Thanks John and Logan,
I guess this is yet another daily reminder that I am still learning. I never would have imagined that an LP could produce sound preferable to that of a CD. Now, I wish I'd hung onto more of my LPs.
John H
Well, there are several opinions AND viewpoints on this. Number one, not everyone thinks digital is inferior (count me among those). Objectively speaking it ain't, either, regardless of what and how you measure (dynamic range & frequency range reproduced, various types of distortion, etc.). Add to that the inherent stability, durability, storability, user-friendliness, cost of acquisition & maintenance, availability etc. of the medium and for many you have a winner at hand. Second, in the early going they didn't quite know how to make digital recordings yet, hence the "bad" sound of the early DDD issues. Nothing inherent about the medium in this, the same was true for the early stereo and the early DSD/MC as well. Things improve. (How long did it take to get the monaural techniques honed to the level by which we now know them in our recollections? 50 years?) Third, there are psychoacoustic phenomena that may be responsible for the preference that many show for their old LPs. Analog had lots (and I mean LOOOTS) of various types of distortion which is entirely lacking in the digital format and may be what makes people prefer the "analog sound." So it wouldn't be more accurate but in fact less accurate (more distorted) but people for some reason like "the sound" of that distortion. Certain kind of harmonic distortion gives a feeling of there being more "air" in the upper range, for instance. That distortion can also be the product of the playback equipment. The distortion is then not there in the music, it's not there in the signal feed, it's not there in the master tapes (or comparable), but it's introduced in it by the analog playback rig. In a somewhat similar fashion some people prefer 78 rpm monos. This medium simply contains so little information (compared to PCM digital and SACD especially) that it's really nicer and easier ("smoother") to listen to, claim some. Fourth, there is the force of habit. We all grew up with the sound of our LPs and even 78s, and that's how we learned to recognize a good sound and know our music by. Digital is simply so much more accurate to the original signal feed and so much greater dynamic range (the difference between the quietest and the loudest sounds) and frequency range (the lowest and the highest sound produced) that it can simply be a bit "disturbing" to listen to, in your own living room where you are habituated to the limitations of the LP medium.
So I'd say anyone can have a preference, but to talk about the "better" sound of LPs to my ears is just nonsensical, unless it's heavily qualified somehow. It simply isn't any better, no matter how you look at it; but it may be "nicer" in several ways. And in many cases it's also not about the product itself but about what the playback chain that you own does to it.
Comparisons are very dubious unless there is careful enough level matching (in blind tests people *always* prefer the sound that is even a little bit louder), the switch component (A/B) is reliable, and the test is really blind (not even the switcher knows what he/she is switching to, so as to be unable to give unconscious signals to the testee).
Anyway, if you take almost any of the current PCM recordings (have you heard what they can do these days? Try for example the new Pollini/Mozart cto recordings, or the Boulez Mahler 2, whatever), I doubt you can maintain it's inferior to anything you've heard in the past, including SACD. Interestingly, to date there hasn't been one single blind test in which the listeners could have reliably been able to tell apart a hi-rez recording from a normal PCM variant of the same, when all other conditions were controlled.
I'm also tickled by the ease by which a very large number of the analog fans are now making the transition to hard disc based systems. That's the same digital as in your CD but without the aluminum around it.
But this is really another discussion.
PT
Perhaps objectivity is in the eye of the beholder on this one. Sure, compact discs are more widely availably, and I can't imagine even the most absolute analog fan disagreeing. I'll grant you the advantage of storability, but cost? As I said earlier, I picked up Mehta's Mahler Fifth for a quarter. You'd be hard pressed to find anything on CD, even by the Novosibirsk Philharmonic for that price. So I don't quite understand your cost point.
An important reminder for the vinyl vs. compact disc debate is that it is NOT always analog vs. digital...although for some it is. For me, some Telarc digitally recorded LPs slay their CD counterpart. I prefer the Slatkin M1 and the Cleveland Winds Holst Suites recordings to their CD equivalents. And it's not because of any "distortion."
Unlike a few vinyl disciples, I'd never say "chuck your cds." But in certain cases I think many would agree that a well-engineered LP beats a poorly or indifferently remastered CD. And sometimes even on equal footing, a record can have an edge.
At the very least, remastering can goof up a good recording, whatever the format. Now, perhaps theres no absolute truth in any of this, but I'll share an example of why I'm sometimes fed up with the "new improved" sound. Karajan's DG account of Respighi's Pines of Rome is one of my favorite party records because he brings out the so-called buccine in the last movement to such prominent levels. The first cd incarnation, and the LP, had them really loud to nearly train horn levels. Cool stuff. The "better" DG Originals account, hyped because of the "careful attention of the tonmeister" (if I remember the blurb correctly) made them much more polite. I had to track down the LP for the proper sound. Now, how do we know that the tonmeister is "wrong?" Because Herb's Philharmonia account has almost equally obnoxious buccine. He very clearly wanted this part brought out.
In the end, those who want to stick to CDs or digitial downloads or whatever comes down the road, should. But newer, faster, or more user-friendly isn't always better, just as microwaved food generally doesn't taste better than a home-cooked meal. Vinyl can be a nice alternative, and until EVERYTHING is accessible, is a nice way to hear stuff that's out of the current catalogs.
