CDs sound better than vinyl . . .

[PrestonTom]

Dr Who,

You have let these guys bait you.

This debate is not about exchanging infomation, it is about some very deep-seated convictions that individuals possess. That is the context and these opinions will not be easily swayed.

Just for fun, you haven't mentioned the fact that once a "digital" signal has gone through the DAC and been low-pass filtered (reconstruction filter), then that waveform is now "very analog". However, this is cheap baiting on my part and I really don't expect anyone to change their religious convictions over this.

Enjoying your stereo is a function of so many things. The issue of the media (good analog vs good digital) pales in comparison to the very significant issues of recording quality & recording gimmicks, speakers, room acoustics, expectations, etc. It is unfortunate that we always concentrate on the 2nd order effects and don't tackle the bigger problems.

-Tom

[garymd]

Don't start feeling sorry for Dr. Who. Every time an analog vs. digital debate begins, he's the first one to stick his neck out in favor of digital yet he knows nothing about vinyl and has never owned a TT. He should just stay out of these debates until he has more experience.

[seti]

You are the one telling me I'm yet to hear a "decent" vinyl setup...and so far the most expensive I've heard has been around $15,000. How much was the setup in Hope? Was it "decent" on your standards? Not like it matters, the acoustics were horrid and so was the volume. I've also heard a few dozen vinyl rigs here and there all ranging between relatively cheap and moderately priced. The majority of vinyl lovers out there would say I've heard quite a few systems that represent good sounding vinyl.

But if that's still not enough personal experience, tell me what I need to listen to and with what gear etc etc...I will glady give a blunt review, especially if it means claiming the vinyl sounds better. I'm willing to drive within a 2 hour radius from 60504 or 61820.

The big room in Hope was terrible acousticly and spl wise. I could not stay in there for more than a couple minutes as I just can't and won't listen that loud OUCH. There were some ears being ruined in there.

I didn't think you made it to the smaller room in Hope but we had a sweet rig.

Khorns, BAT PRE / BAT PHONO PRE both tube based , McIntosch MC30 Tube Amps , Cambridge CDP , MMF 2.1 TT w/grado cart $600 turntable rig. This system was not the end all be all but very respectable.

We alternated between vinyl and cds and listened to alot of music. Many were very suprised how nice vinly sounded. Kaisers LP collection is very clean. I wish you could have listened with us as it was a good sounding system. I think alot of us were suprised how well the khorns sounded in such a small room.

I love music be it CD LP HD

[Rivendell61]

DrWho--I see a 192kHz mention.....uh oh. Speed kills. Faster is not always better and while audiophiles love the idea of 'faster', all converters will create more signal damage at 192 than at 88/96. It is a sales tool only (as is 'resolution', 'hi-rez', etc).

I am curious though why you think 192kHz should sound worse...do they sacrifice accuracy to achieve the larger bandwidth?

DrWho,

Yes, exactly. Although note....I said 'signal damage', i.e., there is a loss of accuracy--which does not necessarily translate into your more subjective expression: 'sounds worse' (e.g., the current discussion--). There are a couple of pro-oriented converter makers who refuse on principle to make a DAC with a signal rate of 192kHz (Benchmark is one), but most go along since sales are lost if they do not provide the 'better', 'hi-rez' converter.

This is, no doubt, all derived from the misconception that an increased sample rate will improve something called 'resolution'--when it really only changes frequency response. Resolution is not a real issue. There are no subtle, inter-sample, sound artifacts which are 'lost' at lower sample rates. Although this is a pervasive belief among audiophiles and audio engineers. Impulse response arguments get brought in here, etc--

This brings me back to the subject at hand. Some of the more interesting vinyl advocates have oddly adopted those digital arguments (the bogus ones mind you) about fast sampling to provide technical validation to their subjective preference. So you will sometimes see it claimed that since vinyl is analog it has a continuous, smooth, 'infinite' sample rate, thus being superior.... Oh well.

Mark

[maxg]

Emotive subject this one - isn't it. It is akin to SET Vs PP I suppose - on this forum at least.

I do not think I need to share my opinion on this - I would guess you all know it by now. Suffice to say - if anyone can demonstrate to me a digital ANYTHING front end that matches the sound I currently get from my vinyl rig I will be VERY pleased if it is this side of $10,000.

It is also worth bearing in mind that whilst my analogue front end was not cheap - the media is rarely expensive. I have about 1500 records all in. If I had purchased these in CD form along with a moderate $1,000 player I think it would have cost more:

TT : $10,000

Records : $7,500 (@ $5 on average)

Total : $17,500

Cd player : $1,000

CD's : $18,000 (@ $12 per on average)

Total : $19,000

Anyway - that is the story I told SWMBO and I am sticking to it.

Obviously which way you go should be largely determined by what format best supports your chosen musical genre (if you really have to have one or the other).

Finally - it is my completely biased opinion that if you hear a good record playing with a linear tracking arm there is nothng better - anywhere. I demonstrate this to amused onlookers on occasion using the last movement of Sheherezade on RCA Living Stereo. Inner Groove Distortion? What's that?

[jacksonbart]

Emotive subject this one - isn't it. It is akin to SET Vs PP I suppose - on this forum at least.

I do not think I need to share my opinion on this - I would guess you all know it by now. Suffice to say - if anyone can demonstrate to me a digital ANYTHING front end that matches the sound I currently get from my vinyl rig I will be VERY pleased if it is this side of $10,000.

It is also worth bearing in mind that whilst my analogue front end was not cheap - the media is rarely expensive. I have about 1500 records all in. If I had purchased these in CD form along with a moderate $1,000 player I think it would have cost more:

TT : $10,000

Records : $7,500 (@ $5 on average)

Total : $17,500

Cd player : $1,000

CD's : $18,000 (@ $12 per on average)

Total : $19,000

You didn't account for storage of all that vinyl. The extra shelves and space, about $5000.00, which puts CDs ahead once more.

[maxg]

JB,

Shut up!!![]

On the other hand I never found a $1000 CD that could hold a candle to my vinyl rig.

So lets make it $6,000 and I am still quids in.

[DrWho]

Yes, exactly. Although note....I

said 'signal damage', i.e., there is a loss of accuracy--which does not

necessarily translate into your more subjective expression: 'sounds

worse' (e.g., the current discussion--). There are a couple of

pro-oriented converter makers who refuse on principle to make a

DAC with a signal rate of 192kHz (Benchmark is one), but most go along

since sales are lost if they do not provide the 'better', 'hi-rez'

converter.

This is, no doubt, all derived from the misconception that an

increased sample rate will improve something called 'resolution'--when

it really only changes frequency response. Resolution is not

a real issue. There are no subtle, inter-sample, sound artifacts which

are 'lost' at lower sample rates. Although this is a pervasive belief

among audiophiles and audio engineers. Impulse response arguments get

brought in here, etc--

Could it not be argued that the higher sample rates should have less

clocking issues (slight timing errors getting averaged out over time)?

And I thought the other side of the coin was that the higher bandwidth

allowed a higher lowpass filter with a shallower slope to get rid of

the brickwall effects. I'd swear 96 sounded better than 44.1, but I've

never

actually put them side by side.

.

.

.

If you want your CDs to sound their best, get a cd player with a

clock signal input and then get yourself one of them fancy digital

clocks. And if that's not good enough, get yourself a DAC also with a

clock signal input and run your cd player digitally into it. A $1000

budget would be pushing it, but $6k should be totally feasible.

[LarryC]

If you want your CDs to sound their best, get a cd player with a clock signal input and then get yourself one of them fancy digital clocks. And if that's not good enough, get yourself a DAC also with a clock signal input and run your cd player digitally into it. A $1000 budget would be pushing it, but $6k should be totally feasible.

I have a separate transport and DAC that are "clocklinked" together (I think Wadia was a pioneer in clocklinking), and the master clock is as close as possible to the DAC chips. The links between the two units are glass fiber, one for the digital signal and one for the clocklink. Is that about the same thing you're describing?

[Deang]

Dr Who,

You have let these guys bait you.

This debate is not about exchanging infomation, it is about some very deep-seated convictions that individuals possess. That is the context and these opinions will not be easily swayed.

Just for fun, you haven't mentioned the fact that once a "digital" signal has gone through the DAC and been low-pass filtered (reconstruction filter), then that waveform is now "very analog". However, this is cheap baiting on my part and I really don't expect anyone to change their religious convictions over this.

Enjoying your stereo is a function of so many things. The issue of the media (good analog vs good digital) pales in comparison to the very significant issues of recording quality & recording gimmicks, speakers, room acoustics, expectations, etc. It is unfortunate that we always concentrate on the 2nd order effects and don't tackle the bigger problems.

-Tom

Yup.

[DrWho]

I have a separate transport and DAC that are

"clocklinked" together (I think Wadia was a pioneer in clocklinking),

and the master clock is as close as possible to the DAC chips. The

links between the two units are glass fiber, one for the digital signal

and one for the clocklink. Is that about the same thing you're

describing?

Ya, I suppose it's pretty much the same thing...I was talking more

about having a completely seperate unit that all it does is provide a

master clocking signal. Something like this:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/bigben.php

and here's a few more for comparison:

http://www.bayviewproaudio.com/Word_Clock__Sync-p-1-c-126.html

I'd argue there is definetly a point of diminishing returns, but you

guys with crazy budgets might enjoy playing around with it. Ultimately

I think the recording going onto either medium is the limiting factor.

And as I was trying to ellude to earlier - sometimes the distortions

inherant with all the different mediums are intentional parts of the

music. I don't know any serious studio that converted from awesome

analog to digital that didn't keep at least some of their old analog

gear to use as extra processing. Heck, when it's there I'll run drums

through an analog cassette deck [] - it takes them brittle highs

right off without making them completely disappear.

Usually the grain associated with digital is due to the mics being used

that were built extra crisp to naturally compensate for the popular

medium of the day. It's quickly apparent when you're listening to the

raw signal on your monitors and then compare it to the playback of the

recording (yikes). The notion is further supported by taking a quick

look at the specs of the mics in question (that severely narrow the HF

polars to achieve extra boost in the 10kHz region). And again, I'm not

trying to claim digital is perfect and it does have a characteristic

"grain" (I don't like that term though), but it is something easily

worked around if the engineer doesn't want it to be an issue. Just like

engineers work around the limitations of all the analog mediums too.

Digital is newer so they haven't had as much time to perfect the art.

[colterphoto1]

FORGET about clock rates, ticks and scratches, etc.

FEEL the MUSIC!

You see, I have hundreds of LP's, many of which have never been released on CD, some which never will be- even if I could locate and afford them. To me it's more about enjoying the music. I'll take the convenience of CD's and will 'suffer' through the slight problems with some old vinyl. The amount of music available at my fingertips increases exponentially if I keep a turntable in my system.

This is in agreement with Max's theory and one which sits well with musical historians or lifetime collectors of music. Although I have probably 1000 CD's, some of that old vinyl is like old friends.

STOP THINKING Doc, it's working against you. Fall in love with music again. What really turns you on? Is it the machinery or the tunes man?

Accordingly, I've just made initial arrangements to swap out my Technics rig for a Thorens TD125MKII. YEEEAAAAHHHHHHH!

Michael

[kaiser SET say]

Flame thrower here[]

Who, I have been a fiber optic tech on sonnet and dwdm gear for many years and am completly familiar with external timing devices for digital applications and as Larry my EAD CDT-1000/DSP 7000 are clocked together and connected via AT&T ST fiber but that still does not deminish what I hear when I listen to music on my system.

It is subjective and I will stand by my ears and beliefs until as Max said I'm aurally shown differently and as of this date it's never happened. I have always tried my best to stay away from the deep technical side of things as after all it is what I hear and how I hear it that matters most. I may very well be in denial but I do hear lots of annoying things in the digital domain that far exceeds pops, clicks, wow & flutter and just any old surface noise you might describe or come up with[:^)]

I can't tell you how many friends have told me I'm an idiot if I think I can hear anything as fast as digital is but I have heard or not heard crap at any digital sampling or rate so maybe I am but I will stand by my conviction until my internal clock stops[]

I'm not so sure if this subject draws out passion or angst but it sure gets the ball rolling around this place, so can we talk the big bad and powerful 2A3 for a while now[6]

[Timmikid]

Congratulations Michael! That's a nice TT! I am looking forward to the thread with pics you'll start when you get it. Is there an arm fitted to it? Cart? A 3009 or 30012 arm would be great... Ehhh, back topic we go.

I hardly buy cd's anymore, if possible vinyl for home use and cd for portable use. Tim.

[Rivendell61]

Could it not be argued that the higher sample rates should have less clocking issues (slight timing errors getting averaged out over time)? And I thought the other side of the coin was that the higher bandwidth allowed a higher lowpass filter with a shallower slope to get rid of the brickwall effects. I'd swear 96 sounded better than 44.1, but I've never

actually put them side by side..

.

If you want your CDs to sound their best, get a cd player with a clock signal input and then get yourself one of them fancy digital clocks. And if that's not good enough, get yourself a DAC also with a clock signal input and run your cd player digitally into it. A $1000 budget would be pushing it, but $6k should be totally feasible.

OK, I think there are three subjects here.

1) Re Timing Error: there is no timing error at the output of a DAC. And sample rate has no influence on timing resolution. Internally any very small timing error (nanosecond stuff) becomes white noise which is....down in the noise floor (i.e., a non-issue).

2) Yes, moving up from 44.1 a bit may indeed be an improvement. But as you note that is not intrinsic to the increased rate (i.e., not regarding the capture/sample rate) but it comes from helping poor filters at the output. However, once you get past the 88/96 area the computational degradation negates that. For this same reason most DACs now run at very high (mHz) rates internally--but again, this is nothing to do with the "audio sample rate". So, 192kHz is crapping up the signal for no benefit.

3) Some manufacturers (e.g., Apogee) try to sell the idea of external clocks--but I think you will find that most EEs who deal in converters will disagree. The local clock is almost always going to be better than an external.

DrWho, I don't want to hijack this thread to a digital discussion but if you want some links re the points above I can provide some (I don't expect you are likely to take my word on it!).

Mark

[DrWho]

STOP THINKING Doc, it's working against you.

Fall in love with music again. What really turns you on? Is it the

machinery or the tunes man?

Both [] I love making music (even brought my viola out of it's cave

just recently) and of course I enjoy listening to music (just went

straight through my favorite album yesterday - gonna do my second fave

this afternoon). But I also love the engineering aspects as well, which

is why I'm majoring in it.

[jacksonbart]

Dr. Who, I spent $20,000 on a TT, $5,000 on vintage tube amp, $25,000.00 on some kick *** heavy duty cables, $28,000.00 on a kick *** cartridge and spent more than I would like to admit on some magic rocks. You know what, it compares to my neighbors CD based set up. What gives? I know spinning vinyl is romantic and nostalgic so it forces me to listen or get up and move that f&cking needle to jump ahead to the song I love. The album covers much better compared to those stupid little lame inserts on CDs and LP covers are easy to read with great art work. Just the simple fact of carefully slipping out a record, notice the weight and the groves like a women, out of the LP cover, smelling it (don't lie you do it) and carefully placing it on the TT gives me wood in anticipation of what I am going to hear. The tubes require time to warm up so it make me think in advance and set aside time ahead to actual "listen" that I would never do if I all I had to do was incert a CD, yet when I hear the sound from my neighbors system I really can't tell the difference, except my system has no bass and some extra clicks. I like the forced concentration that the LP requires, it makes me relax. If my wife comes in I can yell "get the F out I am listening". Those silver or possible gold discs are stupid regardless of science and sound. Come on LPs rule. Dr Who accept the science of my mind. BTW your younger than I so I must be correct.

[DrWho]

OK, I think there are three subjects here.

1) Re Timing Error: there is no timing error at the output of

a DAC. And sample rate has no influence on timing resolution.

Internally any very small timing error (nanosecond stuff) becomes white

noise which is....down in the noise floor (i.e., a non-issue).

2) Yes, moving up from 44.1 a bit may indeed be an improvement. But

as you note that is not intrinsic to the increased rate (i.e., not

regarding the capture/sample rate) but it comes from helping poor

filters at the output. However, once you get past the 88/96 area the

computational degradation negates that. For this same reason most DACs

now run at very high (mHz) rates internally--but again, this is nothing

to do with the "audio sample rate". So, 192kHz is crapping up the

signal for no benefit.

3) Some manufacturers (e.g., Apogee) try to sell the idea of

external clocks--but I think you will find that most EEs who deal in

converters will disagree. The local clock is almost always going to be

better than an external.

I'd love to see some links. They're always fun to show to the professors too []

For what it's worth, I was talking more about the length of 1/44,100th second. If you

make that time period any longer or shorter, the output of the filter

becomes very different than what is intended. You can see the effects

of this in the long scale by playing 3 different digital devices with

the same medium for say 30 minutes...after 30 min it wouldn't be

uncommon to see them being as much as 3 seconds off. Repeat the test a

couple times and you'll notice that the difference changes too. So

naturally there would have to be something happening at the very

smallest scale to account for it. Sync everything up to the same master

word clock and you no longer have these issues.

In regards to playback, if the clock pulse for the CD player is

slower than the clock pulse for the digital conversion in the studio,

then you end up with a slight shift in frequency - which as we all

should know, a perfect mathematical shift of frequency doesn't sound natural

to the human ear (thus why pianos are tuned by ear and not by

frequency, and pitch shifting devices are using fancy alogorithms).

Granted, these shifts will be very small (probably smaller than any

percievable pitch), but I don't think it would sound the same either.

So the idea of the master clock is to hopefully use something that

is using a clock pulse length closer to what was used in the studio.

But ya, we're probably going way off topic...maybe take it to a new thread?

[maxg]

"You can see the effects of this in the long scale by playing 3 different digital devices with the same medium for say 30 minutes...after 30 min it wouldn't be uncommon to see them being as much as 3 seconds off. Repeat the test a couple times and you'll notice that the difference changes too. So naturally there would have to be something happening at the very smallest scale to account for it."

WTF?

You mean a CD is accurate to 3 seconds in 30 minutes? That is 0.2% or the equivalent of running a 33.33.... rpm disk at 33.36.

When I bought the power supply for my TT it promised accuracy to 0.01 rpm - or 33.3433...

My TT is more accurate in timing that a CD player!

That I did not expect.

I see on another thread there are now belt drive CD players....tis a funny old world....and the other day a friend gave me a recordable CD done up to look like an old 45 rpm single.

At the current rate of progress CD's will be 12 inches, black, need flipping and entirely analogue by Christmas.

Then what will we agure about?

[jacksonbart]

"You can see the effects of this in the long scale by playing 3 different digital devices with the same medium for say 30 minutes...after 30 min it wouldn't be uncommon to see them being as much as 3 seconds off. Repeat the test a couple times and you'll notice that the difference changes too. So naturally there would have to be something happening at the very smallest scale to account for it."

WTF?

You mean a CD is accurate to 3 seconds in 30 minutes? That is 0.2% or the equivalent of running a 33.33.... rpm disk at 33.36.

When I bought the power supply for my TT it promised accuracy to 0.01 rpm - or 33.3433...

My TT is more accurate in timing that a CD player!

That I did not expect.

I see on another thread there are now belt drive CD players....tis a funny old world....and the other day a friend gave me a recordable CD done up to look like an old 45 rpm single.

At the current rate of progress CD's will be 12 inches, black, need flipping and entirely analogue by Christmas.

Then what will we agure about?

I agree records suck, what all this agruement about?