I dont know which is better, but I prefer vinyl. Nothing beats the sound of the needle hitting the record, and that second or so until the music starts. I love the warmth.
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
FME, a lot of my LPs sound better than the cd version.
I do like the "clean" sound of a cd (no hiss...big hater of hiss) & the ability to play it easier in a car vs. the LP.
...and unless I'm just hearing things-
One of favourite albums had not yet been issued as a cd. So I burned the LP onto a CD-R. Load that onto my iPod. Couple years go by, & the album is released onto a commercial cd. I buy it...load it onto my iPod.
No doubt, the LP to CD-R to PC to iPod sounds better than the CD to PC to iPod.
I do like the "clean" sound of a cd (no hiss...big hater of hiss) & the ability to play it easier in a car vs. the LP.
...and unless I'm just hearing things-
One of favourite albums had not yet been issued as a cd. So I burned the LP onto a CD-R. Load that onto my iPod. Couple years go by, & the album is released onto a commercial cd. I buy it...load it onto my iPod.
No doubt, the LP to CD-R to PC to iPod sounds better than the CD to PC to iPod.
- Feb 27, 2005
- 3,218
- 125
- Disclosures
- Full disclosure, I'm a certified Fender technician working in a music store that carries Fender, Yamaha, and Ibanez products among others.
My problem with CDs isn't the format, it is the recordings. It seems producers seem to think they have to use *all* the extra headroom. So they compress the h*ll out of the songs just because they can
This. Most of my vinyl recordings seem to sound better than their CD counterparts because of the mastering; they couldn't slam the signal the way engineers can on a digital medium. It makes for much easier listening on the ears, and clarity since audio transients aren't at the same perceived level as the rest of the signal. Even early printed CDs sometimes sound better to me than their remastered versions because they retained dynamic range.
I don't believe one is inherently better than the other, but CDs do seem to allow for abuse to the original signal material that vinyl won't tolerate, so I think vinyl recordings will tend to sound more pleasant. That's not to say that CD can't sound better; I have classical recordings and the occasional rock CD where the engineers were allowed to retain dynamic range, and the sound is excellent, providing a great listening experience.
Shoot, even carefully encoded high bitrate MP3's can sound good IMO if the source isn't overcompressed.
FME, a lot of my LPs sound better than the cd version.
I do like the "clean" sound of a cd (no hiss...big hater of hiss) & the ability to play it easier in a car vs. the LP.
...and unless I'm just hearing things-
One of favourite albums had not yet been issued as a cd. So I burned the LP onto a CD-R. Load that onto my iPod. Couple years go by, & the album is released onto a commercial cd. I buy it...load it onto my iPod.
No doubt, the LP to CD-R to PC to iPod sounds better than the CD to PC to iPod.
I can believe that. They probably remixed the songs when they released to CD to make them "better".
One of my friends is an audiophile and he has a great sound system for Vinyl and CDs.
I wasn't sure that Vinyl could sound better in some cases than CDs. So he puts Metallica's Kill 'em all, Ride The Lightning, ... And Justice for all and Master Of Puppets albums in CDs then in Vinyl. Man ... in Vinyl we could here the bass very clear and distinct while in CD format we don't ear it most of the time.
I wasn't sure that Vinyl could sound better in some cases than CDs. So he puts Metallica's Kill 'em all, Ride The Lightning, ... And Justice for all and Master Of Puppets albums in CDs then in Vinyl. Man ... in Vinyl we could here the bass very clear and distinct while in CD format we don't ear it most of the time.
Yes, in this and in every other case. Perfection is an idea, not an objective reality. At the most, there can only ever be a wide consensus as to anything in the real world being "perfect".
It's not necessary to hear the delay... that is not the question. The difference in the way those kinds of sources sound between 44.1/16 (like a CD) and 48 (or above)/24 bit is obvious, despite the fact that we are talking about pitches below 22.05k. Otherwise, no one would use up the extra hard drive space required for higher sampling rates and bit depth.
This gets into the discrimination between whether people THINK they can hear a difference and whether or not they actually can discriminate. I would have to see legit results of double blind testing with good controls to really know if there is any substance to this.
I'll tell you this much: Keeping a vinyl record so that it is capable of performing well without any of the clicks etc from contamination on the surface is a major PITA, IME/IMO, and not AT ALL worth any small potential differences. Listening, for example, to the Barber Adagio for Strings on vinyl ALWAYS used to be frustrating becasue I could never get the the sound clean enough for my likes, even using careful Discwasher treatments etc. The higher quality digital formats are such a complete improvement in overall reproduction that I just think people tend to remember good things and forget the not so good. IMO.
I'll tell you this much: Keeping a vinyl record so that it is capable of performing well without any of the clicks etc from contamination on the surface is a major PITA, IME/IMO, and not AT ALL worth any small potential differences. Listening, for example, to the Barber Adagio for Strings on vinyl ALWAYS used to be frustrating becasue I could never get the the sound clean enough for my likes, even using careful Discwasher treatments etc. The higher quality digital formats are such a complete improvement in overall reproduction that I just think people tend to remember good things and forget the not so good. IMO.
By the same "logic," those magical wooden knobs that cost hundreds of dollars must make an audible difference, else no-one would spend the extra money to buy them.
Well, unless you can hear noise on your CD at 16bit, a higher bit depth is not required. Unless you can hear above 22.05kHz, higher sample rate is not required. Bit depth affects noise floor, sampling rate changes the Nyquist frequency.
Depends on what your definition of better is.
Some will say CD has a cleaner/clearer/crisper sound...
But man, put in a good old James Brown or Parliament record through my mid 70s Marantz system and you can't hear the funk...
YOU FEEL EVERY LITTLE BIT OF IT!!
And that's what it's all about (for me at least
)
Some will say CD has a cleaner/clearer/crisper sound...
But man, put in a good old James Brown or Parliament record through my mid 70s Marantz system and you can't hear the funk...
YOU FEEL EVERY LITTLE BIT OF IT!!
And that's what it's all about (for me at least
)There's a big difference between convincing a few people for whom money is no object of an advantage of something, and achieving a wide professional consensus among people that record for a living, when there is no way for the end user to directly observe the original rate/depth after it's turned into 44.1/16bit (or worse) for distribution. If it was a placebo, there would be lots of studios that wouldn't really bother.
Look, you've either heard such a comparison side by side, or you haven't. If you've heard it and don't hear a difference, frankly, your ears are not great. If you haven't heard it, you're talking about something on paper that I am familiar with in the real world; rhetoric vs. experience is not a valuable matchup. You need to be exposed to the difference, or else you are just speculating.
This is not especially difficult to test and the distinction we are talking about is not a subtle one. Any cleanly recorded sound of this type - keys, triangle, cymbals - recorded with a small diaphragm condenser mic and a clean transformerless pre (so you don't smear it before the converters), and nothing else in the signal path, recorded at 44.1/16 and then again at 48/24, will suffice.
Hi Dirk, I'm not sure what "pitch variation" you're talking about; my turntable spins at exactly 33 1/3 revolutions per minute, stroboscopically calibrated.
I agree that pops and noise can be a problem with vinyl in poor condition. In decent condition however a little bit of crackle is part of the charm. In fact I've heard a few digitally-recorded hip-hop/R&B songs where they've deliberately sampled record crackle to sound "old school"!
I disagree that a 0-decibel noise floor is necessary to enjoy music. I've been to concerts where I can barely hear the band over thousands of screaming fans but I've still have a blast!
The pitch variation comes from the tone arm movement. As the head nears the center of the record, it doesn't travel as far per revolution, so the pitch varies down. This is somewhat attenuated with linear travel turntables.
That's wrong. Bit depth affects the noise floor only indirectly because it tends to promote different recording methods, specifically a lower average level due to the greater available dynamic range, pushing the noise floor down only for that reason... it directly affects (and really is) resolution, because it provides greater precision for each sample. There are more possible distinct values available for storage and playback.
Exactly, exactly...hence the evils of compression when used to get a product in the face (or ears) of the consumer.
Again, check out Loudness Wars
Loudness war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agreed. Completely. I'm convinced the whole "Dude, vinyl is so much better/warmer" thing is more of "cult of the old & crappy / Vintage" thing. Nothing new. I had a buddy give me a real lecture on how CDs sound better than MP3s a while back... More of the same.
It depends on your playback equipment and your sonic frame of reference. I was raised on vinyl and live performance. We're in the second generation of people who do most of their listening on headphones from a highly compressed source. Once your ears are trained to accept this compromised listening experience, almost anything sounds OK.
Link Removed
Link Removed
I don't know what records and CDs you have compared, but the "loudness wars" in the CD world are a relatively recent development, it is not inherent to the medium. Most CDs that were mastered in the 80s and 90s (and indeed many since then) are in fact much less squashed than their vinyl counterparts. (They are also noticeably quieter overall - which shouldn't be perceived as a negative, but often is anyway.)
While there is certainly lots of ways to mess up a record in mastering, as far as the medium itself is concerned, CD has much better specs on paper as far as usable dynamic range. (Which is a big part of why people often prefer the sound of vinyl...)
