Vinyl lovers---please describe the reasons for your preference over CD

Hi Goodmorning,

After participating in a shootout between various high end DAC and Linn Sondek , I have been thinking about the reasons of my preference.

Theory 1.
I grew up with turntable sound and hence my preference is because of familiarity .

Theory 2.
Turntable sound high light the mid and the bass resulting in better protrayal of the emotion of the singer. With CD, there is more resolution and this overwhelm the senses.

Well i hope others will share their experiences and thoughts. I am all ears to learn !

kp93300

Hi Kp,

That is a hard question. But all of us (above 40 that is) probably started with vinyl until the lure of digital and its promises came round. In terms of convenience and lack of ticks and pops, digital (CD) is better.
To cut a long story short, CD initially (almost always) sounds better in the bass but loses out in the treble, against the vinyl high frequency polish (bass weakness and high frequency 'sizzle' usually due to bad vinyl set up actually) - listen to the cymbals. However, when you move up the chain of vinyl, the bass is better still with more textures and the stereo imaging is uncanny compared to CD.
But (and it is a big but), in order to enjoy that CD busting sound, you may have to spend more, though according to the music journalists like Michael Fremer of Stereophile fame, you spend less than CD for vinyl heaven.
To close, the first thing to get for vinyl is a good (vacuum) record cleaner and a great stylus brush - if you are like me who prowls the second hand record market that is.

Good luck then.

kp93300 wrote:Hi Goodmorning,

After participating in a shootout between various high end DAC and Linn Sondek , I have been thinking about the reasons of my preference.

Theory 1.
I grew up with turntable sound and hence my preference is because of familiarity .

Theory 2.
Turntable sound high light the mid and the bass resulting in better protrayal of the emotion of the singer. With CD, there is more resolution and this overwhelm the senses.

Well i hope others will share their experiences and thoughts. I am all ears to learn !

kp93300

1) Vinyl does not suffer the ill effects of A/D and then D/A signal conversions.

2) If you compare between a LP vs. a CD of a same artist album, and provided the LP has not suffered any in-groove damage or mishandling, the LP will have much higher resolution than a CD anytime.

3) There are LPs that have lasted more than 50 years and are perfectly playable. CDs would degenerate and suffer oxidation to its aluminium layers after approx 15~20 years of lifespan. YMMV.


CD is an inferior format compared to LP when it comes to sound quality and sonic performance. But CD is a superior format when it comes to convenience, durability (within its usable lifespan, that is), portability, and ubiquity.

samazzah wrote:

To cut a long story short, CD initially (almost always) sounds better in the bass but loses out in the treble, against the vinyl high frequency polish (bass weakness and high frequency 'sizzle' usually due to bad vinyl set up actually)

high frequency sizzle in LPs is caused more by wrong riaa settings than bad set-ups.

kp93300 wrote:

After participating in a shootout between various high end DAC and Linn Sondek , I have been thinking about the reasons of my preference.

Theory 1.
I grew up with turntable sound and hence my preference is because of familiarity .

Theory 2.
Turntable sound high light the mid and the bass resulting in better protrayal of the emotion of the singer. With CD, there is more resolution and this overwhelm the senses.

did u compare vinyl with cd or vinyl with hi-res files?

sflam wrote:

samazzah wrote:

To cut a long story short, CD initially (almost always) sounds better in the bass but loses out in the treble, against the vinyl high frequency polish (bass weakness and high frequency 'sizzle' usually due to bad vinyl set up actually)

high frequency sizzle in LPs is caused more by wrong riaa settings than bad set-ups.

You can't generalise here. There are much more factors that can cause the high freqs to sizzle, snap, crackle and pop, or roll off , roll on, roll under, roll over, etc etc etc.

kp93300 wrote:

Theory 1.
I grew up with turntable sound and hence my preference is because of familiarity .

actually there is a theory that those who grew up with vinyl became accustomed to distortion.
this is because the stylus - regardless of the alignment - will mistrack and distort from the first track to the last track. the various alignments only serve to minimise the mistracking to either the beginning or the ending of the grooves (correct me if i am wrong).
so we actually listened to distorted sound from vinyl all those years and became used to it.
so when the cd was introduced and the music was without distortion, it sounded 'worse' than vinyl.

a similar theory was posited to explain why many people preferred valve amps when transistor amps were introduced.
valve amps distort more than transistor amps. so the valve junkies were also accustomed to distortion.
solid state amps with much lower distortion levels sounded 'cold' and 'clinical' and 'bad' to the valve fans.

sflam wrote:

kp93300 wrote:

Theory 1.
I grew up with turntable sound and hence my preference is because of familiarity .

actually there is a theory that those who grew up with vinyl became accustomed to distortion.
this is because the stylus - regardless of the alignment - will mistrack and distort from the first track to the last track. the various alignments only serve to minimise the mistracking to either the beginning or the ending of the grooves (correct me if i am wrong).
so we actually listened to distorted sound from vinyl all those years and became used to it.
so when the cd was introduced and the music was without distortion, it sounded 'worse' than vinyl.

Whatabout the distortions that are inherent to digital audio as well?
There is alot of garbage in the A/D stage like clock timing errors (which already permanently damages the captured digital information), lowpass filtering to avoid aliasing in the A/D stage, etc etc...

And the same if not more amount of garbage as well in the D/A stage like the digital filters introducing pre-echo and post-echo ringing....
clock timing jitters as well .. and even more filtering to remove sonic artifacts mirrored around the Nyquist freq.

Analog playback does not suffer any of the above (although it has its own other set of challenges that doesn't plague digital mediums) !

So don't be so quick or sure that digital playback gives a "less distorted" sound compared to analog mediums.

RIAA settings generally can't be changed unless you have a phono pre that does. And the variation of RIAA curves are minimal, unless you are referring to some of the wild curves (non standard ones that is)
Vinyl needs proper cartridge loadings and proper cartridge alignment. Set up in a vinyl system is crucial, ticks and pops don't count in the set up unless its dirt.
To be accustomed to distortion in one way or another is only for novices who do not go to live performances - that is the only reference.
By the way I do have some of the earliest CDs (nearly 30 years old) and they have not oxidised at all. There were reports how some were but that was the exception. In support of digital though, if the polycarbonate seals were good, the aluminium oxide was designed not to leak ever - causing oxidisation.

samazzah wrote:RIAA settings generally can't be changed unless you have a phono pre that does. And the variation of RIAA curves are minimal, unless you are referring to some of the wild curves (non standard ones that is)

RIAA is a standard in itself already. Any variations due to component tolerances would be deviations from the RIAA curve.

However, there are many other non-RIAA standards, especially for older LPs from the 60's or older era.

Just to list a few:
- Columbia aka "LP" curve
- NAB
- AES
- Decca aka "London" curve
- RCA / Old Orthophonic (predecessor to the RIAA)
- Telefunken / DIN45533
- Telefunken 78rpm curve
- Bartok (used by the Bartok label)
- numerous more etc etc etc...

This doesn't make all these old curves anymore "wrong" than what would make a "right" RIAA curve.

samazzah wrote:

RIAA settings generally can't be changed unless you have a phono pre that does. And the variation of RIAA curves are minimal, unless you are referring to some of the wild curves (non standard ones that is)

i know people will say that just becos i tested an fm acoustics phono linearizer, i hv been converted and am now championing the 'right riaa' curve cause.

the prob is i hv now realised many albums were cut using the wrong riaa curves, even the reissues.

i hv now realised that we hv been listening to vinyl with the wrong tonal balance all these years.

harsh treble, bad midrange, dull sound, no soundstage - they are caused by wrong riaa curves and not the tonearm or cartridge or turntable.

i know a lot of people will 'ketuk' me but this is what i hv come to realise.

variation of riaa curves is actually not minimal.

sflam wrote:i know people will say that just becos i tested an fm acoustics phono linearizer, i hv been converted and am now championing the 'right riaa' curve cause.

Dude, what really does "right riaa" curve means? Is there a "wrong riaa" curve as well? Perhaps you can shed some light into this complexity? Just because the vintage reccord labels did not adopt RIAA standards until much later, doesn't make their curves anymore "wrong" as opposed to any "right" curve.

There are Pre-RIAA curves (mostly pre-1960s) which certain mfgs adopted for certain reasons, and then there's RIAA standardisation (post 1960s) which most major labels adopted. But there are also some late adopters especially LP labels from eastern european countries and even some parts of Asia that persevered on with older legacy curves well into the late 70s (or even possibly early 80s ) before finally adopting the RIAA spec for LP cutting.


Hence, curves are either RIAA, or NOT-RIAA (which is everything else used in the pre-RIAA standardisation era). If a LP mfg decided to cut a master disc using their own "custom curve", then its "their curve"(e.g. Bartok label) . If it was the pre-RIAA standardisation days, then it could any of the older curves listed previously(i.e. AES, NAB, LP, Decca, etc...) , or again, their own custom curve. So what really is a "wrong RIAA" curve here? Why would any record label in their right mind would want to cut any funky custom curve or do a "wrong RIAA" curve here when all the Phono playback systems since the 70s are all tuned to the RIAA curve already? Doesn't make sense at all dude...


BTW, a "linearizer" sounds like a glorified name for a fancy high-end graphic equaliser. C'mon, lets be honest here and call a treble knob, a "treble knob", and a bass knob a "bass knob". Of course, in today's era of laser sharp marketing, they'd apply fancy labels on it like "turnover" and "trim" or etc etc to make their phono stage products have that extra edge over the their competitors...

IMO of course.

No one really knows (except for the folks* in the recording & mastering studios who produced the master discs) how much quantity of "wrongness" was the RIAA curve used, and even so, how more more to compensate back. Except if someone goes and do some forensic work on how the LP master was recorded in the first place.


* Then again, if they knew what they were doing were wrong and didn't fix it ... then it must not have been wrong by their standards or methods anyways ...

Very very recently I have the chance to listen to a really high-end, up-to-date (as in latest model) and I would say perhaps even semi 'state of the art' hi-res DAC in a truly high-end system. It was impressive indeed.

Until the owner played me an LP. The TT he was using is not really that 'high-end' but the sound was so much better that there and then, I knew that my opinion all these while, which I still had the tinest of doubt previously because I felt I have not heard the best of the hi-res digital available now in a truly high end system, well that opinion is in truth very valid. There seems to be no way digital, even current hi-res digital, can challenge what we have managed to acheive using the trusted LP.

In my opinion, an LP playback is more difficult to get totally right compared to digital and therein lies one of its greatest shortcoming. The traditional view is that the LP playback comprises the turntable, the tonearm and the catridge, perhaps with ancilliaries like the power supply and the cables. But this is incorrect. The complete LP playback system includes the aforesaid items PLUS the phono stage (multi-curve if you like very old music) including the power supply and cables for the phono stage and two MOST CRITICAL components:

1. The SET-UP of the turntable/arm/catridge.
2. The quality of the LP itself.

I think many people do know about the requirements of the setup but perhaps few have accorded it the importance it really deserves. My experience in last year's KLAVS, IMHO, clearly illustrates how critical set-up skill is. The best turntable system will sound dissapointing with less than excellent setup. A merely "very good" turntable system set-up excellently will kill off the best example of today's hi-res DAC. What happens if the owner had decided to invest into say, an Artemis Lab, or Clearaudio Master Reference or Clearaudio Statement turntable ? The result can only be truly awe-inspiring.

Of course just my opinions, formed by my limited experience.

I will not venture to put names on the components in the system because I am not sure if the owner is a regular in this forum and perhaps he wouldn't like it. But suffice it to say the hi-res DAC alone costs more than the whole LP playback system, including the phono stage. Of course no value can be placed on the set up skills of the owner or his dealer.

I don't know what others think but I really not impressed and dislike the end result transfer of 16bit digitized analog LP's to CD done assumed done locally (as it should be from master tapes or whatever).
Bought a Uji Rashid 4 CD compilation (EMI) and the first 2 discs containing tracks having traces of clicks pops, whatever inherent flaws of the source material, moreover the last track was full of muddled up and distorted like from a dirty stylus playing up. Thats the kind of local stuff found here. I just think the label were either lazy to source the master tapes or its lost forever or just contracted from someone with a supposidely ok LP copy.
The point is, sound digitized from LP to red book is simply far less faithful from actual potential. I just don't enjoy it, rather posibbly happier for a very coloured, over equalized or boosted volume version that its at least from the master tape. Disgusted with this evening's purchase.

I know the feeling cmboy.
I also kena with Rahimah Rahim's 'digital version of her LPs.. sounds like the LP has been played and recorded using a cheap wornout stylus.. I've been had.

I just want to buy a VW Golf ...

bassraptor wrote:I just want to buy a VW Golf ...

Call this guy ..... i PM u his number ...

mugenfoo wrote:
Dude, what really does "right riaa" curve means? Is there a "wrong riaa" curve as well?

u r right. it is a complex issue. before the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) set up its equalisation curve as an industry standard in 1954, different companies used their own curves.
however, some companies did not follow the riaa curve after 1954 and they continued to follow their own curves. some companies did not reconfigure their equipment and so continued to use their own curves.
so in a way, these companies used the 'wrong' equalisation curves as they did not follow the riaa standard.
to be more accurate, they did not use the 'wrong riaa curve' but they used a non-riaa curve.
this situation continued till perhaps as late as the 1980s. to complicate matters the cutting lathes used before 1968 were unable to perfectly cut the very high velocities at frequencies above 10kHz. To circumvent this problem mastering engineers attenuated the higher part of the frequency spectrum. so again the curve became non-riaa.
to complicate matters some more, phono preamp manufacturers dutifully followed the riaa specs.
so you hv a situation whereby a phono preamp with correct riaa curve equalisation was used wth LPs that did not follow the riaa curve.
that's why the tonal balance of many LPs sounded wrong and audiophiles thought the tonearm or cartridge or turntable or vta or vtf or tracking weight or wrong impedance loading was to blame.

OK, so we may hear "wrong sounds" once a while, I'll live with that. Whats so right about digitized music anyhow? Its all mixed down with their own sound flavor and color which the label hope it'll please most listeners who bought the disc. So many rights, so many wrongs in this world and we're all mortal. My half bass deaf in one ear neighbor buddy still listens to audiophile music and doesn't show his irritation to me, never once.
I realise now more than ever that I enjoy LP sound over the digital version anytime. I just have no choice but to listen to a digital version because either the LP is too damn expensive or unavailable to me indefinitely. Not to mention some so called re-issue albums sound like from the shitpot compared to its early or original release, moreover a damn waste of good money. Live and let live lah.

A lot of modern music are mastered in the digitial format. For e.g. Tom Petty's latest MOJO album uses 24/96 masters. In such a circumstances, logically if we can get a 24/96 file of MOJO, we will have 'perfect' copy of the master tape. This is one thing LP cannot achieve ('perfect' copy of the master tape). Of course this ignores the question of how good the original ADC was done in the studio, using the studio equipment.

So when I bought my LP of MOJO, technically regardless of whatever turntable I have, even a Clearaudio Statement (which of course I don't have), it will never sound as good as the 24/96 file can potentially get (i.e. this assumes our DAC technology can equal what we can do with our LP technology. So this is actually just a theoretical arguement at this point in time because our LP technology is just too vastly superior to our best digital technology today).

This is one of the 'great big promise' of hi-res digital.

Unfortunately, besides the fact that our digital technology is not good enough yet, the industry's attitude also conspires to prevent this from becoming reality.

For e.g. the Tom Petty MOJO LP comes with a complimentary download of what Reprise says are 'high resolution' flac files, i.e. digital 'hi-res' version of the album. When I downloaded those files, they are 24/48s. I.e. for some wierd reason Reprise down-sampled them to 24/48, from the 24/96 master. This was a big disappointment to me. I do not understand why Reprise did this as it is obviously very easy to just repackage their 24/96 master into flac files, instead of running a down-sampling software. Even if theoretically down-sampling from 24/96 can be done quite accurately, the 24/48 files are definitely not as good sounding as the 24/96. Our abilities in DSP ensures that today (i.e. the limitation of our DAC technologies).

So for MOJO, the LP continues to sound very much better than the 'hi-res' digital files.

The other thing is a number of studios are now reverting back to analog master tapes, after a period of flirtation with digital master tapes. The good thing is they are now using current analog mastering machines. Yes, while the digital hi-res camp has been pushing about how analog is an 'old' technology, it is often forgotten that analog mastering machines can also be upgraded to latest technologies. There are -claims- that modern analog mastering machines and analog master tapes are capable of frequency response up to the 100kHz region and dynamic ranges greatly exceeding 100dB. In one article I read on the net, it is claimed that to get the frequency response of the best analog master tapes into digital, a sampling rate of 400kHz is necessary.

It is true that in the end, the music is the most important.

Unfortunately, better sound DO contribute to better enjoyment of our most loved music.

So audiophiles will continue to fuss over the sound quality of our systems.

And debates like this thread will continue to happen.

As long as everyone are civilised and it is done with proper respect to each other's opinions.

I am tryng to recall what i experience the other night.
No doubt the hi rez files sound impressive but after a while it seems
that i am listerning to music , dissecting the details and I am less
involved with what the musicians want to convey.

I recalled that the illusion of musicians in the room is better with vinyl.
With LP, i am involved with the emotion of the muscians.

To me, It is a bit like tasting home cooked food after a feast in an expensive restuarant.

This topic is not a debate to decide which is better but to have an understanding of our preference and why we choose one over the other .


cheers

kp93300

bassraptor wrote:I just want to buy a VW Golf ...

Me Too

Shelby Lynne thru HIREz, low Rez or vinyl doesn't matter as long as it is Shelby Lynne and not some rapper thru master reference SOTA turntable in super RIAA curve.

sflam wrote:some companies did not reconfigure their equipment and so continued to use their own curves.
so in a way, these companies used the 'wrong' equalisation curves as they did not follow the riaa standard.
to be more accurate, they did not use the 'wrong riaa curve' but they used a non-riaa curve.
this situation continued till perhaps as late as the 1980s. to complicate matters the cutting lathes used before 1968 were unable to perfectly cut the very high velocities at frequencies above 10kHz. To circumvent this problem mastering engineers attenuated the higher part of the frequency spectrum. so again the curve became non-riaa.
to complicate matters some more, phono preamp manufacturers dutifully followed the riaa specs.
so you hv a situation whereby a phono preamp with correct riaa curve equalisation was used wth LPs that did not follow the riaa curve.
that's why the tonal balance of many LPs sounded wrong and audiophiles thought the tonearm or cartridge or turntable or vta or vtf or tracking weight or wrong impedance loading was to blame.

Since you are obsessing over "getting the right curve" , then you should realise that having to turn a couple of knobs is not exactly the way to get back the correct compensation of the non-standard curves. Turning the tone knobs is at best, the same as fiddling with an Equaliser deck in your system.

http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_database_record_equalization.php
Note the differing attenuation as the various Freq points.

If you really want to properly compensate for non-Standard curves at the phono stage, you'd better be prepared to dish out a handsome sum of moolah.... Here's an example: A Boulder 2000series phonoamp with modular filter boards.

Or if you're hooked up with the well informed analog scene dudes, you can get a phono-stage with multi curve options for a tiny fraction of the Boulder price.

One more thing, perhaps an upgrade to a better TT that affords all the finer adjustment points like VTA, VTF, Azimuth, Zenith, etc etc... would be in order before you might draw the wrong conclusion on how these would affect the sound. A Rega P3 just doesn't cut it for anyone to really properly dial-in a LP playback system as the Rega's philosophy is leaning more towards a no-fuss and as close as possible to a plug n' play LP front end.

Just so that you don't draw any premature conclusions that VTA or VTF might gave given rise to the perceived ills of mismatched tonality or the like.

And one last thing, did you know that older records were cut at 15 degrees VTA, which was then subsequently revised to approx 20~23degrees cutting angle? And when did this revision take place? Its hard to imagine that suddenly all records labels decided to switchover at one particular date but more likely they would adopt the new cutting angle within a certain period or era in LP manufacturing. And how would this affect the sound if the playback VTA is mismatched?

"by WongKN Yesterday at 6:00 pm

Very very recently I have the chance to listen to a really high-end, up-to-date (as in latest model) and I would say perhaps even semi 'state of the art' hi-res DAC in a truly high-end system. It was impressive indeed."

wong, i know you do not wish to list the system in question, but would you mind tell what DAC it is ? (there is no harm done i think) Were you playing CD or Hirez ?

Can you describe what it was it you heard in the sound of the LP that makes it sound so good vs digital ?

I read that some companies (incl the better known ones) are selling hirez that werely mere upsampled. This was discovered by the customers tested the files with some software, who complained.

Also as with any medium (incl LP and hirez), how good the music also depends on a large part on who and how the recording, mastering, was done, and the equipment used.

Hirez is not an automatic ticket to good sound. I could setup to record hirez music on my PC with a cheap hirez ADC on the sound card, but it will not sound good. But it is still hirez nonetheless.

I am not disputing that LP is really good. Given the lack of ADC and DAC conversion process, there is a lot less to go wrong. The industry is still struggling to perfect the DAC. However what is am saying is that we should be aware that there are bad recording in hirez, just as there are on LP and CD's. We need to pick up the really good recordings to compare.

What carz wrote is true. Not all hirez files are the same.

Most people discount HIREZ as inferior coz they heard it in inadequate setups.

An expensive DAC does not mean the end all of HIREZ.

We have not even touch on the computer as transport.

Most of us use laptop and PC to good DAC.

Have you wonder what a linear power supply on a custom made computer system maybe liquid cooled, quiet and fanless with solid state device, tubed buffered with mega shielding as transport wld sound like???

We wld not have to look far, maybe this KLIAV, we will see such a system (if they can make it on time). shhhh industry secret.

A master reference turntable against a laptop or PC as transport (is like comparing a ferrari against a kancil).


A lot of people equate High End HiREZ akin to using cheap PC with super expensive DAC's. If it is , it wld be just like using a rega P3 with top of line FM acoustic or whatever state of art phono preamp and RM30K cartridge.

Give it a while, Computer audio will surpass all, and it won't be far away.

BTW, not all HIREZ files sound the same. even downloaded ones are different to the studio master offered by HD tracks.

No doubt some vinyl setups sounded fantastic but those mid range ones that I heard sounded quite horrible. Maybe it is the setup problem. Some jumped into the vinyl bandwagon just because they heard people glorified it so much.

Nowadays, the perception is that if you know about about sound, you wld say that vinyl is the best and if you mention otherwise, people will look at you as if you do not know how to listen..

Next time before you write off hirez, look at what transport (PC) is being used? wld your super high end phono pre and cartridge sound good fitted on a rega P3 turntable?

For audiophiles with limited cash, like myself, HIrez is the best way to go.
As usual, YMMV.

im really enjoy the dirt sound from vinyl record and it looks cool to...

VS126 wrote:Give it a while, Computer audio will surpass all, and it won't be far away.

I'm more concerned with what's available in the present here, today.

So I don't discriminate. LP also can play, CD also can play, Hirez & whatever format also can, MP3 also can.

.... Just like "Bandaraya", everything also sapu!

Apart from the sound, the lp cover is the one thing that cd can never match. Covers like King Crimson's ' in the court of the crimson king' loses its impact in the cd format, not to mention the glorious artwork of roger dean's Yes albums.

Unfortunately I am not given permission to talk about specifics of the system. But I was told we listened to original hi-res masters from Chesky and the likes. The LPs I know what they are la, reissues and the likes.

One thing I did not made clear is that this is still early days. As the owner settles down with the new 'hires' DAC, things can and will change. So it is still early days yet. But the current feeling is a bit like the young punk who thought he will keep up with the Ferrari in his modified Honda Civic (to give an example), only to see the Ferrari simply pull away like he is standing still and quickly realising in despair that there is no way in h**l he will even sniff the exhaust smoke.

Finally, yes things progress and hires digital WILL improve. But one important thing to bear in mind is that EVERYTHING improves. Not only hires. So if the assumption is that hires will quickly overtake analog (as exemplified by LPs and turntables), then it would be a very narrow view because analog technologies is improving as well. The problem is the gap is so huge, hires will really need to improve at warp speed and needs analog to stand still and it will still be years before we can talk about competing on equal basis.

Then there is the other problem, analog is so well established and understood that while true unique advances can be slower to come by, but the limitations of analog is so well understood that designers knows exactly where to concentrate on. And when there is a new, innovative advance, it can be revolutionary.

For e.g. Clearaudio reduced the radii of their top catridges and this allowed them to dig a lot deeper into the record grooves, often avoiding the build-up of dirt and sometimes the damaged layer, into the lowest part of the grooves. So Clearaudio catridges can be very quiet and gives astonishing sound because they are basically riding on parts of the groove which have never been played before. Recently there are new tonearm which avoids the need for the tangential design for the traditional pivoted design and still is able to deliver almost non-existent distortion over the entire LP.

I find this is a mistake often made nowadays. The dismissal of experience and knowledge gleemed from years and years of being involved in the field. The brash young graduate often comes out and starts to challenge the 'old hags' whom he thinks are outdated in their knowledge. The thought is that the newest technologies are the greatest and that alone is enough to equalize decades of basic foundation knowledge and experience. The thought is to simply walk over all those priceless things just by adopting the latest in gadgets and hype. It is not that easy and many have learnt the hard way. (No offence meant to any new graduates of course).

This is the factor one must understand, if one wants to divert from the point of pure music enjoyment and start to dabble into the technology part of it.

Then there is the one thing I have always been pointing out. AVAILABILITY of music that we want.

For e.g. I wanted to listen to 24/192. The owner says there is NOTHING in 24/192 that he likes.

A lot of times my (other) friends and I ends up reverting back to CD and 16/44.1 in listening sessions like this (this is not the first time I listened to hires audio in a highend system) simply because after a short while, we tire of the comparison and quickly decides to spend the rest of our time listening to 'real' music (obviously to our tastes la).

The reason of "my" preference of LP over CD :-

1) Better sound quality, more natural and organic (subjective)


(The OP did not ask about the preference of CD over LP but I thought of putting it down here)

The reasons of my preference of CD over LP :-

1) Convenience - not having to get up and and flip the record or move the tonearm to select a track (objective)

2) Reliability - I have the knack of ruining cartridges when handling the tonearm of a TT (subjective)

3) Music - More than 90% of the music that I listen to are not available on LP ( subjective)


Similarly like Mugenfoo, I do not discriminate on music formats(LP, CD, MP3 etc) and listen to whatever genres of music that I like. I listen to the FM radio broadcast too.

I like LPs because I am self-centered, selfish and egocentric.
There used to be a time when my CDs were in my daughters' rooms, in the cars or anywhere else but in my room. They were not there whenever I wanted to listen to a particular album. Even my wife took my CDs for her yoga and what have you. Things got from bad to worse when my son started to listen to AC/DC, Led Zep, etc. My kind of songs.
So I bought replacement albums on LP. Because they come from the convenience generation, vinyl is too much of a chore for them. Nowadays I have peace and tranquility...the days when CDs made me mad are all gone

zulkifar wrote:I like LPs because I am self-centered, selfish and egocentric.
There used to be a time when my CDs were in my daughters' rooms, in the cars or anywhere else but in my room. They were not there whenever I wanted to listen to a particular album. Even my wife took my CDs for her yoga and what have you. Things got from bad to worse when my son started to listen to AC/DC, Led Zep, etc. My kind of songs.
So I bought replacement albums on LP. Because they come from the convenience generation, vinyl is too much of a chore for them. Nowadays I have peace and tranquility...the days when CDs made me mad are all gone

Tuning my cd based setup to sound like vinyl with the pros of cd is my ultimate goal.

Vinyl doesn’t even sound like master tape. Many recording engineer describe master tape sound to be flat.

For the record, today's digital recording capable of capturing "enough" resolution of analogue sound that is far beyond the human's ability to discern.

Now we have the sampling rate of 5.64Mhz which is more than 400kHz mentioned elsewhere in this thread. 5.64Mhz is twice higher than DSD, the SACD format.

In terms of resolution, even mp3 at 320 and CD sound is almost indistinguishable to most.
Vinyl resolution is so much tied to the master tape. The best of today’s master tape dynamic range is around 80db.

Some 20 to 30 years ago, even with the old AD DA convertor, one famous vinyl advocate was not able to tell beyond the probability of guessing if he was listening to analogue playback or to the sound passing through a digital conversion. That was about 30 years ago even with ancient digital chips.

Liking the sound of vinyl is not about resolution or accuracy. It is a sound with colouration that is liked by some.

Curious, where did you get the 5.64MHz sampling rate from ? What is the reference ? What is the full specification ?

bassraptor wrote:

zulkifar wrote:I like LPs because I am self-centered, selfish and egocentric.
There used to be a time when my CDs were in my daughters' rooms, in the cars or anywhere else but in my room. They were not there whenever I wanted to listen to a particular album. Even my wife took my CDs for her yoga and what have you. Things got from bad to worse when my son started to listen to AC/DC, Led Zep, etc. My kind of songs.
So I bought replacement albums on LP. Because they come from the convenience generation, vinyl is too much of a chore for them. Nowadays I have peace and tranquility...the days when CDs made me mad are all gone

musicmusic wrote:Now we have the sampling rate of 5.64Mhz which is more than 400kHz mentioned elsewhere in this thread. 5.64Mhz is twice higher than DSD, the SACD format.

I think you are confusing PCM with DSD DSD is 1-bit at 2.82MHz, so double DSD is 5.64MHz. The 400kHz WongKN was referring to was PCM, either 16 or 24 bit format. 24 bit PCM at 400kHz is much higher resolution than 1 bit DSD at 5.64MHz.

Yes, wongkk, you are right. I suspected that is case too which is why I asked for clarification.

Current DSD/SACD uses the 2.82MHz rate. I have read about this 'double DSD' using the higher 5.6MHz rate but I think it is not released yet. This is also the basis for my original (wrong) statement that SACD is 24/192 because it is up to 24/96. If a new version of SACD comes out which uses the double DSD format, then it will be 24/192 capable.

So called 'hi-res' digital, in 24/96 format where the selection of music is a bigger, can be very good if listened in isolation. It does all the traditional hi-fi parameters very well and is in fact very acceptable to the person who plans to use a purely digital front-end, either by choice or by force. I am very happy with the performance of my old Proceed AVP which has now been updated and will play 24/96 music.

I was referring to WKK’s statement that you need a 400khz sampling rate to match vinyl. My mistake for not quoting earlier.

Why do we need 400khz sampling rate in the first place? I do not know how 20khz frequency sound like. I can guess it to sound like ear piercing high pitch. No human can identify nor ever heard any sound beyond 20khz.

There is something inherent about vinyl that is likeable but there are also a lot of Vinyls sound so bad compared to CD.

OP was curios why Vinyl still rules to some.

Fact 1. Most cannot distinguish a CD and SACD sound if you were to ask them spontaneously which one is playing. Even if you were to ask about high bit rate mp3 and CD, many would be ignorant of the difference.

Fact 2. The sound from master tape is transferred to acetate before making vinyl plates. The process involving the transfer between master tape and acetates involves highly dedicated recording engineers.
They determine the right eq and other parameters for what would be the final outcome of the recording.
That ‘s why sound from old master tape (analogue) to SACD often not as impressive as the vinyl pressing.
The SACD version or Hi rez versions are just that either the unadulterated version of the original master tape or according to the new setting as the new badge of recording engineers decides.

Fact3. Vinyl does sound better but those are due great recording engineers hard work in the past. You still can find good recording such as made by Bernie Grundman be it on vinyl or digital.

Fact4: Marketing role in pushing the high resolution and about Sony’s foray into 1 bit DSD world. Later.

Yes, the DSDIFF standard is out there and you can listen to them using Foobar or with plugins in your WMP. You can find the recorders at Korg.com.

Actually what you have pointed out has been discussed about quite extensively in the past. Actually this whole thread is basically a re-visit of previous threads. One of the points I made at one time in a older thread is that if we follow your points, all of which are valid by the way, to the letter, then in theory CD is more than enough to beat any vinyl. In fact as far as what we think we know about our listening acquity is concerned, RBCD is truly 'perfect sound forever'. So in fact based on those points, there really is no need for any hi-res digital and in fact, DTS and Dolby AC-3 is enough for movie and concert soundtrack, why waste time with DTS-HD or True-HD. Again, IF we follow our theories about what we know about our listening abilities la.

But in real life, things are quite different and many people still can hear differences between CD, hi-res, and vinyl. Even vinyl has its variable qualities, pressings, and so forth as I also pointed out early in this thread.

Actually this whole thread is a minefield, which again I also pointed out very early in this thread. Having looked at CD, then vinyl, then hi-res digital (starting with 24/96) since more than a decade ago, I probably have formed a lot of opinions very early though I still find them to be valid today, though to a different degree now than then.

You also made a point about people being (un)able to differentiate between CD, SACD, and so forth. I know many people who can and I have also read many journalists who are very confident they can hear the difference between the different formats. I am not sure if the journalist have proven that they can deliver on that promise or not though in informal testings, I know for a fact many of my friends have been near 100% accurate in identifying a digital source from the analog source.

One more thing to bear in mind is that the listening acquity of a person, and more importantly, his listening taste and listening preferences and requirements, can also dictate whether digital or vinyl will sound better to him/her. This is probably responsible for more of the polarised opinions about digital vs vinyl then the actual real differences between the two format.

Very true. We don’t need HR. Didn’t the audiophiles declared that nothing sounds as good as vinyl?
Yes. I too can hear and tell the difference but that’s side by side comparison.

But no one got the guts to walk in to a listening room and say it confidently that this is 16bit/44.Khz or SACD or 24/96.

Otherwise, you can see experts demoing their skills in KLAV show. I wouldn’t even want to claim about telling digital sound artifact when Mr Sondek himself failed the test.

Did you get see the latest DSDIFF recording format?

Ah, I see you are a realist. A bit like me it seems. But I think it would be difficult for anyone to be able to identify the different specifications of hi-res like you listed in a blind test simply because of variables like the quality of the source, unfamiliarity with the test hifi system, and even intangible things like mental pressure (we all know how the mental state of a person can severely affect his performance).

So to play a track and expect someone to say "ah, this is vinyl, or CD, or 24/96, etc" would be a very tall order. In an old thread, I remember I myself pointing out that the human senses can be complementary as well, as in seeing + hearing is different from simply hearing only and sometimes our acquity improves with more than 1 sense. I am sure everyone have read about how when we have a cold and consequently a blocked nose, all food we eat taste bland. Or that a blocked nose can also physically affect our hearing as we may have blocked ears.

Those tests I have been involved with my friends are when playing the same album in two or three formats (vinyl vs hi-res digital for e.g.), which are then carefully level matched (if possible) and someone randomly flips the input selector switch. We did hide the front panel from view so that we can't recognize the input source from the front panel.

I have read about the new DSDIFF format, a sort of hi-res version as compared to the standard DSD as used in SACD. I have also been hearing about some kind of new hi-res audio format over HDMI. However after so many years of reading and hearing about hi-res digital, I have decided not to get excited until I am assured there is actual music -to my taste- available in whatever format I am checking out. Thus far, by a nice coincidence, I am able to play 24/96 music and I can find a tiny bit of selection in this format, music which -I- like.

musicmusic wrote:I was referring to WKK’s statement that you need a 400khz sampling rate to match vinyl. My mistake for not quoting earlier.

I said no such thing. That was KN, not me.

Why do we need 400khz sampling rate in the first place? I do not know how 20khz frequency sound like. I can guess it to sound like ear piercing high pitch. No human can identify nor ever heard any sound beyond 20khz.

Two reasons:

- brick wall filtering
- aliasing

Both will produce spurious frequencies within the audible band.

Fact 1. Most cannot distinguish a CD and SACD sound if you were to ask them spontaneously which one is playing. Even if you were to ask about high bit rate mp3 and CD, many would be ignorant of the difference.

OF COURSE NOBODY would be able to distinguish between CD and SACD if you put something on and asked them which one it was!!! If I took you to a listening room full of speakers and asked you whether you were listening to B&W or ProAc blindfolded, you would have no idea. If I asked you whether this car was running Bridgestone or Kumho tyres, you would have no idea. Does this mean there is no difference?

To tell the difference, you would have to compare them side by side. To make things absolutely clear for you: first you play one, then you play the other. The comparison would have to be the same track at the same volume. Most trained listeners should be able to tell the difference.

I would also like you to clarify: are you really saying that the difference between high bitrate MP3 and CD is inaudible? What about high bitrate MP3 to SACD?

To clarify, I read the opinion that analog on high quality vinyl (can we call it 'hi-res' vinyl ?) that it is equal to more than 24 bits on 400kHz on a website on high resolution digital audio somewhere. I cannot recall the website off the top of my head so if anyone wants a confirmation, I suppose you have to google it for yourself.

Me, actually I just want the music.

WongKK wrote:

musicmusic wrote:I was referring to WKK’s statement that you need a 400khz sampling rate to match vinyl. My mistake for not quoting earlier.

I said no such thing. That was KN, not me.

Why do we need 400khz sampling rate in the first place? I do not know how 20khz frequency sound like. I can guess it to sound like ear piercing high pitch. No human can identify nor ever heard any sound beyond 20khz.

Two reasons:

- brick wall filtering
- aliasing

Both will produce spurious frequencies within the audible band.

Fact 1. Most cannot distinguish a CD and SACD sound if you were to ask them spontaneously which one is playing. Even if you were to ask about high bit rate mp3 and CD, many would be ignorant of the difference.

OF COURSE NOBODY would be able to distinguish between CD and SACD if you put something on and asked them which one it was!!! If I took you to a listening room full of speakers and asked you whether you were listening to B&W or ProAc blindfolded, you would have no idea. If I asked you whether this car was running Bridgestone or Kumho tyres, you would have no idea. Does this mean there is no difference?

To tell the difference, you would have to compare them side by side. To make things absolutely clear for you: first you play one, then you play the other. The comparison would have to be the same track at the same volume. Most trained listeners should be able to tell the difference.

I would also like you to clarify: are you really saying that the difference between high bitrate MP3 and CD is inaudible? What about high bitrate MP3 to SACD?

Good one dude... support you 100% here !

WongKN wrote: Me, actually I just want the music.

Exactly! And the qualifier would be within the satisfaction of our own "standards of acceptance" of course. Would CD qualify, of course.. not quite on par as an excellent condition vinyl pressing of course, but still good enough to be played via a decently put-together audio system.

But if anyone is chasing for "perfection", then too bad, there is no such thing. CD is far from perfect. LP is far from perfect. Even tomorrow's new digital standard at say (hypothetically speaking) 64bit/768KHz would still not be "perfect". There will always be holes and faults for someone anal to nit-pick on.

Correct, KN was the one referred to 400khz. It was said that vinyl frequency range extended to almost 200khz, hence the 400khz sampling rate. KN's reference was correct. Though the original claim of 200khz remains a mystery. You cannot do a blindtest with vinyl and digital. Too obvious. You can divert the output signal of a vinyl playback from a preamp and pass it through a AD/DA converter. So we get analogue and digital sound for comparison. KK, so we agree that without a reference you can't tell the diff btw SACD and CD. But we could always tell the diff btw MP3 at 126kps and CD. So what is our hearing's reolution threshold? If you can tell if the sound is good or bad without a reference than it doesn't matter whether it 16,20, 24 bit. KK, mp3 at 320 vs SACD? What do think? Can you downsample a SACD track to MP3 for me?

musicmusic wrote:

I was referring to WKK’s statement that you need a 400khz sampling rate to match vinyl. My mistake for not quoting earlier.

Why do we need 400khz sampling rate in the first place?

the bit about the 400khz sampling rate is actually from an interview with hi fi legend tim de paravicini who said:
"Digital should use a 400 kHz sampling rate and 24-bit words. Then it will satisfy the hearing mechanism and won't have a digital sound. Digital has a 'sound' purely because it is based on lousy mathematics. The manufacturers presuppose too simplistic a view of our hearing mechanism."

for the full interview, click http://ear-usa.com/timdeparavicini.htm

24 bits because its dynamic range is far greater than what the human ear can take which is beyond the treshold of pain at approx 130~140dB, and 400KHz (Or more accurately, 400KFs) supposedly to be able to easily cater for his proposition that the human anatomy can feel and react (aside from purely hearing alone) up to 50KHz. So the 400KHz sampling gives a generous amount of room to safely filter out and avoid the artifacts of aliasing, pre-echo/post-echo and other unnatural gremlins in the A/D & D/A process.

The very same gremlins that make redbook CD @ 16/44.1 sound the way they do when compared to other Higher-Rez studio formats and other analog mediums.


There's nothing wrong with the mathematics. Its just the limited amount of representation in common digital format that is insufficient to the point where the human experience is unable to resolve it just yet.

Another analogy would be high rez screens on monitors and devices. Currently, the typical pixel density of mobile devices is around 100~200pixels per inch. But an iPhone4's display of 326ppi is almost at the limit of a human eye's ability to resolve the pixels. Perhaps 400 or 500ppi would breach the limit of a typical unaided human eye's resolvability.

But make no mistake, its still digital, pixelated, and not perfect in an infinitely smooth manner.

So would 24bit/500KFs be the magical combo to breach the human anatomy's ability to resolve sonic perceptions ? No one really knows just yet perhaps...

I just have this urge to talk my fare share of rubbishes on this Bit bit stuffs, which most likely to be bombarded later for making stories. Anyway, here you go:

All the 16/44, 24/96 or 192KHz... All are talking about the capability of the A to D conversion resolution. If to plot an XY graph, X will be the Hz, while Y will be the dB with the 16 bits scatter around. From - to +. Generally, the higher the bit rate, the better Dynamic, as it able to plot higher amplitude. hence better dynamic range on higher bits. Better resolution when the kHz climbs higher. As the algorithm in the chip done lesser guess work on the next adjacent coordinate.
[img]https://www.hifi4sale.net/[/img]

The rest of the digital to digital reconstruction, like 8 , 16, or whatever times sampling, or 96kHz sampling at certain stage, is basically help to improve the accuracy of the 0 to 1 or 1 to 0 streaming. Instead of a block filter, this is used. This got nothing to do with increasing the resolution of the music data.

16/44.1kHz when read from the CD and being transfer out from the decoder to the DAC is in fact in "IEC 958" format. It is 32 bits. within this 32 bits, only 16 bits are genuine raw data of your music bits; the rest are just control bits for syc, error flags, channel, parity....

So, S/PDIF the digital out, is not really 16 bits like we all thought of it.. it fill with this 32 bits words that only those product under S/PDIF can talk properly. So, sometimes, eventhough source to DAC run at different resolution bits and sample rate still got nice music out from your DAC, is just happen that the chipset is smart enough to add or trash whatever data and reconstruct back, as the graph shown, when the musical wave goes up, it needs to come down later... so few words of bits lost can be mathematically calculate back base on other adjacent bits.

So, if you ask me, the normal 16/44.1kHz, 24/96kHz, 24/192kHz, or apa apa, which we generally read at the advert, it should generally mean the resolution of the music to digital conversion(or mastering). It get confused, when some manufacturer decided to use it to mean different thing at different stage of the data construction...

OK, you can draw your gun now and starting putting bullets into me..