Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[PeterA]

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.

Amir, I think our discussions, those that are my responses to your threads, and your responses to my threads, get read but not understood. Ron suggested why this may be the case. You are indeed interested in fidelity to the master recording as the goal and it guides you in your decisions about audio.

I have a different goal and guide. I want what I hear through my own system to remind me of real music based on specific live references.

As such, we continue to think, write, and read past each other with little agreement or understanding of the other's point of view. It is not constructive for either of us, and I'm sure readers find it tiresome. I suggest that we agree to move on and to pursue this hobby in the way that it gives each of us the most enjoyment.

 

[Al M.]

Amir, I think our discussions, those that are my responses to your threads, and your responses to my threads, get read but not understood. Ron suggested why this may be the case. You are indeed interested in fidelity to the master recording as the goal and it guides you in your decisions about audio.

I have a different goal and guide. I want what I hear through my own system to remind me of real music based on specific live references.

But what is fidelity to the master recording? Most digital falls short of that, as I have argued here:

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

Again, in principle digital, unlike vinyl, does have the capacity to exhibit maximum faithfulness to the master but in most practical implementations it audibly does not, see my argument in above link. In the best implementations it may come close, revealing the theoretical potential of digital to a much greater extent.

 

[thedudeabides]

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

Hi Jim,

With all due respect, how do you determine "accepted" amongst the myriad of music listeners out there?

You seem to imply it is the "go to" media for serious music listeners. I would suggest that that is entirely conjecture based on your anecdotal observations.

Best.

 

[fas42]

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.

Amir, it's the potentially superior fidelity of digital which is where the action is. When CD sound, for me, snapped into 'rightness' 3 decades ago it then became trivially easy to instantly pick the audible flaws in any other digital playback I came across - to me the sound of 'dud' digital is as audible as the pops and clicks of vinyl, or the hiss of tape.

The problems are, that it's hard to measure these behaviours, and that they strongly disturb the ability to listen with pleasure for any extended time, for many audio enthusiasts.

 

[sbo6]

I find it interesting that no one (unless I missed it in a previous post) has cared to mention how the phono preamp changes the sound, especially tube versions. Is that keeping it true to the master?

 

[microstrip]

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.


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.

As I have clearly told before I am addressing 16 bits 44.1Khz - it is my only concern in this thread. There are hundreds of reports about the limitations of redbook, specially when compared with the so called Hi-Rez formats. They come from industry known people, such as Bob Stuart, and professionals with long experience, who mastered great recordings. They openly accepted that in ABX tests they were not able to identify the differences and why. See for example BobB Ludwig - "Regarding double blind testing Bob Ludwig said in the current issue of Tape-op (Jan 2015) (and he’s probably mastered a few more albums than have you): ” I think the higher resolution sounds reveal themselves not in A/B testing, but in long periods of time. Play an entire album in a relaxed atmosphere at 96 kHz/24-bit, then, at the end, listen to it at 44.1 kHz/16-bit, and you’ll get it right away. A/B testing, while the only scientific method we have, does not reveal too much with short-term back-and-forth comparisons due to the anxiety the brain is under doing such a test. . " - (my indirect report from a site, I do not have access to the original).

So I now know who to believe about CD perfection and imaginary differences.

To make it clear I never said that LP was better than CD - only wrote that is some types of music I preferred the LP and explained why in posts you do not care about - as you do with 99% of the subjective writings in WBF.

 

[thedudeabides]

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.

How can one possibly determine that analogue recreates the sound of the original musical event better than digital if one was not present at the original event?

JV of TAS suggested that this was a parameter to be used. There is no basis for this absent one being at the original event and then listening to the analogue or digital version of the recording. How many listeners would be able to make such an assertion?

I don't get it.

PS: And as many concert goers know, the sound of the event is highly dependent on where you are sitting in the hall not to mention the fact that no two halls sound alike.

 

[jkeny]

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.

Amir, that's a good start but is it everything that is needed? By & large, measurements are designed for the convenience of engineers, not because they reflect how we will perceive the sound. If we had good measurements that correlate with our auditory perception then I would agree with your measurements-driven approach. But, to my mind, you are ignoring this disconnect.

Measurements that correlate with auditory perception will bridge our two perspectives

BTW, I do believe that digital audio will become the superior platform but it needs to address some of it's evident implementation shortcomings & this will only happen when it's admitted that there are some shortcomings & genuine efforts are made to investigate what they are.

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.

No, I'm saying that despite these issues there is something still evident in the sound that digital audio often misses. What I'm saying is that we may be more tolerant of the flaws of vinyl - maybe because they are the result of "natural" mechanical processes sounds with which we are familiar in the real world, rather than flaws which result from mathematically manipulation which have no equivalent in the "natural" world.

What it is exactly is an interesting question. As I said already, digital audio may be a victim of it's own "near-perfection" - it's lower noise floor may allow for the perception of some anomalies which wouldn't be noticeable otherwise & perceptually they are more intrusive even though seemingly insignificant from the current stock measurements?

 

[amirm]

Amir, I think our discussions, those that are my responses to your threads, and your responses to my threads, get read but not understood. Ron suggested why this may be the case. You are indeed interested in fidelity to the master recording as the goal and it guides you in your decisions about audio.

I have a different goal and guide. I want what I hear through my own system to remind me of real music based on specific live references.

You can have that guide. It doesn't change anything. There is no logic at all that when a format explicitly distorts what is fed to it is said to contribute, using an unknown factor no less, to your guide. Indeed, everything we know about "high fidelity" reproduction says that we want to eliminate distortions, not celebrate them.

Now, the impression of something being live or not, comes from artistry of whoever recorded/mixed/masters the recording. If an LP of some music sounds more real to you than the CD, you need to celebrate that, not any attribution from the LP format. If anything, the LP format made harder for them to create that illusion for you.

BTW, embrace other forms of EQ as Jim said and you too can mess with the mastering to make it real.

As such, we continue to think, write, and read past each other with little agreement or understanding of the other's point of view. It is not constructive for either of us, and I'm sure readers find it tiresome. I suggest that we agree to move on and to pursue this hobby in the way that it gives each of us the most enjoyment.

Not at all. I know 100% your argument. It is the conclusion which you want to reach that is not valid. Instead of accepting the massive difference mastering makes for CD versus LP, you want to attribute any dislike of the final outcome to some mysterious, as yet not verified, in digital. It makes no sense to do that.

As to moving on, by all means do so. I am not holding your feet to the discussion/thread . I am backing up the message of the original article where authorities that actually make LPs and CDs have opined in a different manner than you are. And what they say is very much backed by what we know about the two formats. I have also brought fresh content into the thread in the form of AES workshop to teach people how to author LPs.

 

[fas42]

Just to repeat a couple of points I have mentioned before ...

At the Sydney audio show a couple of years ago I was surprised at the poor quality of the vinyl replay, echoing what was said earlier at the lack of expertise in making all the necessary adjustments. Mediocre was the best that could be said for most of them - only one replay of LP that I came across actually showed any real "class".

And, I strongly believe that digital replay can be "perfect". That is, under any and all circumstances, that the sound reproduction can be made to be as good as you want it to be, there are no limits - it's possible to achieve replay where one is never aware of audible problems, at any time, for any sort of music, past or present ...

 

[Jim Smith]

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

Great question! I never listen to the TT until I have the system/room as good as possible, with known sources.

Peter's TT was very good (above the average I typically see/hear.) This was maybe six years ago, so I might not have total recall, but I seem to remember a slight adjustment in SRA/VTA, as well as cartridge loading. Since I have noted his adjustments in subsequent posts, I think that is correct. He is welcome to correct me if I misremember.

 

[Jim Smith]

"Hi Jim,

With all due respect, how do you determine "accepted" amongst the myriad of music listeners out there?

You seem to imply it is the "go to" media for serious music listeners. I would suggest that that is entirely conjecture based on your anecdotal observations.

Best."

Maybe I should have been more precise. Sorry!

My observations are surely anecdotal as observations always are.

Of course, having voiced (with great success, as confirmed many places on the Internet) over 700 systems, there is typical anecdotal & qualified anecdotal...

 

[amirm]

Maybe I should have been more precise. Sorry!

FWIW, my observations are surely anecdotal as observations typically are.

Of course, having voiced (with great success, as confirmed many places on the Internet) over 700 systems, there is typical anecdotal & qualified anecdotal...

Your posts have been really good Jim. Nothing remotely to apologize for.

 

[mauidan]

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

What is important? Eliminate distortions, noise and the sound of the medium to well below thresholds of hearing and you are golden.

No you aren't. You can have noise in the digital domain 140 down and it still changes the sound of what is heard. That is the difference between digital and analogue. Analogue noise is benign. Digital noise is insidious and wraps itself around the music program like an anaconda in a choke hold. Because it negatively effects what we hear, unlike analogue noise. That is also why measurement and theoretical superiority don't work in actual listening tests for some people.

 

[NorthStar]

I showed this thread to my Mum, she read few @ random.
Then she said to me (in French); "Robert, you want to come with me this evening, there is a good play @ the theater, dance style and with new age opera music".

 

[JackD201]

You have a wise mum.

 

[amirm]

No you aren't. You can have noise in the digital domain 140 down and it still changes the sound of what is heard.

The best dynamic range of the ear is 116 db. This is demonstrable and provable. I have seen audiophiles flunk tests of hearing distortions down 60 db. 140 dB is not even wildly audible. Nor is analog remotely able to achieve something like that.

Thermal noise of a single 20K resistor in any part of your reproduction chain is -116 dbv. And who says that noise is pleasant?

That is the difference between digital and analogue. Analogue noise is benign. Digital noise is insidious and wraps itself around the music program like an anaconda in a choke hold. Because it negatively effects what we hear, unlike analogue noise. That is also why measurement and theoretical superiority don't work in actual listening tests for some people.

All of this again is imagined problems, and lay theories in dire need of a single data point of validating them.

And again, nothing is theoretical. Take an identical live feed and give it to CD and LP and the LP will sound worse. Here are the quotes from the article in OP again:

"Clearmountain, who now works out of Mix This! in Pacific Palisades, says that when he heard the vinyl test pressings of the albums he'd worked on in the studio, he always felt the same way: depressed.

"I'd just listen and go: 'Jesus, after all that work, that's all I get?' It was sort of a percentage of what we did in the studio," he says. "All that work and trying to make everything sound so good, and the vinyl just wasn't as good."

Not only did records provide only a sliver of what he'd done in the studio but they also came with plenty of sounds that hadn't been there in the first place: ticks and pops.

"If you're a musician like Bob and I," Ludwig says, "and you get to do a mix and you listen to it and you love the way it sounds, and then it's transferred to vinyl and suddenly it's got noise and ticks and pops, for me that's an extremely unmusical event."

While you are hypothesizing noise down -140 db, here is analog with clear, audible problems. Real loss of fidelity by the people who unlike us, can and do a before an after test.

And,

"Immink grew up saving his money to buy 45s by American artists such as Elvis Presley. But when his team started testing the digital audio disc, they used recordings of performances such as Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. Classical music could demonstrate the format's superior dynamic range over the LP better than popular music, which has a comparably smaller range — the distance between soft passages of music and loud ones.

"From a record player, it's impossible to have such a dynamic range," Immink says. "You have to suppress the dynamic range, otherwise the grooves will touch or you [have reduced] playing time."

You want more, here is more:

"Scott Metcalfe, director of recording arts and sciences at the Peabody Conservatory of Johns Hopkins University, says the move to CDs was especially beneficial for reproducing classical recordings.

"Really in every way measurable, the digital formats are going to exceed analog in dynamic range, meaning the distance between how loud and how soft," he says. "In the classical world, [that means] getting really quiet music that isn't obscured by the pops and clicks of vinyl or just the noise floor of the friction of the stylus against the [LP] itself."

"It is a fact that vinyl sounds different from CDs. And many people prefer vinyl's sound. But it's not clean reproduction of a recording that makes vinyl a preferred format; it's the affect the vinyl adds to a recording that people find pleasing.

"I think some people interpret the lack of top end [on vinyl] and interpret an analog type of distortion as warmth," says Jim Anderson, a Grammy-winning recording engineer and professor at New York University's Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music. "It's a misinterpretation of it. But if they like it, they like it. That's fine."

Still want to talk about digital noise at 140 db down? Well, there is more

"To get an album longer than 40 minutes to fit onto one LP, Lyman says, high frequencies and bass are the first things that go. There's also extra distortion because he has to cut the master lacquer at a lower volume to fit all that extra music onto the LP.

"As soon as you have to cut that record at a quieter volume, you're going to hear more kicks and pops, you're going to hear more surface noise," he says, "because you're going to have to turn your stereo up to accommodate the lower level on the disc."

I will stop here but let's not keep pushing the impossible up the hill. There is no problem that is obvious to anyone's ear in digital to audience here. There just isn't. If you love LP, that is great. But don't look for justification of it in a much cleaner, much more faithful medium that is digital. That dog don't hunt. It never did. It doesn't now.

 

[thedudeabides]

Digital noise is insidious and wraps itself around the music program like an anaconda in a choke hold. Because it negatively effects what we hear, unlike analogue noise.

Oh my. I now realize that I've had a snake around my neck choking me for the last thirty years of my life. Furthermore, now I know why I have sleeping issues.

Thank you FF.

 

[Rodney Gold]

Well digital clipping is a lot worse sounding than most analog clipping .. so I suppose if you are using that as a measure of distortion.....