a link suggesting vinyl surplanting CD

J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Nothing has "killed" the CD format. It is very much alive and well. For proof, check out the immense selection at your local Best Buy (not to mention Amazon.)
On those rare occasions when vinyl sounds better, mastering is the only reason (the idea of digital somehow failing to capture all the subleties of analog is 100% pure bovine manure.) The way to solve this problem is to put pressure on record companies to end the loudness wars, not to switch to an inherently inferior format like vinyl.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Vinyl records actually have a lot of compression. Obviously it isn't data compression but rather dynamic range compression. Without it the stylus would jump the groove. Without the equalization in the playback process, vinyl records would sound terrible. There are folks who cling to the belief that records sound better but the reality is they don't. CD's are still the state of art. Yes, I know SACD's are perhaps another state of the art but obviously were never enough better to capture the interest of the public.
 
zildjian

zildjian

Audioholic Chief
I like how the guy states this like it's a new developing story... people have been saying that vinyl is better than CD's for over 20 years! What's different today other than less and less vinyl and CD's everywhere? Don't get me wrong, I love my vinyl collection, but a large part of that I know is because of nostalgia; it's what I grew up listening to on my first stereo, a Dual record player, Marantz receiver and a pair of JBL's that I got from my father. That's why I still love and buy vinyl. There are high quality records out there, but my true reference stuff is still CD's/DVD's.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
fmw... your insight is appreciated here;

Vinyl records actually have a lot of compression. Obviously it isn't data compression but rather dynamic range compression. Without it the stylus would jump the groove. Without the equalization in the playback process, vinyl records would sound terrible. There are folks who cling to the belief that records sound better but the reality is they don't. CD's are still the state of art. Yes, I know SACD's are perhaps another state of the art but obviously were never enough better to capture the interest of the public.
I've read somwhere on another site that the amount of compression on vinyl is related to the groove width so the wider the groove within limits of course the louder it can play. So in theorey, if one side of a 12" lp contains 1 or 2 songs, it can match the dynamic range of the CD.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I've read somwhere on another site that the amount of compression on vinyl is related to the groove width so the wider the groove within limits of course the louder it can play. So in theorey, if one side of a 12" lp contains 1 or 2 songs, it can match the dynamic range of the CD.
That wouldn't be a very practical suggestion, I'm afraid. The stylus is designed to follow the groove by having its two sides bear against it. If you widened the groove, the stylus would bottom out in the groove and lose contact with one side of the V. If you used a wider stylus it would jump the groove. There isn't any practical way to make a mechanical device like that equals the potential dynamic range of a digital recording. Digital really is a better approach.

It's nice to have a love of vinyl but I don't think sound quality would be a good reason for it. I have quite a few high end, high tech analog recordings on vinyl pressed on 180 gram discs in my collection and they sound wonderful, but they don't sound better than the same recording would mastered to CD. In fact all of my 180 gram records have been recorded to digital by me and now I listen to them without a stylus. I just stream them to my system with Squeezbox just like I do the music that was digital in the first place.

Audiophiles in general tend to prefer less dynamic range and warmer frequency response presentations. Vinyl records normally have little to no content above about 11 or 12 khz. Audiphiles tend to like rolled off high frequencies. This is apparent in the writings of almost all the subjective reviewers. Heck they call a presentation with all the high frequencies there "bright" and it is intended to be a negative term. But roll off the highs and it isn't "dark." It is "warm" - a pleasant, cozy term. Think about it. I don't think accuracy of presentation is an important characteristic of fidelity at all among the subjective audiophile crowd.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Audiophiles in general tend to prefer less dynamic range and warmer frequency response presentations. Vinyl records normally have little to no content above about 11 or 12 khz. Audiphiles tend to like rolled off high frequencies. This is apparent in the writings of almost all the subjective reviewers. Heck they call a presentation with all the high frequencies there "bright" and it is intended to be a negative term. But roll off the highs and it isn't "dark." It is "warm" - a pleasant, cozy term. Think about it. I don't think accuracy of presentation is an important characteristic of fidelity at all among the subjective audiophile crowd.
Very nice analysis of audiophilia.:)
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Vinyl records normally have little to no content above about 11 or 12 khz.
I didn't know that factoid, but I'm not surprised to hear that. Not that it is that important, but do you know a source for that info?

Is the lack of high frequency due to stylus-to-groove wear from use, or was it never there to begin with?
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
Here's what Wikipedia says:

Wikipedia said:
The frequency response of vinyl records may be degraded by frequent playback if the cartridge is set to track too heavily, or the stylus is not compliant enough to trace the high frequency grooves accurately, or the cartridge/tonearm is not properly aligned. The best cartridges and styli have response up to 76 kHZ.[citation needed] The RIAA has suggested the following acceptable losses: down to 20 kHz after one play, 18 kHz after three plays, 17 kHz after five, 16 kHz after eight, 14 kHz after fifteen, 13 kHz after twenty five, 10 kHz after thirty five, and 8 kHz after eighty plays. While this degradation is possible if the record is played on improperly set up equipment, many collectors of LPs report excellent sound quality on LPs played many more times when using care and high quality equipment.
The implication here is that LPs would have FR up to 20 kHz in the beginning, which could be degraded by what amounts to be improper usage.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
And the trouble with turntables and tonearms, is that the improper usage is almost impossible to avoid. No matter how good their quality and how well the tonearm set-up and tracking is done, they rarely stayed that way for long.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I didn't know that factoid, but I'm not surprised to hear that. Not that it is that important, but do you know a source for that info?

Is the lack of high frequency due to stylus-to-groove wear from use, or was it never there to begin with?
I'm sorry, it is just something that sticks in my mind from years ago. The frequency response of CD's is noticeably broader (and flatter.) The frequency extremes were EQ'd out of the original tape recording when the master is made. This is mostly to keep the stylus on track and under control. So they compressed frequency response as well as dynamic range. Even in the 1950's we had equipment capable of recording and reproducing 20-20k with outstanding fidelity but that broad a response wasn't ever pressed onto vinyl.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
as the medium of choice.
http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/commentary/listeningpost/2007/10/listeningpost_1029
Although I agree that vinyl has a certain appeal in sound (the reason I bought a new turntable) I think the author missed the boat on this one. Its those dreaded overcompressed lifeless MP3s that has killed the CD format.
Well, wishful thinking seems to be alive and well:D
I will not be in the market for vinyls anytime soon. No, actually it is a guarantee that I won't be.:D
 
skizzerflake

skizzerflake

Audioholic Field Marshall
Although I agree that vinyl has a certain appeal in sound (the reason I bought a new turntable) I think the author missed the boat on this one. Its those dreaded overcompressed lifeless MP3s that has killed the CD format.
A vinyl come back,,,right. And people will rediscover horses too. Even though I am a vinyl fan myself, most people want their music cheap, easy and portable, none of which you get in vinyl. I don't see vinyl ever being much more than a sideline for a minority of nutcase audio people like me.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
I disagree

And the trouble with turntables and tonearms, is that the improper usage is almost impossible to avoid. No matter how good their quality and how well the tonearm set-up and tracking is done, they rarely stayed that way for long.
Turntables are finicky to set up but they don't lose their proper set up as quickly as you imply. What do you think changes so quickly? The alignment? Unless one is gorilla and is rough with the equipment, tracking stays pretty well constant. What changes? I agree that its in one best interest to get the alignment checked out once every year or two to protect one's vinyl but I don't think a turntable looses its alignment as quickly as you think.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Well, wishful thinking seems to be alive and well:D
I will not be in the market for vinyls anytime soon. No, actually it is a guarantee that I won't be.:D
Going back to vinyl after getting used to the dramatically superior sound of CD would be like going back to an outhouse after getting used to indoor plumbing.:D
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
superior sound?

Going back to vinyl after getting used to the dramatically superior sound of CD would be like going back to an outhouse after getting used to indoor plumbing.:D
You miss the point entirely Joe.

1. Some speakers sound very analytical, very correct and very precise in their output but that does not mean that it appeals to everyone. Same similarity can be drawn to vinyl vs CD. :rolleyes:

2. There are few recording that I own in both formats and vinyl is the clear winner because the recording engineer f?cked up on the CD format. :eek:

Blanket statements that you are making show your narrowed mindedness to the topic of audio. There is so much more to audio then being analytically correct. :rolleyes:
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Why vinyl LPs are not better than CDs

Dynamic range compression was required for vinyl playback. Without it, the forces on the vibrating stylus were great enough to make it jump out of the groove. Vinyl playback typically had a signal to noise (S/N) ratio of no better than 70 dB, compared to at least 90 dB for CDs. No tonearm, cartridge, or turntable could undo this compressed sound because it was put there during the mastering process.

Analog storage of sound vibrations on vinyl are subject to noise during playback from a variety of sources. These sources of noise only made the S/N ratio worse:

Flaws in the surface - Even in an unplayed LP there are microsopic flaws in the surface of the plastic. One large source of these flaws is air bubbles injected into the liquid vinyl before pressing. Injecting air in the vinyl, a petrochemical made from oil, is a way to stretch this increasingly expensive material. Unfortunately, these air bubbles make audible noise.

Vinyl is easily scratched or deformed by pressure. The mechanical force between the moving diamond stylus and the various bumps in the groove wall are enough to deform the smaller bumps that generate the higher frequency sounds. Abrasion between the stylus and the grooves in the LP, due to the greasy grit in the groves, makes this worse. The more an LP is played, the worse this gets.

Accumulated dust and dirt - This was a serious problem due to the unavoidable fact that fingers and hands always secrete a rather large amount of oily and sticky biological compounds (lipids, amino acids, and small proteins). They are difficult to clean from vinyl surfaces. Vinyl also develops a static charge from use. This is especially true during the winter months due to dry air from central heating. The static electricity attracts airborne dust that sticks to the vinyl surface, and gets embedded in the hand and finger oils, becoming a greasy abrasive. Numerous methods were used to clean LPs, but none of them work well without frequent and diligent repetition. Probably there is some vinyl junkie with more money than sense, who handles his LPs while wearing gloves and moon suit in a dust-free clean room.

Large diameter plastic discs sometimes warp with improper storage.

About the only thing that was better about LPs was the better jacket art that was allowed by the size of the cardboard jacket.

You are certainly allowed your preferences. We all have our own. But to argue that analog storage of audio on vinyl LPs and its playback is better than digital storage on CDs, is like argueing over whether wooden or aluminum airplane propellers are better - during the jet age!

Sorry for the long rant :eek:. I feel much better now :). Anyone want to argue about 33 RPM versus 45 RPM?
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
2. There are few recording that I own in both formats and vinyl is the clear winner because the recording engineer f?cked up on the CD format. :eek:
As I have mentioned previously, the solution to this issue is to put pressure on the recording industry to end the fricken "loudness wars", not to switch to an inferior, outdated format.
Accuracy (reproducing exactly what is on the recording) is precisely what I want from a stereo, and is what all CD players do flawlessly. Creativity belongs on the recording end of the chain, not the playback end.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord

You are certainly allowed your preferences. We all have our own. But to argue that analog storage of audio on vinyl LPs and its playback is better than digital storage on CDs, is like argueing over whether wooden or aluminum airplane propellers are better - during the jet age!

Sorry for the long rant :eek:. I feel much better now :). Anyone want to argue about 33 RPM versus 45 RPM?


This whole thread I started is about how an article is incorrectly blaiming vinyl for the demise of the CD. I never said in this thread that vinyl LP is better than digital storage. I questioned your comment on about turntables coming out of adjustment which you FAILED to answer.

I also mentioned that I prefered some vinyl recordings to that of CD counterpart because the recording engineers mucked up the CD which is not a comment on the CD ,but rather, on the recording engineer

So I guess your rant is all about nothing really. Glad you feel better though ;)
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
Dynamic range compression was required for vinyl playback. Without it, the forces on the vibrating stylus were great enough to make it jump out of the groove. Vinyl playback typically had a signal to noise (S/N) ratio of no better than 70 dB, compared to at least 90 dB for CDs. No tonearm, cartridge, or turntable could undo this compressed sound because it was put there during the mastering process.
That may be so to some degree. However, I believe that a large part of the threat of the stylus jumping the groove was low-frequency content. The low frequency content was then equalized out of the mastering process, and then reintroduced during playback via the RIAA equalization curve.

You have to admit that audio compression on CDs is terrible, and for no technical reason.

I agree that CD is technically superior. I enjoy both for different reasons.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top