2. analog
  3. 1312079140

CD's vs Vinyl - Finally hear the difference

About 2 years ago, I decided to get back into vinyl. I had some old albums I wanted to play, so I blew the dust off my 35 year old TT and fired that mutha up. It took me about 13 months to get my accousic vibration problem licked and to put together some decent analog euipment-some new, some used. Anyway, I started listening to ONLY vinyl. I was surprised how well my albums had been preserved and how well the new ones I purchased sounded. I had read the vinyl purist's comments about how much better records sounded than CD's, but I must admit-I was doubtful. I had put together a fairly good Digital system with a tubed Kora Hermes II DAC. Anyway, I had a friend over the other day and for the first time in almost a year, I put on a CD. I have to say-there is absolutely no comparison how much better vinyl sounds than CD's. CD's sound as though they were recorded in an anechoic chamber. There is no ambience, no warmth, no soul. The music is accurate, but it isn't alive. You simply have to hear it to understand. All the years I wasted listening to CD's! I guess they have their place if you're on the go in cars, boats etc, but if you are wanting to really listen to good quality recorded music, there is only one choice.
handymann
has2be's avatar
has2be
555 posts
 
" 07-31-11: Mofimadness
But we're lucky that tens of thousands of used albums which are on vinyl, but not CD. Works both ways...
Mofimadness"
+1 , thats the beauty of having a choice.
I prefer vynil and always have. Tried very hard and with great expence to make digital work for me. In the end it's great to have the ability to play either depending on which format is available or the choice if both are. Personaly vinyl just sounds "right" to me and digital has come a long way and can sound quite impressive .
An inability to properly set up a table , arm and cartridge IMHO jades more against vinyl for those that go digital only and dismiss vinyl as flawed. Both format's have their shortcomings but it really boils down to what's "right" to the user in his/her system.

Cheers
prcinka
366 posts
 
I have reel to reel player for my tapes from 50 and 60 ties, turntable for the late 60ties and 70 ties and CD player for the rest.....I have to confess....I am buying the Japanese remasters of the Blue Note, Riverside and Prestige on Cd's lately......they just beat my beaten-up records.......
syntax's avatar
syntax
2,193 posts
 
Listening to CD's is like having a shower with millions of little ice cubes... :-)
stringreen's avatar
stringreen
6,468 posts
 
Handyman...it sounds like you need a better CD player. There are levels of perfection in both vinyl and CD.
mikelavigne
2,199 posts
 
even though i'm as pro Vinyl as anyone, and know that mid and higher level vinyl playback has significant performance advantages over CD's, i think it's a mistake to say there is something 'wrong' with CD's. i think it's more that CD/Redbook/16/44 just does not have as much right as vinyl does and does not go as far into the musical truth.

the problem is that if a vinyl lover does not continue to give the digital side enough attention then improvements in digital playback can be unknown to them. with my Playback Designs MPS-5, redbook can sound quite analog. my previous experience was that redbook sounded 'digital'.....not anymore.

no; it's does not do the various things as well as good vinyl, but it does them competently.....and you don't feel 'soiled' when listening to redbook. the redbook does not have the same depth, detail and image density of vinyl. it does not quite get the tonality in the bass, it won't tell you as well what kind of skin is on the drum kit. you don't get the same growl in the cello or double bass. but it's not chopped liver, either.
More to discover