Goosemaster
Lifer
You'd be surprsied how much better an HDCD sounds over a CD....a stereo SACD or DVD-audio BLOWS THEM AWAY.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Poll: Vinyl or CD?
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You'd be surprsied how much better an HDCD sounds over a CD....a stereo SACD or DVD-audio BLOWS THEM AWAY.
chiwawa626
Lifer
vinyl all the way, the sound is so much more warm and i guess "colored", cd is way too crisp and exact...knotice a lot of new albums on cd put subtle distortions and crackles in to imitate vinyl 🙂
Goosemaster
Lifer
Most likely; that is something I do not doubt. I was hinting at the improvement in accuracy due to the greater amount of digital information that has been used to approximate the analog.
With all the practicality of digital, it has for many years remained sub-par in terms of accuracy for the sake of increasing the inherent practicallity and application of that technology. Technologies such as SACD and DVD have really impressed me in that now I, a comman man😀, can enjoy music even closer to the real thing.
As a violinist who has had the chance to play in sometimes massive and sometimes more conservatively sized orchestra's, the only thing that beats being in the 1st violin section during a symphony is being on the audience, and now, SACD and DVD's get me that much closer to being there when I can;t😀
If it is music you want, then analog takes the cake. As a matter of convenience CD's are far more durable, and at 192 KHz x 24 bit sampling, digital recording can be likened to a "photorealistic" printer in that, in most reasonable listening environments, the worst digital artifacts are suppressed below, or at least far closer to, the threshold of human perception.
The reality of it is, the sales oriented digit heads wanted to move the market to digital audio long before they had the ability to do a good job of anything but marketing, and they did so at the expense of more than twenty years of recorded music. Newer, higher resolution digital recording will allow us to get beyond these discussions and get back to enjoying the music, but IMHO, the price was way too high for those years in between. 🙁
All you ever think about is sax and violins! 😛 :laugh:
Vinyl is superior in sound.
Goosemaster
Lifer
aye.
LongCoolMother
Diamond Member
vinyl sounds better, but it is wayyyy less practical and i wouldn't bother going out of the way of CDs so i could listen to them. Cds are more durable, smaller, more diverse and just so much more convenient. however, everytime i hear the quality LP albums on a good setup, they have an amazing quality.
I've been around to have listened to both extensively and I can't tell the difference. I have a lot of stuff that came from vinyl to CD and it sounds exactly the same as when I listened to records, casette or 8-track (yea I said 8-track). I older than most of you but still not that old.
Goosemaster
Lifer
They by no means unbearable but I agree that just vions on CD is pretty bad. Symphonic performances with basically a whole field of violins seem to come out quite well incomparision, although still nothing liek newer mediums, and DEFINITELY far from the real thing. The only recording I stand behind is a Heiftetz RCA victor performance/recording of the Sibelius Violin concerto (in d?). They just fot it right...not perfect mind you, but for CD, just right.
BTW, those really dark-stained and boomy sounding (as if they hada big metal mute on them but they don't) violins most kids lust over in k-12 are sh!t. I have a hungarian one that is somewhat like "orange-wood" if I were to name its color, and it is simply fantastic. Mine is no match in a small cinder-block room(orchestra room🙁 ) but lemme tell you, in a big room...
*real persoanlity arises*
YOu cAn'T matcH iT !
Seriosuly, people thought I was playing another violin when I played it outside of that awful cinder block room😀
It took me a long time to not only define good acoustics, both the producers and replicators, but learn to appreciate the impeccable examples as well.
I much prefer SACD over DVD-Audio, simply because the sampling rate is MUCH greater, and the digital edge (very close to an analog curve) is all but seem to disappear when listening to SACD on a superb system.
I'm somewhat of an audiophile myself, after having to peddle these audio products with the Good Guys, and ended up invested lots of money into a system. I did a lot of research before actually spending the money though. BTW, any one interested in a pair of brand new Energy Veritas V2.4i?
Triumph
Lifer
A few months ago, a friend and I did direct A/B comparisons between his old Rush CD's and the recently released remastered ones. Albums like 2112, Farewell to Kings, Moving Pictures, etc. Stuff all recorded from the 70's to the early days of CD. There was a definite and distinct improvement of the remastered stuff compared to the original CD release. I'm sure that a good condition vinyl pressing on good equipment would sound similarly superior to the original CD releases as well. The point, however, is that this music was recorded on analog equipment for analog equipment and not engineered for the digital medium. Many CD issues of classic rock were done downright incorrectly. I have tons of CD's that say AAD or ADD on them, very few of them say DDD. (which is more of a byproduct of when the music was recorded, of course) An AAD album is almost assuredly going to sound poor because it just plain wasn't mixed properly for CD.
ahha, lay off the pipe man.
Read through the thread. Some interesting points.
Maybe I should say that nobody in their right mind would say that vinyl sounds better than digital as long as the music on the CD was meant to be recorded on CD.
I guess I have never been around really good vinyl equiment, though.. when I think of vinyl, I think of scratchy, hissy, warbley audio. 😛
Tell me about it. Most of today's CDs are mixed so dang hot and compressed they sound like crap.
Fortunately I get about 1 in 5 that sound pretty good and are mixed/recorded well.
Believe it or not some really, really good recordings are rap...I find that if Dre is working the board then the recording is just awesome.
-edit- about 500 bucks will get you a nice table and cartridge. (in response to the price comment)
couple that with a nice 500 dollar integrated amp with a good phono stage and 1000 bucks for speakers and you'll have a pretty nice sounding stereo. One a budget one could do 300 for table/catridge, 300 used integrated amp and 900 for speakers (or go used)
Vic
Elite Member
Vinyl IS the sound. CD is a digital replica. The beauty of CDs is that they are more durable, compact, convenient, and transportable, and close enough to the actual sound that most people can't tell the difference. But what CDs can't replace is what is known as "warmth" which, translated from the secret audiophile language, is the sound of actually being there.
RaynorWolfcastle
Diamond Member
Some compromises were made to create audio CDs that make it difficult to get nearly perfect sound. With that said, DVD-A should (and I say should because I've yet to hear a DVD-A) be almost perfect. CDs have the problem that in order to get good sound, you run into a problem when you want to do the D/A conversion. Technically, you can never get a perfect D/A conversion and as you get closer to the Nyquist rate it becomes increasingly difficult to do a good D/A conversion. Harvey is also correct that human hearing is logarithmic and that is one potential weakness of CDs. Finally, you should keep in mind that human hearing is not perfectly logarithmic and that humans are more sensitive at certain frequencies, namely humans can discern much more detail at frequencies at which we find human voices.
However, with the ultra-high sampling rate of DVD-A and its exceptional dynamic range, you should get sound that, electrically speaking is much cleaner and more accurate than either CD or vinyl. Keep in mind that people like to talk about the flaws in CDs but rarely talk about how vinyl also has limitations in areas such as dynamic range, caused mostly by the mechanical nature of the device.
With this said, I am not really an audiophile and mp3s at 192kbps sound very good to me 😉
However, with the ultra-high sampling rate of DVD-A and its exceptional dynamic range, you should get sound that, electrically speaking is much cleaner and more accurate than either CD or vinyl. Keep in mind that people like to talk about the flaws in CDs but rarely talk about how vinyl also has limitations in areas such as dynamic range, caused mostly by the mechanical nature of the device.
With this said, I am not really an audiophile and mp3s at 192kbps sound very good to me 😉
LordMorpheus
Diamond Member
CD's sound better.
But Vinyl is much much cooler. I would use all records if I could, but they are hard to find for newer stuff (but some bands still release them, so you can get lucky . . . . .).
I love big 33's.
But Vinyl is much much cooler. I would use all records if I could, but they are hard to find for newer stuff (but some bands still release them, so you can get lucky . . . . .).
I love big 33's.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
