guenthi_r
Active Member
Big difference! The LP recording sounds not very good to me.... Maybe the LPs are worn?
Last edited:
Correct that is the only legitimate way to compare formats and nothing else. And if it was possible for a consumer to do this the other way round, ie compare a vinyl copy of a CD, the vinyl will sound different to the CD. Surely that would be enough to convince any reasonable minded person which format is higher fidelity. I transcribed many of my LPs at 16/44 to make CD copies in the 1990s. Along with many others in the studio at that time, we could not tell the difference between the LPs and the CD copies under double blind testing - providing we were using the donor turntable as different turntables can sound markedly different.I think an interesting and informative test would be to record Vinyl to digital and see if anyone can tell the difference. The claim is that digital can’t sound as good a vinyl. If you can get vinyl-equivalent sound in digital, there is no need for vinyl. Plus, this removes any issue of finding matching mastering.
I’ve done this many times, and to me there’s no difference at all.
Why not? This was the test which Sony and Phillips imposed on the engineers at the proof of concept stage for CDs and CD players. Remember, the introduction of CDs was a high risk venture which no record production label wanted a bar off (and it wouldn't have happened if Sony and Phillips didn't have their own record producing labels). Anyway, the boards of both companies put together an independent panel of music experts to conduct the double blind tests and they concluded they could not pick the difference between the master tape and the CD copy.I have no doubt that a flat transfer of the master tape to CD would be difficult/ impossible to ABX, in the real world unfortunately:
I am agreeing, it would be impossible to tell the CD from a flat transfer of the master tapeWhy not? This was the test which Sony and Phillips imposed on the engineers at the proof of concept stage for CDs and CD players. Remember, the introduction of CDs was a high risk venture which no record production label wanted a bar off (and it wouldn't have happened if Sony and Phillips didn't have their own record producing labels). Anyway, the boards of both companies put together an independent panel of music experts to conduct the double blind tests and they concluded they could not pick the difference between the master tape and the CD copy.
Version | Title | Source | Preference |
A | Black Cow CD | Early MCA CD | |
B | Black Cow LP | Original US Pressing, AB Matrix, condition VG | Prefer the LP in spite of condition (Noise) |
A | Brown Sugar CD | Original Virgin CD | Prefer the CD, Original Vinyl very disappointing |
B | Brown Sugar LP | Original UK Pressing, A3 / B4, condition VG+ | |
A | Cry Me A Rive LP | Original 1955 Liberty, condition VG Noisy | Prefer the LP despite noise, CD has no highs |
B | Cry Me A River CD | 2 for 1 CD | |
A | Something In the Way She Moves CD | Original CD | |
B | Something In the Way She Moves LP | Original US Pressing LP condition VG+ | Prefer the LP but very close |
A | Sweet Home Alabama LP | Original US pressing, Yellow SOS label, condition VG+ | |
B | Sweet Home Alabama CD | Original Early MCA CD | Prefer the CD but very close |
A | What's New CD | Original CD | |
B | What's New LP | Original US Pressing LP condition VG+ | Prefer the LP but very close |
A | Whole Lotta Love LP | Original US "RL" Monarch Grail Version condition VG | Prefer the LP despite the noise |
B | Whole Lotta Love CD | Original Diament CD |
Fair enough cheers, I read it the other way round.I am agreeing, it would be impossible to tell the CD from a flat transfer of the master tape
I think that serious need for record cleaner is here seriously overstimated in what it is actually capable of achieving.I think you are serious need of a record cleaner. Your surface noise is quite high. The surface noise means most of the A/B can be done in the first few seconds. Can tell which records are new.
Some of the digital items are not great mastering. I expect old master tapes with too much high frequency hissed remastered before better signal processing came along to reduce hiss without hurting the underlying music.
How can the difference be in the recordings? Same source different masters. Most of the difference is in the mastering necessary for LP.If you have a RCM, a decent turntable / pteamp / cartridge and you hear with the ears ... the difference between lp and CD is in the recording.
If you think CD is superior because the measurements are better, your brain will do any trick to show you better sound.
Good cleaned records / stylus and rightly configured tt / fine line cartridges sounds amazing ... you only need an open mind and real measurements ... not in the source ... in the room.
I talk in a more abstract way, not in a specific case. My analog chain can sound as good as the digital ... I only find real "better sound" in certain recordings (vinyl or CD).How can the difference be in the recordings? Same source different masters. Most of the difference is in the mastering necessary for LP.
Vinyl can't match digital.....................PERIOD.I talk in a more abstract way, not in a specific case. My analog chain can sound as good as the digital ... I only find real "better sound" in certain recordings (vinyl or CD).
With properly cleaned records I don't hear any "roar" or badly background noise. Any.
A turntable is a mechanical device, I understand that's is hard for a novelty user to set it properly, solve basement vibrations, cartridge / tonearm compatibility, etc. I think that only people with right knowledge about it can have a real opinion on vinyl ... but, in forums anyone can do it, of course. Digital sound is too much easy, you certainly are in a 100% doing almost nothing.
That's the real difference. Analog needs heart and work ... when you do it properly ... doesn't sound worse than digital.
If you want to do it ... Or not ... it's another aspect, but we can't justify bad SQ based on inconvenience.
I think an interesting and informative test would be to record Vinyl to digital and see if anyone can tell the difference. The claim is that digital can’t sound as good a vinyl. If you can get vinyl-equivalent sound in digital, there is no need for vinyl. Plus, this removes any issue of finding matching mastering.
I’ve done this many times, and to me there’s no difference at all.
I still remember my first real attempt to rip some rare LP's on a super nice vinyl rig. The owner insisted they weren't the same, but he insisted we do it with sound off the speakers to get as clean a copy as possible. I tried to do it with sound on as I knew there was some level of feedback though I didn't know if it was audible. So finally I get him to do a couple with speakers playing at normal volume and he agreed it sound the same or so close he wasn't bothered by it at all.I've done it many times as well.
And, in fact, my phono stage is digital.
I find a big difference between ripping with or without speakers on.
Not in my case. PeriodVinyl can't match digital.....................PERIOD.
Can it be nice?
Can it be quiet enough?
Can it be enjoyable?
Yes to all of these, and as you point out it takes extra care and work. So I'm not seeing the draw of vinyl on sound quality alone.
And yes, if I had two mediums that sound shall we say equally good, and one is rather inconvenient, that inconvenience is a negative.
[/QUOTE]Not in my case. Period
Inconvenience is negative for you ... I like it very much, it's a better experience to listen to music.
[/QUOTE]We only need to accept / respect the opinion / decisions of other people. I don't say that listen to CDs is a b*******, I do it also. I only said that we don't need to have an unique way of thinking.
There are real differences in room/speakers between the two. As for 192/24 etc. etc. has nothing to do with my post.Vinyl as source measures worst? Yes.
But ... how much of that improvement is a real difference in your room / speakers? On your recordings?
In can say other similar aspect in the digital domain ... many people says that 192/24 recordings sounds better. I think is a great placebo.
Thank you for the most common form of backhanded dissing if you aren't a vinyl lover. Akin to the old if you can't hear it then you don't have good ears idea. I must not know good vinyl setups only poor sloppy ones.My opinion doesn't need to be "common"
and digital sources when maded right produces excellent records.
But I will stop right here because we're rounding circles. My opinion certainly only goes for someone who wants to check it rightly or have a curiosity about it.
But ... take advice from someone with real experience in setting tts / good cartridges. Tts are mechanical devices ... is not plug and play, and the difference with the same components badly configured is huge.
That's all folks
Thank you for the most common form of backhanded dissing if you aren't a vinyl lover. Akin to the old if you can't hear it then you don't have good ears idea. I must not know good vinyl setups only poor sloppy ones.
Though I hardly do it anymore, for years I did lots of set up. I was a person that was called to do set up for people who knew me. I can handle all the mechanical/electrical setup and adjustment just fine knowing only too well how critical that is to get the best out of a TT, arm, cartridge and phono preamp combo. So my opinions vis a vis digital vs vinyl aren't born out of a lack of experience of quality vinyl rigs or how to get the best out of them.
So your opinion isn't universal for those with the knowledge of good vinyl or the curiosity about it.