Does Anyone Think CD is Better Than Vinyl/Analog?

2nd post, me thinks @audiogeorge2 has an axe to grind. You know that most vinyl is digitally mastered?

Nah, that is why I have everything ripped with multiple backups :-)  The CDs have long been in storage.

That should be "over Redbook level data"

@lp2cd had by far the most intelligent answer.

@lp2cd believe it or not stochastic resonance has been brought up.


Jitter on recording was pretty much gone by mid 90s, earlier in some studios a bit later in others.


To the op, many will post "facts" they have literally made up about digital while having no clue how it works or any depth of understanding. Most to justfy they "like" vinyl better, not because it is. That includes false claims about errors in digital, made up claims about "timing", or even claims to needing wickedly expensive digital, and claims about the "superiority" of certain digital implementations that absolutely sound better to that listener but are farther from accurate.  


Very few here have heard a live recording in process done on analog or digital. Anyone who has worked through that ove the years will tell you that modern digital is what captures fully and accurately what is being played. Not analog tape (and consequently not vinyl). I am not saying you will like the sound better simply that is is accurate.


@lp2cd , one more point is simply information overload. The reduced information on vinyl may cause less masking of detail for many listeners.

Perhaps to that point personally I find jazz, most classical, etc., to be preferable if mastered well on digital. I often prefer rock/pop on vinyl. Admittedly mastering will almost always dominate the listening experience. I like the post from one op where they have a few DACs based on their mood. I totally get that. On the production side we have been adding artifacts to recordings intentionally because people like the results.


Can't remember which label but recently a label that subscribed to high res being superior did a study and found their listeners couldn't detect superiority of high res over level data.

Funny, last time I checked, the signal coming out of my DAC was analog ....

What is a Mach2mini?

You would be surprised how few audiophiles have actually heard R2R in a system that they know well enough to separate the qualities of the R2R from everything else, not that that will stop a large number of them from claiming that they do.

Similarly, a most audiophiles really don't know what the music/vocals sound like at the time of recording. They claim they are looking for realistic while not knowing what that sounds like.

When I talk about which is "better", I talk about potential. Digital, without question high-res digital has the capability to be better than vinyl by a fairly good margin, and to R2R by a fairly good margin too.  That does not mean that a large group of audiophiles will not prefer the colorations that occur from vinyl and yes R2R. Is it the comfort of a bit of noise, possible detail emphasis from noise, frequency emphasis, frequency roll-off, less masking due to less information content, inherent compression? ... Does not matter, if you like it you like it, just try not to fool yourself that it is accurate and try not to claim to others it is and set unrealistic expectations (and cause arguments).

Anyone who claims vinyl is "far superior" I find has a particular taste that strays from realistic. No shame in that. Some have a real hard time getting past what can be considered minor surface noise/clicks/pop of vinyl and delving into the music.  I also find that "consensus" w.r.t. what is best, is really a consensus of people who are far past their best hearing days, and have a huge history of acclimatizing to what can be called legacy formats.


For those who don't know, there is a lot of work done on plug ins to pull digital away from perfection, not for all music, but it works for some genres, likely in how I seem to have a preference for the final result on vinyl with rock/pop which prefer pristine digital for others.