Why is my vinyl superior to my CD's?

Because?

 

Now in these difficult times we should be kind to each other. So I kindly agree with what You say.

 

This is exactly the experience I had. I mean, I never had a good enough analog setup to REALLY compare, but my measly setup was enough to show me what my digital side was missing. Had no soul. No boogie. No depth.

My ANK DAC fills me with joy every single day like I never imagined possible. Despite all the cash I'd thrown down on speakers and amp, my digital chain was lifeless until I got that DAC.

 

It's not. But whatever floats your boat is the rising tide. Or something.

 

Are you using good quality interconnects from the CDP? Bad ones can really stifle things.

 

I don’t know why exactly I’m liking this, but I’m liking it nonetheless.

 

Booze & Vinyl: A Spirited Guide to Great Music and Mixed Drinks
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0762463473...bp50kuA&creativeASIN=0762463473&tag=bica09-20

 

We have winner!

 

Much of modern digital music suffers from too much compression and poor mastering. My best SACDs sound as good or a bit better than my best vinyl. There are differences in characteristics but both are on par.

 

Vinyl rules in this house. You want a big soundstage/imaging listen to Live recordings.

 

You're all a bit too far to pop along for an afternoon, but if you could make it to North West, Surrey, England I can play you that heavily tricked up Technics against the TAD CD/DAC/Pre

Over some years I upgraded both media players together. Identical sound around
Technics / VIDA Phone Pre
v's
Rega Isis

The TAD is a lot better.
Soundstage, imaging, separation like even I can hardly believe

This from a bloke that was vinyl most of my life. Got into CDs end of 2004 as they were useful at work and in the car

 

Yep, for playback on portable devices, or perhaps to the engineer's taste. Often goes hand in hand with compression and limiting as well, and general loudness war trends. Narrowing can add more "punch" but sacrifices stereo separation. The RVG Remasters on BN are a famous example of this. Many other more severe examples of course.

 

Am I wrong that your average $1,500 turntable/cartridge combo is a better performer than an average $1,500 digital rig?

It’s been my experience that digital doesn’t get all that exciting until the multi-thousands of bucks and that may explain why folks like me think vinyl is “better.” Apart from the mastering differences already raised, of course.

 

The mastering is such a big part its hard to compare though. So theres never a clear answer at any price point, except for below 500$ or so where some nice speakers and a Spotify subscription is infinitely better than a whole vinyl rig.
Where does preference lie in this also?

I dont agree digital is bad before the X000$ mark either.

 

I definitely agree digital isn't BAD, basically ever! I listen to Spotify on my ancient Musical Fidelity V-DAC all the time and like it just fine.

I just meant to say that I've never heard any transport/DAC/streamer that was actually fun and engaging for less than a few thousand $$$.

I'm in no way an expert, needless to say, just curious about opinions re. performance : spend ratio in analog and digital domains.

 

FalseMetal666:
For me, the spend ratio is higher for vinyl than for digital. Had to spend roughly $6.5k on a VPI Prime, Hana SL, and Graham Slee Accession MC to get the audio level necessary for my classical listening habits. Can get world class digital for half of that -- a RME ADI-2 DAC running JRiver on a HP Computer.
But need both to have the ability to play all of the items I want to listen to. At the same time, the visceral listening response for the best analog vinyl is way, way better than any digital feed. Have spent some time comparing the same analog recording to the later-issued CD and find there are sonic advantages to both mediums. But in those cases, always end up listening to the vinyl.
Others on this site have pointed out that quality vinyl has always been expensive. My reality is that there is a relatively high level of expense before you get the point where the advantages of the vinyl medium became apparent.

 

The Non-Oversampled Philips TDA1543 in my Hifiman HM-601 is both fun, engaging and very analogue in its sound signature.Cost under £300 new.
Some Audio Note DAC's use the same type of design and chip set up.But cost 5 times the price.

 

Oh goodness, it's amazing this myth is still being promulgated.

This video was made for folks who believe things like the above:



I really enjoy vinyl and in fact, since purchasing a really nice turntable I've been mostly listening to vinyl (vs my Benchmark DAC). For a variety of reasons. Not only the physical aspects of owning records, but I really like the sound of records.

BUT...it's not "better" sound in terms of being more technically accurate over my turntable. It's just "different" sound, and yes I can often enough like the sound of vinyl coming from my turntable best. But that's a subjective preference - it doesn't entail some objective superiority. It's great lots of us like our vinyl, but we don't need to try justifying our preference using dubious technical claims.

 

Well, gosh, Matt Hooper, read my post again and maybe you'll get it. I said no such things as you criticized and my major themes agree with what you said as your preference almost entirely. Read it again, Matt, but with your kind of response I doubt you have the ability to understand.

 

Ok, sure, I'd be happy to find I misunderstood and that out you were not making dubious technical claims. Could you please clarify?

If the video I posted does not relate to what you wrote, and you were making sound technical claims. (Which didn't actually look like any "technical explanation" I've ever seen - "slicing and slithering" used in creating CDs?"). Could you explain more specifically what you meant when you wrote:

"Real Goodness comes from a record's ability to reproduce waveform integrity. The pressure ups and downs of the wave are reproduced as accurately as does the master source and avoids the slicing and slithering used in creating CDs (= PCM). For the best Real Goodness, the master should be analog tape. Waveform integrity produces a natural and pleasing sound that possesses timbral accuracy, accurate transients (= attacks), and expressive microdynamics (subtle shades of volume). Its the only real advantage records have over CDs, but it is a big, big one."


What "pressure ups and downs" does a record reproduce more accurately than digital?
What specifically is the "slicing and slithering" used in creating CDs and how does it entail digital/CDs are inferior to records?
What specifically is "waveform integrity," especially that records can reproduce that CDs can not?

Thanks.

Like many I've listened to a digital source for my hi-fi rig for decades, as well as records (plus I work in digital sound for my day job), and your sonic descriptions do not match what I hear from digital. At least not as some intrinsic way. I often hear startling timbral and transient accuracy from digital.

 

The chip is such a small part of the equation. I can probably never afford a real AN DAC, but my ANK is seriously nothing to sneeze at, and so much of the magic is in the analog section. I know this because my experiments with tube rolling has been like discovering an entirely new DAC each time.

 

Actually no. I think only few cd player can match vinyl natural musicality, prat and grooving emotion. Nothing to do with pops and noise

 

In my experience your wrong.

 

Vinyl is just my favorite medium - reproduces the sound as it was intended better than CDs, and that's just my opinion obviously. and yes, you'll get a few pops sometimes, but not if you have a decent copy of the album. CDs are fine, SACDs are much better obviously, which is why I buy those if I really want to listen to a CD, which is rare. And both are better than streaming for me.