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

[Lagonda]

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.

And in general most decently produced original CD's sound better than the EAC rips burned to the best "gold CD-R" on slow speed using a variety of the best burners. I have boxes full of these CD-R's that just don't sound as good as originals, my mother does not care or hear the difference, she is 83 and happy with my old collection.

 

[BruceD]

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.

Tend to agree--I've heard various Streamer setups and that damn iPad in the hand does not encourage Moi --sorry- old school I guess!
While ( so far) I have not heard all the super mega Streamers
--they are out of my price range anyway so I wish them for the well heeled amongst us
However I've savoured a good few at demos/shows and serious friends sessions.

Frankly over the last 5/6years I have not heard nor enjoyed any Streaming setup that sonically knocks out my CD player.
Plus its almost 13 years old

YVMV
BruceD

 

[dcathro]

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.

OK, I was not precise enough in my sentence. I should have said "far superior to later CD issues" , which also incorporates remastering.

There is definitely, in my experience, a significant difference between different pressings of the same mastering (identical bits), but this is much less significant than any difference in remastering. An earlier pressing will have superior focus, timing and dynamics. Take a popular release like Dire Straits self titled album. It had the same mastering from its release in 1983 through to the mid 90's when it was remastered. During this time, millions of copies were pressed from a series of stampers that were all made from the original metal master. The pressing process for CDs is very similar to vinyl. Each later stamper is bit identical, but the shape of the pits and lands is not as well defined. A cd that is one of the first pressed by the 01 stamper will have better defined bit transitions than one that was the last pressed by stamper 05.

I have multiple copies of that disc including the first issue from late 82:



The second issue from late 83:



The third issue from 84+:



and later issues:



There are differences in sound quality between all these pressings - question is why!

I worked as a mastering engineer, so these things interested me.

 

[dcathro]

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.

Sorry,

Are you saying that you believe burned copies to sound better than originals?

I was lucky that I bought most of my CD collection before prices got silly.

 

[tima]

The pressing process for CDs is very similar to vinyl. Each later stamper is bit identical, but the shape of the pits and lands is not as well defined. A cd that is one of the first pressed by the 01 stamper will have better defined bit transitions than one that was the last pressed by stamper 05.

Okay, thanks for that explanation. Some people say the "biggest problem" with vinyl is the physical medium itself and the physical process of making a record. Maybe that's true to a degree for the physical medium digital, CDs.

If the "pits and lands" are not as well defined on later pressings then I speculate that it is the reader, the CD player, that is susceptible to the issue in its digital to analog translation. However I presume the reader still knows a 1 from a 0 ... or maybe not? Then again I presume if one can hear a difference between a pristine early release from a similar later release on the same machine - one without any remastering - then something accounts for that and the physical differences may be the reason.

 

[Blue58]

FIM have rather expensive CDs with low Block Error Rates and sound rather good.
here’s a link that may prove useful though not sure how technically accurate it is.
http://www.drummonds.net/blog/block-error-rate-and-burning-quality/

 

[Mikem53]

Okay, thanks for that explanation. Some people say the "biggest problem" with vinyl is the physical medium itself and the physical process of making a record. Maybe that's true to a degree for the physical medium digital, CDs.

If the "pits and lands" are not as well defined on later pressings then I speculate that it is the reader, the CD player, that is susceptible to the issue in its digital to analog translation. However I presume the reader still knows a 1 from a 0 ... or maybe not? Then again I presume if one can hear a difference between a pristine early release from a similar later release on the same machine - one without any remastering - then something accounts for that and the physical differences may be the reason.

This is where things can be confusing and sound different.. CD players are NOT checking for checksum errors, if they have an error reading the disc. They have a simple method of trying to reread the data, The answer is interpolation. If a CD player encounters a 'bad' area on a disc that cannot be data corrected it will first attempt interpolation, then, if the 'problem' persists, the player will Drop bits Due to the use of data interleaving, the interpolated sections are very small and distributed over many data blocks, so the disc may appear to play fine.
In the case of “data extraction“, by ripping the disc through the OS, the drive is trying to unambiguously determine data check sums in the 'bad' area of the disc, until it gets a valid checksum or meets a pre determined amount of retries before it gives up.
I choose to rip CD’s for this reason... for A bit perfect copy that is “approved” by the Operating system as being CRC error free.

 

[dcathro]

Okay, thanks for that explanation. Some people say the "biggest problem" with vinyl is the physical medium itself and the physical process of making a record. Maybe that's true to a degree for the physical medium digital, CDs.

I am sure it is.

If the "pits and lands" are not as well defined on later pressings then I speculate that it is the reader, the CD player, that is susceptible to the issue in its digital to analog translation. However I presume the reader still knows a 1 from a 0 ... or maybe not?

It is the precise transition from a 1 to a 0 or visa a versa that is critical. Hence I suspect as this gets fuzzier then the sound quality degrades.

Then again I presume if one can hear a difference between a pristine early release from a similar later release on the same machine - one without any remastering - then something accounts for that and the physical differences may be the reason.

I would be interested to hear an other explanation.

 

[rbbert]

Sorry,

Are you saying that you believe burned copies to sound better than originals?

I was lucky that I bought most of my CD collection before prices got silly.

Potentially, yes. Despite Lagonda’s comment above many careful listeners have found this to be true in most situations. It will depend on several factors involving the specific original CD and the quality of CDR blanks and burner; unfortunately, due to market pressures good CDR blanks are now hard to find. So to “replicate” those findings today one might have to go down the server > DAC route (not networked), or plug a thumb drive into your high-end disc player DAC.

From Lagonda’s comments I suspect his findings may have been due to burning at too slow a speed, which will produce more errors on the burned disc. A typical burner/disc combination will produce the “best” disc at about 1/4 to 1/3 of the disc’s rated maximum speed; too slow is as bad as too fast to burn the most accurate pits and lands.

 

[Lagonda]

Potentially, yes. Despite Lagonda’s comment above many careful listeners have found this to be true in most situations. It will depend on several factors involving the specific original CD and the quality of CDR blanks and burner; unfortunately, due to market pressures good CDR blanks are now hard to find. So to “replicate” those findings today one might have to go down the server > DAC route (not networked), or plug a thumb drive into your high-end disc player DAC.

From Lagonda’s comments I suspect his findings may have been due to burning at too slow a speed, which will produce more errors on the burned disc. A typical burner/disc combination will produce the “best” disc at about 1/4 to 1/3 of the disc’s rated maximum speed; too slow is as bad as too fast to burn the most accurate pits and lands.

My findings where with a large collection of different CD-R’s burnt with 5 different burners at different speeds. Yes some media where truly atrocious sounding, with high degree of faulty blanks, but none where truly great sounding. I made and used these over a one year period,. A direct rip played from a good computer setup into a good dac should be theoretically as good if not better, but i am not into computers for music. But home burnt CD’s are in my extensive experience sub-par.

 

[microstrip]

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.

Well, I have bought many used LPs, and know that it is not a simple task. And although I can accept pops and clicks, I can not withstand the periodic noise of a 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.

Each of us has his habits - I collect the program of most recitals and concerts I go. It is now a full shelve, most probably my sons will send the whole lot to the recycle bin sometime ...

BTW, I also own an working Edison phonograph and an HMV gramophone. From time to time I listen to 2 minutes of 120 years old nostalgia with great pleasure.

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).

This fake hi-rez problem was diagnosed and exposed. Everyone can make bets, a few people took it seriously and gave us more confidence. My main interest in high-rez is SACD or original hi-rez recordings, I am safe.

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.

You have a good point here. As you, I love good liner notes, but to be true, since long I use the internet to get extra information on recordings. I used to express the same complain as you concerning the absence of written information on digital music, fortunately Qobuz now includes the pdf booklets of a significant part of the music I like - great to be able to read the Savall splendid texts in zoom mode!

MQA was ten years late. IMHO it was only meaningful when bandwidth was very limited and ADC's were poor.

 

[microstrip]

My findings where with a large collection of different CD-R’s burnt with 5 different burners at different speeds. Yes some media where truly atrocious sounding, with high degree of faulty blanks, but none where truly great sounding. I made and used these over a one year period,. A direct rip played from a good computer setup into a good dac should be theoretically as good if not better, but i am not into computers for music. But home burnt CD’s are in my extensive experience sub-par.

We had extensive debates on this subject about ten years ago in WBF - I remember the Gary Koh recipe to burn better sounding CD's. However CD-R's will shorten the life of the laser of players - they are much less reflective and need more power to be read.

CD errors and its correction were a common subject twenty years ago - I remember that I coupled a few home made digital counters to a Marantz CD player to count the fully corrected , interpolation corrected and non-corrected faults of CD-s. I still have the Pierre Verany test CD's filled with tracks with all kinds of pit problems - fortunately it proves that the DCS Vivaldi transport is exceptional in reading imperfect CD's.

 

[tima]

This is where things can be confusing and sound different.. CD players are NOT checking for checksum errors, if they have an error reading the disc. They have a simple method of trying to reread the data, The answer is interpolation. If a CD player encounters a 'bad' area on a disc that cannot be data corrected it will first attempt interpolation, then, if the 'problem' persists, the player will Drop bits Due to the use of data interleaving, the interpolated sections are very small and distributed over many data blocks, so the disc may appear to play fine.
In the case of “data extraction“, by ripping the disc through the OS, the drive is trying to unambiguously determine data check sums in the 'bad' area of the disc, until it gets a valid checksum or meets a pre determined amount of retries before it gives up.
I choose to rip CD’s for this reason... for A bit perfect copy that is “approved” by the Operating system as being CRC error free.

Thanks for that information.
I'm happy that vinyl does not interpolate.

Nice looking cat, btw. I love brown tabbies.

 

[montesquieu]

Interesting link on the economics of streaming

'Streaming stole my record money': why Spotify is ruining rock

Nile Rodgers and Guy Garvey are waging war on an industry that leaves songwriters penniless - and industry legends forced to sell up

www.telegraph.co.uk

A bit pop-focused but the principles apply quite widely - tons of money sloshing around the streaming business, but little of it is getting to writers or less established artists.

Not addressed in the article but implicit - there have to be wider concerns about the sustainability of the model. We could easily end up in a situation where some artists (or groups of labels) are only available on certain platforms - getting into an Amazon vs Netflix situation where to multiple subscriptions start to be required.

 

[Mikem53]

Interesting link on the economics of streaming

'Streaming stole my record money': why Spotify is ruining rock

Nile Rodgers and Guy Garvey are waging war on an industry that leaves songwriters penniless - and industry legends forced to sell up

www.telegraph.co.uk

A bit pop-focused but the principles apply quite widely - tons of money sloshing around the streaming business, but little of it is getting to writers or less established artists.

Not addressed in the article but implicit - there have to be wider concerns about the sustainability of the model. We could easily end up in a situation where some artists (or groups of labels) are only available on certain platforms - getting into an Amazon vs Netflix situation where to multiple subscriptions start to be required.

sadly too true.. Most proceeds going to big tech.

 

[Gregadd]

I own a little dac. Traveling the audio world (figuratively) I hear talk of of listeners being able to "accept" 10-30%distortion. Listening to music across the speakers of your mobile devise or desktop computer tome js just unacceptable. The quantum leap in quality achieved by switching to a quality outboard and headphones is mazing. The prospect of binaural sound makes it even greater. he thought the average non-audiophile listener can tap into the huge libraries of music available across the internet for a pittance is encouraging to me. Especially when you consider that listening to music remains mostly a secondary activity. The days when the general public is not going to drop kilo-bucks on a two cannel system are disappearing.
Can they rival a high end six figure system? Probably not. As I listen my headphone dac across my laptop I marvel that the average person could access this quality of plug and play sound. That is very encouraging to me.

 

[spiritofmusic]

sadly too true.. Most proceeds going to big tech.

No need to wonder why Robert Fripp of King Crimson, who fought a decades-long battle w EG Records left it as late in the day as possible to commit his vast discography to streaming.

 

[wil]

sadly too true.. Most proceeds going to big tech.

From what I've heard, the large portion of the money goes to the Labels. They have always, and still do, control the game. The streaming services and artists are at the short end of the stick.

 

[montesquieu]

From what I've heard, the large portion of the money goes to the Labels. They have always, and still do, control the game. The streaming services and artists are at the short end of the stick.

Proportion going to streaming services is going up, this is clear from official figures. What remains unclear is the proportional share of what's left between labels and artists.

Streaming Platforms are Keeping More Money From Artists than Ever (and Paying Them More, Too)

Musicians may have new reasons to shake a fist in streaming's direction - even if streaming's the big reason the biz is again printing money

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Gregadd]

{Substantial portion deleted}
In stereo we will mostly hear what we want or what we have been trained to hear.

if only it were true. That I could cure my disease with a placebo. If could seee th most handsome man when I look in the mirror. If my bank balance was what I ever to be. Sigh.