Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Diapason]

I'll cheerfully admit that I probably haven't heard a good enough vinyl setup, but for whatever reason I find vinyl very convincing with non-classical, but I've never heard a really convincing orchestral or organ dem on vinyl. Now, I also have reason to believe that whatever pushes my personal sonic buttons is different to my vinyl-loving friends, and I can't figure out why that is. But quite a few times audiophile friends have put on a classical LP and said "see?" while I've been thinking "honestly...no!"

In any case, I'm a child of a different age and I'm not going to start building a vinyl collection now, so it's all academic.

 

[PeterA]

I did a direct digital versus analog comparison of the Janaki Trio Debut recording in both 45 rpm LP and DSD digital file about a month ago. Apparently, this is one recording of the same performance, produced in two different formats. It is a small scale classical chamber string performance: violin, viola, cello. The system was extraordinarily transparent and resolving.

I preferred the LP. The instruments has better tone, weight, body. There was more hall information and timbral information. I heard more spacial resolution and a better sense of presence. The file sounded flat, there was less information, and the instruments were slightly thinner sounding. The digital was very good, but the analog was better.

The other day, a new member of this forum, contacted me and I invited him over to hear my system. He brought over his digital player to listen to his own classical CDs in my system, as I have only an analog front end. We first listened to some classical music and then some small scale jazz vocals on LP. He then played Nora Jones on CD followed by some of his larger scale classical CDs and a performance of Beethoven's "Appassionata". He thought his music sounded very good and really liked the way his digital player sounded in my system. I suggested that we finish the listening with my direct to disk 45 rpm LP recording of the "Appassionata". It was a different performance and recording. After about a minute, he looked at me and said, "Digital will never be able to do that."

I am not sure if "never" is the right word, but on that day, in my system, his CDs and my LPs sounded notably different.

One of the interesting points clearly made in the article is the distinction between which format is more accurate and which is more preferred by either the listener or the recording engineer. The concept of "better" is very much dependent on what one is talking about.

 

[rockitman]

I think it all depends on the particular title, which format is best.

 

[PeterA]

I think it all depends on the particular title, which format is best.

Yes, this is often the case, which is why it was so interesting to directly compare the Janaki Trio on Yarlung in the two different formats.

 

[TBone]

The other day, a new member of this forum, contacted me and I invited him over to hear my system. He brought over his digital player to listen to his own classical CDs in my system, as I have only an analog front end. We first listened to some classical music and then some small scale jazz vocals on LP. He then played Nora Jones on CD followed by some of his larger scale classical CDs and a performance of Beethoven's "Appassionata". He thought his music sounded very good and really liked the way his digital player sounded in my system. I suggested that we finish the listening with my direct to disk 45 rpm LP recording of the "Appassionata". It was a different performance and recording. After about a minute, he looked at me and said, "Digital will never be able to do that."

Comparing apples and oranges, then a grapefruit. How can one possibly generalize ...

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Agree 100%. I much prefer classical on vinyl.

Me too. CD is incredibly difficult to get right with classical and it requires extremely skilled engineering from start to finish to manage it. Only those with the very best mastering equipment, top notch listening skills, vast experience with classical music, patience and a willingness to avoid simply pressing the same buttons time and time again are going to produce a CD that cuts the mustard. And even then it needs absolutely top notch manufacturing, since the manufacturing process significantly influences the final sound as well. Then of course it all has to go right at the playback end as well...

Since in my experience all of these factors only come together about 2% of the time with classical, I stick to vinyl, where it gets classical right about 95% of the time. This if course means that 3% of music I own or have owned on both formats does not sound very good no matter what!!

 

[microstrip]

Comparing apples and oranges, then a grapefruit. How can one possibly generalize ...

I think we should not generalize on this subject based in single auditions or comparisons. We always risk being mostly analyzing the system / recording match, not the intrinsic characteristics of the format. But listening from other experiences is always of great interest.

 

[TBone]

But listening from other experiences is always of great interest.

Matter of perspective.

Most of these comparison "experiences" are akin to me claiming ... I woke up this Monday morn and watched the best sunrise ever, no Tuesday morning rise can ever do that...

 

[microstrip]

Me too. CD is incredibly difficult to get right with classical and it requires extremely skilled engineering from start to finish to manage it. (...)

IMHO many times the problem is our DAC and system. I have listened to classical CDs that I considered poorly recorded or mastered sounding really good in other systems. Although my experience with it them is limited, I have great respect for the complete DCS top system playing classical recordings. It even managed to make the DG Orff Carmina Burana directed by Jochum sound fantastic.

 

[Al M.]

Me too. CD is incredibly difficult to get right with classical and it requires extremely skilled engineering from start to finish to manage it. Only those with the very best mastering equipment, top notch listening skills, vast experience with classical music, patience and a willingness to avoid simply pressing the same buttons time and time again are going to produce a CD that cuts the mustard. And even then it needs absolutely top notch manufacturing, since the manufacturing process significantly influences the final sound as well. Then of course it all has to go right at the playback end as well...

I am a digital-only listener yet would have to agree that in most cases vinyl is superior, especially with classical and jazz. So far I have only heard two playback systems that I think can compete with great analog, the dCS Vivaldi stack and the dCS Rossini DAC driven from my CD transport. This is digital that is simply in another league than virtually everything else I have heard. The music is reproduced with a fullness and density of timbre, as well as harmonic integrity, otherwise typically heard from great analog, and also with enormous resolution. Interestingly, as tested on the dCS Rossini DAC, also 'crappy' CDs can sound great. For some reason the quality of A/D conversion and CD manufacturing seem to matter less there; don't ask me for a technical explanation.

 

[Al M.]

IMHO many times the problem is our DAC and system. I have listened to classical CDs that I considered poorly recorded or mastered sounding really good in other systems. Although my experience with it them is limited, I have great respect for the complete DCS top system playing classical recordings. It even managed to make the DG Orff Carmina Burana directed by Jochum sound fantastic.

Our posts, which seem to describe similar experiences, crossed.

 

[rockitman]

Yes, this is often the case, which is why it was so interesting to directly compare the Janaki Trio on Yarlung in the two different formats.

I'll take it a step further. If the original was recorded and mastered on analog tape, that is the best format to hear it in. I think this is the generally accepted hierarchy (excluding music recorded and mastered in digital):
1)Tape
2)Vinyl
3)Digital.

One could argue that re-mastering digitally could yield a better sounding version than the original in some cases. The problem with that is, you are listing to the tonal balance and levels preference of the re-mastering engineer. Someone may prefer a different re-master mix. I like having the version that is closest to the recoding engineer's and artist's original intent...whatever it is.

 

[PeterA]

Comparing apples and oranges, then a grapefruit. How can one possibly generalize ...

TBone, I thought I was being very specific when describing the only direct comparison in my post. That was with the Janaki String Trio. Same performance recorded to two different formats. When comparing different formats, I don't know how one can make a more direct apples to apples comparison than that using the same system. In fact, Blizzard himself, suggested this exact same direct comparison. Where is the generalization in this?

Regarding the other listening session which you quoted. I was careful NOT to describe it as a direct comparison but rather as a listening session with different performances on different recordings and formats. I was also careful not to generalize but to be very specific when I wrote the following:
"
I am not sure if "never" is the right word, but on that day, in my system, his CDs and my LPs sounded notably different."

That is not a generalization, but a specific statement about how the particular CDs and LPs that we heard that day under those conditions sounded different from each other. How is that a generalization?

So, to answer your question to me, "How can one possibly generalize..." I don't know how one could, so I tried very hard not to say that one format based on our listening was better or worse than the other. They sounded different from each other. I hope that clarifies your understanding of my post.

 

[PeterA]

I think we should not generalize on this subject based in single auditions or comparisons. We always risk being mostly analyzing the system / recording match, not the intrinsic characteristics of the format. But listening from other experiences is always of great interest.

Agreed. However, as Blizzard suggested, in the specific case of that Yarlung recording, one can directly compare the two formats, or at least that is what Blizzard and I tried to do. Now, one could successfully argue that the source hardware (turntable/arm/cartridge and the server/DAC) are also vital to the comparison. Blizzard, who is nothing if not science/measurement biased, thought that the particular hardware being used for this comparison was fair to use.

In other cases, much must depend on the recording and the equipment and so direct comparisons are less easily made.

 

[PeterA]

I am a digital-only listener yet would have to agree that in most cases vinyl is superior, especially with classical and jazz. So far I have only heard two playback systems that I think can compete with great analog, the dCS Vivaldi stack and the dCS Rossini DAC driven from my CD transport. This is digital that is simply in another league than virtually everything else I have heard. The music is reproduced with a fullness and density of timbre, as well as harmonic integrity, otherwise typically heard from great analog, and also with enormous resolution. Interestingly, as tested on the dCS Rossini DAC, also 'crappy' CDs can sound great. For some reason the quality of A/D conversion and CD manufacturing seem to matter less there; don't ask me for a technical explanation.

We have shared these experiences, and I agree. Those two dCS units are the best digital that I have heard.

 

[PeterA]

I'll take it a step further. If the original was recorded and mastered on analog tape, that is the best format to hear it in. I think this is the generally accepted hierarchy (excluding music recorded and mastered in digital):
1)Tape
2)Vinyl
3)Digital.

One could argue that re-mastering digitally could yield a better sounding version than the original in some cases. The problem with that is, you are listing to the tonal balance and levels preference of the re-mastering engineer. Someone may prefer a different re-master mix. I like having the version that is closest to the recoding engineer's and artist's original intent...whatever it is.

Christian,

Where do you rank direct to disk 45 rpm LP?

 

[Al M.]

We have shared these experiences, and I agree.

Yes, I am glad we did, Peter, also since you pointed me to things to listen for that I would not have paid attention to otherwise.

Interesting that we agree, coming from two different sides, the analog-only side and the digital-only side, when it comes to listening at home.

 

[rockitman]

Christian,

Where do you rank direct to disk 45 rpm LP?

Good question. I suppose for that title direct disk is best. I usually default to the format the music was originally recorded on as best.

I think one would need the direct disk lacquer and while that was recording/cutting, a RTR master was being made from the same source feed. Then a better comparison can be made.

 

[Jazzhead]

We have shared these experiences, and I agree. Those two dCS units are the best digital that I have heard.

I"LL second that. DCS has moved away from their lab coat ethos , to one of musicality coupled with natural warmth while maintaining its previous virtue of transparency. Impressive ! Heard the TrinityDAC by any chance ?

 

[TBone]

That was with the Janaki String Trio. Same performance recorded to two different formats.

Are you certain?

Same mix, EQ, compression, limiting etc etc ... ?

And how can you be certain your turntable/rig isn't adding its own "mix"?

but on that day, in my system, his CDs and my LPs sounded notably different.

Peter, if so inclined, i can easily manipulate a visitor into thinking "this.format" "superior" ... simply by virtue of playing specific software.