Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Ron Resnick]

I, personally, have historically found digital sound fatiguing. I felt that so strongly many years ago that, today, I might have a Pavlovian negative reaction to watching someone press "play" on a silver disc player.

I was not even totally aware of it until bonzo, observing me in joint auditions, noticed that I do not relax when I am listening to digital.

I might feel (ah, hear) differently with the current generation of digital equipment.

 

[jkeny]

Objective metrics do not seem to make a case for Vinyl nor would they make the case for mp3. They would however make the case for many attributes of R2R as compared to vinyl. Same for CD vs Vinyl. As for the metrics we are alluding to. There is perhaps just one in which Vinyl surpass CD; perhaps bandwidth I don't know for sure.
The resurgence can speculated upon and it could be a flash in the pan. Time will tell. Given sufficient interest there could be some studies that would show the correlation of some metrics to Vinyl, it could be something else not related to sound.. Again, speculations. I have no objective metrics to back this up

But "objective metrics" that have little to no relationship to our perception of sound quality are really of no value in addressing the issue "why CDs may actually sound better than vinyl"

 

[NorthStar]

Just a theory:

I must have spinned over 30,000 vinyl records over the years starting from 1969. ...That's 60,000 when you flip them.
And that figure is conservative...it could easily be twice that number. * Try to estimate how many spins you had so far in your lifetime (LPs); it's not that easy.

Anyway, I spinned as many CDs.

Here's my own spin. When I listen to LPs it is indeed more relaxing, less fatiguing than spinning CDs. And I think the reason why is because it is less demanding for my brain.
There is a natural/analog continuity uninterrupted; no dots, no bits, no space to fill..all is in the grooves, the smooth flow of the needle tracking the walls of those grooves.
There is no digital jitter, no irrationality in filling the missing spaces. The waveforms have no binary numbers and easier for the brainwaves. There is no encoding and decoding.
The overall amplitude sounds free of quantification, even if the measurements suggest other orders.

It's only a theory, as compared to digital: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal ...And it's the way I perceive it from experienced listening.
You don't know what "fatigue" (working with your brain) is until you start relaxing (with analog vinyl).

Now, it don't mean more than what I just theorized. Today you most certainly can reach audio nirvana from vinyl, and be more relaxed too.
Vinyl will do that to your brain; make of you a more relaxed person.
And that don't mean that you are perceiving less, getting less than what it can be; no, it simply means that you are more responsive in a peaceful relaxing music listening way.

There is more that we don't know than we do... I sincerely think.

? And for the record; what I said above is from long period of times in spinning one medium @ a time, and also from spinning both mediums concurrently...few LPs, then few CDs and vice versa.
And, also for the record, all spins (analog and digital) were from systems costing less than what you can pay for an 8-foot pair of speaker wires (say $20,000+).
And that, is a lifetime average from conservative music listening analysis of humble financial category. So, I just don't know if more expensive systems from both mediums would lead to different results or not; it might, and it might not...only the ones with first hand experience know best. ...Including Steve, Amir, Mike, Jack, Peter, Lloyd, David, Francisco, Ronald, Davey, Al, Bruce, John, Andre, Carl, Marty, Philippe, Don, Elgar, George, Tony, Michael, Ian, Winston, Lenny, Mark, Paul, Joe, Robert and Jeffery. ...Few more too, I cannot remember them all.

 

[Steve Williams]

inFact: Vinyl vs Digital

 

[Steve Williams]

And this from the most recent CES. Must be a lot of crazy people in the world when it comes to vinyl

 

[jkeny]

Is it possible that vinyl's 'stereotypical' fullness is an artifact that helps make up for the fact that most if not all stereo systems lack the power to deliver true, live-scale music in a room?

is it possible in trying to determine the better format, we miss the fact that the entire eco-system of music reproduction in the home is incredibly flawed, and that in the end with such (currently) insurmountable issues in our systems, perhaps a few artifacts actually DO help us get back to par?

Yes, that's one of the possible answers that only a study of what auditory perception considers important can answer
Another way of putting it - is all this digital audio accuracy exposing the limitations & flaws of the current stereo playback chain?

But I actually think that digital audio can be as convincingly realistic as vinyl but it requires a lot of care to get it right & achieve this

 

[Ron Resnick]

inFact: Vinyl vs Digital

This "inFact" thing was like a video version of the article you posted when you opened this thread (i.e., people who prefer vinyl delude themselves into thinking they prefer the sound of vinyl when what they really prefer is the nostalgia of handling records).

 

[DaveyF]

Vinyl vs digital to me is a non starter as far as my enjoyment of music....which BTW, isn't that what this hobby is all about????
If one format makes me 'believe' that i am more in the presence of the musician making the music and the 'live' event, then I couldn't give a rats a''' which it is. Personally, so far the only format that I have heard that comes closest...is neither vinyl or digital; it is R2R.
If in the future that format happened to be cylinders and a 78rpm system...then that's the best for me. YMMV.

 

[LL21]

Yes, that's one of the possible answers that only a study of what auditory perception considers important can answer
Another way of putting it - is all this digital audio accuracy exposing the limitations & flaws of the current stereo playback chain?

But I actually think that digital audio can be as convincingly realistic as vinyl but it requires a lot of care to get it right & achieve this

I agree with your last statement...and with respect to digital and the endless search for individual components 'sticking to whats on the recording', I totally understand why it seems sensible to start with honesty to the original recording...we really have no other written record of the recorded event.

However, if the microphones, mastering machines, etc pick up ambiance, sound, decay, etc in any way like microphones do on a speaker phone when multiple people are on the call in a conference room...i think i understand then how far we have to go in terms of the entire chain being anywhere close to the original. In which case, a few minor 'over-compensating errors' in the playback chain may ironically not be too bad of a thing. I know that's anathema to many (and frankly, it sits badly with me as well...how do 2 mistakes make a correct solution?)...but i think to take an inaccurate recording and then stick it...when perhaps an incorrect playback of the flawed recording might 'make it seem' a bit more real seems like the latter solution works acceptably well.

 

[microstrip]

What if I visit David's house and I don't change? What if I bring a dozen other people who visit and don't change. What then?

If you then write a detailed and believable report on your opinion we will learn from your visit. But as you had great speakers in your system, such as the DD66000 and only told us that they had great dynamics and bass, and you consider the enlightening subjective descriptions we praise as "poetry", I have little hope you would want to do it.

 

[rbbert]

...Steve says his digital system gave him ear fatigue -- a point which I had never heard him say or anyone who visited him over the many years he did not have LP ....

I also wonder about this. While not having LP for (how many?) years, Steve has had SOTA reel-to-reel for years. When I visited him a couple of years ago (in the company of many others) it was a bit of a battle to listen to the Studer over CD's (not even hi-res digital, just CD's). He never mentioned ear fatigue.

 

[thedudeabides]

As Peter stated, all this is very nice but who cares when all of us who listen to vinyl say the same thing over and over and over. This does nothing to explain why so many people still prefer vinyl

On this forum and for those who choose to post, that appears to be true.

With all due respect, it proves nothing other apparent consensus within one small subset of one audio forum.

 

[Steve Williams]

It's all about preference "dude"

I have none of the issues that Ron, Peter, David etc have with digital. I enjoy mine. I do however experience fatigue with most extended listening sessions but I don't experience that with vinyl. As to saying nothing I it doesn't mean that inferences are to be made but for me it became obvious when I had another format to compare it to. As for not saying anything regarding R2R I would have to think that when I listen to take it is rarely for anything more than listening to one album.

 

[NorthStar]

Vinyl vs digital to me is a non starter as far as my enjoyment of music....which BTW, isn't that what this hobby is all about????
If one format makes me 'believe' that i am more in the presence of the musician making the music and the 'live' event, then I couldn't give a rats a''' which it is. Personally, so far the only format that I have heard that comes closest...is neither vinyl or digital; it is R2R.
If in the future that format happened to be cylinders and a 78rpm system...then that's the best for me. YMMV.

About thirty minutes ago I was talking with my friend (pro musician), and he was saying that back in the days they were recording on 2-inch tapes.
But then he added that the music was all gone, deteriorated by the magnetic tapes composition/formulation...oxidation perhaps.
Oh, and when I mentioned to him what amazon is selling them for he simply said; "that's crazy!" He's just an older guy very down-to-earth so you'd have to excuse him in his choice of words.

Tapes are real cool but they just don't last forever, like CDs. ;-)
I also believe that R-2-R tape machines require lots of care and maintenance; almost like a master art crafting.
And then there's the issue of the music software...like Bachman-Turner Overdrive and The Guess Who.

Today brand new tapes sound the best because they're still fresh, but fifty years from now, good luck passing that beautiful music to your kids. :b

 

[andromedaaudio]

Ever listened to an old tape yourself ???
I bet not , i dont agree with your friend
I bought my B 62 from a amateur recording engineer who managed to record inside great halls himself were talking 1971 /72
I ve got the Original tapes along with a lot of old broadcast tapes , sound quality is topnotch although there is some added noise on some of them .
i ve put some on you tube :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swb632kjhxQ&nohtml5=False

 

[NorthStar]

Mister, you can disagree with my old friend and that's fine. But he's not the type of guy to tell bs.

* I recorded my own music on a R-2-R machine, but my tapes are gone now...stolen. I have no idea how they would sound today after 35 years or so.
I guess it depends of the tape's quality. Maybe my friend was recording in pro studios where the sound recording engineers recorded on inferior 2" tapes.
And how old is "old"? He started recording in the late fifties early sixties.

 

[Rodney Gold]

There are always compromises one makes .. if the music of your choice is available on a particular media you gravitate there
Pointless debating the quality of a format if it forces you in a musical direction you dont want to go

I like vinyl but my music choice , the type of music I play in respect of freq range and the levels I play at preclude it.
I put my music first and the joy and convenience Roon and tidal give me more than make up for the fact they might be delivering music on what some consider a compromised format.. I listen to a huge amount of new music .. only available in the digital domain...
So it's not all about SQ

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

Today brand new tapes sound the best because they're still fresh, but fifty years from now, good luck passing that beautiful music to your kids. :b

That is a whole specialist area in itself but that doesn't apply as a blanket rule. Original Decca 1/4 inch tapes even from the 1950s let alone late 70s sound as good and as fresh today as they did when they were first made. Same applies with DG and EMI tapes off the top of my head. Certainly some others have deteriorated - quite noticeably in many cases, especially over the last two decades, however it is not a hard and fast rule. Choice of brand, formulation, storage technique and storage environment have everything to do with longevity of an open reel tape.

Of all the analogue formats that are also available to consumers, I would pick open reel over all the others including vinyl because I would not be concerned about durability over the course of, say, half a century and the sound quality will exceed that of all other analogue formats (all other things being equal of course).

 

[NorthStar]

Ok, about content? ...And pricing? ...Music on open-reel-tapes, on LPs, on CDs, and on hi-res audio downloads?

Music catalog of the music we love, and suiting our spending habits in conjunction with our well balanced passion and wisdom.
Reality.

Say I like Charles Aznavour, and live in multichannel. ...And Jean-Michel Jarre, and Jean-Pierre Ferland, and Gilles Vigneault, and Robert Charlebois, and Celine Dion (some), and Angele Arsenault, and Beau Dommage, and Harmonium, and Louise Forestier, and Zachary Richard, and Raoul Duguay, and Richard Desjardins, and Madeleine Peyroux, and Patricia Barber, and Holly Cole, and Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin, and Yes, and Miles Davis, and John Coltrane, and Chet Baker, and Billie Holiday, and Sonny Rollins, and Thelonious Monk, and Keith Jarrett, and Glen Gould, and Cassandra Wilson, and Jean Leloup, and Nana Mouskouri, and George Moustaki, and Stan Getz, and Diana Krall, and Bill Evans, and Buddy Guy, and Keb 'Mo', and John Mayall, and Eric Clapton, The Beatles, The Stones, The Doors, The Guess Who, The Moody Blues, David Bowie, Jethro Tull, ELP, Gentle Giant, King Crimson, Genesis, Nirvana, Van Morrison, Neil Young, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Oscar Peterson, John Lee Hooker, Gary Moore, Dead Can Dance, AIR, Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson, Joni Mitchell, Leonard Cohen, Albert King, Junior Wells, Jennifer Warnes, ... are they all on tapes and for how much?

And, how much is a quality vinyl album today in comparison to a quality CD?
Or should we forget cost and get only the music that sounds good. ...Like LPs. ...Because we can get anything today on vinyl.
Some LPs were never released on CDs.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, i never claimed that vinyl is capable of technically accurate reproduction of master tape. It just isn't. Case closed, as Amir would say.

Yet nonetheless, for some reason, vinyl retains the complexity of the harmonic spectrum of certain instrumental timbres much better than most digital.

Paragraph 1 .. Yes.
Paragraph 2 .. No. portraying the "timbre" of instrument is the acurate reproduction of the harmonics they create, there is no magic to it. Keep all the harmonics intact and with no distortion and you will likely recreat the timbre. If you are distorting it you will not recreate the original. The end result might however be pleasing and even more so than the real thing.

Frantz, please note that I said vinyl (I should have said, top level vinyl playback) portrays the complexity of the harmonic spectrum of certain instrumental timbres much better than most digital. I did NOT claim that it is therefore accurate to the master tape, i.e. to the original; it cannot be.

However, top level vinyl playback of superior recordings/pressings may more accurately than most (not necessarily all) digital reflect some complex instrumental timbres as compared to the real thing (I mentioned tenor and baritone sax as an example) -- while vinyl has its obvious distortions, most digital very audibly has its own too. While the latter distortions must be in principle measurable as well, apparently we do not yet know how to measure them in all cases; the standard 'traditional' measurements certainly do not suffice. The behavior of a playback system on test tones is not necessarily predictive of its behavior on complex musical timbres.

I have hesitated for a while to venture this:

There is an Audiophile aesthetics. A way that we judge things that is not very remove from what the real thing sounds like, an objective that is very removed from an objective reality whatever our tastes and differences in auditory apparatus. This is very difficult to put in words but let's try and hope that I don't fall too hard on my face .
Let's take the notion of reproducing instruments: I have already discussed about the piano .. Digital wins to my ears hands down... But the violin. the supposed big producer of harmonics... To my ears a very strident instrument to quote Ambrose Bierce: “an instrument which tries to tickle human ears by the friction of a horse’s tail on the entrails of a cat.” In real life that is as accurate as can be... I will however read over and over than the sweet sound of violin .. Digital would tend to do an excellent job on violin since it will get all the Harmonics up to 22.05 KHz as clearly as possible but truly most of us may end up not liking the end results. For those who have tried to listen to a microphone feed of a violin .. they may tell you that this is a far cry from what they hear on most records, especially on Vinyl. Not that someone cannot elicit heavenly sound from a violin.. Oh Boy! some can but Violin on records and violins in real life are different sounding and violin on Vinyl (notice I din;t say analog) is quite far from the strident and potent version of the real thing.

Two things here:
1) Violin can sound strident, but often doesn't. Just recently, over the Easter weekend I heard solo violin in NYC in two different locations, during an integral performance of Stockhausen's Klang cycle, and even though this is avantgarde music, the instrument did not sound strident.

2) While I agree that all but top level vinyl playback tends to suffer from softening of the edges of instrumental timbres, the best vinyl on the best recordings/pressings does not (pressing quality is crucial; too often it holds back the potential of vinyl playback). Just recently I was startled by not just the full tone, but also the realistically hard 'bite' of the sound of a solo trumpet on a jazz recording through Peter A.'s analog playback system, very much reminiscent of trumpet sound in some small club settings (and very exciting and involving!).

So no, great analog has for me nothing to with being 'easier' or 'nicer', or more 'pleasing' on the ear or with, God forbid, 'audiophile aesthetics'-- I could care less about such things, in fact, I am highly suspicious of them. Rather, in some critical cases great analog provides a more faithful reproduction of sonic reality, the actual sound of real instruments, than all digital except the very best.

I do agree with you, however, that there is a certain audiophile aesthetics, and it is unfortunate.

PS: How was your listening to Stockhausen's Gruppen the other day?