CD vs Vinyl sound

polkfan38

I will check out the Onk unit. Thanks!

BuckeyeTim

I can not explain it, but since I got my new turntable, I have not listened to anything but vinyl. I even have a new-to-me dac (Adcom gda-600 from a fellow cp member) that has maybe 2 hours of my use on it. I recieved it the day after one of my amps took a dump. The day I picked up the reparied amp I also bought the new TT. I haven't listened to a cd since.

F1nut

polkfan38 wrote: »

For an upgrade, which model CD player would you guys recommend? Something in the $2-300 range. And new???

You're not to get much in that price range. Save up and look for a nice used player, something like this one, http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?dgtlplay&1277142815&/Marantz-SA-11S1 You'll get SACD as well.

There are plenty of other great used buys on Audiogon.

polkfan38

Holy CD player! 45 pounds! I am not that serious (yet) What kind of things, besides features, are you gaining with CD players like that? Compared to a $300 model?
I know the law of deminishing returns comes into play here. With the room I am using, and the rest of my equipment, I can't justify stuff like that.

polkfan38

It would be cool to find someone close who has higher end stuff and have a listen. And bring my equipment along to see how it compares.

EFanning

I'm using a low-end Marantz DV4001 for CD playback and my turntable is just dominating.

I want my CDs (not SACDs) to sound warmer and fuller like the LPs. But, is that quest pointless?

I'm looking at used Marantz CD players $100 and below. This thread is making me think: Yah man, it might be silly to buy a Marantz CD5001. Just buy albums like that $15 Boxer LP by The National instead.

Am I wide awake or half asleep?

Fongolio

My modified Rotel 855 comes very close to that analog sound. It is modified for tube output though from the DAC chip back. No op amps. Tube gain and it is sweeeeet. Worth about $750 though.

mhardy6647

EFanning wrote: »

I'm looking at used Marantz CD players $100 and below. This thread is making me think: Yah man, it might be silly to buy a Marantz CD5001. Just buy albums like that $15 Boxer LP by The National instead.

Am I wide awake or half asleep?

sounds like a plan to me...

EFanning

Fongolio wrote: »

My modified Rotel 855 comes very close to that analog sound. It is modified for tube output though from the DAC chip back. No op amps. Tube gain and it is sweeeeet. Worth about $750 though.

Thanks. I've also recently been looking into "tube buffers," based on a post made on this board. I've still got much to learn about the buffers though.

On a side note, I'm still playing LPs with my 1- and 2-year-old daughters. Now, they carry the records to the player and sit with me, waiting to press the buttons. The older one thinks the Houses of the Holy album art is cool.

"Those girls are climbing the rocks, Daddy."

As a longtime Zep fan, having kids has changed the way I listen to Robert Plant, who lost his son Karac to a virus in 1977.

Anyway, just a short story to illustrate how LPs can deliver unexpected discoveries.

When will Page reissue the Zep catalog on 180-gram vinyl anyway?

EFanning

mhardy6647 wrote: »

sounds like a plan to me...

Great photos. Thanks.

If you enjoy Zeppelin, give us a review of "All of My Love" from In Through the Out Door (or CD boxed set) on your sound system?

hearingimpared

EFanning wrote: »

Thanks. I've also recently been looking into "tube buffers," based on a post made on this board. I've still got much to learn about the buffers though.

On a side note, I'm still playing LPs with my 1- and 2-year-old daughters. Now, they carry the records to the player and sit with me, waiting to press the buttons. The older one thinks the Houses of the Holy album art is cool.

"Those girls are climbing the rocks, Daddy."

As a longtime Zep fan, having kids has changed the way I listen to Robert Plant, who lost his son Karac to a virus in 1977.

Anyway, just a short story to illustrate how LPs can deliver unexpected discoveries.

When will Page reissue the Zep catalog on 180-gram vinyl anyway?

Classic Records has reissued all the studio recordings on 200 gm vinyl. At first they were resonably priced, $29 tp $39 a pop but since they ran out and started a new run they've gone way, way up in price. Out of my league anyway however, I able to LZ I through IV for the original prices. They sound incredible.

mhardy6647

EFanning wrote: »

Great photos. Thanks.

If you enjoy Zeppelin, give us a review of "All of My Love" from In Through the Out Door (or CD boxed set) on your sound system?

uhhh... I have the original Licorice Pizza out in the back room... haven't listened to it in a couple of decades. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Actually they're terrible photos, but they were done in real time for this thread. Mrs. H is out tonight and I am breaking in those two 6V6 push-pull amps (picked up last week).

F1nut

polkfan38 wrote: »

Holy CD player! 45 pounds! I am not that serious (yet) What kind of things, besides features, are you gaining with CD players like that? Compared to a $300 model?

Excellent sound reproduction.

I know the law of deminishing returns comes into play here.

You have a very long way to go before that occurs.

F1nut

EFanning wrote: »

I'm using a low-end Marantz DV4001 for CD playback and my turntable is just dominating.

I want my CDs (not SACDs) to sound warmer and fuller like the LPs. But, is that quest pointless?

Hell no, it's not pointless, but it will cost you a lot more than $100.00.

polkfan38

OK. So you buy a $10,000 CD player. It is supposed to reproduce the LP sound. Is it just distorting the sound of the CD to something it is not? The natural sound of a CD? The Needle Doctor is just across town from me. He has those Pro Ject TTs for something like $350. Is this all I need to get that hollowed sound?
I just had a brain ****. My dad has a mid 80s Sony TT and a CD player. He has all the original Beatles pressings. I have most of them on CD. I am going to go down there and see what the difference is. He uses a NAD reciever and "large" Advents.

F1nut

OK. So you buy a $10,000 CD player. It is supposed to reproduce the LP sound.

Nope, it'll sound better.

hearingimpared

polkfan38 wrote: »

OK. So you buy a $10,000 CD player. It is supposed to reproduce the LP sound. Is it just distorting the sound of the CD to something it is not? The natural sound of a CD? The Needle Doctor is just across town from me. He has those Pro Ject TTs for something like $350. Is this all I need to get that hollowed sound?
I just had a brain ****. My dad has a mid 80s Sony TT and a CD player. He has all the original Beatles pressings. I have most of them on CD. I am going to go down there and see what the difference is. He uses a NAD reciever and "large" Advents.

F1nut wrote: »

Nope, it'll sound better.

Very true, however, I have a Raysonic CD 168 which has Class A tubed output and at the almost $3k price point it is closest thing to that vinyl magic I've heard. As you go up the ladder it gets even better. The Esoteric SA 60 universal player at almost $5k sounds even better and the Musical Fidelity kw CD/SACD player which I believe is at $8k price point sounds even better yet (when the tube output is selected).

At what point do you start to realize diminishing returns? I don't know but with those three players being that far apart in price, there's no diminishing returns their prices do reflect the better SQ.

I think you have to get into the ultra high end to start realizing diminshing returns.

If you're able to afford any of those three, you'll be doing very well. I know I won't be upgrading my CDP for quite a while. I might try some different tubes down the line but I've already rolled in some JAN NOS tubes that Beardog was so kind to send me and I'm happy with what I hear.

As far as the pro-ject TTs at the $350 price point you're going to get good vinyl sound but there is a plethora of upgrades & tweaks available for those TTs that will put an even bigger smile on your face.

polkfan38

I just picked $10k as an example. As far as the "tube sound" is concerned. I picture listening to my old RCA Victrola! Yes, I have one. No, it is not for sale. (the TT drive has not worked in over 10 years however) I am not trying to offend anyone here. I just don't have any other experience with tube equipment.
Through all of my posts, I also don't mean any ill feelings toward any form of audio equipment and there owners. I actually think it is all cool!
I guess what I am trying to find out is, why the general consensus is that vinyl sound is better than CD sound. Yes there is that unnatural harshness of some early CD and the players but, that has been resolved for the most part.
I am not going to switch to vinyl because I have a very extensive CD library I do not want to replace.

polkfan38

I will upgrade my equipment as I see fit. Kind of funny how it has gotten really old all of a sudden! Thanks everyone for your inputs and insight!

cnh

As mentioned above a lot of people try work-arounds that help CDPs....buy a good transport and improve its sound with better DACs and a tube buffer for example. You won't necessarily have to spend many thousands to get something that is reasonable. Do a search and check some of the systems out here.

Although F1nut's link to audiogon for that Marantz for only 900 is a really nice price! Even I would have to 'save' a bit or that.

cnh

Cpyder

Does anyone know actual statistics relating upper frequency cut-off and number of vinyl plays? Also, for those of you who argue vinyl is a more accurate medium/recording method than digital, how do you view this fact - that after a few plays, you begin to lose measureable amounts of treble from the recording?

heiney9

Cpyder wrote: »

Does anyone know actual statistics relating upper frequency cut-off and number of vinyl plays? Also, for those of you who argue vinyl is a more accurate medium/recording method than digital, how do you view this fact - that after a few plays, you begin to lose measureable amounts of treble from the recording?

Seems as though you have your answer.............since the part in RED is a *fact*, then perhaps you have some supporting evidence. Logically the Lp or tape will start to wear with repeated playing and this can vary dramatically based on the quality of the TT, Arm, settings, cartridge, environment, cleanliness of the vinyl, storage methods, fluids and processes used to maintain the vinyl, etc, etc........so I'd really be interested in you fact finding process for the above statement since there are a myriad of variables that makes your simple statment moot.

The fact is............vinyl does wear after repeated playings, it's the nature of the medium but how quickly and the impact on the sound is pretty complicated to assess.

H9

steveinaz

Cpyder wrote: »

Does anyone know actual statistics relating upper frequency cut-off and number of vinyl plays? Also, for those of you who argue vinyl is a more accurate medium/recording method than digital, how do you view this fact - that after a few plays, you begin to lose measureable amounts of treble from the recording?

Here's a novel idea, instead of constantly challenging everything, why not try the medium for yourself and draw your own conclusions? I'm not trying to bust your balls, I'm just saying you have some strong opinons, yet I rarely see you try anything that you have a skeptical opinion about--stop relying on others to prove their point, and form first-hand knowledge/experience from your point of view.

I would have far more interest in your experiences if they were backed up with some working knowledge. I'm open-minded about practically all things audio, because even after 35yrs, I learn something new every day.

concealer404

polkfan38 wrote: »

I will check out the Onk unit. Thanks!

With your $300 budget, this would be a pretty nice bet. I bought one thinking i would just use it for Blu-Ray playback, but i was completely blown away at how it fares as a CDP as well. It's now solidly in my 2-channel system, and it's far from the weak point of what i'm running.

That said, i do agree with F1nut that if you're going to do it, do it "right." That Marantz that he linked would have been a great purchase.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100453

SCompRacer

I dust my gear and turntable often, and dip the stylus in my Onzow Zerodust stylus cleaner after each side of an LP. I only clean my LP's on a RCM one time after I bring them home and put them in new rice paper sleeves. They get a dry brushing with a carbon fiber brush before play. I won't dispute the fact that vinyl does wear, but you would think I would find more evidence of vinyl dust if it wore as much as some folks think. Sometimes nothing shows up on the sticky blob after the stylus is dipped in it.

hearingimpared

heiney9 wrote: »

Seems as though you have your answer.............since the part in RED is a *fact*, then perhaps you have some supporting evidence. Logically the Lp or tape will start to wear with repeated playing and this can vary dramatically based on the quality of the TT, Arm, settings, cartridge, environment, cleanliness of the vinyl, storage methods, fluids and processes used to maintain the vinyl, etc, etc........so I'd really be interested in you fact finding process for the above statement since there are a myriad of variables that makes your simple statment moot.

The fact is............vinyl does wear after repeated playings, it's the nature of the medium but how quickly and the impact on the sound is pretty complicated to assess.

H9

Brock the wearing out process as stated above is not necessary true. If careful care is taken keeping the records clean, AND making sure your TT/cartridge/tonearm alignments and setups are true, there is very, very minimal wear if any.

Most wear occurs with distortion where the cartridge is not aligned properly and the stylus doesn't ride the grooves smoothly. Now of course there are going to irregularities in the records and the stylus and this is where the slight wear occurs. I don't need to expound the virtues or wearing out process that clean & dirty records cause as that is obvious.

Another myth that has been debunked, by Mr. Peason at TAS and Michael Fremer at Stereophile, is that the down force exerted when setting your tonearm dial can be set to up over a gram more than most cartridge manufacturers recomend and in many cases improves the SQ but it doesn't cause record wear. Again the biggest enemy to LPs is improper setup, lack of cleanliness, and the distortion caused. Imagine a the stylus running the groove at umteen miled per hour and rattling around inside the grooves or the heat caused by that speed welding a piece of dirt to the wall or bottom of the groove.

As a matter of fact I have my down pressure set on my tonearm to slightly over .25 grams that ZYX recommends and have found that it sounds best at that setting.

Just some food for thought.

Cpyder

heiney9 wrote: »

Seems as though you have your answer.............since the part in RED is a *fact*, then perhaps you have some supporting evidence. Logically the Lp or tape will start to wear with repeated playing and this can vary dramatically based on the quality of the TT, Arm, settings, cartridge, environment, cleanliness of the vinyl, storage methods, fluids and processes used to maintain the vinyl, etc, etc........so I'd really be interested in you fact finding process for the above statement since there are a myriad of variables that makes your simple statment moot.

The fact is............vinyl does wear after repeated playings, it's the nature of the medium but how quickly and the impact on the sound is pretty complicated to assess.

H9

Your going to have to rephrase your response as it makes no sense to me. First, you put the word "fact" in quotes implying you don't agree that it is a fact. Then you ask me to prove it, implying you don't agree. But, then you do agree by saying, "The fact is.... vinyl does wear after repeated playings." So what exactly were you looking for by responding to me the way you did?

It is a fact that every single play of a vinyl record will cause some degradation to the recording surface. My question was asking if anyone has any data on the degree of depredation. Have there been studies done? I realize there are many variables, but has anyone ever tried to quantify some of them? I'd love to see the research.

madmax

Cpyder wrote: »

Does anyone know actual statistics relating upper frequency cut-off and number of vinyl plays? Also, for those of you who argue vinyl is a more accurate medium/recording method than digital, how do you view this fact - that after a few plays, you begin to lose measureable amounts of treble from the recording?

I just tape a nickle to the tonearm and move on with my life.
madmax

EFanning

hearingimpared wrote: »

Classic Records has reissued all the studio recordings on 200 gm vinyl. At first they were resonably priced, $29 tp $39 a pop but since they ran out and started a new run they've gone way, way up in price. Out of my league anyway however, I able to LZ I through IV for the original prices. They sound incredible.

Thanks for the tip on the Classic Records Zep reissues. I looked around and saw some $150-plus prices for single reissued albums. Maybe they sell at that price, but that's way too much cash for an album.

Still, I'd love to hear one of them spun some day.

hearingimpared

EFanning wrote: »

Thanks for the tip on the Classic Records Zep reissues. I looked around and saw some $150-plus prices for single reissued albums. Maybe they sell at that price, but that's way too much cash for an album.

Still, I'd love to hear one of them spun some day.

The funny thing is their marketing stategy. They sold hundreds of those LPs at the $30 & $40 prices. Now how many are they selling at the six times the price? Kinda silly in my mind. However, I have to say that if I had the funds availible these incredible recordings at their new rediculous prices would be in my collection. They are truely that good!