Does Anyone Think CD is Better Than Vinyl/Analog?

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.

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. 

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). 

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.

Just to add yet another item; Eric Clapton’s ’461 Ocean Boulevard’ from 1974.

The CD, Remastered, 20 BIT ADC, Apogee Electronics... REFERENCE STANDARD and on...
No match at all to the original issued LP, Polydor/Rino, and a 'local' RSA pressing to boot!
The CD sounding sort of ’over-refined’, kind of boness / gutless, when compared to the LP.

So where on earth does that leave one comparing the different systems?

The bass, ’lacking’ with this *Remastered* Clapton CD is in extremely stark contrast to e.g. the CD of Morphine ’cure for pain’ RYKODISC 10262.
So, like most everything: it bloodywell DEPENDS, or as some suggested here: ’ask a different question’.
Michélle 🇿🇦

Tale of multiple formats. Stuff happens even in the controlled environment of a dedicated music room. The result was I needed to either retip or purchase a new cartridge. Since the one was going to take at least six months the only option was a new cartridge. So I retrieved my dac and Oppo 203 and added a little taste from my Mac Pro and viola I was faced with multiple format digital options. So I listened to CD and SACD through the analog outputs of the Oppo and high resolution audio from my Mac Pro running through the external dac. I also used the Oppo using coaxial out to the dac to listen to Blu-ray Pure Audio and DVD audio. The convenient thing about the oppo’s is their ability to play just about any format out there. So I had three weeks of listening to only digital, discovered some of my gold CD’s and Sony super bit map CD’s sounded just as good and if not better than the SACD’s. Blu-ray and DVD audio came the closest to the feeling of being there and emotionally connecting with the music you are listening to. Today came and with it a brand new cartridge, Soundsmith Zephyr MIMC*. Over the years I have done most of the set up myself and enjoyed doing it. Today I had a tech from Overture install and reset up my VPI. This is a step a lot of us ignore and one of the best reasons to still use a dealer. Steve sets up at least two VPI’s a week and installs a lot of Soundsmith cartridges. He has the knowledge, the expertise and the equipment to do the job. For those of us who have invested time and money to put together a highly resolving system this is a no brainer. Hire a tech once a year who will come in and retune your turntable setup, cartridge VTA. Azimuth etc. you deserve it. He reset my tone arm, made sure everything else was functioning properly, installed the cartridge. The TT is about 14 months old and was set up by VPI, he changed some of the settings and right away you could hear the difference. The cartridge will take some weeks to break in but I now can look forward to listening  to my record collection all over again. No more tinkering, just allowing the music to take you to some amazing places. The best form of meditation and relaxation I have come to rely on this year. For me in my system the vinyl lives and breathes. 

jim204. In agreement. Good digital is very satisfying to me. 

jjss49 >>>> 

• "This is the first and last word on the topic as far as I am concerned
• 
  
• if we know what we are doing with analog or digital... we get what we came here for... "

Exactly. With certain tweaks, concentrating on lowering the noise floor, there's a lot more "there, there." Once that type of resolution is attained, the margin between digital and analog is narrowed dramatically. Personally, I'm astounded at how good red book CDs can sound ... and this is coming from an old guy who has been collecting vinyl records since high school. I love my records, but oh you kid. :-)

Frank

The last time I spun an Analogue disc was in the eighties and I couldn't get rid of it quick enough and it wasn't as if I didn't have a good system.
Ariston RD11S Turntable
Syrinx PU2 arm
Dynavector Ruby Cartridge

This was good gear in that era when Ariston was just as good as Linn.

I went into digital because I was fed up with snap, crackle and pop and tracking distortion and that damned hiss from the analogue recorders that taped the master. I won't say that going digital in the early eighties was great but with my Quad 44 pre amp I could filter away some of that treble glare. It was when Meridian came in with their early CD Players that the CD started to sound good and without the obvious traits that came with vinyl. Now I am a happy camper as I now have a computer I built for streaming and playing CD rips. I now am a headphone addict and the streaming and high rez files that I buy sound as good as and most probably better than some with their high end rigs because I am hearing much more detail than people who listen to speakers as I get much more detail from phones than most speaker system.

Better is relative.

If you have a pretty decent digital source with a pretty good DAC, then it could be a matter of Convenience.  having to get up to turn the record over, clean the album, needle, make sure the turn table speed is correct, etc.  With CDs and especially streaming (high quality streaming), you have many more choices than what you currently have in your album inventory.

And, for a pretty decent digital system, it can and does sound wonderful.  Especially for better recorded digital music.  With older CDs, the music is wonderful, however, you often have to get past the really bad recording quality.  Some makes me want to run screaming out of the room.

However, when I really want to sit and listen, I will put on an album and every time (not some times) it is smoother, more open and better.

Don't get me wrong, if the music was originally digitally recorded and then placed on a album, when I listen to the same music on the digital system, it sound pretty darn close.  Each and every piece that I have listened  to that was originally recorded analog and converted to digital, when I listen to the album and then the CD, the album wins each and every time. So, to me, it depends on how it was initially recorded.

Forget about the pops and clicks for a moment and talk about albums (and cartridges) that don't have pops and clicks.  Then, listen to an analog recording vs the digital remaster of the same analog recording.  Then, come back and tell me honestly what you really hear.

In any case, I am enjoying both the digital and analog system in my home.  

enjoy

        Good points mijostyn. There's also the facts that a very high quality high-resolution digital playback system can be near sota sound quality wise and also convenient to the extreme.  I've discovered that the key for extremely high sq performance on my digital system is to use high resolution digital file recordings, usually downloads of at least 24 bit/96 KHz, that were recorded direct to digital. All 3 components are connected to my LAN wi-fi and communicate with each other instantaneously.
     My system was not nearly as expensive as a high quality vinyl setup would be.  I spent less than $5K for a Lumin D2 dac/streamer, a Synology hard drive component with 2 TB worth of Western Electric hard drives as a storage device and an Apple iPad as the GUI and remote.
     How convenient?  The iPad remote rests on its recharging station on the table next to my listening chair along with my preamp's remote. If I want to listen to music, I just use the preamp remote to change the input and set the volume, then use the iPad remote to select what music to listen to and press play.  It's literally a hi-res audio jukebox with over 20,000 hrs of musical content consisting of all musical genres from classical to The Clash and everything in between.
     Sorry vinyl lovers, no moving, cleaning, adjusting or fiddling involved.  The Lumin D2 turns itself on with the first detection of a signal and the music emerges from a dead-silent background in a very dramatic and impressive fashion. 
     The sound quality of the music is full range, full bodied, powerful, dynamic, highly detailed, with very accurate and natural tones, textures and timbre.  This is all within a wide, deep and very realistic stereo sound stage illusion with solid, stable and palpable images, including the spaces between them.  Overall, a very satisfying and enjoyable musical experience.
     I understand, however, that I tailored my system to my personal preferences and that it's only my version of an ideal home audio music system.  I also have no illusions that my system is the best and I certainly have no intentions of convincing anyone that they should do anything other than follow their own preferences when building their own ideal systems, whatever playback method or methods they may include. 

Tim

I'll just say as an older guy who grew up in the 70's on RECORDS, and later in life with the creation of Digital CD music, they both sound different and each has their advantages/disadvantages. Let your mind and ears decide. I am still old school and have not and will not get into this Spotify and Amazon music "online" thingy, just my thoughts, cheers. 

Tonight I'm thinking so - maybe since most Pop CDs I just don't have, can't get on vinyl. 
Good CDs (pop) pack more punch, dynamic range, very few LP if any can match. 
And I'm talking strictly Red Book here! 

Listening to e.g. Joan Osborne 'relish' now, I have a hard time to imagine this tour de force of stomping bass performance on any LP - really. 

Also earlier on, having compared Abbey Road, by the Beatles, to my LP reissue. My CD is simply better - as well.
 
Most 'newer' CDs, 90s plus productions, pack a load more dynamics, easily 6+ db, compared to early 80s stuff.
And the often sorry mastering is no pretty stuff for comparison either. 😔
Michélle 🇿🇦 
 

Turntables are the only source components that don’t use an amplifier to reproduce music.
If you put your ear near the tonearm or cartridge while playing a record you can hear the music. Can’t do that with tape or digital. In Stereophile this month, one of the writers made a point that a gramaphone recording( Had greater distortions) came across more believable than electronically reproduced music.

Could it be this lack of amps be a reason tt sound more like live music?

oregonpapa

4,334 posts

12-28-2020 11:41am

Last night I listened to a Steve Hoffman transfer of "The Best of Ray Charles" on a DCC compact disc. Ray Charles was in the room. I could see down his throat. Then I switched over to vinyl and put on the Impex Records reissue of Duke Ellington’s "Indigos." The Duke Ellington Orchestra was in the room and the solo instruments just hung there between the speakers in all of their tonally correct glory. Then, I switched back to CDs and put on Yusef Lateef’s "Live at Pepe’s." I swear I was sitting at a table at Pepe’s amid the audience. So, which format was better last night? Who cares?? It’s the music, the performance, and the emotional impact that really counts.

Frank

this is the first and last word on the topic as far as i am concerned

if we know what we are doing with analog or digital... we get what we came here for...

@mijostyn,

with all due respect: running a digital system off a noisy computer isn‘t anywhere near SOTA. Actually to get to digital SOTA takes equally as much effort and money as vinyl and $4k isn‘t even close.

As you say, vinyl is what clutches are on cars. Unfortunately digital ‘automatics’ are largely still at the sloshy Borg Warner 3-gears stage of the early ‘60’s.

I would just like to add that you do not need to spend $50K on a vinyl playback system to get SOTA performance. $30K will do the job nicely. The only problem with this other than most people still can't afford it is that a SOTA digital file playback system costs $4K. They are trying to juice it with dedicated Streamers and rippers but nothing beats a Mac Mini and a big hard drive. People with limited resources can get excellent sound from very inexpensive digital equipment. Why spend so much more on a vinyl rig? The extra money would be better spent on upgrading loudspeakers. Those of us over 55 grew up with vinyl and have an emotional attachment to it. While there are young people getting into vinyl
it is a very small minority compared to the young people who only listen to their phones and computers. I think vinyl took off again because those over 55 have discharged their children an now have extra money to burn and they want to relive their younger day playing vinyl. Once we are gone what happens? Will vinyl survive in the end? I won't be around to find out.
Will manual transmissions survive? I say no. Not enough cars around to learn on.
Sous vide then Torch!!

Foremost to mention that nowadays every recording is digital. Secondly, unless they are cut directly to vinyl, LP’s went through further analogue conversion adding hum and hiss, not to even to speak about the same limiters on dynamics that supposedly affect CDs.

The real problem with digital is actually not digital but analogue: added EMI/RFI interference and imperfect clocking adversely affect the reconversion to analogue. A good digital system has to therefore spend inordinate amounts on accurate clocking and signal clean-up.

On a direct comparison between the two it is ultimately the individual care taken in the final mastering that wins the day.

Between Vinyl (Zyx Universe on Dynavector DV507Mk2 to Zyx Artisan) and Digital (Innuos Zenith Mk3, Intona Isolator to Antelope Zodiac Platinum with Audiophile Rubidium 10M clock) I can demonstrate superiority of either depending on the source material chosen(in each case comparing Vinyl to the streamed version of the same recording)

Finally, after a lot of tinkering streaming is starting to beat CD transfers to the Zenith SDD. But there again, it was a long way of trial and error to get to that outcome.

Djones  +1

as for the poster that said he never got the same emotional response from digital as he got from analog, I concur.  I don’t know how many times I had the urge while listening to an lp to kick my turntable in frustration after hearing a favorite passage of music ruined by warping in the lp and the sound of bacon frying.  I have never had the urge to kick a CD player

" Does Anyone Think CD is Better Than Vinyl/Analog?"

     Mkgus,
     You do realize that the title of your thread is mistitled, right?  I think everyone participating on it thus far understands that a more appropriate title, that would be much more honest and just cut to the chase already, would be:
" Does Anyone 'Like' CD Better Than Vinyl/Analog?

     So, with your true inquiry and intent now more explicitly revealed, I'll continue to proceed down this more honest and constructive path. I think skyscraper made 7 good points about cd vs vinyl. The main points that I and probably numerous others consider, when deciding on their preferred source material and gear, are his following points:

1) The pops, clicks and and other surface noises of vinyl are too distracting and appear even on albums that look to be in perfect condition.
7) You can't beat the ease of use of CD's, and don't need a record cleaning machine for them like you should use with your records.

     Many individuals choose and like cds and other digital sources, in other words, due to the lack of surface and background noise and the greater convenience with cds and digital in general. As I stated on my previous post, however, cds certainly do not represent 'perfect sound forever' mainly due to poor master/mixing decisions and the fact that they don't take advantage of the superior performance specs and capacities of cd technology.
     I also believe that the viewpoint, that home audio enthusiasts are making a binary choice between digital cds or analog vinyl for their preferred playback sources.  As many posters have mentioned, many utilize both playback formats. 
     But there are also many individuals, including myself, who realize the original high technical capacities and expectations of the digital cd format were sacrificed due to poor master mixing decisions (the loudness wars and uni-volume) and the inability to take advantage of the benefits of recording direct to digital.  Many cds are just transfers of the original multi-track reel to reel tape master recordings to the cd format.  These transfers result in zero sound quality improvements over the original rtr master version, but they are at least in a format less susceptible to degradation with each playing.
    As a result many, including myself, have progressed beyond the use of just the compromised digital cd format to the use of higher resolution digital downloads that were recorded direct to digital.  
     It's very important to realize, however, that the recording of the music, whether played live at an event or in a studio,  needs to be directly made to high resolution digital to capture the musical event in the clearly higher capacity and higher sound quality resolution. 
     Often, companies will advertise recordings as "remastered to high resolution digital" even though it is actually just a transfer of the original music event captured on rtr tape in the older, inferior and regular resolution format.  But the original master recording is like a photograph, captured at the resolution the recording equipment was capable of.
      Subsequent transfer to a higher resolution format does nothing to improve the sound quality of the original recording. This also explains why some people claim not to notice a difference between a cd and the same song/group "remastered to high resolution digital"; they're just comparing the original to a virtually identical copy/transfer of it. 

Tim

Hello,
To start with the basics. It comes down to the recording. Garbage in, garbage out. Some remastered recordings are good like Abby Road. Others make good frisbees. As far as what we hear I have to say records as long as you have a pretty good TT and phono preamp. We are talking $1000 to $1500 minimum for both new and a good resolving system. If you don’t have that kind of budget then it’s CDs. Especially if you have a nice DAC and a decent transport. I am bot going to get into the cost of each media. My motto is- buy once cry once. Budget limiting I say try to get to the next level if you are close. Do you know how many people buy a Rega P3 for $1150 only to spend a $1000 dollars on upgrades to basically turn it into a Rega P6. In the end you still don’t have the P6 plinth. They trade or sell the modded P3 for $1000 to get a P6. I call it the $3000 Rega P6. Just buy the P6 and spend the $1000 on records. 

@oregonpapa Nailed it!

@8th-note. Nicely put into words. I was also thinking a 50k++ for a kick a$$ vinyl set up.

And don’t great recordings always stand out.

Chasing down all this nuance can be a swirling vortex with diminishing returns.

To me vinyl sounds better, yet I think digital is better in every other way. Just try strapping a turntable to your wrist or putting one on the seat of your car.

I have found CDs that sound amazingly clean and beautiful but I also I have Vinyls that sound way  better than the CD version,  I'm sure it depends how the music was remastered and transferred, for me the Vinyl sounds more real and the relationship of the needle going through the groove - it really fascinates me and amazes me, can't get enough of it. The beauty of digital, whether CDs or music servers, is the convenience and easy accessibility.  

@8th-note Ok, gotcha....just thought I’d ask. My vinyl experience has been different than yours from the same types of pressings you listen to. As long as you have a format you’re happy with that’s all that matters.

@ three-easy-payments

Quite the contrary. The vast majority of records I own are completely analog. It's true that some of the newer vinyl releases were recorded digitally or a digital master was used for the vinyl production but 90% or more of my vinyl collection is way before they used anything but a tape to manufacture a vinyl record. I'm a geezer and most of my records were manufactured in the 60's through the 80's. Later stuff is mostly CD.

@8th-note  

Overall I want to make the point that in my system the CD version and the vinyl version usually sound pretty close.

This could be because most of your vinyl was made from digital? I don't even bother to buy vinyl unless it was cut using the original analog master tapes.  You want to experience the source as it was created, not digitized.  If it was digitized and then put on vinyl then a record has no advantages over CD to my ears - in fact it can only be unnecessarily noisier.

The cartridge I was using before had a hot top end and it sounded better on some recordings and worse on others.

Yes and it will always be this way as long as you try and stuff the square peg in the round hole.

I think the original question was reasonable and sincere. Here's my take on the issue.

I have dived pretty deep into this rabbit hole. One of my eccentricities in this hobby is that I like to collect formats and versions of my favorite recordings. For several tities I have some or all of the following formats: regular vinyl pressing, audiophile vinyl pressing, R2R tape version (usually 7.5 ips), CD, HDCD, SACD, and BluRay. The only format I can't play is DVD-A. My system is capable of good resolution - Thiel CS6 speakers driven by Krell amplification. I have a Denon DP47F Direct Drive turntable with a Hana SL cartridge that goes through a Krell KPE phono stage. I've got 2 CD players and one DAC that will decode HDCD, another player that will do SACD, and another redbook player. The last one is a PS Audio PerfectWave II DAC and Transport which is what I listen to most of the time.

Overall I want to make the point that in my system the CD version and the vinyl version usually sound pretty close. Rarely does one "blow away" the other (they both sound really good). The sound became much more similar when I upgraded to the Hana cartridge. The cartridge I was using before had a hot top end and it sounded better on some recordings and worse on others. The Hana cartridge seems to have a very flat frequency response.

For example, I have several versions of SRV's Texas Flood including the MoFi UltraDisc One Step, Analog Productions 45 RPM pressing, Analog Productions 33 RPM pressing, regular vinyl, MoFi SACD, and regular CD. Comparing the MoFI One step to the SACD (Marantz SA 8005 player) they sound remarkably close. But to be honest the regular CD sounds pretty darn good. The version that stands out is the original vinyl which sounds inferior to the MoFi vinyl and SACD. I have dozens of titles where I have compared different formats to hear the difference. The results are not consistent. As previously mentioned the mastering on different versions can make a huge difference and easily swamps the difference between vinyl and digital. I can safely say that in my experience vinyl is not clearly superior to CD. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse.

When I see someone proselytize that vinyl is absolutely superior to digital I roll my eyes. My theory is that an analog rig is tunable but a digital rig is much less so. The difference in sound between two cartridges can be magnitudes greater than the difference between two DACs. I also agree with a previous post that a vinyl playback rig incorporates significant distortions which are pleasant to the ear. Nothing wrong with that but it means that one vinyl rig may sound very different than another. I just don't trust anyone who expounds absolutes in this hobby. When somebody says tubes are always better than solid state or horns are better than cones I turn my attention elsewhere.

I have several thousand CDs and over a thousand records - many of which I don't have on CD. I don't stream except to use Spotify to try out recordings that I buy in physical format. I love my records but I have not found that my emotional response is any greater for vinyl vs. digital. Both routinely give me chills and both occasionally bring me to tears. However, that's also true for my car stereo so maybe I'm just an emotional mush brain when it comes to music.

If I went out and spent $50,000 on a vinyl rig would records always sound better than CDs played through my $8000 CD player or my $1200 SACD player? I don't know but I kind of doubt it.To answer your original question, I think the preference for vinyl over digital is personal and is wrapped up in a whole bunch of emotional baggage that we all carry. The quality of the equipment that we can buy for reasonable prices these days is incredible. There are a lot of bargains in turntables, phono preamps, and cartridges and you won't have to get a second mortgage to give it a try. You aren't going to know if you will achieve a deep seated emotional connection with vinyl records until you try it.

Acoustic piano has always sounded more natural to my ears on vinyl than on cd, although I foolishly pulled the trigger and dumped all of my vinyl and turntable before I realized the difference. I jumped mainly due to surface noises, even on ECM vinyl, cleaned properly, played with a SME tonearm and Dynavector moving coil cartridge. Now years later, I find many, but not all, SACD releases played through my OPPO to be superior. A comparison of Keith Jarrett’s Sun Bear Concerts in Vinyl, cd, and SACD is quite interesting but that release does sound best to my ears in SACD.

Why no mention of DVD or BluRay audio?
The latest remasters on those formats are stunning....and it's more than just the tom tom's super-realism (non-compressed) as one feels it in ones chest.
My understanding is that it requires the master tapes to transfer the music properly, it costs a lot of money , not to mention the Universal Studios LA warehouse fire that melted a wide swath of our musical heritage. 

"...I think it costs too much to get a system to play LP's to the level of CD's..."

I think this is true, a really good LP rig is going to be expensive. A high end cartridge and phono-pre might cost as much as a decent CD player.    

Larry5729

I do like you except I use Qobuz

I used Soundiz to import my playlists from old iTunes (tracks dropped if not available). I have close to 200 playlists.

Today I prefer hi res streaming.  

I remember playing vinyl, even on a new recording and I could hear the noise of the needle tracking the vinyl.  I wonder if buying a $20,000 turn table eliminates the noise.  To me CD's and streaming sounds crisper.  I would have to listen to vinyl again to compare.  However, what is vinyl going to sound like on a $1,500 to $3,000 turn table.  Can't justify the expense of some of these expensive turn tables.  Plus, you have to get up, find the vinyl jacket, clean the record, put it on the turn table every time you want to listen to vinyl.  I must say those $20,000 turn tables are pretty.

I have given up my CD's for streaming Tidal on my streamer.  I can just sit on my sofa and switch albums or songs without having to get up.  Plus, I can create my own play lists.  Not sure why anyone would spend the money on a good turn table and vinyl to give up this convenience. 

However, there must be a reason why vinyl is still around. 

@wsrrsw 

jjss49 Sous vide then pan sear. ;-)

yes yes yes !

Hi sd40.  Macca didn't get rich by not knowing how to plug his music, CD or whatever.  Besides what he heard and loved in the studio in the 60s was.............analogue.
Not digital.

jjss49 Sous vide then pan sear. ;-)

I think OP was sincere and many of the responses here are informative to many and soporific to some.

main, if not primary function of internet enthusiast boards... beating dead horses

vinyl vs digital
ss vs tubes
class d vs class xxxx

stick shift vs dual clutch
naturally aspirated vs turbo vs hybrid

olive oil vs butter
chardonnay vs sauv blanc
pan sear vs sous vide

on and on....

Vinyl. It’s tactile. It spins. It smells. It’s progenitor audio. You have to get up to play it. It’s needs care, fussing, cleaning, examining and tinkering. That’s what I prefer.

What I exclusively listen to now are flac files (and steaming at that). Just sold CD player after listening to same tracks on CD/streaming.

Why. A vinyl set up the way I would want it/require it would be more expensive than my entire (expensive to me) system. As a practical thing using an iPad to skip a track or explore other cuts from same artist is thrilling.

So yes mkgus vinyl but practically no for me.

Who cares as long as you are enthralled.

^^^^well, atleast 60 of them still thinks it’s appropriate to do so 😂

Try as I may, I still cannot come up with a legitimate reason for beating a dead horse yet again and yet again. 

Occasionally, I play a track that's full of clicks and pops ------ on my CD. The artist has purposely put them on to attain the mood of a bygone era. Makes me smile every time. Reminds me why I don't really miss playing LP's that much.

Skyscraper, thanx for that explanation! I always thought that the background noise on vinyl "dithered" our brains but I did not know there was a term for it! My thinking had been that in natural environments there is always back ground noise and the background noise on vinyl tricked our brains into thinking the vinyl more realistic. Stochastic resonance, go figure

I find cd's better if the original recording was recorded digitally such as with a lot/most of modern music.  Music recorded analog sounds better on vinyl...as a general rule IMO.

Yes...it can be.  Both can be involving when properly set up!  I have thousands of CD’s, many are superb recordings of music that is no longer available on any format.

Reasons why I prefer CD (especially SACD) to vinyl:

1.) Classic LP records were mastered to fit the RIAA curve, i.e., the bass was de-emphasized so the needle wouldn’t jump out of the grooves and the record could be played on teenyboppers’ cheap record players. Paul McCartney said that the most recent remastering of Abbey Road (on CD) brought back the sound that the Beatles heard in the studio, replacing the less powerful (and less authentic) version used to produce LP records. IIRC, his comments are in the liner notes.

2.) The order of songs of an LP record was dictated by the increasing difficulty of playing the track accurately as the needle approached the center of the record, discussed above. Apparently this overlaps with the problem of keeping the needle in the grooves, i.e., bassy tracks had to be put on the outer portions of the record. This is an artificial limitation on artistic intent. And the music in the middle suffers.
3.) Degradation as LP records are played over time and needles wear out.

4.) Surface noise.

5.) Off-center and not-flat records.
IMO, these considerations outrank jitter and flaws in ADC’s.

Digital technology made the loudness wars possible but the abuse of compression should not be confused with CD technology itself. How the technology is used is a choice that recording artists, engineers, and the record companies make, not always wisely.

There is more consistency on the digital end of recording then the analog side of thing . If you buy 10 LP and 10 cds the 10cd will have a more consistent. sound while the 10 LPs will be all the place sound wise .

Yes and no . it depends on many variable but normally a 1,000 cd player will sound consistently more musical and accurate hubiera then a 1000 turntable and this price include tonearm and cartridge . 

Now if you get a yourself a 1000 turntable with an integrated tonearm buy yourself a good 500 dollar cartridge be it MM or MC 100 dollar good tablemat , special placement for the turntable to avoid vibrations with good recordings this turntable will be capable of giving any cd player system a run for its money . In other words a well design 2000 dollar modified turntable will challenge and give a good showing of itself to a 5000 dollar cd player be it seperates or integrated . I personally have done the test and these are my findings.