CD vs vinyl

[JRV]

Debate on Slashdot some of you audiophiles might be interested in.

http://slashdot.org/articles/06/09/20/1348249.shtml

I have to side with the digital folks...but what else would you expect from a computer consultant?

[VERNIXX]

I ain't giving up my vinyl! But I have doubles of most of it on CD.....but I love remasters of classics and the upgraded sound they offer!

With a few thousand vinyl albums I could never give up on it. However I have a few thousand CDs too and they DO take up less space.

What I REALLY miss about Vinyl are the covers. Buying a new LP was an adventure because you could listen while taking in the cover too. With CDs (and the failing eyesight bought on by the ageing process) you need a magnifying glass to get a similar experience.

Plus....CD covers don't make for a good "Rolling Surface"......

[JRV]

Yes, sure miss those big covers.

[VERNIXX]

The Bob Marley album RASTAMAN VIBRATION has a gatefold cover with the caption reading..."Use this cover to clean your herb for spliffs"

Nuff said!

[sharcnorris]

Listening to Vinyl is just so much Warmer and spacious. The Japanese pressings I have are a wonder to behold (especially Mike Oldfield's CRISIS) in there presence and Imaging. Early CDs were so flat that most have been re-engineered. Today SACD, DVD- AUDIO, and some DVD concerts Have escaped the limits of CD production with much higher Bit rates and wider Sound Spectrum. Porcupine Trees IN ABSENSIA is the Finest Modern Recording I have ever heard presented on DVD-Audio Disc. With the Advent of Uncompressed 7.1 Sound in the New HD-Discs, this debate may have reached a Historical End

--------------------------------- ------------------------------------

[progdirjim(Admin)]

Originally Posted by KeithieW

What I REALLY miss about Vinyl are the covers. Buying a new LP was an adventure because you could listen while taking in the cover too. With CDs (and the failing eyesight bought on by the ageing process) you need a magnifying glass to get a similar experience.

Plus....CD covers don't make for a good "Rolling Surface"......

Keithie, look through the bottom of your empty pint (oh yeah that's right, you're never empty ) instead of a magnifying glass. Rolling Surface? I need an emoticon for "I remember".

On topic, I accept that there are people with better ears than mine. If you think I'm just being modest, watch how long it takes me to tune my guitar. But, I don't belive that someone can hear the difference betwen vinyl and a decently recorded CD because the vinyl sounds BETTER. I'll believe you can hear the ambient noise of the needle contacting the vinyl and scratches, and you define the familiarity of that noise as "warmth". I am certain that if someone took the time to record a CD and add that little bit of noise, you'd prefer the CD over a vinyl copy of the same thing.

[JRV]

"Warmth"<>"Accuracy". Live music also lacks the imperfections known as "warmth".

One is entitled to "warmth" as a preference, just as some prefer to listen with the Bass and Treble knobs turned fully clockwise. But it's pretty hard to align either preference with audiophilia's goal: Accurate sound reproduction.

[VERNIXX]

I always notice "warmth" in a live musical setting........beeeen playing in bands and running sound for over 24 years.

I also notice imperfections. Sounds is seldom if ever "perfect" or "accurate". It's all a preference to the engineer, producers, players, listeners...

One engineers' perfection is another's aural nightmare. It's all personally relative.

[JRV]

The live "warmth" you mention is added by room acoustics and imperfections in musicians' amplication equipment, if applicable. Arguably, that should be reproduced to the highest degree of accuracy.

But it's pretty hard to make a case that the playback technology should be adding "warmth" of its own. The Holy Grail of audio reproduction is to disappear. Flat frequency response, infinite dynamic range, 0% distortion, "straight wire with gain", etc. Of course, short of directly inducing brain waves somehow, that is unlikely to ever be achieved. But digital is a giant step closer than "warm" vinyl.

The case for "warmth" in sound reproduction is analogous to an art museum deciding to use a lighting color other than the whitest possible light on the theory that it makes the paintings look better.

[VERNIXX]

great points, Jeff!

[sharcnorris]

Originally Posted by progdirjim

I don't belive that someone can hear the difference betwen vinyl and a decently recorded CD because the vinyl sounds BETTER. .

Since this Post is directly after I tell you that The Vinyl SOUNDS differant, I guess you don't believe ME. What is sad is that you have not heard the dif on average playback systems. Only when your rig and speakers are up to the task is the difference very apparent. I refer to my 1st post. CD's are a loss of bits medium. If one note is thought to drown out another, that note is dropped out completely. In analogue they are all layered. To not hear the Inferior Productions in 80's CDs as less Imaging, Less Spaciousness must be because of that poor hearing. Why do you think Companies spent Millions ON DVD-AUDIO and SACD. Because regular CDs are inferior to The Rich sound that LPs have . Even Now The Companies are using a lossless medium in DVD-HD, another upgrade to the CD........So Jim, If your Travels take you to the Conn. Area, I would be happy to Play you the Difference after a great Supper with Me and the wife....Especially with one of those Pristine Japanese Pressings over my 20 Year old DENON table.

[VAXman(Admin)]

Capturing a live performance? IMPOSSIBLE!

I've been at a large number of live events that have later been released as recordings. None of them capture the sound of the live event. Microphones are not human ears; they'll never capture the sound of the live event with the same "accuracy" of the human ear.

As for vinyl vs. CD/digital... C'mon... the vinyl suffered from myriad issues that make it "unfaithful" for sound reproduction. First, to record the vinyl, the sound undergoes dynamic compression and formant spectral equalization (known as the RIAA curve). Lows attenuated (lest the power of the low would cause the cutting stylus to cross grooves) and accentuation of the highs (as it takes more energy to cut at the high end).
During the recovery (playback) the compression and equalization must be reversed. The equalization can, with a fair bit of exacting filter design, be undone but the compression is usually varied by the recording engineer dependant upon the source dynamic. Soft passages are amplified and loud passages are attenuated but there is no information on the vinyl to inform the playback mechanism just how much attenuation and aplification was used and when and where it was used.

The digital medium, OTOH, does not suffer from this. I recall in the early days, people complaining that the dynamic range seemed over emphasized. Was it? Or was it that the ears of the listeners were accustomed to the myriad recording processes of vinyl?


The CD upper end is 20KHz+. Consider that the highest note on a piano is in about 4Khz, 20KHz is 2+ harmonics above that note. If the ear's spectral resonse is not much better, then what does is matter for the CDs?

If anyone here has an understanding of fourier analysis, they will appreciate that there are waveforms above a certain frequency that can not be reproduced.

A square wave, for example, is a function of:
∞
∑ 4/πk *sin (2πk/T)
k=0

If you know anything about the sin() funtion you will realize that even values of k yield a 0 term

Therefore, you get terms of:

4/π(T)$+ 4/3π(3T) + 4/5π(5T)... by the 3rd term the factors are already negligible. So a sq. way at 440Hz (middle A) woudl have harmonics at
1320 and 2200 and would be fairly represented on the CD. I doubt that a recording of a true square wave at 440 on vinyl would be very faithful... there you have to see _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ in the groove. I'd bet it would wear (ie. distort) very quickly.

[MrMagoo]

Originally Posted by VERNIXX

The Bob Marley album RASTAMAN VIBRATION has a gatefold cover with the caption reading..."Use this cover to clean your herb for spliffs"

Nuff said!

Cheech & CHong "Big Bambu"...

Nuff said squared

[Rick and Roll]

A lot of it can be messed up by the humans involved. The article zvinki posted about Vapor Trails proves this. You can make a CD sound like shit too.

[Hawksun]

You know what really rocks? Audio cassettes.

Edit: After Reading Rick's post, I must agree ; Only homemade cassettes rock.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by Hawksun

You know what really rocks? Audio cassettes.

Store bought audio cassettes suck.....but taping..I have tons of cassettes I recorded albums and CD's on...and made mixed tapes. Sort of DJ'ing for an audience of one...so i have all of these Rush mixed tapes for example, and end up having entire CD's on cassettes just in the wrong order.

Back to the discussion...

I have an early recording of The Moody Blues "Days of Future Past" on an Edison Phonograph wax cylinder and the sound is unbelievably good. Better than vinyl, CD, Cassette, 8-Track, mini disk put together...............

Sound ridiculous? Well of course it is. A bit like this argument going on here. I happen to like the sound of vinyl better than that of the "brighter" CDs that's all. However, my ears are pretty intelligent and will adjust to whatever is playing and give me an enjoyable listen. Like listening to Aural Moon on the AAC, 128k or 56k streams. If one isn't available I'll listen to whatever is and my brain adapts and before long I don't notice the difference.

[Rick and Roll]

Originally Posted by KeithieW

However, my ears are pretty intelligent

Now I semi-followed vax's detailed explanation, and sharc's ideas. But I will never figure that one out! Looking forward to seeing these "intelligent ears" in 6 days....

Another great band name..... "Intelligent ears"..

[JRV]

Just as long as "Intelligent Ears" has nothing to do with "Intelligent Design". But that's another thread for another forum!