Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[sbo6]

Sure, MSRP used. It is still cheap. The reason I mentioned those set ups (high end Kuzma XL4 vs lower end Kuzma - was to indicate it is differences in set ups more than cost. Thing is that Goldmund studio set up will easily best a Vivaldi stack, Trinity, or whatever. For dacs you could also add costs of streamers. I did mention phonos

I took a moment or three to look up pricing. I couldn't find the ASR emitter phono pre, but found what I think is cheaper - the Basis. Also, you didn't specify which Benz cart. the Here are the #s: New: (Used)

Vinyl: Goldman studio TT: $5K ($2K), Vibraplane: $4K ($1.5K), Benz cart: $3.5K ($1.8K), ASR Basis Phono pre: $3K ($1.5K) - Total: $15.5K New, $6.8K used

Digital: EMM labs CD player: $10K new $5K used

Cost difference: ~150% New/Used

This excludes the record puck, record cleaning machine and other sundry items. And if setup is such a PITA with vinyl, well that's just one more pro consult expense to add

 

[NorthStar]

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..

And it also depends of who's playing and who's listening. * That Martin custom guitar ain't cheap. ...And neither a grand piano.

? Strictly sound, active listening, say for no more than four hours (two movies); no touching (CDs, LPs), no smelling (CDs, LPs,) no reading (liner notes from CDs, LPs), no looking (LPs spinning on top of that TT, CDs spinning in that top loading player), just listening/hearing (ears only, no rituals), and getting up after each LP's side to flip it over, and the CD eject to put another one in the disc drawer (no CD caroussel player, no albums LPs stacking), ...this is no escaping, and more care is required when flipping the LP because the diamond tip I clean after each side with a brush and lubricant and so is the album with a brush and liquid record cleaner for the dust, ...but other than that only the sound quality from a CD rig costing $2,000 versus a LP rig of the same price...you tell me which one sounds better.

And if you want to go higher, say a CD player that costs $5,000 and a turntable that costs also $5,000 (including the tonearm, cart and phono preamp), that too; you tell me if the same mastering on CD and on LP, which one sounds better to you. No blind test needed behind a black curtain; it is too obvious when a record (vinyl) is spinning.

Then someone else will say some different than you, using different listening criteria. And nobody, nobody is biased, ever.
The CD player would need to be fully optimized to perform its best. The TT, tonearm and cart would also need to be.

And, such a test was already performed @ Mike Lavigne's own place. ...Only that the equipment was slightly more expensive.

I have read the link from the first post. Each person, professional or not, will bring something up and omit few by simple human nature of the moment; without being scientific about it and with few measurements just for the fun of it. If Sony/Philips haven't invented the compact disc someone else would, be it Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Magnavox or JVC or Denon or whoever else. Music is transporting, and we also like to transport it with us. @ home we are transported by spinning vinyl, and also by spinning CDs. Are we more transported from one music medium over the other or both? And, is being transported related to sound quality?

 

[microstrip]

Measure the SPL of applauses?

No one will take you seriously if the measurement does not include a FFT...

 

[thedudeabides]

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.

Thank you for the response. I'm sorry I missed the humor.

I do agree with your statement about subjective impressions and emotional involvement. I think that is the core reason for attending a live music event.

FWIW, I checked Wikipedia to see what "puckish" means. Per that website, no such word exists.

Best.

 

[NorthStar]

• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/puckish :b

 

[sbo6]

And it also depends of who's playing and who's listening. * That Martin custom guitar ain't cheap. ...And neither a grand piano.

? Strictly sound, active listening, say for no more than four hours (two movies); no touching (CDs, LPs), no smelling (CDs, LPs,) no reading (liner notes from CDs, LPs), no looking (LPs spinning on top of that TT, CDs spinning in that top loading player), just listening/hearing (ears only, no rituals), and getting up after each LP's side to flip it over, and the CD eject to put another one in the disc drawer (no CD caroussel player, no albums LPs stacking), ...this is no escaping, and more care is required when flipping the LP because the diamond tip I clean after each side with a brush and lubricant and so is the album with a brush and liquid record cleaner for the dust, ...but other than that only the sound quality from a CD rig costing $2,000 versus a LP rig of the same price...you tell me which one sounds better.

And if you want to go higher, say a CD player that costs $5,000 and a turntable that costs also $5,000 (including the tonearm, cart and phono preamp), that too; you tell me if the same mastering on CD and on LP, which one sounds better to you. No blind test needed behind a black curtain; it is too obvious when a record (vinyl) is spinning.

Then someone else will say some different than you, using different listening criteria. And nobody, nobody is biased, ever.
The CD player would need to be fully optimized to perform its best. The TT, tonearm and cart would also need to be.

And, such a test was already performed @ Mike Lavigne's own place. ...Only that the equipment was slightly more expensive.

I have read the link from the first post. Each person, professional or not, will bring something up and omit few by simple human nature of the moment; without being scientific about it and with few measurements just for the fun of it. If Sony/Philips haven't invented the compact disc someone else would, be it Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Magnavox or JVC or Denon or whoever else. Music is transporting, and we also like to transport it with us. @ home we are transported by spinning vinyl, and also by spinning CDs. Are we more transported from one music medium over the other or both? And, is being transported related to sound quality?

Make is simple like I did:

Vinyl: TT, arm, cart, phono pre, isolation, accessories MSRP =
Digital: DAC and/or transport, external clock (if used), accessories MSRP =

I will bet ~80% of vinyl "lovers'" digital setup is significantly cheaper and admittedly less sonically pleasing. At cost parity not so much...

 

[Sal1950]

I ripped all my vinyl to my computer and sold my gear 6 years ago.
Does having those rips on my hard drive count as still having vinyl?

 

[Al M.]

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.

Very interesting! Yes, the sound of instruments changed. Just recently I was surprised, when searching on Youtube for performances of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, to find a 'period performance' on instruments from 1913! That is after the height of the romantic period which already had seen lots of innovation in orchestral instruments, not the least in the brass.

They just don't sound as pleasant. In the quest to become louder, quality and subtlety has been lost.

Here I beg to differ. I have seen over recent years live performances that were just stunning in subtlety and beauty of string tone, both solo and massed, in orchestral sections. In fact, I do believe musicians are getting better and better; the overall standard of playing of musicians, both orchestral and solo is just higher than in the 'good old days' which I do not shed a tear for at all. Sure, these days there is no Heifetz or Casals which were exceptional in their time and in absolute terms, but you have other top musicians.

Even 'provincial' orchestras now produce a sound, both in tone and flawlessness of playing, that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

A few years ago in Graz, Austria, which has the second most famous music school in that country after Vienna, my father and I visited a stunning student concert for solo piano, of different young participants. The teacher told us afterwards that what people played 50 years ago in their final exam is now required for their entrance exam!

 

[Al M.]

I will bet ~80 vinyl "lovers'" digital setup is significantly cheaper and admittedly less sonically pleasing. At cost parity not so much...

That is true. I have seen some audiophiles preferring vinyl to digital, while comparing the sound of their expensive turntables of 100 K+ with their much cheaper DACs, some not costing more than $ 2K!

Now that's pathetic. I have more sympathy for the opinion of audiophiles who have gone for SOTA on both vinyl and digital and still prefer vinyl.

And yes, top vinyl IS hard to beat! But top digital can be extraordinarily convincing regardless. And to get back to a point raised by Amir, I prefer the low bass on CD to most vinyl, at least when it comes to average LP pressings -- there may be exceptions.

 

[PeterA]

Thank you for the response. I'm sorry I missed the humor.

I do agree with your statement about subjective impressions and emotional involvement. I think that is the core reason for attending a live music event.

FWIW, I checked Wikipedia to see what "puckish" means. Per that website, no such word exists.

Best.

Wikipedia is not the last word. Puckish is an adjective which means "playful, especially in a mischievous way" as in a puckish sense of humor.

 

[NorthStar]

Vinyl people are better lovers...in bed. :b

 

[sbo6]

Vinyl people are better lovers...in bed. :b

Digital lovers have bigger bandwidth and longer bit lengths...

 

[Rodney Gold]

Vinyl people are better lovers...in bed. :b

Yeh..it's that 9" vs 12" thing...

 

[Don Hills]

Wikipedia is not the last word. Puckish is an adjective which means "playful, especially in a mischievous way" as in a puckish sense of humor.

[PEDANTRY]

We know Puck as "that merry wanderer of the night," the shape-changing, maiden-frightening, mischief-sowing henchman to the king of the fairies in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. The Bard drew on English folklore in casting his character, but the traditional Puck was more malicious than the Shakespearean imp; he was an evil spirit or demon. In medieval England, this nasty hobgoblin was known as the puke or pouke, names related to the Old Norse p?ki, meaning "devil." But it was the Bard's characterization that stuck, and by the time the adjective puckish started appearing regularly in English texts in the late 1800s the association was one of impishness, not evil.

- Merriam-Webster online dictionary
[/PEDANTRY]

 

[Al M.]

That is true. I have seen some audiophiles preferring vinyl to digital, while comparing the sound of their expensive turntables of 100 K+ with their much cheaper DACs, some not costing more than $ 2K!

Now that's pathetic. I have more sympathy for the opinion of audiophiles who have gone for SOTA on both vinyl and digital and still prefer vinyl.

By the way, I really have no reason to complain here, and rather should look in the mirror myself. I constantly point out how my $ 5K DAC does not measure up to top vinyl in believability of timbre. How does this differ from the situation I described? So note to self: don't be pathetic!

Yet if digital is such Perfect Sound Forever and is technically so superior, sure any decent CD playback would trounce any vinyl? Well, that is obviously not the case, not even close. Top vinyl beats any CD playback, except possibly the very best, in timbral believability. So while digital theory may be correct, and I am convinced it is, its implementation clearly still has issues in most cases.

Top dCS gear, among perhaps others, shows how implementation is done to get a much more convincing sound than typical digital, one that possibly matches (not sure yet) top analog on some critical timbres where most digital falls flat. At a high price point, obviously.

 

[rbbert]

We're stuck at 46 votes for a while, with a pretty even division for digital vs LP's. Glad that's cleared up

 

[still-one]

By the way, I really have no reason to complain here, and rather should look in the mirror myself. I constantly point out how my $ 5K DAC does not measure up to top vinyl in believability of timbre. How does this differ from the situation I described? So note to self: don't be pathetic!

Yet if digital is such Perfect Sound Forever and is technically so superior, sure any decent CD playback would trounce any vinyl? Well, that is obviously not the case, not even close. Top vinyl beats any CD playback, except possibly the very best, in timbral believability. So while digital theory may be correct, and I am convinced it is, its implementation clearly still has issues in most cases.

Top dCS gear, among perhaps others, shows how implementation is done to get a much more convincing sound than typical digital, one that possibly matches (not sure yet) top analog on some critical timbres where most digital falls flat. At a high price point, obviously.

Obviously many of us obviously do not share your obvious conclusions.

 

[Al M.]

Obviously many of us obviously do not share your obvious conclusions.

Obviously.

 

[Steve williams]

We're stuck at 46 votes for a while, with a pretty even division for digital vs LP's. Glad that's cleared up

The way I see it is that we have an almost complete division of members

 

[PeterA]

The way I see it is that we have an almost complete division of members

Yes. And it is not that dissimilar to the polls about listening/measurements or objective/subjective. Many, if not most, members fall somewhere in the bell and not at either extreme, despite suggestions that the membership is polarized. I really think we are moderate and open minded as a group. And this thread, and its civility, demonstrates it.

What fascinates me is that even though digital is ubiquitous, far more convenient, less expensive and measures much better, vinyl still has a very strong following and is preferred by roughly half of this small community of audiophiles. And people are still trying to improve it. It reminds me of the boating world where there is still a strong interest in sailing, despite the expense and effort involved.