Cds have more dynamic range than vinyl?

Quite

Quite well. The system I have in my control room does quite nicely.
And , like I said, if ear buds and boom boxes do it for you, fine. I like those things too, sometimes.
But sometimes I like to do some critical listening and absorb what the artist wanted.
CDs and nice gear do that well.

 

I wish every single person that has contributed to this thread so far heard the Kronos turntable that was demonstrated by KJ West One London. Then you would know that Vinyl sounds better . Measuring better doesn't mean Jack ****.

 

"Your" control room? Sooooo you actually believe that all control rooms sound the same? Or do you only listen to CDs you recorded yourself using your control room? It's one or the other, if you really think you are getting the sound heard in the control room of all your CDs. I would add that you must also reject any recordings made prior to the early 80s since the norm was for the artists to make final judgement on their recordings using test pressings on vinyl. Oh snap, bet all the accuracy folks never even thought of that little bit of fun fact.

 

I stopped reading the article once he mentioned the cactus needle. I knew then and there that this was an "EDITORIAL" that wouldn't go over well with vinyl enthusiasts.

 

I have many operas on CD and vinyl, and I have about 20 identical opera recordings in both formats. The CDs are always with greater dynamic range, and the vinyl editions are always slightly compressed. But in most of the cases vinyl sounds more pleasant - the voices are more clear and audible, on the CD editions usually the orchestra dominates and the voices sounds a bit burried in the mix, and also with the vinyl you don't have to play all the time with the volume knob in order to hear the soft parts without blowing your speakers and ears during the full orchestral "forte" that follows, which is often the case with the CDs of this genre - they just overuse the CD dynamics capability, IMO. So the greater dynamic range is not so important, both formats are perfectly capable to deliver great sound, so the most important thing is the mastering.

 

Not addressed to me, but . . . Scott, you and I have discussed the issue of accuracy/neutrality before, and in addition to making some good points, you've been very consistent in your position on this issue. In a response, for example, to my question as to whether you saw any intrinsic value in speakers regarded as being "neutral", you said "For consumer use only to the extent that it correlates with one's aesthetic values"—which actually means "no", you see no intrinsic value. I would like to ask now, would it be correct to infer from this statement that you believe that accuracy/neutrality in the recording medium (at the consumer level) has no intrinsic value? And, if your answer to this question is "no", then I would ask, in exactly which aspects of the sound quality of the recording medium do you believe that the intrinsic value of accuracy/neutrality exists?

 

And the CD has its digital artifacts. And thinner sound. This is audible on even carefully mastered music thats transferred to vinyl & CD for the audiophile markets. But the question was dynamic range of the music, not sonic additions.

Yes its largely the mastering, but also the transferring technology, although converters seemed to have largely closed the gap.

I have a number of audiophile masterings that were prepared using the same tape source, mastered with diligent care by well regarded mastering engineers (*ahem*) which were then used for records and CDs. And while very close, there are still audible differences. In fact a number of engineers that do so have noted the same thing both here and on other sites. Whether one finished format is 'better' than the other is up to the ears of the listener. Thats where our biases come in. I tend to prefer the record because I like the like the slight extra musicality, vividness and realism its presents. Others may like the CD because of its 'cleaner' antiseptic sound and lower noise floor. To each their own.

There may be a war at the outer fringes of the digital and analog lovers, but many of us collect both CD and vinyl and have a more balanced view. My experience is that 'analog only' types tend to claim hearing something more real than what any CD produces (which I can find fault with) whereas the 'digital only' crowd likes to tell other people what they are hearing. This often devolves to a something along the lines of the analog fan is just hearing distortions deluding them into believing vinyl is more real or musical. (ironically, acknowledging a subjective perception of vinyl superiority). The digital only crowd also tends to rely on the theoretical aspects of the format (like dynamic range) while ignoring the actual widespread practices, combined with an oft uncritical reliance on 'data' and factoids. Thats is, they tend to elevate data they 'see' on graphs etc. over what they hear.

CD has no dynamic range. The range is in the music transferred to the format. Its like a motor in a car body. The cars horsepower is not inherent, its dependent. And yet a myth persists that the same recording used for a record, when transferred to make a CD, magically expands the dynamic range.

I like to engage the occasional 'analog only' people I speak with. For someone that has a Cream LP pressed at Terre haute by Columbia in their hands and they seem dedicated to finding the best sounding source.... I may say try to dig up a clean UK mono Polydor or a Monarch US record, and if you can't find that, get a DCC/MFSL etc. CD. Its not an either or proposition.

 

You know what I find frustratingly HILARIOUS about these never ending useless "debates" and misrepresentations (at best) regarding Lps versus CeeDees?

The fact that almost from the beginning there were a dozen or more (some now defunct) "high end" makers offering all sorts of mega buck gear with the promise of extracting from the CeeDee, sound as good as the Lp (the audiophool scribes with their tombs and the hardware companies in their marketing campaigns made the comparisons, holding the Lp up as the mark to shoot for, not me) and give them that natural ANALOG sound that they were capable of, if only you would buy their magical outboard DAC or transport or whatever it was that they were peddling

Has that been so long ago that "everyone" in the digital "camp" has conveniently chosen to forget it? Selective memory perhaps? You know, they say if you tell a big enough lie long enough, and the bigger the lie...........

We're not talking the "Walkman" crowd; this was targeted towards the "discerning" audiophool, the sort of folks with liberal arts degrees (and lots of disposable income, it WAS the 80s, early 90s after all!) who could tell you ONCE AND FOR ALL why CeeDees are superior and why you are so fu&king stoooooopid to think otherwise

More than a few of these wondrous machines (and still to this day) having a TUBE output section

Audio Alchemy (original company defunct) reworked SONY and Pioneer transports

California Audio Labs (defunct)
http://hometheaterreview.com/california-audio-labs/

Wadia (got their big start putting other people's transports in a jewelry box, boutique parts and a magic clock)

Theta (more of the same; reworking Philips designs with boutique parts and different boxes)
http://www.thetadigital.com/legacy_products.shtml

The list could go on.........the pages of Stereophool literally dripped with ringing endorsements of all of this stuff and it often found it's way into the "Class A" ratings

Best part of it all, every month, it started all over again with new products

This all stared in a BIG way less than 5 YEARS after the launch of the format?! And was almost exclusively (heavily based) upon the bits and pieces designed and built by the inventors of the format! From perfect to needing a "do over" in less than 1800 days?!

(and yes, I am well aware that ICs were evolving rapidly during this time but the promise wasn't "can/should be easily upgraded in the future", the promise was "perfect" and they were more than willing to show you the "science" and data to prove it)

Had someone failed to tell the public that this "perfection" was actually a work in progress and that we were the guinea pigs?

Who could forget when these first hit the "scene"? "AH! Njoe Tjoeb" and not unlike a Barbie and Ken set up there were plenty of little add ons and accoutrements you could buy to make things even better!
http://www.stereophile.com/cdplayers/1103tjoeb/index.html

Apparently someone still finds it necessary to "fix" that CeeDee player's "sound" AND more importantly, there are still enough folks out there in the World to make that endeavor financially viable (that seems to be changing dramatically as of this writing; still steadily selling "well" yet at the same time steadily dropping significantly since 2000, less than 20 years after it's launch with the intention of replacing the gramophone record for playing Music)

If you have the urge and skim through any of this material from our not so distant past (and present) you will find the reference to the goal of making your CeeDees more "Musical" throughout

Anyone around during the 80s will also well remember the re-clocking craze, still going strong to this date in the dark corners of the web............oh, and don't forget, there were probably TONS of cables sold that were a requisite to optimize all this wonderful hardware (not another knock on boutique cable; these were marketed specifically to and for these digital boxes and their carefully repaired signals)

Many of the purveyors of these goods based their equipment offerings on this transport and some still do to this day:
http://www.thevintageknob.org/philips-CDM.html

One of the finest and most bullet proof transports ever designed when cost was no object, to preclude as many issues as possible with the launch of the then "revolutionary" yet fledgling technology
A statement piece
Quickly abandoned by the big boys due to cost(s) once they had figured out a way to do things more cheaply

Before you pounce: I realize that there has been a similar evolution and the accompanying goodies in the Lp world, BUT the brunt of it was born out of the necessity to address the rapid improvements made in the software, i.e. the Lp from 1948 forward. Then along came STEREO, the materials used to manufacture discs changed........the Quadraphonic (albeit brief as it lasted), the development of microscopes which allowed for even more complex and refined tip profiles and jewel finishing and on and on..............all with the intended purpose to IMPROVE THE SOUND and thus garner greater market share, NOT to make things more cheaply

Record playing machines and cartridges had to evolve to accommodate, and play back without destroying, the newest incarnations of the discs, in other words a legitimate change to facilitate the sonic advances made with the great strides occurring in record production from A to Z, NOT an almost immediate rework of a newly launched format that many found more than a little lacking.........and which had been touted as the answer to "Perfect Sound Forever!"

As far as I am aware, except for a handful of aborted attempts requiring a hardware change, those jewel boxes at the record outlets still all for the most part contain Red Book discs? Compare that with what happened to the phonograph record from 1930 to 1960, a comparable amount of time

The gimmick and total hardware re-work crap didn't really take off for the Lp until AFTER the arrival of the CeeDee, which unfortunately occurred right around the time that engineers and sound people had attained a repeatable manifestation of the Lp that few, could HONESTLY, complain about. Meanwhile, Compact Cassette was filling folk's desire for portability quite well

For a while they stood side by side in the stores, CeeDees and their Lp counterparts, but as the buying public's demographics and habits changed so did what sold. After little more than 10-12 years post 1982, the record companies for the most part had pulled the plug on the Lp (Classic and the others are not the subject here, I'm talking plain vanilla pressings of everything like we enjoyed for decades)

Paralleling all of this was the birth of the net, computers popping up in millions of homes, email, on line trading..........you get the picture

"Digital" and everything that comes with it, good or bad, was here to stay

The Western World and especially the U.S.A. was fascinated with, and bombarded by, "digital digital digital digital"...................EVERYTHING digital was promised to be better, digital could and would solve every problem, whether it be how much gasoline your car burned to how your Music collection would sound

Yes, America became hooked on the digital narcotic (blinded by) for about 15 years until the problems started (not just in Audio but in the other spheres like computer crashes, hacking, identity theft etc etc) The subscription model became the norm (and is currently an institution, a bedrock of our service based economy), Bill Gates became one of the wealthiest men in the world as did others............yep, throw all that old antiquated Analog crap away 'cause this is PROGRESS.............EVOLVE OR GET OUT OF THE WAY

What tripe

Nowadays, most "kids" (18-35 year olds) are perfectly happy to have their Music on their iPod or their phones. Millions listen with ear buds, not even phones anymore. That's been the goal of the computer folks all along. In the meantime (and the trend and now norm started by Napster) downloading Music, both legitimate and illegitimate, has kicked the Music industry right in the nuts and it would appear the format once adored by the record companies has taken the biggest hit

The once mighty CeeDee and it's promise of "Perfect Sound Forever"

The intriguing part is, those same "kids" are turning their interests towards vinyl in droves, and I'm not just talking the little hipsters

My Daughter started working at Rasputin's Records and Tapes when she turned 18 (2009). She just stopped working for them last month. This is where I gain some of my insight, not just reading sales numbers and industry figures or English major's BS published as facts, or "proof" in "hi-fi" rags. Rather from the buyers and sellers of Music themselves.

There are two constants with the 99 out of 100 or so young people I have talked with about this and those are: they enjoy the Lps more for the SOUND and secondly for the artwork (over their downloaded files and or their CeeDees) Their record collections are surprisingly interesting and representative (not just Jack White crap) and their knowledge of the format is actually more advanced than mine was when I was their age as the Lp is nearly an artifact to them and they have cared enough to do a little research

They are legitimate fans and have come to this place on their own, with NO marketing blitz Their adventures into the hardware (turntables) is a fun subject for another story, but suffice it to say they are evolving there too and so far seem immune to the Mpingo Magic wood bricks hubbub!

Then there's "us", still in enough numbers to keep some current, and new players in the record game, interested enough to provide us our "audiophile pressing" fix

HOW CAN THIS BE?

You know, I am well over 50 years old. I have listened to Music daily for almost all of that time. I have talked to audio professionals, friends and just folks at the "stereo store". I have owned many systems of different types and stripes. I now have two adult children: DOB 1989 and 1991 Both own and use regularly a turntable Both own a well made, stand alone CeeDee player Both regularly purchase vinyl And both will select the title on vinyl OVER the CeeDee IF the title is available on an Lp, EVERY TIME

I HAVE NO HAND IN THIS

My Son is a Classically trained Musician who is currently serving overseas in an ARMY Band He has his own mind and ears

What does all that have to do with anything? Through all of my years the one and only constant I have ever heard from all of this diverse group of folks, regarding what they wanted out of their respective Music systems was, "GOOD SOUND"

"GOOD SOUND"

Not techno-babble, charts graphs or waveform measurements Not what he she or it said, not promises of perfection or other such nosnese.............just one simple refrain, they all wanted "GOOD SOUND"

And I'm with them on that point, that's all I want

"GOOD SOUND" not "good measurements"

Analogman

 

You misinterpreted my answer. So I suggest that you forget your interpretation and just stick to my actual answer. Accuracy in audio has use or value in so far as it correlates with one's aesthetic values. That is true for speakers and for media. *If* there is zero correlation between one's preferences and the measured accuracy then there is zero intrinsic value. IF there is 100% correlation between one's preferences and accuracy then there is 100% intrinsic value in accuracy. The intrinsic value will depend completely on how it correlates with what one likes. Does that make sense?

 

Damn Does anyone else's head hurt?
Let's all be happy with 135 year old technology.Screw any type of innovation or progress.Science is the devils work anyway,right.
Buy what you friggin like and stop bitching.Lifes to short.

 

Who says "screw any type of innovation or progress?" Were you intending to post this in a Pono thread?

 

Brilliant contribution!

Analogman

 

I hate 135 year old music instruments. Nothing sounds worse. 235 year old instruments? Pure rubbish, made of wood and other useless crap. Gimme the most current high tech replacement. A kevlar bodied AI driven instrument please. Autotune and noise reduction should be mandatory for all recorded music.

 

No, with all due respect, I'm afraid that it doesn't. The definition of the word "intrinsic" means that the value that we are discussing does not depend on anything; therefore, to say that the intrinsic value of something depends on something else simply makes no sense. However, this logical error is ultimately not important, because your response has actually provided the answer to my question: you do not believe that accuracy / neutrality has any intrinsic value in any aspect of the sound quality of the recording medium.​

 

Uh oh. He's gotcha now, Scott. I guess you're back to listening to music exclusively for the sheer frivolous pleasure of it.

 

Thats not the sole definition. While its true intrinsic value is generally determined by an internal value relative to the entity considering its value, other intrinsic definitions refer to its relationship to outside value(s), impliedly or otherwise.

 

I must be cut from the herd..
I couldnt give a tinkers cuss about neutrality, transparency..etc..I want it to sound GOOD and euphoric.
CD sounds great, Vinyl gives me euphoric, thats my train right there.

 

Sure it does. It depends on a person's values. How could it not?

Baloney that is your misinterpretation. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you can't understand that personal aesthetic values vary from person to person that is on you. Don't put it on me.

 

No, that is not correct. Check the two most authoritative dictionaries of American English---
Webster's Third and The American Heritage---and see for yourself.

 

This is such a silly argument. Let's take an obvious example. Gold. It's monetary value is not intrinsic but it's usefulness is intrinsic. So what intrinsic value does gold have to an electrician, an artisan and a potato farmer? Is it the same or is it as much as it serves their personal needs? Think about it and then apply the same reasoning to personal aesthetics.

 

???????????

Huh?

 

The two MOST authoritative?

Many would disagree with that one!

Maybe we can shift gears and start in on THAT! ; - )

Analogman

 

Yes, of course. I thought that this would have been understood, but my use of the word "anything" referred to anything outside of that intrinsic value, with your personal preferences regarding sound quality being the thing that was "outside of" that intrinsic value in this particular case. In any event, my wording certainly could have been clearer. Allow me to restate my point in a way that (hopefully) will not be misunderstood: In your personal value system with respect to the reproduction of music at the consumer (non-pro) level, accuracy/neutrality has no value independent of your personal, subjective preferences regarding sound—correct or not? If not, please explain, as I would not be able to reconcile that position (i.e., "not correct" ) with your previous statements here and elsewhere on this subject.

Perhaps I failed to express myself with sufficient clarity. I certainly do understand that personal aesthetic values vary from person to person. Again, given the context, I thought that this would be understood, but since it was not, I'll make it explicit: my statements have been referring only to your values.