Why CDs May Actually Sound Better Than Vinyl

[fas42]

Yep, it was an amazing time to be alive - the fabulous music was coming at you, release after release. But I never did that album upon album thing - too busy doin' other things :b ... which is sorta nice, in a way - means that I can discover these recordings as if brand new. And guess what? Quite often the "hit" from the album, that I remember from the radio, is the least interesting song on it - all that "complicated stuff" wasn't fit for radio fodder ...

 

[NorthStar]

Yes but @ the time I wasn't aware of that...only today that I realize it was the good times I chose. ...And the people before me. ...That's why earlier I mentioned some great Jazz names, who preceded my time, and were experienced by the music jazz lovers of that 50-60s era. And that was also the influential times of many bands of today, including the Stones and the Beatles...the Blues music period...beaucoup infuentiel.

...And we can go far in time with the classical music composers of two-three hundred years ago. Back then music was live. ...Analog live...and acoustic. :b

 

[Diapason]

I still think this is one of the reasons I don't "get" vinyl: I just don't have the same cultural and historical background in it. Basically, I'm saying I'm much younger than all of you :O

Vinyl sounded AWFUL on my parents' "system", cassette tape was the medium of choice for kids my age, and when CD came along it changed everything. I never really knew the joy of flipping through racks of vinyl, but I knew the joy of flipping through trays of CDs. And when it came to the organ music I was just starting to get into, CD just did a great job compared to anything else I'd heard. CDs were the sounds of my teens and 20s. Of course they still give me the warm n' fuzzies, whatever their failings!

 

[FrantzM]

I still think this is one of the reasons I don't "get" vinyl: I just don't have the same cultural and historical background in it. Basically, I'm saying I'm much younger than all of you :O

Vinyl sounded AWFUL on my parents' "system", cassette tape was the medium of choice for kids my age, and when CD came along it changed everything. I never really knew the joy of flipping through racks of vinyl, but I knew the joy of flipping through trays of CDs. And when it came to the organ music I was just starting to get into, CD just did a great job compared to anything else I'd heard. CDs were the sounds of my teens and 20s. Of course they still give me the warm n' fuzzies, whatever their failings!

Not really .. I am old enough to have witnessed the entire progression (if we can call it that) from Hi-Fi to High End. Yet, I am now a CD person. I also have a more than decent Vinyl rig but am entirely invested in digital medium.

 

[PeterA]

______

? This, a bonus, for anyone watching and listening:

Thanks Bob. That is a very interesting video and quite topical for many of the discussions on this forum. Wilson's talk supports the notion that there is no absolute sound. I also found the bit about the two SS amplifiers measuring the same but sound quite different very relevant.

 

[amirm]

I also found the bit about the two SS amplifiers measuring the same but sound quite different very relevant.

He said that but I just looked up the measurements of the two amps are they are not the same. His basis was on the simplified notion of amplifier response being represented on a frequency response plot with a resistive load. Speakers have variable impedance and when the amp also has one (the Crown), it acts like an EQ and changes the response. He said and I quote: "they are both going to measure within the audible range perfectly flat." This the Ayre measurements from stereophile:

Red, pink and blue are are with resistive load. The wiggly black one varying by 0.5 db is with a simulated speaker load. The Ayre has a high output impedance which will react with different speakers to produce different sounds (assuming you have good ears). So even in the case of Ayre what he says about flat response is not correct.

The measurements that tell you this load sensitivity is right there in the manual of the Crown from Circa 1964. So a) there type of data has existed for 50 years and is of no need of being found and b) new manufactures do not provide it today as to leave you guessing.

There is a lot more that we can discuss about what is in that video. I will go ahead and do that on audiosciecereview forum since it involves more measurements and technical talk.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks Bob. That is a very interesting video and quite topical for many of the discussions on this forum. Wilson's talk supports the notion that there is no absolute sound. I also found the bit about the two SS amplifiers measuring the same but sound quite different very relevant.

IMHO the more relevant part for this thread is the ending part where DW addresses that anyone waiting for "the" perfect equipment will wait forever and about the designers aesthetics and capabilities. As he says, the equipment is primarily a tool that conveys music to us to satisfy us. CD and vinyl are just tools, nothing else, and we, the listeners, are and must be the final judges.

 

[FrantzM]

Very interesting facts and reading, but the article is chaotic and spreads a lot of confusion.

Most of all, it fails to understand that the objective of sound reproduction is to get the preference of listeners. If a format is perfect, the industry should use it to get the preferences of the end users, not just to please the engineers or the producers. IMHO the industry was given a format that it does not master, as it is intrinsically based in very complicated mathematics and advanced signal processing, and are using it empirically. DAC designers are still perfecting their designs, but the professionals from the other side must understand and foresee the consequences of their decisions during recording and mastering in terms of playback in existing equipment and systems, not in ideal sound reproducing systems.

"It really does come down to the preference of the end user." , Yes it is true, we should consider it sounds better when the users prefer it in their systems!

BTW, although in my current system I prefer digital for very complex symphonic music, unfortunately for chamber music vinyl or jazz is almost every time an easy winner.

Hi

In the current state of affair where the emphasis is on "preferences" we seem to forget that studies, that have not been invalidated show that we tend to strive for the same things, when our biases are removed. Just food for thoughts.

microstrip,
it was the exact same at the beginning of the LP era. Sound systems weren't ideal then as they aren't today. The industry was also given a format it took it time to master.. Things weren't as much different as you are making them.

and welcome to the other side even if it is some of the times. We were waiting for you ...

 

[microstrip]

Hi

In the current state of affair where the emphasis is on "preferences" we seem to forget that studies, that have not been invalidated show that we tend to strive for the same things, when our biases are removed. Just food for thoughts.

microstrip,
it was the exact same at the beginning of the LP era. Sound systems weren't ideal then as they aren't today. The industry was also given a format it took it time to master.. Things weren't as much different as you are making them.

and welcome to the other side even if it is some of the times. We were waiting for you ...

Frantz,

I think your should add some statistics study to your food for thoughts. Opinions of a small number of WBF members are not covered or explained by these studies (if we are addressing the same studies ...).

IMHO the experience from the past has no parallel with current one. What was your suggested comparison for the beginning of the LP era? 78's in a gramophone?

It seems to me that you fail to understand that for the hard objectivist side the great dilemma is not only our acceptation of the the vinyl imperfections, it is mostly our objection to the perfection of CD more than 30 years after its introduction ...

 

[NorthStar]

Smooth like butter, sweet like chocolate...what is it? :b

 

[still-one]

Smooth like butter, sweet like chocolate...what is it? :b

Lets see, thick and gooey. Must be something with a tube in it.

 

[amirm]

It seems to me that you fail to understand that for the hard objectivist side the great dilemma is not only our acceptation of the the vinyl imperfections, it is mostly our objection to the perfection of CD more than 30 years after its introduction ...

Problem with that argument in this context is that it is NOT supported by the article in OP:

"Scott Metcalfe, director of recording arts and sciences at the Peabody Conservatory of Johns Hopkins University, says the move to CDs was especially beneficial for reproducing classical recordings.

"Really in every way measurable, the digital formats are going to exceed analog in dynamic range, meaning the distance between how loud and how soft," he says. "In the classical world, [that means] getting really quiet music that isn't obscured by the pops and clicks of vinyl or just the noise floor of the friction of the stylus against the [LP] itself."

This is what LP devotees need to hang their hat on:

"Because vinyl's restrictions do not permit the same abuse of audio levels as the CD, Mayo says that listeners might hear a wider dynamic range in an album mixed separately for vinyl over a compact disc version optimized for loudness — even though vinyl, as a format, has a narrower range than CD."


We have a perfectly acceptable explanation to both camps yet we choose to go and create a war over stuff we can't prove, i.e. unknown problems with digital.

All the technical issues with Vinyl which are clearly audible and not at all a positive by themselves, are stated in the OP article. Not by some random objectivists member on a forum but people in the recording industry that create these formats. So let's not go after cheap arguments like that. Read the article and indicate where you think these industry people are going wrong. I think you will have a hard time and that is why I think this is one of the best write-ups I have seen on the topic. It is balanced, and factual.

 

[Steve Williams]

But then of course we have another respected individual in the industry as Frank has found.....


http://www.audiostream.com/content/...surements-and-uncertainty#EQF2hDqsJwxKivhW.97

 

[amirm]

But then of course we have another respected individual in the industry as Frank has found.....

http://www.audiostream.com/content/...surements-and-uncertainty#EQF2hDqsJwxKivhW.97

You want to quote the relevant part of that interview with the OP article? I see no references to LP versus digital there.

 

[amirm]

Just to add, we absolutely can measure the flaws in LP and I hear it, the experts in OP article hear them and I am sure anyone else we would put in a controlled test. So this is not at all a case of comparing two types of products where measureable differences don't exist (e.g. cable). We have a format, LP, that audibly distorts what you put in it and those distortions are 100% verifiable to one's ears and instrumentation without any need to squint.

That said, no matter how many times I have asked, no LP devotee wants to say if they do or do not hear these artifacts.

 

[Steve Williams]

You were asked yesterday several questions by LL21 which I thought were truly food for thought. You chose to ignore that one

 

[amirm]

You were asked yesterday several questions by LL21 which I thought were truly food for thought. You chose to ignore that one

What part of it do you think I have not addressed already Steve?

 

[PeterA]

Hi

In the current state of affair where the emphasis is on "preferences" we seem to forget that studies, that have not been invalidated show that we tend to strive for the same things, when our biases are removed. Just food for thoughts.

microstrip,
it was the exact same at the beginning of the LP era. Sound systems weren't ideal then as they aren't today. The industry was also given a format it took it time to master.. Things weren't as much different as you are making them.

and welcome to the other side even if it is some of the times. We were waiting for you ...

Frantz, do any of us listen to music in our listening rooms with our biases removed? I suppose to those for whom this is more than just a hobby for enjoyment, removing biases would matter more in their attempt to prove something. I happen to enjoy listening with the lights down, perhaps a glass of wine in one hand, often with friends, after dinner rather than during the day, to a particular type of acoustic music, depending on the mood. I'm not so sure removing those biases would enable me to enjoy my music any more.

Perhaps you are referring to equipment biases like SS/tubes or vinyl/digital or tweaks, speaker types etc. or something like the influence of advertising or cost of components. If so, and one were even able to remove most or all biases from the test subjects, are you saying that they would all tend to strive for the same things, ie. type of system or equipment? For what ever reason, it seems that this is not what is happening in the industry as people tend to have very different kinds of systems and people endlessly discuss variety in forums like this one.

I think biases are part of the human condition. They are a part of what makes each of us an individual and they contribute heavily to the choices we make. Audio equipment designers and recording engineers also have biases which influence the decisions they make. We even select our seats at symphony based on our biases and the sound we prefer.

I have not participated in rigorous scientific double blind testing of audio components. But if I were to, and all knowledge of the gear, the cost and everything other than its sound were removed, it would still come down to the sound from which the components under evaluation I preferred, for my own subjective reasons, based on my own subjective references and memory of the sound or real music. I do not see how the complete removal of biases could also negate a sense of preference when a subjective listening test is involved.

 

[PeterA]

Just to add, we absolutely can measure the flaws in LP and I hear it, the experts in OP article hear them and I am sure anyone else we would put in a controlled test. So this is not at all a case of comparing two types of products where measureable differences don't exist (e.g. cable). We have a format, LP, that audibly distorts what you put in it and those distortions are 100% verifiable to one's ears and instrumentation without any need to squint.

That said, no matter how many times I have asked, no LP devotee wants to say if they do or do not hear these artifacts.

Amir, I am an LP devotee. I sometimes hear these artifacts discussed in the OP, but very rarely on top vinyl playback. They are just not as big a deal in proper implementation of the medium as this article suggests. So contrary to what you claim, those distortions written about in the OP are not "100% verifiable to one's ears..." in every case, and to every listener. And if they are, they are not as distracting as you suggest.

I ask you this: what specific vinyl artifacts discussed in the OP did you happen to hear and identify in your report of the sound at Expona in that YG/Kronos demonstration which you described as rivaling the resolution and noise of CD.

Was each of the known flaws of vinyl clearly evident to you during that demonstration? And did it detract from you enjoyment of the music? That, to me, is the more relevant issue.

 

[jkeny]

Yes, what is psychoacoustically important has to be the reference to which all are judged - this is the fundamental issue that is avoided by "the objectivists" when it suits.
I too would like to hear what Amir has to say about the "obvious distortions" of vinyl playback that he heard in the Axpona Kronos room