CD vs. Vinyl


I've personally had to opportunity to listen to identical music on vinyl and CD on an extremely high end system, possibly a seven figure system, and certainly recognized the stark difference between the vinyl sound and a CD.

What makes this difference? Here are three situation to consider assuming the same piece of music:

(1) An original analogue recording on a vinyl vs. an A/D CD

(2) An original analogue recording on vinyl vs. an original digital recording on CD

(3) An original digial recording on CD vs. a D/A recording on vinyl

I wonder if the sound of vinyl is in some ways similar to the "color" of speakers? It's not so much of an information difference, just the sound of the medium?

Any thoughts?
mceljo
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.
My personal thoughts on this are as follows:

Great Vinyl (player & Record) will always beat 'good' digital.

Great Digital will always beat 'average vinyl'.

Some days I like the ease and convenience of digital. Some days I love the process of putting on a record and reading the cover. So I guess the answer is GET BOTH!!! Great vinyl and great digital.
"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?" - Mapman

You are arguing about preference and the discussion is about formats. People might prefer french fries over asparagus but any nutritionist will tell you that the asparagus is better in many ways for them. As far as "easy" is concerned, why would higher-end have to be difficult? Doesn't make much sense.

It is a bit more difficult to argue the facts. CDs are more durable, smaller in size, playable in cars and portable gear, more accessible from retail stores (even gas stations sell CDs), and have advanced features like shuffle/repeat/program. Preference doesn't dismiss these attributes.