Vinyl rip vs. CD

[firedog]

Euphonic and less compressed beats digital clipping for me, but I have little interest in 16/44 vinyl.

 

I am hard pressed to come up with many of examples of pop/rock recordings where the CD might be considered definitive, unless we are considering native 16 bit recordings. Maybe some of the DCC or MFSL lab titles? I suppose the gold CD of the mono Petsounds would be a good place to start.

 

I welcome some examples.

 

Personal examples off the top of my head: the ABKCO Rolling Stones SACDs ripped to DSD (and the same masters converted to PCM, even CD), and the recent Who remasters (both SACD and PCM) sound better to me than the original vinyl I own. Ditto King Crimson 40th remasters.

 

On the other hand, the "40th Anniversary" version of "Exile on Main Street" sounds awful to me in both vinyl and disc (poorly redone mix with heavy volume compression). My 70's LP - which I always thought sounded muddy, and a poor sounding LP - sounds way better to me (including digital rip of it).

[Skeptic]

I'm not saying that a good record doesn't sound better than a bad CD, but

- you cannot judge them based on their DR number.

 

I think there's something about the process of ripping vinyl that masks parts of a track where it's clipped in the waveform and invalidates the DR measurement. I can't explain it beyond that.

 

I have some albums where I've bought a couple of different versions of the CD to find a higher quality source, and had a friend rip the record on their turntable setup.

The dynamic range on the rip measures higher and the waveform looks a lot cleaner... but it still has the audible distortions from clipping that the CD did - you just have the vinyl distortions on top of that now.

 

And personally, I really don't like the distortion that vinyl adds to playback. I don't have any nostalgia for it, and it really stands out to me.

 

I'd much rather have a good CD or digital release than rip the vinyl, and in my limited experience, it's rare that a vinyl release sounds so much better that I can overlook the problems it introduces.

[Kimo]

First off, great taste in music, and secondly, you're right about any of those releases I've heard. Fortunately "In Utero" sounds great, because the "Nevermind" reissue a few years back was absolutely awful - it suffered the same compression/volume limiting fate as the digital remaster AND suffered track noise both between tracks and on the inner grooves (more than normal IGD).

 

Some specific labels I can relate are many "Four Men with Beards" reissues, any Def Jam, a lot of 4AD 130-140g is sourced digitally and has a high noise floor... I really would do better to write out some examples at the old record store I worked at, but, alas, it was a casualty of bad management and consumer choice...

 

The 4MWB's stuff generally is to be avoided from what I understand, but I have seen an occasional positive comment on a release. I only own Television's "Adventure," which sounds like a vinyl version of the CD to me.

 

I had forgotten Sundazed. Generally, the CDs sound pretty good. I have never come across a poorly mastered vinyl copy from them, but I have purchased some pretty noisy vinyl. Often, I choose to buy the CD release; Chocolate Watchband, Moby Grape, etc.

 

By the way, I was referencing the ORG releases for the both of the Nirvana records. They seem to do a pretty good job.

[Kimo]

Personal examples off the top of my head: the ABKCO Rolling Stones SACDs ripped to DSD (and the same masters converted to PCM, even CD), and the recent Who remasters (both SACD and PCM) sound better to me than the original vinyl I own. Ditto King Crimson 40th remasters.

 

On the other hand, the "40th Anniversary" version of "Exile on Main Street" sounds awful to me in both vinyl and disc (poorly redone mix with heavy volume compression). My 70's LP - which I always thought sounded muddy, and a poor sounding LP - sounds way better to me (including digital rip of it).

 

I purchased the SHM SACDs for the Who titles, as well as Exile. I have not heard a CD version of those masterings, but I see much love being tossed around for them on the Hoffman site. I would consider many of the SHM SACDs to be definitive. The Who, Black Sabbath, and the Rolling Stones for example. By contrast the SHM SACD for the first album from Dire Straits did not compare well with the vinyl on hand. I would recommend trying the SHM SACD for Exile. The prices have come down quite a bit.

 

I also thought that the recent Stone's DSD sourced vinyl editions sounded much the same as the SACDs. I don't think the CD layer sounds quite as good, but I have never heard any of the single layer CDs.

 

Those recent Stones remasters for the later albums were quite the disaster. Sticky Fingers just sounded bizarre.

 

Many of the older albums were mastered and cut by some very talented people. They certainly produced some good sounding records working with the limitations of their medium. A flat transfer of their best work might very well best a flat transfer of a master tape, even with all the limits of vinyl incorporated.

[WINDIANRECORDS]

The "DCD" Version of "Some Girls" is unbearable; I haven't checked out the "Exile..." you guys are talking about, but I'm sure it's the same group of remasters - each track on "Some Girls" is -.1 dB, whereas the SHM-SACD has variances from tracks as great as -3 dB... Without a doubt, the original album should have variances, due to the dynamic differences in instrumentation and energy from all those songs.

 

Why this happens for classic record remasters is just completely beyond me...

 

Anyways, to note on Skeptic's last comment, I completely agree that even with the upper-middle level set-up I have, it is often not worth it to spend the extra $10-20 on a vinyl when a CD is used as a source - most often that CD is already brickwalled, and the vinyl is just a second thought/cash grab. There are small labels that take their vinyl seriously and send different masters, and fortunately many big releases fall under this category as well - a good example from the last year or two was The Foo Fighter's "Wasting Light" - the record is the same Mix as the CD/iTunes version (which my wife got because she didn't want to wait for me to rip/flac->m4a etc. the album [i'm not always very fast with that]), but the limiting done for the iTunes versions is DASTARDLY! DR5-6 vs DR10-13!

 

Vinyl shouldn't be, but is, buyer beware.

 

[Also, Sundazed are much more reliable than not, they often get very close-to-original copies of the material, and the few Byrds records I've gotten from them are great, as well as the Mono Dylan]

[Skeptic]

The "DCD" Version of "Some Girls" is unbearable; I haven't checked out the "Exile..." you guys are talking about, but I'm sure it's the same group of remasters - each track on "Some Girls" is -.1 dB, whereas the SHM-SACD has variances from tracks as great as -3 dB... Without a doubt, the original album should have variances, due to the dynamic differences in instrumentation and energy from all those songs.

I can't comment on that particular album, but the SHM releases of an album are not necessarily better even if the peaks are lower.

 

Here's a track from the regular CD release of an album, DR4:

 

The SHM-CD release, which is essentially the CD master reduced by 0.4 dB - still DR4:

 

And the same track from a "Greatest Hits" CD - DR7:

 

It's really quite shocking that a "Greatest Hits" CD would have higher quality tracks than an original CD these days, and disappointing that, as far as I know, there's no version of the album the track came from which has been released in this quality - the Vinyl released is clearly sourced from the CD. (same distortions/clipping)

 

It would be possible for the SHM release to sound better on some systems though, if they do not have adequate headroom to prevent inter-sample clipping. The CD release has a true peak value of +1.8 dBTP, and the SHM release is +1.4 dBTP. (measured in JRiver 19)

My DAC has 3.5dB of headroom though, so either would sound the same, and you can always reduce the volume in the digital domain to prevent inter-sample clipping anyway.

 

 

There are small labels that take their vinyl seriously and send different masters, and fortunately many big releases fall under this category as well - a good example from the last year or two was The Foo Fighter's "Wasting Light" - the record is the same Mix as the CD/iTunes version (which my wife got because she didn't want to wait for me to rip/flac->m4a etc. the album [i'm not always very fast with that]), but the limiting done for the iTunes versions is DASTARDLY! DR5-6 vs DR10-13!

Keep in mind that DR values are always going to be higher for a vinyl rip than a digital source. While the record may indeed have a higher dynamic range, the TT-DR meter does not produce accurate results for these files.

[WINDIANRECORDS]

I can't comment on that particular album, but the SHM releases of an album are not necessarily better even if the peaks are lower.

...

 

I know what you're saying about SHM/different media, but they are different masters; I have a very early generation "Some Girls" vinyl, and the SHM-SACD of that particular album sounds practically like a flat transfer (although I may say there's a bit more high-end, but that may be because of many different things) - there is no noticeable compression, limiting, or equalization between the original and the SHM from Japan.

 

The DCD one, which I believed was released in 2012(?) is clearly a different mix/master; there is clear compression (in my mind over-compression), and there's no way there wasn't EQ added as well - there is a big floppy low-end, and due to the compression added, the mid-range is both too forward and non-dynamic. I got the DCD from HDTracks, and was so shocked I did a direct A/B comparison for almost an entire night - my wife wanted to kill me.

 

EDIT - Also, I'm saying that every track is -.1; the variances I speak of in the original album/SHM are integral for the consistency of a record - there is a reason "Girl with the Faraway Eyes" is quieter/peaks lower than "When the Whip Comes Down" - this was a decision made by the band/engineer back when the album was created. To take every track up to its maximum volume deceives the listener as to original intent.

 

As a mastering engineer, I know all about DR, and I also know my ears; I can certainly tell when compression has been added lightly, harshly, for coloration, or to win this sad loudness war that rages.

 

Not to be rude, but I have plenty of monitoring software and meters at my disposal, and a majority of the masters I do (mostly 88.2/24 or 96/24, depending on original source) are near-exact when measured from a vinyl transfer after the fact (Rainbo has done some atrocious removal of bass information on a few records, but that's a different story). We can keep saying DR measurements on vinyl rips are incorrect, but I think that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater; that simple tool that most home listeners use is good in showing the effects of overcompression/overlimiting, and while it may not be perfect, it should not be completely discounted (not that you're arguing that, but it just keeps getting repeated).

[fathomer]

Personally, I would always take a Vinyl rip over a CD version. Simple as. CD has been handicapped by poor mastering initially (any old master was used, inc vinyl rips funnily enough) then the DR wars kicked in. Unless you buy top quality CD's usually from the Jazz stables, or early Japanese pressings you are never going to get a top quality CD, apart from the 'Golden period' of new releases 1985 - 92. Not to mention CD is handicapped by 16/44 mastering and replay. BUT we won't go there as it's a row not worth having.

 

As for Hires releases, these are the ideal for the Digital fan, and 'should' be the way forward. However, lame mastering handicaps these releases too. I find the SHM-SACD's to be seriously poor on average, (only two really grab me) while many other SACD's and DVD-A's have been rushed out to capitalise and as such have poor surround mixes and stereo masters you can do better elsewhere, inc vinyl rips. The likes of Steve Wilson are doing their best to reverse this trend, but even then Wilsons re-mixes are controversial in that many don't like them. His flat transfers though, imo of course, are by and large excellent. This has made the KC 40th aniv series a bit hit and miss. I really enjoy some of them, but others are lame.

 

Back on vinyl ripping, it really depends on who makes the rip and what on? My own rips are awesomely awful. Despite having a quality TT, my PC lacks a sound card that is up to the job. You really need an EMU, junk like Creatives X-fi doesn't cut it. When you hear a rip from someone who a) has a decent TT and B) knows how to post rip process properly, they sound excellent.

 

As for DR, yes you can use it on vinyl. Ignore the idiots who say otherwise, they use voodoo science (made up by themselves) to argue why it doesn't work. The one thing they could successfully argue is that spurious noise can cause anomalies when measuring peaks. So, what you do is, click removal. Then compare the DR from the raw rip and the cleaned rip. Use manual or minimal removal and no music is harmed in the process.

 

Interestingly, neither is the DR value...

[Skeptic]

CD has been handicapped by poor mastering initially (any old master was used, inc vinyl rips funnily enough) then the DR wars kicked in. Unless you buy top quality CD's usually from the Jazz stables, or early Japanese pressings you are never going to get a top quality CD, apart from the 'Golden period' of new releases 1985 - 92. Not to mention CD is handicapped by 16/44 mastering and replay. BUT we won't go there as it's a row not worth having.

Things are not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. I have plenty of CDs with DR12+

 

16-bit audio allows for more dynamic range than the best-case scenario for vinyl playback. (brand new record etc.)

While you may not like CD's, the format itself is not really the limiting factor for audio quality - it's how the mastering is handled.

 

As for DR, yes you can use it on vinyl. Ignore the idiots who say otherwise, they use voodoo science (made up by themselves) to argue why it doesn't work.

"Voodoo science"? You mean things like taking the source master file which was provided to create the vinyl copy, and comparing it against the vinyl recording?

Where the mastering engineer says that the vinyl does not sound as intended, and despite it being audibly degraded, it measures a higher dynamic range than the master file?

 

I cannot tell you what it is specifically that is causing these invalid measurements, but using the TT-DR meter is not accurate with vinyl rips.

[Paul R]

Personally, I would always take a Vinyl rip over a CD version.

 

 

Well, I like whichever one sounds better in a particular instance. Often that is the Vinyl, but more and more often, it the CD sounds just as good, or even better.

 

A good Vinyl RIP sounds just like the Vinyl to me.

 

-Paul

[Rexp]

Well, I like whichever one sounds better in a particular instance. Often that is the Vinyl, but more and more often, it the CD sounds just as good, or even better.

 

A good Vinyl RIP sounds just like the Vinyl to me.

 

-Paul

Hi, can you give some examples where the CD sounds as good or better? Thanks!

[Paul R]

Of course, but the examples will be subjective and open to dispute. Given you understand that, and that I am only talking about albums where I own both the LP and CD versions, and that CD's are always RIPped before playback -

 

Daft Punk - Random Access Memories (I find the CD quite superior sound wise to the LP. Don't know why, but the LP sounds - mechanical compared to the CD. )

Apocalytica - Wagner Reloaded -- Live in Leipzig (The CD is very much more fun to listen to than the LP)

Dire Straights - Brothers in Arms (This is an older CD agains the standard vinyl pressing. )

 

And I have a couple hundred other albums that are ripped from Vinyl which sound exactly the same as the vinyl to me. That would include _Barry Miles - Fusion is Barry Miles_, Fleetwood Mac's _Rumors_ , Kenny Rodgers _The Gambler_, and so on.

 

Yours,

-Paul

 

 

 

Hi, can you give some examples where the CD sounds as good or better? Thanks!

[WINDIANRECORDS]

I have to say that I'm more fond of the separation and imaging on the original Paul Simon "Graceland" CD master than the original pressing I have, but note that any modern digital copy of that album (CD, HDTracks) is a different, highly compressed master. Supposedly the new 25th anniversary Vinyl is great, but I have yet to pick it up.

[Kimo]

Paul, you must prefer the compression of the Daft Punk CD?

 

Just picked up the Raconteurs and the vinyl absolutely crushes the CD. The new Zappas are pretty good, as well.

[c-eling]

I have to say that I'm more fond of the separation and imaging on the original Paul Simon "Graceland" CD master than the original pressing I have, but note that any modern digital copy of that album (CD, HDTracks) is a different, highly compressed master. Supposedly the new 25th anniversary Vinyl is great, but I have yet to pick it up.

 

The 25th is indeed very nice, my drops are done with a focusrite 2i2, does the job quite nicely, so far with new releases on lp my DR has matched those who have posted them, now when the DR posts are of lp's from the 70's and 80's that's when I see some differences comparing mine with the database

Edit: But it seems most of the time no info is given on where it was pressed, if it was a re-press etc, too many variables to say the DR is exact for lp's, my opinion

[Rexp]

Of course, but the examples will be subjective and open to dispute. Given you understand that, and that I am only talking about albums where I own both the LP and CD versions, and that CD's are always RIPped before playback -

 

Daft Punk - Random Access Memories (I find the CD quite superior sound wise to the LP. Don't know why, but the LP sounds - mechanical compared to the CD. )

Apocalytica - Wagner Reloaded -- Live in Leipzig (The CD is very much more fun to listen to than the LP)

Dire Straights - Brothers in Arms (This is an older CD agains the standard vinyl pressing. )

 

And I have a couple hundred other albums that are ripped from Vinyl which sound exactly the same as the vinyl to me. That would include _Barry Miles - Fusion is Barry Miles_, Fleetwood Mac's _Rumors_ , Kenny Rodgers _The Gambler_, and so on.

 

Yours,

-Paul

Thanks Paul, I guess it is subjective....

[Rexp]

Paul, you must prefer the compression of the Daft Punk CD?

 

Just picked up the Raconteurs and the vinyl absolutely crushes the CD. The new Zappas are pretty good, as well.

 

Here is a link to a comparison of the CD and vinyl versions of Daft Punk by a mastering engineer who determines that the difference in sound is more due to EQ than DR:

[Kimo]

DR 8 vs DR 13.

 

I listened to the samples and I get his point, but I think it is still hard to miss the differences, even with the eq switched.

[Rexp]

DR 8 vs DR 13.

 

I listened to the samples and I get his point, but I think it is still hard to miss the differences, even with the eq switched.

 

Yes to me a good vinyl rip kills CD most times, but don't think DR is the reason

[Paul R]

I did not "miss the differences" - I just preferred one over the other. The link Rexp posted finally explained why to me better.

 

And it highlights a point I have always held - more dynamic range does not automatically equate to a better recording.

 

Do you miss that RAM on LP sounds much more like separate threads and pieces stitched together than the seamless whole the CD presents?

 

That is exactly the way it sounds to me. On CD it has a feel like a well led orchestra, while on LP it sounds more like an anarchistic jazz session.

 

Not to say that either one is bad, but I *prefer* one over the other. To assume that is it the "compression" I prefer is a little insulting, as well as incorrect.

 

Yours,

-Paul

 

-Paul

 

 

DR 8 vs DR 13.

 

I listened to the samples and I get his point, but I think it is still hard to miss the differences, even with the eq switched.

[Kimo]

Paul, I was just asking a question. It is a dance record after all.

[fathomer]

Things are not nearly as bad as you make them out to be. I have plenty of CDs with DR12+

 

16-bit audio allows for more dynamic range than the best-case scenario for vinyl playback. (brand new record etc.)

While you may not like CD's, the format itself is not really the limiting factor for audio quality - it's how the mastering is handled.

 

"Voodoo science"? You mean things like taking the source master file which was provided to create the vinyl copy, and comparing it against the vinyl recording?

Where the mastering engineer says that the vinyl does not sound as intended, and despite it being audibly degraded, it measures a higher dynamic range than the master file?

 

I cannot tell you what it is specifically that is causing these invalid measurements, but using the TT-DR meter is not accurate with vinyl rips.

Have you! Well bully for you. I suggest you check out the DR database before making sweeping statements like 'things aren't as bad as you make them out to be'. No, they're worse. I have CD's with a DR higher than 12 (16 on some Jazz discs) that doesn't mean I believe on that evidence that there isn't a problem. Really? 16 bit does all that? Funny then that James Guthrie used 24 bit masters to cut the PF immersion vinyl issues...

 

... and other engineers have said 24/192 can be used to the full for vinyl masters.

 

No, I mean the use of what passes for science according to the author, but in fact has no basis in scientific fact at all. You see it on the internet all the time, in particular with regards Audio.

 

The example you used shows that the cutting lathe was used incorrectly. It's not rocket science. This doesn't happen that often, but when it does the batch should be, and usually is scrapped. At least according to several engineers I've spoken to who actually know how vinyl is produced.

 

What causes inaccurate measurements is cracks and pops on the vinyl. These cause artificial high frequency peaks. When you filter the wave from a vinyl rip and remove these, 'hey presto' an accurate DR value. Again, it isn't rocket science.

 

I'm afraid the 'bad pressing' theory is a bust.

[fathomer]

Well, I like whichever one sounds better in a particular instance. Often that is the Vinyl, but more and more often, it the CD sounds just as good, or even better.

 

A good Vinyl RIP sounds just like the Vinyl to me.

 

-Paul

I have yet to hear a mainstream CD that sound better than the vinyl equivalent. CD is held back by a poor replay system that has so many wrinkles it's a miracle we get good sound at all. My current CD player is a £2,000 Primare. It's the only one I've found that doesn't make me want to kick it on a regular basis due to making me totally on edge.

 

However, it's not worth arguing over as everyone hears things differently.

 

I've compared vinyl rips side by side with the vinyl replay (blind) and there is a marked difference.

 

Again though, it's down to the individual.

 

Remember, according to various influential sources there is no difference in Audio quality between CD and Hires and even more of a hoot, you cannot tell the difference between Blu Ray and DVD. The latter was the result of a survey and accompanying piece by the powerful consumer magazine in the UK, 'Which'.

 

At the same time, the majority of people choose MP3 over CD, and a very, very large number of those can't tell the difference between them either.

 

Once more, it's down to the individual.

 

Yet plenty of people (I would hope) can see and hear a difference.

[Paul R]

The cases are not comparable, not the way you express them.

 

First, when I say CD, I am talking about a digital system where the playback is coming from a computer. Even a very modest computer / DAC setup can easily equal or exceed a $2000 CD player.

 

Secondly, I have listened to vinyl vs digital (CD vs RIP) on many systems- some far more expensive than you might imagine. I understand and appreciate the attraction of vinyl. But almost invariably, I prefer the digital version. Some CD players have sounded very very good indeed - much better than a common digital system. Those CD players were however, transports and went into the same DAC as the digital source- and were quite a bit more expensive. Why they sounded so much better had more to do with the audiophile that owned them that the actual equipment I think. Those systems were setup and tuned perfectly in every respect.

 

Vinyl always sounds like it is a box to me while digital sounds open and unconstrained. When vinyl sounds better, it almost always because of the mastering, not he technology. YMMV.

 

 

I have yet to hear a mainstream CD that sound better than the vinyl equivalent. CD is held back by a poor replay system that has so many wrinkles it's a miracle we get good sound at all. My current CD player is a £2,000 Primare. It's the only one I've found that doesn't make me want to kick it on a regular basis due to making me totally on edge.

 

However, it's not worth arguing over as everyone hears things differently.

 

I've compared vinyl rips side by side with the vinyl replay (blind) and there is a marked difference.

 

Again though, it's down to the individual.

 

Remember, according to various influential sources there is no difference in Audio quality between CD and Hires and even more of a hoot, you cannot tell the difference between Blu Ray and DVD. The latter was the result of a survey and accompanying piece by the powerful consumer magazine in the UK, 'Which'.

 

At the same time, the majority of people choose MP3 over CD, and a very, very large number of those can't tell the difference between them either.

 

Once more, it's down to the individual.

 

Yet plenty of people (I would hope) can see and hear a difference.

[Skeptic]

Have you! Well bully for you. I suggest you check out the DR database before making sweeping statements like 'things aren't as bad as you make them out to be'. No, they're worse. I have CD's with a DR higher than 12 (16 on some Jazz discs) that doesn't mean I believe on that evidence that there isn't a problem. Really? 16 bit does all that? Funny then that James Guthrie used 24 bit masters to cut the PF immersion vinyl issues...

 

... and other engineers have said 24/192 can be used to the full for vinyl masters.

I'm not sure why you think vinyl records would benefit from a 24-bit source.

If we're being really generous, let's say that the noise floor is around 78dB (some would argue that it's closer to 60) which is about 13-bits of dynamic range. (6dB per bit undithered)

 

CD's are 16-bit (96 dB undithered) and a good digital playback system will give you about 21-bits of dynamic range.

 

As I said in my previous post, the format is not the limiting factor.

 

What causes inaccurate measurements is cracks and pops on the vinyl. These cause artificial high frequency peaks. When you filter the wave from a vinyl rip and remove these, 'hey presto' an accurate DR value. Again, it isn't rocket science.

Pops and clicks are not the cause of these inaccurate measurements. They're easily removed beforehand.