New Take on an Old Topic

[Mr. Widget]

Vinyl vs. Digital?

Ok, here is the deal. From a simple objective standpoint, I think high quality digital and uber clean and high quality vinyl playback can both be extremely pleasing and possibly hard to tell apart. That said, they really are not the same, since even 16 bit digital has a much wider dynamic range than vinyl records. Most quality CDs have minimal compression and most vinyl records do have a fair amount of compression to fit within the rather limited dynamic range of the medium. Then there is the question of the source material for the mastering of the CD or the record. If the original is an old noisy analog tape even the CD will sound noisy, if the vinyl record was made from an early generation digital master then the vinyl record can sound pretty lifeless and dull. Then there is the subjective process of mastering. Who did the mastering? Where was it done and with what gear?

So what am I getting at?

Yesterday, I dusted off the original The Cars CD and thought I'd give it a listen... it sounded pretty poor. I hadn't played it much, probably because it sounded so bad, but I started thinking, that album was one of my references back in college. I pulled the record from my collection... the same disc I had played decades earlier but probably not once since the '80s. It sounded great. The mix was different, the vocals were not so edgy and up front and in my face, the tone was much richer, the overall sound was much more pleasing to me. Now, I am not saying that vinyl is all of these things and digital is not, I am saying the particular CD I have and the particular vinyl album I have do not sound remotely similar and in this case, I much prefer the analog record.

I then compared an audiophile vinyl record of a fairly recent Norah Jones album and the CD... they sounded fairly similar. Here, if I had a better DAC perhaps I would prefer the digital, as it turns out I still preferred the analog record, but the digital was also quite enjoyable... so perhaps the question shouldn't be format as much as who mastered the particular cut and how good of a job they did.


Just something to think about... for me the quest is shifting. For years I never felt my gear was good enough, now it is more a matter of the recordings. Instead of finding the perfect speaker wire, I'd suggest find the best recordings of the music you like. Obviously often times we don't have choices, but for many of these classics, there are numerous choices out there. If others have had similar experiences, it would be nice to compile a do and don't list.


Widget

[fpitas]

FWIW, a friend and I compared various CDs and SACDs, with 16-bit and 24-bit mastering. We couldn't tell much difference between CD, SACD, or DVD audio formats, but 16-bit vs. 24-bit mastering was in some cases very obvious. That agrees with the opinion of a lot of recording engineers, that 16 bits is sometimes not enough for the processing that goes on at a studio.

[Sundown]

I think both formats can sound outstanding but at what cost? I like the convenience of digital but it seems like a budget turntable still sounds better than most 2k Dacs. Digital will close the gap in cost in the next 5 years but the last DAC i heard that sounded better than vinyl was a 10k Debussey

[Mr. Widget]

I think both formats can sound outstanding but at what cost? I like the convenience of digital but it seems like a budget turntable still sounds better than most 2k Dacs. Digital will close the gap in cost in the next 5 years but the last DAC i heard that sounded better than vinyl was a 10k DebusseyThat all may be, but you've missed my point entirely... while the merits of analog and digital have been and will continue to be debated ad nauseam, my point was that in some cases, one version of the music for sale is clearly different from another even though they are being sold as being ostensibly the same thing.


Widget

[Sundown]

That all may be, but you've missed my point entirely... while the merits of analog and digital have been and will continue to be debated ad nauseam, my point was that in some cases, one version of the music for sale is clearly different from another even though they are being sold as being ostensibly the same thing.WidgetI understood your view but I guess I did a poor job in explaining mine so ill try to explain it better. Never been good at expressing in words how something sounds. The recording process has drastically improved over the years but micing techniques haven't. People still love using a shure sm58 and many others and while Reel to reel & digital recording have their uses to making an album sound good or bad, the medium to bring out that recording will be the deciding factor. I feel cd and vinyl recordings are on par sound wise (both being mastered well) but the mediums (tables vs dacs) are not. That's what I was trying to get at. I've heard bad recordings on a dac sound relatively good (more forgiving) cause it couldn't bring out details and tables be brutally honest. Once dacs are on par with tables, then we'll fully be able to say this recording is better recorded on this or that format. Also on a side note at least from my own experience the lower gain type cd (often used when making jazz albums) sound excellent while rock albums (aveage artist) have to high gain and come across harsh. But on vinyl sound good almost all the time.

[hjames]

Not sure I agree - Widget was talking about The cars CD and Vinyl - it that instance it may have been one of the early rush-to-CD releases where the vinyl was fine but the CD wasn't mastered well. I have a ton of those early-mid 80 releases where the CD is just harsh to listen to, but the vinyl is better. Thats not about how the music was mastered within the studio, its the final mastering from tape for the CD media that got screwed up. Should we call it the secondary mastering?

And of course these days, the mastering goes to digital media hard drives and the like.

Then that source is used to create the media. Sometimes its done well, sometimes (like Zeppelin Mothership) the secondary mastering is so hot that dynamic range of the media is gone ... its harsh and a mess.

I think he actually was asking for SPECIFIC ALBUMS where you could tell the difference - maybe even dates for specific releases on specific media ... I know with movies on DVD which release it is makes a real difference.

I recently got the remastered Moody Blues CDs in the Deluxe surround packages - and found the mixes were radically different than what I remembered from my days of listening to the vinyl releases ... Its possible it was too many smokey nights - but I don't think so - just don't have the vinyl handy anymore to compare ...

I also remember back in the day it was hell to find a clean pressing of Blonde on Blonde ... but stamping issues are a different matter entirely ...

:banana:

And why the heck does this ignorant forum software take out all the white space and mash all the sentences into a single block of text - I had to re-edit my re-edits so it was readable again!!!


I understood your view but I guess I did a poor job in explaining mine so ill try to explain it better. Never been good at expressing in words how something sounds. The recording process has drastically improved over the years but micing techniques haven't. People still love using a shure sm58 and many others and while Reel to reel & digital recording have their uses to making an album sound good or bad, the medium to bring out that recording will be the deciding factor. I feel cd and vinyl recordings are on par sound wise (both being mastered well) but the mediums (tables vs dacs) are not. That's what I was trying to get at. I've heard bad recordings on a dac sound relatively good (more forgiving) cause it couldn't bring out details and tables be brutally honest. Once dacs are on par with tables, then we'll fully be able to say this recording is better recorded on this or that format. Also on a side note at least from my own experience the lower gain type cd (often used when making jazz albums) sound excellent while rock albums (aveage artist) have to high gain and come across harsh. But on vinyl sound good almost all the time.

[HCSGuy]

I had a similar experience - remember when 24bit/96Khz Audio only DVD's came out and Chesky was really pushing them? I bought a bunch of them with the intent of A/B'ing them against the CD's, especially the Rebecca Pidgeon stuff that I really loved. Unfortunately, the mix was slightly different, and I liked the CD's mix better. To this day the CD's been played hundreds of times, the Audio DVD maybe a dozen...it's about the music.

My father purchased a turntable about a decade ago, not because he was an audiophile (though he is), but because he had many favorite classical performances that were in mono and would never be re-issued on a newer format - for him it's more about the experience than the fidelity.

[Sundown]

HTjamesHow would someone be able to discern that? I'd love to have a good list of albums that are recorded well but someone would need nice gear to truly hear the difference.

[Mr. Widget]

I think he actually was asking for SPECIFIC ALBUMS where you could tell the difference - maybe even dates for specific releases on specific media ... I know with movies on DVD which release it is makes a real difference.Exactly... and I agree about the DVD comment as well, a well mastered DVD can look better than a poorly mastered Blue-ray disc.

Regarding the editing, that began with the last "update"... it is annoying.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

My father purchased a turntable about a decade ago, not because he was an audiophile (though he is), but because he had many favorite classical performances that were in mono and would never be re-issued on a newer format - for him it's more about the experience than the fidelity.I agree... but for me in The Cars album example, I hadn't listened to the music in years even though I really like the music... it just sounded bad and I have lots of other music that sounds great so I migrated elsewhere.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

HTjamesHow would someone be able to discern that? I'd love to have a good list of albums that are recorded well but someone would need nice gear to truly hear the difference.You have a point... it will be harder to hear subtleties with a lower end system, but a lot of this can be heard on anything better than a basic Bose system.


Widget

[Sundown]

The only few I can think off the top of my head are

Denali - vinyl

Depeche Mode - cd.

Buddy Guy "sweat tea" cd

[JeffW]

ZZ Top Tres Hombres. Had the album, it was a staple at parties around here growing up. It got lost or borrowed or something, so I got a CD some years later. It sounded like it was recorded in a barrel. Strange phase effects, or reverb, or something done to it.

There's not a better DAC or transport or anything that can fix that mix.

[Mr. Widget]

ZZ Top Tres Hombres. Had the album, it was a staple at parties around here growing up. It got lost or borrowed or something, so I got a CD some years later. It sounded like it was recorded in a barrel. Strange phase effects, or reverb, or something done to it.

There's not a better DAC or transport or anything that can fix that mix.Exactly the sort of thing that got me started on this thread. I think there are probably quite a few recordings out there like that. There may also be some that go the other way. There may be some that missed the mark originally and have been remastered as CDs that are actually better than the original CD.


Widget

[grumpy]

My father purchased a turntable about a decade ago, not because he was an audiophile (though he is), but because he had many favorite classical performances that were in mono and would never be re-issued on a newer format - for him it's more about the experience than the fidelity.

Reminds me of an "Everybody Loves Raymond" episode re Frank's jazz records.

A lot of The Cars recordings were reissued in HDCD ... I don't recall if the BDA-1 decodes
(going to have to dig out my various media copies now :) )

I've certainly experienced CD reissues of recordings that were flat or un-listenable, yet magic on vinyl.
I'm blaming the record companies, as I've heard magic on CD as well.

[Mr. Widget]

A lot of The Cars recordings were reissued in HDCD ... I don't recall if the BDA-1 decodes
(going to have to dig out my various media copies now :) )

I've certainly experienced CD reissues of recordings that were flat or un-listenable, yet magic on vinyl.
I'm blaming the record companies, as I've heard magic on CD as well.Many of my CDs are HDCD reissues as I replaced many in hopes of getting a better sound. Unfortunately the two CD players that I have owned that decoded HDCD just never blew me away... not saying there is anything wrong with HDCD, I think it is probably a very good technology, but if you don't have an excellent DAC that also decodes HDCD or an excellent CD Player with HDCD decoding, I have found a traditional CD of the same album through a better player sounds better than a lesser player with HDCD.

No, the Bryston does not decode HDCD.

Blaming the music industry? :D I think there is a lot of blame to go around... and far too many poorly mastered discs out there.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

While my fairly revealing rigs have me liking the apples vs apples superiority of Redbook over everything else I have tried, that is a distant third for me when the choice is to be made. Second is indeed the skill and fidelity of the recording, mixing and mastering. One specific I will pass on, and I am not alone on this. Despite their reputation, I find Mobile Fidelity's efforts, both vinyl and CD, to be ruined by their bizzare remixes. They seem to remix everything, and I have yet to prefer their take on what works. For an obvious example, visit their reworking of the brilliant Jim Anderson recordings of Patricia Barber - at your own risk.

My first consideration, by a mile, is what the music is in the first place. A 1930s masterpiece in 64 mp3 beats the hell out of a perfect Redbook "Classic Rock" pile of dung. To each his own, but my advice is to find other musicians who do what musicians you enjoy are doing, only are doing it better. That is improvement worth your effort. It's music. It's an art form, not the soundtrack of your life. Nostalga or "they're playing our song" bonding does not facilitate the recognition of good music. It is like photography. A deeper, more meaningful experience awaits from Alfred Stieglitz than from bonding with a bad cheesey snapshot because your Uncle is in it. Rant over, but it seems silly to work so hard to create a nice playback system and play piffle on it.

Next to that, the rest of this hobby hardly matters. Fun, but not important. Maybe I'm old school, but I always value art over commerce in my life choices. I'm old and my time left is not infinite. "Stay thirsty, my friend." ;)

[fpitas]

FWIW, a friend and I compared various CDs and SACDs, with 16-bit and 24-bit mastering. We couldn't tell much difference between CD, SACD, or DVD audio formats, but 16-bit vs. 24-bit mastering was in some cases very obvious. That agrees with the opinion of a lot of recording engineers, that 16 bits is sometimes not enough for the processing that goes on at a studio.

Specifically, one of our test albums was Lizard by King Crimson. Fripp has remastered (and sometimes, remixed) it in various ways, and it's available in different formats. In each case he had to work with the original master tapes, but the new remastered versions are all generally better quality than the original vinyl.

Obviously Fripp's remastering was a labor of love, and he was familiar with the original recording and very careful in his work. Often the remasters are a step backwards. My most recent experience of this was the Shout Factory CD remaster of the first ELP album; somehow they introduced more distortion than the original vinyl. The previous Rhino CD remasters had been a small improvement over the vinyl.

[Mr. Widget]

One specific I will pass on, and I am not alone on this. Despite their reputation, I find Mobile Fidelity's efforts, both vinyl and CD, to be ruined by their bizzare remixes.

Rant over, but it seems silly to work so hard to create a nice playback system and play piffle on it.On Mobile Fidelity, I applaud what they have attempted to do, yet unfortunately I have to agree with you. I may have posted this before, but if not here is a brief anecdote. Back in the early '80s a friend and I compared the Supertramp Crime of the Century recording from A&M, Mobile Fidelity, and the Mobile Fidelity UHQR version. The UHQR was a faithful yet much higher quality (quieter with no warp and possibly less distortion) version of the original and the standard Mobile Fidelity release was just wrong... bloated bottom end and a slightly different mix.

As for piffle... well, that is beyond subjective. If you like Lawrence Welk or Lady Gaga, who has the right to call that piffle? If it stirs your soul or simply makes you happy, that is all that it needs to do.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

ON HDCD

Well, I took a look at my CD case for The Cars CD that got me started on this topic... it turns out it was a remastered HDCD version. How disappointing. It would be great if there was an easy way, say look for HDCD on the CD to know it is a faithful reproduction of the original.

I have heard from numerous sources that the JVC produced XRCD discs are quite special. I have never bought one... might have to see if I can find some music I'm looking for that is available on a XRCD disc.


Widget

[Ducatista47]

H

As for piffle... well, that is beyond subjective. If you like Lawrence Welk or Lady Gaga, who has the right to call that piffle? If it stirs your soul or simply makes you happy, that is all that it needs to do.

Widget

Of course the crack about Classic Rock was highly subjective (I was thinking about Styx, but what the hell), but my advice to find someone who does the same thing you like but better is sound. Lawrence Welk is a great example. Whatever it may be about Mr. Welk's work you like, be it danceability, toe tapping, relaxation therapy, the thrill of a big band, background music to do chores to, good singers, whatever - seeking it done similarly but better by more talented arrangers, for instance in this case, could reward any listener with greater pleasure. Yes, I know Welk's musicians were excellent and the laid back vibe he wanted was very deliberately and successfully done. But the point is that if you are not talking about the likes of Bill Evans or Jeff Beck, there is always someone out there more talented who can give you exactly what you want, but make you even happier than the guy you already know about.

I know a lot of musicians. They generally can produce any particular result. Just tell them what you are after. Kevin Hart has a barnburning quartet-quintet (depends), the Vibe Tribe, for places where people come for the music. He is usually one of the best Jazz acts they have ever seen. If a restaurant gig is in a quiet, expensive place where people dress up and talk a lot, he has a piano trio. If you bother to listen, it will also be one of the most interesting takes on the genre you will ever hear. The reason is his enormous talent, and the talent of the sidemen he chooses. In lesser hands both gigs would be similar but forgetable. If he cared to do large ensemble charts, I expect he could give you a great Lawrence Welk, but one that would do everything more satisfyingly. That would be more satisfying to Welk fans than Welk himself was.

Here is a well known example. My late mother was taken with Pat Boone's lyrics. In fact, she was mostly about words. Remember what every song judge on American Bandstand said every time? "It has a good beat, you can understand the lyrics and you can dance to it. I'll give it a ninety-five." Mom was not alone in that respect. Imagine her surprise when she found out that Boone was covering songs done by other artists, and there might be versions out there even more enjoyable. They were easy to find, because that was what my older sister listened to. It worked out pretty well, because Mom had always liked black artists. She would encourage the young me to seek out the work of Josh White, Leadbelly and Ellington.

In truth, a move up the talent ladder is the best but even a broadening sideways move is a positive thing. Like Laura Marling? Try Over The Rhine. By this point, Joni Mitchell might appeal to them and there you are. We have all done this for friends, and it is hardly judgemental or elitist. We say, if you like that I think you'll like this. What we often mean is, I think you'll REALLY like this.

I'm not talking cultural elitism or being stuck up. Nor is it about taste in music. It is about maximizing your rewards with the time you have on Earth. Now please tell me what's wrong with that. Sorry for the off topic interjection, by the way.

[tomt]

How would someone be able to discern that? I'd love to have a good list of albums that are recorded well but someone would need nice gear to truly hear the difference.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=hp%27s+superdisc+list&oq=hp+super+disc&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i10i30l2.1873.7966.0.13335.13.12.0.1. 1.0.172.1203.7j5.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.bVgJ3rznw EA

[Sundown]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=hp's+superdisc+list&oq=hp+super+disc&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i10i30l2.1873.7966.0.13335.13.12.0.1. 1.0.172.1203.7j5.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.bVgJ3rznw EA


Sweet, thanks!!!

[Ducatista47]

I thought about starting a new SACD thread but I like this older one and everything in it is still interesting and on point (except what I contributed ;) ).

Last weekend Dave my audio friend and I did a comparison between CD and SACD that mooted everything except the sonic qualities of the media. We have both found Todd Garfinkle's MA Recordings the best recorded discs we have so far encountered. That goes for his modest offerings in vinyl as well, his masters are simply astounding. But does it matter if they are experienced on vinyl, CD Redbook or SACD? Yes, we now think so.

Todd offers a unique SACD Hybrid sampler. Unique because the Redbook layer is different music than the SACD layer. Three hours of music on one disc. We happen to both own quite a number of MA Recordings discs so we are able to compare the same recordings on Redbook, SACD and in one case vinyl. Between us we have nearly all of the SACD selections on the sampler on Redbook as well. We chose my 4345 system to compare the formats. While it doesn't image well, it has a great soundstage, tons of presence and dynamics, and good resolution.

We were expecting no difference to be audible between CDs and the SACD renditions, skeptical to the core. Boy, were we wrong. In April I was spoiled, more like ruined, from significant exposure to the top MBL system at AXPONA. It took a while before I could fully enjoy my own speakers again. Now we are ruined again. The SACD renditions were much more alive sounding and frankly more realistic. The vinyl was left in the dust as well. Same recordings, same person doing it all from microphone to disc (or disk). It was very disappointing to go back to the excellent CDs, I kid you not. Sonic-ly the best CDs I have.

This did not take a stellar playback unit either. I have two older Sony Blu-ray players that do SACD. Since I don't have a two channel amp or a DAC that accepts HDMI input, and Coax outputs only PCM from these units, the onboard $2 DAC chip was used. The SACD tracks blew us away through a two dollar chip when comparing with Redbook through a great DAC.

Dave is a hardcore vinyl junkie and he much prefers the SACD, despite the MA album being the best sounding album he has.

Given apples to apples, I reluctantly have to recommend the SACD format over anything else I have heard. By a country mile. The problem is, all the variables and truths of the previous comments on this thread apply when seeking a level playing field, to use the pun on playing. Reluctantly because DSD or other quality digital recordings to SACD are a product much rarer than the already scarce SACD offerings on the market, where titles remastered to it dominate. I do have a feeling that Blu-ray audio does this as well as SACD, but again not a red hot format.

71865

[SEAWOLF97]

I've zigzagged on the subject of CD vs LP for a long time. Yes, I have a Eurythmics DMM record that far surpasses the CD. i also have vastly under-performing records.

My gear generally is mid-fi plus. The turntables are all fitted with Shure v-15 /t3/t4 or t5 , The mostly used speakers are a/d/s towers. The only real standout is the CD player with a high-end DAC.

So I was getting bored with CD/redbook and thought that SACD was the next step. But the titles that are desired just aren't available. LP's here I come ;) . BUT I'd get bored with the whole turntable playback procedure. Digi PC files are fine, and can faithfully reproduce the CD, but .....well...no real improvement. The REALTEC 24/192 7.1 PC DAC does a nice job tho.

Then I stumbled into buying the Arcam CD23 FMJ CD player with a world class (?) DAC and the whole picture zigged (or was that zagged ?) again. It doesn't cure a badly mastered CD , but the point that I'm trying to make is ..... Why should you have to even buy a $2K+ redbook player just to beat a 35 year old turntable ? :dont-know:
(and not even every time) :o: