Vinyl or CD ??

Let's fight

(cool topic idea by Certif1ed)

For practical reasons, nr. 1: CD

For the ambiance, nr. 2: vinyl

One almost killed argument!! Spot on, Joren!!!

However, it's not just "ambience" that makes vinyl win over CD aesthetically - the covers are "warm" and wonderful things to own. It's a bit like collecting stamps or art, except that vinyl has a practical purpose beyond either in that you can not only gaze at the magnificent artwork and go "Aaaaah" to your heart's content, but you can listen to it as well!! Many albums had/have magnificent gatefold sleeves, or sleeves that folded out into massive posters, and nice little bits and pieces tucked away inside. You just don't get that with CD.

I'm hoping that someone with a scientific bent can explain the theory that "proves" that the sound of CD is better than vinyl.

There are problems with vinyl, of course; once you've played it, it will never sound the same, as you are dragging a diamond (hardest substance known to man) across soft plastic. Not only that, but it moves from side to side and up and down. With CD, a cool laser shines through holes in a plastic-coated aluminium disc. There is next to no wear throughout the disc's lifetime.

HOWEVER.

Vinyl sounds better - particularly a first pressing - because it is ANALOGUE, like sound itself. There is NOTHING digital about sound - it is constant and never stops. Anything in a digital format either exists or it does not exist. On or off. No room for compromise...

Except for Digital-Analogue Converters (DACs), which I do not understand fully. These have filters to "muddy" the sound and restore some of the analogue feel. But I cannnot see how they can escape from the nature of digital.

16-bit CDs particularly are a con - and mp3 is MUCH worse. NEVER pay the same, or anywhere near as much for an mp3 as you would for a CD. mp3 audio is COMPRESSED and, no matter what the bitrate, will NEVER sound as good as 16-bit CD.

24-bit CD does not leave out data that 16-bit might simply ignore (especially in dense sections and moments when there is, for example, a subtle reverb at a very low level). This is why vinyl tends to have more presence than the current crop of 16-bit CDs - you may not necessarily hear what is different, but, because sound has a physical effect, you will FEEL it.

24-bit (AKA SACD or DVD Audio) leaves out practically (virtally!) nothing. It has a wider dynamic range and far greater dynamic presence. It is superior to vinyl in this respect - but, like all digital music, retains some of the "clinical" sound.

In the end, it's like comparing digital photographs to "proper" photographs. Somehow, digital images look "too real". As any photographer will tell you, you cannot replace natural chemical grains with digital pixels. Or can you...?

For me, listening to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side Of the Moon" on First Pressing vinyl is the ultimate way of hearing that album - apart from the original master tapes (which I have heard.../smug).

So vinyl for me, please!!!

Maybe it's just me being silly, but, I can't stand the "snap crackle pop" if I'm not eating cereal. I spent gazillions on cleaners, vinyl protectors and other such products and every album, after numerous and I mean NUMEROUS plays, sounded like an AARP dental convention(old people making smackin' sounds with their false teeth, oy!!).

I traded in over 700 (that's seven hundred) vinyl albums (including some first press, and many prog) for $300.00 and 30 (thirty) CD's in 1987. Except for the first press issues, I haven't looked back.  

I understand the (slight) loss of highs and lows, but for me... CD all the way.

landberkdoten wrote: It's all about lifestyles I think. Vinyl is that leap back in time that reminds us of a simplier time, CD's are the next step to an even simplier way to live... Vinyl are cheaper, CD's are not! Vinyl are as not as long life lasting as CD's  (and don't get me started about sound quality ) So, after all of this nonesense I've said, yes, my kind of format all the way is definitely CD!

1) Lifestyles - There could be an element of that, for sure, but my lifestyle involves collecting vinyl, in the same way that many people collect stamps.

2) "Vinyl are cheaper" - In the same manner as stamps, since vinyl is very delicate and wears quickly, good condition copies are hard to find - especially of popular records, as people tended to play them (how could they ). A First Pressing of "In The Court Of The Crimson King" fetches up to £500. "Please Please Me" by the Beatles is worth £2,500 in it's original STEREO release. And the White Album - well, if you've got one of the first 50, you're looking at the best part of £1,000,000.

The other side to this is that less vinyl is produced now, because CD is so much cheaper - and returns far greater profits - for the Record Industry. Hence a CD costing £10 MIGHT have a vinyl equivalent costing up to £20, if the label thinks a vinyl version will sell at all. Newer vinyl can accumulate in value at a silly pace - Oasis albums fetch between £30 - £150, and even Coldplay and Travis are highly collectable.

The way to preserve vinyl is, of course, tape it (like we did in the olden days!) or burn it to CD. Yes, you've digitised it, but you can then listen to the music anytime you like, and if you need that vinyl "hit", you can dig it out from the rack and spin it up!

Only worn vinyl does an imitation of Rice Crispies - or worse, bacon frying. It can be replaced, if you're bothered enough and go hunting on eBay. If you get a nice First Press in proper Record Collector EXCELLENT condition, there should be next to no "frying". A little background crackle is a nice ambience for some music - in fact there are some bands, especially trip-hop, that add a crackling effect to digital mixes!

3) Why not start on the sound quality? That is one of the points of this thread, after all!!! A First-press vinyl LP, with little wear, sounds 100 times better than any 16-bit CD - remember, it's not just the sound. "Dark Side of the Moon" is my case in point. And if you've never heard Led Zep II on FP vinyl, you've never heard Led Zep!! That puppy shakes windows, walls and roofs!! I'll be selling a copy on eBay in the next few days, if anyone with a turntable is interested...

I've been collecting vinyl for about 2 years now, so I'm relatively new to the "vinyl jungle" I agree that vinyl offers a far better listening experience than CDs. It certainly depends on the equipment, but anyone who is still under the impression that CDs sound better than vinyl, should try getting some decent equipment (doesn't need to cost a fortune) and get hold of your favorite record in a high quality pressing, then you should be in for a listening experience beyond the usual.             

Jim Garten wrote: Ever tried rolling up a 'special' cigarette on a CD cover? Album covers are the perfect size to sit on the lap...... or so I have been told....

Hmmm, Special cigarette? What could you be saying old man, suffering from glaucoma, now, are ya?  

Certif1ed wrote: 2) "Vinyl are cheaper" - In the same manner as stamps, since vinyl is very delicate and wears quickly, good condition copies are hard to find - especially of popular records, as people tended to play them (how could they ). A First Pressing of "In The Court Of The Crimson King" fetches up to £500. "Please Please Me" by the Beatles is worth £2,500 in it's original STEREO release. And the White Album - well, if you've got one of the first 50, you're looking at the best part of £1,000,000.

Yeah I hear you! But in that lifestyle order I was talking about, it certainly depends where u from... for instance, here in Mexico we have this very popular music flea market called "El Chopo" were every Saturday people get together (it's mostly similar to a Swap Meet... ) and exchange, sell, buy music (it goes from the oldest and rarest albums to find till brand new cd's and artists...) so it's easier for me to get a vinyl album of Yes, Zappa, VDGG or Pink Floyd for less that $1.00 usd a piece... it also depends on the public preferences, for instante, where you live, UK; people are more appealed to prog rock than we do here... it's all about cultures and sub-cultures... (although during the past 15 years, Mexico's become a very visited forum for prog bands...  )

As an old(er) timer who grew up with vinyl...its got to be CDs every time.

Don't get me wrong, LP sleeves are far superior, CD's should come in LP sized covers. Sound wise though, CDs for me are much better. I don't buy the analogue is better theory, I like to hear top quality sound without clicks, hisses, etc. I don't want to have to worry about a worn stylus destroying my collection. I like getting 80 minutes of music on a CD, espcially bonus tracks on remasters of the classics.

I still have my vast vinyl collection, but its becoming more and more dormant as I replace so many with CD. I don't think I could part with them though, not yet anyway.

There's no VS with me..

I love them both.. I am recording some vinyl on mp3 (i could make an topic of HOW you can make your vinylwork on mp3!)
So i've got my albums.. and some beautiful posters in 1 buy!
But just the cd takes away alot of work.. and some music isn't availible in vinyl format.. so yeah.. uhm ok.. Love them both!

Try this:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5020879-1.html?legacy=cnet - http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5020879-1.html?legacy=cn et

I really miss the LP covers and inserts, but not the hiss and crackle, which drove me absolutely nuts. The usual 16-bit CD Audio does sound 'clinical' in comparison to a new LP on a high quality HIFI though, although 24-bit DVD Audio is supposed to be very good. I've got a DVD player that plays DVD Audio as well as video, but my amp is not good enough to bring out the difference, and I'm not going through the hassle and expense of investing in yet another amp.

What we need, in my opinion, is a completely new, static technology, i.e. no rotating discs, moving laser heads etc. that eventually go out of alignment or seize (as one of my CD players did), and no discs that can get scratched easily. I'm waiting for 24-bit (or higher) audio albums with 6 channels on something robust no larger than an xD-Picture Card, with high resolution graphics also stored on the card, so that I can look at high quality album art and text on a big TFT TV, TFT screen or even wall projector while I'm listening to the music.

And while I'm on the subject of CDs, the person who designed the so-called Jewel Case cannot have been an engineer: the hinge lugs are so flimsy the darn things break very easily. It's a very poor design in my opinion.

Fitzcarraldo wrote: ...24-bit DVD Audio is supposed to be very good... It's like the difference between 16-bit pictures and 24-bit pictures - at certain resolutions they look more or less the same, but zoom in and the pixellations and other digitised artefacts are noticeable. With audio, that means turn it up a bit and the flat dynamics and audio artefacts can become apparent. MP3s are the best demonstration of this - many DVD players also play CDs with MP3s on - and the artefacts that are unnoticeable on your PC suddenly become far worse than the crackle of vinyl. What we need, in my opinion, is a completely new, static technology, i.e. no rotating discs, moving laser heads etc. that eventually go out of alignment or seize (as one of my CD players did), and no discs that can get scratched easily. We've already got that - solid state MP3 players are but the beginning of such technology. All we need is a device that will store and reproduce 24-bit 192Khz audio files, with a capacity equal to the average DVD (around 5Gb) that doesn't cost too much. 5Gb RAM is currently £1,000 or so, retail, and prices are dropping every year. I don't see why it shouldn't reach the consumer market in 2-3 years. In the meantime, I'm quite attracted to the mobile mp3 devices that have hard disks - up to 40Gb (maybe more!). 40Gb will store 8,000+ mp3s, which will sound OK on a portable player designed for the job (ie Creative or iPod). And while I'm on the subject of CDs, the person who designed the so-called Jewel Case cannot have been an engineer: the hinge lugs are so flimsy the darn things break very easily. It's a very poor design in my opinion. With all the money we're expected to pay for the things I totally agree! CDs cost a fraction of what it costs to produce vinyl LPs, so we should not be paying so much for them. When they introduced CDs in the 1980s, Vinyl LPs were around £5, and CDs were at least twice that. It costs less than 10p to produce a CD, excluding artwork and printing costs - so why didn't prices drop to reflect lowered production costs...

I'll still collect vinyl first and foremost for the warm sound and great artwork - it is possible to track down 2nd hand first-press copies that have had little play and still sound good - and then burn them to CDs. That way, if the CD dies, you just create another one - and you have the wonderful artwork that came with the vinyl into the bargain. It's quite a simple matter to run the recording through Goldwave first to remove the crackle before you burn the CD.

The other advantage is that when you upgrade a copy, your old copy can still fetch a nice amount on eBay, as there are many collectors out there!

Nice discussion here! My two cents:

When talking about vinyl sounding better than the CD keep in mind that during the 80's and certainly toward the end of the LP era, most pop and 99% of all classical recordings were done digitally. So if you had an LP of let's say The Boston Pops playing "Jukebox" tunes, these recordings were done on 24 track digital machines, mixed and mastered in the digital domain and then released on vinyl as well as on CD. Claiming the LP sounded better than the CD in this case was a bit silly, right? However, some audiophiles fell in this trap.

I have a few classical LP's in my collection, recorded before 1978 on analog tape machines, mixed and mastered in the analog domain and released at that time on vinyl only. Later I bought the same on CD and "did the test". Yes, of course they sounded different, with the LP winning on all fronts. Here however the mistake was made, as with most pop LP's released in the 80's, that the record company used the analog master tapes and converted them in to digital, not realizing the mastering engineers had boosted the top end, so after playing the LP a few times the highs from the LP still sounded reasonable. This was the reason many audiophiles rejected the CD, because they sounded so "harsh"! Later the record companies adjusted the mistake and started to release the so called re-mastered versions.

Even today, they continue to re-re-re master and re- re- re- release the same products over and over again (as if they did not make enough money already). To be honest, the latest re-releases, since the early 2000's sound incredibely good. Just yesterday I bought Emmylou Harris' "Quarter Moon In A Ten Cent Town" of which I also had the original LP. Guess what, the CD wins on all fronts! An excellent mastering job, this time around. (I don't care for the extra tracks, but hey, they have to give you an excuse to buy this thing, right?).

So in conclusion having analog recordings all the way through to LP still sound very very good (must have good equipment). Early CD's sounded like crap, but we've come a long way with 24 bit mastering, SACD and DVDA and they can match and even surpass the analog recordings. (one last note: audiophiles always like to have the widest frequency range and widest dynamic range. Even professional analog recorders, like the ones from Studer had filters in the 30 kHz area in order not to get into beating with higher bias recording frequencies. The dynamic range of a classical orchestra is 80 dB or more, which is impossible to record on vinyl . Even CD's have a limited - on purpose - dynamic range, so that not everyone blows up their speakers, blows out their windows or blows up whole neighborhoods) 

Greetings form a (skeptical) audiophile!

Not only was stuff remastered to death, but then there was this "Direct Metal Mastering", as if that was supposed to be a good thing! The process involved creating the mother from a copper disk instead of a lacquer. The advantage is that the sound is clearer, and copper disks are much easier to make. The disadvantage is that the grooves aren't as deep, meaning a much less fat sound.

Creating lacquers is a real art, and there are certain engineers who have a high reputation. These guys often carved their names into their work - e.g. "A PORKY PRIME CUT". Got a Led Zep 1st pressing? It's a Porky! And you can tell - those Plum and Orange 1st presses are a great way to test your stereo to breaking point, especially Led Zep II. Later pressings were always on thinner, softer compounds - especially during the 1980s, where you could easily flex most LPs. Avoid those!

More recently the trend has been for 180 - 200g heavyweight vinyl, and the sound is better.

But I've yet to hear anything to compare to a late 1960s - early 1970's first pressing. I can recommend anything by the Beatles - especially if you can track down a "Near Mint" Mono version of Sgt Pepper. Should be around £50-£60, but it's worth it! The bass on that baby is awesome!! Led Zep III is another good bet - you can normally get a really nice Plum and Orange "Do What Thou Wilt - So Mote It Be" for £10-15 - same as a CD (the engineers often asked the bands if they wanted anything carved in the run-out groove at the end of the lacquer. Maybe they should have waited for Mr Page to come down a bit first...).

One of the best things about collecting vinyl is wandering into those old vinyl shops in back alleys or charity shops, then suddenly discovering a near-mint 1st press marked at 50p.

Beats collecting CDs, I'd say!

Certif1ed wrote: But I've yet to hear anything to compare to a late 1960s - early 1970's first pressing. I can recommend anything by the Beatles - especially if you can track down a "Near Mint" Mono version of Sgt Pepper. Should be around £50-£60, but it's worth it! The bass on that baby is awesome!!

I've got one! I've got one! I've got one! I've got one! I've got one! I've got one! I've got one!

bought it for 10 euro's.. A very mint copy!

10 Euros? is it a UK copy? If so

You lucky brd!!!!!!

I bought my first for £45, then, because it was a really rare variant with wide spine and long flaps, tracked down a normal spine version for £12.50 (inc shipping) and thought I'd got a bargain. This latter had an unsplit "Fool on the Hill" inner as well as the proper dark green cutouts - and mother/stampers of 1 AG /1 AR - very early!

I'll get my anorak...

Certif1ed wrote: 10 Euros? is it a UK copy? If so You lucky brd!!!!!! I bought my first for £45, then, because it was a really rare variant with wide spine and long flaps, tracked down a normal spine version for £12.50 (inc shipping) and thought I'd got a bargain. This latter had an unsplit "Fool on the Hill" inner as well as the proper dark green cutouts - and mother/stampers of 1 AG /1 AR - very early! I'll get my anorak...

I don't know for sure... I can only mark the "1967", It is printed in the netherlands tough

It's a gatefold sleeve, with this with it:


So ehm yeah.. well it will never be a bad album

Right, you audiophiles, perhaps you can put me straight on another question that has been niggling me for some time.

As far as I understand it, Audio CD technology as originally invented by the Dutch electronics giant Philips is fundamentally 16-bit, i.e. commercial CD players have 16-bit D-to-A converters to turn the digital signal from the CD back to an analogue signal. Is my understanding correct?

Now, I have seen (and indeed own) a few gold-coloured CDs labelled as "24-bit encoded". How can a 24-bit signal be played through a 16-bit D-to-A converter? Or is the "24-bit" referring to the encoding of the master, which is then subsequently converted down to 16-bit to burn onto Audio CDs? In which case, does it actually make a difference aurally? Surely it does not if the limiting factor is the 16-bit CD Audio format. Of course, if the studio master is recorded as a 24-bit signal and used to produce DVD-Audio or another decoding format which *does* use 24-bit D-to-A conversion then I could understand the benefit. But I don't see why there should be a difference playing on a CD player a 16-bit Audio CD encoded from a 24-bit master and the same album encoded from a 16-bit master. Surely the end result is the same? Can anyone enlighten me?

Fitzcarraldo,

I can spend hours, even days explaining the concepts of digital recording techniques, but that would get very booring very soon. Also explaining the "hype" about "everything digital" is a chapter in itself. To make a long story short, "24 bit encoding" does not mean the actual CD has 24 bits. The CD format has never been and will never be more than 16 bits PERIOD. The Redbook format (an industry standard) dictates 16 bits and the show ends there and then. Recording a project in 24 bit is possible ('though it is very hard to actually use all of the 24 bits, as it was in the early days of 16 bit ADC's and DAC's) mixing and mastering is also possible in 24 bits, but then comes the kicker. In order to make this signal ready for CD one can ignore the 8 extra bits (called truncating them) or one can use a scheme called dithering. Truncating is thank goodness not in use (anymore). The dithering process recalculates the 24 bit signal into a 16 bit signal and according to the hype: "preserving the dynamics and precision of the 24 bit signal". Granted, a dithered 24 bit signal sounds better than a straight recorded 16 bit signal, theoretically it has to, but a 16 bit signal can NEVER "preserve the dynamics" of the original 24 bit master, because it is a pure matter of mathematics. So anything on a regular CD that says "recorded in 20 or 24 bit" means simply everything BEFORE the pressing of the CD was in the higher bit rate, the CD will still be just 16 bittaroos.

BTW the number of bits has a direct relation to the dynamic range, for 16 bits theoretically 96 dB and for 24 bit 144 dB. This wide dynamic range has no real meaning, because if you stand direct behind a jet taking off, the difference of that noise with total silence (0dB) is around 120 db and that is so loud, it could damage your inner ears. The average dynamic range of the average pop record is (GET THIS) no more than 15 dB!!! So some sceptics have asked the question, why do we need all these super audio formats (like SACD and DVDA) when most people listen to crappy (meaning: dynamically compressed) recordings anyway............ good question! Besides, we have now the so called digitally compressed formats like MP3 that reduce the dynamic range even more, let alone diminish other "digital precision"; why bother recording in 24 bits?........another good question. At least the record companies have accomplished what they had in the pre-digital era, a master of a higher standard than what Joe Schmoe listens to in his car, on his iPod or in his home (if at all).

Both Philips and Sony were working on digital formats in the mid and late seventies. To avoid diferent formats and format wars these companies decided to work together and release the CD as we know it. All other formats like CD-R, CD-RW, CD-ROM, CD-Video and others are a progression of the original CD format. It's all "just zero's and one's on a piece of plastic".

Easy comparison:

Any of the 1st 3 Marillion CDs were re-released as 24-Bit Remastered versions. And they seem to have a much wider dynamic range whatever trickery is used!

mimusica

Great to have someone aboard who knows this stuff in some depth!

Which side of the *opinion" do you take - does vinyl sound better than CD to you?

Good question, Certif1ed! I could not give you a straight answer, simply because I do have technical knowledge "in some depth" and I have been a promoter of digital recording/mixing and mastering. However I must say that every time I listen to a true analog recording I am flabergasted by the "naturalness" of it. And I don't mean LP's in this case. Original analog (analogue) recordings on professional analog tape playback systems sound incredibly good. LP's... I can not listen to too much, because when the needle gets over half of the record, the speed at which the needle goes through the grooves has gone down by 50% and the distortion increases almost exponentially. I simply can not listen to songs at the end of any 33 rpm record, because of this (IM and other) distortion. Obviously pops and other noises from a record will make me sit up straight, a "tick" left over since the early days of digital.

I am in favor of well (re)mastered recordings, preferably from original analog tapes, however there have been some excellent recordings made over the last twenty years in high resolution digital (20 or 24 bit) that can stand the test of time. I would like to emphisize here, that there are bigger differences in recording techniques, microphones and/or loudspeakers than there are differences in 16, 20 or 24 bit recordings. Anyone who buys a set of cheap little stereo speakers, places one on a bookshelf and the other behind curtains or a couch, should not engage in discussions about differences between vinyl or low or high resolution CD's. IMHO good loudspeakers set up in a decent environment with decent gear to run them, create a much greater listening satisfaction, then any fuzzing about the differences of good old vinyl, CD's, 16 or 24 bit recordings. I have a dedicated stereo system next to a home theater system (in a different room even), both expansive and expensive enough to make some people declare me rife for the asylum. Anyway, the love for music made me do it.....isn't that all that counts?

100% Vinyl, totally.

I don't know if someone's already said this, but technically DAC converters shouldn't alter the sound at all, merely convert it into a listenable format.

Technically, yes, but they use an algorithm to calculate how to convert from digital to analogue. That means an amount of guessing to fill in the gaps that digital necessarily leaves.

It's been argued that this is imperceptible to the human ear - but sound doesn't only affect the ears, even if you do completely buy that argument!

Maybe my ears are somewhat jaded, because I really don't mind the distortion in the inner grooves or the pops and crackles - it's all part of the vinyl listening experience to me! Makes it all the better when I head into the studio to record stuff - I don't mind background noise, rather I try to encourage some, as I've never been to a gig where I haven't been aware of the noise from the equipment at some point. To my ears, it's all authentic sound and is ambient.

I know I'm not alone in this, because that's one of the points behind 4'33" by John Cage. There's no music for that period of time and one of the ideas is that you listen to the ambient sounds in the auditorium (and pray that no-one has a hacking cough or bad digestion - or that they do, depending on how evil you feel!).

Just got my vinyl copy of "Outside Inside" by Blue Cheer today. There's so much equipment noise on that it'd sound horrible if it was ever cleaned up!

There's nothing like a brand new vinyl. Pity it scratches too easily.

Hello,

Someone wrotes:

"When talking about vinyl sounding better than the CD keep in mind that during the 80's and certainly toward the end of the LP era, most pop and 99% of all classical recordings were done digitally. So if you had an LP of let's say The Boston Pops playing "Jukebox" tunes, these recordings were done on 24 track digital machines, mixed and mastered in the digital domain and then released on vinyl as well as on CD. Claiming the LP sounded better than the CD in this case was a bit silly, right? However, some audiophiles fell in this trap. "

Analog is another world compared to numeric.

Even "digital" vynil are often better than the latest CD version( on a good system of course)

It's the same when you copy a cd to a k7 with a good deck (like nakamichi 1000 or even a pionner ctf 1000, for example) the k7 sounds much better than the CD!

Vynil is the best

and CD is realy really poor

hello,

It's cause i've heard real good turntable versus big CD

and the vynil is very much better in terms of image, dynamic, precense, and in the medium/aigu, you can't compare.

CD hurts your ears, whether you can listen to vynil during hours without being tired.

Cd is good if you have a 50.000 dollars budget and then you buy the best Mark Levinson drive and converter.

But a very high-end turntable is even much better!

My advice: buy a Rega planar3 turntable (500dollars ) and it'll be much better

than CD 10X times more expensive.

Best musical regards

I have played 2112 on Remasterd Cd and The Original Lp, side by side.

The vinyl sounds "weightier", but the overdubs are clearer on the CD version.

I prefer the Vinyl version.

I remember buying the CD version of Machine Head by Deep Purple and it sounded almost like a different piece of work to the LP. It just didnt seem to be as good.

Maybe us older members have got used to the LP format because that's how we first heard our music and developed our tastes.

My wife listens to her CD's on a plasticky JVC mini system and when she occasionally uses my expensive Arcam-Nad-B&W setup she says her stuff sounds better on the JVC!!!!Maybe our ears get used to hearing the music a certain way and any change from this must give a less pleasurable sensation.

You may have struck upon the problem!

"The vinyl sounds "weightier", but the overdubs are clearer on the CD version"

Yes there is more "sound matter" on the vynil, and the Cd sounds thin

The Cd sound ios like a skeleton.

Reed Lover wrote: Maybe us older members have got used to the LP format because that's how we first heard our music and developed our tastes.

I remember when CD was launched, and bought "Dark Side of the Moon" and "So". The sound quality was better!!

Am I eating my words here?

Not a bit of it.

I acquired a First Pressing of "Dark Side of the Moon" when I got back into collecting vinyl, following a lucky purchase of a FP "Revolver" (stereo, not the megabucks mono, unfortunately...). The FP of DSOTM is a million miles away from the nasty, flimsy 1980s pressing I had.

In short, CD is better than the flexi-disc stuff they used in the early-mid 1980s for many releases, especially re-releases and "Nice Price" versions (because it was so thin, there was less up and down movement of the stylus, hence less dynamic, and the LPs wore out more quickly and ended up sounding fuzzy as well as flat and lacking in bass).

However, get a FP Beatles album on vinyl and you're talking. I mean listening! The quality of that plastic is superb, and the dynamic is still breathtaking after all these years - even with loads of surface scratches on. Get one without surface scratches, and that is musical nirvana.

Back to my hunt for a FP ITCOTCK...

The oil crisis of the mid-seventies ruined LP's!!

Something else to blame on the Muslims!

At the end of the day CD is more convenient and slighty more durable and perfect for making copies, God do I hate tape! Although my dad had one of them reel to reel jobbies and that seemed to sound pretty decent (given it was Elvis and Jerry Lee)

On the other hand LP's with their gatefold covers and lyric sheets felt like something worth cherishing, like a proper souvenir and that counts for a lot in my book. 

Reed Lover wrote: The oil crisis of the mid-seventies ruined LP's!! Something else to blame on the Muslims! At the end of the day CD is more convenient and slighty more durable and perfect for making copies, God do I hate tape! Although my dad had one of them reel to reel jobbies and that seemed to sound pretty decent (given it was Elvis and Jerry Lee) On the other hand LP's with their gatefold covers and lyric sheets felt like something worth cherishing, like a proper souvenir and that counts for a lot in my book.

I love tape

Take a musical cd player and copy a Cd on a good tape deck like Nakamichi1000 or Studer a700 for example and you'll be amazed by the result.

The copy on tape sounds much better cause it's less agressive in the medium-aigu

The result is somewhere betwen the vynil and the CD...

...Moreover the pb on the Cd is that they "inflate" the sound in order to

compensate the nature thinness of numeric . So it's not natural, and it gets

your ears tired very  quickly. Whereas analogical vynil are perfectly neutral and

natural.

but it you want a good sound with a turntable, you have to have a good one (like Rega Planar 3) with a moving coil (like a 1000 Dolars Dynavector) and then you are in the musical heaven...

If you've got a sh*t Vinyl playback ancillaries your gonna get a sh*t sound which even the cheapest of CD players are gonna better.

Top notch Vinyl grinder & you got the best playback.

As long as it's not one of these that is

Rega

Linn 'Condek'

But there's probably no salvation for most, as there tuned unto the digital garb they listern to everyday.

oliverstoned wrote: Yes, a good linn, with dynavector moving coil, well put horizontally on a relaxa plate (the best vibration canceller ever), with transparent cables...

Best table for a Linn is the bird table in the back Garden

I've got a Relaxa somewhere they are pretty good.Much prefer the Townshend 'Siesmic sink'

You know a good hgigh end cable when it blows your power amp up

oliverstoned wrote: Relaxa is the best vibration isolation system... Sorry!

So which hi-fi mag reviewer tod you that?

Hes a technical breakdown Oliver as you seemed to be a big reader

	Isolation System	Relaxa
Magnetic suspension for vibration isolation Technical specifications Characterization of the attenuation coefficient  The attenuation capability has been measured with the experimental set-up shown in fig.1  The floating table has been suspended over a moving basement. A controlled periodic displacement of the basement has been generated and the corresponding displacement induced in the floating table has been measured with a modulated microfocused laser. The attenuation is defined as the ratio between the amplitudes of the oscillations of the basement and those of the floating table: a = A1/Ao  The oscillation frequency has been chosen in the typical range of ambient vibrations (f = 2pw between 10 and 300 Hz). The corresponding curve is shown in fig. 2.  In this case the curve has been measured with a null load suspended onto the table. The corresponding curve with a load follows the same trend but the absolute value of the attenuation coefficient is reduced due to the effect of the load. In other words the above curve represents the worse situation from the point of view of the attenuation efficiency. However, it is interesting to consider that these values of a are typical of the most sophisticated systems used in laboratory equipment and based on heavy and expensive pneumatic suspensions.   The resonant frequency of the oscillating table is in the order of 2 Hz for a null load. This value decreases for and increasing value of the load.   Load capacity  The load capacity depends on the size of the magnets used for suspending the floating table. The proper choice of the magnet shape and size can be done by considering the force versus distance curve typical of a couple of magnets.      The repulsive force acting between two magnets (in grams) is shown as a function of their distance (in mm) for different shapes and sizes of the magnets. The lowest curve of fig. 3 has been measured with two cylindrical magnets having 18 mm diameter and 5 mm thickness. The upper curve has been measured with two cylindrical magnets having 23 mm diameter and 10 mm thickness.

oliverstoned wrote: Thanks forthat technical description For those who don't know, this system is in magnetic levitation, like the japanese train, which gives a total immunity to vibrations. i don't trust hifi reviews cause here in France, there are very bad. American reviews are better. Your "What hifi" is not bad. This is experiment that learn me that this vibration canceller system is the best (for many devices: most sources, preamp...)

Opposing magnetic poles.As you know when you connect two opposing poles they will obviously try pushing  away hence the alignment pins in each of the two corners.This is how this table works,your gear is floating in mid air.The only contact the top & base have with each other is the pins edge,being circular its virtually non touching as it's too small a contact area to even measure.

I do prefer the Townshend 'Siesmic' sink' simular principle but is isolated by air balls,seems to add morelower frequency & depth to the music.

Here it is incorporated into the top & bottom design of there rack

Regarding ''What hi-fi'' i think you'll find it the worse magazine we have ever had.

''Hi-Fi news & record review'' was our top magazine for years,but all the same never read reviews & that goes for album reviews too.

oliverstoned wrote: Forget hifi furnitures! It's expensive, doesn't works and add vibrations! There's nothing like a massive wood furniture, but the best is to put your devices on the floor (with a good floor)with vibration canceller below, of course. Each kind of device needs a specific kind of vibration canceller. Example: for tubes amps, very vulnerable to vibrations, the best is steel triangles with points. It tightens the low freq and enlightens everything.

Duh?

I was just showing the Townshend isolation on a rack thats all.

Well all know racks are wank

Why do i bother?

Oliver i bet you've got a little wank system living in a dream that your constantly reading about

oliverstoned wrote: You make me laugh You're not a real audiophile: You don't have good cables (interconnect+power) You don't have separate electric lines I suppose you don't use power isolation filters I suspect you to lie about what you have "Yes, i must have a relaxa plate somewhere...", when you say you have a 10b, sequerra day, etc... I'm afraid about knowing what is your real system. Here's mine (real): Nad c520 CD player Tuner Denon (wants to upgrade to a Mac MR67) K7 deck Studer A701 (wants to upgrade to a Naka 1000zxl) Preamp Kora triode (tube preamp) Amplifier Jolida 302 with special tubes Speaker Mision M71i srew on Atacama Nexus 7 filled with sand, with 7 kgs of weight on each. Subwoofer Magnat Omega 380 with 100 kg of weight on it. Power cables: Eupen Interconnect: Esoteric Audio Tech3i for modulation (540€ per meter with wbt topline rca)+Esoteric audio Accupath hp (150 € per meter). For HP cables, i have bicable+double the low freq cable, which makes 3 cables per speaker! 3 electric separated lines for my system+power filters for preamp and source; double filtering on analog source and triple on CD. Metz FM antenna All is soldered with WBT silver solder. Vibration cancellers:Fadel amethyst, golden sound cones, sicomin plates. I'm gonna make a big upgrade on my Jolida soon by passing the source selector (transform it into a pure power amp), and replacing all the connect by WBT topline connect. I'll do it for my speakrs too.

Oliver what the hell are you talking about

I've explained i buy & sell hi-fi & have huge socks at a time which gives me a lucky opportunity to swap & change alot.

I do have a relaxa table actually & if you'd like to know i pulled it out yesterday for a customer.

If you don't believe me thats you problem i'll sleep.

Don't ever call me  lying because as i read your posts you contradict yourself a lot your the liying little bastard.

Some of that gear you have is utter wank.

& by the way dont use WBT silver solder cos as reaserch & practice tells me it's not good & will break down in time regardless of it being silver.IAR Wonder solder from US is the best sounding solder.

Your system with the NAD DENON MISSION is load grade tosh.No signs of you sh*t deck there?

MAIN SYSTEM AT THE MOMENT:

 PINK TRIANGLE 'ANNIVERSARY/HELIUS 'ORION/DYNAVECTOR'XX2'MC

AUDIO REASERCH 'SP9' TUBE PRE

KRELL 'KSA100' POWER AMPS'(I HAVE SOME OLD CLASS'E AMPS COMING IN SO WILL GO)

SONUS FABRE 'CREMONIS' SPEAKERS.

ALL CABLES ARE KIMBER 'SELECT KS1021'

RATA MAINS FURIFIERS & CLAMPS & MAINS CABLES.

Funny enough i have an old pair of ARC 101 louspeakers from the early '80's & sound miles better than the Sonus Fabers

oliverstoned wrote: As you see, i'm not a hifi snob, anyway i have a low budget as i'm young. Yes, i have a Nad on Cd, cause i don't want to invest more in digital. Price means nothing, of course i know there are better speakers and Cd player than what i have. But for the price...ther's not! Your system seems to be quite good... What's your turntable? Idon't understand what you said about wbt solder... WBT is the absolute reference!!!

Oliver stop being an arse for a while & don't try telling me about hi-fi i'm older & have been selling it probably longer than you've been into it.

My turntable is the Pink triangle/Helius.

I will try & get you a live picture

WBT is silver solder silver is ok but has been proven to break down over the years,if it not correctly applied this is a problem too.

US 'IAR WONDER SOLDER' Has absolutly no lead content,sounds better than silver solder & melts at a low temp.I suggest you get some.

that has the SME fitted though.

There are different kinds of integrity. At least when you have a digital copy of something, you know that's the way it stays and you know you can copy it, play it as much as you like, lend it to someone else etc. and it will remain the same. Maybe that's not always a good thing, but in most situations it's an advantage.

While I have come to agree that vinyl is quite probably better sounding than CD (I don't have high quality equipment or records to convince myself, but one day..!) there must come a point when digital technologies will be indistinguishable from analogue ones - no one in the world could tell the difference between an analogue signal and a digital one sampling a million times a second at a bit depth of a million (all other things being equal) - while everyone's cut off point for transparency will differ dramatically, there will be a point for everyone. I think the best policy to adopt is to try and improve digital technologies to get them as close as possible to emulate true analogue sounds so we can also use the advantages that digital recording has.

goose wrote: There are different kinds of integrity. At least when you have a digital copy of something, you know that's the way it stays and you know you can copy it, play it as much as you like, lend it to someone else etc. and it will remain the same. Maybe that's not always a good thing, but in most situations it's an advantage. While I have come to agree that vinyl is quite probably better sounding than CD (I don't have high quality equipment or records to convince myself, but one day..!) there must come a point when digital technologies will be indistinguishable from analogue ones - no one in the world could tell the difference between an analogue signal and a digital one sampling a million times a second at a bit depth of a million (all other things being equal) - while everyone's cut off point for transparency will differ dramatically, there will be a point for everyone. I think the best policy to adopt is to try and improve digital technologies to get them as close as possible to emulate true analogue sounds so we can also use the advantages that digital recording has.

Only CD player i ever had that sounded like record was an accuphase.

But you miss the joy of vinyl,hands on & all that.

oliverstoned wrote: "I need the integrity of digital." False.

When I spoke of the integrity of digital, I meant the constant 'sameness' of the sound recording, not the actual quality of it. I just meant that I could listen to the music over and over and over again and not worry about it wearing out. I need that kind of durability if I am trying to learn the parts to a song.

BTW, I found Tarkus on 180 gram vinyl for $20 USD!! I nabbed that sucker right up. Other 180 gram stuff is usuall $35- $40.