CDs over LP/records assessment - a must watch for experts and beginners

Draw some hair on Phil - no extra charge.

 

...or just get his entire back catalogue on pre-loved CDs for around $5 total

 

I've got a Stevie Wonder cd that sounds absolutely terrible. Really poor. I tend to look at the Dynamic Range website and compare. Usually to see if my lp is better than the cd. Some cds seem ok but many less so. New albums all seem to be brickwalled to ****. It's a shame.

I like to think i can hear those subtle differences. At times it's painfully obvious. Other times less so.

Thanks for the video link OP. I'll take a look later.

 

OK. Now add in other costs such as rent, staff, electricity, taxes, and he outrageously wants to make a profit as well. Assuming the shop really does all the things I just imagined, a price in the 20s doesn't seem that unreasonable.

 

I’d hate to see the cost of beat up old Mantovani records in their Bargain Bin !

 

Don’t discount reissue vinyl out of hand even if it comes from a digital source. This forum is your best guide for help with determining when a reissue is worthwhile.

That said I generally prefer vintage all analog but a well done reissue from high res digital at a good price can be better than an over priced beat up original.

I, too, love CDs and think they are the best value so no format bias here. I also use streaming services. It’s good to have options. Have fun and enjoy the music!

 

Cd vs. vinyl comparisons are really tough. I would easily be able to find 10 vinyl copies of "Face Value" that sound very different from each other for various reasons, such as surface noise, wear, mastering, and the mechanical variability that goes with making a pressing. Make the vinyl/cd comparison using these 10 copies on a crappy turntable, and I'd prefer the cd over all 10 of them. The scratched up and poorly cared for copies would never be preferred over a cd, no matter how good the turntable is. Poor pressings of good masters would never beat a cd. Clean, well pressed, well mastered copies of albums may beat cds as turntable system improves. But now throw different cd masterings into the mix, and things get really messy.

In the video, simply comparing his copies of this Elton John album on cd and vinyl doesn't really do anything for me. I would prefer if he picked several titles and sought out the best sounding cd and vinyl copies he could find, and compared those two.

 

I have thousands of cds and thousands of records. When digital was introduced it was with claims of "90 plus DB dynamic range" and "you will hear exactly what is on the master tape". Since records and tapes were about 50-60 db dynamic range on a good day, I thought wow, this format will be incredible. If cds were what they were advertised to be, there shouldn't be any debate at all as to which is the best format. Now, I have some great sounding cds, but my expectations were that cds would win hands down in a direct comparison with records, which is not the case. In retrospect, I certainly don't believe we were getting copies of the master tape when we bought all those cds at full price in the 80's. When cds first came out, I remember reading a review in a hi fi magazine of Springsteens "Born to run" on cd. The reviewer actually said he preferred the vinyl over the cd...What!!! I should have realized then that something is not adding up and it might be a ploy to get us to rebuy all of our music again in a "better" format. For me, cds are just a different way to buy music, not better. I still buy cds and records because they are so cheap these days (pawn shops and thrift stores (averaging 50 cents to $2 each). Yesterday I purchased a mint "Simple Minds" record for 94 cents. In the late 90's I purchased a huge collection of 70's rock from a Goodwill for 10 cents each, so I will buy all formats if the price is right. If you want to hear copies of the "master tapes "these days, go to Neil Youngs website and listen to his 24/192 streams..now thats what cds should have given us!

 

The fact that there is a debate doesn't mean that they aren't though.

That CDs are (nearly) identical to the mastertape doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to like the result.

... or that any reviever is going to like the result.

They still are though.

 

Thoughtful comment, sathvyre ~ but I have to disagree slightly on a couple things. First, you said there "is no way to listen more than what is on a redbook CD". By this I'm guessing that you mean to say that a Redbook CD is capable of storing enough information to provide the full spectrum of sound that is audible to human hearing. Perhaps that is true, though it does not change the fact that there are high res reproductions which sound noticeably better in independent blind testing than the Redbook counterpart. Second, not all humans have the same degree of hearing. This point not only applies to frequency-range, but also the pattern recognition capabilities of the human brain.
To the first point, if indeed true, then one has to wonder why on earth it isn't being done (?)

 

If that is actually the case, the difference is very likely due to different masterings, not the format.

But there are none whose hearing extends that of the biologial capabilities of our species. 20 kHz is already the best case upper limit (new born babies), most people don't even go that high. And it's not as if red book CD suddenly invented this limit out of nowhere, while before then ultrasonics used to be naturally reproduced. Rather, all traditional hifi in the analogue ear strived to achieve a frequency range of 20 kHz, and much of it didn't even achieve that.

Because there are a lot of irrationaly myths going around in the audiophile community, so there is money to be made. The fact that people buy holy water from Lourdes doesn't mean it actually cures cancer either.

 

I have always wondered why people buy SACDs.I can get it if it is for the 5.1 surround.The format is not better probably worse with the 1 bit digital application.

 

DVD-A was a better format.

 

You may have gotten the 96db with redbook, but the early converters left a lot to be desired, and the best source tapes weren't always used.

 

That may well be true in some instances, though it still begs the question, why aren't those "different" (better) masterings appearing in red book format, if for no other reason than to establish a scientific fact (?) This also raises the question ( to which I do not know the answer but perhaps you do ) : on an SACD hybrid, is it reasonable to speculate that the DSD layer would be a different mastering than the Super Audio layer on the same disc (?) If that were true, that could very well be a prosecutable case of consumer fraud, no?

Except that not every individual living member of our species has been tested or participated in a study to determine what that capability might be. Living organisms are not robots built in a factory where spec analysis and quality control ensure every part conforms to a set of parameters. I certainly have never been tested, nor have I participated in studies for the benefit of the outside world. The only test I've participated in is an independent trial using scientific criteria of a blind test. I was able to accurately differentiate 100% of the time.

 

Some clown taking advantage of a neophyte.

 

I think having better resolution of sound (more bit depth) in Hi Rez makes the difference not just a wider spectrum. People seem to get hung up on the frequency range instead of how well the audio is being resolved. Also, it'll take up much more data than a regular CD offers for the same length of album.

 

I think this is the accurate answer. I see nothing out of this world with the records themselves, they really do look beautiful and probably sound excellent as well, but this seems to be a common find on many used records stores in those conditions (maybe even better?) and for a small percentage of what my PC records sold for.

 

And do you personally notice a difference in sound quality between a well mastered redbook CD and a SACD? The last time I bought stereo only SACDs were the Peter Gabriel catalog which don't sell cheap, and made comparisons between both the SACDs, remasters and original pressing CDs on my Yamaha RX- V467 receiver with NX-E440 Yamaha Speakers and my SONY BluRay SACD player and, honestly, I didn't notice a vast difference between the SACDs and remasterd redbook CD. Make me wonder if my setup is "weak" or I need a more dedicated 2.0 stereo setup, but my setup plays surround mixes impecably and beautifully. I still have the SACDs, but really tempted to sell them sometimes, but then another voice tells me to be patient and get another setup down the road in a couple of years.

 

I dont buy SACD. I mostly own vinyl and CD and when I switched out some of my gear with 24bit capable playback I heard a difference from the same sources. Could be better filters on the chips, but when I also playback audio from CD or 16/44 and Hi Res files I also hear and perceive a difference. Sometimes its very minimal like the decay of cymbals or sweetness on strings, voices. Or maybe its all in my head.

 

Round here the used record shops usually have plenty of Phil Collins LPs. And they'll pay you to take them away...

 

Yes precisely.And on a even sadder note $30 for reissued vinyl.

Absurd & disgraceful

 

First, I will always buy records and have done so for over 60 years. What is so great about them? They are a physical format and often the 45's come with picture sleeves. The LP's come in full-sized record covers and I appreciate the full-size pictures and artwork. They are usually large enough to read. Sometimes they come with full-sized booklets and are easier to read than those which come with CD's. Often, especially the pre-CD records, they are the way that the artist(s) originally intended to be heard.
The drawback of records? They are an analog format and are subject to flaws in mastering and manufacture. Records were not always mastered from the best sources and many of the older ones were not made of the best vinyl nor sometimes, vinyl at all. They are subject to warpage and can easily damaged if not handled or stored correctly. Often, especially the new ones, are priced to high. A large problem with records is that many companies think they know how to press them. There are quite a few recently companies that go into the record pressing business, with no experience and old worn equipment. I state this while listening to a new album, "Both Sides Of The Sky" by Jimi Hendrix, which was pressed on 180g gram vinyl by QRP. Of the many QRP pressings that I have, this Hendrix LP set, like many others, have a noticeable off-center issue. They think they know how to press records.

Now with CD's. I got into CD's in the mid-80's when Sony's first player came down to an affordable price and the pricing of the CD's themselves came down to reasonable levels. I bought quite a few of my first newly issued CD's for well under $10. They were maybe $1.-$2. more than the LP version. I was impressed and continue to be impressed by their sound. Unlike records, they had no ticks or pops. Because the early CD's were not always made from the best sources, you had to still contend with tape hiss from multi-generational masters. Sometimes they even used records as sources. In the several thousand CD's I have in my collection, none have ever gone bad.
If the CD was the first recorded source I'd ever seen, I wouldn't have even considered another format. Outside of the multi-channel SACD's, DVD's or Bluray's, I don't find those formats that great using them for anything other than video. The human ear can only hear so much and far below the capabilities of almost any format.

Like records, I never plan to stop buying CD's. If something comes out that I want, and I have the money, I buy it.

 

Excellent answer, I agree with a lot of what you say. I think if vinyl records were also the first recorded source I've witnessed I would still have kept them anyways and go back and forth between it and the CD. I didn't know CDs back then were merely 2 extra bucks or so compared to the price of records, I would've thought they were way more expensive.

Often, especially the pre-CD records, they are the way that the artist(s) originally intended to be heard.

Correct me if I'm wrong of course, but I thought, but I always thought (and I'm not mistaken maybe even read somewhere) that often what was put to record was not always what the artist heard in the studio and that was one of the reasons many artists prefered CDs and digital recording. I am off here? Thanks.

 

Because the companies who sell hi-res recordings want to make a profit, not make a scientific point. If they can persuade you to spend more on their product than you would on a CD, they won't say anything that might make you think otherwhise.

There are some other people out there who explain the science though, this well-known video is a good starting point:

I don't know sorry. Only an insider working in one of those companies can know that.

I don't see how. Unless they explicitly claim that both layers came from the same master, they're not breaking any promise they made, nor do they break any law?

That's an argument from ignorance.

Living organisms are subject to genetics though, who define, amongst other things, sensual capabilities.