Cds have more dynamic range than vinyl?

Is something wrong with my system? I find just the opposite. I have around a grand invested in each of my cd player and my turntable. When I listen, I find the cd dead and lifeless compared to vinyl. How can on system be so different from the other.
I bought my daughter a Pro-ject Debut for christmas and all her friends that come over are blown away by the difference. She's converted about 5 of her friends over to vinyl so far.
What am I doing wrong that makes vinyl sound so much better.
I even upgraded to external dac. It still falls short of vinyl. The digital cable perhaps? It is one of Audioquest mid level cables. Hmmm

 

I guess I did confuse you with another poster. Sorry.

 

Maybe the OP is a troll and maybe not (I'm leaning more toward the latter). Doesn't mean you all are required on command to roll out the troll banquet every time this comes up.

By the way - I didn't just bop in now. You can find my response back on page one, back when this thread still had a trace of "grown up" to it.

 

So is "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

 

I saw that

You repeating yourself is what moved me to make the smart ass remark that I did

We understood you the first time

Trolling is trolling whether intended or not I personally have few problems with trolls, they can be responsible for creating some of the most entertaining material on the internet if skilled

I mean trolling is (can be) an art form after all!

The problem I have is with people who take the SAME bait time after time after time

And the predictably inevitable hall monitors who rush to everyone's rescue with their clear heads and cool thinking

I have no idea if this OP is a troll or not

 

It´s a bit interesting, that according to many here, my CDs of classical music and operas shouldn´t sound as good as they do. On my Accuphase CDP they sound in fact exquisite if not better. I know I´m the one that is subjectively listening to them. And they also have a much higher dynamic range than the records, which I also play and enjoy.

 

Don't know where you got that?

It's good that you've found a player (and discs) that makes you consistently happy

That would be the goal!

 

Generally, older is better when it comes to stock CDs. Japan, W. Germany and the USA all produced some nice sounding CDs. Exceptions to the rule are some small audiophile labels, one reborn. The main contenders are MFSL [Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs] and our hosts former label DCC Compact Classics. Here's a link to the MFSL Gold CDs I like the sonics on. For Steve's old DCC label I highly recommend these Gold CDs. Heart, The Doors [made in Japan not USA], The Band, both Beach Boys, Ray Charles, all of the Nat King Cole, both Cream, both Jim Croce, all Paul McCartney, Joni Mitchell Court And Spark, both Elvis Presley, Gerry Rafferty, Queensryche, Bob Seger, all Frank Sinatra, Phoebe Snow, Ringo Starr, Jethro Tull Original Masters to name a few. There's also "Avenue Gold" Gold CDs of the War catalog. Steve's "Analogue Productions" Creedence Clearwater Revival hybrid SACDs sound great. Audio Fidelity also has Steve's work and one that always stands out for me every time I hear it is Bad Company Bad Company. There is not a slab of Vinyl that touch this one.

 

That is purely based on personal preference. I prefer music that is more pristine and doesn't have extraneous noises and inherent background noise. I also like the extended dynamic range of CDs as well as the lower noise floor and better representation of what was done in the studio.
If you like the inadequacies as better and think they make for better sound, more power to ya.

 

Well, you're not getting any extended dynamic range on most CD's vs their LP counterparts - the CD of 13 isn't more dynamic than the LP, but I'm certain you wouldn't know that because you've not heard the LP. You CD-only people can talk all day long about what CD is capable of, but most modern masterings don't come close to utilizing the dynamic potential of CD.

I don't like "inadequacies", I like the actual better sound I get from LP's when it's there to be had. But that's the kind of dishonest, passive-aggressive remark I've come to expect from you.

 

You want to hear what vinyl can do, bass and clarity extremes wise, try this and play it loud:


I am not a great fan of Hip Hop and Rap but I do like some records
This has some very tight Funk inspired grooves on it
One spin of this one and you will pretty much put the "vinyl can't do bass" BS to bed

Speaking of extremes, this one's a heavy hitter in the bass department as well:


Analogman

 

It's all in the mastering. But even the best LPs will struggle to do 60dB of dynamic range. CDs can theoretically do 96dB (assuming 6db per bit, 16 bits), but far too many mastering engineers stomp on it. And in truth, 96dB of dynamic range will send you screaming from the room.

 

Yes, CDs have more dynamic range than vinyl. I think this is well established and beyond any serious argument.

But as has been pointed out, there are other factors that contribute to good sound.

CDs have their weak points, e.g. a tendency to sound sterile, dry, overly bright, or clinical, especially until recently. There have been tremendous strides in the past few years with DACs. I personally find it ironic that at what appears to be the twilight of the CD era, reasonably priced DACs are available that finally approximate the more organic sound we associate with vinyl, without the well-known drawbacks of vinyl.

Vinyl has weak points as well- less dynamic range, background noise (usually, unless the vinyl is pristine), inner groove distortion, shorter play time and various other hassles associated with cartridge alignment, etc. Vinyl playback can also quickly become a money pit because there are so many variables to account for. But vinyl still, to me and apparently many others, has an ineffable, organic, lifelike sound with more "presence" than I've ever heard from a CD.

I'm personally VERY happy to have access to both. I've ripped my CD collection to lossless FLAC which sounds identical (if played through the same DAC) and is incredibly convenient. But I also have a vinyl setup that is providing a lot of enjoyment when I want to "geek out" and relive the days when all I had was vinyl. I went without a vinyl rig for at least 20 years but I am surprised how much I am enjoying getting back into it. Sure it's not as clear and dynamic as CD, but it is more organic and somehow more "real" sounding. It is also amazing to me how good a CLEAN record can sound.

That is my $.02.

 

If you want to get personal about it, good, I can do that in return.
I suspect your listening experiences are quite limited. I have a LOT of rock era CDs and quite a few done later in DDD that have amazing dynamic range. As well as a huge amount of other styles of music on CD, including classical music where the superiority of CDs is quite obvious.
As far as the "you CD- only people" low minded attempt at a stereotype, I am not only not CD only, I still have a quite massive record collection and was listening to music decades before CDs. I have in the past had a kings ransom tied up in half speed masters and stereo gear.
So I am hardly "CD-only". In fact I still listen to cassettes, have 4 Minidisc decks and a half dozen MD portable players, 3 turntables set up in respective systems, and a functioning 8 track player.
I just recognize the superior sound quality of CDs. Something that at the beginning of the CD explosion on the seen I was quite skeptical about.
I was ecstatic when I realized that the sound I was hoping to get with extremely expensive and a bit difficult to find Original Master Recordings and half speed masters was happening in the digital realm on CDs.
I was honest enough and smart enough to give up on the whole nostalgia imaginary "vinyl is better" fantasy the first time I did a series of side by side comparisons.

 

Something else that goes hand in hand by virtue of the fact that dynamic range in stereo is happening twice is the potential for crosstalk.
CDs are a format that can virtually eliminate the possibility of crosstalk that is inherent to varying degrees on vinyl. I don't read phono cartridge specs now, but when I was very heavy into special issue vinyl in the 70s and 80s crosstalk was an included spec for cartridges.
I doubt CD players even have a spec for crosstalk.

 

The problem is two fold: 1) the vast majority of rock era music doesn't have than much dynamic range on the masters to begin with. 2) the CD versions of rock music originally released on vinyl do not have more dynamic range than their vinyl counterparts. They either have the same, or worse. Thats because the 'remaster era' kicking in in the late 80's quickly started to squash dynamics., and most rock era CDs are made with....well....rock era master or copy tapes.

The thing that makes CDs desirable is their convenience for both playing and storage, and the quiet background. Of all the things that make them more desirable, dynamic range is not it. The format has the better capability, but it was hardly ever instituted.

 

So true. Like I said earlier in this thread, one of the great audio ironies of our age is as we've gotten playback and storage media capable of greater and greater dynamic range, we've developed production practices of making recordings with less and less dynamic range.

Personally I think the musical advantages of the wider potential dynamic range of CDs are mostly to be had at the piano and pianissimo end of the dynamic scale -- with the much lower noise floor vs. vinyl, quiet passages, and quiet microdynamic gestures can be more easily heard with greater detail at a playback level that's truly quiet. And so if you're listening to classical pieces that range from ppp to fff, or any music with pp or ppp passages or passages of silence, the lower noise floor and the ability to play that back at a low level and still have a big loud swing to f or ff or fff can be more natural and ironically at the same time can be both more relaxing and more exciting than trying to play back music with long quiet passages and big loud swings on LPs -- because you don't need to crank up the volume (and then have ear splitting or distorted FFFs) and you don't boost noise w/ the music at the ppp end.

 

Not so.
The Moody Blues albums all had great dynamic range. Pink Floyd had great dynamic range. Even Steve Millers Book Of Dreams and Fly Like An Eagle had good dynamic range. I have a LOT of rock era music that dynamic range is taken full advantage of. Humble Pies Rockin the Filmore uses dynamic range for the huge impact of I Don't Need No Doctor having a section of jazzy quiet guitar solos which slam full on back into the song.
Many rock bands used dynamics for effect in music.

The CDs of much of the music does have better dynamic range, not because the dynamic range is increased but because the music is more discrete and accurate and the noise floor is much lower, as well as the tracking noise is gone. So parts of the music that are masked by inherent vinyl noise become audible.

 

For me, there is no sonic advantage when listening to classic rock on CD vs vinyl. There is the odd occasion where an old vinyl LP has seen better days, and can be a little noisy. But, for the most part, there is plenty of dynamic range on a vinyl LP for this genre of music.

Where CD's really come into their own, is for classical music. For a lot of recordings, the inherent noise floor of vinyl is just too high for this type of music, and the way it's played.

jeff

 

Every group you mention, Moody's, Floyd, Steve Miller, Humble Pie, are all groups I have listened to for decades and have pretty much the entire catalog of on both CD and vinyl. The 'right' pressings of each too. UK first pressings, DCC, MFSL, W.G., and so on. I think you'd be surprised the dynamic range is not that great even on these. Yes they have lower quieter passages and louder ones, giving the effect of great big dynamic range. But they do not have big dynamic range. And noise floor is not dynamic range. My records are as quiet as the CDs. No problems with music being masked by surface noise. Rigs and cartridges have come a long long way friend.

 

Cd has more of everything compared with pressed vinyl, that's why classical recording jumped to digital as soon as possible
Rock material rendered to tape and thence RIAA LP had a certain euphonic glue that held it together and produced a compelling version of events in the studio
Digital was a more accurate but perhaps more brutal version of Rock and its diverse ultra distortions of tone,timbre, dynamics and acoustics
The irony is a near perfect carrier with a dynamic of 96 dB has been GBH'd into a device with 10 dBs plus by persons of limited technical ability and taste (ie managers and artistes..)
Personally I marvel at these adaptive compressors with their' look ahead' capabilities
A recent Robert Cray cd had me dumbfounded by its operating level and lack of distortion (and dynamic)

 

While it's technical possible I think for a system to record signal below the level of the noise floor and for that to be thought of as its dynamic range, for all practical purposes for listening to music and measuring equipment, the dynamic range of a playback system is defined at the quiet end by the noise floor. It's the relationship between the point at which the signal falls below the noise floor and the the point at which the signal clips.

If you lower the noise floor you increase dynamic range the system is capable of.

 

Fine, I am comparing a SACD to analog processes. Seeing as hi-rez recording is now the norm, that CD sales are falling off a cliff and the audience for classical music shrinking, maybe it's all moot. But and still, LPs still have sound that gets worse as one approaches the dead wax and there's nothing that can be done to eliminate that flaw. LPs are still being manufactured off-center, no one seems to be able to make a technical fix to that issue that works as well as the technical fix of any of the digital formats. And as it is possible, via choosing the right recording gear, the right venue to record in and the use of editing to remove 'noises off', to have a recording that does not have audience noises, hiss, clicks or pops and a dynamic range that exceeds the potential of an analog format, many will be attracted to that sort of recording. This has been amply demonstrated over the previous 30 years. Seeing as both analog and digital recordings are never the same as "the real thing" it ultimately boils down to matters of taste, as the article cited repeatedly reiterates.

 

You got personal with me first with your stupid remark about "if you like inadequacies", so don't put that on me.

I also have many CD's with outstanding dynamic range, but I refute your claim that if there's a CD and an LP of the same mastering, the LP has to be the worse. That's baloney. I can't believe that anyone who still listens to their "massive record collection" would make such a ridiculous statement. It sounds like the musings of someone who hasn't been in the same room with a working turntable in 20-something years.

 

I have. I have a very nice turntable. There's a lot of music I have where the LP mastering [if it would exist, and it doesn't] would necessarily be worse. The recording I cited of Mahler's Third symphony would be such an example. Uncompressed, a lot of the signal of these truly wide-range recordings would be bumping up against the noise floor of turntable-based playback.