Old vs. New

David Pennybaker · Post by **David Pennybaker** » 30 Oct 2000 7:51 am

We need a new topic of debate, so I'm gonna start one. (suckered ya in with the subject line, didnt' I?

)

Old = vinyl LP's
New = compact discs

Which is better, and why?

My vote is for the CD. Much more convenenient and durable. And it sounds the same whether I'm playing it for the 1st time for the 100th time.

Any "warmth" that the LP's had (which is really just distortion, IMHO) is very soon lost amidst scratches and pops.

To defend my position that an LP's warmth is just distortion, Carver used to make a high-dollar CD player (like $1,000 for a single-disk, no frills player) that had a tube section in it to add that "warmth" (distortion). PS - I'm not saying a little "warmth" (distortion) sounds bad or isn't musical -- I'm just calling it what it is.

I prefer the crystal clear music from the CD. No pops, scratches, or "warmth" (except what's added by the producers of the album).

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

Frank Venters · Post by **Frank Venters** » 30 Oct 2000 9:04 am

David, I'm so glad you love the clear sounds of your CD's. I started at an early age with 78's, then they came out with the 45's, which meant a new record player. Then RCA came out with an automatic 45 changer player, which I had to plug into my Sears guitar amp.Then Hi Fi came along and 33 1/3 albums, oh another new record player. The 8 track came along, another new player, then stereo and reel to reel tapes, oh boy another new gadget, then let's not forget the cassette player, yet another new toy. When they came out with a better idea, the CD's I said no way. Forget it, I'll take my "pops", "scratches", "skipping needles" and etc, crank up the volume and listen to the old hard core country, real rock and roll, real rock-a-billy,big band, blues and polka music and I don't have to go out and buy an expensive CD player, then a CD burner, and the beat goes on. What's next out there my friend.We'll see where this Topic leads to. Oh by the way, I still have tons of 78's 45's 33's and miles and miles of reel to reel tapes,but i don't have anymore 8 tracks.

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 30 Oct 2000 9:23 am

I'd be interested in hearing reactions to David's assertion that "warmth" = "distortion". Do you agree?

------------------
www.jimcohen.com

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 30 Oct 2000 9:34 am

I have no idea what "warmth" means in audio, excpet that everybody wants it.

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 30 Oct 2000 10:09 am

For the majority of regular folks like us, CD's are great because of their convenience and durability. However, there are a select group of "golden ears" who claim to hear obvious differences and find that CD's are clincal in sound and do not accurately capture what was recorded, at least not to their satisfaction. And by the way, in high-end audiophile circles, $1000 would not qualify as an expensive CD player. Players in the upper echelon can go to $5000 and more, and audiophiles claim that they can hear the difference.

David Pennybaker · Post by **David Pennybaker** » 30 Oct 2000 10:14 am

I'd be interested in hearing reactions to David's assertion that "warmth" = "distortion". Do you agree?

I should clarify that, Jim. Obviously, all distortion is not warmth.

And today, when you push a button on a digital keyboard, or other electronice device to add "warmth", you are in effect altering the original signal, which is (by a strict definition) distortion of the original signal. (You have to get rid of all the negative connotations associated with the word "distortion" in this discussion.)

I think what people call "the warmth of an LP" is really just the distortion of the actual signal, caused primarily by the playback mechanism. Unlike "tape hiss", though (which is regarded by most as noise), the distortion from the LP adds a pleasing quality to the LP sound. Why? I have no idea.

But I think if you record and playback a musical number using digital technology, you end up with a more faithful representation than if you do it analog. At any rate, the digital sounds better to me. Things stand out in the mix better, and have better separation. (Then again, I never owned an "audiophile" turntable, either.)

I have the LP's of Jerry Reed and Chet Atkins (apprpriately named "Me and Chet" and "Me and Jerry"), and I also have it on CD. I'd much rather listen to it on CD.

And, just to add a little fuel to the fire, I don't hear a difference using "Monster Cables", either.

(and, BTW, I NEVER owned an 8-track in my life -- and yes, I'm old enough

)

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

David Pennybaker · Post by **David Pennybaker** » 30 Oct 2000 10:15 am

and audiophiles claim that they can hear the difference.

Either they THINK they can, or I'm glad my ears aren't that good.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

Pat Burns · Post by **Pat Burns** » 30 Oct 2000 2:06 pm

..if you just spent $5000 on a CD player, of course you'll swear you can hear the difference..otherwise, you'd be admitting that you're just a moron who spent $4700 more than you needed to on a CD player..

..you can't sell a lot of them, but you don't have to, just target your marketing to people with more money than brains..or you can buttonhole them freezing their butts off watching the world series in $1000 bleacher seats..

JB Arnold · Post by **JB Arnold** » 30 Oct 2000 2:30 pm

"Warmth" in the studio, out here anyway, generally means that somewhere along the line everything gets run through tubes. The really expensive Mic pre's have tubes in them, cost a couple grand for 2 channels. I spent an afternoon over at Rob's with him listening to one of those and comparing it to the pre's on the mackie board, and we couldn't tell the difference, and Rob's got good ears. At the same time, I know a guy out here who runs final mixes through an old tube compressor, just lightly, on the way to the mastering machine, and that does seem to soften up the digital "grabbies". I like it, and can tell the difference, at least on good speakers. That's what we did with Dick Meis's instruction tapes, and I'm doing it now on my demos.

Most of the big name engineers are now getting some kind of a tube device in the chain somewhere. I think there is a little honk in the pure digital signal, and it helps to soften that up a little. Now, to me the tube compressor idea works fine, and is easier on the budget. The big time mic pre's cost a fortune, but if you're plugging 10 grand worth of mic into it, maybe it's worth it, if you've got the scratch.

I don't.

John

------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Better Late than Never!
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel

erik · Post by **erik** » 30 Oct 2000 3:33 pm

I prefer the convenience and clarity of CD. But if money was no object, i would be a vinyl audiophile and have custom presses made of my favorite tunes. I am pro analog gear in every kind of way. I am emotionally unmoved by most modern recordings because of the digital format. Ask any real pro club DJ and they will tell you nothing pumps like a vinyl record, especially european presses.

Pat Burns · Post by **Pat Burns** » 30 Oct 2000 6:40 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Old = vinyl LP's
New = compact discs

Which is better, and why?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

..Old vinyl is better, especially LP's..they sail real good when you fling 'em, and bird shot explodes them into a hundred pieces, especially on a good cold crisp day...all you can do is dent a CD, if you can even hit it.

Eddie Lange · Post by **Eddie Lange** » 30 Oct 2000 7:47 pm

I have always enjoyed the "warmth" more. And I'm growing up in the age of digital!

------------------
The Young Steelkid

David Pennybaker · Post by **David Pennybaker** » 30 Oct 2000 8:28 pm

For those who enjoy the "warmth" and the "old sounds" (kinda mixing topics, but what the heck) better, let me propose this question:

Which would you prefer?

1) vinyl LP of your favorite old album

2) CD of that same favorite old album, played through some sort of "warming device", like a tube amp instead of a digital amp.

It's just always baffled me why so many who consider themselves "audiophiles" prefer the pops and scratches from LPs. (Yes, I know that most of them probably recorded it once onto reel-to-reel).

But, to each his own. Just nobody try to convince me that cassettes or 8-tracks are better, OK?

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

KEVIN OWENS · Post by **KEVIN OWENS** » 30 Oct 2000 9:01 pm

99% of the music I listen to is on lp's or 45's (the only format the music is on). To me the vinyl sounds better. The high end of the cd's just don't sound right to me. I have 10 of the Bear Family box sets, it's nice to have all that music in one small package.
I can't agree with "warm=distortion". Hank Garland is warm. AC/DC is distortion.

Kevin

erik · Post by **erik** » 30 Oct 2000 10:43 pm

The word "distortion" has many meanings. I believe David meant harmonic distortion - which creates the thicker warmer sound.

Neil Hilton · Post by **Neil Hilton** » 31 Oct 2000 7:01 am

I have a ton of Haggard, Buck, Cash, and Hank Thompson in pretty equal parts CD/vinyl - CDs obviously so convenient, especially to travel with, but at home - I agree that there is something more fulfilling that comes from the old vinyls.

My old vinyls of the two live albums that Merle recorded in '69 and '70 are so worn, but I love the live sound of Roy Nichols tele and Norm's steel that follows the popping, crackling intro -
"Ladies and gentlemen, here in Muskogee Oklahoma tonight in the Civic Center, I'd like to introduce to you a man that has dedicated his life to county music, and has written most of his life into the songs that he sings. So make welcome if you will, from Bakersfield California, the one and only, Merle Haggard and his Strangers!!!....."

BJ Bailey · Post by **BJ Bailey** » 1 Nov 2000 12:16 pm

I prefer the cracking,poping,spitting and all of that old timey distortion .
It takes my mine off of my artheridus, rumatisum,humpback acke ,potbelly,lose of sex drive,lose of cook and the very thought of knowing that my best blue tick hound, has ran of with my neighbors cocka spanleil and neither of them can be found.
Now if I could just aford a needle for that victrola of mine, I'd play some hillbilly music

------------------
BJ Bailey

Theresa Galbraith · Post by **Theresa Galbraith** » 1 Nov 2000 1:55 pm

CD no ?

Martin Abend · Post by **Martin Abend** » 1 Nov 2000 3:46 pm

Actually I find it more interesting that the more digital a signal gets, the less it will survive this decade. You can hear LPs in the year 3000, but CD will be trash then.

------------------
martin abend my homepage martinabend@yahoo.com
s-10 sierra crown gearless 3 x4 - fender hotrod deluxe

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 1 Nov 2000 4:56 pm

Martin, why do you say that? I'm curious.

Jeff Lampert · Post by **Jeff Lampert** » 1 Nov 2000 5:58 pm

you can't sell a lot of them, but you don't have to, just target your marketing to people with more money than brains

Actually, the large majority of audiophiles are people who probably have extremely keen ears and knowledge of sound, but not a real lot of money. Like most people who are passionate about their hobby, they will spend as much as they can afford to satisfy themselves that they have the best sound that their money can buy. A number of pedal steel players will spend $3000 - $4000 for a new instrument when $1000 will buy a perfectly playable instrument. Just because we can't appreciate the difference doesn't mean they can't. It might be an extremely small difference, the difference between a $300 mass market player and an upper echelon player costing thousands, but to an audiophile consumed by his desire for perfect sound, it's a world of difference.

At any rate, the digital sounds better to me. Things stand out in the mix better, and have better separation. (Then again, I never owned an "audiophile" turntable, either.)

The difference between a mass market turntable and audiophile-grade turntable and perfectly-matched cartridge is normally found to be considerably greater than between similar levels of CD players, meaning that one really can't accurately evaluate the difference between CD sound and LP analog sound until the best equipment is used. Actually, that is really at the heart of the CD/digital revolution; it makes very good if not audiophile-grade sound available at a cheap price, something analog couldn't do. But at the uppermost levels, the "golden-eared" evaluators and researchers prefer analog, and do not consider "warmth" distortion but rather the "clinical" sound of CD as a reflection of using bits and bitstreams, rather than audio frequencies as a way to process sound.

[This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 01 November 2000 at 06:02 PM.]

RJP · Post by **RJP** » 1 Nov 2000 6:03 pm

There are turntables out there that sound better than CD players, but they generally cost exhorbitant sums. As for the cost of equipment, both analog and digital, the law of diminishing returns is really true. I've seen guys spend countless bucks for a minute sonic improvement. As for hearing any difference, it's just a matter of listening over a period of time. It's just like our steels; over the years you've listened to enough gear to notice the differences and decide what you like.

------------------
Ron Plichta, former headbanger and PSG player in training.

MSA Classic S-10
Fender '62 Reissue Stratocaster
Fender Telecaster
Paul Reed Smith CE24 Maple Top
Rivera R100

erik · Post by **erik** » 1 Nov 2000 7:13 pm

Click <a href=http://www.dwfearn.com/tvst1.htm>this</a> to read a research paper involving tubes vs transistors. It is different yet it parallels the vinyl vs CD debate.

Jason Odd · Post by **Jason Odd** » 1 Nov 2000 9:56 pm

I love CDs and LPs, while I truly despise tapes in all forms, although Dad's reel to reel player still gives me a kick.

There's a certain romance and aesthetic to vinyl, when I visit my friends record company, which is the last vinyl pressing plant in Australia, it's such a kick to see them packed in boxes, on display and being made.
True romance.. now having said that all my vinyl lovelies and rarities, well I would love to have CD copies as well.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 3 Nov 2000 5:13 pm

I can understand why computer programs on a CD have to be digital...computers can't directly handle analog data. But I don't understand why a music CD can't be analog-based.

Look, a phonograph record has a physical "wiggley groove" read by a stylus. Why can't a CD have an optical "wiggley groove" which modulates a laser beam in analog fashion? It seems it would be the best of both worlds.

Can anyone here answer this?