Vinyl vs. top-notch digital

Shadorne,
You could very well be right about digital recordings and digital in general.

Disregard what Harry Pearson and Roy Gregory have written about digital and analog sound these past few years.
Their just acouple of audio industry whores pushing way over priced analog junk before the trend withers away.

Also,
What possibly would Mike lavigne know about home stereos and music?
Did you get a chance to read anything on his page?

Shurley he has to be nuts...

Shadorne, your posts are typially well considered and even though we are not agreeing here i don't take your comments as any sort of judgement on my system.

please understand i am very pro digital and typically listen to digtial 60% to 70% of the time. i am as interested in hearing the very best digital player possible as i am the top level analog/vinyl. in fact; i think my current digital player sets a new digital standard. i say 'think' because i have not heard everything out there. let's just say that i know what top level digital performance is. and that, as good as it may be, is really not very close to what top level vinyl can do at this particular point in time.....although it is slowly getting closer.

i've been going down this path for 8 or so years now; since i purchased the Linn CD-12 in 1999 and the Marantz SA-1 in 2000. so i am not just shooting from the hip here. i have 3500 CD's and 800 SACD's and for many of those i have Lp versions.

that recording session i referred to was a very interesting event. it's too bad more digital dogma believers were not present to witness it. those pro audio guys work with those digital tools daily and certainly came to that session with similar notions as yourself. but listening to 8 to 10 hours of tests and more tests and then doing 2 sets of each recording and having 5 people's opinions on each of those events. there was no place to hide from the truth. and that truth is that digital recording is not able to reproduce the magic of vinyl.

OTOH digital is wonderful in it's own right and needs make no apologies. it simply is not quite as 'perfect sound forever' as some might think.

The best vinyl played on a decent system properly set up beats the best CD digital in regards to sound quality, without doubt. Also, the artwork and liner notes on album covers contribute to a more enjoyable overall package than the CD equivalent in most all cases.

There are only so many bits to work with on CD (though theoretically enough) which limits the possibilities, even if perfectly captured from analog digitally and then transformed again back to analog for listening as of course is required in the end by human ears.

However good sound can be obtained more cost effectively on CD. CD players are also more user friendly, which is important. They play longer, are easier and more convenient to use and require little from the owner to set up properly.

I purchase both CD and vinyl regularly. These are the factors that always come into play whenever I have to make the CD versus vinyl purchase decision.

Albert Porter made a good point inthat it is true that I will out of necessity tend to go for vinyl on older, otherwise unavailable recordings whereas for newer recordings, CD may be the only option. Also, used vinyl these days is relatively inexpensive and often provides good sound more cost effectively than CD.

Buying vinyl and then burning to recordable CD for the stated benefits of the medium is not a bad option. Strangely enough, the resulting CD preserves the sound of the vinyl recording pretty well, often resulting in a CD copy with sound quality preferable to those mastered commercially to CD.

The "digital vs. analog" controversy seems unresolvable, from a talking standpoint. As an semi-active musician, I've recorded in both formats and had good, and bad results in each. I've been disappointed with transfers of analog material to digital. I've read a fair bit about digital vs. analog, and talked to my engineer friends. Seems like there are a lot of theories floating around out there about why digital "must be" as good or better than analog, or why analog might "seem to be" more listener-friendly.

What I hear when I listen, using top notch digital playback vs. at least very good analog playback (all as reported above) is quite consistent with what many others (but not all) report: good Lps present a sound that is somewhat warmer, somewhat more detailed, and typically less fatiguing, than what I hear on CD's. I've heard theories that suggest that what I'm hearing is actually a result of deficiencies in the whole analog process. I suppose those theories could be right.

But at the end of the day, who cares? Enough of us hear differences in the formats that I think it's hard to argue that there are no differences (depending on the characteristics and quality of the playback systems, of course). Beyond that, it seems like what matters is what you like. (As noted, I tend to like classical vinyl, and pop CDs. Possibly that plays to the strengths of each, at least on my system.) And, if you're a really serious music and audio junkie, like most of us here, the two formats are at least worth experimenting with. Sure can be fun, and satisfying.

Rushton,

thanks for posting that link to Steve Hoffman's findings. I've read his site, but never came across that one.

Fascinating that he thought a lacquer played back at both 45 and 33 sounded almost identical to the master, and that a pressing sounded so close to the lacquer. I would have assumed much more loss in fidelity at both steps. Nice to know that with a well mastered and pressed LP that we can in fact get so close to the master tape sound. I would have assumed that the open reel copy would have been the best.