Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[TBone]

Why do you keep such good news private?

I have to say that I even bought a Korg MR2000 to carry my own tests, got rips from WBF friendly posters of the Shefield Lab Harry James DD and found that different digital formats sounded different and all inferior to the direct playback.

Again, these type discussions are meaningless to me. Perhaps you should post some frequency plots of rips, inc. detailed provenance, try not using a subsonic filter either, or any digital intervention for that matter, perhaps then we can discuss the definition of "high-end" from a comparison point of view.

 

[PeterA]

Oh I like SS vs tubes food fights better LOL!

SS/tubes or analog/digital: in which pairing do the different technologies sound more similar? Perhaps a topic for a new thread.

 

[Diapason]

Is everyone ignoring the part of the original article where Bob Clearmountain says that digital gave him a sound closer to that heard in the studio? This article is not purely about measured superiority!

 

[TBone]

Can someone please explain the relevance of listening to a "needle drop" and why that is important in allegedly determining the superiority of one media over another?

Not so much in terms of "superiority" from one format to another, you can rip and compare within one format alone, and find related/similar/different results.

Unfortunately, in this case (following example), no LP rips/data were available for comparison, but I'm on the search ...
http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/abbey-road-spy-vs-spy.217/

 

[thedudeabides]

What precisely can one determine from the sound of a needle drop?

 

[TBone]

What precisely can one determine from the sound of a needle drop?

Again, the focus isn't "sound", more about accuracy.

 

[PeterA]

What precisely can one determine from the sound of a needle drop?

Interesting question. I listened to four needle drop/vinyl rip tracks yesterday in a very transparent and revealing system. Two observations struck me:

1. The needle drops were absolutely dead quite in terms of vinyl noise floor, ticks, pops. They were digital like in this regard and extremely impressive.
2. There was a sameness to their sound, despite three being older pop classics and one being an extremely dynamic audiophile type demo jazz recording.

I don't know what to conclude except that the guy who produced them went to extraordinary care to make sure the LPs were in pristine condition before make the recordings. This was truly impressive, as the music was older so the LPs, unless they were new reissues, must have been cleaned with a great machine and in superb condition.

What is more difficult to ascertain is whether or not the colorations that were evident on all four digital recordings creating the sameness to the sound is:

1. a characteristic of a component somewhere in the original analog chain from the cartridge through to the phono stage output cable, or
2. if it was a characteristic of the ADC and digital recording machine used to make the recordings, or
3. if it was the digital source through which the rips were replayed in the completely different system.

I suspect that I was hearing a characteristic to the original analog chain used to produce the rips. I have no way of knowing this for certain, but from various accounts, these digital ADCs and DACs are becoming fairly transparent, so it is more likely that I was hearing the characteristic of the original analog source chain as the guy making the needle drops hears his own system in the studio, or at least that is the theory, as I understand it.

I think the point of Michael Fremer providing various digital needle drops of different phono cartridges is to demonstrate the different sonic characteristics of those particular cartridges. So, I presume he thinks that the digital equipment used to produce the needle drops is of sufficient transparency to make the comparisons valid.

The replay system I heard yesterday, tends to not add very much of its own signature to the sound, enabling various LPs and digital recordings to sound quite different from each other - a testament to its overall transparency.

I have not heard an LP and then immediately compared a needle drop/vinyl rip recording of that same LP played back through the same system. That comparison would be very interesting to hear one day.

I don't know if sharing this recent experience answers your question in any way. It is an interesting topic and perhaps warrants its own thread for further discussion.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

At one point someone (microstrip was that you?) posted how some notable High End people preferred the sound of the microphones after having gone on tape to the Direct Feed .. Such blunting and removal of information (once it goes through the tapes, perforce some information are lost) could be preferable to some; in that case CD and per extension many uncompressed digital would be at a disadvantage when it comes to the preferred flavor for those folks.

 

[TBG]

I did a direct digital versus analog comparison of the Janaki Trio Debut recording in both 45 rpm LP and DSD digital file about a month ago. Apparently, this is one recording of the same performance, produced in two different formats. It is a small scale classical chamber string performance: violin, viola, cello. The system was extraordinarily transparent and resolving.

I preferred the LP. The instruments has better tone, weight, body. There was more hall information and timbral information. I heard more spacial resolution and a better sense of presence. The file sounded flat, there was less information, and the instruments were slightly thinner sounding. The digital was very good, but the analog was better.

The other day, a new member of this forum, contacted me and I invited him over to hear my system. He brought over his digital player to listen to his own classical CDs in my system, as I have only an analog front end. We first listened to some classical music and then some small scale jazz vocals on LP. He then played Nora Jones on CD followed by some of his larger scale classical CDs and a performance of Beethoven's "Appassionata". He thought his music sounded very good and really liked the way his digital player sounded in my system. I suggested that we finish the listening with my direct to disk 45 rpm LP recording of the "Appassionata". It was a different performance and recording. After about a minute, he looked at me and said, "Digital will never be able to do that."

I am not sure if "never" is the right word, but on that day, in my system, his CDs and my LPs sounded notably different.

One of the interesting points clearly made in the article is the distinction between which format is more accurate and which is more preferred by either the listener or the recording engineer. The concept of "better" is very much dependent on what one is talking about.

Since many master tapes are being archive in quad DSD, soon there may be no vinyl sound in reality. Master tape to vinyl records may become massively collectable and expensive. However, I think quad DSD yields more ambience and decay of notes than vinyl and thus in many ways I prefer those digitals.

With my new H-Cat X-10 MkIII amp, I get a clearly replicated sense of the instrument location from extreme left to extreme right with symphony orchestra that far exceed what I was able to in Orchestra Hall in Chicago.

I have many mono LPs and they gain little from my system today.

 

[PeterA]

Again, the focus isn't "sound", more about accuracy.

How do you suggest one determines accuracy? If it is not about "sound", you must mean that one should not listen but rather measure something. What should be measured and are the measurements complete enough to tell us everything about how accurately the need drop captures what is on the LP? There are those who contend that we can not measure everything and must also listen to form a more complete understanding of the comparison between the original and its copy.

 

[JackD201]

If ADCs differ how can needle drops be "exact"? Wouldn't that only imply that you get just one particular version?

 

[PeterA]

If ADCs differ how can needle drops be "exact"? Wouldn't that only imply that you get just one particular version?

Lord knows that DACs differ. People using ADCs upgrade them to something better, so one must assume they differ also. If they differ, either audibly or measurably, then they are not transparent and thus needle drops can not be "exact" copies of the original. I think the relevant question is: how audible are the differences between ADCs?

We have not yet reached "Perfect Sound Forever."

 

[TBone]

I don't know what to conclude except that the guy who produced them went to extraordinary care to make sure the LPs were in pristine condition before make the recordings. This was truly impressive, as the music was older so the LPs, unless they were new reissues, must have been cleaned with a great machine and in superb condition.

How anyone could possibly "conclude" anything in terms of sound quality by listening to 4 drops on a "transparent system" ... without proper related references for comparison ... is beyond me. Nice prose tho ...

BTW, if those rips were de-clicked, dsp'd, subsonic filter'd, no matter how "great" or quiet they may appear, they're not representative of actuality. Again, provenance is key ...

 

[TBone]

If ADCs differ how can needle drops be "exact"? Wouldn't that only imply that you get just one particular version?

Depends if one believes the "tiny" differences with ADC/DACs can offset "major" differences of the equipment/software being ripped.

 

[JackD201]

They aren't meant to offset anything downstream so I don't understand what you mean. Going back to the article and having a studio background having used Apogee converters as mentioned by Bob Clearmountain, ADCs can and do differ greatly because they really are built in so many different ways with so many different parts choices. Besides, you're still going to have to play the recordings back post reconversion to analog and as Peter already pointed out DACs do sound different as well. Just more versions.

Add to that that even on the same LP rig, a track the first play will differ from subsequent play because of deformation of the vinyl itself until the material memory kicks in. I really don't get what this needle drop argument is about or what it proves. If you ask me, if one just wants to know how transparent digital can be, needle drops aren't the answer. Run the vinyl play through a processor, level match and no applied curve and toggle between pass through and active conversion. If you can't tell the difference between the two blind then while not "exact" or "accurate", it certainly means digital can be at least exact or accurate enough. For the record I do have a Lyngdorf RP and at 24/96 I've found that it is indeed transparent enough for me not to care one way or another. Since I didn't need correction anyway as it turned out, I just no longer use it.

For me needle drops are great for a lot of things like taking your collection on the road or whatever else. Using it as a means to assert the same as proof of digital's absolute "accuracy" is not one of them.

 

[Al M.]

Is everyone ignoring the part of the original article where Bob Clearmountain says that digital gave him a sound closer to that heard in the studio? This article is not purely about measured superiority!

Good point, and thanks for reminding us.

 

[TBone]

They aren't meant to offset anything downstream ...

Yes, therefore any decent ADC/DAC has the capability to properly capture "transparently" ALL the VERY OBVIOUS tonal issues related to ANY turntable performance, noise floor issues, arm resonance/peaks, a carts particular tonal character, its ability to stay composed/track properly during difficult passages, if the 'table is capable of retaining DR values relate to similarity mastered rips/CD. Etc ...

Obviously ADC/DAC offer sonic differences, but that's neither here nor there. They remain minor in comparison, in other words; all the major variables within your turntable are captured easily by near any decent ADC, allowing for "accurate" measurements, which can be related and compared accordingly.

Using it as a means to assert the same as proof of digital's absolute "accuracy" is not one of them.

Never claimed accuracy in absolute terms. I've supply related data, others supply inexperienced prose, whatever "absolute" one takes away from either method is there own ...

 

[PeterA]

How anyone could possibly "conclude" anything in terms of sound quality by listening to 4 drops on a "transparent system" ... without proper related references for comparison ... is beyond me. Nice prose tho ...

BTW, if those rips were de-clicked, dsp'd, subsonic filter'd, no matter how "great" or quiet they may appear, they're not representative of actuality. Again, provenance is key ...

TBone, that is precisely why, based on this short listen and limited sampling, I wrote "I don't know what to conclude except that the guy who produced them went to extraordinary care to make sure the LPs were in pristine conditions before making the recordings." And it is not "inexperience prose". The experience was listening to four recordings of needle drops and concluding that these particular four recordings seemed as silent in terms of noise floor and pop/ticks as is digital. That is a specific conclusion reached from a specific listening experience. Does it require suppling measurement data to be less controversial?

That you don't understand why I can conclude this from listening to four separate needle drops that were all extremely quite with a complete lack of pops and ticks and a very low noise floor, is quite strange to me. I listened to samples, and made a conclusion based on what I heard. These needle drops were as "silent" as digital, which I concluded by listening to them. It was quite easy to form that conclusion about these four needle drops. I did not see any measurements of them. Could that be why it is beyond you?

BTW, my host told me that the guy who recorded the rips did not use any programs to de-click them. So, either the original LPs where in great condition, or he did a great job cleaning them to make them sound as "silent" as digital. I don't know about the rest of what you suggest.

What does "representative of actuality" mean?

For provenance, you can ask Bruce Brown of Puget Sound. I know he uses an SME turntable and arm and at least used to have a Doshi tube phono amp. I don't know about the rest of the chain.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

We need to stay away from per absurdo argumentation. it leads nowhere or perhaps ....to absurd conclusions.

No needle drop is perfect. ADC are not. However the better ADCs (By that I don't mean expensive") can do a commendable job, good enough to preserve the characteristics of the original playback source chain. Things like the circa $1K TASCAM or the <$2K Korg will could be quite surprising in term of performance; if you go up the ladder into Merging Technolgies, Weiss, et al the results will likely be better for sure and IME each ADC retains a little of its signature. Is this signature always discernible? Not really unless one is very much versed into ADC and knows what to listen to. Are those ADC to reveal the subtleties of an analog playback (source) chain? You bet they are that would in my book infer, great accuracy. Not "perfect".


Vinyl lovers are consistently fooled by digital masquerading as analog. I have read in the WBF (and other fora) threads where people were raving about a particular LP only to find out (and backtrack then), that the master was digital... Quite telling.

 

[FrantzM]

Just read PeterA last post and one thing retained my attention. In my experience Vinyl Playback can be surprisingly quiet but never as quiet as digital. I have read here, again and again people who claim that the best Vinyl can be as noise-free as digital. I have not experienced such LP chain and apparently I am not alone...