Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Al M.]

I've really enjoyed this thread, especially the posts by audiophiles that listen via headphones to DACs which regardless of the original sample rate, convert it to a datastream sampled at 110kHz, and have no idea what native sample rates sound like, and those with Redbook only transports that have no idea what HI-REZ PCM sounds like on their systems.

All we need now are comments by audiophiles with hearing aids who suffer from tinnitus.

176.4 kHz (4 x CD sample rate), not 110 kHz, if you talk about the Berkeley DAC. You own one, don't you?

 

[f1eng]

In any event, I think many digital era people believe CD measures better than LP but in fact it only measures better in some areas and in others LP measures better.

Would you be so kind as to let me know any way in which LP measures better than red book, let alone higher resolutions?

 

[FrantzM]

Would you be so kind as to let me know any way in which LP measures better than red book, let alone higher resolutions?

Was about to ask the same.

 

[microstrip]

Would you be so kind as to let me know any way in which LP measures better than red book, let alone higher resolutions?

Vinyl bandwidth is accepted to go as high as 50 kHz, I have read claims it can go as high as 100 kHz. Redbook is theoretically limited to 22.05 khz.

I remember Ralph Karsten of Atmasphere has addressed this subject more deeply in WBF sometime ago.

However the main question in this matter is that many measurements that show existing audible problems in digital do not have an equivalent in analog. For example, DCS had to develop custom measurements to study the action of filters, as they do not show in typical audio analyzers. We can admit analog is free from these problems!

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Was about to ask the same.

I remember Ralph Karsten of Atmasphere has addressed this subject more deeply in WBF sometime ago.

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...e-than-digital&p=290457&viewfull=1#post290457

simply live with the 2 formats at the top level for awhile, this is not that challenging a subject to grasp. the differences are not subtle.

 

[Al M.]

Vinyl bandwidth is accepted to go as high as 50 kHz, I have read claims it can go as high as 100 kHz. Redbook is theoretically limited to 22.05 khz.

Which is not an issue since the human ear is also band limited. We have discussed extensively the claims that higher frequencies matter here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...d-theoretically-sufficient-timbral-resolution

Let me just say it didn't go too well for those claiming that they do matter

It is also borne out in audible practice: the dCS Vivaldi reproduces from 44.1 kHz CD the fragile sound of triangles as spectacularly well as I have heard it from great analog, with the same perceived enormous high-frequency extension and beauty of decay.

As for keeping the frequency spectrum wide in order to avoid phase shifts in the audible spectrum by filtering, this seems -- in comparison to hi-res -- not to be an issue with upsampling which is done in almost all current DACs. The filtering from there is essentially the same as for hi-res signals, if I understand it correctly.

However the main question in this matter is that many measurements that show existing audible problems in digital do not have an equivalent in analog. For example, DCS had to develop custom measurements to study the action of filters, as they do not show in typical audio analyzers. We can admit analog is free from these problems!

Yes, this is really the main question. Along lines of 'traditional' measurement, digital is almost perfect, but when you look 'under the hood' there seem to be all kinds of issues.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

It is also borne out in audible practice: the dCS Vivaldi reproduces from 44.1 kHz CD the fragile sound of triangles as spectacularly well as I have heard it from great analog, with the same perceived enormous high-frequency extension and beauty of decay.

So I guess they should have re-written those old ads: "Perfect sound forever...at some time in the distant future if you own a digital front end that costs as much as a new Lexus"

As for keeping the frequency spectrum wide in order to avoid phase shifts in the audible spectrum by filtering, this seems -- in comparison to hi-res -- not to be an issue with upsampling which is done in almost all current DACs. The filtering from there is essentially the same as for hi-res signals, if I understand it correctly.

Upsampling may move the replay filtering well beyond any frequencies where it can no longer effect the audible spectrum, however upsampling adds it's own colouration in my experience. I have never heard any upsampling that I have been happy with, however I am sure there is gear around that can do it well. I just haven't heard it yet. In any event, none of this gets around the issue that a commercial CD these days is more than likely to have been mastered from a 24 bit, high resolution source, meaning filtering absolutely had to be applied in a brickwall manner in order to resample it down to 44.1 in order to create the CD master file. All of this reduces the quality compared to the original. So there is no getting around the whole problem even though replay (and mastering) has dramatically improved, even over the last few years. I find it quite interesting (and actually not really surprising) that most of my best sounding CDs came from earlier days where there was no resampling, since everything went on from beginning to end at 44.1.

I still think the very best compromise and the best sound overall in the digital domain comes from recording, mastering and replay at 24 bit, 96 KHz or comparable (or better) DSD. The rare recordings I have that sound really great at 192 kHz are just that...rare, however I think this is the fault of the mastering chain hardware not having enough attention paid to mains filtration, power conditioning, noise reduction and impeccable clocking than it does an actual "fault" with such high sample rates. It just makes the shortcomings more obvious in my view.

 

[Al M.]

So I guess they should have re-written those old ads: "Perfect sound forever...at some time in the distant future if you own a digital front end that costs as much as a new Lexus"

Hehe

 

[f1eng]

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...e-than-digital&p=290457&viewfull=1#post290457

simply live with the 2 formats at the top level for awhile, this is not that challenging a subject to grasp. the differences are not subtle.

The difference is indeed not subtle, but the differences are completely explained by the distortion, added reverb and HF roll off inherent in LP replay.
Finding this sounds better to you is fine, there are a lot who agree.
The problem people seem to have is accepting that they prefer the sound generated by adding some euphony to a more accurate rendition.
I have no problem accepting that I enjoy it and I don't believe in magic, so I am sure that what I am enjoying is the added euphony, not some as-yet-to-be-discovered-by-man superiority.

 

[rbbert]

The part of this thread that resonates with me is the lack of hearing accuity or lack of training re critical listening

I have visited many audiophiles who have spent huge amount on the system and are anal about every small thing..who PLAINLY cannot hear properly

I will give you some instances

1) 20 ppl in demo at a local hifi purveyors room , only 2 besides myself picked up on weird phasey effects .. the rest sat there and nodded

2) audiophile pal that spends fortunes on cables , plugs , tweaks that did not pick up a -6db difference between 2 channels - he had forgotten to switch to lower gain on one channel when swapping balanced to single ended cabling

3) audiophile with very expensive multiway speakers that did not pick up that one tweeter was MIA

4) Audiophile pal that spent a month listening to his system out of phase

5) audiophile with a treated room and uberbuck system.. did not pick up that the room had loud buzzes and rattles and that the amp was clipping

6) hifi dealer didnt pick up that one woofer was foobarred

7) Audiophile at my house .. I have G1's and 4 subs , enough bass to crack my ceiling(tis true) and who asked me "where is the bass" on a bass heavy track , you could feel the pressure waves and feel the visceral bass..he didnt

8) 2 folk who had left/right swapped and never picked it up .. classical music lovers both of them

That was just in the last year.....the list goes on

This! Although I have the greatest respect for some audiophiles who prefer LP to hi-res digital, all too many of them fall into one or more of the categories listed above. You can ask Gary Koh about the times (more than one) I've discovered significant problems with setups at shows that were apparently missed by many listeners before me, although to be fair everyone noticed them after they were pointed out. And the number of (mostly) analog listening audiophiles who can't tell when an intrument is out of tune is very unsettling; of course, apparently the mastering engineer was also tone-deaf

 

[bonzo75]

The difference is indeed not subtle, but the differences are completely explained by the distortion, added reverb and HF roll off inherent in LP replay.
Finding this sounds better to you is fine, there are a lot who agree.
The problem people seem to have is accepting that they prefer the sound generated by adding some euphony to a more accurate rendition.
I have no problem accepting that I enjoy it and I don't believe in magic, so I am sure that what I am enjoying is the added euphony, not some as-yet-to-be-discovered-by-man superiority.

Frank, irrespective of what which one does to the recording, which of the two reminds you more of real live tone?

 

[Whatmore]

Frank, irrespective of what which one does to the recording, which of the two reminds you more of real live tone?

To be Frank, digital every time

 

[microstrip]

The difference is indeed not subtle, but the differences are completely explained by the distortion, added reverb and HF roll off inherent in LP replay.
Finding this sounds better to you is fine, there are a lot who agree.
The problem people seem to have is accepting that they prefer the sound generated by adding some euphony to a more accurate rendition.
I have no problem accepting that I enjoy it and I don't believe in magic, so I am sure that what I am enjoying is the added euphony, not some as-yet-to-be-discovered-by-man superiority.

IMHO, when this euphony systematically enhances the sound quality of a recording it is not euphony anymore, it becomes mastering expertise. Why the digital mastering people can not reproduce it in their digital recordings?

We had this debate before. Every time I asked for a list of available CD (redbook) expected to have the sound quality of my best chamber and jazz LPs there were no answers. At best I got references to amplified music recordings or the usual singer with band audiophile recording, SACDs or HiRez. And then the list of "official" reasons why CD transcriptions of 30 years of recorded music usually sound inferior to the LP!

 

[microstrip]

This! Although I have the greatest respect for some audiophiles who prefer LP to hi-res digital, all too many of them fall into one or more of the categories listed above. You can ask Gary Koh about the times (more than one) I've discovered significant problems with setups at shows that were apparently missed by many listeners before me, although to be fair everyone noticed them after they were pointed out. And the number of (mostly) analog listening audiophiles who can't tell when an intrument is out of tune is very unsettling; of course, apparently the mastering engineer was also tone-deaf

Then we should focus on those who do not fall into those categories - they are those whose opinions are of value for the debate ...

And I fail to understand why being able to tell an instrument is out of tune makes someone a better audiophile.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I'm still waiting for the day where i hear digital, any digital, get as much right on a recording of vocals, a standing bass, drum kit, horn, violin, piano, or acoustic guitar as top level analog.

and god knows I've certainly tried my best to be able to attain that with digital.

 

[rbbert]

Then we should focus on those who do not fall into those categories - they are those whose opinions are of value for the debate ...

And I fail to understand why being able to tell an instrument is out of tune makes someone a better audiophile.

I should have made more clear that my main point was that we all prioritize the listening experience a little differently, something that has been mentioned previously in this topic. But to expand on the last item a bit, I personally have trouble with someone's opinion about (for example) the accuracy of "string tone" if he can't tell whether or not the string is tuned correctly. I'm not saying his opinion isn't right, just that his priorities listening to music appear to be quite a bit different than mine.

So I think in many ways people here are talking past one another rather than to one another. Despite that, much of the discussion has been quite interesting.

 

[sbo6]

I'm still waiting for the day where i hear digital, any digital, get as much right on a recording of vocals, a standing bass, drum kit, horn, violin, piano, or acoustic guitar as top level analog.

and god knows I've certainly tried my best to be able to attain that with digital.

Digital is getting better and better. Think of the best digital 10 years ago, 5 years ago and now. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Al M.]

Digital is getting better and better. Think of the best digital 10 years ago, 5 years ago and now. It's only a matter of time.

Precisely. Analog is a mature technology, digital audio is just 40 years old (and CD is even younger). And with the latest dCS gear, as I hear it, digital already has arrived -- or at the very least, almost arrived.

Solid state amplification also had major problems in the beginning, despite stellar technical specifications. Now, at least as I hear it, it can be as good as tubes (I don't say this lightly given that I have a tube amp myself), while being able to drive all kinds of speakers more easily.

Aah, but the inherent limitations of digital…I don't buy that argument.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Digital is getting better and better. Think of the best digital 10 years ago, 5 years ago and now. It's only a matter of time.

vinyl is getting better at a faster rate than digital......in my experience over the last 15 years.

 

[sbo6]

One more point that I didn't see made (apologies if it already has, this thread is very long and I didn't parse it all) is the cost of the digital gear vs analog gear being used in comparisons. In my experience I haven't heard vinyl beat digital $ for $. You could go so far as to apply this to the source material: e.g.: An AP SACD costs ~$30, the same 45RPM LP costs ~$50!

IME: In the lower end (and several year back) my Bel Canto DAC3/media PC (~$3K) was significantly better than my CA Concept TT, CA Maestro cart, Nova Phonomena phono pre + iso base/footers (~$4K). On the higher end, I've heard the TotalDAC full setup which sounds fantastic but was not quite as good as the owner's vinyl setup. In my estimate the vinyl setup was 150% more $. Had they been at price parity... Again, $ for $....