Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Fiddle Faddle]

it is far from being dead. In Japan, they still account for about 85 percent of sales. Recently in Germany the figure was around 70 percent and in France it was 57 percent. Sweden is a country with very high streaming penetration - more than 90% of revenues are due to this form of distribution.

I expect for classical too it would still be a major seller. I know when our National FM classical music station plays new releases they never ever mention downloads - it is always the CD without exception. I actually can't think of any larger classical label off-hand that does not still produce CDs of every single recording it makes. And to me, even if I did have a streaming setup, I would still buy the CD for the physical package advantages (high quality printed liner notes and what is effectively an optical "hard copy" or "master" of the file that will end up on a hard drive).

 

[fas42]

It is a pity my disk from which I created the excerpt is not well centred so some wow is evident - one of the things I dislike about all analogue reproduction. Oddly enough sides 2 and 4 of the set are almost perfectly centred so wow isn't an issue, but sides 1 and 3 are not so good! (the excerpt was from side 3).

I find it strange that some standard device or add-on has not been created to solve that for an individual TT component - say, an insert, the concept being like that plastic add-on for pop 45's with the big hole; but highly refined, with the capability of being able to compensate for non perfect centering - I think Nakamichi did that for the TT itself at one stage ...

 

[NorthStar]

That poll; the music genre(s) we prefer can also swing that balance ever so slightly...like for classical music lovers for example...CDs...better dynamics and high frequencies articulation, plus the playing time. ...And the bass from organs...16Hz. ...Orchestral music has high, and low registers from that full audio spectrum. ...Subs are a very nice complement, in particular in larger rooms where impact is the classical music essence from 95 musicians on stage.

As opposed to jazz music lovers...LPs. ...And some pop/rock/folk/rhythm&blues music too. ...Full range speakers, without the need of a subwoofer or two. ...Bass @ 42Hz, piano @ 27Hz.

 

[amirm]

I saw that after I started the poll and have found it impossible to correct once the poll has started

I fixed it....

 

[Al M.]

Thank you, Steve, for amending the poll!

Yesterday I said I had to run, going to a concert. It was Mahler Symphony 9 with the Boston Symphony. Spectacular performance! Standing ovation afterwards.

I was there together with Madfloyd (Ian) who had invited me.

 

[Diapason]

Spectacular performance!

Highly subjective! Where are the measurements??

Standing ovation afterwards

Getting there. Did you measure the decibel level of the applause?

Edit: (Just in case there's any confusion!)

 

[Al M.]

Edit: (Just in case there's any confusion!)

Don't worry. But the points you are making are spot on!

 

[jkeny]

Highly subjective! Where are the measurements??



Getting there. Did you measure the decibel level of the applause?

Edit: (Just in case there's any confusion!)

Yea, bring back the clapometer - otherwise, how can we know we've enjoyed the performance?

 

[PeterA]

Yesterday I said I had to run, going to a concert. It was Mahler Symphony 9 with the Boston Symphony. Spectacular performance! Standing ovation afterwards.

I was there together with Madfloyd (Ian) who had invited me.

Al, I respectfully disagree. Your comments have little meaning in audio science. Your evaluation was sighted and you self graded your listening skills, making the above statement invalid. The fact that you may have even read the program highly biased your opinion of what you heard. Furthermore, what you think you heard was far removed from what was originally in Mahler's head as he imagined the composition. The mere act of translating his thoughts to two dimensional music notes on paper was a major corruption of the original idea with massive loss of information. Then, many years later, those notes were interpreted by the conductor, and again by the musicians during that particular performance further altering Mahler's original intent. Finally, the instruments' sounds that you heard were inexorably changed by that particular hall and the specific seat in which you were located.

What you heard was far removed from an exact copy of Mahler's original intent. The whole process was highly flawed from the moment he put pen to paper, the original recording process. That others seemed to agree with your subjective impressions by giving a standing ovation simply shows a massive subjective opinion, a shared personal preference, if you will, unverifiable, uncontrolled, and unrepeatable.

Oh, and one more thing: "spectacular" is a rather vague audio term. Could you perhaps use a more precise term with specific meaning in audio science? And please do not describe the sound as being "natural".

On the other hand, you could simple have enjoyed the experience, and been fully emotionally engaged being completely aware that what you heard was only an imperfect translation and interpretation of Mahler's original intent. And that seems to have been good enough.

Insert a string of emojis here.

 

[bonzo75]

Al, I respectfully disagree. Your comments have little meaning in audio science. Your evaluation was sighted and you self graded your listening skills, making the above statement invalid. The fact that you may have even read the program highly biased your opinion of what you heard. Furthermore, what you think you heard was far removed from what was originally in Mahler's head as he imagined the composition. The mere act of translating his thoughts to two dimensional music notes on paper was a major corruption of the original idea with massive loss of information. Then, many years later, those notes were interpreted by the conductor, and again by the musicians during that particular performance further altering Mahler's original intent. Finally, the instruments' sounds that you heard were inexorably changed by that particular hall and the specific seat in which you were located.

What you heard was far removed from an exact copy of Mahler's original intent. The whole process was highly flawed from the moment he put pen to paper, the original recording process. That others seemed to agree with your subjective impressions by giving a standing ovation simply shows a massive subjective opinion, a shared personal preference, if you will, unverifiable, uncontrolled, and unrepeatable.

Oh, and one more thing: "spectacular" is a rather vague audio term. Could you perhaps use a more precise term with specific meaning in audio science? And please do not describe the sound as being "natural".

On the other hand, you could simple have enjoyed the experience, and been fully emotionally engaged being completely aware that what you heard was only an imperfect translation and interpretation of Mahler's original intent. And that seems to have been good enough.

Insert a string of emojis here.

That's funny, Amir

 

[amirm]

Al, I respectfully disagree. Your comments have little meaning in audio science. Your evaluation was sighted and you self graded your listening skills, making the above statement invalid. The fact that you may have even read the program highly biased your opinion of what you heard. Furthermore, what you think you heard was far removed from what was originally in Mahler's head as he imagined the composition. The mere act of translating his thoughts to two dimensional music notes on paper was a major corruption of the original idea with massive loss of information. Then, many years later, those notes were interpreted by the conductor, and again by the musicians during that particular performance further altering Mahler's original intent. Finally, the instruments' sounds that you heard were inexorably changed by that particular hall and the specific seat in which you were located.

What you heard was far removed from an exact copy of Mahler's original intent. The whole process was highly flawed from the moment he put pen to paper, the original recording process. That others seemed to agree with your subjective impressions by giving a standing ovation simply shows a massive subjective opinion, a shared personal preference, if you will, unverifiable, uncontrolled, and unrepeatable.

Oh, and one more thing: "spectacular" is a rather vague audio term. Could you perhaps use a more precise term with specific meaning in audio science? And please do not describe the sound as being "natural".

On the other hand, you could simple have enjoyed the experience, and been fully emotionally engaged being completely aware that what you heard was only an imperfect translation and interpretation of Mahler's original intent. And that seems to have been good enough.

Insert a string of emojis here.

Hehe.

 

[PeterA]

Hehe.

All in good fun, Amir.

 

[Al M.]

Al, I respectfully disagree. Your comments have little meaning in audio science. Your evaluation was sighted and you self graded your listening skills, making the above statement invalid. The fact that you may have even read the program highly biased your opinion of what you heard. Furthermore, what you think you heard was far removed from what was originally in Mahler's head as he imagined the composition. The mere act of translating his thoughts to two dimensional music notes on paper was a major corruption of the original idea with massive loss of information. Then, many years later, those notes were interpreted by the conductor, and again by the musicians during that particular performance further altering Mahler's original intent. Finally, the instruments' sounds that you heard were inexorably changed by that particular hall and the specific seat in which you were located.

What you heard was far removed from an exact copy of Mahler's original intent. The whole process was highly flawed from the moment he put pen to paper, the original recording process. That others seemed to agree with your subjective impressions by giving a standing ovation simply shows a massive subjective opinion, a shared personal preference, if you will, unverifiable, uncontrolled, and unrepeatable.

Oh, and one more thing: "spectacular" is a rather vague audio term. Could you perhaps use a more precise term with specific meaning in audio science? And please do not describe the sound as being "natural".

On the other hand, you could simple have enjoyed the experience, and been fully emotionally engaged being completely aware that what you heard was only an imperfect translation and interpretation of Mahler's original intent. And that seems to have been good enough.

Insert a string of emojis here.

Hilarious! Thanks for a great laugh to start the day!

But seriously, your comments contain a lot of things worthwile to ponder. Great post!

 

[sbo6]

The poll is interesting, but for me incomplete. There is no data WRT cost so it's not an apples to apples comparison (e.g.: I like a $12K Martin Custom guitar more than a tinker toy piano). I'd wager that there is a direct relationship between the cost of the analog front ends and those that prefer analog but have both analog and digital. I'd wager the vast majority who have both spent more on the analog - it just costs more, in my experience.

I know some have said cost should not be included - let me give an example: Guy owns digital and analog. Guy first bought digital - a $1K DAC, uses laptop for home work and music, likes the sound. Guy decides to try analog, upon reading/recommendations buys $1K TT, $500 cart, $500 phono pre, $50 record puck, $50 TT mat and $100 rack for stabilization/isolation = $2.2K. Guy likes vinyl more than digital but has lots of downloads/ripped CDs so plays both (+ likes convenience of digital). Guy takes poll - votes for analog as "preferred" but has digital also. Vinyl setup is ~2x cost of digital. With WBF just add a few zeros to the cost..

 

[thedudeabides]

Your comments have little meaning in audio science.

Oh, and one more thing: "spectacular" is a rather vague audio term. Could you perhaps use a more precise term with specific meaning in audio science? And please do not describe the sound as being "natural".

Interesting observation but apparently criticized because he was expressing his emotional reaction to a live performance and, per Peter, is suspect because it is not based in "audio science".

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to how one can objectively quantify / determine the "quality" (poor, mediocre, spectacular, etc.) of a live performance based solely on audio science.

 

[FrantzM]

Interesting observation but apparently criticized because he was expressing his emotional reaction to a live performance and, per Peter, is suspect because it is not based in "audio science".

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to how one can objectively quantify / determine the "quality" (poor, mediocre, spectacular, etc.) of a live performance based solely on audio science.

Measure the SPL of applauses?

 

[PeterA]

Interesting observation but apparently criticized because he was expressing his emotional reaction to a live performance and, per Peter, is suspect because it is not based in "audio science".

I have no idea what that means.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to how one can objectively quantify / determine the "quality" (poor, mediocre, spectacular, etc.) of a live performance based solely on audio science.

My entire post was in jest, thedudeabides, and it was a lot of fun to write and brought me some laughs early this morning.

I do think that the translation, interpretation and corruption of the original idea buried deep within the genius mind of the composer is far removed from what we eventually hear years later at a symphony performance in a concert hall. In this sense, I find it somewhat analogous to how far a reproduced performance in our listening rooms is from the original performance at the recording venue. All of those steps between change the original.

Subjective experiences of the final result though can bring great emotional involvement and joy.

I was just being puckish.

 

[rbbert]

The poll is interesting, but for me incomplete. There is no data WRT cost so it's not an apples to apples comparison (e.g.: I like a $12K Martin Custom guitar more than a tinker toy piano). I'd wager that there is a direct relationship between the cost of the analog front ends and those that prefer analog but have both analog and digital. I'd wager the vast majority who have both spent more on the analog - it just costs more, in my experience.

I know some have said cost should not be included - let me give an example: Guy owns digital and analog. Guy first bought digital - a $1K DAC, uses laptop for home work and music, likes the sound. Guy decides to try analog, upon reading/recommendations buys $1K TT, $500 cart, $500 phono pre, $50 record puck, $50 TT mat and $100 rack for stabilization/isolation = $2.2K. Guy likes vinyl more than digital but has lots of downloads/ripped CDs so plays both (+ likes convenience of digital). Guy takes poll - votes for analog as "preferred" but has digital also. Vinyl setup is ~2x cost of digital. With WBF just add a few zeros to the cost..

For example, what is the price difference for our host's digital vs. LP front ends (not picking on you, Steve, I just happen to know there is a large difference in your case)?

 

[NorthStar]

My entire post was in jest, thedudeabides, and it was a lot of fun to write and brought me some laughs early this morning.

I do think that the translation, interpretation and corruption of the original idea buried deep within the genius mind of the composer is far removed from what we eventually hear years later at a symphony performance in a concert hall. In this sense, I find it somewhat analogous to how far a reproduced performance in our listening rooms is from the original performance at the recording venue. All of those steps between change the original.

Subjective experiences of the final result though can bring great emotional involvement and joy.

I was just being puckish.

The things we do we say to preserve the love, the music in the formats we use. :b ...Unplugged.
There is more music in them grooves that a cartridge with a diamond stylus can pick up...

 

[Fiddle Faddle]

I do think that the translation, interpretation and corruption of the original idea buried deep within the genius mind of the composer is far removed from what we eventually hear years later at a symphony performance in a concert hall.

Well, no need to think it or even have an opinion - it's a fact! The violin and bow, for example, have evolved quite dramatically in 300 plus years and with it the sound. A violin in an orchestra of today sounds different than one from 50 years ago which in turn sounds different from 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc. We think of loudness wars as being an audio engineering related thing - but it's been happening in orchestras and with individual instruments - particularly bowed instruments - for many years.

Just the actual string selections on modern bowed instruments today can provide more volume but (in my opinion) a less desirable and less malleable sound. It is also my opinion that the "colder" sound of modern recordings is not just a digital versus analogue thing or a simple Decca tree versus massive multi-miking thing. It is the actual sound modern instruments make. They just don't sound as pleasant. In the quest to become louder, quality and subtlety has been lost.