Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[Al M.]

If these problems are not measurable, then they are lost in trying to better them. So no, I don't believe they are fixing as yet known problems. What they do, and I am friends and professional colleague with Berkeley folks, is engineering excellence. They keep improving the clock. The isolation. Better mechanical build, etc. These are measurable things.

Yes, they all work on things that are measurable. dCS even go so far as to make their own measuring equipment according to their own specifications, when they find other equipment wanting.

But that means that current implementations of digital theory, a theory that as you and others have convinced me is correct, are not perfect yet.

It's all about issues with implementation, not about imaginary problems with the theory itself. Yet problems with implementation are not imaginary.

 

[NorthStar]

Maybe the tread's title is true for an equivalent TT vs a CD player in price and from two quality master recordings, on vinyl and on CD, today.
But when things are not equivalent anymore, everything is possible in the ears of the beholder.

I like the term "fatigue" in music listening; Ron brought up that point. There must be some tests that have been done on that aspect, and from vinyl versus CD.
We spend on average one third of our life sleeping. How much time do we spend listening to music in our lifetime, on average, one tenth, one fifth, more?
Some people sleep better too for the same amount of time as others. And listening to music has many flavors for various activities, from passively to actively.
Vinyl music listening tends to bend on the more involving side, generally. It must have a psychological influence too, from the involvement.

I take no side, I like both sides for their unique characteristics. I like the bass better on CD than LP. As for the high frequencies I'm down from 12Khz up.
The important midrange? I let you decide.

Now, this is just for fun, simple humor: Amir in his sig's first line it says...Founder, Madrona Digital
Imagine if it would say...Founder, Madrona Analog :b

 

[YashN]

I agree, YashN !!

(Been listening to DSD up to DSD256 into my SET Tube Amp today, the SS amp is OFF!)

 

[YashN]

and don't hear the distortions that come with it?

They do hear the distortions.

What is really needed is for you to ask them: "If you are still listening despite these, what is it you are listening for?".

 

[bonzo75]

Really, nobody is researching them? So the people at dCS, Berkeley Audio Design etc. etc. are just wasting their time striving to improve an already perfect implementation of digital theory?

There is no incentive for these companies to do much research here. These are small companies targeting audiophiles and need to make a buck to stay alive. Vinyl was more than an audiophile market and had a lot of research and engineering thrown behind it. One of the reasons why vintage in some areas was better, because bell labs for western electric, Siemens, EMT were building serious engineering stuff, had quality engineers and did research, while today's focus is improving case work, and a bit of clock tinkering for a small market of OCDed hobbyists

 

[FrantzM]

There is no incentive for these companies to do much research here. These are small companies targeting audiophiles and need to make a buck to stay alive. Vinyl was more than an audiophile market and had a lot of research and engineering thrown behind it. One of the reasons why vintage in some areas was better, because bell labs for western electric, Siemens, EMT were building serious engineering stuff, had quality engineers and did research, while today's focus is improving case work, and a bit of clock tinkering for a small market of OCDed hobbyists

Agreed 100% . Digital work continue to evolve with a non-audiophile focus and with the rapid development and decreasing cost everything digital seems to entail but with results that can/will be folded/used into audiophile products. That is where the action is, that is IMHO where the present and future of advances in music reproduction are. All that IMHO, YMMV, the usual qualifiers .

 

[bonzo75]

Agreed 100% . Digital work continue to evolve with a non-audiophile focus and with the rapid development and decreasing cost everything digital seems to entail but with results that can/will be folded/used into audiophile products. That is where the action is, that is IMHO where the present and future of advances in music reproduction are. All that IMHO, YMMV, the usual qualifiers .

yes but the digital work with non-audiophile focus, where advances are being made today, has a different objective. ipod, Spotify, etc are good examples. Objective is to make music more portable and available, rather than to cater to the sonic needs of us loonies at WBF, Audioshark, Audioasylum, etc. Which is great but catering to a different need (want).

 

[bonzo75]

I found an old post from the designer of Blue Pearl JEM TT - "I currently own a VPI Scout and Clearaudio Champion Wood / Satisfy and the Clearaudio deck is vastly superior to the VPI. I've done several back to back comparisons using the same cartridge (Dyna 20XL) and the harmonic richness and timber is much better on the CA deck. You hear the raunch from a sax on the CA deck, with the VPI you just hear a horn. In addition I've discovered the VPI has a dip in the lower mid and boost in the upper mid that leads to a feeling of brightness where as the CA is more neutral and resolving. The VPI has excellent sonics and separation which may attract some listeners "
http://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=25109&start=15

I pasted this to show that even within TTs, there is a difference in frequency charts, so not sure how one can generalize what it rolls off or doesn't. Unfortunately vinyl set ups much more complex, which is why such discussions are moot

 

[microstrip]

(...)
So no, you won't get me speculating about imagined problems in digital where the picture is so clear that LP is not a transparent system. That it performs worse than digital. Therefore the only explanation of preference for it boils down to a) mastering that matches some people's preference better and b) those people are not bothered by the clear and audible distortions in LP. These things we can prove. Let's not chase ghosts we can't.

Enjoy the format but don't engage in a technical war of arguments which cannot be won.

Imagined problems? It curious that so many people are still perfecting the implementation of the format.

And you are the one who is engaging in a technical war of arguments - almost everyone else is debating the subjective side. We expect that those with real competence in digital will perfect the implementation of the system (either recording or playback, or both) to a point we we will happily admit it reached its audiophile objectives. Fortunately it is happening, although slower we would desire!

 

[FrantzM]

yes but the digital work with non-audiophile focus, where advances are being made today, has a different objective. ipod, Spotify, etc are good examples. Objective is to make music more portable and available, rather than to cater to the sonic needs of us loonies at WBF, Audioshark, Audioasylum, etc. Which is great but catering to a different need (want).

Once the fundamentals are laid then they can be applied to other realms and even sector. When DARPA launched the research program for what was to become the Internet, little did it envision us discussing to you over this medium.. or Netflix, Amazon, Google... HDtracks ... Same.

 

[Ron Resnick]

"imagined problems": I do not think there is anything imagined about the fatigue some people experience when listening to digital.

"[LP] performs worse than digital"

True, but only if one subscribes, as you do, to objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the master tape."

"the only explanation of preference for [LP] boils down to a) mastering that matches some people's preference better and b) those people are not bothered by the clear and audible distortions in LP"

False, because another explanation for some people's preference for LP is that they subscribe to objective 1) "recreate the sound of an original musical event," and they believe that LP better allows them to achieve this objective.

 

[jkeny]

Amir, all that's really being said is that good vinyl implementations seem to have some perceptual advantages over most digital audio implementations - nothing is being imagined, listening is the key but if you can't hear it, you can't hear it & that's fair enough.

Dismissing it as vinyl distortions that are just liked seems to me a rather one-sided view of matters.There is the possibility that most vinyl gets some things more correct than most digital audio implementations. We are talking about implementations, not mathematical theorems how things should be perfect.

I'm of the opinion that in digital audio implementations there is a greater sensitivity to things like ground noise. Now this may be the result of digital audio not having the noise floor that analogue has to mask such issues - in other words it's a victim of it's own accuracy. Whatever the reason, I find the search for these factors interesting & ultimately will be solved, making digital audio the perceptually superior implementation - I've already heard this I believe (& it takes a great deal of work to get there) but then I don't have access to SOTA TTs to do a direct A/B

 

[PeterA]

So no, you won't get me speculating about imagined problems in digital where the picture is so clear that LP is not a transparent system. That it performs worse than digital. Therefore the only explanation of preference for it boils down to a) mastering that matches some people's preference better and b) those people are not bothered by the clear and audible distortions in LP. These things we can prove. Let's not chase ghosts we can't.

Enjoy the format but don't engage in a technical war of arguments which cannot be won.

Just because one format is flawed does not mean the other is perfect. Yes, analog measures worse than digital. Case is closed in that sense. But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically.

There are also other possibilities to explain preference, IMO. Just one is that perhaps the digital artifacts are more annoying to certain listeners than are the analog distortions. Fatigue inducing digititis. I don't know what causes it, but I, and many others, hear it on most digital systems. Some engineers have been able to identify what causes this, and have designed gear that is much less annoying to listen to. If the system is sufficiently resolving, these digital artifacts are exposed and heard as such by many listeners. The fact that some listeners don't hear them, or they aren't bothered by them, does not mean that they do not exist.

There are also other issues with digital music that bother listeners. That is why designers continue to find ways to keep improving digital playback. I can't engage in a technical war of arguments because I don't understand the technology the way others do. But I can listen and know that something is not right. So can the engineers at dCS and other companies. The same is true for certain amplifier technologies. One simply must listen to live acoustic music to understand that both analog and digital formats are flawed in different ways. These differences are what lead to particular preferences for individual listeners.

Sure, digital measures well with the techniques commonly used, but it does not sound perfect. It is clear that measurements alone can not describe what we hear. Perhaps one day, they will.

Perhaps putting down the computer screen to read AES articles and sine wave plots and instead getting out to hear a live symphony or local string quartet will illustrate what so many on this thread are expressing. One does not even need to listen to good analog to understand that digital is not perfect.

 

[sbo6]

One does not even need to listen to good analog to understand that digital is not perfect.

You make it sound as if "digital sounds fatiguing" is a fact. 95% of this thread is conjecture. Want to talk fatiguing? Let's talk low freq rumble, ticks and pops, Wow and Flutter, footfalls, having to get up - and down - and up - and down every 20 minutes, inability to skip songs or create a playlist, time to pull out, stare at, clean/prep and put on the platter over and over. I've heard the aforementioned issues at RMAF with some of the best TT setups. Fatiguing? Playing records is like a part-time job which the nostalgia nuts call - fun.

 

[JackD201]

Wow. 74 pages and counting when we all know the truth. They can both suck and both be great. Gotta love the irony.

 

[Diapason]

Wow. 74 pages and counting when we all know the truth. They can both suck and both be great. Gotta love the irony.

I think this thread is acting as a pressure-relief valve, and it's doing a pretty good job. There's not much of anything here that will change anyone's mind, I doubt any of us have learned very much, but at least there's no fisticuffs.

 

[Steve williams]

I think this thread is acting as a pressure-relief valve, and it's doing a pretty good job. There's not much of anything here that will change anyone's mind, I doubt any of us have learned very much, but at least there's no fisticuffs.

I agree and thank you for keeping it that way

 

[FrantzM]

Just because one format is flawed does not mean the other is perfect. Yes, analog measures worse than digital. Case is closed in that sense. But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically.

There are also other possibilities to explain preference, IMO. Just one is that perhaps the digital artifacts are more annoying to certain listeners than are the analog distortions. Fatigue inducing digititis. I don't know what causes it, but I, and many others, hear it on most digital systems. Some engineers have been able to identify what causes this, and have designed gear that is much less annoying to listen to. If the system is sufficiently resolving, these digital artifacts are exposed and heard as such by many listeners. The fact that some listeners don't hear them, or they aren't bothered by them, does not mean that they do not exist.

There are also other issues with digital music that bother listeners. That is why designers continue to find ways to keep improving digital playback. I can't engage in a technical war of arguments because I don't understand the technology the way others do. But I can listen and know that something is not right. So can the engineers at dCS and other companies. The same is true for certain amplifier technologies. One simply must listen to live acoustic music to understand that both analog and digital formats are flawed in different ways. These differences are what lead to particular preferences for individual listeners.

Sure, digital measures well with the techniques commonly used, but it does not sound perfect. It is clear that measurements alone can not describe what we hear. Perhaps one day, they will.

Perhaps putting down the computer screen to read AES articles and sine wave plots and instead getting out to hear a live symphony or local string quartet will illustrate what so many on this thread are expressing. One does not even need to listen to good analog to understand that digital is not perfect.

Peter

let me try to address some issues in your post. I get it you prefer analog to digital and we are OK with that. It is a preference thus remains outside any meaningful discussions. The reasons why you and other have such preferences would be an interesting study.

Her I go

But that is not enough for those who listen to acoustic music and listen critically.

You would admit that it is a stretch to state that. True that we don't listen to measurements but many on the digital side fulfill the same conditions: We listen to live,acoustic music and listen critically, yet prefer digital, this infirm this assertion. And some, in spite of listening to digital only like what anlog does and consider it superior, again, a preference. This isn't because analog is inherently superior.

Issues with analog bother also and here I am adding some listeners while pleasing others .. So again, a preference..not debatable.. We agree that Engineers from both persuasion are working hard on perfecting their medium. If they claimed that theirs were perfect there wouldn't be any need for research.

I am not sure anyone claims digital to be perfect. Digital-leaning persons claim however that there is no measured area aside from bandwidth, where Vinyl is superior to CD, we are still looking for that elusive parameter that would prove this assertion to be wrong , aside from the oft-cited 50 KHz bandwidth .. Something digital not CD Redbook can take care of with a flat bandwidth from O Hz to 96 KHz ... and it could be more up to 172 KHz.. I am not sure there are commercial recordings in that format but the technology and hardware exist.

 

[jkeny]

I think this thread is acting as a pressure-relief valve, and it's doing a pretty good job. There's not much of anything here that will change anyone's mind, I doubt any of us have learned very much, but at least there's no fisticuffs.

Wanna step outside

 

[rbbert]

Wow. 74 pages and counting when we all know the truth. They can both suck and both be great. Gotta love the irony.

This is the type of post where I wish there were a "like" button