Does vinyl sounds better than cd or not?

[jls001]

For those registered, this Quora page has a balanced explanation of the pros and cons of CD vis-a-vis vinyl.

Here's the engineering perspective in a nutshell:

Human range of hearing extends from 20Hz - 20,000Hz (note 1);
The sampling rate for CDs is sufficient to fully capture sound in this range;
Digital samples allow for perfect recovery of the original analog signal when properly decoded (via the NyquistShannon sampling theorem ) (note 2);
The Dynamic Range (difference between loud and soft sounds) capabilities of CD audio are greater than that of LP records.

Now, here's where things get tricky. The above paragraph is a big "if", because the mastering processes -- those steps that are taken to move the master recording to the final product -- for LPs and CDs are inherently different, and these processes can result in significantly different-sounding recordings.

As a result many CDs out there are actually worse recordings (for one reason or another) than their LP counterparts. But note that this is not a function of the technology but the way it has been used (and abused).

etc.

 

[Santy]

@Joshua
On the surface its a good article but did you really find it making complete sense? Your writings and thoughts are way more knowledgeable and matured than the article your referred to.
While I don't refute the essence of it and I am no expert in this but I have some comments. Please permit me.
'Perfectly' and 'accurately' are two words used liberally. Not in a single instance he refers to "DAC" which I believe is the heart of a digital system.

In other words, if an LP record and a CD are created from the same master source with no differences in settings, and each are played back on properly-designed equipment, the CD will deliver at least as accurate of a representation of the original as the LP

Master source is analog or digital? Does it not matter?
No idea what settings is he talking about. I doubt if there are "same settings" in both analog and digital recording studios.

Therefore CDs can perfectly capture and recover sound beyond the capabilities of records.

CDs neither capture nor recover sound. Capturing and recovering is done by ADC and DAC respectively and lot of things can happen to the quality of the music depending on the quality of gear and technology applied. The right way to put it is that CD faithfully captures data that is written on it and outputs exactly the same when read. CD carries data. Transport extracts it. DAC converts it into music.

Digital music, in the form of CDs or MP3s, is optimized for mobile use. Most of us listen to digital music on the go -- through cheap earbuds at the gym or on a car stereo on a noisy road -- while traffic or other distractions compete for our attention. Playing a record, on the other hand, requires much more commitment and focus. You are, by definition, in one place (where the record player is). You are actively selecting and initiating the experience rather than "letting it shuffle". You are likely using the best equipment you own or have access to to do this listening and are less likely to be distracted. You have a big sleeve with cool artwork in your hands.

This para I enjoyed the most.
Agreed that we can't carry our TT in our backpack or mount it in on the dashboard but digital music is optimized for mobile use?
And only Vinyl users can be serious listeners ?
Vinyl is actively, carefully and consciously played and CD is popped into the tray almost accidentally each time.
Our kids will not distract us if they know we are playing LP but will create a hungama in the listening room if they know it is CD that is playing.


(yes, Note 6 clarifies it but there was no reason to write this generalized BS in first place)

the output of a properly-designed digital music player is an analog signal, and that signal is a complete and accurate version of the original waveform (within the frequency limits dictated by Nyquist). It's math.

1. The output of improperly designed digital music player is also analog.
2. Going by this, all DACs or CD players do simple maths inside the boxes and all will have equal performance. They will deliver the original music as it was recorded on the CD. Wow.

While the math is simple what matters is how well that is applied. No wonder we have DACs or CDPs from $50 to $10000 and more. So the word accurate doesn't belong to this statement.

 

[jls001]

Thanks, Santy.

I didn't delve into it phrase by phrase

Perhaps some of what he has to say may be a "glossing over" of deeper truths, but I like the way he tried to present a fairly balanced view of both sides of sabre-rattling factions. There is always room for the third side of the story, which is perhaps the truth. Or there is no one truth.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Santy, I went to look at the article, but it wanted me to not only sign in, but agree that I am over 13. I gave it a miss. And you saved me the trouble anyway.

 

[ranjeetrain]

Well, atleast I am interested to know how you believe analog is not absolutely continuous. I agree it could be painful to write so a googled link will do too.

I'll pick this up later. Two reasons. One, it will take time to carefully write what I want to say. Two, one will really need an open mind to appreciate what I will write. In such discussions best of the open minds start closing down. So, I'll get back to it later if needed.

Btw, really glad to see some excellent points being made here. Kudos to everyone adding their thoughts here.

 

[thx911]

Btw, really glad to see some excellent points being made here. Kudos to everyone adding their thoughts here.

Keep it coming guys, its so informative to just listen to different POVs. Its only when we scratch the surface and dig deeper do we find the truth. If you read the OPs links to the radio show - the recording engineer merely said that digital music has better fidelity - he is more confident of what the final music will sound the way it was intended. It's really interesting how people respond to this seemingly unbiased and innocuous radio show!

 

[jls001]

but agree that I am over 13.

And I thought you are:lol:

 

[deba]

At this point of time one has to say that vinyl sounds better then CDs or else the audio hardware industry will become stagnant / dormant.........the same goes for Video........

 

[square_wave]

The below quote from that site pretty much summarizes it.

Now, here's where things get tricky. The above paragraph is a big "if", because the mastering processes -- those steps that are taken to move the master recording to the final product -- for LPs and CDs are inherently different, and these processes can result in significantly different-sounding recordings.

 

[haisaikat]

Take a look at this article, seems to make a lot of sense.

Instead of plunging into cd vs vinyl, he has discussed what can go wrong with digital recordings due to sampling.

Also I believe someone mention about Nyquist theory but to my knowledge Nyquist theory is provied using calculus which is nothing but deriving something on the summation of infinitesimal differences which to some extent can be thought of approximation hence its results will be approximate to a certain extent beyond which we will not dig further.

Are high sample rates making your music sound worse ?

Some excerpts from the above article

Theres a real possibility that using high sample rates could actually be reducing the quality of your audio, not making it better.

The sample rate determines how many samples per second a digital audio system uses to record the audio signal. The higher the sample rate, the higher frequencies a system can record. CDs, most mp3s and the AAC files sold by the iTunes store all use a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, which means they can reproduce frequencies up to roughly 20 kHz.

Testing shows that most adults cant hear much above 16 kHz, so on the face of it, this seems sensible enough. Some can, but not the majority. And examples of people who can hear above 20 kHz are few and far between. And to accurately reproduce everything below 20 kHz, a digital audio system removes everything above 20 kHz this is the job of the anti-aliasing filter.

But a fair few musical instruments produce sound well above these frequencies muted trumpet and percussion instruments like cymbals or chime bars are clear examples.

This leads to two potential objections to a 44.1 kHz sample rate first, that in order to reproduce a sound accurately we should capture as much of it as possible, including frequencies we probably cant hear. There are various suggestions that we may be able to somehow perceive these sounds, even if we cant actually hear them. And secondly that depending on the design, the anti-aliasing filter may have an effect at frequencies well below the 20 kHz cut-off point.

Whether these arguments stand up to scrutiny or not, the solution is obvious record at higher sample rates. The filters can work higher up and be more gentle, and all the high-frequency content can be recorded accurately. Simple, right ?

Well, not entirely.

Back when CD was released, recording at 96 kHz or above simply wasnt viable at a reasonable price, especially not in consumer audio. Times have moved on though, and these days almost any off-the-peg digital audio chip is capable of at least 96 kHz processing, if not higher.

Now these files take up much more space than simple 44.1 kHz audio, but hard drive space is cheap, and getting cheaper all the time why not record at 96 kHz or higher, just in case either of those hotly debated arguments really does carry some weight ?

The answer lies in the analogue circuitry of the equipment we use. Just because the digital hardware in an interface is capable of 96 kHz or higher audio processing, doesnt mean the analogue stages will record or play the signal cleanly.

Its quite common for ultrasonic content to cause intermodulation distortion right down into the audible range. Or in simple English, the inaudible high-frequency content actually makes the audio you can hear sound worse.

You can read all the gory details in a the same excellent article I linked to above here, but heres the summary:

its not certain that intermodulation from ultrasonics will be audible on a given system. The added distortion could be insignificant or it could be noticable. Either way, ultrasonic content is never a benefit, and on plenty of systems it will audibly hurt fidelity. On the systems it doesnt hurt, the cost and complexity of handling ultrasonics could have been saved, or spent on improved audible range performance instead.

Thhis article in summary raises the same question as the other article previously quoted by putting the ball in the court of the equipments that will produce the sound from the recording.

So now my question is does vinyls have the capability to capture all frequencies including ultra band which we may not directly hear but it can affect the end result to a certain extent which can either be termed as ultrasonic distortion or as "True Sound"

 

[kuruvilajacob]

I would like to quote an email sent to HI-Fi Plus March 2012 edition by one of their subscribers found on page 5. It goes like this" I find myself switching from my 7,500 Pounds CD player to my 1500 Pounds turntable, not because it sounds 'different', but because it sounds BETTER". I know one of out FMs after he came to listen to Vinyl in my house selling hid Rs1.25 Lakh CD player within a week and buying a Modified Lenco TT. He now swears by viinyl. And this is the experience of several other people the world over.

 

[shafic]

Hi friends,

I think we have reached the best part of this thread.:clapping:

 

[jls001]

Thhis article in summary raises the same question as the other article previously quoted by putting the ball in the court of the equipments that will produce the sound from the recording.

Equipment + recording.

For those who keep harping about the superiority of vinyl, here's news for you: some records sound positively crappy, some records sound ordinary, some records sound very good, and some records sound brilliant*

For those who keep harping about the superiority of CDs, here's news for you: some CD sound positively crappy, some CDs sound ordinary, some CDs sound very good, and some CDs sound brilliant**

*when played on the same analog setup.
** when played on the same digital setup.

So now my question is does vinyls have the capability to capture all frequencies including ultra band which we may not directly hear but it can affect the end result to a certain extent which can either be termed as ultrasonic distortion or as "True Sound"

@haisaikat: that's a good question you have raised.

In the digital domain, this is how it works:

1) to keep things simple, assume you have a single 20 kHz test tone sampled at 48 kHz. This signal is passed through a DAC without filtering. In real life, audio signal is much, much more complex, btw.

2) This test tone will produce an alias or image at 28 kHz (48-20 kHz).

3) In turn, 28 kHz signal will intermodulate with the original 20 kHz signal and produce a 28-20 = 8 kHz signal, which is bang in the middle of the audible range. Recall that the only desirable signal introduced was 20 kHz, but we now have a 8 kHz signal too as a byproduct of it being passed through a DAC.

4) now, if the 20 kHz test tone signal is sampled at 192 kHz instead of 48 kHz and passed through the same DAC, the nearest alias is present at about 40 kHz, that too nearly 60 dB below the original 20 kHz signal. The intermodulation product will now be much further away from 24 kHz (=48/2).

Owing to the above natural phenomena, DACs come with filters. They HAVE TO remove the unwanted signal. 28 kHz is faily close to 24 kHz = 48 / 2 (recall that Nyquist-Shannon theorem says sampling must be at twice the highest frequency component). If the DAC is non-upsampling, it NEEDS to remove that harmful 28 kHz signal to avoid intermodulation products. It needs a sharp cut-off to separate 28 from 24 kHz. This is what is called a brickwall filter, and usually implemented in the digital domain. And brickwalling will give rise to their own set of problems as it is akin to using brute force.

For the upsampled signal, a gentle analog filter is sufficient to filter off all the unwanted signals.

In the analog domain, things work differently. Many pickups are capable of picking up signal well into the ultrasonic frequencies. A humble Denon DL103 will pick up from 20 Hz right upto 45000 Hz. Fancier MC cartridges hit the ceiling at 80-90 kHz. This signal is then passed to the phono stage, which may or may not be capable of handling signals greater than 20 kHz (this is by design). I am not aware of phono stages that filter off signals above 20 kHz, but there could well be. But it doesn't produce an alias signal that could play havoc within audio band, either. Next up, the signal from the phono stage goes to a line level preamp. There too, I don't think there is any brickwalling filter that tries to constraint the amplified signal to 20-20000 Hz.

Is the presence of >20 kHz signal in analog playback useful? I honestly don't know! The last time I checked my hearing, I couldn't hear above 17 kHz, so for me and many others this whole thing is just academic.

The above is my understanding of how things work. Please feel free to correct me as my understanding is fractured and far from coherent.

 

[haisaikat]

Equipment + recording.

I think this is rightly said

For the upsampled signal, a gentle analog filter is sufficient to filter off all the unwanted signals.

So does that mean filtering comparatively simpler circuits / equipments can do the same job in analogue world (Vinyl) which will take significantly better designed circuits in Digital world (CD)?

In the analog domain, things work differently. Many pickups are capable of picking up signal well into the ultrasonic frequencies. A humble Denon DL103 will pick up from 20 Hz right upto 45000 Hz. Fancier MC cartridges hit the ceiling at 80-90 kHz.

So this indeed points to that Analogue medium can store greater detail unless the recording quality in the forst place is poor.

This signal is then passed to the phono stage, which may or may not be capable of handling signals greater than 20 kHz (this is by design). I am not aware of phono stages that filter off signals above 20 kHz, but there could well be. But it doesn't produce an alias signal that could play havoc within audio band, either. Next up, the signal from the phono stage goes to a line level preamp. There too, I don't think there is any brickwalling filter that tries to constraint the amplified signal to 20-20000 Hz.

Is there a way to know this (band-pass) from the specs of a phono stage?

Is the presence of >20 kHz signal in analog playback useful? I honestly don't know! The last time I checked my hearing, I couldn't hear above 17 kHz, so for me and many others this whole thing is just academic..

If you tried hearing a single 17KHz signal that may not be ideal case in sound wave. What is being said is that whether the presence of that 17KHz component in conjunction with say a 5 KHz component (superimposed) will create the same audible experiance (let us leave aside musicality, since we intend to get the waveform as it was produced) if we had only heard the isolated 5 KHz signal separately.

So if vinyls can truly store the entire (or majority) spectrums of the source recording and the subsequent circuits of phono stage and amp can reproduce that easily (less cost, less complicated circuits) as compared to digital source chains then definitely it makes sense to hear the same thing on vinyl preferably than on CD if the recording quality is the same (should be true for digitally remastered vinyls as well). Is that something truly happening in reality?

 

[asliarun]

I was under the impression that vinyl cannot even physically store the entire audio spectrum , much less ultrasonic or subsonic. That is why they have riaa equalization. But I know very little about vinyl. Actually Thad pointed this out earlier.

Another thing I have not fully understood is why vinyl sounds superior to cassette tapes when both are analog.

Just one more thing - I always find these discussions strange.

Car enthusiasts for example pursue vintage cars with the same passion as they do to modern cars. Some restore vintage as accurately while others use the vintage body with modern engines and guts. Yet others buy expensive modern sports and performance cars and others buy cheaper but high potential cars and add turbo etc to it to improve performance in a budget.

However no one tries to compare a vintage car with a modern sports car in terms of pure performance. In fact, performance itself isn't one dimensional - for some it is a quarter mile straight line performance, for others it is cornering ability, and for others it is even more subjective.

A lot of the joy of car ownership, tweaking, and building is the process, the feel, the pride of ownership, the subjective joys etc.

Not sure why we try to reduce audio and HiFi into a one dimensional formula.

Arguably, attempts at comparison itself is a distasteful thing to do.

Or, the parameters for performance comparison have to be very strictly and narrowly defined.

For example, wouldn't it be ironical if the vinly we treasure came from a digital master? Or vice versa.

Just some random thoughts. No offense intended.

Edit: I found this article informative. I was also surprised at how industry stalwarts so readily pick up and adopt things based on completely non scientific reasons. Stuff that wouldn't even pass the smell test in another industry.

Like the stuff about john diamond and mark Levinson.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_analog_and_digital_recording

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I was under the impression that vinyl cannot even physically store the entire audio spectrum , much less ultrasonic or subsonic. That is why they have riaa equalization. But I know very little about vinyl. Actually Thad pointed this out earlier.

My point was not about the frequency range, but about the idea of some sort of straight-through end-to-end naturalness of vinyl. jls001 rightly toned down my actual words to the real situation, but I still feel that this whole thing is "conveniently" ignored in the world of vinyl.

Actually, it is abut dynamic range. The full bass would send the stylus up towards the ceiling. It has to be reduced so that the LP is physically playable.

Another thing I have not fully understood is why vinyl sounds superior to cassette tapes when both are analog.

I've also touched on the inevitable association of analogue with vinyl-LP recordings. I can remember a few people 30 or 40 years back that considered their reel-to-reel to be a better source than their deck! The problem with this is I don't know where they got their music from: if it was recorded from LP in the first place, I can't see how they gained anything. I don't recall any record shops having stacks of tape reels for sale!

Why is cassette not so good? I think the answers are simple: cassette is a convenient but inferior form of tape. It is too thin (think of the width of each track, 1/4 of the tape, compared to r-to-r. It is too slow ...and, anything over C60 was too thin to be dimensionally stable. I suppose the C120 was the MP3 of its time! Sacrificing quality for quantity.

Having said all that, I've recorded many an LP to cassette and been entirely happy with the results. One advantage of cassette, to me, was that its limited dynamic range made scratches very slightly less bad --- and took away the fear of what they were doing to the stylus!

Yes, there is more to "analogue" than LPs!

Not sure why we try to reduce audio and HiFi into a one dimensional formula.

Only a few go so far as to throw anything away. Most put the music first, and may have a favoured medium, where there is a choice, but will not sacrifice the chance to hear the music by excluding anything. This, to me, is the balanced way to go.

Arguably, attempts at comparison itself is a distasteful thing to do.

Or, the parameters for performance comparison have to be very strictly and narrowly defined.

Without comparisons of some sort, sites like this would be a bit empty

Fixing the parameters means that subjectivity is no longer supreme. Unpopular.

For example, wouldn't it be ironical if the vinly we treasure came from a digital master? Or vice versa.

Often the case, no doubt.

One of the last LPs I ever bought was "Digital recorded and mastered." It was a classical double album. It was painfully expensive. It was horrible, with all the lifelessness that the worst in digital can achieve. Until I eventually got a CD of that symphony, I preferred to listen to the unknown-origin home-made cassette that someone must have left in the house when passing through.

 

[asliarun]

Thanks for the clarification. I still don't see the point of the comparison though, especially when the storage medium itself has such little to do with the final music quality. All assertions or conclusions become overly broad.

For example, what would have made a lot more sense to me would be to add a constraint like say, price. What quality can you get from vinyl vs audio CD for $2000?

It would be far more interesting to know if the inherent advantages of vinyl become significant at this price point. Or at a higher price point.

 

[square_wave]

However no one tries to compare a vintage car with a modern sports car in terms of pure performance. In fact, performance itself isn't one dimensional - for some it is a quarter mile straight line performance, for others it is cornering ability, and for others it is even more subjective.

With cars, it is quite straightforward. What came earlier is vintage and low performance while the new is high performance. It is automobile / mechanical engineering and that is the nature of the beast !!

On the other hand, the various storage methods in audio (digital, analogue etc) are developed to serve specific needs / trends of the industry at various point of time. If quality of sound reproduction is the criteria, it is very difficult to argue about ones superiority over the other although what best serves the industries needs better is anyones guess !!

Arguably, attempts at comparison itself is a distasteful thing to do.

Agree

 

[jls001]

So does that mean filtering comparatively simpler circuits / equipments can do the same job in analogue world (Vinyl) which will take significantly better designed circuits in Digital world (CD)?

Filters with very sharp knee (cut-off or roll-off) are complex. The ideal brickwall filter for the purpose of our discussion would have a pass band from 20 to 24,000 Hz (exactly like a square wave in shape). Of course it is physically impossible to build such a filter. In our example, we need to filter off 28 kHz signal while retaining 24 kHz signal (our passband extends to 24 kHz since sampling rate is 48 kHz). So our roll off point will be 24 kHz and it needs to eliminate 28 kHz. Using a first order filter, the signal amplitude will be exactly half at 2 x roll off freq, i.e. at 48 kHz (an octave is doubling of frequency). Put another way, the power at 48 kHz will be exactly 6 dB below what it was at 24 kHz. Using second order filter, power at 48 kHz will be 12 dB below what it was at 24 kHz. Meaning it has a much steeper roll off. Unless we draw the roll off on a log graph, I wont be able to tell you what is the exact amplitude of 28 kHz using first or second order filters. I am guessing a third order may be called for. This calls for 3 stages of filtering. And perhaps a fourth stage to compensate/equalise for the gain. This is complex circuitry. And as already mentioned, it will introduce its own set of problems (like pre and post ringing).

On the other hand, a simple first order filter is sufficient to filter off 40 kHz from the 20-24000 Hz pass band.

Yawn. Too much mathematical explanations:sad:. Any more and my small brain will explode.

So this indeed points to that Analogue medium can store greater detail unless the recording quality in the forst place is poor.

The vinyl medium stores the signal as a continuous analog signal and not as a sample of the original signal. I don't know if that equates to "greater detail". I have heard fine digital systems that lack nothing (to the extent of my limited experience). I am yet to hear a really good analog system (which is at least the equal of said digital setups).

Is there a way to know this (band-pass) from the specs of a phono stage?

Yes, it is usually mentioned in the specs sheet. For example, Ray Samuels Nighthawk F-117 phono preamplifier is rated for 5 Hz to 100,000 Hz.

So if vinyls can truly store the entire (or majority) spectrums of the source recording and the subsequent circuits of phono stage and amp can reproduce that easily (less cost, less complicated circuits) as compared to digital source chains then definitely it makes sense to hear the same thing on vinyl preferably than on CD if the recording quality is the same (should be true for digitally remastered vinyls as well). Is that something truly happening in reality?

Turntables are very, very complex electro-mechanical devices. Not complex in the sense of of it having lots and lots of moving and interacting parts. Complex in the sense that the movement of the platter must be perfectly in the horizontal plane, and the stylus tracing the grooves as per specific geometries.

There are too many variables that need to fall in place for it to really sing. Vibration control is a major problem as unwanted vibration reaching the platter gives rise to a "muddying" of the desired signal. Interaction between tonearm and cartridge is another area of concern as they need to be matched. Correct setup is of paramount importance. Keeping records clean is critical for extracting the best out of it, and also to prolong stylus life. In other words, analog playback is much more involved. My point being, it is easy to say vinyl is great. The extra learning steps and efforts and expenses needed to optimise it are often glossed over.

CD playout is relatively easier. There is no need to tweak anything. Unless you want to mod it.

 

[Santy]

If 44 / 96/ 192 khz can be called as resolution of a digital content then analog theoretically has infinite resolution.