A teenager's view on CD's vs. LP's.

[Steve Hoffman]

From Kirk Hawley on the Phonogram list:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Me (Kirk):

Can you tell the difference when I play an LP as
opposed to a CD?

Spencer, 16 next Friday:

"There are pops and snaps that aren't heard on a CD.
It sounds much more open on vinyl. The tone is better.
I don't know how to put it in words. "

Do the pops and snaps bother you?

"No. When I hear it on vinyl it sounds like it's all around
you. On a CD t's not like that, a CD is more like mono."

Well, this is a Beatles LP...

"Well, it always sounds like that. CD's are too mastered,
it sounds like perfect on a CD you know, but on vinyl
it sounds like everything is recorded inside, the sound
isn't all perfect but it sounds better. Plus between the tracks
it keeps on going, but on a CD it stops and then starts going
again. It sounds like it's in a hall.... on a CD everything
sounds like it's in a recording studio."

-Kirk

Cute, eh?
;)

[Sckott]

Too cute.

And to be honest, it offers a fresh idea into how we're not as nuts as we think.

And that there's appreciating the way music sounds, for the future.

Nice Steve! This was someone conducting an in-house experiment and reported back to Pgram?

[Steve Hoffman]

Si.

:)

[luke j. chung]

This gives me hope for the younger generation as far as learning the subtleties of critical listening! Still, it's up to people like our forum membership to keep spreading the gospel about Steve's "breath of life" remasters to the uninformed.;)

[Dave]

Very cute Steve:)

Luke, I always try to educate as many people as possible, approx. 25 in the last year alone.

The problem lies in that most people (24 out of 25) just don't have the passion and desire for correctly mastered audio even though they can clearly hear the difference.

But hey I'll probably always display my passion for the real deal.

;)

[Grant]

CD is still better *ONLY* if it's done right. "Better" is a subjective word.

[Andy]

I'd like to think that I'll always be able to appreciate superior mastering. The problem is most of my favorite music has yet to be remastered buy one the handful of superior mastering mavens that can make a master tape sing. Slightly off the subject most of the current mastering mavens are also starting to get on in years (no offence Steve). Who are the young up and comers to the mastering world? I ask this not to disparage any young mastering engineers its just that I'm not really familiar any others other than Steve, or Stan Ricker or Bernie the guy at Classic whose last name escapes me at the moment. Steve ever thought of an apprenticeship program?

[Dave]

Andy,

If you get the chance listen to just about anything remastered by Doug Sax. He's really good!

There are others on this forum, can't remember who at the moment, that know alot about him so I'll leave all the info. to them.;)

[Claus]

Doug Sax... this old guy??? He did a lot of good masterings indeed! That's not a newbie!

[Jefhart]

Odd that you should post this, since I had a somewhat similar thing happen with my nearly 16 year old son this past weekend. I had just finished putting a couple of my old (very old) Beatle albums on CD-R using my audio CD recorder. My son got ahold of the CD-R and put it into the computer. He has some video editing software that has de-noising, de-clicking devices on it. I told him to play the Beatles CD-R, and fiddle around with these devices, which he did. It was obvious to me that the un-altered music sounded much better, pops, clicks and surface noise notwithstanding. I asked him, before telling him my opinion, what he thought. He said that the music sounded better without the sonic fiddling, even though he didn't care for all the pops and clicks. Seems I raised that boy right.

This begs the question that since a teenager, totally unfamiliar with records as we know them, can tell the difference, quality-wise between music that is no-noised and music that is presented in all its analogue glory, why can't several (probably many) reasonably highly paid engineers do the same. To answer my own question, at least some of them can, however they are told by their bosses at the record labels to make everything sound like it was recorded yesterday. Such a shame.

Jeff

[BradOlson]

I agree that unadulterated music sounds better than adulterated music. CD's that I have that sound life-like outside of Steve's discs that I have are Mason Williams Phonograph Record (which still should be issued on gold CD just so that people could hear how Steve would do with "Classical Gas"), all the Legacy CD's I have, several KOCH CD's, the Archies Sony Music Special Products Greatest Hits CD, Bear Family's CD of Jimmy Dean's "Big Bad John" album, the Legacy remaster of "Jimmy Dean's Greatest Hits," (even Kym In Hawaii recommends Jimmy Dean's Greatest Hits), BTW Steve, please remaster twofers of some of Jimmy Dean's albums (but forget about the classic Big Bad John album as the Bear Family CD contains all of the songs on that album and there is a Sony Music Special Products CD of the album as well but the former uses the "one hell of a man" version and the latter uses the "big, big man" version which "Greatest Hits" also has), More Johnny's Greatest Hits by Johnny Mathis on Sony Music Special Products, the few Collectables CD's I have.

[Beagle]

CD is still better *ONLY* if it's done right

Redbook is not better than LP if the LP is done right. SACD, if done right, may be better than the LP, in some ways.

[Dave]

Beagle,

Yeah I had meant to question Grant on this one as well. In this thread he states cd is better if done properly but in another thread he says both analog and digital are equal. HUH!??

Hopefully he will explain because it sure sounds like a condradiction to me.:confused:

[Grant]

Originally posted by Dave
Beagle,

Yeah I had meant to question Grant on this one as well. In this thread he states cd is better if done properly but in another thread he says both analog and digital are equal. HUH!??

Hopefully he will explain because it sure sounds like a condradiction to me.:confused:

Digital and analog both have their pluses and minuses. One is NOT "better" than the other. THAT is what I meant by "equal"

It is my view that CD is superior if done correctly, even if the vinyl is mastered well because you still don't have any surface noise or clicks and pops to worry about. You can talk and do all you can to keep your vinyl clean to avoid noise but it still happens.

Perhaps vinyl noises don't bother most of you but the always bothered me, even in the vinyl days. I am not some twentysomething, either. I'm a baby boomer like the majority of you.

[Dave]

Thanks Grant.

So in reality it's subjective/personal opinion then or is there any audio signal truth to this?

[Beagle]

It is my view that CD is superior if done correctly, even if the vinyl is mastered well because you still don't have any surface noise or clicks and pops to worry about

A well-mastered CD done from original master does overcome a lot of analog (LP) flaws. But you still have that limited bandwidth and built-in digital distortions of redbook CD. It lacks "tics and pops" but adds it's own distortions and works them right into the music, as opposed to surface noise, which is not "built in" to the music. In technical terms, a CD has better "specs" on paper. I still don't find CD's as musical or enjoyable as LP's. But it's getting there, with SACD.

[PsychFan]

Originally posted by Grant
Perhaps vinyl noises don't bother most of you but the always bothered me, even in the vinyl days. I am not some twentysomething, either. I'm a baby boomer like the majority of you.


I'm not a baby boomer -- my Dad is (I'm 29).

I prefer vinyl and listen to it about 90 percent of the time. I clean my vinyl scrupulously and feel I am successful in minimizing noise (it's true that ya can't COMPLETELY eradicate it).

But even when there's ticks and pops that can't be cleaned away, they really don't bother me much. I guess the tolerance for it just differs from person to person. Personally, I feel almost like I've trained my brain to ignore whatever vinyl noise is there! The higher quality of the sound I detect from vinyl makes up for any other shortcomings. But, especially in this case, YMMV.

Even as a confirmed vinyl fan, I can say that well-done CDs can sound pretty dang awesome. I always hold up Steve's DCC gold disc of The Doors as an example -- it's one of the best-sounding CDs I've ever heard. (His Who's Next ain't bad either ...)

[Grant]

All I know is that it bothered me in the 60s and it bothers me now. Personally, I am shocked at those who can ignore or at least tolerate vinyl noise as much as people who actually like mp3 as a primary listening source.

[R. Cat Conrad]

I don't wish to get caught up in a LP vs CD debate, well, not at length anyway, but for whatever it's worth I've been a devoted digital medium person for many years (i.e., I'm also a "baby boomer" who prefers CD to LP, as well).

I think I have a reasonable grasp of the LP's "breath of life" syndrom, but unless one is willing to invest in and fret over relatively expensive turntable/tonearm/cartridge/stylis combinations the benefits of vinyl are unlikely to supercede CD's convenience, clarity and dynamic range in a similarly high priced digital delivery system. This isn't based on speculation, but my own personal experience.

FTR, back in the mid-70's my high-end tastes developed to the point of owning several turntables with separate tonearms (2) and a couple of expensive light traking cartridges with exotic styli that required frequent replacement in spite of careful cleaning. In spite of constant maintenance I still had to deal with imperfect vinyl pressings and the ticks and pops which invaded my music listening experience. Eventually, inordinate wear on my favorite albums convinced me that I wasn't enjoying the full presentation of music as much as before (i.e., when my albums were brand new). Call it an unreasonable psychological worry about LP wear if you will, but if you can fathom this routine of degradation and maintenance you might begin to understand why the CD's arrival looked like such a panacea.

Of course, nothing's perfect, least of all redbook CD. It's taken between 15 & 20 years for the CD to mature anywhere near it's potential as heir to the venerable LP; now, as we're on the verge of doing just that we have other mediums entering the marketplace.

In today's dollars, the turntable set-up I owned back in the 1970's would probably cost over $3000. Now I'm content to listen to my favorite artists over a virtually maintenance free belt-driven CD player with HDCD capabilities. For my investment dollars, this provides a warm and satisfying musical experience from well mastered CDs (i.e., such as those Steve and a few other skilled mastering gurus are currently capable of providing given the best available source tapes).

So, what have I sacrificed?

1) Having to change sides every 15 or 20 minutes disrupting the pleasure of listening to involving music,

2) those obnoxious ticks and pops which some audiophiles apparently find desirable, and

3) replacing worn albums with "spiffy" new ones from later pressings. Note: Now I just recycle used CDs in excellent shape and buy upgrades with better masters when it's merited.

You mentioned that redbook CDs have limited bandwidth, but I'm left wondering how much extra bandwidth is audible and necessary? I hear plenty of "air" on my best CDs and those digital distortions aren't any more glaring than the analog ones, are they?

In spite of all I've said in defense of digital sound delivery, the amplification side of my system is built entirely around tubes because there are some "distortions" (i.e., even-order harmonic) that are euphoricly appealing when combined with digitally reproduced music.

Respectfully,
Robert Cat Conrad

[Grant]

Thanks! It's about time we got a response from a non-ditto-head.

Some people prefer colorations. Others strive to rid their systems of it. I tend to view vinyl playback as euphoric coloration, not accuracy. I do hold the sound of the LP to the definitive standard IF I hear it being close to what the tapes sounded like. Sometimes that happens, the LP will be a more accurate representation of what the tapes sounded like as opposed to the CD. But, it take a trained ear to know the difference. That does not mean the vinyl is without fault or is superior.

Audiophiles tend to live in a vaccum and tend to forget that the majority of music-lovers don't have the $$$ for such expensive vinyl playback gear to appreciate it to it's fullest. They also forget through their whining that the Bill Inglots of the world are not producing for them.

It's great what SH does, and I get in line for something I like that he remasters but he is producing for us and himself, not Joe six-pack. I wish everything was done right, but it won't happen in this world.

Just trying to stay grounded.

[AudioGirl]

Personally... I LOVE my LP's!! On the other hand I LOVE my CD's!!

There are some albums that I have in both formats!!

Sometimes I can relate to the convenience of a CD and when they are done right (Steve Hoffman's DCC 24k golds), they can sound great!

Sometimes I can relate to the "Vinyl Experience". The same is true though! When they are done right....... :) Ahhhhh.

Gotta admit though... My old 78's give me a certain pleasure that I just can't get anywhere else... Pop, ticks and all!

:D :D

[Dave]

Guess I should be glad, and am, that I sold my some 1300 records and went to and stayed totally cd as it is one heck of alot more convieniant and alot less hassle and most of all less expensive.

I agree that I would also stand in line to get one of Steve's pressings of just about anything he's mastered, as my tastes have matured some-what after listening to quite a few of his jazz albums.:)

[PsychFan]

Originally posted by Grant
Personally, I am shocked at those who can ignore or at least tolerate vinyl noise as much as people who actually like mp3 as a primary listening source.

Well, what can be said? Different strokes for different folks. :)

[Beagle]

but unless one is willing to invest in and fret over relatively expensive turntable/tonearm/cartridge/stylis combinations the benefits of vinyl are unlikely to supercede CD's convenience, clarity and dynamic range in a similarly high priced digital delivery system. This isn't based on speculation, but my own personal experience Good things cost money, time and effort. We are so used to a society of fast food, cell phones, internet, fast access to everything that we forget the fact that nothing good comes without an effort. So we opt out for laziness over real sound, real food, reality period...

BTW, CD's "dynamic range"? What dynamic range?

I tend to view vinyl playback as euphoric coloration, not accuracy I guess live unamplified music is "euphonic coloration" as well? And I keep hearing "ticks and pops" like they comprised 75% of the sonic output of an LP. C'mon, let's at least assume that vinyl lovers take care of their records and if 100% lack of noise is someones criteria for good sound, then you would likely only be satisfied with taking in a live performance in a vaccuum.

Think of it like this. Would you rather go see (A) a live performance where you were in the 5th row center, with the orchestra performing in front of you with nothing in between but air, but there were the occasional sounds of coughs in the audience or the person behind you folding their program, as in Belafonte Live At Carnegie Hall recording?

Or would you rather attend (B) a live performance, same as above, except you were there alone, in dead silence, but there was a big tarpaulen or plate glass window and the orchestra was performing behind it?

I'd choose (A)...

Sorry, I don't mean to insult or ridicule anyone, I just am very passionate about music and sound and take it quite seriously, as do all of us.

[Kevin Korom]

I'll mention another reason for preferring vinyl-fatigue factor! I can listen to vinyl at least 3 times longer than I can listen to digital, yet in my system they have virtually identical tonal balances. I've listened to a lot of digital, all price ranges, and found the same- it hurts!

Why? Who really knows, but there's plenty of people with the same experience. If someone invented a DAC that made redbook less painful to play, I'm sure I'd listen to a lot more CDs.