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
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
Budrew, welcome to vinyl-dome. What you have discovered is not just another audio tangent. I'm afraid you've stumbled onto the closest thing to real live music available with current technology. Hey, even your wife is interested. You will soon become as obsessed and boorish as the rest of us, and that's a good thing!

There are some very decent TT/arm/cart choices in the $1500-2000 neighborhood. If you can push it to $2500-3000 however, you can enter a whole new realm. Give it some thought before you decide. Knowing what I know today, I'd willingly have downgraded my $2K CDP if necessary to free up cash for a better analog rig. The sonic payoffs for analog upgrades in this price range are huge, far larger than they are in digital.
dan_ed
2,451 posts
 
Budrew,

Save some coin and build your own record cleaning machine.

http://www.teresaudio.com/haven/cleaner/cleaner.html

A very decent MM cartridge is the Shure v15vxmr. I have heard that one can be had for less that $300 but I can't give you a pointer just now. A recent search should pull up the post I am thinking of. As for high output MC, TWL has suggested the Denon 103R. I have not tried this cartridge yet but plan to soon.
psychicanimal
1,738 posts
 
What is "triple deionized water"? Cation resin, then anion resin and a mixed bed final polisher? Just wondering.
sean
6,231 posts
 
Dan_ed: That was a great link for the DIY record cleaning machine. Thanks for posting it. Sean
>
montobo
18 posts
 
Geez, if some professional chemist wants to jump in, please feel free.

Short, short answer:

It is all about purifying water more and more (the water of your vinyl cleaner) so that residue is not left behind when the water has evaporated.

Short answer:

Both ions and molecules are composed of atoms. Ions are entirely charged species which "cling tenaciously" (remain dissolved) in water. The most typical is in hard water, usually calcium and magnesium ions. But there are lots more. They remain dissolved until the water of your record-cleaning solution evaporates and leaves behind ions as residue salts--undesirable as noise during playback. The various resins, non-soluble polymers, are used to remove ions as a three-stage process. Thus triple de-ionized water.

Long answer:

Both molecules and ions are composed of atoms. Molecules are sharing of their electrons whereas ions do not share. Water molecules, being very polar although not charged, do exhibit a sort of charge-like character ("dipole moment") and therefore strongly attract ions (entirely charged species).

Ions come in the form of positively-charged "cations," where the electron(s) has been given away entirely. Or negatively-charged "anions," where the electron(s) has been entirely retained. Thus, ions strongly aggragate with other ions of opposite charge or with polar molecules, due to electrostatic force. The size of ions can be a single atom (some metal or mineral), several atoms (typically organic or carbon-based; there are others) or many, many atoms--bound in a chain-link like polymer-resin. The smaller ions can be hard to remove from water whereas resins are never dissolved.

(I hope I got this right.) Triple de-ionized water has been taken through a three stage process of removing ions--cation resin, anion resin, mixed resin.

Charged resins can be used to attract and hold the oppositely-charged ions in water when water passes over, around or through the resin. The resin can exist as positively charged (cation resin) or negatively charged (anion resin). The "mixed bed polishing resin" seems to be some sort of mixture of resins that is used as the last refining stage.

Heck, what do I know? I'm just a musician. Anyone, please feel free to correct my chemistry.
More to discover