Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Does vinyl sound better?
- Thread starter Nowhere Man
- Start date
I'v never compared the same album on vinyl and cd next to each other, but I think vinyl has a kind of warmth to it that no cd can replicate.
It depends on the cd. If the CD is burned from MP3's then yes I would say yes. If it is DVD audio quality then I would be open to debate. That being said I love vinyl and almost always say vinyl is better.
I can't tell any real difference between vinyl and CD - but I also don't own any high-end stereo gear. I think that with the average stereo system, most people can't.
Vinyl is a true analog sound wave, and a cd is a digital representation of an analog sound wave. The human ear has a finite ability to decipher the sounds that it hears, so if a digital sound wave is close enough to an analog one, then you wouldn't be able to perceive a difference. Some people swear they can hear an extra fullness in vinyl played on a good sound system. For me, I've done enough damage to my ears through the years that I can't really tell. I know that a cd sounds better than an mp3, but that's about it. A super high-end stereo would be wasted money for me. I do think vinyl has it's place, but then again, so do cds and mp3s. It's all about finding a music delivery system that fits your needs for a given situation,
CD has a much wider dynamic range and fairer output than vinyl.
As a consequence, records that once were mastered for vinyl and transfered directly onto CD sound cold and flat. This can largely be compensated by remastering sources to fit the peculiarities of CD.
Now, CD is a 30 year old technology. Updated digital standards such as CDDA offer much more convincing results. You won't hear much difference on a basic reproduction system though.
As a consequence, records that once were mastered for vinyl and transfered directly onto CD sound cold and flat. This can largely be compensated by remastering sources to fit the peculiarities of CD.
Now, CD is a 30 year old technology. Updated digital standards such as CDDA offer much more convincing results. You won't hear much difference on a basic reproduction system though.
I "think" I like the sound of vinyl and even cassettes better than CD's. And CD's better than MP3. But I rarely ever get to enjoy my music through a good speaker system anyway, so it doesn't matter now.
It does if you have enough money. Cd I believe costs less to sound good. I used to work at a high end audio store and heard some great CD sound.
Now if you have a CD player and record player from the 80's then yes vinyl sounds better. IMO, IME of course.
Now if you have a CD player and record player from the 80's then yes vinyl sounds better. IMO, IME of course.
Vinyl sounds different to me. I feel as though more of the sound picture is present, even if that "extra bit" is only present as sibilance, or white noise.
Someone above explained the phenomenon (that is, true analog sound wave versus digital imitation). That has to be it.
Someone above explained the phenomenon (that is, true analog sound wave versus digital imitation). That has to be it.
Just kidding in the last post.
The problems with vinyl are well-known to most of us. I grew up with the stuff (born '59).
But, what most people don't understand about digital recordings is that the sampling rate is a huge negative factor to the audiophile. Imagine that the analog (vinyl) is a constant, real-time conveyance of the sound. Versus digital, which takes individual snapshots of the music at regular intervals, say, 44K/second. All the music in between those snapshots is missing. Some audiophiles refer to that missing part as the "air" in a recording.
Bottom line: most folks can't tell.
The problems with vinyl are well-known to most of us. I grew up with the stuff (born '59).
But, what most people don't understand about digital recordings is that the sampling rate is a huge negative factor to the audiophile. Imagine that the analog (vinyl) is a constant, real-time conveyance of the sound. Versus digital, which takes individual snapshots of the music at regular intervals, say, 44K/second. All the music in between those snapshots is missing. Some audiophiles refer to that missing part as the "air" in a recording.
Bottom line: most folks can't tell.
A perfect vinyl run through a MacIntosh sound system sounds wonderful: rich, warm, and full. A digitally re-mastered DVD of the same material sounds just as good. The trick is in the digital re-mastering. Back in the 80s, there was a huge difference in sound quality. Today there still is. You see, there are exceedingly few vinyl records in outstanding condition, and very few high quality turntables on which to play them. So, the reality of it is that CD now sounds better (unless it was burned from MP3, which sounds terrible). Why? It takes over 100,000 plays to make a sonic degradation in the media. It takes fewer than 1,000 plays to make a record noticeably weaker sounding. The needle ruins the record as it plays it. More, all the scratches and what-not don't actually add anything other than nostalgia. You can make either one sound better than the other, simply by selecting the media and devices carefully. It will even seem to be a fair test, if you are really smart about it.
Realistically, assuming everything is equal and optimized for every media, reel to reel tape is still the highest quality sound there is, other than live.
Realistically, assuming everything is equal and optimized for every media, reel to reel tape is still the highest quality sound there is, other than live.
Not really. The only thing "missing" is frequencies above 22kHz, which we can't hear. Any frequencies below half the sampling rate will be represented fully by the D/A.
This is avery old debate, going back to the days of the first CDs. Unless your hearing is superb, you probably can't tell the difference.
That said, a vinyl record was a much cooler thing to own, with bigger space for cover art and sometimes the record itself was laser-etched or decorated. I used to have Styx's Paradise Theatre album and it had awesome laser etching on it, so much cooler than CDs. Sometimes you got posters and stuff, too. Dark Side of the Moon is still sold on Amazon in vinyl, and it comes with the original poster inside, very cool.
CDs may last longer, but nowadays you can burn a vinyl record to mp3 with a USB-capable turntable, so you can save the record itself for special occasions and it should last for a long time.
That said, a vinyl record was a much cooler thing to own, with bigger space for cover art and sometimes the record itself was laser-etched or decorated. I used to have Styx's Paradise Theatre album and it had awesome laser etching on it, so much cooler than CDs. Sometimes you got posters and stuff, too. Dark Side of the Moon is still sold on Amazon in vinyl, and it comes with the original poster inside, very cool.
CDs may last longer, but nowadays you can burn a vinyl record to mp3 with a USB-capable turntable, so you can save the record itself for special occasions and it should last for a long time.
So true. And the earliest CDs seemed to try to keep the dynamic range intact. I have CDs from the early 1990s that sound great, dynamic, and fluid, especially when compared to their "constant" sounding modern counterparts.
Check out this "Loudness Wars" article from Wiki:
Loudness war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
)Vinyl records have a special EQ curve applied that can make bass sound super-fat. The classic albums of the 60s and 70s that were mixed and mastered for vinyl absolutely sound better on vinyl, IMHO.
Albums of today that are recorded, mixed, and mastered digitally sound great in a digital format.
It is not so much a "vs" question as the fact that good engineers have always known the benefits/limitations of the medium and done whatever it takes to get best results with the tools at hand.
For example some of the old one-microphone American recordings sound great! When it was your turn to solo, you simply stood closer to the mic. But you wouldn't do that in a digital protools studio of today, LOL!
Albums of today that are recorded, mixed, and mastered digitally sound great in a digital format.
It is not so much a "vs" question as the fact that good engineers have always known the benefits/limitations of the medium and done whatever it takes to get best results with the tools at hand.
For example some of the old one-microphone American recordings sound great! When it was your turn to solo, you simply stood closer to the mic. But you wouldn't do that in a digital protools studio of today, LOL!
I've seen bands play on Saturday Night Live that sound good on my 15-year-old junk TV that sound horrible in their studio recordings through a good stereo because of the crappy production, but I don't think that has anything to do with CDs vs. vinyl media. The root of that problem lies farther upstream.
