Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[jeromelang]

We're talking the effect of sound waves travelling through the air on needles....

Probably the effective way to know if it matters or not is to do vinyl rips with and without the amps/speakers turned on within the same room.

The only caveat - is the inevitable sonic changes that will occur if the same portion on the vinyl is played again consecutively.

 

[microstrip]

We're talking the effect of sound waves travelling through the air on needles....

Probably the effective way to know if it matters or not is to do vinyl rips with and without the amps/speakers turned on within the same room.

The only caveat - is the inevitable sonic changes that will occur if the same portion on the vinyl is played again consecutively.

We do not need to re-invent the wheel - these effects were studied, although in non scientific conditions. I do not remember it anymore, but people established a minimum time for LP recovery between rips. Others even got several pressings of the same recording with close serial numbers. Some forums take LP playback much more seriously than WBF!

 

[PeterA]

We're talking the effect of sound waves travelling through the air on needles....

Probably the effective way to know if it matters or not is to do vinyl rips with and without the amps/speakers turned on within the same room.

The only caveat - is the inevitable sonic changes that will occur if the same portion on the vinyl is played again consecutively.

I would put the recording apparatus in an adjacent room and do one continuous recording while switching the amp/speakers on and off 2-3 times. Upon playback of the rip, listen for any sonic differences during the playback. I think there are other more important issues with vinyl playback than airborne vibrations hitting the cartridge, tonearm, platter, or plinth, but it would be an interesting experiment.

 

[amirm]

We do not need to re-invent the wheel - these effects were studied, although in non scientific conditions. I do not remember it anymore, but people established a minimum time for LP recovery between rips. Others even got several pressings of the same recording with close serial numbers. Some forums take LP playback much more seriously than WBF!

We tested those scenarios here on WBF with Gary's help. Run to run variations between LP runs was significant, eliminating the viability of much of the before/after tests people do with the format.

And thanks for the jab at the forum .

 

[amirm]

Here is the thread I referenced above: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2701-Reviewing-the-Furutec-Demag

And the part I referenced with run to runs of LP sounding different starts here: http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...he-Furutec-Demag&p=39620&viewfull=1#post39620

I don't know anyone can validate their audio tweaks with LP when the run is being moved from under you every time play something.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I don't know anyone can validate their audio tweaks with LP when the run is being moved from under you every time play something.

It is why I say some people take LP playback much more seriously than some WBF people! They know how to validate their tweaks and conclusions and manage to have positive results. Their drift is towards better quality sound reproduction, not just erratic skepticism. And yes, I know it is all a preference!

(I hope I managed to understand your strange sentence...)

 

[amirm]

It is why I say some people take LP playback much more seriously than some WBF people! They know how to validate their tweaks and conclusions and manage to have positive results.

Except nobody knew that in that long running thread until proper, controlled testing revealed it. Pretty sure people like Gary, MikeL, Greg, etc. take LP that were in that thread take LP playback seriously.

Fascinating!! I would never have thought of this - or have the skills to implement it. Thanks, Amir.

Instead of knowing this as you said in this thread, folks thought it was the Demag of LP that resulted in said improvement where in reality was just play to play variations. So anxious to believe in magic first, probable technical explanation second that we fall in the ditch this way.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

We're talking the effect of sound waves travelling through the air on needles....

Probably the effective way to know if it matters or not is to do vinyl rips with and without the amps/speakers turned on within the same room.

The only caveat - is the inevitable sonic changes that will occur if the same portion on the vinyl is played again consecutively.

I have Lps I use for test tracks I might play 10 or 15 times in a couple of hours. when setting up a cartridge I might play the same passage 15-20 times....over one hour.

and some of these Lps I have used this way for years.

I call baloney on some ancient generalization about groove fatigue or wear based on some 'average' tt/arm/cart and average personal vinyl hygene and setup. not true, wrong,forget it.

i'll agree that over a million years consistent surface friction will wear down almost anything. but beyond that sort of process short term passages of a stylus in a groove will not result in perceived wear in our lifetimes. a very slight increase in overall noise of a pressing occasionally does occur over many years. but it's not part of the musical message when that does occur.

groove damage can occur on first play based on abuse of many types. that is a separate idea.

Lps don't 'wear out' in my personal experience.

 

[Don Hills]

Back in the 70s and 80s I and my friends noted the effect that speakers had on the reproduced sound from turntables. We spent a lot of time experimenting with mechanisms to reduce this feedback. We didn't have the option of digitally capturing and comparing plays with different schemes in place, but our method was effective. We set up a tape deck to record the turntable signal, and placed the stylus down on a non-rotating disc. We then played a tape on another deck through the amplifier/speakers. Subsequent playback of the signal recorded from the turntable gave us an absolute signal level (referenced to a standard level from a test LP), plus an audible indication of the frequencies most affected. We then tried various damping and isolation schemes.

 

[microstrip]

Except nobody knew that in that long running thread until proper, controlled testing revealed it. Pretty sure people like Gary, MikeL, Greg, etc. take LP that were in that thread take LP playback seriously.


Instead of knowing this as you said in this thread, folks thought it was the Demag of LP that resulted in said improvement where in reality was just play to play variations. So anxious to believe in magic first, probable technical explanation second that we fall in the ditch this way.

Although we had a nice time, the thread was inconclusive and abandoned without any think worth summarizing. Gary created some new tracks that no one analyzed. It ended with with some civilized posts showing very strong fundamental divergence between posters. IMHO nothing really relevant or positive was established in that thread concerning vinyl. YMMV.

 

[microstrip]

I have Lps I use for test tracks I might play 10 or 15 times in a couple of hours. when setting up a cartridge I might play the same passage 15-20 times....over one hour.

and some of these Lps I have used this way for years.

I call baloney on some ancient generalization about groove fatigue or wear based on some 'average' tt/arm/cart and average personal vinyl hygene and setup. not true, wrong,forget it.

i'll agree that over a million years consistent surface friction will wear down almost anything. but beyond that sort of process short term passages of a stylus in a groove will not result in perceived wear in our lifetimes. a very slight increase in overall noise of a pressing occasionally does occur over many years. but it's not part of the musical message when that does occur.

groove damage can occur on first play based on abuse of many types. that is a separate idea.

Lps don't 'wear out' in my personal experience.

IMHO if groove fatigue exists, with my playback system it results in some difference that is subjectively minimal for me. The very rare times I noticed a noticeable difference between playbacks was due to stylus dirt - cleaning it with the AudioTechnica cleaner solved it immediately. However changing turntable mats, that does not show in frequency response charts, can result in a "night and day" difference.

 

[FrantzM]

Although we had a nice time, the thread was inconclusive and abandoned without any think worth summarizing. Gary created some new tracks that no one analyzed. It ended with with some civilized posts showing very strong fundamental divergence between posters. IMHO nothing really relevant or positive was established in that thread concerning vinyl. YMMV.

Has there any been a thread that changed anybody's opinion? No! Does that mean we should not post and discuss in all fun and good heart? No all the contrary... A friendly community where we discuss and perhaps learn. We haven't settle many issues here. Nothing new
There is a strong anti-Science bias here and it is unfortunate but not destructive. We will continue to discuss , disagree and sometimes find area of agreements.

 

[microstrip]

Has there any been a thread that changed anybody's opinion? No! Does that mean we should not post and discuss in all fun and good heart? No all the contrary... A friendly community where we discuss and perhaps learn. We haven't settle many issues here. Nothing new
There is a strong anti-Science bias here and it is unfortunate but not destructive. We will continue to discuss , disagree and sometimes find area of agreements.

Frantz,

Curiously I have changed my mind several times along the several years of WBF after reading from experienced posters - I have to say I learned a lot from WBF.

Unfortunately the "science team" has not brought nothing new concerning stereo that I have not read in the excellent F. Toole book, that however I do not consider the Holy Book of the audiophile.

As no one participating in WBF seems to have time, resources or interest in carrying new scientific high-end audio experiments or using its scientific methods, the scientific options are mostly dogmatic and oversimplistic. So I prefer the rich anecdotal approach we can get at WBF, weighting it with my own experience.

But I am still expecting to read from your future "scientific" system!

 

[Steve williams]

The main thing everyone here can agree on Frantz is the civility and lack of any bickering on the part of members. First off I never thought when i started this thread it would have the legs and IMO this is due to two things. First everyone is posting with great manners understanding this is a loaded OP. Secondly Frantz it's because no one has changed their stance . Same old arguments and same old retorts. However a " friendly community " . All in all thanks again to everyone.

Also I don't thinks it's an anti science sentiment but rather most members do final adjustments with their ears.

 

[jkeny]

Frantz,

Curiously I have changed my mind several times along the several years of WBF after reading from experienced posters - I have to say I learned a lot from WBF.

Unfortunately the "science team" has not brought nothing new concerning stereo that I have not read in the excellent F. Toole book, that however I do not consider the Holy Book of the audiophile.

As no one participating in WBF seems to have time, resources or interest in carrying new scientific high-end audio experiments or using its scientific methods, the scientific options are mostly dogmatic and oversimplistic. So I prefer the rich anecdotal approach we can get at WBF, weighting it with my own experience.

But I am still expecting to read from your future "scientific" system!

+1

 

[the sound of Tao]

Frantz, I don't believe there is a strong anti-science bias here particularly, I do believe however there is a reasonable effort going on to get some realistic perspective on the difference between our sound perceptions and our music perception. These are different functions within the brain much in the way as colour perception and form perception are also handled by different sections in the brain and then correlated against the model of these patterns based upon our previous experience and even if these functions take different speeds the mind still manages to time align and make it seem as one... jitter free.

The fact that each of our brains individually develops in a unique way in response to it's previous model of perceptions and while still these patterns are related harmonically through synthesis by some inherited shared human experience of patterns makes any completely definitive correlation between the pattern and the exact individual experience of that pattern quite variable however but also not unrelated. This makes the notion of any universal best in any one component or format a bit meng as the taoists would say... that is mostly naive but a misunderstanding that also holds the potential to a greater truth if we are but willing to accept that we can know plenty but still have much to learn. If the mind is much like a cosmos in miniature then we are more like parallel universes rather than just one universe and that each mind is as marvellous and real and unique as the next.

 

[Steve williams]

Frantz, I don't believe there is a strong anti-science bias here particularly, I do believe however there is a reasonable effort going on to get some realistic perspective on the difference between our sound perceptions and our music perception. These are different functions within the brain much in the way as colour perception and form perception are also handled by different sections in the brain and then correlated against the model of these patterns based upon our previous experience and even if these functions take different speeds the mind still manages to time align and make it seem as one... jitter free.

The fact that each of our brains individually develops in a unique way in response to it's previous model of perceptions and while still these patterns are related harmonically through synthesis by some inherited shared human experience of patterns makes any completely definitive correlation between the pattern and the exact individual experience of that pattern quite variable however but also not unrelated. This makes the notion of any universal best in any one component or format a bit meng as the taoists would say... that is mostly naive but a misunderstanding that also holds the potential to a greater truth if we are but willing to accept that we can know plenty but still have much to learn. If the mind is much like a cosmos in miniature then we are more like parallel universes rather than just one universe and that each mind is as marvellous and real and unique as the next.

Well said.

 

[fas42]

Frantz, I don't believe there is a strong anti-science bias here particularly, I do believe however there is a reasonable effort going on to get some realistic perspective on the difference between our sound perceptions and our music perception. These are different functions within the brain much in the way as colour perception and form perception are also handled by different sections in the brain and then correlated against the model of these patterns based upon our previous experience and even if these functions take different speeds the mind still manages to time align and make it seem as one... jitter free.

The scientific investigation is happening right now, and is agreeably very active - called Auditory Scene Analysis, it demonstrates that the brain uses a remarkably sophisticated mechanism to interpret all the acoustic data it receives, from which it builds a meaningful internal picture of what's going on. The "filling the gaps" behaviour when listening is studied here - the brain 'predicts' what it will hear next, and fits in the real information from the ears, etc, with that inner model of the sound space it "wants" to hear. As an example, a soft sound which is nominally masked by a loud sound, will still be 'heard' - because the brains believes it should be there!

Won't hear much about it in audio circles at the moment - this is Psychology, Neuroscience research.

 

[jkeny]

Yes, frank, ASA is the real scientific research area for understanding how we hear - without this understanding we have measurements which hardly correlate to what we hear - that's not science - to me science has as it's goal an understanding of how things work - in this area there are two things that need to be understood; how the technology works & how auditory processing works. Just trying to understand the technology is only half the problem & the lesser half, really

I would just change/expand one thing in your description "that inner model of the sound space it "wants" to hear" just for explanation. We are continually evaluating the incoming signals with our internally stored models/rules of how the natural world sounds. Yes, we expect & predict what signal will follow based on the predominant model we are using at that moment but if that next signal doesn't match the model we don't "fill in the missing bits", we evaluate the number of mismatches & change the model to an alternate model. We are constantly evaluating & using our best guess model of what we are hearing

 

[amirm]

The fact that each of our brains individually develops in a unique way in response to it's previous model of perceptions and while still these patterns are related harmonically through synthesis by some inherited shared human experience of patterns makes any completely definitive correlation between the pattern and the exact individual experience of that pattern quite variable however but also not unrelated. This makes the notion of any universal best in any one component or format a bit meng as the taoists would say... that is mostly naive but a misunderstanding that also holds the potential to a greater truth if we are but willing to accept that we can know plenty but still have much to learn. If the mind is much like a cosmos in miniature then we are more like parallel universes rather than just one universe and that each mind is as marvellous and real and unique as the next.

Vast majority of teenage girls like Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift
Vast majority of humans like chocolate
Vast majority of people like chicken and beef

So despite all of our varied experiences, we have very common preferences. As you say our audio preferences appear to be very different at times. But here is the thing: if we we only let the ear evaluate sound as opposed to all of our senses, then a ton of these differences vanish. It is a shocking truth but it is what the research and my personal experience says.

Given an AAC file at 320 kbps and the CD, vast majority of people fail that comparison showing that they don't have golden ears, nor have materially different threshold of detection for distortion.

So completing the sequence above,

Vast majority of audiophiles think they are special, but they are not.