“Let our rigorous testing and reviews be your guidelines to A/V equipment – not marketing slogans”
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • rss

Analog (Vinyl) vs Digital Audio (CD, FLAC) Sound Quality Comparison

by October 03, 2013
Audioholics Listening Panel

Audioholics Listening Panel

Ever since I picked up the Marantz PM-11S2 turntable, I've been amassing quite a collection of vinyl records.  Flip the clock back two years ago and I would have never considered spinning records on my system.  Well, let's just say ever since I upgraded my speaker system to the fabulous Status Acoustics 8T's, I've opened my mind to new possibilities.  I've come to appreciate a wider diversity of music and the various formats to listen on.  Why limit yourself to one format?  Why not enjoy the different experience you get through different listening media?  After all, it's not all just about getting the lowest noise and distortion in a recording is it?  What about the emotional response the format evokes on the listener?  There is something to be said about the crackling sound of vinyl as well as when the needle first hits the record, which I find quite enthralling.  The whole experience is best described as warm and cozy.  My wife finds it to be more personable and romantic when we listen to a vinyl recording.  Can't argue with her when she's pouring a nice glass of wine with a smile on her face dressed comfortably for what promises to be a fun night. 

CD has about a 26dB dynamic advantage over Vinyl and about 40-50dB better stereo separation.

By every measure, digital audio is superior to analog.  Even the standard redbook CD (44kHz, 16 bit resolution) has about a 26dB advantage to vinyl with respect to dynamic range, and at least a 40-50 dB advantage in stereo separation as well as unmeasurable wow and flutter.  A digital recording doesn't degrade overtime like a record does when played too many times.  I can go on, but you get the point.  On paper, digital audio is superior.  However, if I've learned anything over the years of running this website is there is often quite a difference between theory and reality.  Most technical people, especially electrical engineers, can suffer from what I call CMS (Closed Minded Syndrome), relying solely on hard data and facts to draw a conclusion before testing the reality of the situation to determine correlation.  Admittedly I am often guilty of  the CMS effect myself, but my engineering mind has opened up quite a bit over the years.  While I used to measure first and listen after, I now do the opposite.  I don't want my objective data to bias my sonic perceptions of a product.  I've found this approach much more useful to gauge my true enjoyment of a product I have under review.  I use measurements as a tool to troubleshoot potential design flaws, not necessarily to declare product superiority.  I've even written an article on Why We Measure Audio Component Performance that discusses this very topic in greater detail.

I was interested in doing a fun comparison between formats of the same recordings to see how each person's experience varied.  This comparison will likely not satisfy the few forum trolls that insist on using a strict Double Blind Test (DBT) protocol that most people, let alone manufacturers NEVER adhere to in the truest sense.  They will also decry that if the recordings weren't mixed by the same engineer, then you're comparing different mixes and not the formats themselves.  There is some merit to these arguments, but that wasn't the point of this exercise.  This listening event was meant as a friendly gathering of close friends and family to enjoy food, spirits, music and most importantly, companionship.

 Vinyl vs CD: Which One is Better?

The Food

There are two things I pride myself on, great sound and great food.  It's part of the reason why I married the best cook in the family.  My wife's passion for food is equal to her passion of life and love of our mutual audio hobby.  She cooked up some homemade vegetarian chile and I made fresh pasta and turkey meatballs (Italian style - egg, parsley, garlic, breadcrumbs, Parmesan cheese) with a homemade tomato sauce.   We also put out a full spread of cold Italian favorites like artichokes, red peppers, olives, and cheeses.  One of our forum members Dave Phares (aka. Majorloser) even brought us one of Belgium's finest beers called Chimay Ale (my brother refers to this as his daily drinker) as well as a very nice bottle of Italian red wine.  Thanks Dave!

Food and Beer

The Food and Spirits

The Music

I chose music I had duplicates of on Vinyl, CD and FLAC files stored on my 4 TB HDD which is directly connected to my Oppo BDP-105 via USB.   I used the Marantz PM-11S3 as the analog preamp, a pair of Emotiva XPR-1 1kwatt monoblocks for the power amps, the Marantz TT-15S1 turntable and Oppo BDP-105 Blu-ray as the sources.  The speakers were of course the Status Acoustics 8T and the cables were Kimber 8TC with Bluejeans balanced and unbalanced interconnects.

CD and Vinyl Music

from left to right: Spyro Gyra, Phil Collins, Miles Davis

The Demo Material

  • Phil Collins: Hello I Must Be Going on Vinyl and CD
  • Spyro Gyra: Breakout on Vinyl and CD
  • Miles Davis: Kind of Blue on Vinyl (180G) and FLAC (lossy copy)

Interestingly, the Phil Collins CD and Vinyl recordings are from the same era (1982), studio (Atlantic Records) and recording engineer (Hugh Padgham).  The original master is analog which is what the CD is derived from, hence an AAD recording.  The Spyro Gyra CD and Vinyl recordings are also from the same era (1986), studio (MCA/Amherst Records) and recording engineer (Bob Ludwig).  While the CD isn't clearly marked, I believe the recording was originally done digitally.  In fact, I believe the Vinyl was mastered from the digital recording since the record plays so incredibly clean and noise free.  This is an interesting comparison since in the Phil Collins case, the Vinyl would appear to have an advantage being an original analog master while in the Spyro Gyra case the CD would seem to have the advantage since its an original digital master.  So suck on that Objectivists; we do have the same recordings mastered by the same people and mixes on both formats!

For Miles Davis, I purchased the 180G audiophile recording remastered in 2010 by Sony Records.   I'm not sure what the FLAC files were mastered from since I don't recall where I acquired them.  So this is an unknown quantity that I am sure the pure Objectivists would baulk at but you can't please everyone.

Update (2/26/15): After recently downloading Kind of Blue (192kHz/24 bit FLAC) from HDTracks and comparing the file size, it has become apparent that the FLAC copy of this album we used in our comparison was NOT lossless.  Thus, we will be reruning this comparison and reporting back in a future editorial.

Audio RackThe Test Procedure

As stated earlier, I selected recordings I had duplicate copies of for digital and analog sources.  I level matched by ear and had Dave Phares also confirm the levels seemed to be very close, if not identical.  It's impossible to level match with a SPL meter since we were trying to match music sources not a fixed generated test tone or pink noise.  Each record was recorded differently, thus I had to level match for each of the three recordings.  Luckily the Oppo BDP-105 made level matching a breeze with 1dB on the fly adjustable level matching from the analog outputs. 

I've gotten pretty good at queuing up songs on Vinyl and was able to perfectly sync up the vinyl and digital recordings in each case.  I played up to two songs on each recording, randomly switching between the analog and digital recordings giving each listener at least a full minute to hear a source before switching over.  Towards the end of each listening session, I did quicker switching to allow for more instantaneous comparisons. 

I created a form (see attachment) for participants to fill out for evaluating the sound quality of each Vinyl and corresponding Digital version of the recording.  I collected the results from all six participants and averaged them.

Confused about what AV Gear to buy or how to set it up? Join our Exclusive Audioholics E-Book Membership Program!

 

Attached Files
By

Recent Forum Posts:

3db posts on April 29, 2015 13:08
All of my music files are 320 kbs CBR (constant bit rate) and I'm very happy with the results.
its phillip posts on April 27, 2015 11:10
flac/wav/cd should all sound the same.
Ponzio posts on April 27, 2015 10:34
Impressions before (CD player) and after file conversions, using SCOTS Countrypolitan Favorites cd, track 7.

MP3 320kbs CBR ) file size=6,681 kbs

FLAC Compression Level(8) file size=18,869 kbs

WAV file size=29,442 kbs

Equipment: ASUS E9192_Maximus_Vii_Hero Motherboard, using the on-board audio, fed to a Yamaha RX-V2700 AVR (Straight Mode set to volume level, -9dB), Salk Song Tower QWT speakers, EMP Tek 1010i subwoofer & Panasonic DMP-BD65 Blu-ray DVD/CD player.

Before I get started let me qualify that I am in no way claiming this is the last word in scientific testing; far from it. The test was not done with the volume levels matched … I don’t own a SPL meter [hangs head in audiophile shame] … and dBPowerAmp may not be the last word or the best software to do the conversions. It wasn’t done listening to my best equipment. I’ve done this previously numerous times over the years and I may be just reinforcing my current beliefs.

I’ll leave that to the trained professionals here, who do this for a living. I’m merely an enthusiast and wholly subjective. Now that we’ve got that out of the way …

Which sounded the best to me? I’d have to say the cd player & the WAV file had the best SQ … indistinguishable to my ears. Next best and I hate to use the word best here, was the FLAC file over the MP3. The differences were oh, oh so subtle … slightly more depth in the soundstage and clarity of the high’s at certain frequencies. If my ears were snobs, I would probably go back and convert all my cd’s to WAV format but the performance/cost ratio is not that mind blowing enough for me. I have a mix of WAV, FLAC & MP3’s in my collection, with MP3’s occupying about 65% of the total. I’m now in catch-up mode. Starting in 2010, and continues to date, I’ve made it a point to reconvert all my cd’s to 320 kbs CBR (constant bit rate) or in some instances to WAV/FLAC format … for the good stuff .

That’s it … Professor Puddin’ Head
Ponzio posts on April 27, 2015 05:11
haraldo, post: 1081404, member: 32412
I tried to make uncompressed FLAC, but it seems like none of the FLAC converters support this, it is clear that the format support uncompressed files, but implementation seem to be lagging.

Anyone out there that ever made uncompressed FLAC?
Any tips would be appreciated
dBPowerAmp gives you the ability to take any source file (WAV from cd) and convert it to varying degrees of FLAC compression level's, including Compression Level 8(Best). Side Note: per the interface, "All are Lossless". Then why call it "Compression Level(8)?

I just did a quick conversion on a cd track, one to FLAC level 8 and the other to WAV and there is about a 10K kbs file size differential, with the WAV file being larger. Can I tell the difference? No but then again I'm running out the door to an appointment. I will definitely re-run this test when I get back and do some more critical listening at a higher volume level, since at my age (60) some hearing loss is to be expected.
haraldo posts on April 27, 2015 03:35
jonstatt, post: 1081402, member: 73180
In response to your February update where you think one of your albums was not a lossless FLAC:-

FLAC by definition is lossless, hence FLAC stands for Free Lossless Audio Codec. There is no lossy version of FLAC. The file sizes can be different because if you have the time and processing power you can compress it more....but it is still lossless compression (think of a ZIP file where you can also choose how much it compresses but it always decompresses to exactly the same original). If you were compressing a large catalogue of WAV files you may choose not to maximise the compression because of the days it might take your PC to do it. You can even have FLAC that isn't compressed at all, resulting in file size the same as the equivalent WAV.

Unless you meant that you think someone has taken an mp3 and turned it into a FLAC which would be a really weird thing to do!

I tried to make uncompressed FLAC, but it seems like none of the FLAC converters support this, it is clear that the format support uncompressed files, but implementation seem to be lagging.

Anyone out there that ever made uncompressed FLAC?
Any tips would be appreciated
Post Reply