Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General Polls
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Vinyl vs. CD
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedVinyl vs. CD
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Poll Question: Which do you prefer
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
25 [59.52%]
17 [40.48%]
0 [0.00%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
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: November 13 2006 at 10:08
You can, indeed, cause it's based on experience and not on smoky theories!
    
    

Edited by oliverstoned - November 14 2006 at 12:59
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 13 2006 at 10:19
BTW: I bought a nice vinyl album today:



Big smile
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Tyrant View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: August 19 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 66 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 14 2006 at 12:50
I do not understand how anyone can say that it's impossible to hear the sound difference between CDs and SACDs! The sound in the latter is in 5 channels, as opposed to the formers 2. It is very easy to hear the sound difference. Which is better, can be debated though. DVD-Audio is generally believed to be a format of better sound quality. Unfortunately, very few music recordings are available in this format.
 
It also surprises me that many hasn't heard about the fact that people can perceive (not hear) sounds of higher frequencies than 20 000 Hz. I thought this was a well known fact. It was even stated in my high school physics book.
 
But of course, the difference in sound quality between analog and digital sound cannot be explained solely by Hz-bandwidth. Check out this article for more:
 


Edited by Tyrant - November 14 2006 at 12:52
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 14 2006 at 12:55
1. When comparing CD and SACD we're obviously talking about 2 channel SACDs ... of course it would not make much sense to compare 2-channel and 5.1-channel sources.

2. Even if people can *perceive* frequencies higher than 20,000 Hz - I doubt that this perception registers as "music". Frequencies below 20 Hz are also not "heard", only felt (as vibrations). And let's not forget that those frequencies aren't recorded on vinyl and cassettes, media which audiophiles value so highly. So these frequencies can hardly be what supposedly makes analog so great ...

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: November 14 2006 at 12:57
    

Thanks for that clear explanation which points out digital big weakness which is info missing.

Concerning the SACD issue, i'm not in favor of 5 channel, nothing can equals 2 channels IMO(with a sub if you like), on all criterias, especially the image which appears to be less focused and precise with 5 channel.
    

Edited by oliverstoned - November 14 2006 at 12:57
Back to Top
Tyrant View Drop Down
Forum Groupie
Forum Groupie


Joined: August 19 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 66 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 14 2006 at 14:06
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:

    

Thanks for that clear explanation which points out digital big weakness which is info missing. 
    
 
Hmm, there must be something wrong with the link. I'll try to copy and paste the content. Here:
 

The answer lies in the difference between analog and digital recordings. A vinyl record is an analog recording, and CDs and DVDs are digital recordings. Take a look at the graph below. Original sound is analog by definition. A digital recording takes snapshots of the analog signal at a certain rate (for CDs it is 44,100 times per second) and measures each snapshot with a certain accuracy (for CDs it is 16-bit, which means the value must be one of 65,536 possible values).

This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate.

In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost. The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion.

This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise.

From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling.

The recording industry has a new standard for DVD audio discs that will greatly improve the sound quality. The table below lists the sampling rate and the accuracy for CD recordings, and the maximum sampling rate and accuracy for DVD recordings. DVDs can hold 74 minutes of music at their highest quality level. CDs can also hold 74 minutes of music. By lowering either the sampling rate or the accuracy, DVDs can hold more music. For instance a DVD can hold almost 7 hours of CD quality audio.

 

CD Audio

DVD Audio

Sampling Rate

44.1 kHz

192 kHz

Samples per second

44,100

192,000

Sampling Accuracy

16-bit

24-bit

Number of Possible Output Levels

65,536

16,777,216

DVD audio discs and players are rare right now, but they will become more common, and the difference in sound quality should be noticeable. To take advantage of higher quality DVD audio discs, however, you will need a DVD player with a 192kHz/24-bit digital to analog converter. Most DVD players only have a 96kHz/24-bit digital to analog converter. So if you are planning to take full advantage of DVD audio be sure to look for a 192kHz/24-bit DAC.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 14 2006 at 14:17
"This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate."

That's a load of bullsh*t (sorry). The human ear has certain limits as far as frequency is concerned, and modern digital recording systems are well beyond that level.
 

"In your home stereo the CD or DVD player takes this digital recording and converts it to an analog signal, which is fed to your amplifier. The amplifier then raises the voltage of the signal to a level powerful enough to drive your speaker.

A vinyl record has a groove carved into it that mirrors the original sound's waveform. This means that no information is lost."


Another outrageous piece of misinformation. Of course information is always lost in analog recording processes ... there is no such thing as a perfect analog copy.


"The output of a record player is analog. It can be fed directly to your amplifier with no conversion."


The crap continues ... of course there's conversion happening. First the movement of the stylus needs to be converted into an electric signal, and then that signal needs to be boosted and the frequency corrected. During all of this, of course information is lost.


"This means that the waveforms from a vinyl recording can be much more accurate, and that can be heard in the richness of the sound. But there is a downside, any specks of dust or damage to the disc can be heard as noise or static. During quiet spots in songs this noise may be heard over the music. Digital recordings don't degrade over time, and if the digital recording contains silence, then there will be no noise."


Wow - thanks for admitting that there may actually be downsides to analog technology.



"From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling."


These types of graphs are hugely misleading because they suggest that the human ear can actually hear these frequencies. Go to a pet store, buy a dog whistle and test if you can hear it (not a "fake" one which also produces audible low-range frequencies).



Edited by MikeEnRegalia - November 14 2006 at 14:20
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Viajero Astral View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 3118 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2006 at 01:19
Originally posted by oliverstoned oliverstoned wrote:


I'm not against progress, but everything which is new is not -unfortunatly- better.

In the video field, for example:
While DVD offers a less natural image -but sometimes more precise- and a far less good sound than VHS, it's very convenient. Blue ray disc will bring a real improvment in term of image quality.

Plasma screen is another example of regression in term of quality, but maybe people buy it cause it's thin!




Dont worry, the new Laser TV will change that


http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6216/52/
Back to Top
Chus View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2006 at 22:26
I kinda like the muddy sound of the LP... for me it's another ingredient of the music (sometimes).. but CD's are far more reliable
Jesus Gabriel
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: November 22 2006 at 17:49
Vinyl
Back to Top
Paradox View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1059 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2006 at 11:44
Originally posted by el böthy el böthy wrote:

Cd for listening, Vynil for decoration and nostalgia 

    
I agree with you. However, the sound of vinyl is great too, but in a different way than with a CD.
Back to Top
Paradox View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 07 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1059 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2006 at 11:46
I have a couple of SACDs (Weather Report's Heavy Weather and Roger Waters - In The Flesh: Live), but I don't have a SACD player. Where on earth would I find one?
    

Edited by Paradox - November 23 2006 at 11:47
Back to Top
Neil View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 04 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1497 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:00
"From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling."

These types of graphs are hugely misleading because they suggest that the human ear can actually hear these frequencies. Go to a pet store, buy a dog whistle and test if you can hear it (not a "fake" one which also produces audible low-range frequencies).



Also, you may know of Fourier Analysis. This states that any repeating waveform can be represented by a series of sine waves with phase and amplitude co-efficients. What you tend to get with the digital representation of 16KHz from a CD is close to a square wave. A square wave is quite simple to represent using Fourier transforms. It's quite simply the original frequency (16KHz in this case) minus one third amplitude of the third harmonic (48Khz) plus one fifth amplitude of the fifth harmonic (80KHz) etc etc. If you add these sine waves together you get a square wave (people have been doing this inside synthesisers for years). Now a CD player will have an analogue filter straight after the D to A converter and this will very quickly "roll off" the frequencies above 16KHz. By the time you get to 48KHz (the next important frequency in the square wave) the amplitude of the signal is very low. The fifth harmonic is non existant. The result of this is that the actual output looks very like a 16KHz sine wave, because the harmonics that would make the waveforem square have been filtered out.



Sorry, can't paste the graph for some reason.


Edited by Heavyfreight - November 23 2006 at 12:02
When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory.
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:05
Originally posted by Chus Chus wrote:

I kinda like the muddy sound of the LP... for me it's another ingredient of the music (sometimes).. but CD's are far more reliable
 
 
VINYL SOUNDING MUDDY??Confused
 
 
not on your nelly - you probably need a new hamster!LOL
 
 
 
 
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
mystic fred View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: March 13 2006
Location: Londinium
Status: Offline
Points: 4252 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:07
Originally posted by Paradox Paradox wrote:

I have a couple of SACDs (Weather Report's Heavy Weather and Roger Waters - In The Flesh: Live), but I don't have a SACD player. Where on earth would I find one?
    
 
 
 
From collectables to cars, buy and sell all kinds of items on eBay UK
 
 
 
Prog Archives Tour Van
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21206 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2006 at 12:48
Heavyfreight:

Yes, I know Fourier Analysis ... it was part of my college exams. Unfortunately most audiophiles will not accept these things ... it's all just "smoky theories" to them. Of course the real evidence for a non-scientist would be to try to hear the difference between 2khz sine and square waveforms (doesn't matter much whether digital or analog), and then the difference between a 16khz analoge sine wave and a 16khz sine wave from a CD. I bet that everybody will be able to tell  the 2khz sine/square apart, but not the 16khz test.
Recently listened to:
Back to Top
Chus View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: Venezuela
Status: Offline
Points: 1991 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2006 at 16:46
Originally posted by mystic fred mystic fred wrote:

Originally posted by Chus Chus wrote:

I kinda like the muddy sound of the LP... for me it's another ingredient of the music (sometimes).. but CD's are far more reliable
 
 
VINYL SOUNDING MUDDY??Confused
 
 
not on your nelly - you probably need a new hamster!LOL
 
 
 
 
 
 hahaha that was perhaps not the word I wanted to use.... I just wanted to say that LP's create a pleasant enviroment... it makes me sleepy LOL... but indeed it's not the same to listen to a digitally remastered Tales From Topographic Oceans than from a vynil... personally I prefer the enviroment of that music on LP (although there's no much difference between the CD edition and the LP of that album hahahah)... I know it sounds crazy Confused
Jesus Gabriel
Back to Top
jalas View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: September 07 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 283 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 28 2006 at 13:48
CDs are better for the sound quality, but album sleeves were better.

JOIN THE COMMUNIST PARTY!
Back to Top
progadicto View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2005
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 4316 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 30 2006 at 01:07
Vinyl... always vinyl... sounds better that a CD if you have the propiate equipment...
... E N E L B U N K E R...
Back to Top
Mandrakeroot View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member

Italian Prog Specialist

Joined: March 01 2006
Location: San Foca, Friûl
Status: Offline
Points: 5851 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 30 2006 at 16:17
CD for new reciords and praticality, Vynil for old records
 
 
But I vote for CD!!!

Edited by MANDRAKEROOT - November 30 2006 at 16:17
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.201 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.