Breaking News
Audio DesignLine Blog

Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die

Rich Pell
1/13/2010 05:00 PM EST

 58 comments   post a comment
NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 4 / 6   >   >>
David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
David Brown   6/24/2011 7:09:38 AM
NO RATINGS
You have a few correct points here, but are missing the main point. Yes, peoples' ears are sensitive to certain types of distortion and noise - but you don't get them with good digital playback. You get them with vinyl. When you listen to a CD, the problem is not some extra noise or distortion - it is that the familiar (to you) noise and distortion is missing. It's like tube amplifiers - fans will tell you they give a "warmer" sound than transistor amplifiers. In fact they give a less precise rendition than most mid or even low-end transistor amplifiers - there is more noise, and more distortion. In particular, they have significant second harmonic distortion that you don't get elsewhere - the "warmth" is that second harmonic. If you like your music to have this added noise and distortion, that's fine. I can appreciate that, and understand it. Just don't make nonsense claims about CDs and digital reproduction adding noise or being less accurate in some way. Oh, and the "minimal electronics" movement is purely about pandering to people who will pay for such "features". In the recording studio, the sound from the musician passes through perhaps 30 or 40 opamps before being digitised. A few more on the playback device would not make the slightest difference (assuming, of course, that the electronics is of good quality and design).

fazz
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
fazz   6/24/2011 5:52:04 AM
NO RATINGS
The simple answer is that many peoples' ears are very sensitive to certain types of low level distortion, inaccuracies which becomes irritating and fatiguing over a period of listening time, and unfortunately the digital replay mechanism is far more susceptible to producing this type of distortion. Yes, it is very low level, and very hard to measure but it is there, and causes many people to have major issues with CD sound. Vinyl by virtue of the fact that at its heart is a very simple mechanical transducer is far less prone to this problem. In CD, with its intrinsic electronic complexity, these ugly problems can rear their head very easily and it needs a fastidious design to minimise the audibility of this distortion. That is one reason there has been a strong movement relatively recently to create digital playback designs with the absolute minimum of electronic circuitry -- the non oversampled DAC technique. They measure badly, but reduce this particularly unpleasant style of distortion very significantly.

David Brown
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
David Brown   6/23/2011 8:49:38 AM
NO RATINGS
I think the differences of opinion are actually quite simple to explain. CD gives a more accurate representation of the original recorded sound than vinyl. Very few people have the training and naturally good hearing to be able to notice any digitally-induced noise - SACD or 96kHz/24-bit digital takes that noise below anything that humans could theoretically differentiate. The reason some people prefer vinyl (or tube amplifiers) is because they /like/ the noise. Humans are not comfortable with too stark contrasts - we write on paper that is off-white, we put patterned wallpaper on our walls rather than pure colours, etc. If there is not enough background noise, things seem artificial and cartoonish. There is no point in having a technical argument about the quality of the reproduction of the sound - there are no doubts that CD is more accurate than vinyl. But equally there is no doubt that some people /prefer/ the sound of vinyl. It has nothing to do with CD's sounding "harsh" or "failing to preserve the continuity". It is just that some people /like/ the pops, crackles and hisses from vinyl - it feels familiar and comfortable to them. As another poster says, it's the same reason people sometimes prefer candlelight to a light bulb.

rpell2
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
rpell2   5/30/2011 2:25:22 PM
NO RATINGS
What part of the assertion "CD/digital is more accurate than vinyl at reproducing the original audio signal" is untestable or involves issues of "faith"?

rpell2
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
rpell2   5/28/2011 9:34:00 PM
NO RATINGS
Agreed, those Sheffield Labs direct-to-disc LPs sounded great. But they were expensive, specialized in musical content, and limited (even more than regular vinyl) in the amount of content that could be fit on each record. Later, well-recorded CDs reminded me of the sound of those direct-to-disc records - and now digital recordings provide that level of audio quality (or better) routinely.

BicycleBill
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
BicycleBill   5/28/2011 9:28:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Good column on Vinyl vs. CD. Since it is ultimately unanswerable and has issues of "faith" on both sides, I should probably add it to the list in my recent piece "I'd like to have an (engineering) argument, please." at: http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-blogs/other/4216351/-I-d-like-to-have-an--engineering--argument--please-

rpell2
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
rpell2   5/28/2011 9:28:23 PM
NO RATINGS
"Your article starts with the subjective belief that the most transparent/accurate sound is the best one to listen to." No, it starts with the objective assertion that the CD/digital medium is technically more accurate at reproducing the original source material than vinyl. "[Vinyl] can sound subjectively better because of objective distortions that CD may not be able, or does not attempt, to replicate." Absolutely. But the point is that many (most?) vinylphiles ignore that possibility and in fact believe that vinyl is the objectively superior medium.

jcdrisc
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
jcdrisc   5/28/2011 7:12:02 PM
NO RATINGS
One of my greatest stupidities ever was to sell my Sheffield Lab direct to disk LPs. Now THEY sure did sound good. You have to pay attention to proper cartridge alignment and all the fiddles associated. But carefully designed oversampling A to Ds and good analog front ends are now making truly superb digital recordings. So maybe I am not so fussed. I still enjoy my vinyls too.

BMN
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
BMN   1/31/2011 8:37:41 AM
NO RATINGS
Your article starts with the subjective belief that the most transparent/accurate sound is the best one to listen to. Musicians and audio engineers spend thousands of dollars on equipment that distorts/colors sound in specific ways to a desired and preferred effect. The same could be said of vinyl. It can sound subjectively better because of objective distortions that CD may not be able, or does not attempt, to replicate.

JWayner
User Rank
Rookie
re: Vinyl vs. CD myths refuse to die
JWayner   11/29/2010 3:02:25 PM
NO RATINGS
Piling on an old thread... I'm a EE and tend to be an "objectivist" on audio matters, but that said: Skip the theoretical discussions on this subject and listen to good gear. CDs don't sound very good. You can't put your finger on it but there is something there that isn't natural. Vinyl can sound great if you can forgive the clicks and pops and lousy signal to noise. But there's something offensive in all of the CD playback I've heard, no matter how good it sounds, that vinyl doesn't have. Neither vinyl nor CD is even close to perfect. I know the theory, but Nyquist be damned, the actual implementation of the CD format just isn't very good. This isn't an "Analog vs. Digital" thing. Digital sound can be great. A well engineered DAC system fed high resolution input (96khz/24bit, or even better 192khz/24bit) sounds incredible, and the defect(s) of the 44.1khz sampling rate no longer exist, or at least I can't hear it. Now that reasonably priced high resolution D/A gear is available, I've become a fairly recent convert to digital. I do wish there was more content available in hi-res formats. Regards, Jim

<<   <   Page 4 / 6   >   >>
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
How to Cope with a Burpy Comet
October 17, 2pm EDT Friday
EE Times Editorial Director Karen Field interviews Andrea Accomazzo, Flight Director for the Rosetta Spacecraft.