Vinyl vs CD....again!

Did anyone follow Harbeth forum's take on the digital recording being closer to original sound? After watching the video in post 179, I am now beginning to agree with seasoned audiophiles that the magical feeling listening to vinyl is more than mere nostalgic attachment to past technology. The video inadvertently provided proof as to why vinyl is more natural.

Watch the video here.

Err, I didn't manage to link the idea behind the video to the natural sound which was quoted. Is my guess right, that those sinusoidal readouts from the oscilloscope which are amplitude-modulated (which is the vertical bounce of the scope's readout) and jittery in nature (which is the scope's readout bounce-movement in the horizontal direction) of LPs are the main causes for its natural sound?

cheers

In short, Alan Shaw is trying to prove that vinyl sound is very distorted compared digital sound and therefore it cannot be close to live sound.

I would have agreed to that but then our ears receive sound through waves transmitted through air. Unless the air is a stable medium like the wires that carry the signal, the waves that reach our ears would wobble and distorted like how the vinyl sound appears in the video.

Actually, I pointed out about the omission for not taking into consideration of the measurements reaching our ears but my post did get approved.

Cheers!

p.s.   Did someone accidentally give you a minus 1?

STC wrote:In short, Alan Shaw is trying to prove that vinyl sound is very distorted compared digital sound and therefore it cannot be close to live sound.

I would have agreed to that but then our ears receive sound through waves transmitted through air. Unless the air is a stable medium like the wires that carry the signal, the waves that reaches our ears would wobble and distorted like how the vinyl sound appears in the video.

Actually, I pointed out about the omission for not taking into consideration of the measurements reaching our ears but my post did get approved.

Aiyah, whatever the argument is, I always say that it's the overall setup skill of the system that matters.

cheers

STC wrote:p.s.   Did someone accidentally give you a minus 1?

Accidental, or can't handle the truth?  

Whatever it is, these popularity votes in hf4sale is a real crappy system. Those who garner the most votes are usually the ones good at jerking others off.... HEY NO OFFENSE GUYS!!

cheers

Wikin wrote:

STC wrote:In short, Alan Shaw is trying to prove that vinyl sound is very distorted compared digital sound and therefore it cannot be close to live sound.

I would have agreed to that but then our ears receive sound through waves transmitted through air. Unless the air is a stable medium like the wires that carry the signal, the waves that reaches our ears would wobble and distorted like how the vinyl sound appears in the video.

Actually, I pointed out about the omission for not taking into consideration of the measurements reaching our ears but my post did get approved.

Aiyah, whatever the argument is, I always say that it's the overall setup skill of the system that matters.

cheers

In my limited exposure to vinyl and CD sound, I actually felt easy listening to vinyl but thought it was the distortion of pops and hisses tricking our mind. That was before asking myself; What is the wave form look like when hitting my ear drums. As perfect as the the original sine waves measured at closeup?

I believe a good portion of LP's sound reproduction benefits from the fact that the RIAA circuit is simpler in nature compared to a typical cd player's output stage (after the dac chip).  
That's why I am a keen believer in simplifying a typical CD player's output stage. 

Cheers

Actually, what is exactly Alan's point of prooving LP sound is distorted compared to CD? CD can already match LP?

I believe both medium will stand the test of time. LP is still alive after 87 years since the first LP. CD is now going for 35 years... And both are just mediums...

At the end of the day, its the music that we listen to. At times, I prefer listening to CDs, and other times, I prefer LP. whatever catches my fancy at that moment.

Hi guys, 

Both format need good mastering and recording to satisfied audiophiles ears   

Both format has strong fanatic fans and will defence their preference...this kind of topic will never end 

Oscilloscope machine or what ever crap machine can show accurate signal and very detail but i dont think our ears can pick up to that level....if we say about sound balance is yes we need this kind of machine

Not all sound from vinyl is good and not all CD is bad vice versa  


 

Gents,

It always amazes me when I read of some Hi Fi enthusiast giving up his digital equipment for a turntable. Read this discussion in which Alan Shaw (of Harbeth) explains why analogue is inferior to digital. Even better for the technical minded to view the video below from Alan Shaw.

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?2046-An-honest-appraisal-of-vinyl-v-digital-romance-v-reality/page9

Happy reading - this is why I have trouble continuing my vinyl hobby further. For those who still prefer analogue, maybe they just like the distortion more (??), funny considering the amount of money spent on their hobby to reduce the 'distortion'.

You need somebody to tell you what you like?
Then listen to Stanley Gibbons and collect stamps.

We do not have any ever going debate about CRT vs plasma TV. It is beyond any doubt plasma or LED or 4K format triumphed over CRT. However, the same cannot be said about vinyl despite all the measurements to prove they are supposed to be the most accurate medium.

I do not own a TT but AB'ing the very best of both format somehow make me lean towards vinyl. I believe most system are good enough for musical enjoyment and that what this hobby about.  The offspring of this hobby is the perfection of sound (not music) and that what this discussion is about.


The video instead of reassuring  me that the digital playback is the most accurate sound reproduction compared to vinyl, it now making me think there may be something in vinyl that is true-to-life sound quality.


Going back to the video, no one can argue that digital sound is the nearest to the original. But let's pause for a moment. How much of the sound waves as observed through the oscilloscope reach our ears as pure as seen on the screen? The sound waves travel like ever expending bubbles of vibrating particles of air to reach our ears. I cannot find any animation that shows actual omni direction particle motion of sound, but it travels similarly to all directions as seen here.



Unless, the air in the room is still, the sound waves will most likely smeared and probably wobble like seen in the vinyl signal when reaching our ears. How much it is smeared and wobble depends on the wind current, direction, temperature and our head movement among many others.

The theory or rational advocated in the video can only work when all particles in the air are still with absolutely zero movements and vibrate accurately and constantly only when there is a sound; the sound waves that reach our ears can hardly be anything pure like the original tones used in the said example. Vinyl somehow recreates the imperfection of real-live hearing.

While science now capable of preserving sound closest to original it is not necessarily proven that the sound being heard by us is actually what's preserved. Just like we cannot judge speakers by the technical measurements so too the audio format shouldn't be judged by numbers. Our ears are not perfect neither the medium (air) that transmit the sound to us. In vinyl's case, probably two wrongs make it right.

Some may argue if the original sound is preserved, then the playback too must be closest to the original. Maybe, but we don't record music at our ears, nor we listen to with our ears a few inches away from the source.

Wobbling and jittery sound waves are the one reaching our ears. Maybe, that explain some of the tweaks supposedly energizing the air for better sound.

Cheers! And A Happy 2014.

STC wrote:
I do not own a TT but AB'ing the very best of both format somehow make me lean towards vinyl. I believe most system are good enough for musical enjoyment and that what this hobby about.  The offspring of this hobby is the perfection of sound (not music) and that what this discussion is about.

Bro, I also tend to lean towards the alluring sound and colouration of vinyl. In my modest CAS system, my preference has been on hi-rez materials recorded from vinyl rather than studio digitally mastered hi-rez materials.

cheers

samazzah wrote:this is why I have trouble continuing my vinyl hobby further. For those who still prefer analogue, maybe they just like the distortion more (??), funny considering the amount of money spent on their hobby to reduce the 'distortion'.

Bro, yup it's the 'nice' distortion from vinyl that's alluring. Since you're technically pretty good (I'd assume), why not immortalize your vinyl collection (I mean setup your TT to its best, wash your LP's nicely and clean) then record it into your PC in hi-rez mode. After that just enjoy the vinyl sound at your convenience and then 'bungkus' the LPs nicely in a vacuum pack.

cheers

samazzah wrote:  For those who still prefer analogue, maybe they just like the distortion more (??), funny considering the amount of money spent on their hobby to reduce the 'distortion'.

Speaking of distortion, I think the stepped sine waves of digital is more distorted than the natural analogue signal. It is unnatural but of course human ears cant tell the difference.

How much of vinyl signal is distorted compared to the actual sound waves arriving the ear's canal? We are talking about the most fluid medium that stands in between our ears and the source. Unlike a wire, the air that transmit the waves to our ears relies on the vibrating particles of air.  The air's density varies every inch. It is the most unstable medium to transfer any audio signal accurately.

A simple speaker's measurement of loudness itself reveals at any other distance of 1 meter it varies so much that the measurement becomes so much meaningless for proper evaluation of speakers. That's exactly the reason why Harbeth not publishing the technical specs other than what's can be measured point to point wired measurements. That medium (wires) is stable and repeatable but not measurements involving signals traveling through the air which varies with temperature, pressure, wind and many others.

We are actually listening to wavy, wobbly and jittery signal all the time. That's natural. Vinyl signal maybe be distorted but it may be the correct representation of the way signal reaches our ears.

It's very much of personal preference between vinyl and CD. I use to buy various format of the same album to listen and to differentiate the music played out of my system. In terms for comparison I would rate them as follows:

Vinyl->SACD->SHMCD->DVD-A->XRCD/LPCD->CD

It is unfortunate that some of the local CD is of such poor recording quality upon checking on the computer it reads MP3!! 

I really have to answer all those who think that vinyl is better. Really, just saying I prefer vinyl without scientific support is akin to saying that the earth is flat and so be it - there exists such a society - those who still insist that the earth is flat despite evidence.

A contributor once made the best statement of all,

'Vinyl is not practical as medium. It is easily and continuously damaged. It takes up a lot of room. It is a pain to keep clean ... make that impossible. Turntables have wear and are also dust magnets. They are finicky to set up perfectly and need constant maintenance.  New pressings have often digital masters, old ones can be more expensive and there is always the lottery of condition ...
... I absolutely love my turntables and vinyl'

I thought, the most matured and insightful view of vinyl of all. That the person accepts the shortcomings is brilliant. Now for the crux of the issue - distortion; enough of this mumbo jumbo of how it transmits in the air or that the distortion is 'more acceptable' . Hello? Is anybody paying attention? It's called distortion and leave it  be. In my past, my job was to keep things clear and without distortion. With all things being equal, less (distortion) is always better. That means it does not matter how it was transmitted or as Ivor Tiefenbrum (Linn founder) said, 'the source always matter'. Ever wonder why Linn pursued digital after that, same for Naim, Musical Fidelity, etc?

Vinyl is great but the recordings that really stand out is far and few and it really is like a lottery for a good one but most of the time digital beats it hands down. The best part is that with digital, 100 copies of the same track or album will sound exactly the same everytime unlike vinyl after only 5 pressings and the master starts to wear out and then, well the story is long but the chain of added distortion in the analogue recording chain is shocking.

Remember 2 wrongs don't maske a right. Meaning that adding distortion here to fix elsewhere in the analogue chain is not the engineering way. Get it right first time and get it right to the end.

samazzah wrote:I really have to answer all those who think that vinyl is better. Really, just saying I prefer vinyl without scientific support is akin to saying that the earth is flat and so be it - there exists such a society - those who still insist that the earth is flat despite evidence.

A contributor once made the best statement of all,

'Vinyl is not practical as medium. It is easily and continuously damaged. It takes up a lot of room. It is a pain to keep clean ... make that impossible. Turntables have wear and are also dust magnets. They are finicky to set up perfectly and need constant maintenance.  New pressings have often digital masters, old ones can be more expensive and there is always the lottery of condition ...
... I absolutely love my turntables and vinyl'

I thought, the most matured and insightful view of vinyl of all. That the person accepts the shortcomings is brilliant. Now for the crux of the issue - distortion; enough of this mumbo jumbo of how it transmits in the air or that the distortion is 'more acceptable' . Hello? Is anybody paying attention? It's called distortion and leave it  be. In my past, my job was to keep things clear and without distortion. With all things being equal, less (distortion) is always better. That means it does not matter how it was transmitted or as Ivor Tiefenbrum (Linn founder) said, 'the source always matter'. Ever wonder why Linn pursued digital after that, same for Naim, Musical Fidelity, etc?

Vinyl is great but the recordings that really stand out is far and few and it really is like a lottery for a good one but most of the time digital beats it hands down. The best part is that with digital, 100 copies of the same track or album will sound exactly the same everytime unlike vinyl after only 5 pressings and the master starts to wear out and then, well the story is long but the chain of added distortion in the analogue recording chain is shocking.

Remember 2 wrongs don't maske a right. Meaning that adding distortion here to fix elsewhere in the analogue chain is not the engineering way. Get it right first time and get it right to the end.

My fellow forummer, I am not advocating that vinyl is technically better. As I have said from the beginning, this thread is about vinyl sounding more natural than CD to seasoned audiophiles and even to some new comers to high fidelity world. No one can prevent someone from having a preference nor judge them for that. I am a digital man, but I won’t pretend vinyl sounds inferior to CD when comparing the best of both. There may be people who would say otherwise too. 

Technically, CD is superior and we would probably perceive CD to be better provided our ear's specification is similar to CD's but we dont. We dont hear pristine sound but a cocktail of reverberating sound. All the hype of accuracy means nothing. The world couldn’t care less or tell the difference between MP3 and CD or CD and SACD. Why? coz we got a lousy receiver (ears).

CD engineers must be ever wondering why despite all the superiority of the said medium, their fellow engineer like Cardas is making a fool of himself. It must be very frustrating for them when they repeatedly hear from musicians and conductors that vinyl sounds better than digital. When you have a substantial number of people making the claim then engineers should take note of that. That's what sound engineering practice is all about. At least, they can start now.

Let's take the CD's dynamic range which is closer to our ears. But wait a minute! What is the dynamic range when we listen to loud music? Still 130dB?* Unfortunately, our ears do not maintain constant specs all the time. The internal amplifier of the ears limits the loudness, and therefore, the wide dynamic range becomes redundant to us when we listen to music loud. Vinyl with its far narrower dynamic range is more germane to our ears.

Music is art. What matters here is the perception. Not the scientific data to back up and thrust the preference on others simply because the numbers say so.

Digital may make thousands of exact copy. A digital camera may have captured Mona Lisa portrait more accurately than  Leonardo da Vinci painting but you cannot blame people who prefer the painting over the photograph. The artistic nature is all about the enjoyment of the abstract message. Similarly, when it comes to music we are not listening to accuracy but the essence of the abstract nature. 

Have you ever wondered why no musical recording made from the spot where the listener sits? That's because microphone do not hear like human though specs wise they maybe superior to our ears. So what are we actually hearing? Why the most sensitive microphones unable to record live classical presentation from the place where the concert goer sits. Too much distortion for the microphone? But that's what we hear. Distorted sound.

Maybe two wrongs would not make a right but two negatives would make a positive.

* I think CD is about 98dB.

It's the essence from these type of arguments that also give rise to snake oil tweaks. Tweakers swear by it, while others can't hear the difference. We can't use any measurements to prove that a tweak works. You just got to "hear it". Get it? Use your ears carefully. Listen "intelligently". Just like this very : topic vinyl vs. cd. You just got to listen to both mediums "intelligently" and don't read too much what's on the internet.

cheers

it is surprisingly that this topic still in discussion. as for me, I only enjoy the music. Those who like their digital sound and wanted to dispose their vinyl can PM me and for those who like their vinyl and would like to dispose their cd can also Pm me. But if I can only chose only one between the 2, I will go for vinyl.  
I think music is for enjoyment. We do not need any proven data's to convince ourselves preference on sound.

Wasn't intended it to sound like spewing snake oil nor would want to convince anyone. I was just trying to fulfill my own curiosity and sought some active discussion from people with similar sentiment.

Conclusion:-  Enjoy what you liked the most. And that is the end of the discussion.


Have a nice day! 

Ok enough of arguments on my part apologies if I'm stoking old fires out there in Hi Fi land, its just that I am not a person who likes to dwell in nostalgia - even if I have a fairly competent vinyl system but that's because I do have a ton of records inherited from my late father and my siblings.

Tried buying records again, both second hand and new issues,.....until I discovered active speakers, Mac Mini and then Spotify (in that order). Sad to say the latter really buried my vinyl hobby (you can get most of the albums on Spotify) and vinyl only gets played when 1. I have a lot of time, 2. my patience is good and lastly the album is bloody good, damned the condition of the vinyl.

Cheers and rock on esp. w/Pink Floyd

No worries. But then again I am being accused of what I am avoiding. I have no nostalgia for vinyl nor keeping any oldies passed down by my old man. Hundreds of vinyl were literally thrown away in the 70s  and before that the shellac records after the arrival of vinyl. Even the gramophone was given away. Common sense prevailed. Cassette player was giving a better sound than the old worn out vinyl. 

In those days we buy vinyl to serve us. Not like nowadays where we are serving them by spending hours cleaning and aligning. The only cleaning I remember is to let it spin and put a piece of cloth to take away the dirt. I probably spend more time watching my toy soldiers spinning on them then playing the records.  Maybe, that’s the only nostalgia I got for vinyl.  And another one getting whacked for replacing the stylus with a safety pin or something like that. For a long time I was wondering why that didn't work. I wasn’t walking down memory lane when I was talking about vinyl.

I wouldn’t have said that vinyl sounded better (subjective) if I were using my old worn out vinyl as the reference. I was misunderstood. I was cautious about alienating digital format lovers. I was referring to the current standard like mentioned here.

When talking about which medium is better, one should state in what aspect are they referring to.

Each medium has its pros and cons... so one usually choose a medium after balancing all of these aspects...or... in my case... I use them all hehehehe... and its all based on my love towards music... 

But if I was to categorise the aspects... here is my take:

1. SQ: LP - HFPA - CD
2. Practicality: Raw files (MP3, ALAC, FLAC etc) - MD - CD - LP
3. Distortion analysis, soundwave respond etc: I dont care as I listen to music, not signals... it can be distorted and bent... but if it sounds good to me, then its good.
4. Longevity and durability: what has been prooven to me: Cassette - CD - MD - LP..... my first ever cassette from 1986.... still sounding good, sharp, and  still no sign of deterioration...but I have CDs from 2001 that cant be played anymore because it somehow developed watermark on them.

Overall? I keep and still use all of them... all depends on my mood on that day to relate to music.

Somehow this thread strayed to sound quality which in my opinion the undisputed winner is DSD.  Anyway, I have to disagree, DSD/DXD to DSD right upto CD offer the best SQ. However, if the source is of poor old noisy recording I find MP3 betters CD on direct transfer. SOS wrote a good article about the advantage of mp3 and lower bit rate under certain circumstances. So my preference can be backed up with some rational engineering reasonings unlike vinyl debate which is still on going.  This thread is not about SQ. Without a doubt vinyl ranks lowly. 


Comparing analogue media, I think tape cassette and cartridge sounded better than vinyl. That's the opinion that I formed about 35 years ago when I had all three to compare. No proper AB but that was what I preferred in terms of better sound back then. It was a very young and inexperience boy's opinion. I am probably mixing up musicality and quality.  


In the early 90s, I bought a cassette due to an unavoidable situation and later compared them with CD in my reasonably good SQ car system. The cassette sound was fuller and enjoyable compared to the thin CD sound. For a short while, I was buying cassettes only but our hot Malaysia's weather wasn't kind to the cassettes in the car. That's the end of my last cassette purchase. 
 
That's what SQ is to me. But when it comes to MUSICALITY, vinyl edges Cd in my subjective opinion. This opinion was formed after listening to the best of both recordings made by competent persons in a high end stereo system. To those having good stereo setup with both mediums can compare with the album mentioned in the link provided in my earlier post. 


Musically, I enjoy my iphone sound sitting in the balcony starring at the stars. Musically, my ambio with limited 24bit/96 kHz sounds more engaging then the same with the highest Rez through my Mytek DSD DAC in stereo.  Musicality and quality a.k.a accuracy don't  correlate.  Sorry to sound like selling snake oil. 


I prefer Harbeth musically but for accuracy they are probably the worse. They lack pin point accuracy and lack transient speed but that is not what music is about. 


It is a mystery and looks like we will die not knowing the reason for our preference. Perhaps certain things are not meant to be discussed. Now I can see why there are so much conflicts when it involves religion. Audiophiles and religions have a lot in common. No one wants to concede and find out the truth. The engineers opinion to be accepted as the gospel truth. It doesn't matter what your ears and heart tell you. You are hallucinating. Accurate sound is the most musical and therefore vinyl lovers are fools influenced by emotions. For other, just accept whatever you like. When it comes to cable as long as you can hear the difference just accept them.  Ahhh.  Ignorance is bliss. 


p.s. Writing this sitting while having tea near Ipoh hockey stadium listening to the musical sound from a mamak stall. Emotionally this is so fulfilling. The tea must be making me hallucinating.

Which is better? Vinyl or CD. This is the edited version of the sitcom but I think it says it all about our preference.
 

STC, do you again have the hallucinating tea in the mamak stall again?

adrian4454 wrote:STC, do you again have the hallucinating tea in the mamak stall again?

Nolah. They chopped down the tree. So sad. Now, it is Glengoyne in my room.  That should explain the video.