Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

laweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 30 posts

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#21

Post by sova »

qq66 wrote: post #7

As a vinyl enthusiast, I find claims of vinyl's superior "sound qualitY" (whatever that means) to be laughable. A CD can clearly outreproduce a vinyl even the first time you play the vinyl record -- by the fifth time you're playing the vinyl record it's clearly inferior from a technical perspective. The thing that's fun about vinyl is that it feels more like a physical artifact -- each one sounds different, the album…

Not to mention that watching a circular tile spin at a rate slow enough to actually track with your eyes has a certain beauty to it.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#22

Post by mirimir »

ectoplasm wrote: post #8

Alright, so the reasons I've heard over the years that vinyl sounds better are: a) the high-frequency roll-off starts at 15 kHz; b) the needle vibrates which smooths out the sound and provides warmth; c) the needle melts the vinyl at the molecular level which also smooths out the sound and provides warmth; d) the needle picks up feedback from the room; e) not all vinyl is created equal, you get a lot more quality out…

> j) depending on the type of music, the mastering won't be targeting mp3 players with earbuds but instead big club systems, so if you have good speakers, it might be easier to find the mastering you want on vinyl.

For me, the worst thing about vinyl was feedback. I love subsonics at concert levels, and it's virtually impossible to isolate turntables well enough. Back in the day, it was my practice to copy vinyl to tape, and then just play tapes. That also protected vinyl against wear and crud.

CDs aren't perfect either. Mixing can be tweaked with software, however. Also, for some genres it's possible to get multi-channel WAV that's readily mixable.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#23

Post by WalterBright »

dandrews wrote: post #9
smegel wrote: post #4

It may sound "better", but I find it lacks the warmth and depth that vinyl provides. Edit: /s. Sigh.

"Warmth" and "depth" seem imprecise to me. Do those words have quantifiable meaning to an audiophile?

warmth = the warp your record acquires when it gets warm. Mild warp (warmth) means the sound speeds up and slows down as it rides the hills and valleys. More warp (warmth) is the gap in sound as the needle achieves that coveted liftoff effect. "Warmth" can also happen when the manufacturer punches the center hole off-center, a depressingly common characteristic. Also known as "Doppler shift".

Depth = when the grooves are too close together and exceed a certain depth, you can simultaneously time travel both forwards and backwards in the music by about 2 seconds. This quantum "depth" effect is most prized.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#24

Post by mirimir »

WalterBright wrote: post #19
ectoplasm wrote: post #8

Alright, so the reasons I've heard over the years that vinyl sounds better are: a) the high-frequency roll-off starts at 15 kHz; b) the needle vibrates which smooths out the sound and provides warmth; c) the needle melts the vinyl at the molecular level which also smooths out the sound and provides warmth; d) the needle picks up feedback from the room; e) not all vinyl is created equal, you get a lot more quality out…

> the needle picks up feedback from the room But that's a bad thing. I learned to isolate the turntable from the speakers when playing disco. Also, had to walk softly else the needle would skip.

Yes! Also, random noise can trigger asymptotic feedback at high levels. And asymptotic feedback tends to blow out amps and speakers.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#25

Post by ectoplasm »

DanBC wrote: post #12
ectoplasm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would get 10-12 minutes of music on a side instead of 30 so the grooves are wider and thus higher fidelity.

You get longer playtime than a 7" single. 12" singles were only ever marketed for extended remixes - longer play time than a 7" single but cheaper than a 33 1/3 RPM album. Do you have any ads for 12" singles that talk about better sound quality?

Okay, maybe some unintuitive pizza math works here.

7" 45 rpm record, about 4.5 minutes max. Center label is 4". Label area = pi * 4^2 = 50.27 in^2. Total record area = pi * 7^2 = 153.94 in^2. Playable area (max, ignoring runout and edge) = 153.94 - 50.27 = 103.67 in^2. Call it 100 in^2.

12" 33 rpm single, about 12 minutes max. Center label is 4". Label area = 50.27 in^2. Total record area = pi * 12^2 = 452.39 in^2. Playable area = 452.39 - 50.27 = 402.12 in^2. Call it 400 in^2.

So, the 12" record has 400/100 = 4x as much space, but the playtime is 12 / 4.5 = 2.7x. For the remainder, you get quality. If the 7" record was 33rpm and you had about 7 minutes max, then 12/7 = 1.7x, which means even more room for quality improvements.

In general, you can trade play time for quality when cutting vinyl. If your grooves are at the maximum width, to the point that you'd leave substantial uncut vinyl between them to fill up the track width on your record, then you can get even more quality by moving from 33rpm to 45rpm because now a longer length of groove contains the same length of sound. All else considered, 12" 7-minute 45rpm sounds very good.

And also, I know the original reference was to disco, but new 12" singles are still being released, sometimes exclusively on vinyl. It slowed down, but it never stopped. Sorry, no ads, just personal experience.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#26

Post by ectoplasm »

mirimir wrote: post #24
WalterBright wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the needle picks up feedback from the room But that's a bad thing. I learned to isolate the turntable from the speakers when playing disco. Also, had to walk softly else the needle would skip.

Yes! Also, random noise can trigger asymptotic feedback at high levels. And asymptotic feedback tends to blow out amps and speakers.

The best general purpose solution I've seen is suspending turntables on wide elastic bands. An isolated booth also works.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#27

Post by DanBC »

WalterBright wrote: post #15
DanBC wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12" singles were about extended play time, not about bass.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. I own many disco ones, and the bass is what they're for. The grooves are spread out and it frequently runs at 45 rpm. It's pretty obvious if you listen to one vs the 33 version.

Feel free to show any industry material promoting the sound quality of 12" 45rpm. They were only ever pushed as having more content than a 7" 45rpm.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#28

Post by ArkyBeagle »

WalterBright wrote: post #20

Does anyone believe Neil Young, an aging rocker, can actually hear the difference? Old age + decades of loud music = hearing loss

Neil Young does not understand mathematics based on the Fourier Transform, especially sampling theory.

Pono is also how he wants his legacy to be "archived". He does have quite the body of work.

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#29

Post by ectoplasm »

DanBC wrote: post #27
WalterBright wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. I own many disco ones, and the bass is what they're for. The grooves are spread out and it frequently runs at 45 rpm. It's pretty obvious if you listen to one vs the 33 version.

Feel free to show any industry material promoting the sound quality of 12" 45rpm. They were only ever pushed as having more content than a 7" 45rpm.

The non-existence of ads on the internet from 40 years ago is not a validation of your universal claim. Second, people still press 12" 45 rpm singles, why would they do that when 33 rpm is available?

Here's something written by an engineer:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/why-45-rpm-great-45-rp...

Re: Why CDs May Sound Better Than Vinyl

#30

Post by WalterBright »

DanBC wrote: post #27
WalterBright wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. I own many disco ones, and the bass is what they're for. The grooves are spread out and it frequently runs at 45 rpm. It's pretty obvious if you listen to one vs the 33 version.

Feel free to show any industry material promoting the sound quality of 12" 45rpm. They were only ever pushed as having more content than a 7" 45rpm.

My 12" single of "Ipanema" from the B-52s is 3:58. The album version is 4:24.

My 12" single of "I'm So Excited" by the Pointer Sisters is 3:47. The album version is 3:53.

I doubt that'll convince you, either. But I recommend that you actually obtain a 12" disco single from the late 70's and a 45 and compare with your own ears. It's also fun to look at the difference in the grooves with a magnifying glass.

Post reply on HN