Cds have more dynamic range than vinyl?

You forgot this is audio, here anything can be debated to the cows come home, and long after that. But I agree I would not thought it would be possible either.

 

Scott, In your original comment, you claimed that "digital" can produce a degree of silence that is unnatural and unpleasant. You also spoke in favor of vinyl's less-silent and more-natural presentation.

If I misunderstood when I said it sounded like you were saying the surface noise (and other noise products) of vinyl playback restored the lack of silence of real life, then I apologize.

However, look at your original statement again: Clearly you are arguing that something in analogue/vinyl produces less silence than "bad digital," and that this "less silent" aspect of analogue/vinyl therefore is better and more realistic because "Classical music happens in concert halls. They are never dead quiet."

And so I will reiterate: If anyone hears a classical recording made in a concert hall, and there is no hall ambience or other natural noise/sound in the recording, that's not because it's "digital" (digitally recorded and/or played back on a digital medium like CD). Rather, that's because it's a poorly done recording and/or mastering. If this bad recording/mastering were pressed to an LP and played back on a tube system, the missing ambience and natural sound background would not magically appear.

 

If classical concerts are recorded live, the microphones will most often pick up the extraneous background sounds.
If in a studio they will not.
If those noises are picked up, they will be on the format, whether CD or vinyl.
If not, they will be absent, CD of vinyl.
The only thing that would be different is that a CD will be lacking the inherent noise that vinyl has and the tracking noise, as well as any hiss generated by the coil in the cartridge, if any.

 

If that is the case, then it has nothing to do with the potential for the format. Perhaps whoever owned the masters gave a third party the right to remix and remaster it, which could have been done for CD as well.
Far as I am concerned, 13 isn't all that good to begin with, so it isn't a good example.
It doesn't make sense that they would make a high quality master for vinyl but poison the CD master with misuse of compression.
But again, if they did the problem isn't with the format, it is with the competence of those cutting to the format.

 

13 is a great example because the differences are readily apparent. The fact that you don't particularly like the album is irrelevant.

You made a blanket statement that if the CD sounds bad, the LP can only sound worse. That's incorrect. I'm sure others here could provide many more examples. The fact is, you simply can't do the things to an LP that you can to a CD - virtually any CD that is brickwalled will sound better in its LP equivalent if there is one. 13 isn't necessarily a "high quality master", it just isn't brickwalled like the CD is.

 

Is part of the appeal of vinyl is that it offers a great deal of opportunity to love equipment? there are so many parts of the playback in the analog chain that are pretty awesome and can be upgraded as you learn what you like. The table, platter, motor, tone arm, cartridge, phono stage and the set up of all of it give us a chance to upgrade, experiment and customize.

If you are an audiophile, to some degree you love equipment. there is more to love (or hate) when you are playing records. CD's are more like turning on a lamp that you cant change the bulb.

 

Unfortunately while I am in China I have to deal with the very slow internet from my hotel and all the annoying filters the Chinese impose. So I would recommend sending an email and posing this very question to JJ Johnston. "What is the straight forward technical explanation for greater perceived dynamics from vinyl playback?" I suspect the answer he will give you is along the lines that as levels increase in vinyl/analog playback so does certain distortions that make the sound "louder." But I am sure he will be far more specific and will offer some sort of test results to support it.

Here is the link to JJ's webpage and I believe it has his email address.
home.comcast.net/~retired_old_jj

 

I think the opposite for me. I would find it much more appealing than I already do if the best gear were cheap, simple and consistent.

 

If the master and mix is bad, and the same mastering and mix is used for vinyl, then the CD has the capacity to be the far better choice.

So, if something goes onto CD and equally onto vinyl then if the CD sucks, so will the vinyl.
If the original mix and mastering is good, it will be good on both and better on CD.

If a different version of it is done for each, then you can't really compare them, because they become different projects.

Just like if something is compressed to death for vinyl and poorly mixed and/or mastered, but a different mix and mastering is done for cassette tape, the cassette tape could very possibly sound better if the mix and mastering are better.

 

That sounds good on paper. But in reality that simply hasn't always come to pass.

 

No I was simply pointing out that there is a body of digital recordings/CDs that are grossly missing low level information and that one can often sniff these recordings out by the unnatural background silence. If the background of a CD is "dead quiet" then it probably means something is really wrong. So in the big picture when discussing "noise" I am merely pointing out that there is such a thing as too little noise. Noise is a part of reality of any original acoustic event and if that noise is not there in the recording then something is missing. Likely something musically important is missing.

Two points.
1. I would reiterate "If anyone hears a classical recording made in a concert hall" then there will *always* be hall ambiance and other natural noise. So if you aren't hearing it *it has been lost.* This is something I find fairly common with digital recordings. It is not something I find common with analog recordings. It is also something I find quite often on CDs and not so often on vinyl.

2. In point of fact vinyl and tube distortions can actually restore a sense of ambiance and dimensional imaging that is lost in recording and playback. There is nothing magical about it. It does happen.

 

Better is subjective. In both cases you cite I tend to prefer the vinyl versions. So that makes them better to me.

 

Well, I'm sure this all makes sense to you, but in actual practice the LP can and often does sound better than the CD. Of course one has to have a turntable to evaluate this.

 

Not so. I have a number of rarities & obscurities that were only released in the last two decades. Digital conversions of demo tapes, acetates, live recordings etc. released on CD and vinyl by the same boutique label. In almost all cases I own both. The vinyl is in every case definitely more listenable. Less fatiguing and sharp sounding.

 

Disagree, the vinyl counterpart has sounded better every time in my experience.

 

Which has been said by the other side about ardent CD fans. Oh, if only we could all have Continuum turntables and dcs Vivaldi digital playback so we could finally all know for sure.

 

First of all, I believe that you're confusing me with someone else, as this is the first time that you have accused me of misrepresenting you, and, more to the point, you have accused someone else in this thread of doing that. Second, I was trying, in the wording of my previous response, to get at a point, and your response has confirmed the usefulness of my wording.

I agree, especially in the case of the word that I was primarily objecting to—"pure", an adjective that has been abused way too often by manufacturers, vendors, reviewers, and audiophiles to describe audio.

 

The article invites the reader in with the word "may" and then proceeds to gently indoctrinate the reader with assembled bits and pieces of opinion from several sources, and substantiates those opinions (attempts to validate) with half told stories related to "science" and the evolution/development of digital audio.

Oh yeah, and let's not leave out the old "ticks and pops" knock (must be repeated throughout ANY fluff piece inferring and extolling the sonic attributes and superiority of digital audio)

I was and still am a bit hesitant to even comment on this losing game, what is ultimately the "CeeDee versus Lp" ARGUMENT or if you will: "Digital versus Analog"

My view? It's a bullsh&t "debate" when it becomes heated and a complete waste of time

There are too many variables, from start to finish, for this "debate" to ever come to any sort of meaningful conclusion........as well as individual opinions and preferences

Personally, as for the "competing" formats, I treat it as a choice between Naugahyde and natural leather, but that is merely MY view and is irrelevant. There can be positive points regarding both as well as negative

But suffice it to say, I cannot recall ANY technology that has enjoyed (and for a while, required) as much "defending" as digital audio, by the folks who manufacture the playback hardware, the folks who produce and master our Music and all the way through the chain to the end user

And it continues to this day

Parsing words, splitting hairs and quoting the guys with lab coats on the latest results from the Rubberchickenmagraph that PROVE digital superior to analog, I've heard it since the beginning

The chump who wrote this particular article definitely has a bias......but so what? It's just a trendy little hipster "overview" of a condition one could read (and write) volumes on

And find dozens if not hundreds of differing opinions as to which one sounds "better" (is that a "scientific" term?)

Little digs throughout aimed towards the adherents of vinyl inferring some sort of lacking. "Ahhhh, isn't that sweet" "well, if that's what makes them happy then I guess it's alright" is a very strong vibe throughout and I am not imagining it
Very condescending tone (but veiled)
Couple of examples:
"However, for a less skilled mixing engineer, mixing to analog tape can " 'glue' the music together in the most wonderful way,"
Is Bob referring to the "less skilled" folks such as Wilma Cozart Fine's "gluing" of things together (and himself)? Or is he just getting old? Is "glue" a good thing or a bad thing? "Glue" versus what? (Elmer's versus the precision of digital Nut&Bolts?)
or:
"Some people like marmalade and some people like mustard. If people like to listen to vinyl, do so, enjoy life. But don't say that the sound is better."
Uh, marmalade and mustard? How about Coke and Pepsi? I think that'd be better when you're announcing to the World how "tolerant" "respectful" and "inclusive" you are!
or:
"Scott Metcalfe, for example, says that recording to analog tape isn't any purer than recording music digitally. But the distortion and pitch variation that analog tape adds to the recording are preferred by some artists and audiences."
Who gives a **** what "Scott Metcalfe" thinks?
THIS has to be my favorite:
"It's like the kid walking around with a copy of The Catcher in the Rye in his back pocket," he says. "Does he really connect with it or does he think it's making a statement?"
Speaks for itself

Enough of that, now I am playing the losing game, but these comments, and now decades of others just like them, are growing tiresome

Clearly an agenda at play here, some of which I can understand and appreciate but a great deal of it little more than smug, self assured arrogance and know-it-all egos

It is almost as if the "industry" and the oh so enlightened are pissed off that folks still want and love records (vinyl) and feel obligated to continue to beat the drum on how bad they are

The number of people who own playback systems capable of extracting the full measure of quality available from EITHER format is still relatively small when compared to the Music consuming public at large

It was this way BEFORE CeeDee and it has been this way since

Today we have even more choices, don't even have to screw with ANY physical software if you are so inclined, whoopty doo!

Theoretical superiority of Fidelity during playback does not mean that it is happening (the superior playback)

CeeDee "won out" in the attempted murder of the Lp, INITIALLY and primarily for one simple reason, money

Making it and spending it

The typical, average, median, most common etc etc etc et al turntable in most American homes when the CeeDee came along was a BSR or Garrard stacking record changer. Lots-o-portables still around. Lots-o-consoles still around. TONS of "flip" needle ceramic cartridges still in service as well

Yes, stand alone turntables were abundant, but come on guys, you're in this hobby. You know that most people's turn tables were very practical affairs. If you buy thrift store and used vinyl you can SEE how things were for the most part (or, if you are 50 years old or older)

Records were not given the kid glove treatment we give them today (by the majority of folks), so yes, over time they ACQUIRED the "ticks and pops" I am growing sick of hearing about

So yes, by about 1990 or so when you could buy a CeeDee player for $200 or even less, folks practically threw their vinyl collections overboard en masse (now those were some good times for me!)

After being hit with the "WOW FACTOR"

Yes, that great CeeDee "Perfect Sound Forever" kicked the crap out of their abused, neglected, dirty and TYPICAL record playing set up with a nice dirt ball on the tip

Does that mean (prove) they were "better" Hell no. But it does mean (and they were) "better" sounding than about 80% of what most folks were currently using Yes, they were.......and then a few years after the introduction came the real deal sealer; THE BONUS TRACKS! (that should have been/still be a clue right there) Hint: think about money

It's a no brainer

I remember around 1988-1989 they were still promoting the CeeDee format heavily here in the Bay Area on the radio. Someone was running a spot on FM radio almost non-stop to try and convince you to dump your Lps and come on down and buy all your titles again in CeeDee. Maybe they were peddling CeeDe players as well, I can't remember with certainty.
Regardless
They started out with the announcer asking: "does your record collection sound like this?" and then proceeded to play a clip of Jimi Hendrix on what sounded like Grandma's Victrola
He'd go on and on about all the Music you were missing and how Life could be oh so much more fun..........
Then the same announcer would ask: "well how'd you like it if they all sounded like this?" and then proceed to play the same clip, but this time without all the crap...........you get the point

I just remember thinking to myself (every time I heard that spot) that at no time in my life had my record collection (or players) ever sounded that bad, or even close

But apparently many people's Music did suffer to that degree, so selling the format (and convincing people to "re-buy" their Music collections) was as easy as shooting fish in a barrel

Other than in magazines (audiophools, "high end") I do not think they ever made an aural comparison with an honestly fine transcription table equipped with a V-15 playing a well made record or a nice Reel to Reel for public consumption.............it was always these ridiculously exaggerated extremes

Truly apples to oranges on many levels

So, by 1990 or thereabouts, I can go buy an Onkyo CeeDee player with a remote control for less money than a Stanton 680 EEE Mk.II and one replacement stylus would cost
AND
Not have to screw around with anymore of those "pesky, messy record cleaning gadgets"
Not have to worry about scratches or warping
AND
Never have to get up to turn over a record again
And........and.......and........
AND
Best of all, have "PERFECT SOUND FOREVER" 'cause CeeDees will NEVER wear out and sound like that Hendrix clip did..............so, SIGN ME UP!

And that was that

I am not going to sit around and quote articles extolling the virtues of either.

The sales presentation occurred and was very successful; R&D would be recovered, millions would be made both directly and through licensing, hardware manufacturers would make bank and the actual record companies would save millions in shipping costs alone

Win Win Win.............until the PIRATES came along! OH NO!

I love it when people who possess very little, if any, technical or Musical background or experience (beyond being a listener) sit around and harangue on the topic and cite other laypersons' opinion pieces, and or pseudo-technical papers from market place competitors, to substantiate their positions, opinions or beliefs.
Sometimes, just their tastes! You'd think they were defending their child
Yet at the same time could not "do the Math" if their Life depended on it

It is easy now to say "well of course" when arguing about the irrelevant (at a certain level of quality and for the most part)

Timing is everything. The CeeDee came along at a perfect time. The World was blind sided by a very effective marketing blitz. The conditions were right

And now, it is no longer the darling it once was

"You can buy an armload of used LPs for the $21.79......."

At "Rasputin's Records and Tapes" here in the Bay Area, used and closeout CeeDees have taken the place once held by used Lps. I know this firsthand. $21 dollars can now easily buy you FORTY CeeDees @ .50 cents a pop. And we're not talking Zamfir records. Mainstream bands and titles. The kids just don't want them anymore and the "adults" now have all their Music on some Apple type device

So there 'ya go! Go figure!

The "this Lp versus that CeeDee" game is little more than a circle jerk and proves little if anything except for the fact that some software sounds "euphonic"and some software sounds "cacophonic" or not as euphonic as another AND some software sounds more euphonic than others to some people...............well; IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FROM THE BEGINNING!

You know, in the '50s and '60s AR and Paul Klipsch did some demos of the "is it live or is it........" type with their speakers

I have read that both had success. The audience could NOT discern which was being played for them, the live Musicians or their respective loudspeaker systems

Now how could that be possible................?

 

Yikes!

It's a yes or no question, folks.

 

Yeah, but it's attached to an LA Times article which is one of the silliest I've read in some time. I mean, the guy played LP's with a cactus needle that he sharpened with sandpaper and noticed sound degradation on his LP's by the 10th play? Wow, vinyl sucks!

 

That has already been asked by trolls about a million times already

A million times and a million ways

You're going to bop in now and be the "grown up", with attitude, on page six?

 

AND, written by a "millennial" at best, so it's "all good" vintage stuff!

 

Really good point. Sound for me, first and foremost. But if it just didnt sounds as good or better than digital Id kick it to the curb. BUT, what you say is very true. I dont mind working and fiddling etc to get great sound,its all part of the game.

 

I dunno, there's plenty of ways to tweak digital playback as well, I just can't afford any of 'em. You can get different universal players, DAC's, pre-amps, tube buffers etc. There's always somewhere else to go with gear no matter what the format.