Vinyl. What took me so long?

[dobyblue]

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. When a recording is released in both formats, it is done by the same people at the same studio using the same source material. The idea that they would do a better job on one format than the other is simply ridiculous.
If LPs did sound better (which they certainly do not), it would have to be because of some inherent superiority of the medium, not the mastering.

That's the whole point. The LP is the superior medium. They don't master in 16/44.1 and then make the LP from that master. They master anywhere from 24/44.1 to 32/384 then make the LP and then dither down for the CD.

The exceptions would be recordings that were made in the early DDD days at 16/44.1 or 16/48, where the source material is now limited.

Vinyl definitely sounds better than CD to me.

Wow! Vinyl sounds amazingly good! (Just wanted to get that out there)

Someone gave me a turntable a while ago and I finally hooked it up.

Now you just need a laser turntable so you don't wear away any of those new records you'll be buying with some archaic monoral needle!

Cheapest one is only US$10,000.

http://www.elpj.com/main.html

 

[Joe Schmoe]

That's the whole point. The LP is the superior medium.

That has been proven false on several occasions, and the experiment is easy to do yourself. Simply record the output of a specific LP on a specific turntable onto a CD-R. Perform a blind A/B comparison between this recording and the original setup. Nobody can tell any difference. This proves that the CD captures 100% of the information that the turntable is capable of, with room left over.

 

[Brett A]

Just as mp3s don't sound as good as WAVs because of missing information, CDs don't sound as good as vinyl. 16/44.1 digital is simply a ripped-down version of the original full-bodied analog signal.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Just as mp3s don't sound as good as WAVs because of missing information, CDs don't sound as good as vinyl. 16/44.1 digital is simply a ripped-down version of the original full-bodied analog signal.

Sorry, you are simply wrong.

 

[Brett A]

Sorry, you are simply wrong.

You're of the opinion that 16/44.1 is enough? No need for higher res?

 

[avaserfi]

It seems there are some great misconceptions within this thread. Firstly, it is simple fact that that CDs are technically superior to Vinyl in terms of quality. While some may argue the conversion from digital to analog is a lossy one they clearly are unaware of the research in regards to this subject matter. Some of the reasons CDs are superior is their ability to create a larger dynamic range and the flexibility they offer in mastering terms.

Now the question becomes which has a better implementation. In looking at the current trends in the industry with focus on recording quality vinyl has more consistent superior recordings and there are reasons for this. While some seem to claim that all the recordings are done by the same people and copies of each other this just isn't so. There are inherent flaws within vinyl that do not allow the flexibility of CDs and the end result is less compression must be used less the needle is forced out of the groove. Due to this limitation of vinyl more care is used in its mastering process resulting in a higher quality recording.

Personally, I would purchase a high quality turn table just for access to these higher quality recordings, but access to a turn table that results in zero noise being introduced to the original signal would cost a considerable amount. Currently I cannot justify such a purchase just for conversion of a higher quality analog copy with the end of digital conversion in mind.

As far as the claim of MP3s sounding worse than WAV files this is yet another myth in certain cases. If one takes the proper care in lossy to lossless conversion process using proper codecs, such as LAME MP3 at appropriate bit rates, there will be no resulting audible differences in quality as shown by ABx tests.

The end result, as of now, is CD has the potential to be of higher quality than vinyl, but ironically the situation is that because of inherent limitation of vinyl it typically has a higher quality recording.

For the record I am a huge proponent of the digital era, but that does not change current trends in the industry.

 

[cbraver]

I love vinyl, but talking about it gives me a headache. Here is my approach to vinyl:

Don't expect better or worse sound, just listen and enjoy. The fun thing about vinyl isn't being a snob about it, it's thumbing through you're records, putting them on the platter, cleaning them, and enjoying the ticks and pops that you'll hear now and and again.

You don't need to spend a lot on a turntable, and audiophile ones are basically all rip-offs, even the entry level ones....and in terms of quality the Technics generally blow them away: The turntable to start with is a Technics 1210 or 1200 (black/gray is the difference):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1200

I own two 1210s.

Stanton makes a great deck also.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

You're of the opinion that 16/44.1 is enough? No need for higher res?

Absolutely. Listening tests, such as the one I described previously, prove it.

 

[3db]

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. When a recording is released in both formats, it is done by the same people at the same studio using the same source material. The idea that they would do a better job on one format than the other is simply ridiculous.
If LPs did sound better (which they certainly do not), it would have to be because of some inherent superiority of the medium, not the mastering.

The point that was made that its impossible to put that amounnt of loudness on vinyl as it is on CD. I'm referring to the loudness wars Joe. Because of that particular vinyl limitation, the vinyl version will sound more dynamic and more realistic than its CD counterpart.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The point that was made that its impossible to put that amounnt of loudness on vinyl as it is on CD. I'm referring to the loudness wars Joe. Because of that particular vinyl limitation, the vinyl version will sound more dynamic and more realistic than its CD counterpart.

So they would ruin the vinyl if they could.

 

[Brett A]

Absolutely. Listening tests, prove it.

They don't prove it to me.

 

[3db]

So they would ruin the vinyl if they could.

Absofreakinlutely they would if they coud.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

They don't prove it to me.

Then you don't understand the experiment. Reread post #22. The fact that it is impossible to tell the difference between a turntable and a recording of that same turntable on CD proves conclusively that CD is a zero-loss format.

 

[gus6464]

Who cares if CD is a zero-loss format if recording engineers don't use it to their advantage? A medium will only be as good as it's source and nowadays the superior mastering is on vinyl. You can rant all day about CD being superior but it won't matter if the CDs are mastered worse than their vinyl counterpart. Now if you give me two identically mastered albums on vinyl and CD I will choose the CD because there is less upkeep involved.

 

[Brett A]

I'm a little surprised to see that the analog v. digital debate is still going on. I honestly thought analog won a long time ago. I guess not here on AH.

 

[chadnliz]

I'm a little surprised to see that the analog v. digital debate is still going on. I honestly thought analog won a long time ago. I guess not here on AH.

It is over and has been over but some simply like to hear themselves talk and love to argue about anything. Vinyl is better because the signal flows and is not chopped and a record recorded to Vinyl will sound better then a redbook cd because it was recorded from Vinyl. CD's have never been and are still not as warm and smooth as Vinyl and with files being purchased at record numbers that wont likely change. Neil Young said it best when comparing the two formats saying "Digital has fooled our minds but left our hearts empty"
I would guess anyone who refuses to accept Vinyl is better has never had a well made and properly set-up table and a cartridge that was matched well to the Phono Stage....Vinyl takes work to get right and not everyone knows or is willing to invest the effort it takes. As another 75lb table owner (not sure why weight matters) I can speak from experience that it takes hours to set-up correct, Vertical Tracking Angle, Tracking Force, Azimuth, proper Cartridge loading and proper table leveling all take time and tools or test equipment, not to mention cleaning records properly. Is this alot of work, you bet but the pay off is playing back the best sounding medium..save for Reel to Reel master tapes one can get. Turntables are also an un-arguable area where you truely get what you pay for, digital is a bit fuzzy in this department but there is no arguement that you have to pay to play when it comes to really enjoying great Vinyl sound.
I have alot of great sounding CD'S and a very good player and enjoy both formats almost daily but having $3500 into my Disc player and $3000 into the Vinyl player, records sound better period.
In close, talking to folks who dont know enough or have enough experience to have an educted opinion is like talking to a drunk, there will never be anything you can say to these people to make them admit they are wrong so let them jump on the soap box and give a golf clap when the are tired of ranting.............then go have some real fun and spin some Vinyl!
Besides if these folks dont snag up ever smaller collections of albums then we are better off for it so I say enjoy your dgital snacks while the rest of us feast on the Vinyl gourmet meal.

 

[Zer0beaT]

Well, this is easily the most successful post I've made on here

I'm happy that I can now listen to vinyl. I still listen to CD's just so you all know. In fact I bought a few today. I haven't managed to make it to a store that sells vinyl yet, but when I do I'll be glad I can browse both vinyl and CD, giving me more options, and be at ease with either choice (well, I'll be worried about the old stuff on CD now).

I've accumulated some more vinyl though, thanks to my girlfriend raiding her parents stash.

Some serious gems in there such as both the Red and Blue Beatles Anthology's, George Harrison 45 of My Sweet Lord/Isn't It A Pity, Joan Baez 45 of The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down (great! despite the lyrical errors), Neil Young After The Gold Rush (this one definitely sounds better/different than the CD), Ventures Walk Don't Run V2, John Lennon Rock N Roll.

I did an intensive A/B comparison with the Radiohead-In Rainbows on CD and Vinyl, since I have both and they are brand new, and here is where I'll say there is little difference, and I'd give the edge to the CD.

Perhaps it's a treble roll off, or the turntable is just a better piece of electronics than the low-end Pioneer DVD player I use that's making the turntable sound better to me, I suspect it is a mastering issue. My receiver has phono inputs btw, even has a nice finger screwable ground thing. I'm glad I went with the RXV757 vs the 657.

So anyway, I notice everyone talking about the format like that's the most important thing.

It's clear to me that the sound quality on most of the vinyl I've played is superior to the CD versions that I own, and I now believe it is because of the original master source or whatever. Almost everything I have to compare is an "oldie" with the exception of the Radiohead, which I mentioned there is very little difference, barely perceptible.

To me the most important thing is hearing music I like in it's most enjoyable way, if that happens to be on vinyl that's ok, unless the difference is insignificant, in which case the CD version is absolutely the better choice for convenience, longevity and you can throw it on your hard-drive etc.

The best part about vinyl from what I'm experiencing so far though, is that there's a lot of old people out there with dusty, hardly used vinyl collections that think they're completely worthless, and they actually want to give them away!

I'll take those, thank you. Happy to relieve you of these burdens!

 

[Brett A]

Some serious gems in there ....

Yes, there are some gems in there. Good stuff to have on vinyl.

It's clear to me that the sound quality on most of the vinyl I've played is superior to the CD versions that I own...

I'm not surprised. The difference between the two is clear. Especially if the quality of one playback rig is better than the other. I did not have the experience of CDs sounding better than vinyl until I get a $700 CD player --it sounds better than my $5 turntable with the $30 cartridge. I'll be interested to see what I find when I get an analog rig to match the quality of my digital.

To me the most important thing is hearing music I like in it's most enjoyable way,

A-men to that!

The best part about vinyl from what I'm experiencing so far though, is that there's a lot of old people out there with dusty, hardly used vinyl collections that think they're completely worthless, and they actually want to give them away!

You're lucky to be finding this. Where I live, it seems the vinyl had already been flushed into the resale market. (Although I don't go into too many peoples' garages and basements in the course of a day.)

Much Mudita (look it up)
---Brett

 

[Pyrrho]

I'm a little surprised to see that the analog v. digital debate is still going on. I honestly thought analog won a long time ago. I guess not here on AH.

Analog has not won in the open market, either. Analog is a now a fringe market. If most people thought it was better, CDs would never have taken over in the first place. So analog lost a long time ago except among a small following.

Ironically, before CDs came along, digital master recordings were what audiophiles loved more than any other type except direct-to-disc recordings. It was only after people were able to eliminate the wow and flutter and other distortions of their home playback equipment (i.e., record players, etc.) that anyone had a problem with digital.

 

[mtrycrafts]

They don't prove it to me.

Yep, that is one way of looking at the world
No wonder so many also believe in the supernatural world.
And some pseudoscience in the natural world.