Discussion:
Vinyl is Still the Best Listening Medium?
(too old to reply)
vinyl believer
2005-04-18 06:29:23 UTC
Permalink
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.

And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
"Well I can Feel the difference".

And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
all mediums.)

Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!

In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.

VB
marysue
2005-04-18 06:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.
And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable
"Girlfriend
Post by vinyl believer
Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
"Well I can Feel the difference".
And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
all mediums.)
Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening
pleasure
Post by vinyl believer
has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
VB
hhhmmmmm.....some good points. I've always liked the sound of records.

I've always wanted to cut an album too. Where can you have that done?
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
2005-04-18 07:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the best so
far.

I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the Atlanta
Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I played this disc
and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared with my
digitally-mastered CDs.

In the fall, presuming my negotiation skills are up to it, I hope to be
recording a regional orchestra in 24/96 x 8 channels. That should become my
new benchmark recording.

CDs just never sounded right for classical music. Too gritty on the
pianissimo parts and definately lacking in interaural timing information
(smears the position of instruments).


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Geoff Wood
2005-04-18 09:38:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the best so
far.
I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the Atlanta
Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I played this disc
and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared with my
digitally-mastered CDs.
Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just like the
vinyl.

geoff
Arny Krueger
2005-04-18 11:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Good vinyl is definately better than CDs. But 24-bit/96KHz is the
best so far.
I have a Crystal Clear Records direct-to-disc recording of the
Atlanta Symphony Orchestra performing various pieces and recently I
played this disc
and was astonished at how palpable the stereo image was, compared
with my digitally-mastered CDs.
Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just
like the vinyl.
Forget it Geoff, they are just trolling.
Mark
2005-04-18 13:39:20 UTC
Permalink
that deep turntable rumble adds some nice warmth...

Mark
Scott Dorsey
2005-04-18 14:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
that deep turntable rumble adds some nice warmth...
Not here. Nothing between the warp mode and 20 KC.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Joe Sensor
2005-04-18 14:07:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Geoff Wood
Try transcribing it to CD, and playing back to see if it isn't just
like the vinyl.
Forget it Geoff, they are just trolling.
What? What kind of fucked up response is that?
Scott Dorsey
2005-04-18 13:12:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by marysue
hhhmmmmm.....some good points. I've always liked the sound of records.
I've always wanted to cut an album too. Where can you have that done?
I do mastering for perhaps a dozen or so a year. You can take the
lacquer and have it pressed in any one of a number of plants. I
will strongly recommend RTI for high-grade pressing work, although
recently I have been having a lot of work done at Alpha Records in
Florida which does surprisingly decent work for cheap. They did the
RAP LP compilation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Edi Zubovic
2005-04-18 07:54:20 UTC
Permalink
On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

---------------8<----------------------
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
VB
Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM
(direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording
technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

{PS. Sorry, I'm an old fa.......xyz, can't help}
Geoff Wood
2005-04-18 09:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edi Zubovic
On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
---------------8<----------------------
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
VB
Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM
(direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording
technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable.
Apart from about 40dB s/n and several orders of magnitude of distortion.

geoff
philcycles
2005-04-18 15:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edi Zubovic
Well, I think that compared to any digital recording, a Neumann's DMM
(direct-to-metal) cutting combined with direct-to-disk recording
technique would be utterly speaking unbeatable.
Apart from about 40dB s/n and several orders of magnitude of
distortion.

geoff

Well, I know Geoff is just a bloody troll but My many years of disc
cutting force me to answer.
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
although that wasn't the point. And while some distortion is inevitable
If you did a good job an playback was with a good stylus you wouldn't
hear it.
Sorry, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I couldn't help myself.
Phil Brown
Arny Krueger
2005-04-18 17:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by philcycles
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
although that wasn't the point.
Which alternative universe is this?
philcycles
2005-04-18 22:54:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by philcycles
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
although that wasn't the point.
Which alternative universe is this?


This one. Notice I wrote lacquer and not pressed record. But I suppose
a careful reading of the post would be a bit much to ask. In fact if I
couldn't get an silent groove at high playback volumes than I'd put a
new stylus in the head.
Phil Brown
Scott Dorsey
2005-04-19 00:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by philcycles
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
although that wasn't the point.
Which alternative universe is this?
This one. Notice I wrote lacquer and not pressed record. But I suppose
a careful reading of the post would be a bit much to ask. In fact if I
couldn't get an silent groove at high playback volumes than I'd put a
new stylus in the head.
I can't get 110 dB on a lacquer.... not even on a 12" single with a whole
lot of modulation.

I _might_ be able to do it if you'd consider restricted bandwidth measurements
but I think that's cheating.

110dB is more than just silent, it's really really silent. Just shockingly
silent.

I will say that I have heard an awful lot of records, and I mean pressings
here, not even lacquers, where the noise floor of the master tape was higher
than the noise floor of the record. So you could tell exactly when the
paper leader finished....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Chris Hornbeck
2005-04-19 01:05:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
I will say that I have heard an awful lot of records, and I mean pressings
here, not even lacquers, where the noise floor of the master tape was higher
than the noise floor of the record. So you could tell exactly when the
paper leader finished....
And, FWIW, folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records
after cleaning with an alcohol and vacuum machine simply
have *not* heard their records. And it's much more than
just a matter of background noise.

Or even their *new* vinyl records. Really; it's fundamental.

And to join the fray, when I was finally able to make a
homemade CDR transfer from a vinyl record that I couldn't
tell from the original, I learned something important (to me).

Still have fifty feet plus of vinyl. Yikes. When I die the new
homeowner will have quite the Herculean Labor...

Chris Hornbeck
6x9=42 April 29
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
2005-04-19 03:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Hornbeck
And, FWIW, folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records
after cleaning with an alcohol and vacuum machine simply
have *not* heard their records. And it's much more than
just a matter of background noise.
Or even their *new* vinyl records. Really; it's fundamental.
And to join the fray, when I was finally able to make a
homemade CDR transfer from a vinyl record that I couldn't
tell from the original, I learned something important (to me).
Still have fifty feet plus of vinyl. Yikes. When I die the new
homeowner will have quite the Herculean Labor...
Chris Hornbeck
6x9=42 April 29
I have a little side business restoring old recordings, and one of the
tricks in my technique is to put the LP/78/45 on a spindle, spray it with an
organic cleaner solution and run 70ºF water into the grooves at a shallow
angle. It makes a night & day difference and enables me to start with a
better sounding master before I apply digital cleanup tools.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Edi Zubovic
2005-04-19 08:30:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:32:44 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss"
<***@earthlink.net> wrote:

-----------8<----------------------
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
I have a little side business restoring old recordings, and one of the
tricks in my technique is to put the LP/78/45 on a spindle, spray it with an
organic cleaner solution and run 70?F water into the grooves at a shallow
angle. It makes a night & day difference and enables me to start with a
better sounding master before I apply digital cleanup tools.
Pardon me, but which cleaner? --I wash vinyl troughtout and shellac
too (with old records, one must be very careful -- there were
shellack, acetates, celluloid, paper substrate, not all of that can
washed in water, alcohol is also dangerous for some materials).
The difference is huge sometimes but the dirt must get off from the
surface first. All the dirt -- sometimes 100 years old. At really
greyed out 78s, I'm weighting the advantages and disadvantages of such
a trough cleaning since while the well pressed-into and hardened dirt
can, under circumstances even be a better bed for the stylus than
fresh substrate (the shellac layer being long milled away and the
substrate is not so far from -- well a carborundum cutting disc).

Nevertheless, the dirt must go out.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
playon
2005-04-19 09:01:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:32:44 GMT, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss"
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Post by Chris Hornbeck
And, FWIW, folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records
after cleaning with an alcohol and vacuum machine simply
have *not* heard their records. And it's much more than
just a matter of background noise.
Or even their *new* vinyl records. Really; it's fundamental.
And to join the fray, when I was finally able to make a
homemade CDR transfer from a vinyl record that I couldn't
tell from the original, I learned something important (to me).
Still have fifty feet plus of vinyl. Yikes. When I die the new
homeowner will have quite the Herculean Labor...
Chris Hornbeck
6x9=42 April 29
I have a little side business restoring old recordings, and one of the
tricks in my technique is to put the LP/78/45 on a spindle, spray it with an
organic cleaner solution and run 70ºF water into the grooves at a shallow
angle. It makes a night & day difference and enables me to start with a
better sounding master before I apply digital cleanup tools.
I used to import 45s from Jamaica... even the NOS ones had a film of
dirt baked on from the humidity and temperature of the Caribbean
climate, that was really hard to penetrate. The absolute best way I
found to clean the 45s was to use an ultrasound cleaner, like a
dentist or jeweller uses:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31459&item=7508915105&rd=1

Basically a tub of water that you put a small amount of detergent
into, that then vibrates the water like crazy... same principal as the
Sonicare toothbrush but more powerful. Using one of these machines
properly you can get damn near every molecule of crap out of the
grooves, the difference in sound was staggering. It works for LPs
too, if you can afford the larger size that a 12" record can fit into
($800 and up).

Al
Scott Dorsey
2005-04-19 13:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
I have a little side business restoring old recordings, and one of the
tricks in my technique is to put the LP/78/45 on a spindle, spray it with an
organic cleaner solution and run 70ºF water into the grooves at a shallow
angle. It makes a night & day difference and enables me to start with a
better sounding master before I apply digital cleanup tools.
Wet playing also causes surface microcracking and increases the noise
floor for future plays. And the only reason it really keeps the noise
floor down on the wet play is because it keeps all the filth on the
surface in solution. PLEASE get a vacuum mnachine and a dunk tank for
proper cleaning and stop damaging records.

There was a master's thesis on wet playing done at Georgia Tech in the
late 1970s, with electron micrographs of the surface damage. The author
surmised it was caused by rapid cooling on the trailing edge of the
stylus. I will see if I can dig up a full citation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Doc
2005-04-19 07:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Hornbeck
And, FWIW, folks who haven't heard their old vinyl records
after cleaning with an alcohol and vacuum machine simply
have *not* heard their records. And it's much more than
just a matter of background noise.
Cleaning the records with a vacuum irrigation system makes a huge
difference, but when you say "alcohol", I hope you aren't referring to plain
old rubbing alcohol. Alky leaches plasticizers from the records. There are
various cleaning solutions that use high grade alcohol as part of the
formula. I use Disc Doctor solution myself along with distilled water
rinses. I've also tried using a commercial, ammonia-free vinyl cleaner that
seems to work about as well. I have a homemade vacuum rig to suck it all up
with.

The guy that sells the Disc Doctor solution and brushes feels that simply
mopping it up with paper is fine, but it seems to me that method is going to
reintroduce contaminants to the surface. Of course, just being in ambient
room air with the zillions of dust particles means you can never truly have
the record "clean" unless you set up some kind of dust-free clean room to
clean, store and play your records in.
Edi Zubovic
2005-04-19 08:14:20 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Apr 2005 20:09:52 -0400, ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
--------------------8<------------
Post by Scott Dorsey
110dB is more than just silent, it's really really silent. Just shockingly
silent.
---------------8<---------------
-- In reald world, this is as much as nonexistent, I mean it is
measurable but hey, the scale is in decibels!

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by philcycles
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
although that wasn't the point.
Which alternative universe is this?
This one. Notice I wrote lacquer and not pressed record.
So what. There isn't a place in our universe where this can happen,
not to mention how irrelevant this claim is to practical use of vinyl.
Post by Arny Krueger
But I suppose a careful reading of the post would be a bit much to
ask.

Nice job of avoiding an attempt on your part to actuall support your
claim with credible discussion.
Post by Arny Krueger
In fact if I couldn't get an silent groove at high playback volumes
than I'd put a
Post by Arny Krueger
new stylus in the head.
I suggest that you consider the meaning of S/N. The basic noise level
of a phono preamp and coils of a cartridge eliminates any possibility
of both tracking a groove and having S/N much greater than 80 dB.
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 05:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by philcycles
I take it geoff has never heard a well cut lacquer disc, much less a
DMM. You can get 110 db S/N from a lacquer and better from a DMM
although that wasn't the point. And while some distortion is inevitable
If you did a good job an playback was with a good stylus you wouldn't
hear it.
Sorry, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but I couldn't help myself.
Phil Brown
And what sort of electronics is this DMM produced on ? Cryogenic stuff,
given there is a fairly large power amp involved, apart from everything else
in the chain.....

geoff
Edi Zubovic
2005-04-19 08:10:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:12:58 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
<***@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:


--------------8<-----------------------
Post by Geoff Wood
And what sort of electronics is this DMM produced on ? Cryogenic stuff,
given there is a fairly large power amp involved, apart from everything else
in the chain.....
geoff
--Yes, the cutter head is I think helium cooled. The stylus is cutting
plain copper. It is/was the best cutting technique but eg. here in
Croatia, DMM has unfortunately not been considered as this would
require a change in pressing plant lines which was too costly given
that analogue records have already been much less produced... so they
went on with cutting lacquer.
At the end, all the analog production has been sold. A pity, it is.
But that's life.


Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Jonny Durango
2005-04-18 08:44:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
VB
Wait for DVD-Audio to bridge that gap....24/192k and the ability to do
5.1. I can't wait to start listening to my own mixes in 24-bit 5.1!!

Jonny Durango
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
2005-04-19 03:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Durango
Wait for DVD-Audio to bridge that gap....24/192k and the ability to do
5.1. I can't wait to start listening to my own mixes in 24-bit 5.1!!
Jonny Durango
I'm already making recordings of everything from keys jangling to fireworks
(and hopefully this fall, a regional symphony orchestra) and let me tell
you, there is NO noise and much of what's recorded falls outside of human
hearing. The keys, for instance, have harmonics up to 45KHz, on the FFT
analysis. 24/96 is a wonderful thing. More than 114dB s/n ratio and
ultrawideband response.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Jonny Durango
2005-04-19 05:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
Post by Jonny Durango
Wait for DVD-Audio to bridge that gap....24/192k and the ability to do
5.1. I can't wait to start listening to my own mixes in 24-bit 5.1!!
Jonny Durango
I'm already making recordings of everything from keys jangling to fireworks
(and hopefully this fall, a regional symphony orchestra) and let me tell
you, there is NO noise and much of what's recorded falls outside of human
hearing. The keys, for instance, have harmonics up to 45KHz, on the FFT
analysis. 24/96 is a wonderful thing. More than 114dB s/n ratio and
ultrawideband response.
--
Best Regards,
Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-
Don't mean to rehash this old debate, but to capture that 45k would
require a specialized mic which would probably not also happen to be the
ideal mic for the job...In other words, you'd have to choose between a
great sounding 20-20k or a less-than-great 20-45k recording (I'd take
the former any day). Secondly, even if you are lucky enough to have a
playback system that can generate >25k, it's doubtful that other people
will who might get the recording. And that's with the benefit of the
doubt assuming you could feel/hear those frequencies even if it were
possible to capture and reproduce them accurately.

The main reason I'm excited about higher sample rate recordings is that
it will allow more headroom and a larger rolloff Q for anti-aliasing
filters, which I've found to very "buggy" in some systems. Combined with
the higher bit depth for larger dynamic range and SNR it should be able
to approach the fidelity of analog.....and even if not, I'd love to see
a record player do 5.1 =)

Jonny Durango
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Durango
Don't mean to rehash this old debate, but to capture that 45k would
require a specialized mic
Not a lot of choices - either one of the small DPA measurement omnis
or Sennheiser's ultrasonic-baiting cardioid. Either run about $2k
each. I'm waiting to win the lottery which seems unlikely as I never
play it!
Post by Jonny Durango
The main reason I'm excited about higher sample rate recordings is
that it will allow more headroom
I think you want to reword that because higher sample rates have zero
benefits in terms of dynamic range. You need more precise samples, not
necessarily more of them, to get better dynamic range.
Post by Jonny Durango
and a larger rolloff Q for anti-aliasing filters,
I think you mean smaller rolloff Q.
Jonny Durango
2005-04-19 10:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Jonny Durango
The main reason I'm excited about higher sample rate recordings is
that it will allow more headroom
I think you want to reword that because higher sample rates have zero
benefits in terms of dynamic range. You need more precise samples, not
necessarily more of them, to get better dynamic range.
I said the larger bit depth would increase the size of the dynamic
range, not sample rate.
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Jonny Durango
and a larger rolloff Q for anti-aliasing filters,
I think you mean smaller rolloff Q.
Yep, thanks for the correction...smaller Q, larger bandwidth.

Jonny Durango
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 12:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonny Durango
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by Jonny Durango
The main reason I'm excited about higher sample rate recordings is
that it will allow more headroom
I think you want to reword that because higher sample rates have zero
benefits in terms of dynamic range. You need more precise samples,
not necessarily more of them, to get better dynamic range.
I said the larger bit depth would increase the size of the dynamic
range, not sample rate.
So the text I quoted where you attributed more headroom to a higher
sample rate is a figment of my imagination? Or, don't you see any
relationship between dynamic range and headroom?
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
I'm already making recordings of everything from keys jangling to
fireworks (and hopefully this fall, a regional symphony orchestra)
and let me tell you, there is NO noise and much of what's recorded
falls outside of human hearing. The keys, for instance, have
harmonics up to 45KHz, on the FFT analysis.
Here's the recordings and ana analysis of my keys jangling:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm

How do they compare?

;-)
Post by Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
24/96 is a wonderful
thing. More than 114dB s/n ratio and ultrawideband response.
Too bad you have to hook that idealistic 24/96 up to real-world mics
in a real-world room.
playon
2005-04-18 09:13:52 UTC
Permalink
I have a lot of records and a lot of CDs... it's funny how I hardly
ever listen to my CDs except in the car. I always seem to gravitate
towards vinyl at home. The is some subliminal annoyance with CDs,
they almost never sounds "right" to me. The problem could also be the
converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...

Al

On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.
And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
"Well I can Feel the difference".
And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
all mediums.)
Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
VB
"Alan Rutlidge" iinet.net.au>
2005-04-18 10:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by playon
I have a lot of records and a lot of CDs... it's funny how I hardly
ever listen to my CDs except in the car. I always seem to gravitate
towards vinyl at home. The is some subliminal annoyance with CDs,
they almost never sounds "right" to me. The problem could also be the
converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...
Al
On 17 Apr 2005 23:29:23 -0700, "vinyl believer"
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.
And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
"Well I can Feel the difference".
And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
all mediums.)
Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
VB
IMHO CD has outrun its welcome in some circumstances.
Before everyone starts getting off their high horses, please let me explain.

Recording technology, reproduction equipment standards and in some cases
consumer standards and expectations have moved on in the past 20 or so
years.

Over 20 years ago when CD first become available to the masses, we thought
it was the answer to our prayers. Unfortunately I think CD and the sampling
/ encoding
process technology behind it was perhaps a bit rushed. Albeit that 16 bits
is deemed
enough depth to over the dynamic range of music and 44.1kHz sampling enough
to span
the audible range, the end result just doesn't sound quite right for some
music. In particular
jazz and classical recordings. I tribute the harshness in the sound of CD
evident on some
recordings to the 22.05kHz brickwall upper frequency limit at encoding and
trying to make
the best out of a 16 bit recording / mastering depth.

Increasing the sampling frequency to extend the upper frequency limit to
twice that of CD
at least pushes the potential phase and distortion problems encountered at
the upper end
of the audible range (18 - 20kHz) created by CD brickwall sampling
limitations out well
beyond what we can clearly hear. To my ears even 16/48 discs sound better
than the same
recording on CD at 16/44.1

I agree with some of the comment already made here about the difference in
high resolution
digital recordings at say 24/96 or better. I have quite a few DVD-A, DAD,
HDAD, DualDisc
and SACDs in my library. In most cases, they beat the same recoding on CD
hands down
and come closer to the vibrancy of good vinyl. The high resolution discs
seem smoother
sounding and more detailed without being bright or harsh.

The only thing I've heard in the CD format that sounds better than standard
CD is Super XRCD24
discs.

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers,
Alan
david morley
2005-04-18 10:32:27 UTC
Permalink
revolutionary thoughts coming up...

Music mixed for Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl
Music mixed foor CD sounds better on CD

The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear
it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except
for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK).
Also, CD's have been available at the same time as a quest for volume
(hence badly mastered or dynamically butchered recordings)

Personally, I prefer vinyl, but my taste in music is very 70's..new
things I enjoy on CD.
Evangelos Himonides
2005-04-18 10:50:54 UTC
Permalink
"The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to
hear
it properly..."

hallelujah brother! at last...
I almost never take part to discussions about digital vs analogue, pcs
vs macs, mackie vs behringer, fender vs gibson, 16/44.1 vs 24/96 and
haagen daazs vs ben and jerry's but AT LAST... you've spoken words of
steel.

I was invited to a friend's place the other day so that the audio
purists would prove to the frivolous music technologist the superioriry
of vinyl compared to cd and the A/B testing was between a 20grand
analogue system with monoblock tube amps, Thorens deck, 300pounds per
meter speaker cables and a KEF play-it-all dvd/cd/jpeg/dvix/mp3/wma
player (that costs about 30 bucks) through a marantz baseline amplifier
and no-name Richer-sounds speakers...

I suppose it's the same with digital photography... some people just
care about the mega-pixel specs...

Best wishes,

Evangelos

%
Evangelos Himonides
IoE, University of London
tel: +44 2076126599
fax: +44 2076126741
"Allas to those who never sing but die with all their music in them..."



Oliver Wendell Holmes


%
Joe Sensor
2005-04-18 14:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear
it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except
for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK).
Wow is that backwards. I have never heard much difference in CD players.
But a crappie turntable can sound atrocious. Where is a very good one
(set up properly) can sound amazing.
david morley
2005-04-18 18:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Sensor
Post by david morley
The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to
hear it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok
(except for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight
away. YUCK).
Wow is that backwards. I have never heard much difference in CD players.
But a crappie turntable can sound atrocious. Where is a very good one
(set up properly) can sound amazing.
I didn't say crappie turntable, I said relatively inexpensive...
Go to ebay and see what I mean... I got an Oracle Alexandria for $350
and it's incredible... If you mean a dual for $30 well sure its goping
to sound crap, but take any $350 CD player and compare it to what you
get in turntables these days and you are going to end up losing.

I assume we aren't listening to music on $50 turntables or $100 mini
systems here, because if we are, we'd better not even consider comparing
vinyl to CD...
Joakim Wendel
2005-04-18 21:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
revolutionary thoughts coming up...
Music mixed for Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl
Music mixed foor CD sounds better on CD
The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear
it properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok (except
for the numark PT01 I just picked up and put on ebay straight away. YUCK).
Also, CD's have been available at the same time as a quest for volume
(hence badly mastered or dynamically butchered recordings)
Personally, I prefer vinyl, but my taste in music is very 70's..new
things I enjoy on CD.
Exactly my thought!
Last year i bought Steely Dan "Everything Must Go" i 3 different
versions just to see what i liked better;
1) LP
2) CD
3) DVD-A
Of course they are all 3 excellently (IMvHO) mixed for their media.

1) The LP is the most capturing of the three in my setup, it even makes
the drums feel interesting (!)
2) The CD is best for use in a car or something, i gave it away
3) I LIKE the surround mix, it's funny, witty, good sound

Conclusion=the guys mixing, mastering these 3 things new EXACTLY what
they were doing;

1) For ppl that want to tap their feet
2) For most ppl out there
3) For the proud owners of gadgets and with great need for showoff
--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.

My homepage : http://violinist.nu
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 05:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joakim Wendel
Exactly my thought!
Last year i bought Steely Dan "Everything Must Go" i 3 different
versions just to see what i liked better;
What was the master - digital, analogue, or direct ?
Post by Joakim Wendel
1) LP
2) CD
3) DVD-A
Of course they are all 3 excellently (IMvHO) mixed for their media.
1) The LP is the most capturing of the three in my setup, it even makes
the drums feel interesting (!)
Yes, the impact excites the mechanicals in the replay chain and sounds ooooh
so euphonic.
Post by Joakim Wendel
2) The CD is best for use in a car or something, i gave it away
Or best for sounding what the master sounded like. Was the DVD-A (stereo
track) from the exact same master, and significantly different.
Post by Joakim Wendel
3) I LIKE the surround mix, it's funny, witty, good sound
Witty, or gimmicky ?
Post by Joakim Wendel
Conclusion=the guys mixing, mastering these 3 things new EXACTLY what
they were doing;
1) For ppl that want to tap their feet
2) For most ppl out there
3) For the proud owners of gadgets and with great need for showoff
Maybe .

geoff
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 05:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
revolutionary thoughts coming up...
Music mixed for Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl
Music mixed foor CD sounds better on CD
The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear it
properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok
Are you dreaming ? Don't you find a $50 Walmart CD player to be far better
than the average domestic TT /phono cart ever was ?

geoff
david morley
2005-04-19 08:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by david morley
revolutionary thoughts coming up...
Music mixed for Vinyl sounds better on Vinyl
Music mixed foor CD sounds better on CD
The problem with CD's is also that you need a serious CD player to hear it
properly...I find relatively inexpensive turntables sound ok
Are you dreaming ? Don't you find a $50 Walmart CD player to be far better
than the average domestic TT /phono cart ever was ?
geoff
No not Dreaming
I'll answer once again Geoff

Are we discussing the positives and negatives of CD's re Vinyl whilst
listening on $50 units??
Let's discuss the differences between Neumann and AKG mics whilst
monitoring on an $100 AIWA mini hifi
OK OK A $50 CD PLAYER MAY SOUND BETTER THAN A SHITTY TURNTABLE.

I'd like to think people like yourself are listening to music on decent
systems.
On mid range and high end, I prefer turntables (I had a lovely EMT and
have a nice Oracle deck I also have a great Audio Alchemy CD player)
james
2005-04-19 08:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
Are we discussing the positives and negatives of CD's re Vinyl whilst
listening on $50 units??
Yep. Common folk didn't have any bass or any dynamic headroom until
it was handed to them on CDs.

On the production side, where you've lived, you had a better experience;
you and what they used to call "audiophiles."

But regular folks saw a more-or-less sudden transition from their fairly
crummy (though fairly expensive) stereos, to really pretty good sounding
stereos that were ubiquitous and cheap.

I'm talking about the last 25 years or so of consumer audio. I know you
were there.

Digital audio has also greatly improved the quality of radio.

These improvements cast a harsh light on certain flaws, but overall, the
improvement has been no less dramatic than the transition from silent to
talkie movies, or from b&w to color tv.

I myself fell over closer to the "audiophile" side of the line, as close
as I could get with my, oh, zero dollar budget. And I don't have the
language needed to explain the phenomena that would affect my preference
for "vinyl" versus "cd" audio.

I collected records for a long, long time. Beginning in maybe 1965, and
ending in 1996 in a house fire. You don't want to know the details, trust
me. The bottom line is, I should be in a position to make an empirical
judgement, but alas, an arsonist dealt my hand, and I haven't touched a
phono record in nearly 8 years. It was kind of interesting to start
from a clean slate, but I still find myself going through a
reflex process whenever I hear something that's related to something
else I had on vinyl, and I sort of "reach for it on the shelf" in my
mind. It's a strange artifact of cognitive learning, as it's been
explained to me by a psychologist colleage; not exactly the phantom-limb
syndrome, but something else. Like when you're driving a car, the edges
of the car are treated in your mind as edges of your extended body.
Something like that.

Anyway, from about 1983 on, whenever I'd acquire an album, I'd go
through a ritual of cleaning it, and recording it on my prized Teac 3340
and on a cassette. Oh, the first (and usually last) time a record was
played was *special*. Sometimes special enough to make an event out of
it.

Now we have media that will probably be playable after being dug out
of the landfill in the year 2150.

I don't know what point I was trying to make here. Vinyl was cool. I
don't know why. I don't think it was better or worse, just maybe more
fragile and delicate, and it put you more in the process of listening to
music.
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 09:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
OK OK A $50 CD PLAYER MAY SOUND BETTER THAN A SHITTY TURNTABLE.
You missed my point. I say a $50 CD player (not ALL) can sound better that
an excellent turntable/cartridge/phono-pre.

geoff
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
OK A $50 CD PLAYER MAY SOUND BETTER THAN A SHITTY TURNTABLE.
Actually, with the right recording, a good $50 DVD player sounds as
good if not better than any turntable ever made. Look at it this way,
if you have a great LP you can always transcribe it to digital with
perfect sonic transparency, and then play it on a good $50 DVD player
which will itself be sonically transparent.
Post by david morley
I'd like to think people like yourself are listening to music on
decent systems.
One of the ironies of life is that digital now has such excellent
price performance that you could plug a good $50 DVD player into a
megabuck audio system without compromising its sonics.

Does that upset you? Live with it!
david morley
2005-04-19 09:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by david morley
OK A $50 CD PLAYER MAY SOUND BETTER THAN A SHITTY TURNTABLE.
Actually, with the right recording, a good $50 DVD player sounds as
good if not better than any turntable ever made. Look at it this way,
if you have a great LP you can always transcribe it to digital with
perfect sonic transparency, and then play it on a good $50 DVD player
which will itself be sonically transparent.
Post by david morley
I'd like to think people like yourself are listening to music on
decent systems.
One of the ironies of life is that digital now has such excellent
price performance that you could plug a good $50 DVD player into a
megabuck audio system without compromising its sonics.
Does that upset you? Live with it!
Ok , I'll just give in
You are right and I am a loony for absurdly prefering the sound I get
from my Vinyl to the sound I get from the same music on CD.

I also have the same problem in that I prefer Gibsons to Fenders.
Damn, I need help.

By the way, stating that a $50 DVD player will beat or equal any
turntable is just wrong. Sorry.

As it stands, I am getting out of this argument as it's taking up bandwidth.

Arnie is wrong.
I am wrong.
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 10:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by david morley
OK A $50 CD PLAYER MAY SOUND BETTER THAN A SHITTY TURNTABLE.
Actually, with the right recording, a good $50 DVD player sounds as
good if not better than any turntable ever made. Look at it this way,
if you have a great LP you can always transcribe it to digital with
perfect sonic transparency, and then play it on a good $50 DVD player
which will itself be sonically transparent.
By the way, stating that a $50 DVD player will beat or equal any
turntable is just wrong. Sorry.
Like Scotty used to say on the old Star Trek:

"Captain, I canna change the laws of physics".
david morley
2005-04-19 09:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
One of the ironies of life is that digital now has such excellent
price performance that you could plug a good $50 DVD player into a
megabuck audio system without compromising its sonics.
Does that upset you? Live with it!
If it were true I'd be overjoyed
Buster Mudd
2005-04-18 20:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by playon
it's funny how I hardly
ever listen to my CDs except in the car. [CLICK] I always seem to
gravitate
Post by playon
towards vinyl [POP] at home. The is some subliminal [CLICK]
annoyance with CDs, [POP]
Post by playon
they almost never sounds "right" to me. [CLICK POP] The problem
could also be the [SCRAAAAATCH]
Post by playon
converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...[CLICK]
playon
2005-04-19 00:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by playon
Post by playon
it's funny how I hardly
ever listen to my CDs except in the car. [CLICK] I always seem to
gravitate
Post by playon
towards vinyl [POP] at home. The is some subliminal [CLICK]
annoyance with CDs, [POP]
Post by playon
they almost never sounds "right" to me. [CLICK POP] The problem
could also be the [SCRAAAAATCH]
Post by playon
converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...[CLICK]
That is correct -- despite the pops & clicks, I still often prefer
vinyl. But as a long time record collector I've learned to
concentrate on the music.

Al
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buster Mudd
Post by playon
it's funny how I hardly
ever listen to my CDs except in the car. [CLICK] I always seem to
gravitate towards vinyl [POP] at home. The is some subliminal
[CLICK] annoyance with CDs, [POP] they almost never sounds "right"
to me. [CLICK POP] The problem
could also be the [SCRAAAAATCH]
Post by playon
converters in my consumer-grade CD player though...[CLICK]
LOL!

Now we have this philcycles who thinks that lacquers are somehow
invulnerable to all of this.
Geoff Wood
2005-04-18 09:36:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.

geoff
Joe Sensor
2005-04-18 14:02:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.
You sure about that?
Codifus
2005-04-18 20:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Sensor
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
bandwidth limitation.
You sure about that?
OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ playing
a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will deliver that tone
to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it) in all its brutal
reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely with the rumble, not
to mention step down the dynamics somewhat because there's only so much
bass energy you can fit in a groove. So the vinyl recording will have
smoother interpretation of that organ playing that note.
Now, let's take high frequency sounds, like thousands of bats suddenly
flying out of a cave. Here, on the record, with its reduced top end
response and gently rolled of eq, will play those sounds back to you in
a much more pleasant audible experiecne. The CD will play those sounds
back to you like bats out of hell, and we don't want that! So unpleasant;)

CD
playon
2005-04-18 23:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Codifus
Post by Joe Sensor
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
bandwidth limitation.
You sure about that?
OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ playing
a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will deliver that tone
to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it) in all its brutal
reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely with the rumble, not
to mention step down the dynamics somewhat because there's only so much
bass energy you can fit in a groove. So the vinyl recording will have
smoother interpretation of that organ playing that note.
Now, let's take high frequency sounds, like thousands of bats suddenly
flying out of a cave. Here, on the record, with its reduced top end
response and gently rolled of eq, will play those sounds back to you in
a much more pleasant audible experiecne. The CD will play those sounds
back to you like bats out of hell, and we don't want that! So unpleasant;)
CD
I don't know about everyone else, but I rarely listen to recordings of
church organs or bats.

Al
Logan Shaw
2005-04-19 01:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by playon
Post by Codifus
OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ playing
a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will deliver that tone
to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it) in all its brutal
reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely with the rumble, not
to mention step down the dynamics somewhat because there's only so much
bass energy you can fit in a groove.
I don't know about everyone else, but I rarely listen to recordings of
church organs or bats.
Well, actually, the last thing I listened to before I sat down at
the computer was Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G minor (BWV 542), which
has this nice sustained low note that goes on for measure after
measure after measure.

Of course, I was listening in the car, so I couldn't hear the low
bass tones there. But then again, I couldn't have listened to vinyl
there either...

- Logan
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Logan Shaw
Post by playon
Post by Codifus
OK, vinyl does sound better. You see, let's take a church organ
playing a 20 Hz tone at 80 Decibels. Recorded on CD, it will
deliver that tone to you (if your speaker and amp can handle it)
in
Post by Logan Shaw
Post by playon
Post by Codifus
all its brutal reality. Recorded on vinyl, it will mix in nicely
with the rumble, not to mention step down the dynamics somewhat
because there's only so much bass energy you can fit in a groove.
I don't know about everyone else, but I rarely listen to recordings
of church organs or bats.
Well, actually, the last thing I listened to before I sat down at
the computer was Bach's Fantasia and Fugue in G minor (BWV 542), which
has this nice sustained low note that goes on for measure after
measure after measure.
Of course, I was listening in the car, so I couldn't hear the low
bass tones there.
That's just a failing of your car audio system to be up to the SOTA.
Deep bass is easier in cars than big rooms.
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 05:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Sensor
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.
You sure about that?
After over 30 years with vinyl and 5 or 6 with 'good' digital, yes .

geoff
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by Joe Sensor
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
bandwidth limitation.
You sure about that?
After over 30 years with vinyl and 5 or 6 with 'good' digital, yes .
My current situation is more like 48 years with vinyl and 24 years
with good digital. I'll still take the good digital over the best
vinyl, any day of the week.
Bob Cain
2005-04-19 05:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Sensor
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
bandwidth limitation.
You sure about that?
What I'm pretty sure of is that I can record that vinyl at
16/44.1 and no one would be able to tell the digital
recording from the original. The usual caveats WRT the
quality of the converters but they don't have to be all that.

Many, many people find that vinyl is an effect that they
like. Nothing wrong with that IMO.


Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Mike Rivers
2005-04-18 14:32:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.
Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more
musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a current
CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (***@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Scott Dorsey
2005-04-18 17:17:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Rivers
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.
Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more
musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a current
CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.
Well, that's another advantage for the LP... you just cannot be as abusive
with LP mastering as you can with CD. Limit the crap out of everything on
an LP, and you don't get any more loudness, you just get more tracking
distortion. The medium makes it harder to get away with stupid things.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 05:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Mike Rivers
CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.
Well, that's another advantage for the LP... you just cannot be as abusive
with LP mastering as you can with CD. Limit the crap out of everything on
an LP, and you don't get any more loudness, you just get more tracking
distortion. The medium makes it harder to get away with stupid things.
I kind of like to be able to have the amount of bass in my recordings that I
want there, rather that have a medium dictate it.

geoff
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:47:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Mike Rivers
CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.
Well, that's another advantage for the LP... you just cannot be as
abusive with LP mastering as you can with CD. Limit the crap out
of
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by Scott Dorsey
everything on an LP, and you don't get any more loudness, you just
get more tracking distortion. The medium makes it harder to get
away with stupid things.
I kind of like to be able to have the amount of bass in my
recordings
Post by Geoff Wood
that I want there, rather that have a medium dictate it.
That's one of the good news aspects of digital.

The bad news is that digital's wide power bandwidth has enabled many
forms of ear and taste abuse that would make vinyl technology collapse
before the product got out of the factory.
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Mike Rivers
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and
bandwidth limitation.
Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more
musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a
current
Post by Scott Dorsey
Post by Mike Rivers
CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.
Well, that's another advantage for the LP... you just cannot be as
abusive with LP mastering as you can with CD. Limit the crap out of
everything on an LP, and you don't get any more loudness, you just
get more tracking distortion. The medium makes it harder to get
away
Post by Scott Dorsey
with stupid things. --scott
Excellent point that most vinyl bigots, being audiophiles and not
production people, have no clue about.
david morley
2005-04-18 18:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Rivers
Post by Geoff Wood
What you are hearing and evidently preferring is distortion and bandwidth
limitation.
Naw, I think it's just a matter that we produced music in a more
musical way 25 years ago. Take an LP and "remaster" it like a current
CD and you'd dislike it as much as a CD that was made last week.
Exactamundo
David Gallardo
2005-04-18 09:43:57 UTC
Permalink
My vinyl lps also passed the "Girlfriend Test". It was actually kinda
funny because my wife had never heard an lp before she married me, and
thought the whole turntable + big black disk contraption was weird & old
fashioned. But she could tell there was something superior when I played
them for her.

Having said all that, the "Girlfriend Test" is hardly scientific! I
encoded some sound clips to mp3 at various bitrates to try to determine
the optimal rate to rip my cds & she couldn't tell them apart, not even
96 kpbs vs. the original uncompressed wave file--something that was
quite apparent to even my old abused ears.
Post by vinyl believer
And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
"Well I can Feel the difference".
LawsonE
2005-04-18 10:54:02 UTC
Permalink
"vinyl believer" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[...]
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's chanting
to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human voice are lost,
in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the effect of Vedic
chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound, rather than due to some
undetectable mystical thingie , this is an important issue.

Apparently, with instrumental music, the issue isn't as important, because
you CAN purchase sitar, etc., music on CDs via his organization. For Vedic
hymns, audio-tapes only are allowed.
Chewy Papadopoulous
2005-04-18 15:28:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by LawsonE
The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's chanting
to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human voice are lost,
in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the effect of Vedic
chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound, rather than due to some
undetectable mystical thingie , this is an important issue.
Sexy Sadie; what have you done?

You've made a fool of everyone.

You've made a fool of everywuh uh uhn..

Sexy Sadie, what have you done?

Chewy
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 06:04:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chewy Papadopoulous
Sexy Sadie; what have you done?
You've made a fool of everyone.
You've made a fool of everywuh uh uhn..
Sexy Sadie, what have you done?
You'll get yours yet ....


geoff
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 06:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by LawsonE
[...]
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's
chanting to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human voice
are lost, in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the effect of
Vedic chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound, rather than due
to some undetectable mystical thingie , this is an important issue.
Yes, there is a huge level of mystic/que involved in vinyl. The definition
is so superior to digital that the mystics are preserved through the whole
production chain. It even survives the reduced s/n, rediced dynamic range,
higher distortion, and multitude of mechanical and electrical variables in
the listeners' replay chains.
Post by LawsonE
Apparently, with instrumental music, the issue isn't as important, because
you CAN purchase sitar, etc., music on CDs via his organization. For Vedic
hymns, audio-tapes only are allowed.>
Yes, the harmonic range and nuances of instruments are nowhere near as
demanding for instruments as for the human voice. Yeah, right.

geoff
LawsonE
2005-04-19 07:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by LawsonE
[...]
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's
chanting to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human
voice are lost, in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the
effect of Vedic chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound,
rather than due to some undetectable mystical thingie , this is an
important issue.
Yes, there is a huge level of mystic/que involved in vinyl. The
definition is so superior to digital that the mystics are preserved
through the whole production chain. It even survives the reduced s/n,
rediced dynamic range, higher distortion, and multitude of mechanical and
electrical variables in the listeners' replay chains.
Post by LawsonE
Apparently, with instrumental music, the issue isn't as important,
because you CAN purchase sitar, etc., music on CDs via his organization.
For Vedic hymns, audio-tapes only are allowed.>
Yes, the harmonic range and nuances of instruments are nowhere near as
demanding for instruments as for the human voice. Yeah, right.
Most musicians DO consider the human voice to be the ultimate musical
instrument, in my opinion.
playon
2005-04-19 09:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by LawsonE
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by LawsonE
[...]
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's
chanting to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human
voice are lost, in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the
effect of Vedic chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound,
rather than due to some undetectable mystical thingie , this is an
important issue.
Yes, there is a huge level of mystic/que involved in vinyl. The
definition is so superior to digital that the mystics are preserved
through the whole production chain. It even survives the reduced s/n,
rediced dynamic range, higher distortion, and multitude of mechanical and
electrical variables in the listeners' replay chains.
Post by LawsonE
Apparently, with instrumental music, the issue isn't as important,
because you CAN purchase sitar, etc., music on CDs via his organization.
For Vedic hymns, audio-tapes only are allowed.>
Yes, the harmonic range and nuances of instruments are nowhere near as
demanding for instruments as for the human voice. Yeah, right.
Most musicians DO consider the human voice to be the ultimate musical
instrument, in my opinion.
Most lead singers do, at any rate...

Al
LawsonE
2005-04-19 10:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by playon
Post by LawsonE
Post by Geoff Wood
Post by LawsonE
[...]
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
The old TM guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, won't allow vedic pundit's
chanting to be distributed on CD because the subtleties of the human
voice are lost, in his opinion. Since his belief-system says that the
effect of Vedic chanting is due to the phsyical effect of the sound,
rather than due to some undetectable mystical thingie , this is an
important issue.
Yes, there is a huge level of mystic/que involved in vinyl. The
definition is so superior to digital that the mystics are preserved
through the whole production chain. It even survives the reduced s/n,
rediced dynamic range, higher distortion, and multitude of mechanical and
electrical variables in the listeners' replay chains.
Post by LawsonE
Apparently, with instrumental music, the issue isn't as important,
because you CAN purchase sitar, etc., music on CDs via his
organization.
For Vedic hymns, audio-tapes only are allowed.>
Yes, the harmonic range and nuances of instruments are nowhere near as
demanding for instruments as for the human voice. Yeah, right.
Most musicians DO consider the human voice to be the ultimate musical
instrument, in my opinion.
Most lead singers do, at any rate...
Well, hmmm... How many musical instruments have the ability to play human
language?

Which is a more complicated wave-form, a phoneme or the output from a
non-electronic instrument?
Gary Morrison
2005-04-18 12:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.
I personally find these sorts of impressions hard to follow. First of
all, I personally don't think that there's really all that much
difference in presence, if you play both on a carefully laid out system.
However, even if there were big differences in presence, I really
don't think there's any way that it could come even close to
compensating for vinyl's other limitations.

You correctly pointed out the better highs and lows, and CDs also have
far greater dynamic range and stereo separation. And even if those
factors for some reason didn't matter, it's not as though all those
obnoxious pops, wows, scraping sounds, and rumble were inaudible. I
personally can't see any way that even a huge improvement in presence
could compensate just for the noise alone, even without taking into
account frequency- and dynamic-range improvements.

I have always found presence to be a much bigger function of your
speaker setup than anything else, such as how well-matched they are, and
how well-placed they are.
--
(Preferably reply to the newsgroup, please. If you reply by Email, I
will sincerely try to receive your message, but it will probably get
buried in spam.)
Arny Krueger
2005-04-18 13:01:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Morrison
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but
haven't listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the
last year I've been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I
was pretty amazed at how much more presence Albums have compared to
CDs. Sure CDs may have more highs and lows but they really seem to
be missing a lot of information in comparison.
I personally find these sorts of impressions hard to follow.
They are easy to explain. Hype, sentimentality, decreasing hearing
acuity.
Post by Gary Morrison
First of
all, I personally don't think that there's really all that much
difference in presence, if you play both on a carefully laid out system.
The first problem I see is the implicit claim by "vinyl believer" that
one can so easily characterize all CDs and all LPs in terms of a vague
parameter like presence.

My experience is that vinyl varies all over the map, and CDs vary all
over the map.
Post by Gary Morrison
However, even if there were big differences in presence, I really
don't think there's any way that it could come even close to
compensating for vinyl's other limitations.
Indeed. Vinyl has well-known inherent technical failings of a fairly
grotesque nature, as compared to the CD format. When I listen to
old-tech recordings, I'm amazed they sound as good as they do, all
things considered.
Post by Gary Morrison
You correctly pointed out the better highs and lows, and CDs also have
far greater dynamic range and stereo separation. And even if those
factors for some reason didn't matter, it's not as though all those
obnoxious pops, wows, scraping sounds, and rumble were inaudible.
In fact they may be severely attenuated for "vinyl believer", due to
one or more of the issues I listed above.
Post by Gary Morrison
I personally can't see any way that even a huge improvement in
presence
Post by Gary Morrison
could compensate just for the noise alone, even without taking into
account frequency- and dynamic-range improvements.
Totally agreed. It is generally accepted at this time that you can get
facsimile reproduction of vinyl off of CD, but the inverse is not
true. The reasons why are as obvious as the proverbial nose on the
face, at least for a younger person with normal hearing.
Post by Gary Morrison
I have always found presence to be a much bigger function of your
speaker setup than anything else, such as how well-matched they are,
and how well-placed they are.
Or, what's been done to tune them. I frequently find that vinylphiles
tune their systems to conceal the technical failings of vinyl. Some of
these tunings are unfavorable for the best possible reproduction of
digital.
vinyl believer
2005-04-19 06:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
The first problem I see is the implicit claim by "vinyl believer" that
one can so easily characterize all CDs and all LPs in terms of a vague
parameter like presence.
Sorry to confuse you with fancy technical terms like "presence" Arny.
:)

To further confuse and clarify my personal sonic impressions of CDs
compared to vinyl I'll quote Gertrude Stein's observations about
Oakland....."There's no there there" ..... ie, no presence. Not
satisfying. Life a cup of decaf.

As I stated, you don't just hear sound. You also feel it and experience
the presence of sound. You can't technically measure presence but it is
an important part of the listening experience...... Presence is the
feeling of realism but not to the degree of total sonic accuracy.

I find "presence" especially evident in things that actually physically
produce sound such as microphones and speakers and noticing their
presence is useful in judging the sound quality of these items

Vinyl on a turntable is the only listening medium that physically
re-creates a sound which partially explains to me why vinyl has a
realism (though certainly not sonic accuracy) that is
appealing......But as with everything we experience, it's all very
personal.

VB

"Blow up 'yer CDs" ...... Once you go Vinyl it's Final!
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
Post by Arny Krueger
The first problem I see is the implicit claim by "vinyl believer"
that one can so easily characterize all CDs and all LPs in terms of
a vague parameter like presence.
Sorry to confuse you with fancy technical terms like "presence" Arny.
:)
Bite me. ;-(
Post by vinyl believer
To further confuse and clarify my personal sonic impressions of CDs
compared to vinyl I'll quote Gertrude Stein's observations about
Oakland....."There's no there there" ..... ie, no presence. Not
satisfying. Life a cup of decaf.
As I stated, you don't just hear sound. You also feel it and
experience the presence of sound. You can't technically measure
presence but it is an important part of the listening
experience...... Presence is the feeling of realism but not to the
degree of total sonic accuracy.
I find "presence" especially evident in things that actually
physically produce sound such as microphones and speakers and
noticing their presence is useful in judging the sound quality of
these items
Vinyl on a turntable is the only listening medium that physically
re-creates a sound which partially explains to me why vinyl has a
realism (though certainly not sonic accuracy) that is
appealing......But as with everything we experience, it's all very
personal.
This is absolute BS, technically speaking. Since you're so deep into
your true beliefs, I won't try to confuse you with the facts.
vinyl believer
2005-04-19 10:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by vinyl believer
Sorry to confuse you with fancy technical terms like "presence"
Arny.
Post by vinyl believer
:)
Bite me. ;-(
Arny, open your mind and your ass will follow.
Post by Arny Krueger
This is absolute BS, technically speaking.
hehe.... can I quote you on that?
Post by Arny Krueger
Post by vinyl believer
I won't try to confuse you with the facts. >>
And don't confuse yourself either.

VB
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 06:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Morrison
I personally find these sorts of impressions hard to follow. First of
all, I personally don't think that there's really all that much difference
in presence, if you play both on a carefully laid out system.
My 'carefully laid out' vinyl solution includes a heavy wood table with legs
sitting on concrete pillars into the ground, totally decoupled from the
floor. Mind you, my ancient 301 probably is the weak link.

CDs recorded from this setup sound pretty much identical to the analogue
replay version. Commercial CDs of the same stuff of course sound different,
because the transfer/mastering is different. Some sound better, some sound
worse. That some CAN sound better on CD indicates somethng , no ?


geoff
Scott Dorsey
2005-04-18 13:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.
For the most part, I think a lot of what you are hearing is the terrible
remastering job that has been done to a lot of old material. For example,
if you want to listen to the Eagle's _Hotel California_, you can either
get the older CD issue that was made on a PCM 1610 machine, or the newer
one that is compressed to hell and back. Needless to say, the LP sounds
a whole lot better.
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
No, I think the problem is the guy in the booth, not the medium itself.
Higher sampling rates won't do anything to prevent tin-eared folks from
making overcompressed crap.

And while there are some excellent remastering jobs out there (the JVC
XRCD stuff is the example I keep bringing up), they are in a tiny minority.
So don't sell your turntable, because it's not going to get better, it
is going to get worse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
b***@aol.com
2005-04-18 14:47:45 UTC
Permalink
It's part "gozinta" and part "gozouta".

On the gozinta, if the source is THE deck-original stereo master, and
if the A/D converter was good, the CD should be quite faithful to the
original.

On the gozouta, it needs to be a good CD player, amp, speakers. You
can't compare a turntable (most today are the good audiophile ones)
with a garden variety CD player.

Certainly an average CD player sounds better than the average Webcor
record player with detachable speakers of old!

I like CDs for their resistance to scratches/pops and theoretical
fidelity to the original. Slight variance in the gozinta RIAA curve and
the gozouta RIAA curve can make vinyl sound quite different than the
original. Same with pre/post emphasis on tape, especially in
conjunction with NR.
p***@nospam.net
2005-04-18 16:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
For the most part, I think a lot of what you are hearing is the terrible
remastering job that has been done to a lot of old material.
I'm with Scott on this one. I'll also admit, I've only had cheaper CD
players. Whereas I always had a top end turntable. Of course I knew
nothing about converters at first. The more expensive decks just
seemed to have more unnecessary bells and whistles.
Amazingly even with the better converters on my recording system, the
unmastered CD of a project I'm working on always sounds much better
than the computer. I'm delighted when it does have that more physical
presence in the room, but unclear as to why?
Jonny Durango
2005-04-19 05:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Dorsey
For the most part, I think a lot of what you are hearing is the terrible
remastering job that has been done to a lot of old material. For example,
if you want to listen to the Eagle's _Hotel California_, you can either
get the older CD issue that was made on a PCM 1610 machine, or the newer
one that is compressed to hell and back. Needless to say, the LP sounds
a whole lot better.
Also, most of those full remastering jobs are done by baking the
original tape and transfering it to digital for mixing. Whether or not
you think baking has an effect, there's also the fact that tape that's
been sitting around since the 60's is likely chalk full of print through
and other types of noise.

Jonny Durango
Matt Ion
2005-04-18 15:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
I'd have to agree with you there. I used to have a quasi-surround
system cobbled together in my bedroom, with tower speakers at the foot
of the bed, bookshelf speakers on the headboard with their ground lifted
(poor man's surround/cancellation setup), and a cheapie sub under the
bed. Listening to the beginning of Pink Floyd's "The Wall", with the
chopper coming in, you could literally "feel" it hovering overhead when
sitting in the middle of the bed, playing from the old LP... the effect
was lost when playing the CD. Same with some of the effects like at the
beginning of "Money" (Dark Side of the Moon).

The drawback of course, is that even the slightest dirt, scratch or
other imperfection becomes VERY noticeable on LP, and every time you
play it, you wear it just a little bit more. CDs may not be the
infinite, imprevious medium it was originally promised to be, but it's a
thousand times more durable than LP.

I work with CCTV (closed-circuit) video systems. A lot of cheaper
systems are running video multiplexers and time-lapse VCRs (fit up to 72
hours of 16 cameras onto a T-160 VHS tape <shudder>). People that have
these systems are used to normally sitting and watching a clear
direct-camera-to-monitor picture for regular monitoring. Looks like a
nice clean cable-TV picture.

Then we upgrade them to DVRs - up to 16 channels of digital video, in
most systems, and up to 640x480 each. And immediately they complain
that the picture (digitized on the computer monitor) isn't as clear.
And they'll argue that they can't see details anymore, can't make out
this or that, why are they paying all this extra money, blah blah blah.

What they don't compare is the recorded digital picture, which will
never degrade, with the PLAYBACK from the tape, which is lousy at best,
and gets steadily worse with every pass. After three or four record
passes, you start getting neat artifacts like color bands and images
jumping between frames and what not, and tapes need to be replaced, on
average, within 8-10 uses. Given that the main point of these systems
is to be able to see what HAPPENED, not what is happening...


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0515-6, 04/17/2005
Tested on: 4/18/2005 8:54:16 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 06:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Ion
bed. Listening to the beginning of Pink Floyd's "The Wall", with the
chopper coming in, you could literally "feel" it hovering overhead when
sitting in the middle of the bed, playing from the old LP... the effect
was lost when playing the CD.
Yes, the blades don't excite a laser carriage the same way they get a
turntable arm 'singing'.

geoff
SSJVCmag
2005-04-18 16:06:56 UTC
Permalink
These comparisons are always fun, but they skip the only real validating
element:
Do you KNOW that you were listeneing to IDENTICAL master sources?

I'll bet dollars against doughnuts you don;t know and so shouldn;t be
automatically laying the blame/credit on vinyl Magic... the differences
(ASIDE from the mismatches and inaccuracies of stylus/cartidge/preamp
issues) are more likely differing mastering issues.
This is NOT to say that you don;t LIKE (or even that you SHOULDN:T like)
what you heard off the LP, but it IS saying you have to KNOW whether what
you heard is part of what was done in mastering to the LP version vs the
particular CD you compared it to. I have several discs containing TOTO
best-of collections and they all sound HUGELY different. Likewise compare an
older copy of the ALLMAN BROTHERS at FILLMORE with the latest special
edition set that's had at least 6dB or more loudness squeezed out of it at
the expense of transparency.

On 4/18/05 2:29 AM, in article
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable. I was pretty amazed
at how much more presence Albums have compared to CDs. Sure CDs may
have more highs and lows but they really seem to be missing a lot of
information in comparison.
And my wife really noticed the difference (the old reliable "Girlfriend
Test"). I put on an old Stones record (her favorite) and she really
loved the sound. We then put on some cuts from the Stones' "40 Licks"
CD and there was no comparison for listening pleasure...... "Can you
really hear the difference?" I asked. After some thought she replied
"Well I can Feel the difference".
And you know she's right. We don't just hear sound. We always feel
sound to. And records are the only playback medium that actually
physically create a sound (a needle on vinyl that is then amplified.)
All other mediums are reproductions of sound and are not actually
physically re-creating a sound. (And of course speakers create sound in
all mediums.)
Anyway, we now play records most of the time and our listening pleasure
has increased greatly. (Of course it helps that we happen to be OLD and
like classic stuff.).... But records are a great bargin and more people
should consider it as a listening medium. You can go to the used record
store and get a nice collection for under $100 bucks!
In defense of digital let me state that the problem seems in most part
the resolution of CDs, 16bit/44khz. I record a lot at 24/96 and it's
worlds better than CD. But vinyl still has a presence that's hard to
beat.
VB
Announcer
2005-04-19 04:06:22 UTC
Permalink
BINGO ... The "digital remastering" of a lot of stuff previously on LP
has ruined many of these albums. After spending many years in the radio
business, I really got tired of vinyl that had cue burns and were
handled poorly. Noise, wow, flutter etc were terrible. The first CD I
heard blew me away with the low noise floor and dynamic range and the
lack of wow or flutter. The LAST CD I heard blew me away with the lack
of dynamic range and the clipping distortion. The difference? 20 years
of people screwing it up.



Announcer
Zigakly
2005-04-18 16:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Oh please... not this argument again... one more time fron the top...

Back in the good old days, recording was much simpler, and playback systems
provided much of the color. Nowadays playback systems are much more
neutral, and the coloring is done in mixing/mastering. A good turntable
will color the sound in a pleasant manner, leading people to think that LP's
are more accurate, when they just sound better for certain recording types.
That's why pro's call audiophiles "audiophools", they're misled into
thinking they're getting closer to the "true sound".

There is no better or best, only what is preferred. Just don't mix on an
audiophile system...
james
2005-04-18 17:54:34 UTC
Permalink
A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player ever did.
That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the world, fortunately
or unfortunately.
david morley
2005-04-18 18:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by james
A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player ever did.
That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the world, fortunately
or unfortunately.
damn, are we really spending the price of 1.5 CD's to listen to our
music on?
I got my turntable for $350 and it had a list of a couple of thousand
dollars
I have an audio alchemy CD player that had a list of $5000 or something
absurd (i got it cheap don't worry)
I still prefer the turntable despite the CD sounding as good as I have
heard CD's sound..
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by david morley
Post by james
A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player
ever did. That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the
world, fortunately or unfortunately.
damn, are we really spending the price of 1.5 CD's to listen to our
music on?
I got my turntable for $350 and it had a list of a couple of
thousand
Post by david morley
dollars
I have an audio alchemy CD player that had a list of $5000 or
something absurd (i got it cheap don't worry)
I still prefer the turntable despite the CD sounding as good as I have
heard CD's sound..
Frankly by getting hornswaggeled into the expensive esoteric CD player
trap which is a well-known fraud, you've destroyed your credibilty as
an objective listener.
david morley
2005-04-19 09:36:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Ion
Post by david morley
Post by james
A $30 CD player sounds so much better than any $30 record player
ever did. That's the comparison that matters to the rest of the
world, fortunately or unfortunately.
damn, are we really spending the price of 1.5 CD's to listen to our
music on?
I got my turntable for $350 and it had a list of a couple of
thousand
Post by david morley
dollars
I have an audio alchemy CD player that had a list of $5000 or
something absurd (i got it cheap don't worry)
I still prefer the turntable despite the CD sounding as good as I
have
Post by david morley
heard CD's sound..
Frankly by getting hornswaggeled into the expensive esoteric CD player
trap which is a well-known fraud, you've destroyed your credibilty as
an objective listener.
LOL
really?
You are saying esoteric? It cost me a few notes (seeing as most people
think a DVD player is fine for playing CD's they are junking this
"esoteric" junk), but has a great set of external convertors. You know
those things that make a difference to digital sound...

Are you saying a cheapo CD player is fine to your ears?
I think you have been hornswaggeled into thinking because you can't hear
it, no one can.

My father had an old sony CD player that died and replaced it with a new
one. He figured, like you, that it don't make no difference.
The low end was lacking compared to his older player. Enough that a 65
economist with no "esoteric" thoughts asked me what was wrong. If he can
hear it, believe me most people can.

No, not scientific, but enough proof to my poor soul that cheap is cheap
and in digital, cheap can be terrible. I just avoid cheap.

The dumb thing about this is that I really don't care. I listen gladly
to both formats, I produce music for both formats and it all sounds good
to me. I prefer vinyl because my tastes lie in music that was made for
vinyl.
What I do care about is people saying vinyl loses compared to CD because
a CD sounds better when using a shitty turntable or a shitty CD player.
sjjohnston
2005-04-19 02:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable....
For classical chamber music, I prefer to hire an appropriate ensemble made
up of musicians from the local symphony. If you're on a budget, you might
find it a tad expensive for everyday listening, and you do need a bit of
room to fit them. Plus, some of them have really bad table manners.
Chewy Papadopoulous
2005-04-19 03:38:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by sjjohnston
For classical chamber music, I prefer to hire an appropriate ensemble made
up of musicians from the local symphony. If you're on a budget, you might
find it a tad expensive for everyday listening, and you do need a bit of
room to fit them. Plus, some of them have really bad table manners.
I've found that for dental work and orchestral music it's frequently
more cost-effective to fly to Prague...

Chewy
james
2005-04-19 06:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chewy Papadopoulous
I've found that for dental work and orchestral music it's frequently
more cost-effective to fly to Prague...
Prague? I can practically WALK to Mexico! (but that only takes care of
the dental work.)

I've heard that Prague is a great place, but only from people who drink
a lot. My Ukranian colleages say they won't set foot in Czech.
Apparently there's an ethnic bias to consider? (Putting it mildly?)
Geoff Wood
2005-04-19 06:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by sjjohnston
Post by vinyl believer
I've done a lot of pro audio recording in the last 20 years but haven't
listened to LPs much at all during that time. But in the last year I've
been collecting some vinyl and bought a turntable....
For classical chamber music, I prefer to hire an appropriate ensemble made
up of musicians from the local symphony. If you're on a budget, you might
find it a tad expensive for everyday listening, and you do need a bit of
room to fit them. Plus, some of them have really bad table manners.
But then you can't edit out the sniffing, coughing, and farting.

geoff
Zigakly
2005-04-19 07:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Quick poll - who here gives a flying fuck how their mixes translate over
vinyl?

Fuck this thread.
Arny Krueger
2005-04-19 09:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zigakly
Quick poll - who here gives a flying fuck how their mixes translate
over vinyl?
Point well taken.
Post by Zigakly
Fuck this thread.
Point doubly well taken.
Announcer
2005-04-19 13:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Based on some the CDs I've heard lately it seems nobody gives a FF
about how their mixes translate over that format either.

Announcer
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...