Options
Great Post on Vinyl vs. CD Fidelity
mookeywrench
Posts: 5,768
I've been trying to find something succinct to explain it for quite sometime that vinyl of today is neither inferior or superior to a CD but only a matter of preference, but articles I found were either overly techinical or the people had no idea what they were talking about (number one indicator someone doesn't have a clue is when they say CD's are overly compressed compared to vinyl).
Anyway, here is a post from comments on an Amazon.com page from pattic
Anyway, here is a post from comments on an Amazon.com page from pattic
pattic says:
Ok kids. Pull up a chair and I'll do my best to settle this once and for all.
There are really two questions here. One of them objective and technical, and the other subjective and artistic.
If your question is: "Will I enjoy the sound of vinyl over that of CD's?" Then my answer is: "Quite possibly".
If your question is: "Is Vinyl technically superior to the CD?" Then the simple and inarguable answer is: "No."
Let's start from the beginning, and I will make this as simple as possible, since so many absurd explanations have been given
by people who haven't the slightest technical knowledge on the matter.
High Fidelity. That's what it's called correct? Fidelity means "Faithful to". The original intent of High Fidelity is for
whatever audio signal is on the finished 2-track master of an album, to be "faithfully" reproduced on your stereo at home. The
theoretical ideal is for the media and the hardware to alter as little of the sound as humanly possible.
When a band records an album, all of the separate instrument and vocal tracks (usually 24-48) exist on a separate part of a
large 2-inch tape, or as a virtual track in a computer program. Since your stereo doesn't have 48 channels of sound, these
tracks must be mixed-down into the two stereo channels (left and right) that your stereo can play (not counting 5.1 sacd's of
course although the same principal applies).
The engineer processes all these separate channels of sound into a 2-channel stereo result called the "2-track" master. This is
what eventually ends up on your record, cd, tape or what have you. This 2-track master then goes through a "mastering" process
of eq-ing and compression, neither of which is nearly as essential as they used to be in the vinyl days, and here's why:
Masters were EQ'd and compressed for the first 4 decades or so of the rock era for 2 main technical reasons:
1) American radio station signals are very heavily compressed in order to facilitate the signal carrying longer distances, as
well as keeping the volume levels constant so you can hear quiet passages in a noisy automobile environment.
2) The turn-of-the-19th century technology known as vinyl wasn't (and still isn't) technically able to handle all of the
information on a professionally made digital or analogue master. This is not arguable. There are several important specs when
it comes to reproducing stereo music:
1) Surface noise - Well this is an easy one. Is there surface noise..turntable rumble..pops..crackles..wow...flutter on the
original 2-track master? No.
2) Stereo separation - This is measured in db, and tells you how well the hardware is able to keep the music in the right
channel from bleeding over into the left channel and visa-versa. The approximate amount of stereo separation on a 1/4" analogue
master tape is 90-105 db. The highest amount you can get from even the highest-end phono cartridge is roughly 35-39 db. CD
comes in around 90 or so. As you can see, there's no real contest here.
3) Dynamic Range - Is the ability of your hardware and media to reproduce the rapid, volume changes in a recording. Example
being a classical recording where the orchestra quiets to a tiny hush, then suddenly blasts out with all guns blazing. Vinyl is
not very good at this either. As a matter-of-fact, it's awful. An enormous amount of compression is required to keep your phono
cartridge from distorting, no less jumping physically out of the groove on great amounts of amplitude, so engineers in the
vinyl days used what was called the RIAA curve. This was a set of compression and equalisation standards for: a) keeping your
needle in it's groove and
b) eq-ing the hell out of the master to make-up for vinyls deficiencies in extremely low and high frequency response. Vinyls
ability to reproduce high frequencies is poor.
This is an extremely important point: In the early days of CD's due both to greed and ignorance on the part of most record
companies, Master tapes processed with the RIAA curve and INTENDED FOR VINYL, were casually schlepped onto CD. This was done
for the vast majority of back catalog titles in the 80's and early 90's. As you should easily see, this was a problem since CD
had no need for boosted treble and high compression, causing these early cd's to sound tinny and harsh. This, my friends is
where the entire "Vinyl sounds warmer" thing started, and it's entirely understandable.
By the mid-90's, industry people started figuring this out, and thus the "remaster" revolution.
Now, do vinyl records sound "warmer" than cd's? Possibly, since they are technically incapable of producing anywhere near the
high frequency accuracy of cd's. But it then becomes a valid question of personal taste at this point. If you are in search of
"warmth" whatever that may be, since it's a non-measurable, subjective term, then vinyl may sound more pleasing to your ear,
and there's certainly nothing wrong with that. However, if you're aim is "High Fidelity" and you want to hear an album as close
as possible to the tape the band approved, then cd, or better yet, high resolution DVD-audio or SACD would be what you want.
Sonic accuracy is not for everyone. I have news for you "warmth-o-philes"...Trumpets are not warm. Crash cymbals are not warm. In reality they are brash, loud and sometimes harsh. If you are looking for the sound of real music, then you have to accept what real instruments sound like, warts and all. I hope this cleared up some of the more confusing aspects of the debate.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Let me make it easier than that...
A piece of vinyl is only as good as the source tape used and the mastering. Vinyl has it's own mastering process and that is why it often sounds better...because special care is put into it. For example, a vinyl pressing might be very raw and dynamic, while the CD has been heavily compressed and brickwalled, giving you a totally different effect. It's all because of the mastering, not the quality of vinyl itself.
Now let me explain why the Pearl Jam catalog SUCKS on vinyl. They're one of the few bands who don't use a special mastering process...they just take the already-mastered CD version and make the vinyl directly from that, which completely defeats the purpose and reduces it to a mere novelty. You can get the same effect by playing the CD with a crackling fire in the background. Any "differences" you are hearing are due to your turntable setup. So it's a total waste of time (and money), and anybody who says otherwise generally doesn't have a clue.
And in regards to tape sources, albums from the 60's often sound better on vinyl because the tapes were in better shape when the vinyl was made, or were completely lost afterwards. So the only choice for the best sound quality is to get the vinyl. For example, Jimi Hendrix's first UK album has never been on CD, because the tapes disappeared. So most commonly, people will turn to the UK vinyl pressing. However, the UK pressing is very poorly mastered. Eventually a very brilliant individual discovered that the FRENCH version of the album was mastered superbly, and sounds light years better than the UK pressing, as if it came from tapes generations lower. So now, to hear Jimi's first album in excellent quality and as it was originally intended, you must own the original French vinyl. There is no other choice.
Does this make more sense?
the guy's quote is my stance.
So I have to get a French imported version of an album recorded in the UK by a guy from Seattle? I'm totally lost.
You're right that people do take digital masters and putting them to vinyl...however, the digital source tape is usually at 24 bit wav files rather than a CD's 16. Which makes a huge difference in sound quality.
I listen to both vinyl and cd, and the main reason I listen to vinyl is this. The world moves so damn fast these days, and with running a restaurant, newly married, and all the other things that suck up my hours each day, one of the only things that truly relaxes me is to take the record out of the jacket, take the time to clean it with the brush, put the needle down, sit on my very comfortable couch, and just sit. And listen. And get lost in the music. I guess you could argue that you could easily do the same thing with a cd, but there is something about taking the time to get to my music that really appeals to me. I like flipping through my albums instead of scrolling down a screen. I like feeling them in my hands. It forces me to slow down. And having the artwork that much bigger and accessible, the lyric sheets more tangible....well, it just makes the experience that much better.
Other than whichever you prefer.
"This means that, by definition, a digital recording is not capturing the complete sound wave. It is approximating it with a series of steps. Some sounds that have very quick transitions, such as a drum beat or a trumpet's tone, will be distorted because they change too quickly for the sample rate. "
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
Of course the human ear is not really gonna be able to pick up on the little gaps and approximations that are made when digitizing the sound wave... in today's age.
I always used to go off of that explanation, but it's too narrow and over simplified.
It carries several false implications:
1) The graph suggests that vinyl is catching the wave perfectly (which I've explained that properly recorded vinyl mimics sound worse than a properly recorded CD)
2) It suggests that the source audio wave is perfect to begin with (which Evacuation Rules has explained that it isn't the case when pressing media with digital masters)
3) It suggests that the listener is going to be able to notice the difference throughout the listening experience (which you've just explained that only in rare instances they will be able to.)
Just read this. Pretty interesting
http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/643-the-myth-and-the-reality-of-the-43-download/