I disagree, but we can agree to disagree.
-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
VINYL vs. CD sound
- Thread starter secretplayer
- Start date
Mart Mccall
Well-Known Member
I know a fair few with set ups where the cartridge alone was a couple of grand and whilst they do say they prefer vinyl they do listen to digital sources too with no complaints.
It's hard to say what makes a system fatiguing and I agree it does happen. You got to look at all the aspects of each individual system I don't think it's a blanket problem with one solution. CDs mastered too loud will certainly account for some those situations. The source or DAC rarely if ever.
A lot of speakers are very far from neutral so that won't help since digital sources have flat frequency response, pickup cartridges don't. So you can have a situation where CD is too bright but the vinyl system's uneven FR evens out the speaker's FR and it turns out fine.
This was one of the reasons some thought CD had a problem right from the start. Another was the 2 volt output clipping the line input of their 'traditional' amplifiers that were designed to be optimal for 0.7V output from tape decks and tuners of the era.
If early CD had been sounding bad for everyone it would never have caught on.
Serious (or semi-serious) audiophiles always seem to have vacuum tubes and turntables, I wonder why?
Very cool. Those are tough copies to find. The later Sony/CBS pressings are easier to find.My mono pressing.
Freddie Freeloader.
Off Miles Davis - "Kind Of Blue." Columbia YL-143. MONO. Nippon-Columbia (Japan) pressing. First pressing. 1959.
Run-out: XLP-47324-1 〄 A.5
If folks like the Columbia titles, Nippon Phonogram pressed the best sounding copies, much better than the Pitman, NJ or Terre Haute pressings. After the buy out of Columbia, all Columba /CBS recordings were pressed by Sony in Japan for the domestic Japan market.
Nippon Phonogram was sure an interesting company. They released quite a few audiophile pressings for the Japan audiophiles; lots of stuff cut at 45 RPM, Direct to disc cutting. All that I have heard where demo quality records.
Because they think it's what the cool kids have!
+1. I have tried to go back to SS several times, but have always failed; returning to valves each time. And if a person really wants to hear the true sound they get into tubes with high speed tape. After listening to tape, listening to a CD even with a 5 figure DAC is akin to listening to AM radio.
It's because they are the cool kids.
For sure, I look for Nippon Phonogram original pressings for their rich sound quality.
Off James & Bobby Purify. BELL 6003. Nippon Phonogram master. MONO. 1967.
Run-out: 6003 MB 111.
I have a nice Sony SACD. It sounds good. But, since I R&R'ed my turntables, I rarely (like once every 6 months) listen to it. And I have a LOT of CDs, prolly over 1000. That's all I listened to for around 15 years.
Mart Mccall
Well-Known Member
I'm semi serious
but I don't use either although I have in the past. I was up to five turntables at one point and I've had single ended, push-pull and hybrid tube amps. I was fortunate in that before I retired I could afford to have pretty much anything (within reason) for a 'final system' - but settled on digital and solid state.
I don't read too much into people's preferences including mine because they're just preferences and not indicative of any universal truth.
I have a couple of 12AU7s in the line stage, so even my digital gets smoothed up a bit. And my amp is up to the task, with plenty of power, and biased class A for about the first ten watts. My speakers are not a particularly difficult load. My vinyl rig is capable. My digital front end is capable, if not particularly expensive, in comparison. As a result, whether CD or LP, the speakers disappear nicely. However, the vinyl sound is much more engaging. CD is not really fatiguing, but it doesn't really reach out and grab me, either.
A CD sounds like what it is, a nearly perfect reproduction of a recording, and there's nothing wrong with that. An LP simply sounds more like an actual performance. If you've ever been to a concert, you know what I'm talking about. Even when it's completely quiet, it's NEVER completely quiet, and, thus, why people think vinyl sounds more like REAL music. At least, in my not-so-humble opinion. And, not that any of that matters.
It's my gear, in my room, and I'll listen to my imperfect vinyl, like a proper Luddite, because it reaches out and grabs me......
A CD sounds like what it is, a nearly perfect reproduction of a recording, and there's nothing wrong with that. An LP simply sounds more like an actual performance. If you've ever been to a concert, you know what I'm talking about. Even when it's completely quiet, it's NEVER completely quiet, and, thus, why people think vinyl sounds more like REAL music. At least, in my not-so-humble opinion. And, not that any of that matters.
It's my gear, in my room, and I'll listen to my imperfect vinyl, like a proper Luddite, because it reaches out and grabs me......
Oh yeah, I know about tube rolling, 12AX7s in a Jolida JD5T tube hybrid preamp. I just haven't gotten around to it with the Odyssey pre, the stock JJs are good enough, for now....
Snuck
Active Member
Vinyl was an attempt to mass market the records because the price of reel-to-reel were too high to spread widely the album. It had its drawback but was designed to last and shown some engineering genius to counterpart the physical challenge, with a quality level of listening and the best turntables were challenging reel-to-reel master tapes.
Cd was just a shortcut way to kill any other attempts of developping medias with the new laser and digital technology. It was never made to be qualitative but was upgraded to be less easily damaged and tons of tech had to be poured in the drives to make it good enough. Its only advantage is space and the fact it offered deeper understanding of the digital technology.
Cd was just a shortcut way to kill any other attempts of developping medias with the new laser and digital technology. It was never made to be qualitative but was upgraded to be less easily damaged and tons of tech had to be poured in the drives to make it good enough. Its only advantage is space and the fact it offered deeper understanding of the digital technology.
NH-MAN
Addicted Member
Hmm, must have missed the directive as I do not have any tube gear.
Mart Mccall
Well-Known Member
It was an engineer's solution to engineer's problems - no noise, no distortion, no tracking error, no azimuth error, no warps, no wow and flutter, no pops and clicks, no degradation with repeated plays, no end of side compression, no print-through, no shedding, no need to stop and switch sides, and a longer running time.
Quite a lot of advantages really.
There were no competing technologies at the time; even in 1982 it was better than it needed to be, and that's still true today.
Snuck
Active Member
There were several going on especially from others japanese brands, highly better than cd. The only thing cd had was rca recognition to cut the grass under the foot of those brands.
Yes, that was the promises but actually, cd added digital mess to new physical unthought challenges. I guess you didn't see the cd we use nowadays is an upgraded cd, early cd were lame and easy/prone to break.
Cd drivers had to be upgraded because the format wasn't fully thought, even Sony begged later to make a new format.
Digital was and still is full of promises, in development, cd was just a digital shortcut aimed to stop the concurrence.
Yes, that was the promises but actually, cd added digital mess to new physical unthought challenges. I guess you didn't see the cd we use nowadays is an upgraded cd, early cd were lame and easy/prone to break.
Cd drivers had to be upgraded because the format wasn't fully thought, even Sony begged later to make a new format.
Digital was and still is full of promises, in development, cd was just a digital shortcut aimed to stop the concurrence.
