Vinyl Records Anybody?

[StereoInstaller1]

Well... In my opinion it's not quite that simple. From a purely technological point of view, CD actually has a higher resolution and (in practice) more extended frequency response. So in terms of measurable performance CD is better than vinyl.

On the other hand, vinyl is often said to be more natural-sounding, i.e. it's a more engaging experience to listen to it. Personally, I also prefer vinyl over digital media, partly because it sounds good and partly because it is a nice 'ritual' ;)

Anyway, acoustics, speakers and the quality of the recording are much more important aspects than the whole vinyl vs. CD thing. On a good setup they'll both sound amazing.

You do know that the format CDs are in was invented by Denon in 1971, right? PCM 44.1Khz, 16 bit. Phillips stole it directly from Denon after Sony jumped on...trust me, vinyl kills CD in resolution and frequency response. The 44.1K sampling rate means you cannot go over half that frequency (20Khz, basically, most have a 100db/oct filter above that) while any decent phono cartridge will easily do 30Khz...go listen to a properly set up 'table on a decent LP, you will become a believer quickly.

[TurboJake]

Actually. In all technicality, a Vinyl is a direct mirror of the audio recording, with technically infinite resolution.
Because the CD has a set sampling rate of 44.1khz per minute, you have to lose audio data to put it on there.
DVD audio and Blu-Ray audio are much closer to vinyl in producing full audio. But a CD just doesn't have the storage to fit every little nuance of a recording that a vinyl record does.

Luke is right. I just wanted to throw that little tidbit out there for those who will argue to the death the CD's are better.

[Koen]

@ StereoInstaller1: No need to convince me. Actually, I don't even have a CD player anymore and if you would have read my first post in this thread you would have seen that I in fact own a properly set up table and decent LP's. "Belief" is not what I would call it, just a matter of preference.

I'll hand it to you that vinyl is theoretically better for reproducing high frequencies, but how important that is remains questionable. After all, frequencies above 20k are widely considered inaudible - although there are also signs that higher frequencies can be perceived.

And yes, it is true that phono cartridges extend well beyond 20k. However, records often do not. Firstly, it takes a lot of power for the vinyl cutter to cut these high frequencies. To prevent damage to the cutting head and driving mechanism the bandwidth of the recording is often limited. Secondly, high frequency content wears quickly on a vinyl recording. Setting up a turntable correctly goes a long way in extending the records' lifespan, but it is inherent to the system that records wear.

@ TurboJake: The fact that CD's have a sample rate does not mean that information is somehow "lacking". It is a mathematical fact that every signal up to 22,050 Hz can be reproduced perfectly. In case you're interested in this matter, read up on Nyquist-Shannon.

The molecule size of vinyl (PVC) entails that vinyl records do not have technically infinite resolution. In fact, its resolution turns out to be around 14 bits, lower than that of a CD setup. The channel separation and dynamic range of CD's are also higher than those of vinyl.

Now don't get me wrong, I will always prefer vinyl over CD. On the other hand, there is no technical argument to support the idea that vinyl sounds better. It would be interesting to understand why it still does sound better to so many people, including myself.

[StereoInstaller1]

@ StereoInstaller1: No need to convince me. Actually, I don't even have a CD player anymore and if you would have read my first post in this thread you would have seen that I in fact own a properly set up table and decent LP's. "Belief" is not what I would call it, just a matter of preference.

I'll hand it to you that vinyl is theoretically better for reproducing high frequencies, but how important that is remains questionable. After all, frequencies above 20k are widely considered inaudible - although there are also signs that higher frequencies can be perceived.

And yes, it is true that phono cartridges extend well beyond 20k. However, records often do not. Firstly, it takes a lot of power for the vinyl cutter to cut these high frequencies. To prevent damage to the cutting head and driving mechanism the bandwidth of the recording is often limited. Secondly, high frequency content wears quickly on a vinyl recording. Setting up a turntable correctly goes a long way in extending the records' lifespan, but it is inherent to the system that records wear.

@ TurboJake: The fact that CD's have a sample rate does not mean that information is somehow "lacking". It is a mathematical fact that every signal up to 22,050 Hz can be reproduced perfectly. In case you're interested in this matter, read up on Nyquist-Shannon.

The molecule size of vinyl (PVC) entails that vinyl records do not have technically infinite resolution. In fact, its resolution turns out to be around 14 bits, lower than that of a CD setup. The channel separation and dynamic range of CD's are also higher than those of vinyl.

Now don't get me wrong, I will always prefer vinyl over CD. On the other hand, there is no technical argument to support the idea that vinyl sounds better. It would be interesting to understand why it still does sound better to so many people, including myself.

gotcha, you are a man of the cloth too. Sorry I missed your earlier post.

BTW, as a young man, I visited the now-closed BBC workshop in Edinburgh, Scotland, where the famed LS3/5 speakers were developed. this would have been in 1981 or so, basically before time began. I was in their large anechoic chamber. It was quiet enough I could hear the blood rushing in my ears, somewhere around 20db or so. They played a pure 35khz sine wave...I could not "hear" it, but I certainly could perceive it, and I could point directly at the speaker playing the tone. A bizarre experience for sure, but it proved to me that we can "hear" that information. I know even at 48 and living through a lifetime of LOUD stereos, I can still hear well over 15Khz...so I think that whole "20Hz to 20Khz" thing is just not true.

But yeah, vinyl rocks. I just wish I could find the budget to do the stuff I want to listen to. I find CDs just can't hold my attention, just don't have that magic I crave. Oh well, maybe someday...

[TurboJake]

@ TurboJake: The fact that CD's have a sample rate does not mean that information is somehow "lacking". It is a mathematical fact that every signal up to 22,050 Hz can be reproduced perfectly. In case you're interested in this matter, read up on Nyquist-Shannon.

The molecule size of vinyl (PVC) entails that vinyl records do not have technically infinite resolution. In fact, its resolution turns out to be around 14 bits, lower than that of a CD setup. The channel separation and dynamic range of CD's are also higher than those of vinyl.

Now don't get me wrong, I will always prefer vinyl over CD. On the other hand, there is no technical argument to support the idea that vinyl sounds better. It would be interesting to understand why it still does sound better to so many people, including myself.

I wasn't actually pointing anything towards ya. But that's is really interesting that the molecular makeup is affecting the resolution of the recording. Makes perfect sense too.
The channel seperation I can fully agree with. Never really had an argument there.

Really fascinating Nonetheless.

And I also have to thank you for posting that link. Even being a robotics and Electromechanical engineer, I can see this applying in my field (strangely). I will probably end up reading that whole article.
Love it.

[Koen]

@ StereoInstaller1: That must have been amazing indeed... Anechoic chambers are quite a remarkable environment anyway, though somewhat creepy :) I've read some research papers where similar results were achieved (perceiving frequencies well beyond 30k), but never tried to reproduce it myself.

I guess I feel the same about CD's... They are not engaging. That's why I settle for mp3 or m4a when I'm on the move and listen to vinyl when I can.

@ TurboJake: We were basically on the same page then. Sorry, I didn't understand. I'm not a native speaker, so the subtleties sometimes evade me ;)

[TurboJake]

Yep. Same page.
It pretty much boils down to the master recording, the equipment/soundstage/other infinite amount of variables to which it it was recorded with, And then the equipment used to reproduce the recording into the audio we hear (That introduces another infinite amount of variables).

It's probably one of the few places where I prefer analogue over digital. Don't know why, and I probably never will. Maybe at the heart of it the human ear is in reality able to hear the subtle differences in the actual digital signal being that ever so minutely choppy vs the fluid linear cut of the plastic. But that's just speculation at best.

It doesn't matter though. I'm perfectly fine with never knowing why.

[QUKBMER]

I have vinyl i have been collecting since about 1980. My fav is a record my dad gave me. I has grand prix racing cars racing on different circuits around the world. It is from the mid late 60's. Its a awesome. It has phil hill is the commentator on the album.

[Emre]

In real life, any differences inherent in vinyl vs. CD as a medium will be greatly outweighed by:

1. The quality of your equipment. A top-of-the-line CD player will probably sound better than a crappy Numark DJ turntable; and a properly set-up Rega P9 will probably sound better than an '80s Sony.
   
2. The quality of the source material. A well-recorded and mastered CD (like Radiohead's Kid A) will sound better than a crappy LP; and a well-recorded and mastered LP (like Toto by Miles Davis) will sound better than 99.9% of modern CDs.

Considering albums are absolutely drenched in compression these days, most modern CDs and LPs will sound like pure ass no matter what.

And that's the downside of having a very revealing audio set-up, like my old single-ended triode amps. The (few) great recordings sound incredible, but the (vast majority of) crappy recordings become almost unlistenable. My new McIntosh amp is less revealing than my old Decware mono-blocks, but it helps everything sound as good as it can.

[Koen]

Amen to that! Apparently this way of recording brings in lots of money...

[StereoInstaller1]

It does seem like compressed, overblown mud sells best. Even in the 80's it seems most "pop" recordings were much better...think "Synchronicity", "Like a Virgin" or "Thriller", all 3 of which seem better than anything done lately in simple clarity...hell, even "Hotel California" kills most stuff now!