Great video discussing this topic! Audioholics is very logical and straight forward on all things audio.

Cheers,

T Cobe

Thanks to T. Cobe for posting the CD vs Vinyl video. I watched the video and also read most of the article on their website. His choice of recorded material was interesting, but possibly not nearly comprehensive enough to draw the conclusions he offered. His test recordings did not include anything classical. If he had sampled some classical CD reissues, he might have come to quite different conclusions.

He hypothesized that compression are frequently applied to Pop CDs for compatible radio airplay. My experience indicates that such compression is not often applied to classical recordings. I have a number of classical CDs which are reissues of analog recordings I also have on LP. In every case, my CD sounds markedly better than my LP - especially where increased dynamic range affects the playback and especially when the transfer is ADD rather than AAD. I believe the original master analog tapes contained a greater dynamic range than was transferred to the LP and this increased dynamic range can be fully realized on the CD reissue.

I also have digitally recorded CDs of classical compositions with inherently wide dynamic range and these recordings certainly don't sound compressed to me. The difference between the fortissimo and pianissimo passages are stunning.

I have some POP CD reissues which do not offer much over the vinyl, except to eliminate the surface noise. I can hear some low frequency noise or tape noise on some of these reissue CDs. If that noise is objectionable enough, I simply copy the CD to my computer using lossless WAV files, use my Wave Corrector program to remove the rumbles, then make a new CD. Results are very satisfying.

I am still waiting for someone to offer a technically-satisfying (to me, anyway) explanation for why vinyl which involves mechanical sound transfer, surface and groove noise, a 60 db dynamic range, and inevitable wear, is superior to a properly mastered CD which offers no noise, unlimited no-wear playback, and a +90 db dynamic range. The Audioholics guys essentially said the same thing when they discussed transferring a modern uncompressed digital recording to vinyl, saying how could the transfer improve on the original?

Happy listening to all,

Art

Thanks, Art. Great analysis. My take away was that some of the old original analog recordings sound great on vinyl, if done well, and may add a level of ambiance. I think they concluded that music recorded digitally would be better on CD. I have no first hand experience to draw from to offer an opinion. I look forward to learning first hand.

Cheers,

T Cobe

When I look at turntable and cartridge options in Stereophile Magazine, I see a large group of very expensive items with which to play vinyl. There are also very expensive DACs and CD players with which to play CDs.

I have also read the articles extolling the warmth of vinyl sound over the "digital" sound of CDs. Added to the discussion mix is the presence of both newly-minted LPs and older pre-digital LPs.

What I don't recall seeing is a discussion comparing the sound quality available when comparing a run-of the mill CD player with a run of the mill DAC as compared to a run of the mill turntable and a run of the mill cartridge. So, I will offer my opinions based upon my own gear. I play my CDs through older-technology Sony CD players and changers, using the players' internal DACs. I play my LPs with a 30 year old Technics linear turntable with whatever cartridge is installed (turntable and cartridge given to me by my son when he retired it).

Listening through my gear, CDs are superior to LPs, without exception. Well-recorded digitally mastered CDs are far superior to anything I have on LP. And, it doesn't matter whether I am listening to Bernstein or Brubeck - CDs are better.

My two cents worth. To each his own.

Happy listening to all,

Art

Hey Art. Happy Holidays!

While this topic has seemingly been beaten to death, I would like to add another penny so we can up-the-anti to three cents.

In my view, CD's are preferred, not necessarily "better". The debate over CD vs Vinyl in my view is similar - albeit different - to tubes versus solid state, copper wire versus silver plated copper wire, etc. Personally I opt for CDs and solid state.

When I write preferred, by this I mean that - for example - while CDs have much greater dynamic range, I suspect (by listening experience, not scientific measurement) that in certain cases the digitizing of an analog recording may not yield the exact result (audio output to be played back and listened to) that the analog original (when initially recorded analog) can capture. By this I mean that it is conceivable that when a band performs a piece of music, the dynamic range between their lowest and highest sound could conceivably be say (hypothetically) 12db. The analog recording would capture this 12db range, however, when digitized while it should also be 12db, in actuality it could (in some cases, not all) result in more like 14db. Point being - especially if my suspicion is true - in certain instances the analog original when kept in the analog domain can presumably result in a more "realistic" sound. The caveat here is this would be extremely subtle and only in certain cases.

Furthermore, to the point about surface noise from an LP coming into contact with the needle, etc. if quality equipment is used and the LP isn't worn this could be virtually inaudible. A live performance at times has artifacts such as feedback, electrical "hiss" and so on that in certain cases can be "lost" when the recording is immediately digitized. By this I mean the engineer who does the recording uses software to eliminate noise floor and the types of sounds I'm eluding to and thus, the end result is not as "life like" as an analog recording.

The point I'm trying to make here is that while I too believe in a general sense CDs are "better", I think that it would be more accurate to use the term "preferred" (more convenient, generally superior sounding, etc.) because once the notion of sounding "more lifelike " (a closer approximation to the original performance) is discussed, that can be somewhat subjective.

Hi GDHAL,

Merry Christmas to you as well.

Your points are well-taken. My use of the term "better" should certainly be interpreted as "preferred" because any comments I make about sounds are from my listening experiences and, therefore, can only represent what I hear and prefer.

And, I agree that today's sound technology supports whatever tweaks or downright alterations the recording engineer desires to interpose. I have listened to, and sung in, a significant number of live performances of both choral and symphonic music. Live performances will always contain idiosyncrasies, mistakes, miscellaneous ambient noises, etc. If the audio engineer's goal is to faithfully maintain the "live" ambiance, then leaving artifacts is appropriate. But, if the goal is a flawless (or nearly flawless) performance, then numerous "takes" are often needed, along with post-recording cleanup. Either way, we end up hearing what the audio engineer thinks we should hear. Usually, the conductor, band leader, lead singer, etc. collaborates with the audio engineer in preparation of the final master recording.

All these things go together to produce what we hear and bear considerable weight as we individually decide whether or not we like a particular recording or whether or not we think of a particular performance or recording as a "reference event".

Happy Listening,

Art