Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[microstrip]

That was not the point of the story. The point was what I told him: you need some way of grading your listening ability that is devoid of yourself. You can't say X sounded a lot worse than Y and I was right! Who says you were right? In my case, I had another person with very good listening abilities, i.e. my designer saying my impression was wrong. And so were two clients. In the case of Fiddle, who says he was right and not the salesman?

To make this more concrete, I will donate $1,000 to Fiddle's favorite charity if he can pass that same test he mentioned without knowing which interconnect is in use. That USB sound was appalling relative to S/PDIF. There is not a bone in my body that accepts that conclusion as anything but a faulty conclusion. Or else I would not make that offer .

Trying the blind test challenge of the audiophile to exhibit the result as a triumph in an audiophile forum? It is an old trick, I expected better as an argument.

The problem we face is that our total opinion of audio is built on a number of faulty tests and incorrect conclusions. That then forms a basis of strong bias leading to statements such as noise being 140 db down makes digital sound bad. I am sure Fiddle has strong conviction on that and it is as solid as anything else he would say about his life experiences. But that doesn't rise up to any level of factuality when the protocol to get there was beyond unreliable.

This total opinion of audio has lead us to great stereo equipments, great stereo systems and great stereo subjective enjoyment, that transcends your vision of stereo. You suggest us great scientific papers and training ourselves since long. Most audiophiles here know what way they have chosen and want to stay with. Even some of the most skeptic have skeletons in their closets!

 

[amirm]

Trying the blind test challenge of the audiophile to exhibit the result as a triumph in an audiophile forum? It is an old trick, I expected better as an argument.

Triumph? Surely I am not the only one that is highly skeptical of a USB connection in a high-end store sounding appalling. Am I? What odds do you give to him being right?

 

[amirm]

This total opinion of audio has lead us to great stereo equipments, great stereo systems and great stereo subjective enjoyment, that transcends your vision of stereo.

It is a lucky thing that so much of what we mess with in audio, have little down side. Two power cables get compared and one is declared far better than the other. If the truth is that they both sound the same, then the wrong opinion doesn't harm anything as far as that great subjective experience. Same with buying an expensive amplifier versus cheap. Using expensive shelving versus not. On and on. There is no downside to being wrong so wrong we are.

It is that which makes every opinion in audio fly these days.

Anyway back to LP versus CD, the points that were made in the article are still on the table. Haven't seen answers to why all the flaws in manufacturing and delivery of sound to us is not audible or bothersome to folks. It all points to lack of critical listening abilities.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

this line of discussion......who's listening opinions are credible?.....relates back to discussions of reviewers. which reviewers are credible? no different than 'who here is credible?.....or 'should we believe in what we think we perceive through listening? or do we need some sort of objective test? or must we have some sort of way to eliminate bias?

I say it's is mostly a matter of experience combined with the feedback loop; whether with each other, or a particular reviewer, or in our own systems for ourselves. you listen and relate those perceptions to others, who also listen. there is a feedback loop both in your own experiences and from others with similar gear or media or whatever. reviewers write their perceptions and then you compare that to what you hear. do this for 5 or 10 or 20 years and you have a depth of experiences and methodology to draw on. plus learned processes.

you work hard to develop a system and mental approach that is both truthful and satisfying. and allows you to both enjoy the process and be able to make good decisions.

or.....you forget all that and follow some set of quasi scientific methodology and ignore the long term learned tried and true path you have been on that has taken you and your system to where it's at.

hummmmm???

which way to go?

just once I'd love to see some sort of uber system with uber performance built with scientific method. and see the documented process that created it. the problem, of course, is that the passion and commitment to do it (play at the uber level) is lacking with those who are religious about the scientific approach.

 

[sbo6]

this line of discussion......who's listening opinions are credible?.....relates back to discussions of reviewers. which reviewers are credible? no different than 'who here is credible?.....or 'should we believe in what we think we perceive through listening? or do we need some sort of objective test? or must we have some sort of way to eliminate bias?

I say it's is mostly a matter of experience combined with the feedback loop; whether with each other, or a particular reviewer, or in our own systems for ourselves. you listen and relate those perceptions to others, who also listen. there is a feedback loop both in your own experiences and from others with similar gear or media or whatever. reviewers write their perceptions and then you compare that to what you hear. do this for 5 or 10 or 20 years and you have a depth of experiences and methodology to draw on. plus learned processes.

you work hard to develop a system and mental approach that is both truthful and satisfying. and allows you to both enjoy the process and be able to make good decisions.

or.....you forget all that and follow some set of quasi scientific methodology and ignore the long term learned tried and true path you have been on that has taken you and your system to where it's at.

hummmmm???

which way to go?

just once I'd love to see some sort of uber system with uber performance built with scientific method. and see the documented process that created it. the problem, of course, is that the passion and commitment to do it (play at the uber level) is lacking with those who are religious about the scientific approach.

You make it binary. Doesn't it make sense to leverage everything at your disposal? Why not use both?

A simple example - When recently adding a 2nd sub I measured to aid with placement and a more linear response but fine tuning was done with my ears. The sonic benefits would have likely been less if I relied on just one, or would have at least taken much longer to achieve.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

You make it binary. Doesn't it make sense to leverage everything at your disposal? Why not use both?

A simple example - When recently adding a 2nd sub I measured to aid with placement and a more linear response but fine tuning was done with my ears. The sonic benefits would have likely been less if I relied on just one, or would have at least taken much longer to achieve.

I agree. no doubt we use the tools that we can to get our own truth. I doubt anyone here has never used measurements or science. but it's more the exception than the rule. and we know certain type processes are better left to measurements. but science is a tool used when appropriate; we are not slaves to it or limited by it. we trust our senses for the ultimate proof....science cannot define art.

science cannot tell us what sounds better. 'better' is not measureable.

 

[TBG]

this line of discussion......who's listening opinions are credible?.....relates back to discussions of reviewers. which reviewers are credible? no different than 'who here is credible?.....or 'should we believe in what we think we perceive through listening? or do we need some sort of objective test? or must we have some sort of way to eliminate bias?

I say it's is mostly a matter of experience combined with the feedback loop; whether with each other, or a particular reviewer, or in our own systems for ourselves. you listen and relate those perceptions to others, who also listen. there is a feedback loop both in your own experiences and from others with similar gear or media or whatever. reviewers write their perceptions and then you compare that to what you hear. do this for 5 or 10 or 20 years and you have a depth of experiences and methodology to draw on. plus learned processes.

you work hard to develop a system and mental approach that is both truthful and satisfying. and allows you to both enjoy the process and be able to make good decisions.

or.....you forget all that and follow some set of quasi scientific methodology and ignore the long term learned tried and true path you have been on that has taken you and your system to where it's at.

hummmmm???

which way to go?

just once I'd love to see some sort of uber system with uber performance built with scientific method. and see the documented process that created it. the problem, of course, is that the passion and commitment to do it (play at the uber level) is lacking with those who are religious about the scientific approach.

Mike, I think we are a long way from having measures that would lead to the use of the scientific method. THD is one measure that we have, but many do not find it valid. I am perfectly happy to follow my own ears, but do wonder about why audiophiles spend so much time talking about audio and what they think sounds best. When I went to Long Island Audio Society meetings with a friend we used to laugh at what we called, "mine is bigger than yours" conversations.

 

[fas42]

just once I'd love to see some sort of uber system with uber performance built with scientific method. and see the documented process that created it. the problem, of course, is that the passion and commitment to do it (play at the uber level) is lacking with those who are religious about the scientific approach.

I have come across one - and the amusing thing is that audiophiles who were milling around paid it almost no attention! Its fatal flaw - it didn't sound like a hifi system! This was the Bryston and Dynaudio combo at the Sydney audio show I've mentioned many times, which just sounded like ... music! What a silly thing to do - have a system project a very natural sounding perspective on recordings - won't get one anywhere!!!

Because it didn't sound exciting, brash, in your face - it was a failure ... its competence was totally invisible to those who poked their head in the door. By contrast, I marveled at its ability to achieve disco sound levels with total authority, without a shred of audible artifacts.

So, what do people really want ... ??

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I have come across one - and the amusing thing is that audiophiles who were milling around paid it almost no attention! Its fatal flaw - it didn't sound like a hifi system! This was the Bryston and Dynaudio combo at the Sydney audio show I've mentioned many times, which just sounded like ... music! What a silly thing to do - have a system project a very natural sounding perspective on recordings - won't get one anywhere!!!

Because it didn't sound exciting, brash, in your face - it was a failure ... its competence was totally invisible to those who poked their head in the door. By contrast, I marveled at its ability to achieve disco sound levels with total authority, without a shred of audible artifacts.

So, what do people really want ... ??

I'd love to see the 'white paper' on the process and documentation on the performance.

did this system perform at 'uber' levels?

 

[microstrip]

(...) just once I'd love to see some sort of uber system with uber performance built with scientific method. and see the documented process that created it. the problem, of course, is that the passion and commitment to do it (play at the uber level) is lacking with those who are religious about the scientific approach.

If you look in the articles you will find that some respected audio scientists regret that the sound industry is still dealing mainly in this unreliable and limited system called stereo, too dependent on the listener. Their main target is multichannel. IMHO it is why there is so little research being carried about stereo psychoacoustics.

Again IMHO, in home theater, yes we can see systems built mainly with science and method, although the ultimate tools are our ears.

 

[fas42]

I'd love to see the 'white paper' on the process and documentation on the performance.

did this system perform at 'uber' levels?

In my estimation it did - depends on one's definition of 'uber', of course . To me the heart of it was the Bryston mono-blocks, their top of the line at that stage - these have been mentioned a number of times as being as close to being truly transparent as one can get.

When I walked in it was playing a track from Gracelands, the purely vocal number with the South African men's group - the sweetness and tangibility of each person's voice in the mix was superb, the best I had ever heard that track on another's system. I got the demonstrator to run through a number of styles of music, I couldn't fault it; finished with a drum solo number, and kept asking him to turn the volume up, well beyond what I've achieved. It never faltered, the kick drum impact in the gut was totally there, while the cymbals shimmered beautifully throughout - I would not have been able to imagine it being better done ...

 

[sbo6]

I agree. no doubt we use the tools that we can to get our own truth. I doubt anyone here has never used measurements or science. but it's more the exception than the rule. and we know certain type processes are better left to measurements. but science is a tool used when appropriate; we are not slaves to it or limited by it. we trust our senses for the ultimate proof....science cannot define art.

science cannot tell us what sounds better. 'better' is not measureable.

Agreed and well summarized. I would just add that - it is a bit of a conundrum especially for those with technical backgrounds - right vs left brain at odds but ultimately we don't listen to specs or charts we listen to a form of art - right 1/2 wins...

 

[spiritofmusic]

Fascinating, 88 pages in and almost-universal goodwill amongst contributors. Is this a record for WBF?
I have no doubt that the specs come out all in favour of digital, so the question then is why is there such a massive dichotomy in so many people's experience. For analog die hards like me, one can't seperate sound quality from holistic experience and cultural osmosis. My early record collecting was done well before cd came out, and the Golden Age of recording is/was 100% analog (tape/lp). This means that vinyl in is in my bloodstream (innoculated by the phonograph needle). My fury w/digital glare and hardness in the dark days of the 80's and early 90's created a migraine in me that is only just starting to shift w/where digital is today.
But I'm probably a bit unusual amongst lp diehards in being aware of many of the shortcomings of analog when put up against excellent digital, and so a Holy Grail for me has been to try and find analog that tries to match what's unique about digital, and digital that can emulate the uniqueness of analog. In that, my choice of current gear has been more than successful.
Recent ear opening experiences for me in a friend's system have been: the step change I hear in dsd being way closer to the analog vibe than 16/44 esp wrt tone, but imho being inferior in drive and energy than rbcd playback (one step fwd, one step back?), swapping to vinyl on a modest system still being streets ahead of dsd on a £20k player, but both dsd and audiophile vinyl being trounced by a simple Ella recording on 16/44 digital via streamer/dac.
My conclusion is that it is truly the mastering that is the key, maybe not the medium. My favoured recordings from the 50s to 90s being mastered way more sympathetically for vinyl (and it's limitations), but when mastering is spot on, the medium just doesn't matter (as was the case w/that magical Ella song). However the mastering really needs to be SPOT ON for this to be the case.
Unfortunately, these moments of trancendental brilliance are few and far between, and analog/lp seems to deal w/the inherent compromise better, and better more often, than digital.
IMHO/YMMV/terms and conditions apply, etc etc

 

[FrantzM]

I agree. no doubt we use the tools that we can to get our own truth. I doubt anyone here has never used measurements or science. but it's more the exception than the rule. and we know certain type processes are better left to measurements. but science is a tool used when appropriate; we are not slaves to it or limited by it. we trust our senses for the ultimate proof....science cannot define art.

science cannot tell us what sounds better. 'better' is not measureable.

Mike

Science can tell us a lot of things. Among them why we like some of the things we do. Our notion of "better" is not entirely random. If there is any consistency in something we deem to be "better" , IOW if it is repeatable then Science can explain it. Let's go beyond the truism that Science doesn't explain it all.
I am an engineer by trade and in my line of work, we do not "just" apply science, we interject a little bit of ourselves into what we do, then we call what we do our "Art". You give the same problem to 2 engineers and will likely get two different solutions. Music reproduction is a technological endeavor, not an Art form. There is an Art to achieving the results as there is an Art to make a bridge, another technological endeavor. In music reproduction since the reproduction cannot be perfect we all pick and choose according to what please us at a given time. That is explainable by Science. The most successful audio designs in a given audiophile opinion are those who regularly check his/her preferences boxes. Again can be explained by Science.
However anti-Science we want to be we are subject to its rules.. Better sound is measurable.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

In my estimation it did - depends on one's definition of 'uber', of course . To me the heart of it was the Bryston mono-blocks, their top of the line at that stage - these have been mentioned a number of times as being as close to being truly transparent as one can get.

When I walked in it was playing a track from Gracelands, the purely vocal number with the South African men's group - the sweetness and tangibility of each person's voice in the mix was superb, the best I had ever heard that track on another's system. I got the demonstrator to run through a number of styles of music, I couldn't fault it; finished with a drum solo number, and kept asking him to turn the volume up, well beyond what I've achieved. It never faltered, the kick drum impact in the gut was totally there, while the cymbals shimmered beautifully throughout - I would not have been able to imagine it being better done ...

Frank, please explain how you came to view this system as one that represents some sort of objective decision tree supporting it's assembly and set-up. I get that you liked it but that is not the idea under discussion.

how did this system's development differ from the more typical mostly subjective decision making process?

again; what I'm really after is documentation on the claim you are making. if it stood out as representing that thinking there should have been some evidence of that that made it memorable.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . The problem is not the hyperbole per se, it is the unjustified hyperbole. . . .

That is why the hyperbole police are walking the beat!

 

[microstrip]

(...) Music reproduction is a technological endeavor, not an Art form. There is an Art to achieving the results as there is an Art to make a bridge, another technological endeavor. In music reproduction since the reproduction cannot be perfect we all pick and choose according to what please us at a given time. That is explainable by Science. The most successful audio designs in a given audiophile opinion are those who regularly check his/her preferences boxes. Again can be explained by Science.
However anti-Science we want to be we are subject to its rules.. Better sound is measurable.

Frantz,

This is one point where we strongly disagree, although I see your point.

IMHO, in the high-end music stereo reproduction can claim to be an Art. Designers analyze the life experience, their audience and the product they are delivered - the recording - and they create products to deliver this message, surely adding or subtracting something to it to complement and enhance aspects of a limited format. Perhaps the simple technological delivery of the message is currently the objective of audio science, but for me it has never delivered rewarding results in the long time. And yes, even products measuring excellently sound different and deliver the message in different subjective ways - and unfortunately the more common reaction of "science" is denying it, not trying to understand it and the Art beyond it.

Think about an art exposition. I consider that selecting the appropriate objects to create the proper sequence of feelings in the visitor, creating the proper illumination and decoration of the space is art, making the artwork, all this is Art. I have followed the building of such expositions during all the phases and I have no doubt on it.

IMHO we do not need to be anti-science to accept it. It is a question of the definition of the objectives of sound reproduction, as people in WBF are permanently reminding us.

 

[PeterA]

Mike

Science can tell us a lot of things. Among them why we like some of the things we do. Our notion of "better" is not entirely random. If there is any consistency in something we deem to be "better" , IOW if it is repeatable then Science can explain it. Let's go beyond the truism that Science doesn't explain it all.
I am an engineer by trade and in my line of work, we do not "just" apply science, we interject a little bit of ourselves into what we do, then we call what we do our "Art". You give the same problem to 2 engineers and will likely get two different solutions. Music reproduction is a technological endeavor, not an Art form. There is an Art to achieving the results as there is an Art to make a bridge, another technological endeavor. In music reproduction since the reproduction cannot be perfect we all pick and choose according to what please us at a given time. That is explainable by Science. The most successful audio designs in a given audiophile opinion are those who regularly check his/her preferences boxes. Again can be explained by Science.
However anti-Science we want to be we are subject to its rules.. Better sound is measurable.

FrantzM, I agree with this up to the point where I don't understand what is being measured and what you mean by "better sound". In a recent direct comparison between the 45 rpm LP and quad DSD recordings of the Janaki String Trio on Yarlung, both MadFloyd and I thought the LP sounded "better" to us in his very resolving system. We define "better" as sounding more like real music. We both thought the DSD through the HQPlayer/NADAC sounded slightly artificial ("plastic"), with softened transients and less information, that is, less detail and resolution. The timbral information, in particular, that we heard from the LP sounded much more realistic and convincing to us.

I understand that measurements will verify that the DSD file is a better copy of the original recording. Could you describe what measurements would be used to attempt to objectively demonstrate why MadFloyd and I came to this conclusion, even if many here think it is the wrong conclusion? I suppose we need clarification of what better sound means. Preferable to the listener, more real, lower in distortion, or something else.

What measurements and what exactly would they show to indicate better sound?

 

[TBone]

My conclusion is that it is truly the mastering that is the key, maybe not the medium.

Any medium is inherently slaved to its given mastering, yet some audiophiles prefer to kill the messenger ...

 

[FrantzM]

We don't disagree that much microstrip. Not even weakly . The objectives of Sound Reproduction are technological. Dound Reproduction is a technology whose purpose is to make something that resembles music. There are different ways to do that and people have their preferences on the subject. All these can be explained by Science. The technology that supports, that makes the reproduction possible is grounded in Science. We fill the knowledge gaps with our subjective experiences. That changes nothing to it being a technology and thus explainable by Science.
It is not an Art exposition , far from it. An art exposition is a bunch of things some incredible people took out or their mind and transformed into something that elicit emotion in us... A concert is that. Its reproduction is not , it is a reconstruct and the closer we come to reproduce what was played the better the results.. All those are ..measurable. We know there is a lot to capture and we're not at a level where we can capture all that matters and even know all that matters.. some of the people making the recording add their little things to it.. From mastering engineers to recording engineers, they play with that came so that we the listeners can be better (hopefully) fooled. Call this an art, the results of such modification can be measured by the way and it would be in the interest of better reproduction that we know what they added so that it canbe replicated.. Measurements by any other name. It would be preferable in the absolute that our gears add nothing to what came from the medium. It would bear to reason that the medium that add the least to what came from the mastering studios would be the more preferred ... the more preferable. It has been repeated by many that it isn't so. We prefer the sound of a tape to a Live feed... aconstruct from the original. The thing is: we, humans, can develop a taste for a certain type of spices and often like add some spices to whatever the chef (Recording, Mastering Engineers and producers) had in mind, on many restaurants you will find the salt and pepper dispensers on the table.. As in restaurant we don't even know what the creators had in mind. We are however ready to add our own recollection or definition of the plate or the music to be played and from that we assign value to those. "Better", "superior", etc and would love this to be not measurable .. It is There is a reason and a measurable one why we prefer anything. That people care to measure these or not is a different debate.