Vinyl vs CD

[BobM]

I've been reading a debate on a music site, with the usual and expected list of responses:
- CD's measure better so they must be better
- math can prove that CD's are better
- CD sound is too clean and precise, and that is not how live organic music sounds
- vinyl has harmonic distortions embedded in it, but the brain processes these distortions better than digital distortions
- vinyl is better due to 2 parts nostalgia and 1 part snobbery
- nothing matters until the blind test is conducted
- engineers are deaf
- vinyl lovers are deluded
- etc.

Here's something someone added to the discussion that was an experiment doen by Steve Hoffman. I thought you might all like the read. It sounds pretty objective, overall.

++++++++++++
What sounds just like the master tape: CD, Vinyl, SACD or an Open Reel tape copy?

----------------------------
First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the practically the same. We honestly couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly.

Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years.


SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER).

So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels.

Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record.

THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips:

We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to.


So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers.

Regarding the lowly phonograph record:

Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what Kevin Gray wrote in this essay:

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm

Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money.

Your comments are welcome.

Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.

Sorry again for some awkward English in this; my proofing time was limited (but not compressed).


http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=133328

[tmazz]

Great article. Steve is my hero

I wonder if he listens at 3 in the morning.......... 

[_Scotty_]

There are some obvious variables that can't be overcome when doing comparisons of this type. The first thing that comes to mind is the ADC step and the DAC step both of these processes are present when trying to listen to the digital data as an analogue signal.
 If we change the ADC and DAC we might have different impression of what the digital data sounds like.
Scotty

[jianghai]

Interesting comparison, but obviously not scientific, not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. But to draw conclusions beyond the anecdotal from this "test" would be unreliable.

Note that the analog listening is of the master vinyl on the lathe itself. By the time you go through production, a couple plays and maybe some temperature shifts, etc etc the record will no longer be pristine.

A CD, on the other hand, lasts a lot longer than a record, and plays much better for a longer time. They are also a different medium from analogue recordings, and therefore need to be mastered differently.

I love my records, but CDs make a lot more sense to me, if only for their longevity.

But then again some of my favorite recordings are crappy recordings from the 20s that have terrible quality. At the end of the day, it's about the performance.

YMMV.

[tmazz]

And of course while this experiment was designed to isolate the storage mediums ability to accurately reproduce what is presented to it  we as audiophiles are not out to recreate the sound of the master tape but rather the sound of the original event, which may or may not be accurately represented on the tape in the first place.

Just another variable  that gets thrown into the real world mix.

Still an interesting experiment, but it only looks at one the many pieces along the signal path from the concert hall to the mancave.

We just all need to realize that it only represents a small part of the signal path. There are many other variable in play and we have to keep in mind what this is and what it is not.

[_Scotty_]

tmazz said,

...,we as audiophiles are not out to recreate the sound of the master tape but rather the sound of the original event, which may or may not be accurately represented on the tape in the first place.

This in a nutshell is why they took away my membership card. All I want to do is reproduce the information contained in the recording as accurately as possible. I figure recreating the sound of the live event in my home is impossible at the present time given the currently available technology. I am limited by the amount and nature of the information contained in the recording and I wasn't present at the venue during the recording process. I think I have a enough on my plate just reproducing the information in the recording without adding any more distortion to it, let alone expecting to hear the sound of the original event.
 That being said I do think the entire chain start to finish should be held to the standard of the absolute sound of the live event. In particular the dynamic life present at the live event should be preserved as much as possible. This seems like the first casualty when a recording is made and playback in the home is attempted.
Scotty

[tmazz]

I think I have a enough on my plate just reproducing the information in the recording without adding any more distortion to it, let alone expecting to hear the sound of the original event.

Scotty, I totally agree. The point I was trying to make was that even if the LP can reproduce the information on the master tape to a very high degree, that alone often may not be enough to produce a musically satisfying result. While accurately reproduce what was put onto the mater tape is certainly important and may be the only thing that we on the consumer end of the equation can control there are certainly numerous other variables in the recording/playback chain that all have to align to get e good result. Put another way simply using LP technology is not the Rosetta Stone that guarantees a good musical experience.

[_Scotty_]

You mean you actually admit to owning bad sounding records, they will be coming to collect your card next.
Scotty

[tmazz]

You mean you actually admit to owning bad sounding records, they will be coming to collect your card next.
Scotty

Not only do I own "bad sounding" recordings I am damn proud of it. Some of my favorite recordings are the original 78 RPM recordings of the 1940s big bands. (Although I don't own any of the rginal 78s, I do have quite a few LPs and CDs that are transcriptions of those discs.) While these sound pretty dreadful when compared to the fidelity of a 21st century audiophile recording, the musical performances on them had a kind of magic that has yet to be replicated in the modern era. Given the choice of excellent music and performance with mediocre SQ, or a lackluster musical performance replicated with perfect fidelity I will vote for the good music every time. 
(Doesn't the later category describe about half of the "audiophile Recordings" produced in the late 70s and early 80s?  )

[richidoo]

The potential for too much resolution is the problem with CDs. Vinyl adds several forms of noise free distortion, mostly  mechanical inertia and magnetic hysteresis, which is the least audible de-resolving distortion. Vinyl magnetics reduce resolution so the sound quality does not distract attention from the music.

CDs have more resolution headroom, but it is not needed for music playback. It is good for the illusion of realism on audiophile recordings, but that is not related to music, imo. All good sounding CDs use distortion effects to de-resolve the content for easy listening.

Non magnetic strain-gage cartridge brings CD-like resolution to vinyl. "Too hifi" for most seasoned vinyl lovers.

[_Scotty_]

CDs actually have more than 3% THD at negative 60 dB because there are only 6 bits available to describe the waveform. CDs could have a less distortion than vinyl at 0 dB and probably do in many cases because the full 16bits is available to describe the waveform. This advantage goes away as the signal level drops. As you can imagine,because of the rapidly rising distortion floor, the 16 bit format doesn't really have more than about 60 dB of usable dynamic range. Ironically about the same as vinyl, but for different reasons.  I don't know that I agree with your statement that there can be too much resolution from 16/44.1.
 The digital medium has an inverse signal to distortion relationship when it is compared the analogue medium.
In analogue,as the signal level falls so does the amount of distortion present. This makes it easier to hear low level details in the recording that are masked by the rising distortion floor characteristic that digital medium has particularly, the 16bit format.
 If our goal is high fidelity reproduction of the original performance we can't have too much resolution from our recording medium.
Scotty

[jianghai]

I figure recreating the sound of the live event in my home is impossible at the present time given the currently available technology.

This might be controversial, but since I'm a proponent of unamplified classical music, I think that recreating the sound of the live event cannot really be the actual goal of when it comes to classical music. In my experience, in a live concert hall (especially huge american concert halls the size of stadia), you're going to be relatively far away from the performers even if you've got great seats. Frankly the sound from that position isn't all that great. I go to live events for the performance not the sound quality. Recordings give me the ability to be "in" the music, which is awesome but no not like a live performance.

CDs actually have more than 3% THD at negative 60 dB because there are only 6 bits available to describe the waveform. CDs could have a less distortion than vinyl at 0 dB and probably do in many cases because the full 16bits is available to describe the waveform.

As you can imagine,because of the rapidly rising distortion floor, the 16 bit format doesn't really have more than about 60 dB of usable dynamic range.

How did you get to your 3% THD value? I'm not sure I know how to convert bits to THD.

From what I know, recording engineers try to keep within 30-50dB of dynamic range, which I think is well within distortion limits of both media (theoretically ~60dB for vinyl, ~90 for CD). Does anyone know of any examples of actual performances/recordings (CD, vinyl, etc) that use ≥60dB of dynamic range? In any case, with all the mastering, re-mastering, again-mastering shenanigans running rampant in most of recorded audio, pretty soon we'll be left with everything at 0dbFS all the time.

Just my 2c

[richidoo]

True, if the illusion of realism is the goal there can never be enough resolution (detail.) But if the goal is the enjoyment of recorded music for music's sake, then there can be too much realism, too much information about the performance and space, too much tonal detail, too much dynamics, spit and breath which distracts attention away from the abstract musical core - the melody, lyrics and beat where the deep satisfaction is found. Of course, some performance detail is needed to maximize the musical enjoyment, and even a little more for audiophile fun, and vinyl has more than enough. But CD has more and can be too much. It's not CDs fault, it's the producer. Unlimited resolution headroom in the system or media is fine as long as it is not abused by the content. Vinyl prevents detail abuse.

Thanks for the explanation about the low level digital signals. that is interesting!

[_Scotty_]

Each bit equals about 6dB, at zero dB you have a mathematically derived minimum THD of about .0015 %,most DACs are around .002% THD with 16bit input. This is the lowest distortion that the 16bit format can produce which occurs only when all 16 bits are used to describe the waveform. When you start subtracting bits which is what happens as the signal level decreases the distortion goes up. In as much as the signal level on a CD sometimes doesn't reach 0dB the signal will always have more distortion than the minimum possible. If you were to look at the average distortion level at the same time as you looked at the average signal level, the distortion level would be a great deal higher than the .0015 THD minimum.
 Vinyl has its maximum distortion during peak signal levels. A common practice during the heyday of analogue recording was to allow the signal to go up to 3dB over 0 VU. With tape this resulted in some compression due to tape saturation and about 3% THD on peaks. As the signal level drops so does the distortion until noise drowns out the signal.
 With the qualification everything else being equal, reverberation tails, among other low level details should be easier to hear on vinyl derived from analogue master tape. 
Scotty

[BobM]

I seem to remember an article in either TAS or Stereophile where they scientifically explored digital formats. I don;t know if they included vinyl in that compare. They basically stated that CD was barely adequate for conveying the true signal, and obviously SACD or DVD-A was far better.

Does anyone have a link to that article so I can share it with these people on the other forum having this debate? I can;t seem to find it myself.