Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Mike Lavigne]

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.

really?

let's see....Webster's Dictionary define "Evolution" as....."a process of slow change and development".

and "Revolution" as...."a sudden, extreme, or complete change".

so whatever is going on with digital over the last 15 years, it's definitely not revolutionary. in fact; it's barely evolutionary. I'd call it meandering. nice meandering thou.

and I never claimed analog/vinyl was revolutionary.

 

[fas42]

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.

Interestingly, the quality of vinyl playback in demonstrations has degraded recently, at the "proper" audio show in Sydney a couple of years ago only one TT, at the time when I was listening, showed decent competence - the local friend's relatively low cost, tweaked vinyl rig trounced everything else I heard on the day.

The "in practice" is what matters - "hair-raising" dynamics come about when a system is totally clean, the technical dynamic range doesn't matter in this area.

There's a CD with phenomenal dynamic range, the soundtrack of the recent Moulin Rouge film - I would be amazed if any vinyl rig could do this convincingly: on some tracks there is a barely audible whispering, which builds to a crescendo where the amplifiers would be clipping in most setups, if the volume was right for the initial sounds to be picked up. An amazing sound, if one's system can do it ...

 

[fas42]

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.

Trouble is, it's normally a mess! As it is now, I'm an experimenter by nature - I push some setup to a reasonable level, that I feel is achieving close to its best potential for what it is - and then move on to something else.

As a start, check everything on my YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzkx85ez3DVxRAnpkbQEA2w, but make sure you listen at 720p resolution, for best quality delivery from YouTube of the audio. If what you hear doesn't tick any boxes then there wouldn't be any point in hearing in person, we're coming from different angles ...

 

[fas42]

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..

Agree. The reason I got my first dose of convincing CD sound, 30 years ago, was that the system was totally simplifed. A top notch CDP for the time, with probably the first decent digital volume control, directly driving big Perreaux power amp - if I had anything more complicated it probably would never have got there, I was just lucky enough to have the right components on tap to do the job.

 

[fas42]

really?

let's see....Webster's Dictionary define "Evolution" as....."a process of slow change and development".

Good thing I had "scare quotes" around revolutionary ! And I take your point - it is really a process of evolution, a steady progression in thinking, with some products "suddenly" revealing what's possible - which may be "revolutionary" to the people listening.

 

[amirm]

I see a recommendation for music here.
I go on Tidal and for $20/month, I get to listen to it instantly.
And it sounds wonderful as good music always does.

Case closed. Digital wins.

 

[ddk]

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..

That's fair enough sbo6, enjoy!
david

 

[NorthStar]

I see a recommendation for music here.
I go on Tidal and for $20/month, I get to listen to it instantly.
And it sounds wonderful as good music always does.

Case closed. Digital wins.

? http://www.channld.com/purevinyl/

Bonus ? track (from Jerry): http://hometheaterreview.com/exactly-why-vinyl-isnt-the-future-of-audiophilia/ :b

 

[Rodney Gold]

Endless circular discussion .. lp vs cd . play what you like and if it gives you the elusive eargasm...it's good.

 

[mauidan]

Endless circular discussion .. lp vs cd . play what you like and if it gives you the elusive eargasm...it's good.

+1

 

[Lee]

OK, I have already replied about the potential to record low levels of frequencies above the line where the threshold of hearing intersects the threshold of pain.
If that is only a starter, perhaps you could tell me about one which has a faint possibility of being audible?

Seems your mind is already made up based on this response. Perhaps the best thing to do is read this which details the audible range problems with 16/44:

https://www.meridian-audio.com/meridian-uploads/ara/coding2.pdf

 

[sbo6]

really?

let's see....Webster's Dictionary define "Evolution" as....."a process of slow change and development".

and "Revolution" as...."a sudden, extreme, or complete change".

so whatever is going on with digital over the last 15 years, it's definitely not revolutionary. in fact; it's barely evolutionary. I'd call it meandering. nice meandering thou.

and I never claimed analog/vinyl was revolutionary.

Mike, you're clearly at the top of the audio food chain but you're also in the minority. Got it, you have the best of the best which you've stated over and over and maybe, just maybe in that cost-no-object category vinyl wins. But for the rest of us on planet earth digital sounds great within our budget. And I think even better than vinyl for the $.

As far as digital vs analog advancements, I assume you are joking. As you stated as the "best in 2001" - you think there is a bigger change in the ~$75K Rockport Turntable vs. whatever you consider "best " today compared to, again as you stated the $7K Marantz SA-1 vs. let's say the best and latest >$50K DCS stack?

Let me know where you got those pills please....

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Case closed. Digital wins.

Solved. We can now close this thread. And that Williams bloke is a troll for starting it in the first place

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

And I still stand by my belief from experience that $ for $ digital is the better buy for components and source material.

Even as a staunch vinyl proponent, I tend to agree here so long as we are talking about properly done hi-res PCM or SACD. Of course better buy does not mean better sound. For me it just means it has a better price to performance ratio. That said, when it comes to CD, it really does require a level of fanaticism and attention to all the little details such that usually requires a considerable outlay to get very good sound. In such cases, then vinyl has the better price to performance ratio in my opinion because I can get wonderful vinyl sound for far less than the cost of dCS gear and even the cost of "next best" stuff like a Rega Isis.

I actually run a base model Rega Apollo-R and manage to get very nice CD sound, however all my CDs are from high resolution vinyl transcriptions (so I have complete control over the entire process including custom resampling and dithering parameters) and my CD masters are burned to Japanese SPMPT CD-R blanks using an audiophile Pioneer burner. Just the quality of those CD-R blanks and the quality of burner lifts the sound quality markedly over a comparable commercial pressing. And by that I mean a lot - not just a bit. Enough to lift CD sound from the potentially mediocre to the potentially impressive league, but still not enough to compete with a very good vinyl setup playing contemporary modern "audiophile" vinyl.

I will never cease to curse the 16/44.1 standard. If only it had been 18/48 right from the start!

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

Trouble is, it's normally a mess! As it is now, I'm an experimenter by nature - I push some setup to a reasonable level, that I feel is achieving close to its best potential for what it is - and then move on to something else.

As a start, check everything on my YouTube channel, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzkx85ez3DVxRAnpkbQEA2w, but make sure you listen at 720p resolution, for best quality delivery from YouTube of the audio. If what you hear doesn't tick any boxes then there wouldn't be any point in hearing in person, we're coming from different angles ...

I don't think I should visit you frank. It won't end well.

Were you referring to Vince's deck at the Sydney Audio Show?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, you're clearly at the top of the audio food chain but you're also in the minority. Got it, you have the best of the best which you've stated over and over and maybe, just maybe in that cost-no-object category vinyl wins. But for the rest of us on planet earth digital sounds great within our budget. And I think even better than vinyl for the $.

nice shot. I'm an easy target.

my point was not that I have the best of the best. only that I've tried for many years to have both digital and vinyl at 'near' top levels because that was important to me. so when I comment on relative differences in formats my perspective is aspiring to get what is possible from those formats. many here try to get the best possible performance. but few try for it in both vinyl and digital (and tape too).....and have tried to do that for many years. so I've been involved in countless discussions like this one.

below SOTA levels obviously things get murky. the questions then become where is the threshold for this or that format preference? and how much is set-up a factor too. these days with server based media a whole other factor gets thrown into the mix.

As far as digital vs analog advancements, I assume you are joking. As you stated as the "best in 2001" - you think there is a bigger change in the ~$75K Rockport Turntable vs. whatever you consider "best " today compared to, again as you stated the $7K Marantz SA-1 vs. let's say the best and latest >$50K DCS stack?

Let me know where you got those pills please....

not joking. I'm not comparing just tt's. I'm comparing complete vinyl front ends including arms, cartridges, cables and phono stages. and I'm simply relying on my own recollection of the comparative performances. it's just an opinion of one guy. maybe I'm wrong. would not be the first time. it simply occurred to me that 2001 digital is not that much below 2016 digital. and 2016 vinyl is farther removed from 2001 vinyl.

and yes; I do think that a 2001 Marantz SA-1 would hold up quite well against a current top level dCS stack (whether that is SOTA is another question....it very well may be) likely the Linn CD-12 would get closer on redbook than the Marantz on dsd/sacd since PCM is not the dCS's strong suit. closer than my 2001 vinyl to my 2016 vinyl. phono stages are waay better today than then. arms too.

again....just my opinion. but remember; I did experience these events in my own system and so I could be right.

 

[Andrew Stenhouse]

Well funnily enough I feel a fairly ordinary vinyl set up - like mine - runs rings around even the expensive digital. I prefer my current set up to the Nadac I had, for all its virtues. I just find it sounds more like real music. That said I'd like to add a decent CDP for certain recordings which benefit from the lower noise floor eg piano.

Anyway as Rodney said - what ever gives you an ear-gasm.

 

[NorthStar]

Solved. We can now close this thread. And that Williams bloke is a troll for starting it in the first place

Actually he picked the right subject of interest to all.

 

[NorthStar]

I don't think I should visit you frank. It won't end well.

Sure it will; bring a case of wine and a pound of marijuana, Frank will supply the food, and the music.

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Sure it will; bring a case of wine and a pound of marijuana, Frank will supply the food, and the music.

Just a pound? This is Australia we are talking about. It's got to be a kilo or more