Do you prefer the sound of vinyl or CD?

Post Reply New Topic

Too right. Most vinyl sounds like rubbish. The only high quality sound you get is from a 12" single, because there's just so much space for the sound to be recorded in. They last better because the grooves can be cut a lot deeper, as they don't need to be so close together.

I think vinyl would be better when played with high-quality equipment, as long as the record was kept in good condition. The problem is that each play wears both the media and the stylus, and I like to listen to some songs over and over. Another disadvantage is that the recorded material is packed more densely toward the center of the record because it runs at the same speed throughout the entire recording and playback process, resulting in a loss of resolution.

CDs have the potential to sound outstanding. Unfortunately, not all of them live up to it. The problem with CDs is digital compression. For those who aren't sure what that is, think of listening to a low-quality mp3 file. "S" sounds like cymbals will have a bit of a sound like a box of broken glass being shaken. Drums might also not have the quick initial punch that they're supposed to. This is a result of too much compression. When the missing data is filled in by the digital-to-analog system, it isn't as accurate as it needs to be. Some CDs exhibit noticeable compression, but not at all to the extent that bad mp3s do.

So, I use CDs because they're more versatile and may be played repeatedly without wearing them or the reading device down. Some sound downright amazing, while some leave a bit to be desired. Vinyl would be fun if I wanted to sink enough time and money into it, but not all of the albums I like are available as LPs.

So it's cool to say you like the sound of vinyl better than digital? I've never heard that.

What I find to verge on the hilarious, is that most of the people I know who go on about vinyl being so much better, can't hear a damn thing to the point I have to seriously raise my voice for them to hear me, after them spending so much time stood in front of speaker stacks at parties. That kind of love for music does not confer an ability to judge what medium sounds better.

Another question all together is whether sound generated electronically by Analog means can ever be duplicated by reproduced by computer modelling accurately enough that a listener couldnt tell the difference between the 2. Specifically Im talking about so-called Virtual Analog synthesizers which use computationally intensive algorithms to model analog synthesizers as opposed to Truly Analog synthesizers(like the Big knobulators of the 1970s .

To me, as a musician, using a real ARP2600, SERGE or TB303 is not important as realism is not what I want in my music. Rather, I desire a mixture of coldness and warmth and the desire to be able to sequence my music in a way impossible on an all-analog system.

Having actually taken a course on Synth in College (back in the mid-70s), I actually got to mess with a Moog 900 (I think...30 years ago...cut me some slack.. and an Arp 2600. They could sound pretty lifeless without low pass filters, etc. I've got one (cheapo) analog synth, and a few digital ones.

I've been told (an old explanation) that the even-numbered harmonics are best done by analog, while digital emphasizes the odd-numbered harmonics.

Considering I had to sell all my albums, and the missus misplaced all my RCA cables, MP3 is how I have to go nowadays...

They both have their advantages as well as disadvantages. CD's when properly recorded and mastered have exceptional clarity with an exceedingly low noise floor in the RIAA specified 20hz-20khz range. That being said, Vinyl has a much greater frequeny range as there is no brickwall on the frequencies that it can produce unlike CD's. That being said, Vinyl also has limitations in the form of surface noice, Mono only reproduction if music below 200hz, as well as the delicacy of the vinyl, and wow/flutter.

Personally, I think that CD's should be phased out in favor of SACD's, which offers a much higher sample rate and resolution than the specs that the RIAA dictated for digital audio CD's in the late 1970's. --Sadly I don't think this will happen, as SACD is a proprietary, copywrited format owned by Sony, hence it's nearly nonexistant adoption, save for a few high dollar players.

I like them both. I think it's about time the CD was replaced by DVD-Audio or SACD. I don't see SACD really taking off (only two replication plants in the world), but DVD-A is PCM just like CD, except at 24/192 when using stereo (rather than 16/44.1).
I think loud mastering is a problem with CDs and as long as we have digital media we'll probably have loud mastering. I don't like it, which is why I enjoy listening to vinyl records, especially from the 70s.

CDs were originally designed to be able to have massive dynamic contrast, and it works really well for classical music. The fidelity is great. Vinyl has far smaller ability to reproduce dynamic contrast and is less of a clone of the original sound, but the fact that there is no resolution, no finite frequency limit and the mechanical nature of it means that it colours the sound and makes it in a sense more musical.

However, as D1nk0 said, analogue tape is some pretty cool stuff. It is after all what almost every vinyl record was originally recorded onto, and it probably has something to do with the colouration of sound.

Ahh, I've actually used DATs as part of a job I had for a while. DATs store sound as PCM data exactly the same as on a CD. There is no difference in sound quality, except DATs have the option to use the higher sampling rate of 48 kHz or 44.1 kHz like a CD. Resolution is 16 bit. I didn't notice a difference, and I was listening on Sennheiser HD600s... DATs have become obsolete now anyway. Everyone's using hard-drive based solutions at 24/96 or even 24/192.

So yeah, DATs will sound just like CDs. DVD-Audio or something like FLAC at higher resolutions/bitrates is the future IMO.