Cds have more dynamic range than vinyl?

Sorry about offending you and actually I think this last explanation does shine a better light on the appeal digital has for you. But truth be told my experiences about musical beauty when it comes to sound quality really do boil down to simply "feeling better" or more precisely "liking it better." No different than any other sort of natural beauty. It is more appealing at a level that defies logic or explanation. Why does chocolate taste better than dirt? Don't really know. Just does. Why would I rather eat chocolate than dirt? Because it tastes much better and just simply makes me feel better while eating it. For me it is that basic. Now the appeal of art on a more intellectual basis is far different and far more complex. I love Prokofiev, and Shakespeare for reasons that are utterly different than my love for chocolate. It is a different kind of beauty. So it sounds like *that* is the kind of beauty you find in digital. I can enjoy Shakespeare on a crappy TV and Prokofiev on a crappy radio. The intellectual beauty, the complexity, the emotional content, the layers upon layers of ideas and themes come through regardless. But, to see either in person, to hear the sound and see the sight with all the aesthetic beauty (the proverbial chocolate) just makes it better and more rich. That is the aesthetic appeal. That part really is just about simply liking it better or "just feeling better." Same goes for aesthetically more pleasing media.

So again, sorry if I offended. Thanks for your explanation and this time I do think I get it. Yes I do get the beauty of mathematics.

 

I don't nee to read any more carefully to know that what you are saying simply has not happened many many times in practice and I have the CDs to prove it.

And yet, despite all your protests I have many CDs where the ambient sound of the room/hall is not there. You can argue till you are blue in the face and you can demand more and more careful reading of your beliefs all you want. That reality is what it is. It aint gonna change by arguing with me.

 

Thanks, Scott. As the Bard once said, all's well that ends well. I think I'll go give one of my vintage mono (nearly click-and-pop-free!) jazz LPs a spin in your honor. ;^)

Happy listening.

 

The noise we are talking about on Lps are not normally high frequency noise, it´s usually noise from around 400Hz and down to the resonance frequency.
Some records can be better than others, but I would say a common value here is 30-50dB below reference. So it´s in this area where the differences are very obvious between a CD and a record.
This is mechnical noise but also depending on the RIAA curve.

 

Superior TO YOU. And again, as far as dynamic range goes, the CDs potential for more dynamic range was rarely ever exploited in practice.
In fact, the trend was just the opposite... especially with rock era music. As noted by mastering engineers, the dynamic range capability of vinyl can be 75 db. But even if we go lower and consider say 60 or 65 db in practice, you can barely find any rock recordings that have that range after final mastering. The majority of rock era recordings have at best barely half that.

Elton Johns Captain Fantastic is touted as one of the most dynamic rock recordings and iirc that has only about 30 db dynamic range and a little more on the Polydor CD. When Steve mastered the Venus & Mars DCC CD (a superb example of CDs capabilities for rock music I might add) he didn't attenuate the segue of the title track to Rock Show as it goes from acoustic to electric. But even there, iirc the dynamic range was nowehere near even 50 db. I think where CDs shine best is in classical music.

 

Rockledge, that supposed dynamic range of CD is hardly ever used so its a completely irrelevant point your making.Raunchroll is spot on.

 

You are not reading carefully, once again if the ambient sound of the room is not there, it wasn't recorded to begin with or some engineer went to some extremes to try to make it disappear. You can argue til you are blue in the face that it is there on vinyl but not on CDs, but that is NOT the effect of the format, it is the effect of whoever used the format to release the project. The format is far more capable of reproducing the room ambiance to a more realistic degree.
And that isn't going to change no matter how your imagination twirls it.

 

Once again, whether dynamic range is used correctly or not, or whether the format is used to its' fullest potential is moot.
The format itself is far superior. What is obviously lacking is the ability of modern producers and engineers to have the ability to exploit the best elements of the various formats.
If you like the wow and flutter of 8 tracks, the tape hiss of cassettes , and the tracking noise and extraneous noises of vinyl, fine. I tend to ignore them myself, having listened to those formats decades before digital audio became consumer available.
But the format is indeed superior. Again, those using it to market music, often, not so much.

You can find isolated examples of bad releases in all formats all day long, once again, that is no reflection on the format.

 

It is not supposed, it is there and often used. It is also relevant to this thread, which is about dynamic range.
Again, whether modern employees of the music industry are competent enough to use the formats to the limits of their capabilities is not the issue. Whether or not the format itself is superior at being capable of a greater dynamic range is.

 

Of course its real, but its unused . Even if it is, digital still most definately sounds digital to me.

 

Reality, pretty much. Scott Wheeler speaks of the defect of surface noise as a "Flat tire". A defect. I think the "flat tire" analogy would apply to a cutout where the hole is drilled through the playing surface. Obvious inoperable. I've seen that, as thousands upon thousands of LPs have passed through my hands and ears. A much better analogy, car-wise, is to the variable pollution levels of the internal combustion engine. The car can still operate, but there are degrees. By Scott's definition the bulk of recordings pressed in the seventies—the "Vinyl Peak"—would be defective. I'm sure that nothing on the Everest label that was manufactured in the 70's would "Pass Smog", most of the stuff pressed on regrind from Capitol from that era would at least be dubious. Can I listen to those records? Sure. Many times I have to work at it. The more "transparent" gear is in the presence range, the more likely that surface noise will be objectionable. It's what happened when I listened to LPs through my Stax headphones. I could also hear the damage the poor resolution of early digital record/replay imposed on the music, I'm not deaf after all, I got paid to record orchestras, string ensembles, singers, all that theoretically "Audiophile Purist" stuff. But don't tell me that surface noise on LPs is not to be considered as part of the "signal to noise ratio" ok? Because that's nonsense.

 

Speaking as someone who prefers vinyl, I have no problem with acknowledging the fact that the CD format is capable of a greater dynamic range than phonograph records - much in the same way that I have no problem with acknowledging the fact that the CD format is capable of longer running time than phonograph records.

Nothing to get upset or defensive about as far as I'm concerned.

 

A great question. At 5k you could have a Gyrodec with an SME 5 & a choice of decent cartridge compared to at 5k a Moon Cd player/Ayre etc . Personally I would think the vinyl would win but dont get me wrong a poor set up turntable sounds rubbish.

 

It´s not about what is sounding better at all. Everything is about what we like better, if we do that. We never listen objectively, we always listen subjectively.
That is one of the big mistakes, trying to objectively describe why one format is better than the other, it doesn´t really work.
There is nothing wrong with preferring a wire recorder, or a 78.
That is the big problem with these types of debate, it´s not so that an Lp is sounding better than a CD, objectively, or vice versa, it´s what we prefer.

 

I don't feel defensive about either point, I only get defensive when I'm trying to make a reasonable point, say that if you've got an LP and a CD of the same music, the LP is not necessarily the worse sounding of the two, and I get surrounded by people trying to argue with me (apparently by misconstruing my statement to mean the the LP must necessarily be the best of the two). And then someone else makes what I consider to be a very silly statement, like listening to a CD give you the same sound that the engineer hears in the studio, and the reaction is, ho-hum, nothing to see here.

 

Aren't you guys glad reel-to-reel is no longer a factor, except for the wealthy? http://tapeproject.com/

Can you imagine what kind of arguments we'd be having here?

 

7) As someone who has made hundreds of master recordings, both 30 IPS analog and digital, to say that analog LPs deliver the music powerfully is to say that I have never heard a master compared to the commercial LP. The tape master makes the LP sound broken – lacking in dynamics, tone, & presence. No turntable at – any price – can bridge the inherent gap between the master tape and the mastered LP. It is HUGE – and even that comparison assumes the use of a correctly set-up turntable/phono-stage rig.

From Jim Smith's article Big Wheel Keep On Turning?: http://thehighfidelityreport.com/big-wheel-keep-on-turning/

 

Well, don't leave us all on tenterhooks - what does CD do? Does it reproduce the mastertape perfectly, as has been alleged?

 

I say it does not!

 

I personally don't know, never having compared a master tape and a CD. I've read more than one mastering engineer say that 16 bit Redbook doesn't capture everything an analog master tape has on it.

 

You've never mastered anything for CD? That surprises me.

 

I've mastered lots of home recordings to CD. Whole different animal compared to 2 track 15-30 ips tapes made in professional studios. My most recent project included elementary school kid recordings that switched back and forth between 3.75 and 7.5 ips, with recording levels varying from slightly over modulated all the way down to the hiss floor. I didn't notice if the CD lost anything.

 

This forum can't seem to get enough of these digital vs. analogue debates...

 

Beats discussing race, politics or religion.

 

You are painting with a very broad brush.
It is SOMETIMES unused. Again, I have some CDs that are horrid because of the abuse of compression for no apparent good reason. I have said on this forum many times how I think Bigger Bang could have been one of the best of their albums had it not been for the compression.
Granted I prefer rock era music and am very selective about modern music ( mostly because of the insane overuse of compression), I have had very few CDs ( out of many hundreds) that were badly mastered or compressed into destruction.
Again, it is not "unused" . It is sometimes unused. For the styles of music I prefer , give me the CD over the vinyl any day, if I am listening to it in an critical listening environment.

Even if it were so that it is always unused, again, it is a moot point. Because the question is whether or not they have more dynamic range, not if it used.
I could say that the Empire State building is bigger than the high school I attended, If the Empire State building were to be condemned and therefore unused, it would still be bigger. Being unused space doesn't mean the space doesn't exist.