SH Spotlight Vinyl vs. master tape?

I triple that! I'm kicking myself right now for even getting into the whole 'CD vs. LP' debate.

 

Goldenboy
"I have compared the sound numerous TT's to my CDP whay cant YOU accept that?"

Simple. The only table you have named is your Numark. I agree CD players sound better than any Numark table I have ever heard. Numerous unnamed turntables don't add up to one state of the art table. If we are sincerely asking the question which is capable of producing the best sound CD players or turntables then to compare anything less than state of the art of either is to poison the comparison.

"Where's your experience with CDs?"

I have extesively auditioned the following:

Oracle CD player
Rotel RCD 971
Wadia 27 processor Forsel transport
Rega Jupiter
Wadia 23 CD player
Theta data 4 processor and Theta transport
Rotel RCD 930 RX

I have heard numerous forgetable players by Sony, Yamaha, and other such brands that friends brought over to compare to my table.

You claim that i like the sound of vinyl because that is what I am acustomed to.

That is quite presumptuous of you. You have not heard my table or have any knowledge of my system. You know nothing of what I am acustomed to listening to whatsoever


What you call progress i call cheap convenience. If you are happy with mediocraty and like to call it excellent and indistinguishable from live music fine. Don't expect me to buy it. I know what I hear. You don't know what I hear.

 

And with that note, I'm out for the night. The NBA playoffs are on, so I finally have something else to do with my time today. speak to you all tommorrow.

 

Someone who "remasters" something is just the pre-stage of a playback mechanism. They can, and do, take the master and change it to some degree. Based upon what you say about the limitations of vinyl as a "playback" mechanism, you contradict yourself when you state those limitations are now acceptable if they are present in the recording chain. Doesn't hold up. If it does, then those same limitations should have no bearing on the playback side of things. Noise is noise. Reduced S/N or increased THD, wherever it is introduced, is still present.

A master can also be analog in nature, recorded through tubes, on tape, which also has less S/N and THD measurements than digital. If we use your reasoning on why CD is superior, then we should only listen and enjoy something which is recorded digitally, through solid-state.

Which is why it's interesting to hear you talk about Classical, where "the music is recorded live and uncompressed with no added sound effects or compression". In my experience, more effects/compression/unholy EQ is performed on digital masters than analog or tape masters.

I think Classical on a good vinyl playback system will knock your socks off. Dynamics, soundstage, presence, transients, and sheer attack, are superb on a high-end vinyl rig. The lowest of low bass is more difficult to reproduce correctly on a turntable than CD, but it can be done.

At the end of the day, you cannot "prove" the superiority of CD over vinyl through specs. And the opposite is also true. 16/44 is not, and will never be, Perfect Sound Forever. The presence, and popularity of SACD and DVDA -- Better, More Perfect Sound -- shows that to be true.

In fact, this entire hobby is subjective in nature. We can listen to the same gear, with the same specs, and hear different things. You may key on the bass, I may key on the midrange. You may prefer blondes, I may prefer brunettes.

And I do still enjoy CDs.

Tom H

 

Actually... all noise is not created equal. Indeed, we tend to like certain kinds of noise/distortion in moderation. Just enough, but not too much.

George Harrison's electric guitar through a slightly distorting amp sounds grat. But take that distorted guitar signal and run it again through the amp and it may very well sound like crap.

So - while I like what Steve's tube equipment does to the sound, doesn't mean that I really want to double what he does at home with the same equipment. But then again.. maybe I do. It all depends on what it does to the sound.

Popularity does not equal truth.

If I got a whole bunch of SACD fanatics in a room, and then played them the same recording mastered to CD and then SACD, how much money would you like to bet some (many?) couldn't tell the difference?

HZ

 

HZ,

You're right on the popularity issue. Have to be very careful around here when choosing which words to use. But, for those who stipulate that specs are the only thing that matters and that CD is superior, then the presence of a format with superior specs, makes that argument less solid

Tom H

 

Amen, and remember that a real audiophile (CD or Vinyl bigot) will watch the game with the TV muted and his/her favorite disc spinning on the table or in the player

Ciao,

Tom H

 

Can I get some of this action too, HZ?

Based on some reactions I've observed, a couple folks I know who happen to own SACD players could not detect the difference between the SACD and CD layers on several hybrid disks I played for them. I hasten to add, though, that I am not speaking derisively about SACD (I happen to regard it as a quantum leap forward in digital music playback when the recording can display the differences).

Some folks just do not have the hearing acuity to recognize the subtle sonic clues that could distinguish a high quality analog recording converted to both DSD and PCM as accurately as possible.

A few folks just do not have adequate equipment or the room to make the distinction obvious.

Some analog sources are not of sufficiently high resolution to reveal a distinction. Indeed, some recording professionals argue that a high resolution conversion of analog master tapes is merely gilding the lilly, as the differences may be negligible at best. To wit here are some quotes from an interview I conducted with Roger Armstrong, managing director of Ace Records, that appeared in a magazine four years ago (before SACD was even announced):

Whether or not we agree with these assessments, I think it's important to recognize that our reactions to music playback in the home are as varied and individual as there are members of this forum.

I tend to think that SACD will come into its own when pure DSD recordings are the norm and not the exception. At that point, the differences between CD and SACD should be as plain as the nose on your face (and vinyl addicts will have to buy into the new medium or be left out in the cold).

 

Law And Order is in print in the US - 6.99 at cheap-cds.com.

 

Of course!

As I stated earlier, I think I probably fall into this catagory. As with my LP/CD test, I've also compared a hybrid SACD (I actually bought two copies so that I could sync them!) and again - I couldn't hear any difference on my Senn HD600s.

With that said, I still think I have pretty darn good ears. Heck, anyone who's landed on this forum probably does. But do I have "golden ears"? Nah - but I sure can tell the difference between a Hoffman mastered CD and a "regular" issue. It ain't subtle! (unlike the micro-sonics that differentiate CD and SACD).

You know, someday we're all gonna have to get together at someone's house, let me or Jeffrey bring our Sony SBM CDR recorders, and record the output from one of these $20,000 turntables, then sync 'em up and let the cards fall where they may.

 

HZ,

We can use my place in SF. Let me have about 30 days, to let the new TT, amps, and CDP to burn-in and we can make a Saturday out of it. I also have an RME DigiPro 24/96 card we can use to also burn CD's. It would make for a fun test/comparison with the standalone CDR.

The TT isn't $20K, but it is what it is.

Tom H.

 

Hey, that sounds like a ton of fun!

How many people do you think you're place can hold?

 

Most of what you say is true. On paper, even the cheapest CD player has a higher S/N ratio, a higher frequency response, and a wider dynamic range than even the most expensive turntable you can buy. (CD's MAY be mastered to an EQ curve that rolls off frequencies. It depends on who does the mastering. Some people do some strange things.}

However, you are ignoring the fact that CDs don't use any kind of curve at all. They use a mathematical stair-step approximation of what a curve WOULD be if it was analog. How well that approximation represents the curve it tries to approximate is dependent on the design and quality of the A/D and D/A converters that process it, the sampling frequency, and the number of bits used in the conversion. Simplistically, the sampling rate determines how many steps there are and the bit rate determines how well those steps are defined. Also, rather than rolling off frequencies, CD truncates them, in a range that is supposedly beyond human hearing. But the truth is, a digital signal discards a HUGE amount of data. At what point does digital data become insignificant? When does the human ear notice a difference? And what exactly is it you're throwing away?

The truth is, even analog is an approximation of an actual sound wave, but it is the closest approximation that we as humans have been able to develop. So digital is really an approximate representation of an approximation, and no one can define WHAT you throw away. No one knows. When they defined the CD standard, they decided to settle for 16 bits at 44.1 KHz. Does that mean that 16 bits at 44.1 KHz produces perfect sound? No. Otherwise, transferring identical signals at higher sampling rates and bit rates would not produce "better" sound quality.

Instead of trying to compare CD to LP, you should try comparing a CD to an identical stereo track on a SACD or DVD-A (if there are any). If you hear a difference, you will know what they threw away for the 16-bit CD version. You won't be able to describe it, but you'll know. A carefully mastered CD can hide SOME of that. Steve seems to be able to hide most of that. But it is there. It's too bad we don't have 24 bit AND 16 bit versions of Steve's work, because it would be a perfect test. However, if you can accept the IDEA that either SACD or DVD-A might be better formats than CD, then you've already admitted that CD lacks SOMETHING. And that something is why some people prefer LPS, even though they have surface noise, narrower frequency responses, etc. It all depends on what is most important to you.

 

Been there, done that, can't tell the difference.

I'm really curious if anyone else here has gone to the effort besides me?


BTW, I'm not sure why you think the CD/LP test isn't a good one?

 

Quite a few. Hold or seat? My place is a 1300 SQ Foot live/work loft. The listening room IS the living room (~16'x18'x14') which opens into the kitchen, and the den (TV room). Nothing in the living room but a 3 seater couch, speakers, audio gear, a rug, some acosutical treatment and some 12' ficus trees.

Couches in all the rooms (even the kitchen). You can hear the system in every room, including the upstairs bedroom. I agree with Tom Port, if a system sounds good from the other rooms, you know you're on to something.

For what we're talking about, probably 6-8 comfortably. With 3 people having the best seats in the house.

I don't have an SACD player, but I'm sure we can scrounge one up from someone.

I'm thinking sometime mid-June.

It would be a kick in the pants. But, someone has to bring the DCC CD's. I've only kept 3 or 4, as I have most of them on LP. We can do a head-head that way.

Tom H

 

I guess I'm a vinyl idiot.

How much difference can a turntable really make assuming what you're comparing it to doesn't introduce a lot of rumble or something? I mean, it seems to me what a turntable does is spin the disc. Period. Any differences in sound should come from what cartridge you use.

Now, apparently that's not the case. Why is that? Why does something that just spins the record (apparently) affect the sound?

 

Sounds great!

For me it might be best to wait till after June. Holy Zoo (the band) has two big gigs coming up in June that we're prepping for, and most weekends are spoken for. (Hey, come on down! They'll be playing the Icon in Palo Alto, opening for Kings X in June).

Anyways, I can bring my (admittedly low-end) Sony SACD player, unless someone has a much nicer one, along with my Sony cd burner. I can also bring a couple dozen DCC cds, and several SACDs.

 

Thank you Steve for "coming to the rescue" with that site on basic turntables. After reading all 8 pages of this thread, my head just hit the table with the statement "all a table does is spin the record." Can anyone say the word "linn?" I've been keeping quiet as this debate goes on. I guess I can't say more than Analog Scott has already stated. How, at one time, I so wanted what Grant and Golden boy say they hear to be true. Spent SO much money "chasing" digital sound. The next converter, the next jitter device. But in the end, my ears spoke the truth. Analog was music. The problem is that it is hard to do a comparison with equipment that people are familiar with. Another words, it would be best to bring the TT to the digital lovers house. But, so many have preamps without phono sections. So I guess bringing your cd player over to a friends house with decent analog is the next best thing. Just try it people.

 

trhunnicutt, HZ,

Let me in on this please! I live in San Jose and can cover other items. I have a budget SA333ES changer, but the modifications to my XA777ES may be done by then - I sure hope so; it's been a long gestation. If I have it, and have some miles on it, we could have a lot of fun at a shootout.

I'm struggling though to think of a suitable disc that's available on DCC vinyl, DCC gold and SACD.

One that comes to mind is Sonny Rollins "Saxophone Colossus", which is due out in June, and I'll surely get it, along with the Vince Gueraldi - hey, that's another one that may work. I have both those on DCC Gold.

Depends what trh has on vinyl.

I have lots of SACDs (160) and we should be able to find some duplication.

Regards,
Metralla

 

Wow, what an enjoyable read this has been. I'm on the east coast, and it's now exactly 2AM. I have sat here for what seems like hours, and read all 8 pages of this thread. Wow, perhaps is HAS been hours--I stopped once to make something to eat. I am new to the audiophile world--about 3 or 4 years into it, and I actually love these types of debates, because it helps me understand all of the varying viewpoints. For years, I've been wondering what the hell is the big difference between analog and digital.

I am 30 years old, and I grew up listening exclusively to vinyl. I listened to rap, rock, and some (SOME) pop music. I always loved my vinyl. Would you believe, the first CD I ever bought was in December 1994. I knew I was getting a CD player for Christmas as a gift, so I started buying a couple of CD's a few weeks ahead of time. I remember thinking that the CD's sounded pretty good, but what I LOVED was being able to jump to a particular track in no time. I STILL love that "digital feature." It does wonders for me when I'm riding the exercise bike, and I want to hear a song quickly. I could make mixtapes, but this feature is always nice.

Now, I realize that isn't the type of thing a TRUE audiophile should be worried about. Afterall, isn't a genuine audiphile interested in sitting down, relaxing, pouring a glass of win, and letting the music enter their soul? I suppose so, but sometimes I exercise, and I like instant track access.

About a year and a half ago I sold 150 pieces of vinyl, but I still have several hundred left. I plan to keep them. They are mostly old records that belonged to my mother and grandmother. I guess they still do, since they're both still alive, but they gave them to me years ago. I mostly play CD's now, and believe that many sound quite nice. I have very limited experience with DVD-A (or DAD), and SACD, but in response to HOLY ZOO's comments, from what I have heard, these formats sound great to my ears. Could I pick out the difference in a comparison, with great playback equipment? I don't know, man, but they sure did sound great when I heard them.

I get so amped up when I read threads like these, because I start to believe I'm going to FINALLY obtain that elusive chunk of knowledge that once and for all let's me know which format is superior! Crazy huh? Both formats seem to have pros and cons, but the one universal truth that seems to always escape from the wrath of the discussion is this: Any way you slice it, it truly is all about the MUSIC! Some people prefer CD, some people prefer vinyl. Some people have $100,000 sound systems, some people have mini-shelf systems they bought at a local store. I'll tell you what though--even when I consistently used the inexpensive, mini system, the Steve Hoffman CD's STILL sounded superior to the standard releases. I still don't have a lot of money invested in audio components, but a MAJOR upgrade is coming later this year for me. I've saved for a long time for this, and I plan to see out the knowledge of audiophiles in helping me make smart purchases. Perhaps some of you here will be kind enough to assist me with your thoughts.

You know, I also remember VERY MUCH enjoying those open-reel tapes. That was probably my favorite format of all! I wish I could walk into the store, or call Steve Hoffman, and buy albums on high quality open-reel tapes today. I believe they sound natural, are durable (if cared for), and they actually look really cool to me.

What's really interesting to me--I bet you if new, casual audiophiles (is "casual audiophiles" an oxymoron? oh well...) visited this message board, and began reading the threads, they would probably run for cover quick! To the average person, even those seeking out better sounding music, these types of threads will surely become overwhelming.

Wow, I have so much more to say, but I just realized I've written more than I thought. I suppose I'll shut up for now! My fingers were REALLY moving!

 

Oh well...I didn't check because someone said it wasn't available on the ICE board. I don't know anything about the album or his solo career. Oh, i'll probably just clean it up for fun. I copied it into the PC this afternoon and it isn't so mint after all!

 

Before the CD came out, I tried this on a worn copy of "Jesus Christ Superstar" rock opera album. It didn't work, and I wound up getting crud dried up in the grooves. Good thing MCA finally served up the gold CD!

 

Count yourself in! I have the new re-issue of Saxophone Colossus on 180G. We can start another thread to see what 5-6 albums others on the board will want us to evaluate/demo on multiple formats. Hell, we can even get into double-blind testing. And, no, I really do not want to get into that discussion.

By June, the rig should be smoking. The SME 20/2 is just breaking in and sounding mighty fine playing an original pressing of "Let's Get It On".

Tom H