Got me a record player!

[sideshowbob]

Absolutely Mr Sukebe, that's why two sources are better than one!

-- Ian

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
I thought we were having a discussion about the merits of the two formats - don't you have a view as to why you prefer CD?

All the convenience reasons I've already mentioned. Sound quality wise I have yet to hear a reason to have vinyl so given it's significant convenience penalties, why should I?

Put it like this: if all there was was CD and vinyl had just been launched as a new format there's nothing about it that would make me switch to it, even assuming that all the software that already exists existed.

Michael.

 

[bottleneck]

Originally posted by Mr_Sukebe
It strikes me that part of the issue is the format itself.

LP have definite format limitations that restrict for example dynamic range and bass extension.
I think that the result of this is that newer well engineered CDs that take advantage of the potential of the disk should result in a sound that is simply impossible to achieve on a record deck.

.

Hi

Not mirrored in my own personal experience.

A good CDP to these ears has more detail, a quieter noise floor, and I would say even greater dynamic range , even if it can become digitally grating (if not countered with careful CD selection, set up and CD player choice)

in terms of bass, well, if I want bass extesion to scare the neighbours I'd put an LP on not a CD. LPs to my ears have more bass slam, greater solidity in the mid-band and a natural fluidity that has something about it that is inherantly right.

CD's have finally come of age - products like the DAC 64, Wadias and the like giving more depth and solidity than ever before. At last!!!! it only took 20 years!!

Red book CD overtaking LP???? no, I think the presentation will always be different. It simply cant overtake because we are comparing apples with oranges, which I think is a key point.

SACD may have the best of both worlds, for those who fancy buying their record collection in a third format, replacing all their CDs


**NB**
Three whacks of a cane and no dinner for whoever came up with 'digitalians' and 'vinyalisa' FFS!!

I like both formats, am I a digitlasian?

 

[Robbo]

So frankly, who cares about the arguement, base your buying decision on your musical taste. If you focus your buying on older pressings, go LP, for newer stuff, take CD.

Which is exactly why I have a CDP only. If you look at my collection, it is mainly post 1985. I am happy with the sound quality of my front end, it is very musical and natural sounding IMO and makes the best of all recordings. I really have no compelling reason to get a TT, even though I acknowledge that vinyl has many strengths.

 

[Robbo]

At last!!!! it only took 20 years!!

To be fair Chris, Vinyl has been evolving for a lot longer than that. I wonder how good vinyl sounded like 20 years into its development?

 

[sideshowbob]

All the convenience reasons I've already mentioned. Sound quality wise I have yet to hear a reason to have vinyl so given it's significant convenience penalties, why should I?

Well, the convenience "penalties" aren't that significant, but if getting up to turn the record over is too much, then I suppose that's a score for CD.

As to the sound quality issue, you still haven't said what you think is "better" about better digital. In what ways is your new DAC better than your old CD setup, for example? Not "more analogue sounding", we've agreed, but how is it better than lesser CD gear? (Just trying to tease out a way of talking about improvements in digital without referring to analogue as a reference.)

-- Ian

 

[lowrider]

When CD started, the ones made from "old" analog recordings, AAD, where far better then DDD...

My old, carefully chosen CDs, still sound better then most new recordings, Michael heard some, he can confirm... :MILD:

 

[Bill Phabb]

vinyl is for djs and old people

 

[julian2002]

ian,
i did answer your question. to me i don;t care which answer is given as the part that contains meaningful content is the same in both answers. if someone said my cd player sounded analog my immediate thoughts are warm, mushy, valves, snap, crackle, pop.. in a stream of conciousness way that is even though i know intellectually that vinyl and valves do not have to sound like that.

as for what i like about cd.. well..

convenience wise it is a hands down winner, although i don;t think anyone desputes that. cd's are more rugged, more tolerant of dirt, easier to use and are more convenient for using in different places (on the tube, in a car etc).

sound wise i'd say that bass and mid are more reliably integrated with cd than with vinyl and that although vinyls treble seems smoother than cd's, cd's is by no means offensive. i find that they have a more stable image, if you care about that. Prat and bass impact are spot on too. even reasonably mediocre recordings of a good piece of music will communicate and get you going in whatever way you get going.

recording quality of cd vs vinyl well i'd say that there were some dark days in the 80's but i've not bought a badly recorded modern cd for a while now although i'd agree with those that say that some recording era's sound better on vinyl than on cd but then i'd argue that vinyl is about 80 (?) years old whereas cd's are one quater that and some 40's and 50's vinyl was truely bad too.

of course all of the above is a horrible generalisation based on the cd and vinyl systems i've heard.
cheers

julian

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by sideshowbob
Well, the convenience "penalties" aren't that significant, but if getting up to turn the record over is too much, then I suppose that's a score for CD.

As to the sound quality issue, you still haven't said what you think is "better" about better digital. In what ways is your new DAC better than your old CD setup, for example? Not "more analogue sounding", we've agreed, but how is it better than lesser CD gear? (Just trying to tease out a way of talking about improvements in digital without referring to analogue as a reference.)

Ian - you know as well as I do that there are many more convenience issues with vinyl than turning the record over. I'm not going to list them all again. If they're not an issue for you that's fine. Me? If I can get sound I'm more than happy with without those issues then why suffer them for sound improvements in certain areas which I don't think are worth it?

The DAC64 is better than my DAC20 in many ways but the most obvious is, that the music has much more life and emotional involvement. There's bags more detail and mid range clarity and improvements in all the usual areas one looks for but it's the way you just "hear the music" with the DAC64 that I love, I'd have that even if there were no other improvements.

Perhaps I could have got similar "life and emotional involvement" with a TT, I don't know and, frankly, I don't much care since a TT wouldn't play my CDs :MILD: Robbo summed it up nicely with: "I really have no compelling reason to get a TT, even though I acknowledge that vinyl has many strengths."

Michael.

 

[wadia-miester]

Blimey Your usual supect at 'shaken' em up' is out all day, and what do you lot get up to this is getting quite 'luke warm'
Well I have a day at the fun factory, and you boys are well handbags at 5 paces, just watch those eye-lashes boys, that can dangerious if you beat them too much .
Easy answer this and from digi-tweeker himself, you wouldn't get a more natural and anaolgue sound that a TT simple, cuz TT was first, and every thing else was compared against that
Anyway, cd has come on leaps and bounds, still not the whole picture, but closer. you like the vinyl or the TT, but the clever ones have both
TT boys are far more tweeky than digi guys, I know I spend time on the phone to them during the day they love their format as much as the digital boys, plus the software is cheaper
so they can spend more time trundging through record fairs and charity shops to find it.
I'm so lazy I can't be arsed to turn a record over I must look like a toad wart eh Jason?,
I really can't believe you guys are still going on about this, but hey it's friday and I'm happy, been even more anal today as well, have a spiffing weekend guys, I know I will WM

 

[The Devil]

Originally posted by michaelab

Perhaps I could have got similar "life and emotional involvement" with a TT, I don't know and, frankly, I don't much care since a TT wouldn't play my CDs :MILD: Robbo summed it up nicely with: "I really have no compelling reason to get a TT, even though I acknowledge that vinyl has many strengths."

But Michael, you've already acknowledged earlier in this thread that there is a massive loss in sound quality* caused by mastering for the CD format. Even assuming perfect reproduction by your hi-fi, the format is heavily hamstrung from the start. This is why an inexpensive TT, such as a Planar 3, is such a laugh - particularly when compared with an expensive CD player.

Next time you're in the UK, come up to mine for a listen if you would like to hear what a good TT can do.


* Now that I've heard this loss, I would describe it as 'taking all the leaves off the tree'. You can still tell that it is a tree, but you don't get the very subtle 'atmosphere' - type stuff, at least not to the same extent.

 

[michaelab]

James - I never acknowledged any loss in quality due to the CD format I don't know where you got that quote from, but it wasn't me.

Sure, I know that in the digital domain you can do better than 44.1kHz/16bits but I'm already more than happy with the sound I get from CD. I haven't heard any other format, whether SACD, DVD-A or vinyl that is so much better that it would want to make me add it to my system.

Michael.

 

[HenryT]

Originally posted by Bill Phabb
vinyl is for djs and old people

This 29 year old old foggy is thinking of a career change, but he needs to invest in some SL1210's first though in order to get a bit of practice in!!

 

[garyi]

Well we have read a whole lot of shite arguments.

Lets just conclude that vinyl sounds better and CD people have a lot of learning to do eh?

 

[sideshowbob]

Michael:

The DAC64 is better than my DAC20 in many ways but the most obvious is, that the music has much more life and emotional involvement. There's bags more detail and mid range clarity and improvements in all the usual areas one looks for but it's the way you just "hear the music" with the DAC64 that I love, I'd have that even if there were no other improvements.

OK. "Hear the music" is a good phrase. That's *exactly* what Merlin experienced this week, I'd suggest, and he has a good digital setup.

See where this is leading...?

Anyway, I give up now. You're missing a lot, is all.

-- Ian

 

[The Devil]

Statement:

Sorry Michael and everyone else, what we compared was in fact 96kHz/24 bit with 44.1kHz/16 bit.

Reply:

Originally posted by michaelab
Yes - that would show a big difference, it's the 24bits thats doing it

Surely that's an acknowledgement that the CD medium is seriously flawed.

I have to say that I was very surprised to say the least when I heard the difference at the weekend, and to some extent it's spoiled my enjoyment of CD as I now hear the weaknesses more clearly. I could never really put my finger on it before.

It sounds clean and etched, which I think some people might perceive or describe as 'detailed', but actually it is the opposite of detailed.

 

[chris.gally]

Sick of lurking. Thread too provoking. You evil people you.

Turntable or no turntable(no turntable) my system rocks.

I listen, i dance. Whats wrong with that.

I enjoy the music, not the format.

All i know is that i can get up and boogie to my system . It may not have a turntable, so god damn what. I enjoy it.

Car radio, old wireless in the kitchen. Yes some systems may sound more detailed, dynamic. Enjoy what you listen to.

This thread has wound me up no end. Dynamics this, frequency response that.

I dont post much at all, but come on. Enjoy what the music.

whether its the sugar hill gang or miles.


Ahemââ'¬Â¦Ã¢â'¬Â¦Ã¢â'¬Â¦..

Back to lurking..............

Chris

It mayl be a long time b4 my next post...

Sat listening to th police hybrid sacd.....3.45am

 

[Robbo]

It sounds clean and etched, which I think some people might perceive or describe as 'detailed', but actually it is the opposite of detailed.

Bub,

Maybe you havent heard the right digital front ends. Mine sounds nothing like this, it actually sounds clean and natural. someone else here has described it as sounding close to his analogue master tape/top end TT reference (his words not mine). Just because you havent heard a decent one yet, don't tar all CDPs with the same brush Yes, 24bit has more potential than 16bit, but you can still get bloody good results from 16 bit if it is implemented properly.

See where this is leading...?

Anyway, I give up now. You're missing a lot, is all.

-- Ian

Hate to say this Ian, but I dont really understand why you are getting so wound up about all this and trying to convince us CD lovers that we are not on the one true path. Unfortunately you are beginning to sound a bit like some of the angle iron squad I am sure thats not your intention.

Well we have read a whole lot of shite arguments.

Lets just conclude that vinyl sounds better and CD people have a lot of learning to do eh?

Gary, Thanks for those words of wisdom. Up to your usual standards I see


Time this thread was laid to rest.

Over and out, Robbo

 

[julian2002]

Well we have read a whole lot of shite arguments.

Lets just conclude that cd sounds better and Vinyl people have to stop living in the past eh?