Questions about vinyl

Certif1ed wrote:     Cream's albums were released on Reaction before Polysnore took over (as they did other classic labels) - Hendrix and The Who were on Track

Dick Heath wrote: I have to ask, have you had problems with first pressings coming from Decca Records, released 1966 -1971? Personal experience then showed that Decca QC for pop/record was far inferior to that of their classical label and the audiophile label Phase 4. But also listening to the recently issued Strange Pleasures box set from Decca of rock recordings 1966 to1975, you will find there is a wide range of standards in recording too from Decca over this period.  I feel somewhat reinforced in my arguement that the Moody Blues' Days Of Future Past was intended as pop/rock record for a handful of audiophile record collectors in the 60's (i.e. those few that had good stereo equipment - predominantly middle class and middle aged folk), since the audio quality of the tracks selected for Strange Pleasures is far superior to anything else heard on the set. Also let me repeat from elesewhere: the stereo version of "Beano" album John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers, was released by Decca several months after the mono version. I seem to remember a 6 week gap in getting the stereo version of the Rolling Stones Aftermath, after the official release date when i guess only the mono version was available. And I think the same was true wrt Cream's Fresh Cream (that was released by Track/Polydor). In other words, I think it is true to say, many (UK?) record labels weren't geared up for a high fidelity demand of rock records until (at best) the late 60's.

Edited by Certif1ed - May 28 2008 at 08:52

I have to ask, have you had problems with first pressings coming from Decca Records, released 1966 -1971? Personal experience then showed that Decca QC for pop/record was far inferior to that of their classical label and the audiophile label Phase 4. But also listening to the recently issued Strange Pleasures box set from Decca of rock recordings 1966 to1975, you will find there is a wide range of standards in recording too from Decca over this period.  I feel somewhat reinforced in my arguement that the Moody Blues' Days Of Future Past was intended as pop/rock record for a handful of audiophile record collectors in the 60's (i.e. those few that had good stereo equipment - predominantly middle class and middle aged folk), since the audio quality of the tracks selected for Strange Pleasures is far superior to anything else heard on the set. Also let me repeat from elesewhere: the stereo version of "Beano" album John Mayall & The Bluesbreakers, was released by Decca several months after the mono version. I seem to remember a 6 week gap in getting the stereo version of the Rolling Stones Aftermath, after the official release date when i guess only the mono version was available. And I think the same was true wrt Cream's Fresh Cream (that was released by Track/Polydor). In other words, I think it is true to say, many (UK?) record labels weren't geared up for a high fidelity demand of rock records until (at best) the late 60's.

Edited by Dick Heath - May 28 2008 at 07:21

Certif1ed wrote: It has an almost tangible quality to it that digital sound DOES NOT REPRODUCE.   Maybe someone can do the science and work out why, because all the evidence points to vinyl being significantly inferior - and yet it still sounds better.

I think that the conclusion must be that the most accurate representation of the original recording is not always the one which sounds best (subjectively).

Perhaps it's the way the first pressing reproduces the music which you love so much - how that particular pressing was mastered, the material used, the quality of the manufacturing process etc..

For someone like me the world is entirely different ... for me the remastered digital releases are the benchmark. Vinyl can sound as good or even (subjectively) better, but there are many hazards along the way ... as I had to learn when I recently purchased the re-mastered vinyl edition of Metallica's Ride the Lightning. High quality, half-speed, 180gr etc. but sounds horrible.

^ two very good points!  They show that the sound quality of vinyl depends on much more variables than optical discs (CD/DVD/whatever) - much more can go wrong and mess up the sound. Vinyl fans will undoubtedly say that none of this is a real problem - with the proper care taken. But even then the vinyl disc is still inferior in terms of frequency range, dynamic range and linearity.

The bottom line for me is that vinyl is a very enjoyable medium - I'll continue to collect vinyl releases - but it is not the most accurate - that's CD, SACD and DVD-A. They're objectively (beyond reasoning) superior to any of the old analogue consumer formats (vinyl, cassette). Subjectively however, there may be reasons to prefer analogue, because they sound different and some people may prefer that sound over the accurate representation of the source, just like some prefer the harmonic distortion of an expensive tube amplifier over the more linear sound of a good solid state amp.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 28 2008 at 03:08

Sacred 22 wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Sacred 22 wrote: All things being equal vinyl will sound better than 'Red Book' CD. The sample rate as mentioned before is based on Nyquist's theorem which says that you must double the sample frequency of the maximum frequency being articulated. There are many problems associated with this process of which I am not going to go into here (most of the problems occur with filtering and jitter). Many very talented technicians and engineers have employed all kind of electronic 'tricks' to get better sound from digital, but in the end a analog recording will sound better all things being equal but digital is so much more versatile. It's true that filtering and jitter can produce so called "artefacts" in the signal. However, these artefacts are well above the normal frequency range of the typical listener ... so IMO it's a very theoretical problem.   I disagree with you. I just bought a DAC ($1500.00) that has virtually zero jitter and I can certainly hear the difference on my expensive stereo system. On a budget system it makes little or no difference but on very good systems it most certainly does.

I suppose you mean you hear a difference between CD and vinyl. I don't doubt that - but how can you be so sure that vinyl is closer to the original recording than the CD? Maybe the opposite is true, and you simply prefer the warmer sound of vinyl.

Sacred 22 wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: Sacred 22 wrote: The analog to digital and the digital to analog process is much better now than it was when CD was first introduced in the early 80's. Recording equipment has also improved dramatically over the years which adds to the sonic purity of the CD.  The proof is in SACD recordings which have a much higher sample and bit rate over Red Book CD. When you listen to a SACD recording and then the same recording using Red Book CD you can hear the differences. SACD which works at 24 bit depth and a sample frequency of 96KHz is far more accurate and also gives you much better dynamic range. SACD is much closer to vinyl in sound quality. The problem is that most of the stuff that we like to listen to is not available on SACD. We are stuck with the Red Book CD but it's much better now than it was when it was first introduced. There are various listening tests which show that even skilled listeners have problems telling high bitrate mp3 from CD ... it's even more difficult for CD vs. DVD-Audio/SACD. But I agree that these high resolution formats are the way to go -  it's simply not necessary to reduce the signal quality during mastering just to meet a 25 year old standard (red book).   Again I disagree, I have SACD discs and they not only sound better but the dynamic range is far better than that of Red Book CD(24 bit as opposed to 16 bits gives you lots more dynamic range). When you spend a lot of money on a good system($16,000.00 plus) it lets you know the difference. Cheap systems tend to be a bit more forgiving.

Again, vinyl is much worse in terms of dynamic. I actually agree that you might hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit, and that 24 bit sounds better particularly for very dynamic recordings (e.g. symphonies). But vinyl has not only a smaller dynamic range (usually less than 70dB), but the very silent sounds also don't sound as well and are much more affected by the inaccuracies of the medium.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - May 27 2008 at 05:02

MikeEnRegalia wrote: Sacred 22 wrote: All things being equal vinyl will sound better than 'Red Book' CD. The sample rate as mentioned before is based on Nyquist's theorem which says that you must double the sample frequency of the maximum frequency being articulated. There are many problems associated with this process of which I am not going to go into here (most of the problems occur with filtering and jitter). Many very talented technicians and engineers have employed all kind of electronic 'tricks' to get better sound from digital, but in the end a analog recording will sound better all things being equal but digital is so much more versatile. It's true that filtering and jitter can produce so called "artefacts" in the signal. However, these artefacts are well above the normal frequency range of the typical listener ... so IMO it's a very theoretical problem.   I disagree with you. I just bought a DAC ($1500.00) that has virtually zero jitter and I can certainly hear the difference on my expensive stereo system. On a budget system it makes little or no difference but on very good systems it most certainly does. Sacred 22 wrote: The analog to digital and the digital to analog process is much better now than it was when CD was first introduced in the early 80's. Recording equipment has also improved dramatically over the years which adds to the sonic purity of the CD.  The proof is in SACD recordings which have a much higher sample and bit rate over Red Book CD. When you listen to a SACD recording and then the same recording using Red Book CD you can hear the differences. SACD which works at 24 bit depth and a sample frequency of 96KHz is far more accurate and also gives you much better dynamic range. SACD is much closer to vinyl in sound quality. The problem is that most of the stuff that we like to listen to is not available on SACD. We are stuck with the Red Book CD but it's much better now than it was when it was first introduced. There are various listening tests which show that even skilled listeners have problems telling high bitrate mp3 from CD ... it's even more difficult for CD vs. DVD-Audio/SACD. But I agree that these high resolution formats are the way to go -  it's simply not necessary to reduce the signal quality during mastering just to meet a 25 year old standard (red book).

Another advantage to vinyl- you don't have to worry about "vinyl" rot, like CD rot.  Although I have a lot of late 80s/early 90s CDs, I have yet to experience this, but I guess it is inevitable that some day it will happen.  Even my CD-R's that I've made 3-4 years ago seem to play perfectly.  I have a few CDs that have skipping problems, but most of them are pretty badly scratched (need a better copy of Kind of Blue and Oregon's s/t).  And for some strange reason, a few of my CDs have problems being ripped to my computer but they play perfectly on my CD player (My Bloody Valentine's Isn't Anything and Stereolab's Transient Random-Noise Bursts with Announcements).  Both have minor scratches, but I don't believe that is the problem.

I'll repeat what I said earlier for emphasis- Neither sounds "better".  If you think vinyl is better, than vinyl is better (to you).  If you think CD is better, than CD is better (to you).  This comes up in practically every opinion-based argument, and even pops up in science (contradicting studies: if you think wine is good for you, then you want to prove it; if you think wine is bad for you, then you want to prove it).  So if you're totally neutral to the subject, I recommend buying both, since there are pros and cons to each, but neither "sounds better" - it all depends.  End of debate.  Move on to debating something else or just listening to music.

...i'm starting to sound like a broken record ;)


Edited by Bluesaga - May 26 2008 at 14:49

Vinyl vs. CD?  It is dependent on the condition of the vinyl and whether or not the CD has been remastered decently. 

Another cool factoid, those younger folks can actually hear sounds in a frequency range us older people can't.  But guess what, you're going to get older sooner or later if you don't die first.  Sorry, don't want to be the bummer man...