Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
- Status
Another contender? ... http://www.monoandstereo.com/2016/04/aqua-acoustic-optologic-formula-dac.html.
I have not heard digital glare for some years but I am format agnostic - I still prefer analogue in many cases and I prefer digital in other cases. I hear problems with both formats but the problems with 16 bit, low sample rate digital for me are worse for my subjective listening enjoyment than the problems I have with good analogue playback. But the problems I hear with high resolution, pristine 24 bit digital playback are less of a problem than the aforementioned analogue problems. I think there are a lot of reasons people might not like digital, but glare is just one of several issues and is in my opinion the easiest one to get rid of because that is an issue than comes down to the quality of the equipment and recordings, not the inherent format.
The funny thing is that in my experience, some types of jitter can actually be pleasant to listen to and produce exactly the opposite effect. I think there was a Tim de Paravicini product that measured "poorly" in jitter tests. But it was praised for it's smooth, analogue sound. I can experiment, for example, with different brands and types of CD blanks, burners and burner speeds and these combinations will create different "baked in" jitter into the final CD. They all have precisely identical data but they all sound different. It is the noise profile of the jitter that makes the difference. There is a cheap CD blank I can buy from the supermarket than creates a warm and smooth sound but it is not nearly as accurate sounding on playback to an expensive Japanese mastering CD-R (as compared to the CD master file). Some jitter will actually have a smoothing and tube-like effect if the noise happens be in the "right" places (or, not in the "wrong" places), other times it will make the music harsh and indeed glary. It would not surprise me if audio gurus like Tim have taken advantage of this when designing products that may not shine in the measurement lap but certainly shine in the playback room.
This "noise can make it sound better" phenomenon is also referred to in more than one professional dither module where as a general piece of advice, it is often mentioned that adding more dither than required (i.e there is a specific, mathematically perfect level of noise to add when dithering, then there is extra noise you can add over and above that) will "smooth out" the sound. And in my experience adding less than the mathematically perfect amount of noise will add a lot of "presence" and "immediacy" but it does not take very long for listening fatigue to set in in such circumstances.
Here is an excerpt from the user manual of the X-Dither module that I have installed on my workstation (with me underlining the important bit):
"..DITHER LEVEL (LOW, OPTIMUM, HIGH) – Sets the dither noise level used for the dither
and all noise shaping modes. The OPTIMUM setting is the mathematically proper level,
however sometimes switching to the LOW level combined with the noise shaping modes
will provide a alternate proper, undistorted sound with a reduced noise floor. Using HIGH
setting may result in more noticeable noise while the overall smoothness and depth of the
processed track may be improved..."
My reaction to the above statement is accurately summed up by the phrase "fiddle-faddle".
It is very interesting for me to read this (in bold above) from a guy who likes both analog and digital: A) that measurements are not everything in digital, and B) that listening fatigue is a real phenomenon. Quite refreshing. I think Al M. might agree. I know that he too has heard digital sound that is fatiguing. He and I discussed tonight that it is most likely a problem with implementation of the play back gear rather than inherent in the format per se.
We listened to his system on Saturday and to my system tonight. One digital, the other analog, one SS, the other tubes. Both made good music. I think it all matters to varying degrees: mastering, quality of the recording, the playback gear, the room, how the system is set up. If those are all done well, the format is perhaps less important than the rest, and each can be very enjoyable.
Saying that "listening fatigue from digital is obvious to anyone experiencing it" is a tautology; it is only "obvious" if you already know what it is, it is using a conclusion to justify a hypothesis (or proposal).
Only because you mentioned "dither" and that I use this CD player @ home ? http://rotel.com/sites/default/files/RCD-991 Hifi Choice Sept99.pdf
• http://www.audioasylum.com/reviews/CD-Player-Recorder/Rotel/RCD-991/general/29931.html
"In the case of Joni Mitchell's Blue,? I had an earlier non-HDCD issue CD and an LP available for comparison. The non-HDCD CD CD came in on the bottom, and now I will irritate all the LP lovers. The LP was slightly more musical, had noticeable surface noise, some pre-echo, poorer dynamics and didn't make the first spot. HDCD won. Will all recordings end up in the same order? No, but a well mastered HDCD can beat out anything short of a very, very good vinyl pressing on most systems.
Spend a few thousand on a cartridge, turntable, phono amp and a good phono stand and it might be a different story."
...And that it is relevant to this thread's subject.
Actually I choose my wording and phrasing carefully. I think you missed the very important word pristine that I inserted when I referred to 24 bit digital. A synonym for pristine is spotless. In audio that is what happens when you have a proper 24 bit noise floor fully controlled with fanatical attention to power supplies, power conditioning, clocking and software configuration amongst other things. The negative effects of such control and fanatical attention to detail are less than the less attractive facets to analogue replay. I have never said I think analogue and digital are flawless. Had you actually read my posts properly you would read that I said they are both flawed.
And yes, the snake analogy holds true for any system where attention to detail has been neglected, or indeed at the recording stage. And unless the remastering engineer has fantastic listening skills and has the right equipment, any classical commercial CD is going to be a disaster in my book. Many fully digital modern classical releases sound terrible whether you are talking about the CDs or the high res downloads. I could give specific labels and specific releases but I will not for obvious reasons. On the other hand, many are good too. I was at a hifi store just last week and every demo the saleman threw at me sounded absolutely appalling (I used my own selection of audition tracks so I knew exactly what they were supposed to sound like). Yet it sounded disgusting, even when listening to a $6,000 Stax electrostatic system. And I told him so. Turns out it was because he was using a USB interface, even when connected into one of these modern fancy expensive DACs that are supposed to perform miracles with USB. When we changed to SPDIF, it sounded "normal" again. That is just another example of how easy it is to destroy good digital sound.
Thanks for trying though. I'm sure you and some others here are having a ball trying to derail and discredit what is actually an interesting discussion by other more mature and open-minded participants.
Last edited:
I remember listening to some Blues music from this player with B&W speakers (higher end) back in the days of some audio dealers with a "knack". ...Nice.
• http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/86/#c20qvWq83OHxKoJW.97
• http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/86/#c20qvWq83OHxKoJW.97
Not necessarily when it is replayed on top level digital equipment. Then the game changes completely. Even my 1986 CD of Bartok's violin sonatas (Kremer/Smirnov), which I thought was a bad digital transfer of a potentially carelessly produced analog recording, sounded amazing on the dCS Rossini (which obviously also meant that the original analog tape turned out to be great as well).
Sorry if I misunderstood your position. I take your statement I quoted above at face value. Pure and simple. If you interpret that as being immature and close minded and meant to derail or discredit, so be it.
From Paul McGowan's newsletter this am - it gives another opinion as to why vinyl replay might be preferred.
I don't have a link so I hope he approves of inserting it into this discussion. Italics for emphasis are mine.
The sound of vinyl
While speaking to the LA Audio Society last weekend my “speech” turned into a free-for-all – not quite a brawl, but a lively discussion. And this often happens when I speak in public; it’s something I encourage. The subject was vinyl vs. digital and how we optimize our systems for one or the other.
I have long pondered why vinyl is such an attractive format for serious music lovers. It’s a technically inferior reproduction medium, relative to digital. And yet, most of us have experienced vinyl’s allure. Despite its technical shortcomings, vinyl systems often sound more musically engaging and “real” than their digital counterparts. I’ve heard it, you’ve heard it, and for those that have not shared the same experience, I can confidently suggest you’ve heard of it.
Attending our meeting was my good friend, musician and writer, Dan Schwartz. Dan’s got a hell of a good set of ears. He once was a reviewer for TAS during the HP days. And Dan proffered a suggestion that resonated with me, one I want to share with you and then expand upon in the coming days. First, a bit of background.
I have long believed one of the major differences between the sound of vinyl and digital has more to do with the way they were mastered than the playback medium itself. To master for vinyl we must first compress the dynamics to fit into the available space, if the original was from a digital recording. If from analog tape, a smaller amount of compression is needed. To master digital we remove compression and adjust the peaks so they never exceed maximum volume (though some mastering engineers add a peak limiter to master digital). This is because the maximum dynamic range of vinyl is less than 70dB, while digital is close to 100dB for CDs, 130dB or more for higher resolution audio–a far cry from vinyl’s restricted dynamics. And yet, vinyl has this magic….
Dan suggested that one of the results of compression is to bring up the low level signals so they are actually louder than when first recorded–as if the microphones had been placed a little closer to the instruments, capturing more of the decay and overtones–inner details more evident without sounding compressed. This might answer one of the consistent compliments paid to vinyl systems, a feeling of getting closer to the music.
We’ll start looking into this and some other ruminations tomorrow.
I don't have a link so I hope he approves of inserting it into this discussion. Italics for emphasis are mine.
The sound of vinyl
While speaking to the LA Audio Society last weekend my “speech” turned into a free-for-all – not quite a brawl, but a lively discussion. And this often happens when I speak in public; it’s something I encourage. The subject was vinyl vs. digital and how we optimize our systems for one or the other.
I have long pondered why vinyl is such an attractive format for serious music lovers. It’s a technically inferior reproduction medium, relative to digital. And yet, most of us have experienced vinyl’s allure. Despite its technical shortcomings, vinyl systems often sound more musically engaging and “real” than their digital counterparts. I’ve heard it, you’ve heard it, and for those that have not shared the same experience, I can confidently suggest you’ve heard of it.
Attending our meeting was my good friend, musician and writer, Dan Schwartz. Dan’s got a hell of a good set of ears. He once was a reviewer for TAS during the HP days. And Dan proffered a suggestion that resonated with me, one I want to share with you and then expand upon in the coming days. First, a bit of background.
I have long believed one of the major differences between the sound of vinyl and digital has more to do with the way they were mastered than the playback medium itself. To master for vinyl we must first compress the dynamics to fit into the available space, if the original was from a digital recording. If from analog tape, a smaller amount of compression is needed. To master digital we remove compression and adjust the peaks so they never exceed maximum volume (though some mastering engineers add a peak limiter to master digital). This is because the maximum dynamic range of vinyl is less than 70dB, while digital is close to 100dB for CDs, 130dB or more for higher resolution audio–a far cry from vinyl’s restricted dynamics. And yet, vinyl has this magic….
Dan suggested that one of the results of compression is to bring up the low level signals so they are actually louder than when first recorded–as if the microphones had been placed a little closer to the instruments, capturing more of the decay and overtones–inner details more evident without sounding compressed. This might answer one of the consistent compliments paid to vinyl systems, a feeling of getting closer to the music.
We’ll start looking into this and some other ruminations tomorrow.
Please note the lack of "qualifiers" in this post.
I fail to see the "open minded" viewpoint / perspective and "maturity" in the above statement.
Sounds pretty "open and shut / case closed" to me but maybe I'm missing something.
We also have to consider the other perspective of such argument - it usually referred that the real bad sounding re-issues in CD of great LP recordings was due to the use of tapes mastered for vinyl in the CD edition, because the master tapes were not available.
Steve,
I have to say that I absolutely dislike this tittle for mixed reasons. IMHO what many people call the "Return of the vinyl" is purely nostalgia and a respectful reaction against the "digital way of life", that should not be mixed with the use of vinyl by many audiophiles and music lovers because of sound quality. For promotional reasons all arguments gets stirred in a pot and give a false image of the reality, and simultaneously opens an way of entrance of trojans
in the vinyl community, using powerful arguments such as that the return of vinyl is mainly dominated by digital issued LPs ... I think (I can be wrong!) that the high quality analog sourced LP issues are profiting from the movement, but are a minority.The SACD community has a site keeping a list of the pure DSD recordings and the "hybrid" ones. It would be great of the vinyl people could have a similar list. Do you remember the good truthful days of the AAD, ADD and DDD?
IMHO this "return" is not a proof of superior sound quality, but mostly a very interesting social event and should be explored separated from sound quality debates, perhaps in separate thread if there interest in it.
- Status
Similar threads
