Which is best - vinyl or CD ?

marktheshark wrote: You have a good point oliver, even at 50,000 kps the holes will never be filled.

That is a conceit. The human ear is very well understood by science, and one of the estabilshed facts is that it doesn't have an unlimited resolution. It is true that the standard audio CD resolution is at the threshold ... there are situations (depending on the waveform of the signal) where the digital signal contains small mistakes which are audible. But these mistakes are really not audible as "harshness". Oliver (and others) will always deny that and say that they can easily hear the difference on their system. But on the other hand that hasn't been proven yet ... which I find strange. IF the difference would be so easy to hear, even sceptics like myself could not possibly deny it. So a company selling audiophile equipment could simply set up "listening centers" all over the world where people can go and hear the difference for themselves.

That hasn't been done yet. Why? Because the difference is not nearly has big or easy to hear. It is in fact so small that audiophiles are even afraid of listening tests (at least they keep avoiding them). 

What's your CD player, Mark?

All in all as far as this thread is concerned, I have to agree with about 95% of what oliver and Tony has said. Analog, under the right conditions can just blow digital away in terms of just sheer warmth and fullness of sound.

As stated earlier, the only analog pressings I go with are the high-line audiophile pressing that were the "big thing" prior to digital in the late 70's and early 80's. I'll put my Beatles box set up against any of the CDs.

The advantages of digital is of course practicality and durability. But also that when a good digital re-master is done, the studio master tape is used as the template as opposed to most mass production analogs where a 2nd, 3rd or even a 4th generation copy of the studio master is used. Many factors involved here. I have audiophile pressings of Yes CTTE, Floyd's DSOTM, Moody's DOFP, Parson's Robot and their CD counterparts. The CDs come pretty close to the analog pressings, but still have that homogenized and cold digital sound. Just a little though. It has gotten better.

Then we come to SACD, which I think has potential. Great clear and warm sound like an analog LP, except there's a catch. You can't EQ it! You can't adjust the bass, mids, treble or anything! What you get is what you hear. I don't know if this an artist thing or what. When I bought my new unit with SACD capability, the first thing I bought was Floyd's DSOTM, and while it sounded very analog, I couldn't tweek it at all. To me the message from Waters and the gang was "This is the way WE mixed it, so you're stuck with it!" Give me a break!

Science certainly has the ability to make digital every bit (no pun intended) as good as analog. But what's keeping them from doing so? Answer is simple:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Isn't capitalism wonderful?! Yes, even a staunch capitalist like myself has a few gripes!

But only a few, so shut up!

Edited by marktheshark

Tony Fisher wrote: Vinyl - CDs are not even close.BUT - to hear vinyl at its best you need to spend a great deal of money on a top class set up. This preserves the discs and lets you hear them as they were recorded. 180g pressings help as well.I use a Pink Triangle Anniversary + SME V + Lyra Lydian.Cost £4300. Value priceless!

Happy to hear that.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ look at it (open it in a media player, it shows the format info/bitrate).

You think they could make it anymore confusing with all these formats?

Edited by marktheshark

^ look at it (open it in a media player, it shows the format info/bitrate).

^ with WMA Lossless. There is also a lossy WMA compression (WMA 64, 128 etc.).

^ when a track is converted to mp3, the information is lost ... converting it back to CD of course can't magically restore the lost information. In essence, converting something to mp3 means simplifying it.

About the lossless formats: These compress the audio like a ZIP-File ... no information is lost, and all of the original data can be restored. Popular lossless formats are: Apple Lossless, WMA Lossless, FLAC. The only drawback of these formats is that most mobile players don't support them ... and of course that they aren't as effective as the lossy formats (meaning: the files are not as small).

marktheshark wrote: So a higher kps means more compression?

No ... the less kbps, the higher the compression. Real CD audio (uncompressed) has approx. 1,500 kbps, and standard mp3 has only 128kbps. This means that it has been compressed to less than 10% of the original size. So of course much of the original data is lost. If you use 256kbps instead of 128kbps much less of the data is lost, and the quality of the audio is much closer to the original.

BTW: Lossless formats manage to shrink most signals to 60% of the original size ... that would be approx. 800 kbps.

It seems. Mike will confirm.