Turntable got absolutely crushed by CD
Holy cow, we are still getting the old myth "digital doesn’t capture the complete soundwave, but analog does!"??? It’s no wonder people who know something about digital lose patience with the bogus arguments raised by vinyl lovers. There are various reasons why vinyl tends to sound different from digital sources. The myth that digital can’t reproduce the full musical waveforms, as if it’s "missing" audible information that an analog medium isn’t, is not one of them. |
FWIW, I will not get into a debate which format is superior as I have and enjoy both. My experience is that both are superb. What I have noticed is that digitally recorded, mastered and produced CD's outperform the digitally produced vynil and that the analog recorded, mastered and produced vynil outperforms the CD. It took me a long time, about 12 months, and a lot of work setting up my VPI to come to that conclusion. I was also not that impressed when I returned to the record experience after a 30+ year hiatus. For whatever reason I no longer have the snap crackel pop or dirty noise floor that I first experienced. Now everything is dead quiet and black. I noticed a drastic improvement after about 200 hours of the cartridge being used and checking setup so flipping often I can do it blindfolded. Every detail is important listening to vynil but once you got it it is amazing. I have about 100 original rock albums from the late 60 thru the 70 in both formats and have compared them side by side and in all cases the original vynil beat the digital copy in quality. However I also have some later produced digital recordings which were transferred to vynil but the Cd beats the vynil consistently in my ssystem and to my ears. So to my ears and listening pleasure I go to the digital side for digitally recorded and to analog side for the old analog recorded and I love them both. Anybody want to purchase those CD's that I have on album? For those who just have to know, my digital front end including speakers set me back about 22 grand and the analog front end about 20 grand so it's close to equal quality as far as expenditure. Don't compare one format to the other just enjoy the music best you can. |
I found the link to be interesting. I wonder what impact HD Vinyle will have. https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/is-the-sound-on-vinyl-records-better-than-on-cds-or-dvds.htm Comparison of a raw analog audio signal to the CD audio and DVD audio output
The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values). This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker. A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion. This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise. From the graph you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling. The recording industry has a new standard for DVD audio discs that will greatly improve the sound quality. The table below lists the sampling rate and the accuracy for CD recordings, and the maximum sampling rate and accuracy for DVD recordings. DVDs can hold 74 minutes of music at their highest quality level. CDs can also hold 74 minutes of music. By lowering either the sampling rate or the accuracy, DVDs can hold more music. For instance a DVD can hold almost 7 hours of CD quality audio. |
| Post removed |
I often see vinyl fans bemoaning the fact that so much new vinyl is produced from digital masters. Some say "why bother buying a vinyl made from a digital master, doesn't it just defeat the point?" Not for me. I buy both old vinyl albums and tons of new vinyl releases. I'm especially a fan of soundtracks, which are getting killer releases on vinyl. But I still buy a band's album if it's out on vinyl, be it surf-rock, folk, jazz, electronica, or whatever. Even if the master was digital, I get the "vinyl experience" of the beautiful artwork, the tactile nature of the object, owning the music, playing it on the turntable etc. And most of it sounds utterly fantastic on vinyl. First, it's not like they are just making rips from red-book CD. A good new vinyl album starts with high res audio files, and it's mastered for vinyl. That in itself can make a bit of sonic difference. (And the vinyl can even eek out more dynamic range than the digital release, if the digital release is squashed for 'loudness wars' type delivery). So the vinyl starts with high res audio, picks up some "flavor" from the vinyl remastering, and then we still have the nature of playback via phono pre-amps and getting the sound from vinyl through the cartridige/turntable. I think that process in of itself results in some of the "vinyl" sound. It certainly seems to in my system, as I still often get a sort of "different" texture and presentation via the vinyl playback of an album vs it's digital counterpart, and I often prefer the vinyl presentation. So, I have no problem buying LPs just because they may have started with a digital master. I get all the same fun out of the physical aspects of buying the LP version, and they can sound fantastic. It's not like an analog master guarantees good sound quality. A number of my LPs from digital masters sound better than those from analog masters. |
| Post removed |
Vinyl is a copy, too. It is not the original source. In your case (rare records), digital copies may be limiting factor and it is understandable that you do not want a bad digital copy. Try copying into good digital copy. Maybe it has improved since the last time and I am not trying to poke. It may surprise you, if you have not tried in a while. Maybe 50% (or whatever the percentage of digital-preferring crowd) people here are not completely clueless and do have some taste. Give it a chance. |
I stream digital all the time in my car and I LOVE it This is what digital is made for, i do stream news in digital format on iphone when i’m cooking. But when i want to play an album LP or a single "12 from my favorite band, i want to play original vinyl in analog system not as background music, but as a serious listening session. Since my favorite music was recorded way before digital was born, i want to play the original source, not a bad digital copy. Digital copy can not be better than the original source such as tape or vinyl. It’s a copy. Only if the original source of modern music is digital then it make sense to use digital. Even vinyl pressed from a digital is just a "digital on vinyl", not the analog. But i know a lot of bands who’s still recordings on master tape in 2018. An average age of the band members is 20-40 years. They want to record on mastertape and press vinyl, that’s what they do. I appreciate it, this is a cultural thing, vinyl never die! Vinyl gives people more that just a music. If the music is just a background then you don't need a vinyl. Not everyone who's buyin records is a record collector. Kids loves records too, watch this 12 years old kid interview by M.Fremer on AnalogPlanet |
"Vinyl and analog gear is an investment, the real things that only rise up in price in time." Not so fast... https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis97c3b-technics-sl-7-linear-tracking-turntable-turntables https://www.gramophone.co.uk/editorial/review-technics-sl-7-turntable. http://www.in2013dollars.com/1981-GBP-in-2018?amount=200 "In other words, £200 in 1981 is equivalent in purchasing power to £744.59 in 2018, a difference of £544.59 over 37 years" |
"Remember when you lost a Hard Drive with all information on it, it happens with computer hard drive." 4 TB hard drive can be had for $99 at times. They are simple to copy as a back up and can be stored in different locations for safe-keeping. Different houses, towns, continents. It does get a bit tedious to populate all those back-up drives with new music as it takes as much time as cleaning the record but there is something called "cloud storage" these days, too. Used, but "very good+" condition of 2014 Sgt. Pepper's mono record can be had for a bit over $100, if you are lucky, and more likely $150. In the most-space consuming digital formats, that hard drive can fit hundreds of Sgt. Peppers'. I may be the only one out there who has ever lost a record, but I am looking for two single records that I had somehow misplaced/lost. I bought new ones now and am, to prevent further loss, putting them on hard drives. So, I do remember when I lost a record but have not lost a hard drive yet. PS: All the examples above are from my own experience. Hard drive, Sgt. Pepper's, houses, towns, and continents. No cloud yet, though. |
@snowdog212 I have to echo the sentiments some others have expressed. I'm not sure how to reconcile your observations about all the terrible surface noise obscuring the delicate musical content on LPs, with my own experience of vinyl on my system. One of the most surprising and gratifying observations I had upon upgrading my old turntable and cartridge to my new system is how low the noise floor seems to have become on most records, and how incredibly clear and finely rendered even the most delicate musical detail is. When I play LPs for some of my musician pals, they often comment it sounds as silent (in terms of record noise/hiss) as a CD. I'm constantly amazed at how the tiniest musical detail just seems to go the edge of audibility. I often can't even hear the noise floor on an LP. Even when there is a slow fade out of a song, often it seems to fade slowly to the very edge of audibility and disappear in to blackness. Not all records, of course. But on a good portion of my records. Now, I'm not going to jump on the 'your set up must be crap' bandwagon, as I don't have the greatest turntable one can buy, and yours sounds like it should be excellent. So all I can do is notice how utterly different my observation and experience seems from yours. Weird. |
@inna By the way, I disagree with those who think that good digital is less expensive, I think exactly the opposite. That’s cool. But then I suggest you should change the following: You really need extremely expensive equipment to make digital tolerable. To "I" really need extremely expensive equipment to make digital tolerable. Because of course you really are just talking about yourself. I’ve found digital more than tolerable since the 90’s - I have luxuriated in the beautiful sound quality of music through my various systems over many decades, using digital sources. I’m far from alone. (Not to mention, like any parent I have kids who only use digital sources for their music and they are DEEPLY moved by their music. I stream digital all the time in my car and I LOVE it). There is a tendency from the further reaches of "both sides" of the digital/analog debate to see one’s own experience as some objective fact about the nature of the medium. "I don’t like digital so there must be SOMETHING about digital that is wrong or unnatural to the human desire for natural sound." It’s just one’s subjective take; it’s not a universal.Same goes for those who say "vinyl is crap, digital is obviously better." |
@glupson Re: record storage. That certainly is an issue. I’ve dived deep in to vinyl in the past couple of years and I find it completely energizing in terms of my passion for music and for listening to my system. Yet I also don’t want to end up featured on the TV show “Hoarders.” I absolutely love the physical aspect of LPs, but also don’t want to be overrun with them. So it’s definitely a battle - the desire for buying new LPs and having a place to store them. I’m not remotely close to the situation many are in here who have thousands of LPs. I think I’m probably around 400 or so at most. But even then, I had my albums stored and displayed looking nice, neat and aesthetically pleasing. But now they are starting to overflow to look a bit more intrusive. So...on to new storage units. I think something that naturally restrains me is that I’m not what I’d think of as a “record collector.” The distinction I make there is that a “collector” denotes for me one who collects for the sake of “collecting.” (Not necessarily purely, but that is a significant component). So a collector, to me, is someone who may for instance be a “completist” where if they like a band, they are driven to get every album available, or every pressing available of an album or whatever “for completion sake” to complete a set. Whereas I’m driven to buying an LP strictly on the basis I want to listen to that album. I’m not saying this is some more benighted motivation than the collector at all. Only denoting my approach from what I often see in folks who seem to like the “collecting” aspect as much or more than the music. I was a comic collector for many years. So for instance, it was important for me to have “Spiderman 1 - 100” as a completed portion of that collection, whether I cared for every comic in that collection or not. I just don’t have that inclination anymore. |
@chrisoshea, With this 'logic' one should probably not buy used records either. One never known how it has been handled, how often it was played and with what stylus, does one? Glad it isn't my logic, or else I wouldn't have any records....... It has been said before, but bears repeating: what cartridges do you think those vintage records from the '50's and'60's were played with? We are debating on this forum whether sapphire is an acceptable cantilever material, but back in the day most people used a sapphire stylus! When the sound deteriorated it was worn and you simply flipped the stylus over to wear out the opposite one........ Yet most of these records have survived such crude devices, except in obvious cases of mishandling which are easy enough to see. The best of these are still considered the benchmark for sonic quality and many of them are worth more to collectors than the MC cartridges discussed here. So why should you be so 'sensitive' about the condition of previously owned modern cartridges with a sophisticated diamond stylus? |
Not a very fair fight IMO. Better cart and phono stage + proper setup will make all the difference. Not saying CDs don’t sound good, don’t want to go down that fat hole but I would not expect a CD to “crush” a quality vinyl recording played on a properly setup turntable with quality components (cart and phono stage). |
| Post removed |
“Isolate it via springs which brings lively resonances to the game. Or solidly support the table.” >>>>>Actually, springs can only bring one resonance to the game. And it’s relatively harmless. That’s kind of the whole point. It’s the solid support that brings many lively resonances to the game. Ironic, huh? 😳 |
Not sure what you’re listening to, but 90% of my vintage records are not existing in digital format appart from some private digital copies recorded from the vinyl and uploaded on youtube by collectors in bad quality. Or some horrible CD comps recorded the same way (from vinyl, not from the tapes). You can not replace a good vinyl collection with digital, you have no access to the mastertapes recorded in the ’70s for example, all you can do is a copy from your own vinyl. I have no reason to do that until i can play vinyl! I would do that only to share my selection with somebody. Also i have no idea how a physical object like original vinyl poress with cover can be replaced by digital file or CD from the modern era? CD format died in the ’90s, tell youth people about CDs - they never ever tried them! You can also remember MD or DAT tapes - another dead media formats. "Collection" on Hard Drive - you must be kidding? Remember when you lost a Hard Drive with all information on it, it happens with computer hard drive. This is a typical scenario with evything digital. And all those scratched CDs! What a waste of time with the worst media formats ever made. Vinyl is the only media survived in this crazy world of digital crap. This is the only musical format that motivate youth generation to buy it as an art object (even if they don’t have a turntable to play it). The only format you can trust is vinyl and analog audio equipment, digital crap has no value at all. Vinyl and analog gear is an investement, the real things that only rise up in price in time. People who blame vinyl have no taste. Digital is only a tool to discover some nice music to buy on vinyl. Collection of music must be on physical format, not in the cloud. It’s like an art, you want an origina paining if you’re serious about it, not a digital copy on the screen. I so sorry for the people who lost an enthuiasm with age. Playin vinyl is a pure joy! |
| Post removed |
It really is all about the source material and the cartridge when it comes to vinyl. I have a digital front end playing FLAC files from my computer through JRiver then through an Oppo Sonica DAC through Jolida tube separates then to Paradigm Studio 100 V5 speakers. I find digital to sound clean, clear and deep but ultimately sterile. My analog system is a VPI Scout 2 with the 9" arm and a Dynavector 10x5 MC cartridge. The phono section is a Vincent PHO 7. Not high end but nice. The 10x5 compliments the VPI very well. I like to listen to a lot of 1960's produced albums like Doc Severinsen, Miles Davis, Johnny Hartman, etc. And also more recent audiophile recordings from MoFi and Analogue Productions. The latter can get pricey but the sound is great. I recommend you make sure your cartridge is professionally set up and that the impedance matches your phono stage. Then listen to quality analog recordings. There is a depth to the sound and realism that I have yet to hear digitally although I have no experience with high end digital set ups. |
The OP said: "At this point I feel like I should give up on analogue playback and invest further in digital."Smart move, I did that 27 years ago in 1991. Analog is not better musically...but it is an interesting experience for those who still can get by the limitations and are entranced by the visual experience. |
| Post removed |
CD format is garbage. Extract the information off of them and stream to get the best possible sound reproduction. That being said, whether or not the LP version sounds better or worse depends on the particular recording. Most cases LP reproduction is superior. If you have pops and hisses you are not doing it correctly. The OP didn't set himself up for a proper comparison with an unfortunate turntable tonearm-cartridge-phono stage combo. |
"...when somebody walks in the room and makes the record player skip......in the long run to replace your records because they’re scratched......Been there done that."You are so right. I had a deja vu recently while copying some records to digital format. Telling everyone to walk lighter and be careful when closing the door. It was nostalgic, though, although not in the best possible way. And in the end, some records were noisy enough that I bought them again and am redoing it again. No walking, no door closing. Inconvenient for sure. Been there, done that, as you said. |
I have already stated my opinion on vinyl vs. digital, in short, they both have their place. Reading through this thread, however, I gather some people either have a strange emotional connection with their media or are using this forum to exercise their contrarian sensibilities. Coolness does not come into play in my world. My friends and family think I'm nuts anyhow. I bought both my wife and daughter Bose bluetooth speakers and they love them (I also pay for a Tidal family service, a really good buy)! I love my family more than anything, so why would I subject them to such crappy audio? Because all they want to do is listen to music. |
Digital is superior to LPs always has been and always will be.I had turntables for many years I don’t like the pop hissing noise crackles that you get from LP’s so I’m sticking with digital which is superior to Lp’s. Turn tables are just hype .A way to make more money. I am 61 years old and have been in to audio for 47 years and started out with LPs and tapes wishing for a format that did not have problems with hissing crackling scratching skipping and eating tapes and many other problems . Now with such great cd players and Dac’s that you can buy today it’s hard to beat digital no matter what the experts Say. .I will not go back to the days when somebody walks in the room and makes the record player skip and scratch a new LP or the tape is ruined by the tape deck. What a waste of money to invest in something that’s going to cost you more and more in the long run to replace your records because they’re scratched and tapes because they are ruined . Been there done that. |
snowdog212 Vinyl is an archaic and noisy medium, requiring substantial roll-off in the lows and highs in order to get to the final medium (vinyl) ...That's mistaken. It sounds like you're confused about the RIAA curve, which does "roll off" the LF while boosting the HF, only to be restored by the inverse curve in the phono preamp. Listen to a classical record with a quiet flute part for example - and just the sound of the stylus dragging across a perfectly Mint vinyl record is too loud and audible against the flute itself.That sounds like something is seriously wrong with either your phono cartridge, your setup, or both. |
I think the utter pain-in-the-ass requirements of vinyl set-up, maintenance, cost, along with finding source material that is worthy, is EXACTLY why I stayed away from it, and exactly why I'm enjoying this thread. No offense guys, but I'm feeling more than a bit vindicated after putting up with all the vinyl snobs and hipsters that sneered at my unabashedly digital rig while they bragged about their analog one. And laugh out loud kudos to Whoopycat. |
You have some serious upgrading to do on analog rig as many people are saying. It's expensive and takes time if you don't have the funds. Upgrade that tone arm and cartridge. Or as soon as you can afford a 3D tonearm and koetsu or Lyra. And I listen to a lot of digital. I don't find it harsh or unmusical. But vinyl has an important part in a system and can be tremendously exciting and moving in a way that digital isn't. I listen to classical on digital because lp surface noise is too much for me. But then I'll put on the lp of the Reiner Kiji or Ansermet Pulcinella and it's jaw dropping time. |
Sorry guys, I just don’t think the vinyl is that greater than a good cd. As much as photography, digital has gone far. Of course that old film cameras have a better picture. That doesn’t mean the digital photography is not good. I do think that we can appreciate the difference between a good vinyl and a good cd is on systems above 30 / 40 k USD. You will need at least nice speakers, at least 10k for the pair. Monoblocks for them - another 10k. Another 20k on eletronics. Not saying here cables and other complements. Having all that you will also need a vinyl that was recorded as analog. Nowadays most of the vinyl recording are done digital. The vinyl is a waste of time and money for me, as much as this fancy expensive systems, but I do have one. Moneywise this is a waste a time. Even in my expensive fancy system I don’t see a vinyl in the near future for me. |
That's what you put on turntable - original 50's, 60's and 70's pressings. Also some Japanese first releases from 70's and a few others like original UK Dead Can Dance pressings. Not necessarily A stampers unless your system is very high resolution. If not - forget about vinyl, enjoy digital, save a lot of money and call yourself audiophile. |
| Post removed |
@unreceivedogma : If the DL103 sounds so bad why has it remained in production since 1962? While many cartridges (both mm and mc) have become extinct! The marketplace sorts out the winners from the losers! How about those old-fashioned Ortofon SPU's? Still in production after 60+ years and still loved by many! Let's see you design and market a better mc cartridge than the 103 for such a low price! |
