# Records vs. CDs



## JohannesBrahms (Apr 22, 2013)

I am back to haunt the forum! (evil Dracula laugh from me and a groan from all of you)

It's been a while, but I was wondering something. Do you folks prefer the sound of records or CDs? Not which you primarily listen to, as a recent thread asked. I listen to most music online, and in fact own only three classical records. I much prefer a record to a CD, though. I think the sound of a record is much warmer. Which do you prefer?


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Are you referring to an LP recording?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I listen to music. I don't listen to plastic disks. I have good sounding CDs and good sounding LPs. Probably the odds of a CD sounding good is higher, but LPs can do the job too.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

bigshot said:


> I listen to music. *I don't listen to plastic disks.*


And by this, you mean? You mean that they're both plastic disks but it's the music on them that matters? I'm probably just slow, forgive me.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I don't like the snap crackle pop of vinyl, nor the static. Slide it into the dust jacket a couple of times and the vinyl begins to evince audible and visible wear. It's also subject to warping. Not so, the CD. I own CDs from as early as 1990 and they sound as good as new. There is no visible sign of wear, no audible degradation. I like durability and CD gives me that. I have heard audiophiles complain of the clear sound of CDs versus the warm sound of vinyl. I don't know what they're talking about. I like the sound clear and with nothing added, just like it was recorded, and I want it to stay that way.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

From a purely sound standpoint, I think an LP may be better (assuming it's been well cared for). But they're less convenient, have to be flipped, take more storage space, etc.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I have fond memories of carefully handling my LPs in the days of yore. It was more of an event to listen to an LP, not something you could just flip on in an instant. Also the album art was huge compared to that of a CD. Nonetheless, I love the convenience of CDs and electronic files.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> From a purely sound standpoint, I think an LP may be better (assuming it's been well cared for).


The Redbook CD standard exceeds LPs in every aspect... dynamic range, noise, distortion, frequency response... While CDs are 16 bit, an LP is lucky to come close to 12 bit sound. CDs are a little bit leaning to overkill, so an LP can certainly sound very good. But comparing apples to apples, CD is an audibly transparent format. LPs aren't.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

bigshot said:


> The Redbook CD standard exceeds LPs in every aspect... dynamic range, noise, distortion, frequency response... While CDs are 16 bit, an LP is lucky to come close to 12 bit sound. CDs are a little bit leaning to overkill, so an LP can certainly sound very good. But comparing apples to apples, CD is an audibly transparent format. LPs aren't.


Yet isn't the big argument that vinyl is analog (continuous) whereas digital is discrete (broken up into bits). So in theory one could say, I don't want shattered music. But then we have to consider the capabilities of the human ear, which varies for each person and according to how much they have abused their hearing in the past. Oh, and the audiophyle standard of the LP days was reel-to-reel tape, a discrete digital format.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I personally prefer CDs to LPs but only for their sonic cleanness and clarity and convenience of use. It's kind of hard to play your LPs in your car as you go about town but I certainly can my CDs. I do miss the large album covers and readable type of the LP. As Florestan said buying and listening to an LP in the days of my youth was more or an event than it is today. When I came home with that new YES or Chicago album in my hand and put the needle on the record it was with anticipation of what may be in the grooves. We held the album cover and admired the artwork and the details that went into the record sleeves while we listened and the album images are forever ingrained into our minds and connected with that music. The covers and the music were both part of the experience. That's just not so today. I own quite a few LPs but I rarely listen to them. I probably should do so more than I do but I'm old and lazy. Let me sit and listen uninterrupted for 70 minutes and not have to get up and turn over the record every twenty or so minutes. Yep...Cds for me!

Kevin


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Come on, old timers, let go of the vinyl already.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Pros and cons both ways ... but in the end it's the quality of the musical performance that matters most. One can't assume that a CD is just "better" than an LP. Much music recorded back in the 1920s and 1930s are now available on CD, but the sound quality of the recordings is not up to present day standards. The CD doesn't improve on the recorded sound of that eras technology.

Many first generation CDs, especially, are harsh sounding and don't present the CD medium in a very good light. CD technology has improved since the mid-80s, since "digital" technology has improved. The sound of loss-less downloads can prove better than a CD.

But keep in mind, both CDs and digital downloads need a DAC before you can listen to them. And what does a DAC do? It converts the digital to analog. Ones and zeros alone don't sound much like music. The thing about LPs is that they are analog from the get go. So ... what is the real argument here?

I listen to several LPs a week, as well as to CDs. I prefer the sound of LPs to CDs in many instances. I find it much easier to be immediately moved emotionally by the sound that derives from a clean, well kept and well recorded LP played on my VPI Scoutmaster turntable fitted with a Clearaudio Maestro Wood cartridge and pre-amped through my tubed JoLida phono amp than I ever am by a CD processed through my SONY CD deck. There is just something about the "liveness" of sound available from a black vinyl disc "record" that I don't experience with CD, and I've heard thousands of CDs played on good equipment.

I suppose some folks may complain about ticks and pops and swishing sounds from LPs, but if one were to scratch up one's CDs, similar noises would detract from their performance. In other words, well cared for LPs will deliver great, silent sound that, in my experiences at least, cannot be duplicated by a CD.

Though the vast number of LPs in my collection derive from purchase made prior to the 1990s, I have in recent years, since the new vinyl upsurge, purchased a couple hundred new vinyl recordings. My latest vinyl purchase, from just a few days ago, was of Led Zeppelin's third album. I have a pristine LP copy of the original album from decades ago, and a couple of CD reissues, but I bought the new vinyl copy (and a CD copy) of the newly remastered disc. When I played the new vinyl disc, I wasn't struck by how silent the vinyl was (since my old original copy is silent, too), I noticed only a clarity in the music, a result of the remastering. (I haven't yet compared the new CD, but one of these days I will take one song on the disc and run it through a comparison -- original LP, new remastered LP, old CD version 1, 2, and 3, and newly remastered CD version. Hey ... this is what we collector types do.)

So ... before anyone condemns LP sound, I challenge them to listen to a pristine disc on a good set-up. Sure, they'll have to turn over the record to hear side two, but when quality music jumps out of the speakers the way it will do with a fine LP played on fine stereo equipment, the minor inconvenience is hardly off putting. I do it all the time.

In the end, one will have to put forth a bit of an investment into the record playing equipment if one wants to get the full sound experience (and the top line turntables actually run over $100,000, believe it or not) -- my own CD deck, a Sony SCD-XA5400ES, is a fine instrument, but my LP playing front end (table, cartridge with needle, and phone pre-amp) cost about three times as much, though it is still a "modest" system by current high-end standards. Still, the investment is well worth it for me, since I enjoy listening to recorded music and want to do so with the most pleasurable sound I can afford. Many of you who are musicians know the value inherent in purchasing a great musical instrument to perform with -- and a good sounding instrument tends to cost a bit more than the "cheap" beginner level instruments available. The same goes for musical playback equipment. What is sound quality worth to you?

But don't knock the LP. If it really were as bad as many folks proclaim, it most likely would never have made a resurgence. As things stand now, I've probably bought more LPs in the past year than CDs, and I wouldn't lay down hard earned green for poor sounding discs. When I put on the new LZ Three album, it rocked! I wasn't thinking in terms of vinyl vs CD, or digital vs analog. I just heard great music in my listening room -- and it was as though I was there in the studio with Page, Plant, Jones, and Bonham. And all this from a piece of wax.

Count me a vinyl fan.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Come on, old timers, let go of the vinyl already.


As much as I would like to free up the space I just can't bring myself to throw music away. Just can't do it. Help!

Kevin


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Definitely CDs. I buy records for fun, mostly. I do have a nice record player and a good sound set-up, but it doesn't beat listening to lossless CD files on my computer. It's nice not having to worry about minor imperfections on the record causing issues. And I'm the type of person who notices every tiny imperfection -_-


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hmmm... Rumble, wow and flutter. Warped and mis-centered discs. Surface noise that increases over time. Scratches that arise from simply *looking* at the surface. And oh, the inner-groove distortion -- why did those pesky composers always put the loudest bits at the end?

I was never so happy as when CDs came out. All problems solved, better sound, and they last a lifetime. I gave my LP collection away without regrets.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I really miss having to set my turntable up with the dust bug, trying to get most of the dust off the LP before we start and then listening to it with dismay as there are extra pops and scratches on it from last time. Now all I have to do is to put a CD into the player and listened to the clean sound without all the background noise. 
Added to that most CDs are now far cheaper in real terms than LPs were.
The one thing I miss about LPs was the lavish booklets they used to present with opera performances.
One thing I hate about CDs is the original jacket fad at the moment where the original sleeve note is so reduced in size you can't read it. A pointless exercise!


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

I have both LP's and CD's in my collection. I have, to this day, an LP turntable as part of my audio setup at home, mostly Angel and DGG labels.



Lope de Aguirre said:


> Come on, old timers, let go of the vinyl already.


I see your point, but most of my LP's content are simply not available on any other medium - they are mostly from the 60's and a few from the 70's. Some are 'demo' recordings - a one shot pressing with a very limited run ... possibly 50 copies or so. I just can't bear to part with them.

Kh ♫


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Hmmm... Rumble, wow and flutter. Warped and mis-centered discs. Surface noise that increases over time. Scratches that arise from simply *looking* at the surface. And oh, the inner-groove distortion -- why did those pesky composers always put the loudest bits at the end?
> 
> I was never so happy as when CDs came out. All problems solved, better sound, and they last a lifetime. I gave my LP collection away without regrets.


Couldn't agree more


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

When I started buying music at the age of eleven or twelve, which was around 1990, there were still LPs in the stores. However, since my first "stereo" was a ghettoblaster-type cassette player without CD, my first music were cassette tapes. My first proper stereo did have a record player and CD, but I only ever bought a handful of LPs. It was pretty much CD from then on.

However, this was many years before I got into classical music, so the notion of getting classical music on LP was completely foreign to me. Even if I wanted to switch to LPs, there would be no chance that I could replace even a fraction of my CD collection with LPs.

Still, I sometime think about buying a decent record player along with maybe ten or twelve classics pop albums of the vinyl era like Kind of Blue, Sgt. Pepper, Autobahn, The Köln Concert, Never Mind the ********, and so on.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I much prefer the tactile feel of LPs, but I have a pragmatic stance to records/recordings in general, listening to the music is always more important then the sound quality, not that I mind good sound, it is just secondary to the music in my corner of the world!

/ptr


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I grew up with LP's, "needles", clicks, pops and scratches. I like the convenience, easier handling and space-saving of CD's and would never go back.
If that's considered a crime around here, so arrest me.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> I grew up with LP's, "needles", clicks, pops and scratches. I like the convenience, easier handling and space-saving of CD's and would never go back.
> If that's considered a crime around here, so arrest me.


Yes, but if I had the time I would like to set up my old component stereo system (Yahama CT-610 II amp, circa 1979) and spin some vinyl.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm a 90s kid. I've never actually owned a record or a record player.


----------



## mirepoix (Feb 1, 2014)

Nowadays I'm happy with CDs. They make sense. However in an ideal world (the one where I'm _King of the Universe and Everything_) I'd be listening to LPs. But even then it's kind of like my excuse for still shooting film, in that it's a combo of ritual and nostalgia - 'it's the way it always used to be done'.








Prokofiev's 5th. Stokowski. Late 1950s.

All the hands that placed this record on a turntable and dropped the needle and were moved or inspired by what it reproduced. I find it an almost comfortable link to the past. Oh my.

e: Prokofiev - Stokowski…:


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

There are many, many arguments against the vinylrecord, and many of them are true.
I just happen to like them and have a few of them, I like the sound, the ritual, the hassle. Black magic it is ! 
Also enjoy building or modding turntables.
(Definitely not into the jargon nor religion of audiophilia)

Haha, I did the opposite of KenOC, I recently gave away al my cd's, classical to my mother, pop and rock to friends, the rest went to charity.
Kept a few for in the car. Very convenient they are, sound great too 

And there is always YT, soundcloud, spotify, downloads etc.

Cheers,
Jos


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

LP Analogue -- there is (fact) a greater spectrum of frequencies recorded and played back (on good equipment); 
the sound is warmer; 
the placement (mapping of where the players are sitting in the acoustic space) has that much more depth of presence.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> LP Analogue -- there is (fact) a greater spectrum of frequencies recorded and played back (on good equipment);
> the sound is warmer;
> the placement (mapping of where the players are sitting in the acoustic space) has that much more depth of presence.


Ahem. If the quality of the recording equipment/enginnering is equal:

The 'greater spectrum' of frequencies recorded includes non-music frequencies. The CD has all of the music.

Warmth of sound is an artifact of the reproducing equipment, not the recording; it is 'added'.

Placement, such as it can be recorded, is at least equal in the CD. In general, 'placement' is a subjective phenomenon encouraged by the LP mystique.

[Just thought I would offer a non-volatile version of the opposing view.]


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ukko said:


> Ahem. If the quality of the recording equipment/engineering is equal:


They ain't equal, lol.



Ukko said:


> The 'greater spectrum' of frequencies recorded includes non-music frequencies. The CD has all of the music.


Ahem -- those frequencies recorded which are beyond the range of human hearing produce mixed harmonics _which can be heard and affect instrumental color, especially when those instruments are combined._ These mix in the air during playback.
Limitations of either medium differ, but the _harmonic saturation_ of the analog LP technology is more what we hear, and the way we hear it live.

CDs, to fit all the data on the recording in that format, opted for microphones which _picked up less than that,(bit rate)_ and are lacking that very real and audible harmonic saturation, (repro equipment aside.) Yes, all the music is there, the incremental steps (visual translation = pixels) are virtually non-detectable to the human ear, yet they are like micro right-angle steps vs a smooth curve of many points.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Cd's. But nowadays, I go to spotify and imported songs on my iPod for listening.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Take it from one of the non-classical greats:



> When you hear my song now
> You only get five percent
> You used to get it all
> You used to get it all


Lyrics from Driftin Back, Neil Young, Psychedelic Pill.

So Neil came up with the solution in PONO music.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

CDs for me for all of the aforementioned reasons, but I still love my LPs and cassettes (especially since I have many recordings that have yet to be re-issued onto CDs, especially the Melodiya ones). I do like the LP experience quite a lot: the flipping over the sides, the placing the stylus to wherever on the record if I want to repeat a passage, or skip to another one, or sampling the record, the reading the notes, the looking at the art-covers, etc. It has that nice nostalgic feel to it. But CDs, around for about 33 years now, are beginning to have that nice nostalgic feel to them also. And I like the consistency of the sound the CDs offer. The sound a CD has, for ten, twenty, thirty years, remains remarkably the same today. Of course, it means that that sound can easily be surpassed by today's recording technology with better quality (SACD, 24-bit audio, etc.), thus making it dated by comparison. But it still sounds good (Bax's symphonic poems under Thomson comes to mind).

That said, it is nice to see vinyl making a comeback.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Yes, but if I had the time I would like to set up my old component stereo system (Yahama CT-610 II amp, circa 1979) and spin some vinyl.


I gave all my vinyl away. Probably melted down to make land mine explosives.


----------



## omega (Mar 13, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I gave all my vinyl away. Probably melted down to make land mine explosives.









Some pithy poetry again!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

omega said:


> View attachment 50054
> Some pithy poetry again!
> View attachment 50055


It's another "signature" post. :tiphat:


----------



## omega (Mar 13, 2014)

My father has a very large collection of LPs. But I prefer today's recording technology, and always have a better experience with CDs... And you can rip, copy and save CDs, take them with you anywhere... _And you don't have that annoying fluffy background noise!_


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Vinyl is definitely fun, its kind of an event when you pull out a record to listen to, especially because you can't really skip between various tunes (unless you're really deft with that needle), but I by far prefer CDs. CDs are by far the most versatile medium for recordings (aside I suppose from a USB drive), and is a great combination of not taking up much space while still providing high audio quality, and still providing the visual elements of album art and liner notes. And they are the most readily converted into super-portable audio files. Audio files are convenient, but I prefer having some kind of physical medium, and CDs are the best of those. Vinyl is over-rated.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Its about 3,000 to one in Hermit Towers - so you can guess which side of the fence I'm on.

ps - that 'one' being a sentimental copy of the first classical LP I ever bought (but I have to listen to it on CD as I have no record deck anymore)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

PetrB said:


> They ain't equal, lol.
> 
> Ahem -- those frequencies recorded which are beyond the range of human hearing produce mixed harmonics _which can be heard and affect instrumental color, especially when those instruments are combined._ These mix in the air during playback.
> Limitations of either medium differ, but the _harmonic saturation_ of the analog LP technology is more what we hear, and the way we hear it live.
> ...


Hah! A mystical flim-flam followed by a technical misapprehension. You do have the jargon down, Petr. I only hope I can maintain a reasonable facsimile of the patter of the Honorable Opposition.

The speech of some women and the majority of young children is incomprehensible to me, because I can't hear the consonants. Music might as well _all _be Lo-fi. Only presentation still counts.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I prefer cds. They pack smaller. LPs get easily scratched and sometimes cracked. With the older 78s, I sometimes smashed them. We once borrowed an LP of French Renaissance Music from our local library. They were supposed to map the cracks on the record, but when we took it back, they claimed - erroneously - that we had put a crack on it and we were obliged to buy it from them at a reduced price. As it was a nice record, we didn't mind too much, though the stain on our honour rankled.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> We once borrowed an LP of French Renaissance Music from our local library, but when we took it back, they claimed erroneously  that we had put a crack on it and we were obliged to buy it from them at a reduced price. .... the stain on our honour rankled.


Oh, Ingelou! I never thought that I would meet the criminal underworld on TC


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

Being of an age where I have a large collection of both Vinyl and CD's plus the capability to play both, on fairly decent equipment. I was always a fan of the 12" format of sleeves and sleeve notes compared to some of the CD booklets which require a microscope to read, and the sleeves themselves looked wonderful.
As to the actual playing of the formats I must plump for CD's clean unblemished sound every time, improving every year. Even once dodgy remasters have been cleaned up. The sound quality on modern recordings is outstanding even those made at live events. So even given moderate playback gear the sound quality available is something we once dreamed of.
See post 43


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ah, the countless hours spent fiddling with anti-skating counterweights, trying to get the stylus pressure just right, testing alternate positions for the dust bug, searching for a record cleaning system (there must be one out there) that worked as advertised, pulling the stylus and peering through the little microscope to see if I had the tell-tale "chiseled tip", worrying about dot-drift when the strobe was working, religiously checking the belt or idler wheel, checking again for lubrication intervals...and all the rest of the rituals of playing records. Sometimes I got to listen to music, if enough time was left.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

In the days when we came home clutching our new LP's the battle began to keep the constant enemy 'dust' at bay and in general to no avail, then the clicks and pops would become part of the music.
I see now in the Hi Fi press that there are machines available to restore discs to pristine condition but doubtless they are expensive and just another tier in what should be a relaxing experience not an exercise in the restoration of memories.
So while I will keep my vinyl i doubt it will be played much and instead devote my music leisure time to my CD and MP3 (outdoor use) and consider the vinyl cultists as paid up members of the flat earth society. But as I always say whatever floats your boat.
Sorry about the 2 posts 41 and this one but my laptop had a seizure.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Seems that vinyl is just as convenient ad CDs in the car. Wonder why this didn't take:


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Although I now mostly listen to CD's and SACD's, vinyl will always have a place in my setup. As has been mentioned previously by others, the liner notes on LPs are much more convenient for me to read, and full size Librettos feel much better in hand than the tiny facsimiles that CD sets have. If I did decide to disperse my vinyl collection, I think I would at least salvage the Librettos as they work well with any performance. The likelihood of my doing this is VERY remote - I would have to change my screen name.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

CDs have a better sound quality to me i have 3 lps home i rather not play them to much.Also there is a lack of bass on the LPS you know.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

If one has a really Audiophile Class turntable, amp and tremendous speakers then _I think_ the sound is superior to digital - but I don't yet have that stuff so I suffer on with my modest system (I use good earphones a lot, too).

However, the last thing I sell will be my digital recordings of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (and most of them are ADD, of course).


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

NightHawk said:


> However, the last thing I sell will be my digital recordings of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (and most of them are ADD, of course).


That is another question. Is an ADD CD better than a DDD CD?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Florestan said:


> Yet isn't the big argument that vinyl is analog (continuous) whereas digital is discrete (broken up into bits).


That's a complete misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Digital audio doesn't have "stair steps" and it isn't "broken up". Waveforms are recreated perfectly by sampling the peaks and valleys and connecting the dots smoothly. With a sampling rate of 44.1, all of the frequencies audible to humans can be *perfectly* recreated... not jagged recreated, and not shattered recreated... perfectly recreated. And with anti-aliasing, the noise floor can be pushed down so far, you would have to turn the volume up to ear damaging levels to hear it.

Analogue LPs have a lot of distortion, particularly at the inner grooves, Low resolution, again at the inner grooves, audible noise floor, limited frequency response, and mechanical artifacts (pops and ticks). Inferior to CDs in every way. The reason LPs sound better sometimes is because of mastering, not the format itself.

Quarter inch reel to reel tape at 7 1/2 ips can be better than LPs in distortion and frequency response, but the noise floor of analogue tape is still significantly higher than Redbook audio. Even at 15 ips the noise floor doesn't match Redbook.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> LP Analogue -- there is (fact) a greater spectrum of frequencies recorded and played back (on good equipment); the sound is warmer; the placement (mapping of where the players are sitting in the acoustic space) has that much more depth of presence.


None of that is true. LPs had a rolled off upper frequency range. There usually isn't any program above 16kHz. The reason for this was because very high frequencies create extremely delicate groove modulations. Two or three plays through a 20kHz tone on vinyl and it would turn to a mass of distortion extending down much further into the audible range. The only ultra high frequency content on LPs is in the form of surface noise. One of my first jobs was producing an LP project. I spoke with the guys who cut the master. They applied a high end rolloff along with the RIAA curve. I questioned that, and they explained that if you left all the very high frequencies in there, people would return the records in droves as having high distortion. They said that the high end rolloff was a standard practice.

Warmth is the result of this rolling off of high frequencies. The high end is attenuated, making the sound "warm".

Soundstage is a function of miking and mixing. Higher fidelity (as in digital audio) will more accurately represent the soundstage. Raise the noise floor and distortion with LPs and the soundstage will start degrading along with the sound fidelity. Even worse is the crosstalk between channels. LPs have a LOT of crosstalk. CDs have no audible crosstalk. Crosstalk is the best way to muddle up soundstage.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

NightHawk said:


> If one has a really Audiophile Class turntable, amp and tremendous speakers then _I think_ the sound is superior to digital


With a good turntable, LPs can sound almost as good as digital. When I first got a computer with the capability to capture audio, I did a capture of the best LP I own... A direct to disk pressing of Lincoln Mayorga and Distinguished Colleagues Vol 2. This record is legendary for its sound quality. I did a blind level matched comparison between the LP and the digital rip and I couldn't discern any difference at all.

CD quality sound is capable of containing everything present on LPs (and then some).


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Florestan said:


> That is another question. Is an ADD CD better than a DDD CD?


Professional 24 track analogue tape traveling at 30 ips is comparable to redbook. The only difference is a little bit of tape hiss. In practice the differences you hear between DDD and ADD should only be the quality of the miking and the mixing, not the format itself.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Thank you Mr. Bigshot. I am coming to believe that CD is better, and am learning a lot in the process.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Florestan said:


> Take it from one of the non-classical greats:
> 
> Lyrics from Driftin Back, Neil Young, Psychedelic Pill.
> 
> So Neil came up with the solution in PONO music.


I am rather suprised that I got no comments on this post.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> I am rather suprised that I got no comments on this post.


life is evidently full of surprises


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Florestan said:


> I am rather suprised that I got no comments on this post.


Here you go... http://www.cnet.com/news/sound-bite-despite-ponos-promise-experts-pan-hd-audio/


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

I enjoy both CDs and LPs, and I actively collect both -- although I generally don't buy new vinyl, only used.

To my ears, sometimes CDs sound better and sometimes LPs sound better. There are so many variables that it's hard to come down firmly on one side or the other.

As many others have said, I like the convenience and durability of CDs. 

But I also enjoy the ritualistic aspects of spinning vinyl: Cleaning the LP. Placing it on the 'table. Watching it spin. Reading the LP cover notes and looking at the art. Plus, I frequently find ridiculously good deals on vinyl. It's a way to explore music that I might not investigate otherwise. 

The random, pot-luck element of "crate diving" is fun too. You never know what you'll find.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm an old fart who still owns a few LPs. But my objection to this format is philosophical.

"Hey, I've come up with this great way to reproduce sounds! We take this big ol' disk, see, and then we take this needle--got it?--and then we SCRATCH the needle along these grooves on the disk . . . and that makes our sound!"

[Incredulous look of incomprehension.]

"Hey, I've come up with a better idea. Let's take this much smaller disk, see, and then we shine this laser light on it, right? Without touching the disk at all. And that reads the sounds!"

[Astonished look of admiration.]


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Records were designed to be played. I once tried a test with my Victrola, which has a one pound tracking force and steel needles. I took a NOS batwing Victor from the same era as the machine and made a careful digital transcription of it. Then I took the record and played it on my Victrola 100 times. By the end I was pretty doggone sick of the song. I transcribed it to digital again and compared it to the first transfer. Absolutely no difference.

It's no different with LPs. With a properly set up turntable, you are going to get sick of listening to the record long before the record wears out. Most record wear is created by mishandling and playing on out of align equipment or with chipped styli.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

Is this topic ever going to go away....CDs vs Vinyl? It's like New Year's Day, keeps coming back.

Isn't this one of those things that no one is better or superior than the other but rather what sound do you prefer?

(Please.....do not start a thread about MP3s vs FLACs. I will start screaming.)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JohannesBrahms said:


> I am back to haunt the forum! (evil Dracula laugh from me and a groan from all of you)
> 
> It's been a while, but I was wondering something. Do you folks prefer the sound of records or CDs? Not which you primarily listen to, as a recent thread asked. I listen to most music online, and in fact own only three classical records. I much prefer a record to a CD, though. I think the sound of a record is much warmer. Which do you prefer?


In the midrange, with voice, you're probably right, but there are too many advantages to digital: lower noise, consistent speed, etc, especially close with hi-rez, almost as good on voices.


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

Centropolis said:


> Is this topic ever going to go away....CDs vs Vinyl? It's like New Year's Day, keeps coming back.
> 
> Isn't this one of those things that no one is better or superior than the other but rather what sound do you prefer?
> 
> (Please.....do not start a thread about MP3s vs FLACs. I will start screaming.)


Well, how about CD vs 96kHz 24-bit (or higher?), or CD vs SACD, DVD audio?? :devil:

On HiFi audio forums, the vacuum tube vs solid state war is going forever, too. As you stated, it's more of taste than "which is better". I'm just happy with CD-level quality, especially for remastered 78 rpm records on CDs. My musician friend can tell who is playing a violin solo on boom box. Music is not only the quality of the sound, but much more in it and where to put your emphasis is purely of your choice (and all choices are valid, to my personal opinion).

Many audiophiles insist that LPs sound better than CD (on their hi-end equipment, of course). This includes John Curl, a renowned audio amplifier designer who designed Mark Levionson's JC series and others, and also participated in the inprementation of Wall of Sound for the Grateful Dead. His knowledge and experience are extraordinary, so when he insists, there must be something. Personally, I would put all those money into CDs/downloads instead of those expensive high-end audio stuff.

By the way, I'm one of those audio DIYer who design and build their own equipments. To me, my DAC and amplifier sound the best (I know, I know, it sounds stupid but that's me, not my equipments).


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I'm surprised open-reel or reel to reel tape hasn't been mentioned. Or has it?


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

satoru said:


> Well, how about CD vs 96kHz 24-bit (or higher?), or CD vs SACD, DVD audio?? :devil:
> 
> On HiFi audio forums, the vacuum tube vs solid state war is going forever, too. As you stated, it's more of taste than "which is better". I'm just happy with CD-level quality, especially for remastered 78 rpm records on CDs. My musician friend can tell who is playing a violin solo on boom box. Music is not only the quality of the sound, but much more in it and where to put your emphasis is purely of your choice (and all choices are valid, to my personal opinion).
> 
> Many audiophiles insist that LPs sound better than CD (on their hi-end equipment, of course). This includes John Curl, a renowned audio amplifier designer who designed Mark Levionson's JC series and others, and also participated in the inprementation of Wall of Sound for the Grateful Dead. His knowledge and experience are extraordinary, so when he insists, there must be something. Personally, I would put all those money into CDs/downloads instead of those expensive high-end audio stuff.


There are plenty of expensive audiophile equipment for CD transports and DACs as well. I think when you have a decent enough system for either vinyl or CDs, you're fine. I've only spent decent amount of money on my system only about 2 years ago. Before that, it was just laptop, cheap DAC into small powered speakers.

Just listen and enjoy the music...whether you're listening to cassettes, MiniDiscs, 8-track tapes, hi-res downloads, vinyl or CDs.


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

Vaneyes said:


> I'm surprised open-reel or reel to reel tape hasn't been mentioned. Or has it?


I looked up the Wiki page and surprised to find that they are still in production! Wow. Anybody has one??


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

satoru said:


> I looked up the Wiki page and surprised to find that they are still in production! Wow. Anybody has one??


I have a working TEAC A-6010 in my main audio system, along with a cassette deck. I use both on occasion, but granted I do not have quite so many reel-to-reel tapes or cassettes as I have LPs and CDs ... by a long shot. But my couple dozen reels still pack quite a wallup of sound. Few media ever sounded as good as reel-to-reel tape. It's much better than cassette or 8-track (which is one media I cannot currently play, though I do recall the tape sound of 8-track was superior to cassette). Ah ... back in the day I had an 8-track in my vehicle -- though I forget what vehicle that was.

My reel tapes are all from the 1950s and 1960s (and possibly 70s) and contain a few classics such as Szell's Bartok Concerto for Orchestra on Columbia MQ 776 and Ormandy's Beethoven's Ninth on Columbia MQ 929. Among rarer gems is a tape of Verdi's "Four Sacred Pieces" with Frederick Waldman and Musica Aeterna on Decca ST74-9429. It's a fun thing to play around with still, the reel-to-reel deck. And ... I still have a couple dozen blank tapes from way back when ... just in case I ever want to record my CDs or downloads onto reel-to-reel tape!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Centropolis said:


> Isn't this one of those things that no one is better or superior than the other but rather what sound do you prefer?


The whole world is that. Digital vs LP isn't a matter of preference though. It's fact that the specifications of digital audio trounce LPs in every single aspect, both in scientific measurements and controlled listening tests.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

satoru said:


> Well, how about CD vs 96kHz 24-bit (or higher?), or CD vs SACD, DVD audio?


That is a simple answer too... The CD was designed from the ground up to be audibly transparent to human ears. It exceeds the thresholds of human perception in every way. Higher bit rates and sampling rates can improve specs beyond that, but the difference can't be heard in normal music listening, only in mixing and mastering where you need lots of headroom.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

bigshot said:


> The whole world is that. Digital vs LP isn't a matter of preference though. It's fact that the specifications of digital audio trounce LPs in every single aspect, both in scientific measurements and controlled listening tests.


I get what you're saying but it's like everyone knows a Porsche has a more powerful engine than a Corolla, but some people just prefer a more gas efficient car in terms of miles per gallon.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

bigshot said:


> The whole world is that. Digital vs LP isn't a matter of preference though. It's fact that the specifications of digital audio trounce LPs in every single aspect, both in scientific measurements and controlled listening tests.


Of course you're not serious. Some folks I know think Bigfoot is a fact, too. The reality is that playback equipment must be figured into any equation comparing a digital with an analog source. So too the source. Playing a poorly recorded CD on a low res deck and comparing it to a well recorded LP played through a top notch table/cartridge/pre-amp system, all into the same amp and speakers, will certainly turn results to favor the LP. I have about five different CD decks in operation, and each of them sounds different, as far as clarity, resolution, space, ambience, environment go. I only use my small portables when necessary. I certainly don't cable them into my main system when I have both a superior SONY deck and MARANTZ deck to utilize. And yet, when I turn to Dave Brubeck's _Time Out _album, I invariably play the 45rpm LP on my VPI Scoutmaster, even though I have several different CD representatives, including the SACD version of the disc. There's just something about that LP that rocks.

As for scientific measurements ... there are things that measure and things that appeal to hearing ears that do not measure so well. I for one will not rush out and purchase a piece of stereo equipment based on a series of satisfactory measurements. I want to _hear _the instrument, preferably in my own listening space with my own peripheries cabled to it. Any audio fan knows that all top line speakers scientifically measure well, but that they sound vastly different from one another, everything else in the chain being the same. The same can be said for CD decks, LP cartridges, connecting cables ....

So ... while some of you out there are chasing down Bigfoot, the rest of us will be enjoying our audio -- digital and analog -- without presuming that one format is always superior to another. It just aint so.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

The sound of an LP playing, the pops and clicks and all that, is unique and very atmospheric. I could understand if people considered that an added value that other formats lack. It has nothing to do with audio quality, but with the "feel", if you like, of the experience.

Even the tape hiss of pre-Dolby recordings reissued on CD can have a similar effect. Generally, I find recordings from that era have a special sonic character. Not to mention historic mono recordings. Obviously, the farther one goes back, the worse the audio quality becomes. But the audio character might, at the same time, become more interesting.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Andreas said:


> The sound of an LP playing, the pops and clicks and all that, is unique and very atmospheric. I could understand if people considered that an added value that other formats lack. It has nothing to do with audio quality, but with the "feel", if you like, of the experience.
> 
> Even the tape hiss of pre-Dolby recordings reissued on CD can have a similar effect. Generally, I find recordings from that era have a special sonic character. Not to mention historic mono recordings. Obviously, the farther one goes back, the worse the audio quality becomes. But the audio character might, at the same time, become more interesting.


As a fellow named Steve Dudley once pointed out in a letter to STEREOPHILE magazine, "...recorded sound can never sound like the real thing, and listeners pick the kind of distortion they like". He was commenting on the STEREOPHILE Test CD 2, the one that features the microphone tests conducted by J. Gordon Holt, a STEREOPHILE editor. I have that test CD, and the microphone test is eye-opening (and ear-opening!). Holt records his voice using several different professional mikes, all into the same recording equipment, with the purpose of demonstrating just how different an individual mike can sound from another. One realizes immediately that the mikes chosen by recording engineers have much to do with the "color" of the recorded sound. Different mikes, different sound.

Of course, such extends to all aspects of the recording process. Even the brands of recording tape used in the reel-to-reel days affected sound. Those who work with tape realize this, which is why folks have preferred brands. And if one looks to digital equipment, one will know that the internal wiring (the composition of that wire, the amount of silver in the wire, etc) has an effect on the sound. One brand of digital recording equipment will sound different than another brand. I know this just from the different CD decks I have on hand. All CD decks do not sound the same. All CDs do not sound the same. Even the same recorded performance on two different CD brands will sound different.

And when we get to recorded music, especially amplified music, we must realize that we're hearing much distortion by way of the amps and mikes and cables. Those digital followers who think digital technology has solved all the problems of sound recording are way off the mark. Live sounds different. And I know from attending concerts that sometimes I prefer my recordings to the live sound I hear. The seat one chooses in a concert hall has a lot to do with what sounds one hears.

So, we who enjoy recorded sound tolerate various degrees of distortion. It's not all ticks and pops. It can be much more subtle stuff found on CDs. And CDs are known for a thing called jitter, which better quality decks deal with in better ways. And again, every digital signal must be converted to analog before you hear it. So what is happening in_ that _link of the chain to affect sound?

In the end, we who love music listen for great performances. A little bit of distortion won't change the greatness of Furtwangler's Beethoven or Louis Armstrong's early jazz recordings. And if an LP brings me closer to what I think is "real", I'll take it over the "background silence" of a CD. A lot depends upon the listener's expectations and preferences, as Steve Dudley pointed out.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

SONNET CLV said:


> I have a working TEAC A-6010 in my main audio system, along with a cassette deck. I use both on occasion, but granted I do not have quite so many reel-to-reel tapes or cassettes as I have LPs and CDs ... by a long shot. But my couple dozen reels still pack quite a wallup of sound. Few media ever sounded as good as reel-to-reel tape. It's much better than cassette or 8-track (which is one media I cannot currently play, though I do recall the tape sound of 8-track was superior to cassette). *Ah ... back in the day I had an 8-track in my vehicle -- though I forget what vehicle that was.*
> 
> My reel tapes are all from the 1950s and 1960s (and possibly 70s) and contain a few classics such as Szell's Bartok Concerto for Orchestra on Columbia MQ 776 and Ormandy's Beethoven's Ninth on Columbia MQ 929. Among rarer gems is a tape of Verdi's "Four Sacred Pieces" with Frederick Waldman and Musica Aeterna on Decca ST74-9429. It's a fun thing to play around with still, the reel-to-reel deck. And ... I still have a couple dozen blank tapes from way back when ... just in case I ever want to record my CDs or downloads onto reel-to-reel tape!


Mine was a '68 VW Beetle (new), and the 8-tracks were of Creedence Clearwater Revival and Jim Hendrix. "All Along The Watchtower", particularly stood out.:tiphat:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> As a fellow named Steve Dudley once pointed out in a letter to STEREOPHILE magazine, "...recorded sound can never sound like the real thing, and listeners pick the kind of distortion they like".


There are two definitions for the word "distortion", and he is using it in the less often used way. In home audio, distortion is generally expressed in a percentage of deviation from the signal or as a noise value at a particular dB under the signal. He isn't using it in that sense. Halfway decent digital audio players and solid state amps have no audible distortion. Any distortion is so low, it's down around the noise floor where you would have to turn the volume up to ear splitting levels to be able to hear.

He is using the term distortion in the general sense... meaning any difference between the sound and the reproduced sound. In this case he is comparing live sound to recorded sound. By definition, it is impossible to reproduce that with only two channels. The directionality of the sound, the reflected sound off the walls and the spacial cues in live music obviously won't be in a stereo recording. That is what he means by distortion.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

SONNET CLV said:


> Of course you're not serious. Some folks I know think Bigfoot is a fact, too.


You can't measure the specs on Bigfoot. You can measure sound.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

bigshot said:


> You can measure sound.


But our subjective _perception_ of sound varies tremendously -- even if the sounds outside of us are objective things.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Subjective impressions are much more likely to be affected by what you had for dinner than the format of the disk you play. Instead of LP or CD, you should be asking Beef or Chicken?


----------



## rff9 (May 20, 2021)

There is no single answer about digital vs. analog audio. If the LP is in very good condition and was made well, it often sounds better than digital in my system. But, if there are annoying defects or the LP wasn't pressed well, then CD sounds better. Often I can't hear a difference. So, I could made three piles: 1. LP sounds better. 2. CD sounds better. 3. Both sound the same.

Recently I bought a few LP's for CD's I had when they were famous or something I had no sample of. I have a lot of the Budapest String Quartet on digital, but had no vinyl, until I found a few disks for around $2-3 each and bought around 5. Same with the Juilliard performance of all Bartok's quartets from 1963. I had a digital copy but just found the whole set on very good quality vinyl for $5 for 3 disks, so I splurged and am enjoying the LP in a little different way. With digital, I can use a remote and jump around from track to track. Vinyl forces me to listen to more at a time because I have to get up and manually move the stylus.


----------

