2. analog
  3. 1078618358

I finally compared CD to vinyl and...

I finally compared CD to vinyl and it was close, very close. But let me put some perspective on this first. In my main system I have an Audio Note 2.1x balanced DAC with Accustic Arts Drive 1 transport (on a Sistrum platform); this is not cheap, plus there's the digital cable and power cords. The vinyl setup I tried was the one I had back in high school and just shipped from my folks home along with some 80s music LPs. This consisted of a cheap Yamaha PF-20 TT, Signet TK4Ep cartridge, stock 20 year old interconnects, and the phono stage in my Mcintosh preamp. I took the TT to a local repair shop for a once over and all they could find wrong is that it runs about 1% fast.

Last night I relived my high school days by playing a bunch of 80s music (and realizing how bad some of it was, but who cared back then). My first impressions were that the TT was very dynamic with great bass and soundstage; it was very smooth. The music was really fun. So much for the glory days.

Today I went to Amoeba and purchased 4 LPs that I already had on CD to do a "taste test" of sorts. Here's my general thoughts...

Keith Jarrett, The Koln Concert
This LP was used. Better on LP. More natural sounding. But lots of popping.

The Shins, Chutes Too Narrow
Not my usual stuff, but some fun pop. Too close to call here.

Johnny Cash, American 4
I think I preferred the LP, but it was close. My wife preferred the LP; warmer she said. But she likes the detail of digital, seems to prefer the cleaner, sterile sound of it.

Norah Jones, Feels Like Home
The LP sounded better to me, but the CD allowed more detail to come through. very close here, slight edge to LP. But with the careful listening I realized that this album sounds compressed. My wife preferred the CD.

Back to my original point: thousands in digital equipment sounds about equal to a 20 year old TT that probably cost $125 in the day. This experience allowed me to hear how "digital" digital can sound; somewhat artificial, clean, sterile. The TT sounded somewhat soft; either it's the TT, cartridge, preamp, or I'm just hearing how "hard" CD can be. the midrange was a bit recessed, but nice, tight bass and very good, natural highs. Johnny Cashs's voice sounded very real on vinyl. In the end I'm not really sure what to make of this. Some of the LPs I bought could have been poorly mastered.

I don't see myself really getting into vinyl right now. Though most of the LPs were clean there was some popping and a few were downright dirty. CD is very conveneint and easier to store. But it's great to be able to buy used LPs for pennies and try out new music. I bought a used Norman Blake LP fpr $2 that I had been wanting to hear for some time on CD. it sounded great, but was dirty.

I'm sure I could get a better TT, cartridge and phono stage and see an improvement. A cleaning machine would help too. But I would prefer to simplify rather than complicate my system. The frustrating thing is how hard it can be (and expensive it can be) to get CD to sound relatively close to analog. I've tried SACD, but not ready to commit to that either.

For you serious analog folks, what CD players have caught your analog ears the most? I bought my Audio note DAC from a guy who was a real vinyl freak and it was the first digital that he liked.

I have some old Genesis LPs that I'll try tomorrow. A few more spins of the 80s stuff (boy, there was a distinct 80's sound). I also have some of my grandfather's classical LPs to cruise. Then I'll probably get lazy and stick to CD. I'm sure after getting away from the vinyl for a while CD will sound great again. This was a fun exercise, though, and certainly enlightening.
budrew
dan_ed
2,451 posts
 
Budrew,

You threw almost the worst possible conditions at your analog components and it seems that you and your wife still prefered the TT to the ceedee. As these other guys have said just image what sound you could be getting from analog with just a few improvements that all together won't cost anymore than a dozen or so ceedees. You already have a very decent phono stage with the McIntosh. It is not true that you have to "put up with all that popping and ticking" with vinyl. You really can eliminate this almost entirely, especially during tracks.

You also asked about digital players. I have not upgraded from my 10 yr old Marantz and don't plan to. I may upgrade my DAC at some point in the future because there is alot of newer music that I can't get in vinyl. I agree with you about SACD and all of the other new digital formats, they are not worth the investment.
nrchy's avatar
nrchy
2,124 posts
 
ALC 777 does that mean that everything done to improve the sound of "Perfect Sound Forever" has really destroyed the quality of the recording? All that technological improvement and CDs sound worse! Well that explains a lot!

Talk about a vacuous arguement.
blptwp
40 posts
 
I have been in the vinyl hobby for over 20 years and I couldn't get into to CD no matter how hard I tried. I think the main reason is that I listen to classical music and CD just don't have the naturalness for classical music. In my experience, I find the source (records) dictates at least 70% of how well your system will sound. A bad recording will sound bad in any system. I have upgraded my system through the years to a certain point that I think is adaquate and now I just listen to music instead of listening to equipments. In my opinion. After you have your equipment up to certain standard, keep upgarding doesn't really get you anywhere for the money because the source (records) plays such a huge factor in sound.
I have many English Decca SXL 2000 and 6000 records from the 50's, 60's and early 70's. These are the absolute best in sound ever made because they were recorded and cut with tubed equipments. As soon as solid states equipment came out in the 70's, the sound quality of LPs dropped. Some early Columbia SAX, EMI ASD, Murcury SR labels are very good too and the early tulips DGG, early Philips SABL labels are also quite decent.
sc53
719 posts
 
Budrew, in answer to your question for vinyl lovers as to which CD player sounded most analog-like to their ears, I did a side-by-side comparison with my Linn LP-12 (Akito arm, van den Hul MC-1 Special cartridge) through the same preamp (Adcom 750) as an Electrocompanient EMC-1 (non-upsampling), Adcom 750 CD player, and Resolution Audio CD-55. The Electro sounded almost identical to the Linn; next closest was the Resolution Audio. The Adcom was fine but not in their league. I kept the Electro Mk I, which you can find used pretty cheap nowadays, since everyone bought the upsampling Mk II version.
sogood51
2,157 posts
 
Budrew

On re-reading my post, sorry for the tone. I do think vinyl may sound better than cd in many cases, I also can understand tube lovers. My system is digital and SS but not because I think it's any better (or worse) than the other.

Many, many components on the market could make me happy when matched with my speakers of choice (this changes every 5 years or so for no reason other than change).

Your post came at a time when I was breaking in a very cheap DVD player I bought for Video only but desided to use as a cd player for the evening. This piece of crap was sounding VERY GOOD but with a little less weight than my other player.

"Weight", this is the thing that I like about vinyl, it has that thickness that 1's and o's don't seem to capture at times...drums are a good example.

That said, I still have to wonder how bad your digital must sound. My Sony XA-777 sacd player (sold it) sounded as good as vinyl on many sacd at the time I had it in my system. I do own an old TT which was pretty good in it's day (hardly ever use it). As a matter of fact, it's not even hooked up.

Dave
More to discover