CD verses Vinyl

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1355225743' post='1895500']
. . . and as such your ear can pick up on a subtle difference between the analogue (vinyl) and digitised (CD) versions.

[/quote]

On the basis of the ear's frequency response, I seriously doubt it.

On the basis that digital versions of original analogue recordings have been remastered, with all that entails, then I can entirely believe it.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1355226369' post='1895506']
So for me it's got nothing to do with audio quality, and everything to do with nostalgia. . . . . The rest is just voodoo and fairy dust
[/quote]

And nothing wrong with that at all. At least you're not fooling yourself.

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355225740' post='1895499']If I had a lottery win I would be stacking a set of PMCs against some B&W diamond series to see which was my preference [/quote]

If i had a lottery win I'd be upping sticks to Islay, buying a wrecked croft & doing it up & spending ridiculous amounts of ££'s on a system that would be souind-proofed from the sheep, eagles & hee'land coos outside by two foot thick walls...... with no neighbours to winge about it either.

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1355226673' post='1895513']
On the basis of the ear's frequency response, I seriously doubt it.

On the basis that digital versions of original analogue recordings have been remastered, with all that entails, then I can entirely believe it.
[/quote]

Maybe it can't, I'm really just parroting the science behind the two different sampling methods - technically a '70s album contains more "information" than the same recording burned straight to CD; this doesn't account for remastering or other trickery. What I haven't been able to do, obviously, is set up identical CD and vinyl copies of a piece played into analogue recording devices and try to play them through the same hi-fi setup. Though even then you could put any difference down to the quality of the turntable or CD player in that chain!

[redstriper]

The CD versus vinyl debate is silly - haven't you heard, both are dead and gone!

There's this new thing called mp3, also flac and wav files etc. and they are the biggest development in music recording and distribution ever.
They sound great, they're better for the environment, they're cheap, you can send them down a phone line and share or stream them on line.
You can store thousands of songs in a tiny space and they give access to music to far more people around the world.
As musicians, you might also like that you can now record and distribute your music freely with ease in a global market.

Most youngsters take them for granted nowadays, so come on people - keep up

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355226785' post='1895518']
If i had a lottery win I'd be upping sticks to Islay, buying a wrecked croft & doing it up & spending ridiculous amounts of ££'s on a system that would be souind-proofed from the sheep, eagles & hee'land coos outside by two foot thick walls...... with no neighbours to winge about it either.
[/quote]

I would have thought if I'd gone all the way to Islay, my first task would be to pay each distillery on the island to take it in turns to deliver a bottle to me once a week. Possibly twice a week, I hear it gets cold up there...

[Skol303]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1355227946' post='1895550']The CD versus vinyl debate is silly - haven't you heard, both are dead and gone![/quote]

Ha ha, I think you've pretty much tonked the nail on the head there, Steve! Spot on mate

Right... so now quills vs fountain pens, which one is best? Fight!!

[toneknob]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1355226369' post='1895506']
The rest is just voodoo and fairy dust
[/quote]

Where do I get this fairy dust, and is it expensive?

[Conan]

A Fender P [i]definitely[/i] sounds better on vinyl.

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1355228679' post='1895565']
Where do I get this fairy dust, and is it expensive?
[/quote]

Come to my shop - we've got it in the back room, right next to the snake oil.

[Skol303]

[quote name='toneknob' timestamp='1355228679' post='1895565']Where do I get this fairy dust, and is it expensive?[/quote]

It's like angel dust, only more sparkly! I get mine from Elias' shop ^

[51m0n]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1355225743' post='1895500']
The conversation above between Big_Stu and 51m0n covers most of the technical detail that's needed to settle this argument. But there is one other key point about the difference:

It depends when the album was recorded. Or rather, what was used to record it in the first place. If the album was recorded on analogue equipment, then everything the mics picked up was squeezed through the mixing desk and written onto that magnetic master tape. Nothing was "lost" in the chain. A little would have been lost in the process of pressing to vinyl, but not much.

If this album was later reissued onto CD, the music would have been digitised, so more information would have been lost. By digitising music, you have discretise your previously continuous waveforms into 0s and 1s. As 51m0n points out, if you go for the highest sampling and bitrate, you can get such a close approximation to that waveform that the human ear can no longer resolve the difference. However, most CDs are sampled at 44.1 KHz, rather than 96 KHz (I think that's still true...?), and as such your ear can pick up on a subtle difference between the analogue (vinyl) and digitised (CD) versions.

[i]Conversely[/i] - [i]and this is the important difference[/i] - if the album was recorded on digital equipment, you gain absolutely bugger all by pressing it onto vinyl. So most vinyl albums from the '90s, where the recording was increasingly done on computers and digital mixers, will not sound any better on vinyl than they will on CD. The extra information 'in between' the discretised points on the waveform was never recorded in the first place, and so there's nothing to 'fill in' those gaps when you convert it back to analogue.

In short: there is a reason why my father's vinyl copy of [i]Dark Side of the Moon[/i] sounds better than my CD copy, which I think is quite an early re-issue, possibly pre-remastering and sounds a bit harsh and sterile. On the other hand, I'd probably be wasting my money investing in a vinyl copy of [i]Pulse[/i], as it likely won't sound any better than my CD.
[/quote]

This is innaccurate.

Firstly you re presuming that there is no loss in quality in the method of storing and transmitting the music that is analogue, particularly vinyl. Which is not true. Vinyl has a significantly lower signal to noise ratio, and subsequent dynamic range, and whilst its theoretical upper frequency limit may in some fairy dust sprinkled theoretical systems reach close to 50KHz, the reality is that those frequencies are not there in the original, seriously attenutated, inaudible in every possible test so far made, unreproducable by the rest of the system, utterly covered by any other signal from the system anyway. It is also, like it or not a medium that through years of use will degrade, so any original pressing of Dark Siode Of The Moon will likely be degraded now compared to when it was pressed. Data does not degrade (although CDs do).

Not to mention the assumption that old mics (ribbons and all) and preamps, and desks etc have that boundless upper frequency range...

Secondly it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Nyquist's theorum and how it relates to sampling frequency response and accuracy at high frequencies. That theorum [i]proves [/i]that any frequency up to half the sample rate can be accurately reproduced given a perfect filter above that halfway point. In reality there is a band just before that frequency where some anti-aliasing may occur (the transition band) but in the case of CD sampled at 44.1KHz with a system with a good 2KHz anti-aliasing filter the upper bound limit is still 20050Hz. You cant hear that high, not one of you.

Higher sampling rates are still useful however, since they will provide subsequent digital processing more data with which to work, providing a better final result, once the result is rendered to the desired final sample rate. Many many digital processes upsample the data by upto 64x before doing any calculations, then 'downsample' back again afterwards - its processor intensive but the results are better. Note that these devices and processes can benfit the difference of more data in ways our hearing cant. This is true to the point whereby it can be useful to do any such upsampling yourself if you happen to have a process that doesnt do it for you, there are some exceptional free tools (sox) that achieve near perfect (and better than expensive tools out there) upsampling of wav files.

Having said all of which the best reproduction I've ever experienced was 192KHz 24bit in a great control room. So IMO CD can be bettered, although I struggle to see how many of us would benefit from the difference between CD and even 96KHz in the front room, with the kids....

Mp3 is lossy and as a result evil ( ). The more a piece is mastered for loudness the worse the mp3 process works and the more artifacts that are very audible indeed you can hear.

FLAC (and FLAC wrapped in OGG fpr metadata) is not lossy and good.

Edited December 11, 2012 by 51m0n

[Big_Stu]

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1355228004' post='1895551']
I would have thought if I'd gone all the way to Islay, my first task would be to pay each distillery on the island to take it in turns to deliver a bottle to me once a week. Possibly twice a week, I hear it gets cold up there...
[/quote]

I finished my last bottle of Islay malt souvenirs last night; a Bruicladdich 8 year old Port Charlotte. Black! black, is the day, heavy is my heart.

[Count Bassy]

You can make your own fairy dust, and it's pretty easy once you've caught the fairy

[redstriper]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355230856' post='1895613']
Mp3 is lossy and as a result evil ( ).
[/quote]

It's not evil Si - it makes music easily available to millions of people around the world.
Most people are nor audiophiles and don't care about Hi Fi, but they can still love music

[51m0n]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355231049' post='1895617']
I finished my last bottle of Islay malt souvenirs last night; a Bruicladdich 8 year old Port Charlotte. Black! black, is the day, heavy is my heart.
[/quote]

I feel your pain!

[51m0n]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1355231868' post='1895638']
It's not evil Si - it makes music easily available to millions of people around the world.
Most people are nor audiophiles and don't care about Hi Fi, but they can still love music
[/quote]

Ha, yes , most people are so used to loudness orientated mastering that they tend to prefer it now too. Its not a good thing, its the first time in history that reproduction of music has actually gone significantly downwards in terms of quality.

Its not more accessible really though, not now, bandwidth is getting bigger, storage is cheaper than ever, so why not have a resurgence of improved fidelity?

Having said that I find 320kbps mp3s fine, its all that 128kbps stuff that I find inlistenable - and I'm not by any means an audiophile: I just like good recordings and good playback - I want to feel the music move me, not hear the issues with the reproduction preventing me enjoy it...

[Big_Stu]

Thanks, good news is that the local wine merchant stocks it, but it won't have the nostalgia atmosphere to it......... just plenty of peat, smoke etc.
Tough call, that or replace my Springbank 10 year old, which is about finished too. Bugger is that I keep being bought bottles of Jack Daniels every birthday & Xmas because I used to drink it by the vatful at one time but gone off it.

[toneknob]

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1355229820' post='1895592']
It's like angel dust, only more sparkly! I get mine from Elias' shop ^
[/quote]

I'll have two of each.

Incidentally, I'm in the market for a new turntable. Got my eye on either the Pro-Ject Debut Carbon, or Rega RP1, or if I'm feeling fancy the Pro-Ject Xpression 3 or RP3. Anyone got experience of any of the above that they can share? It'll be used with a Marantz PM6010OSE Amp and Celestion DL4 Series 2 speakers.

[PaulWarning]

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1355227946' post='1895550']
The CD versus vinyl debate is silly - haven't you heard, both are dead and gone!

There's this new thing called mp3, also flac and wav files etc. and they are the biggest development in music recording and distribution ever.
They sound great, they're better for the environment, they're cheap, you can send them down a phone line and share or stream them on line.
You can store thousands of songs in a tiny space and they give access to music to far more people around the world.
As musicians, you might also like that you can now record and distribute your music freely with ease in a global market.

Most youngsters take them for granted nowadays, so come on people - keep up
[/quote]
Another can of worms, music is now so cheap and plentiful it's been devalued, at one time when you'd spent your hard earned on a LP or CD you made sure you gave it a good listen or two now if it's not grabbed the listener in the first 10 seconds it's onto the next track or artist

[Big_Stu]

Personally I'd go for the Rega, but I've never used, heard or owned a Project. I've heard many say they're excellent, and very few against them. I've yet to hear anyone speak against any Rega kit but it could happen.
SevenOaks sell the Rega, you could ask about doing an audition with some of your own vinyl. A good shop will let you have kit on an audition loan in your own home for a few days.

[redstriper]

MP3s are far more accessible than CDs or vinyl and they are creating a revolution in music distribution across the globe.
Most people don't care about the format - they just want to hear and be heard.
Sound quality has been excellent for years and it just isn't an issue for anyone except audiophiles these days.
It's the content, not the sound quality that matters, music should be cheap and plentiful and available to everyone, rich or poor.
It shouldn't be the precious preserve of the rich and treated with reverence.
If you are well off and you can afford the luxury, fine - you can buy the gear and treat your room, but don't expect the rest of the world to follow.

You are an audiophile Si, because you know the difference between 320 and 128 kbps, while most people couldn't care less.
You are an audiophile because [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]issues with the reproduction prevent you from enjoying music and I find that a little bit sad.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] [/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]It's ok to be an audiophile and there's a place for you, but there's no cure [/font][/color]

[toneknob]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1355233046' post='1895671']
Personally I'd go for the Rega, but I've never used, heard or owned a Project. I've heard many say they're excellent, and very few against them. I've yet to hear anyone speak against any Rega kit but it could happen.
SevenOaks sell the Rega, you could ask about doing an audition with some of your own vinyl. A good shop will let you have kit on an audition loan in your own home for a few days.
[/quote]

Oh absolutely, I've already been in touch with Sevenoaks. Unfortunately they've only got the cheaper Pro-Ject available for demo. Also got my eye on Oranges And Lemons in Battersea, they've got the RP3 but not the more expensive Pro-Ject.

Are there any other central/SW London hifi shops anyone can recommend?

[51m0n]

My point was that whilst mp3s are plentiful and freely available, there is no reasn to stick to mp3 quality, since downloading a FLAC file of better quality is a perfectly reasonable desire these days.

And mp3 sound quality really really isnt superb at the ubiquitous 128kbps I'm afraid - otherwise I wouldnt be banging on about it head in hands wondering when Big_Stu is going to pass the bottle so we can both drown our sorrows....

If mp3s werent at such low quality, and mastering was not so loudness obsessed everyone would enjoy music more. Audiophile be damned

Its no wonder to me that music is devalued when it so often sounds rubbish as a result of poor reproduction (and mastering, and mixing, and tracking, and arragement, and songwriting - but I digress).

[Leonard Smalls]

[quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1355230856' post='1895613']


Having said all of which the best reproduction I've ever experienced was 192KHz 24bit in a great control room. So IMO CD can be bettered, although I struggle to see how many of us would benefit from the difference between CD and even 96KHz in the front room, with the kids....


[/quote]

Funnily enough, I haven't heard much better in a studio than at home - though this of course relies on auditory memory which is quite unreliable!
However, as an exBBC sound recordist I was trained to listen, and have worked in some pretty serious places so maybe it's not so unreliable as it could be, and I do use the same amps as those at BBC Maida Vale (Bryston 14bsst)
Room treatment-wise, I discovered that anything that was domestically acceptable made very little difference - as a result I don't use DSP either, though I have fiddled rather a lot with speaker placement.
So it's as good as I can be bothered to make it; and if it sounds rubbish I turn it up (record is 123dB peaks at the listening position) and pretend I'm at Brixton Academy!