IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Casual vinyl vs digital blind test
Pio2001
post Mar 30 2003, 22:56
Post #1


Moderator


Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 3936
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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
boojum
post Mar 11 2007, 06:50
Post #2





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 819
Joined: 8-November 02
From: Astoria, OR
Member No.: 3727



I have a pretty high-end audio system and do not think that vinyl sounds better than CD's do. Some folks get swept up in the high prices and audio mystique and are susceptible to all sorts of BS pushed on them by the audio sales people. I am not going to bore you with the thechnological reasons that well mastered and mixed CD's sound better that well mastered and mixed LP's but I will give you just a few: no surface noise; no wow; no flutter; no rumble. I was delighted when CD's came out, as was the high-end audio world. Then about five or ten years later the high-end audio world was singing the LP's are better song. That way they get to sell you some damned expensive hardware. Although CD players were expensive when they came out. I paid a ton for my ReVox a long time ago. Swiss tank that it is it will probably outlast me. Sounds good, too.

Cheers. YMMV. cool.gif

This post has been edited by boojum: Mar 11 2007, 06:51


--------------------
Nov schmoz kapop.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- 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
- - ShowsOn   I think the difference is the mastering as well. S...   Mar 11 2007, 08:51
- - krabapple   QUOTE (ShowsOn @ Mar 11 2007, 03:51) I th...   Mar 11 2007, 22:15


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 2nd September 2014 - 13:21