Simple Newbie CD vs Vinyl Question
dasmodul
just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
nab...@hotmail.com
> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another
one. I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better
than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
What you read was drivel.
> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison
does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better
dynamic
> range,
Not to repeat myself, but what you read was drivel. CD probably has a
good 20 dB on vinyl.
> then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw
in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny
because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is
it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
>
> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is
extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
Yeah, there's that, too.
To explain: Vinyl has limited dynamic range and a whole host of
distortions besides, but some of those distortions give it a wonderful,
resonant sound. Some audiophiles mistake this resonance for "accuracy,"
which is a technical term referring to the relationship between the
recording and the output. But many people who love vinyl don't want to
admit that what they love about it is, technically speaking,
distortion. So they invent all sorts of pseudoscientific theories about
how vinyl must somehow be technically superior to CD. I'm surprised you
found someone making the argument that vinyl offers higher dynamic
range, because that is so obviously wrong, but it gives you some idea
of the lengths to which some vinylphiles will go to avoid facing up to
the fact that what appeals to them about vinyl is a technical weakness
of the medium.
bob
Steven Sullivan
> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
All analog media are not alike. An LP is *extremely* unlikely to have
higher resolution than a CD of the same recording, unless the CD mastering
has been done very poorly indeed!
> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
> range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller.
Well, CDs are capable of reproducing the audible frequency range -- 20 Hz
to 20,000 Hz, more or less -- with the same excellnet fidelity from lowest
to highest. LPs simply can't do that.
> It's funny because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
Well, you'll be told you need an expensive turntable to reap the full
benefits of vinyl...but you'll still be limited by the medium itself.
> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
Indeed. You'll be told that careful -- read: obsessive -- devotion to
record cleaning rituals will 'all but' eliminate clicks and pops. But
they always seem to creep in anyway, don't they?
Btw, if you like the way a record sounds, you can always transfer it to
CD, and eliminate the clicks and pops digitally. That way you' will
completely preserve whatever good the LP has to offer, and none of the
bad.
--
-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Chung
> I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
> just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
> digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
>
Perhaps you still have not read enough? :)
Vinyl simply has less resolution, because of noise and distortion.
Resolution is determined by the loudest and softest that the medium can
reproduce. Vinyl has at best 70 dB or so of dynamic range (i.e. the
difference between the loudest signal it can reproduce without
significant distortion and the noise floor), and that is equivalent to
only 12 bits or 13 bits of resolution. Most vinyl LP's have even less
resolution because of excessive surface noise.
Whether one likes analog or digital is a matter of preference, and there
are factors like the quality of the mastering that can be most important
in determining the resulting quality of a record, but there is really no
argument that digital is the *measureably* more accurate medium than vinyl.
> My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
> make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
> range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
> opposite?
Vinyl has inferior dynamic range compared to CD. Measurements clearly
reveal that. Most of us also are able to observe that fact by listening.
> Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
> CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
The CD standard is flat up to 20 KHz, whereas it is rare to find an LP
with significant signal power above 15 KHz. If you do not have optimal
cartridge/phono preamp combinations, you may get significant droop (or
ripples) below 15 KHz.
>
> Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
> annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
That's one of the reasons why CD's have totally taken over.
Jim Gregory
Master tape copied to HD or DAT (or direct) to make a Master CD, the eq at
the disc-cutter i/p was often adjusted (and maybe the path's dynamic range
too) as it progressed, whereas the CD transfer is deemed linear.
"dasmodul" <damionv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d49ev...@news2.newsguy.com...
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>I've heard of this endless debate and am not trying to start another one. I
>just finished reading lots of info and graphs on why analog is better than
>digital since it has 'higher resolution', etc.
I'm not sure where you read this, but it is incorrect. Vinyl has an
absolute maximum possible dynamic range of around 70-75 dB, whereas
any old CD, even the ones you burn in your PC, has a dynamic range of
93dB. Of course, no music *master tape* exists with a dynamic range of
more than 80dB, so that's the range you'll really get on a CD, but the
medium is not the limitation.
>My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does
>make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic
>range,
Why does it make sense to you? It's not true, and there are perfectly
good technical reasons why this is the case.
> then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the
>opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any
>CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I
>know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
>because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
>listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
Vinyl apologists commonly trot out the argument that anyone who
doesn't find vinyl superior to CD has 'never heard a high-end vinyl
rig', but this is sheer obfuscation. I own a Michell GyroDec/RB300/A-T
OC9 combination with a SOTA phono preamp, and vinyl still sounds
exactly as you describe. I've also heard the legendary $80,000 Sirius
Rockport III with Clearaudio Insider cartridge, set up by Andy Payor
himself - and vinyl sounded exactly as you describe. Once you get
above the most basic replay gear, the limitation is the vinyl itself,
not the equipment.
>Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely
>annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds.
Quite so. Stick with CD and ignore the screaming from the vinyl fans.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Norman M. Schwartz
news:d49ev...@news2.newsguy.com...
It's funny because I
> know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it
> because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only
> listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables.
>
A $500 cartridge/tonearm combo should be more than is required.
You forgot to tell us your age. Regardless, when your hearing goes, perhaps
a little CD pre-emphasis :-) is not a bad thing. Additionally in your
CD/vinyl comparison your pre-amp's phono section and its RIAA equalization
comes into the picture. (I purposely avoided introducing your speakers into
the matter.) In any event try to get yourself one of those old commercial
Telarc (digital) LPs and its CD counterpart, and repeat your comparisons. I
believe this will really tell you something about (your) vinyl playback. I
only have modest vinyl and CD playback equipment and to my aged ears there
is not a big difference in the two formats (of course, excepting surface
noise, and tracking problems should those arise in your system.)
dasmodul
Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with vinyl as I.
I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought maybe I was
the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if vinyl
did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.
nab...@hotmail.com
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
>
> Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
I am speechless.
All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.
Others here can parse its flaws better than I, but you should have been
skeptical from the start: First and foremost, no one's name is attached
to the information. For a lay person such as yourself (or me), faced
with some technical explanation far beyond one's own level of
expertise, the first clue to whether the information can be trusted is
the credentials of the person providing it. That's not perfect,
obviously. People can lie about their background, and even "experts"
can be wrong, so you should never rely on a single source of
information. But at least it gives you some basis for believing that
this is somewhat more authoritative than if you had made it up
yourself.
bob
Steven Sullivan
> dasmodul wrote:
> > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
> >
> > Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
> I am speechless.
> All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
> trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
> That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
> jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.
It's the familiar and apparently deathless 'sampling means
missing information' canard about CD vs. LP. One of audiophile
culture's 'greatest hits' as it were.
> Others here can parse its flaws better than I, but you should have been
> skeptical from the start: First and foremost, no one's name is attached
> to the information. For a lay person such as yourself (or me), faced
> with some technical explanation far beyond one's own level of
> expertise, the first clue to whether the information can be trusted is
> the credentials of the person providing it. That's not perfect,
> obviously. People can lie about their background, and even "experts"
> can be wrong, so you should never rely on a single source of
> information. But at least it gives you some basis for believing that
> this is somewhat more authoritative than if you had made it up
> yourself.
Here's the URL for emailing HowStuffWorks the correct information:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/contact.php?s=hsw&ct=correction
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
>
>Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
That article is one of the most appalingly ignorant misrepresentations
I have ever seen. To include it in a series called 'how stuff works'
is an absolute travesty. It is obvious that the author has absoliutely
*no* idea how digital audio works, and as a result, his statements
regarding CD vs vinyl are just plain wrong.
michael
> dasmodul wrote:
>
>>http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
>>
>>Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
>
>
> I am speechless.
>
> All right, now I'm over it. What a fine example of why you shouldn't
> trust anything you read on the Web. (That includes Usenet posts, BTW.)
> That page looks professional and sounds authoritative, and yet it is
> jaw-droppingly wrong in practically every sentence.
"From the graph above you can see that CD quality audio does not do a
very good job of replicating the original signal. The main ways to
improve the quality of a digital recording are to increase the sampling
rate and to increase the accuracy of the sampling."
The above is taken from the site, along with a simplistic graph showing
a "sampled stepped" waveform. There is nothing I found in the "article"
explaining the niceties of the Shannon-Nyquist theorem, nor are there
any explanations of why, when one looks at a waveform on a 'scope taken
from a CD, one does not observe these irregular steps. All this
nonsense was a common and prevalent misunderstanding in the early days
of digital audio. Today, it is an embarrassment.
The problem with understanding sampling is that it requires a degree of
specialized knowledge not available to the average audiophile-someone
who knows how to, maybe, align a cartridge using a protractor, but is
uninitiated in higher mathematics and engineering. Thus, people get
away with offering simplistic and naive explanations, like those found
on the site mentioned above. To understand sampling theory one must
understand higher math. But anyone can look at a simple diagram on a
simple Web site and then wonder how a stepped and truncated waveform can
ever be representative of music? Without a technical background they
will never be able to understand, and are, therefore, open to all kinds
of obfuscation from people who don't know what they are talking about.
While the following may be a bit technical, the original poster may want
to dig up: Clock Jitter, D/A Converters, and Sample-Rate Conversion by
Robert Adams of Analog Devices, in The Audio Critic Issue 21. For
more technical discussions there is plenty of free material out there.
Some examples:
http://www.datasheetarchive.com/datasheet/pdf/23/2326.html
http://www.datasheetarchive.com/datasheet/pdf/70/709988.html
Also, googling "Nyquist" will turn up many sites that explain, in
varying degrees of sophistication, the principles behind digital sampling.
michael
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
> Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
For a good explanation about how a DAC really works, see this paper:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Uptown Audio
do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as
you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
easier. Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
music savings.
-Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250
"dasmodul" <damionv...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d49ev...@news2.newsguy.com...
Thepork...@aol.com
Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and find
someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set up
for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?
Scott Wheeler
Jenn
In my life, I've owned very high-end analogue and digital front ends.
Today, I have a more modest system (Denon/Grado for analogue, Rotel for
digital, with Rotel electronics, Vandersteen speakers.) I know the
sound of live, acoustic classical and guitar VERY well. RIght now, I
listening to an old Philips disk of the Netherlands Wind Ensemble
playing wind chamber music. The sound that I am listening to is more
life-like and ANYTHING I've ever heard on CD. The instruments sound
more like the real thing. Again, just my opinion.
Stewart Pinkerton
>CD is a convenience thing.
It's also a sound quality thing.
> They can both sound very good, but yes you
>do need to have some pretty nice anaolg gear to get the best from
>vinyl. You also have to have the vinyl in good condition and clean as
>you have noticed. For the average Joe, CD is fine and is certainly
>easier.
It is also much closer to the master tape than vinyl can ever be.
Hence, it's just fine for the really serious audiophile, not only 'the
average Joe'.
>Many people have collections of Lp's that make keeping a nice
>analog rig very desirable. You can also find Lp's for peanuts Vs CD
>prices and so even a first time analog system will pay for itself in
>music savings.
This is certainly true, although the quality of most of this vinyl is
somewhat less than pristine..........
And of course, if vinyl quality is adequate for you, there's always
MP3 and the Internet, where even greater savings can be made with no
'wear' concerns.
nab...@hotmail.com
Which may have everything to do with the quality of that particular
recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.
Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
nostalgia mixed in.
bob
Stewart Pinkerton
I own a pretty high-end vinyl system, and my CD player sounds as good
as anything I've ever heard. You can see pictures of it here :
http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/
Right now, I'm listening to an old DG recording of Emil Gilels playing
Beethoven sonatas. The sound that I am listening to is more lifelike
than *anything* I've ever heard on LP. The piano sounds much more like
the real thing. Again, just my opinion.
Steven Sullivan
Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be
true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia.
chung
Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I was in
college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate, but
the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to
do with technical merits of the media or the gear.
Thepork...@aol.com
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > dasmodul wrote:
> > > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm
> > >
> > > Is one of the main visual sites I was reading about Vinyl vs. CD.
> > >
> > > Well, thank goodness most of you hear the same 'problems' with
vinyl
> > as I.
> > > I was hearing so much hoopla by vinyl enthusiasts, I thought
maybe I
> > was
> > > the one with the bad ear or equipment. For me personally, even if
> > vinyl
> > > did have a wider dynamic range, etc. I wouldn't prefer it for the
> > > dust/static magnet that it is. Yikes.
>
> > Here is a suggestion. Instead of asking for opinions go out and
find
> > someone or some stereo shop that has a legitimate high end rig set
up
> > for you to compare for yourself. Form your own opinion then. Why
> > speculate when you can go by an actual comparison?
>
> Sure , it'll give you an answer that satisfies, but that might not be
> true. That seems to suffice in audiophilia.
I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the
"true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think
maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding
satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true"
choice to make?
Scott Wheeler
Robert Peirce
wrote:
> I think this is quite ironic. The satisfying answer might not be the
> "true" answer. Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
> prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback. Steve, do you think
> maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding
> satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true"
> choice to make?
Actually, if it is demonstrably true based on what is known at the time,
it can never be untrue. At vaious times in the past, to claim that it
was untrue could lead to imprisonment or even death. I leave it to the
student to decide whether I am talking about CD or vinyl!!
Thepork...@aol.com
It seems to me you might not be following the thread. The "true" answer
to the question which one do you like better CD or high end LP is
purely a personal choice that can only be "demonstrated" by
testimonial. So I find it ironic that someone would claim that the
satisfying answer might not be the true answer. I suppose this is the
case for those seeking dissatisfaction. Think about it.
Scott Wheeler
Jenn
particular
> recording, and nothing to do with the merits of the respective media.
> Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
> in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
> nostalgia mixed in.
> bob
Chung: <<Nostalgia can certainly play a major role. I remember when I
was in
college I played the Carole King album "Tapestry" so much that I
memorized every click and pop, and got used to all that surface noise.
Much later, when I played the CD, it did not sound the same to me.
Someone else may may say that the LP was more life-like or accurate,
but
the fact is that the higher sound quality of the CD did not create the
same effects on me, as the vinyl LP still does. And that has nothing to
do with technical merits of the media or the gear. >>>
You are correct that nostalgia can play an important role in listening.
I've had those same kind of experiences. All is know is that FOR ME,
analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
experience, especially in the realm of instrument timbres. There are
some CDs that I like, and the timbres are true enough that they don't
distract too much from the experience. But on average, I'll take
analogue because it best matches my daily listening to live acoustic
instruments, including an excellent Steinway D that I hear daily. It's
great that we have a variety of opinions, huh? Oh, and just for the
record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater technical
merits.
Steven Sullivan
And where would religion be without that?
> Heaven forbid anyone else might actually end up
> prefering high end vinyl playback to CD playback.
No, heaven allows that. My quibble is that you propose 'actual
comparison' as meaning 'sighted comparison'. When such an 'actual
comparison' can lead you to believe that A sounds better than B, even when
A is the same as B, what real value except as emotional palliative, can
that 'actual comparison' have? It can't have much value as
truth-finding.
And yes, there is 'truth' to be found here, beyond 'sincere preference'.
> Steve, do you think
> maybe people shouldn't make such comparisons in that they risk finding
> satisfaction in the high end vinyl playback and this isn't the "true"
> choice to make?
Heaven forbid.
Steven Sullivan
Then again, if the vinyl rig and the CD rig were put behind screens, a
listener could easily be led to 'prefer' on or the other, by applying
simple psychological principles (e.g., small level differences, visual or
verbal cues that one is 'better' than other) that have nothing to do with
the intrinsic sound of either. So what does this say about the 'truth' of
the preference you have gleaned from your 'actual comparison'?
Chung
Of course, we should care which has the greater technical merit, because
the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when
other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability,
repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us.
If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl
actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like
the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds.
Jenn
> record, I don't give a rat's patoey which is has the greater
technical
> merits.
Chung: <<<Of course, we should care which has the greater technical
merit, because
the one with higher technical merit will produce better results when
other factors are equal. And technical merits include reliability,
repeatability, convenience, etc., and all those are important to us.
If you have not noticed already, a lot of discussions on CD vs vinyl
actually are about which format has the higher technical accuracy. Like
the ability to reproduce a piano's sounds. >>>
But I don't listen to technical merit; I listen to music. If a given
piece of equipment or recording sounds more like music, I like it
better. It does me no good if one piece measures at ,0002 of some
measurement and another measures .9996 of that thing, if the better
measurement doesn't result in a more realistic piano, or orchestra, or
wind band, or whatever. My first test is "Do I get a headache when I
listen to this?" Some digital gives me a headache. No analogue gear
playing an all analogue recording has ever done this. Do I care why?
Not really, though I have some theories on this.
Ralph Heidecke
Vinyl is far better than some here give it credit for (if you read between
the lines you can tell that some folks like it better than they let on) but
it does comes with warts and even the mutli-thousand dollar analog front
ends don't sound radically superior (if at all) to cd/dvd units costing less
than I plan on spending on a new cartridge (about $200 US - my Pioneer d575
DVD unit was lower than that).
Steven Sullivan
Here's one: you have your listening gear and room set up so that
analog tends to sound good, whereas a more accurate reproduction of
the frequency spectrum and more lifelike dynamic range, does not.
And too, we have no way of knowing of your idea of 'realistic' has
any objective credibility.
Billy Shears
"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> All is know is that FOR ME,
> analogue generally provides me with a more true to life listening
> experience,
Well if the recording is done with a crackling fire in the
background, I can see it. Otherwise the pops, cracks, and general
vinly background noise tend to get in the way for me.
Codifus
Vinyl isn't bad, you're right. Here's a good analogy:
Vinly is like a car. Drive it right and it works well, quite well. Drive
it wrong and it crashes. The car gets totalled etc.
Digital audio is like the space shuttle. Drive it right and it will do
wonders; deploy space stations, take you to the moon etc. Drive it
wrong, it crashes, HARD, and SPECTACULARLY.
So, when people say that vinyl sounds better than CD, it is usually due
to some bad process on the digital medium, be bad DA converters,
in-correct mastering process etc. These mistakes show up and really make
the digital audio sound a whole lot worse, compared to mistakes with
vinyl. For example, because a CD is so quiet, you could proably hear the
mastering engineer sneezing outside the sound booth:) Of cousre, that
small exxageration is and example of how digital audio's capabilties
show up small flaws more readily. But then, If I heard something like
that, I'd be even more impressed with CD.
Vinyl can sound worse, but we're already numbed by the surface noise,
the wow and flutter, that any more imperfections don't degrade the
overall sound experience that much more.
CD
Jenn
Steven: <<Here's one: you have your listening gear and room set up so
that
analog tends to sound good, whereas a more accurate reproduction of
the frequency spectrum and more lifelike dynamic range, does not.
That could be, I guess, though my experience encompasses several
systems and several rooms.
Steven: <<And too, we have no way of knowing of your idea of
'realistic' has
any objective credibility.
All I have to go by is comparisons with the live music I hear virtually
every day.
Norman M. Schwartz
news:d4pk1...@news1.newsguy.com...
Perhaps the listener and/or his equipment, listening area, etc. can't
tolerate higher (or lower) frequencies or mixtures of those when present.
One might prefer vinyl for all the wrong reasons, one being (regardless of
what is written elsewhere) there is little if anything beyond 12 Khz present
or which can be played back. I've yet to see any meters respond to bands
containing frequencies higher than that when said to be present on test or
demo LPs. One such LP in my possession for a very long time comes from the
JBL 2 LP album "Sessions" containing both High and Low frequency
demonstrations. However I have not used laboratory grade test equipment or
tonearm cartridge combo in the mega buck range. Who here can testify to the
fact that vinyl can or does contain such information? What is the (+)/----
dB readout assuming any is measurable? (BTW it is the announcer on the LP
who talks about this deficiency and it does not represent my opinion.)
However his statement is confirmed by what I have ever observed from the
behavior of meters on an amplifier AND recording devices, and not my younger
or now aged ears.
Uptown Audio
as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
quality system it is played back on.
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d4gci...@news4.newsguy.com...
chung
> You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
> as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
> of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
> playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
> quality system it is played back on.
> -Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250
Just out of curiosity, have you listened to mp3's or aac's encoded at
320 Kbps?
Uptown Audio
only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have
enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I
actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the
artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete
set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids
(young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp,
gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can
spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for
convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc!
Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
"chung" <chun...@covad.net> wrote in message
news:d4u3t...@news3.newsguy.com...
chung
> Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but I
> only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I have
> enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for copies. I
> actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose I like the
> artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather have a complete
> set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of MP3s. Many kids
> (young and old!) like to store music files but I just say gimme an Lp,
> gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing to me how people can
> spend hours at a computer making their music sound worse for
> convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to plop on another disc!
> Get some excercise, - get up and grab a beer!
> -Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250
But you were saying that mp3's sound terrible, and that vinyl is
noticeably superior than mp3's to even the most novice of listeners. I
would ask that you do this experiment. Take your favorite CD. Compress
all the tracks into mp3's at 320Kbps using Lame or some similar high
quality encoders. Then burn an audio CD by decompressing the mp3's. So
now you have two CD's with the same tracks, one original, and one based
on mp3's coded at 320 Kbps. Now play those CD's and see if you can
reliably tell them apart. I would bet that you will not find the mp3s'
sound "terrible". In fact I don't think you can reliably tell them
apart, for the majority of music. I have tried, and I can tell you it is
hard.
You overlooked the convenience factor. To have hours or days of quality
audio on a portable device is convenience. The work required to code is
minimal; you can batch encode entire CD's with a few mouse clicks, and
you only do it once per CD. Try Apple's iTunes to see how easy this
process is. Now having to switch sides on an LP every 20 minutes or so,
who wants to do that? :) And did you read what Mr. Lavo wrote on what
you need to do to play vinyl well?
Stewart Pinkerton
>You don't do anyone any service by attempting to compare MP3 to vinyl
>as equals. Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by even the most novice
>of listeners. The only difference is the requirements for quality
>playback systems for vinyl. MP3 sounds terrible, no matter what
>quality system it is played back on.
This is arrant nonsense. Once above say 192 kbits/sec, very few people
can tell an MP3 from the original - even if that original is vinyl.
OTOH, *everyone* can tell vinyl apart from CD or the master tape from
which the vinyl was made - even on the best vinyl rigs.
To any rational being, it should be obvious that when all vinyl rigs
sound diffrent from each other, none of them can be objectively
accurate. OTOH, most CD players sound the same, despite massively
different internal electronics, which is a pretty good indicator of
transparency.
Uptown Audio
done it. I was listening to an Lp last night that sounds "better" than
its CD counterpart. I have quite a nice Lp playback system, but it is
not really anything outrageous. I also have a very nice CD playback
system. I have even been into audio for many years and have owned more
types and models of equipment than many people have seen or knew
existed. Give me some credit for experience.
You may prefer digital formats and that's fine, just don't try to
belittle my findings and suggest that only yours are valid. I enjoy
both analog sound and uncompressed digital sound and don't feel a need
to go about and attempt to influence people's preferences. My position
is not to try and "prove" anything, but to enjoy music. I'll enjoy it
the way that it suits me best, thank you.
"chung" <chun...@covad.net> wrote in message
news:d5040...@news1.newsguy.com...
Uptown Audio
similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard
and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if
consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It
may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
decision and does not effect mine.
Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is
still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound,
not to mention function and design.
Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the
discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should
should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but
several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product
that has merit, yet is expensive. It is disruptive of this forum and
the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another
viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least
a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions
from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism. I am sure that
you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very
important to the group to feel free to post their questions and
beliefs without detroying the sense of community here.
I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your
system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the
same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful. You
certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as
such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital.
I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog
set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and
have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most
enjoyment out of. Just because a form of digital compression is
available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it. Perhaps
assisting those who have questions about digital compression with
answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who
like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more
productive. Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that
the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this
group static. I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the
last year or so and even fewer from "new faces".
"Can't we all just get along?!" ;-)
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d5046...@news1.newsguy.com...
chung
Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your finding
that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at high bit
rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't really want
to change it. Fine.
Uptown Audio
"chung" <chun...@covad.net> wrote in message
news:d50jm...@news1.newsguy.com...
Steven Sullivan
> Thanks, but I don't need to read about what to do as I have already
> done it.
You've alreedy made high bitrate mp3s of a CD and found that the mp3s
sounded terrible?
I'd be very curious to know what the encoded CD was.
Stewart Pinkerton
>There is no reason to change it...
Even for one that works? :-)
Interesting that you completely refuse to answer the points being made
by Chung and others. Could this deperate defence of so-called
'high-end' audio electronics have some relation to the fact that you
sell it for a living?
>>>>>Yes. It's true that the higher the rate, the better the sound, but
>>>>>I only burn CD's uncompressed. I don't do that very often as I
>>>>>have enough to just carry the ones I want about without worry for
>>>>>copies. I actually own two copies of many. I don't know, i suppose
>>>>>I like the artwork as much as the disc itself, so I would rather
>>>>>have a complete set than a stack of discs or a hard drive full of
>>>>>MP3s. Many kids (young and old!) like to store music files but I
>>>>>just say gimme an Lp, gimme a CD, or get outta here! It is amazing
>>>>>to me how people can spend hours at a computer making their music
>>>>>sound worse for convenience, yet they can't get off the couch to
>>>>>plop on another disc! Get some excercise, - get up and grab a
>>>>>beer!
>>>>>-Bill
>>>>>www.uptownaudio.com
>>>>>Roanoke VA
>>>>>(540) 343-1250
>>
>>
>> Actually I was only trying to help you determine whether your
>> finding that "mp3s sound terrible" is true when the encoding is at
>> high bit rates. It seems like you have your mind made up, and don't
>> really want to change it. Fine.
--
Stewart Pinkerton
>No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with
>similar principals to a standard.
That's certainly one good reason.
> Lp's are not cut to that standard
>and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables.
You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of
course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if
all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at
most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'. Occam would suggest that of
course *none* of them are.
>So if
>consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It
>may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
>decision and does not effect mine.
None so blind as those who will not see. I have seldom seen such a
ludicrous argument against CD. Of course, if you want your CDs to
sound different, that's easy enough - just record LPs from different
rigs to CD-R, then you'll retain all the 'magic' of LP, will have
plenty of variation, and will never have to damage your LPs again.
>Not all analog systems nor CD playback systems sound alike. It is
>still easy to find many examples of players that have differing sound,
>not to mention function and design.
Indeed yes - especially in the so-called 'high end', where many CD
players are *deliberately* broken. Heck, some of them don't even have
a reconstruction filter, which is an *essential* part of the A/D-D/A
process.
>Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the
>discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should
>should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but
>several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product
>that has merit, yet is expensive.
Just so that we remember, the term 'high-end' is supposed to be
related to *performance*, not to price.
In the world of digital audio, it's *very* difficult to find any
product that is expensive and yet has merit when compared to much
cheaper products.
> It is disruptive of this forum and
>the persistent badgering by a few of all others who might have another
>viewpoint has created a situation that has been going on for at least
>a year and that is preventing others who have interest and questions
>from participating for fear of ridicule and ostracism.
Intelligent questions tend to receive intelligent answers, mere
repetition of a blinkered viewpoint (such as youi have been doing in
this thread), gets a different response.
>I am sure that
>you do have valuable contributions that you could make, but it is very
>important to the group to feel free to post their questions and
>beliefs without detroying the sense of community here.
I'm sure the group does so feel - after all, it's a *moderated* forum.
>I support your right to listen to and express your thoughts about your
>system to anyone, but being intentionally disruptive by repeating the
>same views, regardless of the original questions is not helpful.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. You have answered none of the
points made, and have merely repeated your ill-considered attack on
MP3 with no justification whatever.
>You certainly realize that I and others also like vinyl playback and as
>such, you should not jump at every opportunity to talk about digital.
*You* are the one who said that "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3 by
even the most novice of listeners", so don't complain when that LAME
argument is thrown back in your face.
>I remember years ago when you had some helpful posts about analog
>set-up to help others who asked. Many people still use turntables and
>have extensive Lp collections which they would like to get the most
>enjoyment out of.
As noted, intelligent questions will get intelligent answers. I
maintain a vinyl rig because I too like the sound of vinyl. However,
I don't kid myself that it's a sonically transparent medium - unlike
high bit-rate MP3, which certainly can be.
> Just because a form of digital compression is
>available, does not make it practical for everyone to use it.
It is however practical for an extremely large number of users in
2005. Perhaps it's time for 'Uptown Audio' to move into the 21st
Century - while it still can?
>Perhaps
>assisting those who have questions about digital compression with
>answers about digital compression and likewise assisting those who
>like analog with helpful tips about Lp playback would be more
>productive.
Perhaps it would be a good start if *you* were to avoid making such
patently ludicrous statements as "Vinyl is noticably superior to MP3
by even the most novice of listeners." and "MP3 sounds terrible, no
matter what quality system it is played back on."
Anyone familiar with both top-quality vinyl and high bit-rate MP3
realises how utterly wrong both those statements are.
And yet people are expected to take advice on so-called 'high end'
audio from *you*, when they walk into your store? Hmmmmmm.
>Reading the same posts by the same people everytime that
>the "CD Vs Vinyl" issue comes up has become tiresome and makes this
>group static.
That may well be true, but if you keep making the same ill-considered
statements, then you must expect them to be rebutted in the same way.
I canna' change the Laws o' Physics, cap'n.............
> I know that you have also noticed fewer posts in the
>last year or so and even fewer from "new faces".
>"Can't we all just get along?!" ;-)
Remember what happened after Jack Nicholson said that? :-)
BTW, top-posting is sloppy, confusing, and disruptive to cogent
argument, please don't do it.
norman...@comcast.net
I don't know about Uptown, but I flunked the test at only 128kb/s. Of
course I'm 74, and my hearing isn't all that good--even for a 74 year old.
As a result, I compress to 64kb/s WMA, and I'm entirely satisfied with the
results.
I chose WMA because of the rumor that it's better at low bit rates. It may
or may not be true, but that's how I got started, so I might as well
continue. BTW, has anyone compared WMA with mp3 Pro or AAC? Although I'm
not apt to change horses in the middle of this stream, it would be nice to
know the optimum solution at 64kb/s.
Thanks,
Norm Strong
norman...@comcast.net
news:d50jk...@news1.newsguy.com...
> No doubt that many digital devices sound similar as they operate with
> similar principals to a standard. Lp's are not cut to that standard
> and can sound better or worse depending upon a lot of variables. So if
> consistency is what you are after, then stick with your CD player. It
> may be consistently bad, but that's just fine with me as it is your
> decision and does not effect mine.
You sound like the guy that wanted an accurate clock, but didn't have a
standard to compare them to. So he set 5 different clocks to the same time.
When he came back a month later, 4 of the 5 were within a minute of each
other, but the 5th one was 6 minutes faster. Should he buy the 5th one?
It's possible that the 5th clock was spot one, and the other 4 were all 5
minutes slow. Consistency does not guarantee accuracy--but that's the way
to bet!
Norm Strong
Billy Shears
Stewart Pinkerton <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> You are unfamiliar with the work done in this regard by the RIAA? Of
> course, you did just put your finger on the nub of the problem - if
> all analogue rigs sound different, then by definition only one *at
> most* can be genuinely 'high fidelity'.
small quibble: it's not "by definition". It's elementary logic.
Uptown Audio
my listening habits and informing Mr Chung that I have my own
experiences and preferences.
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52qg...@news3.newsguy.com...
Uptown Audio
lover. Thanks for at least keeping your opinion civil.
<norman...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d5341...@news1.newsguy.com...
Uptown Audio
things to your liking regardless of what is generally excepted to even
begin to reply without rebutting each line. It was not my intention to
"challenge your position" on MP3, so you are off the hook as far as
our debate goes. I don't agree with much of what you have said here,
but it is not worth the time to correct as you will certainly just
continue your relentless and pointless badgering.
I am content with my vinyl system and my digital system. Just to
refresh your memory, this whole exchange began with you badgering me
for no reason. I was helping the original poster who had a question.
You had done the same and it would have been well enough to have left
it there without trying to drag me into your miserable world.
If the rest of your post were worth commenting on, I would not top
post. Rather than listen to one's full expressions, you choose to
fragment them and distort them by adressing (incorrectly, but
whatever) every other sentence to make an argument out of it. Some
of us are not here to argue. Lighten up. Hey, I know; go listen to
some music and relax!
"Stewart Pinkerton" <pat...@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52ql...@news3.newsguy.com...
Chung
Yeah, but the 5th clock, the one that is off from others, feels so much
more like a real clock, and its time is so much closer to our memory of
what time it should be... :)
Steven Sullivan
I don't see any particular tests comparing those codecs at that bitrate there, but
a great place to ask this would be one of hte forums at www.hydrogenaudio.org
Perhaps try the 'Listening Tests' or 'Other Codecs' forums.
Jocelyn Major
DP-47F turntable with a grado black cartridge. I installed it on my
Mcintosh MA-6100 Integrated Amp.Next thing I did was to compare the
denon turntable with my Naim CD5i cd player (I paid it 1800$ Canadian).
I was lucky to have keep all my LP. I stop using my old Pioneer PL-530
because I had to much work and it was broken anyway. It was more
convenient to use the cd player (I don't have to clean the cd everytime
I want to use them or flip them over like a LP). Now I have lot of time
(I got a back injury), It will be months before I go back to work. So
the first thing I did was to put a LP of Wynston Marsalis on the denon
and the same album on my naim cd player. And It was jaw droping. On the
cd I can pinpoint on the wall where are the performer but with the LP as
was able to pinpoint in the room where they where. Winston Marsalis was
about 3-4 feet in front on the wall while the orchestra was about 20
feet behind the wall. I tried several other lp with their cd original
copies and it was always at the advantage of the Turntable. I just find
out that the cd win for the convenience but the turntable was the big
winner for the realism. And that difference was with a Denon Turntable
that was worth around 400$ when new. If I can get that kind of realism
with a Denon I wonder what will it be with a Linn or an Oracle that
where supposed to be the best turntables available? I always think that
the cd where better because I could'nt hear a difference between a cd
and my Old Pioneer. Man I was wrong.: I could'nt hear a difference
because my Pioneer turntable was'nt good enoufh to show a difference,
If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get
yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-)
J.Major
Codifus
> I am not arguing, Stewart. You make too many assumptions and twist
> things to your liking regardless of what is generally excepted to even
> begin to reply without rebutting each line. It was not my intention to
> "challenge your position" on MP3, so you are off the hook as far as
> our debate goes. I don't agree with much of what you have said here,
> but it is not worth the time to correct as you will certainly just
> continue your relentless and pointless badgering.
> I am content with my vinyl system and my digital system. Just to
> refresh your memory, this whole exchange began with you badgering me
> for no reason. I was helping the original poster who had a question.
> You had done the same and it would have been well enough to have left
> it there without trying to drag me into your miserable world.
> If the rest of your post were worth commenting on, I would not top
> post. Rather than listen to one's full expressions, you choose to
> fragment them and distort them by adressing (incorrectly, but
> whatever) every other sentence to make an argument out of it. Some
> of us are not here to argue. Lighten up. Hey, I know; go listen to
> some music and relax!
> -Bill
> www.uptownaudio.com
> Roanoke VA
> (540) 343-1250
>
What's got everyone curious is that you expressed such a strong opinion
about MP3 vs Vinyl. If MP3 is as bad as you see it, then there is most
probably something really wrong with the way those MP3s are being made.
It would be more beleivable if you said that vinyl was a bit better than
a well made MP3. There are lots of ways to make MP3s, most of them not
really that good. I've recently experienced LAME myself and it really,
really makes a difference. Use a very good MP3 encoder. Take your best
Vinyl, digitize it, and use LAME to make a 320, or even down to a 192
VBR MP3 of your digitized music. You'll be surprised at how well a good
MP3 can sound. The fact is a good MP3 can be almost indistinguishable
from a well made CD as well, which is an even better compliment since
there is a much quieter noise floor and better dynamic range etc to
compete with from the original source.
The bad reputaion of MP3 was garnered from all those Britney fans and
Kazaa file sharing etc. I've downloaded a few of them and trashed them
simply because the quality was so lackluster. The encoder that made
those mp3s compress and squeeezed the very life out of the music. No,
the RIAA won't be coming after me, not for that crap:)
CD
Stewart Pinkerton
>I am not arguing, Stewart.
Actually, you are! :-)
> You make too many assumptions and twist
>things to your liking regardless of what is generally excepted to even
>begin to reply without rebutting each line. It was not my intention to
>"challenge your position" on MP3, so you are off the hook as far as
>our debate goes.
You forget that *you* are the one who made the statement about vinyl
being superior to MP3, so it's not *my* position that needs defending,
it's yours. Noted that you are unwilling/unable to defend it.
> I don't agree with much of what you have said here,
>but it is not worth the time to correct as you will certainly just
>continue your relentless and pointless badgering.
IOW, you have no rebuttal argument, just a snide comment about
'correcting' me, then you cut and run.
>I am content with my vinyl system and my digital system.
Me, too. So what?
>Just to
>refresh your memory, this whole exchange began with you badgering me
>for no reason. I was helping the original poster who had a question.
Just to refresh *your* memory, it began with you giving bad advice,
and following it up with a ludicrous statement anout MP3, upon which
you were called by several people.
>You had done the same and it would have been well enough to have left
>it there without trying to drag me into your miserable world.
My world is just fine, thanks, but yours seems to need some
readjustment, especially if you're going to be giving advice on audio
to potential customers in your store.
>If the rest of your post were worth commenting on, I would not top
>post. Rather than listen to one's full expressions, you choose to
>fragment them and distort them by adressing (incorrectly, but
>whatever) every other sentence to make an argument out of it.
Since you make elementary mistakes in every other sentence, such
'fragmented' correction is a simple matter of clarifying which of your
errors I am addressing at any one time.
>Some
>of us are not here to argue. Lighten up. Hey, I know; go listen to
>some music and relax!
I *am* relaxed, and I *am* listening to music. Now see if *you* can
combine listening to music with reading up on compressed digital audio
- your potential customers will certainly benefit from some superior
advice to that which you currently give.
Gary Rosen
> Or it may have to do with the euphonic effects of distortion inherent
> in vinyl. Or a combination of the two. And maybe there's a dram of
> nostalgia mixed in.
That's why I so greatly prefer LP's by the Beatles to the reissue CDs,
it reminds me of when I was a teenager listening to them on AM
radio at the beach with static and everything :^).
- Gary Rosen
Codifus
the Naim unit is so expensive does not mean its the best. Personally, I
still hear differences in CD players, but that's another thread:)
Here's my experience with 2 CD players. I have the Panasonic S-35 DVD
player which I accidentally fell in love with. I say that because when I
bought it I wasn't even interested in sound quality from it, I just
wanted a DVD player in black:) Over time I saw that its audio quality
was very good. Anyway, after some time I decided I wanted to delve into
the newer formats, like DVD-A and SACD. The Pioneer 563 was the rage at
the time. I bought one used. I hated it. I listened for a week. Now,
mind you, I have no DVD-As or SACDs, so I was comparing my Panasonic
S-35 playing CDs to the Pioneer playing CDs. The Panasonic won, hands
down. Interestingly, though, the Pioneer unit did not sound better in my
system, but it had a way better sense of depth and soundstage. It was
very deep. My Panasonic failed miserably in that regard, but it still
sounded really good. Your mileage may vary.
CD
Gary Rosen
news:d50jk...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Just so that we remember, this forum has been dedicated to the
> discussion of high end audio. I don't mean to say that we all should
> should find that everything gets rosier as prices increase, but
> several people here are almost never coming in defense of a product
> that has merit, yet is expensive.
There is a very good reason for that. 30-40 years ago, yes, you
had to pay premium money to get good sound. But in nearly
every other field of electronics, the price/performance ratio has
dropped by several orders of magnitude in that time. Why should
audio be any different? The only exception is the transducers -
i. e. speakers - and in that area it is generally agreed that you
need to spend more money to get the best results.
What you describe as "persistent badgering" is almost always
technically correct and is a welcome antidote to high-end hokum.
If knowledgable people like Stewart (or previously, Dick Pierce)
are able to steer people away from wasting their money chasing
audio rainbows, they are performing a great service.
- Gary Rosen
Stewart Pinkerton
You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that -
a personal preference. Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most
basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or
cart.
I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on
The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5
times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set
up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying the
(somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of
the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the
recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic direct-cut
LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs.
Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is
played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than
anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's
shared by all who've heard my system.
To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical
superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the
source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that
phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason
that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured
more accurately by CD.
nab...@hotmail.com
>
> I don't know about Uptown, but I flunked the test at only 128kb/s.
Of
> course I'm 74, and my hearing isn't all that good--even for a 74 year
old.
> As a result, I compress to 64kb/s WMA, and I'm entirely satisfied
with the
> results.
>
> I chose WMA because of the rumor that it's better at low bit rates.
It may
> or may not be true, but that's how I got started, so I might as well
> continue. BTW, has anyone compared WMA with mp3 Pro or AAC?
Although I'm
> not apt to change horses in the middle of this stream, it would be
nice to
> know the optimum solution at 64kb/s.
Here's a recent article on tests of codecs for Internet radio:
http://www.slate.com/id/2112548
From there, you can download an EBU report on the listening tests,
which compared codecs at rates from 64kbps down to 16kbps (seriously).
At 64, WMA and AAC trailed mp3pro. If a 64kbps version of AACplus had
been available at the time, it probably would have won, since it
trounced everybody at 48kbps.
High-enders may be aghast at these low bit-rates. They aren't designed
to replace CDs. They're designed to lower the cost of broadcasting
Internet radio. But they're also pretty sophisticated in the way they
get the bit-rate down.
bob
Joakim Wendel
Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD
but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as
does the CD medium.
The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no
less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjoy
this if you are the little bit sensitive.
The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out
and LOTS of great ones too but you NEED a really good CD-player to
enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws.
Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and
another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the
special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display
the special weak spot typical for CD.
I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some
records... A REALLY happy listener of music!
2 ören
J.
--
Joakim Wendel
Remove obvious mail JUNK block for mail reply.
My homepage : http://violinist.nu
Thepork...@aol.com
As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs.
Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
> do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most
> basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm
or
> cart.
Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment
will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl
playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many
people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised
by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference
for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.
>
> I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on
>
> http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/
>
> The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5
> times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set
> up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying
the
> (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of
> the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the
> recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic
direct-cut
> LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs.
> Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is
> played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than
> anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's
> shared by all who've heard my system.
Funny how that works. It's just the opposite on my system. Well such
are the nature of anecdotes.
>
> To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical
> superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the
> source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that
> phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason
> that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured
> more accurately by CD.
> --
>
And yet many of the best mastering engineers disagree with your
conclusion. Oh well, they must not know what they are talking about.
Scott Wheeler
Chung
> That NAIM CD is excellent i believe...
>
> Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD
> but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as
> does the CD medium.
Your sentence above does not make sense. How can the playback units all
have different flaws EXACTLY as does the CD medium?
Are you comparing playback units vs CD medium? That's obviously a
meaningless comparison. Or are you really comparing vinyl vs CD as
media? How can the vinyl have different flaws EXACTLY as CD? Very
confusing. BTW, what are the flaws of the CD medium?
>
> The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no
> less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjoy
> this if you are the little bit sensitive.
You seem to be saying that a good vinyl recording will sound good, if
the recording is good and played on good vinyl equipment. Not sure if
that's worth pointing out...
>
> The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out
> and LOTS of great ones too but you NEED a really good CD-player to
> enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws.
OK, are you saying that CD as a medium has flaws because of the zillions
of STINKING recordings out there? You seem to be confusing the
capability of a medium with bad recordings.
And isn't it true that there are also zillions of STINKING vinyl
recordings out there? That and poorly manufactured vinyl discs?
>
> Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and
> another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the
> special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display
> the special weak spot typical for CD.
What in your opinion is maybe "the special weak spot typical for CD"?
>
> I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some
> records... A REALLY happy listener of music!
> 2 顤en
> J.
>
Perhaps all you were trying to say is that there are good recordings and
there are bad recordings.
chung
>
>
> Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
>> do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most
>> basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm
> or
>> cart.
>
>
> Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment
> will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl
> playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many
> people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised
> by the vast improvements and often come to understand the preference
> for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.
>
>
>
Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl
equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same
record? Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you (and they
can't be different if they are all accurate)? You think yours and, say,
Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same? Or do they sound different, and,
in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate? Do you go by
the price tag? How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>That NAIM CD is excellent i believe...
Others would disagree, pointing out that it not only uses decade-old
DASC chips, but is also tailored to have a 'house' sound, rather than
being designed to be neutral.
>Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD
Why not?
>but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as
>does the CD medium.
What flaws does CD have? And why do you think that various CD players
have different *audible* flaws?
>The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no
>less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjoy
>this if you are the little bit sensitive.
Sure - but you're still stuck with the vinyl you're playing on it!
>The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out
>and LOTS of great ones too
Also true of vinyl, of course.
> but you NEED a really good CD-player to
>enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws.
Nowadays, almost all CD players are equally good - aside from some
very expensive ones which are really bad! Bizarre, but true.
BTW, what typical CD flaws?
>Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and
>another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the
>special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display
>the special weak spot typical for CD.
I repeat, what weak spots do you suppose CD has?
>I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some
>records... A REALLY happy listener of music!
Fine, but what has this to do with vinyl vs. CD?
Joakim Wendel
wrote:
> Joakim Wendel wrote:
> > That NAIM CD is excellent i believe...
> >
> > Still i will not accept Vinyl (the records) being a worse media than CD
> > but agree that the playback units all have different flaws EXCACTLY as
> > does the CD medium.
>
> Your sentence above does not make sense. How can the playback units all
> have different flaws EXACTLY as does the CD medium?
>
> Are you comparing playback units vs CD medium? That's obviously a
> meaningless comparison. Or are you really comparing vinyl vs CD as
> media? How can the vinyl have different flaws EXACTLY as CD? Very
> confusing. BTW, what are the flaws of the CD medium?
Yes, confusing i agree! The vinyl is a very good media, the typical
flaws of vinyl playback are f.e pops and clicks, rumble on the player
and IMHO a little muddier bass, none of which is on the media. The flaw
of the CD is brickwall filter removing all information above a certain
frequency, something that is not happening in real life, this to some
extent is audible on timbre of instruments and soundstaging allthough as
i said it's not all that bad if you have a really really good player.
>
> >
> > The thing with vinyl is all older really good recordings still are no
> > less than great on a good vinyl - You NEED a really good player to enjoy
> > this if you are the little bit sensitive.
>
> You seem to be saying that a good vinyl recording will sound good, if
> the recording is good and played on good vinyl equipment. Not sure if
> that's worth pointing out...
Yup, its worth noting that a mediocre LP player sounds awful.
>
> >
> > The thing with CD is that there are zillions of STINKING recordings out
> > and LOTS of great ones too but you NEED a really good CD-player to
> > enjoy if You are the little bit sensitive for the typical CD flaws.
>
> OK, are you saying that CD as a medium has flaws because of the zillions
> of STINKING recordings out there? You seem to be confusing the
> capability of a medium with bad recordings.
No, but a bad CD played on a bad CD-player will sound as awful as a bad
Vinyl on a bad vinyl player maybe even worse
>
> And isn't it true that there are also zillions of STINKING vinyl
> recordings out there? That and poorly manufactured vinyl discs?
Absolutely, this is not a flaw of the technique but lack of skill using
it.
>
> >
> > Lets say we have a recording that is fantastic, (mastered for vinyl and
> > another master for CD) the Vinyl will display the flaws that are the
> > special weak spot of vinyl and the CD will maybe, maybe, maybe display
> > the special weak spot typical for CD.
>
> What in your opinion is maybe "the special weak spot typical for CD"?
As i said, soundstage and timbre of instruments, timbre of voices etc,
not a big deal. (OTOH a weak spot is also that i find sloppier mastering
nowadays on CD compared to new vinyl, maybe most, but not all, mastering
for vinyl puts an extra effort in?)
> >
> > I'd be happy with a NAIM CD-player and my Linn LP12 and a ELP for some
> > records... A REALLY happy listener of music!
> > 2 顤en
> > J.
> >
>
> Perhaps all you were trying to say is that there are good recordings and
> there are bad recordings.
All i wanted to say is that the information stored on a well mastered
vinyl disc is excellent, the information on a CD is possibly good too
but lacks the info above the filter.
To be happy playing back these 2 media you'll need a player that matches
the level of your sensitivity. I find it useless to complain about the
vinyl, just as useless as saying there are no way to make a CD sound
good, there IS.
Different qualities, different problems.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major <maj...@videotron.ca>
>wrote:
>> >If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP get
>> >yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-)
>>
>> You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply that
>> a personal preference.
>
>As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs.
Indeed, and I should have made that clear.
> Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
>> do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the most
>> basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT, arm or
>> cart.
>
>Complete nonsense.
Nope, simple truth, known to anyone with experience of various vinyl
rigs.
> The same record played on better vinyl equipment
>will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear.
Indeed, but above say the Rega Planar/Stanton level, the differences
flatten out very rapidly, due to the basic limitations of vinyl.
> The quality of vinyl
>playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used. Many
>people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely surprised
>by the vast improvements
Only if they're used to basic 'DJ' rigs.
> and often come to understand the preference
>for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.
An old and tired argument, given the lie by the preference for CD held
by the majority of hard-core audiophiles. And they do often have high
quality vinyl rigs, since they still have large vinyl collections.
>> I also have a good quality vinyl rig, see my page on
>>
>> http://www.lurcher.org/ukra/
>>
>> The whole system cost around 20 grand, the vinyl rig cost around 5
>> times as much as the CD player, and the whole system is carefully set
>> up in a pretty good room. Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying the
>> (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of
>> the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the
>> recording is *much* superior on CD, even when using classic direct-cut
>> LPs from companies such as Crystal Clear and Sheffield Labs.
>> Furthermore, when a simply-miked recording of a 'live' performance is
>> played on CD, the depth and ambience is much more natural than
>> anything I've heard on vinyl. This is not merely *my* opinion, it's
>> shared by all who've heard my system.
>
>Funny how that works. It's just the opposite on my system. Well such
>are the nature of anecdotes.
Indeed - I guess that's the nature of personal preference.
>> To me, this is entirely logical, given the *vast* technical
>> superiority of CD in every measure known to affect fidelity to the
>> source. It also works for LPs transcribed to CD-R, where all that
>> phasey LP 'magic' is retained by the CD. Hence, it stands to reason
>> that all the real quality of the master tape will also be captured
>> more accurately by CD.
>And yet many of the best mastering engineers disagree with your
>conclusion. Oh well, they must not know what they are talking about.
I think you mean *some* of the best mastering engineers. They may or
may not know what they're talking about - perhaps we should ask the
rest of the best mastering engineers, who agree with my conclusion.
Jocelyn Major
enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get
myself a better turntable. I try to understand why the sound of an
analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got
it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed
with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way.
Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a
perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You
can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a
perfect curve. Its is that simple.
CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out
a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart. True if
you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop and all
kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that
scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're
lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time
what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better
than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad
installation. And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will
sound as good as the turntable. I did try it and it the sound was no way
comparable to the sound of the LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the
room where are the performer was simply gone.
chung
> I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear
> enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get
> myself a better turntable. I try to understand why the sound of an
> analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got
> it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed
> with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way.
> Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a
> perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You
> can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a
> perfect curve. Its is that simple.
What is really simple is that you need to understand how digital audio
works before you try to provide technical reasons for your preference.
Start out by reading up on the sampling theorem. It is not intuitive at
all, but if you have some calculus knowledge, you can follow the proof.
I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.
Thepork...@aol.com
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
> >> do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the
most
> >> basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT,
arm
> > or
> >> cart.
> >
> >
> > Complete nonsense. The same record played on better vinyl equipment
> > will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear. The quality of vinyl
> > playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used.
Many
> > people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely
surprised
> > by the vast improvements and often come to understand the
preference
> > for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Does that mean that as you get closer and closer to SOTA vinyl
> equipment, you get more and more accurate reproduction from the same
> record?
well tell me what you mean by "accurate reproduction of the record
first" A record is a piece of plastic with a groove sut into it. The
record is not reproduced in playback.
Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you
No. Not the same.
(and they
> can't be different if they are all accurate)?
Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense. To the
signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated question
then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting
lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge equipment
and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this
comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical
signal of the same source.
You think yours and, say,
> Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same?
I doubt it.
Or do they sound different, and,
> in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate?
Again acurate to what?
Do you go by
> the price tag?
Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you manage
to not be so insulting, ever?
How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?
How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on
listening to live music and playback.
Scott Wheeler
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 5 May 2005 02:39:21 GMT, Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 3 May 2005 00:06:03 GMT, Jocelyn Major <maj...@videotron.ca>
> >wrote:
>
> >> >If (like myself I use to do) you think that cd are better than LP
get
> >> >yourself a GOOD turntable and you to you will see the "LIGHT" :-)
> >>
> >> You do need to realise that your preference for vinyl is simply
that
> >> a personal preference.
> >
> >As are *all* preferences including your preference for CDs.
>
> Indeed, and I should have made that clear.
>
> > Contrary to urban myth, it has very little to
> >> do with the quality of your vinyl replay gear - once above the
most
> >> basic level, the quality is limited by the *vinyl*, not the TT,
arm or
> >> cart.
> >
> >Complete nonsense.
>
> Nope, simple truth, known to anyone with experience of various vinyl
> rigs.
I suggest you just speak for yourself given your track record on
speaking for those who disagree with you. You are simply wrong about
this one. Many people with vast experience with different rigs
completely disagree with you on this subject. I could start naming
names by why bother?
>
> > The same record played on better vinyl equipment
> >will sound better all the way up to SOTA gear.
>
> Indeed, but above say the Rega Planar/Stanton level, the differences
> flatten out very rapidly, due to the basic limitations of vinyl.
Not IME or the experience of many other people with vast experience
with high end rigs. You are entitled to your opinion just remember it
is just that, your opinion.
>
> > The quality of vinyl
> >playback has a great deal to do with the quality of the gear used.
Many
> >people when exposed to better vinyl playback are completely
surprised
> >by the vast improvements
>
> Only if they're used to basic 'DJ' rigs.
Well I am talking about people who largely are used to crappy rack
system rigs with crappy P mount cartridges. That is what the experience
of most casual listerns are limited to. I suppose DJ rigs are in the
same class.
>
> > and often come to understand the preference
> >for vinyl playback back numerous hard core audiophiles hold.
>
> An old and tired argument,
No, just an old true fact.
given the lie by the preference for CD held
> by the majority of hard-core audiophiles.
???? Not sure what you are teying to say here. What lie? By whom? about
what?
And they do often have high
> quality vinyl rigs, since they still have large vinyl collections.
Care to supply some hard data on the preferences of "hard core"
audiophiles that actually own high end vinyl playback rigs? But really,
lets say we did a really good survey. Should vinyl be prefered more
than CD would you change your preference? Should the opposite be true
should I change my preference?
No I meant what I said. Many.
They may or
> may not know what they're talking about - perhaps we should ask the
> rest of the best mastering engineers, who agree with my conclusion.
I like this idea. Let's involve the best mastering engineers on this
discussion. I will give you my list of the mastering engineers I
consider to be the best and you can give us your list. If anyone else
has suggestions please add them. We can then e mail them with questions
on this subject. Might be intersting, no?
Scott Wheeler
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>All i wanted to say is that the information stored on a well mastered
>vinyl disc is excellent, the information on a CD is possibly good too
>but lacks the info above the filter.
Perhaps you are unaware that, while a CD contains information at full
dynamic range all the way from below 20Hz to above 20kHz, 99.9% of
available vinyl contains nothing of interest above about 15kHz?
>To be happy playing back these 2 media you'll need a player that matches
>the level of your sensitivity. I find it useless to complain about the
>vinyl, just as useless as saying there are no way to make a CD sound
>good, there IS.
>Different qualities, different problems.
AFAIK, CD simply does not *have* any audible problems. Vinyl, OTOH, is
awash with them, regardless of how exotic is your replay gear.
Stewart Pinkerton
>I think you did'nt understand my point at all ( Or I was not clear
>enought in my explanation). I used to prefer the sound of cd until I get
>myself a better turntable.
Yes, we got that point, thanks.
> I try to understand why the sound of an
>analog device was way better than the sound of a digital one and I got
>it when I think about the nature of frequency wave. Each wave is formed
>with curves. The analog sound will reproduce the wave in a natural way.
>Now try to do the same with digital it is simply not possible to have a
>perfect curve.It is like to try to build a curved wall with bricks: You
>can use hundred of thousand or millions of bricks you will never get a
>perfect curve. Its is that simple.
It *would* be that simple, except that this is a total
misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Your 'understanding' is
based on sheer ignorance. Up to the 22kHz cutoff point of CD (which is
well above anything you'll find on 99.9% of available vinyl), you most
certainly do capture a perfect curve, with about 20dB greater dynamic
range than vinyl can ever achieve. Just use a 'scope to check the
output of any competent CD player, and you will see no trace whatever
of 'stairsteps'. This is an urban myth perpetuated by those who simply
don't understand the process.
>CD are way more convenient than LP that I fully agree. But as I find out
>a well care LP will always sound better than is CD counterpart.
That is only a personal opinion, the objective reality is exactly the
opposite.
> True if
>you do not take care of your LP then you will hear cracks, pop and all
>kind of noise. If you make a scratch on you LP you will hear that
>scratch but make the same kind of scratch on a CD sometime when you're
>lucky you won't find any difference in the sound but most of the time
>what you will get is NO SOUND. If a good quality CD player play better
>than a good quality turntable it is simply because of a bad
>installation.
That is utter nonsense, as I'll happily demonstrate to any visitor.
>And also NO way a CD transcribed from a turntable will
>sound as good as the turntable.
Sure it will, in fact very few listeners can tell the difference if
it's a good transcription.
> I did try it and it the sound was no way
> comparable to the sound of the LP. All the ability to pinpoint in the
>room where are the performer was simply gone.
In that case, you did it badly.
Neil Gendzwill
>
> AFAIK, CD simply does not *have* any audible problems.
That's a fairly bold statement. So there's no point to the higher
definition formats in your opinion? I had always understood the problem
with the format to be insufficient sampling rate to account for
real-world filtering - have modern digital filters effectively ended
that complaint?
While I wouldn't say that CD is perfect, it's sure a whole lot better
than it was years ago and I have no problems listening to it rather than
LP, especially when convenience is taken into account. The engineers
seem to have figured out all that filtering stuff quite well now.
However LPs can still sound surprisingly good, and friends who listen to
a record on my system are often astounded at how good it sounds. Mind
you, their recollection of LP sound usually comes from some $150 cheapie
table and a record that's been ground to death. At any rate I'm not
sufficiently motivated to replace any of my records with CD equivalents,
unless I need them for the car or something.
Neil
Jenn
technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.
I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music.
I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in
this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD
and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion?
Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen
exclusively to CDs? Just points to ponder.....
Steven Sullivan
And a magnetic recording tape is just a piece of plastic film coated
with metal oxide. Yet some playback setups are clearly extracting
more information more accurately *from* it than other. Which, of course,
is clearly analogous to what Chung meant...yet again you indulge
in semantic quibbling for no good purpose.
Harry Lavo
>>snip<<
> I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
> cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.
But at least they don't have expectation bias that CD *must* sound better
because of its better specs. :-)
Chung
The point is not whether one talks about music or technical details. The
point is the apparently higher occurrences of serious errors in the
technical evidence presented by those who prefer vinyl over CD to
support their preference. These errors are undebatable, meaning they are
clearly, provably, wrong.
BTW, this is the forum where high-end *audio reproduction* is discussed.
There are many other forums for discussion of music. And please show
some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not talk
about music.
Steven Sullivan
> Chung: <<I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
> technical
> cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.
> I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
> into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music.
I can reduce your uncertainty: you *are* wrong.
If this were a music discussion group, we'd talk
about music, not audio gear and sound reproduction.
Similarly, TAS and Stereophile
mainly write about components, and about the *sound* of recordings,
not about the music itself.
> I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in
> this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD
> and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion?
The point in this case was to correct yet widespread
misinformation about audio,
such as the utter nonsense written about digital in the post Chung
replied to.
> Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen
> exclusively to CDs? Just points to ponder.....
For all we know, you might enjoy listening to it over a tin can
connected to a wire. Which would be fine. But if you then started
making preposterous *claims* about the way technology works, or
about other audio technologies, you could expect to be corrected.
--
-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee
Jocelyn Major
he (or she -- I'm sorry my native language is not english but french,
and I don't know if you know but Jocelyn in french is male.. anyway
that's not the point) said. We are all here for the music and we should
not care about what kind of the medium that music was recorded. We all
love the music and that the point. We should share that joy of music not
bashing each other about our medium preference. We are all supposed to
be mature people so we must act as mature people. Thank you Jenn to let
me remember the main reason I join this newsgroup : THE MUSIC.
Some prefer the music on LP that is ok. Some prefer the music on CD that
is also ok. But we should remerber that in those 2 phrase we all those
3 word "prefer the music" and those 3 word are all that is important.
Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE MUSIC"
Jocelyn
Chung
The record stores the information which the vinyl system reproduces.
Does my question now makes more sense?
>
>
>
> Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you
>
>
> No. Not the same.
OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks. Of course, my question
should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound
the same to you, assuming the same speakers.
>
>
> (and they
>> can't be different if they are all accurate)?
>
>
> Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.
To the information that is stored on the record.
>To the
> signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated question
> then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting
> lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge equipment
> and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this
> comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical
> signal of the same source.
Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare two
vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the
cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common to
the two rigs. So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows
that at least one rig is not accurate.
Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape. That seems
like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case of
vinyl.
>
>
>
> You think yours and, say,
>> Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same?
>
>
> I doubt it.
I think you are right there.
>
>
>
> Or do they sound different, and,
>> in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate?
>
>
> Again acurate to what?
Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what accuracy
means. We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound
like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy. I know a lot of
audiophiles like that definition.
>
>
>
> Do you go by
>> the price tag?
>
>
> Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you manage
> to not be so insulting, ever?
Why is it insulting? I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
is SOTA? I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones. Since you seem to
know whether a system is SOTA, that is a valid possibility.
The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of which
one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy? We use the term
high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity means?
>
>
>
> How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?
>
>
> How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on
> listening to live music and playback.
So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA. It's
all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.
>
>
> Scott Wheeler
Stewart Pinkerton
>Chung: <<I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of
>technical
>cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD.
>
>I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
>into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music.
Sure we do, but not on *audio* newsgroups like this one.
>I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in
>this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good CD
>and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of discussion?
That's not what we were discussing. It was *you* who claimed that
ayone who heard a good vinyl rig would realise that vinyl is better
than CD. That's simply an opinion, definitely not an absolute.
> Do you think that I'll enjoy music in my home more if I listen
>exclusively to CDs?
Possibly, but you'll definitely *hear* more of the music........
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> AFAIK, CD simply does not *have* any audible problems.
>
>That's a fairly bold statement. So there's no point to the higher
>definition formats in your opinion?
There is *theoretical* advantage in the bigger numbers, but I have not
personally *heard* any advantage over well-made CD, and there remains
considerable doubt that ther's actually *any* audible advantage where
you can genuinely compare low-res and high-res from the same (hi-res)
master.
> I had always understood the problem
>with the format to be insufficient sampling rate to account for
>real-world filtering - have modern digital filters effectively ended
>that complaint?
That seems to be the case, along with so-called 'upsampling'.
>While I wouldn't say that CD is perfect, it's sure a whole lot better
>than it was years ago and I have no problems listening to it rather than
>LP, especially when convenience is taken into account. The engineers
>seem to have figured out all that filtering stuff quite well now.
Indeed so.
>However LPs can still sound surprisingly good, and friends who listen to
>a record on my system are often astounded at how good it sounds.
No argument there.
> Mind
>you, their recollection of LP sound usually comes from some $150 cheapie
>table and a record that's been ground to death. At any rate I'm not
>sufficiently motivated to replace any of my records with CD equivalents,
>unless I need them for the car or something.
Fair enough, I still keep a few hundred LPs myself.
Norman M. Schwartz
news:d5iif...@news2.newsguy.com...
record and play back "the music" is a HOBBY. Enthusiasts within a hobby are
often engaged in conversations of the like just as they occur here. BTW I
knew a French speaking family's daughter named and spelled Jocelyn, and
there is this female, Jocelyn:
http://www.jocelynpook.com/, who as you can tell by the photo, appears as a
person of the female gender.
Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE HOBBY"
Thepork...@aol.com
No, I simply choose not to ignore the complexity of the question in
it's full context. You cannot discuss accuracy without a standard to
which things are being compared. What is a "vinyl record and it's
playback equipment" being compared to when you ask how accurate it is?
The only meaningful think you can guage is the signal going itno the
cutting lathe to the signal leaving the preamp after the record has
been played. You cannot ignore the other elements in the chain when you
make such a comparison.
Scott Wheeler
Jenn
>technical
>cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to
CD.
Jenn: >>I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are
more
>into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music.
Stewart: <<Sure we do, but not on *audio* newsgroups like this one.
Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on
this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by
those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their
systems. I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs.
Harry Pearson issue :-)
>I'm wondering about where this descussion leads. Isn't the goal in
>this hobby to enjoy music in one's home? If a person has heard good
CD
>and good LP and enjoys either one more, what's the point of
discussion?
Stewart: <That's not what we were discussing. It was *you* who claimed
that
ayone who heard a good vinyl rig would realise that vinyl is better
than CD.
No, I've never made that claim, nor would I.
Chung
Actually we always say preferences are personal. What we tend to say is
that CD *must* be more accurate than vinyl *as a medium*. Big difference
there, since how a particular CD sound depends a lot on the performance,
how it's recorded and how it's mastered.
Thepork...@aol.com
The record stores the grooves cut by the cutting lathe. How do we
evaluate the accuracy of the record playback to the groove *cut* by the
cutting lathe?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you
> >
> >
> > No. Not the same.
>
> OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks.
Accurate to what?
Of course, my question
> should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound
> the same to you, assuming the same speakers.
I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the
objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't know
which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing plants
offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the master
tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which
includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from recording to
playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig brings
that playback experience closer to that which I love about live
acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback rigs
are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this gives
you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue.
>
> >
> >
> > (and they
> >> can't be different if they are all accurate)?
> >
> >
> > Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.
>
> To the information that is stored on the record.
I'm not sure how one can determine that.
>
> >To the
> > signal that fed the cuttter head? That would be a complicated
question
> > then which involves the combined sonic signature that the cutting
> > lathe/ molding and pressing proccess, turntable/arm/ cartidge
equipment
> > and setup and preamp. One can talk about the accuracy of this
> > comination since it begins with and ends with an analog electrical
> > signal of the same source.
>
> Well, that's certainly one way to define accuracy. When you compare
two
> vinyl rigs playing the same record, the process that involves the
> cutting head, the lathe, the molding and the pressing would be common
to
> the two rigs.
Yes they would but they may also be quite inaccurate. So the more
accurate reproduction of an inaccurate cutting lathe may give the false
impression of less accuracy.
So when two rigs produce different sounds, it then follows
> that at least one rig is not accurate.
Lets get something straight here. It isn't a matter of accurate or
inaccurate. It is a matter of degrees of inaccuracy. No one I know is
claiming that vinyl cutting and playback is ever a perfect transfer of
the original signal. I suggest you read up on Stan Rickers comments on
the subject. he has some rather surpiseing POVs on the subject. He
feels the proccess can actually enhance the original signal if doen at
half speed.
>
> Or you can define accuracy as accuracy to the master tape.
I suspect you can compare the signal coming off the master tape to the
signal coming from a preamp that has been fed the signal from a vinyl
playback rig. In theory this can be done. I sure can't do it. i do know
any number of mastering engineers compare the feed off the master tape
to the test pressing of the record they have mastered.
That seems
> like a common, albeit not easily measureable, definition in the case
of
> vinyl.
I think we are on the same page here more or less. I just think we
cannot exclude the other components in the chain like the cutting lathe
and the plating and pressing proccess.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > You think yours and, say,
> >> Mr Lavo's vinyl systems sound the same?
> >
> >
> > I doubt it.
>
> I think you are right there.
> >
> >
> >
> > Or do they sound different, and,
> >> in that case, how do you know which one is more accurate?
> >
> >
> > Again acurate to what?
>
> Answered above. Or you can provide your own definition of what
accuracy
> means.
I believe I have. I can't say for sure which one would be more accurate
to the signal coming off the master tape. I cannot say which is more
accurate to the colorations of any given cutting lathe. I can say which
sounds more like live music on my system if Harry were to bring his rig
over. more importantly *that* is the criteria by which I judge any
source component. It is what matters to me.
We can use "accuracy to your memory of what music should sound
> like" if that is how you wish to define accuracy.
No, that is not how I wish to define accuracy. That is how I wish to
measure my satisfaction with any given system. I have never claimed
that the most life like playback is comprised of strictly the most
accurate components.
I know a lot of
> audiophiles like that definition.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you go by
> >> the price tag?
> >
> >
> > Yeah, the cat is out of the bag. I go by the price tag. Can you
manage
> > to not be so insulting, ever?
>
> Why is it insulting?
It infers a mentality that can be readily found with the bored hous
wives shopping on Rodeo Dr. in Beverly Hills. It is an approach to
consumption of goods that I find shallow and idiotic. Perhaps you find
shopping via price tag (expensive is better because it is expensive) a
valid way of making choices. I suspect you don't think that way.
Correct me if I am wrong. Correct me if you do not also find that
approach to be shallow and idiotic.
I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
> is SOTA?
Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything to do
with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear)
I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
> expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones.
And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them?
Since you seem to
> know whether a system is SOTA,
I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly stated
that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions.
that is a valid possibility.
Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a fairly
insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do, that
evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid.
>
> The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of
which
> one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy?
You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No point in
repeating myslef in this post.
We use the term
> high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity
means?
Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the
original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather than
the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects the
truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when it
comes to fidelity?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?
> >
> >
> > How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on
> > listening to live music and playback.
>
> So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA.
It's
> all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.
It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are uncomfortable
with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing
everything.
Scott Wheeler
Jenn
discussed.
There are many other forums for discussion of music>>
I understand that. And, I came here to discuss such things and to
learn and share ideas. I wasn't looking for a place to discuss the use
of the Augmented 6 chord in the music of Racmaninoff; I have other
places for that, of course. What I meant was that there seems to be
little discussion about how music SOUNDS when played by a given piece
of gear.
<< And please show
some evidence that those who are more into technical details do not
talk
about music. >>
I didn't say that, any more than you said that all those who like LP
are "clueless." I was speaking in generalities, based on observation,
participation in audio clubs, and so forth.
Chung
I thought I gave you several ways to define accuracy. The point I am
trying to make, in case you don't catch it, is whatever way you choose
to define accuracy, the fact that two vinyl rigs sound noticeably
different means that at least one is inaccurate.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you
>> >
>> >
>> > No. Not the same.
>>
>> OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks.
>
>
> Accurate to what?
Whatever you want to use as reference.
>
>
>
> Of course, my question
>> should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems sound
>
>> the same to you, assuming the same speakers.
>
>
> I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the
> objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't know
> which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing plants
> offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the master
> tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which
> includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from recording to
> playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig brings
> that playback experience closer to that which I love about live
> acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback rigs
> are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this gives
> you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue.
If you don't have a definition of accuracy that you are comfortable
with, I can certainly propose accuracy to the master tape.
If you want to use accuracy as "closeness to that ideal", that's an
impossible one to objectively evaluate, but I'll take it as your working
definition. You seem to say that even SOTA vinyl systems sound
different, so that must mean that at most only one system can be the
closest to that ideal. Do I get you right?
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > (and they
>> >> can't be different if they are all accurate)?
>> >
>> >
>> > Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.
>>
>> To the information that is stored on the record.
>
>
> I'm not sure how one can determine that.
Master tape is one reference.
OK, you can't say whether SOTA systems are accurate or inaccurate, it's
just that SOTA means some degree of accuracy that is acceptable to you.
Now how would you know then a system that is not what you called SOTA
will have a lesser degree of accuracy for another listener?
You see, it all gets back to your point that vinyl rigs get "better and
better" until you get to that ambiguous SOTA level, but there is really
no way for you to define what better means in the sense that others can
accept. Or what is SOTA. It's just your opinion that is so, IOW.
Oh I see, you are the one who is doing the insulting. As far as I am
concerned, anyone can buy anything for any reason. If they buy it
because they believe higher price means closer to SOTA, it's their
prerogative. I certainly will not insult those who think that way by
saying that they are idiotic. Most people believe that quality is tied
to price, so why should it be idiotic?
>
>
>
>
> I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
>> is SOTA?
>
>
> Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything to do
> with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear)
Price tag is perfectly acceptable to me as a measure of SOTA-ness if
that's how someone feels, your sarcasm notwithstanding.
>
>
>
> I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
>> expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones.
>
>
> And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them?
You are the one who call them idiotic, in case you forget. I say it is
their prerogative.
>
>
>
> Since you seem to
>> know whether a system is SOTA,
>
>
> I do? I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I have clearly stated
> that I don't claim to "know" but I hold opinions.
>
>
>
> that is a valid possibility.
>
>
> Amoung many possibilities. It just happens to be one that has a fairly
> insulting inference attached. Unless you don't believe, as I do, that
> evaluating things by price tag is shallow and stupid.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The obvious question is that if there is no objective measure of
> which
>> one is more accurate, how do you compare accuracy?
>
>
>
> You can scroll up for my thourough answer to this question. No point in
> repeating myslef in this post.
>
>
>
> We use the term
>> high-fidelity to describe this hobby. What do you think fidelity
> means?
>
>
> Truth. In this case truth to the original event. That being the
> original live performance. I prefer to look at the forrest rather than
> the trees. I measure the truth of any component by how it affects the
> truth of the system over all. Does that seem like a bad idea when it
> comes to fidelity?
>
Of course that assumes you somehow heard the original live performance.
How many records do you have that you have heard the original live
performance before?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?
>> >
>> >
>> > How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based on
>> > listening to live music and playback.
>>
>> So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA.
> It's
>> all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.
>
>
> It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are uncomfortable
> with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing
> everything.
I am perfectly content with uncertainty. In fact, the purpose of my post
was to make sure that people are uncertain about what SOTA is. They have
their opinions, of course, but not certainty.
Chung
Since you conveniently snipped my original response, let's put it back
here. I said this:
"I might be wrong, I guess, but it seems like such display of technical
cluelessness is so much more common among those who prefer vinyl to CD."
The evidence is in the post that I responded to, where someone gave some
seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better. There
have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite
resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those
posts before.
Now on the other hand, this is what you said:
"I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music."
Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or
please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I
should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main focus
of the discussions.
Jenn
someone gave some
seriously wrong reason for why vinyl should be technically better.
There
have been numerous posts by vinyl lovers on how vinyl has infinite
resolution, infinte bandwidth and so on. I am sure you have see those
posts before.
And I agree that if someone gives incorrect technical information, it's
a good thing to correct that person. I have no beef with that.
Chung: <<<Now on the other hand, this is what you said:
"
I might be wrong too, I guess, but it seems like those who are more
into technical details and measurements don't talk much about music
."
Now would you please provide evidence that you statement is correct? Or
please retract it? Just thinking it is so is not evidence. Again I
should remind you that this is not a forum where music is the main
focus
of the discussions. >>>
Again, as stated in the previous post, I've observed this from
experience in discussions in various locales, in person and online. I
would add to the list some quarters of the audio press.
Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm simply making an observation
based on my experience. Your experience is that LP lovers tend to be
technically "clueless" when compared to CD lovers. That's fine, and
you're entitled to your opinion. I have an observation as well: in my
experience, CD lovers tend to express their thoughts on gear in terms
of specs and measurements, and LP lovers tend to express their thoughts
on gear in terms of how much it sounds like live acoustic music. It's
just my observation after about 30 years in this hobby (with about 10
years off for good behavior!)
I do have some strong feelings about how music sounds through some
gear, and how music is represented by some recordings, both digital and
analogue. For example, I was present at the very first digital
symphonic recording made in the U.S. I heard the music in Severance
Hall, and I then heard the live feed on another "take" and I heard the
digital master immediately after that. I was stunned. It was
factastic. The LP of that session came out, and I was, again, stunned.
The CD came out a year or so later, and I was less impressed. Now,
some 25 years later, I hear the CD on contemporary equipment, and I'm
stunned again. I hear that CD on other contemporary gear, and I'm less
than impressed. Digital sounds different through different equipment,
obviously. Price seems to matter very little. Is CD better now than
it was? In my view, yes. As I stated earlier, there are many CDs that
I enjoy. I'm just saying that on average, I enjoy music more on well
done vinyl. And, by the way, so do most of my fellow acoustic
musicians, when they hear a comparison. I can only go by my
observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very
little interest in that part of the hobby.
Peace.
nab...@hotmail.com
> Fair enough. But I'm afraid that I didn't express myself too well on
> this. What I meant was that there seems to be little discussion by
> those who rely on measurement about the SOUND of music in their
> systems.
When you listen to a favorite recording, what are you most struck by?
The quality of its reproduction by your system? The recording quality?
Or the quality of the composition and its performance? I'm always most
affected by #3, although I am liable to notice #2 when the recording is
particularly well-made. Except when I am specifically tinkering with
it--which I don't do much of these days--I pay no notice at all to my
system. So "the sound of music in my system" is indistinguishable to me
from "the sound of music." A big reason is that I am reasonably
confident that, based on both technical grounds and listening
preferences, my system is as good as I can make it right now given
budgetary and room (and spouse-imposed) constraints. That's as good an
explanation as I can give for why I, personally, don't talk much here
about "the sound of music in my system."
On other discussion groups, you will find people who will wax poetic
about "the sound of music on their systems." Frequently, you will see
them make assumptions about the impact that a particular piece of gear
has on that "sound" that are simply preposterous. Personally, I'd
rather talk about technical stuff with people who know what they're
talking about than music with people who don't.
> I suppose that this is typical; the old Jullian Hersh vs.
> Harry Pearson issue :-)
I'm not sure Harry Pearson could talk about the technical merits of a
piece of audio gear if his life depended on it. As for Hirsch, he most
certainly did talk about the sound of music in his system. He said it
basically sounded the same whatever competently designed amp he used.
bob
Stewart Pinkerton
That's true, but luckily the *real* sonic differences are so large
that expectation bias is not a significant factor.
Thepork...@aol.com
No. And we don't need to redefine the word. I am quite comfortable
using the dictionary definition.
The point I am
> trying to make, in case you don't catch it, is whatever way you
choose
> to define accuracy, the fact that two vinyl rigs sound noticeably
> different means that at least one is inaccurate.
Or both. But again, no one is claiming that the chain between the
signal from the master tape and the signal coming from the phono preamp
are ever perfectly identical. It is a matter of degree.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Do different SOTA equipment sound the same to you
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > No. Not the same.
> >>
> >> OK, then they cannot be all accurate. Thanks.
> >
> >
> > Accurate to what?
>
> Whatever you want to use as reference.
That is arbitrary. If I use the original performance then it inevitably
involves the entire recording and playback chain. One can only evaluate
the changes in the entire system wrought by changes in one or more
components in that chain. One cannot via this method really talk about
the accuracy of the component but the effect the component has on the
percieved accuracy of the system. OTOH one can, if they have the means,
compare the signal of the feed to the cutter head of a lathe to the
signal coming from a record/vinyl playback rig/preamp played back from
the particular cut. This would be a good way to determine the accuracy
of the vinyl cutting/plating/pressing/playback system in total. It
still wont tell you anything about the individual components in that
whole system.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course, my question
> >> should be better stated as whether different SOTA vinyl systems
sound
> >
> >> the same to you, assuming the same speakers.
> >
> >
> > I got that. The problem with the question is you have not set the
> > objetive by which accuracy should be measured. Personally I don't
know
> > which vinyl playback rigs/ cutting lates/ plating and pressing
plants
> > offer the most accurate transfer of the signal coming off the
master
> > tape. I have no way of knowing. I judge the final playback which
> > includes all the colorations of any part of the chain from
recording to
> > playback. When a component, in this case, a vinyl playback rig
brings
> > that playback experience closer to that which I love about live
> > acoustic music then I deem that as an improvement. SOTA playback
rigs
> > are that which bring me the closest to that ideal. I hope this
gives
> > you a better idea of where I am coming from on this issue.
>
> If you don't have a definition of accuracy that you are comfortable
> with,
I am comfortable with the dictionary definition.
I can certainly propose accuracy to the master tape.
That wouldn't be a different definition just a specific reference.
Probably a good one for those with access to master tapes. I lack the
access to make that comparison.
>
> If you want to use accuracy as "closeness to that ideal", that's an
> impossible one to objectively evaluate,
Quite the opposite. I have much better access to the ideal, that being
live acoustic music in a good acoustic space than I do to master tapes.
but I'll take it as your working
> definition.
You mean my point of reference? Yeah good call.
You seem to say that even SOTA vinyl systems sound
> different, so that must mean that at most only one system can be the
> closest to that ideal. Do I get you right?
Ummmmmmm. maybe. You see, so long as one uses the complete recording
and playback chain and compares it to live acoustic music there are so
many variables. One vinyl rig may be better on one playback system and
not better on another playback system. The other thing that one cannot
forget is that there may be give and take between competing SOTA rigs
along various parameters. As a gross analogy let me put this to you.
What is more accurate to the original source a sharp contrasty low
grain black and white print with infinite depth of field or a grainy
color print with low contrast and a narrow depth of field? Tough to
answer isn't it? So long as there is no perfect recording and playback
system we will be often faced with choices as to which colorations are
more problematic and which are less. It becomes difficult for one to
make simple determinations as to what is more accurate and what is less
acurate.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > (and they
> >> >> can't be different if they are all accurate)?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Again accurate to what? To the vinyl? That doesn't make sense.
> >>
> >> To the information that is stored on the record.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure how one can determine that.
>
> Master tape is one reference.
But it is not the same reference. That information from the master tape
has been put through the cutting/plating and pressing proccess. The
groove of a record is not the signal from a master tape feed.
No it means a certain degree of life like sound when used in a high fi
playback system with the most consistantly life like sounding records.
I don't know how common audiophiles can isolate that component and
meaningfully talk about it's accuracy without the context of the rest
of the recording and playback chain.
> Now how would you know then a system that is not what you called SOTA
> will have a lesser degree of accuracy for another listener?
Common experience.
>
> You see, it all gets back to your point that vinyl rigs get "better
and
> better" until you get to that ambiguous SOTA level, but there is
really
> no way for you to define what better means in the sense that others
can
> accept.
Maybe *some* can't accept it but most people I know have no problem
with how I define "better" when it comes to vinyl playback nor do they
have much problem hearing it when it is played for them. But then most
people I know don't demand that all qualitative experiences be measured
and quanitifed and broken down into formulas.
Or what is SOTA. It's just your opinion that is so, IOW.
Given the use of audio equipment SOTA will always be somewhat
subjective.
I didn't say otherwise. I simply stated that *I* have an opinion about
buying via price tag. I suppose you have no opinion about that
yourself? I would be very skeptical about such a claim. I did assume
you held a similar opinion about that and asked you to correct me if I
were wrong. I see no such correction. So you are given another chance.
Do you not feel, as I do, that buying things *because* they are
expensive is shallow and stupid?
If they buy it
> because they believe higher price means closer to SOTA, it's their
> prerogative.
I never said otherwise. I simply offered an opinion about that
approach. Does your opinion differ?
I certainly will not insult those who think that way by
> saying that they are idiotic.
Perhaps not directly. But if you share my opinion about shopping via
price tag then the accusation would be an infered insult. Insults often
lie between the lines. I think you know that. IMO it is a typical means
of getting insults past the moderators on RAO.
Most people believe that quality is tied
> to price, so why should it be idiotic?
Most people believe in astrology. Does the popularity of such a belief
make it not idiotic?
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I mean, how do you know whether a given vinyl rig
> >> is SOTA?
> >
> >
> > Oh, it must be the price tag of course. It wouldn't have anything
to do
> > with listening tests. (sarcasm in case it wasn't clear)
>
> Price tag is perfectly acceptable to me as a measure of SOTA-ness if
> that's how someone feels, your sarcasm notwithstanding.
Please excuse my skeptism. I doubt you really believe this is anything
less than foolish say when one is considering buying a megabuck CD
playback source for instance.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would think that a lot of people would tend to believe that
> >> expensive systems are more SOTA than inexpensive ones.
> >
> >
> > And you would value those peoples' opinions or mock them?
>
> You are the one who call them idiotic, in case you forget. I say it
is
> their prerogative.
I agree that it is their perogative. Do you really disagree that it is
also idiotic not to mention shallow?
No. It assumes that there is a substantial difference between any
number of live performaces and the closest proximity recording and
playback has to offer to those common traits found in live performances
held in good acoustic spaces. It assumes that one can determine what
systems come closert to bridging that common gap between live music in
genereal and recordings and playback of live music.
> How many records do you have that you have heard the original live
> performance before?
None.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How do you know a vinyl system is SOTA?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How do I know? I don't "know." I have opinions. They are based
on
> >> > listening to live music and playback.
> >>
> >> So there is really no way to know whether a vinyl system is SOTA.
> > It's
> >> all just opinions. Good, that's what I thought.
> >
> >
> > It seems that uncertainty is something objectivists are
uncomfortable
> > with. I prefer honest uncertainty to a false sense of knowing
> > everything.
>
> I am perfectly content with uncertainty. In fact, the purpose of my
post
> was to make sure that people are uncertain about what SOTA is. They
have
> their opinions, of course, but not certainty.
Scott Wheeler
Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:
>And also please don't forget that the choice of media and gadgets used to
>record and play back "the music" is a HOBBY. Enthusiasts within a hobby are
>often engaged in conversations of the like just as they occur here. BTW I
>knew a French speaking family's daughter named and spelled Jocelyn, and
>there is this female, Jocelyn:
>http://www.jocelynpook.com/, who as you can tell by the photo, appears as a
>person of the female gender.
>Bye and don't forget to "ENJOY THE HOBBY"
OTOH, There are many Englishmen called Jocelyn and Hilary, even though
these are more commonly girl's names.
Norman M. Schwartz
news:d5l7h...@news3.newsguy.com...
musician.
I can only go by my
> observations. Is vinyl more accurate? I have no idea, and I have very
> little interest in that part of the hobby.
>
Then might I be so bold as writing, I think you posted in the wrong
newsgroup.
Peace
Norman