Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[ddk]

Why can't we agree that

a) From a specification perspective, digital (DSD in particular) has the upper hand on vinyl.
b) Vinyl "colorations" for lack of a better word offer the human ear more pleasing sonics (for some).
c) No recording format or system sounds like the live event, they are a facsimile of said event that we strive to improve via audio tweaks/gear changes.

a- What unit of measurement are you going to use for these specs, bit rate ?
b- There's are far better words, naturalness, realism, accuracy, dimensionality, life!
c- Actually there is a likeness to reality in recordings and the best can give you a great view of the original event.

david

 

[sbo6]

a- What unit of measurement are you going to use for these specs, bit rate ?
b- There's are far better words, naturalness, realism, accuracy, dimensionality, life!
c- Actually there is a likeness to reality in recordings and the best can give you a great view of the original event.

david

a - Google any # of articles on specs to compare.
b - Well that's a purely subjective answer! ;-) (BTW - IMO the phono pre type has probably the most to do with the "colorations" as anything with vinyl. There seems to be a lot less "goodness with SS phono pres vs tube IME).
c - Can't agree since I've been in too many studios to quantifiably know stereo mixing/manipulation played through 2 speakers does not accurately = a band, orchestra, etc. I wouldn't use the word, "great", maybe a great facsimile.. I would highly encourage those that have not been to a studio to experience it. It's even better than any TT, DAC or tape machine you'll ever hear!

 

[LenWhite]

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...

You have some incredible audio equipment. I'd love to see listening room pictures.

 

[ddk]

a - Google any # of articles on specs to compare.
b - Well that's a purely subjective answer! ;-) (BTW - IMO the phono pre type has probably the most to do with the "colorations" as anything with vinyl. There seems to be a lot less "goodness with SS phono pres vs tube IME).
c - Can't agree since I've been in too many studios to quantifiably know stereo mixing/manipulation played through 2 speakers does not accurately = a band, orchestra, etc. I wouldn't use the word, "great", maybe a great facsimile.. I would highly encourage those that have not been to a studio to experience it. It's even better than any TT, DAC or tape machine you'll ever hear!

a- If ever I'm ready to pluck my eyes out I'll google that first .

b- and coloration isn't ? Just listing the subjective qualities I find preferable based on live experience. You're opening an even bigger can of worms with the "goodness" comment but I totally agree!

c- I used to import and distribute pro studio equipment and have quite a number of musician, engineers, composers, agents for friends and clients. Over the years sat in recording sessions at clubs, big halls, small halls, churches, studios and intimate home settings for all types of music. I know exactly what you're talking about but I'm still surprised at how much goodness is hidden in those grooves. The best ones make for great experiences.

david

 

[fas42]

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"

Not actually necessary ... back in 1986 I got the sort of CD sound that people are talking about here - part of the equation was that the unit was the top of the line Yamaha unit of the day - but the real reasons were that I spent a great deal of time eliminating various weakness throughout the whole system. This allowed the Yamaha to give of its best, which was sufficient to reach a very high level - subjectively, easily as good as the very best analogue I was able to have a listen to at the time.

Of course, all the normal, other CD playback I came across back then was very ordinary -wasn't worth listening to ...

 

[fas42]

So am I Mike. The latest digital that I have auditioned is coming closer in terms of non fatiguing digital glare/harshness in the upper frequencies, but it is still challenged by overall resolution and timbral accuracy, and a sense of palpability. But most importantly, the ability to sound natural. The best digital is getting better, but it is still not there. I do alike the convenience and lower noise floor, and the absence of clicks and pops.

All those adjectives have always been in the picture for CD, but it has always required "heroic" efforts by a tweaker - I'm one of those, - to get all those aspects to slot in. I would never have bothered with audio in the decades up to now if I hadn't been able to pull all the rabbits out of the hat at times - the simple truth is that the consumer has to be more fastidious if they want 'correct' - meaning all the above boxes get ticked - sound from digital; it's still harder to do than for analogue, more "work" has to be done ...

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is at the heart of the matter. The question is often asked and rarely answered. I have also asked how different the direct mic feed played through the studio monitors sounds from the live performance in the next room. That question also remains unanswered.

This whole thread seems to be a discussion about:

1. how accurate a copy the digital file is to the original recording, and
2. whether or not analog playback through a system sounds like real music

These are two different discussions and perhaps that is why we seem to keep going around in circles. When discussing #1, digital guys defend theories and write that analog lovers like distortions but that is fine if they prefer that sound. When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music. They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.

I think this apparent confusion arises only because your 1. and 2. are directed at two different objectives of high-end audio. There is no confusion if you match the right question with its implicit objective.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . . I would think that such guys are a small minority of "extremist" audiophiles, surely?

Extremism in the defense of analog is no vice.

(Sorry, gentlemen, but I could not resist that one.)

 

[Al M.]

Extremism in the defense of analog is no vice.

Hehe, I didn't know there was a Goldwater of analog, not just a Goldmund.

 

[fas42]

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.

What's "revolutionary" is that one by one, manufacturers are understanding the more subtle aspects in the implementation that they need to worry about, and are not just chasing "better and better" spec's which are easy to measure. The reality is that even "primitive" digital circuitry can produce magic sound, but a unit using such parts will need a lot more molly coddling to be able to deliver worthwhile results.

 

[fas42]

This whole thread seems to be a discussion about:

1. how accurate a copy the digital file is to the original recording, and
2. whether or not analog playback through a system sounds like real music

IME, the answer is that digital is the more "accurate"; and both analogue and digital can sound exactly like the real thing - over the years I've experienced both; digital is ahead because technically it is more correct, it doesn't have the wear and tear issues of vinyl, and best of all, it has the ability for much greater dynamics and resolution.

The "realness" for CD hasn't been an issue for me, for 30 years now - if it sounds mediocre then it's faulty playback, it's as simple as that ...

 

[Al M.]

IME, the answer is that digital is the more "accurate"; and both analogue and digital can sound exactly like the real thing - over the years I've experienced both; digital is ahead because technically it is more correct, it doesn't have the wear and tear issues of vinyl, and best of all, it has the ability for much greater dynamics and resolution.

Oops, much greater dynamics and resolution? I am afraid you haven't heard top analog yet, on the best recordings/pressings.

(Just an observation, I have no emotional investment here since I listen only to digital at home.)

PS: I know nominally vinyl only has a dynamic range of 70 dB or so, but in practice this doesn't matter much. I've heard hair-raising dynamics from vinyl.

 

[YashN]

When discussing #2, analog guys contend that vinyl sounds more real and describe things like tone, naturalness and live music. They acknowledge that digital is improving, but that it still does not sound as real to them.

Often the case, but be aware of people who have great vinyl rigs and who have actually tested the alternatives saying they prefer very high rate DSD to the vinyls, as well as deciding to record their own vinyl collections to very high rate DSD.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

Frank
Seeing you think you something the rest of us don't, and since I am NSW as well, how about hosting me and a couple of others for a listening session?

I'll come with an open mind and if what I hear is remarkable I'll say so, the corollary being if it isn't I'll say so. I'll drag Analog Bros with me and one other good pair of ears.

But first can you please describe what exactly it is we would be travelling to listen to. Starting with your speakers.

Either way perhaps it is time for the rubber to meet the road in respect of your incessant ideology. I'm getting a little over it.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

Often the case, but be aware of people who have great vinyl rigs and who have actually tested the alternatives saying they prefer very high rate DSD to the vinyls, as well as deciding to record their own vinyl collections to very high rate DSD.

Well that isn't my experience at all. They are different.

 

[YashN]

Well that isn't my experience at all. They are different.

That's fine by me as I wasn't talking about you at all.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

That's fine by me as I wasn't talking about you at all.

Well what people then? People transfer to DSD for all sorts of reasons, but my experience tells me absolute SQ is seldom the reason.

Do you for instance?

 

[NorthStar]

Listen carefully, when the music plays:

Is there a fireplace in both rooms that causes the static sound? ...Is it coming from the seats and listeners? ...Is it the needle tracking the LP's grooves?

I love the music, just beautiful. I was just wondering if we would still hear that wood burning and crackling coming from the fireplace?
But then, I didn't see any smoke either.

 

[YashN]

but my experience tells me absolute SQ is seldom the reason.

Really? Would you archive your vinyl to a format which degrades it? if so, why?

 

[sbo6]

a- If ever I'm ready to pluck my eyes out I'll google that first .

b- and coloration isn't ? Just listing the subjective qualities I find preferable based on live experience. You're opening an even bigger can of worms with the "goodness" comment but I totally agree!

c- I used to import and distribute pro studio equipment and have quite a number of musician, engineers, composers, agents for friends and clients. Over the years sat in recording sessions at clubs, big halls, small halls, churches, studios and intimate home settings for all types of music. I know exactly what you're talking about but I'm still surprised at how much goodness is hidden in those grooves. The best ones make for great experiences.

david

David, I think we are agreeing on all counts. I would add that the goodness you mention in the grooves I also hear in my digital especially on SACD.

And I still stand by my belief from experience that $ for $ digital is the better buy for components and source material. Add up every piece to enable each and digital wins. There are simply more components needed even for a basic vinyl setup (a cart + a phono pre + a TT + an iso base vs 1 CD player). Heck many CD players/DACs even have a built-in volume and can act as a preamp..