When both are good recorded and well pressed, in general LPs sound better than CDs.
In my experience, the variance of the quality of recordings and pressings on LPs are much wider than CDs, which make some badly recorded and pressed LPs sound worse than CDs.
To compare apple to apple, late 50s ~ 70s LPs with original pressing will definitely sound better than corresponding CDs.
For many digital recordings in early 80s, CDs and LPs do not sound much different. Both are pretty bad.
It varies for sub $20 LPs released new recently -- some sound much better than CDs (like Norah Jones Come Away) but others don't differ much (like most of Diana Krall's albums).
All audiophile pressing will sound better on LPs than CDs.
Most new LP albums costing over $40 sound better than CDs. I have Talyor Swift's Folklore whose LP sounds better than CD. Same with most of Patricia Barber's albums.
However, some audiophile CDs (costing $40 or more) sound really good. For example, I have 'Best Audiophile Voices' I ~ VII. They all sound superb, but unfortunately they did not release LPs so I cannot compare.
These are my experiences on Esoteric UZ-1 ($1500 used, $4000 new) and Clearaudio Bluemotion ($1200) with Audio Technica AT150mlx cartridge ($500) with Magi Phonomenal phono premap ($1000). |
Audio2design, that is the answer you would expect by theory. No big surprise.
Jeecc, If you like DVD and Blu Ray then you should check out sites like HD Tracks and Acoustic Sounds were you can buy and download Hi Res digital files to your hard drive.
Antigrunge2, the beauty about computers is that they do not pay attention to noise. They only know about numbers. They ignore noise. I use a Berkley Audio Design Alpha USB which keeps any noise from the DACs which if built correctly should ignore noise anyway. I had a very expensive Aurender in my system for a week and there was absolutely no difference between it and the computer. My own take on the noise issue in digital equipment is that it is more audiophile mythology. Noise is only a problem with analog units and sections. You take a Mac Mini with a big processor, lots of memory and a big hard drive with Channel D's Pure Music program and you get the same performance and much more capability than a $22,000 Aurender. |
Talk about beating a dead horse!
Some like the benefits of digital and some like the benefits of vinyl.
And many appreciate both.
How many times must we rehash this subject?
My opinion, which I have shared before, is that vinyl is a visceral experience and digital an intellectual one.
In my music room I prefer the visceral. In my office I prefer the intellectual. |
|
mglik, that is an interesting distinction. I have a feeling it has to do with the type of music you play in a working atmosphere vs the type of music you might play head banging with yourself. In my universe that distinction does not hold but hey why should I care.
This topic comes up and some very odd notions are expressed that should be addressed for what they are. This is a discussion. Very few of us have any irons in the fire or conflicts of interest. Those that have more knowledge on the subjects at hand should correct misunderstanding before some id--t try's to make a profit on it. |
To answer the original question, I definitely prefer CD as a whole, but it does not mean CD sounds better in general. CD is so easy to take care of and it takes less space, also it is much easier to listen in the car and in a laptop {granted an older one that still offer it).
but both LP and CD are dying, my kids and their friends never listen to CD and most of them never seen a LP. i got rid of my LP years ago but still keep my thousands CD. at least they occupy less space.
Now I stream 90% of the time. |
I am really appreciating all the feedback from everyone. Thank you. Happy New Year’s! |
Its never an even playing feild.Analogue and digital formats both suffer from poor recordings ,mixing ,and mastering.At the moment Im loving The Beatles Blu Ray of Abbey Road on a Home Theatre system.I have a copy of Red House Painters on Vinyl and CD .I prefer the CD.Hello Sailor's Pacifica Armour sounds better on Vinyl than CD.For me its a case of Horses for Courses.
|
To me it's what will be able to give you goose-bumps when listening.
Digital as a matter of memory doesn't / hasn't, analogue did, but really only with MM cartridges - and older / analogue recordings.
I have a suspicion there's more reason behind it than just good/bad mastering.
Any suggestions?
Michélle 🇿🇦
|
This debate always sends us down a rabbit hole with no bottom in sight. Here's what I've learned. A recording's engineering affects the sound quality more than the format or carrier. CDs have the potential to sound better because of their wider dynamic range. For those annoyed by clicks and pops, CDs are the way to go. A few years ago, I purchased John Coltrane's classic Blue Train album in CD and vinyl (the CD came with the vinyl). I've heard both but prefer the CD because I believe the resolution is slightly better, though only slightly. Also, with the CD, I don't have to turn the volume knob as high to get the same loudness level. I've still got plenty of vinyl and won't discard them for the CD unless they get too worn. I did with Paul McCartney's Ram album (released May 1971 - yes, I'm a rabid Beatles fan) and also with Joan Baez' Any Day album (released 1968). I listen mostly to classical and opera. Pop recordings of the last few decades, because of the compression to increase the volume, sound deplorable to my ears. The CD version of Ram has great resolution, but the compression and the resulting loudness can make my ears bleed. Digital remastering is not always a good thing. |
@mijostyn,
my experience is 180 degrees different from yours. I had a Mach2mini running Puremusic on a very minimalist setup for operating system and lots of vibration controlling features. When switching to Innuos Zenith Mk3 the difference in resolution, noise floor and dynamics was nothing short of revelatory. DAC is Antelope Zodiac Platinum with Audiophile 10m clock. Size of HD should not affect sound quality. I use an Intona Isolator for further improvement in SQ. Again, compared to the Mini it‘s a whole other ball game.
Seems like there are no universal truths in this game. |
|
|
On the digital side, I’ve ripped all my CD’s and SACD’s to uncompressed FLAC or DSF files which are stored on an SSD ATA hard drive installed in a Roon Nucleus+ and served to a Matrix X-Sabre Pro MQA DAC. The sound is pretty amazing. On the analog side, I have a modded Rega RP6 with a Hana ML moving coil cartridge and a Manley Chinook tube phono stage. The rest of the system consists of a BAT VK30 tube line stage preamp and a pair of PrimaLuna ProLogue Premium tube monoblock amps driving Magnepan 1.7i speakers. As amazing as the digital side sounds, and as much as I hate record noise, analog is more compelling and involving. I have far more media in digital format but if I have a choice, and quality vinyl, I will choose to listen to vinyl every time. |
Happy New Year all,
As many have pointed out the source material and transfer/pressing etc is also critical to answer this once equipment is optimized and of similar quality. Funny but last night by chance I was listening to Return To Forever “Where Have I known You Before”. First I was listening on Tidal, then I put in the CD that I own and finally on vinyl. While resolution on Tidal was good overall the highs were stringent and sound stage modest at best. The CD is an 80’s transfer and is terrible. The vinyl won by a mile in all areas. I then followed that with Patricia Barber’s new record “Smash”. I have the lp and Tidal both were excellent but Tidal got the edge. I have also recently bought numerous new lp pressing most on 180g vinyl that are atrocious right out of the sleeve, I have 30 year old heavily played records that sound significantly better. As many have pointed out there is certainly no definitive answer here as many other factors impact the final eargasm. Here’s to a great 2021 of listening! |
This is just an invitation for argument but I’ll bite: yes.
Remember that digital is in its infancy. 35 years after the development of the record we were still recording into tin horns.
now, "CD", as in a plastic disk with pits integrated with an onboard, typically simple DAC, would not be my choice. I learned early that ripping my CDs to disk (FLAC) and playing them through the same DAC was consistently superior.
There are ton of terrible CDs and digital recordings out there. But there are also tons of terrible pressings. Listen to old Blue Note, Verve and Mercury masters to CD and you can hear the potential - and this folks, is only 16/44k.
I am putting aside the fact that some people may like euphonic colorations from both some turntables and from some tubes. nothing wrong with this since that’s also what sounding boards on Pianos and violins do....
While i have 3 esoteric turntables (the least good being an LP12/Ittok/Troika), i rarely listen to anything except Tidal at this point - and its superb.
I'll note that most people who hear my system flatly state that they didn't know digital could sound like that. And while i have significant money in it, its far, far from top drawer (in terms of price anyway). I also modify much of it, building my own phase-locked-loops and power supplies, both of which matter greatly (although the best timing systems available today need no external help)
|
I’m surprised this is still brought up.
There are many variables. Was the CD an analog-recording that wasn’t mastered right ? Are we using a transport that can-only read CD ? Dedicated-CD is better than multi-format.
Is the listener using an R2R DAC ?(vs Delta/Hybrid). The former are better for PCM, hence their resurgence in the last 8 years.
Loudness is a choice of the engineer, not a direct-fault of digital recording. Look how good digital pop-music sounded in the early-to-mid 90s.
LP is LOADED with problems. To start, you don’t know if a used-disc is scratched, with CD you do. LP-listening interrupts the artist’s intent (but this is minor).
LP is made from recycled-PVC -it warps and collects dust. It’s speed is too slow -so collectively, a big-step down from 78s, except surface noise. LP has ’groove bias’ (pre-echo), sampling slowdown (185% inner to outer grooves), bearing friction, ’rumble and offset’ (which sends distortion thru the amp).
Unless direct-drive -belt-slippage, (still) high surface noise -S/N of 50db vs. 90+ CD, low channel-separation -25 vs 75db at 1 kHz.
Highs and lows are trimmed. What gets me is that people actually believe LP sounds better, Even in 2020, the year we (should) see...
|
I've explored CD, FLAC, and Analog-Record sources. All with pretty high end signal paths. My Feickert Analog turntable for example. Results... FLAC files derived from CDs sound the best TO ME. I actually sold my OPPO after discovering this and not needing a CD Transport. But I also love listening to my Feickert feeding a Whest Two.2 phono-pre. Records are fun, but they don't sound as accurate or as clean. Certainly the noise floor is much higher than a well generated digital stream to me. Still I listen to analog quite a bit. And my speakers range from large, 4-way boxes to single point OB. So that's what I found in my world.
|
Greetings and Happy New Year. I spent four years of research including trial and error and the purchasing of a variety of audio equipment in both the digital and analogue arenas. As you have indicated the source is paramount and budget plays a big part in results. I could report volumes of observations and conclusions that resulted in the opening of a Distribution company (Audioarcan). Now I spend considerable time with clients that are asking the same questions as yourself regarding vinyl v/ CD/Streaming.
Simply stated we have concluded that vinyl has the superior sound if one has the budget. Digital gives the better bang for your buck and offers unparalleled convenience and access to seemingly endless music. Our typical routine is to use streaming to research new artist's and albums using an excellent quality music player and DAC with Roon/Tidal access. Then once we find an album we really like we source it in vinyl.
Over simply put we found we needed to spend at least twice to three times the budget on TT, cartridges and phono stage amplification to raise above the digital offering. From my perspective well worth the investment.
Hope this helps and happy listening - Audioarcan - Canada |
As far as I'm concerned, I'm all for analog - - vinyl and cassette (I don't use reel to reel, too expenaive). But for classical music, I now prefer hi-res digital like SACDs and files. It would take a very expensive vinyl set-up to equal digital performance in complex and layered classical music. And the medium, vinyl could be a problem in itself. Take for example Beethoven's 9th Symphony; it's very hard not to get distortion near the end of the last movement even with the best cartridge, arm and turntable. It's the inner grooves. Can't do anything about it. |
Talking about 78's I just got given what looks like several hundred 78s!
A person we know is moving out of his grandfather's house into a condo and in cleaning up and out he found these in a closet in the basement. He just wanted to get rid of them and I just happened to be in the line of fire:-) Just ordered an AT Vm670SP to play them.
I have no idea what happed to you antigrunge2. Maybe an older version of Pure Music, bad usb conversion. Lord knows. Michael Fremer uses the very same system and programming and is thrilled with it. The conversion the SPDIF and clocking are very important and the Alpha USB is special. My front end is entirely digital which may make a difference. In this day and age the only critical points are the USB conversion/clocking and the analog section of the DAC. Otherwise it is just numbers and numbers do not lie.
As far as the Mac mini itself is concerned as long as you have a SSHD and a lot of memory there is nothing you can do to make it sound better other than up sampling which Pure Vinyl (contains Pure Music) does for you. But, the better sound is coming at the output of the DACs which can use better filters with the higher sampling rate. The DACs are on the other side of my preamp. Within the Mac Mini it is only numbers not sound. The Mini's DACs are not involved at all. The Alpha USB is important because it is clocking the data so the preamp can "understand" it. By all accounts it is superlative at this job. If I download a CD to the hard drive and sync the digital outputs of my CD player and the Mac Mini it is impossible to tell them apart.
Other benefits are not only can you steam music but Movies, TV and You Tube. I can shop online while listening to music. I can listen to music samples on HD Tracks before buying, etc. All this at very significant savings over the Aurender. |
The answer of course is yes. I don't know any of them personally. |
@dekay - CD stands for compact disc |
I agree with the other folks who point out cd is a dying breed.
To answer your question digital is more convenient but vinyl analog is far superior sonically
|
Acoustic Sounds just stoped selling hiRez DLs because of decreasing sales. that should tell you something. Vinyl sales have been increasing for 15 years. CDs have been declining for a few years.
I was disappointed in CDs in the mid 80’s and early 90’s but had no choice since I couldn’t get new music on vinyl. I sold some records thinking CDs would be better with less noise. Since then I’ve paid more rebuying the vinyl.
I have to admit that I never tried SACDs or hiRez DLs and would consider it if there was a lot of content I wanted that I couldn’t get on vinyl. I think our tastes are established in our late teens and twenties and that’s when a majority of my records were purchased.
Vinyl is expensive and less convenient, so if you are looking from a practicality standpoint, I wouldn’t do it if I was starting over again. If you’re looking for a hobby I agree with most of the posters who have made investments in both that it depends on the title/format/release as far as what sounds better. In my limited exposure to 90’s CDs, I’ve never heard a CD come close to vinyl’s sound.
if you’re trying to be cool, vinyl does seem to be trendy these days for whatever reason, so if that’s your motivation-keeeping up with the Joneses, have at it. We welcome any new vinyl lovers to the club. |
venyl is always better. Off course with a good element, good driver, good dac. :first:venyl, 2th:cd, 3th streaming. Our ears are analog , not digital...
My best friend have Denon dp 100m with Ear dac,- preamp, and -monoblocks with the Ilumnia magister speakers. Never heard that sound before! |
Funny, last time I checked, the signal coming out of my DAC was analog ....
|
While I would rather have music in HD which is basically a digital copy of the master tape (be it analog or digital master), CD is better than vinyl if your goal is to hear what is on the master recording.
Why?
Vinyl has VERY LIMITED dynamic range physically. CD is close to 50% better with HD files being MUCH better than that. If you want to hear 1/2 of a snare drum crack - listen to vinyl.
Vinyl's "warmth" is actually second degree harmonic distortion. Why on God's green Earth would you pay for that killer $10,000 preamp and then feed it a distorted source. Again, a physical liability of vinyl which is an AGE OLD format and not reflective of today's best audio reproduction technologies.
I get it if you are digitally burned out and like listening to music in the order the engineer, producer and artist wanted. I get it if you like holding the record and reading the liner notes. I get it if you like shopping for music on speculation and being able to buy worn out old records for a buck or two. I get all of that.
But then again for $15 per month, you can get Amazon Music and have a TON of music in HD, meta data on nearly every record EVER MADE with iPad access that is superior in all ways to the above setup. |
"Digital is more accurate. Analog is more interesting." - me, talking about color film vs CMOS sensors, but it probably applies here, too.
SACD from my Sony SCD777 was VERY interesting. |
When CDs require a special anti-static brush, a special mat, a lockdown clamp, a tonearm with riser, cleaning before each use, a supplemental preamp for MC, periodic re-calibration and cartridge replacement, meticulous handling and storage, etc., I will consider going back to vinyl. Until then I will stick with quality CDs. |
There seems to be a group of people who keep saying...'who cares about the format...it's about the music...or 'it's up to you which you decide to go with' etc.
The real question can never be answered if you keep changing the conversation. We have the freedom to think/say whatever we want...but the general consensus from my recent inquiries in the interwebs is that R2R is the best listening format, followed by the LP and then CDs.
(I listen to mostly LP...no way I'm gonna invest in R2R until the recording industry goes back to tape. Just like some people aren't going back to LP)
You can argue the technological math but the many actual ears are affirming otherwise.
Hi-res digital is another factor but I imagine that R2R will prevail if the original masters were tape.
|
Anyone who has ears can hear that vinyl is far superior to digital. If you can’t hear the difference, you don’t have audio ears. |
^^^^Is today April Fool’s Day? 😂 |
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.
|
|
Whatever floats yer boat. Personally, I prefer CD and SACD. I hate noise, so that's probably the main reason. That said, sure, LP's can sound wonderful. But I think they have zero advantage, sound-wise, over CD. It's all in the recording and mastering, IMHO. I have great and wretched sounding recordings in all formats. I will continue buying silver discs as long as I can.
|
@camb,
Thanks for sharing the article. But I am afraid it won’t make any difference to vinyl aficionado’s. They are just living in ‘denial’.
I enjoy extracting the ‘best’ each format (CD, Vinyl and Streaming) has to offer rather than getting into endless debate of which format is superior 😊 |
Before anyone states that they absolutely know that CD is better, listen some the old Sheffield Direct to Disc LP's with a really good cartridge and pre-amp. The Rosie O'Grady's Good Time Jazz Band D to D is also excellent. Before anyone states that LP's are better, listen to Santana's Supernatural, Body Count, or many other CD's. As fat as streaming, I am still waiting to hear anything that sounds as good as my TT or CD player, but not eve better systems than mine have moved me yet with a streaming signal.
|
Same old stuff - no one wins this.
With due respect to the experienced listeners/visitors on this forum, I feel we should also consider the fact that people have "grown up" accustomed to a "format". And this is what I think dictates their preference of analog or digital. I am guessing, a person becomes so used to a "format" that anything different will probably be looked down upon.
If people have open minds (or ears) and can listen without bias then any medium sounds great. I did listen to vinyl during few demos and it did sound nice.
The reason for me not to go to vinyl are: cost (maintenance, phono preamp, buying same music all over again)
, time (alignment, cleaning, storage) and convenience.
But as many have pointed out, it is not just the format. It is the "mastering process" that dictates the sound quality. If you wish to avoid the loudness war, then look
up the "dr.loudness-war.info" site to make sure you get the CDs that do not have dynamic compression. I have converted all my CDs/SACDs to FLAC/DSF format. Going forward, if I have to purchase music, I will look in the following order: 1. SACD, 2. Hi-rez downloads and 3. CDs. Streaming is a great option.
|
That is odd audio2design, I thought you liked listening to eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. That folks is the Beatles White Album :-) |
Anyone who generalizes insisting that one format is ALWAYS better than an other is usually OTL. Digital obviously has a large advantage over any analog format including R2R. This does not mean that analog sources can not sound superior under the right circumstances. So, as many of us insist, it depends. There is no question that digital is more convenient but if convenience is your main issue then you might as well buy a table radio.
Acoustic Sounds did not stop offering Digital Downloads because of declining sales. I stopped buying downloads from them because I find HD Tracks site much more convenient. I do buy a lot of records from Acoustic Sounds. I really think they are quite happy selling vinyl as they have increase their presence by buying Classic Records.
For certain Streaming is taking a large segment of the market. I think young people like this format. I do not. I prefer collecting music. I do not to have to filter through a forest of awful music.
I love turntables. I grew up with them so, there is an emotional connection that I will never give up. |
In my opinion some CDs sound better than vinyl records and some records sound better than CDs. It's easier to get a great sound from CDs without breaking the bank. It's not the same with vinyl.
Bottom line for me, it's all about the music. |
I cannot comment on CD sound, but since you included all digital I can share how my records compare to hi-res streaming. I abandoned CDs 15 years ago when a friend did some A-B comparisons of a few albums on his system. We both had decent systems...solid state separates with floor standers(total system ~$10k MSRP). I had no records at all and bought a turntable and began my journey down the groove. Now, 15 years later, my system has grown along with my collection. I recently took a chance on an integrated and was surprised how much I liked it in comparison to my separates. It is a hybrid with tube amplification along with a well regarded DAC. I got a Node2i a couple weeks ago and have been listening via Tidal and Amazon Music HD. Tidal would always drop with hi-res files and only play consistently with CD files. I am now on Amazon and it is a superior user experience and the sound seems the same. I like how millercarbon described it....background. When I am upstairs hanging out with my 8yo daughter, it is nice to have the digital and not going up and down the stairs to flip records. Without exception, whenever I am in my seat and experiencing the soundstage, records win. It is kind of like soda. I quit buying soda at the grocery over a decade ago. I would occasionally get one when indulging on fast food. The past few years I almost have to spit out the first drink so I never get them anymore. My ears have not had digital music through my speakers in years and oh my gosh....whenever I switch over it is sooo bright and tinny!! The fatigue is immediate. I plan to keep my Node2i as it opens up the door to listen to music I don't yet own and it also makes things simpler when cooking or upstairs. If the playing field is somewhat level between the two sources, then I cannot imagine digital ever sounding better. I think some people have a mental block for the time and care it takes to own and enjoy vinyl. If digital makes you happy then you are lucky, but I think you owe it to yourself to give vinyl a chance. After all...we do tweaks and upgrades just to hear the faintest audible justification. Well, digital to vinyl is by far the best tweak I ever made to my system. |
Oh boy...
I have about a dozen recordings in both vinyl and digital. There things about each medium I like better than the other, so I would say that neither is superior. They are different.
The big downside to vinyl is that it is expensive to get done right and digital costs a tiny fraction of that. It's not the CD player that is important. It's the DAC you're running through that counts. CD players all buy their transports from the same very few vendors, so obsessing about transports is foolish. The difference in cost between one CD player and another is in the DAC and the appearance of the cabinet.
I've been running a Peachtree DAC-iT for years now and I'm very happy with it. I got a chance one day to do some serious comparisons between it, a Schitt Yggy and a PS Audio DirectStream. Half the listeners that day actually liked the Peachtree best. I preferred the PS Audio DirectStream a bit, but not $6000 more. The Schitt sounded like... Sorry Schitt lovers.
I run a pro grade Tascam CD-200 player and take an optical feed from it to my Peachtree. I also have ripped all of my CDs to flac format and play them off of a laptop PC into the Peachtree. Sounds identical, as it should. Exotic digital cabling is totally BS. The benefit of digital is that it's just data and is either transmitted or it's not.
My recommendation is to do as I do and run a pro grade CD player with optical output to the DAC of your choice, which can switch to USB from a laptop PC. You can either rip your CDs to wav or flac format and play off the PC, or just stream directly off the Internet from a service like Tidal.
As for vinyl, I recommend getting into it unless you're already deep into it, in which case you're already doomed. I bought my first record back when Lyndon Johnson was president and have far too many records to pitch 'em all out, aside from the many I love which are not available on digital, so I have to have a good turntable.
Good luck! |
dhite, I would have to say your choice of digital equipment might be...not great. I have plenty of Hi Res digital files that are as good or even better than anything you will get out of vinyl and I use very particular electrostatic speakers. I love records, but totally dissing digital program sources is incorrect. You are cutting yourself off from a great way to collect music particularly modern digitally recorded music. I prefer to keep older analog recorded music analog and newer digitally recorded music digital but I do have some amazing 24/96 downloads of older analog stuff that is wonderful. There is so much stuff out there presented in so many different ways that making generalizations is a big mistake. |
Dear Mkgus: The Real Reason Some People Prefer Analog To Digital There’s a problem that has been ignored by the entire music industry which I believe is really important for music-lovers that I think you my want to investigate, the greater pitch accuracy, higher signal to noise ratio, and higher dynamic range of digital notwithstanding. Approximately 35 years ago when digital media was introduced to the music consuming public as a media with “Perfect Sound Forever” the music industry made a huge screw up when it got the playback polarity of digital music on CDs and later DVDs, etc. in reversed (inverted polarity). On a purely random basis that means that digital media and files are heard in the wrong polarity approximately 85% of the time and either 92% wrong or correct when audio systems are set to a fixed playback polarity. The result is that the music played in inverted polarity sounds harsh and two-dimensional. And that’s probably the major reason that some music-lovers still believe (without knowing the real reason) that analog sounds better than digital. Analog media plays in the correct polarity over 99.9% of the time but also sounds bad if played in inverted polarity. It’s difficult if not impossible to make meaningful comparisons of the fidelity and musicality of media and audio components when they aren’t playing in absolute polarity. The better the playback system the easier it is to hear the differences in polarity. Confusion over polarity may cause music-lovers to expend needless time and money trying to smooth out the irritating and flat sound of digital media when the real problem is music played in inverted polarity. This should be an object lesson on how an entire industry with its experts and electrical engineers can get it wrong and not do anything about if for over 35 years and counting! So it should be an object lesson that the entire industry that creates recorded music and is based upon scientific principles continues to mostly get polarity wrong. I've written two monographs that go into great detail about the problem at: http://www.AbsolutePolarity.com and http://www.PolarityGeorge.com. If you or anyone you know might be interested in developing The Perfect Polarizer™ that will detect and correct polarity in real-time, then please forward this email to them/encourage them to contact me, because I believe it could be accomplished with AI/App. Now, do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?” Respectfully submitted, George S. Louis, Esq., CEO Digital Systems & Solutions President San Diego Audio Society (SDAS) Website: www.AudioGeorge.com Phone: 619-401-9876 1573 Kimberly Woods Dr., El Cajon, CA 92020-7261 P.S. MQA has repeatedly failed to respond to email questions from myself and other audiophiles about how they treat the polarity of the original recordings, i.e., whether or not they correct the polarity when the original CD/media plays in inverted polarity on approximately 92% of CD players/playback devices. Their lack of any reply whatsoever doesn’t inspire confidence that they correct it. And I know audiophiles who’ve played MQA music and found its polarity to vary. Shame on them! |
2nd post, me thinks @audiogeorge2 has an axe to grind. You know that most vinyl is digitally mastered?
|
@mijostyn....being a newbie in the digital realm, I fully acknowledge there is much to learn. I am trusting multiple reviews that the DAC in my integrated is of quality(Audio Research GSi75). My understanding is that the streamer is not significant for SQ if coming out digital into an external DAC. I therefore have not been inclined to pursue other streamers. I am only a couple weeks into this arena so there's that too ; )
|
It's just such a loaded question. It all depends on how the recording was recorded, mixed and mastered for the particular format, and then the quality of equipment on which you're listening to it. The best mastered CD in the world will sound like crap compared to an off-the-shelf LP if you're listening to the LP on a $100,000 system and the CD on a Discman and cheap earbuds. Conversely, an expertly mastered LP will sound awful compared to a standard CD if you play the vinyl on a Mickey Mouse turntable. Taking it a step further, many of the early CDs weren't remastered for digital and thus sounded horrible (Fleetwood Mac's Rumours immediately comes to mind), and many DDD recordings of the '90s and '00s that were released in small quantities on vinyl weren't remastered for analog and sound awful.
For me, personally, I prefer older recordings on vinyl and newer recordings based on the recording/mixing process. I'll usually stay away from vinyl reissues unless I know they're AAA or that they're been remasted/remixed specifically for analog. But I won't hesitate to buy CD box sets like the recent Beatles reissues, especially when not all of the material is being made available on vinyl. (Full disclosure: I end up buying the single CD, the multiple CD, the single vinyl, the multiple vinyl and the picture vinyl, because I am a masochist.) |
Speaking as somebody that went from vinyl (1000+) to CDs (4000+) and back to vinyl (now 2500+ LPs), and having always had nice gear, my opinion is, overall, yes. Vinyl sounds better to my ears despite the imperfections and differences between pressings, it just sounds consistently more organically real, impactful/dynamic, three-dimensional, and more exciting than my best digital recordings. A bad recording is a bad recording, but a great recording will sound better on a good analog setup. So will most mediocre recordings. I also like having the art, booklets, liner notes I can actually read, etc. Gives me a deeper more involved experience. If you want convenience go for digital, if you want to be moved go with vinyl. Digital and the playback gear these days has improved considerably, it just doesn't excite me. |
