Comparing quality on vinyl with Digital

Good points Robin!

I tend to find that many seem to "settle" into one format or another, and generally believe what they believe.

Most are not really intent on finding out any true answer, but are very determined to "defend" their choice, often after spending huge bucks on it. After all, if one spends multi thousands on ANY format, to find out or think something else could be just as good or better, would be near devastation in some peoples minds.

I also tend to believe that anyone have very strong opinions, Analog OR Digital, are not able to look at things with a view that is open and trustworthy.

I myself do not think the analog/digital thing is nearly as important as many want to make it out to be.

 

I think preference is one thing but the broad brush comments that seem to indicate digital is just an ear bleeder per se need questioning. Or just plain calling out.

Plus, I must admit I'm not massively convinced by the "big differences in how we hear" line.
I would guess most of us process sounds pretty similarly. Sure there are going to be slight differences in the shape of the ear from one person to the next, but in the end, a train still sounds like a train, a piano sounds like a piano and so on. And we all recognise what someone means when they mention a particular musical instrument. Nobody sits there and thinks of a jet engine taking off when someone talks about the sound of a xylophone.

For the most part, I think the two biggest things around human hearing are the ability to accurately describe what we hear in a written fashion for other readers to understand. And audiophile bravado.

 

Here is the issue. Everyone has an opinion but many have not heard reference quality analog or digital. High quality analog has the detail of CD but a smoothness that just sounds like music. Very lifelike and real.

 

This is a very good point. I don't think I ever really consider/label it fatiguing. Hell, I grew up listening to Californication cd (Ear Bleed?) blaring from my car stereo. Now on a high end player, I'm sure it sounded like a mess.

The main thing I can say about analog is that a great analog recording mastered properly on lp just can't be beat IMHO. I'm sure a well mastered 16/44 through 192/24 can come close though and it may just be a preference at some points. Yes, I'm sure there is a bit of romance here but it's not nostalgic for me, cds are nostalgic for me. For 6 years I did not buy a cd and in the last 3 months, I've happily added about 20 titles to my collection.

 

Can't be beat for sound quality, or accuracy?

Seriously not disagreeing with you....but curious....

 

2.5....but seriously this is a good point. I believe you were one of the first to make me realize that 16/44 mastered vinyl, done properly can sound great!

 

You are right. I've always thought that each person's personal investment will have an impact on that person's particular opinion. I'm sure I can be guilty of this as well. It's human nature right?

I'm the type of person, even though partial to my own opinions, who tries to investigate and question my motives and thoughts. I use this approach towards my personal choices in diet, religion and politics. It is always important to understand "the other side" or all sides because it only increases your personal knowledge. The goal in the end is to really just enjoy life and the pleasures (music, etc.) provide within this context.

 

Good point...I'm not sure but to me it's just the most pleasing. No science to back up my opinion.

See my opinion (kind of) got in the way. Honestly, I am not an expert and I'm certainly not versed enough to have an impactful opinion on this matter. My thoughts are pretty subjective in regards to this matter. I do read a lot of articles and interviews to try to give me a better base for my opinions but it many times just creates more confusion but in the end maybe I learn something.

 

And knowing people with damaged hearing and knowing how their hearing got damaged, I call your bluff.

The reality of tinnitus, the reality of deafness, the range of differences in sensitivity to particular frequencies, these are real factors, not some guesstimate based on an attachment to numbers and theory. For some the issues of speed variation with LPs make them nonstarters, this is not a theoretical issue, it is an issue of differences in listening, on focus on sounds. To some, a train sounds like a train. to some it sounds like the end 30 seconds of "She's So Heavy." That range of difference in hearing and listening goes a long way to explaining why some find all digital "Ear Bleeding" or LPs "filled with nonstop surface noise." Playback gear makes a difference, obviously. Exposure to gear, good and bad, makes a difference. One can't know how good CDs can sound unless one hears the best CD on the best gear, same applies for LPs as well. But hardly anyone has. And even when that happens, someone will be hypersensitive to the flaws of one or another. It all boils down in the end to personal preference.

 

And to add to the confusion. I have seen "experts" totally disagree on their opinions also.

There is no consensus among those in the business, just as there is none with us in the hobby.

 

I have a high quality LP player and a low quality CD player. The LP player just delivered that smoothness with a mono LP, Angel, red label, Britten's "Young People's Guide to the Orchestra." This LP isn't what I'd call 'detailed', but anyone who's spent time in concert halls will vouch for a generous acoustic's 'rounding' and smoothing effects, on full display on this very old LP. Very few Digital recordings, on my poor excuse for a CD player, get that sort of a sound. But it should be noted that some do.

 

I have only heard one actual master and resultant CD and vinyl from it. I was there when they were doing the recording ( an amateur local "group", acoustic ).

My thoughts about it. I found it EXTREMELY interesting first in one way, that the actual recording and direct feed, seemed a world better than MOST commercial recordings I have heard.

Second, as stunning as the recording sounded real and lifelike and seeing it in person be recorded, it seemed very accurately captured on simple 16/44.1 Redbook CD.

I had expected a very noticeable loss of some type, but was more shocked that is sounded so "Immediate" and "Real". Actually a lot more real and "There sounding" than MOST commercial CD releases, even of big name groups and stuff.

The vinyl that I heard from it, (( on another occasion and NOT while it was being recorded )) sounded different a bit, in fact somehow "better" than even what I thought I had heard during the original session and from the master tape.

Not sure if it was less accurate, but if it was different....??

 

Having heard what I would consider reference quality from both I would say they both work well.
I think I could be happy with 24/192 and no vinyl. Maybe 24/96. Less then that I want my vinyl option.

 

Preaching to the choir Robin. Thanks to a heavy cold that kicked off an ear infection, some years ago, I lost part of my hearing in my left ear and left with mild tinnitus as a result.

Trains still sound like trains. Pianos are pianos. The subtleties in Julie Feeney's excellent Pages album are not lost to me.

So yeah, I can speak with some experience here. If some audiophiles lost the air and space in their flowery language (and better yet, between their ears), the hobby might even gain something, God forbid...

 

Indeed this is true. I try to focus my reading/research on the recording/mixing/mastering end, whether from the artist's prospective or the engineer or producer's prospective. Reading insight from someone as intelligent, talented and humble as recording engineer Russell Elevado is enlightening and entertaining for me. I'll read about the creation of an album and then seek it out. See I enjoy learning about the creation of the music but reading articles about my turntable and amp bore me to wits. I guess it's just the side of the brain that I prefer.

I think no matter what and for better or worse, I am a person who prefers physical media (cd or vinyl). Back in the early 2000s, I started noticing that I had a preference for the discs I bought over just burned copies. It wasn't about sound quality either. In saying that, I still enjoy access to my downloads for other listening purposes.

I think the most unfair thing these days is that vinyl typically gets the better master for modern releases so it's hard to compare apples to apples.

 

Understood. There's the difference between hearing passively and actively listening to take into consideration as well. Some of those people I know with hearing damage are or were in the "Music Industry." They still knew how to make good sounding recordings.

 

I wish the "hobby" or whatever it is, would try to become more sensible.

Too much stuff is on the fringes, and defies any logic.

Years ago, things were good sounding, even great, but logic and science dictated how things were designed.

They did not look for solutions to problems that did not exist.

 

Kevin,

I don't think most of us are saying that digital is "ear bleeding". Quite the contrary in my opinion. Great digital sounds great. Hirez digital sounds even better. I just prefer, where available, to listen to some originally analog recordings on LP (and at times reel to reel). Something happens in that A to D then D to A two step.

And I think the high end audio business is quite sensible. There's always some kooky stuff going on in every hobby but I know a good number of folks in this business and most are good rational folk.

 

in my experience (depending on the title/source used/mastering of medium)

CD > LP
LP > CD

 

The only problem with this debate is the promoting of one format to another. The format is NOT important per se for a music lover IMHO. I can get more pleasure out of listening to a Cassette tape than listening to a badly recorded 24/96, obviously. It is not really interesting if one will prefer vinyl and another will prefer something else, all can sound extremely good if done right, as I see it.
There is not anyone that hold the truth in his hand as a superiour judge. So I think what can be said, IMHO, it all depends.

 

Thanks for the recommendation.

 

Hah! I was responding in jest to the post I quoted which, had it been read, revealed the context for my response. Let me re-post the quote again:

"There is no comparison, the mechanical always flutters,warbles , wows, pre echoes and intermod distorts.
You may like this 'colouration', many do, but its fidelity is very limited, vinyl LPs especially."

This is as inaccurate, biased, and deliberately provocative a statement as my digital fatigue / ear bleeder response. (I left out more snarky comments such as digital artifacts, etc.)

Funny how mechanical devices that run and read tapes, burn digital masters, and spin and read CDs are presumptively perfect to the digital faithful yet the same devices to make records, and of course turntables or records, are presumptively not. Mechanics & physics apparently change depending on what a persons preference for music format is.

These digital vs. analog and vinyl vs. CD threads always devolve into battles of whose cherry pickings of others opinions and pseudo-science trumps the others. The worst offenders are those here who tout their lack of experience with one or the other format as expertise and objectivity.

I don't 'believe' my own statement any more than I do the quote I responded to. I listen quite happily to my CDs and my records. They each have their virtues. I hear some differences but it doesn't stop me from buying either format.

 

Have you ever recorded 1Khz tone to tape ?
What were the results compared to the generator ?

 

Yep.
Wouldn't pass a null test.

 

I never ( before lurking here a long time, then eventually joining ) found such huge ranges of "hatred" for vinyl OR CD in real life.

In real world, most I knew, never found vinyl horrible or bad, nor found CD fatiguing or cold. Most simply switched out over a few years, due to partially convenience of CD, that ability to take in car, and skip tracks, and the inherent repeatability and consistent sound between most players and all discs.

The lack of surface noise and all that was just a plus, but most did not find vinyl bad, just that in the overall scheme, it kinda lost out due to size, cleaning, lack of portability, and honestly sound quality was considered kinda similar.

Only on online forums have I heard CD being called Cold, fatiguing, and all that stuff, and only online do I see vinyl called warm and lively and blah blah blah.

In my real world experience and just about everyone I knew, they liked both, and just slowly evolved into CD, since vinyl died away.