A question about Vinyl and CD

No, don't worry, I'm not going to reopen the 1000 year old debate on which is "better"

However, I am puzzled about one aspect of vinyl. The "depth" (ie holographic image, not just left and right) which seems to be largely absent on CD.

I've read many debates about the two formats but something nobody seems to have mentioned is whether this "depth" is present on the master tape or whether it is just an artifact of the vinyl format.

Does anyone know the answer to this?

 

Yes, the answer is; the depth isn´t absent.

 

So that suggests that vinyl is more accurately portraying 'part' of the sound.

In the past some have suggested that vinyl's distortion/phasing was the reason...

 

Of course not.

I was going to say you need a better cd player, but as your equipment profile is empty...

 

Could it just be the playback equipment you are using, rather than the medium itself? What I mean is, different components can present the sound in a different way.

 

What I mean is, You are arguing using a made up 'truth'. It doesn´t work. It would only work if Redbook objectively would have less 'depth' than a record.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

Right now I‘m listening to a late-80s Blue Note CD of Maiden Voyage. Real deep soundstage and instrument definition. So as always: the mastering is what counts, not the medium. But we all know where this thread is going to lead ...

 

Maantz CD6000OSE Ki. Rega P3 with Goldring 1042 cart. Rotel 820 Amp (using its internal phono). Wharfedale 505.2 speakers (though I nearly always listen through Beyer DT 880 phones)

 

You are using 'begging the question' arguments. It´s not that difficult. It´s like arguing how the planet happened to be flat, what was the orignal reason for this. When in fact the planet isn´t flat.

 

??

I have the some albums on both CD and LP. I know the mastering is probably different (as the CD came out later) but I am surprised as to why so many CDs don't sound (to me) as good as their vinyl counterparts.

CD is technically superior but it seems as though few people in this world know how to master them properly

 

Can we rewind a second...

I've heard more depth of sound from my vinyl LPs than from the same album on CD.

I've heard other people make similar remarks.

So I asked if this "depth" is also hearable on the master tape.

What are *you* saying?

 

Not sure what you are talking about. Listen to an Ambisonic encoded classical CD with a good pair of headphones. Nimbus and Chesky have released some good examples. It will sound like you are sitting in the middle of the concert hall. There's also a good example on the XLO Test & Burn In CD with Keith Johnson walking around a large studio showing how depth is reproduced.

Positional cues come from latency in the sound reaching the ears, phase shift, tonal shift, amplitude differences and echo. There is nothing in the technical aspects of the CD format that precludes these from being reproduced properly.

 

No one has even attempted to answer you're original question. Did anyone actually read this post?

Anyway, I would think that you would have to listen to master tapes to really know the answer. Like you, I observe more depth with vinyl than CD. Also more depth with high resolution digital (compared to CD), that is actually high resolution not up-sampled. So I think it's a resolution issue and not an artifact of the format.

I don't think it has anything to do with mastering, at least not this aspect of sound quality.

 

The responses to this thread are so frustratingly typical. I listen to CDs daily - I collect them and love them. But we all know vinyl generally has better depth and imaging than CD. Why do we always lecture posters for pointing this out? It's an awesome realization for a new audiophile to make - that analog can have realism and depth that digital lacks. But everytime someone brings it up, the buzzkills attack.

 

Despite being a hard core vinyl guy, I'm not so sure the stereotype of digital or CD in particular holds true. Perhaps the equipment has gotten better but I'm using a NOS DAC, so its not like the technology changed. Perhaps the implementation. I am, with fairly modest digital front end equipment, able to get spatial dimensions on CD playback-- stage depth, if that's what's being discussed here.
There are certainly recordings that sound flat, lifeless and terrible, but I wouldn't categorize them by analog v. digital. I've heard some stunning digital recordings on my system. And the vinyl front end is far more expensive than the digital one.
PS: an anecdote I've mentioned here before is probably relevant. I spent some time with an archivist who has the original transcription discs of Benny Goodman's Carnegie Hall concert from 1938. (It was the equivalent of "Woodstock" for the big band swing era). The original recording was taken from a single microphone, whose signal was sent over a telephone line with about 8 kHz of bandwidth, to a cutter a number of blocks away.
The discs sound like you'd expect them to-- noisy, lacking dimension, like old artifacts. The archivist has been painstaking restoring the entire thing-- not the releases that were done in the last couple decades which were essentially de-clicked. Listening to the Gene Krupa at the beginning of "Sing, Sing, Sing" on the restored version (digitized and manipulated), you hear dynamics, skin of the drum, impact, air and the acoustics around the drum.

 

I've owned turntables that have had better depth and soundstage than other ones, which had better resolution overall. I'm not sure it's necessarily a format difference. Is it on the mastertapes? You would have to have heard the mastertape to make a comment on that.

 

Higher levels of noise and/or distortion & phasing artifacts can have pleasing results which can also contribute the illusion of depth & spaciousness. Usually however, the CD version will more closely resemble the original performance- generally speaking.

 

I can’t believe I’m doing this but @Bill Hart brings up something. So I’m bringing the Beatles into this thread. I apologize in advance.

Love is a cut and paste of heavily digitally manipulated Beatles tracks taken from the original multi tracks. Or perhaps copies I don’t know. But at any rate there is depth and dimension and detail and all sort of amazing Sonics going on that surpass what was originally released. Sonically it’s one of the more amazing Beatle records. Interestingly enough though I feel the vinyl issue to sound better than the CD. I have both.

Conversely the AAA mono reissues on vinyl don’t sound as good as the CD box of same to me. There is something warmer and rounder on the CD set.

 

if you have ever worked hard on trying to get the best sound out of your system you would realize that depth in sound quality can change because of a wide variety of effects. i have heard changes in depth depending on-
speaker position within a given room
room furnishings and effects, acoustic and other
speaker
amplifier
tube in circuit vs. solid state
tube type, brand, year manufactured and combination of above within different components
digital source component brand and model
interconnect cable
phono preamp
phono cartridge
cartridge alignment
recording / mastering

 

The only variable at issue here is between CD and vinyl versions of identical recordings played on the same system.

 

100% -- absolutely.

 

You gotta be kiddin' !!

 

How do you know this superior “depth” isn’t a fantasy. Have you done a double blind test with exactly the same mastering using a turntable and digital source which are exactly equal? It’s a perception you have which isn’t provable so it can’t be explained scientifically.