Yet another Vinyl vs. CD/Digital debate

[hollunder at gmx.at]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:17:11 +0000
deepthinker22 at comcast.net (Evan) wrote:

> 
> Ok, as a fellow audiophile I have too put my word in. 
> First lets look at the prices of top of the line components. For all
> the interchangable and truly customizable setup the phonograph has
> the most options, with many different types of cartridges, arms,
> motors, pre-amps etc. YOu can easlily get a $100,000 phonograph. The
> most expensive CD player I have seen (please post others) was $45,000
> NAim. Secon: Todays recordings are in a digital world. Everything is
> recorded digitally. But at 24-bit "picture" of the wave at a 96KHZ
> bandwidth. This is compressed t oa 16-bit 44.1KHZ CD image. However,
> when the master for the record is made lasers are used to create and
> exact picture of the wave captured by the microphone with the
> accuracy of the 24-hbit recording. Or in true analog recordings a
> true reproduction. Giving you with vinyl a more spactious sound with
> much mroe depth and dynamic constrast without drowing out the other
> instruments because of there relation to vinal. That is the danger
> with 24-bit mixes going to a CD somthing that you hear (viloins in a
> metal song) on the 24-bit recording which are identifiable could be
> lost by the compression of the CD. With a vinyl done right you wont
> lose the highs and clarity of ALL the channels. The negatives to
> vinyl I will try to explain this the best I can from what I know feel
> free to correct thes section and repost if you know I am wrong. With
> the records you loose your bass response and bass curve because the
> tone arm and catridge with its mass can absorb the low frequencys as
> they pass by the needle for the same reson that there low. When the
> frequency is lower that means there is less cycles per second and the
> tone arm moves with the notes rather than the needle because it has
> time too. Thats why customizing a turntable is such an important
> thing to get the right balance and match for the other components to
> create and accurate reproduction in sound. The positives of CD. Cost
> However in terms of more accurate spatious dynamically efficient
> sound, records will produce the beswt sound so long as there is good
> equipment. If I was to go to Best Buy to build a listening system for
> records vs cds. The Cd would most definatly win. If I wen't to
> classic stero with a good turntable and hi-fi recording, and used
> there B&W 802Ds (If you don't know B&W you might not wan't to be a
> part of this conversation) on Krell amplifiers, not to mention the
> really sweet Denon reciever and krell preamps. (No subs required but
> available for when you want to absolutly make yourself deaf with zero
> distortion equally represented sound or if your a movie fan) That
> system even with the Naim $45,000 Cd player with a standard formant
> CD the record is going to win hands down. 
> 
> Also with tube amps and preamps vinyl would also beat the CD in terms
> of tone quality. 
> 
> What would out do vinyl is the 24-bit 96K recording or even and
> HD-Audio AES/EBU interface would win. So long as that is the original
> audio quality level. Eventually with HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray whichever
> wins the vinyl audio will be lost to digital. But still not a true
> replacment to the tone provided with an all analog recording combined
> with a all analog tube system. 


Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh, but imho that's bunch of bullshit,
equipment shaggery, etc..
Please read up a bit on technical information instead of audiophil
myths.
A good place to start would be here:
http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Category:Vinyl

and the forums for discussion:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php

One of quite some threads:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=7993

And this one for later on ;)
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=45644

Happy reading,
Best Regards,
Philipp