2. misc-audio
  3. 162740-122613

Does Anyone Think CD is Better Than Vinyl/Analog?

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.”
128x128mkgus
clearthinker's avatar
clearthinker
1,582 posts
 
It must be recognised that in 1980 specific storage capacity was orders of magnitude less than it is today. The Red Book CD spec was practical, not theoretical.  It was based on the maximum amount of data that would fit on the chosen silver disc, the Nyquist equation and an 80 minute run-time to allow Beethoven's Ninth to fit. This gave rise to the 16 bit 44.1k standard. Not chosen at all for sound quality, just what would fit. No wonder it can sound very poor, and universally did in 1983, before any of the shortcomings  below started to be addressed.

After 40 years trying, it would appear clock, quantisation, dither, AD converter problems etc  will never be solved.  That means all digital necessarily suffers from false timing, rhythm, dwell artifacts and the widely recognised 'unreal' sound, whatever the information density.  But, properly implemented, more density certainly helps hide these.

But for the CD: 'Perfect sound for ever'?  No.


headphonedreams
527 posts
 
I think it is interesting that digital still gets better. See the January issue of TAS where they review a Wadax dac and the reviewer says it is the best digital he has ever heard. I just hope they can get some of that quality down to "normal" prices.
mcmvmx
108 posts
 
Yes and no . it depends on many variable but normally a 1,000 cd player will sound consistently more musical and accurate hubiera then a 1000 turntable and this price include tonearm and cartridge . 

Now if you get a yourself a 1000 turntable with an integrated tonearm buy yourself a good 500 dollar cartridge be it MM or MC 100 dollar good tablemat , special placement for the turntable to avoid vibrations with good recordings this turntable will be capable of giving any cd player system a run for its money . In other words a well design 2000 dollar modified turntable will challenge and give a good showing of itself to a 5000 dollar cd player be it seperates or integrated . I personally have done the test and these are my findings.
mcmvmx
108 posts
 
There is more consistency on the digital end of recording then the analog side of thing . If you buy 10 LP and 10 cds the 10cd will have a more consistent. sound while the 10 LPs will be all the place sound wise .
sd40
40 posts
 
Reasons why I prefer CD (especially SACD) to vinyl:

1.) Classic LP records were mastered to fit the RIAA curve, i.e., the bass was de-emphasized so the needle wouldn’t jump out of the grooves and the record could be played on teenyboppers’ cheap record players. Paul McCartney said that the most recent remastering of Abbey Road (on CD) brought back the sound that the Beatles heard in the studio, replacing the less powerful (and less authentic) version used to produce LP records. IIRC, his comments are in the liner notes.

2.) The order of songs of an LP record was dictated by the increasing difficulty of playing the track accurately as the needle approached the center of the record, discussed above. Apparently this overlaps with the problem of keeping the needle in the grooves, i.e., bassy tracks had to be put on the outer portions of the record. This is an artificial limitation on artistic intent. And the music in the middle suffers.
3.) Degradation as LP records are played over time and needles wear out.

4.) Surface noise.

5.) Off-center and not-flat records.
IMO, these considerations outrank jitter and flaws in ADC’s.

Digital technology made the loudness wars possible but the abuse of compression should not be confused with CD technology itself. How the technology is used is a choice that recording artists, engineers, and the record companies make, not always wisely.







More to discover