Argueably the CD is 'better' yeah yeah except perhaps bandwidth.
Most people, however, LOVE certain types of 'distortion' or should I say addition or alteration of the original music. Such as the compression in radio trasnmissions, the non linear behaviour of tube amps without any or much feedback (G2 for instance), LDR vol pot's, compression and other 'improvements' in vinyl, recording with Dolby B and playback without (compression of the highs), addition of noise with a decrease of intenseity the higher the frequency (vinyl, tape), compression by transformers. bad channel separation (FM radio/vinyl/tape)
The funny thing is people call this more dynamic when in fact the dynamics are (highly) compressed. One hears the softer passages more clearly (as they are boosted/increased in volume compared to the louder signals) and thus states the sound is more dynamic when in fact the opposite is true.
When it comes to listening to music it becomes another ballgame as those compressed audio signals may very well be much more enjoyable to listen to including the 'feeling' one gets from the nice looking gear and beautifully crafted machinery of which the workings are understood.
So yes CD is better but vinyl may be nicer to listen to...
Which is better ... for who ? it's all about enjoyment of music, regardless of the medium for some. For others it's all about it being as close as possible to perfect true reproduction of the original signal.
Fully Modded Pssst ! Got any spare capacitors ?
Heh, heh, heh .............., for whatever that were said, the end all standard for me, and in fact any professional mussos or people who have a life with music, are my ears as the mandate. I DO believed in things technical (due to my background) but that wouldn't guarantee to give us things that are closer to LIVE music. We are enjoying more music than you guys boring on "stethoscopes". Alex, btw, you are also part of the hear it regime if I'm not mistaken.
.............., for whatever that were said, the end all standard for me, and in fact any professional mussos or people who have a life with music, are my ears as the mandate.
After reading about all the manipulations and compromises required to put a recording onto vinyl,if you still believe that it sounds like the live performance, all I can say is that you must have had your senses dulled by excessive concert performance sound levels.
Live performances might be a reference, but in practice they often aren't.
As soon as PA systems come into play, damage is done. Often booming bass, no chance in following a bass guitar line, that says enough. It can be done right, but often it is not. Then there are acoustic performances, where you're biased towards the instruments closest to you. If you're lucky you have a nice place in the middle at a reasonable distance that makes s it all perfect. Or you might be lucky enough to have an audio technician who cares and makes you forget there's technique involved, all too seldom.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying vinyl, glowing bottles, LDR volpots and other gear from days long past. If it sounds good to you then just enjoy it and forget all the criticism.
Stating vinyl and glowing bottles, because they sound different (better to some), are better or technically superior is incorrect IMO. Just because one prefers certain types of distortion/addition doesn't make it better, just more preferred or more enjoyable to some. The output simply is not an exact copy of the original input anymore.
Then again... it is the listeners ears/brain/preference that should be the deciding factor not the opinion of others. If added 'distortion' is preferable to those ears so be it, (technically) better it simply is NOT.
I always get an itch when reading this stuff. The argumentation is so off base from both sides.
The bottom line is that discussions about media really do not explain why some people like particular hardware, or even software.
Personally, if the playing is good, I get tremendous pleasure out of that regardless of the click/pop, sterility, compression, bandwidth limitation or any other factor. I can't say that the best analog systems that I have heard are any worse than the finest solid state.
I still can respect the engineers ears looking for the blackest, widest hole with instruments placed with pinpoint precision as much as the audiophile that needs 20 minutes to get the system ready, Fact is, tastes in recording techniques have changed, current technology makes many things more easily modified for low cost. This for sure was not possible in the analog world,
Robin I still have fond memories of my half speed mastered LPs that I bought at HiFi shows. Howevever I don't miss the ritual of cleaning the stylus regularly, and using anti static preparations etc. Around the time that CD arrived, many LPs were absolute crap, with huge amounts of compression to fit more on a side. I suspect that much of the vinyl from back then was recycled stuff too, in an effort to cut costs. Clearly, with later LP releases intended for a well healed Audiophile market, SQ and background noise will have markedly improved due to less cost cutting. The original masters are often used for these later vinyl releases too. It's a shame that the major players don't take note of the resurgence of vinyl in popularity as a lesson learned about what they are presently doing wrong with CD. Anyway, before too long, the old guys still manufacturing TTs will have passed on, and like Mike's beloved VTs, they will be part of history.I just hope that Mike is able to cash in on his growing stash of "fresh from the carton" tubes while he can still enjoy the proceeds ! Alex
One of the biggest problems that early digital had was the resonances (below 30K) from early microphones that were covered up in the LP process. Even current analog recordings benefit greatly from the newer generation microphones designed for better "digital compatibility".