Vinyl. What took me so long?

[Zer0beaT]

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. Raided my parents old (and mouldy in some cases) vinyl collection and found some real gems like Simon & Garfunkel, Everly Brothers, Chet Atkins and tons of other old country and lots of great classical stuff.

Got really into it. There's a sound that isn't there with my CD's. Seriously, I feel like I've been lied to that Cd's are "perfect" and vinyl is at best equal until it deteriorates from use or whatever.

I could post a ton of words on this, but I'll just say that I own an SACD player and many titles, DVD-A etc. and can sometimes appreciate the difference between these and redbook CD's. I can't generally stomach mp3's if given the choice. I play guitar and record etc. So I appreciate sound fidelity, but am no audiophile thank you very much.

I swear vinyl has incredible bass guitar and kick drum, aswell as snare and symbals, vocals can be night and day from CD. Wow. There is some major difference here!

The turntable I'm using is a Pioneer PL-600. Looks like a pretty mediocre mass market direct drive player, into a Yamaha RXV757 on Pure Direct mode into Axiom M60's.

I've actually done some direct comparisons of tracks on both formats, even SACD versus Vinyl, and for the most part Vinyl seems to be producing a richer, warmer, more natural and enjoyable sound. Guitars that stick out sound real on vinyl and just part of the mix on CD. I compared a few Animals recordings and the difference between the less than perfect vinyl 45 with the crackles and all vs. the SACD was shocking. This Animals SACD I thought was a stellar example of sound quality, and I was wrong. The vinyl made the SACD sound completely thin and even shrill.

I probably sound like one of those uptight vinyl guys, yet I really just finally listened to some, and now my whole audio world has been turned upside down.

I need help here! Am I imagining things?

Bob Dylan's George Jackson song alone though will keep that turntable hooked up.

Really? There are songs that are only available on vinyl? WTF?

 

[Brett A]

You're world just got a whole lot bigger. Congratulations.

 

[stratman]

am no audiophile thank you very much.
Vinyl seems to be producing a richer, warmer, more natural and enjoyable sound. Guitars that stick out sound real on vinyl I need help here! Am I imagining things?

You're imagining.

 

[Pyrrho]

You're imagining.

He might not be simply imagining it. When old records were originally mastered, there was no such thing as digital. So when CDs came out, they were remastered for CD. A different mastering process can produce quite different results, particularly if they decided to remix from the original multi-track tapes (if the original was multi-track tapes). So, a guitar or whatever could be brought forward more in the mix, or put more in the background. And, with some old recordings, the originals were not stored properly, so some CDs were mastered from an inferior source.

So, without records being in any way superior to CDs as a source, some records may sound better than their CD counterparts.

Then, of course, people get weird ideas about the relative merits of digital and analog, when they are listening to different mixes that cannot possibly be a fair test of the media itself.

And, of course, "better" is a subjective term. Some people may like the added wow and flutter and distortion and frequency response deviations on records.

 

[fmw]

From someone that has a 75lb turntable and a collection of masterfully mastered 180 and 200 gram audiophile vinyl records, I can tell you that vinyl can sound almost as good as digital. It has a higher noise floor and less dynamic range than CD but keeps pace in every other respect.

My suspicion is that he is reacting with enthusiasm from the realization that vinyl records are a true high fidelity medium. It can surprise people who haven't ever experienced analog playback. But sadly, masterfully mastered audiophile CD's will sound just slightly better. A well mastered recording will sound better than a poorly mastered one in either format or across formats as mentioned above. That's just the way it is.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Back when vinyl was the best format, I was into it.

 

[Brett A]

There is a classic argument (although some will say there is no argument) that vinyl sounds better -even with its limitations- because there is more "information" on a vinyl record. Some say the sampling rate of CDs is too little and leaves much out. Then there is the matter of how CD players re-assemble binary code -introducing another opportunity for mistakes to be made in decoding. (read up on clocks and jitter)
There's tons written about this. Try a search for digital vs. analog and see what comes up.
The truth still is that the people who are in the hobby of high fidelity audio reproduction (not to be confused with HT or A/V)swear by vinyl.

Personally, my redbook CD player sounds better than my yard sale turntable.

 

[Zer0beaT]

I am hearing a very significant difference. It could just be these old records are from better masters. Pretty much everything I'm putting on is an original release.

The Animals comparison really disturbed me though. It's the Animals-Retrospective SACD and I've always considered it a very high quality sounding CD, but when I played it right after the vinyl 45 with House Of the Rising Sun and Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood, the SACD sounded a lot less full and my girlfriend agreed instantly.

I'm running both the turntable and my CD player through the Pure Direct on the Yammy, so they're going through the same signal path pretty much (*though the Animals being an SACD cannot pass through pure direct, it goes through multi-channel in), into the same speakers, at similar volumes (I have to turn the volume up much higher on the phono input)

Perhaps the Pioneer DV-588 DVD player I'm using is a very poor CD player? Would a higher end CD player produce a warmer, richer sounding bass? I can't believe there would be that much of a difference.

I do intend to do more A/B comparisons, but I'll need to pick up some more vinyl, preferably some more modern music so I can really be sure of these differences.

I do have both the CD and vinyl of Radiohead-In Rainbows, and the difference between these is slim. But there is still a very noticeable difference to me, just not as significant as with the old stuff, and in the Radiohead case, I could say it would be a slight difference that would be more a preference. I can't decide which version I prefer.

So maybe it is mostly the better mastering on those old vinyl LP's? If so, that's a bit unfortunate that so many CD's don't live up to the original recordings.

But I do think there's an actual sound difference going on regardless of the source, my ears don't deceive me here.

 

[Zer0beaT]

I should add that by no means am I suddenly a vinyl-nazi. But I think I've decided that I'll now have both it and CD hooked up permanently, and pick up some of my favourite albums on vinyl.

Nothing wrong with that right?

 

[gus6464]

From someone that has a 75lb turntable and a collection of masterfully mastered 180 and 200 gram audiophile vinyl records, I can tell you that vinyl can sound almost as good as digital. It has a higher noise floor and less dynamic range than CD but keeps pace in every other respect.

My suspicion is that he is reacting with enthusiasm from the realization that vinyl records are a true high fidelity medium. It can surprise people who haven't ever experienced analog playback. But sadly, masterfully mastered audiophile CD's will sound just slightly better. A well mastered recording will sound better than a poorly mastered one in either format or across formats as mentioned above. That's just the way it is.

Except that nowadays well mastered CDs are fast becoming scarce and a lot of artists are releasing their albums in vinyl as well.

 

[Zer0beaT]

This will probably sound stupid. I'm sitting here right now listening to music on both formats.

To get a similar listening volume, CD's are generally put at around -25 up to -20 on the volume dial, but with vinyl for a similar volume it's at around -13 up to -5 depending on the album.

Is there any way that because the vinyl requires more amplification to achieve a similar output volume that this could be the cause of my perception of a fuller sound from the vinyl I'm playing?

I would think the number on the Yamaha receiver doesn't matter vs. the actual level of volume I'm hearing. I have to assume the speakers are being driven similar if the volume is similar between the two.

But I thought I would ask, even though I fear this question is probably stupid. I'm genuinely interested in what's going on with my listening experience here.

 

[gus6464]

This will probably sound stupid. I'm sitting here right now listening to music on both formats.

To get a similar listening volume, CD's are generally put at around -25 up to -20 on the volume dial, but with vinyl for a similar volume it's at around -13 up to -5 depending on the album.

Is there any way that because the vinyl requires more amplification to achieve a similar output volume that this could be the cause of my perception of a fuller sound from the vinyl I'm playing?

I would think the number on the Yamaha receiver doesn't matter vs. the actual level of volume I'm hearing. I have to assume the speakers are being driven similar if the volume is similar between the two.

But I thought I would ask, even though I fear this question is probably stupid. I'm genuinely interested in what's going on with my listening experience here.

If you were to take out an SPL meter and level match the two sources you would find that the TT requires more a higher volume to reach the same SPL. TTs have to take into account more things like the gain of phono preamp and output of the cartridge in order to get the same volume out of CD. This has nothing to do with the quality of the recording so if you were to level match the two different source just because the CD player needs less volume to sound loud doesn't mean it's better.

 

[Pyrrho]

I am hearing a very significant difference. It could just be these old records are from better masters. Pretty much everything I'm putting on is an original release.

The Animals comparison really disturbed me though. It's the Animals-Retrospective SACD and I've always considered it a very high quality sounding CD, but when I played it right after the vinyl 45 with House Of the Rising Sun and Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood, the SACD sounded a lot less full and my girlfriend agreed instantly.

I'm running both the turntable and my CD player through the Pure Direct on the Yammy, so they're going through the same signal path pretty much (*though the Animals being an SACD cannot pass through pure direct, it goes through multi-channel in), into the same speakers, at similar volumes (I have to turn the volume up much higher on the phono input)

Perhaps the Pioneer DV-588 DVD player I'm using is a very poor CD player? Would a higher end CD player produce a warmer, richer sounding bass? I can't believe there would be that much of a difference.

I do intend to do more A/B comparisons, but I'll need to pick up some more vinyl, preferably some more modern music so I can really be sure of these differences.

I do have both the CD and vinyl of Radiohead-In Rainbows, and the difference between these is slim. But there is still a very noticeable difference to me, just not as significant as with the old stuff, and in the Radiohead case, I could say it would be a slight difference that would be more a preference. I can't decide which version I prefer.

So maybe it is mostly the better mastering on those old vinyl LP's? If so, that's a bit unfortunate that so many CD's don't live up to the original recordings.

But I do think there's an actual sound difference going on regardless of the source, my ears don't deceive me here.

You do not say what cartridge is on your turntable (or if you did, I somehow missed it), but there is a very good chance that the treble is rolled off when playing the records. This also is the result of wearing out records; the treble goes first. And, of course, the medium is not capable of the same "perfect" frequency response flat out to 20 kHz. So, most likely, when you have the same average volume, even with the same mix, there will be more bass with the record because the treble is part of the total volume with the CD. A lot of people like the treble rolled off, and you may be one of those people. You could try comparing your CDs with the treble control slightly turned down to see if you like it better. Of course, the proper way to test all such matters is "blind", so that human bias cannot enter into the equation. (I am, of course, assuming that you are human, and that I am not communicating with a machine or some sort of alien with superhuman powers and lacking human qualities. Many audiophiles become offended when someone assumes that they are human and do not possess superhuman attributes, but I will presently take the risk anyway.) Curiously, many audiophiles object to using tone controls, but spend their time trying to find equipment that has tonal alterations to the signal to suit their personal preferences. Then they call the correct result a matter of "synergy".

 

[Pyrrho]

This will probably sound stupid. I'm sitting here right now listening to music on both formats.

To get a similar listening volume, CD's are generally put at around -25 up to -20 on the volume dial, but with vinyl for a similar volume it's at around -13 up to -5 depending on the album.

Is there any way that because the vinyl requires more amplification to achieve a similar output volume that this could be the cause of my perception of a fuller sound from the vinyl I'm playing?

I would think the number on the Yamaha receiver doesn't matter vs. the actual level of volume I'm hearing. I have to assume the speakers are being driven similar if the volume is similar between the two.

But I thought I would ask, even though I fear this question is probably stupid. I'm genuinely interested in what's going on with my listening experience here.

No, it does not sound stupid.

The different volume settings for a similar playback volume are the result of a different level of signal at the preamp volume control. With records, the signal is very weak coming off of a cartridge, and it goes to a special "phono preamp" section in order to boost the signal to roughly the same level as the "line level" inputs (as well as to correct the frequency response according to RIAA equalization standards*, because records are not capable of a flat frequency response naturally -- this, by the way, is why turntables that lack a built in preamp require special inputs on the preamp/receiver). However, these things are not perfectly standardized, and different components have slightly different levels. And different cartridges (of the same general type) produce slightly different output levels. This is not generally much of a problem, as you do have a volume control that you can adjust to take care of such differences.

If you were running your equipment through a receiver with a loudness compensation control, then I would be asking if you had it switched on, as the amount of equalization such circuits apply is sometimes tied to the volume control setting.

_______________
*Strictly speaking, this standard is only on records manufactured after a certain date; see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization

 

[fmw]

I am hearing a very significant difference. It could just be these old records are from better masters. Pretty much everything I'm putting on is an original release.

The Animals comparison really disturbed me though. It's the Animals-Retrospective SACD and I've always considered it a very high quality sounding CD, but when I played it right after the vinyl 45 with House Of the Rising Sun and Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood, the SACD sounded a lot less full and my girlfriend agreed instantly.

I'm running both the turntable and my CD player through the Pure Direct on the Yammy, so they're going through the same signal path pretty much (*though the Animals being an SACD cannot pass through pure direct, it goes through multi-channel in), into the same speakers, at similar volumes (I have to turn the volume up much higher on the phono input)

Perhaps the Pioneer DV-588 DVD player I'm using is a very poor CD player? Would a higher end CD player produce a warmer, richer sounding bass? I can't believe there would be that much of a difference.

I do intend to do more A/B comparisons, but I'll need to pick up some more vinyl, preferably some more modern music so I can really be sure of these differences.

I do have both the CD and vinyl of Radiohead-In Rainbows, and the difference between these is slim. But there is still a very noticeable difference to me, just not as significant as with the old stuff, and in the Radiohead case, I could say it would be a slight difference that would be more a preference. I can't decide which version I prefer.

So maybe it is mostly the better mastering on those old vinyl LP's? If so, that's a bit unfortunate that so many CD's don't live up to the original recordings.

But I do think there's an actual sound difference going on regardless of the source, my ears don't deceive me here.

If you have the same recording on both media then you can make about as reasonable a comparison as is possible. A blind test would be pointless because anyone can hear the noise on a vinyl recording and that would give it away. Mixing and mastering make far more difference in the sound of a recording than the playback equipment so, most likely, you are dealing with preferences for different mixes rather than different media.

As an example, I have a recording made by Nat King Cole in the late 50's that was later re-mixed and remastered by Doug Sax and pressed on 180 gram vinyl. I have both it and the original vinyl record. The difference is phenomenal even though both were mixed and mastered from the very same tape and both are played back on the same equipment. The difference, obviously, isn't the medium but rather the mix.

 

[fmw]

Except that nowadays well mastered CDs are fast becoming scarce and a lot of artists are releasing their albums in vinyl as well.

Yes, apparently in the rock and pop world that is true. But I'm a jazz and classical listener (and pianist) so I don't run into the problem even with newly acquired music. Well, I did buy a recording by a group called "Down to the Bone" that is at the threshold of quantization error so I guess I encounter it a little. It is a shame that they mix and master to the lowest common denominator but I guess that's the American way these days. Our schools teach to the lowest common denominator as well. One day the whole population will be the lowest common denominator.

 

[The Dukester]

One day the whole population will be the lowest common denominator.

That day is closer than you think. You could fit the gene pool in a thimble in some of the towns/countys near where I live. Talk about no branches on the family tree. It's not even a tree; it's a stump.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Back when vinyl was the best format, I was into it.

What else would you have been into if not the best of the time?

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Except that nowadays well mastered CDs are fast becoming scarce and a lot of artists are releasing their albums in vinyl as well.

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.

 

[Brett A]

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.

I agree with the premise that new releases are often, if not always from the same master, I feel compelled to point out that this: "If LPs did sound better (which they certainly do not)" is an opinion. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of people who prefer the sound of analog to digital.