hairy_hen said:
These kinds of differences are due almost entirely to the quality of the masters used, and the different techniques used in mixing the albums. There is nothing wrong with the CD format in and of itself, and there is no reason why a CD copy from an identical master should not outperform a vinyl version.
The fact that it often does not is a reflection on how badly the format tends to be abused by so-called engineers or producers who do not understand how to properly use equalization or compression. It does not mean that CD sound is inherently bad, or that vinyl is automatically better simply by being vinyl. The superior quality or 'life' is usually due to the fact that it was a good recording that was allowed to pass through to the end medium without being screwed up somewhere along the way. Frequently CD versions do get screwed up by being made to appeal to the lowest common denominator (ie, forced to be crazy loud), and the sound quality suffers for it. But CD's that are mixed and mastered well can sound every bit as good as vinyl, and quite possibly better depending on the source and the equipment used.
Older CD's cannot be used as an accurate measure of the format's quality, because early analog-to-digital converters were crap and put a lot of distortion into the sound. With newer converters this is no longer a significant issue.
The sample rate doesn't have a whole lot to do with it, because the Nyquist theorem clearly shows that all audible detail within the range of human hearing can be represented within the CD bandwidth. Top-notch conversion is needed to ensure there are no artifacts, which is why higher sample rates can sometimes be beneficial (lesser converters have an easier time with them), but the main reason to record at a high sample rate is to capture ultrasonic frequencies, which are usually low-pass filtered out of vinyl anyway.
I'm not attacking vinyl as a medium; I grew up with it, and have a lot of appreciation for it. But some of the mythical properties attributed to it don't have a whole lot of basis in fact, and I am interested in understanding why things actually sound the way they do. Without making direct, level-matched comparisons of the same recording from the same master on different end mediums, general statements about which is better don't actually mean a whole lot.
Absolutely!. Take a Telarc classical recording on CD, or even better SACD, and tell me it doesn't sound like you are right there in the concert hall.
I have a pretty large vinyl collection, as well as a CD collection. Many records I have on CD, I have on vinyl as well. My appreciation from vinyl came for my love of Big Band music. You'd have a hard time finding a cd version that sounds better than an early vinyl release, because the cd version usually a vinyl rip. Then when they started using magnetic tape to record around the early 50's, that's when I say, get the CD version of that record.
It's like people that buy these Gibson Les Paul's or SGs and because the guitar is made out of the most expensive wood, it will sound better than an identical model made out of a cheap wood. Same pickups, hardware, wiring, pots, and amp. The companies have been saying that for years to the point where people actually believe it now.
If vinyl was the better medium, the big classical companies would be jumping on the bandwagon with all the hipster labels.
Sometimes, I listen to MP3, because an album that Rick Rubin helmed, isn't gonna sound better on any format.
I think both formats have their charm, but I will always pick digital for classical, unless it's that early digital, where the cellos sound rubbery.
