(Last updated: April 11, 18, 2024)
Music forums can get quite heated about which is “better”, vinyl or CD? Seems everyone has a dog in this fight. You might as well ask which is “better”, chocolate or vanilla? “Better” is the wrong word, often shorthand for preferable, for things which are a matter of personal preference. I prefer vanilla. Better is properly reserved for how well something performs a task, like reproducing music faithfully. If one or the other does that better, you may well prefer it.
“Sounds great (to me)” is an opinion often used in comments online. Subjective opinion is safe, it can’t be disputed, but it is not itself proof of greatness. My own yardstick of “greatness” is how close the audible presentation is to the original live performance, had you been there in the studio, instruments and artists a few feet away. Live performance has a personal impact, not usually “stereophonic”, which is an engineering artefact. Greatness is when your experience of a recording and the original are indistinguishable, high fidelity. Hardly ever happens, but some listening experiences are greater than others.
Improving your listening experience can be a lifetime mission. If you opt for vinyl, other priorities may need to be put aside. You need to be prepared to spend more on vinyl and equipment, forsake the convenience and easy availability of the CD and infinite choice through streaming. Basically, the audiophile listener has to decide which is better – for them. People who are shocked by the cost of some high-end audio, or smirk that it’s a con, I ask what they spend on their car. I don’t even have a car.
Beware the music-purist
Some say the “quality” of sound is of no interest to them, they are purely interested in the music itself. It is a good way of avoiding the sound quality issue, but that doesn’t mean the issue is not there. Ask them what audio equipment they use, a good test of how not interested they are.
Beware nostalgia and tactile preference.
There are many factors that can lead people to “prefer vinyl” which have nothing to do with sound quality. They may like the cover artwork, vinyl may remind them of their youth, it may be a good financial investment, “collecting” is probably a mild psycho-pathology (status: “I have something almost no-one else has!”), all perfectly good, but nothing to do with sound quality.
Beware equipment quality bias
Not all equipment is equally good at extracting and amplifying electrical signals. A very high-end CD transport mechanism, cost perhaps £100,000 , can bring the quality of CD well above that of even a well-specified £20,000 turntable, and vice versa. At the rarefied upper limits of affordability, the quality of “musical information retrieval equipment” may affect sound quality, arguably, even more than the choice of vinyl or CD format. The question, “which performs better, CD or vinyl?” often depends on the level of financial investment in equipment.
Beware the temperature analogy
It is commonly claimed in popular audio-journalism that CD sounds “clinical” and vinyl sounds “warm“. If they do have sound colouration, the listener is describing an artefact of equipment, a symptom of a music system unable to render bass and treble faithfully. It should sound like the instruments playing during the recording, or at least what the engineer recorded. It has nothing to do with temperature, or absence of germs. The difference is emotional. CD sounds pleasant, I can take it or leave it; vinyl sounds thrilling, it compels me to listen.
Beware the upper frequency 20kHz frequency cut off
There is a chain of dependencies: the source instruments and recording environment, the microphones, the tape machine, the mastering and lacquer-cutting process and vinyl pressing. the playback system, and lastly, your hearing.
It is sound engineering orthodoxy that human hearing cannot detect frequencies over 20kHz “The average hearing range of the human ear from 50Hz to 16Khz” – Wiki reference – mine currently fades at around 8kHz. This has been the justification of the sampling rate of the compact disc, of 44,100 times per second, because it enables a recording storage frequency range between 20Hz and 20kHz , supposedly “the range of human hearing”. The compact-disc standard assumes that there is no useful information beyond 20kHz and therefore includes a brick-wall filter just above 20kHz.
The evidence for this 20kHz hearing upper limit is based on sine-wave audiometry tests, indisputable. However it is not the whole story. There is also a substantial body of scientific research that frequencies higher than 20kHz are perceived when mixed with a wider range of frequencies, because those frequencies generate harmonics elsewhere in the frequency range, change what we hear. Additionally, sound is carried by bodily conduits other than just by the human ear. Frequencies higher than 20Khz are both perceived and preferred when present. That is also the science. There is no scientific evidence that the quality of sound is perceivably improved by cutting out higher frequencies. The best they can argue is that it is unnoticeable.
Audio-scientists say different:
The human auditory system can analyze hundreds of nearly simultaneous sound components, identifying the source location, frequency, time, intensity, and transient events in each of these many sounds simultaneously and develop a detailed spatial map of all these sounds with awareness of each sound source, its position, character, timbre, loudness, and all other identification labels which we can attach to sonic sources and events. I believe that this sound quality information includes waveform, embedded transient identification, and high frequency component identification to at least 40kHz (even if you can’t ‘hear’ these frequencies in isolated form)
Musical instruments generate higher frequencies, and they can be preserved
Many musical instruments generate a large frequency range, in excess of 20kHz threshold, some over 100kHz (crash symbol and claves), rimshots 90kHz, the trumpet (straight mute) generates frequencies up to 85kHz, and even human sibilance to 40kHz. (all measurements documented lab-based by CalTech, James Boyk 1997)
Of the trumpet frequency range and volume, nearly a quarter of the sound output of the trumpet is beyond the theoretical 20kHz frequency upper limit. It is relatively low in volume, but it is still there, twice the level of background noise.
Professional magnetic recording tape as a storage medium will record the full frequency output of all the instruments, in so far as the microphones in use were able to capture them. Microphone sensitivity upper limit is an area of uncertainty, some reckon up towards 30kHz, certainly a lot higher than 20kHz. So the information is there on the original master tapes.
Can a vinyl LP storage medium hold these uppermost frequencies? Mobile Fidelity were able to cut a vinyl LP with frequency range as high as 122kHz. 
My Linn 242 speaker tweeters output up to 38kHz frequency. Super-tweeters can be added to lower range speakers with beneficial effect.
Not all vinyl is equally good. Mastering and lacquer cutting engineering decisions affect the final result. This frequency analysis compares a Japanese pressing with a US pressing, of nominally the same recording – frequency analysis by the excellent Youtube ANA(DIA)LOGUE:
I’ve superimposed above a screengrab of the two histograms, which is more revealing than side-by-side. The two pressing histograms are very similar until they reach the upper frequencies, where they depart. The Japanese pressing begins reducing the volume of higher frequencies from 10kHz and upwards, with little beyond 20kHz, and nothing beyond about 26kHz.
I suspect the frequency analysis reveals the characteristics of a digital/ intended for CD source and not Japanese mastering/pressing vinyl preferences, as the upper tonal range looks typical of digital/CD output – rolled off top-end highest frequencies, “because no-one can hear them”. Analogue productions will likely have remastered from original tapes, which preserve the higher frequencies.
Summary:
The output of many musical instruments extends well beyond the 20kHz limit, up to 100kHz or more. The full frequency range is capable of being recorded on magnetic tape, subject to the limitations of the microphone used, and capable of being cut into vinyl. Turntable tonearm/cartridge will retrieve these upper frequencies from the vinyl, and pass them to the amplifier and speakers, which will give the listener the full frequency range experience.
This is the reason why vinyl and live performance are a closer experience than a CD cut off at 20kHz. Listening almost only to vinyl, I can tell immediately when the higher frequencies are missing, not because vinyl can’t reproduce them, but because some engineer in the process has deliberately cut them off. It also explains why you should not buy vinyl records sourced from CD, or digital sources – PCM (pulse code modulation) files mostly created in the late 80s and 90s to prepare compact disc reissues. In many cases the original tapes are long gone, but engineers have got better at simulating AAA from a digital source.
Sound Quality – Inputs and Outputs
There are two important variables in reproduction of music: the INPUT – the quality of the original recording and mastering, “the source”, and the OUTPUT – the ability of the Hi Fi to faithfully retrieve and replay what was captured in the source. Good hi-fi should reproduce simply what is there, without adding anything. Admittedly, all the hi-fi systems I have listened to tend to impart a unique character of their own. Some are dry and analytical, others are punchy and bass-heavy, each more suited to particular types of music, so this may be difficult to achieve in practice, but it should still be the goal. The best hi-fi returns what was recorded, nothing else, bearing in mind sometimes with modern music there was nothing there in the first place but digital samples.
All vinyl is not equal quality
With a vinyl record, there are variations in mastering and pressing of different editions. You can influence potential quality for better or worse by your choice of vinyl edition. In many cases (though not always) the best sounding edition will be the first edition, closest to the original tape master. With CD/digital source, you have got what you got: the file is the same from one copy to the next. Some argue the merits of high resolution files, 24bit/192 kHz or higher, re-mastered from original tapes (if they still exist in usable condition) In my limited experience, that may close the gap, but does not change the final winner.
The output side – audio reproduction – is something you have much more control over, a wide choice of main component equipment and expense. Also power management (dedicated mains supply, balanced mains transformer, purifiers) and interconnects ( high-end plugs and cables) will also make a huge difference to sound quality, allowing you to get the most out of your main components. Don’t take my word for it – or anyone else’s – try it for yourself.
In my experience, what sounds best is “analogue end to end”: from acoustic musical instrument recorded with valve-based microphone, to magnetic tape, to cutting head to vinyl master (no digital preview), to stylus to preamp, and amp to speakers. Every step is continuous physical signal. However on a cautionary note – good hi fi wont make a bad recording sound better. Counter-intuitively, improved equipment can enable you to hear more clearly how bad a recording is. On the other hand it will often breathe new life into a good music collection, which is a big return on investment.
The Source
To some people, music is just music, an audio quality dimension does not effectively exist. I guess that applies to many people who have never heard a high quality vinyl pressing played on a highly tuned vinyl system. They are unaware of what they are missing, so can’t see what all the fuss is about.
There is a loss of musical information in the transfer from the original musical performance onto various digital storage media – CD or download-quality MP3. Simple illustration, as they say, not to scale, not everyone accepts that the difference is audible.
Vinyl stores continuous information. Digitally recorded music is a store of sampled information. CD sampling rate of 44,100 times a second, not because it provided the best resolution of the sound image – that was sought by increasing sampling to 24 bit 196kHz , but to fit the typical length of music around an hour onto the CD medium.
Irrespective of the issue of sampling issue, CD playback has physical problems in information recovery due to jitter and other unwanted interference. Streaming is a better solution for digital files – no moving mechanical parts and remains dependent on solid state circuitry. It merely “closes the gap” with vinyl, neither eliminates the gap or overtakes it.
Sound quality generates physical pleasure
To audiophiles, sound quality contributes significantly to the enjoyment of music, particularly when the instruments are acoustic, as in most jazz. Acoustic instruments move air, and capturing moving air and reproducing it faithfully as moving air requires a good hi-fi system. Information that can be recovered from vinyl is the very smallest detail – the “brushstrokes” – the difference between the experience of a real painting and a printed reproduction. It also includes frequencies which are theoretically outside the range of human hearing, which some studies find evoke a more favourable response when included.
Listening trials have been done to test whether people can correctly identify different grades of audio equipment – usually, a very expensive component and a cheap one. Good journalism – subtext : you are being conned – but not always very scientific – we did this test with “some people” on “some equipment” and “they” couldn’t reliably tell which was the more expensive. You must draw your own conclusions. Comparing sounds has a host of issues – noticing new information due to repeat listening, listening for the wrong things (more bass vs less bass, deeper bass vs tuneful bass, louder vs less volume) never mind expectation bias. Very often things sound “different”, but which is the better “different”?
I listen on high quality equipment to vinyl , I gave up streamed cd, but I reckon I can tell the difference between digital and analogue sources in the opening seconds. I also compare vintage pressings with modern pressings of the same recording, different generations of vintage, and the difference can be significant.
Real World Listening Tests
Opinion at LJC is based on physical listening tests – A:B:A:B:A:B. I have a large collection of vintage original pressings and 2nd/3rd later pressings as well as modern reissues – both from analogue and digital legacy sources. I do my own “science”, based on observation and experiment. More than a few times, my expectations are confounded, demonstrating the primacy of listening over thinking. Thinking often merely seeks to protect previous opinions, to prevent that house of cards that is the sum your opinions from collapse.
LJC Soapbox: due to the democratisation of opinion through social media, many commentators are motivated by followership gain/ conflict avoidance, or controversy/attention seeking gain, through narrative
I subscribe to the philosophy that truth has no agenda, it goes wherever truth is found, for better or worse. Truth is the enemy of all agendas, whose proponents fear truth, because they are robbed of control. Truth is also a burden because it at risk of error. I make mistakes, nothing is mistake-proof, but correction promises “more truthfulness”, it repays trust.
Comparison
Often you hear the disclaimer “but I don’t have golden ears”. No-one has, or more correctly, everyone has, everyone hears the same thing (tinnitus aside). However not everyone has built up a palette of experiences, a thousand points of comparison, or a vocabulary of comparison. Think of your first glass of wine. Now think of a thousand glasses later, when you can understand, and describe what you are tasting when you taste it, because you have developed a vocabulary to articulate the difference. Audiophiles talk about “timing”, and “musicality”.
Vinyl vs CD : LJC Verdict
In listening pleasure, vintage vinyl beats CD around 90 – 95% of the time. Every now and then, something surprises me. Much modern vinyl (pressed in the last two decades) is disappointing and offers little advantage over CD, a digital 24 bit/192kHz LPCM source file remastered on 180gm vinyl.
Bear in mind, not all modern vinyl. In just the last couple of years (2019-24), some audiophile vinyl manufacturers have made incredible improvements through all analogue processing mastering from original vintage tapes with quality pressing (Blue Note Tone Poet, Music Matters Jazz 33, Vinyl Classics Series).
The Lost Recordings
The vinyl resurgence has brought out many “lost tapes” issued on vinyl. Lost because they were not artistically up to the mark, or were recordings for radio, or amateur tape bootlegs which should have stayed lost.
Personally I don’t care if vinyl is “trendy” or not. There is too much reissue vinyl that is sourced from digital copies, and it really doesn’t matter if it is 180gm vinyl or 120gm. Read closely the producer’s word as the the source. Every vinyl reissue is “re-mastered”, it has to be, to get it on a vinyl disc. Everything is “from the original recording”, however rubbish the intermediate sources are.
The effectiveness of Hi Fi with different types of music
I have listened to some modern sound sample based electronic music on LPs – laptop composers – and if this is your thing, personally I would just get a Technics rig with the maximum bass and volume amplification. You can not recover what is not there in the first place and I wouldn’t bother with hi-fi sophistication unless you enjoy equipment and mod-ing in its own right – though that is a legitimate interest.
Life at the upper level of hi-fi
Once you get to the point of good source faithfully reproduced, you can move up to the next level, the music experience: artist coherence, rhythm, timing, emotion, easier to follow, freshness. It’s a good experience.
However you will have to struggle with a number of issues with vinyl, such as storage volume, cleaning, and sky-rocketing auction prices. Research has never been done on this, but I would bet money it would prove that marital difficulties ensue when a record collection exceeds 3,000. At only 2,400, my own is often the subject of robust discussion.
Since my beloved is neither a hi-fi gal or a jazz-lover, the topic returns frequently: It’s too loud, could you turn it down? You have too many records, the house is being taken over by them! Those speakers are too big, you never asked me before you bought them. All those hideous wires! Add your own.
Then there are clicks pops and scratches, because original owners of your records in the Fifties will have played them on a vinyl-destroying machine, known as a portable record player: Eight to twenty grams tracking weight arm, the autochanger, and a chipped sapphire stylus that was never changed. Not every vinyl seller is entirely truthful.
Realistically, you need to equip yourself for the best of both worlds…
Further audio research references
“In the days of analog tape, one of the most significant problem areas was in copying tapes. An original analog recording can sound very good. But a copy doesn’t sound quite so good, and a copy of that copy is starting to sound distinctly ‘iffy’.
Each generation of analog copies increases the noise level and the distortion percentage. The frequency response suffers too as inaccuracies in the original are further increased by frequency response inaccuracies in the copying process.”
Typically, the information loss with reissues from copy tape is of upper frequencies and bass extension (tending towards softness) and loss of detail in note attack and decay. This is compounded by mismatch in equipment, the introduction of solid-state circuitry in mixing, differences in the cutting engineer’s judgement on amplitude, groove pitch and depth, as well as the absence of post-production tweaks such as reverb not present on the flat copy tape.
If that vinyl in your hand is sourced from an analog copy tape (Japanese and European pressings of US recordings of Blue Note, Prestige, Columbia, Atlantic, just about all of them), the reissue will often offer less satisfactory presentation compared with the original. At best it may sound similar, more often, weaker and lacking punch, and sometimes, barely listenable. It must be said, the same degradation occurs in the reverse flow, in British recordings reissued in the US.
At its best, vinyl is sonically unbeatable, but not all vinyl sounds good, merely because it is vinyl. Vinyl is a non-judgemental carrier of recorded music, both good and bad music, well or badly recorded, played back on varying quality of equipment.
LJC
LondonJazzCollector 
Pingback: 10 Must-Visit Thrift Shops In Kansas City, Missouri Ensured
Hello London Jazz Collector,
I enjoyed reading your article about the debate between CD and vinyl. As someone who is interested in both formats, I appreciated your thoughtful analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each.
One thing that stood out to me was your discussion of the difference in sound quality between CD and vinyl. I think that this is a topic that is often debated, and I appreciated that you took the time to really dig into the technical details of why each format sounds the way it does. It was interesting to learn about the limitations of both formats, and how these limitations can impact the listening experience.
I also liked your discussion of the emotional and aesthetic appeal of vinyl. I think that this is an aspect of vinyl that is often overlooked in discussions of format preference, and I appreciated that you took the time to explore this aspect of the vinyl experience.
One thing that I would have liked to see more of in your article is a discussion of the impact of vinyl and CD on the music industry as a whole. It would have been interesting to hear your thoughts on how the rise of digital music has impacted the industry, and how this has affected the way that music is produced and consumed.
Overall, I found your article to be engaging and thought-provoking. It was clear that you put a lot of thought and research into your analysis of the CD vs. vinyl debate, and I appreciate the insight that you provided.
LikeLike
See THE NATION (April 17/24 2023 Issue), an article titled THE END OF THE MUSIC BUSINESS by Ethan Iverson.
LikeLike
Hi there. Not sure how many comments
or subscribers you have got so far from Poland, but here we go. I haven’t got knowledge or experience or even passion for music on any comparable level to Yours guys, but I found CD or Vinyl discussion very interesting. Of course I love music, live performances, live instruments, I have some experience in HiFi setups etc, I’m keen photographer myself. I would like to share with you my personal view on analogue vs Digital discussion. Analogue means of recording and storing information have existed since human kind. We often (even with these days technology and science) struggle to decipher it, but it proves that can last not decades but centuries. Language, form and purpose of that information vary, but undoubtly many of us has very old photo albums with grand parents, even with great grandparents, etc. National archives have Titanic launch videos, 1st Expedition of a human kind to the Moon etc. These days everything seems violatile. Bilions of snaps or video taken with mobile cameras are stored somewhere in the cloud, We often lost track of them, often they dissapear, because some cloud subscription have expired, access is lost, storage is damaged or stolen, etc. My childhood photos were taken with some bulky soviet camera, then with compact 35mm camera, then with Digital cameras. I have a few if not dozen albums of photos taken with film cameras and one album with photos taken digitally. My point is, that despite very few of us can aspire to level of competency, knowledge or experience with music, HiFi equipment, etc. As you guys , there are many of us, who appreciate “magic” Associated with grainy photos, films, mechanical watches and clocks, analogue musical instruments, mechanical cameras, typing machines, natural light sources, classical cars, steam machines. They all perfect examples of “imperfect” world, but why on earth We miss it so much year by year even more? Thanks for Reading and My apologies for any errors in text.
LikeLike
Dziękuję za wasze przemyślenia, Robert. That’s Google translate, but often that’s good enough.
A lot of what is claimed today as “progress” is just ways of making things more cheaply by compromising the quality in ways they hope people won’t notice. I suspect many people don’t notice. Real improvements in quality tend to be costly, and noticed only by the few.
Only yesterday some buddies were “auditioning” some vintage vinyl pressings (late 60s) against more modern vinyl, on high-end gear. Its chalk and cheese, as we say. It is not sentiment or nostalgia, they sound much better than even the best modern production. The reason why may never be known, but the experience is indisputable.
Where I get lost is when artists try to “modernise” the jazz music content, usually by importing beats and hip-hop percussion from dance genres, and some “world influences”, Frankenstein music, made of various musical body parts. There is more to music than formulaic sample-assembly. But that’s for another day.
LikeLike
Hi LJC, thank you so much for your replay. I did not mean nostalgia or sentiment, but more like need for physical connection and involvement in the process of creating, enjoying or using things. For photographer, for video maker, for watch maker / collector , for music lover, for vintage car restorer, the fact that you have to understand, have knowledge of certain things in order to bring to life what’s hidden, or in order to create it, or in order to be able to get final result right is very exciting. Same goes with your passion for music, for records, for hifi equipment, for ongoing research on finding better or purer source of music or vinyl. I don’t doubt in any of your statements about importance of quality, starting from the source. I have degree in electrical engineering and I understand that slightest temptation to cut corners in the quality have consequences. But on the other hand, there are very few People who really understands it all and more importantly are able to take path of ongoing upgrade, research, learning and training your senses, similar to Yours. On the contrary, I recently got birthday gift from my wife-turntable. Very entry level, sub £1000 range + headphone AMP for my old AKG cans. It will never be beginning of your adventure / experience, as I have very different abilities, priorities in life but quess what. I very soon realised, that listening to my favourite music on vinyl on that gear, is so much enjoyable, that despite having only few LPs of my favourite music, can take me in no time, 3 hours ahead, that’s how quickly time passes when you enjoy something. I also have Network streamer, I used to have CD player, portable Player with entire music collection, subscription to popular streaming service, etc, but none of these gave me so much enjoyment and I think that’s what I really wanted to share in my first post. 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. We oldies have long had all our basic needs met, can indulge our passion, and it is a personal priority. It can not be easy if you have many commitments earlier in life. Sounds to me you are making your way in the right direction.
Someone was commenting how expensive hi-fi is, and I asked what car he drove. I don’t have a car, cars are expensive.
LikeLike
Very clever indeed. Just to clarify, I would never ever make any comments on what one’s passion is and how much effort, time and investment it requires. I’m very happy for you that you’re at the point where you can truly enjoy what you love with your heart , ears and senses. I really enjoy Journey through your blog, despite I am naked eye astro observer and you have reached Milky way long time ago…just to let you know, I’ve spent 15 years as AV installer for major integrators in London and probably have never met anyone with so much knowledge, experience and passion as yourself. I’ve been to Linn factory in Scotland, so despite we’re somehow far away, we still spin round same axis. LJC, keep up excellent work, your posts are good companion to contemporary music listening.
LikeLike
Thank you for this detailed comparison, probably the best I’ve found on the web, pulling together all the pieces in the chain from recording to playback. The high frequency advantage of vinyl is convincing based on the reported measurements and my own listening experience. I have been collecting vinyl for 20+ years but over the past couple years have integrated stereo subwoofers into my system and have enjoyed the improvement tremendously. I’m not looking to shake the house, just to gain the realism low frequency extension can bring. When I listen for low end authority, definition, control and extension, vinyl seems to consistently fall short compared to cd, especially on recordings from the early 70’s onward. The subwoofers go to 19Hz. My turntable is very well isolated. Would you (or any other readers) be willing to share your knowledge about low frequency content on original tapes, vinyl’s ability to store it, and cartridges’ ability to reproduce it? I prefer many aspects of vinyl playback but the low end problem, made more evident with stereo subwoofers, is pulling me in the direction of digital. To me cd seems “close enough” to vinyl in the high frequency extremes, but far superior to vinyl in the low frequency extremes. I will gladly “give up” potential high frequency extension present on vinyl for the gains in the low frequency extension present on cd’s. There are many claims on the internet that vinyl is inferior to cd in the low frequency content (summed to mono, rolled off), but I have not heard any defense of vinyl’s performance in the lowest frequencies captured on tapes.
LikeLike
You have me bang to rights, I put my hand up, I have not compared bass performance of the two formats yet, as I am not personally a “bass-hunter”. Certainly CD can encode much lower frequencies than vinyl, which has the problem of stopping the stylus jumping out of the groove or using up precious vinyl space. What the rest of the reproduction chain delivers may be another matter. The problem is compounded because acoustic bass and how it is recorded has a different character from electronic bass and digital bass samples. The crux for me is the difference between more powerful “booming bass” and more restrained “dry musical bass”. More research required! Thanks for the prompt.
LikeLike
Thank you for your reply. I have read that microphones/tape recorders from the 50’s and 60’s didn’t record below 30 Hz. If this is true, recordings from that period may not have much more low end content to offer on cd compared to vinyl. Thanks again for your excellent website!
LikeLike
Acoustic bass violin and electric bass guitar are two entirely different instruments. It’s a shame they both get labeled “bass,” encouraging people to make head-to-head comparisons between players of quite different axes. I’m quite tempted to call upright bass violins with pickups on the bridge yet a third instrument in the “bass” category.
Interestingly, back in Indianapolis in 1958-59, when I was acquainted with Wes Montgomery, he told me that he had been experimenting a bit with brother Monk’s Fender bass, playing it like a guitar. He even lent me a reel-to-reel tape to listen to it. It was quite fascinating. It’s a shame I didn’t have the equipment to make a copy, because that tape seems to have been lost.
LikeLike
Wes Montgomery’s excellent 1960 release, Movin’ Along, does have a few tracks where he played electric “Fender” bass instead of guitar.
LikeLike
Thanks for the tip! That’s an album I don’t have.
LikeLike
Hi LJC, thanks for a fantastic blog and resource.
I’ve gotten into Jazz over the last five years, and have steadily been buying BN80/Classic and Tone Poet re-issues. I’ve also been buying RVG and McMaster CDs to supplement my collection as they’re very cheap, and I find the presentation compared to modern Classic/Tone Poet vinyl re-issues similar.
Original or early BN pressings are out of reach for me sadly. Given you prefer vinyl to CD, I wondered how you rated some of the more affordable (that aren’t TP/Classic) vinyl re-issues, such as BN75s, French and Japanese pressings in comparison to their CD counterparts? Do you still think vinyl-> CD for those vinyl pressings that you think are sub-standard?
LikeLike
The best value/ best sounding vintage vinyl reissues are probably United Artists early/mid 70s blue label, where you have Van Gelder metal. I’d include with that the black/turquoise Liberty and the US two-fers which Michael Cuscuna pulled from Van Gelder tapes.
The 1980s EMI reissues (French, US and Japan) are generally quite poor relations, not recommended. Nineties and Noughties vinyl reissues sound digital. It is only in the last ten years that “audiophile” qualifies, but not the Back To Blue 75’s, which were compromised by digital sources and poor manufacture. These are my thoughts, others are free to disagree.
Some people are very supportive of Classic Records reissues, and Analogue Productions, not me, but as I have always said, no-one knows what anyone else hears, it is very subjective, and a lot depends on your listening gear. A wise head ten years ago told me, once you have heard original Blue Note, there is no way back. Ten years of listening says they were right.
LikeLike
Much of the bad comments about the BN75 was due to the pressing plant used for the ones sold on the US market. The BN75s that were sold in Europe were pressed at Optimal. Still, the lacquers were cut from digital files, but they sound better than CDs, at least on my system. I still play my copies of Afro-Cuban (Kenny Dorham) and Cape Verdean Blues (Horace Silver). Anyway, I would advise waiting for them to be rerelease via the Blue Note Classic Series. Quiet a few albums have been repeated in the Classic Series. A few albums (Cornbread, Black Fire, Expansions) have been released as Tone Poets and are currently out of stock, with no known repress dates. They will eventually get repressed.
Analogue Productions are probably only available on the secondary market and very expansive. I haven’t checked and I’m not interested, but it would surprise me if they were still available at retail.
LikeLike
Great thread. Had to leave a comment as a long time hifi lover (addict?), Jazz fan (on vinyl), and electrical engineer, on my observations over the years.
1) Mastering matters. Vinyl has technical deficiencies that require bass roll off, panning to mono, de-essing etc. Vinyl mastered and pressed up to the 80s is nearly always better than later pressings. This is likely down to relative technical skills of operators, pressing plant quality etc.
2) The red book CD standard is the best consumer digital format (lossless etc). With advances in production and playback (added dithering on source material, 1 bit DACs due to oversampling) it tends towards to 20 bit resolution which due to the linear scale used for D to A conversion removes the problem of relatively higher distortion for small signals (where the ear is most sensitive)
3) Technically CD is better than vinyl and should sound much better than vinyl but in real life with a good set up often doesn’t. It often produces fatigue in a way good vinyl doesn’t.
4) The reason CD subjectively sounds worse may be due to phase information. Shannon-Nyquist tells us that we need more than 40kHz sampling to encode a 20kHz waveform but it doesn’t mention phase. The human ear is very sensitive to phase, and this may be why we prefer a fully analog experience.
LikeLike
EXCELLENT comment! That first point reminds me of why, at AUDUBON magazine in the 1980s we pretty much had to stop publishing “pretty” black and white photography: printers had become some completely dedicated to color that the knowkledge of how to properly print B&W had pretty much disappeared as the old-timers retired.
LikeLike
I Sent in haste. Auto-correction changed my “so” to “some.”
LikeLike
Gentlemen, thank you for your comments, which enrich this discussion. The best CD system I have heard was Peter Qvortup’s home system, simply OMG . I’m at the stage in my hifi journey that the difference between one LP and another is simply the quality of the recording (right mics in the right place and right man at the dials), the mixing and cutting engineer. There is a void between 1980 and 2020 where a lot of the reissue stuff on vinyl is just rubbish, a few exceptions of course. The industry is still turning out fake vinyl (anonymous digital-on-vinyl from CZ and NL) but there are some really great reissues from authentic tape sources, from bona fides sources, a source of daily delight.
LikeLike
Ha ha! I’ll add this: Is that porterhouse steak Choice or Prime? How well is it marbled? Was the beef grass- or corn-fed? How long was it aged, if at all? How thickly was it cut? How was it cooked? And by whom? To what degree? Lots of variables that will profoundly affect how much you enjoy your meal. Same with the hamburger. As for reconstituting that porterhouse, fuggeddaboutit. It’s not a perfect analogy to the issue at hand. Both vinyl and CD are trying to “reconstruct” that porterhouse steak the recording and mastering engineers gave us.
I can’t afford the high-end equipment that would make a real difference, so I prefer the convenience of CDs. However, having worked at RCA Victor’s Indianapolis pressing plant back in 1958-59, I can tell you that there are MANY variables in the manufacture of a vinyl disc. Last, I can’t say that I have heard many records–vinyl or CD–that were truly faithful to hearing the same musicians live.
(LJC: I’ve merged your posts into one, so easier to follow)
LikeLike
My home audio system:
Sony STRDH 130 AM/FM Receiver
Sony CD/DVP Player
Optimus STS 100 Speakers
Optimus PRO SW 12 Subwoofer
Auralex Acoustics Subdude HT Isolation Platform
RCA 18 Gauge Speaker Wire
Music Format:Compact Disc
Storage Type: Find It Gapless Media Binders
Now playing in my cd player the soundtrack from Cats (2 disc)
I’m happy.
LikeLike
Hi thanks for dropping by Robert. I see you have a list of equipment. Helpful to know what they sound like, in a few words. What is it about this combination of equipment that makes you happy?
You could be happier still. Have you owned or listened to a good vinyl system with which to compare it, or have you only been a CD listener? Asking for a friend.
LikeLike
I bought my first album on cassette back in 1978 from Columbia House Record and Tape Club. I had over 200 cassettes along with several vinyl albums and I even had a 8 track. One night my newly acquired dual cassette deck ate one of my favorite cassettes. Upon trying to get the mangled cassette tape out the head broke on the player. I was absolutely crushed and I wasn’t about to buy another cassette deck. So I ditched it and all of my cassette collection. I decided to give compact disc a try. I’m closing in on 400 cds now. I’ve always loved physical music formats and being able to touch it. Reading the albums liner notes is a bonus. You can’t get that from downloaded music. As for my home audio system I started putting it together in the 1990s. My speakers and subwoofer are the oldest. Radio Shack and Crutchfield were my go to places. I absolutely love the way that my cds sound. I even have isolation feet under my speakers and cd player. At the end of the day it’s all a matter of personal preference which music system a person chooses. Thanks for your response.
LikeLike
Pingback: 6 Reasons Why Vinyl Is Popular Again - TuneCore
Think about digital this way. Take a Porterhouse steak (Analog). Put it in a A/D converter (Hamburger). D/A to try to reconstitute it into steak. The steak obtained this way is not quite up to the Porterhouse steak you began with. The higher the bit rate, the higher the sampling rate, the better the hamburger is. The finer and more subtle details like room acoustics, the natural decay, the detail in the cracks, gets lost in translation to varying degrees. Which is where the musical end of things come in. Those subtle cues remind you of what you had, what you’ve lost. Once gone, and digital, never put back.
LikeLike
Not quite true, digital audio recordings with 24-bit depth and 96kHz sample rate surpasses what a human ear can perceive in terms of dynamic range and frequency. This analogy doesn’t represent the fact that digital, uncompressed audio signal with high sample rate and bit depth preserves nearly all the information needed to reconstruct a analog signal using a hi-res DAC. Vinyl has serious limitations on lower frequencies when digital format has virtually none.
LikeLike
I’ve spent many years building my dream ultra high end digital audio system. Opted for streaming lossless digital files over playing CDs/DVDs, as I felt that streaming gives me less strenuous sound.
To cut the long story short, I’ve attained a very smooth sound that carries a lot of substance, weight and is not glaring or ‘glassy’ sounding like a lot of your typical digital sound reproduction can be.
Then a year ago, as my birthday was approaching and my wife asked me what would I like to get as a present, suddenly and unexpectedly I exclaimed — a turntable! I was curious to hear what (if any) difference would a turntable make compared to my almost perfect digital system.
So I did a lot of research and went out and bought a fairly high end turntable equipped with a good tonearm, a good MC cartridge, a good SUT and a good phono preamp. When I put all those front end gadgets together and sat down for a listen, I was pleasantly surprised that it did not sound quaint, nostalgic nor wimpy compared to my all mighty digital front end. I was honestly expecting the expensive analog front end to sound inferior to the digital.
Then, a few weeks later, a friend asked if I’m using a record cleaning machine. I had no idea about that, but he recommended I try it. So again, I went out and bought a good RCM. Sat down to wash, vacuum, rinse and vacuum again a few LPs. Wasn’t expecting much, but hey, at least keeping the grooves clean will prolong the lifetime of my expensive stylus.
After finishing with the cleaning I went upstairs for a listen. My god! The improvement I heard from cleaned records was staggering. Bigger than any improvement I’ve ever heard from any upgrade, no matter how expensive or serendipitous it might have been.
Now, all of a sudden, my analog front end was destroying my pride and joy — the meticulously tweaked digital front end. It was at that point that I finally understood the difference between the analog music signal and the digital signal.
So for me, the decisive factor in all of this is the RCM — make sure you clean your LPs thoroughly, with the most meticulous care. Only then will you be able to hear what is really hiding inside the microgrooves!
LikeLike
Hi,
I can absolutely relate to what your are writing in this article, but have 1 question and 1 observation:
did you compare original Blue Note and Verve lp’s to analogue productions and music matters reissues? What’s your opinion on that?
to me, even electronic music benefits a lot from a very good vinyl based optimised hifi.
Cheers,
Tom
LikeLike
Hi, I have done numerous A:B comparisons between original vintage pressings from the ’50s 60’s the real thing (which I own) , and various modern reissues, from mid 90s Connoisseur , Analog Productions, Music Matters, Speakers Corner, lots of others. I listen on a pretty revealing hi-end system, and I can honestly say I have yet to hear anything modern that sounds anywhere near the quality of original vintage vinyl. This based on listening to actual original vinyl, often in the company of a friend or two, who can validate your impressions with their own. Enthusiasts for the modern manufacture usually have no reference points, why would they, they already know “modern is better”, based on…nothing. Catch 22. If you “know” modern is better, why would you buy a vintage copy as well? However, they often say they are perfectly happy with it, even that it “sounds great” to them, and who can argue with that?
LikeLike
Having read the posts in this part of the blog and particularly yours, Heisenberg, let me try to add just a few words.
The wealth of vinyl rips presented by LJC, fascinating as they are – they’re all digital, aren’t they? If “digital” were a category of its own, then comparing vinyl discs in this way wouldn’t make any sense. Which, of course, everyone including myself would object to.
Speaking in terms of sound only, and ignoring a vinyl record’s other qualities, the best thing you can do is: Digitize it the best way possible! No more groove wear, no more stylus adjustment, no more speed issues, no more cleaning and so on and so forth.
But this is exactly what nobody wants. The sound of vinyl would be crap without all the solemn ceremony surrounding it. Apart from that: What prevents me from getting rid of my vinyl department is the fact that records are “real” and I can read the liner notes without having to fiddle with CD booklets.
LikeLike
Verrry interesting. And I’m sure you will disagree with both.
LikeLike
The rips here are digital because mp3 it is the only music medium WordPress supports. I would post out thousands of Blue Note vinyl originals to readers, but I am still waiting for my Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grant.
The intention is to provide a sample of the music to support what is written about it, not to represent the quality of vinyl. If you share any enthusiasm for the music it may encourage people to go get it on their format of choice, or if they already have it, nudge them to rediscover it. The blog is to stimulate a conversation about the subject, because I already know what I think, and that’s a bit boring.
I like music that sounds as close as possible to the original instruments in original performance. Vinyl gets me closer to that goal than any other medium. It has nothing to do with loving vinyl, holding it, smelling it, the ritual of handling it, or the pleasure of album filing, though if some people enjoy that, good for them.
I’m attracted by the possibility of improving the quality of sound through improving components and infrastructure of vinyl playback. It is infinitely perfectible, in small affordable increments. When I replaced the (made-in-PRC) valves in phono and pre-amp with Telefunken new-old-stock valves (made in Berlin, 1964). Shazam! everything just sounded “right”, faster and more fresh, that’s worth walking to the turntable for.
I hardly ever play my CD-sourced digital streaming, the sound is just lifeless in comparison to vinyl playback, which I admit has seen more than its share of investment. I don’t think it’s worth further investment in digital, and if I digitised my vinyl I would be replaying it through inferior solid state components of the digital streamer compared with the analogue side , sounds like a retrograde step to me.
You could say I’m a bit of a stuck record on this subject, so I’ll stop….
LikeLike
Now come on, LJC, you’re not just collecting “sounds” (“as close as possible to the original instruments” – whatever that may mean to different people) – you’re collecting records! Labels! Inner & outer sleeves! Deep grooves! RVG stamps! – No?
LikeLike
Yeah, well, begrudgingly maybe there’s that too…
..the thrill of the chase, the excitement of treasure discovered, the gambles, deadly forensic skills, the artful-bidder…the bargains, disappointments and disasters,…Hi Diddly-Dee, a Collector’s Life for Me..
LikeLike
Vinyl is crap. CDs and streaming are the only way to listen to music.
Because?…..
LJC
LikeLike
I have a moderately priced sound system around 30k $AUD with the cost split between an analogue and digital rig. The digital rig includes a NAD M51 DAC which was WHAT HIFIs top DAC award winner for 1200 pounds or above in 2012. This DAC although far from the best money can buy, can keep up with many that are much more expensive however like analogue equipment, the benefits between DACs vary for different measures. The quality this DAC produces for digital music I play through it is amazing and very analogue-like in terms of silky smoothness with noticeable omission of digital edginess. I also use JRIVER MC for playback, USB transfer, WASAPI protocol, upgraded power supply and upsampling where of benefit.
As mentioned by others, the mastering is always key to how good the end result is on that format. However when having both formats Digital and Vinyl of a similar mastering quality, which does require that the best record pressings are used for comparison as I find bad pressing or poorly mastered / recorded analogue material certainly sounds worse than digital, I also consider that scientific measurements shouldn’t be the method for discerning what actually sounds more real and true to life to the listener.
In summary, 70% of my vinyl collection sounds better on vinyl than the CD or high-resolution counterpart I have. Depending on the recording it can sound 5% better or 50% better. In terms of sounding better, it is distinctly better in its ability to sound NATURAL & TRUE TO LIFE with a 3 DIMENSIONAL SOUNDSTAGE and is by no means a subtle difference. How does digital stack up compared, well it doesnt sound as real, alive or three dimensional, it tends to sounds like a recording, despite having fantastic clarity, dynamic range and channel separation it still generally provides only a two dimensional and flatter soundstage, with less decay or reverb. Higher res digital or SACD tends to open the sound stage, provides some of the 3d characteristics of vinyl and a smoother overall sound but still lacks in living up to vinyl in the category of being TRUE TO LIFE sounding.
What do I mean by true to life, well Vinyl clearly has liveliness to the sound, voices are definitely more natural (less clinical or sanitized) with smoother decay, drums sound like I have never heard on CD/digital (to the point the instruments sound like they are in the room). vocals sound like they are being sung in front of me there and then. I can immediately discern if what I am listening to is a vinyl record or a digital track, there is a clear difference between the two with vinyl sounding taller, wider, deeper and smoother.
I have upgraded my analogue equipment over time and am progressively reaching new heights of what vinyl reproduction can be taken to. I have a LYRA DELOS MC cartridge which is one of their entry level MC cartridges but still in the high end cartridge brand categories. I would love to upgrade to their Titan cartridge but will wait to get one second hand. I have a NOVA ii PHONO amplifier which was an outstanding upgrade over my nova phenomena but there is still much better yet available. The better the equipment, the lower the noise floor, increased clarity, separation and lower distortion. I also use outer ring and top mount record clamps. The quality you can obtain from analogue is proportionate to the money you invest in the equipment and on record pressings, while analogue equipment is improving each year so we still haven’t reached the pinnacle of extracting what is in those grooves from the relic like source of a vinyl record. While materials used in modern high end vinyl releases by specific pressing plants often results in purer materials and proper pressings such as sterling or palace that can deliver on having no clicks or pops and a much lower noise floor compared to mass production record plants that may use recycled vinyl with nil focus on sound quality.
I can only imagine how much better my vinyl rig will get over time as I invest in upgrading each of the various components progressively. Digital can do great things, but in the current generation of components, delivering on realism tends to be one where it can suffer. What is also interesting is that motion picture is still best captured on analogue 65mm IMAX film stock. The Red 4k digital camera is amazing and has made leaps and bounds in digital motion film capture, however the IMAX format is the most superior format to capture motion picture even in today’s advanced digital world.
LikeLike
Hi Digifan,
Visitors to this blog may find it boring, but I tend to return to the same basic question in regular intervals. So, please take one of your really good vinyl discs which, in your own words, sounds “better than the CD or high-resolution counterpart” you have. Listen to
a) the vinyl,
b) a high resolution (WAV) rip of that vinyl, and
c) the CD counterpart.
Does (b) sound “better” to your ears than (c)? If it does, and I’m sure it will, then it is not because the CD is “digital”. The WAV rip of the vinyl is digital too, but it preserves the typical vinyl sound that you have come to like. It hasn’t got that purported “two dimensional and flatter soundstage” that your CD seems plagued with. But it’s digital, isn’t it? Why does vinyl sound “more true to life” even in the shape of a digital rip? – It doesn’t to me, to be honest.
LikeLike
I certainly agree. It’s the accustomed-to sound than digiphobes are looking for, certainly not the surface noise, pops, and clicks of vinyl.
LikeLike
But the master tape doesn’t have any of the the vinyl characteristics that your digiphobes are looking for, does it? Technically speaking, there is only one near-perfect way to preserve the merits of the master tape: Digitize it. The CD version will not sound like vinyl – how could it! – but it will sound closer to the original recording than anything else. Still, if someone doesn’t want any digital element in his signal chain, no problem for me. I am not saying vinyl sounds bad.
LikeLike
Bingo!
”””””””””””””””””””””’
House!
LJC
LikeLike
Thanks for the subject, many of us searching for a better sound sooner or later will start to wander what is there so interesting about LP`s!? My recent experience was, late at night, I was listening to SAGA “Worlds Apart” album on CD-R that was recorder from High End Rega turntable (as source) via valve preamp, Kinmber KSAG interconnect on Philips CD recorder, played on my Naim and Arcam audio gear. I can tall for certain, I was taken over emotionally even though it was a CD. Similar reactions noticed by my wife, there is something naturally emotional and dynamic in a sound that grabs you and suddenly a music has stronger contact with you that you can actually feel 🙂 even though the play back was on CD not to say the Vinyl experience directly 🙂 I came to conclusion that a music enjoyed most when there is connection between a listener and musicians and that is what is all about. Unfortunately more music available on CD than on Vinyl, hopefully producers will go back to press what is missing. My Kind Regards.
LikeLike
What you are saying is, in effect: In spite of its digital character, a CD made from an LP will preserve the characteristics of the LP (and audio equipment) that you have come to like. I am the last one to disagree, but I would like to take it one step further: A silver disc is less evil as long as you know (or believe) it was made from your treasured LP.
I mean after all, what are we doing here? We are passing judgement on the quality of vinyl pressings, based on LJC’s digital rips, which – excellent as the are – are still below CD standard. It’s schizophrenic in a way.
In other words: I am ready to call a CD inferior if its mastering is lousy. Which has happened all too frequently. But that’s about the only thing that can be said about sound quality.
LikeLike
Hi Eduard,
You are absolutely right that some CD’s pressing is horribly and that IS the fact. I found that GRP Records for CD to me are probably BEST! When I buy a CD a pay attention on whether it was recorded by GRP I also forgot to mention that when someone makes a copy from Vinyl, please use either MAM or TAIYO YUDEN CD-R`s they are BEST if not THE best! 🙂
LikeLike
Hey – it doesn’t matter what kind of CD-R you use. The digital information will be ABSOLUTELY the same, so the sound will be the same too. Only difference: One brand may last longer than the other. But I have never encountered any problems of this kind. If they are given proper care, they will last VERY long.
LikeLike
Add to that: There is no CD “pressing” that is “horrible”. It’s the mastering that matters, nothing else.
LikeLike
I used to work as a production control expediter in the custom records division of the RCA Victor pressing plant in Indianapolis. To say that only the mastering matters is pure nonsense. Many things affect the final sound: the lacquer-master-mold-stamper production in the matrix department, the quality of the vinyl used (that plant had four grades of vinyl available to customers), how many LPs were pressed, how the “hot” discs were handled from press to quality control, the degree of scrutiny in quiality control.
LikeLike
Gary, did you read what I wrote? I said that the CD (!!) “pressing” is irrelevant because Mikhailo obviously thought the “CD pressing” might affect the sound. Not a word about vinly here!
LikeLike
Um… vinyl.
LikeLike
An addendum: “Vinyl” is not the be-all, end-all most devotees think it is. The woman who operated the mold-test both at the Victor plant was a jazz fan and knew that I was. Now and then, she would call me to come take a listen to a particularly fine jazz record. The highest of high-end equipment in a small room dedicated to faithful sound reproduction and a fresh stylus played on a metal mold beats anything I have ever heard come off of vinyl.
Also, I still recall the shock of hearing Kenton’s “Contemporary Concepts” album played on an expensive reel-to-reel tape system. Again, hard to beat with vinyl
However, as music reaches the marketplace, vinyl nearly always wins out over CDs–especially when played through the expensive equipment favored by vinylphiles.
LikeLike
Welcome Gary, you have uniquely qualified insight into vinyl manufacturing processes most of us have only at third hand. Please chip in. Four grades of vinyl??? Tell us more!
I take the view that vinyl is the best quality affordable means of recording distribution, if you have the right quality gear. I have no idea how it compares with 3/4″ 15 ips tape, or intermediary metalware. I’m quite willing to accept those sound far better. Problem is I can’t play them in my home, and I can’t source the recordings I want to listen to in those formats.. I hope I haven’t implied that vinyl is “the best” in absolute, only that it sounds better to me than its’ commercially available alternatives -CD, streaming and download. Beyond that I am completely open to persuasion.
I listened recently to rare original 50’s vinyl through audio equipment three to four times my affordability pricepoint, and I found it “lacklustre” and I know why. Too much attention to the brand names of the equipment and insufficient attention to the unglamorous but expensive business of power cables, interconnects, equipment support, mains conditioning, and all the rest of that voodoo. Not all vinyl is equal, neither are all vinyl playback systems.
Everything matters.
LikeLike
I just had to intervene here…The kind of CD-R does matter, in a big way…I tryied making a CD mix to listen in my car with a cheap brand CD and it started to sound like an old vynil record in less than a week, no so with a high quality CD…
LikeLike
But Hugo, that’s impossible. A CD either works or doesn’t work. Never, ever will the sound of a CD deteriorate the way you describe. It may begin to skip, or just fail to produce any sound at all. If that is what you mean by “an old vinyl record”, be it so.
LikeLike
I don’t know about deterioration vs skipping, but I concur that the brand/quality of the CD matters. In some cases, you can actually see a difference in the “impression” your recording makes on/in the CD. On another quality matter, in my experience Memorex has the highest rejection rate–i.e., “medium errors” occur during the recording process 10-15% of the time. Maxells, not quite so bad. Early on, CDs seemed to be “tougher.” The commercial recordings were made in clean rooms and the blanks on sale seemed to be more “solid.” But some of those early CD recordings sounded bad. Victor’s first attempts to digitally “clean up” early recordings by such as Bessie Smith were gutless. The second go-round was much better.
Sorry to use such vague terminology in here, but I actually don’t know how to precisely describe the differences. Does anyone in the loop work in the CD-manufacturing or -recording business? Such professional input would be valuable.
As for the whole CD vs LP, digital vs analog thing, questions will never be settled, especially by those of us old enough to have grown up with vinyl. That sound is how we became accustomed to hearing recorded music. But I’ve never heard a band or combo performance that sounded close to the way it sounded on LP. One of my favorite jazz recordings is “Art Pepper + Eleven”. I first owned the LP, then bought the Contemporary CD, then the Mobile Fidelity SoundLab CD. Each had a distinctive and distinctively different sound. I have no idea what Mart Paich’s arrangements sounded like “in the flesh.”
LikeLike
Re: “I don’t know about deterioration vs skipping …”
Let’s put it this way:
On a digital medium such as CD, the sound is stored in the shape of a file. If some of the information gets lost, something like “skipping” might be the result. Other forms of deterioration, such as loss of high frequencies, loss of dynamics, in fact any change related to “sound”, will NEVER occur as a result of “quality” deficiencies of a CD. It either works or doesn’t work.
LikeLike
I know I tease the cd-fraternity, partly it’s tongue-in-cheek, a bit of fun, but there is a more serious side. There was a time when CD and vinyl were neck and neck on my home system. I know nothing except what I hear, sometimes streamed CD was better, other times not. (Emphasise, not modern reissue vinyl, but the original analog pressings from original tapes)
Then over a couple of years a lot of solid state equipment was junked, replaced with valves which also benefitted streaming playback , but the big expenditure was on the vinyl source – separate PSU for the turntable, bearing upgrade, valve phono amp, and of course the Godzilla cartridge and the SME tone-arm..
Vinyl pulled ahead so much I can hardly bear to listen to the (same) digital source now, the gap is so huge. I am pretty well convinced that replay of vinyl source is more perfectible than CD, though it is at a cost. If the same expenditure had been instead targeted on improving digital streaming – who knows? I for one don’t.
In a two horse race, if you put all your resources into training one of the horses to run faster… you see where I’m headed? I have no idea whether one is ultimately better, given unlimited investment.
There is a fascinating chain of comments on Neil Young’s assertion recently that vinyl is a “nothing but a fashion statement” on Michael Fremer’s Analog Planet site:
http://www.analogplanet.com/content/neil-young-vinyl-resurgence-nothing-fashion-statement
There are an awful lot of people with hardened opinions on this, but the place of “original vinyl” seems largely unrepresented, because it is so complex and difficult to source. Well, that’s where I am coming from! Tell me about it.
LikeLike
Thanks for that interesting link, LJC. To start with, I’d like to contradict Michael Fremer saying:
“You are conflating “digital” with “CD”. They are two different things…”
This is ridiculous. Of course CD is digital! The only difference to MP3 is resolution. I know many people are using the term “digital” to describe downloads etc. as opposed to CD, but it’s nonsense. So much for that.
But I would like to ask you a question, LJC: Would you prefer a high rez rip of your Six-Eye Kind of Blue to the Columbia Legacy CD?
LikeLike
I have no idea, as I have no experience of either. They would both be limited by passing through the DAC/streamer, which I think of as a “digital sausage machine”.
Vinyl-originating signal passing through the fully analog chain of amplification equipment has a character of its own, a world apart.
The big discussion seems to be about the merits of Super Hi-rez digital vs low-rez MP3 . I have no dog in this fight. I don’t listen through headphones or “on the move” so to me it’s a case of ” two bald men arguing over a comb”.
LikeLike
Elegant parry, LJC! – My view is that people who have reservations about “digital” sound (whatever that may be – I really don’t know!) will not be convinced by n-th degree “high rez” digital either. (It’s not only a case of high rez against MP3 as you say, because what is generally meant by high rez digital audio surpasses CD quality by far.)
I agree that “vinyl-originating signal passing through the fully analog chain of amplification equipment has a character of its own”. I just wonder HOW different the result would be if the source was a “vinyl-originating” digital file and all the rest of the signal path remained the same. You can’t tell because you’ve never tried to send a HQ digital rip through your fully analog chain of amplification, have you? Nor have I, because nothing I have is fully analog, except the turntables.
But my guess is that the vinyl sound will be preserved in the HQ digital file, so the sound difference between vinyl and CD is not primarily a question of analog vs digital.
For me, it’s very hard to imagine a better version of KoB than the 1997 Columbia Legacy CD. The only conceivable improvement would be to serve it in an original LP sleeve…
LikeLike
I think we have been down this road before, Eduard, vis-a-vis the earlier comments in this thread. In every measurable way that I am familiar with, digital files of Redbook designation or higher should trounce analog vinyl, but it does not. It may sound better, but certainly doesn’t trounce vinyl. And while many or my cd’s do sound as good as the vinyl version, there is still something missing or added in the digital process that makes listening to cd’s less engaging for me than cds or even SACDs. I believe it is that character, that unmeasured factor, that engages vinyl lovers to seek out all-analog recordings rather than the same in digital format. As an EE, this makes no sense whatsoever, but there it is. It may indeed be that vinyl adds a spacious and fullness that is really not apart of the recording itself, many have said the same about some types of tube amplification topologies, and thus the truthfulness of such media and playback equipment is suspect. However, at the end of the day, it is about what YOU like to listen to, whether that is a medium with flaws that engages you totally, or one that has accuracy that is the desired effect. The reality is that hifi music reproduction systems are not very good at really reproducing live music, hifi sure as hell sounds good, great even, but any knuckle head could in an instant tell the difference between a live performance and a recorded one.
LikeLike
Well said. – Well, well… you know what I’m asking myself? I wonder if vinyl lovers would like the sound of the analog tape mix (I’m talking about historical technology, of course) immediately (!) before the lacquer is cut/digital master is made. Because that is what serves as the basis for CD re-issues, and I am damn sure that sitting in the studio you couldn’t tell the difference between that analog tape and the digital master made from it. No way!!
I suspect that it is the shortcomings of the vinyl disc itself that vinyl addicts have become addicted to – and I’m not blaming anyone for that either. If I take myself as an example, I know what it feels like to put an old record on the turntable and watch the stylus tracking that worn-out groove. It’s magic. But at the same time I’m aware that the music sounded very different in the studio. Now it’s up to the listener to decide which sound to prefer. I like it both ways, as long as that historical artefact called vinyl record is in reasonably good shape (no warp, no eccentricity). But for real focussed listening, I prefer a really good transfer.
LikeLike
I think the last phrase (“Realistically, you need to equip yourself for the best of both worlds…”) summarizes things very nicely for me. I like vinyl and I find myself buying more and more music on it, especially for things that it was the primary medium they were recorded in, it feels good and plays good and that’s enough for me. But, and regardless of whether vinyl is better than CD and by what margin, the music generated during the past 20 years is mostly available on CD and it’s a also a joy for me to buy and listen to the music on CD (again the primary medium it was recorded for). In fact I have no problem also listening to music in cassettes, tapes or any other medium I find available and although I will look for the best possible sound I try to always keep in-mind that no audiophile system can actually come close to the experience of a live. Let’s also not forget the convenience factor that digital has brought: right now my mobile carries around 80 albums that I can play on the go: yes conditions are not perfect (it plays on a mobile phone with a cheap set of headphones) but still I have my music with me and that’s what matters. So I think there is a place for both, I’m happy I’m using both and as Woody Allen would put it “whatever works”!
LikeLike
(Forgot to mention: great article and basis for discussion as always by LJC)
LikeLike
“The number 44,100 was chosen in order to fit the length of music onto the CD medium, not because it provides the best resolution of the sound image.”
The number 44.1k was chosen because it is over twice as large as the highest frequency humans can typically hear. The reason for this number needing to be doubled is as follows (I will try to explain this without pictures): Consider a 20kHz sine wave tone. This signal goes up and down 20,000 times in a second. Now think about what is happening each 1/20,000th of a second: the sine wave is going up first then down, completing a single cycle. Now, let’s say our sample rate is 20k, and continue to think about that 1/20,000th of a second, which has one full cycle of our sine tone in it. The problem with a 20k sample rate is our computer will now only take ONE picture of the waveform within that 1/20,000th of a second…sooo where is the sine wave at at that moment? Is it positive or is it negative? Is it both? This is why we need sample rates to be greater than 40k. That way the computer can take TWO pictures for each 1/20,000th of a second, thus accurately reading both the positive and negative oscillations of a 20kHz tone.
Preference is part physiological, part psychological; it’s part what we actually hear and part what we *know* or *think* about what we are hearing. Sometimes I prefer vinyl, sometimes I prefer digital. But with vintage modern jazz, I pretty much always prefer an original pressing on vinyl–for a plethora of reasons I am not going to get into here! =)
LikeLike
Thanks for providing a crisp answer to an often-posed technical question. As for the CD vs. vinyl issue itself, there seems to have been some mutual misunderstanding between LJC and myself (see contributions below). What I was trying to say was: No one will be able to tell whether what he is hearing is his Columbia Six-Eye “Kind Of Blue“ or a HQ rip of that same record. Presented with both versions alternately, he may notice some differences due to the signal path, but still the question is: Which is which? Especially when it’s someoneone else’s high-end equipment he’s listening to. There is no such thing as an inherently “digital“ sound.
LikeLike
actually, that is not true. The Redbook standard came about by Phillips from a digital standard that they developed for voice-grade digital transmission, it was NEVER developed with music storage and playback in mind. It was later that Phillips “upgraded” their digital format to be used with music, that first “upgrade” was a disaster as they used a 14-bit word that made the sound so shrill and horrible that they removed it and came out with the current 16-bit standard which is still not enough to capture all the musical info from the analog masters. An interesting exercise is to read some of the old Penguin catalogs where they talk about remastered analog recordings (classical) and how many of them have better detail at the expense of shrill upper-stave notes. And I am guessing the reviewers equipment was still not up to what many audiophiles listen on…
LikeLike
Good point. Still, I am not sure whether what you say about (early) remastered analog recordings is due to
a) the shortcomings of early digital sound, or
b) inadequate re-mastering regardless of “digital/analog” sound
Probably both. As I said, I am not sure.
But we are talking about contemporary technology, aren’t we?
LikeLike
yes, probably both in an attempt by the music industry to “cash in” on the early digital train. No doubt the more recent remasterings have gotten better, that just goes with 1) going back to the master tapes, not safeties or 3rd gen running masters, and 2) better understanding and use of the digitizing equipment. That said, you cannot walk into ANY studio as see them using 16-bit, 44.1 khz digitizing gear, it’s at least 20-bit, 96 khz, which is then downsampled to Redbook, so what is being thrown away? And I should note as LJC has stated here, and is the basis of this blog, the WAY the music is mastered makes all the difference, no matter digital or vinyl!
LikeLike
Quite so.
LikeLike
Dear LJC,
There are many reasons for me to be in love with old vinyl. The analog vs. digital issue is not one of them. In your illustration above, the difference between Gioconda I and Gioconda II is “not to scale”, as you readily admit. In fact, it is wildly out of proportion.
If someone ripped one of your favourite Blue Note records in WAV format (perhaps even in MP3 format), I am jolly sure you would never be able to tell the difference. Depending on the playback system, it would probably be difficult to eliminate differences caused by different input levels and EQ settings, but these things have nothing to do with the analog vs. digital issue. Moreover, if you didn’t know which is which before the blindfold test, any such differences wouldn’t provide any cue to you.
There are good and bad CD editions, and there are good and bad vinyl records. But the analog vs. digital issue AS SUCH doesn’t bother me at all.
LikeLike
I have all my thousand -odd CDs ripped into FLAC streamed through the same amplification system as vinyl, the only difference is the source. In more than a few cases I have the “same ” recording in both formats. I can tell CD apart, instantly, with my eyes shut. The difference is very significant.
Among my thousand CDs there are no more than handful where the CD does a better job presenting the music than original vinyl on my system. It happens but not very often. That said, most of the few modern vinyl records I have,where I happen to have them both, the vinyl edition is to my ear significantly inferior to the CD.
I have a few theories about why, which may or may not be right, but theory is just that, a theory. The experience is quite clear, even if the reasons why are not.
LikeLike
Dear LJC, what do you mean by saying you “have the same recording in both formats”? If I compared a Columbia Six-Eye “Kind Of Blue” to the Legacy CD, of course I could tell the difference straight away. I am not talking about LP versus CD editions. What I mean is: Did you ever convert your own (!) vinyl to digital and compare the two versions under similar conditions? I strongly doubt that the digital transfer would be as instantly recognizable as Gioconda II is. No way.
LikeLike
I misunderstood, you are referring to the difference between vinyl ripped down to the same file format as CD and MP3. for comparison. Sounds an interesting test though I don’t have the means of doing it, and quite possibly I wouldn’t be able to tell. People tell me there is a difference in quality between rips at 160kbps and 320kbps, likewise between these high definition SACDs and ordinary CDs, or between high definition downloads and ordinary MP3. I have no personal experience but I assume someone thinks these differences in sampling rate are significant.
The original point was that vinyl is infinitely resolvable – there is always more information in there in the groove if you can get it out- and that a digitally sampled medium has thrown out that information because the sample is “good enough” for most listening purposes. The Madonna is only a metaphor for this process.
LikeLike
See what I mean? I think it would be interesting to even play a number of your 160kbps rips through your high-end amp and ask people whether they can hear the difference. (Would be fun to play LP rips all the time and no vinyl… no, I would never dare to do that to my friends.) My point is: Some people seem to think of “digital” as if it had a particular kind of flavour. It hasn’t as long as you get enough resolution.
I do, however, appreciate your point that vinyl is infinitely resolvable. I rather like the idea, although I think it is a philosophical question rather than a practical one.
LikeLike
Oh, I would like to add: I am still talking about the differences between
a) the vinyl, and
b) the digital rip of that same vinyl.
I claim: You can’t tell the difference.
LikeLike
I would find that hard to believe, I can instantly tell a lo-rez digital file from the same analog recording, particularly with respect to the brushwork on cymbals and hi-hats, and the “air” in the recording. But the biggest difference is “the difference is one of enthralment: CD sounds pleasant, I can take it or leave it; vinyl sounds thrilling, it compels me to listen. The difference is emotional.” That is exactly how I hear it, my cds and SACDs sound great on my system, but after a while, its kind of boring. OTOH, when I am listening to most vinyl, it just draws me into the music to the point that I often stop what I am doing (mostly reading for University or enjoyment) and go “wow, that is just outstanding music!” For whatever reason, vinyl draws me into the music, whereas digital pushes me away, there is just something about the digital format that doesn’t really excite me. I should also say that MOST of my listening is digital, at work, in the car. Vinyl is less so because my rig is at home…
LikeLike
I fully agree with what you say about lo-rez digital files. I was thinking about WAV rips in the first place, but there are very good MP3 options too.
Re: “CD sounds pleasant… (but!!)” – Imagine a CD made from one of your favourite LP’s. Are you sure you could tell the difference? To be precise: There is a difference due to the signal path (I have often pointed to this caveat), but still the question is: Which is which? And if you were to listen to one version only, would you be able to assess it correctly? My point has always been: Beyond a certain level of resolution, there is no such thing as “digital” sound.
LikeLike
I was listening to some rock on vinyl a while back, and was enjoying the music and placed on one of my favorite rock cds, I was stunned by how flat and compressed the sound was! Needless to say, that is not a valid comparison, but what is interesting and drove me to investigate vinyl is when my vinyl playback system got up to a good quality level, that my records sounded as good as cds of the same albums. I have not made a direct comparison of that since 2 years ago, and my vinyl playback has taken a fairly large increase in quality since then, so I am guessing the vinyl may indeed be even better than the cd playback. I am not setup to do .wav rips, but that would be an interesting experiment to try and see if there is an inherent quality to digital that keeps it from being as involving as analog, the numbers would favor digital by a large margin, but soundwise, it seems to be the opposite…
LikeLike
The reason why most of your modern vinyl sound comparatively poor and some of your CD’s sound better (albeit not a few) is because of a big myth about Vinyl that I hear ALL the time.
Vinyl does NOT inherently sound better. CD has the utter potential to sound better, because by taking 44,100 samples per second you are not only eliminating a lot of artifacts, you have a sampling rate more than sufficient to make the music seamlessly smooth. If people say vinyl sounds better because of any ‘warmth’ they might as well state it sounds better because it’s more distorted.
No, the CD has plenty capability to sound equal and indeed better. So why do a lot of CD’s sound worse? Simple. Recording & Mastering. Despite advances in technology, the acoustic environment and mastering used to record modern CDs is generally worse than it was years ago.
Mastering has gotten worse – see ‘Loudness Wars’ for more information. In particular, early CDs sounded quite bad – not because CD is bad, but possibly because recordists either hadn’t taken full advantage of the technology, or were applying un-necessary compression. Modern music now aims to be as loud as possible which causes clipping (more distortion) and will sound bad no matter what medium it is delivered on.
LikeLike
and for the record I can’t tell any difference either. I have Vinyl rips of various songs, the vinyl themselves and the CD version of the song. Aside from the distortion, pops and crackles, they sound IDENTICAL. This is through a high-end headphone setup.
LikeLike
Most important of all: There is no such thing as an inherently “digital” sound. Play your vinyl rip to anyone, telling him it’s the original vinyl he’s listening to, and he won’t be able to prove the contrary from his listening experience. As I have said many times before – there might be some differences (e.g. in volume) due to the signal path, but still the listener won’t be able to tell which is which. If you play him both versions you might say something like: “The first version you will hear will be a little louder than the second version – so what? Is it the vinyl? Is it the rip?”
LikeLike
Thing is though, CDs are a bit rubbish compared to records. Dragging a rock around a groove is a much better way of listening to music than sticking a CD in a CD player. Why? It just is.
It sounds better because it’s just a better way of consuming music and it also has a way of expressing sound in a way I prefer to CDs. That’s probably bias but I don’t care.
LikeLike
Not sure i got enough ‘way’s into that..
LikeLike
I perfectly understand. I was talking about what you hear, not about what you can see and touch. Among other things, the problem of CD packaging has remained unresolved. CD booklets have always been, and still are, an infliction.
LikeLike
Presenting your idea as a fact when it is really opinion, i.e. I doubt you have heard well-mastered CDs or hi rez files played on an audiophile-grade system. The difference is obvious: in terms of accurately reproducing a recording, CDs are superior! The “warm” or “analog” sound the hipsters love about vinyl, I have another word for it – DISTORTION! Minor harmonic distortion, crackles, pops, wow & flutter, and a signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range far inferior to CD.
As far as this statement in the article:
“With a vinyl source, there are variations in mastering, re-mastering and pressing of different editions. You can influence potential quality for better or worse by your choice of vinyl pressing…..With CD/digital source, you have got what you got: the file is the same from one copy to the next.”
Huh? Different masterings fundamentally change the way CDs sound, just like with vinyl. Compare a high quality remaster from original 1st gen tapes, from MFSL, DCC, or Audio Fidelity, to the typical compressed, hot-mastered, major label stuff. The difference is huge, just like with poor vinyl compared to a 180gm remastering from the original tapes.
I like vinyl, and agree it offers a satisfying aesthetic experience – but that is very different than arguing that vinyl is somehow inherently better at reproducing music. This is demonstrably false.
Response:
It’s all opinion, Charles, it’s a blog, and calling something “demonstrably false” is not the same as demonstrating it to be false. It’s all just opinion. Mine is on record. Thank you for sharing yours.
LJC
LikeLike
to LJC,
No, some things are not “opinions”. Some are measurable facts. And it is a measurable fact that CD’s are more accurate (i.e. better) in reproducing sound than LP’s.
LJC Response:
So, it is your opinion that it is a “measurable fact”. It is my opinion that musical quality is subjective which can be experienced but not “measured”.
See how this opinion thing works?
LikeLike
That’s circular reasoning and not remotely logical. It is because it is. Brilliant. Pros that what is really happening here with the vinyl vs. CD debate has nothing to do with experienced ears or science; it has everything to do with nostalgia. And today’s youths getting sucked up into it are the victims of worshipping someone else’s nostalgia, namely my generations. It is because it is. It simply is. Jeez.
LikeLike
My means of understanding are based on logic, reasoning (based upon my experience as an EE and scientist) and human responses. Thus there is no way vinyl should even be competitive with digital and that is simply not the case, my vinyl sounds every bit as good as digital (of course I speak only of 16/44.1, mp3 is NOT even close to vinyl and anyone who says so is totally bullshit), assuming both are from the same mastering chain. The thing is, with digital I can listen for an hour or two and then I get bored and move on to some chore or other, with vinyl I can listen all day and find myself constantly pulled into the music, digital seems to push me away instead. I don’t know why this is, but is it a FACT, for ME, and at the end of the day it is all about ME. Audio reproduction is a subjective thing as different people hear or want to hear different things in their audio systems, system that even at highest levels are not even close to the real thing. Your brain knows this. I cannot understand the reasoning why I enjoy vinyl more than digital, but I find it to be the case and at the end of the day, it is all about me, I am the one I need to please, not anyone else.
LikeLike
What strikes me whenever I go into a record store, there are a dozen or more people flipping through the shelves, and every one of them is there for a different reason. I think that kind of diversity is healthy, pigeon-holing it as “nostalgia” is wide of the mark, like most pop-psychology.
What worries me more is when I go to a hi-fi show, and the old crusties are sitting there still listening to Pink Floyd Dark Side of the Moon. In marketing we used to call the demographic “SLITS” – Still Living In The Sixties. Or may be Seventies, I won’t argue.
LikeLike