In article ,
chung wrote:

Perhaps you should read Nichols' account more carefully. He was *NOT*
comparing the sound of the CD vs live. He was comparing the live sound
of the band vs what the two recorders' outputs sounded like.

Does anyone have a link to the original account? Again, I'm not trying
to make a big deal out of this seemingly trivial story; I'm only saying
that it is ironic in several ways, if, as I suspect, the band didn't
play all together in the studio.


Based on that, the rest of what you wrote regarding the comparison is
snipped...


Similarly, when we heard Jenn's account of how vinyl was more life-like
to her compared to CD, we did not ask whether she did a level-matched,
blind comparison. (For one thing the differences are not subtle at all
so that there is no need for blinding.) However, when Jenn said that
almost all CD players sounded different as a statement with some
applicability to others, then we would want to understand whether she
has taken the necessary steps to insure a fair comparison. Because
those
differences are very subtle.

Just out of curiosity, for those (like Jenn, e.g.) who feel that vinyl
is more lifelike, does it matter whether the vinyl version was based on
a digital recording? Like "Nightfly" for instance? Does a digitally
recorded vinyl LP still sound better than the CD version?

Usually, in my experience. An example would be the 3 LPs recorded by my
mentor, Frederick Fennell, for Telarc. The first one was the first
symphonic digital recording made in the U.S. and I was present at the
sessions. The LP is, in my view, clearly superior to the CD.

The data recorded in the CD is a direct, clean, reproduction of the
digital recording. The vinyl version goes through many steps where
substantial errors and inaccuracies were added.

An
interesting note (and again, I admit that I know little about the
technology), is that the LP lists its sampling rate as 50,000 samples
per second.

CD has a sampling rate of 44.1 KHz.

Yes, of course. Even **I** know that! :-)

Assuming your information is
correct,

It is what is stated on the record jacket, and what Tom Stockham was
saying at the sessions.

a sampling rate conversion is performed to produce the CD. It
is straightforward to perform a sampling rate conversion with no changes
in attributes like tonal balance, etc., that people notice in LP vs CD
comparisons.

OK. I found it interesting that the sampling rate was higher on the LP
than it is on CD.

There is *NO* sampling rate on the LP. LP is analog.

But the recording process is digital, hence there IS a sampling rate.


I wonder if that was common with the early digital
LPs.

Some early digital recordings were based on 44.1 KHz sampling rates.



If so,
wouldn't that point to euphonic distortion being an important reason
for
the perceived "life-likeness"? And that digital audio is not
responsible
for any lack of "life-likeness"?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The CD technology could be messing things up, for
example.

Of course there is no technology that cannot be messed up by someone
unskilful, or intentionally messed up. But to claim the CD technology is
messing things up, you need to show that there are no excellent CD
recordings at all. And you will also be saying that the 50KHz sampling
technology employed by Telarc is great, but the 44.1 KHz technology is
somehow responsible for the inferior sound. Not a likely reason, because
there are also digital recordings based on CD sampling rates where you
prefer the vinyl versions.

The logical deduction is that the vinyl LP will be a lot less like the
digital recording than the CD is, because of the many steps known to
introduce errors involved in making the vinyl version. So if the LP and
CD sounds substantially different, you have a good bet on which one is
closer to the original digital recording.

All good points. And, I will restate my original point, made now months
ago: I really don't care why LPs generally sound better to me; all that
I know is, they do. If it is because of some type of distortion, that's
OK by me. My only goal is to transport what I hear live into my
listening room, to the extent that it's possible.

I understand that you do not care why you have that preference. Others,
however, don't think it is due to euphonic distortion.

Understood. If the "euphonic distortions" sound like music, it's fine
by me. If the "perfect sound forever" doesn't sound like music, I don't
see the point.