Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[fas42]

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.

And that is indeed how it manifests. I made a comment in another thread about listening to a demo using a Lampizator DAC - surely those tubes are adding a good dose of syrup, , ! - fed from a music server everything was fine, but using an Oppo player as a transport that unpleasant, fatiguing edginess was introduced into the sound. Until the source of this distortion, which is what it is, is properly understood, dealt with, then people sensitive to it will be drawn to vinyl, etc.

 

[bonzo75]

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.

I have heard 66000 twice, and the 4350 once, not something I would buy. Best jbl speaker I heard was a modded one in Berlin with 18 inch allnico bass drivers

 

[fas42]

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?

No. The fullness is inherent in the recording, whether analogue or digital - when it manifests in playback it's because the system is sufficiently competent to "get the message across". Surprisingly to some, even "terrible" recordings have this potential - give the brain enough information to sort everything out - and be amazed at how impressive the subjective experience becomes !

 

[bonzo75]

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?

Some fullness is due to the nature of vinyl recording, but some carts are fuller than other carts

 

[fas42]

I know in my own experience that looking back at my own experiences, even from 5 years ago, I have been exposed to higher levels of "realism" in playback & so the question is - am I hearing things differently to what I heard 5 years ago? Difficult to answer - my expectations from playback has changed - I now have a higher plateau because I've already heard it

My experiences are quite different from most, John - the penny dropped, with a resounding clang, 30 years ago; everything changed ... all that's happened in between is learning, understanding how to make it happen, and why my brain is reacting to the sound that way. The actual "quality" of that experience has not improved - I mainly keep "getting" what I need to do to make "impossible" recordings come to life, very much a challenge in itself.

 

[jkeny]

My experiences are quite different from most, John - the penny dropped, with a resounding clang, 30 years ago; everything changed ... all that's happened in between is learning, understanding how to make it happen, and why my brain is reacting to the sound that way. The actual "quality" of that experience has not improved - I mainly keep "getting" what I need to do to make "impossible" recordings come to life, very much a challenge in itself.

I'd love to get together with you & let you hear where I'm at & you demonstrate yours but we are a half a planet apart
All I can do is relate my experiences & it continues to be a journey for me

 

[thedudeabides]

I'd love to get together with you & let you hear where I'm at & you demonstrate yours but we are a half a planet apart
All I can do is relate my experiences & it continues to be a journey for me

Wonderful post and so relevant to the topic. Clearly validates the inherent subjectivity in this hobby.

There is no "best".

 

[YashN]

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.

Yes, and that is very telling. Digital equipment has its own sonic 'signature'.

Unfortunately, the sonic signature is really inherent.

Fortunately, there are ways to mitigate it.

One thing that people found is the tremendous amounf of noise injected both into the air and surrounding equipment and into the mains by digital equipment.

Switching mode power supplies can be very bad at this (think computers here).

So, a good way of resolving the issues with digital playback is to use well-designed and well-regulated Linear Power Supplies. (NB: I am not saying here that an SMPS cannot be made to out-class a linear power suppy).

So here are a few pointers to tame the digital issues:

1. Isolate the DAC from the computer (no, a direct-connection doesn't usually suffice, so think about HQ Player + NAA here)

2. Use Linear Power supplies in the sound chain: e.g. if you are using an HDD and a Computer, consider powering both with Linear Power Supplies.

3. Use AC Filtering/Conditioning boxes. Solve power and grounding noise issues.

Additionally, you can use balanced power and balanced interconnects and so on.

Prefer Ethernet renderers if possible or else properly isolated USB solution if necessary.

Use very high rate DSD on a native DSD or a chip-less DSD DAC.

These all help with digititis.

Here's an anecdote that happened to us here:

One day, I disconnected all the formerly powered on devices which were unused while playing audio here: my Mixer/Recording sound card from M-Audio, my Mixer from Soundcraft, a couple of external HDDs (all connected to the computer via USB), and my DAC being directly connected to the computer (NB: I still don't advise a direct connection like that if you're not going to do all the reclocking and regeneration and ground plane cleanup).

My girlfriend looked up from her iPad and asked "What did you change?".

So there you go: just disconnecting SMPS and polluting things from the mains and from the server computer can make a drastic difference.

To me: it felt like a more relaxing environment to be in, as if someone poured fresh water onto my face on a scorching summer day...

 

[microstrip]

(...)
I remember listening to Bob Stuart give a talk about his modified Philips player to an audience of LP lovers back in 1983 or so. After he gave his talk, someone raised his hand and asked him why he likes digital. His answer was, "it has solidity that I can't get in analog. A piano finally sounds like it should." That is what I hear in digital. My ears don't focus on artifacts as whatever is wrong is clearly in the recording. I don't get that with analog, LP or tape. My ears constantly tune to artifacts that are there, whether they are hiss, pops, glitches or something more sophisticated. Lack of convenience also severely curtails matching music to my mood. The convenience of digital is very important to me as a music lover.

Solidity in pianos ... It seems to be great attribute of digital. We can forget all the problems being associated with digital just for this achievement!

I never listened to Bob Stuart, but listened for a few months, perhaps more than one year to his modified CD player, as have owned it - the MCD Meridian . As far as I remember it was a tweaked Philips/Magnavox unit with some modifications in the power supply, better audio ICs and some mechanical modifications in the spindle system. IMHO it sounded very inferior to any good top analog system of that period, with a characteristic dry and unemotional sound. Later I insisted and got the MCD Pro, expecting a miracle, but only got perhaps a better bass and imaging, but the same type of sound. Interested readers wanting to remember what was the digital atmosphere of the middle 80's can read the MCD and MCD pro reviews http://www.stereophile.com/content/meridian-mcd-mcd-pro-cd-players-anthony-h-cordesman-mcd-pro#KekHz4LgX3KT1AkT.97

Every media seems to have compromises - our choice is just a preference. People tuned for specific artifacts will surely have a different preference.

 

[jkeny]

I agree, YashN !!

 

[amirm]

Solidity in pianos ... It seems to be great attribute of digital. We can forget all the problems being associated with digital just for this achievement!

You mean imaginary problems because no one in all the decades of criticism about digital has put forward any evidence of it. I don't even know of anyone even researching these problems. So no, there is nothing to forget. When we put people to test on these problems, they seem to fail all of a sudden to detect them in controlled testing.

Our desire to invent theories instead of relying on what is in front of us and provable is just remarkable. Why is it so hard to accept that LP and CD are different mixes and folks like the LP mix better and don't hear the distortions that come with it? You know, stuff that we can readily show, demonstrate and prove.

 

[fas42]

So there you go: just disconnecting SMPS and polluting things from the mains and from the server computer can make a drastic difference.

To me: it felt like a more relaxing environment to be in, as if someone poured fresh water onto my face in a scorching summer day...

And it's a Yes! from me too - this is where the critical, last steps may be. I automatically do all "this nonsense" - 'cause otherwise I would just get dud sound ...

 

[fas42]

Why is it so hard to accept that LP and CD are different mixes and folks like the LP mix better and don't hear the distortions that come with it?

Amir, some of us can hear where digital and vinyl merge, in the subjective sense - I get great satisfaction when the experience from the LP and the CD matches; obviously not perfect in every area, but the sense of the musical event is remarkably alike - this is a good indication that the underlying, master recording is being "revealed" ...

 

[microstrip]

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?

Unfortunately the attribute of SOTA vinyl in some types of music is not "fullness", but "rightness" . Fullness can be easily attained with either media. But the ultimate sensation of being closer to the source, more fluid melodic lines and rhythms in jazz, the joy of hearing the unexpected are, IMHO, key points for the enjoyment of reproduced music using vinyl.

As I have written recently, if an artifact systematically enhances the sound reproduction it should not be an artifact any more - it should become part of the process of playback!

If the digital industry could produce redbook recordings and CDs that would sound as good as the best turntables of our members when played in average CD or DACs why aren 't they being produced and sold?

 

[microstrip]

You mean imaginary problems because no one in all the decades of criticism about digital has put forward any evidence of it. I don't even know of anyone even researching these problems. So no, there is nothing to forget. When we put people to test on these problems, they seem to fail all of a sudden to detect them in controlled testing.

Our desire to invent theories instead of relying on what is in front of us and provable is just remarkable. Why is it so hard to accept that LP and CD are different mixes and folks like the LP mix better and don't hear the distortions that come with it? You know, stuff that we can readily show, demonstrate and prove.

The old combination of perfect sound forever and the mix argument again. I refuse to believe that the best analogue sound engineers were genius and all the digital sound engineers mastering CDs are incompetent. The evidence I have in front of me is the sound quality of the my best LP and CD recordings in chamber music and jazz. BTW, I listen most of the time to redbook.

 

[Al M.]

You mean imaginary problems because no one in all the decades of criticism about digital has put forward any evidence of it. I don't even know of anyone even researching these problems.

Really, nobody is researching them? So the people at dCS, Berkeley Audio Design etc. etc. are just wasting their time striving to improve an already perfect implementation of digital theory?

 

[Al M.]

Certainly that could be a factor. 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 but we digress. Digital has a rectangular performance in that from it can reproduce with authority from near DC/0hz to 22 Khz. It does what it is told to do. Nothing is rolled off in that ruler flat response. So if you have a bright system to start, and you feed it recording that was mixed in a room that was not, it reasons why you may like an analog medium that can't reproduce that. Ditto for bass where your room may have modes that exaggerate when fed ruthlessly by CD's low frequency transparency. A system then that has exaggerated mid-frequencies would sound good and better. It would make up for directivity error which exists in many speakers in mid-frequencies.

Here you make a good and very important point, Amir. Digital may reveal certain weaknesses of sytems and rooms -- perhaps especially rooms -- that would not be as obvious with analog.

However, this is more of a general observation. Many people really have sub-optimal rooms and set-ups. Yet since you brought up his name, I would find it hard to believe that Steve's room would have grave problems, given the meticulous attention he gave to its design and acoustic treatment.

 

[amirm]

Really, nobody is researching them? So the people at dCS, Berkeley Audio Design etc. etc. are just wasting their time striving to improve an already perfect implementation of digital theory?

If these problems are not measurable, then they are lost in trying to better them. So no, I don't believe they are fixing as yet known problems. What they do, and I am friends and professional colleague with Berkeley folks, is engineering excellence. They keep improving the clock. The isolation. Better mechanical build, etc. These are measurable things.

 

[fas42]

So, are these "measurable things" improving or changing the subjective experience?

 

[amirm]

The old combination of perfect sound forever and the mix argument again.

No, it is not argument. It is the world of audio science/engineering outside of forums. What is an "argument" is pointing to non-existent problem and think that audio is so hard that all the talent in the world in decades of work haven't found these mysterious problems you talk about.

I refuse to believe that the best analogue sound engineers were genius and all the digital sound engineers mastering CDs are incompetent. The evidence I have in front of me is the sound quality of the my best LP and CD recordings in chamber music and jazz. BTW, I listen most of the time to redbook.

You don't need to refuse to believe that because your premise is wrong. I have tons and tons of digital content that brings tears to my eyes as far as how good its fidelity is. I maintain a "reference quality" playlist in Roon that I add things to. Right now, it is 8+ hours of track after track that leaves your jaw on the floor. Tremendous amount of talent is applied to creation of beautiful digital music.

As to your example of LP versus CD as I said, that has perfectly reasonable and provable explanation. That is, different mastering and indifference to LP distortions. Again, from the AES workshop on mastering LPs:

"One of the first decisions that has to be
made by the vinyl mastering engineer is
whether to equalize (EQ) the recording
differently for vinyl and digital release. It is
essentially a creative decision whether to
try to transfer as much as possible of the
sound of the digital master onto the vinyl
disc or whether to enhance it in some way.
The latter approach is more likely with pop
music, and decisions are generally made in
discussion with clients, considering their
aspirations for the release.

The choice of cutting stylus tip radius
partly comes down to the high-frequency
content of the recording and also to the
level that one wants to cut. A very small
radius gives a slightly better HF response
but can’t cut as deep as a standard radius.
Sometimes disc mastering engineers will
use the finer tip for cutting classical music,
but most of the time the standard radius
seems to be used.

[...]

When it comes to replaying vinyl it also
pays to spend time setting up the turntable
and arm correctly, as it can dramatically
affect the quality of sound. Playback
cartridges need a certain downward force in
order to function optimally, and setting the
playback weight is one of the most critical
factors in ensuring good sound quality.

[...]

Replay cartridges can be markedly different
to each other. When people complain
about the quality of their vinyl pressings,
the first line of questioning should therefore
involve finding out about the replay
setup, as this is often the root of the differences
that they are hearing. It’s very
unlikely that any two vinyl replay systems
will sound the same, or that the vinyl pressing
will sound exactly the same as the digital
master the client provided. There are
simply too many variables in this analog
chain for it to be so."

So no, you won't get me speculating about imagined problems in digital where the picture is so clear that LP is not a transparent system. That it performs worse than digital. Therefore the only explanation of preference for it boils down to a) mastering that matches some people's preference better and b) those people are not bothered by the clear and audible distortions in LP. These things we can prove. Let's not chase ghosts we can't.

Enjoy the format but don't engage in a technical war of arguments which cannot be won.