CDs are better than Vinyl! Record-ology!
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 01. 2020
- Everything you know about vinyl being 'warm' and superior to digital is WRONG!
Support the channel by tapping the "Thanks" button below every video!
We play records on TikTok! www.TikTok.com/@recordology
Thank you for watching and subscribing and commenting! You guys are awesome and we appreciate each one of you!
Want to send us stuff to review? Check out our mailing address; in the 'About tab.'
Looking for something interesting to watch? Check out our older videos and also our playlists! Could you do us a favor? Tell a friend about Record-ology! Better yet, share us out on your socials - then give yourself a shoutout in our comments!
Original content Copyright 2022 Record-ology. Check the ‘about’ tab for full info and disclosures. - Věda a technologie
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
The main thing I like about CD's is no surface noise, pops or scratches. The thing I like about albums, is the artwork. So I would rather listen to the CD while looking at the album. (lol)
Id buy an album with a CD inside a full cover. I agree
I made this exact point, recently. Vinyl record browsing is fun, largely because of the form-factor for the artwork.
@murafskis Provided they use the original uncompressed source ie brick walled ... I have an album they used to master the digital copy designed for CD and the same brick walled view in my sound editor (Cool Edit) shows the same pattern observed on the CD version wave form
the best vinyl records are considered to be those made before the 90s. when it comes to sound quality
Noise on vinyl is due to debris in the tracks. and static electricity both things can be removed. CX discs that existed in the early 80's did not have the sound problems. and the dynamic was 90 decibels unfortunately you had to have a CX decoder
Used CDs are a bargain right now!! 10x cheaper than the same album on vinyl. I sure love my vinyl but that is tough to argue with.
And now with the k7 revival i dare to say they're the cheapest of the 3 formats depending on where you live.
Its so true, they are the superior format and much cheaper
They are compressed digital formats in a physical copy, the same as what you get streaming, easier to scratch, and mass produced. While some vinyl are digital imprints, most are mixed and mastered for a better depth and analog sound. Also, the reason why you are paying more for vinyl is because their worth is higher from a collectors point of view. Believe it or not, some vinyl do actually sound better, especially on original pressings. You can easily and cheaply make a mass production of cds vs. vinyl. Though not knocking CD collecting at all, there are some great cds out there and to each their own.
@@JawsomeU2 cds are not compressed and the clear winner audio quality wise and price wise rewatch the video
With cd u r getting an analog tube recorded AAD cd disc, means its only half digital. With cd u r getting a worn out master tape from an older lp recorded from a new master tape. In other words, if u have an old album put on a cd, u have terrible sound.
I grew up with cassettes, vinyl and then CD. And i gotta say the CD is clearly the best and most convenient physical format there is, pretty much a near perfect invention.
They degrade over time (even if you take care of them), contrary to vinyl.
@@TheMydoorbell i have hundrets of CD's from the early and mid 80's and they don't show any signs of that
Streaming offers unparalleled convenience compared to any physical format, with the sound quality on leading platforms being virtually indistinguishable from that of a CD. Buying a physical copy of an album today is primarily motivated by an appreciation for the music-inspired "artwork." In this context, the expansive 12" album jacket and detailed liner notes accompanying a vinyl LP offer a richer tactile and visual experience than the little 5" plastic jewel you get with a CD. Therefore, vinyl is "the best" physical format on the market today, which explains why record sales have now surpassed CD sales for the first time since the late 1980s.
Cd 💿 is better then tapes and vinyls
@@TheMydoorbell half the pop record labels decided to store the records between two sheets of sandpaper. If you buy secondhand, you have no control of previous owner care, so most must be thoroughly cleaned. Can’t count how many LPs were partially warped by previous owners, negating the point of the purchase.
I predict a CD comeback. High quality sound will soon be in fashion again.
who said that cassettes cant have high quality, honestly i love myself a cd, but cassettes just hit different.
They never went away. I however see blurays taking a phaseout. I would like cd's to be playable inside a jewel case like the old floppies were. No more scratches.
Sadly, the younger generation is the target audience for all types of products. They were brought up on streaming, and I fear at some point, most forms of physical media will disappear. I will never stream music. I do buy a lot of digital music now, because much of it is available in higher than cd quality, and frankly, it is much more convenient.
@@batforjustice If you handle them carefully and take care of them, CDs won’t get scratched.
cds were Meant to be used on computers or gaming Systems like playstation 1 2 3 and xbox consoles.
Being someone who grew up with records, tapes and CD's, nobody can tell me that vinyl sounds better than CD
Vinyl does sound better than CD, sometimes. Cassette sounds better than CD too, sometimes. CD sounds better than both of them, sometimes. "Better" isn't objective and can't be measured - it's dependent on the preference of the individual listener at any given time. More often than not, I'm in the mood for the "flawed" sonic characteristics of vinyl or cassette over the more "perfectly accurate" sonic characteristics of CD.
I think records can sound great for analog recordings, but CD is better for digital usually, if you have a cassette that sounds better than a CD your CD is crap
@@fclefjefff4041 But, since CDs sound neutral (flat), I bet you can equalise them to make them sound exactly like records. Or you could add a hiss in the background and make them sound like tapes, the opposite isn't possible though.
CDs don't have clicks and pops. That said CDs are worse sounding because they compress them to fit them in the space. Among other things, you lose the overtone series that help give something its sound.
SACD was a lot better but it died. Funny part is these days,with ppl listening to mp3 and other lossy compressed digital sound, they don't hear the difference.
@@rijjhb9467 not exactly, while CD is better in many aspects, there is one aspect where CD isn't superior. If the master is a tape, means analogue, then vinyl is better than CD since the groove is analogue too, CD isn't, means the digital signal is just a finite number of snapshots of an analogue signal. However, when the master is digital too, then that advantage is gone, of course
Some of us have both a turntable and CD player.
They also make record players with CD players on them.
Like me-and guess which one I use always anymore....???!!!
@@7JANEWAY which
I have a turn table, CD player, and a cassette deck.
@@jasontscott-west6037 Same here
I agree 100% I grow up buying l.p s / singles ,but as a collecter for over 45 years it has to be CDs .
Hi
What I think is the most sophisticated thing about CDs is the reed-solomon-code. It corrects a high amount of bit errors thus the contained data stays the same until a certain threshold. For that, the amount of data is slightly increased. QR-Codes make use of the same technique to ensure data integrity. Pretty amazing engineering!
CD technology involves two levels of error correction; the first is the EFM (eight-to-forteen bit modulation) which allows for exact byte reconstruction if some bits are unreadable as well as making sure there are always _some_ pits to form a continuously trackable track). Then there is the CIRC (Cross-Interleaved Reed-Solomon Code) which allows for both sample error correction as well as missing sample interpolation ensuring that the missing samples are distributed rather than adjacent. It all works remarkably well indeed.
Thank you for explaining in layman's terms the fundamental differences between vinyl and CD.
The only way vinyl sounds better than CD is if it was better mastered and/or without compression of the dynamic range or "brickwalling".
However, when two identically mastered formats are compared side by side, CDs are the clear winner for sound quality.
Confirmation, with facts, of what I've known all along. CDs are the best consumer audio format we ever had. I lived through the change from vinyl to CD and, as much as I love the mystique of the older format, there never was any contest sound wise.
I don't buy much music anymore, but when I do, its on CD
mini disc actually. which have superior playback and don't skip. but it didn't market well
Yes. CDs allow for a wider dynamic range compared to LP, especially inner grooves. When people say “vinyl sounds better” they really mean to say “the original master sounds better.” Most of these people just have issues with modern mastering techniques, myself included.
That being said, I collect LPs and listen to them. They are more fun than CDs. I have a few CDs, but I usually don’t buy them unless a specific album I want to own is not readily and affordably available on LP. Other than that I ☠️download☠️ 96k 24bit FLAC versions of albums that appearently sound better than 44k 16bit CDs. I can’t tell the difference, lol. And yes, my DAC supports that resolution and it is properly set in Windows.
@@dallassegno MD has lower resolution than CD.
@@SPAZZOID100 and they're compressed
Yep! Sony used the ATRAC compression format for that, and it took _years_ for them to introduce the lossless version.
I love vinyl, I own hundreds of records and 3 turntables and yes vinyl can sound great but this video is spot on. As much as I love vinyl I don't pretend that it sounds as good as CD.
The debate continues LOL whom ever can spend more money on such systems more power to them ... I absolutely CAN NOT see spending the money on a turntable than a home (and that doesn't include the tone arm or cartridge) 50 to 60 thousand smackers Ohhhh Nooo no way
@@tobymummert3035 Agreed. If you listen to little $50 record players, they're sure to sound like shit no matter what.
To say it doesnt sound as good as cd shows you've heard only substandard record setups.
Also the minor compression issues with CD are way less of a factor than crackling and popping . When the band was originally recording music , the music didn't crackle and pop !!! Crackling and popping isn't pure sound :p . Id rather have very minute compression issues with a CD that are literally unnoticeable than crackling and popping.....think about it.
I love both forms but CD is better...hell I still listen to tapes.
The saphire stylus sounds bad, big suprise.😄
If you only heard a conical or eliptical, especially a budget set up, then your not qualified to speak on which is better nor have knowledge of what sounds good.
Did you hear the latest from NASA? Aliens finally found the golden record on Voyager I. But, they got into an argument about whether to build the player using analog or digital technology and killed each other with ray guns, and they accidentally melted the record.
I'm glad to see people who know what they're talking about give CDs the respect they deserve. The rush back to vinyl always seemed to me to be a trend like any other. I never believed the nonsense (taken as the gospel by some) that vinyl sounds better than CD. First off, there are too many variables other than the format itself that affect quality of playback. So universal claims that vinyl sounds better are complicated by the initial quality of the recording, the mastering, playback equipment, room dynamics, etc. etc. etc. The main selling points for CDs are greater dynamic range and no snap, crackle, pop, which is so distracting to my ear that it makes listening to vinyl painful at times. Furthermore, the get a good 180 gram vinyl nowadays will set you back $50 or more. You can find awesome sounding CDs online for as little as $2 a piece. Like Brad Allison says, it's pretty tough to argue with that.
2$ plus shipping that is more expensive than the cd itself
This is the most comprehensive explanation I could have asked for. I’ve been buying CDs up out of a desire to own the music I love, and I have to admit that I felt a little bit left out not wishing to spend a tremendous amount of money on a turntable and 3x+ the cost of the same CD on record. I’ve been finding some gems at thrift stores and yard sales, and using eBay for the more obscure albums. Thanks for the crazy in-depth explanation!
Both formats can sound great. The quality of the recording and mastering is what really matters.
They both definitely sound great, but CDs and digital always sound flat compared to vinyl. Vinyl shows off the texture of the instruments and is more accurate to how they sound live.
@@stretch90 IMO digital sounds better in totality, but HQ digital streaming sounds exactly the same to me as CD so if I’m going to take up space in my house for anything physical I’ll go with vinyl because of its artwork and its analog sound signature that can’t be replicated with digitally.
@@stretch90 What if the music has been digitally mastered before being put onto Vinyl.
Of course if the mastering is bad, it won’t matter if its vinyl or CD. It doesn’t seem very debatable that if you hold mastering (and mixing) as a constant, CD sounds better than vinyl.
@@stephenmatthews5437 This. Not only digitally mastered, but digitally recorded
I love both records & cd’s, but as far as the cd’s go, I’m glad they’re making a comeback, because there are CD players that have pitch controls, which I personally love.
There are turntables with pitch control out there.
They're really speed controls. Changing pitch without changing tempo usually requires a computer and it doesn't sound that great most of the time ;p
What made me give up on vinyl is inner groove distortion switched back to cds and haven’t looked back.
thats whats always bothered me , but I changed my TT and its mostsly gone.
A better cartridge can usually help with that. I have the ortofon 2m blue and it’s greatly reduced it from the previous one i had. I’ve read the 2m black reduces it even more. But then again most people don’t have $700 to spend on a cartridge lol
An AT-VM95ML cartridge is currently the cheapest with a Microlinear stylus, which is the thinnest stylus type you can commonly buy. Unless the LP is badly mastered or badly pressed, that cartridge will sort out your inner groove distortion problems.
If you own the VM95E with the green elliptical stylus, you are in luck. Just buy the red ML stylus and swap it for the green. BOOM - instant upgrade. If you want a slightly silkier, less CD like sound, get the brown Shibata stylus. While technically not a good as the red stylus from a tracking standpoint, it's still a very good tracker, with a lot of folk appreciating the fuller bodied sound.
Back in the 1980s, a lot of albums that were put on record in the past were put on CD with the same mastering as the LP. You can always tell which ones are remastered or re-issues by the date on the CD. If it has only the original release date, it's a re-issue of the original master. If it has multiple dates, it's a remaster. I save a lot of money by buying re-issues on CD rather than original vinyl, and the sound quality is overall better too.
No, that's completely wrong. Records are _not_ mastered anything like CDs! As the guy in the video says, a CD contains lands and pits, while a record has a squiggly groove. Because both are physically pressed, the stampers eventually wear out, and new ones need to be made. After a while, even the master copy wears out in the process of making new stampers, and must be made again. Unfortunately, record companies don't distinguish between master disks (or discs for CD) and master _tapes_ that have the original recordings. So when an analog _tape_ that has flaws is touched-up digitally to produce a new digital master tape, that too is called "remastered". You can't tell which is which just by looking at the date.
For a CD, a different master disc should make no difference--it either plays or it doesn't. And if it plays, the digital part will be the same. OTOH if the "remaster" is to the _recording_ not the disc, the program material may be radically different. A shady industry practice called "sweetening" can be applied to "spice up" a recording contrary to the artist's wishes. Unscrupulous record companies trying to generate churn will re-issue CD albums, with the new version sweetened to make it louder. But because sweetening is often done by unskilled personnel, the results can be really bad. Sadly there's now a cottage industry in industry con artists who are essentially amateur sound mixers, who like to call themselves "mastering engineers" but neither master nor do engineering.
Some artists with clout have taken back control of their works from the record companies, and have repaired the damage done during sweetening, others haven't been so lucky. One must know a lot about the discography to know which releases are good, and which ones to avoid. If in doubt, for albums recorded before the Compact Disc, look for the earliest release that you can find. Early releases might still have _analog_ artifacts, errors in the original recording process, but will be free of audio vandalism.
@@StringerNews1 in the beginning they used vinyl masters for cd of certain titles I think. Especially the 'budget titles' or smaller labels. Not all early digital masters sounded good. Remasters can be an improvement (sometimes). Depends what the label and / or artists ask for.... natural or extremely loud :) I am aware of an indie band... they invested in two seperate masterings for digital and vinyl. The label accidently used the digital mastering for vinyl as well, which made the record skip. Reaction from the label: no repress, no sorry .... but 'don't worry, 99% of the people won't notice this'. Labels these days don't care about quality of their products, just about making money in the short term.
CD technology beats vinyl 100-0. Unfortunately, since the 90s, record companies have not used CD features to their advantage. What I mean by this is that the sound dynamics of CD recordings have been very bad since the 90s. (except in classical music). The music is loud and has no "airiness". (Loudness war).
Very educative video! I keep coming back because your videos are so nice to follow. Greetings from Belgium 🇧🇪
I remember listening to my first CD in 1989, Roxette's "Look Sharp". It was amazing! The LP wasn't even close in sound quality.
This was a good overall presentation, with a glaring error at the beginning. There is no centrifugal force on the stylus, because it is virtually stationary. The imbalance is caused by drag on the stylus as the record turns, and the tone arm geometry is such that the stylus force is greater toward the inside of the groove, just the opposite of what he said. Good turntables have a compensator of some sort to balance out this force.
Right the anti-skate setting..... about the centrifugal force..... VERY good point!!!!!! I need to think on that!
Not only that, but your explanation of lossy compression is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with frequencies outside the range of human hearing, since digital encoding includes anti-aliasing filters to get rid of any material higher than the Nyquist frequency.
The psychoacoustic model relates to the ear’s inability to hear details which are lower in level to others of similar pitch. This is a phonomenon called masking. An algorithm is used to detect and remove this information, and only encodes the sound the ear can hear, resulting in a reduction in bit rate.
More advanced codecs, such as AAC, go further. These use something called SBR (Spectral Band Replication), which cuts off treble frequencies, and encodes these as a kind of ‘waveform description’. The decoder reforms the higher frequencies using this waveform descriptor information, and adds these to the lower frequencies which were encoded conventionally.
@@davba2 I was wondering, if I am the only one who found few mistakes in those explanations. So I agree with you. Interestingly lot of commenters feels explanations clear despite misconceptions:-)
CD's are my favorite physical media source ..
But do whatever makes you happy, I say..as long as the music never stops.
Trouble is CDs are selling less now so things are less likely to be available on CD than they were and it's partly driven by mistaken ideas of sound quality.
@@keriford54 as a CD collector. Can confirm some albums can be really hard to get, especially when it's a more unknown band that doesn't sell CDs of their own albums. But when I do get it I listen to it like 10 times in a row lol
@@keriford54 but there are still plenty of albums you can het on CD that is not on vinyl.
Vinyl is a type.. I bought all the Ministry discography on CD , for what i would have paid for two vinyl..
An interesting presentation. Personally, I think the cd/vinyl debate is getting rather old. I was born and raised with vinyl so I naturally gravitate in that direction. I simply enjoy the overall vinyl experience and the vinyl resurgence has been a big kick for me. But, at the same time, I have absolutely nothing against cd’s and continue to purchase them on occasion.
Me either. I’m 60 and have no intentions, and never did, with replacing all my vinyl with CDs. However I do buy CDs, especially used CDs, still. Actually getting ahold of a used Pioneer DVD player recently I’ve become reacquainted with listening to them again besides in the car while driving.
I don’t care who prefers what, to be honest. I like CDs, I like LPs, and I like digital.
@@danielpatternson6149 I hate lossy audio files with a passion. I still don't understand why people stream or download low quality music.
You are not wrong. CDs ARE better than vinyl.
Very good analysis and review. Although I like many things about LPs, in real life music listening I listen to CDs about 50% of the time, cassette tapes 25%, LPs about 15%, CZcams videos, downloaded MP3s, and FM radio 10%. The biggest frustration for CD collectors is, quoting from another commenter, "...proper implementation is key....mastering has a big impact on the final sound quality and can diminish the pro's of the CD format...which is not uncommon. Brickwalling is a common practice when mastering music for a digital format. With vinyl that's not an issue, since vinyl can't really be brickwalled due to its low dynamic range. Also vinyl is considered a premium format nowadays, so its not uncommon that the mastering for vinyl is done with more care than its digital counterpart." In many but not all cases, CDs released during the earliest years of the format (1982 through 1994) are mastered with very little dynamic range compression or frequency response limiting. Unfortunately, a few of those early CDs were mastered using third-generation tape copies as source material or other engineering faults like unintended brickwalling (technicians were still learning how to properly engineer and master material for CD), providing a stale or even overly-bright sound and giving the format a bad rap. Having said that, the majority of early-generation CDs were designed to demonstrate the format's superior frequency response, dynamic range and lack of distortion compared to the corresponding LP and cassette editions. Starting in the 1990s, with LPs almost extinct and cassettes starting to fade from the mass market, the emphasis was on making most CDs LOUD at the expense of accurate so an album would sound good on a CD boombox or car stereo, rather than on high-quality home audio gear.
The common consumer vinyl is cheaply pumped out garbage in HiFi terms
CD blows them out of the water
Actually it's probably a no-brainer that most vinyl pressed out now is garbage is because they know it's for the spurtyphi gen/future where they know it's all ear buds and Bluetooth and the punters actually have no concept of quality sound
so basically cd would be the better more reliable format, if only it was properly mastered
As much as I love vinyl records, they're one of the coolest formats, and I think it's awesome they're coming back (and how record players are becoming available.) I'll always be more of a CD person. As someone who does not have unlimited money or unlimited space. I like them, but records are just not that practical for me. I like having my Sony CFD-S70 and a rotating CD shelf type thing. The only analog format I really use regularly is tape, as used tapes are often less than used CD's, like they're dirt cheap, even new ones. Speaking of used CD's, they're way less of a hassle than used records. They never really get that dirty. Records are massive, you have to clean them, anything can get in those grooves, dirt dust, and worryingly germs . Wheras CD's you have none of that, maybe the case could use a wipedown but that's it at MOST. And on top of all that, the vinyl resurgence has actually brought the cost of CD's down, but the cost has gone way down, and it's really nice. I'm pretty much getting my CD collection ready for the day they're considered "retro" and "vintage," some consider them that but they're actually more relevant than people think.
The sound quality on a used record is always a gamble, as looking at the record won’t always let you know if it has surface noise from being played with a worn stylus or crappy player. Used CDs, on the other hand, unless they’re visibly very damaged, always sound every bit as good as new CDs.
@@danieldaniels7571 I've found cds on the side of the road half buried in the dirt and scratched up to hell (actual deep scratches) and they've almost all worked perfectly after a quick wipedown with a cloth.
Even of they are too scratched to play they still often be restored with very fine sandpaper and polish.
Well there is a reason why used and new cassette tapes are cheap lol
Can someone advise me on how to know whether a CD has been produced using the dynamic range method?
I wish this got more views. You explained everything so precisely. Thanks! 🙏
Too much frustration with lp's, everytime I ordered a special collector's edition the records arrived damaged due to poor packaging... poor pressings at a premium price ... warped records ... Never again! Collecting vinyl was more frustration than fun.
As a teen in the 80’s, I’ve lived through vinyl, tape, cd, minidisk & streaming. I’ve resisted the vinyl revival for as long as possible but ultimately gave in about a year ago now. I purchased a Sony deck and, on the same shopping trip, picked up a few vinyl albums to listen to when I got it home. You do get hit by the ‘warmth’ of the sound but understanding what that ‘warmth’ is is enlightening (thanks to this video). More recently, we purchased a new Lexus hybrid car and they are still fitting cd players in their cars, my wife and I were both hit by how good a cd sounded in the car. All that said, the format I’m enjoying the most right now is minidisk. I know ATRAC is a lossy compression but to my fifty + year old ears it sounds good enough and I love the form factor.
ATRAC is indeed amazing. Thanks for the great comment.
What are you listening to on a Stereo Fidelity L.P.? The 101 Strings?
What I like about cd’s: No surface noise and do not have costly maintenance.
What I like about vinyl: The artwork of the album is such an aestethic which can be displayed.
I buy and listen to both records and compact discs. The humble CD does sound better, hands down.
I have an audiophile grade CD player and turntable. I find the sound to be engaging and musical on both components. I have far more LPs than CDs, but I prefer CDs. CD players have a remote control to play or skip specific tracks, they play both sides of the LP without flipping them, they don’t have to be cleaned every use, you don’t have to put them away right after use to avoid dust, they don’t pop and crackle, and I can store them in a sleeved CD storage book.
The negative I have is that I do have some CDs that have been scratched, and my specific player will at times not be able to play some of the tracks.
The reason CDs have a bad reputation amongst audiophiles is because of mastering techniques common in the CDs heyday. THEY HAD TO BE LOUUUUD. Even though the CD had a greater frequency response than the LP, the producers wanted music compressed and loud, negating all dynamic range benefits the CD provided.
a good and in depth informational video about the cd and vinyl formats. I do enjoy both formats and have many of each in my collection. I never got to technical about which is better, for me its just about enjoying music on whatever format you like. thanks for this detailed video
Doesn’t redistribution altering from inside to outside of a record also apply to CDs as they rotate?
CDs are way better. And cheaper. Also as an '80s and 90s kid rounding up CDs is very nostalgic.
If there were no Loudness War Compression on 90% of CD Releases you would be correct. LPs however are EQed to be musical to have Dynamic Range that CDs (If properly mixed at the studio) would have in abundance however the over Compression (by record producers and Sound engineers) has destroyed all Dynamic Range on CDs.
The loudness wars started way before CDs came along. CDs sound better full stop.
@@mdluk199 The loudness war in this instance refers specifically to flattening the peaks in digital audio to allow the levels to be boosted. The process has come to be referred to in slang terms as "brickwalling".
Not quite the same loudness war as when vinyl mastering engineers used compression to make loud sounding vinyl (a la George "Porky" Peckham, Bob Ludwig, to name a couple).
If you know which CDs to look for I’d say 90% of the time the CD is going to have much more dynamic range than the LP.
This is most comprehensive video I stumbled into regarding cd vs. vinyl. I got rid of the vinyl that was converted and released in cd format and kept the ones that didn't come out on cd.
I am grateful to Recordology for preparing this video evaluation. I experience joy listening to music from both formats, and I have some really nice turntables, but in real life 75% of my music listening is via CDs.
Can you make a good cd player-amp-speakers system for 1000 pounds circa?
I am a good listener, but mid-fi is enough for me.
Ah yes, the never ending debate of almost every YT audio\music channel and online audio\music forum on the net. The reality is both formats have their drawbacks or flaws. The reality is I have NEVER heard one person say I completely stopped using either format because of seeing or hearing this debate. It all misses the point of what music listening it about. Which is just to enjoy the music itself.
I have stopped using vinyl records completely because digital audio is superior in every way. Now you can't deny that point.
Hi great video I love vinyl but the one thing I hate when my favourite tracks are near the centre of the record then as you rightly point out the sound quality fades ...I love both cd and vinyl. .the thing I like about cd is all the tracks are on one side of the disc.and of course no distortion. .....😊
How do cds compare with itunes, Spotify and other online platforms? Are they mp3s?
Does this include studio masters too?
Can't wait for the comments
Which is part of the entertainment here LOL
@@Recordology No kidding LOL
I get LPs to put on frame and hang on wall, and just have a collection while sometimes dropping the needle. I listen to files I ripped from my cds 99% of times
I would like to take off a curiosity that I have had for many years: with the progress made in the last years of digital and vinyl, if I had a 1800/2200 pound budget, between a Rega Planar 8 turntable and a player in this range like the Technics SL-G700M2 for example, which one would sound better for Pop and Rock music, no classical / jazz , and no loudness war (only 80/90' music) ? Does a player in this range still sound "digital" ? Does one need a higher budget to hear "analog" like a vinyl in this range ?
I believe with vinyl it’s the law of diminishing returns. That being said, I’ve never had anything more expensive than my $800 LP7. I ended up selling it and am perfectly happy with a turntable worth less than half for my daily driver.
Great video. Everything you brought out lines up with everything I have ever been taught on this subject. I rip my CDs to FLAC and put on my server the store away the CD. I bought my first CD player in the early eighties... have not bought another LP since. I have a 40+ year old Technics SL-1500 turntable to play the LPs I do have. But, can't remember the last time I did ;) I even still have my old Teac reel-to-reel. I guess I just like looking at the stuff.
I hear the part about having the big album covers, the art work and all that stuff... and that warm (distortion) sound... but that is not my cup of tea. I have noticed that several of the re-mastered CDs I have bought do seem to sound better than the older ones. I understand that has to do with improvements with the technology involved in mastering over the years.
It all really depends on usage. Vinyl can sound amazing, but you have to have some good hardware to get the most out of it. CD has the advantage of pretty much always getting the same result regardless of the player. It also does come down to mastering. Most songs that were released in the vinyl era were mastered to specifically cater to the strengths of the format. Some early CDs lazily used the vinyl master for the CD. The final issue is being able to play the darn things. It's easier to find a decent quality record player than its CD counterpart. Unfortunately CD became popular in the late 80s/ early 90s and that's also when the trend of more disposable electronics began. A lot of CD players are pretty much impossible to repair if something goes wrong. In contrast the record player (besides the cheap ones) was made far more modular with fairly universal replaceable components. This is all before you get into things like not all DACs being equal. Honestly if you're going purely by audio quality reel to reel beats them both, but the limited library of music released for it holds it back.
Even though I love my digital downloads especially while driving sometimes it's nice to pop in a cd, that or a cassette.
yeah, me too, i did solder a bluetoothmodule csr8645 to my original car stereos board (as you can see on my youtube site) and i also have casette and cd´s on board - i absolutly love it, want to upgrade to csr8675 as bluetooth kepps getting better with LDAC Codec up to 900kbit´s
This is FASCINATING. does it mean tracks 4 and 8 from a record where better mixed assuming the lower fidelity per se on a vinyl record played?
It’s quite possible. Record producers knew the limitations of vinyl when programming a release.
So, are there any consumer products that surpass 1990s compact disc fir audio consuption?
Blue Ray audio or such or is the improvements hard to hear for human ears,
That’s a point of contention. Dvd and Blu-ray have much higher but rates but can we really hear the difference?
I use both formats. I've always been sympathetic toward the digital argument, but, while records are certainly not perfect, there does seem to be something to them as an "audiophile" format. Regardless of what the technical reason might be, people are getting incredible listening experiences out of their records that are different, and some would say better, than what CDs offer, and that interests me.
I grew up with records cassette and 8 track tape and when cds came out I bought my first cd player and hooked it to my stereo and the audio on the cd was amazing i switched my whole record collection to cd and sold all my records we used to compare the difference best quality sound was DDD, some were ADD and some were AAD
Vinyl doesn't come close, especially not in audiophile world
Vinyl has a certain charm; story-telling, maybe it's like books. And there is a difference in sound because there are more variables - the record itself, the needle/cartridge, the EQ, etc. Sound even emits from the record/needle even with no speakers attached. Some people prefer this sound, even if it may not be as high fidelity.
I'd probably use vinyl or tapes if I wanted to be "retro"
I still have happy memories of vinyl when I was a lot younger but I don't play them now. Sadly, my hearing isn't what it used to be but CDs still sound pretty good
Great, comprehensive explanation, and complete demonstration! Thumbs up. I'm a regular viewer. I enjoy listening, and seeing your shows, and demonstrations. I listen to music CDs, but I also like to listen to vinyl, and cassette tapes, especially type 2! For the convenience, the fact that the original recordings were on records, or pre-recorded cassettes, those are my choices. Luckily I have a Sony CDP-CE215 CD Player bought at the end of 1998 connected to my Sony STR-DH520 AV Receiver (2012); but I listen to hi fi audio, I do not require anything with this TV option, by the way if you are wondering.
Since I am curious, and a bit experimental, I'm interested in hooking up a SACD Player, too; because of the further advantage that it is supposed to have by what some music listeners profess. Remember it has an even higher kilohertz number! Therefore, my question is what input port on my Sony AV receiver should I connect a super audio CD player to? There is only one SA/CD RCA input. Also, is there going to be more detail in the sound, and music? I am not certain about spending an enormous amount of money on a SACD player, and am wondering if it is worth the time, and cost. Thank you for any sound advice that you can provide.
Great questions! So SACD has two features above a CD. 1. Multichannel (6ch) audio Vs. Stereo (2ch) only with CD. Second is higher encoding and sampling rates akin to hi res lossless files (although technically CD is also lossless.) Can you tell a difference? Possibly, but it would be minute based on resolution alone.
What about FM vs DAB radio?
Personally I just like that I can get more stuff in the CD booklet, and sometimes hidden stuff in the case like with the Atlantic Record's re-release of Kid A by Radiohead
LPs can contain books too - in a much bigger size.
@@errYuck Or you could just get a real book ;-)
I grew up with cassettes and it's nostalgic and emotionally connected to it however when I switched to CDs back in 94 I never looked back
cassettes are rare to found on internet nowdays
This is one of the best videos I've seen on the subject. There is a relevant question on the quality of the mastering used on some CDs, especially early in the format's life and as loudness became "attractive" and reissues brought a lot of clipping in remasters - but that's not on the format at all. There are still a few records only available as butchered remasters in CDs, which are in fact inferior to original LPs because of this - still, Great content all around.
this was a perfect explanation: i'm interested in the technical stuff, but not so much that i need to know physics! really good explanation, thank you!
It's a no-brainer, CD sounds better. Scientifically proven. Putting aside price and durability, CD sounds better. A great recording will always sound better on CD than Vinyl, simple. People who are used to Vinyl does not mean they "hear better" they just like that sound.
You did a Great job explaining this..... They ought to play the video in a college class......
Thank you
Great work! Thank you for this explanation. Back when I could first afford a CD player, my vinyl collection was orphaned little by little until it was all replaced and then given away.
Today I have a very nice NAD CD player/w digital output that I use for different DAC's and no turntable.
How does a SACD DDD disc compare to a record ?
96k/24bit I believe.
Good video. I'm glad that someone talked about this topic. I hear people saying how wonderful the sound quality of records are, and I wonder to myself if today's music sources(streaming/MP3) are so crappy that people will gravitate to whatever is better, even if that alternative is still pretty bad. Records were left behind decades ago for a reason. I also was able to learn a lot, so thanks. I'm wondering if another episode could be done on the comparison between compressed music and uncompressed, that is, in more depth than what has been mentioned. Thanks again!
Sounds good maybe I will do it! Thank you!
"Records were left behind decades ago for a reason."
It wasn't because of a lack of sound quality. Records can sound great.
Records were left behind in the '80s when compact cassettes became the best selling format, and they don't have better sound quality than records. They are, however, far more compact, convenient, and portable than records. The Sony Walkman, boomboxes, and car stereos, fueled the cassette's rise to prominence.
Then cassettes were left behind when CDs became the best selling format in the early '90s. They are capable of better sound quality than either records or cassettes, but that had little to do with it, since the general public isn't all that fussy about sound quality. The main reason was that CDs are a random access format, which was something people liked about records vs. cassettes, but CDs are even better at random access than records are.
Then CDs got left behind because of MP3s, even though MP3s and other file types with lossy compression schemes obviously have worse sound quality than CDs. But again, it was about convenience and other practical advantages, not sound quality.
I grew up with vinyl and switched to cd in my 20's.
I got back into vinyl a couple Christmas' ago when I was feeling nostalgic and wanted to listen to Christmas music on vinyl.
I've bought some vinyl since. But, because vinyl costs 2-4x as much as a cd, I usually buy cd's. The exception, again, is nostalgia.
Nothing wrong with that, its music, its meant to be enjoyable not practical.
I like both records and cd , but will cd last as long as vinyl ?
the bit depth only says something about the span between the quitest and loudest sound in the recording. At 16 bit it is 96 db and at 24 bit it is 144 db.
And 16 bits already covers the 20Hz and 20 kHz range. Point being that 24bit is largely unnecessary except for mastering applications.
@@Recordology en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem says the sampling frequency must be greater than twice the maximum frequency one wishes to reproduce. Since human hearing range is roughly 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz, the sampling rate had to be greater than 40 kHz.
so you actually hear 22.05 kHz on a CD.
sadly they did not make the rate up to 48 kHz on a CD, because 24 kHz would be the frequency that you can hear on vinyl records, because they cut the frequencies above or make them much quieter, so you can fit ca. 20-30 min on a record side. and all frequencies under 40 Hz are mono on a lp!
Plus you don’t have to stand up to turn the bloody thing over to side B.
Have been buying CDs since 1985. First one was Bowie’s Let’s Dance. Couldn’t believe how powerful and clear it sounded. I was an instant convert. Over the years, CDs have stayed the same, but the mastering process has been terrible since the 90s. Modern, ‘loud’ CDs are blamed on the format when it’s how it’s mastered that’s the problem! I will admit that vinyl is warmer sounding.. Even the best CDs and SACDs struggle to replicate that, but I can’t go back to the crackles and pop, the IGD and general wear and tear, of vinyl. Had my fill of that in the 70s and 80s.😁
BOBBY1976100 I think a lot of people forgot why we all switched over to CDs in the first place. Also, I agree about the loudness war over compassion mastering, and I think it likely has a lot to do with the decline of CDs. It’s not the formats fault, it’s poor mastering. I have a couple CDs I can’t even listen to because they are so squashed they hurt my ears. Luckily, some, maybe most, CDs are mastered properly.
BOBBY1976100 I think a lot of people forgot why we all switched over to CDs in the first place. Also, I agree about the loudness war over compassion mastering, and I think it likely has a lot to do with the decline of CDs. It’s not the formats fault, it’s poor mastering. I have a couple CDs I can’t even listen to because they are so squashed they hurt my ears. Luckily, some, maybe most, CDs are mastered properly.
BOBBY1976100 I think a lot of people forgot why we all switched over to CDs in the first place. Also, I agree about the loudness war, over compassion mastering, and I think it likely has a lot to do with the decline of CDs. It’s not the formats fault, it’s poor mastering. I have a couple CDs I can’t even listen to because they are so squashed they hurt my ears. Luckily, some, maybe most, CDs are mastered properly.
So, if one plays their CD 💿 through a nice CD Player & Tube DAC they will get that same warmer sound, yes?
Warm-er but not quite as much.
Hey some people are saying that is it good to produce your music in analog and master
in digital can somebody educate me on this
load up on your CDs while they are cheap and complete that collection because its only a matter of time before they too make a big comeback, possibly costing more than they originally did.
I mean vinyl has some really good quality and cds can have some really good quality as well
When CD’s came out I was able to buy 30 sealed vinyl records for 30 bucks. The reverse is now in effect. I’ve always been partial to the format I first experienced a recording on. Still on the lookout for a cassette of Prince’s 1999 and Iggy’s Raw Power on 8 track. Btw, 8 track was God awful but I’d love to have a copy of that one for nostalgia reasons only.
Wow! Very interesting material. You're talking about the items like good teacher! 👏
Thank you! 😃
Truth. Records are fun and quaint and the cover art is amazing, but the sound is decidedly inferior to a well-mastered CD. On my pretty nice sound system, CDs sound WAY better than records. My turntable, cats and stylus are top notch, but the sound has to be cranked to come close to CDs and even then, records sound more compressed, distorted, and lack the dynamic range. I think modern LPs would be much better if we had an update for turntable preamps to give us a better dynamic range for the format.
It’s a shame dbx encoded vinyl records never really caught on.
Wrong. AAD on a cd tells u that the cd was copied off analog vinyl from 1971 & before. Arguing that cd is better is wrong, because old cds r off old TUBE RECORDE vinyl, there were NO DIGITASL TRANSISTORS IN THE OLD DAYS. in the old days. I copy $10,000 turntable youtube mp3 to cd & it sounds much better than store bought cds. I get the benefit of vinyl on cd that dont wear out. Some will disagree with me that lack understanding to know how to do or even hear it. The first link is cd. Click links to show vinyl blows cd away. czcams.com/video/J7ATTjg7tpE/video.html czcams.com/video/GOmkv9qsS1o/video.html
I deleted the repeats of this post but allowed this one. Totally fine with your disagreement with me - no problem. I would point out however that AAD absolutely does not mean the cd is from a vinyl record. The first A means that the source recording was analog which would have been 1/2” 3 track tape running 15ips in most cases. The second A refers to the fact that the album was mastered in analog (multitrack tape) and the last letter D refers to the fact that the disc you are holding is obviously digital. Old CD’s like cassettes and vinyl were mastered from 1/2” ‘album reel’ dubs on reel to reel tape.
@@Recordology U r right, & I am right on this post. One "A" means it was analog tube recorded to vinyl, this A was sent to vinyl or cd. Therefore cds that are not pure transistor digital as some believe, have got part of the analog process that was made years back into vinyl. Years back there wasnt much transistors, it was tubes. These old recordings put on cds has some of the Analog tube effect. In 1972 some digital was added. I love old albums put on cds. I hate new vinyl & cds copied digitally. I cant tell a new vinyl from a new cd. Cassette dolby noise reduction removed hiss & hurt the sound, the same goes for cds removing the hiss. I actually store bought a cd with hiss on it & I like it. Some new cds are tube remastered. Google direct to disc albums, they were really the best. Quadrophonic had trouble on vinyl with 2 different formats. Google Cx discs & DBX records. I wonder how analog lazer music discs sound. Brothers in arms, Alan Parsons- I Robot, & Yes- Close to the Edge were wonderful albums with some digital added on vinyl. Fleetwood Mac, Eagles, & Pink Floyd are not completely analog as they claim, they can be remastered a hundred times, I dont like their sound, whether remastered or not.
CDs aren't better than vinyl, they are simply another way of listening to music. Some folks like me prefer the sound of vinyl and some folks prefer the sound of CDs. Such is life.
Delusional "Golden ears"...🤣🤣🤣
dont matter cuz cds is cuz its cheap and easy for me to collect cuz vinly and music tapes are to expensive on amazon and ebay so cds for me
So the distortion from the tubes is what makes tube amps sound generally better than solid state? Not saying solid state can’t sound incredible too (Randall Nick Friedli, Dimebag) but
what is your take on SHM CDs ?
Not sure - tell me more!
SHM CDs are primarily Japanese. The SHM stands for super high material. What I understand is that the material the CDs are made from is so pure and clear that it translates into better sound. The laser can read the 💿 much easier. I have quite a few of these and some of them sound fantastic and others sound like regular CDs. I wanted to get your opinion on the matter. Thanks for the great videos.
Another advantage of cds is that they don't degrade or wear with use, vinyls have a physical contact and friction going on at the needle meaning the sound slowly changes over time as it wears, obviously you would need to play it quite alot to wear out a vinyl but the factor is still there.
CDs can rot though.
CD's rot away, the audio is constantly degrading.
Professional studios will record audio at 192Khz or higher, so a CD is still missing a lot of data that was in the original recording.
I would argue you cant hear much difference between 44,100 samples per second vs 192,000.
That's why there's SACD. This format is VERY good. When they are mastered properly, it's the next best thing to listening the master recording at the studio.
@ReaktorLeak They say the bit depth has more impact on sound quality than the sample rate. They both matter, but to different extents. Listen to the standard 44.1khz at 16 Bit (Redbook CD) then check the same recording at 44.1khz at 32 bit floating point. You may hear a difference on a very accurate pair of headphones or speakers. There is even 64 bit floating point, but I haven't listened to that. Some DAWs support 64 bit. Steinberg Cubase is one of them.
Higher Sample Rates, at least for reproducing music, doesn't make much difference at all.
1) In first place, all ultrassonic frequencies (above 20kHz) cannot be heard by humans (and no, "absolute ears" cannot hear more than the 20Hz-20kHz human audible frequency range), in second place the oversampling process in the recording ambient is a good practice for a extended Headroom on the Frequency Range of the recording, that is done in order for avoid the "Aliasing" artifact at any cost during the editing, mixing, and other processing tasks at the Studio. That's the real benefit of recording with higher Sample Rates.
2) Higher Bit-Depths than 16-bit are useful for editing and processing audio too (and that's the main purpose for 24-bit audio, for example), but are also interesting (and, in some cases, desirable) for reproducing audio too. As one previous comment said, higher Bit-Depths have a bigger impact on the audio than higher Sample Rates, it's kinda subjective but it's true.
Loudness war destroys even theoretical differences in sound quality..
why did the audio overlap?
Was there an audio editing issue?
Really like your equipment setup, especially the top mechanical switch box; where did you get it? Old stuff rules, I'll give you $9 for your Sony DVD player?
It was my brothers old video game system switch. It’s by Pelican.
@@Recordology Thank you so much!
CD's in technicality are better sounding. But there's something about the sound of a record and watching it spin that I love. But I'll always buy a CD over a record if it's cheaper.
Not even in technically. All being equal, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference between the two.
I’ve never been one for watching a record spin. Once the music is on I’d rather read, look at pictures, or close my eyes and let my mind get lost in the music.
it is very sad that the so called LOUDNESS WAR (dynamic compression, overuse of no noise filters..) has given cd's a bad name.
a good mastered cd can sound as good as a good mastered lp, or even better!
Absolutely agree, people don't take that into consideration when condemning cds
I listen to a lit of early metal. It sounds amazing on CD. Transfered digitally directly from theazter tapes. Vinyl doesn't even come close.
so true my friend i used to buy records then turned to CD in 84 never bought a record since ive bought some crappy cds and crappy records .i'm so used to cds now i would never go back to records 😊😊😊
Those bad sounding records sound very often bad on vinyl either. Some amps / streamers and cd-players do a good job on those poorly mastered albums. With my old Marantz-amp many late 90s early 00s cd's sounded unbearable. With my Hegel H360-amp they are listenable. On the 'budget side', a pair of Sonos Fives do a decent job (streaming my lossless cd-rips from a NAS)...
Many thanks for this a great presentation, for some reason I'd always thought CDs had straight lines between their sample points, that'd kind of bothered me although I thought they still sounded better. I think the main issue I have had with CDs is the use of jewel cases, the cardboard sleeve ones are way classier. Packaging matters.
The clever wording on the title here, is well done.
Thank you
Among other things, many people stuck on vinyl, claim that a cd record will have problems after 5 years or so. I have been collecting cds since 1991. After 30 years, even the first cd i ever bought, sounds (and looks) just like new. Needless to say of course, that i always handled my cds with the outmost care, just like i do with my vinyl records which i stopped collecting and listening, about 20 years ago. I only sell them to viny lovers now and i wish them to have fun with them. But for me, the cd is such a superior means of storing and listening to music, in every way. Just don't maltreat them !
best comment on here
Have you ever had a CD deteriorate internally? In other words, have holes formed in between the outer layers of plastic where the digital information is contained? I’ve notice in a few if mine after having them for about 20-25 years. Granted, it has only been a few, but it does happen.
As long as you have a good quality turntable or equipment.
my oh my, that's hands down the best explanation on the topic. Thanks for making it
As a DJ I've also been able to compare the different mediums. Starting out, me and my fellow DJ buds, even mixed cassette tapes! We then went on to mix vinyl. Then CDs. Then MP3s. Each with their advantages and disadvantages. Which runs the gamut all the way down from cost up through technique.
the interesting thing that i have noticed is that while crackles and pops are fairly present on a home setup, they are not in a club enviroment with huge speakers. then again something i feel is not talked about a lot is that one of the main reason is why vinyl records are still a thing is becuase of electronic music and djs. while little commercial stuff and pop was produced rarely oroduced on vinyls during the first part of the 2000s, djs had no other way of mixing than records. its an ironic thought that the first music released on cds, and much of a reason why they became a thing was classical music, while electronic music was the last to abandon it (techno, especially the germans never abandoned it)
6:15 You are mistaking frequency and amplitude of a wave. The line you drew represents the wave height, 2x the amplitude since amplitude is measured from the center. Amplitude/height would be the volume. Frequency would be represented by the length of the wave (crest to crest).
Also your argument would be a lot stronger if you included a bit in Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. As it stands, you make a weak case with technical explanations that are either lacking information or incorrectly explained like the frequency example above. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that your lack of technical knowledge undermines your argument.
True higher frequency would show tighter modulation, I needed to come up with a diagram that would illustrate both a sound wave and the spectrum of audio for beginners. As it was it was really hard to keep this video under 30 minutes LOL
@@Recordology Longer videos with more in-depth info are good, because those are rare on CZcams! I like it that you took the effort to explain all these things and I encourage you to just take your time to do so.
Don't pay attention to all those hasty people that need to watch the next video within 10 minutes, just take your time... quality over quantity 😉
Yes, by the numbers, CDs certainly outperform vinyl from that standpoint. Keep in mind, however, that when the original research for the digital representation of music began in around the mid sixties, researchers were looking for a way to play music repeatedly without the medium wearing out. That was the true goal. It wasn't really about improving the quality of the sound, but rather preventing the degradation of recorded sound.
That's a myth. CDs were designed to not degrade AND sound better.
Years ago, I was told that CDs are Full of sound gaps .... thousands per second, as you so adroitly point out .... But our human ears can Not hear those gaps because the gaps are so small and short ... and yet the gaps are there. We just can't hear 'em. You did a great job explaining that! I felt like I should have been taking notes, like there was going to be a test at the end of the period! ;-)
"I was told that CDs are Full of sound gaps .... thousands per second"
That is completely wrong. Digital captures the ENTIRE waveform. There is nothing missing at all. This is proven by the Nyquist Theorem.
Per a video by Monty Montgomery, the gaps between the samples are filled in by calculation. There's only one wave form that will correctly pass through the sample points, so that will accurately fill in the gaps between the samples.
I love seeing CZcamsrs A/V setups. I see you have other equipment in the background but thanks for showing some of your pieces.
CD's all the way for me. I recently sold my record collection for a very tidy sum. Pleased to see the back of them. Spent the money on more CD's. My two CD receivers I have at home sound gorgeous. Modern DAC's separate the instruments beautifully. Never going back to plastic. I'll just wait until the compact disc revival in a few years time.
Plus you can buy CDs for like a buck on ebay all day!
I grew up on audio CDs. I never listened to any music on vinyl (I don't know if I did).
Maaaax !
Dearest of all my freinds
Years ago, I had one of the best ever made Analog to Digital Audio encoder cards and encoded an album. I had one of my Audiophile friends without knowing what was playing tell me which of the three sounded better, saying that two might be the same done twice. He said I played the vinyl twice and they were nearly identical when one that was the Analog to Digital encoded and he unknowing picked that one as sounding slightly better.
Where most people get confused in addition to what you covered is that they think CD is compressed because they use the word compression to describe when the quiet passages are recorded at a similar level to th loud parts. They failed to understand that CD is not compressed nor lossy.
Good point - compressed as having been passed through a compressor similar to FM radio.
Dynamic range compression is something which is too often inflicted on non-lossy compressed (FLAC, ALAC) or uncompressed (Windows Media, Compact Disc) digital audio musical material.