CD vs. Vinyl

Here's an interesting perspective, related to digital vs. analog, from my EE friend. As I've said on other threads, we discuss these topics and many more at work.

"Everything you hear ultimately is traduced through the fully analog mediums of speaker cones and air movement. Because of this, the ultimate audible result of a digital signal is a fairly smooth analog wave. Even if you have only 3 points to determine your wave versus 20 on an SACD or "infinite" on a record, how different will those representations be if you are at the upper frequency limits of the transducing surface? The surface of the speaker cannot instantly transition from full excursion in a positive direction to full excursion in a negative direction, so at some point, because time and motion are involved, the speaker produces the exact same waveform from a three point digital reference as a full analog signal. This would effectively be a "distortion" of sorts with the ironic result of being closer to the original signal.

A vinyl record effectively contains "infinite" data points, which is obviously more information than can possibly be contained by any digital medium. However, at some sample rate (it would depend on your D/A converter and amplifier), the analog output from the amplifier will be identical regardless of whether or not you use the record or the digital recording (assuming that your components are so well designed that they don't individually "color" the analog outputs as you suggest they may).

The ultimate result we are comparing is the audible output from the speakers, and while the D/A converter, amplifier, and speakers may all carry through some of the reduced resolution of a CD recording, there is a point in the digital realm (possibly SACD) where the end result reproduced by the equipment will not differ one iota."

To put my spin on it, at what level does the digital signal become close enough to the analog that the physical restriction of the speakers themselves are the limitation.

I have a difficult time believing that the groove in a record can really contain the same level of detail as a CD or certainly an SACD and that a mechanical needle can track this level of fidelity. So is it really a case of the digial signal actually containing more information than the analog and the analog is "smoothing" things in the digital signal that the speaker is having difficulty reproducing?

I ran my lastest theory by my friend and was shot down. His response was that test have showed that high quality cartridges can track in the range of 50khz which is significantly outside of the range of audio relevance.

He did say that the effect might happen with very mismatched systems like a $20,000 turntable and $200 speakers. Also, a cheap cartridge could have the potential to be the limiting factor with a nice set of speakers.

Physics accounts for much of the difference in sound.

A stylus tracking a record has mass and is hampered by inertia as it tracks a record and modulates to produce a signal. High frequency transients, if even present in the recording to start with, are essentially filtered and come across smoother as a result. It is a challenge for an amp to handle high frequency transients well. As a result, the micro dynamics produced from vinyl is less challenging to amplify accurately and the results are considered "smoother" and more pleasant by many as a result.

With digital, there is no mass or inertia at play. There can be jitter and other imperfections in the D to A process that affects the shape of the resulting waveform when samples are not converted properly at precisely the right time. The extent to which this occurs largely impacts the clarity of the resulting sound but the nature of the distortion is inherently different from that involved with records. When digital is done well, transients and microdynamics are more challenging for amps to reproduce accurately. When all this works well though the overall dynamics of the resulting sound is more vivid and lifelike than vinyl in general, IMHO.

This subject has been beaten to death! But it's still fun once in a while. Here are some advantages CD has over vinyl:

* Portable audio - you can cart around your CD in a nice portable/try that with an LP!

*Track access - you can jump from track to track, shuffle tracks and program tracks. With vinyl, you're carefully moving the needle around the record.

*Capacity - 80 minutes vs 45 (roughly). And you don't have to flip a CD over.

*Longevity - You have to baby your vinyl. One tiny nick or scratch on your LP and the playback is damaged. I think we all agree that CDs are tossed around (within reason) and they still end up sounding great every time.

*Size - It's convenient to store and hold CDs. LPs are large and unwieldy. That makes them vulnerable to damage. And back to that portable issue.

*Car - You can bring your CDs along to entertain you in the car. Ever try to rig a turntable to your Buick?

*Durability - CDs play great 20 years after I bought them. LPs wear out from repeated use.

*Care - you have to regularly clean your stylus and records. It's a chore some love but think about the ease of CDs. You almost never have to clean anything unless you are getting food or grime on them.

*Sound? - Oh...I"m going to get lynched! My point here is that without elaborate setups, expensive equipment, or variable settings (tone arm weight, etc) a CD sounds great every time.

Now sure, this can evolve into side arguments on how warm vinyl is (and it IS warm and nice) but in the end, CDs are hassle free, convenient, easy to maintain/store, and portable. They are not fussy or fragile and you can get them almost anywhere for reasonable prices.

The fact that someone has to spend thousands of dollars to get vinyl to sound better (I KNOW it can be done) than a CD is saying something. For CDs, you can get audiophile sound for hundreds, not thousands. And the rig should last you decades without any pain.

In the end, I am like everyone else here. I love to play around with vinyl. I'm always cleaning it, caring for it, and putting it on the platter when I'm home kicking around. It's a hobby I take seriously. But I would never seriously ignore any of the points I laid out above and say that vinyl is *better*. Because lets face it, barring a very expensive setup and a lot of care and fine tuning, it's not very practical.

Oh...one more point. I an a CAD designer. If I brought a turntable to work, my peers would think I'm BONKERS. They already give me a hard time about my cassette walkman (still love to play copies of good vinyl on chrome tapes). With my Sony DEJ925 CD player, I can fly under the radar and it fits in my desk. :)

"For CDs, you can get audiophile sound for hundreds, not thousands. And the rig should last you decades without any pain. "

Is this perhaps part of why many high end audio buffs are so pro vinyl and anti CD? Hundreds of dollars is certainly not high end, right?

I'd also argue that audiophile vinyl can be had for hundreds as well but it does not come as EASY. EASY is the key word. Then again, EASY is not very high end either.