What sounds best: Vinyl or CDs


My system in an introductory level of high end music reproduction, I realize.  I like music, not so much gadgetry so I am content, although I keep tweeking from time to time trying to get better sound.  Martin Logan ESL mains, Def. Tech 800 subs (2),  NAD C375BEE Int. Amp, Project Debut Carton turntable w/Ortofon Red cartridge, Yamaha S300 CD player (with a Rega Apollo R player on order),  Niagara 1000 power conditioner. My question/concern is this:  My CDs sound Sooo much better than my vinyl albums.  My vinyl collection is substantial, from the '60s through the '80s, with all in great condition.  But on my system CDs are more volume sensitive, with more dynamics and depth.  Is this normal or am I missing something in my system?  I had originally thought, "Oh well, they are 40+ years old with 40+ year old recording technology".  But is there more? I have even gone to point of buying the CD if there is a particular vinyl I want to listen to frequently.  Comments?
128x128chipito
Dear friends: I think  that all what we posted in this thread in some or other way is " true ", even the post that said: " how your body reacts " that's " true " too.

Now, what we like it or not is always room/system dependent and each one MUSIC/sound priorities and for we can have a nearer idea which medium as a medium is better maybe we have to analize the " motor " or better yet the " factory " where those motors been builded that in our case is the each one recording proccess and the playback one too:

first and main difference between the analog and digital medium resides at the low bass range that's the foundation of MUSIC and where MUSIC " belongs ": while in digital the bass comes in true stereo fashion ( that's the way microphones pick up the signal. ) and recorded in stereo in the analog medium during cutting/mastering process that low bass range comes in monophonic way due to LP limitations.

This first difference is critical due that as in other frequency ranges all bass notes produce overtones/harmonics and these harmonics has clear influence in what we are listening and influence not only in all the bass range but at the mid range too an even at the high frequencies.

From that point of view digital is faithful to the recording while analog can't be. That's why everything the same digital always has the best bass range in any recording.

Digital recording proccess needs only the converters to record those 0 and 1s while the LP needs several steps that makes some signal degradation before the information stays in the LP surface.

With out " seeing " both whole proccess I want to analize 2-3 steps on the analog side:

RIAA eq.: this analog recording step is " fulminant " for the audio signal, terrible for say the least, because we have to think that from 20 hz to 20 khz the audio signal is equalized in between  ( around ) -18 db to +18 db. In reality the RIAA is an equalization curve, a severe one that affects everysingle MUSIC note/harmonics.

Other step is that the equalized audio signal must be recorded/cutted on the vynil material where is alost imposible to be faithful to that " original " equalized audio signal. 

All these severe audio signal degradation does not exist in the digital recording process that's more " direct " than analog.

Exist other degradation issues in the analog process but with those are enough by now.

Playback at each one of us room/system:

digital is extremely easy and more " direct " too, with a lot lesser signal degradation than in analog and when we are taling of " signal degradation " we are talking that we are adding distortions at each of those additional steps.
Digital needs a DAC and is " done ". There is no need of a phono cartridge with all its disadvantages and other additional steps to listen it.

During playback process and before the cartridge we have to " figth "  with every kind of unstabilities in the TT even on speed accuracy, motor noises, damping problems and the like.
Along those comes the LP imperfections as: off center records and the fact that all LP comes with macro and micro waves due that are not totally flat. All those develops additional distortions to the analog playback experiences.

But not all stops there, the worst is forth coming when the stylus tip touch the first recorded groove:

first than all is that for the playback process stays faithful to the recording that stylus tip must be ridding/tracking exactly with the same angle that the grooves where cutted ( this never happens not even in LT tonearms. ) and must rides/follow those grooves adding nothing but the movements that produces those grooves. This is that must mimic the grooves with out any kind of generated vibrations/movements kind of feedback: impossible to achieve it, all the analog playback prcess is added by different kind of distortions and we can´t do nothing at all.

In that stylus tip job exist differences on the problem/distortions levels depending on the stylus tip shape, stylus clean shape, stylus tip damaged level, LP surface clean condition or dust, and very critical the self cartridge tracking abilities. A nigthmare for say the least.

But things go on: that cartridge is mounted in an imperfect item name it: tonearm that generates by it self several kind of different distortion levels some by its feedback and some other because not well damped design and all these affects the audio signal. Additional the audio signal must pass through the tonearm internal wires and cartridge tonearm input/output mafe/female connectors before gone to the phono stage. More distortions generated there.

The worst for the end: signal goes through the phono stage:

at this step begins the real earthwake a full 9.5 Ritcher one when that already and heavy degraded audio signal must pass for the inverse RIAA eq. that never mimic the recorded RIAA eq. due that always exist deviations ( is the phono stage spec in your unit: 20 hz to 20 khz +,- 0.1 db., in the best cases. ).
This second equalization stage destroy per se what left of that audio signal but things goes on because the signal must be amplified almost 10K times ! ! !  before the linepreamp can handle the signal.


So, now just imagine if what we are listening through the LP is better than on digital medium where the signal did not pass through all those " torture " analog steps..

We like analog because for to many years we are accustomed to those very high distortion levels: we are accustom to, our ears/brain takes it as the rigth sound to listen MUSIC when digital is something totally " new " for the brain.

@mikelavigne posts says all because he has an analog reference rig and a digital reference too and even that his brain is accustom to analog he today discerns very well on how good is the digital experience.

As I posted before: superior to the analog when the target is to stay faithful to the recording and this ismy main target. Analog can't even the digital superior medium, it can't because all those technology limitations: to many degradation steps where audio signal must pass that in digital just does not.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.













@rauliruegas : your prediction is spot-on, youngsters prefer MP3 sound to whatever else is out there. Makes old f@$&s like me cringe, but its true that young brains cannot take the "torture" of analog. Once this recent fad of LPs and cassettes gets old, digital will rule, I suppose...
As for me, as you said, its too late: I Love the distortions, noise, background hiss off my Keel-ed, Aro-ed Sondek (and Nakamichi deck!) and I play SACDs and CDs only as a background/convenience noise. My digital front-end is at about the same $$ point as LP12 (see my profile) but to my aging ears analog gives something extra (distortions?) which I find "natural".
I wonder if dCS stack would be a revelation for MP3 crowd, or if they find it too "analytical???!!!
It is a hopeless argument but always an interesting discussion. Having myself listened to nothing but analog (vinyl, tape, even a few pre-RIAA shellac 78s) for the first 2/3 or so of my life, I recall that the advent of CDs was a revelation of clarity on familiar remastered recordings. I see no earthly reason to change that opinion today. Any issues I've ever had with CDs have been due to poorly recorded disks, remixes that failed to capture the moment (perhaps due to more competent original mixing) or subpar playback equipment.

It would certainly be fun to hear the exact same performance mastered/pressed purely in analog and mastered/burned purely in digital, and A/B both on perfect playback equipment. Alas, I'm restricted to hearing (e.g.) Van Cliburn recorded on tape long ago and mastered either to vinyl long ago or remastered to CD less long ago. In such comparisons, a good CD (mine is RCA, same as the old vinyl) wins by a mile. The 1961 record is made from good vinyl but alas is no longer virgin or even close. The CD remains 'virgin', as does its ripped image. The practical side of the inequality strongly tilts to digital, as the market has demonstrated. The pure quality question is impossibly subjective. Does a modern digital recording sound better pressed to vinyl through a DAC than downsampled onto a CD? Better yet, does a master tape sound better than an HD digital master of the same performance?

There was a reason we went haywire for Burwen pop/tick removers and sliding-filter dynamic noise reduction devices in the 70s and early 80s, and we used them despite the end product being brutal next to a remastering to CD.
Sevs I’m not too sure that ALL youngsters prefer their MP3s. I was in a bookstore just 2 days ago and there were four 20 somethings thumbing through the new vinyl recordings, as limited as the selection was. Plenty of 180 gram recordings of the rock catalog of yesteryear, maybe a novelty? I didn’t ask but this is certainly not the first time I have observed this.

I’m with Schubert, whatever relaxes you into the music, little else matters.