Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Which is best - vinyl or CD ?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhich is best - vinyl or CD ?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 13>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21106 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Which is best - vinyl or CD ?
    Posted: May 28 2007 at 03:06
^ nice post!

I agree with most of the technical details that you mention ... but I draw different conclusions. First of all: There can be no doubt that whatever recording technique used (analog tape/vinyl, digitial) the original signal can never be recreated with 100% accuracy. The question is: Can the average listener tell the reproduction apart from the original ... or, since the original is usually not available (the original in this case being the master tapes), can the average listener tell the different formats apart which are used for reproduction?

I don't think so. As I explained earlier many people are biased towards a particular format and will tend to exaggerate its advantages while competing formats will receive a negative bias. Especially when comparing vinyl to CD you almost immediately recognize the vinyl - not necessarily because of the superior quality but because of the background noise, small pops (you cannot remove every particle of dust) and other particularities. Therefore you really can't conduct a double blind test between CD and vinyl ...

About the technical aspects of the low frequencies ... consider this excerpt from hydrogenaudio.org:

" How low of a frequency can LPs produce?
  • (thread)
  • The common wisdom is that they don't have much below 60hz, but there is evidence that the signal extends as low as 20hz and possibly lower on some LPs.
  • Note that low bass on vinyl records will be mono, but this is not a problem because low bass is non-directional. (The reason for this is that low bass signals cause the largest groove excursions, and of course the vertical (out of phase) component of the groove must never be so great that the groove rises above the surface of the record, so the out of phase component of the low bass is removed when mastering for vinyl)."
Being able to reproduce frequencies below 20 Hz is *not* an inherent feature of the vinyl format ... some discs contain these frequencies, some don't.

BTW: I found a nice website which allows you to experiment with fourier transformation ... I'll create a separate thread.Smile
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2007 at 21:24
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ the sub sonic frequencies don't affect the sound, I'm very sure about that. You're free to disagree of course, but frequencies that deep are simply vibrations ... it's conceivable that in a real instrument such as a piano or a guitar these vibrations affect the overall sound, but I doubt that just because some people can "sense" these frequencies they're the reason why some people prefer vinyl. And the last time I watched (and listened to) my washing machine spinning it didn't strike me as being particularly musical ... Wink
I knew I shouldn't have put the phrase about feeling sub-sonics in my reply ,LOL
  1. If you do a Fourier Analysis of a complex waveform (such as a single note from a musical instrument, or even an entire passage of music) you get a full spectrum of pure tones (sinewaves) that the complex waveform is composed of. These will include ultra-sonics and sub-sonics. To re-create the original waveform exactly you apply the Inverse Transform (ie add up all the descrete waveforms that the analysis said were in the original). It is generally accepted that you can miss-out some of the lower amplitude signals without affecting the sound - however, miss out too many and the high-priced Epiphone guitar will sound no different to a cheap Encore guitar.
  2. The sub-sonics are not constant drones like a washing machine, they are an integral part of the recorded music and are usually sub-harmonics of the note(s) being played.
  3. A note of 440Hz and a sub-sonic of (say) 13.75Hz (5th sub-harmonic) when played together produces two new frequencies 453.75Hz and 426.25Hz [sin(A)+sin(B) and sin(A)-sin(B)] which you can hear and even though these new "notes" do not fit on the equal tempered scale they are still harmonically related to the fundamental tone and therefore affect the timbre, or colour, of the note.

The reason why this is doubly important on Digitised sound is because the signal is quantised in the Frequency Domain. This quantisation means you do not get an infinite number of frequencies across the spectrum - you get a finite number of descrete frequencies that are sub-harmonics of the sampling frequency.

Hence, the sampling frequency used on CD's (or on any digital media) will only accurately reproduce frequencies that are an exact division of the sampling frequency - all other frequecies are spread into adjacent sub-divisions and require all those subdivisions to recreate the original.
 
This goes beyond Nyquist - Nyquist simply states that the maximum frequency you can digitise is half the sampling frequency. Or, to put it another way, the Nyquist frequency is the first sub-harmonic of the sampling frequency. Try and digitise a frequency a few Hz below the Nyquist frequency and you will generate a whole spectrum of descrete frequencies that are sub-harmonics of the sampling frequence all the way down to 0Hz and you need to put all those frequencies back to recreate the original.
 
What?
Back to Top
paolo.beenees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 30 2007
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 1136 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2007 at 13:52
Maybe I've got some unknown handicap, but I find it very, very, very hard to perceive any difference between vinyl and CD. The only things I can tell you for sure are that, on vinyls, the tracks which are closer to the centre of the disc always tend to be somehow disturbed or noisy, and after the - say - 80th listen CDs do not fry.
On the other hand, I really miss the old good wide covers, and I'm really disappointed about the CD price policies (at least in Italy).
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21106 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2007 at 13:42
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:


The view sense is less developed than the ear.
So digital is more bearable in that domain. Digital is less catastrophic in the video field. Cause the human eye is easier to fool than the ear (and the whole body cause we feel sound with the whole body, especially extreme low)


The human ear is quite easy to fool ... of course it is more demanding than the eye, because we communicate by sound. That's why the compression rate of video is usually much higher than that of audio ... or in other words: The greater sensitivity of the ear is handled by increasing the sampling frequency and dynamics.

BTW: Listening tests show that even on very high level equipment (certified by audiophiles) most participants are not able to tell the sources apart ... the most simple and almost impossibly to defeat point against your claims. Of course you can always say that you hear a difference ... but I rather trust a combination of common sense, science and anonymised testing than one person.Tongue
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2007 at 13:27
-First, the view sense is less developed than the ear.
So digital is more bearable in that domain. Digital is less catastrophic in the video field. Cause the human eye is easier to fool than the ear (and the whole body cause we feel sound with the whole body, especially extreme low)

But a top level (S)-VHS machine beats a DVD player in term of color's beauty, at less. Digital has its artifacts, its visible on some DVDs. Through a great DVD player (such as a high end Pioneer) the difference is huge from one movie remastering to another. Pink Floyd's More is awesome for example.
BTW, high technology cabling, power and vib-cancelling optimization aplies to video as well as to audio.

-Blue ray disc works better than DVD cause more info (always the same).

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ do you enjoy watching DVD? If so, you should know that the video signal is even more compressed than mp3 audio. If digital compression is a flawed concept per se, then why is it that nobody complains? Or take digital photographs as another obvious example ... You have to face the possibility that a digital recording may be perceived as being identical to the original if the resolution is high enough ... applies to video, images and of course audio too. And what's the correct resolution? Well, fortunately for audio there's the Nyquist theorem which is not a "theory", but a well proven fact of science.Sorry, but you're just sounding like the people who rejected tape recorders in the 60s ... you've built yourself a world of false assumptions and preconceptions, and you've spent so much time, efforts and money in the process that you now can't accept simple facts like the ones I presented above, as accepting them would imply that you've been wasting your time. I sympathize, but in some situation the only way to advance is ... to go back (simple example: A dead end street).


Edited by oliverstoned - May 27 2007 at 13:29
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21106 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2007 at 10:02
^ it's fun!Tongue
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Philéas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: June 14 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 6419 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2007 at 08:15
I can't understand why you two bother continuing this debate! LOL
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21106 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 27 2007 at 02:41
^ do you enjoy watching DVD? If so, you should know that the video signal is even more compressed than mp3 audio. If digital compression is a flawed concept per se, then why is it that nobody complains? Or take digital photographs as another obvious example ...

You have to face the possibility that a digital recording may be perceived as being identical to the original if the resolution is high enough ... applies to video, images and of course audio too. And what's the correct resolution? Well, fortunately for audio there's the Nyquist theorem which is not a "theory", but a well proven fact of science.

Sorry, but you're just sounding like the people who rejected tape recorders in the 60s ... you've built yourself a world of false assumptions and preconceptions, and you've spent so much time, efforts and money in the process that you now can't accept simple facts like the ones I presented above, as accepting them would imply that you've been wasting your time. I sympathize, but in some situation the only way to advance is ... to go back (simple example:  A dead end street).
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 16:03
Indeed, that's infinite and ther's always better...

However a Nad or Rotel electronics/Mission loudspeakesr/Qed cables is miles beyond a "midi" system. Not a matter of price, there are musical products in every price range.

Coming back to "digital" vinyl, it can be worst than the Cd release!


Edited by oliverstoned - May 26 2007 at 18:11
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21106 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 15:36
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

If the vinyl is from digital source and playbacked on poor equipment...both will be bad.


how convenient for you ... there is always something you can blame it on!Wink But if all parts of the "equipment chain" must be perfect in order for it to sound good, why do you keep encouraging people to buy budget hi-fi systems? I mean, without the seven ton granite vibration cancelling they'll miss out on the "incredible" difference!
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
unicorn coffee View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie
Avatar

Joined: October 06 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 45 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 15:16
vinylvinylvinylvinylvinylvinyl!!!
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 15:07
If the vinyl is from digital source and playbacked on poor equipment...both will be bad.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21106 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:52
^ if it makes you happy ... so be it. But I'm wondering why listening tests usually fail with upgrades like these if the difference always is "incredible".Ermm

Anyways ... listening to the new Bright Eyes album now (192kbps WMA from Napster) ... I'll probably get the vinyl too, so I'll once more have a change to compare the different sources. If what you say is true then I should hear a striking difference between compressed digital and vinyl even on standard equipment, shouldn't I?
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:39
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:


Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

"I say that both analog and numeric can sound awesome."

It's somehow true: a 45 000€ Mark Levinson digital setup will work wonderful, but less good than a good 4500€ vinyl deck with a moving coil...
And my computer + 80 EUR speakers play the music so nicely too ... I'm so glad that I can appreciate music this way. You're free to make these high demands to anything from power cables to sacks of sand hanging on the walls ... each to his own.Smile


BTW, i just add granite plates on my drive/converter/preamp
-which have seven levels of vib cancelling below each device- and the upgrade is incredible, one of the biggest i made.

Back to Top
coleio View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 06 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 272 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:36
I prefer CD's. Far more readily available format and just generally more practicle, it takes nothing away from a listening experience.
Eat heartily at breakfast, for tonight, we dine in Hell!!
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:35
Originally posted by darqdean darqdean wrote:

Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

Frequencies below 20 Hz are called "sub sonic" for a reason ... you can't hear them.

This is true (the 20Hz chosen for the Red Book CD Audio standard was purely arbitary - based upon the perceived threshold of 50% of adults - obviously 50% of aults and most younger people can hear below this threshold).


However there are two ways in which you can hear sub-sonics - the first is obviously by feel, the other is by their interaction with sonics. When two notes are played together, they interact, creating harmonics (i.e a chord); the same happens with a sonic and sub-sonic, the resultants are sonic. A musical instrument creates these sub-sonics naturally, the interaction between them and the sonic frequencies are what goes towards making the overall timbre of the instrument (there are obviously a myriad of other factors, but sub-sonics are one of them). Remove the sub-sonic and you affect the timbre. This is one of the reasons people perceive a difference between CD and vinyl.


Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:


And about the issues darqdean has with mastering: All valid points, but hardly against the medium which is used to store the mastered audio.Smile

Again, true - however, it is the medium (CD) that has fuelled this trend of over-mastering. Producers and sound-engineers would not apply anything like the degree of compression they would use on CD to tracks they are mastering for vinyl.


All that is true. Thanks to bring the harmonic's issue (showing that sound and human perception is much more complex than just a matter of measured frequency range) and the over-compressed digital issue which is a real plague for the ones who owns top level equipment.

Edited by oliverstoned - May 26 2007 at 14:35
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21106 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:33
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

"I say that both analog and numeric can sound awesome."

It's somehow true: a 45 000€ Mark Levinson digital setup will work wonderful, but less good than a good 4500€ vinyl deck with a moving coil...


And my computer + 80 EUR speakers play the music so nicely too ... I'm so glad that I can appreciate music this way. You're free to make these high demands to anything from power cables to sacks of sand hanging on the walls ... each to his own.Smile
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:32
...But CDs are more useful in the cherry trees to scare the birds.
Back to Top
tardis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 02 2005
Location: Victoria, BC
Status: Offline
Points: 14378 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:28
Vinyl...makes better frisbees.
Back to Top
oliverstoned View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 26 2004
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 6308 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 26 2007 at 14:27
"I say that both analog and numeric can sound awesome."

It's somehow true: a 45 000€ Mark Levinson digital setup will work wonderful, but less good than a good 4500€ vinyl deck with a moving coil...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.