Vinyl Rip vs Orignial CD

[Don Hills]

OK, I even tried Google image search, and I give up - tell me where that comes from.

 

 

1812 Overture * photo - Canon DSLR Challenge photos at pbase.com

 

I think I actually found it somewhere else, but a Google search turned the one above up. I'll see if I can find it in context.

[Don Hills]

... I most likely got it from a post on Audio Asylum forum, though there is also a copy in a post on Polk Audio forum. No additional information in the posts, though, so the original source is still to be found.

 

... the Polk Audio post copy traces back to the pbase copy.

[davide256]

This was just an experiment to see how close a vinyl rip was to a well mastered CD.

 

We used a CD and Record of Mahavishnu Orchestra Visions of the Emerald Beyond. We choose these because on A/B testing the CD and record sounded very close to being the same, the CD is not overly compressed like most.

 

We adjusted the loudness of the Vinyl rip and CD to be as close as possible using audacity. The CD was louder because I was using a low output MMC1 moving cross cartridge.

 

We tested the USB device and Sansui Phono base noise levels, the Sansui was basically zero and the USB was very quite vs some others we tested. Both well under the sound of the needle on the record.

The equipment used.

 

- Sansui AU717 phono preamp. We compared this to several newer external units and was surprised how much lower the Sansuis noise floor was.

Sansui AU-717 Integrated Amplifier – Old School | TONEAudio MAGAZINE

 

- Very inexpensive Ambery USB Analog to Digital converter using default windows driver. USB Audio Recorder Editor MP3 WAV OGG AIFF Encoder

 

- Windows 10 desktop PC with audacity software set to 32bit float bit depth/44.1k sample rate.

 

- B&O 8002 turn table with MMC1 cartridge Soundsmith SMMC1 moving-iron phono cartridge | Stereophile.com

https://www.beoworld.org/prod_details.asp?pid=307

 

 

The CD and Record rips were both made to flac files without compression.

 

Results:

 

On A/B playback the main difference was the occasional pop or snap from the needle, the files sounded remarkably the same. Only if turning up the volume very loud in a section with no audio could a difference be heard. It was not electrical hum, it was mostly the sound a needle makes with the vinyl.

 

From this I would have to say there is no need to spend $3000.00 on a Analog to digital converter. The snaps and pops would still be there and you would be out 3000.00 - $13.00 (Price of device on amazon)

 

Any improvement would most likely be minute.

 

The B&O turntable is a fashion statement, not an audiophile quality turntable. I shuddered every time one of these came into my store in the 80's. Anyone who plays vinyl on one of these is confusing ability to track a record with ability to reproduce whats on the groove.

[mkrzych]

Hey guys,

I've found this thread and thought that I will chime in. Recently I am thinking to purchase good, entry level TT being rather digital medium fan and using computer and my CD player as main source.

 

Why I am thinking about TT, you may ask? Well, one of the reason is mentioned here, CD as medium is good and may sound very well if recording and mastering is done right - take a look at the AudioWave Blue Note XRCD24s - those are awesome to my ears.

 

Unfortunately, CD as medium is treated to my perception and mass market medium to be listened mostly in your car or boombox music players. Of course vinyl may be done poorly as well, but my main reason to look at vinyl is that being 50s/60s jazz music fan you may find vinyl releases: first never released on CD, but even if not the case, poorly transferred/done on CD medium. Here high resolution comes down to help and in most cases it helps, but again there are so called high resolution files out there which are also poorly done and dynamic range is like DR7-9 for 24/192 files (sic!) or upsampled/downsampled from PCM/DSD.

 

The last thing is SACD - also mentioned here in the thread. I don't have SACD player, but I've found that CD layer of those disks is quite often much better than the regular CD - case with Analogue Production SACDs - I believe that CD layer is mastered the same as SACD layer, but for different final resolution, isn't' it? That's why time to time I am buying SACD, you may think that's strange, but because SACDs are rather niche comparing to CD and downloads IMHO and cost much higher, they may have better mastering and diligent tape transfer done much better.

 

What do you think? Am I crazy or just looking for the best possible sound for my beloved music?

[RAJ1]

The B&O turntable is a fashion statement, not an audiophile quality turntable. I shuddered every time one of these came into my store in the 80's. Anyone who plays vinyl on one of these is confusing ability to track a record with ability to reproduce whats on the groove.

 

the point of this is not what type of turntable. I have thorens, Sansui and other turtables too. It was just a test. And you are wrong on B&O, they were very complicated but a mavel of engineering. They did not skip easily etc. Many good things about them and many jealous people like you.

[Norton]

Hey guys,

I've found this thread and thought that I will chime in. Recently I am thinking to purchase good, entry level TT ...What do you think? Am I crazy or just looking for the best possible sound for my beloved music?

 

Seems like a great idea to me. I came to vinyl after CD (although nearly 20 years ago now). For me it's still the most realistic sound reproduction, giving that sense of musicians in the room that I just don't get to the same extent with digital sources. It's also great fun sourcing LPs from the 50s, 60s and 70s, although since the recent vinyl revival people seem to think that every LP is worth £££££.

 

Also depends on what you mean by entry level, a TT/Arm/Cartridge package from Rega will certainly be fine, maybe Project too. Have you got a phone stage? Alternatively, a used example of something better could be a wise buy, but again nowadays these tend to be priced as classics, rather than unwanted old tech. A Garrard 401 would be a nice companion for those classic Jazz LPs.

[mkrzych]

Seems like a great idea to me. I came to vinyl after CD (although nearly 20 years ago now). For me it's still the most realistic sound reproduction, giving that sense of musicians in the room that I just don't get to the same extent with digital sources. It's also great fun sourcing LPs from the 50s, 60s and 70s, although since the recent vinyl revival people seem to think that every LP is worth £££££.

 

Also depends on what you mean by entry level, a TT/Arm/Cartridge package from Rega will certainly be fine, maybe Project too. Have you got a phone stage? Alternatively, a used example of something better could be a wise buy, but again nowadays these tend to be priced as classics, rather than unwanted old tech. A Garrard 401 would be a nice companion for those classic Jazz LPs.

 

By entry TT I meant indeed Rega RP1 with Performance Pack - it won't be my primary source, but I found that some releases are better on vinyl or only on vinyl from Blue Note or Columbia. I have Marantz PM6004 with integrated phono MM stage - think at start may be fine.

 

There are good sounding digital versions or high resolution transfers, but every time you need to do research a priori to check if worth money.

[Jud]

By entry TT I meant indeed Rega RP1 with Performance Pack - it won't be my primary source, but I found that some releases are better on vinyl or only on vinyl from Blue Note or Columbia. I have Marantz PM6004 with integrated phono MM stage - think at start may be fine.

 

There are good sounding digital versions or high resolution transfers, but every time you need to do research a priori to check if worth money.

 

Being able to listen to my best-liked (and sometimes the only available) versions of the music I love was the primary motivator not only for me to keep my turntable and LPs, but also for getting a DAC that can accept DSD input. I think what you're planning is a great idea.

 

The vinyl resurgence has had an beneficial side effect for me even though I am not buying new LPs. Local stores that sell new and used vinyl frequently sell used CDs, which are available cheap (seen as less desirable than LPs by the stores' clientele) and are frequently from the era before the "loudness wars" hit. I've picked up some great old CDs, or even CD box sets, for between $1 and $3 apiece.

[mkrzych]

Being able to listen to my best-liked (and sometimes the only available) versions of the music I love was the primary motivator not only for me to keep my turntable and LPs, but also for getting a DAC that can accept DSD input. I think what you're planning is a great idea.

 

The vinyl resurgence has had an beneficial side effect for me even though I am not buying new LPs. Local stores that sell new and used vinyl frequently sell used CDs, which are available cheap (seen as less desirable than LPs by the stores' clientele) and are frequently from the era before the "loudness wars" hit. I've picked up some great old CDs, or even CD box sets, for between $1 and $3 apiece.

 

Thanks Jud, I am also time to time seek for old CD's, checking first the dr loudness database - indeed you can pick them up from the stores very cheap. For vinyl, I have few records in mind that may sound best on vinyl and even available in high resolution they are not up to the level they should be.

[dungdn93]

Given the age of the components and their relatively low cost, it's no wonder little difference was heard

[whoozwah]

if a vinyl and CD are made using the same master, I prefer CD.

if a vinyl and CD are using different masters (most popular music), I prefer a vinyl or vinyl rip.

 

CD masters of pop music are compressed to hell and back. vinyl masters, less so.

[android]

Being able to listen to my best-liked (and sometimes the only available) versions of the music I love was the primary motivator not only for me to keep my turntable and LPs, but also for getting a DAC that can accept DSD input. I think what you're planning is a great idea.

 

I agree Jud.

 

I picked up a AudioTechnica with a built in 48/16 ADC and I've been ripping my vinyl using Audacity.

 

A really clean, well pressed record will get me a rip that sounds pretty equivalent to a CD or maybe a bit better.

If there are big pops, I can use the repair tool in Audacity to fix those. They show up pretty easily in the track wave view.

 

It had been really difficult to take Buckingham Nicks in the car or Rick Wakeman Rhapsodies in the car before. The needle was skipping every time I went over a speed bump.

 

I also picked up a Roland/Cakewalk UA-1G 96/24 ADC which is giving me pretty decent rips of 1/4" tape and stereo analog out of my SACDs and DVD-As. Once again, I've grabbing pretty off the wall stuff like Chet Atkin's Teensville from Commercial 1/4" tape made in 1960.

 

I don't really care if it is as perfect as a modern remastered flac because it's music I now have in my library to listen to whenever I want.

 

Tape deck heads wear out and cartridges wear out, so I am trying to preserve those components as much as I can.

[Uselessoldman]

New vinyls are not the same as the old original vinyls, since most if not all re-released vinyls are basically taken from a digital master source. Old original 1960-80s vinyls never hit anything digital. except maybe the odd synthesizer sound, all the recording process was done in analogue. Now everything is done in digital.

 

I have an old digital recording studio (Yamaha 01X) which I have owned from new and tried ripping vinyl and compared with CDs MP3s Flac DFF and lets say they are ALL DIFFERENT and all have their place depending on what your source media is and format.

 

Which is best? I would suggest taking one single album and then compare all the various formats to decide. Some you simply cannot beat vinyl, others not so clean cut. But then before anyone says anything, it depends on your audio system and your EARS !! I would also argue speakers and amps made today are made for digital not analogue sound, the whole argument is one massive can of worms.

 

I would also argue you cannot rip a vinyl and get the same reproduction recording from a digital source there after. For some reason it just never sounds quite the same. In fact I came to the conclusion you need two audio systems, one for digital and one for vinyl, I bought some newer Q Acoustic 2050i speakers with a Onkyo amp, great for digital too clean for vinyl and also use use my old NAD with my old B&W 602 speakers (revolver rebel record deck) and they sound completely different in comparison with the same source. all using QED cabling.

 

Conclusion, NONE, but Led Zep and any heavy rock/punk/indie CAN sound crap in digital compared to analogue but you will never get 5,1 on a vinyl so digital beats the pants off vinyl for Pink Floyd since I think some recordings in 5.1 smashes stereo in SOME CASES Dark side of the Moon for example. Only conclusion is that todays audio gear is all about cleanness where as analogue is alive dirty muddy and with body, NO digital can do that it gets completely lost no matter what you use or HOW MUCH IT COSTS

 

now for the ear bashing

[rando]

The best playback I've ever heard was an analog recording, digitally remastered. then pressed to vinyl, and finally ripped to DSD512.  

[Don Hills]

54 minutes ago, rando said:

The best playback I've ever heard was an analog recording, digitally remastered. then pressed to vinyl, and finally ripped to DSD512.  

 

Imagine how much better it would have sounded if the digital master had been available directly.