229 posts / 0 new
Last post
matt49's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 07/04/2013 - 12:07
Posts: 2064
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

cheeseboy wrote:

why does it have to be Vinyl vs digital, why can't it be Vinyl *and* Digital ???? :cheers:

See my posts above re. cost.

In a VFM contest there can only be one winner.

Matt

I've got a 69 Chevy with a 396, fuelie heads and a Hurst on the floor

matt49's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 07/04/2013 - 12:07
Posts: 2064
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

stevebrock wrote:

Quote:

Let's take Adele's '19' album as a random example. Available new on vinyl for £16.86, and used from £11.06. Available new on CD for £5.99, or used for 84p. This is a six year old album. Even though I'm not familiar with this album, I'd be prepared to use it as a 'digital vs vinyl' example. 

David, don't bother this recording is appaling, so much siblance - it really is a poor example if you want to compare!

Yes, this will sound carp on vinyl or CD.

If this is to be a meaningful comparison, then a quick look at the DR Database is surely essential. Many rock/pop CDs are horribly compressed compared to the same on vinyl, and one ought really to compare like with like.

I can see that if you listen to a lot of recent rock/pop, the argument tilts in favour of vinyl due to its generally superior DR. However, that doesn't apply to classical, where DR is generally better on CD than on vinyl.

Hey, Eddie, can you lend me a few bucks / And tonight can you get us a ride? / Gotta make it through the tunnel / Got a meeting with a man on the other side

the record spot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
Joined: 13/10/2007 - 14:36
Posts: 9252
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD) RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

Tear Drop wrote:

Covenanter wrote:

PPS I actually think that most of the posters to this forum have no interest in "fidelity", ie reproduction of a sound that is close to the original, but simply in what sounds good to them.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly, however.....nah, nevermind.

 

Did you guys who love to contribute to these endless threads ever think to yourselves, 'Why am I wasting my time typing the same old rubbish when nobody ever listens or makes any attempt to think about other perspectives or ideas?', or 'I could be listening to music instead of doing this'?

 

I often am!  I think it's the outdated mindset that vinyl is best and digital isn't that makes me laugh.  Having come from a vinyl setup and moved away from vinyl, for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with sound quality, except that CD was as good and in some cases better than that offered by LP, I think it's worth pointing out that 40 years use gives me some mileage to play with when it comes to my criticisms of the format.  The two can happily sit side by side and should, but the whole "vinyl is just so much more lifelike" is a nonsense.

chebby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 55 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16133
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

With enough money and space it could be fun to get some iconic old TT (Thorens TD150 or suchlike) as part of a 'period' system and a small collection of nice old LPs as a 'living ornament' in a 1960s themed room. I still get transfixed watching a good turntable in action.

But, for my present purposes, LPs and turntables are now 'archeology'.  (Simply because barely anything i'd enjoy listening to would be available on vinyl.)

Before you all jump up-and-down, I enjoyed LPs for the best part of three decades and I appreciate the appeal. (I actually didn't stop getting the odd craving until I finally knocked it on the head by selling my remaining LPs last year.)

I'm  not saying people shouldn't enjoy turntables / LPs even if it's all new to them. It's just not for me any more.

After 31 years there shouldn't even be debates about this hoary old subject any more.  To most people, especially those who are new to hifi, it's an argument their grandfathers started in the letters pages of magazines. (A kind of primitive and very slow 'proto' web forum involving pens and paper and stamps 'n' s###.)

Just like FM radio (distributed digitally since the 1970s), most of the LPs from the last 30 years, and re-issues of earlier content, will have come from the same digital masters as their CD counterparts anyway.

"We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey."

andyjm's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 11:49
Posts: 735
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

Covenanter wrote:

People just like the sound of distortion.

Chris

...and that is indeed the point. 

CDs are significantly better than vinyl in every technical aspect except maximum frequency response which is limited to 20KHz on CDs and potentially could reach 40KHz on vinyl.  Anyone old enough to be wasting their time on this forum won't be able to hear much above 15Khz, so not much advantage there.

The truth seems to be that whatever mangling the recording and playback process does to music in a vinyl world is considered by many to sound pleasing - and I guess that is what this whole game is all about. 

 

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 5 sec ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11281
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

matt49 wrote:
stevebrock wrote:
Quote:
Let's take Adele's '19' album as a random example. Available new on vinyl for £16.86, and used from £11.06. Available new on CD for £5.99, or used for 84p. This is a six year old album. Even though I'm not familiar with this album, I'd be prepared to use it as a 'digital vs vinyl' example. 
David, don't bother this recording is appaling, so much siblance - it really is a poor example if you want to compare!

Yes, this will sound carp on vinyl or CD.

Fair test then? Smile

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

stevebrock's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 23 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2009 - 11:16
Posts: 3963
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

I am out of this one !!

Facts & figures are irreleveant - I know what I prefer to listen too!

 

Michell / Icon Audio / Kudos

 

the record spot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 day ago
Joined: 13/10/2007 - 14:36
Posts: 9252
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

Preference is all well and good Steve, statement of fact is something else entirely.  Except in my case, 'cos I'm right.   Smile

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 5 sec ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11281
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

andyjm wrote:
Covenanter wrote:

People just like the sound of distortion.

Chris

...and that is indeed the point. 

Maybe it is why many people don't like active speakers, and choose to go with passive ones, that produce 'horrendous distortion'. Most people seem to go with what they like the sound of, not something that may be more accurate tonally, regardless of whether it is technically better or not.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

stevebrock's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 23 hours ago
Joined: 13/11/2009 - 11:16
Posts: 3963
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

David@FrankHarvey wrote:

andyjm wrote:
Covenanter wrote:

People just like the sound of distortion.

Chris

...and that is indeed the point. 

Maybe it is why many people don't like active speakers, and choose to go with passive ones, that produce 'horrendous distortion'. Most people seem to go with what they like the sound of, not something that may be more accurate tonally, regardless of whether it is technically better or not.

Exactly

 

Michell / Icon Audio / Kudos

 

matt49's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 26 min ago
Joined: 07/04/2013 - 12:07
Posts: 2064
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

David@FrankHarvey wrote:

matt49 wrote:
stevebrock wrote:
Quote:
Let's take Adele's '19' album as a random example. Available new on vinyl for £16.86, and used from £11.06. Available new on CD for £5.99, or used for 84p. This is a six year old album. Even though I'm not familiar with this album, I'd be prepared to use it as a 'digital vs vinyl' example. 
David, don't bother this recording is appaling, so much siblance - it really is a poor example if you want to compare!

Yes, this will sound carp on vinyl or CD.

Fair test then? Smile

It'd be a level playing field, but the game would be ruined by the terrible state of the pitch.  :shifty:

I just tried to listen to it (ALAC rip from CD). :sick: Steve is right about the sibilance. Deffo one of those cases where a good system makes a poor recording impossible to listen to. Fortunately I'm (ahem) not that keen on Adele.

I've got a 69 Chevy with a 396, fuelie heads and a Hurst on the floor

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 25 min ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1325
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD) RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

Tear Drop wrote:

Covenanter wrote:

PPS I actually think that most of the posters to this forum have no interest in "fidelity", ie reproduction of a sound that is close to the original, but simply in what sounds good to them.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly, however.....nah, nevermind.

 

Did you guys who love to contribute to these endless threads ever think to yourselves, 'Why am I wasting my time typing the same old rubbish when nobody ever listens or makes any attempt to think about other perspectives or ideas?', or 'I could be listening to music instead of doing this'?

Yep I was bored and it was late.  I shouldn't have bothered.  Cool

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12952
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

FennerMachine wrote:
I've potentially got 100+ records if I want them, including about 30 James Last

You say that like it's a good thing?  :O

MajorFubar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 03/03/2010 - 00:01
Posts: 3556
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

chebby wrote:
Just like FM radio (distributed digitally since the 1970s), most of the LPs from the last 30 years, and re-issues of earlier content, will have come from the same digital masters as their CD counterparts anyway.

This what I was getting at in my previous post on page 2. There is nothing at all to be gained from buying modern recordings on LP, only the huge risk of losing quality because the LP is at least three generations removed from the digital master.

Through the wonders of digital distribution (and lossless FLAC and ALAC file compression), the facility now exists for enthusiasts to download music that is an exact bit-for-bit clone of the digital master sat on the mastering-engineer's hard-drive. Any differences between what he hears in his studio and what we hear in our homes are only because of the replay equipment and listening environment. We've never had it so good. Even the highest-quality MP3s and AACs have the potential to more closely apporoximate the original digital master than any LP ever could or can.

However this of course does not necessarily hold true for older recordings which were recorded on analogue tape.

David@FrankHarvey's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 5 sec ago
Joined: 27/06/2008 - 11:03
Posts: 11281
RE: Vinyl vs. Digital (CD)

matt49 wrote:
Fortunately I'm (ahem) not that keen on Adele.

Nor me. It was just an artist and album that I knew would be on vinyl and CD, and being a modern recording, should favour digital.

DavidF @FrankHarveyHiFi, Coventry.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light"

Pages

Log in or register to post comments