TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- On what is better sound quality: Vinyl or CD ?
On what is better sound quality: Vinyl or CD ?
What do you say?
I think on CD is better
Id say CD as well.... although i bet alot of ppl mite disagree...
[Dan]
Offcourse the CD have better sound. Everybody should know that.
So why ppl looking for vinyl rips?
Cause they are stupid!!
When I look for sound quality, the first thing I look at is the noise level. CD has a lower noise floor than the best recording studios in the world! That ALONE makes CD's sound quality BETTER than ANY analogue format! There are numerous other reasons, like frequency range, etc.
I think the reason people look for vinyl recordings is because the tracks are longer than on CD. I always thought that this didn't make sense at all since CDs can store between 74 and 100 minutes and vilyl can store at most about 20 - 30 minutes a side, you'd think that the CD would have the longer track. Can anyone answer WHY does it have to be this way (vinyl has longer tracks instead of CD)?
Vinyl has better sound quality.
Vinyl is an analogue recording. CD is a digital recording. When a tune is made and recorded (i.e. Pressed onto vinyl) the whole of this analogue wave form is captured and recorded onto vinyl. When you play a vinyl for the first ever time you are hearing as close as is humanly possible to what the producer heard when he was making the tune.
CD�s however are lower in sound quality than vinyl� this is for a very simple reason. Instead of capturing the whole wave form a sample of sound is taken every now again (In a CD�s case 44,100 times per second.) and this is converted from 1�s and 0�s to a wave form when it�s played. This is almost indistinguishable by the human ear. But the simple case is that when you listen to a CD your not listening to the actual sound but a close approximation of it.
However saying this, Vinyl and CD quality isn�t really that distinguishable form one another. The Vinyl will sound �richer� or �warmer.� The reason for this is simply that the vinyl hasn�t got parts of it�s wave form cut out. Which is why it sounds better. The only problem is that vinyl suffers terribly from dust, scratches and pops etc.
yeah iwould say cds because vinyl gets scratches and stuff which makes it less quality.
Hmmmm... I beg to differ... somewhat.
Assuming the record is a DJ quality 12", clean and free of scratches, vinyl has a richer, fuller sound. The analog format of vinyl allows a more "complete" sound than the digital format of CD. CD, however, is a "cleaner" sound. Most people can't really tell the difference anyway.
The best way to understand this is to compare a digital clock to a more traditional clock with hands. The digital clock will display the time in one minute intervals as 4:12, 4:13, 4:14, etc. A traditional clock will gradually move from 4:12 to 4:13 with infinite intervals in between (4:12:001...4:12:002, etc.) Audio follows the same concept. A CD is packets of data at specified intervals, whereas a vinyl record is a recording that is seemless from start to finish.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ali92 When I look for sound quality, the first thing I look at is the noise level. CD has a lower noise floor than the best recording studios in the world! That ALONE makes CD's sound quality BETTER than ANY analogue format! There are numerous other reasons, like frequency range, etc. |
Yup, vinyl sounds better for reasons already mentioned.
Somebody was talking about vinyl rips before though... that's only because on a vinyl you get the full, released song, as opposed to a radio rip of much lesser quality.
If two identical songs are released on vinyl and cd, i'd rather take the cd rip. It's much easier to rip a cd properly... it's already in its 1's and 0's, you don't lose anything. On vinyl though, you gotta have a good soundcard, good needles, etc, and in the end you're turning a pure analog waveform into 1's and 0's yourself, instead of in a good studio with pro tools in it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by drizzt81 ok.. there is somethig wrong right there: the frequency range of a CD is 44KHz.. it is digital, so that they need to APPROXIMATE the sound waves by using 16 bit numbers (65K choices) and sampling the orignial signal at 44KHZ.. A vinyl is an ANALOG format. This means that -theoretically- the vinlyl is a PERFECT replicate of the sound that was recorded onto it. The CD is an APPROXIMATION. Hence, a vinyl has the chance to be better in terms of quality than a CD. Now, the problem is that the case, when a vinyl is better than a CD is hard to achieve, PLUS CDs have many advantages over vinyls.. well, I think vinyls are great (CD's are not fod DJing imho), but I do not even own a turntable! CD's are more convenient... |
Actually when I started getting into the arguement I was sure it was the quality of the CD vs. the tradition of the vinyl but turns out THEORETICALY vinyl can be just as good/ better in quality...
The advantages of CD include audio length, mobility, durability, availability (you can just burn it or even make abckup copies to use instead of risking the original), price is much cehapr and who knows what else.
Take in mind that putching a CD as compared to a vinyl is just like playing it as compared. The CD deck simulates a slower play whilst the turntable actually slows it down, etc etc with everything else.
Except that, DJs need as much ways to manipulate sound and vinyl are much more efficient in that.
This temporary, as CD players get better and better with the years simulating more and more effects and tricks that the turntable had to offer, plus a lot the turntable hasn't.
Just go with what you feel better with...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Spin Doctor Vinyl has better sound quality. Vinyl is an analogue recording. CD is a digital recording. When a tune is made and recorded (i.e. Pressed onto vinyl) the whole of this analogue wave form is captured and recorded onto vinyl. When you play a vinyl for the first ever time you are hearing as close as is humanly possible to what the producer heard when he was making the tune. CD�s however are lower in sound quality than vinyl� this is for a very simple reason. Instead of capturing the whole wave form a sample of sound is taken every now again (In a CD�s case 44,100 times per second.) and this is converted from 1�s and 0�s to a wave form when it�s played. This is almost indistinguishable by the human ear. But the simple case is that when you listen to a CD your not listening to the actual sound but a close approximation of it. However saying this, Vinyl and CD quality isn�t really that distinguishable form one another. The Vinyl will sound �richer� or �warmer.� The reason for this is simply that the vinyl hasn�t got parts of it�s wave form cut out. Which is why it sounds better. The only problem is that vinyl suffers terribly from dust, scratches and pops etc. |
I read a lot of BS here
First off, you can't say vinyl is a nr of hz (like CD is 44.1 khz, and DAT is max 48 khz...and vinyl...and casette tapes....) because that only applies to digital formats. So it's not like vinyl has an ininitely high frequency range or anything, and certainly not higher that CD!
Just because it's analog and you can't throw frequency rates at it doesn't mean that it's "the very sound that is put in". Inside the groove there are little bumps the needle stubles upon. These are amplified (via RIAA curve). That's the sound. And no it's not better than CD because "analog is natural sound waves" or crock like that. At least come up with a decent reason.
There is no definite answer to which is better (if there was, you could look it up somewhere). It's all about how you define quality. If quality means low S/N ratio and high frequency range, CD wins. If quality means warm sound, and very deep dynamics, vinyl wins.
To those of you who wonder why people request vinyl-rips:
There are loads of tunes that are only available on vinyl, simple as that
wtf? isn't the upper frequency limit for the human ear 20KHz?
vinyl DOES have a warmer and richer sound. a cd always sounds the same when you listen to it, while vinyl is always different. but on the other hand, doesn't the friction of the needle kinda mess up the grooves with time?
and as for the dust, why have i never heard of someone inventing a miniature leaf blower to put on the needle? so that when the record plays, a directed stream of air blows the dust off of the record?
Will make the needle too heavy. Way too heavy 
Great idea though.
N E wayz, we're not talking about sound freaquency. We're tlaikng about the frequency that the sound is played from the CD. When recording into the CD, the sound is recorder every 1/44100 of a second and stored as computer information in numbers (010100 etc) then when played every 1/44100 of a sceond a tiny sound is played and what we hear is a comulative sound of all of those ticks. I think the warmer sound in vinyl is thhe result and it has a thicker sound as well (or well, describe it how you want.
Noise floor ain't that much of a botehr (dust etc.) I personally like the sound of it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by cluBBer So why ppl looking for vinyl rips? |
So why ppl looking for vinyl rips?'
Because the tune will be out on vinyl for a long time before it comes out in any form on CD, as it is test pressed and promo'd on vinyl. I hope everyone else didnt go off on a tangent because they didnt understand the question...
Another factor for everyone else to think about.....
When u play a CD, the data goes through a DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter) so in the end all audio gets converted back to Analogue and gets put out through the speakers in an Analogue format. And all these conversions can take some quality off CD's i would imagine.
CD's didnt take over Records because of their quality, took over cos their size.
If im wrong someone correct me... 
All in all i guess it comes down to personel choice. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DJAhmet Another factor for everyone else to think about..... When u play a CD, the data goes through a DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter) so in the end all audio gets converted back to Analogue and gets put out through the speakers in an Analogue format. And all these conversions can take some quality off CD's i would imagine. |
Tracks made of samples.
Samples recorded witha 44khz freq'.
Maybe Vinyl stores greater and richer wave forms (up to 96khz)
but that's true mostly with live instruments recorded.
As for trance, made by computers supporting up to 48khz it doesn't matter cause the CD contains the same waveforms as the original track.
I've heard vinyl either has ridges along the side or along the bottom of the "groove" or track. Does anyone know which is better, or why one method is used/preferred over another?
I heard that Vinyl has a much higher Fequency range than Cd, even though cd is a digital format. I prefer Vinyl because its more tangiable, and i can have total control over it. 
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.