For whatever reasons CDs never fulfilled their promise of huge dynamic range - in the way they sounded - even before the industry decided to aggressively compress dynamic range what, 20 years ago. You know the line, 90 dB SNR and 90 dB Dynamic Range. That’s 100 times higher than analog systems. Hel-loo! Yet vinyl - when not compressed - actually sounds more dynamic, generally speaking. Not to mention CD generally whimpy and non-coherent. Go figure. Go back, back to the future! Cassettes that were released BEFORE the start of the aggressive compression have greater dynamic range - when you hear them - than either the vinyl or the CD. Check it out!
|
jperry, no problem.
I would not have tripped over your post if, instead of writing,
"We are all entitled to our opinions Geoff. I think if you are going to make a comment saying someone's system, or portions of it are inadequate, you should show what you have as a comparison."
you had written,
"We are all entitled to our opinions. I think if someone is going to make a comment....he should show what he has as a comparison."
cheerios
|
jperry
We are all entitled to our opinions Geoff. I think if you are going to make a comment saying someone's system, or portions of it are inadequate, you should show what you have as a comparison.
I'm saying no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth! |
I prefer to take the view that posting systems mean absolutely nothing. Knowing what’s in the system is NOT a key to how the system sounds. And trying to imagine what a system sounds like based on photos is nothing more than idle speculation. It’s all just posturing. Hel-loo! Example: one of the most expensive and renowned systems extant was out of phase for at least a year. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
|
Simple comparisons may not tell the whole story. Unless CDs are treated and the CD player is isolated from seismic vibrations (among other things) analog usually has an advantage IMHO. Tweaking and modding can make the comparisons more competitive. And if you’re a clever fellow you might even make the CD win. There are simply way too many variables to make a definitive case for either format.
|
Eggs ackley! Digital by and large is an analytical medium, it begs to be examined and analyzed like a monkey examines a skull. Whereas analog is not analytical. It just is. Tape and vinyl are natural mediums. They breathe. |
gregkohanmim
Lowrider nailed it - this is sonic bliss:
"playing a record on a rotating platter, then passing the vibrations picked up by the stylus through the electromagnetic field of the cartridge, and finally sending the signal up the tonearm (which can resonate) results in distortions being generated. The sound now has colourations which we perceive as being warm. These harmonic distortions are different than those produced by digital playback and are more pleasing to to the ear."
What’s perhaps even funnier is the whole concept of a nano scale laser beam attempting to stay on the nano scale data spiral under the duress of a fluttering, flopping disc and all manner of seismic and acoustic and other mechanical vibrations. Even the rather clever laser servo cannot possibly keep up. Something’s missing’ all right. What’s sounds like hyper detail is actually over-etched synthetic junk. And that’s what makes untreated CDs played on unisolated and un-tweaked systems so gol durn irritating, infuriating... unlistenable, really.
😛
|
mferland65
1 posts
my first post...
why is it I record a vinyl LP onto digital, and yet the playback has that emotional connection of vinyl that so many report here?
That is interesting. I find, similarly, that "digitally remastered" cassettes have more emotional impact than their CD counterparts. Digitally remastered cassettes such as Kind of Blue have more air, greater dynamic range and more of that certain, je ne sais quoi, let’s call it expressiveness or musicality. Digital rain striking the ground doesn’t sound like real rain, nor does digital applause sound like real applause. Not as liquid, not as coherent. Not even close.
|
cleeds
geoffkait:
... CDs sound relatively thin, disembodied, two dimensional, compressed, congealed, thumpy, piercing, hollow, diffuse, synthetic, amusical, generic, threadbare, edgy, bass shy, peaky, ugly, phasey, irritating, detailed, unnatural, unimpressive, commercial, like papier mache, airless and dry.
I think it's time for you to upgrade your system!
Touche! Please note I said relatively so don't feel too bad.
Everything is relative. - A. Einstein
|
orpheus10
Nothing has really changed, low end CD sounds better than low end analog.
Perhaps the challenge for audiophiles should be how bad can you make your system sound. Why on Earth would anyone try to be just a little better than the worst sounding system? Whereas on the Kalahari you only need to be just a little faster than the slowest Wildebeest.
😧
|
"The assumption here is that all modern music is digital and all mastered the same."
Geez, talk about a Strawman argument. I never heard anyone make that assumption. |
In the future the best vinyl will have Graphene in it.
|
After all is said and done, CDs sound relatively thin, disembodied, two dimensional, compressed, congealed, thumpy, piercing, hollow, diffuse, synthetic, amusical, generic, threadbare, edgy, bass shy, peaky, ugly, phasey, irritating, detailed, unnatural, unimpressive, commercial, like papier mache, airless and dry.
Whereas vinyl sounds relatively bold, liquid, focused, deinterleaved, sweet, beautiful, airy, articulate, coherent, musical, deep, open, 3 dimensional, full, pitch correct, engaging, soothing, shattering, dynamic, sparkling and correct. |
Gosh, has it really been 16 years ago when Michael Fremer, vinyl pundit extraordinaire of Stereophile, pronounced his pick for the five best sounding rooms at CES. Four of them were digital systems. The fifth room was the monster Walker Audio/Kharma room, featuring the Walker Turntable and the Grand Kharma Ceramique speakers.
|
