Vinyl vs. CD

Heavyfreight wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Digital (CD) (limited in bandwidth, dynamic, low/high,      I know that you are always complaining of being "got at" Oliver but what you have just written above is patently untrue. CD's have a higher bandwidth (difference between lowest and highest frequency reproduced) than any domestic analogue medium ever produced and 16 bit digital audio has a higher dynamic range (difference between quietest and loudest sound) than vinyl or any analogue tape can achieve. Those are undisputable FACTS. That doesn't mean that you can't prefer the sound of vinyl to CD, many people do, but making statements like the above just make the rest of your arguements look stupid. It's like claiming that a 747 can fly faster than a Concorde.

I have a lot of vinyl beacuse I am in my late forties. The trouble with CD's is I struggle to read the sleeve notes/lyrics of a lot of CD booklets. There is still somethisng special about opening a gatefold album!

Tyrant wrote: I think you have misunderstood something. A CD cannot reproduce frequencies higher than 20 000 Hz. And nothing below 20 Hz either. An LP can theoretically reproduce frequencies from 0 to 100 000 Hz. Most people only have a hearing range of about 25-17 000 Hz, but science have established that it is possible to feel frequencies below or above this, that will influence the sound that you actually perceive.

Frequencies below 20Hz aren't sound, but simply vibrations. Even if such frequencies were recorded on a vinyl, the turntable would not reproduce them - audiophiles even use special devices to cancel out vibrations.

As far as supersonic frequencies are concerned ... I haven't read any scientific papers which confirm this. I don't believe it, but I also cannot disprove it.

Tyrant wrote:  That has been said to be the scientific reason that a good LP will always have a better sound than a CD, and is also one of the reasons that the newer super Audio digital formats now can reproduce frequencies up to 96 000 Hz. But the CD is stuck with its 20 000.

For such metaphysical debates I always like to come back to the good old listening test - and they show that most listeners (even those with "good ears") fail to tell CD and DVD-Audio / SACD apart.

Even if there was a very slight, but noticeable difference ... I'm sure that it doesn't affect your listening experience.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - November 13 2006 at 07:35

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ not just on paper - it just sounds good, so people don't notice it.Why is it so bad to admit that CD is technically superior to analog media? That doesn't mean that you can't still prefer vinyl.

    
I return you the question why is it so bad to admit that digital is a regression and that the fact that it's limited and that info are missing breaks the ears?
I would love that digital works, it'd save me a lot of work to find good condition first pressing vinyls to replace the awful unlistenable overbumped Cds.

Despite that, i've invested a lot in a big CD setup and i'm happy with it cause it sounds analog enough to be earable (with the very few good Cds existing). But it's crap compared to a good tapedeck, turntable or tuner.


    

Edited by oliverstoned - November 13 2006 at 07:42

Tyrant wrote: Heavyfreight wrote: oliverstoned wrote: Digital (CD) (limited in bandwidth, dynamic, low/high,       I know that you are always complaining of being "got at" Oliver but what you have just written above is patently untrue. CD's have a higher bandwidth (difference between lowest and highest frequency reproduced) than any domestic analogue medium ever produced and 16 bit digital audio has a higher dynamic range (difference between quietest and loudest sound) than vinyl or any analogue tape can achieve. Those are undisputable FACTS. That doesn't mean that you can't prefer the sound of vinyl to CD, many people do, but making statements like the above just make the rest of your arguements look stupid. It's like claiming that a 747 can fly faster than a Concorde.   I think you have misunderstood something. A CD cannot reproduce frequencies higher than 20 000 Hz. And nothing below 20 Hz either. An LP can theoretically reproduce frequencies from 0 to 100 000 Hz. Most people only have a hearing range of about 25-17 000 Hz, but science have established that it is possible to feel frequencies below or above this, that will influence the sound that you actually perceive. That has been said to be the scientific reason that a good LP will always have a better sound than a CD, and is also one of the reasons that the newer super Audio digital formats now can reproduce frequencies up to 96 000 Hz. But the CD is stuck with its 20 000.

Who says a CD cannot go below 20Hz? In theory, if it were possible to make speakers and amplifiers to do this, any digital media can reproduce down to as close to 0Hz as you can get. True a CD cannot faithfully produce over 20KHz (going by the Nyquist theorem that states that you need a sampling rate of greater than two times the highest frequency that you wish to reproduce). I was incorrect in my previous statement about the upper frequency limits and agree that vinyl can get above 20KHz; but mechanical noise and distortion becomes a problem as imperfections in and damage to the vinyl become part of the signal. This is partly helped by the RIAA frequency compensation that boosts hf on to the vinyl and then cuts it as it when it comes off (works a bit like Dolby on tapes. However vinyl cannot possibly reproduce very low frequencies because of the electro mechanical nature of the analogue pickup. It produces a voltage proportional to the rate of change of the signal. As you approach 0Hz you have negligable rate of change and therefore negligable signal. This means that you need to amplify the lf as it comes off a vinyl and this leads to unwanted rumble and other problems. All this gives vinyl a very definite lower frequency limit. A digital device can keep sending the correct digital signature for the amplitude of the signal even if the signal isn't changing, therefore it can represent 0Hz (although we can't reproduce it). The thing that actually gives a CD player a lower frequency limit is the electronics, most specifically the coupling capacitors in the amplifiers (i.e. the analogue part).

I also doubt these "scientific" tests about "feeling" frequencies outside human hearing limits. It is again all subjective; some say that these frequencies make the sound better, some say that they make the sound worse and most say that they can't tell the difference.

But all this deep tech talk is missing the point. What I disagree with is the force of the language often used against CD. Sweeping statements about how CD audio is "awful", "terrible", "unlistenable". This poll shows that the majority prefer CD so it can't be unlistenable. It does have it's flaws, I can sometimes hear them myself and I have never said that CD was perfect. I have also never said that vinyl was rubbish. A good vinyl system sounds excellent, but you have to spend many times the money to get the same general quality of sound as a good CD and then it isn't portable.

We could now have a modern CD system with 24bits and 96KHz sampling for a similar cost to normal CD. That system would be almost impossible to match, even with a phenomenal vinyl set up, but the market doesn't demand it. Nearly everyone is happy with CD as it stands, there is no real demand for an improvement.

oliverstoned wrote: MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ not just on paper - it just sounds good, so people don't notice it.Why is it so bad to admit that CD is technically superior to analog media? That doesn't mean that you can't still prefer vinyl.      I return you the question why is it so bad to admit that digital is a regression and that the fact that it's limited and that info are missing breaks the ears? I would love that digital works, it'd save me a lot of work to find good condition first pressing vinyls to replace the awful unlistenable overbumped Cds. Despite that, i've invested a lot in a big CD setup and i'm happy with it cause it sounds analog enough to be earable (with the very few good Cds existing). But it's crap compared to a good tapedeck, turntable or tuner.

Mystic fred wrote:

"which ones are they Olivier - can you list them?"


Prog:

-Caravan/Deram remasters (especially "If i could" and "In the land").

-KC/Last HDCD japanese remasters (digipack)

-Zappa/Uncle meat (1993 Zappa approved remaster)

Rock/psyche US:

-Doors remasters

-Crosby/If i could only remember my name (old edition)


To be completed...




    

Edited by oliverstoned - November 13 2006 at 08:47

"I generally don't believe in overly expensive consumer technology ... it becomes obsolete so quickly, especially in the digital realm. I'm 100% sure that my 120€ sound card from 2006 sounds as good as many 10.000€ players from 5 years ago."

Don't dream my poor friend!!!

There are 20 years old Cd setups which are still reference! It means absolutely nothing!
You don't know what you're saying, obviously!

oliverstoned wrote: There are 20 years old Cd setups which are still reference!

Of cousre there are. CD technology has not changed since it was invented and since the original machines had far better mechanics and electronics (at a price) you would expect them to be better. More modern machines, except audiophile ones at ridiculous prices, are cheaply made and therefore do not perform so well. It's the same with vinyl; the best reproduction equipment came very soon after vinyl came into production. OK there may be small improvements in pickups etc (mainly down to materials technology) but they will be small improvements. Now if you could re design the system and use a different media for the disc and maybe cut and read by laser? I wonder how good that might be.
    

oliverstoned wrote: Mystic fred wrote: "which ones are they Olivier - can you list them?" Prog: -Caravan/Deram remasters (especially "If i could" and "In the land"). -KC/Last HDCD japanese remasters (digipack) -Zappa/Uncle meat (1993 Zappa approved remaster) Rock/psyche US: -Doors remasters -Crosby/If i could only remember my name (old edition) To be completed...

The list goes on:

Genesis/ Selling england, 1994 remaster
PF/ London 66/67 Label: Pucka