Digital vs Analog

Mm, found it in the end. VERY interesting! I like the bit about how vinyl's total dynamic range is in fact very close to CD's apart from surface noise, which is all below 400Hz and as we all now is easily identifiable and easy to "tune out".

Dunc

 

You got the wrong NornIroner, Ian, that's me you're talking about, not Pete! And yes, I couldn't be bothered getting up and I have a new bath chair coming next month...

If I may add my modest contribution as an elderly, hard-of-hearing gentleman in the twilight of his years, Iiiiiiiiiii remember - where are my teeth? Oh yes - when CD came out first. As Pete says, Karajan (a major conductor as well as a technology freak) famously said, "All else is gaslight!" "Gramophone" was somewhat of an exception - while the hi-fi magazines were wailing and gnashing their teeth, it was solidly behind CD (I was a subscriber at the time). The "Gramophone" reviewers, it has to be remembered are nearly all freelancers and include some of the most distinguished music scholars in the UK. These people know what (classical) music sounds like, and they were unanimous in seeing CD as a step forward in music reproduction.

Personally, and ignoring the inevitable surface noise on LPs, I hear them as equally good - my favourite test disc remains the 1983 Pinnock Handel's Water Music, of which I know every nuance. When I put one on the LP12 and the other in the Meridian and switch between them, only the occasional surface noise on the 20-odd year-old record gives away which one is playing. Add in the convenience factors (no changing sides, no mucking around with arms, cartridges, etc.) and CD wins hands down. Since I got my first CD player in 1985, I have bought one LP - Dave Brubeck's "Summit Sessions", because it doesn't exist on CD. I don't expect ever to buy another.

 

Spooky

Rob Cowan has just alluded to this very point before playing the piece

 

A few observations/questions: firstly, they didn't use any proper music for that comparison . Classical recordings are invariably made at a much lower average level so as to accommodate substantially higher peaks. Secondly, it seems strange that the CD feed into the soundcard is quite so noisy compared with the EAC rip - you'd expect there to be a difference, but the numbers shown just seem very large. Thirdly, I don't understand quite what the 'frequency response' charts are meant to show, but I'd have strong reservations about concluding that vinyl has a usable frequency range similar to or greater than CD from the simple fact that there's output up to and above 20kHz (what exactly is the output?), before we even get on to the question of what audible impact that would have. Fourthly, the low peak-to-average range on the CDs used suggests dodgy mastering to me . I'm not sure I'd agree with this idea about "relative dynamics" in any case, which sounds suspiciously similar to audiophilese - the peak-to-peak pppp to ffff range, or even GP to ffff, would surely be more representative of the dynamic contrast available.

Apparently some pop CDs do struggle from being produced far too 'hot' though, and the resultant clipping may in some cases be partly responsible for the vinyl sounding 'smoother'. Competition for radio airplay doesn't work quite the same way with classical music - here the CD medium is actually taken advantage of, rather than abused as may sometimes be the case.

 

For 'mainstream' i.e. radio targeted pop and rock CDs, I'd say this is almost invariably true. The worst crime a mastering engineer can commit these days in th eyes of a record company is to make your CD sound quieter than the competition, even if this results in significant clipping. However, to my ears at least, the smoothness issue isn't eliminated with sympathetically mastered recordings (by late John Loder for example).

 

I agree that some analysis of classical music should have been included.

It would perhaps also have been interesting if they had used a better TT & phono stage than a Rega 3/Dynavector combination fine though it undoubtedly is.

 

Agreed.

And a better CD player for the analysis of analogue output from CD.

Dunc

 

This is quite an interesting article. I'll offer up a few comments.

First, the recordings are all quite old and were mixed and originally mastered with vinyl in mind. The CD mastering was "an afterthought". There have been previous comments about how "poor CD was when it first came out", and some of the responsibility for this lies with lazy (re)mastering for CD.

If someone has the CD's to hand, it would interesting to know whether they are AAD, ADD, DDD recordings. Analog master tape tops out at around 80dB of dynamic range, and those recordings aren't the best thing to showcase CD with..

Using a soundcard equally disadvantages both vinyl and analog outputs from digital devices. The difference between the EAC vs. CD results (1st table) suggests something isn't quite right - the Sony SCD machine is quite capable and this suggest that this soundcard is introducing significant distortion... [FWIW: If I were doing this experiment, I would have stopped at this point and gone looking for a better sound card - or a proper bit of calibrated test equipment.]

It is too bad that middle C is below 500Hz. The comment about "the majority of the spectrum" is quite amusing given it's close proximity to the word "misleading" when considering both the power spectrum and frequency content of music/human voice.

"relative dynamics" isn't a technology issue as it's really set "in the mix" (the difference of 0.5dB isn't worth shouting about..)

The "waveforms" are interesting, but what's more interesting still is this leap of imagination: This finding supports my own subjective impressions comparing the CD against the LP. I much prefer listening to the LP over the CD on my system. It's a fairly classic example of "cherry picking" the data to support a conclusion.

"Mick's Blessings" - the original vs remastered is actually a sad reflection on the "professionals" rather than the digital tools. Believe it or not, this "gain riding" madness happened with vinyl too when people were trying to make their single sound the loudest on the jukebox.

Overall, the most significant blunder in this article is to "join the dots" between the statistics of the data and to extrapolate that to the "explanation" for the authors subjective opinions. Moreover, there's a "sample size of one" for the subjective data. It's quite a poor science experiment and would never pass peer-review - it's good enough to publish in Stereophile though.

 

You are Thorsten Whatsit, and I claim my five pounds.

All this rhetoric aint worth a fig. Vinyl sounds better - it's pretty obvious.

 

back under your bridge bub. yawn....

 

I must admit that I find the comments regarding classical music in relation to the vinyl/cd debate of the most interest. I find that this is where vinyl is far more enjoyable and to my ears accurate. With pop music particularly where many of the sounds are synthetic the gap perhaps doesn't seem as large.

 

I much prefer the analogue sound of my 70's rock albums over their later CD copies (UK pressings). But maybe this is because it's rock and not pop music. I don't own much pop on vinyl or CD to compare. Most analogue to digital transfers made in the late 80's were pants and a lot of bands' output suffered as a result. It's also the reason for a lot of remastering and reissues which we have to fork out for, again. Add an unreleased bonus track or three and this supposedly justifies the expense of buying the same album again. This greatly annoys me with remastered CD's. Firstly it's a cynical ploy by the record companies to sell old products cleverly repackaged, and secondly it messes with the artist's creative process in designing the original album. A lot of thought goes into planning the flow of an album and good track order and progression can make or break an album. I remember once borrowing Sgt. Pepper on CD and the sleeve notes mentioned the intended track listing before it was changed to what it is now. So I recorded the album onto cassette in that intended order (I was new to the album so it didn't matter to me) and played it at work. Sacrilege! My mate couldn't listen to it and said it wasn't the same album!

I don't see many LP's reissued as audiophile 180 gram etc with bonus tracks, thank God.

Re classical recordings on vinyl, one aspect that irritates me is pops and crackles during the quieter passages, of which there are many in this genre. The dynamics between the adagio and allegro parts of a performance seem better on vinyl. I suppose the solution to minimizing the surface noise is a better TT.

 

It does help, alot. However I've never particularly had problems with uncared for classical LP's. Generally the owner would have put them away after playing them, and often it seems didn't play them that much. They're a much safer 2nd hand bet.

 

Yes, it would be wrong to assume that everything on vinyl is going to sound fantastic. I buy a mixture of second hand and new vinyl these days and haven't had a badly warped one for quite a while. I don't buy much from the 80's. In the 80's when vinyl got thinner and thinner it was a case of trying to find an unwarped copy, especially with pop. A well set up deck will cope with a warped record though.

Somtimes when buying second hand from, say, a charity shop, an LP can look ok but crackle like hell throughout. On the other hand an old album can be covered in surface scratches and play perfectly fine. Undetectable deep groove damage caused by a worn or damaged stylus is a pain in the butt.

It's a pity classical music is no longer released on vinyl. Surely there's a market for it?

 

There are several 'audiophile' labels producing new classical LP's from old mastertapes. Some of these can be very good sounding if the tape hasn't deteriorated.

They don't generally ime sound any better than the 50's 60's originals though.

 

I just got through listening to all my albums (not boxes) of classical LPs in my collection of about 6000-8000 LPs.
The main reason was to eliminate those which don't sound for me enough good. I was quite disappointed to find out that they were only a few (200-400). Most of them were not because of the recording quality but because I had them doubble or they were in a very bad condition.
The most important point is a personal matter: how much background noise or light crackle disturbs you while listening. I must do say that it seems to me that in exhibitions I hear mor crackles than at my place. Maybe they should use more often record cleaning machines.
I am more concerned about a realistic soundstage, very good dynamics and good separation of the instruments of an orchestra rather than a certain level of background noise. With dynamics I don't only mean the difference between the loudest and softes passages but also the difference between two instruments playing more or less at the same time. When in live instrument A plays at 85 db and instrument B at 55, I wouldn't be pleased to hear A at 75 and B at 65.
With vinyl I have more the impression that the instruments are more placed in a space, that between them there ist air and not that they are "sticked" together. This is for me the wrong way of achieving the compactness of an orchestra. With Cds I though do appreciate the purity of sound which makes often the wow / aha-effect.

 

Agree with everything with Pete's said. I was in my mid twenties when CD arrived. My first CD player was the Philips CD100 (still got it, still works!) and as a classical listener, the practical advantages for the "normal" listener (ie me, who didn't have access to a top class record deck, and anyway, LP pressings in the late 70s / early 80s were crap, EMI being a particularly bad offender) were huge. I started buying Gramophone at around the same time as I bought my CD player - CDs were too expensive to make a mistake with - and Pete pretty well sums up the mood of the times.
As for now? Well, I've still got all my LPs and a Planar 3. They sound good when the disc is clean, but the fussiness of LP replay (no matter how much I clean the disc, it seems the stylus picks up a load of grunge which has to be cleaned off 3/4 way through a side to avoid distortion) means I mostly listen to CDs. This is also linked to the kind of music I prefer: baroque on original instruments. The recorded repertoire here went hand in hand with the CD revolution, and earlier interpretations on LP don't fit with my preferred style of interpretation. On the other hand, many "pop" LPs can sound very good, and I do buy pop LPs from my local Oxfam. By contrast, classical LPs are nearly always a disappointment.

 

I'm not sure that you're drawing the right conclusion here. IMHO, the greatest reason for the demise of classical musci on vinyl, is the subjectively greater intrusion of pops, clicks and scratches on records in poor condition - which accounts for many records owned by music lovers who are not audiophiles. To them, the silent background alone is enought to justify CD over vinyl.

I have over 600 records, many of which I have bought relatively recently as new pressings/ re-releases, or in good condition secondhand. Most of this is acoustic jazz, but I do play some classical records and to me they all sound more real than the digital alternative, if the record is virtually perfect. I play them on a SME model 10 with series IV arm and a Linn Akiva cartridge, so degradation should not be an issue. My CD player is a Linn Ikemi, and to my ears, it sounds pretty good, but when I'm listening to real instruments, as opposed to electronic sounds, analogue sounds more lifelike. I listen to live music quite a lot (and play) so I believe that I have a well grounded reference point.

This is all very subjective stuff, but I do feel that a lot of the conclusions must be influenced by the condition of the record and the relative quality of the digital/analogue equipment.

 

My thoughts.

I first got into CD when the Meridian MCD was released way back when,you could not but cd's for love nor money,the only place in London for some time was Covent Garden Records,nothing at the HMV's of this world.

And you know.the ads were correct "The perfect sound forever",this was indead true,no pops clicks just pure perfect reproduction of music.My deck at the time would have been a 401with a Hadcock arm and Decca gold.

As time went on I purchased a Voyd and got back into vinyl,the CDP would have been a Cary valve job,this would only have been used for dinner parties etc.

The deck eventually got changed to a Clearaudio and we went "high tec" in the lounge,what better time to get the Shanling,looks good and good sound,this got us back into listening to cd's again as well as vinyl.

Well the CDP is now an ARC CD 3 and the deck is now a VPI SSM with a Helikon and PH5 phono stage,you can conclude from this that we now place neither format above the other,both have quite a few pros and cons and can be enjoyed for what they are,ie two different formats to let us enjoy music on.

PS, never heard an i-pod,don't intend to either.

GJO.

 

I use a meridian G98, upsampling into a meridian processor and through a meridian 559 power amp into B&W 803Ds. The sound on CD is by any standards, superb and can,at times, move me to tears. However, I still yearn for the organic three dimensionality that CD just seems to fail to produce and so, like several other posters, have bought a wonderful vpi turntable. Even using my previous deck - a completely modified technics SL1210 (yes really!) with Origin Live armboard, Michell tecnoarm (a) and Ortofon Jubilee MC the sound was more gutsy.