Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Al M.]

Yes & this is the great blind spot that the "pro-science" faction (as they tend to consider themselves) dare not address. They constantly use the existing simplistic measurements as some form of useful analysis & pose strawman questions like "show one metric where LP is better than CD". Just for a moment it would be refreshing to see these people admitting that the current measurements tell us little about the perceived auditory perception of anything.

Look at what Juergen & many, many other say about such measurements - the simplistic nature of the test signals used & the conclusions to be drawn from such derived metrics.

Can we all stop pretending that there is a "science Vs "anti-science" divide. IMO all on this forum & other audio forums are far from sufficient knowledge in audio science to make any claims about these matters & those who claim otherwise are demonstrating puffery

+1000 !

I am a scientist myself and each and every day in the lab I am acutely aware of the limitations and pitfalls of the measurements in our field (biochemistry) which obviously affect my own work as well.

Therefore, when I find a discrepancy between measurements of audio gear and what my ears tell me, especially when the latter is reproducible, I side with my ears. Not despite being a scientist, but because I am a scientist and know the limitations and simplifications of measurements.

 

[jkeny]

I am not a techno guy and like you I am 100 % invested in digital.

Yet I will repeat here a post in answer to Ron earlier in the thread:





Again, digital CAN do it correctly (see dCS Rossini above), but most digital does not. It's a matter of implementation: digital theory is correct, no matter what the naysayers claim. And yes, the Redbook sampling rate IS sufficient. It's just that in many cases a higher sampling rate sounds better because it is easier to implement accurately in practical terms. But this issue of ease of practical implementation has nothing to do with digital theory and the correctness of the Nyquist theorem (accurate capture of the waveform by double sampling frequency over captured audio frequency).

Yes, in some cases great analog is better than most digital when it comes to timbral believability. But it does not have to be that way. There is nothing inherent in digital (even Redbook digital) that would prevent it from achieving similar, or even better, timbral believability.

Again, agreed, I don't believe that it's a format issue, it's an implementation issue. I believe it's easier to mess up the sound of digital for many reasons, one such reason might also be that vinyl playback implementation is less complicated than digital & has been studied over a longer time-period

 

[jkeny]

+1000 !

I am a scientist myself and each and every day in the lab I am acutely aware of the limitations and pitfalls of the measurements in our field (biochemistry) which obviously affect my own work as well.

Therefore, when I find a discrepancy between measurements of audio gear and what my ears tell me, especially when the latter is reproducible, I side with my ears. Not despite being a scientist, but because I am a scientist and know the limitations and simplifications of measurements.

I did my undergraduate degree in Biochemistry too although I didn't enter that field in my professional life, preferring instead the opportunities afforded in the IT world.
As you say the practise of science is a humbling experience & makes one aware of the limitations inherent in any experiment. What it also does is develop a mindset which questions all the premises that underlie any experiment

 

[fas42]

Let me add another factor for preference of LP which is the fact that the analog chain can easily be made to sound different as we all heard at the PNW meeting (and mentioned in OP article). Rips of different vinyl clearly sounds different so there is secondary re-mastering of music is in play here. Digital doesn't provide such an opportunity. I can again easily see how preferences can be developed for the LP version with its differing sound that way.

My question and I keep repeating myself is how you all able to look past the artifacts. Is the assertion that they don't exist? Or they are inaudible?

Amir, for me what you ascribe to vinyl in the above is as much an issue for digital: a digital chain can be easily made to sound different; different storage of the same digital information can clearly sound different, so secondary re-mastering is occurring; I don't prefer CDs to sound different because of varying reasons, but I acknowledge that it occurs.

And I would ask you how you look past the artifacts of digital ... they have been irritating me for 30 years, which is why I've put so much energy in working out how to surmount them ...

 

[PeterA]

Amir,

And I would ask you how you look past the artifacts of digital ... they have been irritating me for 30 years, which is why I've put so much energy in working out how to surmount them ...

Precisely the question that should be asked.

 

[NorthStar]

? http://www.oregonlive.com/music/index.ssf/2014/11/does_vinyl_really_sound_better.html
? http://diffuser.fm/do-cds-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl/
? http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/29-does-vinyl-really-sound-better/
? http://gizmodo.com/why-vinyl-is-the-only-worthwhile-way-to-own-music-1527750499
? https://londonjazzcollector.wordpress.com/for-audiophiles/cd-or-vinyl/
? http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/reasons-why-vinyl-better-digital/
? http://www.mcelhearn.com/do-vinyl-records-sound-better-than-cds-spoiler-nope/

 

[fas42]

Bob, in the last link you listed - commentator very definitely on the side of CDs - the writer said

Most people, when discussing vinyl, talk about an “analog sound,” saying that vinyl sounds “warmer” or “richer” than digital. It does; because there is less frequency response (poorer reproduction of high frequencies), and more distortion. Just as tube amps may sound “better” because of the distortion they introduce into playback, the same is true for vinyl. That “warmth” you hear is simply the poor quality of the playback; the distortion caused by the analog chain, and its lack of detail.

This is a key myth for the anti-LP crowd - they're wrong, absolutely dead wrong. When digital gets it right, the experience is just as "warm", "rich" and all those other good things, as it is for vinyl - the etched, sharp, analytical qualities that they speak highly of in digital are the result of bad replay; the irony is, that these are the artifacts of flawed digital!!

 

[jkeny]

Bob, in the last link you listed - commentator very definitely on the side of CDs - the writer said



This is a key myth for the anti-LP crowd - they're wrong, absolutely dead wrong. When digital gets it right, the experience is just as "warm", "rich" and all those other good things, as it is for vinyl - the etched, sharp, analytical qualities that they speak highly of in digital are the result of bad replay; the irony is, that these are the artifacts of flawed digital!!

Yes, digital audio replay done right has a "flow" & effortlessness to it that is the hallmark of good vinyl.

 

[PeterA]

Bob, in the last link you listed - commentator very definitely on the side of CDs - the writer said



This is a key myth for the anti-LP crowd - they're wrong, absolutely dead wrong. When digital gets it right, the experience is just as "warm", "rich" and all those other good things, as it is for vinyl - the etched, sharp, analytical qualities that they speak highly of in digital are the result of bad replay; the irony is, that these are the artifacts of flawed digital!!

Yes, and these are artifacts in the implementation of digital.

 

[PeterA]

I am not a techno guy and like you I am 100 % invested in digital.

Yet I will repeat here a post in answer to Ron earlier in the thread:





Again, digital CAN do it correctly (see dCS Rossini above), but most digital does not. It's a matter of implementation: digital theory is correct, no matter what the naysayers claim. And yes, the Redbook sampling rate IS sufficient. It's just that in many cases a higher sampling rate sounds better because it is easier to implement accurately in practical terms. But this issue of ease of practical implementation has nothing to do with digital theory and the correctness of the Nyquist theorem (accurate capture of the waveform by double sampling frequency over captured audio frequency).

Yes, in some cases great analog is better than most digital when it comes to timbral believability. But it does not have to be that way. There is nothing inherent in digital (even Redbook digital) that would prevent it from achieving similar, or even better, timbral believability.

Al, so you think digital implementation is often flawed, but the theory, or medium per se, is correct. On the analog side, many describe both the medium and the implementation as hopelessly flawed. And yet, we all know that it can sound wonderful. Amir actually wrote a report on his site that two systems at Expona playing the Kronos turntables were superb and he heard none of these flaws. So the vinyl medium can not be flawed if it is able to deliver sound which he describes as "rivaling digital" or something. I'll try to copy the exact text, but Amir was mighty impressed. So it must also be the case of correct or incorrect implementation on the vinyl side. Perhaps Amir experienced an epiphany of sorts on that day.



EDIT: Here is the direct quote from Amir on his website:

"The only format in the room was analog and LP was played. And it was a pleasure. It was the first LP I heard that was click and static free and rivaled CD in resolution and lack of distortion. Shazam says this was the music: Stimela (The Coal Train) by Hugh Masekela. http://shz.am/t10824615 but I don't know if it finds LPs correctly or not.

Regardless, the sound and experience was superb. Nothing to complain about from this digital guy .

BTW they had a larger setup in the room across the hall and I will post those later when i get to them (heard it the next day). It was the repeat of the same great sound I heard the in this smaller room and again with LP and that Kronos turntable."

What are we to make of these reports? Vinyl that rivals CD in resolution and lack of distortion. If this had been unsighted, vinyl may have surpassed the CD in performance.

Al has heard Masekela's "Cole Train" on good vinyl. I'm sure this report does not surprise him, nor does it me. What surprises me, frankly, is that it is coming from someone who has claimed repeatedly that this is simply not possible. What would the mastering engineers in the OP link say to this?

 

[jkeny]

....... Perhaps Amir experienced an epiphany of sorts on that day.



..... It was the first LP I heard that was click and static free and rivaled CD in resolution and lack of distortion......

I wonder does Amir mean that it was the first EVER LP he heard that was click free or just the first at Axpona?
If he mean EVER then, yes, he has had a revelatory experience that some would call an epiphany!

 

[NorthStar]

Bob, in the last link you listed - commentator very definitely on the side of CDs - the writer said

This is a key myth for the anti-LP crowd - they're wrong, absolutely dead wrong. When digital gets it right, the experience is just as "warm", "rich" and all those other good things, as it is for vinyl - the etched, sharp, analytical qualities that they speak highly of in digital are the result of bad replay; the irony is, that these are the artifacts of flawed digital!!

I did photographic reading from those seven links...aka fast reading...but reading nonetheless with more than half hour.
They pretty much all repeat what we have been saying since the dawn (creation) of WBF over the years. * In audio forums repetitiveness is custom, and that's why most give up. :b

Me too I love to learn new stuff; I'm no different...it's good for the advancement...and new music discoveries, plus new music mixing (3D audio immersion), plus new picture technology (4K, and 3D too), are good threads to me. ...New music, new films, exciting news, better sound and picture quality for less money...audio/video gear, speakers and quality content (most importantly).

Distortion - In music as in movies is one of the favorite catching words; when I see that word I just have to read its association. :b

Bias in our hobby doesn't have much meaning, not for advanced people like us. I won't repeat what has been said, and there is not much more to add than say that each music recording is what makes us vibrating irregardless of the medium.
Who cares if one has slightly less distortion than the other; distortion is our friend anyway, and it's everywhere in the air. :b

I'm still thinking about Prince, and other things... In search of new ideas, ideas that can benefit us all. Right now we're all doing pretty good, I like that.
I see no walls, I see nothing to worry about.

 

[fas42]

Who cares if one has slightly less distortion than the other; distortion is our friend anyway, and it's everywhere in the air. :b

Unfortunately it's not quite like that, Bob - some distortion is good, Hendrix, etc; some we can easily filter out if the rest of the message comes through cleanly; but some is downright debilitating - poor digital has oodles of the latter, puts a really bad taste in the mouth, so to speak ... overall, less distortion is better, unless intended for a specific effect ...

 

[amirm]

Here is my praise for LP playback at the larger YG room at AXPONA with a stepped up Kronos turntable: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...peakers-kronos-turntable-audionet-kubala.362/

 

[jkeny]

Here is my praise for LP playback at the larger YG room at AXPONA with a stepped up Kronos turntable: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...peakers-kronos-turntable-audionet-kubala.362/

Amir, just trying to get a handle on your listening experiences - is this the first time EVER that you have heard vinyl to rival the sound of digital?

 

[microstrip]

Al, so you think digital implementation is often flawed, but the theory, or medium per se, is correct. (...)

Peter,

The theory will claim that 13 bits is enough for digital audio ...

Anyone having studied analog to digital conversion knows that digital implementation has flaws - it is why we have specifications such as integral and differential linearity in ADCs used in spectroscopy, that are well understood. For audio, the specifications are usually grouped under a category called "dynamic parameters" or something similar, measured with sine wave signals. Unfortunately we do not know how to correlate them with sound attributes - it is a binary choice, with almost all modern designs claiming that their flaws are well bellow the audible threshold and having a perfect sound, and a few being considered "flawed". But it seems that in practice, they all sound different...

I have the feeling that sometimes a particular DAC sounds poor in a system because it interacts in some special way with the "flaws" of the recording. IMHO the real sound improvements of modern DACs is due to the manipulation of the "inaudible" bits to mask some nastiness in the digital encoding of the recording, without suppressing information. Just MHO!

 

[amirm]

Peter,

The theory will claim that 13 bits is enough for digital audio ...

The theory doesn't say that at all. The dynamic range of our hearing system is about 116 db SPL. 13 dB only gives you 78 db SPL which way short of that.

The 13 bit number comes from people who incorrectly assume just because they measure 40 to 45 db SPL noise in our everyday rooms and where content is recorded, that you really need 116-45 = 71 db.

Their logic makes lay sense but violates psychoacoustics. Our hearing system is highly non-linear and has nothing remotely approaching flat response to allow such simple math. I address that in this article I wrote and show that we do need around 20 bits to have the format be completely transparent to our ear under all conditions: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dynamic-range-how-quiet-is-quiet.14/

Of course no analog system remotely comes close to these numbers. My Reel to Reel deck has an 80 db signal to noise ratio or some such thing. And of course the noise level is plainly audible there.

 

[Al M.]

Peter,

The theory will claim that 13 bits is enough for digital audio …

Where did you get that idea from? 13 bits allows only for a nominal dynamic range of 78 dB which nobody ever claimed to be enough, as far as I know. On the other hand, while vinyl/tape have only a nominal dynamics range of ca. 70 dB I have heard some explosive dynamics from top level analog that put most digital to shame. But that's a different matter.

Anyone having studied analog to digital conversion knows that digital implementation has flaws - it is why we have specifications such as integral and differential linearity in ADCs used in spectroscopy, that are well understood. For audio, the specifications are usually grouped under a category called "dynamic parameters" or something similar, measured with sine wave signals. Unfortunately we do not know how to correlate them with sound attributes - it is a binary choice, with almost all modern designs claiming that their flaws are well bellow the audible threshold and having a perfect sound, and a few being considered "flawed". But it seems that in practice, they all sound different...

I have the feeling that sometimes a particular DAC sounds poor in a system because it interacts in some special way with the "flaws" of the recording. IMHO the real sound improvements of modern DACs is due to the manipulation of the "inaudible" bits to mask some nastiness in the digital encoding of the recording, without suppressing information. Just MHO!

The bit issue and losses along the way also seems to be the reason why nowadays everything is processed in the mixing/mastering chain with much greater bit depth than 16 bit, before it is formatted for CD. On the other hand, my 1986 CD of Bartok's violin sonatas on the lowly Hungaroton label, which probably never has seen anything above 16 bit in the chain, and perhaps was made with an ADC that at the time, like so many, had a practical resolution of under 16 bit, sounded wonderful on the dCS Rossini. Oh the mysteries of digital...

 

[bonzo75]

Amir, just trying to get a handle on your listening experiences - is this the first time EVER that you have heard vinyl to rival the sound of digital?

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ndStage-review&p=384516&viewfull=1#post384516

 

[jkeny]

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...ndStage-review&p=384516&viewfull=1#post384516

Hmmm, it does appear Amir has a coyness in answering my question & that link doesn't show me that he has much listening experience with vinyl, although I might be wrong?