I will have a look at that, thanks

Exactly. the only problem with modern units is that they don't play 78s, but then you need a different stylus for them. Yes, I have got some 78's

At the end of the day, though, isn't it simply down to personal preference?

For example I enjoy listening to vinyl, but I also enjoy CDs, MP3s, and FLAC because they are all formats for listening to audio recordings and for me that is all that matters.

You are right that CD offers a superior sound quality, but these days the vast majority couldn't care less as long as they can cram 2 million MP3s ripped @ 64 kbit/s on to their iPhone.


I've got a Rega P3 and it is a brilliant turntable.


It might be worth looking for a Rega P78, they are specifically designed for playing 78s.

This is their current product: Rega RP78.

Always difficult to jump in on these discussions. I learned years ago that the CD v Vinyl debate is un-winnable.

Suffice to say that I have both, and enjoy both.

The future (if there is such a thing for audio anymore) will be in high res audio - which CD certainly isn't.

It has the greater dynamic range over LP's, but on a good day, with a decently mastered LP and playback system vinyl, far from being warm, has the frequency response to beat CD - which has a block filter at 20kHz.

Except vinyl is unlikely to come even close to 20KHz, and certainly not after a few playings as the high frequencies that were there are soon lost due to the wear.

Each to their own, but measurements don't lie - CD is far more accurate (and longer lasting) than vinyl.

Agree completely with the comments re mastering -- this is where the recordings fall down as opposed to the formats per se.

I would go as far as to say that most recordings made in the last 20 years are unlistenable, due to the range compression that is employed. It is for this reason that some vinyl tends to sound better; the format is incapable of the dynamic range that digital formats have, and as a result the digital masters are abused to take advantage -- but when it came to pressing the vinyl the compression had to be removed due to the format's shortcomings.

I don't know why they do it -- some albums give me a headache they're so badly produced.

Not sure what you mean by the second paragraph.

CD has a far greater dynamic range than vinyl. Therefore it follows that there is less need to compress the dynamic range for CD compared to vinyl. So you would be adding compression to the vinyl master not removing it. That is of course if the master had anything more than a 1dB dynamic range to begin with!

Likewise, I've no idea what he's on about? - he's got it entirely the wrong way round.

Back in the vinyl days you were severely limited in dynamic range, so records were recorded 'as if' they were compressed, no actual compression required because there wasn't a wide dynamic range source to begin with, you simply didn't record a wide dynamic range on the master.

There may be less need but most music nowadays is horrible compressed.

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/compress...ng-your-music/

I agree, wear on vinyl does destroy the top end frequency response. Hence CDs are longer lasting nd is why several serious audiophiles I knew would take their fresh LP and record the first play to reel to reel, preferably half track and certainly at 15ips. Whether the inevitable small amount of tape hiss would compromise that ...... But then of course there was DBX with the additional compromise of encode / decode.

And now we've opened up the can of worms.

At the opposite end of the spectrum CD can more accurately low bass, anyone with less than a stellar turntable trying to reproduce the Telarc recording of the 1812 Overture will remember the stylus flying out of the groove when the cannons fire.

Equally anyone with less than a stellar audio system will remember the damaged speaker cones when the recording was finally released on CD.

Vinyl was, on a good day, and with a PERFECTLY set up turntable /arm/ cartridge combination could expect 25kHz out of vinyl (the odd exception being Shure cartridges, never known for their wide FR) and 30kHz (with admittedly substantial roll off) could be achieved ( the frequency used for CD4).

HOWEVER, I realised many years ago - during the pursuit of increasingly exotic audio - that I was spending more time listening to the HiFi than the music it was reproducing (and countless hours fine tuning turntables). Now I except the limitations of both and instead of spending £1000's on audio components I plough that money into music, and I'm happier for it.

But for anyone interested in music reproduction, the effects of frequency respone and harmonic effects on instruments you can always check out the work of Prof Hawksford at Essex University who did a lot of work in the mid to late eighties on precisely this topic - his ideas where adopted by many audio companies and the APRS.

Digital is the problem, music these days are recorded digital and it certainly loses something, even modern vinyls are not the same as years ago because the original have been converted to digital.


I can tell the difference in my mates studio as he records digitally these days, have done for years. Certainly different to the sound of his older stuff from the 8 track and the desk is still the same, yes it is a very old mixing desk. the only difference is it now recorded and mixed on the computer.

Indeed the need to make the sound punchier for digital devices makes some tracks just awful to listen to.

A great pleasure for me to get the vinyl out and blow my daughter's friends away with a demonstration of the clarity of what a decent hi-fi can produce. Most teenagers have only listened to music through tiny earphones or cheap tin-point speakers.

That's wishful thinking from vinyl-philes. It's perfectly possible to cut a brickwalled clipressed digital master to vinyl, and it's often done these days.

http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php...mastered_to_CD

Here are examples from the same recordings of the same clipping on CD+vinyl, and clipping on CD but not on vinyl...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/ind...dpost&p=816336
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/ind...5&#entry875605
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/ind...dpost&p=875447

From the late 1970s, most vinyl was cut via digital, even analogue recordings...
http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/ind...owtopic=105321

Cheers,
David.

Not sure that can be applied to MOST recordings in the 70's. Certainly I can remember the Mitsubishi X80 digital recorder coming out and Decca proudly demoing it at an APRS junket

However a look at the contemporary LP sleeves at the time of CD release to the general public showed many printed with the fanciful AAA or DDD labelling. Analogue recording, Analogue Mixing, analogue mastering. A few were ADA. CDs, of course were AAD (Analogue mastering, Analogue mixing and of course Digital mastering) and ADD.

it took a few years for DDA (Lp) and DDD (CD) to become prevalent..In the UK the first digital recordings (if memory serves) were made by Decca and EMI in late 1978 and 1979 respectively

That isn't the point.

Most music released since digital mastering became commonplace is mastered specifically to take advantage of every bit of the available range, for every instrument.

As a result, a very high proportion of it just becomes an unlistenable blur of noise. The art of actually mastering recordings such that each instrument can be picked out from the others has been lost.

This isn't a criticism of CD, it's a criticism of the recording studios.

Some vinyl recordings get around this by default, by being effectively down-mastered (some of the "SACD" versions of albums have used these alternate masters to give the illusion of higher quality on the higher-bandwidth formats when in reality there's little difference between the two).

It has got to the point where some CDs sound like 128K MP3 files, with the "bubbling" effect present on complex passages.

Still haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

I said late 1970s, and you didn't read the link, did you?

I guess he's talking about the loudness war, which squashed music into about a 10dB range - quite the opposite of "take advantage of every bit of the available range".

Still, we've had digital mastering for about 30 years. We've had the loudness war since 1995. Classical and Jazz releases are rarely smashed in the mastering process. Hence I'm not sure that it's true that "Most music released since digital mastering became commonplace" is mastered this way. Probably the majority of CDs sold were, given that pop music sells most, and is most likely to have its dynamic smashed - but there are still a heck of a lot of CDs from before 2000, and a lot of slightly less mainstream CDs, that are/were mastered just fine.

Cheers,
David.

Yup. Just missed the word late - I was typing on a phone.

The point still stands. Given that it would have been 1979. VERY late 70's

Fair enough, from 1980. The recording cutting lathes themselves included a digital delay line. Every record cut on the lathe (even from an analogue master) had the signal digitised and stored to memory for a few seconds before hitting the cutting head.

I congratulate you on your user name though

Cheers,
David.

cd was designed to have a much wider dynamic range than vinyl, typically limited to maybe 40dB (without looking that up!). But many cds were reissue of existing analogue tapes, and I don't see how modern recordings could make full use of the full cd dynamic range without blowing yer ears out ......

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/29-vin...digital-audio/

notoriously, the "valve amp sound" is actually odd harmonics distortion .......

where you would go for a reasonable turntable, these days, neither crap nor ridiculously overpriced, I don't know. maybe richer sounds?

Thank you. Not many spot it!

It's where all audio started for me. A good old BSR ST17 "needle" tracking at. oooh, I don't know - several pounds and only three records. The Merseybeats on LP and One Meat Ball, The Beverley Sisters and Cocktails For Two by Spike Jones on 78 (inherited from my father.

Dan

It's actually even harmonics and as with vinyl that gives the "comforting" sound, odd harmonics are quite unpleasant. That assumes the valve amp is class A as it's the crossover distortion associated with class AB that mostly causes odd harmonics and from memory that was the scourge of early and cheaper transistor amps.

I never realised Richer sounds had a store in Cheltenham and one in Cardiff. Both close and easy enough for me to get to, i can have a listen to he products I am looking at.
Also be a few hours out.

I agree entirely,getting married can be a mistake.