....no, I'm sorry I don't. Educate me ...please....always seeking new material. That's how my collection expands, only through a long shot shopping, but mostly by referrals from audioso's.....so cool! Tanx! WWWWEEeeee!!!
....no, I'm sorry I don't. Educate me ...please....always seeking new material. That's how my collection expands, only through a long shot shopping, but mostly by referrals from audioso's.....so cool! Tanx! WWWWEEeeee!!!
Thank you, Widget. That means a lot more to me than what all of your friends and all of my friends think about vinyl vs CD. In the end I don't care what everyone else hears when vinyl is played, and I doubt you do either. What I hear matters to me because it is my ears that I have to use.Originally Posted by Mr. Widget
In all these years I am getting a pretty consistent read as far as the generalities go. I really don't understand the "cymbals sound like cymbals" talk I keep hearing. Vinyl is just not that special or capable in the last octave or so. The physics of a stylus in a groove has limits as the frequency climbs. Digital has no such limitations. On most of my recordings I hear mostly or only cymbals past 10K. I know there are harmonics up there, but they are not so obvious as cymbals because it is fundamental tones being produced by cymbals.
I know vinyl playback is not consistent, but I always notice a certain restraint in the highs as compared to digital. I describe it as being "soft." Kind of like a titanium vs soft dome tweeter.
The word I used to describe vinyl playback, lush, I consider descriptive. It implies a sort of rounding off, and a underemphasis of sharper attack and high frequency transients. (Most listeners seem to find vivid high frequency transients and attack harsh. I find them natural. I have known listeners who prefer a recording of a piano or trumpet to the real thing. Too sharp or too harsh, they say. I find I enjoy facing the bell of a trumpet five feet away, live in person.) Like the term warmth often applied to some tube amps. Both are to my ears more an exaggeration of some octaves at the expense of others than a more naturalistic take on music, as most claim. In other words I am not saying I don't get it. I am reporting that that is not what I hear and at this point I don't equate the vinyl version of sound as more natural, just more pleasing to most ears. Just not mine, apparently.
In no way could I argue with what you are saying. I simply do not find vinyl to be a more natural sounding medium so I don't get higher on it than any other way of hearing music I like. Like L100's, I take it for what it is and enjoy it. Bear in mind that I saw this more like everyone else did until I learned what it takes to play CD's properly. And started finding superior CD's to play.
The RIAA thing is interesting. Go figure that records need electronics to push their lower end response towards reality, and again because of a physical limitation that digital does not have. Nobody, myself included, is complaining because it works so well.
My bottom line on this subject, at least at this point, is that analogue is by nature more natural, accurate and real. It works the way nature does. What it lacks is a perfect method of storage. Digital is like the calculus. When its successive approximation method of approaching the waveforms of nature becomes fine enough, it might overcome in practice not being analogue. Its storage medium is perfect even if its original content is not.
When digital gets past the limitations of the Redbook sampling rate and D to A errors, it will be a real comer. I would like to hear the raw output of a Sony DSD recording converted direct to analogue. I bet it would sound as astonishing as an analogue master tape. But still different!
None of this matters nearly as much as how skillfully recording and mastering is done, so in the big picture it is a tempest in a teapot.
Clark
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
Where do you get these notions?
While high rez digital is pretty darned capable, redbook CDs simply don't reproduce anything remotely resembling the original signal much above 12-15KHz... in this region the stylus vibrating in a record groove actually excels. At the other end of the spectrum, I'd agree with you that digital, even redbook beats the pants off vinyl... even master tapes. Analog Master tapes and Vinyl records have a hard time below 35Hz or so.
As for transients... any transient sound even the snapping of one's fingers is made up of overtones that are many octaves above the fundamental. The ear will accept a loss of many of these overtones and that is how we can tolerate redbook CDs, however if more of the overtones are reproduced, the sound seems more realistic.
In any event, I am not completely anti redbook CD, I listen to far more CDs than I do analog music, but I long for the day when high rez digital will be available so that the cymbals will sound like cymbals.
Widget
Gosh, Widget, you make me want to crawl into a hole. Not notions, just what I hear. My undoubtedly faulty hearing is responsible for what and how I hear. But all I have to work with is what I hear. Not what an oscilloscope shows. What I hear is the 24 bit Obi wearing truth being different but no less real than the vinyl version of reality, and equally close if not closer in some ways important to me to my constant verification through live listening.
I can't argue with the scope and you can't fault what I hear. This is the only set of ears I have. Consider it the ultimate example of ymmv. I have no reason at all to develop my personal two channel system to appeal to a mass audience or to engineers, or to Greg Timbers for that matter. All that matters to me is what I hear when I listen to it. That is why the system exists. That is why personal listening reports exist. They're personal. If I can't hear the better frequency response of a stylus in vinyl grooves but I can hear the zing of a digital rendition, guess which one I go for? I love vinyl, but it does not sweep aside a great Japanese CD for me. You know, as I said. To my ears.
It is still, however, looking more and more like hardly anyone on the forum has heard the superior CD product, played like it should be. My hearing is not that bad and the vinylophiles I hang with are hearing the same thing that I think I hear. And buying Japanese CD's for their capable CD players and their frankly great class A tube amps.
Clark
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
Buenos dias compadres. This is one of the best posts I've had the pleasure to peruse. I tend to agree with Mr. Ducatista 47 though (although I prefer vinyl). His view on the digi format is commendable as he has backed his argument with relative data, I believe an understanding of psychoacoustics whether intended or not, and an understanding of the technical aspects of both formats.
One must begin with the ear. How we perceive sound. Through the auditory canal, exciting the tympanic membrane, magnified in the middle ear, and delivered to the brain via the vestibular nerve. The physical sensation of hearing is then generated into several secondary responses by the brain. Here our perceptions of music are decided only by our mind resulting in sensations either pleasing or annoying. We establish what we consider noise or music. Factors important to our interpretations of music may be training in the arts, careers involving acoustics, our physical differences as each of us is unique, illnesses, accidents, or disabilities incurred in the womb or later, and our exposures to vibratory disturbances as a whole. These will dictate fidelity only as we see it. These factors are what we incorporate into our choices and satisfaction with our audio systems, be it digital, analog, or both.
A person may consider speakers placed in the bowls of a trash can amplified with a transistor radio of vintage year the highest of fidelity. This is their prerogative. I need not go further.
Again I'm find myself echoing the comments of our esteemed member from the Bay Area....
If your vinyl experience is contrained in the upper registers I have one phrase for you - "moving coil". The ability of a stylus to track increasingly rapid movements is directly proportional to its mass (or lack thereof to be more specific). The more common moving magnet cartridge is saddled with (relatively) heavy magnets attached to the cantilever, whereas a moving coil only has tiny metal pole pieces attached. Of course there are downsides such as reduced output (although the newer "high" output moving coils address a lot of this) and the big one - only the factory can replace the styus when it wears out. The bottom line here is that a good moving coil cartridge can reproduce *higher* frequencies than a CD, and do it extremely well.
I switched to a relatively cheap Audio Technica high output moving coil cartridge in the late 80's and never looked back. The difference from the Shure I took off was astounding. I'm using their OC9 low output cartridge now and can't say enough good things about it.
To balance this discussion out, I also listen to CD and DAT regularly. I have a huge investment in CDs and of course there are things you just can't get on vinyl. I love the quiet, the extra dymanic range, the convenience, etc.
Like a lot of folks here I'm also a musician (my 2-channel room shares space with a grand piano) and I greatly enjoy playing along with the music. My band days are behind me for now but I can recreate some of the fun of the old days pretty easily. It's so much easier to pop in a CD and be able to change tracks from across the room.
There is absolutely no arguing that the advent of digital music changed everything. Coupled with Moore's law, it has made the process of storing and playing music an order of magnitude easier. But I have to admit we've "dumbed it down" a bit in the process. For those willing to undertake the extra effort of analog records, I think there's a worthwhile reward there.
I do want to make one final point - I really am not trying to convince anyone to run out and get back into vinyl. Whether you choose to jump the hurdles (finding the right table, cartridge, and preamp) is up to you. Whether you think it's worth it to put a lot of money in to re-buying your music on a fragile medium you can only listen to in one place is also up to you. Just realize that there must be a reason that so many of us are still putting up with the hassles of vinyl playback. Enough of us in fact, for records to finally return to the retail channel.
The market has spoken
When I have some time I'll kick off another discussion about tubes - another semi-religious topic in the audio world that like records, refuses to die despite all sorts of obvious and measurable disadvantages. That's another time though...
jblnut
Where do you get these notions?
While high rez digital is pretty darned capable, redbook CDs simply don't reproduce anything remotely resembling the original signal much above 12-15KHz... in this region the stylus vibrating in a record groove actually excels. At the other end of the spectrum, I'd agree with you that digital, even redbook beats the pants off vinyl... even master tapes. Analog Master tapes and Vinyl records have a hard time below 35Hz or so.
As for transients... any transient sound even the snapping of one's fingers is made up of overtones that are many octaves above the fundamental. The ear will accept a loss of many of these overtones and that is how we can tolerate redbook CDs, however if more of the overtones are reproduced, the sound seems more realistic.
In any event, I am not completely anti redbook CD, I listen to far more CDs than I do analog music, but I long for the day when high rez digital will be available so that the cymbals will sound like cymbals.
Widget
I do not compare anymore, I use all of the formats.
I can not compare,as
- the electronics involved are of different quality. (I even do not know what is inside.),
- there are not the same recordings in different formats,
- the devices used do not perform with their theoretical technical optimum.
My universal disc player showes different qualities with the analog or digital output. (I do not know whether it makes sense to buy a new and better one.) SACDs can only be played back via the analog output, which is inferior by comparison (for this specific device).
For a comparison the pick up of the TT should be a dynamic type as MM systems have restrictions in the highs. I call them severe and it is hardly known, look here, a Shure V15 has 680 mH:
http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
An input impedance of ca. 100kOhm / 40 pF would have been appropriate.
For this specific system it makes the different of detailed and bright to detailed, very smooth and natural.
I have very fine recordings on vinyl, CD, SACD, DVD-A, DVD with DTS and DVD with Dolby. For me it is more and more interesting to wonder whether the instrument or the voice is miked appropriate and whether the room is projected in a pleasing way.
__________
Peter
No one has perfect hearing... especially at the ages most of us are. I agree that what sounds best to each of us individually is what is most important for our own personal enjoyment.
However when a rational individual is coming to conclusions that are 180° from basic physics, it makes me wonder if something else is at play here. I don't believe you must use a MC cartridge to enjoy vinyl, but they do help, and Peter hints at cartridge loading... this can be huge.
I don't know what is going on, and I certainly am not trying to drive anyone into a hole or to hide under a rock, but if you understand just how poorly the high frequencies are handled in redbook CD it is hard to imagine anyone suggesting that CDs are more articulate, detailed, or handle the highs better. As I pointed out in my earlier post, they do somethings better. Low frequencies are far superior as is dynamic range, but certainly not the highs. Of course if someone prefers the sound of CD highs over an LP, that is certainly their prerogative, but personal taste is just that.
I certainly agree that like DVDs, and LPs, not all CDs are created equally. In each format there are those that really shine and those that are dogs.
Widget
I have discovered this as well. Obviously the D to A and analog sections in our players are not completely up to the task... this seems to be the case in all but a handfull of the most costly SACD players. A real shame, I am certain that this is why the medium failed, but then this is a topic for another thread.
Certainly, and as I said, above, most of my listening is to redbook CDs. I am not saying that they are unenjoyable.
Widget
I admit it, I am convinced By the wisdom of all or your replies to my senseless rant.
My physioacoustics must be coloring my take on vinyl's upper octave, not to mention my take on live vs what I hear at home. I know my upper register hearing is damaged, and much more in one ear than the other. Not tested in a long time, I still can tell from what you have told me that I should be the last one to judge high frequency content. Both of my systems have a separate transducer to handle 10k hz up, and when I put my ear right up to them I hear many wonderful things. Apparently not all of them! I can conclude that is why I get a consistent take on vinyl wherever I hear it.
As a sidebar, I do use a very nice mc cartridge, a phono preamp designed for it that actually uses a brilliant method other than loading, and electronics that get the most out of it. The phono pre does not load the cartridge at all, in fact. At $600 US it was a bargain. It has the best circuits from a $2200 unit. (Sorry, they are no longer available.) That does not change the fact that I seem to not be able to hear all that it does for the music.
Know that I love vinyl, I love digital, I love live music. I do not love people limiting their experience by deciding that a media that is not as pleasing in some respects as another media is not worth listening to. None of you are like that and I find that quite refreshing.
I still think this is true because it is not my hearing at work:
The part in bold is obviously wrong, but they are hearing what I thought I was hearing, or they would not be buying CD's that cost the same as very good vinyl. The bad news is that the sources are drying up for getting the product here, including eBay outlets. An XRCD 24 is better than a Redbook if your player can handle the format, and these Obi discs tend to be a lot better than that. They do not seem to have all of the limitations of Redbook CD's, and they tend to be the best mastered discs on the planet.It is still, however, looking more and more like hardly anyone on the forum has heard the superior CD product, played like it should be. My hearing is not that bad and the vinylophiles I hang with are hearing the same thing that I think I hear. And buying Japanese CD's for their capable CD players and their frankly great class A tube amps.
Humbled, Clark
Information is not Knowledge; Knowledge is not Wisdom
Too many audiophiles listen with their eyes instead of their ears
When I first heard CDs in the '80s I thought they were total crap, and much preferred LPs, and still do. But I've learned along the way, the it was the mastering of the early CDs that was the real culprit.
Today the only way I like listening to CDs is through L7 processing.
LPs, on the other hand, listening to just 2 channels is fine, especially if one has giving his speakers enough space to allow them to do their thing. And even though I think the sound of LPs is warmer, I think they still provide very good, clear highs.
And its true LPs can lack for anything below 35htz, but many still manage to move those 15" subs quite nicely.
About a year ago, I had a guy installing DTV and I had an LP playing through my Citation amps and custom L212s. His comment was, " I never knew LPS could sound so clear."
It also helps to clean the vinyl properly.
And the cartridge I'm currently using (Shure 97M), I don't think is as good as the old V15 type 5. Still using an old '79 Yamaha DD TT.
I'd like to check out the new Marantz TT15S1 that Includes $800 Clearaudio Virtuoso Ebony Wood Cartridge @ $1600. Have seen them for $1150. Those TT are made by Clearaudio in Germany.
Living in the Land of the Sun
The first CD I had didn't sound that good compared to vinyl, mostly because of the analog filtering on early CD players was not that good. But this improved over time.
In reality it would have been better it the CD had not been introduced until 5 or 10 years latter. If the world had waited the digital encoding and decoding would be much better than what was available in the mid 1980s. Think what CDs could sound like if a 64k sample rate could have been used instead of 44.1? Digital encoding has a lot of comprises just listen to a MP3!
However to get the best sound from vinyl you do need a really good turntable, a really good tone arm, a really good cartridge and really good preamp. If any of those items are lacking you will not get the best vinyl sound.
In vinyl recording it was all wise necessary to control the bass levels other wise the stylist could be blown out of the grove. With CDs that restriction was gone, as a result today's recordings have much higher bass than before. We all love bass on our JBLs.John
The big down side of vinyl is wear, every time you play the record there is some ware. Many times I would record the LP to tape and just play the tape, As a result I have a lot of LPs with very low wear on them. Tape a 7.5 IPS sounds very good. John
What I think would be interesting would be to get someone to cut an album with 180 gram vinyl using the best of todays digital recording techniques. That is essentially what the Audiophile lables where about at the time but they used remastered material.
I dont see a limitation with digital recording as such but Red Book is a bottleneck unless you want to spend a fortune on a player for a bit better sound.
Put that recording on heavy vinyl with a good cartridge and preamp and it quite surprising the level of low level detail and dynamc range that can be had .
I use the analogy of LCD verus Plasma. LCD will bowl you over in a well lite room but turn the lights down (or off) and Plasma has superior blacks and shadow details (contrast ratio).
If blacks and shadow detail are bit depth then vinyl is more effective at getting that out of your HiFi using analogue compared to Red book cd.
CDs are no different, in that respect. I didn't break down and buy a CD player until '93 and then it was only a cheap Sony from Costco. About ten years later I bought a DVD-A/SACD player, again a Costco cheapy. Though the old L212s its sound was just passable, but through the PT800s it was just terrible, as the newer PT800s are more revealing.
So I bought a Denon 1930ci combo player. Now all those formats sound very good.
Living in the Land of the Sun
I have a couple of them, they were very expensive to buy.john
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
