vinyl

[Gill Smith]

you can understand the appeal of vinyl

the crackles and hiss are like all-purpose audio filler

smoothing out rhythmic and harmonic discontinuities

--
http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

[Louise]

Gill Smith <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:ee9cbd01-3a3a-
47d6-8e20-f...@l2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

I understand that there are laser phonographs which instead of a stylus
bearing down on the vinyl, use a laser beam to nondestuctively scan the
grooves and get the encoded information optically, which means that the
record will never wear out. Not only that, but there's also the
technology of using ultra high resolution photography to literally take a
picture of each side of the entire record surface and then using
specalized OCR software, actually *play* the photograph - kind of
awesome.

Ouisie

[Mack A. Damia]

In that case, the devices would be digital if they scan and decode
information on the disk (much like a price bar). The attraction of
an old-fashioned stylus is that is "analog"; the needle, itself, picks
up the codes on the disk as well as dust and dirt.

--

[hislop]

Those laser phonographs date to the 80s or 70s, but were very expensive,
probably a good idea for them to be reconsidered now.
Not sure about the OCR method.
I wish digital would improve rather than bringing back vinyl.
How can people say that CDs are perfect, yet increasingly people are
preferring vinyl.
Do the new turntables have anti-skating? I keep seeing it missing.

[hislop]

On 29/04/2013 8:19 AM, Louise wrote:

http://www.elpj.com/

'The variations of the modulated light cause the audio sensors to
develop an electrical representation of the mechanical modulation of the
grooves. The entire sound reproduction chain is analog.'

[Bernie Woodham]

On Apr 28, 9:01 pm, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/04/2013 8:19 AM, Louise wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Gill Smith<gill.smith....@googlemail.com>  wrote in news:ee9cbd01-3a3a-
> > 47d6-8e20-f808151f5...@l2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:

I think vinyl is a better format for fanhood. The cover of Abbey Road
looks a hell of a lot better LP size than it does cd size. And a
record album is a lot warmer of an object than a cd. CDs seem cold.

[hislop]

Fine for the look of the album, but convenience is important too.
It can be argued that it is an equalization thing that causes vinyl to
sound warmer, listen to 70s music with the bass and drums brought to the
fore. But vinyl has more audio information than CDs, but it can be
dirtier, and very dependent on the quality of the turntable.

CDs haven't changed in 30 years. The mastering has improved, but really
only adapted to the situation better, not better technically.
And if they get the mastering wrong with the software, then people
complain about 'loudness'.

[Bernie Woodham]

No, I wasn't talking about the audio qualities. I'm sure the digital
realm can match the analog.

I'm talking about the physical album. There's something very warm
about a vinyl record that a cd can't match. It might be a totally
subjective experience, but I collect laserdiscs and laserdisc doesn't
match the perceived personality of vinyl.

You're correct about the portability issue. But there's no reason we
couldn't have both.

[hislop]

Easier said than done. Consideration for analog is a growing part of how
digital is going (mastering anyway). It did matter for disappearing
formats like SACD. There's a web site somewhere about the mastering
software, bringing up the issue of analog.

>
> I'm talking about the physical album. There's something very warm
> about a vinyl record that a cd can't match. It might be a totally
> subjective experience, but I collect laserdiscs and laserdisc doesn't
> match the perceived personality of vinyl.

Isn't laserdisc analog? Never played one. I want a new turntable to
transfer records to digital. Quality is the only consideration.

>
> You're correct about the portability issue. But there's no reason we
> couldn't have both.

Sometimes the CD booklet has a lot of foldouts of pictures.

[Eric Ramon]

the current trend I'm hearing about is vinyl LPs as a physical product
which includes a download card inside the sleeve so you can have the
music on your iPod or iPhone or whatever, if that's something you'd
like. You can then listen to the LP at home and have it digitized for
outside listening.

[Bernie Woodham]

On Apr 28, 10:44 pm, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > No, I wasn't talking about the audio qualities. I'm sure the digital
> > realm can match the analog.
>
> Easier said than done. Consideration for analog is a growing part of how
> digital is going (mastering anyway).  It did matter for disappearing
> formats like SACD.  There's a web site somewhere about the mastering
> software, bringing up the issue of analog.
>

Oh really? I've never really looked into deeply, I just know I was
reading about the analog/digital debate a couple of years ago and it
seemed then the consensus was that digital matched analog.

I wonder what factors might have changed that?

There's a new SACD being produced for Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits Vol
II.

>
>
> > I'm talking about the physical album.  There's something very warm
> > about a vinyl record that a cd can't match. It might be a totally
> > subjective experience, but I collect laserdiscs and laserdisc doesn't
> > match the perceived personality of vinyl.
>
> Isn't laserdisc analog?  Never played one.

Yes, Laserdisc is analog, but the product looks like a giant cd or
dvd. Just doesn't have the appeal of vinyl.

> I want a new turntable to
> transfer records to digital.  Quality is the only consideration.
>

As much as I might like vinyl over cd or mp3 or flac, I have very few
lps or 45s. Too much of a space hog. I'd like to get a really nice
turntable, but I have so few records that I'm content with my faux old-
timey radio with a cassette player and phonograph.

>
>
> > You're correct about the portability issue. But there's no reason we
> > couldn't have both.
>
> Sometimes the CD booklet has a lot of foldouts of pictures.

Doesn't hold a candle to a 12 x 12 record jacket of Beatles '65

[RichL]

"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:b4c8cbd5-ca0f-42d6...@y12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 28, 10:44 pm, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > No, I wasn't talking about the audio qualities. I'm sure the digital
>> > realm can match the analog.
>>
>> Easier said than done. Consideration for analog is a growing part of how
>> digital is going (mastering anyway). It did matter for disappearing
>> formats like SACD. There's a web site somewhere about the mastering
>> software, bringing up the issue of analog.
>>
>
> Oh really? I've never really looked into deeply, I just know I was
> reading about the analog/digital debate a couple of years ago and it
> seemed then the consensus was that digital matched analog.
>
> I wonder what factors might have changed that?

I don't think anything's changed. I think digital CD (16-bit, 44.1 kHz)
audio more accurately reproduces the original material (unless you've got
dog ears) whereas analog vinyl and tape introduces artifacts of their own
which are actually pleasing to some listeners (hence the comments about
"warmth").

You've got to be careful too about comparing material from the same original
source when comparing the two technologies, otherwise differences in
mastering technology enter the picture. Also, compare a CD player and
turntable running through the same amplification system and speakers,
otherwise you're kidding yourself.

[Nil]

On 28 Apr 2013, hislop <takecar...@gmail.com> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

> Those laser phonographs date to the 80s or 70s, but were very
> expensive, probably a good idea for them to be reconsidered now.
> Not sure about the OCR method.

As far as I know, the "OCR method" has been used to read some very
early experimental sound recordings from the late 1800s. The media has
been in safe storage for decades, but was too fragile to read by
mechanical means. The result is rough and difficult to decipher, but
kind of miraculous, considering the source. I don't think the method is
capable of high-fidelity sound, but it's ideal for this kind of
"archeology".

> Do the new turntables have anti-skating? I keep seeing it
> missing.

They all have anti-skating. Some are set at the factory and aren't
adjustable, some have an accessible control.

[ermitano]

On 29 abr, 01:47, Nil <redno...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2013, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote in

> rec.music.beatles:
>
> > Those laser phonographs date to the 80s or 70s, but were very
> > expensive, probably a good idea for them to be reconsidered now.
> > Not sure about the OCR method.
>
> As far as I know, the "OCR method" has been used to read some very
> early experimental sound recordings from the late 1800s. The media has
> been in safe storage for decades, but was too fragile to read by
> mechanical means. The result is rough and difficult to decipher, but
> kind of miraculous, considering the source. I don't think the method is
> capable of high-fidelity sound, but it's ideal for this kind of
> "archeology".
>

i didn't know about this, it's really interesting. i'm trying to find
a software on the net to do some tests.

[Fattuchus]

I agree with much of what you say; I have read that there is a devoted
fan base as far as vinyl. However, I do like the sound of a CD
better.
Cracks and hisses on a record generally don't appeal to me.

I like the sound of a CD but prefer the packaging if vinyl.

[Louise]

Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:vg8rn85dq0bla8j5b...@4ax.com:

> In that case, the devices would be digital if they scan and decode
> information on the disk (much like a price bar). The attraction of
> an old-fashioned stylus is that is "analog"; the needle, itself, picks
> up the codes on the disk as well as dust and dirt.

I'm sure the optical systems are digital...and to think we once used to,
some of us that is, religiously use the Discwasher system almost every time
we played an LP ;)

Ouisie

[Louise]

hislop <takecar...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:klkgk5$7br$1...@dont-email.me:

> Those laser phonographs date to the 80s or 70s, but were very
> expensive, probably a good idea for them to be reconsidered now.
> Not sure about the OCR method.
> I wish digital would improve rather than bringing back vinyl.
> How can people say that CDs are perfect, yet increasingly people are
> preferring vinyl.
> Do the new turntables have anti-skating? I keep seeing it missing.

I wish it all would improve and that, particularly considering inflated
prices, Both the vinyl and the CD would be included. That way, we could go
back to full sized LP album covers because my current album in progress;
"Ignite The Sky", is going to have an album cover that'll be totally mind-
blowing spaced-out psychedelic, sort of like the music that'll be on it ;)

Ouisie

[Louise]

Bernie Woodham <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in

news:a3cb9a8a-cf92-44bd...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com:

> I think vinyl is a better format for fanhood. The cover of Abbey Road
> looks a hell of a lot better LP size than it does cd size. And a
> record album is a lot warmer of an object than a cd. CDs seem cold.

I really dig your psychedelic synesthesia ;)

Ouisie

[hislop]

>>>>>> Do the new turntables have anti-skating? I keep seeing it missing..

With the McCartney releases, you have to buy the Deluxe editions to get
this download card for 24 bit flacs. I don't care about mp3 downloads
and hope they don't take over.
It all seems completely silly, have vinyl and download mp3s, if that's
the case.
Just give me 24 bit files and I can do anything I want with them, turn
them in to mp3s, put them on CDs, I wish for choice. I can leave vinyl.
HD Video on pads but audio seems too much to expect.

[hislop]

On 29/04/2013 1:40 PM, Bernie Woodham wrote:
> On Apr 28, 10:44 pm, hislop<takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, I wasn't talking about the audio qualities. I'm sure the digital
>>> realm can match the analog.
>>
>> Easier said than done. Consideration for analog is a growing part of how
>> digital is going (mastering anyway). It did matter for disappearing
>> formats like SACD. There's a web site somewhere about the mastering
>> software, bringing up the issue of analog.
>>
>
> Oh really? I've never really looked into deeply, I just know I was
> reading about the analog/digital debate a couple of years ago and it
> seemed then the consensus was that digital matched analog.
>
> I wonder what factors might have changed that?
>
> There's a new SACD being produced for Bob Dylan's Greatest Hits Vol
> II.
>

Some still get made despite everything. Strangely SACD players now seem
easier to get. Each Sony bluray player I get plays them. I have no
idea how to copy DSD audio.

>>
>>
>>> I'm talking about the physical album. There's something very warm
>>> about a vinyl record that a cd can't match. It might be a totally
>>> subjective experience, but I collect laserdiscs and laserdisc doesn't
>>> match the perceived personality of vinyl.
>>
>> Isn't laserdisc analog? Never played one.
>
> Yes, Laserdisc is analog, but the product looks like a giant cd or
> dvd. Just doesn't have the appeal of vinyl.
>
>
>> I want a new turntable to
>> transfer records to digital. Quality is the only consideration.
>>
>
> As much as I might like vinyl over cd or mp3 or flac, I have very few
> lps or 45s. Too much of a space hog. I'd like to get a really nice
> turntable, but I have so few records that I'm content with my faux old-
> timey radio with a cassette player and phonograph.
>

Vinyl had terrible problems with wear and damage. You had to be careful
buying them that they hadn't already been played and acquired crackles
already. You can actually almost avoid crackles and pops on vinyl by
wiping them before every play with an antistatic cloth.
Vinyl masters were a nightmare too. You would get tempted to buy an
overseas release because the master would be closer to the original.
Don't get me started on cassettes, people do have mp3s nowadays though.
They actually released albums on reel to reel at one point, that was the
best format.
And 6 head VHS video players were known for their outstanding sound too.
I'd prefer things like that to vinyl.
8 track cartridges divided albums into 4 parts, which created a need to
have part 1 and 2 of some songs. That is what really dated them.

>>
>>
>>> You're correct about the portability issue. But there's no reason we
>>> couldn't have both.
>>
>> Sometimes the CD booklet has a lot of foldouts of pictures.
>
> Doesn't hold a candle to a 12 x 12 record jacket of Beatles '65

Something has been lost because of the size. CDs really reduce the
artifact value of an album. Vinyl records were better with less songs
on them. 12 inch singles had a trend at the end of the 70s into the 80s,
much better sound than a crammed LP.
The varying sounds of bass and drums from the 60s to the 80s is a study
in itself.
CDs did though free up the type of sounds that can be on a recording,
and did encourage a lot of re-releases where more care was taken. But
it's all past now.

And make sure any turntable has anti-skating to avoid skips.

[hislop]

On 29/04/2013 3:47 PM, Nil wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2013, hislop<takecar...@gmail.com> wrote in
> rec.music.beatles:
>
>> Those laser phonographs date to the 80s or 70s, but were very
>> expensive, probably a good idea for them to be reconsidered now.
>> Not sure about the OCR method.
>
> As far as I know, the "OCR method" has been used to read some very
> early experimental sound recordings from the late 1800s. The media has
> been in safe storage for decades, but was too fragile to read by
> mechanical means. The result is rough and difficult to decipher, but
> kind of miraculous, considering the source. I don't think the method is
> capable of high-fidelity sound, but it's ideal for this kind of
> "archeology".

It seems very useful and clever. Once it's digitized any specifications
can be made of it.

>
>> Do the new turntables have anti-skating? I keep seeing it
>> missing.
>
> They all have anti-skating. Some are set at the factory and aren't
> adjustable, some have an accessible control.

One turntable of a friend's with USB I tried recently didn't seem to
have anti-skating and skipped terribly. I don't get USB turntables. I
would prefer an analog output into my fairly high quality sound card
input instead.

[hislop]

On 29/04/2013 1:52 PM, RichL wrote:
> "Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:b4c8cbd5-ca0f-42d6...@y12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 28, 10:44 pm, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > No, I wasn't talking about the audio qualities. I'm sure the digital
>>> > realm can match the analog.
>>>
>>> Easier said than done. Consideration for analog is a growing part of how
>>> digital is going (mastering anyway). It did matter for disappearing
>>> formats like SACD. There's a web site somewhere about the mastering
>>> software, bringing up the issue of analog.
>>>
>>
>> Oh really? I've never really looked into deeply, I just know I was
>> reading about the analog/digital debate a couple of years ago and it
>> seemed then the consensus was that digital matched analog.
>>
>> I wonder what factors might have changed that?
>
> I don't think anything's changed. I think digital CD (16-bit, 44.1 kHz)
> audio more accurately reproduces the original material (unless you've
> got dog ears)

The praise for those specifications is from the 70s before computers
could widely handle the space needed.
Almost anybody can hear the improvement of DVD-Audio over CDs.
And I've been hearing put downs and attacks of the sound of CDs for
years, back when I didn't think it was appropriate, in the mid 90s.
You should read the rationale behind SACDs.

[David F. Cox]

"Louise" <oui...@ouisie.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA1B0B041D1F1...@216.168.3.70...

I have a collection of old, mostly jazz, 78s that I bought from a jumble
sale, carried triumphantly home on an old perambulator we also bought.

Ever since it has been an ambition to try the optical method of recovering
content. (Not enough life) Part of my plan was to analyse the bottom of the
track and the apex of the seperator, where two track meet. This apex
contains info from both tracks mixed which might be used to recreate sound
from a badly damaged track, and also contains more of the high frequency
info.

With primitive recording studios I wondered it it might even be possible to
use echoes as part of the reconstruction process.

For all the low fidelity involved in those old recordings the noise does add
to the experience. Listening to those old records through the crackle and
the hiss you do get the feeling of communing with those souls long ago and
far away who created and played and played them over and over. You can feel
the love.

[Mack A. Damia]

I was guessing, and obviously, I was wrong, although I think the laser
system is sort of a "hybrid" between the two. I can't even consider
the ELP Laser Turntable. Did you see the price? I'm not in that
league.

--

[ermitano]

On 29 abr, 16:17, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:58:37 -0500, Louise <oui...@ouisie.com> wrote:

> >Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote in

> >news:vg8rn85dq0bla8j5b...@4ax.com:
>
> >> In that case, the devices would be digital if they scan and decode
> >> information on the disk  (much like a price bar).  The attraction of
> >> an old-fashioned stylus is that is "analog"; the needle, itself, picks
> >> up the codes on the disk as well as dust and dirt.
>
> >I'm sure the optical systems are digital...and to think we once used to,
> >some of us that is, religiously use the Discwasher system almost every time
> >we played an LP ;)
>
> I was guessing, and obviously, I was wrong, although I think the laser
> system is sort of a "hybrid" between the two.  I can't even consider
> the ELP Laser Turntable.  Did you see the price?  I'm not in that
> league.
>
> --

it was a very interesting machine until i saw its price.

[Louise]

"David F. Cox" <davi...@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:O3zft.83471$BP1....@fx12.fr7:

> I have a collection of old, mostly jazz, 78s that I bought from a
> jumble sale, carried triumphantly home on an old perambulator we also
> bought.

Somehow a pram full of music makes me think of some comedic situation,
perhaps ala Monty Python's Flying Circus ;)

> Ever since it has been an ambition to try the optical method of
> recovering content. (Not enough life) Part of my plan was to analyse
> the bottom of the track and the apex of the seperator, where two track
> meet. This apex contains info from both tracks mixed which might be
> used to recreate sound from a badly damaged track, and also contains
> more of the high frequency info.

Hi-res optical scanning might turn something up there at the, I'm
assuming inverted apex i.e. the very bottom of the groove. But if the
left and right channel 'cuts' are merged i.e. mixed there, then you'll
only get mono, unless there might be a way to still be able to
differentiate left from right.

> With primitive recording studios I wondered it it might even be
> possible to use echoes as part of the reconstruction process.

What kind of setup might that entail?

> For all the low fidelity involved in those old recordings the noise
> does add to the experience. Listening to those old records through the
> crackle and the hiss you do get the feeling of communing with those
> souls long ago and far away who created and played and played them
> over and over. You can feel the love.

I'd rather go 'purist' on that one and say that that's tantamount to
preferring a tintype photograph over a high quality color one. Those old
pictures are of scenes that if one where alive at the time, would appear
in all their splendor of vivid colors that was not represented in those
poor quality photos, and the same goes for sound. It may 'seem'
'nostalgic' to hear noise while trying to listen to some classic
recording from distant yesteryears long since gone by, and there was a
time that I almost believed that too. I used to have some great old kids
stories on 78s and would longingly listen to them so intently, catching
most of them but no matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't make out
everything. But within the last several years, I've been able to download
digitized copies of those very same recordings, except the quality of the
records was much better, and the noise was cleaned up and out of them and
WOW!!! it just about hit me in the face like the wavefront on an
explosion! I couldn't believe just how clear and Intelligible it was! I
Instantly heard absolutely everything that I had for so many years only
wondered about because of all that noise Ruining the quality! If ever
there was any communing with the past, it was NOW - I was actually
Hearing it as it was Intended to be heard long ago when it was first
recorded...and NOW I could Really feel the love, because these old great
stories had for me, for the first time, Truly come to life! But then
that's just the way I am - I don't want all the noise of years of neglect
and decay if not outright Abandonment - I want it FRESH once again! Just
like it really was way back when, whether it's a recording, movie,
photograph, or machine, particularly aircraft ;)

Ouisie

[Louise]

Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:64ltn8haen1vl4mj7...@4ax.com:

> I was guessing, and obviously, I was wrong, although I think the laser
> system is sort of a "hybrid" between the two. I can't even consider
> the ELP Laser Turntable. Did you see the price? I'm not in that
> league.

No, I've never priced them but it seems any kind of turntable nowadays is
kind of pricy.

Ouisie

[Stephen X. Carter]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:21:50 +1000, hislop <takecar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Some still get made despite everything. Strangely SACD players now seem
>easier to get. Each Sony bluray player I get plays them. I have no
>idea how to copy DSD audio.

Only SONY though.

--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*
Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*

[RichL]

"hislop" <takecar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:klm3d4$jt3$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 29/04/2013 1:52 PM, RichL wrote:
>> "Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:b4c8cbd5-ca0f-42d6...@y12g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Apr 28, 10:44 pm, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > No, I wasn't talking about the audio qualities. I'm sure the digital
>>>> > realm can match the analog.
>>>>
>>>> Easier said than done. Consideration for analog is a growing part of
>>>> how
>>>> digital is going (mastering anyway). It did matter for disappearing
>>>> formats like SACD. There's a web site somewhere about the mastering
>>>> software, bringing up the issue of analog.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh really? I've never really looked into deeply, I just know I was
>>> reading about the analog/digital debate a couple of years ago and it
>>> seemed then the consensus was that digital matched analog.
>>>
>>> I wonder what factors might have changed that?
>>
>> I don't think anything's changed. I think digital CD (16-bit, 44.1 kHz)
>> audio more accurately reproduces the original material (unless you've
>> got dog ears)
>
> The praise for those specifications is from the 70s before computers could
> widely handle the space needed.
> Almost anybody can hear the improvement of DVD-Audio over CDs.
> And I've been hearing put downs and attacks of the sound of CDs for years,
> back when I didn't think it was appropriate, in the mid 90s.
> You should read the rationale behind SACDs.

If it's not demonstrated in a double-blind test, I don't believe it.

[Dr_dudley]

On Apr 28, 7:01 am, Gill Smith <gill.smith....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> you can understand the appeal of vinyl
>
> the crackles and hiss are like all-purpose audio filler
>
> smoothing out rhythmic and harmonic discontinuities
>
> --http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

Hello.

I don't often respond to crosspostings. Nor am i an audiophile.

This is a civil discourse, so i'd like to add to it.

The one element that's missing in the discussion is vacuum tube
technology. I seem to recall reading discussions comparing tube amps
to solid state(?) that suggested the "warmth" came from the warmth of
the tubes.

Anyone knowledgeable, please explain.

I'm not certain the appeal of wax cylinders holds true.

Thanks,
rdd

[Nil]

On 30 Apr 2013, Dr_dudley <dud...@cloud9.net> wrote in
rec.music.beatles:

> The one element that's missing in the discussion is vacuum tube
> technology. I seem to recall reading discussions comparing tube amps
> to solid state(?) that suggested the "warmth" came from the warmth of
> the tubes.
>
> Anyone knowledgeable, please explain.

Tube amplifiers, when overdriven, produced distortion that favors even-
order harmonics, which are generally considered to be more pleasing to
the ear than the odd-order harmonics that solid-state amplifiers tend
to produce when they are driven to distortion. Tube distortion
generally sounds softer, rounder and less harsh than solid-state
distortion, thus the description, "warm."

Of course, for full-fidelity music listening, you generally don't want
any distortion added. Still, some people like the very slight
coloration that a tube hi-fi amp might add. I think there's also an
element of wish fulfillment at work - those glowing tubes are warm, so
the music's gotta be warm, too, right?

I also think that most people who use the term "warm" mean different
things than each other, and many of them don't know what they mean by
it at all. It's a rather vague buzzword.

[hislop]

On 30/04/2013 8:40 AM, Stephen X. Carter wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:21:50 +1000, hislop<takecar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Some still get made despite everything. Strangely SACD players now seem
>> easier to get. Each Sony bluray player I get plays them. I have no
>> idea how to copy DSD audio.
>
>
> Only SONY though.
>

I thought I read somewhere that a Pioneer player would play SACD.
I wonder why SACD failed as a format? Of course it failed, who has
heard it, I haven't. And be aware if it's converted to PCM and not
genuine SACD.
I don't have any of them. I've borrowed hybrid ones when I didn't have
an SACD player.
I read a great promo piece about SACD in a Sony catalog once, the idea
is to match as close to possible the characteristics of analog audio.

[hislop]

Hello. I found the piece that decides once and for all that CDs are the
ultimate in sound quality. No CDs played though, a '16 bit bottleneck'.

I was concerned after reading this. I would have wanted a demonstration
of the 16 bit version, for about 20 minutes, and then compare with the
24 bit.

I went and listened to the CDs of The Beatles remasters and the 24 bit
versions of the remasters. I played Taxman first. They were both
played in WMP, with 24 bit allowed checked. The similarity is
immediately obvious. But something was different. Hard to put my
finger on. It isn't frequency response, not to my ears, I probably
can't hear much above 10 kHz anyway. As I have said many times, my ears
are more satisfied by the 24 bit version. It's in for example, the
parts of Taxman where more vocals come in. They just sound better in 24
bit, similar sounds are less clumped together. This may seem minor on
just a short listen, but listening to a lot, to music I love, and want
to hear for a long time, then it really matters. Any limitation reduces
enjoyment and the quality of the music.
The volume level was greater with the 24 bit flacs for whatever reason,
so that had to be adjusted to compare.
Sound are just defined better at a fundamental level. They are good
enough on CD, but better at 24 bit. The more sounds there are, the better.

Why didn't DVD-Audio or SACDs perform better in the market? No one had
a player. SACD and DVD-Audio were at war as formats. So I have these
unknown unheard by anybody, DVD-Audios of Pet Sounds, and the boxed set
of Doors albums, and one REM album. The Doors in 5.1 2.0 in DTS, Dolby,
DVD-Audio in 5.1 and 2.0. Doesn't matter because CDs are the ultimate.

My conclusion is that CDs have less definition of audio than superior
formats, in terms of detail of sounds that are similar to each other in
the music. The result is that sounds are more pleasing to the ears on a
less than perfect sound system. Maybe you can get the grunt to pull all
the detail out in a sound system, maybe all the sounds are there in 16
bit 44.1 kHz, but the slight reduction in information makes it harder to
get that pleasing sound in a sound system that isn't that good.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 2, 10:19 am, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought I read somewhere that a Pioneer player would play SACD.
> I wonder why SACD failed as a format?

The players were expensive. The discs were expensive. And people liked
their mp3 players anyway.

[thewalruswasdanny]

It's not so much the record itself but the 12 inch artwork that I miss...you know the pouring over the sleeve..it's like you held it in your hand and it was kind of beautiful..there has to be a market in making CDs..or product that involves having a proper piece of artwork ..

Danny

[Stephen X. Carter]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 00:19:53 +1000, hislop <takecar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Failed for exact same reason as Betamax. Didn't quite capture market
share, despite being very well thought of.

I really like(d) the way that the players, and discs, are dual layer and
thus compatible with CD players.

I bought all of the early Rolling Stones albums (the UK Decca ones) when
they came out when SACD was launched (getting The Stones onto SACD was
totally Klein associated and had little or nothing to do with the
Stones), and they are darned good.

[ermitano]

On 4 mayo, 04:12, Stephen X. Carter <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 00:19:53 +1000, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 30/04/2013 8:40 AM, Stephen X. Carter wrote:

> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:21:50 +1000, hislop<takecarebew...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Some still get made despite everything.  Strangely SACD players now seem
> >>> easier to get.  Each Sony bluray player I get plays them.  I have no
> >>> idea how to copy DSD audio.
>
> >> Only SONY though.
>
> >I thought I read somewhere that a Pioneer player would play SACD.
> >I wonder why SACD failed as a format?  Of course it failed, who has
> >heard it, I haven't.  And be aware if it's converted to PCM and not
> >genuine SACD.
> >I don't have any of them.  I've borrowed hybrid ones when I didn't have
> >an SACD player.
> >I read a great promo piece about SACD in a Sony catalog once, the idea
> >is to match as close to possible the characteristics of analog audio.
>
> Failed for exact same reason as Betamax.  Didn't quite capture market
> share, despite being very well thought of.
>
> I really like(d) the way that the players, and discs, are dual layer and
> thus compatible with CD players.
>
> I bought all of the early Rolling Stones albums (the UK Decca ones) when
> they came out when SACD was launched (getting The Stones onto SACD was
> totally Klein associated and had little or nothing to do with the
> Stones), and they are darned good.
>
> --
> steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!

> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*

> Mr Kite posters and more athttp://www.zazzle.co.uk/mr_kite*

by the way.. is there any Beatles film or documentary in Betamax?
i have never seen one

[Bernie Woodham]

Let it Be was issued on BetaMax:

http://www.etsy.com/listing/122625789/beatles-let-it-be-betamax-video-tape

I think AHDN and Help! and BealteMania the Ready, Steady Go shows
they did...

A lot of that stuff was on Betamax

[Stephen X. Carter]

On Fri, 03 May 2013 00:34:56 +1000, hislop <takecar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Why didn't DVD-Audio or SACDs perform better in the market? No one had
>a player. SACD and DVD-Audio were at war as formats.

Whilst you're right about few SACD players, DVD/A play on DVD players.

--
steve.hat.stephencarter.not.com.but.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!

Mr Kite posters and more at http://www.zazzle.com/mr_kite*

[hislop]

No one had a choice. How could it succeed under those circumstances.
People liked their mp3 players? People liked their cassette players too.

[hislop]

On 4/05/2013 6:12 PM, Stephen X. Carter wrote:
> On Fri, 03 May 2013 00:19:53 +1000, hislop<takecar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/04/2013 8:40 AM, Stephen X. Carter wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:21:50 +1000, hislop<takecar...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some still get made despite everything. Strangely SACD players now seem
>>>> easier to get. Each Sony bluray player I get plays them. I have no
>>>> idea how to copy DSD audio.
>>>
>>>
>>> Only SONY though.
>>>
>> I thought I read somewhere that a Pioneer player would play SACD.
>> I wonder why SACD failed as a format? Of course it failed, who has
>> heard it, I haven't. And be aware if it's converted to PCM and not
>> genuine SACD.
>> I don't have any of them. I've borrowed hybrid ones when I didn't have
>> an SACD player.
>> I read a great promo piece about SACD in a Sony catalog once, the idea
>> is to match as close to possible the characteristics of analog audio.
>
> Failed for exact same reason as Betamax. Didn't quite capture market
> share, despite being very well thought of.
>
> I really like(d) the way that the players, and discs, are dual layer and
> thus compatible with CD players.

A necessity. Still only a CD without an SACD player.

>
> I bought all of the early Rolling Stones albums (the UK Decca ones) when
> they came out when SACD was launched (getting The Stones onto SACD was
> totally Klein associated and had little or nothing to do with the
> Stones), and they are darned good.
>

Did you know anyone who would have bought an SACD player and a disc, I
didn't.
Betamax was in competition with VHS. SACD was in competition with what?
DVD-Audio which no one had. By the time I got a DVD-Audio player in
software, it was already an outdated format.
HDCD players would be in museums if they weren't entirely forgotten.
Everything can be played on a computer now though, maybe not SACD, but
everything else.

[Bernie Woodham]

On May 5, 6:57 am, hislop <takecarebew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  People liked their cassette players too.

apparently not. If people have one anymore, it's collecting dust. Mine
is. I wouldn't part with it, but it's just collecting dust.

[Mack A. Damia]

I bought a retro component set last year. Cost me over a grand
including shipping to San Diego. Wharfedale speakers, Pioneer
amplifier/receiver, TEAC reel-to-reel tape deck and I already had a
turntable.

But I had so many cassettes with great music, that it seemed stupid
not to buy one, so I got a TEAC double cassette deck. I'm not
disappointed.

Sounds great as my living room has a cathedral ceiling. Crank up the
volume and enjoy!

--

[David F. Cox]

I was chatting to my DJ friend, an ex-rockabilly promoter today.

He showed me his vinyl collection just to point out the volume and quality
of the sleeve notes. I believe him when he says that most of the history of
rock and roll is contained therein.

I wanted to play him that track posted on the forum not so long ago from
1948 that certainly sounded rockabilly to me, but my record of its youtube
url is lost and I could not find the message in this group. Any help
welcome.


"Gill Smith" <gill.sm...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ee9cbd01-3a3a-47d6...@l2g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...