Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

What is your preferred format for listening to audio

  • I have only digital in my system and prefer digital

    Votes: 17 26.2%
  • I have only vinyl in my system and prefer vinyl

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • I have both digital and vinyl in my system. I prefer digital

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • I have both digital and vinyl in my system. I prefer vinyl

    Votes: 17 26.2%
  • I have both digital and vinyl in my system. I like both

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • I have only digital in my system but also like vinyl

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • I have only vinyl in my system but also like digital

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    65
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

+1.

I was going to respond to Frantz.

I would add that while sound reproduction is a technical product of pieces of technology along with physical or electronic media, our personal viewpoint and perception interpretation is based on how it effects us as art, and how it compares to our expectations as art.

the technical is the vehicle to deliver the art. but any art has some sort of basis in the physical world. any art must obey the laws of science.

OTOH if one wants to just listen to test tones then maybe there is a merely technical aspect apart from the art and sensual. I doubt if anyone has fond memories of their last 'test tone' concert.
 
OTOH if one wants to just listen to test tones then maybe there is a merely technical aspect apart from the art and sensual. I doubt if anyone has fond memories of their last 'test tone' concert.

High res test tones sound as good as 45RPM vinyl pressings....
 
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.

I will only address the part in bold - and say that IMHO it is not, although being far from what was played is not a signal of quality. ;) It is assumed since long that the aim of stereo sound reproduction is not reproducing the physical conditions of the event, and not only because it is not possible using stereo. It is why it is not easily measurable and must be carried also subjectively. It is why, as you say, we have from "the mastering to recording engineers". And I add "from the mastering and recording engineers to the audio designers".
 
the closer we come to reproduce what was played the better the results..

Hello Frantz

Are you a King Crimson fan?? If you are and have the Larks Tongue in Aspic box set listen to the " Keep That One Nick" CD. It is raw recordings of instruments and some takes which made it into the final mixes. They are not even close in some cases and it really shows you how much is going on as they record and mix the album. With these multi-tracked recordings it more like play what's on the media as that really is the end product.

Rob:)
 
Hello Frantz

Are you a King Crimson fan?? If you are and have the Larks Tongue in Aspic box set listen to the " Keep That One Nick" CD. It is raw recordings of instruments and some takes which made it into the final mixes. They are not even close in some cases and it really shows you how much is going on as they record and mix the album. With these multi-tracked recordings it more like play what's on the media as that really is the end product.

Rob:)

I AM!!!

Will take my time to listen to it. I have no problem with the notion of a recording being a construct. A manufactured, constructed, transformed product. So what I would like to hear is that product as it was manufactured/etc/ not an edited version of it. To continue the discussion if it is modified even further why would it be more "real"? Some declare the LP closer to the "real" thing that is OK to prefer that version but it isn't superior because some like it. You can't proclaim it to be so. You cannot make of that preference an element of superiority of taste or system. You can only prefer it.
 
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.
Mike, I must say that I'm not quite sure what you're after ... okay, we'll go back to the post that started it - you said

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

For me it was an "uber" system, because the key ingredients, amplifier and speakers, were not cheap; for me, it delivered "uber" performance; the brands involved, Bryston and Dynaudio, are well known as no nonsense, technology driven companies, who only use audiophile approved terms in their advertising to appeal to potential buyers - the "scientific method" was that used to develop these products.

That the assembled system "worked", represents what the objectivists say: simply combine high performance component parts, and high quality sound is realised, automatically.

The system was assembled by a local distributor of at least some of the items on show, who wanted to show off the high end items in the product line. That it "worked" was a fortuitous circumstance, evidenced, to me, by the demonstrator not "getting" it while listening - commented on the room overloading on the sound levels; yes, it was intense, in the same way that it would have been intense if live musicians had been in the same space - to me that was the point, and something he didn't appreciate!

So, no "documented" process - merely how all competent audio should function: combine the pieces which are sufficiently capable into a system, and the end product is therefore competent sound. That this doesn't happen 99.9% of the time is an indictment of the industry, of course ...
 
With highly manipulated recordings, how does one pick what is 'correct'? What's gold, for me, is having vocals as some part of the sound structure - I use that sound element as a signature to compare against: if the human voice sound comes with an artificial, unconvincing patina, in a subjective sense, then the "playback is not right". People will say, "But all sorts of effects boxes will have been used!" - yes, but the core quality of the voice being human is not lost, unless extreme, intentionally distortive processing has been applied - I have a '80s recording which beautifully illustrates this principle.
 
Mike, I must say that I'm not quite sure what you're after ... okay, we'll go back to the post that started it - you said.....

I spent 3 paragraphs talking about how we subjectively assemble systems and view media and formats. you only quoted the bottom comment where I asked for even one 'uber' system with documentation that it was assembled objectively..

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.

then you posted about such a system but ignored my request for documentation as to how it was assembled by objective means.

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 ... ??

then I asked for the documentation that showed it was, in fact, assembled by objective means. and you said this.

For me it was an "uber" system, because the key ingredients, amplifier and speakers, were not cheap; for me, it delivered "uber" performance; the brands involved, Bryston and Dynaudio, are well known as no nonsense, technology driven companies, who only use audiophile approved terms in their advertising to appeal to potential buyers - the "scientific method" was that used to develop these products.

That the assembled system "worked", represents what the objectivists say: simply combine high performance component parts, and high quality sound is realised, automatically.

The system was assembled by a local distributor of at least some of the items on show, who wanted to show off the high end items in the product line. That it "worked" was a fortuitous circumstance, evidenced, to me, by the demonstrator not "getting" it while listening - commented on the room overloading on the sound levels; yes, it was intense, in the same way that it would have been intense if live musicians had been in the same space - to me that was the point, and something he didn't appreciate!

So, no "documented" process - merely how all competent audio should function: combine the pieces which are sufficiently capable into a system, and the end product is therefore competent sound. That this doesn't happen 99.9% of the time is an indictment of the industry, of course ...

I guess my point is that when you described the system, no where does it get to an answer to my original question.

do you see that?

nothing you posted makes any sort of case for an objectively derived system with 'uber' performance.
 
nothing you posted makes any sort of case for an objectively derived system with 'uber' performance.
In the sense you're that trying to resolve the dilemma of the right approach for creating one's own system, yes, I would agree with you that I haven't "answered your question". And a large part of the problem is encapsulated in what you said here ...

or 'should we believe in what we think we perceive through listening? or do we need some sort of objective test?
From my perspective, both are correct! Objective tests that truly measure the competence that matters are necessary, but, the only criterion that ultimately counts in assessing success or otherwise, for the whole exercise, is whether the reproduction "sounds right or not".

The "objective means" used in the particular system I referred to were probably no more and no less than what are typically used by demonstrators - certainly not the ones "that matter"! The measurements aren't there, to this day, to allow an intelligent, rational process to be used to make the selections - the most useful conventional metric in that particular case is that the amplifier had enormous headroom, for the speakers used. And in fact, that is usually part of the answer for most successful systems these days, something I have come across many times in my reading about positive outcomes - the system is always working well, well below its potential SPL capability, for almost all normal listening. This is an objective metric I would always draw on if asked to assemble some system, on the spot, and wanted some assurance that it had at least the potential for 'uber' performance.
 
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....My conclusion is that it is truly the mastering that is the key, maybe not the medium.

It actually wouldn't surprise me in 2016 if there were actually more people living happily with both analogue and digital reproduction than there are those who steadfastly listen to one or the other whilst pro-actively avoiding the other. I may be wrong of course but the fact is good sound can be hard from both. Despite my relatively modest gear I too am now very happy with what I am able to achieve with both formats, with several nameless Swedish devices being the final garnish that really "got me there".

Last night I was listening to two digitally sourced vinyl LPs back to back. Both were engineered by world class classical engineers and both used state of the art equipment for their respective eras. One was originally recorded on a modified Sony PCM1610 at 16/48 in the mid 1980s and the other on a thoroughly modern 24/192 setup. The former one does not sound bad, nor is there anything particularly objectionable about it. However, the timbre of the instruments is "off", the violin section sounds "clumpy" and the feeling of the concert hall and the 3D imaging is not as good as it could be. It certainly does not sound like a real concert. The latter one - only recorded a couple of years ago - is so good that even I have difficulty laying criticism and if anything, I can only complain about some of the edits being audible with careful listening - not the fault of the gear or the original recording engineer. I do believe, however, that if hypothetically, had the respective ear being used been "swapped" with these two recordings, I'd be swapping my statements around too. Only hi-res digital can reproduce a full violin section where you can sense each and every player, with each of them being quicker or slower on a bow change than their deskmate by milliseconds, pressing a bit harder or softer on the strong, moving the bow a bit faster or slower, etc. It is what I hear all the time in a concert hall, but I only have a couple of recordings that manage it.
 
Only hi-res digital can reproduce a full violin section where you can sense each and every player, with each of them being quicker or slower on a bow change than their deskmate by milliseconds, pressing a bit harder or softer on the strong, moving the bow a bit faster or slower, etc. It is what I hear all the time in a concert hall, but I only have a couple of recordings that manage it.
... ??????

Edit: People ask, how does fas42 hear what's "better" ... mighty simple: bad = blurred, slightly unsavoury mess in the strings; good = "a full violin section where you can sense each and every player, with each of them being quicker or slower on a bow change than their deskmate by milliseconds, pressing a bit harder or softer on the strong, moving the bow a bit faster or slower" - now, where's the Audio Precision box that gives me a number on that ...
 
Last edited:
... ??????

Sorry, I will repeat it for you:

Only hi-res digital can reproduce a full violin section where you can sense each and every player, with each of them being quicker or slower on a bow change than their deskmate by milliseconds, pressing a bit harder or softer on the strong, moving the bow a bit faster or slower, etc. It is what I hear all the time in a concert hall, but I only have a couple of recordings that manage it.
 
Sorry, I will repeat it for you:

Only hi-res digital can reproduce a full violin section where you can sense each and every player, with each of them being quicker or slower on a bow change than their deskmate by milliseconds, pressing a bit harder or softer on the strong, moving the bow a bit faster or slower, etc. It is what I hear all the time in a concert hall, but I only have a couple of recordings that manage it.

we all have different levels of digital and vinyl references. I respect you hear what you hear. and certainly the way particular recordings are recorded and mastered can make significant differences even beyond format issues.

I have lots of all analog Lp pressings of string quartets, and plenty of all digital too. I enjoy both the Lps and the digital. I listen to them both, often. I especially use string quartets as test tracks. I have found that as a group string quartets are particularly consistently well recorded. the simplicity and smaller venues tend to result in particularly honest recordings.

but when I've compared the Lps and the digital directly in my particular system.....game, set, match to the vinyl. in any way you want to put it.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Fiddle Faddle

You mean,

In your experience "Only hi-res digital can reproduce a full violin section where you can sense each and every player, with each of them being quicker or slower on a bow change than their deskmate by milliseconds, pressing a bit harder or softer on the strong, moving the bow a bit faster or slower, etc." ...

The field of psychophysics called Auditory Scene Analysis is delving into what goes on here - higher quality playback allows one to relatively easily focus on one auditory object in a mix of sounds - say an individual strings player - and follow "what they're doing" - this is called an auditory stream, in the jargon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu