Is Vinyl better than CD?

[malvai]

Hemanth, what i have seen in my various sojourns into the recording studio's in India..... is...... that none of them here use spool anymore....

However, I might be wrong...

Abroad, though, they still use them... the difference shows....

 

[hemantwaghe]

Hemanth, what i have seen in my various sojourns into the recording studio's in India..... is...... that none of them here use spool anymore....

However, I might be wrong...

Abroad, though, they still use them... the difference shows....

So mastering is digital ? Like master directly taken on Hard drive?

 

[stevieboy]

That will, as I said before, make all TTs beg for mercy.

Cheers

I guess they'll be saying 'Please have mercy on us and stop trying so hard to match up to us old fogies, we can't bear to see you keep failing year after year with each new tech that somehow still doesn't manage to deliver' :licklips:

 

[psychotropic]

i am not from the recording industry, but I can say with some confidence that analogue has disappeared frmo most recording studio, not only in India but abroad. The flexibility and power of something like ProTools just can't possibly be matched by analogue gear.

There are of course boutique studios that still use analogue stages, and of course analogue desks like the SSL or neve desks are still popular at the mixing stage, but ya, you can be assured that most of the music that you listen to has gone through a sampling process at some point in time, and is not truly analogue.

So the true analogue versus sampling debate may be somewhat academic when it comes to many recordings.

It must also be remembered that CDs have a greater dynamic range than vinyl. Of course modern mastering engineers have a made a mockery of this with their compressed and super-loud hot records, but it's a theoretical advantage that the CD possesses, much like the theoretical advantage of being analogue that vinyl possesses.

It may also be worth mentioning the nyquist shannon theorem here. if it's sampled well enough then it's as good as analogue, to put it very very crudely. What should of course have settled the dispute is SACD, with a sampling rate like that, the vinyl camp will only have what i mention below as their reason for their preference.

There have also been tests where it has been observed that vinyl like tubes adds some amount of harmonic colouration to the sound, which listeners tend to find pleasing.

Anyway, this whole hobby is full of these 'debates' and there'll never be an end to it. Enjoy the music I say!

 

[stevieboy]

It may also be worth mentioning the nyquist shannon theorem here. if it's sampled well enough then it's as good as analogue, to put it very very crudely.

Ah Psychotropic,

That particular feller cropped up many a time in this endless debate and for some reason or the other (some tech funda), the theorem remains just that - a theorem - and reality remains far apart cos of some requirement that can never be realized or some stuff like that. For those interested I'm sure google will throw up more light.

regards

 

[malvai]

I guess they'll be saying 'Please have mercy on us and stop trying so hard to match up to us old fogies, we can't bear to see you keep failing year after year with each new tech that somehow still doesn't manage to deliver' :licklips:

Brilliant! hyeah:hyeah:hyeah:hyeah:hyeah:

 

[arj]

There are two points here.

One; someone did make a TT that used a laser beam instead of a stylus. The product had a very short lifetime due to reasons unknown.

Two; the 'image' as you call it has to physically represent the music. This can done in one of three ways - (1) the traditional method of a vinyl where the groves are used; (2) some magnetic form that can be used to represent the music; and (3) digital form.

If you delve deep into the construction of a CD, you will notice that the representation is actually physical - a minuscule hole in the media that represents a zero or a one.
...

They still exist. the problem with laser was more practical..Dust in the grooves which is actually removed by the stylus causes error reading in laser !

regarding the CD format..they are more of "pits" and "land" rather than holes which are built up from a Glass mother..and a Metal father image.
really good fundamental article here


regarding CD Vs LP..it all depends on what you use and how many LP/CDs you have. LPs can perhaps sound much better than CDs in the older days where recordings were analogue and DACs/Transports not so good, these days things are a lot more complex.. and like the Tube Vs SS debate better let to your own ears

I could never move into vinyl , not for any techincal reason, but for the practical one of not having any Vinyl currently, the cost of building a collection of music which i have collected on CDs and grown to love over than last 15 years, and the pain of cleaning and storing them safely

 

[venkatcr]

For a very long time, Nagra equipment have been considered the de-facto industry standard for field and studio recording. Literally every movie worth it's salt uses Nagra recorders. Nagra has multichannel recorders where independent mikes would feed multiple channels isolated from each other into multi channel tapes. These were then mixed as needed in the studio.

In 2002, Nagra stopped making tape based recorders and switched over completely to multi channel recorders that use hard disk as the storage medium. That kind of set the trend in the industry and everyone quietly switched to digital recording.

Even old music such as Beatles have recently been converted into digital form and stored in hard disks.

Cheers

 

[venkatcr]

That particular feller cropped up many a time in this endless debate and for some reason or the other (some tech funda), the theorem remains just that - a theorem - and reality remains far apart cos of some requirement that can never be realized or some stuff like that. For those interested I'm sure google will throw up more light.

Every time you watch a movie or listen to a song, remember it is the Nyquist theorem at work. His theorems are the very foundation on which the digital recording industry works.

Cheers

 

[stevieboy]

Hi Venkat,

I'm sure the theorem is hard at work in a lot of places, I was referring more to a very specific portion of it, the realization of which in real life does not happen/cannot happen for some specific reason in real world conditions, and hence sound does not achieve the ultimate that it can. And that's not an opinion but pure fact that exists.

regards

 

[venkatcr]

Can you elaborate?


Cheers

 

[stevieboy]

Hi Venkat,

Could but I'd have to spend way too much time googling and reading up to pick out the relevant para and right now a tad occupied with an exam . If I remember right it was on this forum itself and in a Wikipedia article. In the Wiki article it was a para explaining why a part of the theorem couldn't be fulfilled in real life conditions. So if I remember right, it was more the implementation than the theorem that is at fault. That's the max I remember cos theorems are quite boring for me ain't a tech guy at all.

regards

edit: more than implementation it was I think ability to ever implement a part of it ever. seemed like a sort of permanent 'do not pass go' situation.

 

[Rajiv]

HI,



There used to be a hoarding by ProMusicals back in the late 80's early 90's in Madras where Analogue was likened to natrual procreation and Digital to having babies through artificial procreation (clinical)

I could not find a picture of the original hoarding so am attaching other pictures to convey the same message.



Analogue VS Digital

Vinyl VS Digital

Regards
Rajiv

 

[malvai]

Also, guys, we must one remember one itty bitty thing.... there are about 40-50 known parametres of testing SQ etc.... and hundreds of unknown-waiting to be discovered parameteres....

Which probably explain things like Tube's sounding better than SS despite SS trouncing them on all knows parameters.... The same I beleive applies to the Digital vs Analogue argument....

Analogue just plain sounds BETTER.

 

[psychotropic]

hey stevie, i am a little surprised that you claim that it's a fact that the nyquist shannon theorem doesn't "work" in "real life." That's not quite true. What 'critics' of the theorem say is that it is not as simple as that, there are a number of other parameters that need to be considered, and catered for, but I don't think even they have claimed that it doesn't work (unless they had a vinyl axe to grind).

Some people claim that 16 bit / 44 khz sampling rate is not good enough, and there are yet others who claim that it absolutely is, but the fact is that our life is full of digital sampling, the gorgeous HD pictures that we view on blu-ray are digital (and sampled), no one's really clamouring for the return of VHS. Even when it comes to film v. digital cameras, there are people who prefer the look of film, but no one's saying that the digital sampling involved in capturing the images "does not work."

And let me re-iterate what I have been saying, if you're listening to (virtually) any recent music, it has been recorded, mixed and/or mastered digitally, and according to your assertion, since the nyquist shannon theorem doesn't work, then at that stage or stages, the sound has already been 'destroyed'.....so in that case even vinyl would not be able to salvage it right? Then how is it that vinyl-heads are claiming that even recent records by Iron Maiden and Green Day sound better on vinyl.....surely not because of the failure of the nyquist shannon theorem?

So once nyquist and shannon have stepped into the recording, mixing and/or mastering stage, the analogue v. digital debate is knocked off the table, because once digitised, then it can't ever go back to analogue, so even vinyl will only be able to reproduce that digital sound. In that case, if vinyl-heads still prefer the vinyl versions of modern records, could it possibly be that the records add a 'special sauce' of some sort, much like tube amplifiers?

Once again, let me clarify that I am not taking sides, I really want to understand what the facts are. My exposure to vinyl is somewhat limited (and I do find the non-audio aspects of it fascinating....the beautiful artwork, the feeling of holding a record, the 'rituals' involved in placing the record on the TT and lowering the needle, and cleaning the records and all that), but from everything I've read and heard the "problem" with digital is not because it is digital, but because it fails to add a certain flavour to the sound, which a lot of people love.

And malvai, with all due respect to the fact that you have seen, heard and experienced far more than i have, "tubes sounding better" is very much in the realms of preference and not fact right? and would that not similarly extend to the analogue v. digital debate?

-------------- EDIT

And Rajiv, that Pro Music hoarding illustrates this debate PERFECTLY. The methods are different. The analogue method is more romantic and more traditional and has "always been the case" before the new digital / test-tube method came around. But would anyone dare to claim that a baby born out of in-vitro fertilization is in any way different or inferior to a baby born out of natural, sexual conception? I would love to know

 

[Rajiv]

And let me re-iterate what I have been saying, if you're listening to (virtually) any recent music, it has been recorded, mixed and/or mastered digitally, and according to your assertion, since the nyquist shannon theorem doesn't work, then at that stage or stages, the sound has already been 'destroyed'.....so in that case even vinyl would not be able to salvage it right? Then how is it that vinyl-heads are claiming that even recent records by Iron Maiden and Green Day sound better on vinyl.....surely not because of the failure of the nyquist shannon theorem?

So once nyquist and shannon have stepped into the recording, mixing and/or mastering stage, the analogue v. digital debate is knocked off the table, because once digitised, then it can't ever go back to analogue, so even vinyl will only be able to reproduce that digital sound. In that case, if vinyl-heads still prefer the vinyl versions of modern records, could it possibly be that the records add a 'special sauce' of some sort, much like tube amplifiers?

Hi,

Digital LP's sound good/better than CD because,in many cases the full digital signal can be represented on the LP whereas it must be compressed to 16 bits for standard red book CD. CDs mastered from these recordings must either downsampled, or be converted to analog and then back to digital. There is an inherent loss of fidelity with both of these processes.

- With vinyl, there are many more user-adjustable components in the signal path (stylus/cartridge/tonearm/table/pre-amp) than CD. Each of these components can have a very dramatic effect on the sound. Vinyl enthusiasts can tune their systems to their liking via their choice of components. Take the same sound, and you'll get different responses from different people: one man's 'natural and neutral' is another man's 'flat and lifeless'.
- The limitations of vinyl actually help make it easier on the ears. This is both in terms of EQ (i.e. excessive treble and out-of-phase low frequencies must be avoided to prevent severe mistracking) and sharp attacks and transients. Case in point: a pure square wave is harsh and nasty. You can't record it onto vinyl and have it still be a square wave, for it's not possible for the cutting head to instantly go from the top of the waveform to the bottom. The cutting process smooths it down a bit, and also makes it easier on your speakers (which, like your stylus, can't instantly move from top to bottom). CDs are limited only by the nyquist frequency. You can put a full-on square wave on digital, and hear the resulting nastiness.


Usually mastering is digital,but not always. Digital mastering will often have analog stages, but again not always. 90% or more of new recordings are digital and the analog ones almost always have a digital source somewhere, a sample or digital reverb. Vinyl still needs to be cut and the dynamics of it and bass summing are going to be different than a cd, plus you are going to have the inherent sound of vinyl in the mix. Often they will master the vinyl from a higher res digital than 16/44.1 and you will get a bit of a different sound than the downsampled redbook.

Really it's all a matter of what sounds good to you. Most everything is hybrid these days. I hope this helps.

And Rajiv, that Pro Music hoarding illustrates this debate PERFECTLY. The methods are different. The analogue method is more romantic and more traditional and has "always been the case" before the new digital / test-tube method came around. But would anyone dare to claim that a baby born out of in-vitro fertilization is in any way different or inferior to a baby born out of natural, sexual conception? I would love to know

Given that the end result might be the same would you chose the clinical method or the more traditional romantic method?

Rajiv

 

[malvai]

And malvai, with all due respect to the fact that you have seen, heard and experienced far more than i have, "tubes sounding better" is very much in the realms of preference and not fact right? and would that not similarly extend to the analogue v. digital debate?

Firstly, +1 to Rajiv

Secondly, Pshycotropic, Toobs are a personal preference - in my case, I DO NOT PREFER TUBE SOUND.

All i was trying to put across is that there are various measuring parameteres that haven't even been thought of/discovered.... Those parameteres probably have a lot to do with the SQ. Which is why even though SS measures better on paper, half the audiophile work still like tubes better... Similarly, analogue vs digital is also touched by the same unknown parameteres.

Also, analogue sound is not compressed.... even the higher sampling rates of 32/196 etc are still compressions of the 'original'.

Coming to the video aspect of digital.... Can celluliod be replaced? Maybe...
The newer digital formats (Red One) are just about as good! Do a google on this nd see how many Hollywood releases happened last year.

But, for some reason, when it comes to audio, analogue still is the reference grade....

 

[venkatcr]

Rajiv, agreed that the CD has limitations in terms of size. This has nothing to do with either the Nyquist theorem nor with the digital process. Nyquist just set a minimum limit - at this frequency of sampling, you will be able to represent enough of the original wave for it to be indistinguishable from the original wave for the human ear.

As space becomes easy such as in hard drives and (maybe) Blu-Ray, this gap will be completely eliminated. At very high sampling rates, even a testing instrument cannot differentiate between the original wave and the ADC-DAC converted wave, leave alone a human ear. Thus if one says that even at this high level of sampling, a vinyl sounds better - the response is very subjective.

Again agreed that a vinyl has no compression and thus no sampling requirements, nor any conversion. But vinyl has inherent flaws that many of us have accepted as part of the romanticism. Most important of this is the wear and tear. After some use, what you hear from the vinyl was never part of the original recording. A digital version, irrespective of how many times you play, will never change. Vinyl is difficult to produce, distribute, store, and use. With the advent of hard disk, digital versions herald new and easy ways of distribution and usage. A TT, since it uses a motor, is subject to the vagaries of electricity. Though a CD/DVD player also uses a motor, the energy required is so small that a rectified DC voltage can be used easily.

Having descended from computer usage where even one byte could make a difference to the data, the use of such techniques for music and video are better placed to make error free deliveries time and again.

Though there is nothing wrong with vinyl, the market is just too small for it to sustain itself. It will continue to be am audiophile's exclusive domain with esoteric players and albums. The question is whether the amount of effort you have to take to hear decent music from a vinyl - does it have value?

Digital media, on the other hand, continue to make life easy. Cataloging, use across multiple devices at home through networks, easy transportation, visual cues, repetitive loops, software that remembers your choice, the use of Net for additional information.... it just goes on.


Cheers

 

[sachu888]

Digital leads to piracy.

Rajiv, agreed that the CD has limitations in terms of size. This has nothing to do with either the Nyquist theorem nor with the digital process. Nyquist just set a minimum limit - at this frequency of sampling, you will be able to represent enough of the original wave for it to be indistinguishable from the original wave for the human ear.

As space becomes easy such as in hard drives and (maybe) Blu-Ray, this gap will be completely eliminated. At very high sampling rates, even a testing instrument cannot differentiate between the original wave and the ADC-DAC converted wave, leave alone a human ear. Thus if one says that even at this high level of sampling, a vinyl sounds better - the response is very subjective.

Again agreed that a vinyl has no compression and thus no sampling requirements, nor any conversion. But vinyl has inherent flaws that many of us have accepted as part of the romanticism. Most important of this is the wear and tear. After some use, what you hear from the vinyl was never part of the original recording. A digital version, irrespective of how many times you play, will never change. Vinyl is difficult to produce, distribute, store, and use. With the advent of hard disk, digital versions herald new and easy ways of distribution and usage. A TT, since it uses a motor, is subject to the vagaries of electricity. Though a CD/DVD player also uses a motor, the energy required is so small that a rectified DC voltage can be used easily.

Having descended from computer usage where even one byte could make a difference to the data, the use of such techniques for music and video are better placed to make error free deliveries time and again.

Though there is nothing wrong with vinyl, the market is just too small for it to sustain itself. It will continue to be am audiophile's exclusive domain with esoteric players and albums. The question is whether the amount of effort you have to take to hear decent music from a vinyl - does it have value?

Digital media, on the other hand, continue to make life easy. Cataloging, use across multiple devices at home through networks, easy transportation, visual cues, repetitive loops, software that remembers your choice, the use of Net for additional information.... it just goes on.


Cheers

 

[venkatcr]

Digital leads to piracy.

True, but the sheer volume of legal sales of digital software is multi-fold as compared to vinyl. Products such as iPod have also changed the landscape completely.

Cheers