Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Al M.]

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.

[…]

[…]

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?

Nothing to disagree with here, Jim. Vinyl does not exhibit maximum faithfulness to the master. But neither does most digital playback, as I argue here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ter-Than-Vinyl&p=389363&viewfull=1#post389363

Yet in principle digital, unlike vinyl, does have the capacity to exhibit maximum faithfulness to the master.

By the way, at home I only listen to digital. Yet I do hear significant failings of the format in all but the very best implementations.

 

[Jim Smith]

Nothing to disagree with here, Jim. Vinyl does not exhibit maximum faithfulness to the master. But neither does most digital playback, as I argue here:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ter-Than-Vinyl&p=389363&viewfull=1#post389363

Yet in principle digital, unlike vinyl, does have the capacity to exhibit maximum faithfulness to the master.

Hence my question - why is vinyl so widely used and accepted as the way to go?

 

[Al M.]

Hence my question - why is vinyl so widely used and accepted as the way to go?

Because on top vinyl playback, both in terms of equipment and of recordings/pressings, the timbre of some instruments is portrayed in a more believable manner. One example where great analog excels compared to most -- not all -- digital is discussed in an older post of mine the link to which I just provided.

Having said that, some audiophiles may choose vinyl simply because some vinyl playback may sound 'nicer' or more 'pleasant'. This, however, does not interest me. Believability of timbres does.

 

[Jim Smith]

Agreed on top vinyl playback, but IMO 90% (or more) are not enjoying top vinyl playback...

 

[rbbert]

Top vinyl equipment is expensive and a little touchy to set up, and then you still have to deal with physical imperfections on LP's themselves (in many if not most cases). And if you are dealing with music recorded or mastered in the last 30 years, it almost always has one or more digital "steps". For me, the very slightly more pleasant sound of only the best LP playback just isn't worth dealing with those disadvantages. If there were a bigger sound advantage to LP I might reconsider, but I just don't hear it.

 

[PeterA]

Hence my question - why is vinyl so widely used and accepted as the way to go?

LP enthusiast: "Because I prefer the way it sounds."

CD enthusiast: "I don't know."

 

[Jim Smith]

LP enthusiast: "Because I prefer the way it sounds."

CD enthusiast: "I don't know."

Again I ask, why do they prefer it, especially since they are not hearing everything that is on the LP - or for that matter - what IS actually there?

 

[mauidan]

Agreed on top, but IMO 90% (or more) are not enjoying top vinyl playback...

You set up PeterA's room, do you think his LP gear was set up well enough to reveal the musical engagement?

 

[amirm]

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.

No LP pop or click is remotely transparent or something you get used to. At least I don't. I jump out of my seat literally when I hear them. Nor is groove scratch. Nor is high frequency distortion. Hiss also becomes quite annoying to my ear the moment music gets quiet and it becomes audible right then and there.

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.

There is a difference between noise that comes from a speaker versus what is all around you. And no, when I listen to the real instrument, I don't hear hiss around me to think that is a realistic situation. Even if it were, what are we doing here? Trying to see how low a performance is still OK? That is not striving for high fidelity in my book.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Again I ask, why do they prefer it, especially since they are not hearing everything that is on the LP - or for that matter - what IS actually there?

I enjoyed your post #758. Turntable/tonearm/cartridge set-up is a black art. Some people swear by a digital microscope; others believe that such a microscope is not inherently accurate enough for perfect stylus alignment. Some people set azimuth by oscilloscope; others set it by ear.

Aligning one cartridge parameter may disturb another adjustment. Once the cartridge is properly aligned there are VTA and tracking force adjustments. Once those appear to be optimized there is cartridge loading. Then there is the capacitance characteristic of the tonearm cable.

It is almost impossible to be confident that all parameters are optimized. The wonder is not how many vinyl playback set-ups are imperfect; the wonder is that so many sound good at all!

The good news is that while there is no way to know that perfect vinyl set-up has been achieved, any LP set-up which is good enough to get you on the paper target is going to sound great!

My answer to your question is that as flawed by your professional benchmark as many LP set-ups may be they nonetheless enable the owners of those systems to approach Objective 1 "recreate the sound of an original musical event" more successfully than they could with digital.

 

[amirm]

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.

It is not just superior measurements. It is superior fidelity that I like in digital. As I said with LP and to some extent tape, I am constantly drawn to their flaws when I hear them. Not so with digital. Its performance is solid and across the board. The authority of bass. The clean, absolutely clean high frequencies. No hiss. No groove noise. Nothing distracting from what the producer put in envelope.

I mean it would be awfully silly for a format that can demonstrate in every measurement to have vanishingly small distortions to actually not sound great or superior. It is logical that such pristine engineering performance translates into superlative listening experience. It absolutely does to my ear.

 

[jkeny]

No LP pop or click is remotely transparent or something you get used to. At least I don't. I jump out of my seat literally when I hear them. Nor is groove scratch. Nor is high frequency distortion. Hiss also becomes quite annoying to my ear the moment music gets quiet and it becomes audible right then and there.

That's some bad, dirty vinyl playback you have there, Amir.

There is a difference between noise that comes from a speaker versus what is all around you. And no, when I listen to the real instrument, I don't hear hiss around me to think that is a realistic situation. Even if it were, what are we doing here? Trying to see how low a performance is still OK? That is not striving for high fidelity in my book.

As I said before - it's an illusion & the illusion is judged by our auditory system,currently not by measurements - accuracy is not necessarily the aspect that most convinces our auditory system that this is a realistic illusion. Your focus on this aspect is perhaps blinding you to the bigger picture - what is important to auditory perception? Satisfy this criteria & you will create the most realistic illusion.

 

[jfrech]

LP enthusiast: "Because I prefer the way it sounds."

CD enthusiast: "I don't know."

I got a chuckle on that one...a lot of times this comes down to idealogical points. And when you've heard the best of both formats (like you have) you know they both have merits...and then the software you own is the deciding factor in what you listen to the most.

 

[amirm]

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.

You didn't identify anything through "listening." You identified something through listening, seeing, knowing and who knows what other factor. Subject yourself to a test where only, and only, listening is involved and every high-end audiophile fails the arrive at the same conclusions.

Recent example. I downloaded some PCM files that were converted from DSD from Bluecoast records. They were kind enough to give me copies of the DSD master. I played both in my Roon player to a PCM DAC. The DSD files sounded far better! Puzzled because real-time conversion of DSD by Roon shouldn't have sounded better than off-line converted ones that I downloaded. One look in the settings had the answer: by default Roon boosts DSD files by 6 db when converting to PCM! The result was a louder experience that revealed more detail. By ear I found a setting of +4db gave the same level as PCM and with it, all the difference vanished.

How easy would it have been to arrive at the wrong conclusion in such a comparison? Very easy. And this is what goes on when we don't have carefully controlled tests.

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.

Not really. First you have to demonstrate these differences are audible differences and not influences by your other senses. Until then, we are back to imaginary problems.

 

[Al M.]

- what is important to auditory perception?

That question is perhaps at the heart of the difference between listeners and their individual format preferences: their auditory perception differs.

(Apart from other questions like the relative quality of their analog vs. digital equipment etc.)

 

[amirm]

That's some bad, dirty vinyl playback you have there, Amir.

No, it is state-of-the-art, more expensive than a luxury car setups at shows.

 

[PeterA]

Again I ask, why do they prefer it, especially since they are not hearing everything that is on the LP - or for that matter - what IS actually there?

I can't answer for "they", but I can for me. Sound from LP reminds me more of what I hear when I go to the BSO or when I hear a live solo cello in a room or a string quartet on a small stage. Also live horns when a big band is playing at a dance and I am sitting with friends celebrating or out on the dance floor, or when a singer is singing in a jazz club. It also has a lot to do with what Al M. just wrote: timbral accuracy.

It is also about something else, but I have found this opinion is met with much contention lately. For me, it is also about the unpleasant sound of most digital: listener fatigue, high frequency glare, harshness. Perhaps I am more susceptible to these things, or I am imagining them, but I often cut listening sessions short because I become uncomfortable, uneasy, and just can't relax the way I can when listening to good analog. It is a minority opinion, I know, but I also know that I am not alone in feeling this way.

I abandoned LPs years ago, sold them all and started buying CDs. I have since gone back for the reasons I wrote above. Now, my collection is on LP and I have chosen to stick with one format because it is where my music is, I prefer the sound, I don't want to spend the money to start another music collection and new gear, and because of the time.

Even though I am not hearing everything that is on the LP, or what IS actually there, I prefer the sound, nonetheless. Do you think people are hearing everything that is on a CD or digital file? Recent listening sessions have convinced me that they are not. The same CD or file sounds different on every DAC that I have recently auditioned. And a few have revealed much more information that the others and presented it with much less distortion.

 

[amirm]

As I said before - it's an illusion & the illusion is judged by our auditory system,currently not by measurements - accuracy is not necessarily the aspect that most convinces our auditory system that this is a realistic illusion. Your focus on this aspect is perhaps blinding you to the bigger picture - what is important to auditory perception? Satisfy this criteria & you will create the most realistic illusion.

What is important? Eliminate distortions, noise and the sound of the medium to well below thresholds of hearing and you are golden. You have by definition achieved perfection as far as auditory perception is involved.

What you are doing is waiving hands saying this and that clearly audible, distorted, and audible problems are somehow "realistic illusions." They are not in the least.

 

[amirm]

Let's go back to the article with this quote:

"In 1968, a 23-year-old audio engineer named Bob Ludwig at New York's A&R Recording was asked to create a test pressing of The Band's debut, Music From Big Pink, so that the producers could hear what it would sound like on LP. During the process, he especially tried to preserve as much as possible of the deep low end of the band's sound, which he believed was critical to its music.

But when he heard the final LP that was released, he was stunned. "All the low, extreme low bass that I knew was there, was chopped right off.

Years later, when Ludwig was hired to provide the final edit (known as mastering) for a greatest-hits package for The Band, he got the album's master tapes back from Capitol Records. On the box was a note from the cutting engineer who'd made the original vinyl master, saying the album's extreme low end had to be cut out. Of vinyl's inherent deficiencies, reproducing bass is one of its most glaring."

How is this making the experience more realistic? How does it fool the ear into thinking it sounds better than digital John?

 

[Al M.]

It is also about something else, but I have found this opinion is met with much contention lately. For me, it is also about the unpleasant sound of most digital: listener fatigue, high frequency glare, harshness. Perhaps I am more susceptible to these things, or I am imagining them, but I often cut listening sessions short because I become uncomfortable, uneasy, and just can't relax the way I can when listening to good analog. It is a minority opinion, I know, but I also know that I am not alone in feeling this way.

While I am much less sensitive to these phenomena than you are, otherwise I would not listen exclusively to digital at home, recently I experienced unpleasant glare and an artificial sheen of hardness on top of all music by digital big time: with the NADAC playing straight PCM, rather than PCM upsampled to DSD where it performs much better and does not show any of this glare (of course you agree, since we both were listening together).

It was disturbing and fatiguing, even to me. The phenomenon is real, no doubt. It was a clearly audible artifact.