I am curious to know if anyone thinks the CD format (and I suppose that could include digital altogether) sounds better than vinyl and other analog formats. Who here has gone really far down both paths and can make a valid comparison? So far, I have only gone very far down the CD path and I just keep getting blown away by what the medium is capable of! I haven’t hit a wall yet. It is extremely dependent on proper setup, synergy and source material. Once you start getting those things right, the equipment gets out of the way and it can sound more fantastic than you can imagine! It’s led me to start developing a philosophy that goes something like this: Digital IS “perfect sound forever”; it’s what we do to the signal between the surface of the CD and the speaker cone that compromises it.” So I suppose what I’m asking for is stories from people who have explored both mediums in depth and came to the conclusion that CD has the most potential (or vice versa - that’s helpful too). And I don’t simply mean you’ve spent a lot of money on a CD player. I mean you’ve tinkered and tweaked and done actual “research in the lab,” and came back with a deep understanding of the medium and can share those experiences with others.
In my experience, the three most important things to get right are to find a good CD player (and good rarely means most expensive in my experience) and then give it clean power. In my case, I have modified my CD player to run off battery power with DC-DC regulators. The last thing that must be done right is the preamp. It’s the difference between “sounds pretty good” and “sounds dynamic and realistic.”
I prefer the inconvenience of analog... stereo and mono vinyl, 78 shellac, belt drive, idler drive, moving coil, moving iron, strain gauge, optical... dragging a rock through a ragged plastic groove, electrons dancing in glass tubes, and the magic of it all brings me joy. Am I going to listen to my German pressing of Timeless through my DS02 or Sgt Peppers mono through my Miyajima Zero or La Boheme 78 through my Miyajima Spirit as stand up every 10-25 minutes and flip through my favorites is all part of my experience that I wouldn’t want any other way. My passion for music involves more than just listening. Or... all the senses enhance my experience of listening.
I stream to audition music I might want to buy on vinyl and it is very useful for that. When I sit to listen to listen to digital, with all its convenience, I find myself distracted, thinking about what I might want to listen to instead. When I select a record and sit to listen, i am engaged in the music, and nothing else. That alone is the biggest difference in my experience between the two, and I can only speak to and act on what moves me.
Not having caught any previous iterations of this topic, this has an interesting and educational thread. Thank you for starting it mkgus. I’ve learned a lot about what comprises the differences between the two formats, and even a bit about streaming as well, which I’ve never done.
And by the way, whoever mentioned many of the Blue Note and Verve jazz remasters on CD are exceptional is right on the money. Having purchased many, mostly Blue Note, of late, I’ve been very pleased with how great they sound.
Happy New Year to you all too, and may you stay well and forever young in 2021.
Chocolate and vanilla. Much of audio is personal preferences.
I transitioned from a good TT to CD years ago and haven't looked back. Early days I knew the TT was better, I just didn't care for the effort involved to maintain a TT system. Some digital is poorly done but then again, mastering counts. Digital also matured and then HD came along too.
How much of the material **I** want to listen to is on vinyl? How much was originally recorded in full analogue? Not much. Others have commented on the effort/space to operate/clean a TT system. Been there, done that. Being fundamentally lazy, no thanks.
I have my material on a server in lossless format. I can use this wherever I go. Lossless playback while walking, driving, or cleaning house. HD digital sounds great to me. Well mastered CDs too. Serious listening, imaging/dynamics, eyes misting over during an emotional track. Check. Check. Check. Not to mention playlists, Roon, and services such as Tidal. In my household LPs have no chance.
TT is not better than digital. Digital is not better than TT. Both have plus and minuses so choose your flavor and enjoy. I have.
Let’s approach this from a purely musical perspective. A symphony playing a written musical score will play the notes faithfully, but they must also respond to many other notations in the score that the composer added. One of those is dynamics. A composer will add p - pianissimo all the way to FFF - triple forte to notate that they want a particular passage played either very soft or very loud or somewhere in between. This is a very important part of music and a conductor should play close attention to what the composer intended, IMHO.
An advantage that CDs (and digital formats) have is that they can represent dynamics far more accurately than vinyl can as a format. This is not so important in rock of jazz, where dynamics are not as big an issue (a rock band usually plays at the same level of loudness throughout a song). I only heard one jazz group live that ever used dynamics really well and that was Art Blakey’s Jazz Messengers (Blakey was a master at loud and soft).
So, I guess it boils down to what kind of music you like to listen to. Rock and Jazz can sound great on vinyl, whereas classical music suffers on vinyl (it sounds too compressed for me).
At least once in your life, buy the expensive tickets to sit in the front row to hear a great symphony orchestra and hear what I mean.
For me, one of the big factors between vinyl and CDs is convenience. I played vinyl from the 60's to the 90's....and that was enough for me. Besides the clicks, pops and surface noise, vinyl became a chore when trying to listen to just specific songs. That's why cassettes became so popular...you could make mixed tapes of what you wanted to hear and not be forced to listen to a certain artist or type of music. I can't remember when I actually listened to a CD or album from beginning to end....there's always songs I don't care to listen to from the artist. I do own CDs and I always rip them to lossless audio files and it's all kept on my desktop computer's hard drive. I can sit at my desk and listen to thousands of tracks in any order I choose since my audio system is in my office. I go from my computer via USB cable to a high-end DAC and then to my integrated amplifier. I also purchase music tracks online and they sound awesome when up-scaled on my DAC. Vinyl has too many limitations.
Whenever someone poses a question about whether A or B is better, my response is the same. Based on what criteria? The question can't be objectively addressed absent that. As for my opinion, which is highly subjective, I enjoy both forms immensely. I don't believe it is a requirement to choose one over the other, but if you do, just enjoy the trip.
Very few could give a definitive answer, one would need to equalize vinyl and digital setups. And can that equalization be proven? Ultimately it would be something like Michael Fremer level analog vs. MSB, Totaldac, etc.
And then you have the issue of provenance, lps mastered from digital, digital mastered from analog.
I have no preference as to sound quality, both have their sound, I enjoy both. It all comes down to listening preference for me, stream or rips over NAS for 90% of my listening. I can no longer often bear listening to an entire cd or lp, great music over an entire cd or lp is a rare thing.
For my ears there is and harsh edge to CDs, and digital in general, that makes them non-listenable for me. I get listening fatigue before I get through one CD. In process of selling off my CD collection. No digitally mastered vinyl in my collection either. Long live vinyl.
What is your take on HD Radio? In St. Louis, WFUN classical on HD Radio seems to sound better than the same station's 107.3 MHz FM playing the same material. WFUN classical has a pretty big variation in sound quality depending on the recording, from average to amazing. The highs on some violin recordings are to my ears amazing. I am listening on two pairs of Magneplanar MG 1.7i speakers with two Velodyne subs. The subs work off each of the two channels independently, not mono as is usually done. Frank
I think that LP make sense in case of old records mostly, because contemporary performers makes their records using digital stuff first. After it, special for naïve gentleman, they issue LP that based on digital sources, moreover, sometimes using same mastering that they used before for CD release. PS: sorry for my English, hope its readable.
This question will not change anybody’s mind. For the record:
- I have both CD and vinyl formats. - I have comparable quality playback hardware for each
- while vinyl requires signal interventions that offend the kind of purists who rush to digital as a consequence, to my ears vinyl sounds superior and is more engaging. This is in part because digital also has a signal intervention: it divides the audio spectrum into bits and the sampling rate settled on by the recording industry for reasons of profit is not sufficient to capture all the data that analog does.
- a friend who is also an audiophile has a digital system. His system is more costly than mine. In some ways it captures more detail, but the experience to my ears is lifeless. The sound was flat, as if a picture painted onto a wall. My system is dynamic, with sound like sculpture in space.
This question comes up often. It is not what sounds better, but rather a personal choice of a type of sound. Vinyl differs from CDs and they in turn, sound different than HD tracks. For long listening sessions vinyl is without a doubt the winner. Also in terms of wholeness, a coheret field of music, vinyl is unbeatable. If you are looking for detail and increased dynamic range, then CD's and HD tracks are the way to go, but bear in mind, that you will not be happy listening for exteded periods of time. I too went through the few years, of CD wonderment; eventually I started listening to vinyl again and was stunned by the warmth and wholeness of the music experience. I own about 1500 lps , no CD's since what's the point? You copy them to a hard drive and are done with the ugly plastic object (however, you will need a decent D/A and those are not cheap) I also use QoBuz and Audirvana and like the combo a lot. My TT is an Acoustic Signature Primus with a MC Dynavetor K 17 DX cart, Sutherland phono stage, and VTL 6.5 preamp. Finally setting up a decent vinyl system is definitively more expensive, but also more rewarding.
I started listening to vinyl when I was 9 years old. That was 57 years ago. I started listening to CDs when I was 40, a mere 26 years ago. My ears are “tuned” for analog. Visit theaudioatticvinylsundays.com to see a description of my playback system.
Consider this: I worked as a recording engineer for 45 years. In the last 20 years, I did many A vs D shootouts. Here's what I found: younger people - despite their better hearing - came more and more to prefer the sound of digital. Clearly, the gear has gotten significantly better, but that didn't seem to adequately explain the change I saw in how many votes digital got in comparison to analog. Then it dawned on me, the younger engineers and musicians had grown up on digital, and the music many of them listen to was created using the particularities of digital recording. To them, that's how it's "supposed" to sound. Older engineers and musicians would typically prefer analog, but they would be sitting in a group of younger engineers who heard the same playback (over excellent systems in actual recording studios) and the young guys clearly tended to vote for the digital versions. I also noticed that the percentage of older engineers who voted for the analog versions was slowly falling over the years. Our tastes and expectations seem to be evolving. I think that music consumers are now also "learning" the sound of digital and they love the snappy, crisp sound and the immensely greater convenience of digital. As for me, I can hear and appreciate the qualities of good analog, but I HATE surface noise on records and I resent having to get out of my chair, lift the needle, and start "side B". My digital setup sounds SO good, that I rarely bother with analog sources anymore (though I do use a tube amplifier to drive my speaker system from 80 HZ up).
I have witnessed this debate before, but I will admit that I read all 4 pages of this one, as this debate here was distinctively: honest, generally more respectful of differences, and instructive, for many of us who do not have the acoustical training or experience. Learned a lot from you all, colleagues of the same tribe, whether we want to call ourselves audiophiles, or music lovers, absolute sound fans, etc. In my humble experience with music, started as a school band player, then afrocuban amateur percussionist, then decades of listening to world music from a consumer-level system to now a mid-level hifi (mostly second hand to be able to afford it), I am both amazed and privileged to enjoy so much listening to amazing musical works in CD and vynil formats. Under the pandemic's global enclosure, those of us who had music and sound systems to play it, have been therapeutically served by our musical culture. Our therapist or psychologist have been always there, our music, and under this survival crisis, came out to save us. Tribe members, keep enjoying this privileged musical culture that in my experience, brings out the best of humanity. As an educator, please, share this wealth we all enjoy recreating every minute we listen, with our younger generations! I noticed in the 1980's, with the wave moving towards the digital format, what I PERCEIVED as an "electric sound" in CDs, in comparison to my LPs. That memory stayed with me, but I kept my old CDs, and now with DACS and better CD player, I keep "re-discovering" them. In the meantime (35 years), I returned to LPs, was able to get good, affordable turntables, MM and MC cartridges, tube and SS phono stages, tube and SS preamps and amps. My experience is to improve my CD gear to better enjoy my CD collection, which I keep buying. But mostly, I buy mostly used LP records, some few new ones, clean them up, care for them, read their literature, enjoy them greatly. I enjoyed reading today about everyone's experiences in this hobby, in this musical culture, this passion of ours, please keep it on, no matter which medium we prefer, "think", or "like" the most. Happy listening musical tribe comrades!
In my personal opinion, a Blu-ray Disc is MUCH better. Specifically, because the Blu-ray Disc holds all the GREAT audio codecs, like DTS-HD Master Audio and or Dolby Atmos, Dolby TrueHD, and so on.
If you all want to Experience a MARVELOUS sound, order the Blu-ray Album Eagles Farewell Tour 1. This is a LIVE concert at the Rod Laver Stadium, in Melbourne, 2005. All I can tell you is WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hotel California is a Complete experience!!!
@gone Your response coincides with mine (except for 78s). I listen to 3,000 ethnic music 78s and LPs, most never to be seen in any future format. I have 25,000 LPs, 7,000 78s and 7,000 CDs, mostly CDs being accumulated in the past decade. The reason is that there are bargains in well remastered classical and jazz that I did not appreciate until I purchased my EAR Acute and last year, the COS Engineering D2v DAC. About 30% of my CD collection never was and probably never will be issued in any other format (Marston, Biddulph, Romophone) 78s of opera, vocal, violin and piano 78s expertly remastered from rare recordings. I have a moderately high end analog rig for LPs (VPI TNT VI mod./SME IV mod./Benz Ruby3 and appropriate high end electronics).
To all those who just state that CD is unlistenable and cannot hold their attention, it's probably your equipment or you just listen to post 1995, compressed and poorly mastered pop and rock. There is some poorly remastered classical as well (RCA opera mono series from last decade had hyped up mids, shrill compressed dynamics, bass-less lows-totally inferior to the early CD remasterings which sounded like the original LPs, not quite as good but certainly clean). I prefer rock LPs to CDs because the rock remasterings are generally inferior.
As to listening to 78s on a victrola, nope. I use a Grado elliptical cartridge on a Ultracraft 400 arm on a VPI 19-4 turntable feeding a Marantz 7 in 78 setting through my main system. Especially post 1925 78s sound dynamic and tonally rich. My system is very dynamic so I don't miss not having horns. Pre-1925 78s require different stylus sizes and speeds (my VPI SDS adjusts for speeds). So, I'm not wearing out the 78s or the stylii compared to a victrola and get very superior sound.
I will not give up any of these formats. I only have about 100 R2R tapes with a Technics 1500 R2R. It would be nice to have half track 15 ips tapes, but I don't. I don't plan to stream. Also, the booklets that accompany many of my historic 78s CDs are magnificent, better than the backsides of an LP.
@unreceivedogma Yeah, that was my CD sound in the 1990s. I hated it. It all changed in 2006 with a superior analog sounding tube output EAR Acute CD player. Last year, the new COS DAC changed it to no competition between formats-all depends on the mastering.
Regarding Manfred Eicher of ECM fame, here is how it happened:
Once CDs effectively killed off vinyl, Eicher was all-too-ready to terminate LP production, which is exactly what he did. He preferred the sound and convenience of CD to LP, which I recall him stating at the time in interviews. Years later when the production of CDs become a losing financial proposition, Eicher was forced to re-start LP production. But it is a limited affair, designed to deliver trophies to record collectors who refuse to listen to digital in any form. ECM’s core audience (the music lovers) continue to buy the CDs, although the necessity of opening the catalogue to streaming is certainly starting to hurt ECM’s core business.
My analogue experience is only with vinyl. My digital experience is with CD, SACD, digital downloads of PCM (CD resolution and Hi-rez), and DSD. If I may be permitted a small boast I have a high-end turntable, cart and phono stage. Prior to that I would have said that digital is easily better. One has to go very far up the food chain for vinyl to sound superior. If you stop and think about it vinyl is a mechanical method, and has to be done very very well to catch up with digital. But now at the broadest generalisation I would say they are equal. They are different but equal.
I have several instances where I have a digital and a vinyl copy of the same music. My experience is that sometimes the vinyl is superior and sometimes the digital is superior. What I have discerned is this: in the early days of CD it was inferior. This was typically because they were issuing digital copies of music mastered for vinyl. Claudio Abbado conducting with the LSO conducting Le Sacre was a striking example. In the late 80s this was the Le Sacre to beat. I thought to 'improve' on that with the CD. Fail. The CD was crap. Then just last year the Sydney PYT (pretty young thing) put out a fabulous album (Don't Let the Kids Win). I thought to myself 'Andrei, why don't you support the artist and get the LP as well?' Feeling all noble I did just that. The LP was crap. Crappity crappity über-crap. Forty bucks down the dunny. The circle was complete and I am convinced the moral is the same. In each case the original finished product was mastered for a particular medium. Then the 'suits' get a cunning plan. A plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel. They reissue the same music on a different medium but do no work - read spend no money - on making allowance for the different medium.
This is my long-winded way to say: it is a crap-shoot.
We are bless with different format, if I feel I want to listen to vynil I spin my turntable, ithen cd or sacd, not streaming for now because, I have plenty of good record , sacd and xrcds.and K2cds.I try not to compare the analog and digital.
This opinion comes from an audiophile with experience in low cost entry level higher end equiptment...I currently own Acurus pre and amp...a yamaha new cd player, an AR ES-1 table on a vincent phono preamp..thru excellent 80s refurbed Allison and AR speakers..At this level one can still get superior sound from both and i have but it all depends upon the recording engineer first...after that, the silence of a digital format is always more desirable over pops and clicks of vinyl during silent passages...In this day and age ,owning vinyl for me is more a vision thing...one of watching the beauty of a tone arm tracking a record and a reminder of your teenage years!,,Honestly,i also use an audioengine D/A converter to my laptop and get as good sound as i need in a 10x14 room...The same held true when i owned and used maggies in the same system....I found your more apt to marvel at the sound of a great analog recording on a quality table more than a CD player simply because there are more parts involved to pull this off....ie: tonearm,cartridge matching for perfect resonant frequency necessary for balanced sound,as well as a nice dampening suspension and isolation...because of these factors,when you get it right,the results ,all of these parameters considered can be incredible provided one uses a quality vinyl recording
Vinyl has a signature tone and a unique sonic sound that cannot be duplicated by a digital format. Simply cannot recreate the needle on the record digitally, but many artists have tried - including the fantastic "vinyl experience" digital tracks from Beck's Morning Phase album.
I have been competing DAC's vs Vinyl for some 10 years now and have gone through a fair amount of equipment as a hobby. Every time I think I am close to eclipsing the sound of vinyl with my DAC; I upgrade my turntable. Followed by a DAC upgrade and so on.. So I have upgraded both my DAC and turntable about 4-5 times.
Currently, I have a Pro-Ject 9 and a Bifrost Sigma Delta USBGen5 DAC with a Yggdrasil on the way, so you can see where this is leading..
My gut feeling is that as long as I can afford to build both my digital and vinyl libraries, I will do so. But if I had to give one up, it would have always been and always will be the DAC. Vinyl carries a tone that nearly all listeners in my room would appreciate as more realistic sounding. Digital will never favored in my book.
This is what I believe. Unless, I can change my mind! ;)
I have one huge problem with LP's. It turns out that I'm allergic to the sleeves! Yes, I've had sinus issues for years. Once I traveled to London to hang out with a fellow collector, see London and hit every record store I could in 10 days time. I couldn't make it seven days without major sinus issues. I stopped listening to records maybe 15 years ago mostly because of time limitations. My sinuses were never better. I just went through a house move and wouldn't you know. Moving the records made my sinuses go crazy. What to do? Joe
As can be seen from most of the above comments, each system has advantages, however, in a High Resolution System the most important thing is the Quality of the RECORDING!
To this end, all factors of sound reproduction come into play, to optomize the sound Quality of that original recording, including:
~ Noise Level ~ Dynamic Range ~ Frequency Response ~ Timber ~ Holographic Sound ~ Bass Slam ~ More
Now, as most Recordings one can purchase, contain very similar sound within them, Digital gets the nod, as one can Pick & Choose that which they like from a large selection & Mix a CD or digital File containing a Mix of their Favorite Cuts!
I have made 5 CD's from my Favorite Cuts, (from about 250 CD's that I own), Each with 14 Cuts per CD & have not resorted to my CD collection for several years.
Digital can SUCK and it can be AMAZING. Unfortunately it is not as simple as anyone initially thought with the early Bits is Bits mantra. Awesome digital is costly and requires a lot of expensive tibdits, Yes I am talking about using computers however the similarities to your home PC are not to be found. They require high horsepower, super quiet supplies, tuned software and even audiophile lunacy like USB cables, Audiophile network cards etc..... Choice gear like a Pink Faun server cost 10K alone however the result is stunning. Most will never experience it as it is so difficult.
This is a subject that routinely comes up for discussion and the main comments never changed. I have been associated with the "high end" audio community as a consumer since 1969, owning various audio systems at all price points that included both vinyl and CD formats. At the end of the day, whether vinyl or CDs sound better is about as subjective as the audio hobby that we love so much. You can analyze all the specs, and do all the comparisons that you desire but at the end of the day the format that one thinks sound best will be a reflection of your individual taste in sound. If it is not based upon how it sounds to you then ones opinion is rather academic. In the end, it seems to be that every person will have an individual opinion of which format is best and they are neither right nor wrong with their thinking.
Without reading the whole thread. And without going into lengthy explanations.
If we use data terms. LP is a lossy format or let me correct that it is worse than just to be a lossy format. LP is the equivalent to mp3 plus that it adds sounds that were not in the master to begin with.
The bad reputation CD has it is mostly from bad content that is stored in the CD. When we are in the digital domain it is far easier to apply compression that many record labels want to have on the content. And AFTER compression (loudness) store that data on the CD. But that is not the fault of the format when that is done. If the content is made to be used in noicy environments (in cars, and as like) and not in a quiet man cave.
In my experience you do not need to plow down so much money into CD playback. Take some old oppo 85/95/105/205 and use it as transport that plays all formats. Get the digital output from the HDMI out. Connect that to a break out box. So you get the digital your external DAC. Now you can plow money into a good DAC that you also can use for decode when you streaming.
That way you do not need go down that rabbit hole to buy expensive units called CD players. That consists of a transport and a DAC. So more or less when upgrading to a new CD player you logically not upgrading the transport but only the DAC and it surrounding electronics. So you waste money on buying yet another transport that do nothing for the sound quality despite what the marketing wants you to believe. In other words you just upgrading the built in DAC.
Despite all of that above I have plowed down far more money on buying LPs over CDs. But that is of different reasons than for the sound quality.
Like: I want to hear the new pressing of Adele 25 album. That I heard that are in its way. (In other words I just want to hear another variant and compare what the differences is against the first pressing. And my old first pressing is getting worn.)
Talking about wear.. The CD from the 80-ties has NEVER before sounded so good as they do today. When our DACs and electronic is so much better today.
With my higher end system, I have yet to discover the differences in sound quality via different CD transports. After I purchased my COS D2v DAC, I use my old EAR Acute as a transport and it sounds great!
Can someone with a modestly higher end system tell me how much I will gain if any, improvement in sound using a more recent, potentially better transport?
You will get an improvement from either playing from SSD or streaming. I suggest you explore Innuos, Lumin, Auralic, Aurender streamers. They come with SSDs to which you can load your CDs if you chose not to switch to streaming Qobus or Tidal
fleschler1: "
Can someone with a modestly higher end system tell me how much I will gain if any, improvement in sound using a more recent, potentially better transport?"
Hello fleschler1,
I agree with antigrunge2, I believe your money would be better spent elsewhere. I think a better transport would offer, at best, only a subtle improvement in sound quality performance. This thread has been about cd vs vinyl, which of course, is just a matter of personal preference as it should be. If you already know that you prefer the higher performance capacity/potential and convenience of digital, however, I believe a more significant system improvement would be gained by upgrading your current Redbook digital cd playback system, consisting of a separate cd transport and dac, to a digital system with a digital file storage device/streamer along with your current COS D2v dac. As antigrunge suggested from his post:
"
You will get an improvement from either playing from SSD or streaming. I suggest you explore Innuos, Lumin, Auralic, Aurender streamers. They come with SSDs to which you can load your CDs if you chose not to switch to streaming Qobus or Tidal."
Since you already have an excellent COS D2v dac, I'm assuming you'd probably want to keep it If this is the case, you'd only need a good quality hard drive storage device and an interfacing method to remotely organize, display and control storage and playback. In my modestly higher end system, I utilize a Synology storage device with 2 TB of hard drive storage capacity, an Oppo 205 universal disc player,
a Lumin D2 dac/streamer
and an Apple iPad as a GUI (graphic user interface) and remote control for the digital portion of my system. All 3 of these component parts are attached to my wi-fi and, therefore, are able to communicate with each other. I utilize the iPad, loaded with the very good and included Lumin software app, to remotely view and select what to playback. I've copied/ripped my entire cd collection to the hard drive that are stored as 16 bit/44.1 KHz lossless APE files and I also have numerous high resolution music downloads stored as 24 bit/96 KHz lossless FLAC files on this same hard drive. It currently contains over 20,000 hours of music files from all the music genres. I'm not sure how much knowledge and experience you have with the differences between the performance capacities and sound quality levels of regular Redbook cds and the higher resolution digital formats ranging from SACD to 24 bit/96 KHz to DSD playback, but I've discovered that the higher resolution formats are obviously and significantly superior. Not only are the natural high dynamic ranges of musical instruments and voices not compromised by poor engineering/mixing decisions present on many cds, such as the 'loudness wars' and uni-volume, but I perceive the whole presentation as being more highly detailed, with extremely solid and stable stereo sound stage imaging that's much more realistic, palpable and natural overall. I've also found it's very important to realize that the quality and method of recordings, however, are just as important with hi-res recordings as those on any other format. I've discovered the hi-res downloads/recordings from the Sound Liaison Music Shop in Europe are exceptionally good. Anything from Carmen Gomes I highly recommend: https://www.soundliaison.com/
They utilize high quality but limited miking and mixing techniques and record performers direct to hi-res digital as the musicians play live in their fairly large and acoustically very high quality studio before a small audience. The quality of these recordings, that I typically download as 24 bit/96 KHz FLAC files are extraordinary and obviously superior to any of my ripped cd files. The only downside is that their unique recording techniques limits their catalog to newer, lesser known musicians and groups. The reason is that the 'provenance' of a master recording, which just means the entire specific history of the master recording, is critical in determining the playback quality of the subsequent recording copies made from the original master. The important characteristic of a recording's provenance to understand is that it is basically set in stone once it has been originally made. For example, all masters originally recorded on reel to reel tape are limited to the optimum capacities of that format, which includes such factors as its signal to noise ratio, frequency and dynamic range as well as any other limiting optimum specifications and capacities. This means transferring a reel to reel original master recording to a higher capacity hi-res format, and claiming it has been "remastered to high resolution digital ", results in absolutely no actual performance or sound quality improvements since the original provenance of the original master format dictates its optimum performance and sound quality. As I understand it, HD Tracks is not alone in using this very ineffective and dubious method of transferring standard resolution original masters to a hi-res digital format and claiming their retailed copies and downloads are "remastered to high resolution digital format". It's why I never purchase from these companies and probably explains why many individuals claim to not perceive any differences between the same band/song on their original cd and the "remastered to hi-res digital" cd they just purchased at 3-4 times the price. It makes much more sense once it's understood they're comparing the original cd track to a virtually exact copy of the original track transferred to a higher resolution bucket or format. Lastly, I hope relating my personal experiences with the extremely high quality direct to hi-res digital master recording downloads I've utilized properly explains why I believe its an ideal method of recording masters. I hope this method becomes the predominate method of recording new music asap since it's not only sota in my opinion, it's a much more durable medium that doesn't degrade with usage and you're literally purchasing an exact copy of the original master with each download. Ideal, right? I hope this was useful to you fleschler1, Tim
Hold on there Tim. Most music after 1990 is recorded in hi res digital. Older issue may still be analog but much of that has been digitized. Yes, there are companies that specialize in very high quality recording. I get D2D discs from Bandcamp and they are excellent if you like the music. If you don't like the music how it was recorded means nothing. The question becomes what version of the album that I want sounds best? So you check out what is available. If it is an older analog recording I will go with the Vinyl if it is available. With a newer digital recording I'll go with the highest resolution I can get or Vinyl. You would be surprised at how much better some 16/44.1 discs sound when you oversample them and move the filters up out of the way. I find that HD Tracks does an excellent job for the most part and I would bet the record companies get the lion's share of responsibility for how the recordings are transferred. It is not like HD Tracks is trying to do this under the table. Most of my new material comes from HD tracks. The industry is obviously learning to trust them as a very legitimate storefront. As for which format sounds best? That has more to do with other issues than the sampling rate and bit depth.
@noble100 Thank you for your informed response. About 2,500 of my 7,000 CD collection consists of music not seen (and probably never will be available) on streaming or any other format. They consist of ethnic, proprietary (my own orchestral, chamber and choral recordings of the past 35 years, 20+ years digital) and remasterings of 78 rpm records with esoteric/subsription labels Marston, Romophone and Biddulph for instance. Another 2,500 CDs of the analog LP era are not currently available on streaming and some of the other 2,500 CDs that are available for streaming used inferior masterings/versions of the CDs. So, perhaps 1,000 of my CDs would or could sound better on streaming.
Knowing that upgrading to a Esoteric, Jay's Audio or Denafrips transport won't make much difference in my CD sound quality is very helpful. I'll use the savings for another cartridge or tweaks to my system.
No matter which medium you prefer, fleschler makes an excellent argument for not callously tossing your old recordings away when you buy a replacement. Yeah, clutter does clutter up your life, but who knows what magic might happen when you run that ratty old CD through that new diamond-studded DAC?
mijostyn: " Hold on there Tim. Most music after 1990 is recorded in hi res digital. Older issue may still be analog but much of that has been digitized."
Hello mijostyn,
I do not believe it’s true that most music after 1990 is recorded in hi-res digital or, more specifically, most music has not been generally recorded ’directly’ to hi-res digital. My reasoning is that, if music recorded after 1990 actually was recorded direct to hi-res digital, it would be obvious to all since they would perform and sound a whole heck of a lot better than they actually do. My main point is that the provenance of master recordings, if accurate, are excellent tools in determining the actual sound quality potential of those master recordings and the source material copies made from them. Statements that "the master was recorded direct to hi-res digital", or even "the master was recorded and mixed direct to hi-res digital", are very good indicators of high quality performers. Statements similar to "the recording was remastered to hi-res digital", are very good indicators of music, originally recorded directly to a non-hi-res bucket or format, and then merely transferred to a much higher capacity hi-res digital bucket or format. In my previous post, I was stating my opinion that these transfers are best avoided for optimum results. I only mentioned HD Tracks, as a prime example of a purveyor of these source material recordings with poor performance due to poor provenances, because it was my disappointment with their "remastered to hi-res digital" products that initially spurred me to investigate and discover the critical, but rarely mentioned, importance of master recording provenances. I don’t believe HD Tracks is the only seller that tends to obscure, or at least avoid mentioning, the critical importance that master recording provenance plays in determining the quality of their products. I think this is a marketing mistake and that a better strategy would entail educating consumers on the truth, emphasizing the very obvious sound quality differences between transfers and direct to hi-res digital recordings and increasing profits by charging a premium for the good stuff. I’d definitely and gladly pay a premium. My current opinion is that provenance is destiny concerning the sound quality of recordings. Ideally, recording companies and musicians will recognize this fact and make recording masters directly to hi-res digital the new standard method.
Maybe it depends a bit on how you listen as well. I have always strived for an immersive listening setup....seating position at or slightly closer than distance of speakers apart, which should be significantly larger than usual, i.e..10 to 12 feet (maintain solid center image). Soundstaging, imaging and dynamics are paramount, followed by accurate tone and low level detail. Lights off and volume up to a realistic level is also key! Another trick is using as little toe in as possible while maintaining a solid center image, which increases dynamics and soundstage size/dimensionality. Using components that can bridge the gap between overly detailed and euphonious sound is key...live music is an elusive animal somewhere in between. Get all that right, plus a good room and either format can move you emotionally!
Like I said Tim, that is the responsibility of whomever controls the rights to the recording. HD Tracks has to have permission and pay for what they do. The last thing HD Tracks wants is to get embroiled over pirating substandard copies of recordings for profit. They have a good thing going, why ruin it. Within the normal realm of recording quality I have been very pleased with their product so far. Of over a thousand files there have been two clinkers that I can think of and I do not think it was their fault. If there is an issue with the download they have always made it right. One more thing, any transfer at 24/192 ( the studio standard) is totally invisible. It is not like analog where everything you do adds damage.
CD and any digital of higher resolution are objectively superior to vinyl in every way. But many people seem to like vinyl. Good for them but I ain't gettin' on that train.
dave_b:" Maybe it depends a bit on how you listen as well. I have always strived for an immersive listening setup....seating position at or slightly closer than distance of speakers apart, which should be significantly larger than usual, i.e..10 to 12 feet (maintain solid center image). Soundstaging, imaging and dynamics are paramount, followed by accurate tone and low level detail. Lights off and volume up to a realistic level is also key! Another trick is using as little toe in as possible while maintaining a solid center image, which increases dynamics and soundstage size/dimensionality. Using components that can bridge the gap between overly detailed and euphonious sound is key...live music is an elusive animal somewhere in between. Get all that right, plus a good room and either format can move you emotionally!"
Hello dave_b,
Excellent post! I agree with you completely. My favorite main characteristic of a high quality home audio system is its ability to create a very realistic three dimensional stereo sound stage illusion that is as wide and deep as possible. This very realistic three dimensional quality also requires that the individual musicians’ images within this overall soundstage are being perceived as appropriately sized, solid, stable and palpable for the perception to be created that the entire musical performance is taking place in your room or that you’ve been transported to a very good seat at the original venue.
dave_b:" Another trick is using as little toe in as possible while maintaining a solid center image, which increases dynamics and soundstage size/dimensionality. Using components that can bridge the gap between overly detailed and euphonious sound is key...live music is an elusive animal somewhere in between. Get all that right, plus a good room and either format can move you emotionally!"
I agree with these statements, too. As I believe almost every experienced audio enthusiast can likely attest, while attaining the physical parameters and aspects of a virtual reality stereo sound stage image in one’s room is very challenging. it’s still only half the battle, since as you wisely stated: "Using components that can bridge the gap between overly detailed and euphonious sound is key...live music is an elusive animal somewhere in between. Get all that right, plus a good room and either format can move you emotionally!" That sounds about right to me, I definitely agree that good quality vinyl systems can also create high quality stereo sound stage illusions. It’s just been my experience that utilizing high quality direct to hi-res digital recordings and playback equipment are significantly better at facilitating, and even enhancing, these high quality stereo sound stage illusions than vinyl playback is capable of. I believe hi-res digital’s higher signal to noise ratio and higher detail levels, combined with its inherent lower distortion and lower surface noise levels, are key factors in its ability to create significantly more realistic and palpable virtual reality stereo sound stages. Lastly on a related topic, I’ve also discovered that the accurate reproduction of the power, impact and dynamics of the bottom 2 octaves, bass technically from 16-32 Hz, in a home audio system and room is perhaps the single most important characteristic in distinguishing between a home audio system being perceived as decent with an acceptable facsimile of good bass and one perceived as exceptionally good with bass that sounds and feels like it does when played and heard live in person. High quality deep bass is typically the most difficult frequency range to get sounding and feeling right and natural in a room. It also seems to me that good bass performance, in general, is one of the most neglected portions of the audible frequency spectrum in home audio systems. I’m not certain exactly why high quality bass performance is not more of a priority for more individuals; whether it’s due to a lack of space for the required multiple subs in their rooms, a lack of willingness to spend the extra funds or perhaps just a lack of knowledge of its importance and how to attain it.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
