Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[bonzo75]

So I'm having difficulty relating to opinions of vinyl's superiority to digital

Yes I have heard some really great sounding vinyl at audio shows, the most recent being 2015 RMAF in the GTT Audio Room using YG Acoustics, Kronos, Audionet, and Nordost. And no doubt with top notch audio equipment and stellar LP's, the setup sounded fantastic.

But with the caveat I don't have vinyl to directly compare, I get the same sensation in my acoustic listening room with Raidho, EMM Labs, JRDG, Nordost, and stellar SACD's or digital downloads.

So IMO this discussion has much more to do with great source material, acoustics, and audio equipment.

What kind of music do you listen to?

 

[bonzo75]

I heard the Thorens and enjoyed it but not to the extent that the AS and the EMT 927 rocked me. I felt those were truly game changers. I marveled at the EMT how, when turned on it would achieve accurate speed in less than 5 seconds. I didn't hear the Goldmund Reference but to my ears (and I am an owner of the TechDasAF1) the AS and EMT sounded superior to the AF1 and that was with the same cartridge and arm

Oh ok, I guess it was Marty who didn't get to hear the Thorens. JDZA owns one too. I think you heard the Micro Seiki?

 

[ddk]

So I'm having difficulty relating to opinions of vinyl's superiority to digital

Yes I have heard some really great sounding vinyl at audio shows, the most recent being 2015 RMAF in the GTT Audio Room using YG Acoustics, Kronos, Audionet, and Nordost. And no doubt with top notch audio equipment and stellar LP's, the setup sounded fantastic.

But with the caveat I don't have vinyl to directly compare, I get the same sensation in my acoustic listening room with Raidho, EMM Labs, JRDG, Nordost, and stellar SACD's or digital downloads.

So IMO this discussion has much more to do with great source material, acoustics, and audio equipment.

Shows are among the worst conditions that you can hear a system. In over 20 years of attending and exhibiting I can only think of two events that we were able to demonstrate the capabilities of systems. High-end systems aren't plug & play. At this high level of system you need to bring the analog into your environment to hear the different attributes of each medium. And yes everything in your last line matters.

david

 

[ddk]

Oh ok, I guess it was Marty who didn't get to hear the Thorens. JDZA owns one too. I think you heard the Micro Seiki?

the Micro Seikis were in the 2nd listening room, no one visiting from this forum ever left the main room for the smaller one !

david

 

[LenWhite]

What kind of music do you listen to?

Classical, Pop, Jazz

 

[bonzo75]

Classical, Pop, Jazz

Then suggest you buy 4 - 5 old classical records, and visit some audiophiles with good vinyl set ups and listen - shows may not be a good place sometimes

 

[FrantzM]

the best digital in 2001 was the Linn CD-12 for CD and the Marantz SA-1 for SACD. I owned both. neither would be out of place in a great system today. I did not get the Rockport until 2002 but it did exist in 2001.

the Rockport Sirius III was very very good. but i'll easily claim that my Wave Kinetics NVS/Durand Telos Sapphire tonearm/Ortofon Anna/Herzan TS-140/dart pre/phono would be enough better than corresponding 2001 cartridges and phono stages you might match with the Rockport compared to how much better you might find the digital.

I had SOTA then and now in both formats and that is my opinion.

vinyl is lots better now. have you ever heard a Linn CD-12?

and I would bet in 5 years that vinyl has again progressed farther at the top of the food chain

with analog/mechanical systems there is almost no end to progress. think race cars.

Mike

IMHO, the Burmester 970 DAC and its transport were my reference in 2001 and in my view then as of now, they trounced the Linn in all that mattered to me. Fast forward right this moment... From Memory the Berkeley DAC is superior to my ears in most aspects... So does the Auralic Vega on a regular PC as the transport. IMHO, YMMV.
I am currently using a SP10 MK2 with a Wheaton Triplanar arm and I am on the path to get a SME 3012 for not much (reaaaally not much) if every goes well and the chap doesn't read audio forums too much ... Aren't those old things? The Technics is late 70's vintage the SME tool ... To repeat something I read here .. ddk's TTs seem to be the stuff of Legend from all accounts: American Sounds, Goldmund Reference, and Thorens Reference.. None are less than 26 years old. These days people that could afford anything new under the sun are looking for the aforementioned, 3012, Micro Seiki, Some are fond of the Fidelity Research FR 66 .. People are looking for Garrard 401 and other old idlers on eBay ... What gives?
That you have your point of view of what is SOTA is again your opinion it fails to back-up that Vinyl is improving faster than digital ..
And why would you think there is an end to digital progress? Perfect Sound forever?

 

[amirm]

According to your logic, somehow a medium that was barely listenable for half its existence based on discontinuous values and predicated on a reconstruct with a limited set of numbers that can't exist in high end audio without the so called inferior analog sections is somehow more accurate; and compared to what? What are you quantifying as more accurate?

David, did I imagine good sound when Vladimir played the demo Technics CD that came with first generation CD players at CES this year, on your LAM, etc. system? Did you sit there thinking it was unlistenable? Was I supposed to stand up with disgust?

 

[amirm]

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.

Well, I suffer from tinnitus so I hope you don't hold that against me .

That aside, what are you saying here Dan? That upsampling of this nature is not transparent audibly yet somehow makes the person prefer CD to LP????

On headphones, some of the most critical listening is done with them because they block out outside noise, allow you to listen at elevated volume without disturbing others, remove the room effects, etc. In a large scale listening test of DSD versus PCM, the only testers who could tell the difference with statistical significance happened to had chosen headphones over speakers. What am I missing in your comment there?

 

[amirm]

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

Well, you caught me with that crossfire too . I moved my speakers from one home to the other and forgot that I had set the frequency tilt switch differently on the back of the speaker than my new room. Didn't catch it for while until I happen to look at them! In my defense, I had Dirac which had calibrated them regardless but still, was embarrassing to see those switches set wrong.

 

[f1eng]

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

I haven't considered it like that.
Maybe because I know so much about the compromises to manufacture an LP, the fact that the sound varies depending on where I put the record player, what I put it on, how tight the removable headshell collar (when using one) is and loads of other things I can get a big range of colour from my 4 record players, depending on loads of things, and even the very expensive ones are just a different combination of "tuning". It is quite easy to get a very expensive record player which sounds poor, and very modest ones can sound really good. These things have loads of potential for tuning. IMO the difference between record players is a matter of taste rather than good and better and something one person prefers another may not.
I have not made an LP from my amateur recordings but certainly the reel-to-reel tapes sound nice but I know they are less accurate because I monitored whilst recording. The DATs are more accurate, though some may not prefer such a close balance considering it a bit bright, perhaps.

I think, as I wrote earlier, that if one's experience is large live events sitting many rows away from the orchestra the losses inherent in LP systems may well emulate the losses between musician and ear reasonably well making a close miked recording sound more like one is used to.

 

[ddk]

According to your logic, somehow a medium that was barely listenable for half its existence based on discontinuous values and predicated on a reconstruct with a limited set of numbers that can't exist in high end audio without the so called inferior analog sections is somehow more accurate; and compared to what? What are you quantifying as more accurate?

David, did I imagine good sound when Vladimir played the demo Technics CD that came with first generation CD players at CES this year, on your LAM, etc. system? Did you sit there thinking it was unlistenable? Was I supposed to stand up with disgust?

You might have if we were using 80's & 90's digital gear or some poorer sounding digital, I know I would because I have. My comments above were in response to this claimed digital accuracy and love of analog distortion. Of course things have changed since back then and there's plenty of excellent sounding digital. I have several thousand digital titles myself, I wouldn't if they were all disgusting. But at the end of the day even the best digital chain still lacks certain attributes of analog, even faulty vinyl that makes analog more natural with more complete illusion of realism that digital has failed to do for me in the same way. Please don't come back at me and say I love distortion!

david

 

[sbo6]

the best digital in 2001 was the Linn CD-12 for CD and the Marantz SA-1 for SACD. I owned both. neither would be out of place in a great system today. I did not get the Rockport until 2002 but it did exist in 2001.

the Rockport Sirius III was very very good. but i'll easily claim that my Wave Kinetics NVS/Durand Telos Sapphire tonearm/Ortofon Anna/Herzan TS-140/dart pre/phono would be enough better than corresponding 2001 cartridges and phono stages you might match with the Rockport compared to how much better you might find the digital.

I had SOTA then and now in both formats and that is my opinion.

vinyl is lots better now. have you ever heard a Linn CD-12?

and I would bet in 5 years that vinyl has again progressed farther at the top of the food chain

with analog/mechanical systems there is almost no end to progress. think race cars.

I respectfully disagree. Improvements in analog are tweaks to an already fleshed out design. Not so in digital both in terms of component design and source formats. Digital technology is making revolutionary changes while analog is evolutionary. Think green vehicles (hydrogen, electric) vs. combustion vehicles...

 

[f1eng]

According to your logic, somehow a medium that was barely listenable for half its existence based on discontinuous values and predicated on a reconstruct with a limited set of numbers that can't exist in high end audio without the so called inferior analog sections is somehow more accurate; and compared to what? What are you quantifying as more accurate?

Continuing your logic that people who find analog more natural and hear more attributes of reality in this medium over digital are distortion junkies, then live music must the same special unspecified distortions otherwise we'd all be CD junkies enjoying perfect sound forever!


david

Even early (stellaDAT) digital recordings I made the off-tape monitor sound was very much closer to the sound of the microphone feed I was comparing it to than the Revox B77 reel-to-reel recorder I used before, as I wrote in an earlier post.
The Revox is much more accurate than any LP system can possibly be.

I love my record players and enjoy playing my LPs, because of my involvement in record player design and recording I know they are not accurate, but I don't have a problem with that at all, I just enjoy listening.

I have no problem with acknowledging the fact that LP replay is a considerable compromise compared to reel-to-reel tape but rejoice in the fortunate happenstance that is still sounds lovely.

Reel-to reel tape is not as accurate as a StellaDAT, but the change to the sound is euphonic and really nice. I had a friend who thought a CD recorded onto a tape recorder sounded nicer than the original.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I respectfully disagree. Improvements in analog are tweaks to an already fleshed out design. Not such in digital both in terms of component design and source formats. Digital technology is making revolutionary changes while analog is evolutionary. Think green vehicles (hydrogen, electric) vs. combustion vehicles...

so tell me what is 'revolutionary' about digital since 2001.

it's still PCM and dsd (or multiples of such). and many claim higher rez of those formats are not better. and the best PCM dacs use chips designed prior to 2001. I had the same digital player (which was at or near SOTA) from 2005 thru late last summer. 9 years. with dsd it was and is still up there.

the truth is that there is little new in digital.

OTOH there are many many big dollar tt's, arms, phono stages and cartridges being built with better and better performance with increasing momentum since 2001.

 

[Al M.]

so tell me what is 'revolutionary' about digital since 2001.

it's still PCM and dsd (or multiples of such). and many claim higher rez of those formats are not better. and the best PCM dacs use chips designed prior to 2001.

Or design their own chips from scratch like dCS and these are constantly new ones with new algorithms. And while the Trinity that you had used old chips, the LianoTec configuration was a brand new design. And it made PCM enjoyable for you to a degree you never experienced before.

the truth is that there is little new in digital.

Apart from the above, I could not have gotten the sound quality that I have from my Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 for the same price a few years ago.

OTOH there are many many big dollar tt's, arms, phono stages and cartridges being built with increasing momentum since 2001.

And? Again, according to several people here the American Sound turntable still beats a number of newer designs.

O.k., let me not belittle new designs in analog. But then, you should also refrain from doing the same for digital.

it's still PCM and dsd (or multiples of such).

And it's still the good old LP. Your point?

 

[f1eng]

David, did I imagine good sound when Vladimir played the demo Technics CD that came with first generation CD players at CES this year, on your LAM, etc. system? Did you sit there thinking it was unlistenable? Was I supposed to stand up with disgust?

One of my favourite and best sounding CDs was one of the first 5 released by Nimbus, one of the first CD producers, digitally recorded in 1982/3. I still play it a lot.

 

[YashN]

so tell me what is 'revolutionary' about digital since 2001. <...>
the truth is that there is little new in digital.

- Very high-rate DSD DACs
-- Native DSD DACs
-- Chipless DSD DACs
-- Ethernet DSD DACs
--- Merging+NADAC
--- Ravenna Protocol
-- True 1-bit converters
--- T+A DAC 8 DSD
- Normal rate and Very high rate DSD files available as downloads rather than bundled with DRM in a physical format as SACD

- Superior algorithms for filters and modulators available server-side rather than on the resource-constrained chip DACs

- HQ Player + NAA architecture
- The above with Optical Fibre for transport
- The above with Linear Power Supplies or Batteries

- Advancements in USB connection Signal Integrity preservation: Regeneration, Re-clocking, Clean Power

In other words, a lot.

 

[PeterA]

These reports were based in listening carried in David system and room. We can not know what would be the opinions in other systems.

Yes they were, and no we can not. But the valuable thing here is that the American Sound and TechDas Air Force One are arguably great examples of SOTA technologies from their respective times. And they can be directly compared to each other with the same arm/cartridge/cable with the same music in the same system. These comparisons do have a great deal of validity and value when asking questions about vintage and current technologies. Unfortunately, there are not many systems which can offer such a comparison. David is very generous to have allowed so many people to hear his system. And we have benefited from the reports describing the experiences.

 

[MadFloyd]

So I'm having difficulty relating to opinions of vinyl's superiority to digital

Yes I have heard some really great sounding vinyl at audio shows, the most recent being 2015 RMAF in the GTT Audio Room using YG Acoustics, Kronos, Audionet, and Nordost. And no doubt with top notch audio equipment and stellar LP's, the setup sounded fantastic.

But with the caveat I don't have vinyl to directly compare, I get the same sensation in my acoustic listening room with Raidho, EMM Labs, JRDG, Nordost, and stellar SACD's or digital downloads.

So IMO this discussion has much more to do with great source material, acoustics, and audio equipment.

No doubt that quality source material matters. Garbage in, garbage out. I've owned the EMM Labs DAC2X and it didn't come anywhere close to my mid-level vinyl rig I had at the time. It's an easy A/B if you have both in the same system...