Last Night I Did Something I Don't Normally Do............

I think if you ripped your vinyl to CD with a decent A/D (24-bit is really not needed, its more about the quality of the electronics rather than the bit depth)-and played it through the CDP, you will be surprised by how close are to each other. For a while I used a ultra-premier tube phono stage (circa 15K USD) into the 552 that danced circles around the Prefix/Supercap I also had at the time. Ripping albums to CD via a dedicated CD-Recorder came very close to the straight LP when played back through the CDS3. But sounded ghastly if played back through the replay section of the same CD-recorder, which apparently has a much higher A/D section than it does a D/A one. 

Long live vinyls!!!!

Adam Zielinski posted:

Long live vinyls!!!!

Odinn requested that I take issue with this 21st century anomalous classification. Records, LPs or Long Players please. Do we play plastic coated silver foils? or binaries? iron oxides? Even 78s aren't referred to as Shellacs. IRMC

Always felt vinyl is the superior format, the same way I feel CD is superior to streaming.

One other thing, DDD recordings can sound downright horrible and are not really an indication on the quality of the recording in my experience.

So much depends on the mastering, including whether high res files sound better or worse than red book. As a case in point, I was stunned and amazed some years ago when a friend had brought round a CD that I also had, and something sounded odd to one of us so we played them both, to find they sounded very different. The only discernible difference was that one said it was pressed in Germany, the other in the UK. If you could get that difference between two CDs, comparisons of different media seemed a bit pointless.

It would be easy to point to the faults of early years of digital, but personally I think that is relevant and consideration should be of decent systems today (otherwise compare early analogue with early digital)

Apart from surface noise, certainly on a proprtion of LPs there is deliberate dynamic range compression. Also LPs have the effect of RIAA emphasis/de-emphasis, however these may differ in perfect match. Also the effective decreasing groove speed and increasing angle of incidence across a side will have a progressive effect on sound.  

Against that, DACs perhaps are more variable in quality than are phono amp stages, for example with some certainly excelling in soundstage and clarity but others not, though I don't know what exactly in the DAC accounts for such differnces.

Loki posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

Long live vinyls!!!!

Odinn requested that I take issue with this 21st century anomalous classification. Records, LPs or Long Players please. Do we play plastic coated silver foils? or binaries? iron oxides? Even 78s aren't referred to as Shellacs. IRMC

Well... Heimdall did let this one through, so I though I was OK

Think about the two replay interfaces. A CD has less inherent variation to faithfully transfer the signal from the disc to the DAC. Vinyl has a highly variable mechanical interface between the disc and the stylus. The vinyl interface varies vertically (how flat is the LP) and horizontally (the stylus really only plays optimally in a narrow band near the center of the LP). Grooves vary in width and depth. Add to that variations in cutting lathes used for LP mastering, the pressing quality and different thicknesses of LPs, and that the quality of the vinyl itself is not standard. Now consider that each stylus/cartridge is unique in how it tracks the groove.

Bottom line for me is that certain LPs play incredibly well on my gear. The stylus seems to gel perfectly with the message cut into the grooves. Play this same LP on another TT/stylus and results could change. CDs on the other hand will play largely for how they were recorded and mastered.

Another factor here, if the CD is as old as Lindsay's, is that early mastering for CD was often pretty rough and ready. For CDs that really matter to me, I look into the different remasterings available.

This was dramatically demonstrated for me recently by Rickie Lee Jones' first album. Spurred on by a recent review of the different available versions in HiFi News, I bought the Japanese HMCD pressing for which the original tapes were used to remaster for the HMCD. The difference between that and the regular CD is totally stunning. Mind you a LP-loving friend who has the LP, the original CD and borrowed my HMCD says the LP sounds different again, but he isn't sure whether he prefers my HMCD or his  LP.

best

David

Over time I have found also that I have a number of albums on both CD and vinyl. This is due to a combination of mistake and intent. Previously I owned a Rega P5 and CDX2-XPS2 as sources. At this time, in 9 out of 10 cases I preferred the vinyl source. This was surprising to me given the price differential between the 2 players. The P5 had the standard Super Elys (blue one anyway) cartridge and the phono was a humble Stageline with Hicap. Well before DR days too.

At the time I put this down to the simple conclusion that it was easier to get vinyl 90% right than CD replay. There was no science to this thinking on my part. No comparing different masterings and suchlike. It was only when I changed out the CD end to CDS3 that I felt that CD replay, on my system, was superior.

I still have the CDS3, now with 555PS. I also now have the RP8 (Apheta) with Supercapped Superline. How do they compare now? Well they are different. I feel vinyl shades it still but just. This given that I am still trying to find my preferred combination of load settings for the cartridge. In the meantime, the 252/300 have become 552/500. I guess I am getting just about all out the two sources now. It is a pretty close race now and not so simple as A is better than B. I do tend to buy more vinyl now so this may be a clue from my subconscious. I shall remain on the fence then.

Dave

My LP-12 is decisively better than my CDS3/555PS. It just sounds more like music and less like a stereo.

I just DRed the PS. That may narrow the gap after some burn-in.

I have some terrible sounding records (mostly newer ones) and have heard some superb streams, I dont have a CDP anymore.  It is all down to the mastering but all things being equal my vinyl set up always, always, always sounds better than anything I have ever heard streamed or can remember owning on CD, IT IS ALWAYS BIGGER, WIDER and more real sounding, the 282/200 I own was made for analogue music reproduction and so that is what I use it for.  Having said that I love the convenience that my streamer brings and the access to new music from wider range of genre's has been an education and opened my musical horizons no end but when I find something I really like I buy it on vinyl and more often than not it sounds better.

I agree with Bob. The CDS3 is probably technically better, it is a lovely player. I listened to it very happily for a couple of years, a brief vinyl sabatical. But I have returned to the black stuff, it is simply more listenable, engaging, natural, connecting. Its not perfect but I can listen louder and for longer. Nuff said. I play the CDS for background music mainly...

Stu

Thanks guys for the comments.   A couple of years ago whilst waiting for Jeff Beck to take the stage a friend asked me what was the most important component of a hi-Fi and my somewhat flippant response was "the performance". 

Right now listening to the amazing Joshua Rifkin playing the Joplin rags on CD and it's sublime.  

Regards,

Lindsay

For me it depends on the quality of the recording.  I have albums that sound better on my RP8 and albums that sound better through my Hugo - I also have some that I would be hard pressed to tell apart.  The very best recordings I own are an original Bob Dylan album in mono on vinyl  which is stunningly realistic and a 24 196 Flac version of What A Wonderful World which is equally realistic.  I have pretty dire recordings on both media.  

joerand posted:

Think about the two replay interfaces. A CD has less inherent variation to faithfully transfer the signal from the disc to the DAC. Vinyl has a highly variable mechanical interface between the disc and the stylus. The vinyl interface varies vertically (how flat is the LP) and horizontally (the stylus really only plays optimally in a narrow band near the center of the LP). Grooves vary in width and depth. Add to that variations in cutting lathes used for LP mastering, the pressing quality and different thicknesses of LPs, and that the quality of the vinyl itself is not standard. Now consider that each stylus/cartridge is unique in how it tracks the groove.

Bottom line for me is that certain LPs play incredibly well on my gear. The stylus seems to gel perfectly with the message cut into the grooves. Play this same LP on another TT/stylus and results could change. CDs on the other hand will play largely for how they were recorded and mastered.

CDs are not quite like that. There is software involved that reads the data and corrects for any errors in it; these could be caused by manufacturing errors or that strawberry jam you got on the playing surface. The software can correct for most damage on the disk, except for the most serious, because error correction information is also built on to the CD.

I used to run a CD copying business and had first class CD analysis hardware/software and I was surprised how many errors were reported on a brand new CD straight out of its cellophane wrapper. I also had software that would play a CD to recover from very serious errors, copy "good" data away to a second CD.

The error correction is why you don't hear the pops and crackles you might get out of an LP.

MediaMagician posted:

joerand posted:

Think about the two replay interfaces. A CD has less inherent variation to faithfully transfer the signal from the disc to the DAC. Vinyl has a highly variable mechanical interface between the disc and the stylus. The vinyl interface varies vertically (how flat is the LP) and horizontally (the stylus really only plays optimally in a narrow band near the center of the LP). Grooves vary in width and depth. Add to that variations in cutting lathes used for LP mastering, the pressing quality and different thicknesses of LPs, and that the quality of the vinyl itself is not standard. Now consider that each stylus/cartridge is unique in how it tracks the groove.

Bottom line for me is that certain LPs play incredibly well on my gear. The stylus seems to gel perfectly with the message cut into the grooves. Play this same LP on another TT/stylus and results could change. CDs on the other hand will play largely for how they were recorded and mastered.

CDs are not quite like that. There is software involved that reads the data and corrects for any errors in it; these could be caused by manufacturing errors or that strawberry jam you got on the playing surface. The software can correct for most damage on the disk, except for the most serious, because error correction information is also built on to the CD.

I used to run a CD copying business and had first class CD analysis hardware/software and I was surprised how many errors were reported on a brand new CD straight out of its cellophane wrapper. I also had software that would play a CD to recover from very serious errors, copy "good" data away to a second CD.

The error correction is why you don't hear the pops and crackles you might get out of an LP.

And this is where playing a locally stored file ('streaming') scores, because it doesn't need and doesnt have that error correction circuitry, or the resultant 'mends' of the data

The "resultant mends" should be completely impossible to see because that is how error correction works. But there is a processing load involved in parity checking and so on which might be better avoided.

best

David

Interesting - so Xerxes/Dynavector/Superline/282/250DR/Kudos effortless, cavernous soundstage, completely realistic presentation.    CDS3/XPS warm, smooth, detailed but more limited soundstage, less natural presentation.  So should I have the CDS3 updated - still on original laser - and DR the XPS or go for a 555DR?

Or just accept it for what it is?

Regards,

Lindsay

At your level of system Lindsay, have you thought of looking at an NDS and comparing it to the Vinyl front end ?

I just had my CDS3 re-lasered. There is no reason to do this unless your old one is failing. The new one apparently sounds the same. Mine was rejecting 15-20% of the CDs I put in, so it was time.

james n posted:

At your level of system Lindsay, have you thought of looking at an NDS and comparing it to the Vinyl front end ?

James - have heard the NDS several times and to be honest it's left me somewhat cold compared with the CDS3    I've got to rationalise here and remember if I hadn't chosen to compare a record with its CD equivalent I wouldn't be in this place. In truth I should take the medicine we so often prescribe in these circumstances - forget about it and enjoy the music

Ah ok, understood about the NDS - Yes, your last sentence sums it up nicely 

David Hendon posted:

The "resultant mends" should be completely impossible to see because that is how error correction works. 

Not becessarily. IiUC it will fill in with its best "guess" as to what is missing, which might not be precisely the same as the original recording. Others who know more of the error correction process than I do are of coypurse free to correct me.

Innocent Bystander posted:

David Hendon posted:

The "resultant mends" should be completely impossible to see because that is how error correction works. 

Not becessarily. IiUC it will fill in with its best "guess" as to what is missing, which might not be precisely the same as the original recording. 

Only if it can't correct the error. 

james n posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

David Hendon posted:

The "resultant mends" should be completely impossible to see because that is how error correction works. 

Not becessarily. IiUC it will fill in with its best "guess" as to what is missing, which might not be precisely the same as the original recording. 

Only if it can't correct the error. 

Yes -but with real-time reading of discs that can and does happen, sometimes rarely, sometimes less so.