Interesting debate on Vinyl vs. CD on National Public Radio

[Blake]

...apologies if this has already been discussed here on Computer Audiophile:

 

 

Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not : NPR

[James1776]

Its a matter of money...digital simply is more cost effective until one spends really serious money on vinyl when it pulls away, though Hi-Rez is reducing that advantage

[Blake]

Its a matter of money...digital simply is more cost effective until one spends really serious money on vinyl when it pulls away, though Hi-Rez is reducing that advantage

 

agreed.

 

I like both formats, but at the moment I am sticking with cd, and, occassionally, hi-rez downloads. Cd works for me. I mean, where else are you going to find decent resolution source material that allows you to buy from a large catalogue of music, rather than the unbelievably limited selection available from hi-rez download sites?

 

The part where I diverge from most audiophiles is that I keep on reading posts (not as much on this forum) that "even a cheap or moderately priced turntable sounds way better than a high-end audiophile grade cd player or transport/dac". I think that is ridiculous. I get the nostalgia/romantism about vinyl, but people go a bit overboard in extolling the virtues of vinyl.

 

Again though, I do like vinyl, but damn it is inconvenient, expensive and a pain in terms of convenience.

 

 

It also seems many audiophiles are still pissed off about the "perfect sound forever" original marketing of cd's, and refuse to give cd's a fair shake because of it. That was years ago, and yeah, everyone knows it isn't perfect sound forever, ok, we get it, get over it already....

[ringenesherre]

Yawn :-) And good morning!

 

If you prefer an expensive vinyl setup to a middle class CD setup, that is your choice. But with respect to fidelity to the recording, Scott Metcalf has nailed it pretty much:

 

Well, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm primarily a recording engineer, as far as working with music. And it's - the closer thing to what I'm sending into the recorder is very much what I'm getting back out. With analog formats, although the sound can be very pleasing in certain styles, it's definitely imparting its own sound on it. And I think, to an extent, it's that sound that some people are really drawn to. But it's nice as an engineer to have the confidence of knowing that what I'm putting into - in most cases these days, the computer - is pretty close to what I'm going to get out.

 

So, do not fool yourself that LPs are better (or do, if you so please) :-)

 

Cheers,

Peter

[TimArruda]

I like both formats, but at the moment I am sticking with cd, and, occassionally, hi-rez downloads. Cd works for me. I mean, where else are you going to find decent resolution source material that allows you to buy from a large catalogue of music, rather than the unbelievably limited selection available from hi-rez download sites?

 

My reply to that would be that you are leaving out the obvious, and that is vinyl. And I'm not leaving out CD either, I like it as well. It's a shame that there seem to be so many folks that feel the need to go down the path of "my chosen format is better than yours." (I am not saying that you are doing that Blake.) I make no claims that vinyl is perfect, nor that a cheap turntable is better that an audiophile CD player or what have you. However, there is a huge catalogue of music available on vinyl and my personal experience tells me that clean, good condition vinyl sounds wonderful. I mainly listen to jazz, and there is an amazing amount of jazz available on vinyl, both new and used.

 

Again though, I do like vinyl, but damn it is inconvenient, expensive and a pain in terms of convenience.

 

With the exception of expensive, I would agree. I don't believe that vinyl has to be expensive. I will not argue about spending large amounts of money on a high end turntable and the results that it gives since I haven't done that nor heard one. But the results that I am getting with my turntable that I bought used are extremely pleasing to me. Inconvenient and a pain I can understand. But for me the vinyl vs. digital experience are just very different animals. And I enjoy the vinyl experience not only for the sound, but also the process, and because I love the artwork, and when buying older albums, the history as well. There are certainly times when I'm not in the mood to go through the rigamarole of vinyl and just want to sit down and listen to music, and at those times I turn to digital.

 

As to which is superior, I don't have an answer. My own experience has led me to the place where I believe it has a lot more to do with the original recording and mastering (or re-mastering as may be the case) than anything else. If you take a recording by Roy DuNann, who was the recording engineer for Contemporary Records for years, my experience is that you can listen to it on original vinyl, re-issued vinyl, CD or what have you and it is going to sound fantastic because he did an amazing job. By the same token, I've heard horrible recordings on both vinyl and CD as well.

 

If you prefer an expensive vinyl setup to a middle class CD setup, that is your choice. But with respect to fidelity to the recording, Scott Metcalf has nailed it pretty much:

 

With regard to the whole fidelity to the original recording issue, I personally find this whole thing to be one rather large red herring. (No offense directed to Peter.) Why? Because unless you are the recording engineer and were there when the recording was made, how exactly do you know how faithful or accurate a release is (whether it's vinyl, CD or whatever) to the original recording? I know that Barry Diament talks about how (if I'm not accurate here Barry, my apologies) recording in 24/192 PCM he has found the results to be indistinguishable to the line feed from the microphones. I find Barry to be a rather reasonable fellow whose opinion I am inclined to believe. Having said that, once again, with the music I am buying it is a rare occasion that I will be present when the music is being recorded so I'll never know how accurate it is anyway.

 

In the end what matters to me is how it sounds, do I enjoy it, do I get emotionally involved? If the answer is yes then I am happy. CD, vinyl, hi-res, I enjoy them all. Whatever floats your boat I say. Enjoy the music.

 

Tim

[Julf]

With regard to the whole fidelity to the original recording issue, I personally find this whole thing to be one rather large red herring. (No offense directed to Peter.) Why? Because unless you are the recording engineer and were there when the recording was made, how exactly do you know how faithful or accurate a release is (whether it's vinyl, CD or whatever) to the original recording? I know that Barry Diament talks about how (if I'm not accurate here Barry, my apologies) recording in 24/192 PCM he has found the results to be indistinguishable to the line feed from the microphones. I find Barry to be a rather reasonable fellow whose opinion I am inclined to believe. Having said that, once again, with the music I am buying it is a rare occasion that I will be present when the music is being recorded so I'll never know how accurate it is anyway.

 

Tim,

 

Aren't you in a way answering your own question?

 

Oof the different formats available to us consumers, 24/192 PCM is probably the most accurate, so it is actually a good reference to compare to. So if you have a vinyl recording, a mp3 (just for the heck of it) and a CD of the same recording, the simplistic answer is that "the one that comes closest to the 24/192 version is the most accurate of the 3".

[TimArruda]

Tim,

 

Aren't you in a way answering your own question?

 

Oof the different formats available to us consumers, 24/192 PCM is probably the most accurate, so it is actually a good reference to compare to. So if you have a vinyl recording, a mp3 (just for the heck of it) and a CD of the same recording, the simplistic answer is that "the one that comes closest to the 24/192 version is the most accurate of the 3".

 

Hi Julf,

 

If you are referring to my comment regarding what Barry had to say, unless I am mistaken, I believe he was referencing doing the original recording in 24/192. How many recordings available today were done this way? And if I am looking at music that has been re-issued, chances are it was recorded originally onto magnetic tape. I suppose that I could just make the assumption that if someone does a transfer from master tape at 24/192, say as in Waltz for Debby by Bill Evans, that this will be the most accurate.

 

But essentially the issue for me is once again, unless you were there how would you know? And it may be that I didn't explain very well in my initial post where I was coming from. Ultimately, I'm not all the concerned with accuracy. It's just not that important to me. Say I have three versions of a recording, one on vinyl, one on CD and one hi-res. After listening to all three if I find that I like one particular version better, then that is the one I'm going to listen to most often. Regardless of whether that particular version is CD/Vinyl/hi-res that is the one I'm going to listen to. They could not only be different because of the inherent differences to the formats, but they could also be different masterings to boot. The point being is that for the most part, the format and/or accuracy to the original doesn't mean all that much to me as I have music that I love in all three of those particular formats.

 

Tim

[Julf]

Hi, Tim,

 

If you are referring to my comment regarding what Barry had to say, unless I am mistaken, I believe he was referencing doing the original recording in 24/192. How many recordings available today were done this way? And if I am looking at music that has been re-issued, chances are it was recorded originally onto magnetic tape. I suppose that I could just make the assumption that if someone does a transfer from master tape at 24/192, say as in Waltz for Debby by Bill Evans, that this will be the most accurate.

 

Well, yes, I was thinking about those rare recordings (such as the ones done by Barry) where the material, as originally recorded, is available in 24/192 (or even 24/96).

 

But essentially the issue for me is once again, unless you were there how would you know?

 

That was kind of my point - you would know, by listening to the 24/192 version, assuming it is available (and is really the original recording, and not something re- or upsampled).

 

And it may be that I didn't explain very well in my initial post where I was coming from. Ultimately, I'm not all the concerned with accuracy. It's just not that important to me. Say I have three versions of a recording, one on vinyl, one on CD and one hi-res. After listening to all three if I find that I like one particular version better, then that is the one I'm going to listen to most often. Regardless of whether that particular version is CD/Vinyl/hi-res that is the one I'm going to listen to. They could not only be different because of the inherent differences to the formats, but they could also be different masterings to boot. The point being is that for the most part, the format and/or accuracy to the original doesn't mean all that much to me as I have music that I love in all three of those particular formats.

 

Absolutely. Of course the one we prefer is the one that is best for us. But I was just addressing (in a very simplistic sense) the "how would you know?" question.

[bdiament]

Hi Tim,

 

...I know that Barry Diament talks about how (if I'm not accurate here Barry, my apologies) recording in 24/192 PCM he has found the results to be indistinguishable to the line feed from the microphones....

 

To be clear, I said this about 24/192 "properly done".

I deem this important because, as I said whenever I've talked about my experience with the best 24/192, I've heard a number of converters with "192" on their spec sheet, where the performance was actually *worse* than it was at lower rates, such as 96k.

 

It seems that the opportunity for commerce is much more widespread than the design skills required to create a unit with clocking that is up to the significantly increased demands of the 4x rates (i.e., 176.4k and 192k) and analog stages that can truly perform at the wider bandwidths.

 

So I wouldn't want anyone to think my experience is 24/192 in and of itself confers the qualities I described. This has only been true for me with a few units that seem to be able to achieve the potential of the format.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

P.S. With regard to CD vs. vinyl and which sounds more like the signal fed to it, my experience has been that it very much depends on what aspects of the sound one is listening to. On the surface, i.e., the louder aspects of the signal, CD can sometimes appear to be the truer medium. If one listens below the surface, to things like harmonic structure of instruments, spatial cues and other low level information, for my ears, decent vinyl trounces CD.

 

In my view, digital needed to get to properly done 4x rates to fulfill its promise. Even the best 24/96 I've heard still doesn't beat vinyl in all aspects of the sonics. I think of CD as the "cassette" of digital formats. ;-}

[Jud]

If one listens below the surface, to things like harmonic structure of instruments

 

Hi, Barry. Can you describe a bit more about what you mean regarding "harmonic structure"? Is it something like getting the reproduction of the harmonics right so instruments sound like themselves (and different from each other)?

[bdiament]

Hi Jud,

 

Hi, Barry. Can you describe a bit more about what you mean regarding "harmonic structure"? Is it something like getting the reproduction of the harmonics right so instruments sound like themselves (and different from each other)?

 

Exactly. The harmonics are a large part of what differentiates a Les Paul from an SG or a Steinway from a Baldwin.

I find CD (i.e., 16/44) tends to thin down and "bleach" the harmonics when compared to the source, doing things like making a cello sound somewhat like a Kazoo.

 

To be clear, I often find it amazing just how much can be "fit" into 16/44 but a direct comparison with the source reveals just how much doesn't make the transition - things that easily make it through to even decent (not high priced) vinyl playback.

 

Not just harmonics but other low level info such as spatial details (when present in the recording of course). These largely make it onto vinyl but are compromised with 24/96 and to my ears, decimated at 16/44 - as though the lights in the performance venue have been turned off and the air filled with an obscuring cloudiness. Switch back to the source and the lights come on again, the air clears, the locations of instruments and voices is *obvious* as are the dimensions and other characteristics of the room itself.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[TimArruda]

Thanks for clearing that up Barry, and sorry about screwing it up. "Properly done" certainly is an important distinction.

 

Tim

 

To be clear, I said this about 24/192 "properly done".

I deem this important because, as I said whenever I've talked about my experience with the best 24/192, I've heard a number of converters with "192" on their spec sheet, where the performance was actually *worse* than it was at lower rates, such as 96k.

 

It seems that the opportunity for commerce is much more widespread than the design skills required to create a unit with clocking that is up to the significantly increased demands of the 4x rates (i.e., 176.4k and 192k) and analog stages that can truly perform at the wider bandwidths.

 

So I wouldn't want anyone to think my experience is 24/192 in and of itself confers the qualities I described. This has only been true for me with a few units that seem to be able to achieve the potential of the format.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[TimArruda]

Absolutely. Of course the one we prefer is the one that is best for us. But I was just addressing (in a very simplistic sense) the "how would you know?" question.

 

Thanks Julf, I understand where you are coming from now.

 

Tim

[bdiament]

No problem Tim.

An understandable mistake.

I just wanted to be clear that I've found the spec sheet doesn't always "translate" to the real world performance.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Blake]

My reply to that would be that you are leaving out the obvious, and that is vinyl. And I'm not leaving out CD either, I like it as well. It's a shame that there seem to be so many folks that feel the need to go down the path of "my chosen format is better than yours." (I am not saying that you are doing that Blake.) I make no claims that vinyl is perfect, nor that a cheap turntable is better that an audiophile CD player or what have you. However, there is a huge catalogue of music available on vinyl and my personal experience tells me that clean, good condition vinyl sounds wonderful. I mainly listen to jazz, and there is an amazing amount of jazz available on vinyl, both new and used. But for me the vinyl vs. digital experience are just very different animals. And I enjoy the vinyl experience not only for the sound, but also the process, and because I love the artwork, and when buying older albums, the history as well. There are certainly times when I'm not in the mood to go through the rigamarole of vinyl and just want to sit down and listen to music, and at those times I turn to digital.

 

Tim

 

That sums up my feelings as well. The answer is to have both, if indeed you like the sound of both formats. I sold my turntable a few years ago but I do miss it, and that is why I have been casually shopping for a new turntable for the last 6 months- to have it when the mood strikes as I do think vinyl encourages you to listen to the whole album and that can be a rewarding experience.

 

With respect to my comment about having more music to choose from with cd, I should have clarified that comment is more about current/new releases. I tend to listen to quite a bit of new alternative/electronic stuff and frequently the artist does not release on vinyl so the only option is cd or a low quality download via iTunes (so cd is the only option because there is no way I am going to download from iTunes- I can stream music from MOG in the same sound quality for a low monthly fee). Having said that, it seems that with the resurgence of vinyl, we are seeing more vinyl releases with new alternative/electronic acts.

[Decodering]

Blake,

 

I often find electronic tracks on Beatport: http://www.beatport.com/

 

Two downsides: 1) I pretty much despise the structure of their site, finding it difficult to find what I'm looking for; 2) the markup on CD-quality downloads can be excessive.

 

Happy hunting.

 

Andy

[TimArruda]

That sums up my feelings as well. The answer is to have both, if indeed you like the sound of both formats. I sold my turntable a few years ago but I do miss it, and that is why I have been casually shopping for a new turntable for the last 6 months- to have it when the mood strikes as I do think vinyl encourages you to listen to the whole album and that can be a rewarding experience.

 

I agree. I know that in my case, in listening to vinyl I almost always listen to the entire album. With digital, because of the convenience I'm more likely to move on to something else before the entire album has played through, although this is certainly not always the case.

 

Tim

[wkhanna]

I just got finsihed listening to the entire podcast.

 

Total bullocks.

What a performance in marketing & sales motivated disinformation.

Pure propaganda.

 

Of course, JMHO.

[pawel8]

I have been trying to figure out vinyl or computer audio/cd for couple years now.

Yesterday I went to my dealer (Optimal Enchantment in Santa Monica,CA) and have listened to both Basis turntable vinyl and DCS Vivaldi.

I liked DCS more.

There were representatives from Music Matters,Audio Research,Vandersteen and Audioquest.

Joe Harley of Audioquest had a great presentation of Jazz recording history with plenty of original pictures but little music using expensive Basis turntable and Lyra/Audioquest 10 k.cartridge.

The bottom line to me was that Vinyl can sound great and it did only if recording is from master tape.

Apparently only few people have access to originals and one of them is Joe Harley who also represented Music Matters/Blunote.

Audio Research 250 s are great.