Vinyl VS. compact disc.

As of late, I've been listening to Unknown pleasures on vinyl. It's been quite a while since I've done this, having generally opted for the convenience of the cd. I was immediately struck by the difference in the overall sound of the recording. The vinyl has a much fuller and warmer sound, to me. There is a lot of "scientific" stuff that shows vinyl to be the superior sound carrier, but the bottom line, of course, are the ears. So, what do you all prefer, and why?

Usually vinyl stereo systems are much more powerful than modern CD stereos or even hi-fis... they were more expensive than a TV set, that's why we perceive the sound as being more complete. I prefer the CD anyway, especially for the comfort of use and the cleaner digital sound, but I'd really like to have a CD system as powerful as the mammooth sized system my dad assembled to spin vinyl when he was younger... Interesting thread but I guess it's bordering on the :topic: and should be moved to BCD... :)

I didn't intend to be "off topic". I guess I should have been clearer, I was wondering which media people prefferred for listening to NO/JD specifically. My prefference changes from band to band, and album to album. Example: I really prefer the vinyl pressing of unknown pleasures when I can be bothered to mess with it, But I prefer the cd version of Technique. The "clean" sound of the cd suits the recording better to me. I like the cd version of Still better than the vinyl, but I prefer the vinyl BBC live n.o. record to the cd. I've also not heard any of the original "boxed" cassette releases of jd and no material, so if anyone has heard these, I'd like to know how they sound.

Depends what you're on about. 12" singles have very good resolution and personally I love them. 12" albums are OK, but when you get to 7" singles the sound is not good!!

Also it depends on what you are using to play them. I used to do some DJing so I am playing records on top-draw direct drive turntables - damn good - but beware those belt-drive tables and the most horrible record decks with plastic tone arms ( ).

I agree about the quality shift along the format size. I wonder why that is? Most 7" records (at least the ones I have) are very inferior sound wise.

May have to do with the mastering process as applied to the diameter of the platter?

I have an older turntable, direct drive by sony. It works and sounds great. It was probably mid to hi end quality in it's day.

I've a Technics 1210 Mk.3 and it makes all my vinyl sound lovely! I must be one of the few people that didn't buy mine as one of a pair - I use it purely for domestic listening.

Having said that, it's much more convenient to slip in a CD than it is to turn on the turntable, preamp and hi-fi, so I usually just buy the odd dance music 12" now and again. I put my New Order vinyl-only tracks onto CD-R using my Technics, a decent pre-amp and Sound Forge, and they sound superb when boosted up to the tight dynamic range of the CDs.

CDs always sounded a bit tinny at first, but mastering and recording technology has improved, and The Prodigy's 'Fat Of The Land' was the first real CD album that showed they could carry as much clout as vinyl. The original Factory CD versions of the New Order albums do sound a bit thin now (time for a remaster with a second disc of rarities for each album???) but that's because they were made during the eighties.

Now that a lot of the recording and mixing process is carried out digitally (albeit with analogue equipment in the early stages to keep some warmth in), it seems a bit daft having a good quality digital master tape, then putting it onto vinyl.

I like a bit of both, personally.

Andy.

It really does depend on the artist/music. Something like Joy Division would probably sound better on vinyl. Something like "Disturbed" would sound too mellowed I would think.

It probably has a lot to do with how it was originally recorded. Joy division was meant originally for vinyl, not cd remember.

Unfortunately CD and more so even with DVD-A and SCD, the limitations of the original tape can be heard which is annoying! I guess the JD stuff was recorded on 8-track tape but from Substance onwards DAT was used as far as I know!

Originally posted by Mr Discography I've a Technics 1210 Mk.3 and it makes all my vinyl sound lovely! I must be one of the few people that didn't buy mine as one of a pair - I use it purely for domestic listening.

Me too! I worked as a DJ for many years in a local club and we used these fantastic turntables. So when it came time to buy a better one for myself (after a burglary) I claimed for one on the insurance - the sound quality is excellent and it takes a small scale nuclear weapon to budge the needle (or LFO by LFO).

When the club upgraded it's equipment when CDs started becoming available (a long long time ago:() I had to constantly boost the volume to get any decent feel out of the CD - and largely failed.

At home I hardly ever play vinyl now, but feel that the sound of CDs has improved lots, usually when remastered (though this ain't always an improvement).

I prefer CDs really, mainly for their convenience though. You can't take your fave record on the bus with you in a portable record player. Also they take up less space. But I must admit, listening to the Low Life record made me feel 'warm'.

just seen this thread and decide to experiment with the old stereo. i hardly use my turntable and my vinyl is usually stashed away in one of those ally dj boxes,anyway....... i listened to varius jd & no 7s & 12s,the sound quality is definately better on the 12s than 7s,i tried blue mon 88 first on 7 then 12 then cd,obviously the cd was very clean and crisp,the 7 wasnt brilliant sound wise but the 12 was ok. i then tried bm 83 12,absolutely fantastic! a nice crackly intro then a very nice "old" sound,i got three different bm 83 12s listened to them in sequence and they all sounded the same fantastic! going back to direct drive turntables..... last year i dj"d at a friends party and played all my 12s on technics dd turners,with a bit of mixin in here and there the vinyl definately sounds better,so much so i recorded the set onto cd,still played it until recentlty. obviuosly the recording wasnt as good as a "true" digital cd but it still retained some of the character of the vinyl. for people who dont have a turntable go out and get yourself one NOW! yes cds are ok,but the old vinyl is very much underestimated, much better in my opinion!

regards

p.s i have a spare aiwa belt drive turner (silver colour)if anyone wants one 4 free,just needs a stylus! drop me a line if you are interested.

Originally posted by nuts just seen this thread and decide to experiment with the old stereo.i hardly use my turntable and my vinyl is usually stashed away in one of those ally dj boxes,anyway.......i listened to varius jd & no 7s & 12s,the sound quality is definately better on the 12s than 7s,i tried blue mon 88 first on 7 then 12 then cd,obviously the cd was very clean and crisp,the 7 wasnt brilliant sound wise but the 12 was ok.i then tried bm 83 12,absolutely fantastic!a nice crackly intro then a very nice "old" sound,i got three different bm 83 12s listened to them in sequence and they all sounded the same fantastic!going back to direct drive turntables.....last year i dj"d at a friends party and played all my 12s on technics dd turners,with a bit of mixin in here and there the vinyl definately sounds better,so much so i recorded the set onto cd,still played it until recentlty.obviuosly the recording wasnt as good as a "true" digital cd but it still retained some of the character of the vinyl.for people who dont have a turntable go out and get yourself one NOW!yes cds are ok,but the old vinyl is very much underestimated, much better in my opinion!regardsp.s i have a spare aiwa belt drive turner (silver colour)if anyone wants one 4 free,just needs a stylus!drop me a line if you are interested.

BTW - anyone who follows the suggestion of buying a Technics 1200/1210 needs to know you are looking at £430 for the 1200MK5/1210MK5 and £550 for a 1210MK5G - expensive!!

p.s i have a spare aiwa belt drive turner (silver colour)if anyone wants one 4 free,just needs a stylus!drop me a line if you are interested.

Will you pay me to take it away? :D

Originally posted by almanso first, the 7" has less quality for the same reason the first songs of each side have better quality than the last ones on a 12". it´s because the angle that the arm uses to play them. simply as that.now, about the discussion, i think if someone says CD is better it´s because he knows anything about sound waves, armonics and frequencies. or simply don´t care about them. or simply don´t "hear" them. any person who has the ability to listen to the sound could never pick CD over vinyl. the digital recording and noise reduction makes the width of sound a lot less widther. it´s a fact.

I agree with you regarding the fact that the bandwidth on a digital recording is narrower, hence vinyl's better sound.

On the "angle of the tone arm" however, I can't agree. I own a linear tracking turntable. (One where the arm moves in a straight line across the record, as opposed to on a pivot) and most 7" records sound tinny and bad on it as well. I do have some 7" records that sound great, but only a few.

Oddly, I've got tons of (well, a dozen) 10" records and they ALL sound great. Weird.

Originally posted by Ghost is luminous I didn't intend to be "off topic". I guess I should have been clearer, I was wondering which media people prefferred for listening to NO/JD specifically.

*Oh, alright. :) Well, I think I have a slight preference for the rougher but stronger sound of vinyl for bands like Joy Division and early New Order, while I prefer the digital sound of the more synthetic New Order.

Originally posted by Mr Discography I've a Technics 1210 Mk.3 and it makes all my vinyl sound lovely! I must be one of the few people that didn't buy mine as one of a pair - I use it purely for domestic listening.

While the 1200's are super players, they are soley aimed at the DJ market. Their mechanical quality is outstanding, hence the high price for used devices. Often though, you get better audio quality with a similar priced non-DJ player...

If you're really into turntables, the Quasar is a work of art. And for vinyl-freaks without a budget, the Transrotor Gravita is a kool 55000 Euro...

Now that a lot of the recording and mixing process is carried out digitally (albeit with analogue equipment in the early stages to keep some warmth in), it seems a bit daft having a good quality digital master tape, then putting it onto vinyl.

See below...

Originally posted by Spotnick Well, the problem with the damned vinyl is you can scratch them quite easily, and they have pops all over in no time...

Check out the ELP Laser Turntable...

As for the sound, well, the CD is compressed, but that is supposed to be fixed with DVD Audio.. I have never heard one so I can't say (it's not the same as a movie DVD audio.. don't make that mistake)...

Well, technically it is not compressed (unless you talk about mp3 or AAC, etc.). What happens is that the music is filtered, keeping frequencies between a couple of hertz (too low frequencies, < ~10 Hz, can destroy cheap home-audio) and up to ~20000 Hz. This is needed because the maximum frequency one can sample is determined by the samplingfrequency (actually the other way around, but who cares...), search for Mr. Nyquist... The samplingfrequency for CDs are 44100 Hz.

As a rule of thumb, the human ear can hear frequencies between 20 Hz and 20000 Hz (at least when we're very, very young...). Some claim that our minds can experience higher frequencies. Therefore, some claim that vinyl is better than CD because vinyl doesn't have the frequency limitations.

It's true though that the perceptual audio-encoding and digital mastering has come a long way since the beginning of CDs. DVD-Audio (and SA-CD) increases the frequency range up to 96000 Hz. DVD-Audio also increases the number of bits per sample from 16 (for CD) to 24. This allows for a higher dynamic range (volume-changes in the music), 144 dB vs. 96 dB for CD. Still no compression though...

As for Andy's comment about mastering digital and "waste" it on an analog release. Most professional equipment these days use the DVD-Audio specs, i.e., 96kHz/24bits. Releasing that on vinyl makes sense, DVD-Audio and/or SA-CD makes more sense. The information has to be "down-sampled" (less quality) for the CD release...

As I said earlier though, the digital mastering skills has really improved the last 20 years, and many CDs sound great today. But then again, I can't hear the difference...

/TLV

Originally posted by fdisk I claimed for one on the insurance - the sound quality is excellent and it takes a small scale nuclear weapon to budge the needle (or LFO by LFO).

What is it with that 12"? I bought the very first release (purple Warp sleeve), and the bass is phenominal - so heavy. Classic record.

Andy

Originally posted by TLV As for Andy's comment about mastering digital and "waste" it on an analog release. Most professional equipment these days use the DVD-Audio specs, i.e., 96kHz/24bits. Releasing that on vinyl makes sense, DVD-Audio and/or SA-CD makes more sense. The information has to be "down-sampled" (less quality) for the CD release...

Aye, this is true, but what happens when someone wishes to release remastered albums on SACD if they come from an older digital source (16bit 44kHz)? I don't know if this has happened yet, but would there be any point in dithering up?

I have a little theory about the SACDs, if you'll indulge me. Thing is, the 16bit 44kHz, is widely available on home digital portastudios these days, enabling home musicians to make master quality recordings - as I have done many times. My Roland digital workstation can do anything up to 24-bit and 48kHz - better than CD. If the music industry ups the audio standard, that means the quality of home musician's material is still sub-standard to what can be done in a professional studio - keeping many engineers in there jobs. Then again, I've spent a fortune rebuying my old vinyl on CD (sometimes twice, as mastering technology has improved - hello Pet Shop Boys), and am buggered if I'm going to do it again on SACD (thought normal CDs were supposed to be expensive enough as it is).

I recently did a remix for new band Bonemachine here in my home studio. It was recorded at 16bit/44kHz using source WAV samples. It's since gotten mastered professionally by an engineer that's previously worked with Marylin Mansun and Radiohead, amongst others. It'll be interesting to hear the CD single version when it comes out, and hear if he's managed to make it sound more professional than I could with my own compressers and enhancers, as it wasn't recorded to the high spec that "real" studios have.

Anyway... way off topic!

Back to New Order...

Andy.

Originally posted by Slippy > Originally posted by nuts> just seen this thread and decide to experiment with the old stereo.> i hardly use my turntable and my vinyl is usually stashed away in one of those ally dj boxes,anyway.......> i listened to varius jd & no 7s & 12s,the sound quality is definately better on the 12s than 7s,i tried blue mon 88 first on 7 then 12 then cd,obviously the cd was very clean and crisp,the 7 wasnt brilliant sound wise but the 12 was ok.> i then tried bm 83 12,absolutely fantastic!> a nice crackly intro then a very nice "old" sound,i got three different bm 83 12s listened to them in sequence and they all sounded the same fantastic!> going back to direct drive turntables.....> last year i dj"d at a friends party and played all my 12s on technics dd turners,with a bit of mixin in here and there the vinyl definately sounds better,so much so i recorded the set onto cd,still played it until recentlty.> obviuosly the recording wasnt as good as a "true" digital cd but it still retained some of the character of the vinyl.> for people who dont have a turntable go out and get yourself one NOW!> yes cds are ok,but the old vinyl is very much underestimated, much better in my opinion!> > regards> > > p.s i have a spare aiwa belt drive turner (silver colour)if anyone wants one 4 free,just needs a stylus!> drop me a line if you are interested.

BTW - anyone who follows the suggestion of buying a Technics 1200/1210 needs to know you are looking at £430 for the 1200MK5/1210MK5 and £550 for a 1210MK5G - expensive!!

£330 is nearer the mark if you shop around a bit

Trainspotter alert! I'd have to go for vinyl every time over cd. Unless of course you have a really nasty record player. I own a rega Planar 3 with a rb300 tone arm, a super bias cartridge and a linn k9 stylus. I've had it for about 4 or 5 years and expect i'll be keeping it for at least another 60 - these things are legendary in their reliability. They are pretty much the bee's kness when it comes to sub £500 audiophile record players, mine cost £400ish all in and sounds fantastic. It puts my Arcam Aplha 7 cd player (a pretty reasonable cd unit) to shame on direct comparison and I'd recommend one to anybody. And before anyone says 'hey..off topic!!!" I auditioned my whole set up with , amongst other things, Vanishing Point off Technique which i think is the finest production job New Order have ever done (should have been a single lads).

Originally posted by Spotnick That laser turntable is impressive...But a bit pricy!!

Anyone here ever actually heard this laser turntable in action? Sounds intriguing - even works out running times and track starts, allowing it to be programmed like a CD player.

It's cheaper than a lot of cars, on the bright side.

I prefer the sonic quality of vinyl but tend to play Cd for the convenience. As well as knowing that every time I play vinyl, I am heading towards replacing the cartridge. At over £500 a time, that is a lot of money.

My turntable wipes the floor with my Cd player. Naim-audio CD3.5 with a Flatcap 2 external power supply vs. Linn Sondek LP12, Troika cartridge, Ittok arm, Circus, Naim-audio Prefix phonostage also powered by the Naim Flatcap 2. The price differential really shows, it is so much more involving to hear vinyl.

Originally posted by Slippy > Originally posted by nuts> just seen this thread and decide to experiment with the old stereo.> i hardly use my turntable and my vinyl is usually stashed away in one of those ally dj boxes,anyway.......> i listened to varius jd & no 7s & 12s,the sound quality is definately better on the 12s than 7s,i tried blue mon 88 first on 7 then 12 then cd,obviously the cd was very clean and crisp,the 7 wasnt brilliant sound wise but the 12 was ok.> i then tried bm 83 12,absolutely fantastic!> a nice crackly intro then a very nice "old" sound,i got three different bm 83 12s listened to them in sequence and they all sounded the same fantastic!> going back to direct drive turntables.....> last year i dj"d at a friends party and played all my 12s on technics dd turners,with a bit of mixin in here and there the vinyl definately sounds better,so much so i recorded the set onto cd,still played it until recentlty.> obviuosly the recording wasnt as good as a "true" digital cd but it still retained some of the character of the vinyl.> for people who dont have a turntable go out and get yourself one NOW!> yes cds are ok,but the old vinyl is very much underestimated, much better in my opinion!> > regards> > > p.s i have a spare aiwa belt drive turner (silver colour)if anyone wants one 4 free,just needs a stylus!> drop me a line if you are interested.

BTW - anyone who follows the suggestion of buying a Technics 1200/1210 needs to know you are looking at £430 for the 1200MK5/1210MK5 and £550 for a 1210MK5G - expensive!!

i never suggested that someone ACTUALLY goes out to buy a pair of tecnics decks just to listen to the difference in sound quality! doh!!!!!!!!!! as for the comment about me paying you to take my spare deck,wtf are you on boy ? i was just trying to help a fellow nooler, preferably someone who doesnt have a record deck. but theres always one ****** ****** moaning isnt there! stay off the drugs kid!

Originally posted by nuts > Originally posted by Slippy> > > > Originally posted by nuts> > just seen this thread and decide to experiment with the old stereo.> > i hardly use my turntable and my vinyl is usually stashed away in one of those ally dj boxes,anyway.......> > i listened to varius jd & no 7s & 12s,the sound quality is definately better on the 12s than 7s,i tried blue mon 88 first on 7 then 12 then cd,obviously the cd was very clean and crisp,the 7 wasnt brilliant sound wise but the 12 was ok.> > i then tried bm 83 12,absolutely fantastic!> > a nice crackly intro then a very nice "old" sound,i got three different bm 83 12s listened to them in sequence and they all sounded the same fantastic!> > going back to direct drive turntables.....> > last year i dj"d at a friends party and played all my 12s on technics dd turners,with a bit of mixin in here and there the vinyl definately sounds better,so much so i recorded the set onto cd,still played it until recentlty.> > obviuosly the recording wasnt as good as a "true" digital cd but it still retained some of the character of the vinyl.> > for people who dont have a turntable go out and get yourself one NOW!> > yes cds are ok,but the old vinyl is very much underestimated, much better in my opinion!> > > > regards> > > > > > p.s i have a spare aiwa belt drive turner (silver colour)if anyone wants one 4 free,just needs a stylus!> > drop me a line if you are interested.>

BTW - anyone who follows the suggestion of buying a Technics 1200/1210 needs to know you are looking at £430 for the 1200MK5/1210MK5 and £550 for a 1210MK5G - expensive!!

i never suggested that someone ACTUALLY goes out to buy a pair of tecnics decks just to listen to the difference in sound quality! doh!!!!!!!!!! as for the comment about me paying you to take my spare deck,wtf are you on boy ? i was just trying to help a fellow nooler, preferably someone who doesnt have a record deck. but theres always one ****** ****** moaning isnt there! stay off the drugs kid!

I was actually suggesting the Aiwa one os not really that good. But fine for a newbie to records!

Originally posted by Mr Discography > Originally posted by TLV> > As for Andy's comment about mastering digital and "waste" it on an analog release. Most professional equipment these days use the DVD-Audio specs, i.e., 96kHz/24bits. Releasing that on vinyl makes sense, DVD-Audio and/or SA-CD makes more sense. The information has to be "down-sampled" (less quality) for the CD release...

Aye, this is true, but what happens when someone wishes to release remastered albums on SACD if they come from an older digital source (16bit 44kHz)? I don't know if this has happened yet, but would there be any point in dithering up?

Most people couldn't hear the difference between 96kHz and 44.1kHz to save their life. Remastering for SACD of DVD-A wold be nothing more of a gimick or maybe a chance to undo a bad squashed mastering job done for a regular CD. One of the main reasons for doing a format such as these(for rock and or roll that is) is to take advantage of the multichannel format which means going back to the source tapes(or drives, etc.) and creating a whole new master. Most professional mastering engineers will also upsample the file, tape, dat, to 24/96 anyway as most use a chain of both analog and digital gear to achieve the end result which means on it's return trip it's more than likely being put through stellar a/d conversion and captured at a higher resoluting for final editing. The benefit from high rates is more headroom in whatecer workstation they're using for edits, processing, or fades. Dithering is basically a procedure that adds low level noise when LOWERING bit rates, never increasing them. Dithering helps smooth the sound of harsh quantization errors when truncating the file.

I have a little theory about the SACDs, if you'll indulge me. Thing is, the 16bit 44kHz, is widely available on home digital portastudios these days, enabling home musicians to make master quality recordings - as I have done many times. My Roland digital workstation can do anything up to 24-bit and 48kHz - better than CD. If the music industry ups the audio standard, that means the quality of home musician's material is still sub-standard to what can be done in a professional studio - keeping many engineers in there jobs. Then again, I've spent a fortune rebuying my old vinyl on CD (sometimes twice, as mastering technology has improved - hello Pet Shop Boys), and am buggered if I'm going to do it again on SACD (thought normal CDs were supposed to be expensive enough as it is).

Upping the spec really isn't an issue at this point nor will it change things for someone working at 16/44.1. Just listen to mp3's... they sound like ass and have taken the world by storm... like sticking your head in a fucking blender if you ask me. Who wants higher resolution when the world is satisfied with that? Anyway, the music is what matters. I've done good mixes of bad recordings and bad mixes of good recordings. When I really analized why I seem to be hit or miss, it turned out that I had forgotten that the performance is the star and technology takes a back seat everytime. Good music will translate. The thing that keeps an engineer at their job is the ability to perform their task and less about creating technical boundaries. Chances are the engineer has better technical chops than your average home studio buff. For the record, I record at 24 bit to take advantage of the headroom and better sound but leave the sampling rate at 44.1. 44.1 sounds fine to me with the stuff I do.

I recently did a remix for new band Bonemachine here in my home studio. It was recorded at 16bit/44kHz using source WAV samples. It's since gotten mastered professionally by an engineer that's previously worked with Marylin Mansun and Radiohead, amongst others. It'll be interesting to hear the CD single version when it comes out, and hear if he's managed to make it sound more professional than I could with my own compressers and enhancers, as it wasn't recorded to the high spec that "real" studios have.

Fantastic! What you're really gaining with a good masteing engineer is not just the fancy gadgets, but hopefully an experienced listener who can help make your recording sound it's best and knows what to do... but most importantly, what not to do. Let us know how it turns out! :)

Anyway... way off topic!

Yeah, sorry for the tech ranting.. better quit before Nic shows up. ;) What was the topic? Oh yeah... hmmm... I like vinyl on a good setup, but prefer CDs most of the time.

Chris

Sorry for the tech rant... just offering another viewpoint...

No one's mentioned 8 track...

Originally posted by Bentley For the record, I record at 24 bit to take advantage of the headroom and better sound but leave the sampling rate at 44.1. 44.1 sounds fine to me with the stuff I do.

I was going to add that comment that you want to keep a high bit-resolution when working with a track, and then in the mix-down take it down to 44.1k/16bit.

BTW: There are nice sound-cards for your computer handling 96k/24bit. Hammerhead is a name that pops into my mind. You're looking at 200-600USD.

Is there a difference between 44.1k and 96k? Well, my old DJ-ears have gone deaf and I can't really tell the diff. My audiophile-friend claims that it's like day and night. He is of course not really into electronic music... He also prefers DVD-Audio to SA-CD...

What do I want? I want all the New Order videos released on DVD. Preferrably with 5.1 sound. :D

/TLV