A good read: CD vs Vinyl

[Mike]

Not that this 35 year old debate needs any more fuel, but this is an interesting read.

I still personally feel that from 1982 to only a few years ago, the weakness with digital is the A2D converters. This is something very few people discuss. This article touches on it, but mentions that the A2D converters improved in the later 80's. I would beg to differ. It's like saying the D2A converters in the laters 80's are good enough. As D2A converters have really improved in the last few years, so have A2D converters. It's no different.

Having toured studios, talked with pro reps, mastering engineers, etc., the A2D converters in most studios, up until a few years ago, were absolute crap. Remember, $900 to a studio is a big investment.

These early A2D converters may have measured fine, but they didn't sound good. And really early A2D converters didn't event measure good - for example, they didn't even achieve 16/44 measured results.

It hasn't been until recently when studios have been investing in good A2D converters, like those from Merging Technologies specifically, that we are hearing SOME better digital recordings. But like the article states, they are abusing the capabilities of digital with compression abuse and the resulting loudness war.

I won't further discuss the "Circle of Confusion" here, but that is another lesser known topic which also merits further discussion.

Here's the article...a good read.

http://www.laweekly.com/music/why-cds-may-actually-sound-better-than-vinyl-5352162

 

[anji12305]

The limitations compile with each "gating step" in the recording, and again in playback.

Microphones and loudspeakers induce distortion orders of magnitude greater than either medium mentioned.

Given that most of us who can afford expensive gear are older, I wonder why playback pays any attention to frequencies above 15 kHz.

I remember the struggles to get demonstration discs to track with heavy bass energy.

I also recall the weight of my vinyl collection.

I don't miss either of those limitations.

The simplicity of today's digital retrieval is (to my mind) little short of miraculous.

I may be in the minority, but I want access to music rather than a "lifestyle" statement.

 

[Dr Tone]

Many still consider the Pacific Microsonics from the mid 90s great. It's still used in certain studios.

 

[Mike]

https://youtu.be/HnxexlHRY2E


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jdandy]

Mike.......Thanks for this thread. Always an interesting, if not a somewhat conflagratory topic. My disposition supports the general theme of the article in that digital audio, when recorded, mixed, and mastered with the highest care and attention to detail and dynamics, is a superior format for delivering music to listeners. As was clearly pointed out by Chris Kornelis in the article, there are many inherent disadvantages to the vinyl medium that require compromises to a recording during mastering and cutting that simply cannot be overcome. None of his comments begin to touch on the many playback idiosyncrasies associated with turntables, tonearms, and phono cartridges. This is not to take anything away from anyone who enjoys listening to vinyl LP's. I listen to LP's, too, going back to the early 60's long before the digital age.

I would like to comment on D2A convertors in use during the infancy of digital recording and CD production. From the mid 80's to the early 90's digital hardware was going through growing pains. These advances continue today. At that time various engineers and manufacturers began addressing assorted issues that were raising their head as digital knowledge was gained. Still, by the early 90's there were some recording studios, GRP to name one, that managed to use the best equipment available at the moment, and in the process recorded and produced compact discs that were and still are remarkable examples of high quality reproduction. I have mentioned here before the GRP recording Dave Grusin - Homage To Duke on CD. This spectacular performance was recorded, mixed, and mastered in digital in 1993. Even by today's standards, with all the improvements that have transpired with D2A technology since that time, Homage To Duke stands up remarkably well against some of the best production of today. Every time I listen to this recording, particularly the track "Things Ain't What They Used To Be", I am in awe of the recording quality, bass authority, dynamics, and overall resolution that GRP managed to capture 24 years ago on 16Bit/44.1kHz equipment we would certainly consider a dinosaur by today's standards. Anyone who owns this GRP recording should play the track I just mentioned and crank it up a bit. If you did not know it was a two and a half decade old digital recording, you would easily assume it to be a recent recording produced with the best modern gear available. It is a classic example of how important the recording, mixing, and mastering quality is above all else.

 

[Mr Peabody]

I agree the recording/production is more important for the most part than the medium it is delivered on.

Back in the day I was at a radio station during a live recording, I was able to bring a metal cassette in so they dubbed me a copy of the performance. It is so obvious when you hear something like that straight to tape, even my dub, it was so good compared to off the shelf recordings. There's a lot of damage done somewhere along the line of production.

An example is Count Basie live at the Sands, 1957, it's crazy how good that sounds from 57 to some of the newer CD's. Even somethinglike Allman Bros. live at Filmore East is exceptional. I'm sure we all have stand out recordings we can mention.

I always thought the LP vs. CD/digital debate was pointless as there could never be an apples to apples comparison. Just the analog rig would have so many variables. Besides, it's all subjective.

 

[Nikhil]

Having toured studios, talked with pro reps, mastering engineers, etc., the A2D converters in most studios, up until a few years ago, were absolute crap. Remember, $900 to a studio is a big investment.

Mike, are you serious? I had no idea that studios were that tight.

I have mentioned here before the GRP recording Dave Grusin - Homage To Duke on CD. This spectacular performance was recorded, mixed, and mastered in digital in 1993. Even by today's standards, with all the improvements that have transpired with D2A technology since that time, Homage To Duke stands up remarkably well against some of the best production of today.

+1 ... that is a fantastic recording.

 

[Nikhil]

"I think some people interpret the lack of top end [on vinyl] and interpret an analog type of distortion as warmth," says Jim Anderson, a Grammy-winning recording engineer and professor at New York University's Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music. "It's a misinterpretation of it. But if they like it, they like it. That's fine."

One of the best quotes from that article that captures the sound not just of vinyl but even DSD to some extent IMO. The rolled off highs sounds warm and more "analog" to our ears.

 

[anji12305]

One of the best quotes from that article that captures the sound not just of vinyl but even DSD to some extent IMO. The rolled off highs sounds warm and more "analog" to our ears.

My measured hearing tapers above 12 kHz and still I can hear obvious differences between playback media. The most obvious being dynamics on uncompressed recordings.

 

[XV-1]

whatever excuses are made about why digital sound worse than vinyl are still relevant today with the best ADC converters.

Almost all new release vinyl is from digital masters and uses the same ADC as the digital versions, except vinyl goes through another DAC and specific mastering for vinyl - yet invariable vinyl still sounds better!! Why? think about it.

perfect example is the new Radiohead Ok Computer reissue on cd, 24/96 high rez and vinyl. Guess what, everyone says the vinyl sounds better? Why is that?

who really cares, just enjoy it . There is magic in them grooves

Radiohead - OK Computer - OKNOTOK 1997 2017 - beautiful quiet perfectly pressed BLACK VINYL

This 2017 reissue is the bomb - love it. Is it better than my original UK pressing - don't really care - its great on its own right.

 

[Dr Tone]

whatever excuses are made about why digital sound worse than vinyl are still relevant today with the best ADC converters.

Almost all new release vinyl is from digital masters and uses the same ADC as the digital versions, except vinyl goes through another DAC and specific mastering for vinyl - yet invariable vinyl still sounds better!! Why? think about it.

perfect example is the new Radiohead Ok Computer reissue on cd, 24/96 high rez and vinyl. Guess what, everyone says the vinyl sounds better? Why is that?

who really cares, just enjoy it . There is magic in them grooves

I have a few theories to why some would prefer the vinyl version of a modern digital recording. Personally it's the other way around for me.

1) The vinyl rig is of better quality then the digital rig. I find you don't have to spend as much on a vinyl rig vs a digital rig to get great sound.
2) The conversion from digital to vinyl is a lossy process and the data thrown away and the eqing to make things work on vinyl is more pleasing to some.
3) The higher stereo crosstalk from a cartridge presents a bigger more forward center image.
4) Some people just love clicking, popping, inner groove distortion and hiss. (Just kidding!)

 

[Melbguy1]

I have been blown away by the clarity, spaciousness, staging, mic'ing etc of some DXD and XRCD's I own. Marten's Supreme Sessions which are recorded in their own listening room direct to disc is another example and sound very live and engaging. I also have great respect for recording engineers like Steve Hoffman, David Chesky & the late Brad Miller for the founding work he did with MOFI. Digital done right is amazing, and it gets a big tick for pure convenience & the ability to easily rip music to a HDD or NAS, or throw a disc in your car's head unit.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

Wow, I slogged all the way through the article.
Final paragraph:
"Every way you can measure it, digital is going to be superior," Metcalfe says. "It really does come down to the preference of the end user."
Or, as Kees Immink says: "Some people like marmalade and some people like mustard. If people like to listen to vinyl, do so, enjoy life. But don't say that the sound is better."

 

[atmasphere]

"I think some people interpret the lack of top end [on vinyl] and interpret an analog type of distortion as warmth," says Jim Anderson, a Grammy-winning recording engineer

Despite winning a Grammy, the above statement is false. A Redbook CD has bandwidth to about 18KHz or so, and LP as bandwidth to about 30KHz or more (even though there are no audio signals out that high). The thing is, LPs don't sound rolled off, its the CDs that sound bright. However, if you measure either medium on the bench you won't see a frequency response problem that is responsible for the 'rolled off' or the brightness.

IMO this is actually the single biggest failing of digital, which is that the industry has failed to recognize that the ear converts distortion into tonality. In this case the distortion is called aliasing, but in the analog world it is known as 'inharmonic distortion'. Regardless of what you call it, the ear converts it to brightness (anyone doubting that might remember that some tube circuits have a warm lush sound due to the 2nd harmonic; all forms of distortion are converted to tonality).

The article devoted a lot of time to ticks and pops of the LP, without any delving into why they show up the way they do. One reason most people don't know about though is that many phono preamps are unstable, and when presented with a tick will exacerbate the tick due to stability factors in the circuit. Stable phono sections audibly emit less ticks and pops! At home I'm not used to hearing a lot of surface noise despite the phono section being specced out to 50KHz. Many of the phono sections found in Japanese amps and receivers from the 60s, 70s and 80s were unstable and exhibited a lot more surface noise than was actually on the LP. I first saw this demonstrated 30 years ago.

 

[Al M.]

Despite winning a Grammy, the above statement is false. A Redbook CD has bandwidth to about 18KHz or so, and LP as bandwidth to about 30KHz or more (even though there are no audio signals out that high).

This is a misleading statement. While LP does have a high bandwidth (and the guding signal for quadraphonic sound back in the day was even around 45 kHz or so, if I remember correctly), the frequency representation is not linear. Many LP's have measurable roll-off in the audible range below 20 kHz. And they often do sound that way.

The thing is, LPs don't sound rolled off, its the CDs that sound bright. However, if you measure either medium on the bench you won't see a frequency response problem that is responsible for the 'rolled off' or the brightness.

IMO this is actually the single biggest failing of digital, which is that the industry has failed to recognize that the ear converts distortion into tonality. In this case the distortion is called aliasing, but in the analog world it is known as 'inharmonic distortion'. Regardless of what you call it, the ear converts it to brightness (anyone doubting that might remember that some tube circuits have a warm lush sound due to the 2nd harmonic; all forms of distortion are converted to tonality).

Over-generalizing statement. A well recorded and mastered CD, when played back on great equipment (which these days doesn't necessarily cost an arm and a leg), does not sound bright. We are far past the Eighties in our technology, and the debate should reflect that.

The article devoted a lot of time to ticks and pops of the LP, without any delving into why they show up the way they do. One reason most people don't know about though is that many phono preamps are unstable, and when presented with a tick will exacerbate the tick due to stability factors in the circuit. Stable phono sections audibly emit less ticks and pops! At home I'm not used to hearing a lot of surface noise despite the phono section being specced out to 50KHz. Many of the phono sections found in Japanese amps and receivers from the 60s, 70s and 80s were unstable and exhibited a lot more surface noise than was actually on the LP. I first saw this demonstrated 30 years ago.

That is well possible, but you also hear clicks and pops on great current LP playback with phono stages that are carefully engineered.

 

[Mike]

One of the more interesting comparisons we did, was when the owner of PureVinyl came to give a presentation to a group of us on Tampa. He brought a copy of DSOTM on both CD and vinyl. He said he guaranteed they were from the exact same master. Anyway, he showed us, unequivocally, the upper range frequency response of the CD (and it had a hard stop), and then showed us the same with vinyl and vinyl extended well beyond the upper frequency of the CD. There was so much more "information" on the vinyl in the upper frequencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Al M.]

One of the more interesting comparisons we did, was when the owner of PureVinyl came to give a presentation to a group of us on Tampa. He brought a copy of DSOTM on both CD and vinyl. He said he guaranteed they were from the exact same master. Anyway, he showed us, unequivocally, the upper range frequency response of the CD (and it had a hard stop), and then showed us the same with vinyl and vinyl extended well beyond the upper frequency of the CD. There was so much more "information" on the vinyl in the upper frequencies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The necessary dynamic compression of the high frequencies needed to make a vinyl record can produce the sensation of extra 'air'.

***

Again, I am not knocking vinyl, neither here nor in my previous post. In fact, while I don't have a record player at home myself, I am a fan of great vinyl that I hear elsewhere and in some aspects it is still a benchmark against which the audio quality of CD should be judged. However, I am wary of exuberant defenses of vinyl that do not stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Mike]

The necessary dynamic compression of the high frequencies while making a vinyl record can produce the sensation of extra 'air'.

But the dynamic compression typically occurs below 25hz.

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[atmasphere]

This is a misleading statement. While LP does have a high bandwidth (and the guding signal for quadraphonic sound back in the day was even around 45 kHz or so, if I remember correctly), the frequency representation is not linear. Many LP's have measurable roll-off in the audible range below 20 kHz. And they often do sound that way.

So do CDs; the simple fact is there isn't much energy up there. Just for fun, we ran a 30KHz tone at -10VU into our cutting lathe (Scully with Westerex 3D built about 1968) and then played the cut back on a Technics SL1200 with Grado cartridge into a Harmon Kardon 630 receiver and out the tape outs, there was our tone, plain as day.

If they are rolled off, its not on account of the format.

Over-generalizing statement. A well recorded and mastered CD, when played back on great equipment (which these days doesn't necessarily cost an arm and a leg), does not sound bright. We are far past the Eighties in our technology, and the debate should reflect that.

I agree- this statement hinging on 'should'. Its easy enough to distinguish though. Still sounds bright to my ear (and I can't hear over 15K anymore...).

That is well possible, but you also hear clicks and pops on great current LP playback with phono stages that are carefully engineered.

There are lots of carefully engineered phono sections that are not stable. As a general rule of thumb, if the cartridge loading makes a sonic difference when using a low output moving coil phono cartridge, the phono section is probably unstable.

 

[Al M.]

There are lots of carefully engineered phono sections that are not stable. As a general rule of thumb, if the cartridge loading makes a sonic difference when using a low output moving coil phono cartridge, the phono section is probably unstable.

Very interesting.