Are records really any better than CDs?

[Dubversion]

untethered...

that's just not it for me. my preference of vinyl isn't a failure to connect with CDs, isn't about some fucking Walter Benjamin notion of 'aura'. it just plain sounds better.

actually, tbh, i think your post is a bit patronising to those who prefer vinyl for genuine aural reasons

 

[In Bloom]

you've got any number of people who AREN'T DJs telling you that vinyl sounds better, and backing it up with hard science. if you're not listening, why posit the thread as a question?

I can accept that CDs might not have the harmonics of vinyl, but I honestly find it hard to believe that anybody can really hear the difference without properly straining to do so. It just sounds the same to me, only with the surface noise chucked in, which just annoys me (with a few exceptions, where it can sort of add to the feel of the music).

for what's it worth, for the kind of DJing i do, it's actually easier to use CDs. but i don't. see if you can guess why.

Because you're bloody awkward?

 

[untethered]

untethered...

that's just not it for me. my preference of vinyl isn't a failure to connect with CDs, isn't about some fucking Walter Benjamin notion of 'aura'. it just plain sounds better.

actually, tbh, i think your post is a bit patronising to those who prefer vinyl for genuine aural reasons

Some people might find the tangible qualities of vinyl are what makes them prefer it.

Some people might prefer vinyl's sound quality.

Some people might like both the tangible and aural qualities.

And I'm happy for people to like CDs.

None of it is patronising. Just recognising that people make their decisions based on prioritising different criteria. Your priorities might not be the same as all others.

 

[hiccup]

...

actually, tbh, i think your post is a bit patronising to those who prefer vinyl for genuine aural reasons

Dunno about patronising. Liking vinyl for genuine aural reasons doesn't have to preclude what untethered posted.

 

[untethered]

You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round.

It wouldn't have been the same with a CD.

 

[maya]

tough choice...

vinyl sound is warmer and the full range/freqency of sound is better than on cd's where the sound reproduced tends to be too "flat"...
that said, i hate the way vinyl becomes worn and scratched and thus deteriorating sound-wise, with time...

(i have an LP where a whole string chorus is "lost" because the record has been played so many times, you can now barely hear the vocals and all the other instruments are just muddled together like you're hearing the music from inside a closet underwater-- that's what i mean, and since this never happens with cd's, i prefer cd's even though the sound quality is worse- because on cd it stays the same and you don't "lose" any sounds)

 

[Boogie Boy]

I've said this before but (to my humble ears) the CD just can not compare to the sound of vinyl being played on a quality record deck with a good arm and a good cartridge (before you even add a great phono stage). The fact is that for most of us (including me) the price of such engineering remains beyond our reach - but show me a CD player that can compare to a great record deck above the £1500 - £2500 price range. It just isn't going to happen.


BB

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Coz it's analog. Digital sound has to be fed through loads of analogue-to-digital converters to be processed, is then subject to a great deal of error correction, then is put through a digital-to-analogue converter at the other end. The process leaves what ought to be smooth-edged analogue waves with a bit of square-wave steppiness in still in them, and this makes the sound less warm, and generally a bit lacking in presence. Add in the fact that many CDs these days are mastered in such a way to make them sound very harsh indeed, and voila, better sound on vinyl.

I agree. I've always used CDs rather than records (and cassetes before that) because I've always been moving about and records aren't that convenient. But were I to settle in one place, I would find records vastly preferable. I completely concur about the warmer sound. Generally on CD, 'heavy' music sounds a bit tinnier and just not quite so rocking, while classical music loses the softness at one end, and the drama in the crescendos.

 

[bluestreak]

and what's more vinyl smells nicer, and looks better in large amounts.

 

[free spirit]

but show me a CD player that can compare to a great record deck above the £1500 - £2500 price range. It just isn't going to happen.

how much???

 

[BassJunkie]

Used to live in Newcastle, the advantage there was that burglars would take CDs but leave vinyl (too heavy/bulky). That can be a feature of vinyl. The sound to me is warmer, more real, and there's no doubt subwoofers move a LOT more with vinyl than with CD. More air moving. More Bass.

 

[8ball]

I read somewhere that 'warmth' of sound with vinyl is largely down to magnetic saturation of the mastering tape causing a kind of EQ compression to kick in at the low end.

It seems to generally be people that grew up with vinyl who strongly prefer this sound (though most have failed blind tests when I've tested them). I think in terms of absolute accurate reproduction, then CD audio (assuming DDD) is probably more accurate after the first few plays (vinyl begins to degrade quite quickly then stabilises for a while IIRC), though some people will always prefer the sound of vinyl.

IMO if you get a good record on a good turntable then the amp, EQ and speakers will have a greater effect on the sound than the speakers.

 

[nick1181]

I think it's because there are more harmonics in the mix. Similar reason that tube amps sound better than transistors. Same reason reality generally sounds better in fact.

Reality sounds great. Normally.

 

[chooch]

Very good condition vinyl sounds very very good on very very good equipment. My wrecked vinyl sounds mostly shit on my shit equipment. Still love it though.

With vinyl, you can see the music on the disc ...

Yep. Easy to see where to go and what's what.
And, as everyone always says, proper records are lovely artefacts. Despite owning loads of vinyl I never really got it until I saw the way a friend of a friend handled his well used collection of mostly motown 7" singles- beautiful little things.

 

[8ball]

'Harmonics' always seems to be the justification for a preference for older audio technologies.

I wouldn't even agree that valve amps always sound better than solid state (the best guitar amp I've heard was a valve amp but that was only one of many and I've played some great solid state amps).

Not saying you're wrong but I'm not entirely convinced. This is the type of argument that runs and runs and runs, though . . .

edit - that was a response to nick1181 btw

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Another problem with CDs is that they need to have a cut off at 20 below and above and while humans cannot hear anything beyond those frequencies the harmonics in that range affect the sounds within the 20 20 soundscape of a CD. That's what makes CDs sound so metal slidey, that and the rather low sample rate.

Records used to mastered to how they would sound on a deep cut single, that's why the who rock on singles but sound a little wimpy on the cd masters, same with the rolling stones.

Later the record companies became a little tight with their plasic so could only cut weak groves. Fuck you the 80s.

 

[8ball]

" . . . and while humans cannot hear anything beyond those frequencies the harmonics in that range affect the sounds within the 20 20 soundscape of a CD"

Yeah, I read this somewhere too. Let's assume it's true.

Then why are the variations in sound in the 20 20 range not recorded? If a 10Hz earthquake was to cause a vase to fall over and make an audible crash, the crash would still be recorded in the 20 20 range, even though the 15HX quake wave wasn't,

There's something I'm not getting here . . .

 

[sparkit]

" . . . and while humans cannot hear anything beyond those frequencies the harmonics in that range affect the sounds within the 20 20 soundscape of a CD"

Yeah, I read this somewhere too. Let's assume it's true.

Then why are the variations in sound in the 20 20 range not recorded? If a 10Hz earthquake was to cause a vase to fall over and make an audible crash, the crash would still be recorded in the 20 20 range, even though the 15HX quake wave wasn't,

There's something I'm not getting here . . .

Because those frequencies get stripped out by the low-pass and high-pass filters, thus the composite signal on the recording side of the filters has been changed. The example that you have given has two different sounds - what we are talking about with CDs is a single sound wave that has been converted to an electrical signal.

Sorry, that's a really crap description. So much for that signal processing course...

 

[8ball]

Fair enough, I think diagrams and definitions of most of the terms will be necessary before I understand that, though

Not sure why clipping the inaudible bits off the top and bottom of a wave will make a difference to the middle audible part unless we have some resonance or constructive/destructive interference thing going on. Will google . . .

 

[gentlegreen]

how much???

Some folks will pay 10 times that for loudspeaker cables !

Just thrown away a Naim flyer through my door offering me £1000 trade in on my 7 year old CD player against their £4000 model.

Sadly / thankfully I doubt I could hear the difference.

I take it those vinyl junkies who have spent some time in clubs have been wearing ear protection and staying away from the tweeters ?

 

[Boogie Boy]

how much???

'Fraid so, I was working in a house a few months back when the owner began to play records which sounded great - so he asked if I wanted to listen to anything in particular. Picked out something (his collection was quite 'conservative') and sat down - sounded superb. Looked at the record deck - a full specification Linn LP12 Sondek - with dedicated phono and power stage.........all on the wrong side of £5000 (not including the speakers/amps/cables).

BB

 

[5T3R30TYP3]

I don't know how many people know that a CD is encoded from the centre outwards, but I'd be surprised if it were many.

I knew! I knew!!! Do I win something?

I agree with your post by the way.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

You can see it on the CD, how can anyone not notice.

 

[sherriff rosco]

I think it's because there are more harmonics in the mix. Similar reason that tube amps sound better than transistors.

Not forgetting that tube amps weigh a ton , are bloody fragile and a bit of an expensive option...... but that`s another can of worms...

After having heard a lot of the differences between vinyl and cd`s as i used to work at a pressing plant I`m firmly with the vinyl camp for clarity , warmth and ` analogue ` feel but am sorely pissed off at having 30kgs of toons to lug about on public transport or try to hide from the sun at outdoor do`s..!

So anyone want to invent an analogue format that`s light , heat resistant but still can be ` tactile ` enuff ..?


.p.

 

[RubberBuccaneer]

I get the point about remastered stuff, I notice that too.

But what a bout a new band new recording, would it sound better on vinyl? Given I presume the recording techniques would more likely to be geared towards a CD sound?

i.e. is it worth switching back?

 

[Orang Utan]

It's a lot easier to skin up on a 12" than a CD.
End of debate.

 

[Kaka Tim]

CDs are defnitely more fragile and when they become courrpted they are completely unplayable. Vinyl will take a lot of punishment before you cant play sinigle track on it.

Also CD cases are shit. drop them once on a hard surface and they shatter. Why the fuck cant they make them out of cardborad or stronger plastic? LP sleeves are much niceer and allow for more innovation in the design department (i.e the whos Quadrephenia - gatefold sleeve plus A4 size booklet of photos) as opposed to peering at a postage stamp sized phote of the band and having to read the lyric sheet with a microscope.

CDs are better than cassettes though.

On valve amps - valve amps sound different to soild state, wether its a better sound is a moot point - depends what sort of music you play.
However tube amps are far more hardwaring - ive had my marshall 50w tube combo since 1984, its still going strong depsite some very harsh treatment (like being dropped down a flight of stairs). Its also fuck loads louder than just about every other amp Ive played.

One more thing - tube amps will still work after an nuclear air blast whilst anything using m/processors will blow . So there. (although tey will only be cockroaches left to caryy on the valve amp, dirty rock'n'roll tradition).

 

[Kaka Tim]

It's a lot easier to skin up on a 12" than a CD.
End of debate.

Excellent point!

 

[8ball]

Picked out something . . . sounded superb. Looked at the record deck - a full specification Linn LP12 Sondek - with dedicated phono and power stage.........all on the wrong side of £5000 (not including the speakers/amps/cables).

BB

I sometimes wonder how much money producers and record companies 'waste' making records of this quality when people are going to listen to it on i-pods and suchlike.

Maybe you should be able to get the 'special edition' for if you've got really expensive kit and a mega-cheap 'i-pod' edition (though of course they'd just produce a 'normal' edition with crap sound and a mega-expensive 'fancy stereo' edition. I still listen to a lot of stuff on degraded tapes - a great tune io a great tune even if it's a bit fuzzy.

 

[hiccup]

...

CDs are better than cassettes though.

...

You can't fix a broken CD with a bit of sticky tape though.