<p>I haven’t listened to an album in probably 20 + years. I pulled out my old albums today and when I put the first one on, I thought it sounded really fantastic. Am I imagining that my old albums sound better than my cds or mp3 files? Maybe I’m just nostalgic!</p>
<p>Vinyl is the preferred choice for audiophiles as it is considered to capture the best sound quality for a recording. Especially if it’s brand new.*</p>
<p>CDs come in second, but are not perfect representations of original recording due to format compromises to fit the CD-audio format. Audiophiles who adore vinyl feel the CD format lacks warmth and feels cold & sharp. </p>
<p>mp3s are great for convenience, but sacrifice more quality compared to the CD for the sake of saving space. It’s a reason why it’s considered a lossy audio/video file format. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that the audiophiles who feel they can hear great differences tend to be folks willing to spend heavily to get the highest end hi-fi stereo system they can get for their money. </p>
<ul>
<li>Laser ones are available to avoid wearing out the grooves, but they’re a bit on the expensive side.</li>
</ul>
<p>Albums. I didn’t realize how much cd’s degrade over a short time.</p>
<p><a href=“agogified.com”>agogified.com;
<p>If you have never listened to music through great headphones (like Bose) it is an awakening to hear a song you think you have heard before. It is amazing. Amazing. Did I say amazing?</p>
<p>You guys must have better ears than me.
When I read about Neil Young coming up with an improved digital player that sounded like vinyl, all I could think was “Neil, didn’t you go naked to hear The Who with everyone else?”</p>
<p>Yes, vinyl>CD>Mp3 for sound (the opposite direction for convenience). There are also hi rez formats that come close to vinyl: SACD, DVD-audio, and Blu-ray DTS-HD. The first two require specialized players, so Blu-ray is probably the future. There are also lossless digital formats, such as flac, but I am really not up on those. Equipment does makes a big difference, but audiophiles consider the source to be key, there are poorly mastered vinyl and brilliantly mastered CDs. Some new vinyl is mastered from digital sources and are no better sounding than the equivalent CDs. Unfortunately, a high end set up will reveal the flaws in the recording, so garbage in, garbage out. Audiophiles joke about those among us that have a $100K system, but only about a dozen recordings that sound good on it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just getting all that info from audiophile friends…including some gigging musicians. </p>
<p>Also, for most of us, it’s not necessarily the ears, but also the level of stereo equipment were using to listen to all this music.</p>
<p>If one has a setup of an vinyl obsessed audiophile, one can hear some differences…especially those with “golden ears”. </p>
<p>If you’re listening to it on a low-mid hi-fi stereo setup or worse…a budget/midend boombox, most computer speakers, or most earphones except the very high end, you’re unlike to notice much differences between vinyl and CD or CD and mp3 unless the mp3 was encoded at an extremely low bit-rate, settings of encoder/encoding process was screwed up, or the mp3 encoder was crappy to begin with. </p>
<p>I’d also doubt you’d hear much difference between them on media players/adapters through a typical 3.5 mm minijack unless those earphones are high end indeed. </p>
<p>
Funny enough, as I write this, I am listening to Neil Young’s archive set on Blu-ray. I have one of the first SACD players and a DVD-audo/Blu-Ray player. (along with a high end turntable, of course). I honestly don’t see pono catching on.</p>
<p>First… in sceintific testing, the audio engineering society was not able to find ANYONE… not a single person… who could tell the difference from an audio CD vs. SACD. They tested for over a year. </p>
<p>The Pono player will have the same audio specs as SACD. Thus, Pono is unneecessary and snake oil. Thus, all “high resolution” audio is also snake oil. Nobody in testing could hear a difference! Sure many audiophiles SAID they could, but in testing… NOPE. </p>
<p>Second… vinyl has lower dynamic range, more noise, and less bass AND treble than a CD. You might prefer the sound of vinyl, as it does sound different, but a CD sounds much closer to the studio recording. In order to get the grooves to work properly with a tonearm, you have to remove bass (and stereo separation in lower frequencies). You also need to roll off treble. PLUS, here is the BEST thing… for the last couple decades, just about ALL vinyl is CUT through a DIGITAL delay… in other words, it goes through the digital audio process anyway. </p>
<p>CDs are indeed “perfect” representations of audio, within the realm of human hearing. Humans at best hear up to 20khz… and that is for young people. As people get older, they hearing tops out at much lower frequencies, depending on many factors like how many loud concerts we went to and how loud we listen to our earbuds. But most of us over 40 can’t hear above 15khz or even lower. </p>
<p>So all these higher frequences that people complain about not hearing in a CD are actually NOT hearable! </p>
<p>The joke you hear from some people is these so called “higher resoltuion” files come closer to vinyl. That is a joke. Vinyl is closest in frequency response to a CD. A CD has far better dynamic range that vinyl (or tape). A CD has more dynamic range by far than your living room. </p>
<p>These “higher resolution” files add two things… they add higher frequencies that you CANNOT hear, and they add additional dynamic range that is well beyond the dynamic range of your living room and even your hearing. Those things are BOTH FURTHER AWAY from vinyl BTW… this is completely incorrect. </p>
<p>As far as an MP3 goes, lower bit rate MP3 is definitely lower quality and noticable. But again… very few people can pick out a 320kbps audio file vs. a CD in blind testing. For the great majority, and I mean 99%+ of us, there is no audible difference. 256kbps AAC audio (offered by iTunes and Amazon) are similar quality to 320kbps MP3. </p>
<p>Don’t get caught up in the audiophile BS. There are people who spend thousands of dollars on cables, and it is snake oil. Music is an art, meant to be enjoyed as inspiration, to make us laugh, cry, etc. None of this stuff matters that much… just enjoy the music! Don’t get caught up in the cycle of people who just want to separate you from your money. </p>
<p>^^^
Dislike.
This is a similar debate to the ones here on private colleges vs. state schools. </p>
<p>All I know is that if I accidentally have an SACD on the CD setting (and my player is too far to see that in the seated position), i can generally tell something’s lacking in the sound. Believe me, if I hooked my Ipod into my system, ANYONE with normal hearing could tell the difference.</p>
<p>Double blind testing of subjective experiences Is a dubious endeavor at best. The same goes for wine tastings, cigars, automobiles, etc. There are many more suitable places on the internet to debate sound and audiophiles who can respond with much better than I can here.</p>
<p>We will have to respectfully agree to disagree I’m afraid @audiophile. </p>
<p>Double blind testing is really the only way you can eliminate confirmation bias out of the equation. If you aren’t aware of confirmation bias, it’s worth an investigation. We are all subject to it. It’s pretty fascinating! Even when we KNOW it’s there we can’t really eliminate it. </p>
<p>This debate on audio is completely unlike private vs. state schools. There is no single objective criteria that one can use to decide on a school. When it comes to audio, “do I hear a difference” in a/b/x testing is something that can be easily tested, based on sound scientific principle. </p>
<p>I don’t deny there may be things we don’t know about audio, but we know ultrasonics cannot be heard by the ear. Maybe there is a different mechanism where that is transferred? I will go with the known science, and if it’s later proven I’m wrong (even though it hasn’t happend in decades) I’m happy to change my mind. </p>
<p>You might also be interested in the study that just came out that showed concert violinists tended to prefer newer instruments to Stradivarius violins worth millions… and couldn’t reliably pick out the Strads vs. the new ones. Confirmation bias is HUGE. None of us are immune! </p>
<p>More on the study here: <a href=“Blind playoff of Stradivarius violins and new ones leaves old Italians a little flat | Science | The Guardian”>http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/08/violin-stradivarius-old-new-better-scientific-test</a></p>
<p>Enjoy the music! Don’t get caught up in the details, just allow it to wash over you and inspire you/move you. </p>
<p>@psalcal,
Agree with your last statement. I am a music lover first and foremost and an audiophile by default. However, a/b/x testing is generally with snippets of music out of necessity, not long term listening enjoyment (OK, that’s certainly subjective!)</p>
<p>On these forums, members are constantly bringing up studies to debate the elite vs. public college option. No one’s mind is ever changed here, either. ;)</p>
<p>There’s no reason why a/b/x testing can’t be done with full songs or even full albums… if people think that would make a difference, then they should try it! That’s the awesome part about the world we live in… it’s so easy to try these things yourself. </p>
<p>Doing an a/b/x test is super simple for anyone who has a computer. There are free apps you can download, and you can choose any source files you want, pretty sure regardless of how long they are. </p>
<p>Again, the difference is there is no way to objectively decide on the criteria for one college vs. another, so a debate can’t be held with a definitive scientific answer.</p>
<p>The question of whether someone can hear the difference between two different audio delivery mechanisms can be easily and definitively determined with specific measurable criteria. It can be known absolutely. </p>
<p>Remember those commercials- “Is it live or is it Memorex?” This discussion reminded me of that! Whether I can actually hear a difference or am just imagining a difference, I’ve had fun listening to Dan Fogelberg, Bruce Springsteen, Journey, etc. from my younger days and also Beethoven, Chopin, Haydn, etc. from my grandmother’s collection. Just the process of using a turntable makes me feel young again. Now if I go find my old phone with the long curly cord, I could plug that in - and see if the sound is also better than on my cordless. :)</p>
<p>There was a show about this topic on NPR a while back – <a href=“Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not : NPR”>Why Vinyl Sounds Better Than CD, Or Not : NPR; </p>
<p>Remember when the argument was over speakers? The things that actually produce the sound matter more than the medium in which the sound is encoded. I’m floored when I see the kinds of things being sold now, bluetooth speakers and the like that sound like crap compared to real speakers. But that changed a while back when people started to plug those lousy Altec-Lansing et al things into computers. </p>
<p>Speaking of turntables, my youngest wants a semi portable turntable and speakers for graduation.
She will be playing some of my vinyl, so it has to be decent. ( she isnt coming home, she has a job on the other side of the mountains)
Smallish speakers though, not Towers.</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-turntable/]This[/url”>The 5 Best Turntables and Record Players of 2023 | Reviews by Wirecutter]This[/url</a>] is a very good choice for a turntable. It’s about $230.</p>
<p>I put away my turntable when a cat started using it as a pathway to a higher seat. It was a thing of beauty with an exquisite arm and cartridge. </p>
<p>DH swears vinyl is the best for sound quality. Of course then that sound has to go through the speakers which are his real passion. He rescues those old big wooden speakers and restores them to their former glory :-* </p>
<p>He will tell you that different speakers are preferred for different types of music as well. </p>
<p>I listen to the car radio LOL.</p>
<p>What about scratches? Despite my best efforts I sometimes got scratches on my vinyl but CDs don’t scratch so easily since they are protected by the player when playing? Doesn’t that mean CD beats vinyl after several years of ownership all other things being equal?</p>
<p>I’m perfectly content to listen to music on my mp3 or computer with my Beats headphones. Sounds good to me!</p>