I once saw some data that suggested that the perception that vinyl has more "space" was related to the uncorrelated noise and that if a similar uncorrelated noise was added to CD peoples perception was that the sound stage had expanded. It was in a Stereophile "Industry update many, many years ago and for whatever reason I want to say the research was done in Germany.

Quote:

For Rock, Country, and Solo Vocal music, for me..vinyl it is.

Jazz too,and classical if you a get decent copy. Some analog front-ends seem to exaggerate the surface noise (or dimish it, whichever way you want to look at it); I am not too sure why. Cleaning LPs helps a lot too.
In the end, I am happy to put up with a bit of surface noise and the occasional click or pop for the improvements over digital.

Hi

NC I would generally agree with the following additional thoughts.

1 - I believe that big sounds ie drums, rock etc sound better on vinyl because of the analog factor. The harmonics that provide the depth to a sound just seem to be more present on vinyl. I would agree that say a solo violin does sound more pristine on SACD than vinyl.

2 - With regards to classical I think you have to split it, Pictures at an Exhibition sounds far better in my vinyl versions than my CD/SACD but more subtle violin type stuff does sound better on SACD.

There is definetly still a brightness to CD that is just not as natural sounding as vinyl

Alan

in my own and other guys hi end systems that i have been lucky enough to listen to, the sound stage generally seems between the speakers with cd and beyond the speakers with lp. i can't explain it, just hear it. this holds true from my fairly modest system to the most expensive mega-system i have yet heard, although i have to say that it gets closer as the quality of componentry improves. as for the sound quality, i have very good sounding cds and lps and very bad sounding of both and everything in between. neil young can be excrutiating on cd (although some would say all the time i am sure). must be something about the range he uses and the quality of his voice.

IMO the two source components are not comparable in sound quality. That doesn't mean I cannot enjoy both but I certainly expect different results from each. Both have their strengths and weakness and I don't expect LP's to perform as do CD's in certain respects.

What I have noticed in the last two CD player purchases I've made is the gap in overall sound quality has been narrowed over the last decade or so and it is easier to find a CD player that fits my existing system and is more reasonably balanced with the sound I prefer from my turntable and other sources. In the early days of digital replay, this was a concern that left many consumers with two vastly different sounds from one system. Today I can switch between the two major sources in my systems and not expect a completely different sound from each.

I think Jan's right about the source components being the key, not the format. I've now spent a small fortune on my CD/SACD player and I've become almost indifferent to format. So, with great isolation for my analog front end and a great Soundsmith moving iron cartridge and the Playback Designs MPS-5 digital player, I select my new purchases based on packaging and price.

I guess that I favor SACD ever so slightly, but that could be about the extra care that goes into mastering most SACDs. I'd rather pay $30 for an SACD than $50 for a 45-rpm LP. 80% of my purchases are still CD because they tend to be self-produced or low volume jazz artists that are only available on CD or mp3 download. (Even the MPS-5's upconverting to DSD can't save mp3s).

I think it's natural for each audiophile to have a system that'll favor one format over the other slightly, if not a lot. It's expensive to maintain two high quality front ends.

Dave

The Best vinyl records can sound really wonderful; unfortunately, between bad pressings, worn vinyl, recordings that were indifferent recordings from the get-go, and warps, I find that only about 20% of my 400 or so records are really top quality. Aye, there's the rub....

The twenty or so new LPs that I have purchased in the past couple of years from MusicDirect are mostly very good quality, as are the OPUS 3 LPs (I have about a dozen), and some from Proprius and Quintessence, but only a small fraction of my OLD LPs (most over 30 years old) are worth playing very often.

I have a handful of recordings where I have the same thing on SACD, LP, and CD...that allows interesting comparisons.

"Sketches of Spain" by Miles Davis is one of my benchmarks; the SACD wins out by a huge margin over the CD and LP on that one; amazingly pure tones and lovely overall sound from a recording that can sound unpleasant or harsh at times on most sound systems.

The Beethoven 6th by the CBS Symphony under Bruno Walter is another one; on that one the SACD is maybe slightly better than the CD and LP, but on that one it is very close overall.

Take 5 by Dave Brubeck is unquestionably best on my 50-year-old LP; the CD and SACD are very very good, but there is no question that the drums and cymbals are a bit more lifelike when playing the LP; really outstanding sound there. Also, the saxophone tone is just a little less vibrant and realistic on the CD compared to the LP and SACD.

"Pictures at an Exhibition" by the Chicago Symphony under Reiner is very very good on all 3, but the SACD seems to have a slight edge in bass and dynamics.

With many of my old LPs, the subwoofers can't be used; far too much rumble or warp-thump...problems, problems, lol.

Don't forget that there are some newer recordings that were made direct to DSD without any tape or conversion involved (hard to beat that)...in addition to all of the nice 1960s recordings that were taken from analog tape to DSD.