Does vinyl sounds better than cd or not?

[hydrovac]

One thing that was not in question, especially in the early days, is that CDs sounded better than LPs. Reviews of gear would include every possible measurement of the sounds-- which are, after all, vibrations in the air that are quantifiable-- suggested that CDs were superior to LPs.

Since the low-quality files were thrust upon people in the name of convenience and file size, certain associations regarding digital audio as a whole began to develop among a subset of record connoisseurs. For some, it turned into "digital audio is cheap and bad compared to LPs." Is this a terrible thing?

Not at all. A properly mastered CD is still capable of very good sound quality. But the other part of it is that the experience of listening to an LP involves a lot more than remastering and sound sources. There's the act of putting a record on, there is the comforting surface noise, there is the fact that LPs are beautiful objects and CDs have always looked like plastic office supplies. So enjoying what an LP has to offer is in no way contingent on convincing yourself that they necessarily sound better than CDs.

 

[square_wave]

There are people who pursue both at the highest levels and both camps like what they hear hard to argue with both camps because they both look for different things meaning expectations are different !!

Another point to add due to many practical reasons, which have nothing to do with theory but mostly to do with the varying degrees of nonsense that are implemented in the digital domain and manufacturing process due to lack of knowledge or purposeful alterations to suit the needs of marketing suits, analogue wins if you are not into sterile audiophile music.

If you look at theory, these days digital can sound very analogue in sane budgets due to file playback systems - pc or standalone file playback systems? The biggest reason for bad digital was bad transport systems of yore. These are great days for digital !!!

 

[G401fan]

I listen to CDs when I need some music in the background. When I want to engage with and enjoy the music it's always LP.

Digital has certainly improved significantly since the early 80s when it was launched. The playback quality is still heavily dependent on the quality of the DAC used, either built in with your CD player, or standalone. LP playback too does improve with better TT and cartridge - and clean LPs.

A critical test where CD comes out worse is the threshold of aural fatigue. How many CDs can you listen to in succession before your ears call for a stop? Never had any such problem with LPs. Our ears are the true judge, being super sensitive to minor frequency imbalances, those little gaps between the bits of digital. It does not manifest itself initially, but sometimes by the end of the first CD you put on, the fatigue sets in.

 

[netant]

I listen to CDs when I need some music in the background. When I want to engage with and enjoy the music it's always LP.

Digital has certainly improved significantly since the early 80s when it was launched. The playback quality is still heavily dependent on the quality of the DAC used, either built in with your CD player, or standalone. LP playback too does improve with better TT and cartridge - and clean LPs.

A critical test where CD comes out worse is the threshold of aural fatigue. How many CDs can you listen to in succession before your ears call for a stop? Never had any such problem with LPs. Our ears are the true judge, being super sensitive to minor frequency imbalances, those little gaps between the bits of digital. It does not manifest itself initially, but sometimes by the end of the first CD you put on, the fatigue sets in.

As somebody already mentioned, the aural quality is directly proportional to the quality of recording. here is my personal experience.

there was a time when i was a biggest fan of Bryan Adams, i have/had his all works in multiple formats editions. for his last compilation "The Best of Me" i have in 3 version of CD,
#1 A&M - Canada version ( this was first issue to be available in Delhi, India) bought in release year 1999.
#2 Japanese 2-disk edition (A&M) somehow managed to get is around 2003 if i remembered correctly.
#3 Universal version (Indian) - procured it from Music World Hyderabad, around 2008-9.
#4. i have the cassette of A&M Canadian version but no players now with me. - bought this along with CD so that i can play in my walkman

the Quality of these 3 edition of same stuffs is clearly visible, the experience of listening to " I'm ready " of the Japanese version is indescribable in words.
if i listen to universal version of this track after Japanese, the universal seems like i'm listing to FM radio.

Canada version is neutral, the jap ver is enhanced and gives better aural pleasure and the universal is just a crap seems like re-recorded from mp3 cd.

so it will remain an argument vinyl vs CD, but medium hardly matters as per my experience. The Source/recording is the most important.

 

[thx911]

those little gaps between the bits of digital

what is that?

 

[jls001]

because every time you play a vinyl its not the same medium anymore that it was the last time you played it. the medium has limitations capturing DR in the first place (unless you are listening just singles). its hard to believe that its going to be original and true to its source!

It is true that the very act of playing a vinyl record degrades it. Forever. However, it is an infinitesimally small degradation, and would take hundreds of plays to degrade it to a point where sonic differences are audible. This of course assumes that the stylus is tracking correctly.

One reason why dynamic range is usually limited is because mastering engineers try to squeeze as many tracks as possible instead of the recommended 12-15 minutes per LP side (see page 2 here). The more the tracks, the more the need to reduce groove excursions and thus reduced dynamic range. It is quite common to have 20-23 mins of an LP side. Of course, by definition, CDs have much higher dynamic range. That recording engineers refuse to take advantage of this fact and artificially push most modern day tracks to near peak, is another matter.

My personal advice to all: stop flogging a dead horse. Just go ahead and enjoy both formats. There are many records available on vinyl that are not available, or not easy to find, in CD format. And vice versa.

 

[srisaikat]

My beloved heavyweight fms,

I believe some simple and straight logic can judge which is better and when?

My ears tell me if I play music of 50ts to 80ts by using LPs they always sound better than their counter part on CDs.

Now from late 80ts to till the current age Music on Digital source like CDs are always better.

Why so?

My average common sense tells me, that early era of LPs were optimized for analog recording and mastering. LPs represents that era with all it's glory very truthfully. Now playing some music of that era on CDs means at some point one had converted original analog master recording to digital, great possibility that magic just got lost during that conversion. It is like eating fresh fruits from garden vs bottled fruit juice.

Now from 90ts digital technology evolved very quickly towards improvement. Sound Recording and mastering went digital. As there is no major conversion involved so CDs are very capable (than LPs) in every measurement to represent the true spirit for what it was created.

Conclusion: If music were originally recorded and mastered using analog technology then obvious choice is LP, on the other hand if music were recorded and mastered using digital technology then obvious choice is CD or other Digital formats.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

vinyl was the very first mass market recording medium.

No it wasn't! Shellac was. 78RPM records. That's what I grew up on.

But I know that you have excellent knowledge of music-playing equipment going back decades, so I feel I must have misunderstood you. For me, now, most of the Western music that I listen to would certainly have first been issued on vinyl. And, as I said before, even if the LP is not actually of that manufacture date, it still has that feeling.

 

[thx911]

Conclusion: If music were originally recorded and mastered using analog technology then obvious choice is LP, on the other hand if music were recorded and mastered using digital technology then obvious choice is CD or other Digital formats.

:thumbsup:

 

[Santy]

Very valid thoughts srisaikat

Now from 90ts digital technology evolved very quickly towards improvement. Sound Recording and mastering went digital. As there is no major conversion involved so CDs are very capable (than LPs) in every measurement to represent the true spirit for what it was created.

But that is where the catch is... The foundation of the debate lies on the fact that the analog sound is converted into digital during recording and then again converted back to analog during playback, which is why people who favour LPs believe the charm, immediacy and finesse of the original music is lost.

Ofcourse it doesn't change the fact that majority of the recordings today are done on hard disk (much cheaper) though many artists I believe still prefer to record their performances in analog (Daft Punk, Taylor Swift, Arctic Monkeys etc). The vinyl 'renaissance' is definitely felt of late however in terms of actual sales, it is quite far from being visible on the graphs. Check this

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

The foundation of the debate lies on the fact that the analog sound is converted into digital during recording and then again converted back to analog during playback, which is why people who favour LPs believe the charm, immediacy and finesse of the original music is lost.

Believe is the important word. As far as I am concerned, I do not thoroughly understand the processes that go on in the studio, therefore I cannot make superficial judgements based on them. One might as well prefer European or American recordings on the basis that one prefers 110v or 220v!

People make emotional judgements about digitisation. Oddly, they do not make the same judgements about RIAA equalisation. Be fair! Vinyl analogue music is not pure and direct: it has been mangled, and has to be unmangled at the playback.

People have a right to their "because it makes me feel..." stuff. As I just typed in another thread, it is exactly my reason for preferring lossless FLAC over Lossy but high-bit-rate MP3. But because-I-feel is not technical fact.

~

 

[ranjeetrain]

A critical test where CD comes out worse is the threshold of aural fatigue. How many CDs can you listen to in succession before your ears call for a stop? Never had any such problem with LPs. Our ears are the true judge, being super sensitive to minor frequency imbalances, those little gaps between the bits of digital. It does not manifest itself initially, but sometimes by the end of the first CD you put on, the fatigue sets in.

I appreciate that you like Vinyl and understand why you could be loyal towards it. However, your above statement is nowhere near the truth.

I listen to digital all day long and never had the kind of fatigue you are suggesting. Not at least because it was digital, if at all there is anything is to be blamed for fatigue, it is the gear, or an extremely poor recording. And poor recordings will give fatigue regardless of the medium. If you are suggesting that analogue is always fatigue-free and digital is always sterile and causes fatigue, I don't know what to say except point out that you are very heavily biased.

What I understand from the above statement is that you like the coloration that comes from the playback of degraded Vinyls. The warmth from that medium makes many people feel good. Same way as even order harmonics from tube amplification do. But if a certain kind of coloration is liked by some people, it doesn't make it good. At the very least it doesn't make it better than an honest reproduction of recorded sound.

When people refer to gaps in digital, brightness or any such thing, they are most likely referring to a poorly recorded/mastered material. But even a poorly recorded/mastered is at least listenable on digital. An imperfect Vinyl, on the other hand, is completely unusable. Even if a digital material is imperfect, I can still listen to it hours end on (I know I do on a daily basis, as a large percentage of music collection is not perfect). But I can bet, forget hours I can't listen to an imperfect vinyl even for 5 minutes.

May be the analogue coloration caused by imperfections make some people feel good, emotional or whatever, that colored sound is not better than truer to originally recorded sound reproduced by digital. May be for analogue lovers it's sterile / cold / analytical, but at least it's truer to the source, sans analogue colorations. Digital reproduction is purer. If someone feels colored sound makes them more emotional, more power to them. But to other people, it's the digital sound that is more honest, more precise. It's absolutely wrong to claim that colored sound to be superior or better in any way. Not everyone likes colored sound.

And if at all someone likes that analogue coloration, there are many easier ways to get that colored sound while still enjoying the purity , precision and convenience of digital. (1) Use vintage amps, (2) use vintage speakers, (3) Build speakers out of vintage drivers, (4) Use tube amps. All this will help get those analogue like coloration without sacrificing the purity, precision and life like detail and resolution that comes naturally to digital.

PS:

>> those little gaps between the bits of digital

Sorry, but it's obvious that you don't understand digital. The gaps in the digital is in the mind of people who are loyal to analogue, not in the wave-form they recreate. May be you should hook up the output terminals of the amp to an analyzer playing the same tracks on a vinyl and a CD and see if you can see any gaps in the reproduced sound. That's the only way you can get rid of this "digital is non continuous" myth.

 

[Santy]

I think the gaps people refer to is not meant to be heard in literal sense. I suppose they refer to the overall quality of sound which is affected by the 'gaps'. By gaps I think they mean the sampling rate. At same bit depth, if 192 khz samples are sounding better than the red book standard 44.1 khz on a revealing system, then it means our ears can see the gaps. Similarly, if DSD128 sounds better to anyone, it could be due to the smaller gaps (!). In that sense analog has no gaps. May be this is what he meant.

 

[G401fan]

' I don't know what to say except point out that you are very heavily biased.'

'What I understand from the above statement is that you like the coloration that comes from the playback of degraded Vinyls.'

'Sorry, but it's obvious that you don't understand digital.'

I had merely expressed my experience and my views in the matter. You are always free to disagree.

What I did not expect was this personal judgment and insinuation, something I had not experienced on this forum before. I've no time for such attitude, so I'm outta here, at least as far as this thread is concerned.

 

[square_wave]

@ Ranjeet,

I honestly feel that many of these things are not so straight forward due to the many fangled nature of music creation methods, mastering and manufacturing process.

If you do not believe me, visit an audiophile who has both analogue and digital setup in the most optimal way and listen to the same music. You will most probably prefer some music on one medium while preferring many on the other. I am sure you may have already done this experiment.

Accuracy means different things to many people. For some, it is adherence to a certain kind of sound while for others is the capability of the music system to recreate the same feelings which you get when you listen to live music.

To me this is a much more complicated manifestation. That is why this is an interesting hobby.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Listening to music is not a sterile occupation. If it is, then I fear that the listener must be a bit weird!

Accuracy means different things to many people.

I admit that this may be nitpicking but...

If you have been to a concert with a portable recording device, especially a decade or two ago, when such things were of a tiny fraction of the capability of today, then that recording would probably evoke, for you, the experience of the live music far better than any commercial recording on any medium --- but you would probably not describe it as "accurate"

There is a medical lab near my last house, and outside it says, "We aim for accuracy." Sorry, but for a medical lab, aiming for accuracy is nowhere near good enough :lol:

Accuracy is accuracy. Fidelity is fidelity and hifi is high fidelity. The aim has always been to make the music sound live, whatever the medium.

A while back, I digitised a Manfred Mann album (and for the sake of this conversation, please accept that the result was close enough to the vinyl to make no difference) and I enjoyed it very much, but getting rather fed up with the surface noise, I got hold of a FLAC copy, the origins if which I am not sure about, but I would guess that it is made from CD. Yes, they sound different. Not the like-a-different-band difference I have heard with CD/LP comparison, but subtly different. At first, I did not like the difference! I might have said some of the things I hear people using as analogue/digital generalisms: it sounded clinical compared to the LP. I gave it a chance a couple of times, and soon realised that what I was hearing was far more detail. In fact, subject to auditorium acoustics, I was probably hearing more of what I would have heard if I had been in the audience at the live show. I soon came to enjoy it as much, if not more, than the LP I had known for years.

Nitpicking and waffling! hyeah:

 

[square_wave]

Accuracy is accuracy. Fidelity is fidelity and hifi is high fidelity. The aim has always been to make the music sound live, whatever the medium.

Yes it has to sound live. Means your senses needs to agree and realize that it is close to live as soon as you hear it. You should not be struggling to find justifications that this is supposed to sound live !!

Try and listen to two very optimized sources (analogue and digital) in the same room using the same system and see what passes the above test. This is the only test for all practical purposes. Rest is all academic.

My experiments have come out with mixed results. Preferred some music with Vinyl while others with Digital. With sub optimal setups, it can be very polarized. But once you go up the ladder into really resolving sources, things get really tricky and at this level people prefer either depending upon what music they like to hear and what is available in the medium.

In fact there are a few FMs on the forum who have travelled on this road.

PS : With high definition music files and DACs getting better day by day, things will get very tricky in the future. Then again, availability of your favorite music will always play a role about your choice.

 

[prem]

Steve Hoffman is considered one of the finest mastering engineers. Here is his take on what sounds closest to the master tape.

SH Spotlight - What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy? | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Yes it has to sound live. Means your senses needs to agree and realize that it is close to live as soon as you hear it. You should not be struggling to find justifications that this is supposed to sound live !!

I think that has always been my test, ever since I sat in front of stereo speakers: "If I shut my eyes, can I imagine I am listening to this musician in the same room?" As the scale of the music increases (orchestra) it certainly takes more to create what the literature people call the willing suspension of disbelief ...but on the other hand, the immediacy of solo acoustic guitar, with all its subtlety, is pretty hard too.

There is no doubt that the best equipment, both analogue and vinyl, that I have ever listened to would be at Dr.Bass's place. Perhaps oddly, we never sat and did an LP/digital comparison, but just concentrated on the music. It would be a great place to do my LP/digitised-LP test --- but the last thing I would do with any favourite LP is pack it in my luggage and take it to Singapore and back!

It's a learning experience tossing stuff like this back and forth --- but bottom line is, as you say, we play the music on the medium that is available to us. I don't think that anybody here is an extremist who would throw out the CDs because they got a TT, however exotic it might be. I'll listen on YouTube if it is my only way to access a piece of music I want to hear, and I often do.

 

[jls001]

Steve Hoffman is considered one of the finest mastering engineers. Here is his take on what sounds closest to the master tape.

SH Spotlight - What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy? | Steve Hoffman Music Forums

@prem: thanks for sharing. That's a very interesting and surprising observation he had on the CD.