I have all mediums. LPs, CDs, Tape and I stream. I enjoy them all and still collect Vinyl, CDs and tapes. Each has their own characteristics. Love music first!
C'mon, CD is a 40 years old technology, from today's perspective it is almost as ancient as vinyl. It is also a physical medium anyway. People who remember the CD introduction are old today.
@@voytecco6104 I worked in a record store at precisely the time when CDs came in and vinyl was sold off cheap. The 'industry' pushed CDs so hard, retailers thought vinyl was dying out like the dinosaurs and it almost did go away completely, before the revival.
Reason and reasoning and analyzing makes peopel always to enjoy things less. Asa Spiritualô peopel who do mediation, sports travels and enjoy life say the more you analyze some content or hobby the less you enjoy it at the moment... because enjoyment doesnt come muchfrom head or brain but from body, "thoughts are in mind, feelings are in body" And scientists of neurosciencea nd spirituality and end epigenetics say Heart has its own brain, and wisdom, and electromagnetic field, but its not based pon yanalyzis and loc or resaon etc.
Maybe Davids reasomn was that while he ois listening and enjoying music....he doesnt want to be in aanalytical state of analyzing it. Because enjoying isnt coming from brain, music is energy, enjoyment is energy, its not logical or analytical thing.
How many times does this have to be said? There are recordings on vinyl that are not on CD and never will be. There are recordings on CD that are not on vinyl and never will be. The smart ones in the pack know and make room for both.
yeah but deep in your heart you always have a preference... if the price is the same I always prefer vinyl, they just sound better to me. I end up buying lots of CDs because vinyl prices are crazy.
@@scottgates601 i know, thing is, if you leave the price out of the equation it's easier to know which is your favorite format. Price being equal I prefer vinyl. In the real world I buy a lot of CDs bc vinyl is too expensive. Did you get the idea?
My first vinyl purchase was the justly famous Reiner Scheherazade on RCA Living Stereo when it was initially released (in 1960) so you know how old I am! I love vinyl especially for the opportunity it gave for great album cover art and inserts that were large enough to be readable. But the ritual necessary to keep them clean and the constant hunt for vinyl that wasn't warped (even when new) was a continual horror show. Digital formats make storage simpler (and nonexistent if you stream) and now the resolution is good enough to equal or exceed the analog versions, and the warmth that was missing in the earliest digital recordings has been largely restored. So I agree with Dave.
I have a big vinyl collection ( 4000 , jazz, classical, blues, rock ) and a very big CD collection and I prefer CDs for many reasons, quality, price, format... ( with all respect to the LP collector ... )
Dave has every right to his life experiences either CD’s and. vinyl! Record resellers in my area, Tacoma/Seattle won’t buy or sell classical music except to put it in a dollar clearance bin! Dave has been a lonely voice on You Tube discussing classical music with joy on his face and in his voice! Thanks to both of you for bringing some light to classical music!
A few years back I bought some classical LPs and operas from a Seattle record shop. The guy tried to pass off like, three entire boxes of classical to me for free because they just don't sell. I might have taken him up if I hadn't walked to the store. I love classical LPs and it's fun to get like, five records for the price of one "good" condition rock record but it's a hobby thing, I'd never pretend it sounds better than CD. (honestly half the reason I buy LP operas is that it has a giant libretto included, sometimes I just get it for that and put it on cd/streaming, especially if it's one of those opera sets with the annoying autochanger sides)
I just received a Japanese CD of some Vinyl I had. Its fidelity and dynamics completely blows away its vinyl counterpart in sound quality. Its all a matter of speakers and amplification with CDs that supposedly sound worse than vinyl. Classical music is a revelation on CD because of it full range and lack of unwanted noise caused by a friction based reproduction method.
I am reprinting the comment I made after I watched the Dave Hurwitz video. Young folk (those under 65 - I am 79) often do not consider mobility issues that can present themselves as they age. As one grows older, it gets much easier to play CDs. I still love vinyl, and the care I took with my collection minimized pops, clicks, and annoying scratches. Sometimes, when I play vinyl, one would think it's digitized because of the lack of surface noise. Anyway, here is the edited comment I left for Dave and am now leaving for you: 'Mobility matters, too. I may not be up-to-date on what is out there, but CDs play longer than vinyl without needing to turn or change an LP. Or, gasp, have one vinyl drop on top of another. There are multi-disc CD changers that give listeners hours of music without needing to reload. Like Dave, I prefer to own physical product. With the amount of music DH discusses, I am often inspired to listen to the music of the day if it's in my library or buy it on CD if it's not. CD convenience enables me to listen longer and ensure that I do not have too many opportunities to fall.
Yes, and, cds do not degrade with every listen, like vinyl. Those pops and clicks from the first play on were annoying and distracted from the enjoyment of the music.
Sound engineer here. A couple things about one aspect of the discussion. You are very much correct in your general argument about audio being an "illusion" in that a performance captured with a microphone is not an accurate representation of what we would hear standing in that room. That said, vinyl (and any other analog format for that matter) IS very much imparting a sound. What we call warmth (which very much is a widely accepted term) is unquestionably a form of DISTORTION. Now, most of us love it, but Dave is very much correct in that if you were present in the control room at the recording studio were the artists/producers were making decisions, or even at the mastering studio, you wouldn't be hearing the distortion that vinyl is imparting. And in that regard, digital audio is a much more ACCURATE representation of any signal that it's captured, what the artists/engineers were hearing in the control room. This is not an opinion, this is a verifiable scientific fact that digital audio recordings are more accurate than analog ones. Now the important thing when it comes to music is that 99 times out of 100 when you compare a digital audio release to a vinyl release, you are comparing different MASTERS. Even if the lathe is being cut with the digital master (as is often the case these days), the cutting engineer is tweaking the signal to optimize it for that format. Naturally, that would exacerbate the differences between one and the other, and it's fine to prefer one over the other. But it's important to understand the science behind what each format is.
Good points. I work in audio too. The real issue is the dynamics destruction of CD / digital post 1993. It's left Loudness Wars remasters of practically all major rock/pop in the streaming systems. Part of the vinyl revival fetish -apart from pink noise - groove rubbing 'warmth' - is the dynamic range still being baked in via the formats limitations. Pre 1993 CDs will be the digital Rosetta Stones of popular music.
@@1998mchp I agree! What the recording industry has done to the CD as a digital sound carrier is pure crime. But that only speaks of the flexibility and possibilities of this medium, which far surpasses vinyl. The industry would do the same to vinyl if that medium could handle it dynamically. What saved vinyl was its limitation and narrow dynamic range.
@@ljuboizsiska5448 majority of music released on CD wasn't compressed to its limits, this is only a minor portion of it, mostly pop rock destined for US radio. I listen to mostly jazz, world, prog and acoustic music and honestly can't say I have a single CD that is a victim of the loudness wars.
Either you're looking great for your age, or you're too young to remember than even before CDs took over, many Classical music fans were already switching from vinyl records to cassette tapes, because it freed them from getting up to flip records in the middle of a long piece, and from the surface noise and inner groove distortion of vinyl. The introduction of metal tape and Dolby C NR in 1980 allowed cassettes to approach the quality of reel-to-reel and to make audibly indistinguishable copies of mint-condition LPs and live radio broadcasts, and by 1981, digitally-mastered pre-recorded cassettes of classical works were already becoming common, just in time for the Walkman to revolutionize music listening -- Beethoven was no longer chained to the living room!
off course there is but with 1.8 grams at least with 50 to 60 years none has worn out , needles ,yes, maybe 12 since 71, had only two by this time but know i own 28 turntables of high quality , i colect hi-fi components
@@michaelrovner4165 why not?the sound is better but lower and is still friction like any other stylus, as the record isn´t played by the MC cartridge but for the stylus in it
I don't disagree, but I don't know how relevant it is. How many times would you have to play a record before there was *actual, noticeable* degradation in the sound? I bet it would be many thousands - probably more than is realistically possible, unless you listen to the same record multiple times a day for a long time. And how exactly would you measure the degradation, especially if it's something that happens very gradually over time?
I'm 58 years old, which means I've passed the vinyl and CD era. I remember when I heard the first CD in my life; Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms. I was amazed by the ease of handling and the clarity of the sound, devoid of any artifacts and noise. At that time, as a kid, I had quite a vinyl collection, but I continued to buy vinyl only in cases where I couldn't find the album I was looking for on CD. Today, I have a high-end system whose value is in the neighborhood of 250,000 Euros and is completely based on a digital sound source. I don't have a single vinyl today. However, I have several thousand CDs and I still obsessively buy CDs wherever I can get hold of them, usually in bulk. I feel that I need to have a physical copy of the music I like because I think the foundations of music streaming are very shaky, especially in this geopolitical situation. I have no problem imagining a situation in which I wake up in the morning and my Tidal service does not work together with the entire Internet. I'm thinking of giving an analog source of music a chance, but it won't be vinyl, but reel-to-reel tape. If I already want an analog source, then let it be the best analog source. In that case, I would look for analog recorded music on tape and digitally recorded music on CD. I know it's not easy and it's expensive, but that's the hobby. As for the vinyl itself... I'd rather have acute attacks of hemorrhoids every 5 days than deal with vinyl again. CD quality reproduction has advanced tremendously and today's top DACs sound incredible. A lot of people, especially young people, embraced vinyl because it was the first time they heard music that wasn't MP3 and didn't come through cheap headphones.
If you want to shut yourself off to some amazing sounding music on vinyl, it's up to you, I guess, but really, as a "music lover" you seem to be very closed down
I'm also 58 and remember when everyone had to have a copy of albums like Bridge Over Troubled Water then CDs of Love over Gold, Brothers in Arms etc. Sometimes I wondered if people actually played them. I no longer have CDs nor Vinyl - just Spotify premium from a Sony phone to the highest form of Bose 360 blutooth speaker.
@@frankgarcia9834 I don't want the focus of this discussion to turn to the price of the equipment. Today, systems can be put together for fractions of that price that sound quite alright. The higher you climb with the price, the smaller the return, i.e. the smaller the improvement in sound quality. I have reached my limit. Everyone has their priorities in life. I like a lot of things, among other things, let's say cars. I could buy a nice little ultra racer for that money, but priorities. I enjoy listening to music much more than driving a car. I've seen all-digital systems that cost double and triple the price. I've seen a DAC that costs $120,000. But that's for the big guys who don't even know how much they paid for it.
Glad you acknowledged how badass Dave is though. Learned so much about classical from you both, and there are solid arguments on both sides of this debate.
Ok. I've listened to 3 minutes and a history lesson is called for. First, he compares the high price tag of today's vinyl to cds, and how cds were "so" expensive when they came out. He wasn't alive in the 1980's, so he's basing his comments on what he has read. Cds were about twice the cost of vinyl when they came out. I remember paying around $15. While cds went up in cost to around $20 in the following 10 years, their prices have come back down to their original release prices. Vinyl is selling for between 5 to 15 times their original release price. What must be factored in is the lack of original recording costs of repressed records. So while it's true there are costs related to remastering, it does not compare to original recording costs. Btw, I used the Feds. Inflation calculator and determined that the $3.50 price I paid for an album in 1975 would cost $21.31 in today's money. Not $40. And not $60 to $125 charged by Acoustic Productions for their premiere re-releases. That being said I am a fan and collector of those releases, and purchase both the vinyl and SACD versions.
I regularly don’t agree with Dave’s reviews but on this topic of vinyl vs CD I have to agree with him. I have several thousand classical LPs and been collecting for 40+ years. I regularly listen to the LPs, mainly because of what’s on them that hasn’t been transferred to any other medium. I love the LPs, don’t get me wrong, but (1) the surface noise / clicks are omnipresent and super annoying in quiet passages. I have professional level equipment (Thorens) and the LPs are cleaned before every playing. It doesn’t take mishandling (as you call it) to get them, it’s omnipresent dust for one. (2) the quality of sound is highly variable from one LP to the next, there is considerable fluctuation due to the quality of the pressing. You don’t know what you get until you place it on the record player. CDs don’t have this problem, or the variability is much much less. (3) the price of modern LPs is insane. Using an inflation argument to say that they cost the same as back ‘in the days’ is silly. The Bruckner set you showed is 300 Euros on LP and 40 on CD (with lossless Blu-ray Disc included). I’m sorry, but the factor of almost 10 difference isn’t worth it. Not to mention convenience of format etc.
1. I had the same issue with surface noise. But I found out it was due to bad set up and entry level turntable, phono stage and specifically the cartridge. Once I understood my set up I was able to get my record playing experience to sound lovely, quiet and dynamic. No surface noise and no pops and clicks. 2. Yea i can agree that not all pressing plants are equal. But for the most part most new records are overall good. 3. You don’t have to buy vinyl. That’s the great thing about this hobby-you can love 💿 CD, vinyl records or streaming. You can have Bluetooth or stream. It’s beautiful.
I agree with you and even in this thread that is under your opinion one says you need better equipment so you won't hear the noise. It's almost a religion in that if you take notice of the religion's deficiencies it's because you aren't believing hard enough.
@@keithwiebe1787 I hear you. My system is entry-mid level. But I did begin with a $200 table, a $120 phono stage and $100 cartridge. The surface noise level was audible to the point where I was like dang. The pops and clicks made me say dang Vinyl sucks when I played dirty records. Even today I have to be careful with my set up. If I don’t use well shielded cartridge and or rca cables I can hear AM radio coming through my speakers. But again, I don’t think we need to spend mega church money to hear these improvements but spending more will allow you to hear the difference.
This video repeats the tired old myth that digital audio somehow inferior because of sampling, that the reproduced analog output will be 'smoother' with increased sampling rates. DACs can produce perfectly smooth analog waves up to half the the sampling frequency. So, CDs can easily reproduce up to 20kHz, which is the upper limit of human hearing in young people. And, 16bit allows for 96dB of dynamic range, which is much more any consumer analog format does. ruclips.net/video/UqiBJbREUgU/видео.html Rip your vinyl to digital using a high qualtity ADC. Play back that digital file and it will be indistinguishable from vinyl.
The fault in digital reproduction does not lie in the principle of Nyquist sampling, which is provably correct. The problem is that DACs need to do a lot of on-the-fly computation to overcome flawed implementation (e.g. problems of filters). So digital to analog conversion is very complicated, and doing it well costs a lot more than most people are willing to spend. DACs are still improving, over 40 years since the CD was introduced. But if you give me $5,000 with which to buy either a turntable and preamp, or a CD transport and DAC, I probably will get better sound by spending it on the turntable and phono preamp.
@@TheOriginalDrastic I've heard very high end digital and analog setups. While high end analog sounds really good, I don't find anything special over digital. So, I prefer digital for great sound quality, convenience and low cost of music.
@@bikeman7982 I agree. If I were tasked with spending $50,000 on either an analog or digital front end, that would be a hard choice. My own setup has both, and often I prefer the sound of a digital source. Both turntables and CD players have evolved, improved, and seem to be converging to the point that it's arguably a matter of taste.
I think that chart which represents digital audio as a sort of bar graph has done more damage to the understanding of how digital audio works than anything else in history. You can't imagine the number of people who think that digital audio is like, playing back a square wave, as opposed to using a DAC to reproduce the analog signal.
At one time, in the mid-80s, I had something like three or four thousand LPs, mostly classical, but lots of jazz and pop, too. (I was a reviewer and got lots of freebies.) But when the CD came along, I was taken with its lucid sound quality and ease of use. I was frankly tired of all the fussing and putzing around with LPs and the equipment and work required to produce the best sound quality. I don't begrudge anyone their love of LPs and the rituals related to them. I don't even doubt that the analog sound they produce at their best may have a magic that CDs can't equal. But I've lived happily with CDs for 35 years now and I'm too damned old to even think about going back.
The new equipment and needles are making the vinyls sound less noisy, even the old one's. You need vinyl to be considered serious as a DJ by the new generation. There is still moviment and marketing around vinyl because of it's exclusivity inside the club scene. So better cheaper pre-amps and mixers, you'd be amazed if you come back solely to listen to very loud music and not finding any surface noise
@@bachtozappa cool…the good thing about capitalism is that you don’t have to buy a record if you can’t afford it. Also you have the option of not buying it if you want it.
@@Staybrown11that's not about buying, that's about the fact that vynils ARE expensive, and I say that loving Vynils... but they often costs from 3x up to 10x of the same music on CD.
@@BlackMoonGaming agree. Some specialized vinyl are more expensive than CD. But why focus on that small amount of small runs of limited edition vinyl. There are $80 cd’s on eBay. There’s $150 cd on record stores. The focus on limited edition is just misleading. Most vinyl records cost about the same as a new CD. And yes $50 for a vinyl is a lot of money but that’s not most.
@@Staybrown11 but that's not only for limited editions. most of the albums for most of the music generes are more expensive as Vynil.. at least twice as much... maybe I'm just unluky, but this is my experience. And I'm saying this loving Vynils a lot more than CDs..
I agree with the old man. IF you listen to classical.... then SACD. with a SACD player/system that processes actual DSD, will be your best friend. Its literally better in every stat over vinyl. The rest is coloration and system specific. If you have thousands into a basic cleaning system, which is what basic vacuums and ionic cleaners actually cost, and you have thousands into cartridges, isolation, phono stages, tube amps, etc... I bet your analog system sounds wonderful. If your vinyl has a single digital process, then what is the point??? Most vinyl records "now a days" are digital. WHY not just go HiRes SACD/DSD, it's the closest source. Even streaming is getting good. I use Amazon Prime, most of the albums I listen to are 24/192. I UNDESRTAND I have some AAA albums from the popular retailers who care about vinyl, Acoustic Sounds, etc. They sound great...when they are engineered and mastered correctly. ( UHQR, for 150 bucks) It's really not worth the cash difference to a 35-dollar SACD/DSD source.
Check your SACDs, CDs, DSDs out on an audio editor. 'Audacity' is free. Look at the clipping, the compression and the 'louding' that you are listening to on most of them.
I lived through that era, and at the time, DMM was a godsend for many labels. For instance, in the early 80s, it was still more difficult to purchase EMI pressings than Angel in the U.S. But once Angel came out with DMM, it made a huge difference. The records were more quiet and they had more transparency. Even on the used market, I’m willing to pick up an Angel, IF it is DMM.
I’m old enough to have grown up with records. When CD came out I couldn’t afford it but assumed it really was perfect sound forever. When I bought my first house and built my listening room it was at first all CD. Vinyl was almost nonexistent back then. Only after it was done I heard a Linn and it sounded so good I had to get a turntable. The next few years I was playing records and CD about equally. One night my wife said, “It’s so quiet!” I thought she meant surface noise. No. She means the CD has more noise! Wtf!?! My wife taught me something very valuable: with records the noise rides above and separate from the music. Like people coughing at a concert. With digital the noise is interwoven into the music. The music is the noise. CD turns music into noise. Records don’t do that.
@nicksterj Actually if you read it again more carefully and this time thinking it through more you will see the digital conversion itself is in fact the source of the noise.
@nicksterj My wife would beg to differ. Women don't care about technical jargon. They only care how the music sounds. When they tell you your precious digital sounds like noise you should listen.
Spot on and thank you for responding as it saves me the effort. Clicks and pops are a dated issue with vinyl. Current quality products are virtually noise free and will stay that way with rather simple and proper care. A good vacuum record cleaner will take care of most issues with older vinyl. Of course, scratches are forever but they are not the result of exercising proper care. The DG Bruckner set is outstanding.
@@ArtyFactual_IntelligenceI bought mine directly from DG at a much better price. Classical music will never sell like pop singers and somebody has to pay for the mixing and mastering. And there are 17 disks.
Glad you're posting on youtube again! I enjoy Dave's reviews. I had to hurry off to the thrift shop with my Norrington CDs after learning how bad they are. I drank deep of the vinyl chalice when I ABd a 1980s DG Leitner Kempff Beethoven PC3 CD with tuttis that didn't sound quite right, with the earlier LP which remained detailed and transparent in climaxes.
The basic problem people underestimate _vastly_ is the placebo effect. Most people think it's something nebulous that one has to strain to really hear. But the placebo effect doesn't work like this at all! It's MUCH more insidious in a way. First of all, the difference you "hear" is very obvious and leaving no doubt. In the late 1980s everybody and his mother heard the obvious difference between a regular CD and a gold-plated CD. And before that there was a clear difference heard between CDs and the same CDs whose edges were painted with a green marker. If you are old enough to remember the '80s, you'll recall the ads for those "special green markers" in the audiophile press. It was amazing. And yet, it's all 100% fictitious. Contradiction? No, it turns out that's how our brains work. Bottom line is that in double-blind (that's critical) tests over past 40 years nobody was able to hear any difference between signal X versus the same signal X sent through 10 (ten) pairs of A/D-D/A converters in a _row._ Likewise, nobody in such tests was ever able to tell a CD from SACD. I am very glad CDs are available, never liked the bother of the vinyl. And I go to live classical concerts a lot too.
Listening and hearing the difference between SACD and normal CD was a revelation to me, a very unwanted one at the time because I thought there could not actually be any difference and it was all a silly marketing ploy. The clarity and smoothness of the DSD (sacd) format was and is very apparent if you listen through good equipment. It needs to be actually recorded in DSD not just up-sampled from PCM. The difference in these two digital formats is actually what helped bring me closer to Vinyl because vinyl is another step towards clarity and smoothness. I agree placebo is real but true DSD is a the real deal. Try using the Pine player if you are on osx or foobar2000 on windows (both freeware). Take some time A/B with good headphones you will hear the difference.
From my experience working in record stores in their heyday, a lot of people did Not change their stylus often enough causing wearing. I had inspected records brought in by customers saying they weren't sounding like they did before. These records were generally spotless but yes, did sound worn. The question I posed to them was, how often do you play records and when was the last time you replaced your stylus. In some cases they hadn't been changed for years because they thought a diamond stylus should last forever. Secondly, people had generic record players back then, where the balance and skating were factory set, because high end players were generally out of most people's financial reach. Also the technology of the time was not what it is today. As a result records did tend to wear. CDs on the other hand are not indestructible as originally advertised. They can scratch and skip, their surface CAN deteriorate over time losing part or all of the data on the cd.
I’m in the first clump. I never totally gave it up and still have pretty much every LP I ever bought, starting in 1972, when I was in 6th grade. But I also have a pretty extensive CD collection. More recently (roughly 20 years ago), I started collecting used open reels.
The problem with the video is, of course, that David Hurwitz has been unable to comment on your various remarks - and I think we both know that he would have a lot to say in response to your comments. I gave up vinyl decades ago because local New Zealand pressings at the time were dreadful - and I've never considered returning to it. I think the first CDs were poor but they have improved enormously over the decades. I personally love SACD and direct stream digital (DSD) in general.
Bad "Loudness War" Mastering has given CD's and digital audio a bad name which this format/medium does not deserve ! I personally startet buying vinyl records back in 2003 because many so called "re-mastered" cd's I owened were totally over compressed, de-noised to dead and just sounded bad compared to old vinyl records from the 70's which had the original mastering on them. So: STOP THE DAMN LOUDNESS WAR !! My 2 cents..
As a working musician who listens more frequently to live music than to recordings, I’ve come to notice the bias (or in a more positive light, the ‘point of view’) of modern classical music production/engineering. Some of my listening favorites are older recordings of what Dave might call ‘unlistenable recording quality), partially because I don’t mind filling-in the missing timbres, articulations, etc. through audiation, but also because I sometimes find these live and older recordings to be less ‘fussy’ and more straightforward in their audible bias (for example favoring the downstage instruments dramatically, or in the case of pre-electric recordings, significantly disadvantaging the upper frequency-range). On the other side, I’ve had so many young and new listeners come to me after their first live performance complaining that they ‘couldn’t hear the soloist at all’ or something suggesting that the balance and clarity of a live orchestral performance struck them as totally unfamiliar having only heard recordings. I think in some sense good engineering and production are spoiling us!
The problem with classical vinyl is with a dynamic range much greater other genres (in today’s equivalent mastered at say -24 LUFS rather than -14), noise is more distracting. I like piano recordings on vinyl - especially when the instruments were miked close to soundboard the medium helps mellow out the hardness - but the records really do have to be pristine. Likewise jazz just plain sounds better on vinyl. For orchestral recordings, violins can sound better but you practically lose the bottom octave of double basses which is produced more transparently on cd. Important to note that these Kingsway Hall, Concertgebouw etc recordings were done to tape, so reel to reel would be ideal way to listen to them, not vinyl. And even in the days of early digital you had great recordings, such as Haitink’s Bruckner 9 from 1981 or Giulini’s LAPO recordings. It all depends!
I loved vinyl back in the 70s, but I am not nostalgic enough to get up and turn the record over, put records back in the sleeve, take out of the sleeve. Streaming is just so convenient. Yes, i miss the large format, liner notes, lyrics, graphics, but not enough to get back into it.
I was there when CDs first came out. My brother purchased the first Sony CDP-101 CD player shortly after its release in the early 80s. I got my first CD player, a Realistic CD-1000 in 1984. There was an issue with the mastering of some early CDs due to companies using LP masters to create CD masters. Once this issue was resolved, the sonic advantages of CDs, their greater dynamic range, lack of surface noise, zero wow and flutter, etc meant I no longer longed for the "warmth" of vinyl. I then started replacing all my LPs with CDs and the only LPs I still own were never released on CD. I still have all those CDs I purchased in the mid 80s and 40 years later they still play without issue.
Dragging a rock through a spiral groove on a rotating piece of plastic is so 1899 technology - that was the year that Emile Berliner debuted his flat disc.
Living in Italy and far far away from my boxed-and-sealed vinyl records, I've had to collect hi-rez vinyl and CDs off of the internet, to restore my collection to what it was a long time ago. Dealing thusly in digital, I get to see every piece of music on my audio editor. I've found that since about 1995, most if not all CDs are either 'louded', actively compressed, or heavily compressed and clipping the zero point. When I acquire a digital source, the first thing I do is put it up on my editor and check the waveform. At least half of all my acquisitions are compressed and worthless to me, and they get dumped. I've found that all of the vinyl hi-rez digital acquisitions have the normal vinyl waveforms and dynamics, and that's all I will settle for. The older 80s CDs maintained the original dynamics of the recordings, so they go into the collection. More than half of the corporate hi-rez SACDs in print are compressed as well. Believe it or not. Sources from independent hi-end producers are perfectly fine in any medium (CD,SACD,vinyl), and they go into the collection, to enjoy. My point is that CDs not made by independent companies are inevitably compressed, louded, and some are downright clipped. Go rip a CD and look at it on a free editor if you need to be convinced. I'm staying with my vinyls and older CDs. Digitize your vinyls well, do some restoration if you know how, and enjoy your music!
Very interesting video Michael. I think that in the end you both agree on the fundamental point: it is a case by case basis and how can it not be when there are so many variables entering the value stream, from the recording venue up to each listener’s audio equipment. I own a lot of vinyl and a lot of CDs/SACDs, so I don’t have a preference but in the end it is the performance that matters (I am talking classical music here). Not closing the door to CDs, again in the classical music genre, does allow one to access pretty much everything that was done in that genre since the mid-80s or so when classical music record companies abadonned vinyl. A lot of smaller independent labels (BIS, Chandos, Harmonia Mundi to name a few) have issued glorious records of classical music which are not available on vinyl. Should one shut oneself out from that music because « vinyl sounds better than CDs » ? I for one do not want to, but to each his own.
Dear Mr, thank you so much for your analysis👍🏻Most of the times I don't agree with Mr.Hurwitz but it seems he thinks he's the only person who is right🤔I always listen with my ears and with my heart👍🏻
Digital and vinyl can both sound amazing. Even as a CD collector, I can believe vinyl has the edge because it mostly hasn’t gone through the digitisation process. Many in the Hifi industry believe that to be true. As you say, good tape recordings are hard to beat too. But even vinyl mastered from very high res digital will still have a sound of its own in comparison to CDs.
i regularly listen to you. and Dave. I think you both will agree more with each other than disagree on this vinyl / CD issue. I feel Dave is actually indirectly ranting about the die hard fans of either medium who have become entrenched and close minded. In reality, what really matters (to me) is the mastering or remastering, rather than the medium.
I admire you for your patience dealing with THAT person who incites pandaemonium in one clip and then feigns innocence as to why on earth ppl start attacking him. Love you channel btw. Just bought the new vinyl Bruckner/ Giulini. Highly recommended.
Records are way too expensive. Regardless of the reason, they're ridiculously expensive. And this is coming from someone who happily buys $150 One Steps.
Am just watching your vid on our TV & sifting through comments simultaneously on my device, as I regularly do. Someone correct me but for the YT subject matter of (Vinyl, Classical, CD music) I am BLOWN AWAY by the number of comments already after just 1 day (420+ as of Sunday 5pm CST)!!! That's a huge response in a short time frame. Re: your vid (I'm 15mins in so far), I LOVE your format of responding by segment or section relative to his takes. Kudos. I watch both his CH and yours of course. I own 3,000 LPs and 700 CDs and am a big ROON user throughout home & office for 6 yrs or so. Love all tgese formats and each have their time & place for 🎶 enjoyment .
The 1st article, titled ‘the resurgence of vinyl LPs’, that i encountered was in 2002. Since then similar-titled articles appeared every 3-4 years. CDs were for a long time double to triple the price of LPs. As a teenager in the 80’s vinyl (and original cassette tapes) were an easy choice.
I like the term “convincing “ vs. “warmer”. Really good video. Thanks for posting. Also, I agree with the comment about the Keith Jarrett concert. I recently bought an original pressing of this that visually looked to be near mint. There were so many pops and crackles on this that I could not enjoy the music and will never play it again.
For me, I'm format agnostic. The master comes first. I *really* enjoy listening to records, though sometimes must admit the pressing or transfer just isn't up to par. With vinyl, that sucks because of the often high outlay. Though yes, sometimes that happens with CD and streaming too, though the outlay is easier to eat.
After viewing both videos and reading all the comments, I think there is a major point that has been ignored in the discussion. That of availability. Since the mid 1980s (forty years ago!), the overwhelming majority of classical music releases, as well as every operatic and chamber music recording that I know of, were only released on CD. There was no option if one wanted to listen to the latest recording by older artists such as Gilels, Bernstein, Arrau or von Karajan or new artists such as Salonen, Mullova, Bartoli and Jarvi. It was either CD or nothing until the somewhat recent arrival of streaming. Some sounded really fine and some not so much. But being a music lover first, I thought it absolutely ridiculous to totally ignore two generations of artists that I admired previously or discovered on CD. Also, think of the amount of unfamiliar music that has been released during the same period on CD only - Complete Sibelius on BIS, the many Naxos issues of unknown and/or unrecorded composers, the HIP movement and Baroque Operas - all available on CD only. I should also mention the audio restoration of historical recordings done by Ward Marston, Mark Obert-Thorn and Andreas Meyer. Their work, found almost solely on CD, has been truly spectacular on labels like Marston Records, Music and Arts and Sony. Sony's and Warner's recent "Mega Boxes" releases afford music lovers to enjoy legendary (and sometimes unjustly neglected) artists at incredible prices. For example, one can purchase the 95 CD set the Complete EMI Columbia, HMV, Electrola and Parlophone Recordings of Otto Klemperer mastered by Art & Son Studio for the price of one original EMI Columbia stereo LP. Before anyone thinks I'm just some CD fanatic, the majority of my collection is vinyl which started with a 45 of "Little" Steve Wonder's "Fingertips, Part One and Two" that I purchased in 1963 at the age of five and I'm waiting for the arrival of DG's Original Source LP von Karajan Bruckner Symphony set more than sixty years later! I've never found the process of cleaning LPs (both vacuum and ultrasonic) to be an inconvenience and take my turntable to my local audio dealer to be checked regularly for stylus wear and various adjustments. Some of the greatest recordings I own are on LP. And some are on CD. It is as simple as that! One other point I believe should be addressed is that of the, at times contentious if not hostile, relationship regarding classical music and audiophile reviewers. I think I can speak on this subject being a reader of High Fidelity, Stereo Review (both deceased), Fanfare, Gramophone, as well as Absolute Sound (since Issue #1), Stereophile, and The Tracking Angle. I also watch classical music and audiophile videos found on RUclips. In the vast majority of cases, the audiophile critic when reviewing a recording will only cite a handful of other audiophile recordings of the work disregarding the rest. For example, an audiophile critic reviewing Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring will compare the usual highly regarded sonically recording (all analogue and LP versions only) - Solti/Decca, Bernstein/Columbia 6 eye and maybe, Markevitch/EMI and conclude with their choice of recording. A music critic, especially one who has been doing it for many years, will compare a dozen or more recordings concluding with the one he or she interpretively prefers. The head butting occurs when the music critic has the attitude of how can the audiophile critic recommendation be taken seriously when he/she hasn't heard a majority of the recordings of the work reviewed. Flip the coin over and you'll find the audiophile critic questioning the music critic opinions citing their substandard audio equipment or preference to digital. Both are somewhat ridiculous. When I bought my 1st LP of the Rite (Bernstein/Columbia) in the early 70s, there were around 15 to 20 recordings available. Now, there must be over 100 or more. There are simply to many recordings of the standard repertoire available. And if the music critic derives pleasure from their audio system and prefers digital to analogue, so be it. In the early 70s, I had a Panasonic system with a Garrard turntable and enjoyed every LP I played. And think of the arguments between the two groups themselves - ERC Records a few years ago, for example. Sorry to ramble on so long but I'm hoping that a few of you will appreciate what this old-timer has to say. I consider myself incredibly lucky to be around when there is so much great classical music available in all formats, LPs, CDs, SACDs and streaming. One can spend the entire day listening to broadcasts of classical and operatic performances from all over the world. I'm finishing this while listening to the Boston Symphony Orchestra at Tanglewood. Yesterday, it was Muti conducting the Bruckner Eighth with the Vienna Philharmonic live from Salzburg. So just keep enjoying great music in whatever format you like. Also remember, no format that I know compares to sitting in a great hall listening to a great orchestra. It is the ultimate in sound.
And honestly, I am all in on vinyl and CDs and files, and I enjoy it all. But you gotta give it to him that the process of cleaning vinyl is a frigging pain... I use a Degritter, I am an absolute convert on proper cleaning, but it IS a bit of a required PITA.
I think all your points are spot on, and so are Dave's! Let him rant a little! I don't think he's taking himself too seriously here. His channel is amazing, I have learned a lot about classical from him.
Thanks for this. The stangest part of Dave's argumenet is the new and improved discussion. What didnlt they make cars at the turn of the centure like they are made today.? Why didnlt they maked televisions as good as today? Why didn't the Brits have good food back in the 50s and 60s as they do today 🙂
I love DH and I’ve got to admit earlier on in the week when I saw the thumbnail of his CD versus Vinyl video I couldn’t help worrying “Oh no was it me droning on about the affordability and merits of the original Decca release of War Requiem that sent Dave over the edge”. Totally in line with my personality I could not face watching his video nor this one yet. Anyway if it was me I’m ever so sorry everyone and pledge to rein in my droning about mono and the like in comments sections!
If one is a serious collector, as you both are, there's still no way around physical media. I notice this every time I visit fellow audiophiles (I'm both, a classical music lover and an audiophile) who use steaming services that a great part of what Dave Hurwitz talks about in his videos, and maybe the greater part of my favorite recordings, are not available on streaming services, and if they are, not in the best sounding editions and/or remastering. Besides, on very high-end systems it turns out streaming doesn't sound as good as playback from storage media or an SACD transport, in short, if one is, as Hurwitz puts it, "into the game of comparisons", then there's no way around physical media, and since the overlap is nowhere near 100%, there's probably no way around using both, and unless one's inherited an extremely well-assorted LP collection, there's certainly no way around digital playback. Real (especially classical) music aficionados aren't the kind of people who'll limit themselves (and that includes the realization that one won't listen exclusively to audiophile recordings).
Great debate. Dave is an excellent critic but the final answers are in our own ears. My best friend in classical music has a very extensive system that emphasizes clarity. I find it to be harsh on my ears. He wants the very best sonic experience while I turn often to older performances that I find interpretively more moving even at the trade off of sonics. I had about 2500 LP’s and about the same number of CD’s. I do like the convenience of CD’s, especially not having to turn over the disc to hear the full piece. Here is a thought problem: “Which do you enjoy more - your Apple Watch or your Patek Philippe? Or even your vintage Omega?” Thanks for initiating this discussion.
Vinyl is a collectable music product. Scale, materiality, vintage. CDs are an evolution from a sound perspective that removes the gap between mastering and cutting a vinyl with grooves and warm distortion, and a cd's mirror replication of the master you hear made in the studio. The argument now is less about sound, (you choose) and more about ownership of the recorded music artefact. The vinyl LP has collectable allure, the cd has utility and function. Fact is you don't need either to enjoy music now, but I still like the material connection of ownership. It says 'I honestly love this Art.'
My 2c. Dig vs vinyl is a recurrent topic at our local audio club. What's left out is the sound quality of both being a function of the playback hardware. I prefer vinyl because I can get the desired quality level with analog at a lower price point. BUT when I want the newer classical stuff, I'm mostly limited to digital. Since I've chosen analog as my preferred source and do not have unlimited $ for this hobby, my digital hardware, while being at roughly the same price point as my analog would likely cost a good chunk more to get to the sound quality (as subjectively defined by moi) of my analog. DH has my respect and affection even though he hates Furtwangler. MJ provides a more tech centric voice while still providing information on the music itself (although AQWO combo at $22K with the accelerated depreciation inherent in digital hardware is exhibit A in the $ needed for digital hardware high end quality).
Well said. I'm an owner & user of ALL these formats discussed and enjoy the features & benefits of each depending on my needs each day. See my earlier comment(s). A few points I've shared several times over the years re: various formats not regularly mentioned.... I love & enjoy visuals of various subject-matters. An artist's effort & choices in their album artwork & their jacket design is often as enjoyable to me or certainly appreciated each time. So vinyl cover art is very entertaining like a book might be. Related(!), I LOVE playing different genres & albums via ROON and go down the rabbit hole of Wikipedia on an album ir artist or genre, etc. Fun, fun, fun as well.
@@DanielHog13 I'm with you on Roon- it's made computer based media way more fun. I've done w/o a CDP for the past 2 years as I've burned all our CD to hard drive (a pandemic project) via Nucleus and love the integration with, in my case, Qobuz.
I'll comment on just one aspect of this. What we call clicks & pops are the result of three things: 1. Scratches/scuffs 2. Dust/dirt/debris 3. Static electricity Only No. 1 could plausibly be put down to "mishandling". The vast majority of clicks & pops are due to Nos. 2 & 3. Unless you live inside a vacuum chamber on a planet without a magnetosphere, this will always be the case. This is the reason for the insane industry of cleaning & destaticing products, & I indulge in it myself. I have fluids & cleaners & ultrasonics & ionizers & antistatic sleeves & spend the time in the ritual of (1) cleaning my records, old or brand new, & (2) keeping them free from static. The truth is that you can mitigate clicks & pops from dirt & static, but you cannot eliminate them. Even if you clean them perfectly, as soon as you expose the surface to the environment, you're going to get dust on them again & will need to, at a minimum, brush the dust off. This has an inevitable sonic consequence. This is an inherent characteristic of vinyl as a medium that will always be an issue. This is one area where the superiority of CDs & digital formats is inescapable. Perhaps it doesn't bother you or other listeners so much. I'm guessing that by owning a Zerostat, it bothers you at least somewhat. Given the huge dynamic range of classical music, the unavoidable clicks & pops that are inherent in vinyl count, for me, as a massive mark against the format. There are many things to love about vinyl, but this is a forever problem with it. It can't just be hand-waved away as "mishandling."
Vinyl records have a typical dynamic range of around 70 dB, depending on the equipment used to record the audio and cut the record. CDs have a typical dynamic range of 90 to 93 dB, though 16-bit digital audio has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB. Uncompressed high-res audio files with 24-bit resolution have a theoretical dynamic range of 144 dB, though modern ADCs and DACs max out at around 120 dB or so.
I appreciate your views and opinions and I also appreciate Dave’s. Everyone has likes and dislikes and that’s fine. I worked at a record pressing plant in Nashville back in the late 1970’s. I picked up masters on Music Row and then watched as they were put on the press and the blob of vinyl dropped and the label was pressed and then boom, you had an LP.
I have several Bruckner Symphonies none of which are on vinyl, CD, 8-track, or streaming. I now buy my music from nativeDSD. These are DSD downloads of DSD64 and DSD256. Direct Stream Digital (DSD) uses a very high sampling rate to capture audio. The standard DSD format has a sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz, which is 64 times the CD audio sampling rate of 44.1 kHz. DSD256, has a sampling rate of 11.2 MHz. Bruckner sounds fantastic!
After Spotify I minimized my LP and CDs to being packed away. Clean livingroom. After the lack of ownership and boring livingroom I now have vinyl and stream spotify. CDs are in storage for now. I have vinyl just due to fascination how that little diamond picks up the signal. And the vinyl just gets better and I love the owner relationship I get. Record players are so cool. Just love it. Dont care if it may not the best sounding or that the scratches may be there on some.
Wonderful video, Michael. Of course, when someone says, “warm” sounding, people generally understand what that means, especially musicians. If “warm” were to be measured, I’d think it’d be a bit of an emphasis in the low mids, but there is something more to it than just that. Vinyl records do not inherently have pops and clicks, and I wince a when I hear that said. As you mentioned, it’s from mishandling the record. After I clean a record and put it in a nice inner sleeve, it’s generally fine for quite some time. Vinyl can seem somewhat inconvenient to some, but the sound quality, the thrill of the hunt, the ritualistic aspect, etc., etc. make it worth it, imo. I’ve also absolutely A/B’d different formats of the same recording as well. No need to be scared of the word audiophile. Caring how something sounds is not a negative thing. I think people may try to avoid the word audiophile, because to some, there’s a connotation that you’re listening to how your gear sounds rather than it being a tool to enjoy the music.
Vinyl: Technology so advanced that it needs RIAA equalization. Cost $10 in the 80s; $40 today. Used vinyl can cost double that. Decent turntables start at $1k. CDs: Cost $15 in the 80s; $10 today. Used CDs can be purchased for $3. Decent CD players start at $39.
On the one hand, LPs need RIAA EQ, while the CD format does have error correction built into its standard. A decent phono costs around $400 and a good CD player about the same. I do agree about the disc prices.
It's all about the music!! Personally, I love listening to recordings the way they were mixed and mastered. For me, it's also about legacy. New releases on CD, older ones on vinyl. I usually listen to film music... it's great to grab an early 60s well preserved Tiomkin or Rózsa's LP with their liner notes and artwork.
I think one of the biggest issues here is back in the day - everyone was a vinyl collector - because that is all there was - and once more "convenient" options came along - they got adopted - the masses will always go for convenience - Apple perfected the way people can put 1000 songs onto a block in your pocket - and people one upped that with having ALL THE MUSIC - streaming ALL THE TIME - so - older people like Dave - who had to go through the changes and maybe even when he had vinyl - didnt like it - will never grow to like it. Younger generations have CHOICE - and also lots of other better options in pressings/hifi equipment/and just overall knowledge from people poetryonplastic - I find it funny when (usually older folks) say - "I HATE Vinyl - all the crackles and POPS" - and Im like - yeah - I HATE BAD/DIRTY Vinyl too! Most people have never heard REALLY good vinyl records or actual CLEAN vinyl - because they had dad's crappy stereo and his junk vinyl.
a musician will ALWAYS want you hear the best quality , that is usually the best format at that time , so it has been digital since the 80s or 90s when studios changed to digital mainly , i have 30,000 vinyls and i can tell you now CD or digital WAV is the best .
I'm 59. Have about 25,000 records, 25,000 cds. Been continuously collecting the former since 1976 and cds since 1986. Love them both. To this day I usually buy the cd and the vinyl of each release. Granted most people are not in a position to have collections of that size but I am grateful that it has worked out for me. My cds generally sound terrific. My records generally sound terrific. As between the two, for any given release of a mastering, the record usually beats the cd for presence and dynamics, and is more fun to play. But if I want to play music in the background, the cd is more convenient. No question a high end vinyl setup is more expensive than a high end cd setup. No question used and new cds are so much less expensive than used and new records. That having been said, most of Dave's other objections to vinyl are overstated or just wrong. But I want to stress the cost disparity is a significant issue. If I was starting out today, I'd probably just buy cds. Terrific sound (much much better than streaming) for much less expense than vinyl. Then again my two 20 something sons have both become record collectors, to the detriment of their finances :)
So in (say) 45 years of buying/collecting you will have bought over 500 of each every year, and presumably played them at least once each.... when newly acquired (not likely I would suggest). One must uncritically assume you have a private source of income and never actually worked 40 of the hours available each week, and sleep 7+ hrs I have digitally transferred my LPs, and retain maybe one fifth of your volume and have calculated I cannot live long enough to hear them once each before I die. Since there are some I'd like to hear more than once I have reluctantly decided to abandon the collection mania.
I love comparing vinyl to CD and hear the different things each do. But with all things being equal. Vinyl gets you better tonal color and fleshes out the instruments better. I listen to pre 1990 recordings mostly. The way they recorded things before were just plain better. I love tone. And todays recordings and even remasters of old recordings just dont have the tonal color of instuments.
People overlook the sound characteristics of the equipment they’re using. If you have a taste for a warmer sound characteristic, look for a DAC, speakers etc with that in mind. CDs/Digital do offer a clearer sound, a wider dynamic range, accurate frequency response, and consistent quality, there are clear advantages over vinyl.
Thank you for this informative and enlightening video! I own both CDs and Vinyl Records (way more vinyl) and I think they both have thier place. I think when it comes to albums that were originally mastered digitally, vinyl doesn't have much of an advantage. But I'm 100% convinced that a vinyl recorded from an analog master, through an all-analog chain, cannot be beat.
I loved your video on this "hot" topic and have since subscribed because of it. As an almost life long audiophile of 56 years (my age) I have listened to pretty much every format with the exception of 78's. The areas of CD/SACD/Pure Audio Blu-ray superiority that I think many would agree that were not touched on were dynamic range, noise floor, storage capacity and ability of the SACD/Pure Audio Blu-ray (and DVD Audio) to carry high rez lossless audio. CD Redbook playback are obviously compressed so they would not be part of the high rez discussion . I would love to hear your thoughts on these playback mediums and their associated pros/cons vs vinyl.
Two points from an old guy who grew up listening to records. I believe you made his point about the hassle of playing records. What I got from your comments on that is, unless you are extremely fastidious, your records will not sound their best. A listener needs to pay attention to the process at all times or the records will develop unwanted noise, or "wear out." In my youth, I wore out many records through neglect. The second point is some folks who have done A/B comparisons have determined they prefer the sound from CDs. I bought my first CD back in 87, but didn't start comparing until the early 90s. For years the records won these tests. It wasn't until I bought a high end CD player sometime around 2005 that I finally would say I preferred what I heard from CDs. Of course that doesn't mean CDs are superior, It just means I prefer their sound. It's all moot now as I mostly stream an don't really care what sounds better. I rarely listen to music I'm familiar with, so have nothing to compare it to, and feel it's a waste of time to compare anyway. Cheers.
We are told what we should be consuming. In 2005, I bought hundreds of LPs of pristine vinyl for $1 or $2 a disc from a retailer on LI looking to get out of the business. These were the same exact copies I had seen a decade earlier selling for $30 - $50 a pop in his storefront (Oceanside, NY). Today, those records who would be selling once again for $30- $50 each used at any decent record store. There is no intrinsic value to either LPs or CDs. It's all supply and demand. In the 2000s and 2010s, you were buying cheap vinyl if you were smart. For the past decade, the value can be found in CDs.
I have some vinyl records that I've had for years. I been mostly a CD buyer. I still have many cassette tapes. It works for me. Whatever floats your boat. Do what brings you joy. Whatever format you use. It's all music.
ABSOLUTELY. I remembered back in the late 90s/early 00s newly released cds, and especially double cds would be priced at 30+ bucks! Or more... i vividly remember that.
You've earned my subscription with this video. I'll tell you more: I don't even care whether it sounds better or not (even though it does). Just watching it spinning with the tonearm hovering on it and the music coming out is more rewarding than any digital media with as much computing power you can come up with. In that regard even cassettes beat CDs. And if properly recorded and played with good equipment they don't sound nearly as bad as people think they do.
A few things. First, Michael, I am seriously impressed by your patience and generosity, especially compared (sigh) to many commenters here. Second, not only do I agree with you wholeheartedly, that recordings are illusions and, generally speaking, they are illusions of a performance to be recreated in one's listening environment, but that the "performance" the record producer has in mind is largely dependent on their monitoring equipment and the "sound" that represents their brand, so to speak. This is why RCA Living Stereo sounds characteristically different from Mercury Living Presence or Decca (to a degree) regardless of the environment the recording took place in. In fact, this is the intention. Moreover, not only is it irrelevant, it is also impossible to know how the electrical output of the recording session translates to the human ear, so imagining that you can compare the recording session to the resulting CD or LP is futile. Third, there's an inherent problem comparing playback media not addressed here: simply put, they are not comparable. No matter how good your record playback set-up, your CD player, or your DAC, comparing the output of one to the other is something like comparing how fast a dog can run 50 meters to that of a horse, or a human. Kind of depends on the particular dog, horse and human doesn't it. So, if you compare a record played on your best record player to a CD on your best CD player, what exactly are you comparing? Certainly not the media! There are just too many variables in play. Yet that what we tell ourselves when doing the A/B. Finally, when Dave asserts that there is "no such thing as a superior sound carrier medium in every instance" I think he is referring only to the commercial playback choices under discussion -- in which case, the can be no argument there -- since analogue magnetic tape is still the gold standard as a recording medium, and by a considerable amount. I could be wrong, but I believe the medium is not the limiting factor in the digital domain.
To me I think this whole argument is something that will never get resolved. And, for the most part, modern vinyl pressing are created from digital masters which turns the entire set of arguments on their head. I have both. I tend to listen to my CD collection from my NAS with lossless flac files. They are just the same as the CD without the need of the CD player. I have fun with vinyl from time to time these days. But the handling and care required gets tiring to me. And, in my experience, no matter how good the quality is of a vinyl record is I've never experienced a popless vinyl record. I have some that have very little of that, but the pops always show up somewhere. I find it very irritating.
Who is stopping you from listening to vinyl? Now it's not enough to listen to vinyl but you must dutifully prove it's superiority to the "deplorables" who somehow enjoy CDs..
For me, CD is preferable when it comes to classical music. There are some rock albums I prefer on vinyl (e.g. an Artisan pressing of Exile on Main St) but overall digital is much more convenient. A well known mastering engineer said that vinyl is closer to the master tape with regard to detail, but that he preferred a well mastered CD. I am inclined to agree. I want my music to sound great everywhere: at home, in the car, on my portable drive, using headphones or played out loud.
Michael, you diminish the usefulness of the Zerostat. used properly, and at the right time, they are indispensable. the time to use it is when you remove the disc from the platter, it is usually ALIVE with 50kV of static charge. putting the record back on the platter causes that charge to collapse into the ground plane of the TT. using the Zstat right before you put the LP into the sleeve will remove the charge so the disc doesn't lie in the jacket attracting dust at a maximum rate. for static in arid climates like Canada in the winter, that unit that Mikey uses on his TT to constantly neutrallizes the static is best if costly. humidifiers are a big help in that situation.
Speaking as an old... His entire video can be summed up as "old man yells at cloud". I don't know the man but if someone wanted me to entirely dismiss their opinions as having no basis in reality this would be a great way to do it. I'm a vinyl guy, I'm one of those that never stopped buying records when CD's came out. Largely because I was DJ'ing electronic music and in the 90's that was all on vinyl. I like the sound of vinyl better, but I'm fully willing to admit that part of that might well be that I'm used to the sound of it as it's what I grew up with and therefore it's my definition of "normal". I might well be liking the sound of the distortions added by a playback stylus. That said the mastering matters far more than the medium. Bad digital is generally bad because the mastering is bad not because the medium is bad. Unfortunately, these days the all too often the mastering of popular music on digital is awful. It's designed to sound well on airpods or in a car, not for listening on a high-quality playback system.
@@marksironi3324 his video is entirely about the classical music domain, nothing to do with pop, rock, dance or jazz, Dave only talks about classical music.
I’ve watched him before and I’m no expert but he seems to know several recordings of same piece and which ones he likes best! With that being said I also agree that you tubers should explain what system they have. I’ve always enjoyed your videos except the Japanese albums(but to each his own). Recently went to a record fair in Asheville,N.C. So glad to know to avoid Angel records and which ones to consider purchasing. Thanks so much for all you’ve shared on your videos !
@33:37 Could you do a review of this Bruckner set? I'm not the biggest fan of Karajan's interpretations, but I adore Bruckner. This seems like a no brainer, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Appreciate your time!
Cd’s are much more fun to collect now. They are so cheap, they have great audio and the maxi cd’s have lots of tracks that are not available digitally…. All my cd’s from 1985 still play perfectly, only annoying thing is discoloration of the spines, but if you keep them out of light they stay pristine. I do buy vinyls, but I rarely play them as they are expensive, I often keep then in the shrink and just buy them as a collectible…. Vinyl maxi singles are the only vinyls that are worth it for me as they usually have alternate versions, and they are often not reissued….but to play the cd wins
I mainly listen to vinyl, and I dig the direct analog remasters DG does with the Original Source series. However, to be honest, I think that if they did a digital remaster of the 8-track tapes (in the case of Bruckner) and put it on CD, it would sound even better than the vinyl, due to digital denoising, no vinyl distortion, and no surface noise. The reason these new vinyl series sound so good is that they used the original 4/8 track tapes directly, instead of the 2-track downmix, like the original LP and the CD remasters. In the end, it all comes down to the mastering and and the source of the master. Also, you mentioned that the digitization of the waves affects the sound, which is not true, since modern ADCs and DACs can work with negligible distortion and noise, plus extremely high bitrates that greatly surpass the Nyquist frequency. It's also true that vinyl has more distortion and noise, is less practical, requires you to change sides every 25 minutes, needs better care, etc. Vinyl prices are higher than ever, but not in every case. New vinyl prices are usually about 20-35 euros (e.g., Pink Floyd albums cost about 25 euros new, and other, less-produced albums cost 30-35 euros). That's reasonable pricing. Anything above that surpasses inflation and should be considered overpriced. I still prefer listening to vinyl, by the way, I'm just trying to be objective.
I own the same table as you for over 6 years and enjoy vinyl immensely but stopped vinyl buying a long ago as mine were purchased used from knowledgable collectors and agree there completely overpriced now I have bought new expensive that were poorly done sounded lean and even on occasion had noise and most digital now.I am very content with my humble 500 because at some point they will all have to go and a living nightmare to think of having to sell them and the time it takes to get max return.Its small but very valuable vinyl collection.I feel you are very young man in which your mind will open as you age.I think Dave is teaching you things without you really knowing it.Cd with a very high quality player is truly astonishing.No media is right or wrong .I enjoy cd,streaming and vinyl.Your taste for life and audio will change as you age.Always respect your elders and people that walked before you
Enjoyed your positive remarks. I like to keep everything simple. Everyone has a right to an opinion and a defense of his own position. My own collection of recordings fights for room against my huge collection of books (I'm a librarian and student of history) so I chose for cd. As for some people who can't stand Dave, well, I've fought a couple of duels with him already and he's more than alright
All advocates of CD/digital use science to prove that it sounds better. Trust in the science they say - CD on paper is a superior format. Thing is, I have hundreds of CDs and hundreds of LPs. I simply use my ears, I don't care what it says on a piece of paper. And, all things being equal, a well mastered, well cut all analogue LP blows CD away. Its a far more organic and involving listening experience. CD can sound good - thats not in question and it is likely easier to get a decent sounding system on a budget built around CD playback. But for me, when it comes to the most pleasurable listening experience, there is no comparison.
Price being equal I prefer vinyl hands down. Problem is vinyl prices are crazy high and I'm not rich so I end buying a lot of CDs because they are good enough and they have sane prices. 🤷♀️
In the words of the master RVG: "The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good. And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible, and I'm not denying that they do, but don't blame the medium." I love me my vinyl but wish we got our digital right. Now with all this protools bs…nobody knows how to mix/master properly. Many many records these days sound like serious crap. Nearly all my OG sound better than the modern heavy vinyl remasters. Except even though mofi has a digital step with their DSD….they make fantastic sounding records. As painful as vinyl is…once you get it setup and cooking it really does sound amazing
@@revelry1969 but, but, but, all the people who make money out of the vinyl resurgence are saying that he was just an old fool loosing his marbles when he said this.
@@emilspec1227 yeah. I think the thing I took away from this statement is that the LP is hard to do right. Playback is a pain too. Digital if done right can sound fantastic. He didn’t lose his marbles. He was just looking at it practically. Vinyl is a pain in the ass. But to me it does mostly give the best sound even with digitally sourced vinyl (sometimes). I think this is more an argument of what digital. DSD vs PCM etc. I have found DSD (4x) to sound just like the vinyl. It’s all compromises. RVG was lamenting all that painstaking time he spent getting it right. It’s all about compromises. All recording and playback. Ease of playback (digital) maybe just give “good enough” quality to someone. Those of us who go deeper have to determine which format works best for them. I think the CD was a huge triumph and plenty good sound for most humans. But it was a compromise. It’s like streaming. My friends say….just stream all that crap. I am like it sounds better on vinyl they are like…my ears can’t hear it…I want the ease of playback. CDs certainly have easy portability and produce good sound. Great sound? That is debatable.
Have you heard RVG's digital transfers? He was completely wrong on that topic and his recordings prove it. Compare a RVG Edition CD to a kevin gray cut Blue Note Classic and it'll be night and day. The RVG Editions are absolutely atrocious messes.
Yes, that's exactly how the placebo effect works: the perceived differences are VERY obvious and can easily be totally unexpected. If you repeated the same test in the double-blind way (meaning, neither you nor _the person operating the A/B switch_ knows which one is CD and which one is SACD), then you'd hear no difference (assuming the test discs do not have audio faults, obviously). As I said, to this day no such test ever produced an audible difference in anyone. But, having said all that, real life experiences are always coloured by external unconscious influences, so the bottom line is if SACDs sound better to you than CDs, that's really the end of the argument! Listening pleasure is what counts. BTW, my favourite system is Blu-ray Audio because of its ability to play longer pieces without interruption, e.g. Wagner's "Rheingold" which is about 2 1/2 hours of continuous music. In this sense the recent release of the SACD by Decca is a regress for me and I won't buy it, my Blu-ray edition stays 😊
As a GenX'r who went through vinyl, then cassesttes then CDs now streaming and now about a year ago Iback into Vinyl. there's an intagible about vinyl that CD's just don't possess. there IS something about the size of the album cover with the art, there IS something about putting it on the turntable. There IS something about watching and listenting to music from a technology that was developed back into the 1800's in it's evolved state that CD's just don't have. In terms of sound quality , well that's completly subjective, if you like the clean crisp sound of CDs more power to you, if you like the rich full warmness of Vinyl than more power to you as well. I mostly prefer the later I don't get digital music advocates, who feel they have to go out of there way to go after vinyl. There is just something about vinyl no other music media possess.
What a nice “rebuttal” to Classics Today’s contribution to the CD vs LP debate without the usual vitriol! A couple of things perhaps worth mentioning: Immediately after the oil embargo pressings, even the European pressing, deteriorated terribly. Technical reasons are clear. Even HMV surfaces were awful. One of the Tower execs told me that returns were nearing 50%!. This was a powerful incentive to abandon the median in favor of CDs. And besides that one got “perfect sound,” except it wasn’t. When I heard the first digital (mostly classical) releases on both vinyl and CD I suddenly realized that Alcoa had entered the musical instrument business. The improvement in CD Red Book sound is significantly due to advances in playback. My CDs that once suffered from “digitalis” now sound from exceptional to wonderful. Another advantage to the CD is that one can listen to passages over and over again which I wouldn’t recommend with vinyl. The lack of liner notes is a huge minus as you indicated, which is one of the reasons why one well known engineers maintained that the CD medium wouldn’t last! First time listener - what a pleasure! Richard
Anybody can comment on sound quality of any recordings, but obviously you cannot say anybody is an audiophile. Making a judgement on the SQ of a specific recording does not automatically turn an individual into an audiophile, persistently caring about SQ and demanding high SQ does. To me it’s very simple logic. Can’t believe he was even twisting this. I also don’t think the quality of recording , mixing and mastering that makes a major contribution to the final SQ of a tape/CD/vinyl is relevant to the playback equipment. The Hi-End combination of Air Force Zero turntable+CH Precision P1 phono preamp+Soulution 725 preamp+711 power amp+Magico M2 speaker can not make a poorly mastered, carelessly pressed vinyl sound fantastic. No “Hi-End magic” here. I understand Steve Hoffman Music Forum has its rule (show your equipments before commenting on SQ)for its members, but citing this rule as if it’s universally accepted when it comes to commenting on recording SQ sounds ridiculous to me.
My memory of buying vinyl and occasionally cd's, in the 1990-2005 era, when I could not obtain the vinyl issue, is they were much the same price. The folks who switiched to CDs were not spending more money, they mostly thought they sounded better and were easier to store and use, not least in the car
Great stuff! Just a side note: records were always kinda expensive but main difference between pre-resurgence era and now is the speed with which prices go up, as opposed to prices staying mostly the same in the past. Its ludicrous and big part of ingredient is real cynical, pressings staying limited increasing demand due to fear of missing out
I have all mediums. LPs, CDs, Tape and I stream. I enjoy them all and still collect Vinyl, CDs and tapes. Each has their own characteristics. Love music first!
Well said!
@kevirose Exactly! I have some vinyl that blows away the CD version and vice versa.
Tape (reel to reel) or cassette?
@@preservedmoose Nope, never reel to reel. Cassette’s were awful!
@@zizendorf I use metal cassettes and they are superb.
Great video. The Young guy defending vinyl and the old guy pushing CD’s is a fascinating debate on multiple levels.
C'mon, CD is a 40 years old technology, from today's perspective it is almost as ancient as vinyl. It is also a physical medium anyway. People who remember the CD introduction are old today.
@@voytecco6104 I worked in a record store at precisely the time when CDs came in and vinyl was sold off cheap. The 'industry' pushed CDs so hard, retailers thought vinyl was dying out like the dinosaurs and it almost did go away completely, before the revival.
@@mattwalsh751 young guy with a bias towards vinyl you mean.
Reason and reasoning and analyzing makes peopel always to enjoy things less.
Asa Spiritualô peopel who do mediation, sports travels and enjoy life
say the more you analyze some content or hobby the less you enjoy it at the moment...
because enjoyment doesnt come muchfrom head or brain but from body,
"thoughts are in mind, feelings are in body"
And scientists of neurosciencea nd spirituality and end epigenetics say
Heart has its own brain, and wisdom, and electromagnetic field, but its not based pon yanalyzis and loc or resaon etc.
Maybe Davids reasomn was that while he ois listening and enjoying music....he doesnt want to be in aanalytical state of analyzing it.
Because enjoying isnt coming from brain,
music is energy, enjoyment is energy, its not logical or analytical thing.
How many times does this have to be said? There are recordings on vinyl that are not on CD and never will be. There are recordings on CD that are not on vinyl and never will be. The smart ones in the pack know and make room for both.
yeah but deep in your heart you always have a preference... if the price is the same I always prefer vinyl, they just sound better to me. I end up buying lots of CDs because vinyl prices are crazy.
@@net_news Lol the price is never the same! and If it is a that record is going to be a dusty gouged up piece of plastic.
@@monaural2.988 this is not the subject here.
Yes! Sick of the "either/or" mentality.
@@scottgates601 i know, thing is, if you leave the price out of the equation it's easier to know which is your favorite format. Price being equal I prefer vinyl. In the real world I buy a lot of CDs bc vinyl is too expensive. Did you get the idea?
My first vinyl purchase was the justly famous Reiner Scheherazade on RCA Living Stereo when it was initially released (in 1960) so you know how old I am! I love vinyl especially for the opportunity it gave for great album cover art and inserts that were large enough to be readable. But the ritual necessary to keep them clean and the constant hunt for vinyl that wasn't warped (even when new) was a continual horror show. Digital formats make storage simpler (and nonexistent if you stream) and now the resolution is good enough to equal or exceed the analog versions, and the warmth that was missing in the earliest digital recordings has been largely restored. So I agree with Dave.
I have a big vinyl collection ( 4000 , jazz, classical, blues, rock ) and a very big CD collection and I prefer CDs for many reasons, quality, price, format... ( with all respect to the LP collector ... )
Dave has every right to his life experiences either CD’s and. vinyl! Record resellers in my area, Tacoma/Seattle won’t buy or sell classical music except to put it in a dollar clearance bin! Dave has been a lonely voice on You Tube discussing classical music with joy on his face and in his voice! Thanks to both of you for bringing some light to classical music!
A few years back I bought some classical LPs and operas from a Seattle record shop. The guy tried to pass off like, three entire boxes of classical to me for free because they just don't sell. I might have taken him up if I hadn't walked to the store. I love classical LPs and it's fun to get like, five records for the price of one "good" condition rock record but it's a hobby thing, I'd never pretend it sounds better than CD. (honestly half the reason I buy LP operas is that it has a giant libretto included, sometimes I just get it for that and put it on cd/streaming, especially if it's one of those opera sets with the annoying autochanger sides)
I just received a Japanese CD of some Vinyl I had. Its fidelity and dynamics completely blows away its vinyl counterpart in sound quality. Its all a matter of speakers and amplification with CDs that supposedly sound worse than vinyl. Classical music is a revelation on CD because of it full range and lack of unwanted noise caused by a friction based reproduction method.
I am reprinting the comment I made after I watched the Dave Hurwitz video. Young folk (those under 65 - I am 79) often do not consider mobility issues that can present themselves as they age. As one grows older, it gets much easier to play CDs. I still love vinyl, and the care I took with my collection minimized pops, clicks, and annoying scratches. Sometimes, when I play vinyl, one would think it's digitized because of the lack of surface noise. Anyway, here is the edited comment I left for Dave and am now leaving for you: 'Mobility matters, too. I may not be up-to-date on what is out there, but CDs play longer than vinyl without needing to turn or change an LP. Or, gasp, have one vinyl drop on top of another. There are multi-disc CD changers that give listeners hours of music without needing to reload. Like Dave, I prefer to own physical product. With the amount of music DH discusses, I am often inspired to listen to the music of the day if it's in my library or buy it on CD if it's not. CD convenience enables me to listen longer and ensure that I do not have too many opportunities to fall.
Yes, and, cds do not degrade with every listen, like vinyl. Those pops and clicks from the first play on were annoying and distracted from the enjoyment of the music.
Just get a streamer and Tidal subscription.
There is ALWAYS surface noise, because there is friction.
Sound engineer here. A couple things about one aspect of the discussion. You are very much correct in your general argument about audio being an "illusion" in that a performance captured with a microphone is not an accurate representation of what we would hear standing in that room. That said, vinyl (and any other analog format for that matter) IS very much imparting a sound. What we call warmth (which very much is a widely accepted term) is unquestionably a form of DISTORTION. Now, most of us love it, but Dave is very much correct in that if you were present in the control room at the recording studio were the artists/producers were making decisions, or even at the mastering studio, you wouldn't be hearing the distortion that vinyl is imparting. And in that regard, digital audio is a much more ACCURATE representation of any signal that it's captured, what the artists/engineers were hearing in the control room. This is not an opinion, this is a verifiable scientific fact that digital audio recordings are more accurate than analog ones.
Now the important thing when it comes to music is that 99 times out of 100 when you compare a digital audio release to a vinyl release, you are comparing different MASTERS. Even if the lathe is being cut with the digital master (as is often the case these days), the cutting engineer is tweaking the signal to optimize it for that format. Naturally, that would exacerbate the differences between one and the other, and it's fine to prefer one over the other. But it's important to understand the science behind what each format is.
Good points. I work in audio too.
The real issue is the dynamics destruction of CD / digital post 1993. It's left Loudness Wars remasters of practically all major rock/pop in the streaming systems.
Part of the vinyl revival fetish -apart from pink noise - groove rubbing 'warmth' - is the dynamic range still being baked in via the formats limitations.
Pre 1993 CDs will be the digital Rosetta Stones of popular music.
@@1998mchp
I agree! What the recording industry has done to the CD as a digital sound carrier is pure crime. But that only speaks of the flexibility and possibilities of this medium, which far surpasses vinyl. The industry would do the same to vinyl if that medium could handle it dynamically. What saved vinyl was its limitation and narrow dynamic range.
@@ljuboizsiska5448 majority of music released on CD wasn't compressed to its limits, this is only a minor portion of it, mostly pop rock destined for US radio. I listen to mostly jazz, world, prog and acoustic music and honestly can't say I have a single CD that is a victim of the loudness wars.
@@emilspec1227 I agree with you, but that maybe 10-15% of Cd is responsible for 100% of the criticism towards that medium.
@@ljuboizsiska5448 sure but the criticism is very clearly unjustified and used by the analogue brigade to degrade the format.
Either you're looking great for your age, or you're too young to remember than even before CDs took over, many Classical music fans were already switching from vinyl records to cassette tapes, because it freed them from getting up to flip records in the middle of a long piece, and from the surface noise and inner groove distortion of vinyl. The introduction of metal tape and Dolby C NR in 1980 allowed cassettes to approach the quality of reel-to-reel and to make audibly indistinguishable copies of mint-condition LPs and live radio broadcasts, and by 1981, digitally-mastered pre-recorded cassettes of classical works were already becoming common, just in time for the Walkman to revolutionize music listening -- Beethoven was no longer chained to the living room!
A needle going trough a groove not wearing it down is physically impossible! Where is friction there is wear.
off course there is but with 1.8 grams at least with 50 to 60 years none has worn out , needles ,yes, maybe 12 since 71, had only two by this time but know i own 28 turntables of high quality , i colect hi-fi components
It's not an issue with a moving coil cartridge.
@@michaelrovner4165 why not?the sound is better but lower and is still friction like any other stylus, as the record isn´t played by the MC cartridge but for the stylus in it
I don't disagree, but I don't know how relevant it is. How many times would you have to play a record before there was *actual, noticeable* degradation in the sound? I bet it would be many thousands - probably more than is realistically possible, unless you listen to the same record multiple times a day for a long time. And how exactly would you measure the degradation, especially if it's something that happens very gradually over time?
@@alekhidell3644 The first playing degrades it.
I'm 58 years old, which means I've passed the vinyl and CD era. I remember when I heard the first CD in my life; Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms. I was amazed by the ease of handling and the clarity of the sound, devoid of any artifacts and noise. At that time, as a kid, I had quite a vinyl collection, but I continued to buy vinyl only in cases where I couldn't find the album I was looking for on CD. Today, I have a high-end system whose value is in the neighborhood of 250,000 Euros and is completely based on a digital sound source. I don't have a single vinyl today. However, I have several thousand CDs and I still obsessively buy CDs wherever I can get hold of them, usually in bulk. I feel that I need to have a physical copy of the music I like because I think the foundations of music streaming are very shaky, especially in this geopolitical situation. I have no problem imagining a situation in which I wake up in the morning and my Tidal service does not work together with the entire Internet. I'm thinking of giving an analog source of music a chance, but it won't be vinyl, but reel-to-reel tape. If I already want an analog source, then let it be the best analog source. In that case, I would look for analog recorded music on tape and digitally recorded music on CD. I know it's not easy and it's expensive, but that's the hobby. As for the vinyl itself... I'd rather have acute attacks of hemorrhoids every 5 days than deal with vinyl again. CD quality reproduction has advanced tremendously and today's top DACs sound incredible. A lot of people, especially young people, embraced vinyl because it was the first time they heard music that wasn't MP3 and didn't come through cheap headphones.
If you want to shut yourself off to some amazing sounding music on vinyl, it's up to you, I guess, but really, as a "music lover" you seem to be very closed down
A disturbing thing about streaming - I noticed on a few occasions using headphones some microsecond playback distortion.
250,000 for digital is hilarious.
I'm also 58 and remember when everyone had to have a copy of albums like Bridge Over Troubled Water then CDs of Love over Gold, Brothers in Arms etc. Sometimes I wondered if people actually played them. I no longer have CDs nor Vinyl - just Spotify premium from a Sony phone to the highest form of Bose 360 blutooth speaker.
@@frankgarcia9834 I don't want the focus of this discussion to turn to the price of the equipment. Today, systems can be put together for fractions of that price that sound quite alright. The higher you climb with the price, the smaller the return, i.e. the smaller the improvement in sound quality. I have reached my limit. Everyone has their priorities in life. I like a lot of things, among other things, let's say cars. I could buy a nice little ultra racer for that money, but priorities. I enjoy listening to music much more than driving a car. I've seen all-digital systems that cost double and triple the price. I've seen a DAC that costs $120,000. But that's for the big guys who don't even know how much they paid for it.
Glad you acknowledged how badass Dave is though. Learned so much about classical from you both, and there are solid arguments on both sides of this debate.
Ok. I've listened to 3 minutes and a history lesson is called for. First, he compares the high price tag of today's vinyl to cds, and how cds were "so" expensive when they came out. He wasn't alive in the 1980's, so he's basing his comments on what he has read. Cds were about twice the cost of vinyl when they came out. I remember paying around $15. While cds went up in cost to around $20 in the following 10 years, their prices have come back down to their original release prices. Vinyl is selling for between 5 to 15 times their original release price. What must be factored in is the lack of original recording costs of repressed records. So while it's true there are costs related to remastering, it does not compare to original recording costs. Btw, I used the Feds. Inflation calculator and determined that the $3.50 price I paid for an album in 1975 would cost $21.31 in today's money. Not $40. And not $60 to $125 charged by Acoustic Productions for their premiere re-releases. That being said I am a fan and collector of those releases, and purchase both the vinyl and SACD versions.
I regularly don’t agree with Dave’s reviews but on this topic of vinyl vs CD I have to agree with him. I have several thousand classical LPs and been collecting for 40+ years. I regularly listen to the LPs, mainly because of what’s on them that hasn’t been transferred to any other medium. I love the LPs, don’t get me wrong, but (1) the surface noise / clicks are omnipresent and super annoying in quiet passages. I have professional level equipment (Thorens) and the LPs are cleaned before every playing. It doesn’t take mishandling (as you call it) to get them, it’s omnipresent dust for one. (2) the quality of sound is highly variable from one LP to the next, there is considerable fluctuation due to the quality of the pressing. You don’t know what you get until you place it on the record player. CDs don’t have this problem, or the variability is much much less. (3) the price of modern LPs is insane. Using an inflation argument to say that they cost the same as back ‘in the days’ is silly. The Bruckner set you showed is 300 Euros on LP and 40 on CD (with lossless Blu-ray Disc included). I’m sorry, but the factor of almost 10 difference isn’t worth it. Not to mention convenience of format etc.
You need amateur equipment so you don't hear all the extrinsic noise :)
1. I had the same issue with surface noise. But I found out it was due to bad set up and entry level turntable, phono stage and specifically the cartridge. Once I understood my set up I was able to get my record playing experience to sound lovely, quiet and dynamic. No surface noise and no pops and clicks. 2. Yea i can agree that not all pressing plants are equal. But for the most part most new records are overall good. 3. You don’t have to buy vinyl. That’s the great thing about this hobby-you can love 💿 CD, vinyl records or streaming. You can have Bluetooth or stream. It’s beautiful.
Well, I have heard CDs that sound great and some that sound like crap. There is some variation in quality.
I agree with you and even in this thread that is under your opinion one says you need better equipment so you won't hear the noise. It's almost a religion in that if you take notice of the religion's deficiencies it's because you aren't believing hard enough.
@@keithwiebe1787 I hear you. My system is entry-mid level. But I did begin with a $200 table, a $120 phono stage and $100 cartridge. The surface noise level was audible to the point where I was like dang. The pops and clicks made me say dang Vinyl sucks when I played dirty records. Even today I have to be careful with my set up. If I don’t use well shielded cartridge and or rca cables I can hear AM radio coming through my speakers. But again, I don’t think we need to spend mega church money to hear these improvements but spending more will allow you to hear the difference.
This video repeats the tired old myth that digital audio somehow inferior because of sampling, that the reproduced analog output will be 'smoother' with increased sampling rates. DACs can produce perfectly smooth analog waves up to half the the sampling frequency. So, CDs can easily reproduce up to 20kHz, which is the upper limit of human hearing in young people. And, 16bit allows for 96dB of dynamic range, which is much more any consumer analog format does.
ruclips.net/video/UqiBJbREUgU/видео.html
Rip your vinyl to digital using a high qualtity ADC. Play back that digital file and it will be indistinguishable from vinyl.
The fault in digital reproduction does not lie in the principle of Nyquist sampling, which is provably correct. The problem is that DACs need to do a lot of on-the-fly computation to overcome flawed implementation (e.g. problems of filters). So digital to analog conversion is very complicated, and doing it well costs a lot more than most people are willing to spend. DACs are still improving, over 40 years since the CD was introduced. But if you give me $5,000 with which to buy either a turntable and preamp, or a CD transport and DAC, I probably will get better sound by spending it on the turntable and phono preamp.
@@TheOriginalDrastic I've heard very high end digital and analog setups. While high end analog sounds really good, I don't find anything special over digital. So, I prefer digital for great sound quality, convenience and low cost of music.
@@bikeman7982 I agree. If I were tasked with spending $50,000 on either an analog or digital front end, that would be a hard choice. My own setup has both, and often I prefer the sound of a digital source. Both turntables and CD players have evolved, improved, and seem to be converging to the point that it's arguably a matter of taste.
I think that chart which represents digital audio as a sort of bar graph has done more damage to the understanding of how digital audio works than anything else in history. You can't imagine the number of people who think that digital audio is like, playing back a square wave, as opposed to using a DAC to reproduce the analog signal.
At one time, in the mid-80s, I had something like three or four thousand LPs, mostly classical, but lots of jazz and pop, too. (I was a reviewer and got lots of freebies.) But when the CD came along, I was taken with its lucid sound quality and ease of use. I was frankly tired of all the fussing and putzing around with LPs and the equipment and work required to produce the best sound quality. I don't begrudge anyone their love of LPs and the rituals related to them. I don't even doubt that the analog sound they produce at their best may have a magic that CDs can't equal. But I've lived happily with CDs for 35 years now and I'm too damned old to even think about going back.
The new equipment and needles are making the vinyls sound less noisy, even the old one's. You need vinyl to be considered serious as a DJ by the new generation. There is still moviment and marketing around vinyl because of it's exclusivity inside the club scene. So better cheaper pre-amps and mixers, you'd be amazed if you come back solely to listen to very loud music and not finding any surface noise
@@danielaragao I'm glad there've been such improvements. But back in my LP days it got very tiresome at times.
The CD version (Blu Ray) of the Bruckner symphonies costs 45 Euro, the Vinyl version 375 Euro...
vinyl is $500 in USA @Music Direct
@@bachtozappa cool…the good thing about capitalism is that you don’t have to buy a record if you can’t afford it. Also you have the option of not buying it if you want it.
@@Staybrown11that's not about buying, that's about the fact that vynils ARE expensive, and I say that loving Vynils... but they often costs from 3x up to 10x of the same music on CD.
@@BlackMoonGaming agree. Some specialized vinyl are more expensive than CD. But why focus on that small amount of small runs of limited edition vinyl. There are $80 cd’s on eBay. There’s $150 cd on record stores. The focus on limited edition is just misleading. Most vinyl records cost about the same as a new CD. And yes $50 for a vinyl is a lot of money but that’s not most.
@@Staybrown11 but that's not only for limited editions. most of the albums for most of the music generes are more expensive as Vynil.. at least twice as much... maybe I'm just unluky, but this is my experience. And I'm saying this loving Vynils a lot more than CDs..
I agree with the old man. IF you listen to classical.... then SACD. with a SACD player/system that processes actual DSD, will be your best friend. Its literally better in every stat over vinyl. The rest is coloration and system specific. If you have thousands into a basic cleaning system, which is what basic vacuums and ionic cleaners actually cost, and you have thousands into cartridges, isolation, phono stages, tube amps, etc... I bet your analog system sounds wonderful. If your vinyl has a single digital process, then what is the point??? Most vinyl records "now a days" are digital. WHY not just go HiRes SACD/DSD, it's the closest source. Even streaming is getting good. I use Amazon Prime, most of the albums I listen to are 24/192. I UNDESRTAND I have some AAA albums from the popular retailers who care about vinyl, Acoustic Sounds, etc. They sound great...when they are engineered and mastered correctly. ( UHQR, for 150 bucks) It's really not worth the cash difference to a 35-dollar SACD/DSD source.
Check your SACDs, CDs, DSDs out on an audio editor. 'Audacity' is free. Look at the clipping, the compression and the 'louding' that you are listening to on most of them.
@@cjay2this thread is about classical music, that’s a no issue.
I lived through that era, and at the time, DMM was a godsend for many labels. For instance, in the early 80s, it was still more difficult to purchase EMI pressings than Angel in the U.S. But once Angel came out with DMM, it made a huge difference. The records were more quiet and they had more transparency. Even on the used market, I’m willing to pick up an Angel, IF it is DMM.
I’m old enough to have grown up with records. When CD came out I couldn’t afford it but assumed it really was perfect sound forever. When I bought my first house and built my listening room it was at first all CD. Vinyl was almost nonexistent back then. Only after it was done I heard a Linn and it sounded so good I had to get a turntable. The next few years I was playing records and CD about equally. One night my wife said, “It’s so quiet!”
I thought she meant surface noise. No. She means the CD has more noise! Wtf!?!
My wife taught me something very valuable: with records the noise rides above and separate from the music. Like people coughing at a concert. With digital the noise is interwoven into the music. The music is the noise. CD turns music into noise. Records don’t do that.
@nicksterj Actually if you read it again more carefully and this time thinking it through more you will see the digital conversion itself is in fact the source of the noise.
@nicksterj What part of "interwoven into the music" do you not understand?
@nicksterj My wife would beg to differ. Women don't care about technical jargon. They only care how the music sounds. When they tell you your precious digital sounds like noise you should listen.
@nicksterj In case you haven't noticed it is easy to win any argument, simply make up your own definitions and facts and, wala! Bravo!
Spot on and thank you for responding as it saves me the effort. Clicks and pops are a dated issue with vinyl. Current quality products are virtually noise free and will stay that way with rather simple and proper care. A good vacuum record cleaner will take care of most issues with older vinyl. Of course, scratches are forever but they are not the result of exercising proper care. The DG Bruckner set is outstanding.
At an absurd price.
@@ArtyFactual_IntelligenceI bought mine directly from DG at a much better price. Classical music will never sell like pop singers and somebody has to pay for the mixing and mastering. And there are 17 disks.
Glad you're posting on youtube again! I enjoy Dave's reviews. I had to hurry off to the thrift shop with my Norrington CDs after learning how bad they are. I drank deep of the vinyl chalice when I ABd a 1980s DG Leitner Kempff Beethoven PC3 CD with tuttis that didn't sound quite right, with the earlier LP which remained detailed and transparent in climaxes.
The basic problem people underestimate _vastly_ is the placebo effect. Most people think it's something nebulous that one has to strain to really hear. But the placebo effect doesn't work like this at all! It's MUCH more insidious in a way. First of all, the difference you "hear" is very obvious and leaving no doubt. In the late 1980s everybody and his mother heard the obvious difference between a regular CD and a gold-plated CD. And before that there was a clear difference heard between CDs and the same CDs whose edges were painted with a green marker. If you are old enough to remember the '80s, you'll recall the ads for those "special green markers" in the audiophile press. It was amazing. And yet, it's all 100% fictitious. Contradiction? No, it turns out that's how our brains work. Bottom line is that in double-blind (that's critical) tests over past 40 years nobody was able to hear any difference between signal X versus the same signal X sent through 10 (ten) pairs of A/D-D/A converters in a _row._ Likewise, nobody in such tests was ever able to tell a CD from SACD. I am very glad CDs are available, never liked the bother of the vinyl. And I go to live classical concerts a lot too.
Yes, placebo is very real and people do not want to admit that any such thing affects them.
@@Liisa3139 not only do they not want to admit to it, but they get very upset when the topic is mentioned.
Listening and hearing the difference between SACD and normal CD was a revelation to me, a very unwanted one at the time because I thought there could not actually be any difference and it was all a silly marketing ploy. The clarity and smoothness of the DSD (sacd) format was and is very apparent if you listen through good equipment. It needs to be actually recorded in DSD not just up-sampled from PCM. The difference in these two digital formats is actually what helped bring me closer to Vinyl because vinyl is another step towards clarity and smoothness. I agree placebo is real but true DSD is a the real deal. Try using the Pine player if you are on osx or foobar2000 on windows (both freeware). Take some time A/B with good headphones you will hear the difference.
From my experience working in record stores in their heyday, a lot of people did Not change their stylus often enough causing wearing. I had inspected records brought in by customers saying they weren't sounding like they did before. These records were generally spotless but yes, did sound worn. The question I posed to them was, how often do you play records and when was the last time you replaced your stylus. In some cases they hadn't been changed for years because they thought a diamond stylus should last forever. Secondly, people had generic record players back then, where the balance and skating were factory set, because high end players were generally out of most people's financial reach. Also the technology of the time was not what it is today. As a result records did tend to wear.
CDs on the other hand are not indestructible as originally advertised. They can scratch and skip, their surface CAN deteriorate over time losing part or all of the data on the cd.
I’m in the first clump. I never totally gave it up and still have pretty much every LP I ever bought, starting in 1972, when I was in 6th grade. But I also have a pretty extensive CD collection. More recently (roughly 20 years ago), I started collecting used open reels.
The problem with the video is, of course, that David Hurwitz has been unable to comment on your various remarks - and I think we both know that he would have a lot to say in response to your comments. I gave up vinyl decades ago because local New Zealand pressings at the time were dreadful - and I've never considered returning to it. I think the first CDs were poor but they have improved enormously over the decades. I personally love SACD and direct stream digital (DSD) in general.
Bad "Loudness War" Mastering has given CD's and digital audio a bad name which this format/medium does not deserve !
I personally startet buying vinyl records back in 2003 because many so called "re-mastered" cd's I owened were totally over compressed, de-noised to dead and just sounded bad compared to old vinyl records from the 70's which had the original mastering on them.
So: STOP THE DAMN LOUDNESS WAR !!
My 2 cents..
LPs used compression and bass reduction.
Hurwitz may have a point in that the labels try to sell us the same music we’ve already bought multiple times.
As a working musician who listens more frequently to live music than to recordings, I’ve come to notice the bias (or in a more positive light, the ‘point of view’) of modern classical music production/engineering. Some of my listening favorites are older recordings of what Dave might call ‘unlistenable recording quality), partially because I don’t mind filling-in the missing timbres, articulations, etc. through audiation, but also because I sometimes find these live and older recordings to be less ‘fussy’ and more straightforward in their audible bias (for example favoring the downstage instruments dramatically, or in the case of pre-electric recordings, significantly disadvantaging the upper frequency-range).
On the other side, I’ve had so many young and new listeners come to me after their first live performance complaining that they ‘couldn’t hear the soloist at all’ or something suggesting that the balance and clarity of a live orchestral performance struck them as totally unfamiliar having only heard recordings. I think in some sense good engineering and production are spoiling us!
The problem with classical vinyl is with a dynamic range much greater other genres (in today’s equivalent mastered at say -24 LUFS rather than -14), noise is more distracting. I like piano recordings on vinyl - especially when the instruments were miked close to soundboard the medium helps mellow out the hardness - but the records really do have to be pristine. Likewise jazz just plain sounds better on vinyl. For orchestral recordings, violins can sound better but you practically lose the bottom octave of double basses which is produced more transparently on cd. Important to note that these Kingsway Hall, Concertgebouw etc recordings were done to tape, so reel to reel would be ideal way to listen to them, not vinyl. And even in the days of early digital you had great recordings, such as Haitink’s Bruckner 9 from 1981 or Giulini’s LAPO recordings. It all depends!
I loved vinyl back in the 70s, but I am not nostalgic enough to get up and turn the record over, put records back in the sleeve, take out of the sleeve. Streaming is just so convenient. Yes, i miss the large format, liner notes, lyrics, graphics, but not enough to get back into it.
I was there when CDs first came out. My brother purchased the first Sony CDP-101 CD player shortly after its release in the early 80s. I got my first CD player, a Realistic CD-1000 in 1984. There was an issue with the mastering of some early CDs due to companies using LP masters to create CD masters. Once this issue was resolved, the sonic advantages of CDs, their greater dynamic range, lack of surface noise, zero wow and flutter, etc meant I no longer longed for the "warmth" of vinyl. I then started replacing all my LPs with CDs and the only LPs I still own were never released on CD. I still have all those CDs I purchased in the mid 80s and 40 years later they still play without issue.
Dragging a rock through a spiral groove on a rotating piece of plastic is so 1899 technology - that was the year that Emile Berliner debuted his flat disc.
All of us have our love music in common! Let's celebrate that! Life is too short to argue, listen to whatever music format makes you happy.
Living in Italy and far far away from my boxed-and-sealed vinyl records, I've had to collect hi-rez vinyl and CDs off of the internet, to restore my collection to what it was a long time ago. Dealing thusly in digital, I get to see every piece of music on my audio editor. I've found that since about 1995, most if not all CDs are either 'louded', actively compressed, or heavily compressed and clipping the zero point.
When I acquire a digital source, the first thing I do is put it up on my editor and check the waveform. At least half of all my acquisitions are compressed and worthless to me, and they get dumped. I've found that all of the vinyl hi-rez digital acquisitions have the normal vinyl waveforms and dynamics, and that's all I will settle for. The older 80s CDs maintained the original dynamics of the recordings, so they go into the collection.
More than half of the corporate hi-rez SACDs in print are compressed as well. Believe it or not. Sources from independent hi-end producers are perfectly fine in any medium (CD,SACD,vinyl), and they go into the collection, to enjoy.
My point is that CDs not made by independent companies are inevitably compressed, louded, and some are downright clipped. Go rip a CD and look at it on a free editor if you need to be convinced. I'm staying with my vinyls and older CDs. Digitize your vinyls well, do some restoration if you know how, and enjoy your music!
Very interesting video Michael. I think that in the end you both agree on the fundamental point: it is a case by case basis and how can it not be when there are so many variables entering the value stream, from the recording venue up to each listener’s audio equipment. I own a lot of vinyl and a lot of CDs/SACDs, so I don’t have a preference but in the end it is the performance that matters (I am talking classical music here). Not closing the door to CDs, again in the classical music genre, does allow one to access pretty much everything that was done in that genre since the mid-80s or so when classical music record companies abadonned vinyl. A lot of smaller independent labels (BIS, Chandos, Harmonia Mundi to name a few) have issued glorious records of classical music which are not available on vinyl. Should one shut oneself out from that music because « vinyl sounds better than CDs » ? I for one do not want to, but to each his own.
Dear Mr, thank you so much for your analysis👍🏻Most of the times I don't agree with Mr.Hurwitz but it seems he thinks he's the only person who is right🤔I always listen with my ears and with my heart👍🏻
Digital and vinyl can both sound amazing. Even as a CD collector, I can believe vinyl has the edge because it mostly hasn’t gone through the digitisation process. Many in the Hifi industry believe that to be true. As you say, good tape recordings are hard to beat too. But even vinyl mastered from very high res digital will still have a sound of its own in comparison to CDs.
i regularly listen to you. and Dave. I think you both will agree more with each other than disagree on this vinyl / CD issue. I feel Dave is actually indirectly ranting about the die hard fans of either medium who have become entrenched and close minded. In reality, what really matters (to me) is the mastering or remastering, rather than the medium.
I admire you for your patience dealing with THAT person who incites pandaemonium in one clip and then feigns innocence as to why on earth ppl start attacking him. Love you channel btw. Just bought the new vinyl Bruckner/ Giulini. Highly recommended.
Records are way too expensive. Regardless of the reason, they're ridiculously expensive. And this is coming from someone who happily buys $150 One Steps.
Am just watching your vid on our TV & sifting through comments simultaneously on my device, as I regularly do.
Someone correct me but for the YT subject matter of (Vinyl, Classical, CD music) I am BLOWN AWAY by the number of comments already after just 1 day (420+ as of Sunday 5pm CST)!!! That's a huge response in a short time frame.
Re: your vid (I'm 15mins in so far), I LOVE your format of responding by segment or section relative to his takes. Kudos.
I watch both his CH and yours of course.
I own 3,000 LPs and 700 CDs and am a big ROON user throughout home & office for 6 yrs or so. Love all tgese formats and each have their time & place for 🎶 enjoyment .
For classical music I think a lot if people prefer the wider dynamic range of cds. Near 100 vs 60 dB
The 1st article, titled ‘the resurgence of vinyl LPs’, that i encountered was in 2002. Since then similar-titled articles appeared every 3-4 years.
CDs were for a long time double to triple the price of LPs. As a teenager in the 80’s vinyl (and original cassette tapes) were an easy choice.
I like the term “convincing “ vs. “warmer”. Really good video. Thanks for posting.
Also, I agree with the comment about the Keith Jarrett concert. I recently bought an original pressing of this that visually looked to be near mint. There were so many pops and crackles on this that I could not enjoy the music and will never play it again.
For me, I'm format agnostic. The master comes first. I *really* enjoy listening to records, though sometimes must admit the pressing or transfer just isn't up to par. With vinyl, that sucks because of the often high outlay. Though yes, sometimes that happens with CD and streaming too, though the outlay is easier to eat.
After viewing both videos and reading all the comments, I think there is a major point that has been ignored in the discussion. That of availability.
Since the mid 1980s (forty years ago!), the overwhelming majority of classical music releases, as well as every operatic and chamber music recording that I know of, were only released on CD. There was no option if one wanted to listen to the latest recording by older artists such as Gilels, Bernstein, Arrau or von Karajan or new artists such as Salonen, Mullova, Bartoli and Jarvi. It was either CD or nothing until the somewhat recent arrival of streaming. Some sounded really fine and some not so much. But being a music lover first, I thought it absolutely ridiculous to totally ignore two generations of artists that I admired previously or discovered on CD. Also, think of the amount of unfamiliar music that has been released during the same period on CD only - Complete Sibelius on BIS, the many Naxos issues of unknown and/or unrecorded composers, the HIP movement and Baroque Operas - all available on CD only. I should also mention the audio restoration of historical recordings done by Ward Marston, Mark Obert-Thorn and Andreas Meyer. Their work, found almost solely on CD, has been truly spectacular on labels like Marston Records, Music and Arts and Sony. Sony's and Warner's recent "Mega Boxes" releases afford music lovers to enjoy legendary (and sometimes unjustly neglected) artists at incredible prices. For example, one can purchase the 95 CD set the Complete EMI Columbia, HMV, Electrola and Parlophone Recordings of Otto Klemperer mastered by Art & Son Studio for the price of one original EMI Columbia stereo LP.
Before anyone thinks I'm just some CD fanatic, the majority of my collection is vinyl which started with a 45 of "Little" Steve Wonder's "Fingertips, Part One and Two" that I purchased in 1963 at the age of five and I'm waiting for the arrival of DG's Original Source LP von Karajan Bruckner Symphony set more than sixty years later! I've never found the process of cleaning LPs (both vacuum and ultrasonic) to be an inconvenience and take my turntable to my local audio dealer to be checked regularly for stylus wear and various adjustments. Some of the greatest recordings I own are on LP. And some are on CD. It is as simple as that!
One other point I believe should be addressed is that of the, at times contentious if not hostile, relationship regarding classical music and audiophile reviewers. I think I can speak on this subject being a reader of High Fidelity, Stereo Review (both deceased), Fanfare, Gramophone, as well as Absolute Sound (since Issue #1), Stereophile, and The Tracking Angle. I also watch classical music and audiophile videos found on RUclips. In the vast majority of cases, the audiophile critic when reviewing a recording will only cite a handful of other audiophile recordings of the work disregarding the rest. For example, an audiophile critic reviewing Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring will compare the usual highly regarded sonically recording (all analogue and LP versions only) - Solti/Decca, Bernstein/Columbia 6 eye and maybe, Markevitch/EMI and conclude with their choice of recording. A music critic, especially one who has been doing it for many years, will compare a dozen or more recordings concluding with the one he or she interpretively prefers. The head butting occurs when the music critic has the attitude of how can the audiophile critic recommendation be taken seriously when he/she hasn't heard a majority of the recordings of the work reviewed. Flip the coin over and you'll find the audiophile critic questioning the music critic opinions citing their substandard audio equipment or preference to digital. Both are somewhat ridiculous. When I bought my 1st LP of the Rite (Bernstein/Columbia) in the early 70s, there were around 15 to 20 recordings available. Now, there must be over 100 or more. There are simply to many recordings of the standard repertoire available. And if the music critic derives pleasure from their audio system and prefers digital to analogue, so be it. In the early 70s, I had a Panasonic system with a Garrard turntable and enjoyed every LP I played. And think of the arguments between the two groups themselves - ERC Records a few years ago, for example.
Sorry to ramble on so long but I'm hoping that a few of you will appreciate what this old-timer has to say. I consider myself incredibly lucky to be around when there is so much great classical music available in all formats, LPs, CDs, SACDs and streaming. One can spend the entire day listening to broadcasts of classical and operatic performances from all over the world. I'm finishing this while listening to the Boston Symphony Orchestra at Tanglewood. Yesterday, it was Muti conducting the Bruckner Eighth with the Vienna Philharmonic live from Salzburg. So just keep enjoying great music in whatever format you like. Also remember, no format that I know compares to sitting in a great hall listening to a great orchestra. It is the ultimate in sound.
Thank you for this, most illuminating.
And honestly, I am all in on vinyl and CDs and files, and I enjoy it all. But you gotta give it to him that the process of cleaning vinyl is a frigging pain... I use a Degritter, I am an absolute convert on proper cleaning, but it IS a bit of a required PITA.
I think all your points are spot on, and so are Dave's! Let him rant a little! I don't think he's taking himself too seriously here. His channel is amazing, I have learned a lot about classical from him.
Thanks for this. The stangest part of Dave's argumenet is the new and improved discussion. What didnlt they make cars at the turn of the centure like they are made today.? Why didnlt they maked televisions as good as today? Why didn't the Brits have good food back in the 50s and 60s as they do today 🙂
Mazzy, Im sure 40:30 might of hit close to home? 😉
@@pinkrudy ha. Had to go ew listen to that part. Sure, the music first but I love great sound too, so I have some audiophilia in my blood 🤠😎✌🏻
@@mazzysmusic I think you misunderstood that part of Dave's video.
I love DH and I’ve got to admit earlier on in the week when I saw the thumbnail of his CD versus Vinyl video I couldn’t help worrying “Oh no was it me droning on about the affordability and merits of the original Decca release of War Requiem that sent Dave over the edge”. Totally in line with my personality I could not face watching his video nor this one yet. Anyway if it was me I’m ever so sorry everyone and pledge to rein in my droning about mono and the like in comments sections!
If one is a serious collector, as you both are, there's still no way around physical media. I notice this every time I visit fellow audiophiles (I'm both, a classical music lover and an audiophile) who use steaming services that a great part of what Dave Hurwitz talks about in his videos, and maybe the greater part of my favorite recordings, are not available on streaming services, and if they are, not in the best sounding editions and/or remastering. Besides, on very high-end systems it turns out streaming doesn't sound as good as playback from storage media or an SACD transport, in short, if one is, as Hurwitz puts it, "into the game of comparisons", then there's no way around physical media, and since the overlap is nowhere near 100%, there's probably no way around using both, and unless one's inherited an extremely well-assorted LP collection, there's certainly no way around digital playback. Real (especially classical) music aficionados aren't the kind of people who'll limit themselves (and that includes the realization that one won't listen exclusively to audiophile recordings).
Great debate. Dave is an excellent critic but the final answers are in our own ears.
My best friend in classical music has a very extensive system that emphasizes clarity. I find it to be harsh on my ears. He wants the very best sonic experience while I turn often to older performances that I find interpretively more moving even at the trade off of sonics.
I had about 2500 LP’s and about the same number of CD’s. I do like the convenience of CD’s, especially not having to turn over the disc to hear the full piece.
Here is a thought problem: “Which do you enjoy more - your Apple Watch or your Patek Philippe? Or even your vintage Omega?”
Thanks for initiating this discussion.
Vinyl is a collectable music product. Scale, materiality, vintage. CDs are an evolution from a sound perspective that removes the gap between mastering and cutting a vinyl with grooves and warm distortion, and a cd's mirror replication of the master you hear made in the studio. The argument now is less about sound, (you choose) and more about ownership of the recorded music artefact. The vinyl LP has collectable allure, the cd has utility and function. Fact is you don't need either to enjoy music now, but I still like the material connection of ownership. It says 'I honestly love this Art.'
My 2c. Dig vs vinyl is a recurrent topic at our local audio club. What's left out is the sound quality of both being a function of the playback hardware. I prefer vinyl because I can get the desired quality level with analog at a lower price point. BUT when I want the newer classical stuff, I'm mostly limited to digital. Since I've chosen analog as my preferred source and do not have unlimited $ for this hobby, my digital hardware, while being at roughly the same price point as my analog would likely cost a good chunk more to get to the sound quality (as subjectively defined by moi) of my analog. DH has my respect and affection even though he hates Furtwangler. MJ provides a more tech centric voice while still providing information on the music itself (although AQWO combo at $22K with the accelerated depreciation inherent in digital hardware is exhibit A in the $ needed for digital hardware high end quality).
Well said. I'm an owner & user of ALL these formats discussed and enjoy the features & benefits of each depending on my needs each day. See my earlier comment(s).
A few points I've shared several times over the years re: various formats not regularly mentioned.... I love & enjoy visuals of various subject-matters. An artist's effort & choices in their album artwork & their jacket design is often as enjoyable to me or certainly appreciated each time. So vinyl cover art is very entertaining like a book might be.
Related(!), I LOVE playing different genres & albums via ROON and go down the rabbit hole of Wikipedia on an album ir artist or genre, etc. Fun, fun, fun as well.
@@DanielHog13 I'm with you on Roon- it's made computer based media way more fun. I've done w/o a CDP for the past 2 years as I've burned all our CD to hard drive (a pandemic project) via Nucleus and love the integration with, in my case, Qobuz.
@@smortega54 Once you go ROON, you don't go back!
I have a little bit of both. I listen to vinyl and CD, I also stream music. It’s all about what I’m in the mood for.
I'll comment on just one aspect of this. What we call clicks & pops are the result of three things:
1. Scratches/scuffs
2. Dust/dirt/debris
3. Static electricity
Only No. 1 could plausibly be put down to "mishandling". The vast majority of clicks & pops are due to Nos. 2 & 3. Unless you live inside a vacuum chamber on a planet without a magnetosphere, this will always be the case. This is the reason for the insane industry of cleaning & destaticing products, & I indulge in it myself. I have fluids & cleaners & ultrasonics & ionizers & antistatic sleeves & spend the time in the ritual of (1) cleaning my records, old or brand new, & (2) keeping them free from static. The truth is that you can mitigate clicks & pops from dirt & static, but you cannot eliminate them. Even if you clean them perfectly, as soon as you expose the surface to the environment, you're going to get dust on them again & will need to, at a minimum, brush the dust off. This has an inevitable sonic consequence. This is an inherent characteristic of vinyl as a medium that will always be an issue.
This is one area where the superiority of CDs & digital formats is inescapable. Perhaps it doesn't bother you or other listeners so much. I'm guessing that by owning a Zerostat, it bothers you at least somewhat. Given the huge dynamic range of classical music, the unavoidable clicks & pops that are inherent in vinyl count, for me, as a massive mark against the format. There are many things to love about vinyl, but this is a forever problem with it. It can't just be hand-waved away as "mishandling."
Very well articulated, Mr Haynes. Hard to disagree with what you say.
Vinyl records have a typical dynamic range of around 70 dB, depending on the equipment used to record the audio and cut the record. CDs have a typical dynamic range of 90 to 93 dB, though 16-bit digital audio has a theoretical dynamic range of 96 dB. Uncompressed high-res audio files with 24-bit resolution have a theoretical dynamic range of 144 dB, though modern ADCs and DACs max out at around 120 dB or so.
I appreciate your views and opinions and I also appreciate Dave’s. Everyone has likes and dislikes and that’s fine. I worked at a record pressing plant in Nashville back in the late 1970’s. I picked up masters on Music Row and then watched as they were put on the press and the blob of vinyl dropped and the label was pressed and then boom, you had an LP.
You're going to have a whole bunch of people wanting to come over and listen to Bruckner with you.
I have several Bruckner Symphonies none of which are on vinyl, CD, 8-track, or streaming. I now buy my music from nativeDSD. These are DSD downloads of DSD64 and DSD256. Direct Stream Digital (DSD) uses a very high sampling rate to capture audio. The standard DSD format has a sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz, which is 64 times the CD audio sampling rate of 44.1 kHz. DSD256, has a sampling rate of 11.2 MHz. Bruckner sounds fantastic!
After Spotify I minimized my LP and CDs to being packed away. Clean livingroom. After the lack of ownership and boring livingroom I now have vinyl and stream spotify. CDs are in storage for now. I have vinyl just due to fascination how that little diamond picks up the signal. And the vinyl just gets better and I love the owner relationship I get. Record players are so cool. Just love it. Dont care if it may not the best sounding or that the scratches may be there on some.
Wonderful video, Michael. Of course, when someone says, “warm” sounding, people generally understand what that means, especially musicians. If “warm” were to be measured, I’d think it’d be a bit of an emphasis in the low mids, but there is something more to it than just that.
Vinyl records do not inherently have pops and clicks, and I wince a when I hear that said. As you mentioned, it’s from mishandling the record. After I clean a record and put it in a nice inner sleeve, it’s generally fine for quite some time.
Vinyl can seem somewhat inconvenient to some, but the sound quality, the thrill of the hunt, the ritualistic aspect, etc., etc. make it worth it, imo. I’ve also absolutely A/B’d different formats of the same recording as well. No need to be scared of the word audiophile. Caring how something sounds is not a negative thing. I think people may try to avoid the word audiophile, because to some, there’s a connotation that you’re listening to how your gear sounds rather than it being a tool to enjoy the music.
Vinyl: Technology so advanced that it needs RIAA equalization. Cost $10 in the 80s; $40 today. Used vinyl can cost double that. Decent turntables start at $1k.
CDs: Cost $15 in the 80s; $10 today. Used CDs can be purchased for $3. Decent CD players start at $39.
On the one hand, LPs need RIAA EQ, while the CD format does have error correction built into its standard. A decent phono costs around $400 and a good CD player about the same. I do agree about the disc prices.
It's all about the music!! Personally, I love listening to recordings the way they were mixed and mastered. For me, it's also about legacy. New releases on CD, older ones on vinyl. I usually listen to film music... it's great to grab an early 60s well preserved Tiomkin or Rózsa's LP with their liner notes and artwork.
I think one of the biggest issues here is back in the day - everyone was a vinyl collector - because that is all there was - and once more "convenient" options came along - they got adopted - the masses will always go for convenience - Apple perfected the way people can put 1000 songs onto a block in your pocket - and people one upped that with having ALL THE MUSIC - streaming ALL THE TIME - so - older people like Dave - who had to go through the changes and maybe even when he had vinyl - didnt like it - will never grow to like it. Younger generations have CHOICE - and also lots of other better options in pressings/hifi equipment/and just overall knowledge from people poetryonplastic - I find it funny when (usually older folks) say - "I HATE Vinyl - all the crackles and POPS" - and Im like - yeah - I HATE BAD/DIRTY Vinyl too! Most people have never heard REALLY good vinyl records or actual CLEAN vinyl - because they had dad's crappy stereo and his junk vinyl.
a musician will ALWAYS want you hear the best quality , that is usually the best format at that time , so it has been digital since the 80s or 90s when studios changed to digital mainly , i have 30,000 vinyls and i can tell you now CD or digital WAV is the best .
i love every format auf music ,every has his benefit
OK, I'll respond to your response to the OG video......
The circle of life continues…
I'm 59. Have about 25,000 records, 25,000 cds. Been continuously collecting the former since 1976 and cds since 1986. Love them both. To this day I usually buy the cd and the vinyl of each release. Granted most people are not in a position to have collections of that size but I am grateful that it has worked out for me. My cds generally sound terrific. My records generally sound terrific. As between the two, for any given release of a mastering, the record usually beats the cd for presence and dynamics, and is more fun to play. But if I want to play music in the background, the cd is more convenient. No question a high end vinyl setup is more expensive than a high end cd setup. No question used and new cds are so much less expensive than used and new records. That having been said, most of Dave's other objections to vinyl are overstated or just wrong. But I want to stress the cost disparity is a significant issue. If I was starting out today, I'd probably just buy cds. Terrific sound (much much better than streaming) for much less expense than vinyl. Then again my two 20 something sons have both become record collectors, to the detriment of their finances :)
So in (say) 45 years of buying/collecting you will have bought over 500 of each every year, and presumably played them at least once each....
when newly acquired (not likely I would suggest).
One must uncritically assume you have a private source of income and never actually worked 40 of the hours available each week, and sleep 7+ hrs
I have digitally transferred my LPs, and retain maybe one fifth of your volume and have calculated I cannot live long enough to hear them once each before I die. Since there are some I'd like to hear more than once I have reluctantly decided to abandon the collection mania.
I love comparing vinyl to CD and hear the different things each do. But with all things being equal. Vinyl gets you better tonal color and fleshes out the instruments better. I listen to pre 1990 recordings mostly. The way they recorded things before were just plain better. I love tone. And todays recordings and even remasters of old recordings just dont have the tonal color of instuments.
People overlook the sound characteristics of the equipment they’re using. If you have a taste for a warmer sound characteristic, look for a DAC, speakers etc with that in mind.
CDs/Digital do offer a clearer sound, a wider dynamic range, accurate frequency response, and consistent quality, there are clear advantages over vinyl.
Thank you for this informative and enlightening video! I own both CDs and Vinyl Records (way more vinyl) and I think they both have thier place. I think when it comes to albums that were originally mastered digitally, vinyl doesn't have much of an advantage. But I'm 100% convinced that a vinyl recorded from an analog master, through an all-analog chain, cannot be beat.
I loved your video on this "hot" topic and have since subscribed because of it. As an almost life long audiophile of 56 years (my age) I have listened to pretty much every format with the exception of 78's. The areas of CD/SACD/Pure Audio Blu-ray superiority that I think many would agree that were not touched on were dynamic range, noise floor, storage capacity and ability of the SACD/Pure Audio Blu-ray (and DVD Audio) to carry high rez lossless audio. CD Redbook playback are obviously compressed so they would not be part of the high rez discussion . I would love to hear your thoughts on these playback mediums and their associated pros/cons vs vinyl.
Two points from an old guy who grew up listening to records. I believe you made his point about the hassle of playing records. What I got from your comments on that is, unless you are extremely fastidious, your records will not sound their best. A listener needs to pay attention to the process at all times or the records will develop unwanted noise, or "wear out." In my youth, I wore out many records through neglect.
The second point is some folks who have done A/B comparisons have determined they prefer the sound from CDs. I bought my first CD back in 87, but didn't start comparing until the early 90s. For years the records won these tests. It wasn't until I bought a high end CD player sometime around 2005 that I finally would say I preferred what I heard from CDs. Of course that doesn't mean CDs are superior, It just means I prefer their sound.
It's all moot now as I mostly stream an don't really care what sounds better. I rarely listen to music I'm familiar with, so have nothing to compare it to, and feel it's a waste of time to compare anyway.
Cheers.
We are told what we should be consuming. In 2005, I bought hundreds of LPs of pristine vinyl for $1 or $2 a disc from a retailer on LI looking to get out of the business. These were the same exact copies I had seen a decade earlier selling for $30 - $50 a pop in his storefront (Oceanside, NY). Today, those records who would be selling once again for $30- $50 each used at any decent record store. There is no intrinsic value to either LPs or CDs. It's all supply and demand. In the 2000s and 2010s, you were buying cheap vinyl if you were smart. For the past decade, the value can be found in CDs.
I have some vinyl records that I've had for years. I been mostly a CD buyer. I still have many cassette tapes. It works for me. Whatever floats your boat. Do what brings you joy. Whatever format you use. It's all music.
ABSOLUTELY. I remembered back in the late 90s/early 00s newly released cds, and especially double cds would be priced at 30+ bucks! Or more... i vividly remember that.
You've earned my subscription with this video. I'll tell you more: I don't even care whether it sounds better or not (even though it does). Just watching it spinning with the tonearm hovering on it and the music coming out is more rewarding than any digital media with as much computing power you can come up with. In that regard even cassettes beat CDs. And if properly recorded and played with good equipment they don't sound nearly as bad as people think they do.
Some Classical cassettes sound astonishingly good - even on my very far from state of the art equipment.
A few things. First, Michael, I am seriously impressed by your patience and generosity, especially compared (sigh) to many commenters here. Second, not only do I agree with you wholeheartedly, that recordings are illusions and, generally speaking, they are illusions of a performance to be recreated in one's listening environment, but that the "performance" the record producer has in mind is largely dependent on their monitoring equipment and the "sound" that represents their brand, so to speak. This is why RCA Living Stereo sounds characteristically different from Mercury Living Presence or Decca (to a degree) regardless of the environment the recording took place in. In fact, this is the intention. Moreover, not only is it irrelevant, it is also impossible to know how the electrical output of the recording session translates to the human ear, so imagining that you can compare the recording session to the resulting CD or LP is futile. Third, there's an inherent problem comparing playback media not addressed here: simply put, they are not comparable. No matter how good your record playback set-up, your CD player, or your DAC, comparing the output of one to the other is something like comparing how fast a dog can run 50 meters to that of a horse, or a human. Kind of depends on the particular dog, horse and human doesn't it. So, if you compare a record played on your best record player to a CD on your best CD player, what exactly are you comparing? Certainly not the media! There are just too many variables in play. Yet that what we tell ourselves when doing the A/B. Finally, when Dave asserts that there is "no such thing as a superior sound carrier medium in every instance" I think he is referring only to the commercial playback choices under discussion -- in which case, the can be no argument there -- since analogue magnetic tape is still the gold standard as a recording medium, and by a considerable amount. I could be wrong, but I believe the medium is not the limiting factor in the digital domain.
To me I think this whole argument is something that will never get resolved. And, for the most part, modern vinyl pressing are created from digital masters which turns the entire set of arguments on their head. I have both. I tend to listen to my CD collection from my NAS with lossless flac files. They are just the same as the CD without the need of the CD player. I have fun with vinyl from time to time these days. But the handling and care required gets tiring to me. And, in my experience, no matter how good the quality is of a vinyl record is I've never experienced a popless vinyl record. I have some that have very little of that, but the pops always show up somewhere. I find it very irritating.
I like Dave Hurwitz for his knowledge of music. However, he makes many generalizations regarding vinyl, and yes, your points are very valid.
Who is stopping you from listening to vinyl? Now it's not enough to listen to vinyl but you must dutifully prove it's superiority to the "deplorables" who somehow enjoy CDs..
For me, CD is preferable when it comes to classical music. There are some rock albums I prefer on vinyl (e.g. an Artisan pressing of Exile on Main St) but overall digital is much more convenient. A well known mastering engineer said that vinyl is closer to the master tape with regard to detail, but that he preferred a well mastered CD. I am inclined to agree. I want my music to sound great everywhere: at home, in the car, on my portable drive, using headphones or played out loud.
Michael, you diminish the usefulness of the Zerostat. used properly, and at the right time, they are indispensable. the time to use it is when you remove the disc from the platter, it is usually ALIVE with 50kV of static charge. putting the record back on the platter causes that charge to collapse into the ground plane of the TT. using the Zstat right before you put the LP into the sleeve will remove the charge so the disc doesn't lie in the jacket attracting dust at a maximum rate.
for static in arid climates like Canada in the winter, that unit that Mikey uses on his TT to constantly neutrallizes the static is best if costly. humidifiers are a big help in that situation.
Speaking as an old...
His entire video can be summed up as "old man yells at cloud". I don't know the man but if someone wanted me to entirely dismiss their opinions as having no basis in reality this would be a great way to do it.
I'm a vinyl guy, I'm one of those that never stopped buying records when CD's came out. Largely because I was DJ'ing electronic music and in the 90's that was all on vinyl. I like the sound of vinyl better, but I'm fully willing to admit that part of that might well be that I'm used to the sound of it as it's what I grew up with and therefore it's my definition of "normal". I might well be liking the sound of the distortions added by a playback stylus. That said the mastering matters far more than the medium. Bad digital is generally bad because the mastering is bad not because the medium is bad. Unfortunately, these days the all too often the mastering of popular music on digital is awful. It's designed to sound well on airpods or in a car, not for listening on a high-quality playback system.
@@marksironi3324 his video is entirely about the classical music domain, nothing to do with pop, rock, dance or jazz, Dave only talks about classical music.
I’ve watched him before and I’m no expert but he seems to know several recordings of same piece and which ones he likes best!
With that being said I also agree that you tubers should explain what system they have.
I’ve always enjoyed your videos except the Japanese albums(but to each his own).
Recently went to a record fair in Asheville,N.C.
So glad to know to avoid Angel records and which ones to consider purchasing. Thanks so much for all you’ve shared on your videos !
@33:37 Could you do a review of this Bruckner set? I'm not the biggest fan of Karajan's interpretations, but I adore Bruckner. This seems like a no brainer, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. Appreciate your time!
Sadly, I just received brand new DG Original Source Series LPs - one was horribly warped, the other has scratches ! WTF !
... and that says it all. Vinyl is old technology, why the revival, nostalgia, that's all. Cds all day long.
Cd’s are much more fun to collect now. They are so cheap, they have great audio and the maxi cd’s have lots of tracks that are not available digitally…. All my cd’s from 1985 still play perfectly, only annoying thing is discoloration of the spines, but if you keep them out of light they stay pristine. I do buy vinyls, but I rarely play them as they are expensive, I often keep then in the shrink and just buy them as a collectible…. Vinyl maxi singles are the only vinyls that are worth it for me as they usually have alternate versions, and they are often not reissued….but to play the cd wins
I mainly listen to vinyl, and I dig the direct analog remasters DG does with the Original Source series. However, to be honest, I think that if they did a digital remaster of the 8-track tapes (in the case of Bruckner) and put it on CD, it would sound even better than the vinyl, due to digital denoising, no vinyl distortion, and no surface noise. The reason these new vinyl series sound so good is that they used the original 4/8 track tapes directly, instead of the 2-track downmix, like the original LP and the CD remasters. In the end, it all comes down to the mastering and and the source of the master.
Also, you mentioned that the digitization of the waves affects the sound, which is not true, since modern ADCs and DACs can work with negligible distortion and noise, plus extremely high bitrates that greatly surpass the Nyquist frequency. It's also true that vinyl has more distortion and noise, is less practical, requires you to change sides every 25 minutes, needs better care, etc.
Vinyl prices are higher than ever, but not in every case. New vinyl prices are usually about 20-35 euros (e.g., Pink Floyd albums cost about 25 euros new, and other, less-produced albums cost 30-35 euros). That's reasonable pricing. Anything above that surpasses inflation and should be considered overpriced.
I still prefer listening to vinyl, by the way, I'm just trying to be objective.
I own the same table as you for over 6 years and enjoy vinyl immensely but stopped vinyl buying a long ago as mine were purchased used from knowledgable collectors and agree there completely overpriced now I have bought new expensive that were poorly done sounded lean and even on occasion had noise and most digital now.I am very content with my humble 500 because at some point they will all have to go and a living nightmare to think of having to sell them and the time it takes to get max return.Its small but very valuable vinyl collection.I feel you are very young man in which your mind will open as you age.I think Dave is teaching you things without you really knowing it.Cd with a very high quality player is truly astonishing.No media is right or wrong .I enjoy cd,streaming and vinyl.Your taste for life and audio will change as you age.Always respect your elders and people that walked before you
Enjoyed your positive remarks. I like to keep everything simple. Everyone has a right to an opinion and a defense of his own position. My own collection of recordings fights for room against my huge collection of books (I'm a librarian and student of history) so I chose for cd. As for some people who can't stand Dave, well, I've fought a couple of duels with him already and he's more than alright
All advocates of CD/digital use science to prove that it sounds better. Trust in the science they say - CD on paper is a superior format. Thing is, I have hundreds of CDs and hundreds of LPs. I simply use my ears, I don't care what it says on a piece of paper. And, all things being equal, a well mastered, well cut all analogue LP blows CD away. Its a far more organic and involving listening experience. CD can sound good - thats not in question and it is likely easier to get a decent sounding system on a budget built around CD playback. But for me, when it comes to the most pleasurable listening experience, there is no comparison.
Price being equal I prefer vinyl hands down. Problem is vinyl prices are crazy high and I'm not rich so I end buying a lot of CDs because they are good enough and they have sane prices. 🤷♀️
In the words of the master RVG:
"The biggest distorter is the LP itself. I've made thousands of LP masters. I used to make 17 a day, with two lathes going simultaneously, and I'm glad to see the LP go. As far as I'm concerned, good riddance. It was a constant battle to try to make that music sound the way it should. It was never any good. And if people don't like what they hear in digital, they should blame the engineer who did it. Blame the mastering house. Blame the mixing engineer. That's why some digital recordings sound terrible, and I'm not denying that they do, but don't blame the medium."
I love me my vinyl but wish we got our digital right. Now with all this protools bs…nobody knows how to mix/master properly. Many many records these days sound like serious crap. Nearly all my OG sound better than the modern heavy vinyl remasters. Except even though mofi has a digital step with their DSD….they make fantastic sounding records.
As painful as vinyl is…once you get it setup and cooking it really does sound amazing
@@revelry1969 but, but, but, all the people who make money out of the vinyl resurgence are saying that he was just an old fool loosing his marbles when he said this.
@@emilspec1227 yeah. I think the thing I took away from this statement is that the LP is hard to do right. Playback is a pain too. Digital if done right can sound fantastic. He didn’t lose his marbles. He was just looking at it practically. Vinyl is a pain in the ass. But to me it does mostly give the best sound even with digitally sourced vinyl (sometimes). I think this is more an argument of what digital. DSD vs PCM etc. I have found DSD (4x) to sound just like the vinyl. It’s all compromises. RVG was lamenting all that painstaking time he spent getting it right. It’s all about compromises. All recording and playback. Ease of playback (digital) maybe just give “good enough” quality to someone. Those of us who go deeper have to determine which format works best for them. I think the CD was a huge triumph and plenty good sound for most humans. But it was a compromise. It’s like streaming. My friends say….just stream all that crap. I am like it sounds better on vinyl they are like…my ears can’t hear it…I want the ease of playback. CDs certainly have easy portability and produce good sound. Great sound? That is debatable.
Have you heard RVG's digital transfers? He was completely wrong on that topic and his recordings prove it. Compare a RVG Edition CD to a kevin gray cut Blue Note Classic and it'll be night and day. The RVG Editions are absolutely atrocious messes.
Yes, that's exactly how the placebo effect works: the perceived differences are VERY obvious and can easily be totally unexpected. If you repeated the same test in the double-blind way (meaning, neither you nor _the person operating the A/B switch_ knows which one is CD and which one is SACD), then you'd hear no difference (assuming the test discs do not have audio faults, obviously). As I said, to this day no such test ever produced an audible difference in anyone. But, having said all that, real life experiences are always coloured by external unconscious influences, so the bottom line is if SACDs sound better to you than CDs, that's really the end of the argument! Listening pleasure is what counts. BTW, my favourite system is Blu-ray Audio because of its ability to play longer pieces without interruption, e.g. Wagner's "Rheingold" which is about 2 1/2 hours of continuous music. In this sense the recent release of the SACD by Decca is a regress for me and I won't buy it, my Blu-ray edition stays 😊
As a GenX'r who went through vinyl, then cassesttes then CDs now streaming and now about a year ago Iback into Vinyl. there's an intagible about vinyl that CD's just don't possess. there IS something about the size of the album cover with the art, there IS something about putting it on the turntable. There IS something about watching and listenting to music from a technology that was developed back into the 1800's in it's evolved state that CD's just don't have. In terms of sound quality , well that's completly subjective, if you like the clean crisp sound of CDs more power to you, if you like the rich full warmness of Vinyl than more power to you as well. I mostly prefer the later I don't get digital music advocates, who feel they have to go out of there way to go after vinyl. There is just something about vinyl no other music media possess.
What a nice “rebuttal” to Classics Today’s contribution to the CD vs LP debate without the usual vitriol!
A couple of things perhaps worth mentioning: Immediately after the oil embargo pressings, even the European pressing, deteriorated terribly. Technical reasons are clear. Even HMV surfaces were awful. One of the Tower execs told me that returns were nearing 50%!. This was a powerful incentive to abandon the median in favor of CDs. And besides that one got “perfect sound,” except it wasn’t. When I heard the first digital (mostly classical) releases on both vinyl and CD I suddenly realized that Alcoa had entered the musical instrument business.
The improvement in CD Red Book sound is significantly due to advances in playback. My CDs that once suffered from “digitalis” now sound from exceptional to wonderful.
Another advantage to the CD is that one can listen to passages over and over again which I wouldn’t recommend with vinyl.
The lack of liner notes is a huge minus as you indicated, which is one of the reasons why one well known engineers maintained that the CD medium wouldn’t last!
First time listener - what a pleasure!
Richard
Anybody can comment on sound quality of any recordings, but obviously you cannot say anybody is an audiophile. Making a judgement on the SQ of a specific recording does not automatically turn an individual into an audiophile, persistently caring about SQ and demanding high SQ does. To me it’s very simple logic. Can’t believe he was even twisting this. I also don’t think the quality of recording , mixing and mastering that makes a major contribution to the final SQ of a tape/CD/vinyl is relevant to the playback equipment. The Hi-End combination of Air Force Zero turntable+CH Precision P1 phono preamp+Soulution 725 preamp+711 power amp+Magico M2 speaker can not make a poorly mastered, carelessly pressed vinyl sound fantastic. No “Hi-End magic” here. I understand Steve Hoffman Music Forum has its rule (show your equipments before commenting on SQ)for its members, but citing this rule as if it’s universally accepted when it comes to commenting on recording SQ sounds ridiculous to me.
My memory of buying vinyl and occasionally cd's, in the 1990-2005 era, when I could not obtain the vinyl issue, is they were much the same price. The folks who switiched to CDs were not spending more money, they mostly thought they sounded better and were easier to store and use, not least in the car
Great stuff! Just a side note: records were always kinda expensive but main difference between pre-resurgence era and now is the speed with which prices go up, as opposed to prices staying mostly the same in the past. Its ludicrous and big part of ingredient is real cynical, pressings staying limited increasing demand due to fear of missing out