CD vs. Vinyl

I've been to the NY audio show (and various dealers) several times with lots of vinyl and digital rooms. FWIW, all the systems that haunt me still for their sheer beauty of sound happen to have been digital. These include systems with Dynaudio Evidences, JMLabs Grand Utopias, Von Schwiekert VR9s,
Avantgarde Trios, Aurum Acoustics, and Apogees. (Digital was from EMM, Linn [CD12], Levinson, and others I've forgotten.)

And you know, I grew up happily with the joy of LPs and my AR turntable. Now, with an EMM front end and some Senn HD800s with a good tube headphone amp and good cables, the music is just so breathtaking and true and flowing and joyful I don't want to change a thing. I often say to myself I wish some of the good folks here on audiogon could hear what I hear. (OK, I do need to warm up the system for a while to get to this level...) So I have embraced CD sound without reservation.

Imagine two ladders, one has 10 rungs, the other has 15. The vinyl ladder has 15 rungs if you got the $$$$ to get to the top.

I was born listening to scratchy 78's. Records slowed down to 45 and after that 33 1/3; now they got a 45 craze going. Their noiser than CD's at any speed.

I'm not sure whether or not "analogers" are smoking something or what; their claiming that those old "mid fi" tables sound better than CD's. Maybe they have become addicted to "record noise".

CD's are the best thing since sliced bread.

CD's are the best thing since sliced bread.

Yeah, Wonder Bread.

Back around 1984, Dave Wilson put out a test record entitled "Digital -- How Accurate?"

Both sides of the record contained the same music, consisting of ragtime piano and a jazz trio. Both sides were produced from the same master tapes, recorded on his high quality custom-built 30 ips 1/2" analog tape recorder. Mastering and pressing were done to expectably high standards.

The only difference between the two sides was that on one of them the output of the recorder had been processed through what was then a state-of-the-art Soundstream digital recorder/processor, which converted the analog output from the tape recorder to digital, and then converted it back to analog.

That made possible an extremely clear-cut assessment of the degradations that were introduced by the conversions to and from digital, because:

1)That methodology eliminates all variables in the recording process, the mastering process, and the playback process, other than the effects of the digital processor.

2)That methodology eliminates subjective judgments, since what is being assessed is not which side sounds better, but simply whether or not the two sides sound identical. If they don't sound identical, it means that the conversion to and/or from digital has introduced a degradation. (Although of course some "degradations" may be subjectively preferable to some listeners).

On that record the difference between the two sides was clearly audible in many ways, even on modest playback equipment. It would be interesting to see a comparison like that repeated with today's state-of-the-art equipment, and the results might even help to settle some of these kinds of debates.

Beyond that, I second Tvad's earlier comment: "Why is it that we can't simply enjoy what we enjoy without having to debate why we enjoy it?"

Regards,
-- Al