Vinyl Rippers: How has 30 years of CD listening affected how we hear our vinyl?

Yes, but with the caveat that it depends a lot on the equipment and set up. I've had other gear in the past that would not sound nearly so close to the source. Actually, it's taken me a lot of work to get it as close as it is now. And it's not just choosing the right equipment, but making sure that it works well together, is set up optimally, etc. But it's rewarding work insofar as I'm pretty happy with how it sounds now, which was not always totally the case in the past. I previously had a cart that was pretty obviously colored; it sounded really nice with some things, and pretty lousy with others. The result was that the cart would sometimes dictate what I would listen to.

 

Non-audiophiles do not bother to realize there are things wrong with their favorite recordings either.

 

Pete, thanks for clarifying!

Your wish is my command. Fixed

 

On your sample, I could clearly hear the differences, but that is close, man! I don't know if it was the recording on vinyl or the cart + associated electronics, but there was a slight muffling on the vinyl playback. Still, that convinced me that the Jico tweak on that cart is worth it!

 

Thanks for that.

The first clip, from the digital source, is obviously a bit clearer, with more highs.

But I prefer the second clip. It has balls.

So. Yeah. Vinyl.

 

Sadly I thought I was gonna like the vinyl sound better also, but in the end, I found the digital source to appeal more to me. Id love to do this experiment again with something im more familiar with and less processed sounding overall. You know something with much wider dynamics and clarity. Like female vocals over piano or acoustic guitarz!

I just thought though, if he level matched them and the vinyl as we are all seeing has a falling high end, is that effectively boosting the mids and bass of the vinyl a bit?

Ya know how im saying? Since there is less top end, wouldnt the rest of the spectrum be boosted relative?

Now if he level matched a certain frequency, say 1Khz , the overall level could be different by a few dB. But since he is level matching the average sound level.........Hmmm..got me thinking is all...

I guess we need to also know how it is "Level Matched"....Whether its an overall Average of all the sound, or matched at one particular band or range of frequencies.

 

I preferred the CD version too.

 

The vocal on the vinyl version sounds more like Tom Petty. On that score the vinyl wins. He has a very distinctive nasally voice and that comes through on the vinyl version but doesn't on the CD version.

It's really neat to have a recording on CD and LP that are mastered the same so you can do this sort of comparison.

The bass on the vinyl version seems stronger. I wonder if that could be due to less channel separation causing the bass to monoize and become more centered and strong? Or maybe due to something done during the LP cutting to manage the bass to keep the grooves from getting too wild?

 

Bass is summed to mono on vinyl. There are a few other things that could account for the sound difference also. The treble is slowly falling off on the vinyl and it could make it appear to be more bass heavy, or simply the cartridge has less than flat response through the bass range and is boosting a portion a few db.

I think he said it was the actual digital "source", not a CD. But im not sure that technically matters, as im pretty sure the CD would sound virtually identical to the source anyway.

What is interesting in the few comments hes gotten, 2 people preferred the source, and 2 preferred the vinyl, even though with his playback chain, the vinyl appears to not match the source!

I think like always it comes down simply to personal preference, and mastering obviously.

But never the less, a great comparison to show, how his system deviates from a known source!

 

A couple clarifications: The digital source is a 24bit/48kHz file. This is (according to producer Ryan Uylate) what the vinyl was cut from. There was no CD involved. If I tried to compare my needledrop to the commercially available CD, it would be very hard to do a worthwhile comparison, IMO. The CD had additional dynamic compression and was EQ'd differently than the download file and the LP. It would be an apples to oranges comparison. Comparing to the source file is more like apples to apples, even though it's maybe Macintosh apples compared to Golden Delicious.

It's hard to control all the different possible variables, and Kevin and others asked some good questions. In short, I matched the files first by average RMS value, and then tweaked them slightly by ear so that they sounded to be the same volume to my ears. With average RMS all frequencies are weighted equally, but the human ear is more sensitive to certain frequencies than others. I did the best I could here, but I don't know if it's perfect.

I would also point out that the idea for me was not to do a vinyl vs. digital smackdown, so much as a good opportunity to compare one of my vinyl recordings to the source (which in this case happens to be digital). My own view is that there is enough vinyl vs. digital debate on the internet to last us several lifetimes, and I have nothing to add to the discussion and zero interest in contributing to it. I'll leave that discussion to others.

I know none of this will stop people from turning it into CD vs vinyl debate, which is fine if that's what you guys want to talk about. Just be aware that that's not why I posted the sample. For me it's just a reality check to make sure things aren't getting too far away from neutral in my LP playback.

I'm currently experimenting with a tube integrated amplifier with built in tube phono stage. It's an Anthem Integrated One on long-term loan to me from a buddy of mine who moved on to more esoteric tube gear. Having the unit has been a good experience for me to experiment with something different, roll tubes and listen to how the changes effect the sound, etc.

I previously did a similar comparison with my Grado PH-1 used for phono preamplification instead. My memory (I think I deleted the old file) is that the Grado was a little cleaner sounding, and probably produced a file that sounded a little bit closer to the source file. But, to my ears, both are pretty close sounding. So doing a comparison like this is helpful to me in evaluating how the gear is performing...that's the only reason I did it. It's possible to get a vinyl recording to sound closer to the source that what I accomplished with different gear, it's also very, very easy to get a result that is much further away.

I'm glad that posting these samples has sparked further discussion, and it's very interesting to me to hear your impressions (keep them coming). My own feeling is that both samples have their pluses and minuses. To my ears, the digital file has greater clarity and speed of transient attack. The vinyl recording sounds slightly blurred to me in contrast. On the other hand, the vinyl recording ends up sounding more crankable to me, which I really like. With the vinyl I'm more tempted to turn the volume up and rock out...when I do that I'm not so worried about whether it's neutral or accurate because it sure is fun.

Bottom line is that at the moment my vinyl playback system deviates from neutral in a way that is acceptable to me: the colorations and distortions are not gross in nature and it's fun to listen to. I do think this speaks highly for the Jico/Shure combo, especially given its relatively modest cost, not to mention the relatively low cost to replace the stylus vs more expensive carts that either require retipping or replacement. These things are important to me because with two kids and one income, my funds are limited. You can always do better by spending more money, sometimes you can do worse by spending more money too (a lesson I've learned the hard way).

Also, BTW, I posted a bit about the album on my blog back when it came out, so you can check there for more information. I also posted a bit about the Mudcrutch album when that came out and was released with a special "uncompressed" CD that was different from the commercially released CD.

 

Great post and great experiment.

I agree with you, there is no need for a vinyl VS CD debate. Its pointless overall. With decent equipment vinyl is able to get VERY close to the source tape, whether is be analog or digital. With decent stuff CD sounds great also.

Its far more fitting to discuss mastering ( which is the huge variable ) and forego the media arguments.

Both are capable of great sound, but they need something great to begin with

 

I've mentioned this on other threads, but I feel that CD's, for reasons unknown, get the shaft on masterings - at least the modern Indie stuff I listen to. But the vinyl, in general, sounds a bit better. But that's because it's treated differently, perhaps due to the premium price-tag? I don't know. I've been going through my Disturbed Boxed Set as an example as its just night and day from the CD's. But again it's the mastering, not the media.

With that in mind, I hear variations in vinyl same as CD's. Some high EQ treble, some muted - it all depends on the LP.

 

Ive once in my life heard an actual comparison of a record to a master tape. I also heard ( not at the same time ) a comparison of a CD made from the same master.

My impressions going away from that comparison, and in general, were that we are arguing over the "wrong thing".

Im not saying they sounded "identical per se", but that the difference was so tiny, that I had a very hard time telling any of them apart.

And the music I was comparing was much more acoustic and lean, stuff where it would be perhaps even easier to tell.

If it wasnt for a very slight surface noise at times on quiet parts, I could almost not tell the vinyl from the master. When I heard the cd copy, albeit at a different time, likewise it was very close to how the master sounded. Not identical either, but so close I was honestly worried that I was the weak link in telling them apart. With enough A/B ing, and "Being told" which was which, I was then able to hear a tiny difference in some parts.

But I can say for sure, if someone is hearing "huge differences" or "Night and day differences" between a record and a CD, they are hearing equipment difference that are coloring the sound OR they are hearing huge mastering changes.

 

My concern with that curve is that it is from the AT440ML not the MLa which I believe is less toppy than the ML.

Also, I could not find out what kind of capacitance loading they are using. I am assuming it's 47kOhm for the impedance.

The MLa, to my ear, is "digital" sounding but I don't mean that in a disparaging way. I have mine loaded such that it sounds pretty much identical (tonally) to my digital source.

Edit: The report itself says MLa but the link to it says ML so I'm not sure which cart they are measuring.

 

Good question. The actual review is not in Hi Fi News' web archives, but I did find a reference to the review in a thread here from back when it came out in 2008, and it appears the review itself was of the MLa, so I would assume that is the one they tested. You'd probably have to dig deeper into miller audio's website to see what their specific procedures for testing carts are.

I'm sure you can flatten things out a lot with this cart by tweaking the capacitance loading and resistance. But without doing that, I would imagine the AT440mla would lean toward the bright end of things if the Miller Audio measurements are accurate. I haven't heard one in years though, so I could be way off on that.

 

Well, then, it turns out that you and I think alike! I always want my vinyl playback, or in my special case, needledrops, to sound as close to the mother source as possible. I just wish I had examples of where the vinyl was taken directly from the first generation master, unadulterated. In fact, that would make for a nice list so we, who care about such things, can do our own tests to see how our gear is doing.

We heard the exact same things in your sample. I also pick the hi-rez master.

 

But, the mla is still bright, and, IMO, a bit hard sounding as well. The 150mlx is still bright, but in a softer way. Some people are making it seem like the "mla" is flat in comparison with the "ml" version.

That is what makes it bright. It needs more. I believe Audio Technica knows that most people have phono sections with that loading, and makes the carts sound bright, and, knowing that many people like that sound, they don't do anything to change it.

Just what is a "digital" sound, anyway? Is there an actual 'digital" sound? Is there actually an "analog" sound? I don't think so! I've very warm digital, and cold, hard, bright, and brittle analog sound.

What we also need are more good quality, affordable phono stages on the market that have user-adjustable loading.

 

Actually, it needs less to flatten out that rise, not more. Which is why my interconnect is about 1 foot of Canare Star Quad.

By digital, I mean uncolored and not rolled off, not romantic with that sweet vinyl sound that some people like. It just sounds like music without any coloration, once the top end is tamed.

I agree. However changing capacitance requires playing with cable. My next turntable (I keep waiting for mine to die, it just refuses) will have RCA jacks, not a wired-in cable that required surgery to replace.

 

I remember that one and, after listening to the new clip, that's what I thought as well - the PH-1 was closer. Here the difference comes through quite clear on my system - more bass, less treble on the needledrop.

 

Because you have something on vinyl which has not and/or never will be released on CD. IMHO, whether a CD or an LP sounds better has more to do with the decisions of the respective mastering engineers than anything else.

 

I might try doing it over again with the Grado at some point.

 

Be careful with this... the digital source supplied for the master cutting is not always what ends up driving the cutter head. It may be bass-monoed and de-essed etc as required in order to get a good cut. Hopefully the mix engineer has done their job with the end result in mind and avoided excesses that would require treatment at the cutting stage. But strictly speaking, if you want to compare source versus LP you need the source to be the processed version, not the flat version. It's not clear in this case what the source was.

It still amazes me after all these years that vinyl works at all, let alone as well as it does. Paradoxically, the simpler the source, the worse it can sound. For an extreme example, play back a 1 KHz test tone off a test record, then repeat with the same tone off a test CD. The shortcomings of even the best vinyl playback systems become obvious.

 

I love LPs.

And yes, for absolutely sure, CDs helped me appreciate vinyl so much more too!!

But even when I was first getting and listening to CDs I knew LPs sounded much better. No comparison.

 

My error. I meant to type less.

I submit that neither one should have a "sound".

I wish mine has RCA jacks, but I have the original Music Hall 5 table. I am not keen on replacing the cable myself, even though I could do it. I may try switching out the interconnect from the phono preamp to the amp. I wish I had kept my cheap Monsters from a decade ago. They would have done the trick.

 

I had an email exchange with the producer, Ryan Ulyate, who confirmed that the LPs were cut by Chris Bellman from the same 48kHz/24bit files that were provided with the set as FLAC downloads. It's possible Chris had to tweak them slightly to get a good cut. But I think this is about as good a comparison as you are going to find in the commercial arena. IMO, it's certainly better than comparing to a commercial CD that's likely been dynamically compressed and had massively different EQ applied, which is what some were suggesting in this thread.

I guess that is why I wanted to do this with actual music, because I don't really care what test tones sound like on my system, but I do care about how music sounds.