CD's versus vinyl

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Have you folks done this debate alread? (how many times??))

[shrugs]

This debate doesn't go anywhere here. I think most people realize that vinyl sounds better but don't have a good source for used vinyl, listen to a lot of newer music that isn't on vinyl or don't see it as being "convienent".

Here's my answer:

http://members.cox.net/davehubbard9/...%20Artists.rtf


And I am only halfway done!! I found over 30 Living Stereo classical lp's in excellent shape yesterday!!!

[Mark Kleinhaut]

A agree that many of the early CD's didn't sound very good which was partly due to limitations of the emerging technology, but can also be blamed on the engineers of the day who used the new digital tools in old analog ways. Actually, that is still going on today (the engineering approach, that is).

Personally, I feel that CDs sound better than vinly when they are engineered properly. I also think this is true of digital recording vs. analog recording.

[shrugs]

What types of turntables have you listened to? What type of cartridge ie mm or mc? And what was on the backend? And what music was listened to? What pressings etc?

[Dennis Gonzalez]

I've had the best and the worst stereo equipment, including top of the line turntable and $200-500 styluses (styli), professionally weighted and balanced, etc....Dahlquist speakers, the whole works. But because I am slowly losing my hearing, especially in conversation frequencies, my brain overcompensates and picks up so much surface noise and rumble (I swear I can even hear laser noise on the surface of a CD) that CD's work for me. I love the soft buttery sound of soft vinyl, but no matter what I try, it kills me to hear rumble, wow, and flutter behind a great piano, or a nice soft muted trumpet..

One thing, though. When I go into a studio, I record analog for the natural wave of sound, versus the sawtooth, angry profile of digital signal, and then mix to digital, preserving the "human" sound of the music. Digital to digital to digital is a bit much for my ears...again, brain overcompensation.

[shrugs]

what if there is no surface noise? I have MANY lp's with 0 surface noise. My copy of Little Toot is almost silent!!! I'll spin Anthem Suite now and let you know.....
And since you mentioned piano, I don't know of many people especially the classical buffs who can say that there are many digital recordings that reproduce the piano sound successfuly. Most classical buffs spin the vinyl

top of the line stylus's are in the thousands of dollars range in the post 8-track era.

[Gentle Giant]

In my listening experience, vinyl is altogether brighter and deeper than CDs, although pings and pops can completely ruin the activity of listening to great music. Also, records skip when you dance, you have to flip them after 20 minutes, and a crate of the fuckers weighs a ton. On the other hand, album covers are more fun to hold and read than CD booklets, which always get bent and torn when you try to remove them from jewel cases. With CDs you get bonus tracks and long compositions (like Ascension and Karn Evil 9 to span two jazz and progrock examples) aren't broken up.

Weighing the pros and cons of each, I think CDs are the way to go. You can also play them in your car and in a discman, whereas vinyl is housebound. I'd rather hear a little hiss in the background than a jarring ping or skip.

[al j]

Shrugs is a fucking vinyl nutcase. He once said to me, "Shoot me if I ever become one of those audiophile types," or something along those lines. But I don't blame him. If I had a source like his for good sounding vinyl I might be a bit loopy too.

I listen to vinyl and cd's in equal doses. I never choose to spin an LP "because I'd rather listen to an LP." Likewise for a cd, although I don't have much choice in the car. However, I have sold off most of my cd's in cases that I have a copy of the same recording. Because the records in most cases sound better. I agree with everything shrugs has ever said about the bass in that medium, although it depends largely on the pressing. I'd trade all of my Mosaic cd sets for vinyl copies if I could.

[shrugs]

Well. I guess from most peoples perspective I do seem like a hardcore audiophile. However, I got into vinyl because there are 100's of sessions that are not on cd that are amazing. Many of these are not audiophile quality. Anyone who has heard a Po Torch, Ogun or FMP lp knows that for the most part, the recording quality is good at best. Most hardcore audiophiles will only listen to the very best recordings. These are the guys who have bought Kind Of Blue in 11 different formats but have never heard Miles in Tokyo because the recording is only so-so. God forbid they buy a lp remastered from the original 78's.
When I moved to the Hartford,CT area I found one of the best shops in the country. Nowhere else could I have bought OOP Mosaic lp sets for less than what they cost new. Or Living Stereo lp's for a $1 apiece that sell for over $40 on e-bay.

Scott, I really don't understand how cd's have a longer life span than vinyl. They will last forever if you take care of them. And GG bringing up the whole full of pops and clicks thing make me chuckle. This can be true for some records especially American major label pressings from the 70's but there is so much silent vinyl out there. Vinyl has been around for over 50 years. Good sounding cd's have only been around for 10 years or so. The first ten years of cd sucked for the most part. There is so much great sounding vinyl out there. It's insane.
I just listened to an original pressing of Joe Henderson Inner Urge. One pop on the whole thing and the record is how old?
Before that was the David Murray The Peoples Choice on Cecma. 0 pops and no clicks. Before that was Dennis Gonazlez Anthem Suite. Once again, no surface noise.
It's really all about having the turntable set up properly. On top of poor pressings, bad needles, anti-skate settings that are way off, vertical tracking force that is too low or too high can all ruin your vinyl. Incorrect anti-skate will cause inner groove wear. Almost anyone can learn how to set up a turntable. Also, vinyl rigs don't have to be high end to getan incredible sound out of your lp's. There are some great turntable setups for less than a $1000. That would be with a really great cartridge too. Not talking just the turntable.

For once I have to agree 100% with what Scott Dolan posted.
The sort of rig that Shrugs refers to was always out of my class economically.

But having many LPs before CDs appeared, my experience is that LPs sound great new, but playing with good but not top of the line tables and pick ups causes wear: pops, clicks etc. (RecoCut table with Fairchild arm, to Teknics table and arm with Grado cartridge.)
That wear just doesn't happen with CDs on even inexpensive players.

CDs are so convenient, the ability to go instantly to a particular track, they make my day.

But, it's like the solid state vs tube amps discussion, it's an individuals choice.

[Jonathan Sutton]

I have got a not insanely expensive Rega turntable, and there is no dancing or people walking heavily nearby problem, GG. The platter is 3/4 inch thick glass, which prevents the problem from occurring.

[strich]

Hey Shrugs--

Was your vinyl source in Hartford Integrity 'n' Music? Man, I used to swallow up cutout jazz LPs in the double digits there when I was in high school. As a matter of fact, I bought my very first jazz records at Integrity. What a mope I was -- I remember asking the owner (can't remember his name -- was it Ed?) whether I should buy Monk's "Live at the Five Spot" twofer, or the Parker/Gillespie/Mingus/Powell "Greatest Jazz Concert Ever" twofer. I wanted to know which one he thought was better.....

Come to think of it, I'm still a mope.

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally posted by shrugs
. My copy of Little Toot is almost silent!!!

Of course! : ) No, actually, I asked that no more than 500 copies be pressed per stamper...costs more that way, but it's worth it. I even had an argument about that with Weather Report's former manager years ago when he criticized the pressings of Anthem Suite and Little Toot.

And since you mentioned piano, I don't know of many people especially the classical buffs who can say that there are many digital recordings that reproduce the piano sound successfuly. Most classical buffs spin the vinyl.

Check out the way Scott Bucklin's piano sounds on "Pictogram" and "Home". That's real piano swirl, and it's on CD.

top of the line stylus's are in the thousands of dollars range in the post 8-track era.

When I had my top o' the line, it was before you were born when $200-500 bought what $1000's buy now. And when we used to walk uphill both ways to school, barefoot in the snow...in tropical South Texas.

[shrugs]

stritch, it is indeed Integrity. Ed Krech is the owner. Great guy who really loves the music(as long as it swings). I have a great collection due to his fantastic pricing. He is the only store owner I know of that does not put the rare and collectable things up on e-bay. Even the little old store down the street from him called Records and Things sells on e-bay.

Dennis, I guess that would have been a lot for a cartridge. Do you remember who made it?
I cleaned Little Toot last night and the noise that was on it is hopefully gone. I'll have to spin it this weekend. Why did that guy criticize the pressings?


Scott, once again I have MANY records with 0 surface noise or it is so minimal that only the most anal listener would care. Sometimes it's a little more than some light noise and there is a pop or two but with a lot of those the title is not even on cd( We might all die before the complete Ogun catalog makes it to cd, as well as the Horo catalog). Almost all of my records are 2nd hand. 2nd hand sometimes means that the person before you bought them to complete a collection. I often get stuff that appears to be unplayed. I just picked up a whole ton of OJC vinyl for $4 a pop(I think the cd's will set you back twice that). Clean as a whistle except for some damn cat hairs. (Cats and vinyl do not mix). And other times, the person before you may have taken great care of their records or only played them once or twice. It's not like everyone and their mother left their records lying around w/o the sleeves. Those records end up in Goodwill and usually not in stores that still specialize in vinyl. On top of that, many can be cleaned and brought back to perfect condition.
Records DO NOT need to be handled with "kid gloves" or treated any different than a cd really. Make sure your hands are clean(food particles are one of the causes of stuck grooves) I have been a serious vinyl listener for over 5 years now and have never dropped a record. I bumped one into the side of my turntable once and it did get a mark but it doesn't sound. Not all marks and scratches will sound. Most of the time a scratch is caused by the paper sleeve and those will almost never sound. However, there are some scratches that will always sound and a few can be loud but I will take those with a grain of salt. Especially if it's an original Blue Note pressing. A few pops are a small price to pay.
Do you know cd's can develop digital rot? I am sure some here have experienced it. If this happens, it will never play again. A record can be scratched and still play.

Now you bring in the cost factor. Chances are I will probably own my stereo and records for a long time. The records could be with me for the rest of my life. I am 30 now so hopefully I will have a lot longer to play them. I've spent some money on everything but it is definitely a long term investment.
I wanted to point out how much more a cd setup will cost you in the long run. If one buys a $500 stereo system to play cd's and owns 500 cd's that average $12 a pop, the total cost is $6500. I can buy a $2500 analog setup and still have $2500 to buy records and let's say $1500 on cd's since there are so many titles that are only available on cd. Many jazz lp's can be picked up for $3 - $5 a pop. Classical is usually $1 and sometimes it's free if you get lucky. A lot of times family members and friends will give you vinyl. How often does that happen with cd's? Or how often has a store given you a boc of records? I know of places that give away classical when they get too much of it.
However, I do understand that to get a good vinyl collection one must live in an area that has a plentiful supply of good used vinyl. So vinyl is truly not in the cards for everyone. But if you do live in an area that has a lot of vinyl, I think it's a great chance for you to build a good collection. New England is a great place because there is Boston, Amherst, Hartford and then NYC and the fantastic Princeton Record Exchange only a few hours away.

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Dennis Gonzalez
One thing, though. When I go into a studio, I record analog for the natural wave of sound, versus the sawtooth, angry profile of digital signal, and then mix to digital, preserving the "human" sound of the music. Digital to digital to digital is a bit much for my ears...again, brain overcompensation.

I am with Dennis on this. The best sounding recordings of the past 50 years are almost all analog.
Roy DuNann!!!!!

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally posted by shrugs

Dennis, I guess that would have been a lot for a cartridge. Do you remember who made it?
I cleaned Little Toot last night and the noise that was on it is hopefully gone. I'll have to spin it this weekend. Why did that guy criticize the pressings?

From the price, I think Zale's Jewelers made it. I really don't remember.

Speaking of Little Toot, you know the picture on the back? That Little Toot is now 22 years old...yikes.

Why did the guy criticize Little Toot's and Anthem Suite's pressings? You would be very surprised. E-mail me and I'll explain.

[Chazro]

Wazzup Fellas!

Vinyl Rules! That said I think it's demise within the next few decades is inevitable. As new generations of CD-only listeners evolve it'll become more and more difficult to grasp the idea of the medium. None but the most dedicated audiophile will make the effort to get into this medium. That, plus the fact that although digital (CD's) truly sounded abysmal in the beginning it's made great strides sonically and IMO it's only a matter of time before it truly surpasses what's available through analog. Also, if you've read any of the audiophile threads on this site it seems that a major reason that people don't embrace Good Sound is that it's percieved as too much work (!?), well, a turntable, arm, cartridge is the epitomy of "hard work" to the non-belever's out there. I'll never understand how so many music-lovers don't embrace high fidelity, I mean, if you love something why wouldn't you want to experience it at it's highest level.

I just bought a new moving coil cart 2 weeks ago and it sounds glorious!!

[Gary Sisco]

I'm with Shrugs, though not as radical about it. Good, clean vinyl definitely has a better sound than CDs, even the best (so far), though in capable hands CDs in recent years have improved quite a lot. Still, I'm with Shrugs.

Also with Dennis re recording with analogue. No matter how you look at it, sampling must miss some of the musical information, because it's only sampling (however fast). It's not a continuous recording and therefore information will be missed and there's no way around that.

And there's no doubt at all to me that vinyl has the better, deeper bass, hands down. Any club dj knows that. Hell, the reason why DJ's in the disco days came up with 12" singles was precisely that. The wider grooves provided an unheard of (at that point) deep bass response. In a club, I can almost always tell if a dj's spinning vinyl or a CD, from that alone. And the people know it as well, whether consciously or not, and the evidence is visible on the dancefloor. The vinyl's hotter and deeper and gets shit going.

Of course, we're talking good vinyl, here. There have been plenty of shit pressings, no doubt, and plenty of people who don't know how to take care of records (or don't care). But, the same people can fuck up a CD just as easily and in the same ways.

Convenience itself is replacing fidelity as the main concern of most people, unfortunately. Downloading has immeasurably increased that trend. An MP3 file has about the same fidelity as a crappy commercial cassette. Apparently people don't care much. Or their ears have been damaged from too much loud music or noise or whatever. But the loss of fidelity is readily apparent to ears that work.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally posted by shrugs
I am with Dennis on this. The best sounding recordings of the past 50 years are almost all analog.

Let's hear it for euphonic distortion!

I've no interest in arguing media wars, but will note that there's no such thing as "the sawtooth, angry profile of digital signal" as related to what information is delivered. Reconstruction of the analog signal is theoretically perfect up to half the sampling frequency. There can be implementation problems, but it's not the fault of the medium.

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
An MP3 file has about the same fidelity as a crappy commercial cassette.

Make that "poorly encoded" mp3 file (which are very common). I doubt you've heard a well-encoded one, given that statement.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Originally posted by Chazro
Wazzup Fellas!

(SNIP) I'll never understand how so many music-lovers don't embrace high fidelity, I mean, if you love something why wouldn't you want to experience it at it's highest level.

I've always found it interesting how many musicians don't embrace high fidelity.... I mean, guitarists playing through $12 patch cords through Peavy Bandits plugged (gasp) via standard zip cord into (omigod) untreated/unbalanced AC outlets...or how bout those horn players bearing down on the SM57 mics (retail about $90) or perhaps if they go upscale, it might be a senheiser 441 ($250). And pianos...anything tuned less than every day is out of tune. I could go on and on.....

If the audio chain is no better than the weakest link, look no further than the stage.

[Gary Sisco]

Theoretically.

Nevertheless, a continuous recording will contain more information than a noncontinuous recording. There is no question of this.

It has to be said that in this discussion one must be talking about good vinyl and good CDs. Most CDs are shit, recording and mastering-wise (esp the mastering). In capable hands, however, there is a difference of night and day. A good Hat, for example, compared to a generic commercial release from the "industry." No comparison.

Like my man Vladmir has said many times, the industry doesn't come close to using the CD's potential for fidelity, even in its current form. Clearly, fidelity is not an issue at that level of decisionmaking. (Theoretically) a CD has an incredible dynamic range, for example, but look at the range you get on most of them if you have a meter. Way too many have nearly no dynamics and hence the flat sound that makes you want to crank up the volume beyond what you normally would. (Further reinforcing the problem by damaging people's ears...)

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
Theoretically. Nevertheless, a continuous recording will contain more information than a noncontinuous recording. There is no question of this.

It has to be said that in this discussion one must be talking about good vinyl and good CDs. Most CDs are shit, recording and mastering-wise (esp the mastering). In capable hands, however, there is a difference of night and day.

A good Hat, for example, compared to a generic commercial release from the "industry." No comparison.

I though quantum physics proved that nothing is either soldid or continuous, so excuse me while I walk through this wall

The point about quality engineering is surely the crux of the issue, having far greater consequence than choice of medium.

What's a "good Hat"? That one went over (er,maybe through) my head...

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Chazro
That said I think it's demise within the next few decades is inevitable.

Tell that to Linn, VPI, JA Michelle, Rockport, Nottingham, Rega, Music Hall, Bluenote, Technics, Shelter, Thorens, Benz Micro, Grado, Lyra, Denon, Walker Audio, Well Tempered Classic, Sota, Basis, Teres, SME, Naim, Clearaudio, Dynavector, Ortofon, Van Den Hul, Goldring, Shure, Audio Technica, Speakers Corners, Analog Productions to name a few. There is a lot of $$ in analog and it won't die easily. As a matter of fact, it was supposed to die a long time ago. Cassette's were the replacement. Where are they? Will cd be next? Will the masses have a seperate hard drive to store their music?
Also, where will the millions of records disappear to in the next few decades? Will an original Butcher cover Beatles lp become worthless?

[Dennis Gonzalez]

Originally posted by Vince Kargatis
there's no such thing as "the sawtooth, angry profile of digital signal" as related to what information is delivered.

I've heard it and seen it on an oscilloscope comparison test. It's there. My recording engineer at Audio Omega in Dallas - he's responsible for the beautiful sound on 8 of the 53 Silkheart releases - had just bought the latest digital equipment to record Yes and Neil Young live and in the studio for video, but refused to use it on the Silkheart recordings and he showed me why. When you record digitally, mix digitally, and master digitally, they now have processes and equipment that will throw in a facsimile analog waveform to make the extremes not so annoying and extreme. Just like there are now programs to actually throw in human-like deviations in a digitalized sampled piece of looped music.

[shrugs]

from a Neil Young interview:

Neil: OK, well I want to point something out to you that, this is my pet thing right now. The time you’re talking about the early 80’s was the dawn of digital recording and when digital recording came into the picture people started hearing much less of the original sound and all of the cosmos if you will or the universe of sounds available to the ear and to the brain to analyse and to feel were all gone. They’re no longer with us. From the early 80’s on no records contain that kind of quality anymore and those are the very things that stimulate the actual human body into reacting. feeling and enjoying music and even enjoying it’s therapeutic effects, so those things are gone now, so if you’ve noticed something that’s changed around 1981 my bet is that all across the board digital became introduced either in one, two or three steps of the phase of the creative process and it only takes one step for digital to do it’s damage.
And, you know, all records are digital now because they have to be because they come out on CDs so this is the Dark Ages of recorded sound, we’re in it right now folks.

[jazzfiend]

Gotta go with my main man shrugs on this issue.

I'm still ecstatic about my old Sota Sapphire turntable, Premier MMT arm, and rather new Blue Point Special cartridge. Just love those open, airy highs, along with those tight, detailed and extended lows. At my age, it's almost better than sex.
(please note I said almost)

[shrugs]

No surface noise on your cd's but how many sound like cd's?
All of 'em.

[Chazro]

Originally posted by shrugs
Tell that to Linn, VPI, JA Michelle, Rockport, Nottingham, Rega, Music Hall, Bluenote, Technics, Shelter, Thorens, Benz Micro, Grado, Lyra, Denon, Walker Audio, Well Tempered Classic, Sota, Basis, Teres, SME, Naim, Clearaudio, Dynavector, Ortofon, Van Den Hul, Goldring, Shure, Audio Technica, Speakers Corners, Analog Productions to name a few. There is a lot of $$ in analog and it won't die easily. As a matter of fact, it was supposed to die a long time ago. Cassette's were the replacement. Where are they? Will cd be next? Will the masses have a seperate hard drive to store their music?
Also, where will the millions of records disappear to in the next few decades? Will an original Butcher cover Beatles lp become worthless?

Wazzup Shrugs!

Brother, you're preaching to the converted! It's indeed a paradox that CD's are the medium of choice when turntable/arm/cartridge performance are better than ever before. I've owned/own products by many of the manufacturers you listed. In retrospect, you're right, vinyl's not going anywhere in the near future so my timeframe is off. It isn't a question of decades but generations. Hell, it bothers me that each succesive generation seems to be losing it's ability to just sit in front of 2 speakers and just plain listen! MTV has at much to do with the demise of the high fidelity hobby as the invention of the CD. Shorter attention spans coupled with the desire for convenience is a large part of the problem.

As far as musicians are concerned, it's a given that they're usually not interested in Hi-Fi. While I can guess as to why, I'd be interested from the playas that hang here about why this is so.

Frankly, I'm concerned about the state of the music industry. It's been in the toilet for years and it's getting worse. There's an interesting editorial in both The Absolute Sound and Latin Beat this month addressing the downward spiral of music sales. It frustrates me that apparently less and less people are listening at a time when there's such a wealth of outstanding music being created.

Gary Sisco: "Nevertheless, a continuous recording will contain more information than a noncontinuous recording. There is no question of this."

Sorry Gary, but this not a universal truth.



Truth: In digitizing an analog waveform, the sampling rate must be at a rate in accordance with the highest analog frequency present in the analog waveform.

Warning: long, dry tech stuff coming.

The theoretical *minimum* sampling rate, called the "Nyquist" rate, is twice that of the *highest* analog frequency present in the waveform. In practice, this is still too slow for practical reasons, so higher sampling rates are used.
Example, the CDs, which digitizes music by sampling. Pre-sampling analog filters restrict the upper frequency content to nominally 20khz. At that point an amplitude sampling process at a 44khz rate takes place, the signal has been sampled, but is still an analog signal, albeit no longer continous.

(As an aside, analog filtering at this point could restore this signal completely, if the sampling rate is fast enough, and dynamic ranges have been controlled as they must be for unsampled analog as well.)

Returning to the amplitude sampled waveform, each sample is converted individually from a voltage amplitude to an nbit digital word, using a device called an analog-to-digital converter. Basically this is what is on a CD. The CD player uses a laser reader to a digital-to analog converter, analog filtering etc to play back.
This explaination has been simplified, in that other processes, eg dithering the sample rate, and the inclusion of digital error correcting coding similar to that sometimes used in PC memory is often incorporated.

IMO the sampling rates used in CD generation are too low, or the analog pre-sampling filtering is inadequate. 44khz sampling of 20khz signals meets the Nyquist criterion, but places too severe a requirement on the filters. Very sharp cutoff filters, either digitally or analog realized have problems of their own.

Record makers boast of their 20bit or 24bit digitizing, when they should be pushing for industry sampling rates of 50khz to 100khz. Going from 16 bits to 20 in a digital word improves a 96db dynamic range to 120db BUT only useful if the source material signal-to-noise ratio is good enough in the first place, and the playback rig (which is still only 16bits,) is good enough in the second place. Higher sampling would end some CD complaints due to digital artifacts.

[Gary Sisco]

If and theoretically are the words in play, here, though. You're not getting all of the information if you're sampling. There are other aspects to music, as well, that are not merely recast frequencies of whatever electronic form. A tenor sax and a frequency generator do not have the same sounds, for instance, even if the frequency of the note is the same (theoretically). And etc.

This argument is irresolvable and always will be, verbally, but my ears resolve it for me to my satisfaction, regardless.

I do agree with you about increasing the sampling rates, obviously, but, as my man Vladmir and I have pointed out repeatedly, the industry doesn't come close to using the sonic potential of the CD in its current form, so giving them more potential not to use probably won't change much, fidelitywise, in practice.

If the ocean boiled, there'd be lots of cooked fish, as Diderot fabulously remarked.