If you'd like to help support the channel, please visit the shop: www.amazon.com/shop/thejoyofvinylrecords Lots of great things coming up with the show. Thank you for being here!
My personal preference is to follow the original. If was originally recorded in analog, and mastered for analog, then I prefer to listen to the LP. If, on the other hand, it was originally recorded in digital, and mastered for digital (like that VH album you mention at the beginning), then I'd rather listen to it there. At some point in time, CDs became the preferred medium, and records became second-class citizens. But the real difference always comes down to the mastering. A properly mastered album, designed for the final medium will always perform better than one not.
Agreed Jon! Also - good advice to follow the original. Obviously I will always choose vinyl (that's me), but I will also be the first to admit there will be instances it won't compete with other formats because of when or how it was mastered.
Absolutely true. I had a comparison of Yes "90125" on the original 1983 CD and LP lately and the CD absolutely blew my mind. All on the same system good cartridge, good DAC and else. There are cases where it's flipped arround, even if recording or mastering were already down digitally.
If you're really following the analog original, you want to own the master tape. The vinyl is a lossy version of the original recording. At that point I will take a digitally remastered version of the analog tapes.
I still play and buy cds regularly, same as vinyl and even compact cassettes. All sound as good. I never understood the discussion on what was supposed to be better. If you have proper quality equipment, take proper care of the medium and a proper audio source/ master was used to create the medium, all will sound perfect.
I do agree that alot of what goes into a great playback experience is the way the source was cared for, equipment, etc. Pretty much everything you said. I do admit to never hearing a great sounding cassette but I also admit to never having great cassette equipment to play it on growing up.
As a teenager, when i bought my first hifi set, i put the most money into my cassette deck. This was a pro serie Sony 2 head deck. It served me well for many years. Two years later i bought my first record player, a Dual entry model. Up till then i used my parents record player to record vinyl records to tape and play then on my own hifi set. When cds became the new standard i bought an NAD cd player, again an entry model. The trusty Sony cassette deck i still used to make copies of my vinyl records and to record radio shows (mostly live radio performances). Later on i bought a Nakamichi 2 head deck and a Denon 3 head deck. Also, i managed to get my hands on a Tascam 246 4-track recorder, which i had completely serviced to work as new. Playing cassettes on such high quality equipment is really satisfying. I honestly cannot hear the difference between the cassette recording and the original source. In the meantime, the amp, tuner, cd and record player and speakers have been replaced twice by upgrades, but the Denon and Tascam cassette gear stayed as essentials in my hifi setup.
@@bubble-and-scrape You're not gonna believe this but I have a Tascam 424 4 -Track recorder that I bought in the 90s to fool around with home recording. Still in working condition.
This is how I see it. I have many LP/CD counterparts. When I put on an LP that sounds great or not my brain is just amazed by it. But when I put on a CD of an older recording I feel like something is wrong. I then compare them back to back and here little to no difference. Its a placebo effect. Hearing hi-quality music from an LP blows my mind. Hearing music from a CD and I expect everything to sound amazing and that's just it. CDs can only reproduce what's fed to it. It can't make an old recording sound better. If it's mastered properly its basically an exact copy of the master tape or original digital file. While LPs can sound fantastic they are never an exact copy of the master tape, just cutting a record changes must be made to the original and at times I think some engineers sweeten the sound a little and that's why some sound so good. Most CDs, especially in the 80s were flat transfers of the master tape.
I agree with you. I have a cd player, a streamer and a turntable so I can do all three. Plus I can compare how each one sounds on the same music. It all depends on how it was recorded and mastered on each format. Sometimes I find the cd sounds better, sometimes the vinyl is better and yes, sometimes the streaming version is better. What do I buy when I want to own a particular piece of music? 5 to 1 it is the vinyl version. That's more of a personal choice than anything else. Now here's something interesting. One of my favorite albums is Dire Straits Brothers in Arms. I have it on vinyl and CD, plus I stream it. My personal opinion is the CD sounds best. This was one of the earliest full digital recordings. So even on vinyl it is digital per se. The vinyl sounds great and I listen to it that way a lot. But when I compare the CD stands out to me. So why do I bother with the vinyl? It's just the whole experience of spinning a record sometimes. And all three formats sound great!
I never heard "Brothers In Arms" on CD (except when played over the radio). I only ever owned the original LP (which sounds amazing even after almost 4 decades). I never realized it was one of the first all digital recordings - that's good to know. So even the vinyl it digitally sourced in that respect.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords I remember being told when it came out that it was directed to the CD market specifically and it was a DDD recording. I don't know if it was the first, but supposedly one of the first. I wish I had my original on vinyl. Mine is a reissue. So to be fair I'm comparing my original CD to a reissue. Maybe the original vinyl is better. But I think it's possible since they made it more for the CD format originally that's why the cd is so good.
Christoper Cross’ debut album was one of the first records to be digitally recorded. This was in 1979, 6 years before the release of Brothers in arms by Dire straits. The reason why Brothers in arms is so heavily accosiated with digital recording and the rise of the cd is because its release was one of the first specifically directed at the cd market. And of course the album was a great success.
@@bubble-and-scrape Hey, thanks for the info. That album sounds great on CD as well. But Brothers in Arms is probably one of the best sounding CDs I've heard. I have an original cd from the time it was released.
Although like you, I am mostly doing vinyl now, I think the problem with CD’s became the “loudness wars”. If you want to hear what CD’s can really do, check out classical music, where they did not over compress the signals.
I listen both formats, mostly digital good quality streaming and CDs with some utilizing DSD quality recordings, played on a SACD transport, and of course analogue vinyl (about 20% of the time). Without doubt vinyl is far more enjoyable and amazing, but only if the recording/mastering is good quality, and especially when using good quality components (not necessarily expensive). I was blown away when I added a phono stage preamplifier a year ago to the system. I could not believe the difference. Then, just yesterday, I replaced my Sumiko mm cartridge ($400) with a low output Hana mc cartridge ($750, but got on sale for $600), and OMG again I could not believe the improvement in the clarity, the highs, and especially the bass quality. I highly recommend both upgrades. The host of this blog mentioned contemplating upgrading to mc cartridge (Hana I believe). I say to him: “Go For It!”.
Hi! And thanks for the feedback! I am hoping to jump into the world of MC carts next year after I've spent a few months (or a year) with the LVB250. I'm happy to hear about your Hana experience as that seems to be the one I hear the most often mentioned when I ask about it. Which Hana did you go with?
I went with the Hana SL (low output). My phono stage has a custom load impedance setting that I set to 500 ohms. So far I’ve listened to Steely Dan “Aja” and John Coltrane “Blue Train” and the sonic richness exploded using the mc compared to the mm cartridge. This is my first experience with mc, and can’t wait to listen to more of my vinyl collection 😊. Good luck and I hope you dive into the mc world sooner than later!
I recently bought the Acoustic Sounds reissue of "Sonny Rollins On Impulse!". Now this is superb music. Just yesterday I wanted to see how it compares to the TIDAL Music streaming version. I streamed the first tune, damn - it sounded good. Then I put on the album. And ended up listening to both sides straight through. I marveled at Mickey Roker's amazing drumming and Rollins creative, almost wink, wink, nod, nod sax blowing. He is on another level. I did the same thing with my 40 year old copy of Vangelis' "Opera Sauvage". Listened to one tune on TIDAL, the entire album on vinyl. Something is there that causes me to stay. I almost never listen to an entire album when streaming. Streaming (and CD) gives me good sound. Vinyl gives me musicians.
I love your test. It's the same with me. A vinyl record keeps me rooted to me chair. If I have to stop it for some reason it's always with regret that I can't finish it. That's never been the case with other formats. I can't explain why, it's just the way it is with me.
You are absolutely correct. It's all in the mastering. When you mentioned that the CD sounded better than the vinyl back in the 90's I remember noticing that too. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the CD was the new kid on the block and the recording industry was pushing the new technology. So vinyl was purposely not mastered as well as CD's to get people on board with buying CD 's.
Hi Rick, I watched this video a month or so ago and promised myself that I would do my own comparison. I don’t have many CDs but one that I have, purchased recently, is David Gates “Song Book”. I have vinyl copies of all the Bread releases and David Gates solo albums, the “Song Book” release which was timed to support his tour which I was lucky enough to see at the Albert Hall, London. The CD has most of the “best of” but it has a number of new releases that have not been added to any subsequent release. I picked a Bread/Gates standard - “Baby I’m a want you” and played the CD version from 2000 against the latest vinyl release from Bread from 2018. Both payed through the same Rega amp and AE500 speakers with vinyl on a Rega Planar 6 with MC + pre amp and the CD on a Rega Apollo CD player. My hearing at 70 isn’t perfect, all the usual comments about vinyl being warmer, less bright, easier to listen to applied. When played side by side, where I could just flick between the amp’s output as the two recordings mirrored each other, the difference was stark. I asked my wife to listen and without any explanation or much listening she said exactly the same. It isn’t so much about better or worse but rather which is preferable to my ear. I prefer a more mellow sound, I don’t like a sharp top end. My predominately Rega system was picked for its softer sounds so it’s not surprising that I am drawn to vinyl rather than CD. I will still buy CDs where I can’t find a vinyl alternative but vinyl remains my first choice. Rgds Pat
Hi Pat! I love this! As you said - it's not about which is the better format - it's all about what s better for the listener. I no longer own a CD player (haven't in years) but I recall having a similar experience before I decided to go back to vinyl after spending the second half of the 90s collecting CDs. There is something more mellow and warm and that's the thing for me as well. I'm sure I asked or you may have told me in a previous comment, but what MC cart are you using?
Like Ebony and Ivory-They sit side by side on my Hi-Fi system. Saying that I don’t use digital CDs but Tidal. I’ve not bought a new record in decades and enjoy playing them still. Tidal gives me the chance to investigate what’s new and what I like and don’t like. It was easier when I was young as you didn’t seem to get so many artist choices. The same groups putting out new recordings. You had top of the pops in the UK, to sample what you would buy from a real record shop-great stuff. As for which is better for me-Tidal or my analogue vinyl? I think there are too many variables to say, as it’s down to the recording and your own equipment. A CD will sound better than an old record played on a Dansette record player. A top quality turntable compared to a cheap CD player will sound better. So instead of a war comparing as little boys do 😳why don’t we just enjoy the attributes of both 🙂.
Well said Rick, and I also agree with DJRay when he said that when the record companies were promoting CDs, they purposely mastered vinyl to not sound as good, hoping to get people to switch.
Spot on. I listen to rather obscure music, so rarely there is even the option of one master vs. the other. I have had a few records both as vinyl and CD. They both can sound great with decent hardware. I also prefer vinyl for the ritual and the artwork. I am a very visual person, do photography (dSLR and 4x5"), various microscopy imaging (LM, SEM, UV, IR), and the layouts for my books. That said, I recently purchased a record from Bedless Bones out of Estonia, and it did not come with a lyrics sheet. That is only available on the CD, so that is on order now as well. Yep, a bit crazy, I know. BTW, her "Sublime Malaise" and "Mire of Mercury" are also fantastic.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Glad to hear! One of my Bandcamp discoveries of late. I put a couple of her tracks in the play lists my yoga classes (not on vinyl, though).
Way back in the late 1990s, when MP3s were a thing, I got busy and transcoded a lot of my vinyl to digital storage. I did all the checks first, making sure I wasn't clipping or starving the converter and listening to make sure I wasn't messing up the sound quality. In the end I had about 3,000 songs and the digital and vinyl versions were very hard to tell apart. In fact there were multiple occasions when I had to look to see which was playing. On the purely technical capabilities scale ... Redbook and PCM will wipe the floor with Vinyl both on dynamic range and sound quality... every time. However, as the video points out, it's about mastering as much as the medium. Starting in the mid-1990s someone figured out that if you compressed the daylight out of a song, then ran it through limiters they could actually make the digital track about 3 times louder than the vinyl one. This was, quite simply because in order to handle that level, a vinyl pressing would almost surely skip. This "brick walling" soon became the standard for Redbook and PCM and it launched the "loudness wars" that are still ongoing today. Vinyl forces the mastering engineers to use much less compression and limiting and curiously that is almost certainly why vinyl sounds so much better than CD or even digital files. So for nearly 3 decades younger music lovers have been listening to music with almost zero dynamic range and 20 to 30% limiting induced distortion ... all geared to sell more CDs. It is no surprise they don't appreciate the better mastering on vinyl. It's not what their music sounds like. Now... if they would just back off on the compression and limiting, we could have the best of both worlds... Really great music on a very capable medium. But for now we're stuck with the rather painful irony that the medium capable of the best sound quality is being used to deliver the worst.
That’s an excellent synopsis of the state of digital playback. I also find your digital transfer success very interesting. It confirms your observation. Thanks for sharing this!
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords No worries ... One of my friends still does this with every new album ... turntable to pre-amp to ADC then to mp3/320 encoder. He calls it "scratch proofing".
CDs can have more dynamic range, but many are compressed more than the vinyl. And most vinyl has gone through ADC and DAC processors before being mastered. So, Neil Young might be the rare exception to the latter. Then there is all of ones playback equipment before it gets to ones pre-amp, which can make for unfair comparisons.
The issue is the cost. I believe the Neil Young set you're talking about is in the neighborhood of $150. That's a lot of money. You can pick up a used CD of Ragged Glory for $3-$5 at most used record stores and it's going to sound pretty damn good. And that's the inherent problem with vinyl. Vinyl is sooooo expensive. Unless you're an "audiophile," an inexpensive CD will do just fine.
I listen to vinyl, CD, SACD and DVD-A. Simply because some of the artists I like don't have vinyl releases. Yes, some of my LPs are superior to the CD version especially the older LPs. For CD playback I use a CD transport with an external DAC. For SACD and DVD-A playback I use a Sony BluRay player. I have quite a few LPs and CDs of the same title and find that I prefer the vinyl version. Oh, the first major-;abel digitally recorded album and released was Ry Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop". There's a thinness to the tracks that undermines the performances, which according to Ry Cooder is due to the digital recording. But I still love this album 🥰
I think both are good. Some album are better on cd than vinyl and the reverse is true of others. I will say the equipment makes a big difference also. For records, the turntable, cartridge and phone preamp must be compared to the cd player (transport and DAC) for CDs. If the equipment is on par between the two media, then the mastering for the vinyl and for the CD will be the most telling. Which is better, well I prefer vinyl at home in general for serious listening, and CDs for casual listening.
Long read, because there is a lot to cover. Comparing a title between digital and vinyl has numerous factors involved, which (I believe) few people include into the comparison equation. 1) For both digital and vinyl, for countless titles, there are multiple releases, and they almost always have varying sound quality. So which two are being used in the comparison? 2) For vinyl, even pressings for the same stamper code, will vary in sound quality. No two pressings are identical. They can be very, very close in sound quality, but on a revealing system, there will be differences. Often, the sound quality between pressings are night and day different. 3) The playback gear. Which CD player is being used? Some folks think that all CD players sound the same. They do not. Their sound quality will vary wildly. Or, which DAC is being used? If it is a DAC, how is the DAC being fed? Transports feed DACs. Which transport is being used? Every CD player has a built-in transport. But if you are streaming from a music server, then your home's streamer (that takes the feed from the Qobuz, or Tidal, or Spotify, etc) is your transport and will play a key role in the sound quality. Transports determine the amount of noise and jitter. Unless you went on a mission to control your jitter, you have jitter. If you don't think so, it is because you are accustomed to hearing it. Once you minimize it, your music will blossom. Then if you go back, you will hear the difference, and you will recognize the jitter. When you (virtually) eliminate jitter, you stop hearing a reproduction, and you start hearing a performance (as if you are not hearing speakers). 4) Which turntable are you using? Which cartridge are you using? Which tonearm are you using? Who dialed in all of the vectors to ensure that the stylus is precisely in the record's groove? The slightest misalignment will be heard. When you have it dialed in with precision, your records will take on a new life. Few people dial everything in, or even know about all of the vectors that need to be dialed in. I know them all (from research), but I neither have the skill to do it, nor have the tools to do it. I was fortunate enough to have a turntable guru from the store where I purchased my turntable. He has all of the tools. He has the skills. He has an ear that I trust. My set-up, vs his set-up, was night and day different, with his set-up making my stereo sound 3 times its price. What phono amp is being used? Phono amps vary in sound quality, wildly. So for someone to issue a challenge that a CD (or digital streaming) or a vinyl pressing is better, is based on their own equipment, and also based on their particular CD or their particular pressing, is unaware of the myriad of factors that determine the sound quality. If you listen to a MSB transport / DAC, with quality digital content, your jaw will drop, as you will hear digital as you have never imagined. If you listen to a Clearaudio Statement turntable, with a Clearaudio reference tonearm, and a Clearaudio Goldfinger cartridge, and an Aesthetix IO Eclipse phono amp, with a white hot vinyl pressing, your jaw will drop, as you will hear vinyl as you have never imagined. And for both of the above, MSB and Clearaudio are not alone in the brands that will make your jaw drop. Granted, those brands are on the extreme, cutting edge, high end of audio excellence. But using the above level equipment with the best available sounding digital content or best available vinyl pressing, and doing a comparison, you will likely conclude that you can't make up your mind (both will sound heavenly). It would be like choosing between two $million sport's cars. I have had the good fortune to hear equipment close to the above level of quality at my local high-end store. It has to be heard to be believed, as no words can do it justice. On down to Earth equipment, comparing digital to vinyl simply boils down to what equipment you have. I believe that bang for the buck, digital will sound better. Vinyl will go toe-to-toe with digital, but it will cost more to attain comparative sound quality, and is more difficult to set-up (you need a professional to get it right). Since digital is far more prevalent in society, and for a price most people can budget, most people believe that digital is superior -- especially since most people never set-up their turntables properly, and used crummy phono amps (likely built in to mass produced receivers). So it makes sense that now that they hear digital, and it really does sound better than their turntable, they bet on digital for the win. For vinyl to compete, it costs more, must be professionally dialed in, must use a quality phono amp, and must use quality pressings (which from my experience is less than 10% of any album's release). Lots of variables. Too many for a definitive winner.
So true. And I hear alot of the arguments on both sides constantly (online, with friends, etc.). I have heard great sounding CDs and systems way better than I had back in the day and I completely agree that the equipment, pressing, etc all matter when attempting to compare. For vinyl to compete with a CD on a half decent audio system it would need fairly expensive-above entry level-equipment. Not in every case (there are horrible CD offerings and extremely bad vinyl pressings). It's a fun argument late at night but in the end nobody is truly right.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords NoEgg4u makes some great points. There are a lot of variables to consider. I always come back to this: just listen and enjoy the music the way you want to play it. Sometimes overanalysis can create paralysis 😂.
Im only listening to vinyls again for nostalgic purposes. I think its alot like what your preference is. I like cds probably the most because streaming is just not as equal
I think the door for vinyl was slung open in the 90s and early 2000 maybe to 2010, the compression the record companies and loudness put on the CD was uncalled for there were few I could listen to from beginning to end so when people started giving vinyl a chance they fell in love with the sound and for me vinyl offers a connection to the performance CD didn't and streaming never can. Today the Record companies are taking more care with the CD and not over compressing or seeing how loud they can make the music so the CD is very good, Ill still listen to my vinyl first, as far as the best Ill leave that to those on the internet infinitely more qualified than I to answer that question.
I land on "it depends" when it comes to comparing the two. There are good and bad mastering examples with both and probably has a lot to do with what era the mastering was done (to your point about compression and loudness".
Nothing much to say about "vinyl sucks" other than to invite the person over for a listen. This will sound great: 8-core CPU running a newer version of JRver music player. Rip your CDs with lossless compression with FOOBAR 2000 or whatever you like. You will need a DAC, I prefer R2R DACs but my DIY dual ES9018 sounded great but my Denafrips Venus II sounds a little better. I got an R2R DACs board from a guy in Malaysia -- but it ran on a Raspberry Pi. Optimize Windows -- guides are online. Disable things like point-of-sale, things you won't use. This PC should be dedicated to AUDIO playback, so optimizing improves or make the output to the DAC more consistent. This sounds nearly as good as my XXHIGHEND RAMOS - even Windows (10) runs in RAM and is stripped down. The computer is an entry level server from Super Micro - it has to boot from the SSD with RAMOS on it hence, Windows 10. I got a used 22-cire CPU and chose 18 cores from XXHIGHEND. JRiver has partitioned the software and compared to 2013 XXHIGHEND not RAMOS, was not as real sounding then. NOW, JRiver sounds great, on a $400 8-core CPU running Windows 11, with some optimizations. And, you can play with REW room acoustic files that you create for you room with a calibrated microphone, install the files in JRiver and see if the sound was improved. It takes a few days to get used to the change. If highs were damped, the less bright sound will be weird at first For the money, I don't think the same cost vinyl playback will sound better, and will be more convenient if that is important to you or you just like to have music sets to play without any hustle.
This debate has been going on since the 80's. And there is really no right and wrong answers to this question as it is always based on opinion, and it is based on the kind of stereo system you own. As for me, I grew up with Vinyl and I Love the complete experience of vinyl. Holding the record in your hand, Looking at the label, Watching it spin on the turntable, Look at the beautiful back and front cover, reading the liner notes. With CD's you can't do that, You can't watch it spin, You can't read the liner notes most of the time because the type is too small, there is not much of a phusical experience, and yes, Vinyl sounds more natural, and real. CD's sound great for the most part but they can sound artificial at times. Sometimes the vinyl recording of the same exact album sounds better on vinyl. Example: John Denver's Greatest Hits Vol. 1 and 2. The vinyl sounds better then the CD and there are many other recordings I feel that way too. I Love both formats, but I absolutely prefer Vinyl and that is the reason Why Vinyl has made such a huge comeback. Vinyl is much more fun and it is much more of a physical experience then CD's
All records befor say 1980 were recorded on analog equipment. No wonder they sound better on vinyl. Nowadays things are recorded digitally, in that case i rely on CD's.
I'm sorry to contradict you but there's no analogue glory in Ragged Glory, as the original record was recorded mostly digitally and this new mix clearly states "Mastered from 44/16 digital" on the box. So when you're spending $150 for this vinyl boxset you're basically getting content that sounds as good, if not better, on the much cheaper 2023 CD version, which retails for one fourth of the price and has been remastered with the same care. Neil Young was one of the early pioneers of digital recordings, and it's only when he lost his hearing (a few years after mixing Arc) that he started complaining about the digital format not sounding good.
GM ☕️ It’s now a question of what does digital playback sound like in 2023-24. Music is the Software that runs your hardware PERIOD Weather it’s a quality analog set up or a digital playback of similar quality…each bring something to the party. Have a great weekend and the best of the Christmas season to you and yours .
Ok, so the immediate effect you noticed when playing your first CD's was how damn QUITE they were, no pops, clicks, scratches......it either played immaculately or it just hick-uped when it hit a ding or scratch the surrounding 1's and 0's couldn't fill in (or the built-in DAC was just crap). HOWEVER, that didn't save my poorly mastered copy of Jimmi Hendrix's "Are you Experienced", which came over as so shrill and grating I just couldn't listen to it. The only side effect I have experienced with a badly mastered Vinyl record is at best a dull, flat effect, as though all the good notes were filtered out. At their best, very well mastered records can make your jaw hit the floor. My biggest gripe is that you can't seem to get a vinyl record these days that AREN'T scuffed, scratched, or exposed to heat or cold leaving a "bleached" circular intrusion on the record. I do know one thing....if I shell out $60 or more for a MOFI or Analog Productions album, it damn well better arrive at my door in IMMACULATE condition. There's no excuse for the conditions we are receiving our vinyl records in, at ANY price!
And that is my biggest gripe these days for which I could rant for hours - the quality of newly pressed vinyl. It says something when a great sounding "new production" record is a pleasant surprise when it should be expected. I find myself looking for original pressings, or close to original pressings these days.
Nice video as always 👍 This is the never ending story... Some recordings sound better on cd and vice versa. As you said, it depends on the equipment that you are using. I'm still buying both cd and vinyl. There are some bands (that I) prefer on cd. I'll give you an example : Dream Theater 😁 For me, crackling on a vinyl record with DT would be very annoying. A bit difficult to explain, but it has something to do with the very intricate soundstage (scape) NOT sure which is the correct word. I know that some people would probably put a contract on my head just for saying this 😁😁😁 (I have seen The Sopranos many times) But that is my humble opinion. But the holy grail will of course always be vinyl records...All the best from Norway 😁😁😁
Hi Norway! I think we are both experiencing similar temperature drops (although the next few days here in NH will be unseasonably warm - no complaints). I have a video coming up in a week or two about a record it took me three times to find a good copy of (for various reasons which I get into). Agreed on the DT!
Looking forward to that video 👍 It's very warm here also. It started yesterday. It seems as we are getting a green (you can see your lawn) Christmas. Fantastic news for me 👍 That's what I'm always hoping for 😁😁😁
Totally! CDs cut off at 20k, LPs go over 20k ! Matter of fact LPs capture ALL audio information, as does hi res audio! 44.1k/16 bit is an archaic resolution and is no longer relavent! Saying that, it also depends on equipment cleanliness of LPs and external vibration! On good equipment you can't beat LPs! CDs are not dependant on equipment! All I know is record's sound real, Redbook CDs don't! You can hear the entire room acoustics on analogue, and hi res digital! CDs do not, CDs disregard a LOT of information! 😊
Go from what is considered the top3 of CD and vinyl (mix,master,pressing) and play on the best system available. If you want to judge the medium then don't let your hifi be the limiting factor in the decision making and conclusion. You are talking what is the better medium and not what is better on your system.
Records do not sound as good it's a matter of dynamic range but to me on a properly tuned pa system nothing sounds better than a good dance record at 105 db
I understand why you are saying about the Neil Young album. Give a good engineer enough re-takes and he/she can make a vinyl record that you believe is better than a CD. But that's just me.
I do not think there is a hard fast rule either way. Like so many who already posted it really depends on the care that went into the mastering. You can get crappy or wonderful sound from both. The deciding factor is your tastes, I like a slice a cheddar with my apple pie, my bride would rather have a scoop of vanilla. Go figure.
Most people who speak in absolutes are mostly ignorant to one side or the other. The perfect example is to say that steak is always better than hotdogs. In the general I would agree with that statement, but in the absolute I can tell you that none who would say that have ever had my uncle’s steaks. His philosophy on steak is that unless it is cooked to the point of charcoal and loaded up with ketchup it is unedible. In this case the hotdogs are always a better choice :-) Likewise goes the vinyl/CD/streaming/cassette argument. Sure, if you took the worst example of one and compared it to the best example of the other you will prove your point and “win” the argument, except you won’t actually win the war because in the next round your opponent will do the same disingenuous thing. I can tell you that in my experience playing CD, streaming and turntable on the same exact system I prefer vinyl and CD over streaming. With that said I have instances where I prefer the vinyl and others where I prefer the CD, though my goto is always the vinyl when available 😉
Same here. I fully acknowledge that there are better CD versions of my favorite records but vinyl will always be my format for better or worse. It would be great if streaming were to somehow rival that sound (and maybe it can with the proper DAC, higher bitrate, etc). As always, love the input Adam!
What do I think..? I think that most people couldn't tell the difference and it's all BS! If you blindfold the average person before going into a sound room and you play the different media randomly... I bet they wouldn't be able to tell. Vinyl people are convinced vinyl sounds better; likewise CD people. Personally, I have now switched back to CD. I got sick to death of the poor quality vinyl and the difficulty of playback. Put a CD on, or six, on repeat, sit back and enjoy. Actually, I tell a small lie... I have switched to SACD. SACD on my Atmos theatre system will blow them all away hands down.
In order to do a valid comparison of a cds sound quality to the vinyl lp version, you would have to do more than just playing it through the same system. For it to be valid, your turntable and cd player would have to be at exactly the same level as far as sound quality. And how wod you ever guage that!!!...If your turntable is a little better than your cd player, and the lp sounds a bit better, that would tell us absolutely "Nothing." As far as cds versus lps in general as far as sound quality goes & which one's better, to do a comparison you would literally have to go out and buy something like the Burmester cd player from Germany, ($50,000 basic version, or $75,000 with the improved power supply), and compare it's playback to whatever is supposed to be a state of the art turntable nowadays. Anything less than that & you're not comparing the inherent quality of one format with another, you're just comparing equipment at that point. And the comparison is pointless. Very few of us will will get to own equipment like that; so it's not even relevant or important what format sounds best. What IS RELEVANT is what is the best sounding format at prices we are able to afford to indulge. Cds have more consistently good sound quality than lps. Mastering is important on both, but I never heard of a badly pressed cd. As many as half or more lps are pressings that leave a lot to be desired. So lps not only have to be mastered well, but there is the second problem with having to do a good pressing. That's why I like cds better. Your average cd is a better pressing so to speak than your average lp. That's why there are audiophile labels, willing to take large chunks of your money if you are willing to indulge. I highly modify cd players, and I have no idea if my cd player playe ris state of the art, beyond state of the art or not that near state of the art. But I can tell you that cds sound analog without vinyl noise intruding. Cds do not sound anything like analog at lower quality levels. I've seen many others notice the same thing about how cds take on an analog quality commenting on the forums..So I'm not nearly alone. It's true. Get rid of the digital distortions and glare, and you end up with something that sounds just like analog. analog.With all the benefits of the cd, including cost. I was just listening to my cd player the other day, and just started thinking how many thousands of dollars would you have to go in a phono cartridge alone, to get this kind of sound quality? This BS about in the 1990s, them purposely mastering lps poorly, so people will buy cds.What??? What the major labels decide is going to be the next format, WILL BE the next format. And back then they decided it will be cd. I can think of quite a few lps lpsfrom that era ( I also collect lp) which I compared & the lp pressing sounded better than the cd. Raised On Radio by Journey was one of them. Pick yoir format. I believe cds on the right player can do everything lps do well, and I am really not sure if lps are sonically better in any way. wayI am more cd than lp now.
I just ordered the Burmester. Just kidding of course. But you do raise an excellent point around the major labels dictating the next format. When CDs first hit the scene I resisted them for years. I didn't purchase my first CD or player until Zeppelin's first box set came out (remember that one?) and CDs had been a thing for a few years. Part of me was afraid I'd like the sound better, and at that time (I was around 23 when it was released), it did sound better to my untrained ears. I did have the opportunity to compare the two years later before getting rid of my CDs and player and I preferred the vinyl version over that old box set.
Just as with lps, there are preferable cd pressings. With Led Zeppelin, by far the best cd masterings are the older ones done by Barry Diament. The George Marino masterings are very bright and harsh by comparison. I use an old cd mat on top of my brighter cds. Not only does it make them less bright, but in the instances I've had of scratched up used cds skipping or stopping, they played just fine with the mat on. That's another thing,; most people don't really know how to best play a cd. I was just listening to Led Zep II a while back, and with the Barry Diament pressing, I was surprised how well Led Zeppelin was recorded. You could hear very little little if anything wrong with the sound quality. Of course you don't have to buy a Burmester or Ayon cd player retc. to get great cd sound. There is a big middle ground between them and other more reasonably priced cd players. For the amount of money many vinyl diehards spend each year on lp pressings, they could probably buy something really superior for a cd player. When audio reviewers say that analog has a bit more natural ease and air etc., remember that they usually have a 15 or 20 grand turntable turntable.they're playing records on. Media hype has people with $150 to $300 phono cartridges, thinking their playback sound quality is better than cds, played back on great equipment. I can tell you it certainly isn't. If you have a well chosen over $1,000 moving coil phono cartridge like a Hana Hana ML or a Goldring etc, on a turntable that can do it justice, you might have to go quite a bit of money to get a cd player that can match it or surpass it. it. I don't what would be the better value for sound quality there. there. But the much higher cost of vinyl vinylhas to be put into the equation. There are signs on the forums from users, that the high price of vinyl is starting to kill off the vinyl resurgence.
How about a better question: Does surround sound albums sound better than the stereo one? IMO, 98% of stereo albums suck compared to the surround sound ones.
Yes, the quad records I've heard are digitally transferred. But the best surround sound I own is on Blu-ray discs. I recently purchased War's "The World is a Ghetto" on Blu-ray (four-channel surround) and several Gentle Giant albums in 5.1 surround. There's also a Dolby Atmos mix on the disc but I don't own an Atmos system (and unlikely I ever will). During my many decades of collecting vinyl records, I've spent an appreciable amount of money on half-speed mastered discs, direct-to-disc releases and audiophile pressings. They beat out most of my standard vinyl but not all. But I'd say my DVD-V and Blu-ray discs puts any of my vinyl to shame. The best examples of that are Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", any album by Donald Fagan and Steely Dan, Metallica's "Black" album, Rick Derringer's first two albums, XTC and so on. I realize that surround sound can be totally impractical for people living with limited space, in apartments and in some automobiles, but the fact is stereo and vinyl just doesn't cut it for me anymore. I've moved on.
@nicksterj There are two surround mixes. The quad version done by Alan Parsons and a 5.1 version (not sure who did that one). I prefer the quad version, but either one is an improvement over the stereo versions. It's not that difficult to put together a surround sound system. I started my journey when I bought a Pioneer surround receiver on sale at Future Shop (which is now Best Buy). I originally had only two speakers, and knew very little about surround sound audio at the time. So I began thoroughly reading the receiver manual and began adding speakers. I played around with the matrix formats and found it improved and widened out my stereo recordings. I followed that up with a powered sub-woofer (again, on sale). Then, there was a brief period where they were selling DVD-V surround albums. That's when I got hooked and sought out every surround sound album I could find. If you have the opportunity to listen to "Animals" or "Wish You Were Here" in surround, take it. It's a vast improvement over any stereo version.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords OK, I wanted to make a comment on so-called A_B comparisons and particularly on the internet(RUclips) but work (market analysis) intrudes. It's a waste of time trying to figure out differences for the most part online. Just too many variables inplay from one end(source) to the other. Even if you're making a decision on what's better on your home setup, for most it's limited either by their system, the music you play, or not having a very discernable ear. Nothing like some person giving an opinion on a $10,000.00 CD player who purchases cheap Far East crap on Amazon. And to truly be able to tell if one sound is really better/worse than another, most don't have access to a place where you can do this. Just think about where you can go to compare truly state-of-the-art equipment to the actual recording of the live performance and to the digital and analog sources of the same music. Here in Chicago, I have such a place to go to and I'm not aware personally of any others. Plus a lot of audiophiles are a bunch of indecisive cry babies. Don't believe me, just go on Audiogon, get the Friday roundup and you'll see what I'm talking about. "Help me pick a cable, Help me find an amplifier, Do I need a preamp?" Waa waa whiners.
There is no comparison of apples and oranges.saying that vinyl is better comparing to cd is simplest said non sense.cd's dinamic and sonic superiority is not reachable for vinyl,will never be.the only thing that vinyl has on it's side is the wormth,that's it.sorry there is something else as well-that scratching and rubbing.yeah that noise-the same thing the so called audiofiles laughing at cassette tape lovers,we can say the same thing about vinyl to.about mastering-bad mastering sounds crappy on every media,no help there.ones again-when it comes for fizical media-cd is number 1,vinyl-2 and cassette tape-3.vinyl was,is not and never will better than the cd.
Please tap LIKE and SUBSCRIBE ❤
If you'd like to help support the channel, please visit the shop:
www.amazon.com/shop/thejoyofvinylrecords
Lots of great things coming up with the show. Thank you for being here!
No.
😂
One might prefer the sound of vinyl over CD
I prefer CD
Vinyl pressings quality has always been a pain in the neck
My personal preference is to follow the original. If was originally recorded in analog, and mastered for analog, then I prefer to listen to the LP. If, on the other hand, it was originally recorded in digital, and mastered for digital (like that VH album you mention at the beginning), then I'd rather listen to it there. At some point in time, CDs became the preferred medium, and records became second-class citizens.
But the real difference always comes down to the mastering. A properly mastered album, designed for the final medium will always perform better than one not.
Agreed Jon! Also - good advice to follow the original. Obviously I will always choose vinyl (that's me), but I will also be the first to admit there will be instances it won't compete with other formats because of when or how it was mastered.
Absolutely true. I had a comparison of Yes "90125" on the original 1983 CD and LP lately and the CD absolutely blew my mind. All on the same system good cartridge, good DAC and else. There are cases where it's flipped arround, even if recording or mastering were already down digitally.
If you're really following the analog original, you want to own the master tape. The vinyl is a lossy version of the original recording. At that point I will take a digitally remastered version of the analog tapes.
I still play and buy cds regularly, same as vinyl and even compact cassettes. All sound as good. I never understood the discussion on what was supposed to be better. If you have proper quality equipment, take proper care of the medium and a proper audio source/ master was used to create the medium, all will sound perfect.
I do agree that alot of what goes into a great playback experience is the way the source was cared for, equipment, etc. Pretty much everything you said. I do admit to never hearing a great sounding cassette but I also admit to never having great cassette equipment to play it on growing up.
As a teenager, when i bought my first hifi set, i put the most money into my cassette deck. This was a pro serie Sony 2 head deck. It served me well for many years. Two years later i bought my first record player, a Dual entry model. Up till then i used my parents record player to record vinyl records to tape and play then on my own hifi set. When cds became the new standard i bought an NAD cd player, again an entry model. The trusty Sony cassette deck i still used to make copies of my vinyl records and to record radio shows (mostly live radio performances). Later on i bought a Nakamichi 2 head deck and a Denon 3 head deck. Also, i managed to get my hands on a Tascam 246 4-track recorder, which i had completely serviced to work as new. Playing cassettes on such high quality equipment is really satisfying. I honestly cannot hear the difference between the cassette recording and the original source. In the meantime, the amp, tuner, cd and record player and speakers have been replaced twice by upgrades, but the Denon and Tascam cassette gear stayed as essentials in my hifi setup.
@@bubble-and-scrape You're not gonna believe this but I have a Tascam 424 4 -Track recorder that I bought in the 90s to fool around with home recording. Still in working condition.
It's not the the format, it's the MASTERING. A well-mastered CD will sound better than a poorly-mastered vinyl LP, and vice-versa.
Exactly! CDs could be great but are often mastered poorly. The great ones of the past proof the point.
This is how I see it. I have many LP/CD counterparts. When I put on an LP that sounds great or not my brain is just amazed by it. But when I put on a CD of an older recording I feel like something is wrong. I then compare them back to back and here little to no difference. Its a placebo effect. Hearing hi-quality music from an LP blows my mind. Hearing music from a CD and I expect everything to sound amazing and that's just it. CDs can only reproduce what's fed to it. It can't make an old recording sound better. If it's mastered properly its basically an exact copy of the master tape or original digital file. While LPs can sound fantastic they are never an exact copy of the master tape, just cutting a record changes must be made to the original and at times I think some engineers sweeten the sound a little and that's why some sound so good. Most CDs, especially in the 80s were flat transfers of the master tape.
I agree with you. I have a cd player, a streamer and a turntable so I can do all three. Plus I can compare how each one sounds on the same music. It all depends on how it was recorded and mastered on each format. Sometimes I find the cd sounds better, sometimes the vinyl is better and yes, sometimes the streaming version is better. What do I buy when I want to own a particular piece of music? 5 to 1 it is the vinyl version. That's more of a personal choice than anything else. Now here's something interesting. One of my favorite albums is Dire Straits Brothers in Arms. I have it on vinyl and CD, plus I stream it. My personal opinion is the CD sounds best. This was one of the earliest full digital recordings. So even on vinyl it is digital per se. The vinyl sounds great and I listen to it that way a lot. But when I compare the CD stands out to me. So why do I bother with the vinyl? It's just the whole experience of spinning a record sometimes. And all three formats sound great!
I never heard "Brothers In Arms" on CD (except when played over the radio). I only ever owned the original LP (which sounds amazing even after almost 4 decades). I never realized it was one of the first all digital recordings - that's good to know. So even the vinyl it digitally sourced in that respect.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords
I remember being told when it came out that it was directed to the CD market specifically and it was a DDD recording. I don't know if it was the first, but supposedly one of the first. I wish I had my original on vinyl. Mine is a reissue. So to be fair I'm comparing my original CD to a reissue. Maybe the original vinyl is better. But I think it's possible since they made it more for the CD format originally that's why the cd is so good.
Christoper Cross’ debut album was one of the first records to be digitally recorded. This was in 1979, 6 years before the release of Brothers in arms by Dire straits. The reason why Brothers in arms is so heavily accosiated with digital recording and the rise of the cd is because its release was one of the first specifically directed at the cd market. And of course the album was a great success.
@@bubble-and-scrape
Hey, thanks for the info. That album sounds great on CD as well. But Brothers in Arms is probably one of the best sounding CDs I've heard. I have an original cd from the time it was released.
Although like you, I am mostly doing vinyl now, I think the problem with CD’s became the “loudness wars”. If you want to hear what CD’s can really do, check out classical music, where they did not over compress the signals.
I should do that someday (if I ever get another CD player). But yes - totally agree on the loudness wars being the culprit for what happened with CDs.
I listen both formats, mostly digital good quality streaming and CDs with some utilizing DSD quality recordings, played on a SACD transport, and of course analogue vinyl (about 20% of the time). Without doubt vinyl is far more enjoyable and amazing, but only if the recording/mastering is good quality, and especially when using good quality components (not necessarily expensive). I was blown away when I added a phono stage preamplifier a year ago to the system. I could not believe the difference. Then, just yesterday, I replaced my Sumiko mm cartridge ($400) with a low output Hana mc cartridge ($750, but got on sale for $600), and OMG again I could not believe the improvement in the clarity, the highs, and especially the bass quality. I highly recommend both upgrades. The host of this blog mentioned contemplating upgrading to mc cartridge (Hana I believe). I say to him: “Go For It!”.
Hi! And thanks for the feedback!
I am hoping to jump into the world of MC carts next year after I've spent a few months (or a year) with the LVB250. I'm happy to hear about your Hana experience as that seems to be the one I hear the most often mentioned when I ask about it. Which Hana did you go with?
I went with the Hana SL (low output). My phono stage has a custom load impedance setting that I set to 500 ohms. So far I’ve listened to Steely Dan “Aja” and John Coltrane “Blue Train” and the sonic richness exploded using the mc compared to the mm cartridge. This is my first experience with mc, and can’t wait to listen to more of my vinyl collection 😊. Good luck and I hope you dive into the mc world sooner than later!
I recently bought the Acoustic Sounds reissue of "Sonny Rollins On Impulse!". Now this is superb music. Just yesterday I wanted to see how it compares to the TIDAL Music streaming version. I streamed the first tune, damn - it sounded good. Then I put on the album. And ended up listening to both sides straight through. I marveled at Mickey Roker's amazing drumming and Rollins creative, almost wink, wink, nod, nod sax blowing. He is on another level.
I did the same thing with my 40 year old copy of Vangelis' "Opera Sauvage". Listened to one tune on TIDAL, the entire album on vinyl. Something is there that causes me to stay. I almost never listen to an entire album when streaming. Streaming (and CD) gives me good sound. Vinyl gives me musicians.
I love your test. It's the same with me. A vinyl record keeps me rooted to me chair. If I have to stop it for some reason it's always with regret that I can't finish it. That's never been the case with other formats. I can't explain why, it's just the way it is with me.
You are absolutely correct. It's all in the mastering. When you mentioned that the CD sounded better than the vinyl back in the 90's I remember noticing that too. You hit the nail on the head when you said that the CD was the new kid on the block and the recording industry was pushing the new technology. So vinyl was purposely not mastered as well as CD's to get people on board with buying CD 's.
Hey there DJRay! A lot is a result of the loudness wars too. Vinyl couldn't compete with that craziness.
Hi Rick, I watched this video a month or so ago and promised myself that I would do my own comparison. I don’t have many CDs but one that I have, purchased recently, is David Gates “Song Book”. I have vinyl copies of all the Bread releases and David Gates solo albums, the “Song Book” release which was timed to support his tour which I was lucky enough to see at the Albert Hall, London. The CD has most of the “best of” but it has a number of new releases that have not been added to any subsequent release. I picked a Bread/Gates standard - “Baby I’m a want you” and played the CD version from 2000 against the latest vinyl release from Bread from 2018. Both payed through the same Rega amp and AE500 speakers with vinyl on a Rega Planar 6 with MC + pre amp and the CD on a Rega Apollo CD player. My hearing at 70 isn’t perfect, all the usual comments about vinyl being warmer, less bright, easier to listen to applied. When played side by side, where I could just flick between the amp’s output as the two recordings mirrored each other, the difference was stark. I asked my wife to listen and without any explanation or much listening she said exactly the same. It isn’t so much about better or worse but rather which is preferable to my ear. I prefer a more mellow sound, I don’t like a sharp top end. My predominately Rega system was picked for its softer sounds so it’s not surprising that I am drawn to vinyl rather than CD. I will still buy CDs where I can’t find a vinyl alternative but vinyl remains my first choice. Rgds Pat
Hi Pat! I love this! As you said - it's not about which is the better format - it's all about what s better for the listener. I no longer own a CD player (haven't in years) but I recall having a similar experience before I decided to go back to vinyl after spending the second half of the 90s collecting CDs. There is something more mellow and warm and that's the thing for me as well.
I'm sure I asked or you may have told me in a previous comment, but what MC cart are you using?
Like Ebony and Ivory-They sit side by side on my Hi-Fi system. Saying that I don’t use digital CDs but Tidal. I’ve not bought a new record in decades and enjoy playing them still. Tidal gives me the chance to investigate what’s new and what I like and don’t like. It was easier when I was young as you didn’t seem to get so many artist choices. The same groups putting out new recordings. You had top of the pops in the UK, to sample what you would buy from a real record shop-great stuff. As for which is better for me-Tidal or my analogue vinyl? I think there are too many variables to say, as it’s down to the recording and your own equipment. A CD will sound better than an old record played on a Dansette record player. A top quality turntable compared to a cheap CD player will sound better. So instead of a war comparing as little boys do 😳why don’t we just enjoy the attributes of both 🙂.
Well said Rick, and I also agree with DJRay when he said that when the record companies were promoting CDs, they purposely mastered vinyl to not sound as good, hoping to get people to switch.
Spot on. I listen to rather obscure music, so rarely there is even the option of one master vs. the other. I have had a few records both as vinyl and CD. They both can sound great with decent hardware. I also prefer vinyl for the ritual and the artwork. I am a very visual person, do photography (dSLR and 4x5"), various microscopy imaging (LM, SEM, UV, IR), and the layouts for my books. That said, I recently purchased a record from Bedless Bones out of Estonia, and it did not come with a lyrics sheet. That is only available on the CD, so that is on order now as well. Yep, a bit crazy, I know. BTW, her "Sublime Malaise" and "Mire of Mercury" are also fantastic.
I had to go check Bedless Bones out after reading this. Enjoyed what I heard!
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords Glad to hear! One of my Bandcamp discoveries of late. I put a couple of her tracks in the play lists my yoga classes (not on vinyl, though).
Way back in the late 1990s, when MP3s were a thing, I got busy and transcoded a lot of my vinyl to digital storage. I did all the checks first, making sure I wasn't clipping or starving the converter and listening to make sure I wasn't messing up the sound quality. In the end I had about 3,000 songs and the digital and vinyl versions were very hard to tell apart. In fact there were multiple occasions when I had to look to see which was playing.
On the purely technical capabilities scale ... Redbook and PCM will wipe the floor with Vinyl both on dynamic range and sound quality... every time.
However, as the video points out, it's about mastering as much as the medium.
Starting in the mid-1990s someone figured out that if you compressed the daylight out of a song, then ran it through limiters they could actually make the digital track about 3 times louder than the vinyl one. This was, quite simply because in order to handle that level, a vinyl pressing would almost surely skip. This "brick walling" soon became the standard for Redbook and PCM and it launched the "loudness wars" that are still ongoing today.
Vinyl forces the mastering engineers to use much less compression and limiting and curiously that is almost certainly why vinyl sounds so much better than CD or even digital files.
So for nearly 3 decades younger music lovers have been listening to music with almost zero dynamic range and 20 to 30% limiting induced distortion ... all geared to sell more CDs. It is no surprise they don't appreciate the better mastering on vinyl. It's not what their music sounds like.
Now... if they would just back off on the compression and limiting, we could have the best of both worlds... Really great music on a very capable medium.
But for now we're stuck with the rather painful irony that the medium capable of the best sound quality is being used to deliver the worst.
That’s an excellent synopsis of the state of digital playback. I also find your digital transfer success very interesting. It confirms your observation. Thanks for sharing this!
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords
No worries ...
One of my friends still does this with every new album ... turntable to pre-amp to ADC then to mp3/320 encoder. He calls it "scratch proofing".
CDs can have more dynamic range, but many are compressed more than the vinyl. And most vinyl has gone through ADC and DAC processors before being mastered. So, Neil Young might be the rare exception to the latter. Then there is all of ones playback equipment before it gets to ones pre-amp, which can make for unfair comparisons.
The issue is the cost. I believe the Neil Young set you're talking about is in the neighborhood of $150. That's a lot of money. You can pick up a used CD of Ragged Glory for $3-$5 at most used record stores and it's going to sound pretty damn good.
And that's the inherent problem with vinyl. Vinyl is sooooo expensive. Unless you're an "audiophile," an inexpensive CD will do just fine.
I listen to vinyl, CD, SACD and DVD-A. Simply because some of the artists I like don't have vinyl releases. Yes, some of my LPs are superior to the CD version especially the older LPs. For CD playback I use a CD transport with an external DAC. For SACD and DVD-A playback I use a Sony BluRay player. I have quite a few LPs and CDs of the same title and find that I prefer the vinyl version. Oh, the first major-;abel digitally recorded album and released was Ry Cooder's "Bop Til You Drop". There's a thinness to the tracks that undermines the performances, which according to Ry Cooder is due to the digital recording. But I still love this album 🥰
Gotta love Ry Cooder. I am a sucker for slide guitar - always have been.
Personally, I prefer vinyl of digital. I think that the music is superior, but there is the bonus of the tactile experience,
I think both are good. Some album are better on cd than vinyl and the reverse is true of others. I will say the equipment makes a big difference also. For records, the turntable, cartridge and phone preamp must be compared to the cd player (transport and DAC) for CDs. If the equipment is on par between the two media, then the mastering for the vinyl and for the CD will be the most telling. Which is better, well I prefer vinyl at home in general for serious listening, and CDs for casual listening.
Long read, because there is a lot to cover.
Comparing a title between digital and vinyl has numerous factors involved, which (I believe) few people include into the comparison equation.
1) For both digital and vinyl, for countless titles, there are multiple releases, and they almost always have varying sound quality. So which two are being used in the comparison?
2) For vinyl, even pressings for the same stamper code, will vary in sound quality. No two pressings are identical. They can be very, very close in sound quality, but on a revealing system, there will be differences. Often, the sound quality between pressings are night and day different.
3) The playback gear.
Which CD player is being used?
Some folks think that all CD players sound the same. They do not. Their sound quality will vary wildly.
Or, which DAC is being used?
If it is a DAC, how is the DAC being fed? Transports feed DACs. Which transport is being used? Every CD player has a built-in transport. But if you are streaming from a music server, then your home's streamer (that takes the feed from the Qobuz, or Tidal, or Spotify, etc) is your transport and will play a key role in the sound quality.
Transports determine the amount of noise and jitter. Unless you went on a mission to control your jitter, you have jitter. If you don't think so, it is because you are accustomed to hearing it. Once you minimize it, your music will blossom. Then if you go back, you will hear the difference, and you will recognize the jitter.
When you (virtually) eliminate jitter, you stop hearing a reproduction, and you start hearing a performance (as if you are not hearing speakers).
4) Which turntable are you using?
Which cartridge are you using?
Which tonearm are you using?
Who dialed in all of the vectors to ensure that the stylus is precisely in the record's groove? The slightest misalignment will be heard. When you have it dialed in with precision, your records will take on a new life. Few people dial everything in, or even know about all of the vectors that need to be dialed in. I know them all (from research), but I neither have the skill to do it, nor have the tools to do it. I was fortunate enough to have a turntable guru from the store where I purchased my turntable. He has all of the tools. He has the skills. He has an ear that I trust. My set-up, vs his set-up, was night and day different, with his set-up making my stereo sound 3 times its price.
What phono amp is being used?
Phono amps vary in sound quality, wildly.
So for someone to issue a challenge that a CD (or digital streaming) or a vinyl pressing is better, is based on their own equipment, and also based on their particular CD or their particular pressing, is unaware of the myriad of factors that determine the sound quality.
If you listen to a MSB transport / DAC, with quality digital content, your jaw will drop, as you will hear digital as you have never imagined.
If you listen to a Clearaudio Statement turntable, with a Clearaudio reference tonearm, and a Clearaudio Goldfinger cartridge, and an Aesthetix IO Eclipse phono amp, with a white hot vinyl pressing, your jaw will drop, as you will hear vinyl as you have never imagined.
And for both of the above, MSB and Clearaudio are not alone in the brands that will make your jaw drop.
Granted, those brands are on the extreme, cutting edge, high end of audio excellence. But using the above level equipment with the best available sounding digital content or best available vinyl pressing, and doing a comparison, you will likely conclude that you can't make up your mind (both will sound heavenly). It would be like choosing between two $million sport's cars.
I have had the good fortune to hear equipment close to the above level of quality at my local high-end store. It has to be heard to be believed, as no words can do it justice.
On down to Earth equipment, comparing digital to vinyl simply boils down to what equipment you have.
I believe that bang for the buck, digital will sound better. Vinyl will go toe-to-toe with digital, but it will cost more to attain comparative sound quality, and is more difficult to set-up (you need a professional to get it right).
Since digital is far more prevalent in society, and for a price most people can budget, most people believe that digital is superior -- especially since most people never set-up their turntables properly, and used crummy phono amps (likely built in to mass produced receivers). So it makes sense that now that they hear digital, and it really does sound better than their turntable, they bet on digital for the win.
For vinyl to compete, it costs more, must be professionally dialed in, must use a quality phono amp, and must use quality pressings (which from my experience is less than 10% of any album's release).
Lots of variables. Too many for a definitive winner.
So true. And I hear alot of the arguments on both sides constantly (online, with friends, etc.). I have heard great sounding CDs and systems way better than I had back in the day and I completely agree that the equipment, pressing, etc all matter when attempting to compare. For vinyl to compete with a CD on a half decent audio system it would need fairly expensive-above entry level-equipment. Not in every case (there are horrible CD offerings and extremely bad vinyl pressings). It's a fun argument late at night but in the end nobody is truly right.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords
NoEgg4u makes some great points. There are a lot of variables to consider. I always come back to this: just listen and enjoy the music the way you want to play it. Sometimes overanalysis can create paralysis 😂.
Im only listening to vinyls again for nostalgic purposes. I think its alot like what your preference is. I like cds probably the most because streaming is just not as equal
I raise a glass to that 🍺
I think the door for vinyl was slung open in the 90s and early 2000 maybe to 2010, the compression the record companies and loudness put on the CD was uncalled for there were few I could listen to from beginning to end so when people started giving vinyl a chance they fell in love with the sound and for me vinyl offers a connection to the performance CD didn't and streaming never can. Today the Record companies are taking more care with the CD and not over compressing or seeing how loud they can make the music so the CD is very good, Ill still listen to my vinyl first, as far as the best Ill leave that to those on the internet infinitely more qualified than I to answer that question.
I land on "it depends" when it comes to comparing the two. There are good and bad mastering examples with both and probably has a lot to do with what era the mastering was done (to your point about compression and loudness".
Nothing much to say about "vinyl sucks" other than to invite the person over for a listen.
This will sound great: 8-core CPU running a newer version of JRver music player. Rip your CDs with lossless compression with FOOBAR 2000 or whatever you like. You will need a DAC, I prefer R2R DACs but my DIY dual ES9018 sounded great but my Denafrips Venus II sounds a little better. I got an R2R DACs board from a guy in Malaysia -- but it ran on a Raspberry Pi. Optimize Windows -- guides are online. Disable things like point-of-sale, things you won't use. This PC should be dedicated to AUDIO playback, so optimizing improves or make the output to the DAC more consistent.
This sounds nearly as good as my XXHIGHEND RAMOS - even Windows (10) runs in RAM and is stripped down. The computer is an entry level server from Super Micro - it has to boot from the SSD with RAMOS on it hence, Windows 10. I got a used 22-cire CPU and chose 18 cores from XXHIGHEND.
JRiver has partitioned the software and compared to 2013 XXHIGHEND not RAMOS, was not as real sounding then. NOW, JRiver sounds great, on a $400 8-core CPU running Windows 11, with some optimizations. And, you can play with REW room acoustic files that you create for you room with a calibrated microphone, install the files in JRiver and see if the sound was improved. It takes a few days to get used to the change. If highs were damped, the less bright sound will be weird at first
For the money, I don't think the same cost vinyl playback will sound better, and will be more convenient if that is important to you or you just like to have music sets to play without any hustle.
I still buy CD's all the time. But what I like the best: 8 track tapes.
I love vinyl.
I don’t even use my CD PLAYER anymore
Same here, Mark!
This debate has been going on since the 80's. And there is really no right and wrong answers to this question as it is always based on opinion, and it is based on the kind of stereo system you own. As for me, I grew up with Vinyl and I Love the complete experience of vinyl. Holding the record in your hand, Looking at the label, Watching it spin on the turntable, Look at the beautiful back and front cover, reading the liner notes. With CD's you can't do that, You can't watch it spin, You can't read the liner notes most of the time because the type is too small, there is not much of a phusical experience, and yes, Vinyl sounds more natural, and real. CD's sound great for the most part but they can sound artificial at times. Sometimes the vinyl recording of the same exact album sounds better on vinyl. Example: John Denver's Greatest Hits Vol. 1 and 2. The vinyl sounds better then the CD and there are many other recordings I feel that way too. I Love both formats, but I absolutely prefer Vinyl and that is the reason Why Vinyl has made such a huge comeback. Vinyl is much more fun and it is much more of a physical experience then CD's
Well said, Richard!
All records befor say 1980 were recorded on analog equipment. No wonder they sound better on vinyl. Nowadays things are recorded digitally, in that case i rely on CD's.
Of course they do.
I'm sorry to contradict you but there's no analogue glory in Ragged Glory, as the original record was recorded mostly digitally and this new mix clearly states "Mastered from 44/16 digital" on the box.
So when you're spending $150 for this vinyl boxset you're basically getting content that sounds as good, if not better, on the much cheaper 2023 CD version, which retails for one fourth of the price and has been remastered with the same care.
Neil Young was one of the early pioneers of digital recordings, and it's only when he lost his hearing (a few years after mixing Arc) that he started complaining about the digital format not sounding good.
Love your profile picture - my favorite band of all time.
GM ☕️
It’s now a question of what does digital playback sound like in 2023-24.
Music is the Software that runs your hardware PERIOD
Weather it’s a quality analog set up or a digital playback of similar quality…each bring something to the party.
Have a great weekend and the best of the Christmas season to you and yours .
Best of the season to you as well Carmine!!
Ok, so the immediate effect you noticed when playing your first CD's was how damn QUITE they were, no pops, clicks, scratches......it either played immaculately or it just hick-uped when it hit a ding or scratch the surrounding 1's and 0's couldn't fill in (or the built-in DAC was just crap). HOWEVER, that didn't save my poorly mastered copy of Jimmi Hendrix's "Are you Experienced", which came over as so shrill and grating I just couldn't listen to it. The only side effect I have experienced with a badly mastered Vinyl record is at best a dull, flat effect, as though all the good notes were filtered out. At their best, very well mastered records can make your jaw hit the floor. My biggest gripe is that you can't seem to get a vinyl record these days that AREN'T scuffed, scratched, or exposed to heat or cold leaving a "bleached" circular intrusion on the record. I do know one thing....if I shell out $60 or more for a MOFI or Analog Productions album, it damn well better arrive at my door in IMMACULATE condition. There's no excuse for the conditions we are receiving our vinyl records in, at ANY price!
And that is my biggest gripe these days for which I could rant for hours - the quality of newly pressed vinyl. It says something when a great sounding "new production" record is a pleasant surprise when it should be expected. I find myself looking for original pressings, or close to original pressings these days.
Nice video as always 👍 This is the never ending story... Some recordings sound better on cd and vice versa. As you said, it depends on the equipment that you are using. I'm still buying both cd and vinyl. There are some bands (that I) prefer on cd. I'll give you an example : Dream Theater 😁 For me, crackling on a vinyl record with DT would be very annoying. A bit difficult to explain, but it has something to do with the very intricate soundstage (scape) NOT sure which is the correct word. I know that some people would probably put a contract on my head just for saying this 😁😁😁 (I have seen The Sopranos many times) But that is my humble opinion. But the holy grail will of course always be vinyl records...All the best from Norway 😁😁😁
Hi Norway! I think we are both experiencing similar temperature drops (although the next few days here in NH will be unseasonably warm - no complaints). I have a video coming up in a week or two about a record it took me three times to find a good copy of (for various reasons which I get into). Agreed on the DT!
Looking forward to that video 👍 It's very warm here also. It started yesterday. It seems as we are getting a green (you can see your lawn) Christmas. Fantastic news for me 👍 That's what I'm always hoping for 😁😁😁
Totally! CDs cut off at 20k, LPs go over 20k ! Matter of fact LPs capture ALL audio information, as does hi res audio! 44.1k/16 bit is an archaic resolution and is no longer relavent! Saying that, it also depends on equipment cleanliness of LPs and external vibration! On good equipment you can't beat LPs! CDs are not dependant on equipment! All I know is record's sound real, Redbook CDs don't! You can hear the entire room acoustics on analogue, and hi res digital! CDs do not, CDs disregard a LOT of information! 😊
Cheers! 🍺
Go from what is considered the top3 of CD and vinyl (mix,master,pressing) and play on the best system available. If you want to judge the medium then don't let your hifi be the limiting factor in the decision making and conclusion. You are talking what is the better medium and not what is better on your system.
full dynamic range on vinyl. cd is compressed
Records do not sound as good it's a matter of dynamic range but to me on a properly tuned pa system nothing sounds better than a good dance record at 105 db
I understand why you are saying about the Neil Young album. Give a good engineer enough re-takes and he/she can make a vinyl record that you believe is better than a CD. But that's just me.
Thanks for stopping by John!
I do not think there is a hard fast rule either way. Like so many who already posted it really depends on the care that went into the mastering. You can get crappy or wonderful sound from both. The deciding factor is your tastes, I like a slice a cheddar with my apple pie, my bride would rather have a scoop of vanilla. Go figure.
I think I have to side with your bride on this one - vanilla all the way 😎
Short answer: Yes and No.
🤨
Anyway another great video.
Gotta love short answers 🤣🤣🤣
Regardless of format, trust your ears
Words to live by!
Most people who speak in absolutes are mostly ignorant to one side or the other. The perfect example is to say that steak is always better than hotdogs. In the general I would agree with that statement, but in the absolute I can tell you that none who would say that have ever had my uncle’s steaks. His philosophy on steak is that unless it is cooked to the point of charcoal and loaded up with ketchup it is unedible. In this case the hotdogs are always a better choice :-)
Likewise goes the vinyl/CD/streaming/cassette argument. Sure, if you took the worst example of one and compared it to the best example of the other you will prove your point and “win” the argument, except you won’t actually win the war because in the next round your opponent will do the same disingenuous thing. I can tell you that in my experience playing CD, streaming and turntable on the same exact system I prefer vinyl and CD over streaming. With that said I have instances where I prefer the vinyl and others where I prefer the CD, though my goto is always the vinyl when available 😉
Same here. I fully acknowledge that there are better CD versions of my favorite records but vinyl will always be my format for better or worse. It would be great if streaming were to somehow rival that sound (and maybe it can with the proper DAC, higher bitrate, etc).
As always, love the input Adam!
What do I think..? I think that most people couldn't tell the difference and it's all BS! If you blindfold the average person before going into a sound room and you play the different media randomly... I bet they wouldn't be able to tell. Vinyl people are convinced vinyl sounds better; likewise CD people. Personally, I have now switched back to CD. I got sick to death of the poor quality vinyl and the difficulty of playback. Put a CD on, or six, on repeat, sit back and enjoy. Actually, I tell a small lie... I have switched to SACD. SACD on my Atmos theatre system will blow them all away hands down.
I have never honestly heard a SACD. I'll have to find someone who has them so I can check them out.
In order to do a valid comparison of a cds sound quality to the vinyl lp version, you would have to do more than just playing it through the same system. For it to be valid, your turntable and cd player would have to be at exactly the same level as far as sound quality. And how wod you ever guage that!!!...If your turntable is a little better than your cd player, and the lp sounds a bit better, that would tell us absolutely "Nothing." As far as cds versus lps in general as far as sound quality goes & which one's better, to do a comparison you would literally have to go out and buy something like the Burmester cd player from Germany, ($50,000 basic version, or $75,000 with the improved power supply), and compare it's playback to whatever is supposed to be a state of the art turntable nowadays. Anything less than that & you're not comparing the inherent quality of one format with another, you're just comparing equipment at that point. And the comparison is pointless.
Very few of us will will get to own equipment like that; so it's not even relevant or important what format sounds best. What IS RELEVANT is what is the best sounding format at prices we are able to afford to indulge. Cds have more consistently good sound quality than lps. Mastering is important on both, but I never heard of a badly pressed cd. As many as half or more lps are pressings that leave a lot to be desired. So lps not only have to be mastered well, but there is the second problem with having to do a good pressing. That's why I like cds better. Your average cd is a better pressing so to speak than your average lp. That's why there are audiophile labels, willing to take large chunks of your money if you are willing to indulge. I highly modify cd players, and I have no idea if my cd player playe ris state of the art, beyond state of the art or not that near state of the art. But I can tell you that cds sound analog without vinyl noise intruding. Cds do not sound anything like analog at lower quality levels. I've seen many others notice the same thing about how cds take on an analog quality commenting on the forums..So I'm not nearly alone. It's true. Get rid of the digital distortions and glare, and you end up with something that sounds just like analog. analog.With all the benefits of the cd, including cost. I was just listening to my cd player the other day, and just started thinking how many thousands of dollars would you have to go in a phono cartridge alone, to get this kind of sound quality?
This BS about in the 1990s, them purposely mastering lps poorly, so people will buy cds.What??? What the major labels decide is going to be the next format, WILL BE the next format. And back then they decided it will be cd. I can think of quite a few lps lpsfrom that era ( I also collect lp) which I compared & the lp pressing sounded better than the cd. Raised On Radio by Journey was one of them. Pick yoir format. I believe cds on the right player can do everything lps do well, and I am really not sure if lps are sonically better in any way. wayI am more cd than lp now.
I just ordered the Burmester.
Just kidding of course. But you do raise an excellent point around the major labels dictating the next format. When CDs first hit the scene I resisted them for years. I didn't purchase my first CD or player until Zeppelin's first box set came out (remember that one?) and CDs had been a thing for a few years. Part of me was afraid I'd like the sound better, and at that time (I was around 23 when it was released), it did sound better to my untrained ears. I did have the opportunity to compare the two years later before getting rid of my CDs and player and I preferred the vinyl version over that old box set.
Just as with lps, there are preferable cd pressings. With Led Zeppelin, by far the best cd masterings are the older ones done by Barry Diament. The George Marino masterings are very bright and harsh by comparison. I use an old cd mat on top of my brighter cds. Not only does it make them less bright, but in the instances I've had of scratched up used cds skipping or stopping, they played just fine with the mat on. That's another thing,; most people don't really know how to best play a cd. I was just listening to Led Zep II a while back, and with the Barry Diament pressing, I was surprised how well Led Zeppelin was recorded. You could hear very little little if anything wrong with the sound quality.
Of course you don't have to buy a Burmester or Ayon cd player retc. to get great cd sound. There is a big middle ground between them and other more reasonably priced cd players. For the amount of money many vinyl diehards spend each year on lp pressings, they could probably buy something really superior for a cd player. When audio reviewers say that analog has a bit more natural ease and air etc., remember that they usually have a 15 or 20 grand turntable turntable.they're playing records on. Media hype has people with $150 to $300 phono cartridges, thinking their playback sound quality is better than cds, played back on great equipment. I can tell you it certainly isn't. If you have a well chosen over $1,000 moving coil phono cartridge like a Hana Hana ML or a Goldring etc, on a turntable that can do it justice, you might have to go quite a bit of money to get a cd player that can match it or surpass it. it. I don't what would be the better value for sound quality there. there. But the much higher cost of vinyl vinylhas to be put into the equation. There are signs on the forums from users, that the high price of vinyl is starting to kill off the vinyl resurgence.
Van Hagar all the way
🍺🍺 you and my wife 😂😂
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords she has good taste in music
Booo
How about a better question: Does surround sound albums sound better than the stereo one? IMO, 98% of stereo albums suck compared to the surround sound ones.
I've actually never owned one. Are you referring to the quadrophonic albums?
Yes, the quad records I've heard are digitally transferred. But the best surround sound I own is on Blu-ray discs.
I recently purchased War's "The World is a Ghetto" on Blu-ray (four-channel surround) and several Gentle Giant albums in 5.1 surround. There's also a Dolby Atmos mix on the disc but I don't own an Atmos system (and unlikely I ever will).
During my many decades of collecting vinyl records, I've spent an appreciable amount of money on half-speed mastered discs, direct-to-disc releases and audiophile pressings. They beat out most of my standard vinyl but not all. But I'd say my DVD-V and Blu-ray discs puts any of my vinyl to shame.
The best examples of that are Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", any album by Donald Fagan and Steely Dan, Metallica's "Black" album, Rick Derringer's first two albums, XTC and so on.
I realize that surround sound can be totally impractical for people living with limited space, in apartments and in some automobiles, but the fact is stereo and vinyl just doesn't cut it for me anymore. I've moved on.
@nicksterj There are two surround mixes. The quad version done by Alan Parsons and a 5.1 version (not sure who did that one). I prefer the quad version, but either one is an improvement over the stereo versions.
It's not that difficult to put together a surround sound system. I started my journey when I bought a Pioneer surround receiver on sale at Future Shop (which is now Best Buy). I originally had only two speakers, and knew very little about surround sound audio at the time. So I began thoroughly reading the receiver manual and began adding speakers. I played around with the matrix formats and found it improved and widened out my stereo recordings. I followed that up with a powered sub-woofer (again, on sale).
Then, there was a brief period where they were selling DVD-V surround albums. That's when I got hooked and sought out every surround sound album I could find.
If you have the opportunity to listen to "Animals" or "Wish You Were Here" in surround, take it. It's a vast improvement over any stereo version.
Well while I like Neil Young, I don't think I'd spend two-hundred bucks on him.
As fast as he puts out new material it would be very easy to.
@@TheJoyofVinylRecords OK, I wanted to make a comment on so-called A_B comparisons and particularly on the internet(RUclips) but work (market analysis) intrudes. It's a waste of time trying to figure out differences for the most part online. Just too many variables inplay from one end(source) to the other. Even if you're making a decision on what's better on your home setup, for most it's limited either by their system, the music you play, or not having a very discernable ear. Nothing like some person giving an opinion on a $10,000.00 CD player who purchases cheap Far East crap on Amazon. And to truly be able to tell if one sound is really better/worse than another, most don't have access to a place where you can do this. Just think about where you can go to compare truly state-of-the-art equipment to the actual recording of the live performance and to the digital and analog sources of the same music. Here in Chicago, I have such a place to go to and I'm not aware personally of any others. Plus a lot of audiophiles are a bunch of indecisive cry babies. Don't believe me, just go on Audiogon, get the Friday roundup and you'll see what I'm talking about. "Help me pick a cable, Help me find an amplifier, Do I need a preamp?" Waa waa whiners.
How old are you?
Really old
There is no comparison of apples and oranges.saying that vinyl is better comparing to cd is simplest said non sense.cd's dinamic and sonic superiority is not reachable for vinyl,will never be.the only thing that vinyl has on it's side is the wormth,that's it.sorry there is something else as well-that scratching and rubbing.yeah that noise-the same thing the so called audiofiles laughing at cassette tape lovers,we can say the same thing about vinyl to.about mastering-bad mastering sounds crappy on every media,no help there.ones again-when it comes for fizical media-cd is number 1,vinyl-2 and cassette tape-3.vinyl was,is not and never will better than the cd.
Truth
Objectively true but not subjectively. 😉
Easy, no they don’t.
If you have a clean needle, a good turntable and a record with as little scratches and dust as possible, vinyl should sound equal to CD
Agreed, Thomas!