CD verses Vinyl

[Spike Vincent]

[quote name='Zenitram' timestamp='1355057012' post='1893372']
Cassettes do sound ace. I went back to them a while ago and they sound massive, even though I know they're compressed and all that.
[/quote]


Tape saturation.That's why (generally) something recorded onto tape will sound different to something recorded digitally.

[ShergoldSnickers]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355057857' post='1893392']
Well that kicks my Rega's arse sideways but it does for me....... I've got the Marantz 63 KI Sig CD deck, thru Castle Severn 2 speakers, bi-wired.
[/quote]

Castle speakers.... respect. Used to be made in Yorkshire too. I ordered a Rega in the mid 70s - a Planar 2 - from Philip Copley HiFi in Wakefield... and waited.... and waited... and waited.... and gave up. The Linn was spotted in a second hand hifi shop in the mid 80s. Bargain at the time at around £300. Just got lucky there.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355057001' post='1893371']
No it isn't, not by a long stretch, but it's easy to exagerate an issue if you have a point to attempt to make.
In over 30 years of buying vinyl I have only once had to return a record to the shop due to damage & I still have the replacement they gave me. I also have albums on RCA & Polydor (orig. mint copy of Bowie's Aladdin Sane which is way superior to my CD copy of the same, among others) which are every bit as physically heavy as the hi-fi grade 180gm "heavyweight vinyl" that is sold now on reissues.
Nor, once I left my more carefree/careless teens, do I have any records which pop, click or anything else, because I know how to look after them. I have often had visitors say that it sounds as clear of noise as a CD. I have matched the quality of my kit with a more than worthwhile CD deck, so I do find CD obviously more convenient for use - it also gives me a great opportunity to compare recordings of identical albums across two & on rare occasions three formats. (By comparison my recording of Carmen, for eg, on cassette is woeful, the sound is thin, lacking in depth & bass but it was all the shop had at the time, vinyl or CD of it is on my to-do list)
As a listening experience vinyl has the edge on kit of comparable quality, but it is a PITA to get it going.
[/quote]

Then you are a lucky, lucky man. I spent a good part of the late 70s and early 80s returning poor pressings and copies that had obviously been played to death in the shop before being sold. And it wasn't just records on independent labels that had gone to the cheapest pressing plants. Pretty much anything on EMI or its subsidiaries would be suspect for pressing quality. For me every pop and crackle was a blight upon the music it covered.

I still don't have a copy of the "I'm So Hollow" LP. The first one I bought was pressed really badly off centre. I took it back and got it changed. The replacement was no better. We then went through the record shop's entire stock of that record and found that they were all mis-pressed. Even the copy John Peel played on his Radio 1 show was wowing all over the place.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1355057237' post='1893377']
Hate? What has vinyl done to you to deserve that?

I haven't played a record for 30 years but if we're talking about quality of recorded sound then vinyl is still king.

The quality of the sound is such that recorded music is better on vinyl because it isn't compressed, limited and "messed about with" for the convenience of the CD format. That certainly has nothing to do with the quality of the music.

Double the size of a CD and the amount of data on it and CD could well beat vinyl for quality of sound.

CD's and MP3's are all about convenience, but if you really don't want to loose sight of the "important thing", then it'll be vinyl all the way.
[/quote]

Vinyl has ruined some of my favourite tracks by allowing them to pick up scratches that for me overshadowed the music too much.

And don't kid yourself that vinyl isn't compressed. It has less theoretical dynamic range than CD so the music has to undergo compression at the cutting stage. You don't need the over-complression that badly produced CDs feature because you can make vinyl louder simply by allowing more space for the grooves (at the expense of overall running time). Vinyl has its own loudness war. It's just that there is more flexibility in how it's done so the side-effects aren't as obvious - although it can result in discs that won't play reliably on cheaper decks.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='molan' timestamp='1355013973' post='1893073']
CD's are compressed and limited (I really don't understand the technology behind this!) and never seem to sound as open and natural as vinyl to me.
[/quote]

So is vinyl. Have you never heard of the RIAA curve?

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' timestamp='1355058769' post='1893418']
Castle speakers.... respect. Used to be made in Yorkshire too.[/quote]

Yeah, Skipton - not far from me now, then they were bought in to Edinburgh. With ref to the "running-in" thread I was told to give them 5-6 weeks of a few hours a day until cranking them. One day I forgot & switched the sources without thinking (the CD has an in built remote volume, the tuner didn't) and boom! Hendrix very loud! Before I could react one speaker was farting enough to damage the ozone layer.
The shop wouldn't entertain me, & gave me Castle's number, Castle asked for the s/n off the back & I was put thru' to the guy who actually built them - we arranged a return & they replaced the woofer under guarantee .......... after I'd convinced him "honest guv, I was listening to Ladysmith Black Mambaso when it happened".....to which I got a very quizzical "Hmmm" in response.
I've treated them with kid gloves ever since & was very disappointed to hear they'd been bought out by a Chinese company.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1355059067' post='1893424']Then you are a lucky, lucky man. I spent a good part of the late 70s and early 80s returning poor pressings and copies that had obviously been played to death in the shop before being sold. And it wasn't just records on independent labels that had gone to the cheapest pressing plants. Pretty much anything on EMI or its subsidiaries would be suspect for pressing quality.[/quote]
Obviously different markets ............. and maybe explains why my copy of Cliff's "Wired For Sound" is maybe needing rewired.
A few years ago I found a copy of Sandy Nelson's hits from IIRC 1959, still in it's original seal, for a tenner. Now THAT sounds pristinely clear & is one that I have to give the turntable a hand to get going.

[quote name='ShergoldSnickers' timestamp='1355058769' post='1893418']
Castle speakers.... respect. Used to be made in Yorkshire too.[/quote]

Yeah, Skipton - not far from me now, then they were bought in to Edinburgh. With ref to the "running-in" thread I was told to give them 5-6 weeks of a few hours a day until cranking them. One day I forgot & switched the sources without thinking (the CD has an in built remote volume, the tuner didn't) and boom! Hendrix very loud! Before I could react one speaker was farting enough to damage the ozone layer.
The shop wouldn't entertain me, & gave me Castle's number, Castle asked for the s/n off the back & I was put thru' to the guy who actually built them - we arranged a return & they replaced the woofer under guarantee .......... after I'd convinced him "honest guv, I was listening to Ladysmith Black Mambaso when it happened".....to which I got a very quizzical "Hmmm" in response.
I've treated them with kid gloves ever since & was very disappointed to hear they'd been bought out by a Chinese company.

[mcnach]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355005002' post='1892970']
Haven't got a treble control to turn down, or a bass to turn up My amp is straight through, just as it was intended, or at least how the manufacturers tastes would have me believe it was intended.
[/quote]

did the manufacturers know what speakers you were going to use too, and in what room?

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='Spike Vincent' timestamp='1355056401' post='1893359']
Never Mind The Bollocks Here's The Sex Pistols on vinyl sounds exactly the same as it does on CD,apart from all the scratches,through my not exactly shabby Studio Monitors.Sounds better on cassette though.
[/quote]
I may be wrong, but wasn't Never Mind the Bollocks one of the most most compressed rcordings ever, at the time

[Dingus]

The whole contentious question of what sounds better depends on what CD-based system versus which vinyl - based system . If your talking about in ultimate -or even modest- hifi terms , both formats are capable of superb results ( and bloody awful ones too if you get it wrong ) but it depends on the synergy of the components as much as the ultimate limitations of the actual format . BRX is right that vinyl was / is a finnicky format prone to all kinds of error and inherently fragile . Its also an expensive way to listen to high fidelity music as quality turntables have to be extremly accurate pieces of precision engineering , and that never comes cheap , plus turntables need maintainance and accurate adjustment to keep working at an optimum level . Put simply , it's a lot of pissing about to do it properly . CD is a lot more convenient but can be slightly harder to get musically pleasing results . My favourite way to listen to vinyl is on someone elses very expensive system . Vinyl is much harder to spell than C.D too! The O.P would also find that if he were to audition a few newer C.D players in his existing system that he would be able to find one that sounded fairly organic like his turntable without having to turn down the treble on his amp .

Edited December 9, 2012 by Dingus

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='mcnach' timestamp='1355063302' post='1893506']
did the manufacturers know what speakers you were going to use too, and in what room?
[/quote]

Well it's a mainstream brand so they probably assumed their own kit; but it's 65 or 75 watts a side (I forget which) and bi-wirable, so not cheap.
By a lucky coincidence for me it was reviewed by many as being a classic in it's own right for it's clarity & ability, very well regarded at the time. It's the Pioneer A-400X.
Now I see it as the weakest link in the system being very slightly bright but I'm in no hurry, it's not easy to find an amp of comparable quality that has across the board approval, which I don't count as an essential but it helps to narrow down the field, the Arcam's are always great, some say the matching power amp is essential some don't. I like the look of the Kandy range but I'm wary of any company that keeps bringing out upgraded versions in quick succesion.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Big_Stu

[flyfisher]

If vinyl was so great, why didn't they include pops, crackles, scratches, wow and flutter on CDs and also limit them to about 20 minutes before having to turn them over. Oh, and have them actually get physically damaged by scraping a diamond all over them everytime they were played.

Come on people, let's get real - otherwise we'll all be wanting steam trains, coal fires and smog to make a comeback.

[Dingus]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355064216' post='1893525']
Well it's a mainstream brand so they probably assumed their own kit; but it's 65 or 75 watts a side (I forget which) and bi-wirable, so not cheap.
By a lucky coincidence for me it was reviewed by many as being a classic in it's own right for it's clarity & ability, very well regarded at the time. It's the Pioneer A-400X.
Now I see it as the weakest link in the system being very slightly bright but I'm in no hurry, it's not easy to find an amp of comparable quality that has across the board approval, which I don't count as an essential but it helps to narrow down the field, the Arcam's are always great, some say the matching power amp is essential some don't. I like the look of the Kandy range but I'm wary of any company that keeps bringing out upgraded versions in quick succesion.
[/quote]

I would be reluctant to trade in a Pioneer A400x on any of those amps you mention Stu . It's a true classic that sounds pretty dynamic and has got a lot of strenghths that many more expensive or newer amps struggle to match . They were always fairly forthright sounding , but that made them exciting in the right system . I would think you would have to spend upwards of a grand to get an amp that was so significantly better that it was worth spending the money .

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1355065061' post='1893537']
I would think you would have to spend upwards of a grand to get an amp that was so significantly better that it was worth spending the money.[/quote]

Thanks for that, not the first time I've been told that so it's refreshing to hear someone else endorse it.

[Doddy]

I like CD's because I can listen to them in the car.

[Spike Vincent]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1355063800' post='1893513']
I may be wrong, but wasn't Never Mind the Bollocks one of the most most compressed rcordings ever, at the time
[/quote]

Not that I'm aware of,but I shall investigate.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1355064178' post='1893524']
The whole contentious question of what sounds better depends on what CD-based system versus which vinyl - based system . If your talking about in ultimate -or even modest- hifi terms , both formats are capable of superb results ( and bloody awful ones too if you get it wrong ) but it depends on the synergy of the components as much as the ultimate limitations of the actual format . BRX is right that vinyl was / is a finnicky format prone to all kinds of error and inherently fragile . Its also an expensive way to listen to high fidelity music as quality turntables have to be extremly accurate pieces of precision engineering , and that never comes cheap , plus turntables need maintainance and accurate adjustment to keep working at an optimum level . Put simply , it's a lot of pissing about to do it properly . CD is a lot more convenient but can be slightly harder to get musically pleasing results . My favourite way to listen to vinyl is on someone elses very expensive system . Vinyl is much harder to spell than C.D too! The O.P would also find that if he were to audition a few newer C.D players in his existing system that he would be able to find one that sounded fairly organic like his turntable without having to turn down the treble on his amp .
[/quote]
Ah, you remember the discussions about my speakers

[LukeFRC]

has this topic been bumped from 1992?

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='LukeFRC' timestamp='1355073210' post='1893663']
has this topic been bumped from 1992?
[/quote]
may have been, and it still seems to divide opinion just as much now as it did then.
Me? I can't make up my mind, nothing new there

[Dingus]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1355073055' post='1893658']
Ah, you remember the discussions about my speakers
[/quote]

I still have to keep looking how to spell it !

[Dingus]

CD s days are beginning to look numbered anyway . A few of the most significant hifi manufacturers such as Linn and AVI have stopped making CD players a long time ago now and are concentrating on MP3- based playback systems as that is going to be the way of the future . The next big format development will have to be a leap forward in the quality of broadband-based audio playback , because that is increasingly how people are buying and listening to their music .

[lowdowner]

The problem is cost. In my opinion, if you can afford to spend (or want to spend) upwards of a few thousand+ on a hi-fi then you'd be mad not to seriously listen to vinyl. A good turntable/arm/cartridge costing around £1000 to £2000 can sound absolutely stunning compared to a CD player costing the same. Only your ears and no amount of chatting about it can really convince you though.

As for records 'wearing out' every time you platy them - I have CDs that can no longer be played because the lacquer has become opaque in the sunlight, or because of scratching. On the other hand I have much loved records that I have played many, many, hundreds of times that still sound completely new and fresh.

Anyone who says CDs are 'perfect sound forever' has swallowed a lot of marketing hype

[lowdowner]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1355061788' post='1893476']
So is vinyl. Have you never heard of the RIAA curve?
[/quote]

My understanding is that the RIAA is lossless though (to any point worth worrying about) because it's an analogue reshaping of an analogue signal in both directions (the shaping/re-shaping process is not losing information), where as CD compression is most certainly *lossy* i.e. there is information thrown away that is not recoverable. Many would argue that that loss of information during CD sampling isn't audible (but I'd argue against that). Either way, they are definitely not the same thing.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1355073659' post='1893676']
CD s days are beginning to look numbered anyway . A few of the most significant hifi manufacturers such as Linn and AVI have stopped making CD players a long time ago now and are concentrating on MP3- based playback systems as that is going to be the way of the future . The next big format development will have to be a leap forward in the quality of broadband-based audio playback , because that is increasingly how people are buying and listening to their music .
[/quote]
I saw a gadget show, last year I think, where they set up a blind listening test using an allegedly top end HiFi listen to Floyds dark side using vinyl, CD and 320kbps mp3, the mp3 won.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1355073659' post='1893676']
CD s days are beginning to look numbered anyway.[/quote]

The big label's production of discs moved to Europe a few years ago, the inserts will follow shortly, simple logistics. The UK couldn't compete cost wise against the rise of downloads. DVDs will follow the same route within 5 years.

[BigRedX]

But CDs are easy and cheap to back up. Stick them in your computer and make an uncompressed WAV or AIFF copy. In fact these are better than the CD because HD error checking is more robust than the Red Book CD standard. Disk space is stupidly cheap these days - 2TB for about £100 - that's enough space for 4000 albums at uncompressed 16bit 44.1kHz. You can even afford a second drive to back up your HD copy. That way unless you are monumentally unlucky or very stupid you'll never loose any of your music.