Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Robh3606]

Sure, digital measures well with the techniques commonly used, but it does not sound perfect. It is clear that measurements alone can not describe what we hear. Perhaps one day, they will.

Hello Peter

That would be great at least we have people trying to make the correlation via Toole, Olive and others

Perhaps putting down the computer screen to read AES articles and sine wave plots and instead getting out to hear a live symphony or local string quartet will illustrate what so many on this thread are expressing. One does not even need to listen to good analog to understand that digital is not perfect.

I prefer digital and I hear live music at least once a week and sometimes like this one I will be at 3 separate shows not counting the local bar on Sunday where a traditional Irish folk band practices. So I have live unamplified acoustic music just about every Sunday to end my week with. I love it!. That said the issue as I see it is both formats fall short, It's more a name your poison issue more than anything else. I still have a turntable and do occasionally spin some of my father's vinyl and I still have some of mine as well. I get enjoyment out of both so I really don't get the Us vs Them we are in it for the same reason. When they figure out how to fit 1000 vinyl albums into something the size of my I-Pod I might go back.

Rob

 

[FrantzM]

Wanna step outside

depends..

How Cold is it?

 

[amirm]

Imagined problems? It curious that so many people are still perfecting the implementation of the format.

The search for engineering excellences exists in all audiophile products. That doesn't indicate there is an audible problem. So yes, it is imaginary since no one has demonstrated said problems despite the decades of folks saying digital problems are obvious to them, cause fatigue, etc. It is all folklore. Because if something is so obvious as you all make it to be, it should be trivial to a) show it to exist properly and b) fix it.

And you are the one who is engaging in a technical war of arguments - almost everyone else is debating the subjective side. We expect that those with real competence in digital will perfect the implementation of the system (either recording or playback, or both) to a point we we will happily admit it reached its audiophile objectives. Fortunately it is happening, although slower we would desire!

According to our very much imperfect ears, digital is already perfect. It has been so for many years. That we think it has ways to go is no different than saying LP is better than digital. Neither has a foundation that is demonstrated to be true cause and effect.

 

[still-one]

depends..

How Cold is it?

That depends on whether I use a analog or digital thermometer.

 

[Robh3606]

That depends on whether I use a analog or digital thermometer.

Well it's a given the digital will be more accurate but you might not like what you read

Rob

 

[amirm]

"imagined problems": I do not think there is anything imagined about the fatigue some people experience when listening to digital.

I get fatigue listening to a clock radio which is analog. Now what?

"[LP] performs worse than digital"

True, but only if one subscribes, as you do, to objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape."

Do we not agree that the purpose of a delivery format should be transparency? That it should not have a sound of its own that it adds to every recording put to it? It is on that front which LP cannot produce transparency. If I want a different sound, it should come from mix/mastering, not what the format imparts. It is like saying you like food cooked in dirty pan that provides its own flavor. I want a clean pan and whatever flavor there is, should come from the chef putting it there.

"the only explanation of preference for [LP] 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"

False, because another explanation for some people's preference for LP is that they subscribe to objective 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event," and they believe that LP better allows them to achieve this objective.

This is an imaginary goal Ron. Nothing in the design of a format where it is cut to produce sound has applicability to what something "real" sounds like. Any such reality comes from mastery of whoever created that sound. Not because LP has this magic elixir that it adds to every recording on its own and makes it real.

Even if you are right, this is a hypothesis. It needs to be verified. Someone needs to record an instrument to CD and LP with no manipulation and then demonstrate how the LP recording all of a sudden made things sound "real." Right now the only thing you can do as an end-user is to listen to two different mixes of LP and CD. You can't compare those. If you do, then the explanation is the simple one: that is, you prefer the LP mix/mastering and don't mind the distortions. That is the only conclusion which is defensible.

 

[amirm]

Amir, all that's really being said is that good vinyl implementations seem to have some perceptual advantages over most digital audio implementations - nothing is being imagined, listening is the key but if you can't hear it, you can't hear it & that's fair enough.

Not to my ears. I hear those distortions in analog and they are anything but advantageous. We can easily show those distortions to rise up above levels of audibility. The advantages that we can verify and I keep repeating myself, is that the mixing and processing that is done to make an LP is somehow more to the linking of a small section of music listening audience. They clearly here the advantages but not the disadvantages.

I gave examples of this earlier where a $250 tape Bach recording to my ears is unlistenable due to noise and hiss. Yet another one of these LP lovers raved about its fidelity. That to me demonstrate how people are a) not critical listeners and b) praise anything analog. These are the kind of facts we can hang our hat on. What you say is an opinion or hypothesis in dire need of verification and data to back it.

 

[amirm]

Just because one format is flawed does not mean the other is perfect. Yes, analog measures worse than digital. Case is closed in that sense. But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically.

Critically? You can't be serious. I mentioned example after example of flaws in our everyday audiophile experiences where folks can't hear the most obvious degradations and distortions.

We keep walking around thinking because we bought expense audio gear, that we must have an A+ grade in being a critical listener. Or that by listening to live music, you get there. That is just a false premise. The only way you know to have critical listening abilities is to have yourself tested where you don't know the answer. Then if you get a better grade than everyone else, OK, you have critical listening abilities. But no such data ever comes forward. The opposite is aplenty however. When I was at Microsoft, we tested very high bitrate lossy compression against the original using our audiophile alias. Not one of the hundreds of people we tested could match our critical listeners, none of which were high-end audiophiles.

Our record as audiophiles is just shameful in this regard. Given any bias-controlled test and we fall flat on our face. We can't tell 8 generation of ADC/DAC loss that Ethan put forward. We can't tell 320 kbps MP3 from the original. We flunk any blind listening test comparing products that we think are obviously better and worse than each other.

So please don't get me started on this . We need to get down from our high horses, as hard as that might be emotionally, and accept that we are not as a group critical listeners. That our observations are routinely faulty. We make up technical theories with no technical background. We assign cause and effect with total disregard of many factors being involved in the final outcome.

Between us chickens, let's be more cautious here. I mean how bad does it need to get when in the PNW meeting most people can't even hear an amplifier clipping? If we can't hear this, how are we to trust that folks are hearing unknown problems in digital? Or that experience listening to live music in any way, form or fashion prepares you to judge a recording that you know nothing about its production???

There are also other possibilities to explain preference, IMO. Just one is that perhaps the digital artifacts are more annoying to certain listeners than are the analog distortions. Fatigue inducing digititis. I don't know what causes it, but I, and many others, hear it on most digital systems.

It is all imaginary problems in dire need of some data to verify them. As I explained to John, if these problems are so easily audible, then folks should have no trouble passing Ethan's test where he washed the same signal 8 times through ADC/DAC. As I said, I passed that test but it was incredibly difficult. Most of you would not have a prayer of hearing it. 8 times through digital and analog and folks still can't hear it yet they know they get ear fatigue from digital? Really?

 

[PeterA]

You make it sound as if "digital sounds fatiguing" is a fact. 95% of this thread is conjecture. Want to talk fatiguing? Let's talk low freq rumble, ticks and pops, Wow and Flutter, footfalls, having to get up - and down - and up - and down every 20 minutes, inability to skip songs or create a playlist, time to pull out, stare at, clean/prep and put on the platter over and over. I've heard the aforementioned issues at RMAF with some of the best TT setups. Fatiguing? Playing records is like a part-time job which the nostalgia nuts call - fun.

All true. The statement you quoted from me, "One does not even need to listen to good analog to understand that digital is not perfect.", is also true. Subjective observations are just that. They are not conjecture.

You are describing a very different kind of fatigue. And you are free to describe analog sound as fatiguing, if that is how you hear it. I have not read many such observations in this thread, but I have read people beyond just me, describe digital as sounding fatiguing. I have been pretty clear in also writing that I have heard three digital systems which exhibited absolutely no digital fatigue: the dCS Vivaldi, the Rossini, and the HQPlayer/NADAC when playing quad DSD. So as many have written here, it seems to be part of the implementation rather that inherent in the digital format.

Your last line is kind of funny. Incidentally, I am nostalgic for the music I listened to in the 70s and 80s, not for the LP format per se. Why I prefer listening to it has everything to do with sound quality, and I am willing to put up with the hassle at this point in my life. Nothing more.

 

[PeterA]

Peter

let me try to address some issues in your post. I get it you prefer analog to digital and we are OK with that. It is a preference thus remains outside any meaningful discussions. The reasons why you and other have such preferences would be an interesting study.

Her I go

You would admit that it is a stretch to state that. True that we don't listen to measurements but many on the digital side fulfill the same conditions: We listen to live,acoustic music and listen critically, yet prefer digital, this infirm this assertion. And some, in spite of listening to digital only like what anlog does and consider it superior, again, a preference. This isn't because analog is inherently superior.

Issues with analog bother also and here I am adding some listeners while pleasing others .. So again, a preference..not debatable.. We agree that Engineers from both persuasion are working hard on perfecting their medium. If they claimed that theirs were perfect there wouldn't be any need for research.

I am not sure anyone claims digital to be perfect. Digital-leaning persons claim however that there is no measured area aside from bandwidth, where Vinyl is superior to CD, we are still looking for that elusive parameter that would prove this assertion to be wrong , aside from the oft-cited 50 KHz bandwidth .. Something digital not CD Redbook can take care of with a flat bandwidth from O Hz to 96 KHz ... and it could be more up to 172 KHz.. I am not sure there are commercial recordings in that format but the technology and hardware exist.

Frank, I apologize if my post was vague and lacked clarity. I did not intend to infer that only analog guys listen to live music or listen critically. You should know well by now that my friend Al M. and I listen together to live music and reproduced music, both analog and digital. And we listen critically. He is digital only which supports your claim that " And some, in spite of listening to digital only like what anlog does and consider it superior, again, a preference." I do not dispute this in the least.

Here is what I wrote in full: "Just because one format is flawed does not mean the other is perfect. Yes, analog measures worse than digital. Case is closed in that sense. But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically."

If you consider what you selected to quote and took out of context, "But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically.", it might be a stretch, I agree. But you are twisting the meaning of what I wrote. I'm saying that digital measures better than analog but that alone does not explain why analog sounds more like real music to some people. You can call it a preference. I agree that it is a preference, but it is based on my own personal observations, so it is quite meaningful to me.

I also did not write that analog is inherently superior. That would not make sense given all of the evidence. I prefer its sound because it sounds more real to me, despite its flaws. Part of the issue in these discussions is that we read each other's posts and then ascribe meanings to statements that are not there.

 

[PeterA]

Hello Peter

That would be great at least we have people trying to make the correlation via Toole, Olive and others




I prefer digital and I hear live music at least once a week and sometimes like this one I will be at 3 separate shows not counting the local bar on Sunday where a traditional Irish folk band practices. So I have live unamplified acoustic music just about every Sunday to end my week with. I love it!. That said the issue as I see it is both formats fall short, It's more a name your poison issue more than anything else. I still have a turntable and do occasionally spin some of my father's vinyl and I still have some of mine as well. I get enjoyment out of both so I really don't get the Us vs Them we are in it for the same reason. When they figure out how to fit 1000 vinyl albums into something the size of my I-Pod I might go back.

Rob

I agree Rob. Nice post. Both formats are flawed and we are all interested in enjoying our music. My comments were addressing Amir's claims that there are just two possibilities for why some prefer analog to digital. I offered a third.

 

[FrantzM]

Frank, I apologize if my post was vague and lacked clarity. I did not intend to infer that only analog guys listen to live music or listen critically. You should know well by now that my friend Al M. and I listen together to live music and reproduced music, both analog and digital. And we listen critically. He is digital only which supports your claim that " And some, in spite of listening to digital only like what anlog does and consider it superior, again, a preference." I do not dispute this in the least.

Here is what I wrote in full: "Just because one format is flawed does not mean the other is perfect. Yes, analog measures worse than digital. Case is closed in that sense. But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically."

If you consider what you selected to quote and took out of context, "But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically.", it might be a stretch, I agree. But you are twisting the meaning of what I wrote. I'm saying that digital measures better than analog but that alone does not explain why analog sounds more like real music to some people. You can call it a preference. I agree that it is a preference, but it is based on my own personal observations, so it is quite meaningful to me.

I also did not write that analog is inherently superior. That would not make sense given all of the evidence. I prefer its sound because it sounds more real to me, despite its flaws. Part of the issue in these discussions is that we read each other's posts and then ascribe meanings to statements that are not there.

Peter

Not my intention to twist your words. I apologize if my post made you think so.

It has been one of the most civil CD/LP discussion I have ever witnessed or be part of. This is due to no small part to the level headed people at WBF and in particular to your respectful and peaceful posting style.
We disagree on what medium we favor but not on much else. We agree more than we disagree.
Peace and enjoy the music.

 

[sbo6]

All true. The statement you quoted from me, "One does not even need to listen to good analog to understand that digital is not perfect.", is also true. Subjective observations are just that. They are not conjecture.

You are describing a very different kind of fatigue. And you are free to describe analog sound as fatiguing, if that is how you hear it. I have not read many such observations in this thread, but I have read people beyond just me, describe digital as sounding fatiguing. I have been pretty clear in also writing that I have heard three digital systems which exhibited absolutely no digital fatigue: the dCS Vivaldi, the Rossini, and the HQPlayer/NADAC when playing quad DSD. So as many have written here, it seems to be part of the implementation rather that inherent in the digital format.

Your last line is kind of funny. Incidentally, I am nostalgic for the music I listened to in the 70s and 80s, not for the LP format per se. Why I prefer listening to it has everything to do with sound quality, and I am willing to put up with the hassle at this point in my life. Nothing more.

Peter, I described more than just audible fatigue such as footfalls, low freq rumble and ticks and pops. How "close to the music" do you get when these are audible? Is there a new instrument called the tickn'pop that I'm unaware of that mostly died out circa 1983? If that's not fatiguing then I'm not sure what is...

Also, wrt nostalgia, I love the old 70s and 80s albums from my youth, the LP format basically wraps in it a pretty bow. Nostalgia can be conscious and sub-concious so maybe the record format brings back sub-concious pleasant memories?

 

[jkeny]

Not to my ears. I hear those distortions in analog and they are anything but advantageous. We can easily show those distortions to rise up above levels of audibility. The advantages that we can verify and I keep repeating myself, is that the mixing and processing that is done to make an LP is somehow more to the linking of a small section of music listening audience. They clearly here the advantages but not the disadvantages.

I gave examples of this earlier where a $250 tape Bach recording to my ears is unlistenable due to noise and hiss. Yet another one of these LP lovers raved about its fidelity. That to me demonstrate how people are a) not critical listeners and b) praise anything analog. These are the kind of facts we can hang our hat on. What you say is an opinion or hypothesis in dire need of verification and data to back it.

I think noise & hiss below a certain loudness that is not modulating, tends to be easy to hear through & somewhat perceptually transparent - much the same as most rooms are easy to accommodate to when listening & become transparent. In nature we are used to natural noise accompanying signals & also used to hearing sound in different environments which explains why these are not perceived as "unrealistic" artifacts.

 

[NorthStar]

Wow. 74 pages and counting when we all know the truth. They can both suck and both be great. Gotta love the irony.

Very popular thread; it's making the news. :b

 

[PeterA]

Peter, I described more than just audible fatigue such as footfalls, low freq rumble and ticks and pops. How "close to the music" do you get when these are audible? Is there a new instrument called the tickn'pop that I'm unaware of that mostly died out circa 1983? If that's not fatiguing then I'm not sure what is...

Also, wrt nostalgia, I love the old 70s and 80s albums from my youth, the LP format basically wraps in it a pretty bow. Nostalgia can be conscious and sub-concious so maybe the record format brings back sub-concious pleasant memories?

No need to be sarcastic. Yes, you describe all sorts of issues with analog. Some are more evident that others in the playback of my system. And yet, despite all of that, I, and others, overcome those myriad flaws and still prefer analog to digital for the sound quality. I can also say for the overall experience and the way it makes me feel, but that would surely be misconstrued. I think we agree that we each prefer different formats. That's it. I'm not trying to change your preferences. Bob from a Star up North beckons me to "Don't worry, be happy."

I'm not even trying to convince Amir or anything. I appreciate superior measurements and endeavor to make my system sound as convincing to me as possible.

I love hearing Led Zep, Blondie, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Pretenders, Pink Floyd, all music from my youth, regardless of format: in the car, over the TV, on cassette, on digital, it matters not. It's music I love. I don't care if it is subconscious or not.

 

[PeterA]

Very popular thread; it's making the news. :b

Yes, it got a mention on a technology focused audio forum.

 

[Jim Smith]

I have been amazed at how pervasive vinyl use has become. I have a little over 3500 friends on Facebook – with over 3000 of them being audiophiles. The overwhelming majority – especially from Europe and Asia – feature vinyl playback in their systems. These are systems that would definitely be accepted as “high-end”. So SOMETHING must be going on.

A few observations:

1 – In the past eight years, as I have traveled around North America, voicing systems, I have listened to a large number of exotic turntable rigs. Some of these were in the homes of well-known audiophiles, even so-called experts. NEVER, not once, have I heard a turntable that was set up well enough to reveal the musical engagement that was easily available with just a few minutes' worth of adjustments. I am not saying that the turntable didn’t – or couldn’t - sound nice. I am saying that it could have been better, and most times, it could have been much better.

Maximum faithfulness to the master? No.

2 – FWIW – I had the same experience for the previous 25+ years, but the owners of those systems (with the exception of a couple of famous reviewers), never took positions of maximum faithfulness to the master.

Maximum faithfulness to the master? No.

3 – Most audiophiles would never consider using any kind of eq, yet they will accept TWO LEVELS OF EQ to play their records (phono mastering and playback eq). There is more to say about the type of eq veiling employed in mastering as well as playback, but here I am only referring to this double processing of the signal.

Maximum faithfulness to the master? No.

4 – Every phono cartridge has its own sound. Certainly there are familial differences within lines and even models. I am talking about the notion that any two models of the same brand & model will always sound a bit different.

Maximum faithfulness to the master? No.

5 – Phono cartridges are susceptible to temperature, humidity, and even warm-up (IMO).

Maximum faithfulness to the master? No.

6 – I could go on, but even though it looks as if I am damning vinyl playback, I am not. What I definitely do not know is what is happening with vinyl usage. Way too many people that I know and respect love their vinyl rigs, even though at least 90% of TTs out there (again, IMO) are not performing as well as possible. I should note that I am not suggesting any purchase, just making use of what is already in the system.

Maximum faithfulness to the master? Definitely not.

I could list more observations, but these are enough – anybody have an opinion?

BTW – I have never heard one of DDK’s set-ups, except maybe at a CES Show years ago (not sure if he was involved). Think it was Lamm electronics and the Klangfilm Bionors. That was a very musically involving sound, and especially so for an audio show!

 

[sbo6]

No need to be sarcastic. Yes, you describe all sorts of issues with analog. Some are more evident that others in the playback of my system. And yet, despite all of that, I, and others, overcome those myriad flaws and still prefer analog to digital for the sound quality. I can also say for the overall experience and the way it makes me feel, but that would surely be misconstrued. I think we agree that we each prefer different formats. That's it. I'm not trying to change your preferences. Bob from a Star up North beckons me to "Don't worry, be happy."

I'm not even trying to convince Amir or anything. I appreciate superior measurements and endeavor to make my system sound as convincing to me as possible.

I love hearing Led Zep, Blondie, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, Pretenders, Pink Floyd, all music from my youth, regardless of format: in the car, over the TV, on cassette, on digital, it matters not. It's music I love. I don't care if it is subconscious or not.

I think we can agree to disagree. Don't get me wrong - I've heard vinyl sound great, but IME it's quite costly vs digital (both equipment and media), is less convenient and requires significant effort for proper care. Also as you said, wrt nostalgia I can get it with digital anywhere anytime - in my car, my office, at work, on a plane - another advantage of digital.

 

[PeterA]

Critically? You can't be serious. I mentioned example after example of flaws in our everyday audiophile experiences where folks can't hear the most obvious degradations and distortions.

We keep walking around thinking because we bought expense audio gear, that we must have an A+ grade in being a critical listener. Or that by listening to live music, you get there. That is just a false premise. The only way you know to have critical listening abilities is to have yourself tested where you don't know the answer. Then if you get a better grade than everyone else, OK, you have critical listening abilities. But no such data ever comes forward. The opposite is aplenty however. When I was at Microsoft, we tested very high bitrate lossy compression against the original using our audiophile alias. Not one of the hundreds of people we tested could match our critical listeners, none of which were high-end audiophiles.

Our record as audiophiles is just shameful in this regard. Given any bias-controlled test and we fall flat on our face. We can't tell 8 generation of ADC/DAC loss that Ethan put forward. We can't tell 320 kbps MP3 from the original. We flunk any blind listening test comparing products that we think are obviously better and worse than each other.

So please don't get me started on this . We need to get down from our high horses, as hard as that might be emotionally, and accept that we are not as a group critical listeners. That our observations are routinely faulty. We make up technical theories with no technical background. We assign cause and effect with total disregard of many factors being involved in the final outcome.

Between us chickens, let's be more cautious here. I mean how bad does it need to get when in the PNW meeting most people can't even hear an amplifier clipping? If we can't hear this, how are we to trust that folks are hearing unknown problems in digital? Or that experience listening to live music in any way, form or fashion prepares you to judge a recording that you know nothing about its production???


It is all imaginary problems in dire need of some data to verify them. As I explained to John, if these problems are so easily audible, then folks should have no trouble passing Ethan's test where he washed the same signal 8 times through ADC/DAC. As I said, I passed that test but it was incredibly difficult. Most of you would not have a prayer of hearing it. 8 times through digital and analog and folks still can't hear it yet they know they get ear fatigue from digital? Really?

Yes, I am serious, Amir. I may not be a trained listener, but neither were many who took part in the listening tests at Harmon on whose opinions that company relies. Listening with care, and even critically, in laymen's terms, is what many of us do when comparing components, hearing other's systems, going to shows, listening to live music to educate ourselves, and in all sorts of other ways. It is what I do when listening for cartridge/arm adjustments to my set up.

No one has perfect ears, and we are all flawed.

Expensive gear, that is relative and has little meaning in this discussion. It is not imaginary when I and a friend audition three DACs with the same music and in the same system and identify through listening various differences. Which difference one prefers in his digital sound, is a personal decision. As is the filter or algorithm he chooses to listen through. Selecting digital is also about preferences for many of us.