Vinyl rip vs. CD

[Rexp]

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.

 

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

 

I'm inclined to agree with you that 16/44 is probably enough, Digital Audio Review are reviewing the PS Audio Nuwave Phono Converter and conclude that a vinyl rip sounds identical to the original vinyl whether converted at 16/44 or 24/96. This doesn't change the fact that vinyl rips kill CD IMHO...

[fathomer]

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.

Not a hope in hell. Unless you think a device that emits EMI to the point where it interferes with surrounding equipment can produce better sound than a hifi. A simple test with a mobile phone reveals why PC is such a poor device for transferring and paying back Audio. That said, a PC with a quality (suitably isolated) DAC can produce great sound.

 

I doubt it. I used to be a HiFi salesman and I've heard (and demonstrated) gear that is unlikely to be exceeded in terms of price. Hence I have such a low opinion of CD. Working with something on a day to day basis, that no matter how expensive always sounded crap, and talking to reps who couldn't believe how the public fell for an (already) antiquated Digital replay system was sobering to say the least.

 

I know how to set up a system as well as it can be, and yet somehow that perfect sound for life eluded me.

 

What you are talking about is a personal preference, which I respect totally. A lot of people prefer Digital music, it sounds inherently 'shinier' as a an Audio engineer put it, and it attracts people for that reason. Digital recording has an emphasis on the High frequencies, which added to it's line level output means it's 'in you face' from the off. If that's what you like, groovy.

 

CD though is held back by it's inability to reproduce the analogue waveform without producing distortion, which is reproduced as artefacts. This results in filtering which completely wrecks any chance of a 'true' reproduction. If you think that's what you are getting your ears are fibbing. This is not my view, but that of Audio engineers who's expertise far outstrips mine.

 

Vinyl sounds better because it's reproducing an analogue waveform as is. A decent TT and Phono stage can give you reproduction without anything needing to be converted and sounds excellent. However, that isn't to say Vinyl is perfection. It isn't. It's riddled with problems of it's own.

 

For me (and that's the bottom line for everyone) it's currently the best on offer.

 

In my view though that should end once Blu Ray Audio is perfected. That offers (once they realise it's full potential) greater bandwidth than anything else. Although they have already crippled it by adopting Hires standard rather than the 32bit that they were talking about prior to launch.

 

It's shocking to me that it's taken the best part of twenty years to get Blu Ray to the market. They were talking about in the trade as CD's potential replacement as early as 1990!

[fathomer]

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.

 

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

What I think about it is irrelevant. Respected Audio engineers have said using a 24bit recording is ideal for vinyl replay. CD is a relic, it can only reproduce sound at 16/44, and this rate was chosen only because it was what the Audio (or more accurately the video) world knew at the time. The early DAC's were 16/44 -48 and were used for Video playback. Rather than draw up a new standard, which they should have done, they adopted the 16/44. The dynamic range was irrelevant.

 

CD has, and this is easy to find out, real problems converting from the staircase digital point waveform back to analogue. The brickwall filtering to remove Digital artefacts creates a harsh unpleasant sound (believe me the early CD players were practically unlistenable to - God knows why people bought them) and it's only when passed through filters that the sound, along with oversampling, was brought back into the listenable domain. However, the filtering for CD with it's 16 bit system means than the final wave has gone through harsh processing to get there - and yet artefacts remain. These are move out of the audio spectrum by oversampling. What you get left with is NOT what went in to start with.

 

With 24 bit audio, the waveform does not have to be so heavily filtered, and with some DAC's now, oversampling is no longer used as those artefacts are no longer such an issue. The waveform is still not perfect, but it's a lot closer than a 16 bit wave.

 

Vinyl requires none of this. It's a reproduction of an analogue wave. Whether that be from the Production Master or from a Digital remaster further down the line.

 

The format clearly is the limiting factor.

 

Really? You think? Then I would suggest that you check with the expert rippers who will show you how the DR value drops once clicks are removed.

 

Mastering is done in three stages:-

 

First the recording. Second comes the Original Master. We, as consumers will never ever hear the Original Master. It's the raw takes from the sessions put together from the mulitracks and is signed off by the artist and engineer. If a CD or whatever says 'taken from the Original Master' it's BS. Technically yes it has (see below), but in reality, no it hasn't.

 

From the OM, production masters are made. These are what we hear. Originally there was just one of these for vinyl pressings. The Production Masters, and any onward are 'Re-Masters' as the Original Master has been tweaked by the production team. The lacquers were taken from this tape and the vinyl cut. If the lacquers or metal parts were damaged then the batch would be scrapped as these would produce distortion. Contrary to popular belief tapes were not sent out from the original Master, any copies would come from the Production master. In the vinyl era metal parts would also be sent out, hence many pressings in other countries were still USA or UK pressings (as shown in the dead wax). Original Masters are never, ever sent out. Only Production masters or copies of them.

 

When CD arrived the producers were in a hurry to cash in, and any old tape was used or CD's pressed then sent out to other countries. As some production plants didn't have master tapes (they had metal parts) they used anything to hand inc vinyl rips, cassette tape copies etc. It was a scramble to cash in. The only country that didn't just run off CD's from any old tape was Japan. Hence audiophiles treasure Japanese first CD pressings. Original CD's from elsewhere in the World, well, 'meh' tbh.

 

In the Digital age, the same process takes place, but the Production masters became two. One for vinyl, one for CD. All were originally recorded at 16/44. Now, the Production masters are split into three. Downsampled for CD, one for vinyl (if there is a vinyl pressing) and the last for Hires. The latter in the Digital domain is the least messed with.

 

There is of course a fly in the ointment...

 

The production master is just that. It no longer belongs to the artist or sound engineer. It's record company property. As such they can take it and brickwall it into submission and there's nothing the artist or engineer can do. Hence even Hi-res discs can be brickwalled or run off from shoddy masters. Which is an utter disgrace...

 

Re-masters are (according to the engineers who supplied the above) everything from the OM onwards. To them it doesn't mean 're-mastered' by so and so', it means literally 'the Original Master re-mastered for Production'. Hence 're-mastered' in the sense we understand it means very little. What is claimed to be a 're-master' could simply be the Production master run through a DSD machine.

[Paul R]

Obviously, you have strong opinions. I seriously doubt you have heard anything comparable to what I am talking about in an average - or even above average - stereo store, but it's possible.

 

i would argue that vinyl has so much built in distortion and such a limited bandwidth that digital is by comparison, pristine. And you are correct that electrically speaking, a computer puts out more EMI ( actually RFI ) than does a turntable. However, even a very modest DAC can dispatch that level of noise without breaking a sweat.

 

The better DACs pay much more attention to power and without question, electrical noise is not a major factor. At least no more than ground plane noise from a turntable.

 

All in all, I think your theory about why digital music is preferred is wrong - digital music is preferred only because it can sound better than vinyl. Since it is a preference, there is no real need to justify whatever one prefers though. Just enjoy the great music you have available.

 

Paul

 

Not a hope in hell. Unless you think a device that emits EMI to the point where it interferes with surrounding equipment can produce better sound than a hifi. A simple test with a mobile phone reveals why PC is such a poor device for transferring and paying back Audio. That said, a PC with a quality (suitably isolated) DAC can produce great sound.

 

I doubt it. I used to be a HiFi salesman and I've heard (and demonstrated) gear that is unlikely to be exceeded in terms of price. Hence I have such a low opinion of CD. Working with something on a day to day basis, that no matter how expensive always sounded crap, and talking to reps who couldn't believe how the public fell for an (already) antiquated Digital replay system was sobering to say the least.

 

I know how to set up a system as well as it can be, and yet somehow that perfect sound for life eluded me.

 

What you are talking about is a personal preference, which I respect totally. A lot of people prefer Digital music, it sounds inherently 'shinier' as a an Audio engineer put it, and it attracts people for that reason. Digital recording has an emphasis on the High frequencies, which added to it's line level output means it's 'in you face' from the off. If that's what you like, groovy.

 

CD though is held back by it's inability to reproduce the analogue waveform without producing distortion, which is reproduced as artefacts. This results in filtering which completely wrecks any chance of a 'true' reproduction. If you think that's what you are getting your ears are fibbing. This is not my view, but that of Audio engineers who's expertise far outstrips mine.

 

Vinyl sounds better because it's reproducing an analogue waveform as is. A decent TT and Phono stage can give you reproduction without anything needing to be converted and sounds excellent. However, that isn't to say Vinyl is perfection. It isn't. It's riddled with problems of it's own.

 

For me (and that's the bottom line for everyone) it's currently the best on offer.

 

In my view though that should end once Blu Ray Audio is perfected. That offers (once they realise it's full potential) greater bandwidth than anything else. Although they have already crippled it by adopting Hires standard rather than the 32bit that they were talking about prior to launch.

 

It's shocking to me that it's taken the best part of twenty years to get Blu Ray to the market. They were talking about in the trade as CD's potential replacement as early as 1990!

[Paul R]

P.S.- 16/44.1 was not chosen only for the reason you think It had a lot to do with a video cassette recorder...

[Keyser Söze]

Examples from the DR Database:

 

Album:

Vinyl: DR 13

CD: DR 7

 

Album:

Vinyl: DR 11

CD: DR 5

 

(The CD versions above are the only digital versions available).

 

Buy and rip the vinyl version or tolerate CD version?

 

Differences?

Results?

Positives/negatives?

 

Comments and opinions appreciated.

 

I can't stand surface noise, so CD, iTunes download, cassette rip if necessary, for me.

 

Plus it seems like you have to spend so much money to have a good vinyl playback system, that I'd rather just spend the money on CD's and rip them into my computer.

[Rexp]

A record like Hotel California on a 200 buck turntable will sound better than the CD on a megabucks digital player. I think poor sound on CD is more due to the recording/mastering process than DR numbers

[Keyser Söze]

A record like Hotel California on a 200 buck turntable will sound better than the CD on a megabucks digital player. I think poor sound on CD is more due to the recording/mastering process than DR numbers

 

I have an original copy of Hotel California on vinyl in mint condition. Will you provide the turntable?

[Rexp]

er well i can suggest you get a Project Turntable for 200 something inc cartridge.....

[firedog]

converting from the staircase digital point waveform back to analogue

 

there is no such thing as the "staircase digital point waveform"; it's just a simplified diagram used to explain what is happening to non-techies. Digital reconstruction of an analog waveform makes a perfectly smooth rounded waveform, not one with steps.

[wkhanna]

A record like Hotel California on a 200 buck turntable will sound better than the CD on a megabucks digital player.

 

In my experience with the equipment I have owned, a clean & cared for LP on a vinyl rig in the $1-2k range will equal the digital equivalent.

 

Above the $2 range & digital begins to start pulling a lead.

 

As far as surface noise & the dreaded 'pops & clicks'.....any uncared for vinyl will display abuse.

If you have only heard such then you have no idea of vinyl's true potential.

 

All generalizations, of course, YMMV ad infinitum, yadda yadda....

[wkhanna]

In my experience with the equipment I have owned, a clean & cared for LP on a vinyl rig in the $1-2k range will equal the digital equivalent.

 

 

Edit: meant to say "exceed"

[Rexp]

Do you have the vinyl and CD version of Hotel California? How do they compare in your view Bill?

[firedog]

Can't we just admit that some of us pretty much always prefer digital and some of us pretty much always analog? I think it is in large part simply a taste/personal preference. Not really something to argue about.

[wkhanna]

I don't feel this is so much an argument as it is an 'exchange of personal viewpoints'.

I quite enjoy hearing everyone else’s viewpoints.

 

I have seen other threads here spiral into the depths of uncivil rancor.

 

AFA Hotel California….

No, I do not own it.

I do, however, have various albums on vinyl & SeeDee from the same master which I have used to make my observations. Some of them are actually digital masters.

 

I know some vinyl purists who refuse to purchase any digitally mastered vinyl. I have found many that are quite good & make no judgments based solely on such criteria.

 

I think we all can agree that the quality of any mastering is essential to creating a good recording regardless of format.

[Rexp]

Can't we just admit that some of us pretty much always prefer digital and some of us pretty much always analog? I think it is in large part simply a taste/personal preference. Not really something to argue about.

 

I don't think it is all about personal preference, is there anyone out there that thinks Hotel California sounds better on CD than vinyl? I doubt it. On the other hand I have some CD's that sound as good as the vinyl version. However the vast majority of CD's do not sound as good as the vinyl and you're better of with the rip. CD playback technology has improved a lot in recent years, we just need the record companies to do decent re masters of classic albums.

[Teresa]

Can't we just admit that some of us pretty much always prefer digital and some of us pretty much always analog? I think it is in large part simply a taste/personal preference. Not really something to argue about.

 

Generally I prefer analog LP or reel to reel tape, however I prefer original audiophile recordings and audiophile remasters of commercial recordings. I'm not a fan of commercial recordings as released by the major labels in any format. Thus I prefer the audiophile remaster on LP over a high resolution download from a major label, and I prefer a remastered audiophile high resolution download over a major label LP.

 

In my 50 years of experience most major labels don't care what their recordings sound like on better equipment, they make recordings to sound acceptable on entry-level department store equipment most of their buyers own. On the other hand the audiophile label's customers own mid-fi and high-end equipment so they are feel to release realistic sounding recordings without worrying how they will be sound on cheap stereos.

 

I've compared the same mastering of Classic Records 24/96 DAD DVDs and 24/192 HDAD DVDs with Classic Records 180 gram and 200 gram LP pressings and in every single instance I liked the LP better. Both formats were remastered by Bernie Grundman to sound their absolute best, so this proves to me that LP is still superior to the highest resolution PCM or DSD.

 

Assuming the same "audiophile" mastering or remastering I prefer in this order:

 

• 2 Track 15 IPS reel to reel
  
• 45 RPM audiophile LP
  
• 4 Track 7 1/2 IPS reel to reel
  
• 33 1/3 RPM audiophile LP
  
• 5.6 MHz DSD download
  
• 2.8 MHz DSD download
  
• SACD
  
• 24/192 PCM download
  
• 24/96 PCM download
  
• DVD-Audio
  
• 24/88.2 download
  
• Audiophile cassettes such as those from MFSL, In Sync Labs, Sound Ideas, etc.
  

[Keyser Söze]

It depends.

 

Typically I prefer a 24/96 download. If there is not a good high-res download, then I prefer a vinyl rip. Run em through ClickRepair, apply declicking and decrackling, then drop into Audacity and play with the EQ to give it a little more life.

[Kimo]

You guys have inspired me to perform a highly scientific test. Basically, I listened to King Crimson's Easy Money on remastered CD, a 24 bit version of the remaster, a 24 bit version of the new remix, a 24 bit UK vinyl needle drop, and a 24 bit US vinyl needle drop. Basically almost all of this is found on blu ray.

 

Results: Nothing sounded the same. No surprise. The 24 bit and 16 bit versions of the remaster sounded similar, with the 24 bringing a bit more smoothness and sense of space with it. The 24 remix sounded similar, but again offered another degree of refinement. Certainly the remix changes things a bit, but it is clear that Wilson endeavored to match the original mix reasonably well.

 

The 2 vinyl rips also sounded different from each other, but similar as well, and unlike those masters made from the tapes. They both sounded a bit more airy, much like my turntable sounds by comparison to my digital set up. Now this may be preferred, and understandably so, but I am not so sure it matches the relatively current sound of the tapes, based upon comparisons to the high res transfers on hand. Of course, it entirely may just be a matter of mastering. My personal experience makes me feel that vinyl playback may add a little air, and also lose a little edge.

 

Perhaps, some vinyl just sounds better than the original tapes. Apparently Mark Wilder feels the same way.

 

Miles Davis, <I>The Original Mono Recordings</I> | Stereophile.com

 

The value of this boxed-set is that Columbia Legacy's chief engineer, Mark Wilder, has gone through all the master tapes (the "A" reels and the "B" backups), picked the better version of each track on each album (sometimes it turned out to be the B), then compared it with the track on an original mono LP, and dialed in tweaks (EQ, frequency balance, compression, etc.) to make the tape sound as much as possible like the vinyl. (Tape ages; a pristine LP doesn't.)

[hogger_129]

Examples from the DR Database:

 

Album:

Vinyl: DR 13

CD: DR 7

 

Album:

Vinyl: DR 11

CD: DR 5

 

(The CD versions above are the only digital versions available).

 

Buy and rip the vinyl version or tolerate CD version?

 

Differences?

Results?

Positives/negatives?

 

Comments and opinions appreciated.

 

Depends on which one sounds good. I'd go for CD just because it's a lot more convenient to rip. If there's no good CD versions, or the good CD version is a real pain or really expensive to get, then I'll go get the record.

 

I know when I play some of my parents' vinyl on my Sony PS-X5, the sound is more relaxed and smooth, almost all the time.

 

That's what prompted me to do a needledrop of my dad's '72 Exile On Main St before I could find the Virgin CD at a reasonable price. FWIW, I still think my needledrop has more life.