. It's a choice.

 

[tima]

Being an IBMer
for several decades made digital more friendly and “natural” for me. Hence my bias..

IBM used to throw some great customer events at nice resorts. I remember a 2-day fest they had at Palm Desert (or was it Marco Island?) - the theme was Arabian Nights, complete with live camels and elephants.

 

[Mikem53]

IBM used to throw some great customer events at nice resorts. I remember a 2-day fest they had at Palm Desert (or was it Marco Island?) - the theme was Arabian Nights, complete with live camels and elephants.

Back in their hay day, they were quite extravagant at catering to their customers.. I worked with IBM’s business partners, Working with them to integrate their offerings using IBM products and solutions. Some of those folks really knew how to party.. Too much traveling and being on the road.. Was glad to retire and not worry About keeping up with the constant changing tech Every two minutes.. Falling behind and loving it !
Have a great day !

 

[Gregm]

Maybe 3 years ago I switched from doing both to doing vinyl only. (I have maybe a thousand CDs I no longer hear.) I switched for several reasons.

1. I cannot afford to do both really really well. That's my primary reason.

2. I came fairly late to digital. My first player was the original Sony Discman which I hooked up to my stereo. When was that - late 80's? I already had a lot of records ... which I did not sell.

3. Vinyl has a stable format. Digital formats keep changing. Streaming services keep changing.

4. Digital has moved through CD/SACDs to streaming. The last player I used (still have it) was an Ayre C5xe(?) though I have an unopened Oppo - whateve is the last top version they made - in case my eyes fail. I thought about buying an Origine player - they're quite nice but ... why?*

5. Once you get beyond CD, digital is a technical work in progress for both hardware and software. I did professional IT for two-thirds of my working career (my time with constant change) and have zero interest in creating and maintaining a streaming infrastructure. (I won't bring computers into my listening room except to fiddle with vinyl related programs such as AnalogMagik or Feickert. No surfing while listening.)

* - yes there is a lot of new music on various digital formats that is not on vinyl. Since I listen to 80% classical that's not a super-compelling argument for me. Yes there is more early music (renaissance and baroque) on digital.

The vinyl vs digital wars and arguments are stupid and oh so tiresome. Please don't get jesuitical on me. It's a choice.

Hi Tima, I can understand where you're coming from, even though we differ somewhat

I too listen to 80% classical 20% everything else, and find the digital vs analogue arguments tiresome. I have two TTs, two phonos (one of which doesn't work), my music collection is (as yours, no doubt) predominantly classical (lately, I reduced my recordings of Mahler Symphonies to under 100), I have a very nice but hardly exotically priced digital front end; I came very late to digital as well, about 20 years ago, with a used Sony CDP.

And yet I listen mostly to... digital !


-It's the convenience: I don't need to check tracking force and optimise azimuth etc.
-The repeatability -- every time you power up the system the sound will be the same (for better or worse), no tweaking nor fiddling required
-The sound is actually quite good -- finally!
-The huge library at my fingertips: I have 7T of music and can compare and contrast different performances of the same piece with an immediacy I never had before (a pet peeve of mine to find which version is best knowing full well usually there isn't one... you probably know what I mean)
-Widespread availability of music online, wide variety as well (I can't find the Isserstedt live recordings of Mahler in hi-res, however), lower cost than new vinyl pressings
-Some streaming services are making an effort in classical (Qobuz)...
-I don't mind the screen and the piece of "active glass" remote control...

But then, unlike you, I am not an IT professional (anything but -- I'm in recruiting). Regards!

 

[dcathro]

Maybe 3 years ago I switched from doing both to doing vinyl only. (I have maybe a thousand CDs I no longer hear.) I switched for several reasons.

1. I cannot afford to do both really really well. That's my primary reason.

2. I came fairly late to digital. My first player was the original Sony Discman which I hooked up to my stereo. When was that - late 80's? I already had a lot of records ... which I did not sell.

3. Vinyl has a stable format. Digital formats keep changing. Streaming services keep changing.

4. Digital has moved through CD/SACDs to streaming. The last player I used (still have it) was an Ayre C5xe(?) though I have an unopened Oppo - whateve is the last top version they made - in case my eyes fail. I thought about buying an Origine player - they're quite nice but ... why?*

5. Once you get beyond CD, digital is a technical work in progress for both hardware and software. I did professional IT for two-thirds of my working career (my time with constant change) and have zero interest in creating and maintaining a streaming infrastructure. (I won't bring computers into my listening room except to fiddle with vinyl related programs such as AnalogMagik or Feickert. No surfing while listening.)

* - yes there is a lot of new music on various digital formats that is not on vinyl. Since I listen to 80% classical that's not a super-compelling argument for me. Yes there is more early music (renaissance and baroque) on digital.

The vinyl vs digital wars and arguments are stupid and oh so tiresome. Please don't get jesuitical on me. It's a choice.

Very sensible approach Tim!

I was forced to do the opposite. My vinyl was sold off in the mid 90's.

I was committed to the digital approach and was fortunate enough to get a redbook player far superior (imho) to all the current digital playback that I have heard, and very similar in presentation to the best analog. It is based on the early 90's Philips architecture (CDM4/tda1541a) with non oversampling, special clock and a simple analog filter.

Another factor, is my large collection of first pressing CDs from the early 80's which are far superior to later CD pressings.

If I was rich I would probably invest in a very high end analog front end to run along side my digital. Running vinyl for me, however is prohibitively expensive.

Cheers

David

 

[tima]

Another factor, is my large collection of first pressing CDs from the early 80's which are far superior to later CD pressings.

I assumed a CD copy is bit-level identical to the original. Or are they different in other ways?

 

[dcathro]

I assumed a CD copy is bit-level identical to the original. Or are they different in other ways?

Sorry,

I don't understand your question. I don't have any copies, just original CDs. By first pressings, I mean the first release of the first mastering of a release. Just with vinyl, it matters which pressing you get.

 

[microstrip]

This has to be a joke, right? Physical media requires a record cleaner (or two for many), stylus cleaner, specialized isolation, anti static brushes, mats, clamps, weights, etc. to play 20 minutes of music. It takes up 1' x 1' of space, the covers absorb moisture, the albums get dusty (again cleaning required per play) and many folks back up their collection some for the halibut, some for true backups. Then there's the cost, $25, $50, $100 often for the same rehashed music re - released with a new paper cover. IME digital is a snap to set up is, reliable as can be and, unless you're at the top echelon of music reproduction is the best sonic bang for your $.

When I re - purchased a vinyl setup some 5 year back (since sold) I probably spent 1/100th the time maintaining my digital vs. analog (and saved wearing out my carpet ). To me and more specific to What's Best, the only way I'd consider a vinyl rig is for music that's not released / remastered on digital and unfortunately to date there's a lot, especially older jazz that I'd like to hear at high quality. But for that % of music and the high cost of another source, I'd rather invest in an even better digital rig. Off soap box.

Vinyl playback can be extremely simple, however we can make it complex if we want so. IMHO in such matters we should not address the media, just the people .

I happily survived tens of audiophile years without owning a cleaning machine, and as my house is not wet, never had to take special care of my LPs - they are stored in bookshelves.

BTW, my usual dealer told me that he is selling a lot of basic Rega's and Project turntables, but not the expensive ones. People do not buy them for sound quality reasons, but for fun of listening to digital remasters of old LPs.

 

[Mikem53]

I assumed a CD copy is bit-level identical to the original. Or are they different in other ways?

The mastering of the CD is no different from LP’s, source dependent. Some early CD’s were released with only time and quantity in mind.. pushing a new format while prices were high and selling, riding the promise of perfect sound.. For years I didn’t play many of them as Redbook was just terrible.. It wasn’t until I got a DAC that would make redbook sound like music.. To my surprise, many that I thought were unlistenable, actually sound very good !
I bought the Sinatra CD box set , the Capitol years some time ago.. Sounded descent, but not as good as on vinyl.. Later on they remastered the set with a British pressing of the Box set on CD, I purchased that set too and it sounded better ! but I have to admit, Frank still sounds better on most vinyl.. sigh...
Have a great day !!

 

[rando]

@tima

The creative/label side habitually pushed through dozens of running changes in master copy provided to manufacturing facilities (Your average backwater regionally made disc of a top 40's band was not shipped the most pristine and valuable master/safety master/generational and merely passed around master). There are both stealth and official remasters that run into the triple digits on some of these releases. Then you need to account for the quality of material and manufacturing process that ultimately sets high quality CD pressings above the rest of the Gold or Platinum level sales numbers of discs. Reconstructing with unerring accuracy the ill prepared? That unerringly fails to satisfy.

As an aside. One might contemplate the profundity of early analog printed on tin foil as a counter to the existence of early CD pressings printed on encased tin foil.

 

[dcathro]

The mastering of the CD is no different from LP’s, source dependent. Some early CD’s were released with only time and quantity in mind.. pushing a new format while prices were high and selling, riding the promise of perfect sound.. For years I didn’t play many of them as Redbook was just terrible.. It wasn’t until I got a DAC that would make redbook sound like music.. To my surprise, many that I thought were unlistenable, actually sound very good !
I bought the Sinatra CD box set , the Capitol years some time ago.. Sounded descent, but not as good as on vinyl.. Later on they remastered the set with a British pressing of the Box set on CD, I purchased that set too and it sounded better ! but I have to admit, Frank still sounds better on most vinyl.. sigh...
Have a great day !!

Some early Cds are shockers, while others are very good. For example, Tubular Bells, the common 1983 Virgin release manufactured in West Germany is very poor, but the Japanese JVC VDP 64 release is just stunning.

I always think it comes down to the recording, then the mastering, then the pressing.

 

[rbbert]

It’s actually very unlikely that the CD “pressing” matters, it’s primarily the mastering. If anything, many early CD pressings have the potential to be worse due to technological advances in materials science in the ‘90’s and ‘00’s. But it’s a handy myth for eBay profiteers.

 

[dcathro]

It’s actually very unlikely that the CD “pressing” matters, it’s primarily the mastering. If anything, many early CD pressings have the potential to be worse due to technological advances in materials science in the ‘90’s and ‘00’s. But it’s a handy myth for eBay profiteers.

I did a lot of research into this topic. Pressing quality is related to the formation of the lands and pits, and is dependant on the quality of the material used and the time allowed in the mold. The early pressings were done very carefully with high grade poly carbonate and the molding process was over 30 seconds per cd. CD pressings made in a similar way to vinyl from stampers were usually limited to about 5000 to 10000 copies for most releases in the first few years. modern CDs made at CDs commercial peak in the mid to late 90s were pressed in a fraction of a second and made in hundreds of thousands from each stamper.

Even with early CDs, you can hear the difference from discs from different stampers. I have done demonstrations playing back the same master with varying pressings and it is easy to tell the difference.

 

[rando]

It’s actually very unlikely that the CD “pressing” matters, it’s primarily the mastering.

There are high and low points where one or both fall apart. Callous (Callas) treatment towards both has been known to be authorized.

 

[Al M.]

Maybe 3 years ago I switched from doing both to doing vinyl only. (I have maybe a thousand CDs I no longer hear.) I switched for several reasons.

1. I cannot afford to do both really really well. That's my primary reason.

2. I came fairly late to digital. My first player was the original Sony Discman which I hooked up to my stereo. When was that - late 80's? I already had a lot of records ... which I did not sell.

3. Vinyl has a stable format. Digital formats keep changing. Streaming services keep changing.

4. Digital has moved through CD/SACDs to streaming. The last player I used (still have it) was an Ayre C5xe(?) though I have an unopened Oppo - whateve is the last top version they made - in case my eyes fail. I thought about buying an Origine player - they're quite nice but ... why?*

5. Once you get beyond CD, digital is a technical work in progress for both hardware and software. I did professional IT for two-thirds of my working career (my time with constant change) and have zero interest in creating and maintaining a streaming infrastructure. (I won't bring computers into my listening room except to fiddle with vinyl related programs such as AnalogMagik or Feickert. No surfing while listening.)

* - yes there is a lot of new music on various digital formats that is not on vinyl. Since I listen to 80% classical that's not a super-compelling argument for me. Yes there is more early music (renaissance and baroque) on digital.

The vinyl vs digital wars and arguments are stupid and oh so tiresome. Please don't get jesuitical on me. It's a choice.

I stick to CD only, so points 3) and 5), and the hassle they bring/brought with them, don't apply for me. Limiting my system to CD playback allowed me to use money not spent on computer audio/streaming on sonic upgrades that optimized CD playback to an amazing degree, at least to my ears. I am very happy with my choice, which of course is not for everyone.

I do also stream, yet not in an audiophile fashion: YouTube over computer and cheap headphones.

 

[Mikem53]

It’s actually very unlikely that the CD “pressing” matters, it’s primarily the mastering. If anything, many early CD pressings have the potential to be worse due to technological advances in materials science in the ‘90’s and ‘00’s. But it’s a handy myth for eBay profiteers.

I agree... I was referring to the mastering when I said pressing.. but those green pens for CD‘s were popular,

 

[rbbert]

I did a lot of research into this topic. Pressing quality is related to the formation of the lands and pits, and is dependant on the quality of the material used and the time allowed in the mold. The early pressings were done very carefully with high grade poly carbonate and the molding process was over 30 seconds per cd. CD pressings made in a similar way to vinyl from stampers were usually limited to about 5000 to 10000 copies for most releases in the first few years. modern CDs made at CDs commercial peak in the mid to late 90s were pressed in a fraction of a second and made in hundreds of thousands from each stamper.

Even with early CDs, you can hear the difference from discs from different stampers. I have done demonstrations playing back the same master with varying pressings and it is easy to tell the difference.

This belief (without any factual evidence) will cost you lots of money. Without knowing for sure, I suspect I have done more (perhaps far more) research, both literature and experimental, in this area, as well as in the related areas of ripping older CD's and then burning those files to CD-R and DVD-A, using different discs, burning programs and burning speeds. Most uninformed beliefs in all these aspects do not hold up to experimental evidence; the one most often disproven is to burn discs at the slowest speed possible. In any case, ripping an older (mid- to late- '80's vintage) CD using EAC, then burning at "best" speed (usually not 1x; it typically varies from 4x to 16x, depending on burner) to a high-quality CD-R (Mitsui, TY or similar) virtually always results in a better sounding disc. Try it yourself.

 

[montesquieu]

Physical media was subject to similar problems - did you ever had to replace a cherished scratched LP? Many companies having streaming will happily sell you the digital files if you want to pay for them - although the legal part of such sales is nebulous.

Can we consider that reproduced music is becoming a service, like real music, not a product any more?

If a recording was commercially available on physical media, it's usually possible to get hold of it. Thankfully many 'record collectors' have appalling taste/deep insecurities that require them to follow the herd, so they leave the good stuff for people actually interested in music. There's nothing out there I'm pining for and I can live with the odd scratch.

As for the idea that we should accept the recording industry's push to consider music a service that they can sell us many times over and that we never own - no I will never accept that and I pity the kids coming along who will never know the pleasure of tracking down and owning the physical object, reading the sleeve notes about venues, methods or historical context, tracking down what composers or performers did next or previously. I have 78s that I can hold and wonder about - and that still sound pretty fresh 90 years on (with the right equipment of course). It's a wonderful connection to a whole musical realm that you simply don't get from tapping on a pad.

As for mastering, there's shedloads of really really bad mastering out there, on vinyl, on CD and on dowload. On download I'd be prepared to bet that a substantial amount of so-called hi-res out there is simply upsampled and of course it's all but impossible to verify the custody chain of a recording - consumers have to take things on trust and in my view a substantial number of them are being taken for mugs quite a lot of the time. (Nothing new in punters being had, but digital would appear to make that easier than in the past).

As for streaming services, when I tried out Tidal and Qubuz, there were many occasions when neither even showed the composer of some tracks, let alone much detail about their origins. Such a cavalier attitude to metadata speaks volumes about their commercial priorities. I think I'd rather have some decent information about what I'm listening to than be marketed to on the basis of so-called 'hi-res' or other technical fripperies.

And don't get me started on the abomination that is MQA.

 

[tima]

I stick to CD only, so points 3) and 5), and the hassle they bring/brought with them, don't apply for me. Limiting my system to CD playback allowed me to use money not spent on computer audio/streaming on sonic upgrades that optimized CD playback to an amazing degree, at least to my ears. I am very happy with my choice, which of course is not for everyone.

I do also stream, yet not in an audiophile fashion: YouTube over computer and cheap headphones.

Hi Al - thanks for your comment. I hadn't seen you around for a while - hope all is well. Nice to see you participating again.

 

[tima]

Another factor, is my large collection of first pressing CDs from the early 80's which are far superior to later CD pressings.

I assumed a CD copy is bit-level identical to the original. Or are they different in other ways?

I don't understand your question. I don't have any copies, just original CDs. By first pressings, I mean the first release of the first mastering of a release. Just with vinyl, it matters which pressing you get.

Yes, I did not mean copies you made.

When you talked about a 'first pressing' as superior to later pressings I figured that was the same source material used for both and not involving a remastering of the source material. A later pressing might be later in time such as a reissue or later by a month to replenish stock of a popular issuance. Since it's digital I assumed that if each would contain the exact same number of bits (or whatever is proper digital audio lingo) in the exact same sequence.

So I don't understand how a first pressing could be far superior to a later pressing - presumably superior in sound when played on the same machine - even if they are made using different physical technique. Perhaps I am uninformed (or naive) but (after mastering) I figured any two copies will be identical.