SH Spotlight Vinyl vs. master tape?

When the French and the Californians argue whose wine is better, they can argue a $15 bottle of californian vs. a $45 dollar bottle of French, and in most cases, I have found, the Californian will be better. Have you ever had a US$15 dollar bottle of wine in France? It's plonk when compared to it's American, Australian or Chilean counterpart.The problem here is equating price with quality. One of the problems I have with many vinyl advocating audiophiles. I can't pass judgement on vinyl because I don't have this gear or that gear. It's ridiculous. I'm not going to go around to all of my friends asking them what they're TT's are just to prove a point.

You can argue the relative merits of one TT over another, but you still cannot offer me a hard FACT that LP's are better than CD's, SACD's, DVD-A's or DAT's.
I'm hearing pricing arguments, gear arguments, subjective arguments, but one still cannot deny that CD's have higher S/N, larger dynamic range and higher frequency responses than LP's, it doesn't matter what TT you use. CD's are also not mastered to an EQ curve that rolls off frequencies.
It's obvious that you won't accept the arguments of specs, because there is just no way the LP, with all of those deficits when compared to CD, as well as the added bonuses of surface noise and speed variations can technically OR sonically be better than CD.

I know my TT is good enough for me to make these statements, and , in the end, like I said before, if a format is so reliant on the playback medium that it can only be pleasurable on CERTAIN gear, then what's the point?

Having said that here is the thing: you are accustomed to vinyl, you enjoy vinyl, you prefer vinyl. I don't. Period.

P.S.

It's perfectly reasonab;e for someone to momentarily mistake a recording for a live instrument IF that recording is done well and it is being played back on exceptional equiptment (not a $75 boom box from Sears). Maybe you've never experienced this because you're too busy listening to vinyl.

 

oops, had to edit the PS in that last post.

 

Hi Grant,

I have found my standalone burner to be of real use. Many of my friends have found their's to be of real use. You may wanna rethink what you wrote!

-Jeffrey

 

The only way to end this is if we all can play the PRODUCTION masters from which the CDs and vinyl LPs are made from and compare.

Everyone should know that master tapes are fiddled with. Even Steve fiddles with tapes to get the sound HE wants out of them. That LP or CD should be a copy of that PRODUCTION master. The CD should still come closer to the ABSOLUTE truth, not the percieved or imagined truth, but the ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE, HARD truth. Too much has to be done to the signal going into the cutting lathe to get a good cut. Then you have to deal with the vinyl, then the playback variables...

The CD? yeah, it's 16-bit, 44.1, and it brickwalls at half the Nyquist theorem. But, the LP is only theoretically able to deliver to higher frequencies. It doesn't in reality for many reasons. The CD can exceed what the LP gives you without frequency roll-offs and THD. But the sound doesn't have to be altered to get a good sound like the LP has. And, you don't have to pay upwards of 10G to get excellent playback. You know that when you're paying $7,000 for a TT you are paying for esoteric styling and very limited production runs. Gee, those tables are starting to sound like status symbols for well-to-do audiophiles. And, what about those repair rates?

Oh, I know there are good tables to be had for under $500. But when people start talking about how you have to have this table or that table, there's usually one of those "status symbols" nearby.

 

Of real use to the experiment? What are the specs of your burner? Is it performing sample rate conversion on the fly to both digital and analog input? Are the CD-Rs sounding the same as the source? Is it a consumer model or pro model? What brand?

 

You know Grant, in this whole debate that has been going on here, you keep managing to say, in the perfect words, points I have been trying to put across. Cheers.

One more thing, I have already stated more than once that I HAVE heard original masters dubbed to LP and CD, and to me, the CD ALWAYS more faithfully reproduced the master.

 

Grant,

EWF is my favorite band. Steely Dan is next.

Any time you get a chance to get up to San Francisco, let me know. I guarantee that you won't have the same opinion regarding these bands, and their original US, non-audiophile, LP releases after you hear them on my system. Especially Cameo. Simply awesome on vinyl. Beats all of their remastered CD's (which I have, and differ substantially from silver disc to silver disc in sound quality).

There is a 45rpm 12" of Rick James which just kicks $%@. Same with EWF.

I'd really love to have you get a chance to hear these. Open invitation, any time.

Tom H

 

Hi Grant,

I think ya just made my point! Your post appeared to be extremely broad in that it covered all standalone burners wo/ you knowing the answers to any of the questions you justed asked me.

I have a Sony pro burner. I think the Zooman has the same one. It is a Sony CDR-W33. If ya go to Oade Brothers websites it has all the specs and the answers to all the other questions you asked me.

I find it very hard to believe that if your statement were true, "the variables with standalone burners are too uncontrolled to be of real use", that Mr. Hoffman would own and use a standalone burner!

-Jeffrey

 

Grant,

I have to disagree that when you pay more than $x amount, that's it's a "status symbol" thing or esoteric styling, and it's not just limited to turntables. Accuphase has a $28K 2-box transport and DAC. The Linn CD-12 is $20K. Both of these players offer substantial (relative and subjective, of course) refinement and realism versus an $8K Wadia or $6K Audio Aero Capitole. Go on down the line.

There is a point of diminishing returns on cost/performance, but please don't demean or belittle those who may own that level of gear. A "well-to-do audiophile" is no less passionate nor determined to get the best sound which is closest to their musical truth as someone who does so on a different budget.

The CD can exceed what the LP gives you without frequency roll-offs and THD

Goldenboy and Grant,

It's interesting that these comments of yours are used by those who champion solid-state versus tubes. And yet, the discs which we all agree are some of the best on the market, which you both use as references, are mastered by Steve on all-tube gear. The THD on Steve's gear, while awesome, can't compare to the best THD of mid-level solid-state. Same with these "roll-offs" and "colorations". So it's not just about theoretical or real "frequency range" or THD specs.

As always, we are here for the same thing -- musical enjoyment.

Tom H

 

Yes, I like the sound of tubes, but put it in the music, not the reproduction. A CD accurately captures the recorded sound of that tube gear, but I don't need an LP or a Tube set up to reproduce it and introduce more colourations and frequency roll-offs in the reproduction stage. That is not what was put on the master, that is just added colouration. If a product was recorded and mixed and/or mastered with tubes, you will hear it on the CD, if it was not, you will not.

 

If you believe that all A to D conversions yield a perfect copy of the original sound - which they don't - then I would have to say you're right. Theoretically, the LP should sound better than a CD (of an analog source), though, because the recording was never converted to digital, but we know they don't always. Some times I prefer the CD, others the LP.

Many years ago (almost 20, I'd guess) I had a telephone conversation with Clark Johnsen in which he stated that CDs would sound a whole lot better than they do if they were all analog. I think he has a point, but that would negate most of the progress in perfecting digital recording techniques. The world has gone digital, and it appears there is no turning back. I know I don't want to go back to 100% vinyl simply because digital recordings are more convenient. And, now that we have the SACD, the distinction between the finest sounding analog and digital is negligible.

One final point. I have a friend who insists that vinyl is better, but I would assume that modern vinyl recordings made from a digital source would have exactly the same sorts of problems (perhaps even worse) as the A to D conversions of the past exhibited. In the end it comes down to preferences. Mine are that I would prefer not to spend big bucks on a new turntable. My old SOTA works just fine, thank you.

 

Golden Boy
The point of listening to LPs on the best tuntables is to get the best sound. I would think this would be obvious. You can argue specs till the end of time. I don't listen to specs. You still have shown zero experience with any listening comparisons between state of the turntables vs, state of the art CD players.
There is nothing ridiculous in my arguements. You are defending and indefensable position. Just because crappy turntables don't sound as good as CD players proves nothing. As for my having some burden of listening to every CD player out there to compare with my turntable that is impossible. If you can name one that you think will sound better along with some CDs you think will sound better, I'll happily make the comparison.
You keep complaining that I cannot offer you one hard fact that LPs sound better than LPs. The hard fact is I have compared numerous CD players to my turntable and they all were were all inferior. Numerous doubters have brought over their CD players and favorite CDs to compare with my turntable. They have all found my table to be vastly superior than their CDs and CD players.
The notion that LP superiority is nonsense because it requires better equipment and propper set up is laughable. My turntable either sounds better than your CD player or any other CD player out there regardless of price or it doesn't. The fact that it is expensive and requires careful set up is irrelevent. Just remember this there are things in this world that exist independantly of your personal experience of them. Superior LP sound exists outside of your Numark.

 

Ahh! But you just made MY point! Our fellow audiophiles were just telling me that digital CDs weren't capable of matching the source. If the burner is good, there should be no problem.

 

I didn't mean to sound like I was singling out turtables.

I recall in the not too distant past that a couple of board members here belittled me because I didn't have that level of gear!

Yes.

 

Goldenboy,

You are combining stages and steps. For example, an album can be mixed and mastered DIGITALLY. Then released as a CD and LP.

Ten years later, Steve wants to "RE" Master that album for either CD OR LP release. He uses tubes, which do introduce some form of "colouration and frequency rolloff" into the equation, minimal as it may be. Those weren't in the original, digital master.

Secondly, the fact that you like CD's mixed, mastered, or remastered on tube equipment leads me to believe that it's not all about THD, S/N, etc. that you keep talking about. How can you enjoy anything that was produced or reproduced with limited specs? The way you denounce vinyl as unlistenable based on these "spec facts" one would believe that anything with colorouration would be bad.

But one still cannot deny that CD's have higher S/N, larger dynamic range and higher frequency responses

Can't deny it. But, as I state above, I don't think it's just about those elements. If that was true, everyone would be recording digitally, and using solid-state gear. Which does not happen. Even with the pros like Steve or Kevin Gray.

At the end of the day, for all of it's "specs" 16/44 redbook is a crude approximation of an analog waveform. It's like a picture in a newspaper. If you look at it through a magnifying class (i.e. a high resolution playback system) you begin to see dots. It's still a picture (i.e. "similar tonality" that Steve talks about) but it begains to break apart. With vinyl it's like a painting. You can magnify it all you want. You will see imperfections (a missed brush stroke here, a little bog of paint there), but it's still one coherent whole.

IMO a system with less resolution maintains that coherency. You don't, and can't begin to see the differences between the two mediums. Same is true with redbook CD and high-rez digital. It's not just a turntable thing.

That's why there is such a fuss over SACD and DVD/A. It makes it much, much more difficult to hear (see) the gaps, and gets the approximation much closer to the original. The dots retain the illusion of being a picture.

For what it's worth, I think there are very few universal facts in this hobby. Other than it should be about the music.

Tom H

 

I have compared the sound of numerous TT's to my CDP. Why can't YOU accept that. I'm not telling you to run down a list of all the CD players you ever owned or heard am I? I'm confident enough to accept the conclusions you claim, up against ANY relatively well made CDP, whether it is $300 or $20,000. I'm arguing that a CD will sound better regardless of what TT you use. Where's your experience with CD's? With actual 2-Track masters? You keep telling me about mentioning specs. What else would you like me to mention? Subjective arguments can never find a resolution. Specifications are undeniable. I state that you like the sound of vinyl because that is what you are accustomed to, and you tell me no. I state the specs that PROVE there is more sonic information and more accurate information on a CD and you tell me you don't pay attention to specs, you pay attention to your ears. So, I tell you that when I LISTEN to CD's vs. LP's I hear a more accurate reproduction of a master or of live sound when compared to an LP, and that I don't hear surface noise, you tell me I haven't heard the 'proper' TT, or mine isn't good enough. You never asked me what CD player I was listening to. Maybe my CD player is of the same comparative quality of my TT. I never asked which you were listening to. I never argued anything about price until YOU brought it up,with your French wine/California wine analogy and ,while I'm on the subject, I'll say, no, I don't believe a format that requires you to spend a king's ransom to squeeze an acceptable performance out of it is worth spit on my shoes. That's why there is a word called Progress. It's like the early days of GUI's. People argued that DOS was better than Windows or the Macintosh could ever be, because you got to type in information on a black screen and get more 'involved' with the machine. It was more comlicated and convoluted, therefore it had to be technically superior. I think most people see that is nonsense now.

So, to wrap it all up, the only thing I have left to offer is blood, but I'm going to keep it for myself. So, let's just say you like what you like and I like what I like.

 

I recall in the not too distant past that a couple of board members here belittled me because I didn't have that level of gear!

I hear you. I think the difference was that people were reacting to your (and Goldenboy's) unequivocal statements, criticisms, and comparisons of two formats when the reviewing tools, so to speak, make differences less easy to ascertain.

I tried to describe this in my previous post. Another analogy would be that someone states that a VHS tape provides as good a picture as a DVD player. Yet, they do their comparisons on a 13" TV with composite cables. Someone with a 36" or bigger, TV using S-Video or Component cables, would question or react to these declarations of truth.

And that's not to say that your audio rig is analgous to a 13" TV! I'm just trying to provide a perspective on why some members made their comments.

That's why I believe there are so few FACTS in this hobby. It is very subjective, and comments, or reviews, of musical pieces, or gear is totally dependent upon methodology, gear, system synergies, etc.

BTW: I was serious with the offer to have you come and listen anytime. The rig is in a state of transition, but I'd love to let you hear and decide whether or not CD is as superior as you say. I do get tired of having to clean the LP's and flipping them over can be a total drag when I have a lady friend at the house

 

Well, if somethoing were recorded and mastered digitally, there would be no way to add the sound of tubes to that master without first recording it into an analog fromat and then remastering it, I don't think Steve is in the business of doing that.

I never said that specs were all that mattered, what I have, however, been arguing all allong is the relative accuracy in reproduction when comparing CD's and LP's, there, the specs cannot be denied. If something has surface noise and another doesn't or if one has rolled off frequencies and one doesn't, which will be more true to the original source? I never said vinyl was unlistenable. It seems the longer this thread goes on, the more words that are being put into my mouth. I listen to vinyl. I grew up listening to vinyl. vinyl has it's own qualities that people are drawn to, whwther they be real or perceived.

 

Goldenboy,

Two things come to mind:

1. I have made the comparisons on similar priced sets of gear, and my truth says that I prefer vinyl versus CD. I'll listen to either, but given an album from the same source (i.e. DCC) I prefer the LP. And no, it's not because of "colorations" or "euphonics" or any of the other reasons you stated. For me, it's because I feel like I am looking at the original oil painting and not an approximation, vis-a-vis a picture in a newspaper. I feel that I've debunked the idea that it's just about specs in my previous post.

2. It does NOT take a king's ransom to get equal, or superior, playback on a vinyl system. Take a look at hundreds of posts at AudioAsylum on just this topic. IMO a $2K turntable will provide a greater degree of musicality than a $2K CD Player. No one said that you have to spend 5 figures to enjoy vinyl. Both will be extremely enjoyable and satisfactory to amost everybody.

I'm not trying to change your mind, or tell you that CD's suck, I'm just trying to defend and explain why I feel vinyl delivers more musical truth than a system which only gives you part of the story.

I've already conceded that CD, or high-rez digital, is more convenient, and less prone to wear, but I do not feel it's just about specs. For example, some audio gear with the lowest THD and highest S/N sound terrible, compared to other, less expensive, solid-state gear.

 

Goldenboy,

There is a way to add the sound of tubes to the CD you end up with. It's called a D-A converter. Steve has to take the digital master, run it through a D-A converter, which is usually hooked up to a preamp or mastering console, which I believe in Steve's case is tube based, then perform his EQ magic, then pass it back through an A-D converter to create a new master to be sent to the pressing plant.

Just because it's digital, doesn't mean that remastering has to, or will, take place in the digital domain.

I grew up listening to vinyl, bought a CD player and changed over to CD, when the format was first introduced. Sold all my LP's. Always sought after "remasters'. In a lot of cases, I enjoyed the newer CD's because of the better converters used (24/96, etc.). Almost 20 years later, fell in love with vinyl, for reasons real or perceived. Still listen to CD. Still defend vinyl against those who trash it, for reasons real or perceived.

We are in it for the music.

Tom H

 

Well stated, tr, although I would have to say that I've had numerous opportunities to hear digital recordings deliver just as much musical satisfaction. I own and enjoy both a quality TT (about $3K total for cartridge arm and TT) and an excellent SACD/CD player (also $3K). Convenience factor aside, I've found over the years that there is just about an even split in my preferences for analog and digital recordings of the same music.

I would also contend, though, that if you haven't heard a good sounding CD through a high resolution system using tube equipment, then you haven't heard good sounding CD; it's that simple. It would be just as foolish to claim that tube equipment induces colorations as it would to claim that solid state doesn't.

 

I agree. I was using that as an argument against these statements about specs and "colorations". I'm currently waiting for a pair of Tenor 75Wi, which arrive Friday, to replace my Spectral pre and power amps.

I'm not going to even start or participate in the solid-state vs. tube discussion. It ends up being the same silliness.

Tom H

 

OK then, perhaps we've been debating for no reason, as I never doubted that you prefer vinyl, and I stated somewhere near the beginning of this whole thread that I understand and accept that. Just one thing though, you say that you prefer vinyl not because of 'colourations' or 'euphonics', but then you say you prefer it because, as you stated, you 'feel like [you are] looking at the original oil painting and not an approximation, vis-a-vis a picture in a newspaper' If that isn't subjective, I don't know what is.

I never argued specs should influence what your preference is. I just used specs as an example of what is there and what isn't. Anyhow, I hope you enjoy your LP's as much as you can, as I will enjoy my CD's AND my LP's.

 

Amen.

 

You're right. You can also just play it through analog equiptment and record it directly to CD or DAT, but again, my point is THAT is what is on the master. That CD that has been D/A A/D or whatever has what they PUT on it, not what the reproduction medium or playback system added to it.

I grew up listening to vinyl also. I also converted to CD. I have never lost my ability to appreciate vinyl recordings. I, unlike you however, have never looked back and still I prefer the sound of CD's. What really won me over to the format were the quality Classical recordings. The dynamic range is really evident there when the music is recorded live and uncompressed with no added sound effects or compression. And those low passages, played back withoput any pops or cracks. Wheweee! I will defend CD against anybody who tries to write it off. I have never written off the LP. I have always maintaned that I understand people prefering vinyl to CD. It's just some of the crazy statements of fact that are made by some vinyl advocates that just cannot be proven anyway other than subjectively that gets to me.