Casual vinyl vs digital blind test |
Casual vinyl vs digital blind test |
Mar 30 2003, 22:56
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moderator Group: Super Moderator Posts: 3934 Joined: 29-September 01 Member No.: 73 |
Today a friend visited me, so I seized the occasion to perform a hardware blind test. Computer blind test, like original vs MP3, I can do them alone with a program, but for real vinyl vs CD blind tests, I need someone to switch the source selector "in my back".
It was a "vinyl versus digital" test. A vinyl was playing back. The line out of the ampli was directed into the DAT deck, 48 kHz 16 bits. The ampli vinyl input (pure analog) was compared to the DAT input (digitized to 48 kHz 16 bits). Preliminaries listening sessions : the digital sound seems more bright, shiny and detailed to me, the vinyl more smooth, silky and "noisy". The digital sound seems also "tiresome". No difference in frequencies or definition, just feelings. The voice seemed to be more separated to the instruments on the digital version to her, though there is quite no difference between the two versions. Then, in turn, the operator writes down on a paper a serial of sources, digital or analog, that are going to be played. The subject must then write on his own paper the source that he thinks he is listening to, for each session. Then the results are compared. After the test the roles are inverted, the operator becomes subject, and the subject operator. Results : Me : 6/10, but I guessed 3 of them recognizing the level difference, the real result is then 3/7. Her : 5/8. After 5 trials she said she couldn't concentrate. We stopped for 2 minutes, then I played the references again, and she said the feeling was opposite now : the voice seemed more detached in the analog version, and that she had probably inverted all previous answers. Anyway, noting 0 for false and 1 for true, she got 0 0 0 1 1 -pause- 1 1 1 , so it's a failure whatever way we interpret the results. Here's a sample of what we listened to, to illustrate the ability of digital to reproduce the "warm, fuzzy, fat, analog sound of vinyl". sandra.mpc 516 kB, 22 seconds Setup : Technics SL-3100 turntable. Stanton Trackmaster EL cartridge, 5 grams tracking force, 3 grams of antiskate (it's the maximum on this turntable). Arcam Diva A85 ampli, Sony DTC 55ES DAT, Dynaudio Gemini Speakers (not equalized, this time). Between each trial, the operator switches the source selector (electronic commands) to a silent input, adjusts the volume to match the levels (digital volume display), then switch back the selector to the new source. Records : Cocteau Twins - treasure (Virgin), track 1 & 3. Not convincing. So we used Sandra - 10/10 - Maria Magdalena for the blind tests. |
|
|
|
![]() |
Mar 11 2007, 08:51
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Members (Donating) Posts: 369 Joined: 28-June 02 From: South Australia, AUSTRALIA Member No.: 2421 |
I think the difference is the mastering as well. Same with SACD, all the SACD I own sound very good to superb, and I'm sure the mastering has at least as much to do with it as the DSD format.
To me CD and vinyl is the same, they can both sound good if properly mastered. Sadly these days contemporary rock and pop albums usually aren't mastered well to CD. -------------------- www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html
|
|
|
|
Mar 11 2007, 22:15
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 2082 Joined: 18-December 03 Member No.: 10538 |
I think the difference is the mastering as well. Same with SACD, all the SACD I own sound very good to superb, and I'm sure the mastering has at least as much to do with it as the DSD format. To me CD and vinyl is the same, they can both sound good if properly mastered. Sadly these days contemporary rock and pop albums usually aren't mastered well to CD. The ten-ton irony -- almost tragedy -- is that, because you CAN'T cut LPs with the sort of faddish extreme compression that digital allows, nowadays you stand a decent chance of getting a more natural-sounding version of a modern recording , on LP than CD. This post has been edited by krabapple: Mar 11 2007, 22:15 |
|
|
|
Pio2001 Casual vinyl vs digital blind test Mar 30 2003, 22:56
lucpes
Comparing vinyl to digital sound is a very subjec... Apr 17 2003, 11:56
budgie I made very long and sometimes more than thorny wa... Apr 17 2003, 12:16
jkauff I don't think that's a fair comparison. Th... Apr 18 2003, 00:42
fewtch Not suggesting it means anything, but it's int... Apr 18 2003, 08:01
Continuum QUOTE (lucpes @ Posted on Apr 17 2003 - 12:56... Apr 18 2003, 08:42
Garf QUOTE (fewtch @ Apr 18 2003 - 09:01 AM)Not su... Apr 18 2003, 11:42
Pio2001 Right, the digital was virtually a copy of the vin... Apr 18 2003, 11:58
shazzan I have heard this argument alot. Its true that vin... Feb 26 2007, 12:39
eofor QUOTE (shazzan @ Feb 26 2007, 12:39) I ha... Feb 26 2007, 13:26
2Bdecided QUOTE (shazzan @ Feb 26 2007, 11:39) viny... Feb 26 2007, 13:29
AndyH-ha Also the other way around: phonograph records can ... Feb 26 2007, 15:03
JeanLuc QUOTE (AndyH-ha @ Feb 26 2007, 15:03... Feb 26 2007, 17:02
fistandantilus Speaking from a personal view i think nostalgia ha... Feb 26 2007, 17:41
eofor QUOTE (fistandantilus @ Feb 26 2007, 17:4... Feb 26 2007, 18:22
dvautier I have looked at lots of technical comparisons bet... Mar 4 2007, 20:41
krabapple QUOTE (dvautier @ Mar 4 2007, 14:41) I ha... Mar 11 2007, 07:30
pepoluan dvautier: I agree. You seem to hit it right on the... Mar 5 2007, 09:03
boojum I have a pretty high-end audio system and do not t... Mar 11 2007, 06:50![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 08:54 |